TO: Joint Procedure Committee
FROM: Mike Hagburg
RE: Form 25, N.D.R.Civ.P., Scheduling Statement
As the Committee knows, the Supreme Court has approved changes to N.D.R.Civ.P. 16 that will likely increase the frequency of scheduling conferences in civil cases. Commenting on the Court's proposal, attorney Steven Lamb suggested that the Court consider adopting a form to be submitted by parties to streamline the scheduling conference process.
Staff has prepared two proposed form alternatives for the Committee to consider, one based on the Federal model, the other based on the Minnesota model. The main difference is that the Minnesota model form is somewhat more detailed than the Federal model form. The proposed form drafts are attached.
In 2002, the Committee considered adding scheduling information to N.D.R.Ct. Appendix F, the Rule 8.8 Alternative Dispute Resolution Statement. If the Committee decides that a Scheduling Statement is necessary, it may want to revisit the issue of whether a scheduling information statement should be made in tandem with the ADR statement. Note, however, that the ADR statement is required to be submitted within 60 days of filing of the answer, while a scheduling conference would rarely (if ever) be necessary this soon under the triggering events in the revised N.D.R.Civ.P. 16.