M E M O
TO: Joint Procedure Committee
FROM:Tom Tudor/Mike Hagburg
RE:Rule 32, N.D.R.App.P.; Form of Briefs, Appendices, and Other Papers
The revised version of Rule 32 accompanying this memo contains changes to Rule 32 that were discussed at the September 2001 committee meeting and changes suggested by the Supreme Court Clerk's Office. In general, the committee and the clerk's office were opposed to revising Rule 32 simply to reflect changes in the federal rules and disapproved of several substantive changes to Rule 32 that were presented at the September 2001 committee meeting. Consequently, the majority of the below-discussed amendments to Rule 32 affect the form of the rule rather than its substance.
On page 118, line 24, (a)(1)(A), "light" was replaced with "white". This change was approved by the Committee.
On page 118, line 25, (a)(1)(B), the Committee approved deleting language which required a clarity equaling or exceeding that of a laser printer. Because the remaining language appeared to be redundant, i.e., (a)(1)(A) requires a "clear, black image," all of (a)(1)(B), as amended, has been deleted ("Text must be reproduced with clarity.") and (C) has been re-lettered as (B).
On page 118, line 25, (a)(1)(B), as re-lettered, language has been deleted which allowed a glossy finish if an original is glossy. This change was approved by the Committee.
On page 118, line 42, (a)(2)(A), language has been deleted which required the number of the case to be centered at the top. This change was approved by the Committee.
On page 119, line 48, (a)(2)(F), language has been added requiring the bar identification number of counsel. This change was approved by the Committee.
On page 119, line 50, (a)(3), language has been added to require that a brief be bound at the left. This is at the suggestion of the clerk's staff. The Committee has not acted on this change. Also, language has been changed to require that a brief must be bound in "a secure manner." In addition, language has been added to the explanatory note, page , lines 114-116, indicating that staples or slide-lock or side-grip bindings are not acceptable. These changes were approved by the Committee.
On page 119, line 54, (a)(4), language allowing page numbers in the margin or at the bottom has been replaced with language requiring that pages "must be numbered at the bottom, either centered or at the right side." This change was approved by the Committee.
On page 119, line 56, (a)(5)(A), the proposed sentence requiring serifs has been deleted. This change was approved by the Committee.
On page 119, line 62, (a)(5)(B), "inch" has been replaced with "page." This change was approved by the Committee.
On page 120, line 75, (a)(7)(B), at the request of the clerk's staff, the proposed sentences concerning a "safe harbor" for determining compliance with the type-volume limitations covered by a certificate of compliance have been deleted and restated in the explanatory note, on page 122, lines 122-126.
On page 120, lines 82-84, (b)(3), language concerning odd-sized documents has been added. This change was discussed by the Committee, but not acted upon. The language reflects the Supreme Court's desire that materials submitted to the Court be 8 ½ by 11 inches in size.
On page 121, lines 85-86, a new (b)(4) has been added that provides that pages of the appendix must be numbered and that allows copies of papers in the appendix to be informally renumbered. This language generally tracks the current rule (the 4th paragraph), and has been added at the suggestion of the clerk's staff.
On page 121, line 93-94, a new paragraph (c)(2), "Petition for Rehearing," has been added. As indicated, the form of a petition for rehearing is set out in Rule 40, Petition for Rehearing. This was discussed briefly by the Committee, but no changes were suggested or approved.
On page 121, line 98, (c)(3), "(2)" was deleted following "Rule 32(a)". This change was approved by the Committee .
On page 121-22, lines 103-107, the first paragraph of the explanatory note has been rewritten to conform to the general form and style format of the appellate rule explanatory notes. This change has not been reviewed or discussed by the Committee.
On page 122, lines 114-116, a paragraph has been added to the explanatory note concerning the binding required for a brief. The Committee requested this addition.
On page 122, lines 120-121, the statement "plain, roman style" does not include "italicized, bold, or cursive type-styles" has been added to the explanatory note. The Committee requested this addition.
On page 122, lines 122-126, the language deleted from subparagraph (a)(7)(B) setting out the safe harbor for the certificate of compliance with the type-volume limitations has been added to the explanatory note. This change is at the suggestion of the clerk's staff.
On page 123, line 127-130, a reference to paragraph (b)(3) concerning odd-sized documents has been added to the explanatory note. This addition was not discussed by the Committee, however if the Committee approves the addition of paragraph (b)(3) permitting certain odd-sized documents in the appendix, this is probably a necessary addition.