X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Effective on Dec. 1, 2007, barring unforeseen circumstances, new rules will govern the filing of papers in all cases in federal court-civil, criminal, bankruptcy and appellate. The new rules mandate redaction of certain identifying personal information (“personal identifiers”) from all filings. The Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is also considering substantial changes to rules 26(a)(2) and 56-the key rules that govern expert reports (and, thus, expert evidence) and summary judgment. In addition, the Civil Rules will be entirely rewritten as of Dec. 1, unless the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress intercedes. Last, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure is in the midst of a project to make time computation uniform among all of the various rule sets. This article explores these developments. Rules to delete personal identifiers from filings E-Government Act rules. The E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, � 205(c)(3)) requires the Supreme Court to promulgate rules “to protect privacy and security concerns relating to electronic filing” of court papers. In response, the advisory committees on the federal rules of civil, criminal, bankruptcy and appellate bankruptcy procedure have drafted uniform rules to delete personal identifiers from all federal court filings. Notably, the rules are not limited to papers that are electronically filed. They apply to paper filings as well. Proposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) is illustrative. It requires redaction of personal identifiers from all civil filings such that: Only the last four digits of a social security number appear. Only the last four digits of a taxpayer-identification number are included. Only the birth year, and not the birth date, of any person is used. Only the initials, and not the names, of minors appear. Only the last four digits of any financial account are set forth. Implementation of these requirements cannot begin soon enough. Many local district court rules and electronic filing rules already require this sort of redaction, and the Judicial Conference of the United States published a Privacy Policy on the subject in September 2001 (available at www.privacy.uscourts.gov/ Policy.htm). Decisions have sprouted up suggesting that sanctions are currently appropriate if counsel are not sufficiently vigilant to redact personal identifiers. See, e.g., Luster v. City of Lebanon, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 813 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2007) (order to show cause why defense counsel should not be held in civil contempt for filing a document containing plaintiff’s Social Security number in derogation of two local court rules). Proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(b) contains exceptions. The text of Rule 5.2 can be found at www.uscourts.gov/rules/Appendix_F.pdf, at pages 2-5. The parallel amendments to the criminal, bankruptcy and appellate rules are accessible at www.uscourts.gov/rules/ jc0906.htm. Expert reports and evidence. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, through its discovery subcommittee, is considering whether the expert witness rule-specifically Rule 26(a)(2)(B)-should be amended (1) to protect drafts of expert reports from discovery, (2) to protect some or all communications between counsel and expert from discovery, (3) to require reports from treating physicians, and (4) to require reports from employees of parties who plan to deliver expert testimony at trial. Previous articles (e.g., “Expert Spoliation,” NLJ, June 23-30, 2003, at 21, and “Engaging Experts,” NLJ, April 18, 2005, at 12) reflect my view that the cost of allowing discovery of drafts and of most, if not all, expert/counsel communications outweigh the benefits. Last summer, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution urging that draft expert reports and attorney-expert communications relating to the expert’s report largely be protected from discovery. (The resolution is available at www.abanet.org/crimjust/policy/am06120a.pdf.) That position may be making some headway. The discovery subcommittee of the Civil Rules Committee convened a conference on the four issues itemized above on Jan. 13, in Scottsdale, Ariz. A report on that meeting from Professor Daniel J. Capra, the reporter to the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Reed Professor of Law at Fordham Law School, can be found at the Complex Litigation Blog posting of Jan. 15 at www.josephnyc.com/blog. Capra reports that: There was debate about the interplay of immunizing draft reports and/or counsel communications with experts. There appeared to be a consensus that treating physicians should not be required to file written reports. Some employee experts may become subject, if not to a report requirement, at least to a written description of their testimony by counsel for their employers. Subjecting some employee experts to any report or statement requirement is potentially problematic, unless communications with counsel are protected. Consider, for example, an employee in a senior management position who is to give expert testimony (e.g., a chief financial officer). A senior management person is likely to participate in numerous privileged communications with litigation counsel purely by virtue of his or her position. Under the prevailing construction of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), all of those communications with counsel would be discoverable. But only Congress, and not rulemakers, can affect (or abrogate) privilege under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. 2074(b). Therefore, unless these communications with counsel are protected, any amended rule might run afoul of the Rules Enabling Act. Summary judgment. On Jan. 29, the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is holding a mini-conference in New York to address possible amendments to Rule 56. The conference is motivated by a concern over a perceived disparity between practice and the text of the existing rule. A number of amendments are under consideration. One revision would require: (i) the moving party to file a statement of undisputed facts on which it is relying, (ii) the adversary to file a paragraph-by-paragraph response to each fact asserted to be undisputed, with an opportunity to introduce additional facts, and (iii) the moving party to reply in like fashion. Dueling statements of undisputed fact are already required in many district courts. This requirement is very expensive in cases of any magnitude. Opponents are wary of conceding something inadvertently, and they look for the most fragile adjective in each paragraph of a statement of undisputed fact as an excuse to object to the paragraph. Query whether the benefit justifies the cost. Nonetheless, because this requirement does exist in many, if not most, districts at present, and for that reason may become a universal requirement under an amended Rule 56. A report on the proceedings of the Advisory Committee meeting of Jan. 29-during which this and other issues are to be debated-will be available on the Complex Litigation Blog in a Jan. 30 posting ( http://www.josephnyc.com/blog). Style amendments aim for clarity and simplicity Style amendments to the Civil Rules. Dec. 1, 2007, is also expected to mark the advent of the entirely rewritten Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These amendments-known as the style amendments and covering every rule-are intended to be purely stylistic. The goal is to clarify and simplify the rules, and make them easier to understand, without changing any substantive meaning. The committee note to each rule reiterates that these amendments are purely stylistic, with no change in meaning intended. The rewritten rules are easier to read. The text is also visually more accessible, with additional subdivisions broken out in strings of indented items. There will be some electronic research problems, however, as a limited number of rules have been renumbered as well as rewritten. The re-styled Civil Rules can be accessed at www.uscourts.gov/rules/Appendix_D.pdf. Style/substance amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition to the style amendments, the Advisory Committee decided to make a series of uncontroversial amendments that cannot be said to be purely stylistic. A prime example is amending Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to include the e-mail address of the signer in addition to his or her physical address and telephone number. These amendments are also expected to take effect on Dec. 1. They can be found at www.uscourts.gov/rules/Appendix_E.pdf. Time computation. Time is not computed uniformly in the rules. The Standing Committee has undertaken a major time-computation project, under the supervision of Judge Mark R. Kravitz of the District of Connecticut, that will include revisions to time periods in all of the rules-civil, criminal, bankruptcy and appellate. These future rules would: Abolish the two-tiered method of counting periods of more than 10 days and less than 10 days. Adopt a method for computing time when a deadline is expressed in hours rather than days. Create a uniform method for computation regardless of whether the deadline is forward-looking or backward-looking. Define “last day” for purposes of computing time (e.g., midnight for e-filing; as long as the clerk’s office is accessible for paper filing). It is not currently contemplated that there will be any change to the current practice of adding three days for service that is accomplished other than by hand. The minutes of the Standing Committee from June 2006 are available at www.uscourts.gov/rules/Minutes/ST06-2006.pdf. Gregory P. Joseph of Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices in New York, is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He may be reached at [email protected].

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.