The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules is currently holding hearings across the country on proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 56. See link. A hearing was held on November 17, 2008 in Washington, DC. Future hearings are set for San Antonio on January 14, 2009 and San Francisco on February 2, 2009. The proposed amendments and the Advisory Committee’s comments can be found here.
It is important for those interested in civil justice to become familiar with the proposed amendments as they seek to revise 2 very important rules relied upon by federal court attorneys – Expert Disclosure and Summary Judgment. While many sections are being changed, the following stand out for me:
Rule 56(c) will be changed to require a point/counterpoint recitation of material facts. This is not new to me because for many years the District of New Hampshire has required a movants to submit separate statement of material facts, and the opposing party to specifically lay out those material facts that are disputed. Local Rule 7.2(b). The requirement of setting the facts out in separately numbered paragraphs is new for me but not problematic. It has been my experience that the requirement has forced movants and opponents to focus on that which is truly material, i.e. facts that affect the outcome of the litigation under the applicable substantive law, rather than simply asserting a long litany of facts in an effort to either persuade the court of the merits of your overall position without regard to the issues at hand or throwing numerous facts against the wall in the hope that the court will assume that there must be an issue in there somewhere and deny the motion. I believe that it has also focused the court’s attention and permitted it the luxury of not having to decipher what a party thinks is material or in dispute. This latter point is particularly important in cases where there are pro se litigants, such as civil rights matters where my judges have expressed great frustration in matters I have been involved in. Therefore, when I spoke to the Committee in DC, I encouraged the adoption of that requirement in the proposed rule.
Full Article