Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure aimed at efficiency

By: DOLAN MEDIA NEWSWIRES//January 25, 2016//

New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure aimed at efficiency

By: DOLAN MEDIA NEWSWIRES//January 25, 2016//

Listen to this article

By Lee Dryden
Dolan Media Newswires

A wealth of recent revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be summed up with a single goal — moving cases along.

This will be accomplished in part by earlier and better-tailored discovery meant to get judges and lawyers talking to each other sooner.

The changes that were discussed for three years took effect Dec. 1. Now, it’s a matter of the legal community’s embracing them.

“The question becomes ‘Who is going to push it’?” said B. Jay Yelton III, a partner at Warner Norcross & Judd LLP. “Are the lawyers going to implement this? Is the court going to take an active role? It’s hard to tell.

“It’s going to take a change of how they’ve always done it.”

In October, Yelton moderated a Warner Norcross Data Symposium on the changes held in Grand Rapids, Mich. He used a case study to show how the new rules would play out in litigation.

The panelists discussed the scope, cost and timing of discovery, as well as the guidelines governing how judges should deal with parties who fail to preserve electronically stored information.

A new world of discovery

A big change is an amendment to Rule 26 allowing discovery to begin sooner. The opposing sides can now submit a Request for Production of Documents 21 days after a lawsuit has been filed. Previously, they had to wait until the start of discovery at a pretrial conference — typically three to four months after the lawsuit was filed.

Andrea Bernard, a partner at Warner Norcross, said the change beats the alternative of going in blind and not knowing what the plaintiff will ask for.

“I think this change to the rules is a really great change because it does give the attorneys and the judge an opportunity to have an informed discussion at the Rule 16 conference about discovery,” she said. “It enables you to have an intelligent conversation with the court at the outset about what may need to be done, produced, relevant, etc.”

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Maloney, of the Western District of Michigan and a member of the policy-making body for federal courts, agreed that early discovery requests make pretrial conferences more efficient. He said they allow for a greater degree of detail and show where clashes might arise.

“I think it has a real beneficial effect in terms of accelerating the process even before you get to see the judge,” he said. “To the extent that the lawyers are talking earlier, I think that is extremely beneficial as well.”

Also, to avoid delays, an initial pretrial conference must now involve direct simultaneous communication — in person, by phone or videoconference.

Maloney said the onus is on lawyers and judges to move cases along efficiently. Expert testimony can be dealt with earlier and attorneys can educate the judiciary about the cost of discovery. He wants to see both sides making “good-faith assertions.”

Maloney said the new rules are not conducive to the strategy of asking for everything in discovery and hoping you get most of it.

“As a judge, I’m going to be watching for that,” he said. “What I’m looking for is two lawyers who are communicating and communicating constructively as to what they need. If it’s obvious to me we have two lawyers passing in the night, I’m not going to be too happy.

“I have an instinctual negative reaction to fishing,” he said. “The fishing better be light.”

Yelton said the changes call for discovery to be taken seriously at the beginning of a case rather than put it off as long as possible, as one party or the other hopes for a settlement or a win on motion.

He said courts in New York, California and Illinois use “model discovery orders,” which force parties to talk about where discovery is going. Similar policies are being tested out in the Eastern District of Michigan, he said.

The rules also call for discovery requests to be reasonable and proportional to the attorneys’ needs in the case. Yelton said this may be the most significant change, since it is a chance to tell the judge how costly it will be to fulfill the requests. In-house counsel is often most knowledgeable in this regard, he said.

Lawyers will have to consider costs and be ready to justify their requests.

“Plaintiffs’ lawyers are going to have to figure out at a very early stage: What do I really need to prosecute my case? How much is my case worth?” said Scott Carvo, a partner at Warner Norcross.

Bernard said the change will be help decrease the exorbitant costs that some times come with providing the defense in a lawsuit.

“We’ve needed this change for a long time. My clients find themselves in the position of saying it’s going to cost more to defend this case than the cost at issue,” she said. “You really have got a monetary gun to your head.”

Both Bernard and Carvo stressed the importance of showing a judge they are making reasonable discovery requests.

A change to Rule 34 prevents boilerplate objections to discovery requests. A typical response previously was that a request was overly broad and unduly burdensome.

Now, attorneys have to explain exactly why they don’t plan to comply or what information they will provide.

Providing electronic documents

The federal rules have also been revised to include more specifics for judges in cases where electronically stored information is not preserved. The Rule 37 change clarifies when to levy sanctions — an intent to deprive must be shown, mere loss is not enough.

If the information should have been preserved and cannot be replaced, the court:

  • Upon finding prejudice to another party from the loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice
  • Only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation, may presume that lost information was unfavorable to the party, instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party or dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

Previously, they were cautioned against imposing sanctions for a “good faith failure” to properly preserve information.

Maloney said the change is “very significant” and clarifies the steps for federal district judges. He hopes it leads to better internal processes to retain information.

“It’s going to be ultimately a reasonableness inquiry as to what you did and did not retain,” he said.

Yelton said the standard remains the same but the change brings “more consistency on how the court will approach it.”

Keeping costs down

A common denominator among these changes is the desire to remove some of the cost barriers that can make the courts seem an inefficient place to do business.

Maloney said driving down costs is essential because federal courts are “pricing themselves out of the market of resolving disputes.” He said attorneys are opting for mediation to avoid court costs. He’s hoping for outcomes driven by case merits.

The scope and timing of discovery play a large role in this effort.

“The field has been changed in terms of the scope of discovery,” Maloney said. “One of the driving forces behind the amendments is the cost of litigation. Given the tenor of the new rules, I’m looking for lawyer participation and communication very early — and certainly by the time you reach me.”

Yelton also mentioned that the time periods for serving a defendant and for the court to issue a scheduling order have been shortened. Originally 120 days, they have gone down to 90.

“Securing a ‘just, speedy and inexpensive determination’ is now a responsibility of the parties, not just the court,” he said.

Whereas these rule changes are only for federal courts, state courts are known to often fall in line with such modifications within a couple of years — and begin adopting some of the practices even sooner, Yelton said.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests