Friday, June 28, 2019
Comments Due August 1, 2019
The Local Rules Committee has reviewed the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, as a result, is recommending certain modifications to the local rules. In addition, there are other recommendations that are not related to the recent amendments. Any comments should be submitted to Stephen Dries, Clerk of Court, via email at firstname.lastname@example.org by August 1, 2019.
- Modifications to General L.R. 79(d): Please see the red-line version for proposed changes: [79(d) Redline]
- The purpose of the recommended modification is to create a category of confidential documents for which access is restricted to the Court and counsel for the parties. This requires the parties to be specific when requesting that the Court seal confidential documents – is the request to completely seal the documents or seal but permit access to counsel for the parties. This will also alleviate confusion that has occurred in the Clerk’s office when handling sealed documents.
- The Rule refers the parties to the ECF policies and procedures for filing such documents.
- Delete Civil L.R. 62. Supersedeas Bonds.
- This rule, which has been in existence since at least 1983 (as section 9.05) provided that a supersedeas bond, where the judgment is for money only, shall be in the amount of the judgment plus 15% to cover interest and damages for delay, plus $500 to cover costs.
- On December 1, 2018, Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(b) was amended and the stay procedures of Rule 62 were revised. All references to the term “supersedeas bond” were removed. As such, our local rule has become a nullity and should be deleted.
- Modification to Civil L.R. 41(c)
- The text of this sub-division reads, “Whenever it appears to the Court that the plaintiff is not diligently prosecuting the action and Civil L.R. 41(a) or (b) does not apply, the Court may enter an order of dismissal with or without prejudice. Any affected party may petition for reinstatement of the action within 21 days.”
- The Committee recommends that the language in italics be deleted from the section (c). The language has caused confusion as to its meaning and ambiguity about when judgment should be entered. Also, the language invites the “affected party” to petition for reinstatement.
- Since a party is always able to seek reconsideration of an order, and since the court usually gives the party a warning in advance that the case will be dismissed for lack of prosecution, the Committee believes that the language of the rule should be deleted.
- Delete Committee Comment to Civil L.R. 5. Service of Papers Through the Court’s Electronic Transmission Facilities.
- “Committee Comment: The ECF notification will be deemed ‘the certificate of service’ for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d)(1).”
- On December 1, 2018, Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(E) was amended to provide that service is to be made through ECF. Since this is now the general mode of service, the Committee Comment is no longer necessary.
- Modify Civil L.R. 33 and 36: Please see the red-line version for proposed changes: [33 and 36 Redline]
- In Rule 33, eliminates the “grouping” of parties represented by same counsel.
- In Rule 36, adds a limitation of 50 requests for admission.