M E M O
TO: Joint Procedure Committee
FROM: Mike Hagburg
RE: Administrative Rule X, Civil Case Management
The Council of Presiding Judges has proposed a Civil Case Management Rule, Admin. Rule X. The Supreme Court has referred Admin. Rule X to the Committee for review, revision and return. The Court expects the Committee to consider the rule in detail and revise it without changing the essence of the rule. The Court also expects that the Committee will provide comments on the rule.
Parts of Admin. Rule X as submitted to the Court clearly do not belong in the administrative rules. The Court expects that the Committee will identify elements of the rule that belong elsewhere and transfer them out as needed. Staff has begun that process and the package that is included here consists of Admin. Rule X plus revised versions of N.D.R.Civ.P. 16, 26 and 40. Therefore, what will be returned to the Supreme Court will be a Civil Case Management package, consisting of Admin. Rule X plus the civil procedure rules amended to include case management elements.
Once the Committee returns the Admin. Rule X package to the Supreme Court, the Court will seek additional comments and consider whether to adopt the rules in the package.
I. Admin. Rule X
The first item for the Committee to consider is Admin. Rule X. The rule presented in the meeting materials is the version submitted by the Presiding Judges. The changes shown on the rule are proposed amendments made by staff.
Section I of the rule as submitted by the Presiding Judges consisted of elements taken (often verbatim) from N.D.R.Civ.P. 16 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 16. In the amended version here, the elements of Section I that appropriately belong in the Rules of Civil Procedure are deleted and replaced by a reference to the applicable civil rules.
Sections II and III of the rule detail the nuts and bolts of the Presiding Judges' proposed case tracking system. The amended version of Sections II and III here includes style changes made primarily for the sake of brevity and clarity. Staff attempted to avoid making substantive changes to the Presiding Judges case tracking system.
II. N.D.R.Civ.P. 16
The Presiding Judges included a scheduling conference requirement in Admin. Rule X. Staff deleted this requirement from the Admin. Rule and incorporated it into N.D.R.Civ.P. 16. The proposed amended language of Rule 16 is substantially similar to the language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16. Some unique elements proposed by the Presiding Judges are also included, in particular the requirement at lines 28-30 that the district court assign the case to a track as part of the scheduling process.
III. N.D.R.Civ.P. 26
The Presiding Judges included a requirement in Admin. Rule X that the parties meet before the scheduling conference. Staff deleted this requirement from the Admin. Rule and incorporated it into N.D.R.Civ.P. 26. The proposed amended language of Rule 26 is substantially similar to the language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.
IV. N.D.R.Civ.P. 40
With the inclusion of a scheduling conference requirement, a case tracking system, and case completion deadlines, Rule 40's note of issue/certificate of readiness requirement becomes superfluous in case affected by Admin. Rule X. Therefore, a proposed amendment to Rule 40 has been prepared that eliminates the NOI/COR requirement in cases where a scheduling order has been issued.