Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, December 2015
December 21, 2015
Several aspects of civil litigation have been changed by amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) as of December 1st, 2015. They affect service of process, default judgments, discovery (including electronically stored information), and pleading requirements for patent cases. The amendments apply both to pending and newly filed cases. Today, we’ll give you a summary of the rule changes.
• Rule 1
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure has made an amendment to Rule 1 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It now requires all parties and courts to interpret, administer, and employ the Rules in a way that ensures a just, quick, and cost-effective determination of all actions and proceedings. The amendment is designed to encourage cooperation between courts, attorneys, and public records companies like Nationwide Court Services.
• Rule 4(m)
This amendment reduces the 120-day limit to serve the summons and complaint to 90 days.
• Rule 16
This amendment reduces the time to enter scheduling orders from 120 days after a defendant has been served to 90 days. If the defendant has already made an appearance, the scheduling order now must be entered within 60 days instead of 90. Orders may include clawback agreements, preservation provisions, and may direct parties to request conference with the courts before filing a discovery motion.
• Rule 26(b)(1)
This amendment changes the scope of discovery. Now, parties may obtain discovery of any non-privileged matter that has relevance to any party’s defense or claims.
• Rule 26(d)(2) and Rule 34(b)(2)(A)
Requests for production prior to the 26(f) conference may be served, though the responding party now has 30 days to respond after the first 26(f) conference.
• Rule 26(c)(1)(B)
Though cost-shifting is not expected to become the norm, protective orders may now shift the cost of discovery. Responding parties should continue to expect to bear the cost of responding.
• Rule 34
Parties may no longer refuse discovery by making a “boilerplate rejection” that is not proportional to the needs of the case. Objections must detail the reasons for objecting and declare whether any “responsive materials” are being withheld. The production must be completed before the time for the inspection identified in the request or in the response.
• Rule 37(e)
This amendment creates a uniform standard for curative measures and spoliation sanctions for electronically stored information (ESI). If a party is prejudiced by the loss of ESI, a court may make orders to cure the prejudice. For example, the court may instruct the jury to presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party.
• Rule 55(c)
Courts may now set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b).
• Rule 84
This amendment does away with Rule 84 altogether. Courts may now find that some patent complaints under form 18 are insufficient and require infringement allegations to comply directly with the following precedent cases: Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
Partnering with Nationwide Court Services
Nationwide Court Services is a court services support company. We use our extensive knowledge of state and federal courts to reduce turnaround time and increase efficiency for attorneys, lenders, and title insurance agencies. For more information on our court services, process service, and recording services, please visit our homepage.
Contact Us
