News & Insights

Recent Posts

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

WSHB Cannabis Attorney Finalist for "Lawyer of the Year"

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

WSHB Senior Associate Selected for 2020 Diversity Leadership & Mentoring Program

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

Brooke Bohlke Takes to the Stage at CLM's 2019 Nevada Chapter Education and Networking Event

WSHB Partner Constance Endelicato Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

Key Changes In Newly Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

February 19, 2016

New procedural rules will impact both deadlines and the substantive handling of new and pending civil cases in federal court. At least 35 States base their own rules of civil procedure on the federal rules, so the impact of these changes may be even more widespread.

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in April 2015 and accepted by Congress took effect on December 1. The changes affect Civil Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 55, and 84, and the Appendix of Forms. The amendments govern all proceedings commenced on or after December 1, 2015, and all proceedings then pending “insofar as just and practicable.”

A redlined version of the new rules is available on the U.S. Court’s website, www.us.courts.gov. We summarize key changes, with comments, below.

Rule 4 – Service

The time for service of process under Rule 4(m) is shortened from 120 days to 90 days. Comment: If a defendant is not served within that timeframe, the Court must dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant. However, for good cause shown, the plaintiff can obtain an extension of time for service from the Court “for an appropriate period.” This amendment will not have a significant impact, although it is in line with other changes intended to quicken the pace of civil litigation.

Rules 16 and 26 – Scheduling/Disclosures

The time for holding the initial case management conference under Rule 16(b) has been shortened by 30 days, and new topics for the Rule 26(f) and Rule 16 conferences have been added. Comment: The scheduling order operates as a roadmap for the litigation and also sets in motion numerous other deadlines. The date for the Rule 26(f) conference is based upon the date for a scheduling conference or issuance of a scheduling order under Rule 16 (conference under Rule 26(f) must occur 21 days prior to Rule 16 scheduling conference or date for issuance of scheduling order). In turn, the Rule 26(f) conference triggers the obligation to make initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(C). Equally significant, until the Rule 26(f) conference occurs, discovery cannot commence. See Rule 26(d)(1). The net effect of the changes is to potentially move up all of these key events by thirty days and expedite the handling of civil cases.

Rule 26 – Scope of Discovery

The scope of discovery in Rule 26(b)(1) has been amended, and the need for proportional discovery tailored to the reasonable needs of the case has been highlighted. Comment: The new language requires that discovery be:

[P]roportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Expect this language to be cited in numerous future discovery disputes in which a party resisting discovery argues that the requests at issue are overreaching.

Rule 34 – Production of Documents

Objections to requests for production under Rule 34 must now be stated with specificity and disclose whether responsive materials are being withheld based upon the objection. If the responding party will make copies of documents available in lieu of an inspection, the response must state when such a production will take place. Comment: The amendments make responses to Rule 34 requests more useful, by requiring a responding party to state whether documents are being withheld based upon a specific objection, and conforms to the modern practice of producing copies of requested documents after the date of the written response rather than allowing an inspection of the materials.

Rule 37 – Preservation of Electronically Stored Information

Rule 37(e) has been rewritten to address the preservation and loss of electronically stored information. Comment: The prior version of Rule 37(e) barred the imposition of sanctions against a party for failing to produce electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good faith operation of a computer system, absent “exceptional circumstances.” The new version provides for a graduated system of sanctions when a party fails to take reasonable steps to preserve ESI that should have been preserved “in the anticipation or conduct of litigation.” The changes increase the pressure on companies to preserve ESI and on counsel to timely advise clients of the need to do so.

Rule 1 – Purpose of Rules

Rule 1 has been amended to state that parties as well as courts have an obligation to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Comment: The common theme of the amendments is to speed up the pace of litigation by shortening deadlines and insisting on the proportional use of discovery. As noted in the Judicial Council Committee notes accompanying this amendment, the parties and their counsel share this responsibility by engaging in the “proportional use of procedure.” This is similar to the language in the amendment to Rule 26 requiring that discovery be proportional. However, the impact of this amendment by itself will be limited. As stated in the Committee Notes, the amendment does not create a new or independent source for sanctions and it does not abridge the scope of the other rules.

PRINT

Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2019 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required