M E M O
TO: Joint Procedure Committee
FROM: Gerhard Raedeke
RE: Rule 30, N.D.R.App.P.; Appendix to the Briefs
This memo outlines the proposed changes to N.D.R.App.P. 30 in response to the December 1, 1998, amendment to Fed.R.App.P. 30.
Subdivision (a) is amended to properly format the subdivision. Language is retained which makes it clear only items in the record may be included in the appendix. The listing of items to be included in an appendix is retained from North Dakota's rule because it is more specific than the federal rule. Proposed subdivision (a)(3) contains no provision for an unrepresented party proceeding in forma pauperis like the federal rule.
Subdivision (b) concerns the option of the appellee or cross-appellant to serve and file the appendix. Subdivision (b) was recently revised by the Committee to avoid the process in the federal rule whereby the appellant serves on the appellee a designation of the parts of the record.
Subdivision (c) addresses deferred filing of the appendix. This subdivision was recently revised by the Committee and is different than the federal rule. North Dakota's procedure is much simpler.
Subdivision (d) is concerned with the format of the appendix. The proposal is a combination of the federal rule and North Dakota's current rule, with the following differences: 1) the proposal does not require omission in the text of papers or the transcript to be indicated by asterisks; 2) the proposal allows a lengthy appendix to be prepared with double-sided copies; and 3) the proposal requires the appendix to be separately bound.
Subdivision (e) of the federal rule is not in North Dakota's current rule. The subdivision concerns reproduction of exhibits. It allows exhibits designed for inclusion in the appendix to be reproduced in separate volumes. Should this provision be included in North Dakota's rule?
Subdivision (f) of the federal rule is not in North Dakota's current rule. It allows the court to dispense with the requirement for an appendix and to proceed on the original record. Should this provision be included in North Dakota's rule?