Federal Rules Amendments Aim to Improve Litigation Process

April 24, 2002

Some of the most important parts of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended last year, and the new rules are now in effect. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are the ground rules for litigating civil lawsuits in Federal District Courts across the United States. Among the key amendments were changes to the rules governing the discovery stage of the litigation process, when the parties exchange documents and information and otherwise develop the evidentiary record for the case.

The amendments have worthy purposes, one of which is to bring national uniformity to certain aspects of the litigation process that had begun to vary from district to district. Equally important, the amendments aim to improve the efficiency and reduce the costs of discovery, which is frequently the most expensive stage of litigation.

Among the changes are:

Rule 26(a) -- This rule now requires litigants in all districts to make affirmative "initial disclosures" shortly after the suit is begun, identifying the witnesses and documents that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses. Previously, many districts, including the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, had opted out of this procedure. Certain categories of cases are exempt from this requirement, but the vast majority of civil lawsuits in federal court will now include the "initial disclosure" requirement. This will force the litigants to identify and turn over to their adversaries the evidentiary materials that support the litigant's case and will jump-start the discovery process.
Rule 26(b)(1) -- To be discoverable, material must now be "relevant to the claim or defense of any party," a change from the previous standard, which had deemed materials worthy of discovery if they were "relevant to the subject matter" of the lawsuit. According to the Advisory Committee Note, this change signals to the parties that they do not have the right to use discovery to develop new claims or defenses not already part of the case. In the past, litigants often attempted to justify marginally relevant discovery demands by arguing that they were nonetheless "relevant to the subject matter" of the suit. Now they must satisfy the court that there is good cause for such requests.
Rule 26(b)(2) -- District Courts can no longer use local rules to alter the limits on the number or length of depositions or the number of interrogatories established by Rules 30, 31 and 33. Previously, many districts, such as the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, had opted out of these limitations.
Rule 30 -- This rule now limits the deposition of a witness to one day of seven hours, unless the court orders or the parties stipulate otherwise. This is a new limitation designed to eliminate abusive deposition practices.
Rule 37(c) -- Under certain circumstances, a party has a duty to amend a prior response to discovery, and Rule 37(c) now adds teeth to this obligation. If a party fails to amend a prior response without justification, the party is not permitted to use the undisclosed information to support its claims or defenses.

The amendments went into effect on December 1, 2000, and apply to cases pending in the District Courts as of that date. Altogether, they reflect a major shift toward a discovery process that is more uniform nationwide and rewards focused, and thus more efficient discovery efforts. It is not too much to expect that the amendments will achieve their overall goal of improving the litigation process in the Federal District Courts across the country.

Cohen & Grigsby attorneys regularly litigate cases in the Federal District Courts and have represented clients in the majority of the District Courts throughout the United States.

For more information, please contact aroman@cohenlaw.com.