ILNews

Federal Bar Update: More federal rule changes on horizon

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Each year, amendments to various federal rules take effect unless Congress acts to block them. For 2010, the Supreme Court approved a package of amendments in late April that will amend several appellate rules, bankruptcy rules, criminal rules, civil rules, and an evidence rule. These amendments will take effect this Dec. 1 unless Congress intervenes, which is unlikely. So that federal practitioners have the key upcoming amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on their radar, this article outlines those changes to FRCP 8, 26, and 56. More detailed commentary on the amendments to Rules 26 and 56 will be provided in this column near the Dec. 1 effective date.

First and easiest, Rule 8 will be amended to delete “discharge in bankruptcy” from the rules list of affirmative defenses that must be asserted in response to a pleading. The committee explained: “Under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a), a discharge voids a judgment to the extent that it determines the debtor’s personal liability for the discharged debt. Though the self-executing statutory provision controls and vitiates the affirmative-defense pleading requirement, the continued reference to ‘discharge’ in Rule 8’s list of affirmative defenses generates confusion, has led to incorrect decisions, and causes unnecessary litigation. The amendment conforms Rule 8 to the statute.”

Second, Rule 26 will be amended to apply work-product protection to the discovery of draft expert reports and, with three exceptions, to communications between counsel and expert witnesses. In recommending this change, the committee explained: “The proposed amendments to Rule 26 recognize that discovery into the bases of an expert’s opinion is critical. The amendments make clear that while discovery into draft reports and many communications between an expert and retaining lawyer is subject to work-product protection, discovery is not limited for the areas important to learning the strengths and weaknesses of an expert’s opinion. The amended rule specifically provides that communications between lawyer and expert about the following are open to discovery: (1) compensation for the expert’s study or testimony; (2) facts or data provided by the lawyer that the expert considered in forming opinions; and (3) assumptions provided to the expert by the lawyer that the expert relied upon in forming an opinion.”

Also, the proposed amendments to Rule 26 address witnesses who will provide expert testimony but who are not required to provide a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report because they are not retained or specially employed to provide such testimony, or they are not employees who regularly give expert testimony. Under the amendments, the rule makes clear that the lawyer relying on such a witness must disclose the subject matter and summarize the facts and opinions that the witness is expected to offer.

Finally, Rule 56’s amendments are significant but are expressly not to change summary judgment standards or burdens. In FRCP 56(a), the term “shall” will return, replacing the term “should” that was injected as part of the 2007 overall stylistic amendments to the Federal Rules. The amended rule will again read, “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Also, the committee had considered amendments to Rule 56 that would adopt strict point/counterpoint factual designations as have been adopted by local rule in some Districts (including the Southern District of Indiana, which adopted such a procedure for several years then abandoned it as too cumbersome). The committee opted against such procedures but did adopt the following amendments summarized as follows: “[T]he amendments adopt a provision found in many local rules that requires a party asserting a fact that cannot be genuinely disputed to provide a ‘pinpoint citation’ to the record supporting its fact position. Other salient changes: (1) recognize that a party may submit an unsworn written declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 as a substitute for an affidavit to support or oppose a summary-judgment motion; (2) provide courts with options when an assertion of fact has not been properly supported by the party or responded to by the opposing party, including considering the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion, granting summary judgment if supported by the motion and supporting materials, or affording the party an opportunity to amend the motion; (3) set a time period, subject to variation by local rule or court order in a case, for a party to file a summary-judgment motion; and (4) explicitly recognize that ‘partial summary judgments’ may be entered.”

These amendments will be among the topics discussed at the next Federal Civil Practice Update from 1:30 to 4:45 p.m. Dec. 17. Mark your calendars and watch for registration information in Indiana Lawyer. •

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT