Joint Procedure Committee Meeting
Scheduled on Thursday, January 23, 1986 @ 9:00 AM
MINUTES OF MEETING
Joint Procedure Committee
January 23, 1986
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., January 23, 1986, by Justice H. F. "Sparky" Gierke, Chairman.
ATTENDANCE
Present:
Mr. Leonard A. Bucklin
Hon. Eugene A. Burdick
Hon. Gerald G. Glaser
Mr. Robert C. Heinley
Professor Larry Kraft
Hon. Frank J. Kosanda
Mr. James L. Lamb
Hon. Lawrence A. Leclerc
Hon. Beryl J. Levine
Mr. LeRoy A. Loder
Hon. William S. Murray
Hon. James H. O'Keefe
Mr. David L. Peterson
Absent:
Hon. Wallace D. Berning
Mr. Ward M. Kirby
Mr. Ray Rund
Hon. Kirk Smith
Mr. Dean Winkjer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Joint Procedure Meeting of September 26-27, 1985, were amended prior to the January 23 meeting. A copy of the amended minutes were submitted to each member for review. The fifth paragraph on page 2 was amended to read "Mr. Bucklin suggested that because of the committee's uncertainty as to what direction to take when the Supreme Court rejects a rule change that a resolution be sent to the Supreme Court from the Joint Procedure Committee requesting the Supreme Court to explain the action that they take on rules that have been submitted by the Joint Procedure Committee to the court for adoption. The resolution would request the Supreme Court to explain why they may reject a rule or amend a rule that has been submitted for adoption and to send such explanation to the Joint Procedure Committee." Typographical errors were also corrected in the amended minutes. The committee deferred approval of the minutes until 1:00 p.m. so that the members would have a chance to review it.
-2-
SUPREME COURT ACTION ON PROPOSED RULE 67
Staff informed the committee that the Supreme Court reconsidered their action on proposed Rule 67, NDRCivP in October of 1985. The court unanimously rejected the amendments to Rule 67, NDRCivP.
Judge Burdick MOVED to amend Rule 67 on line 13 by deleting the word "possible" and inserting the word "practicable,". Mr. Bucklin seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED to adopt Rule 67 as amended and that the draft be submitted to the Supreme Court for adoption. Judge Murray seconded the motion. There was much discussion as to whether the new language contained on lines 12-15 which reads "Whenever practicable, the money must be deposited in an interest-bearing account or invested in an interest-bearing instrument, or both, as directed by the court." should be included in Rule 67. The committee discussed whether the courts would want to become involved in directing the clerk to deposit the money in interest-bearing accounts and questioned how technical the court's order would have to be in providing direction to the clerk. The committee also discussed whether the court should be involved in this due to the fact that the litigants are the interested parties and it is not the court's concern as to whether the deposited money is accruing interest or not.
The motion was tabled until after 1:00 p.m. Judge Burdick indicated that he would draft a new amendment to Rule 67 for consideration at that time.
CONTEMPT
Judge Burdick MOVED to adopt the amendment to proposed Section 27-10.1-01 Contempt of Court which alphabetized the definitions subsection appearing on pages 17 and 18 of the meeting materials. Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Mr. Bucklin MOVED to amend proposed Section 27-10.1-06 Contempt of Witness Before Magistrate, Notary Public, Officer, Board, or Tribunal by deleting the word "and" and inserting the word "or" on line 141, page 22 of the meeting materials. Judge Burdick seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Glaser MOVED to amend proposed Section 27-10.1-06 Contempt of Witness Before Magistrate, Notary Public, Officer, Board, or Tribunal by inserting the word "court" after the word district on line 142, page 22 of the meeting materials. Judge Burdick seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Mr. Bucklin MOVED to amend proposed Section 27-10.1-03 Procedure by striking the word "alleged" on line 54 and by
-3-
striking the word "alleged" on line 57, page 19 of the meeting materials. Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Mr. Glaser MOVED to amend proposed Section 27-10.1-03 Procedure by deleting the word "at" and inserting the word "in" on line 98, page 20 of the meeting materials. Judge Burdick seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick suggested that the following language be considered by the committee for insertion in proposed Section 2710-1-04 Sanctions which begins on page 20 of the meeting materials. The language is as follows: "2. Criminal contempt. A judge, after afinding of a criminal contempt of court, may impose for each separate contempt of court a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than six months., or both. If the criminal contempt is a continuing contempt of court, the judge may impose any appropriate sanction, or suspend any sanction imposed, upon any just terms or conditions for the termination of the contempt. 4. Civil and Criminal Contempt. If a criminal contempt of court is also a civil contempt of court, the judge may also impose any appropriate sanction for the civil contempt." After Judge Burdick presented his changes to the committee, the committee engaged in a lengthy discussion concerning civil contempt and criminal contempt. The question was presented by Mr. Kraft and Mr. Peterson as to why there should be a difference, in other words why not just have contempt.
Mr. Bucklin suggested the following changes on lines 29-32, of page 18 of the meeting materials: 4. "Criminal contempt" means a contempt with a sanction imposed to punish a past or continuingcontempt of court for the purpose of punishing the offender and upholding the authority of the court or for the purpose of compensating the complaintant for a past contempt."
Judge Burdick MOVED that staff be requested to revise the definitions of civil and criminal contempt for consideration at a future meeting. Mr. Lamb seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Justice Gierke suggested that members of the committee send drafts relating to the contempt issue to the Joint Procedure Committee's Staff Attorney so that she may consider them while working on this issue.
Staff also pointed out 3 other changes to the proposed Contempt bill draft. The first change occurs on line 18, page 17 where the following language was deleted "however, the inability to comply with an order is a defense in contempt proceedings based on a violation of that order;" the second change occurs on lines 43-51, page 18, whereby the previous bill draft did not combine direct civil or criminal contempt and had two different subdivisions. The third change occurs on line 77, page 19, where the following language was deleted "The judge, after notice and hearing, may impose a sanction for civil contempt authorized by
-4-
this chapter." The committee did not wish to act on these 3 changes due to the fact that a new bill draft will be proposed at a future meeting.
RULE 22 OF THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT AND RULE 31(c) NDRAppP
Justice VandeWalle requested that the Joint Procedure Committee review Rule 22 entitled Record Excerpts, Appendix, and Briefs from the 11th Circuit Court. Apparently the appendixes that have been filed with the court either contain too little information or everything is included in the appendix. Secondly, Justice VandeWalle expressed some concern with Rule 31(c) NDRAppP, which states in part that if an appellee fails to file his brief, he will not be heard at oral argument except by permission of the court. There have been appellees who have not filed a brief with the court. Justice VandeWalle has asked the committee to consider amending Rule 31 NDRAppP to address this problem.
The committee discussed the appendix problem and wondered whether the appendix should be filed after the briefs have been completed. The committee also felt that maybe the court could sponsor an educational program concerning appellate procedures for the benefit of the Bar. The general consensus of the committee was that the attorneys are in the best position to determine what needs to be included in the appendix of their case and that other problems would occur if the appendix was filed after the briefs.
The committee did not want to amend Rule 31 NDRAppP, unless the problem of appellees not filing briefs occurs on a frequent basis. Justice Gierke indicated that he would check with the other Supreme Court Justices to find out how often an appellee fails to file a brief and will report back to the committee at the next meeting.
Judge Kosanda MOVED to have staff prepare an amendment to Rule 30 NDRAppP to address the appendix problem. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
PUBLIC LAW 98-473
Judge Burdick MOVED to reject the proposed amendment to Rule 704(b), NDREv. Mr. Loder seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Leclerc MOVED to accept the proposed amendment to Rule 12.2(a), NDRCrimP. Mr. Lamb seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED to reject the proposed amendments to Rule 12.2(b), NDRCrimP. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
-5-
Judge Burdick MOVED to accept the proposed amendment to Rule 12.2(c), NDRCrimP. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED to reject the proposed amendment to Rule 12.2(d), NDRCrimP. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED to approve the redraft as amended. Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
RULE 12.2, NDRCrimP
NOTICE OF DEFENSE BASED ON MENTAL CONDITION
(a) Defense of Lack of Criminal Responsibility by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect. If a defendant intends to rely upon the defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged crime, offense, he shall, within the time provided for the filing of pretrial motions, or at such later time as the court may direct, notify the prosecuting attorney of such intention in open court or in writing and file such notice. If there is a failure to comply with the requirements of this subdivision, the defense of lack of criminal responsibility may not be raised. The court may for cause shown allow late filing if the notice or grant additional time to the parties to prepare for trial or make such other order as may be appropriate.
(b)Mental Disease or Defect Inconsistent with the Mental Element Required for the offense charged. If a defendant intends to introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease, defect, or other condition bearing upon the issue of whether he had the mental state required for the offense charged, he shall, within the time provided for the filing of pretrial motions or at such later time as the court may direct notify the prosecuting attorney of such intention and file such notice. The court may for cause shown allow late filing of the notice or grant additional time to the parties to prepare for trial or make such other order as may be appropriate.
(c) Psychiatric Examination. In an appropriate case the court may, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, order the defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination by a psychiatrist designated for this purpose in the order of the court. to an examination by one or more mental health professionals retained by the prosecuting attorney. No statement made by the accused in the course of any examination provided for by this rule, whether the examination shall be with or without the consent of the accused, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding.
(d) Failure to Comply. If there is a failure to give
-6-
notice when required by subdivision (b) of this rule or to submit to an examination when ordered under subdivision (c) of this rule, this court may exclude the testimony of any expert witness offered by the defendant on the issue of his mental state.
RECESS
The meeting recessed until 1:00 p.m., January 23, 1986.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m., January 23, 1986, by Justice H. F. "Sparky" Gierke, Chairman.
ATTENDANCE
The roll call remained the same as in the morning session.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Judge Burdick MOVED that the amended minutes of the September 26-27, 1985, meeting be approved as submitted. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
RULE 67, NDRCivP
Judge Burdick's motion to adopt amended Rule 67 was tabled during the morning meeting and was to be considered as the second item of business when the meeting reconvened in the afternoon. Judge Burdick MOVED to amend Rule 67 by deleting the last sentence on lines 12-15, page 12 of the meeting materials and inserting the following "Pending disposition of the money, the court in its order may direct the clerk to deposit the money in an insured interest-bearing account or to invest the money in an insured interest-bearing instrument." Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED to adopt amended Rule 67. Justice Levine seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
RULE 67, NDRCivP
DEPOSIT IN COURT
In an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party, upon notice to every other party, and by leave of court, may deposit with the court all or any part of such sum or thing., whether or not that party claims all or any part of the sum or thing. The party making the deposit shall file with the clerk the order permitting the deposit.Money paid into court under this rule shall must
-7-
be deposited and withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 32-11, North Dakota Century Code. Pending disposition of the money, the court in its order may direct the clerk to deposit the money in an insured interest-bearing account or to invest the money in an insured interest-bearing instrument.
RULE 12.2(e), NDRCrimP
Judge Leclerc MOVED to adopt Rule 12.2(e), NDRCrimP. Justice Levine seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
(e) Inadmissibility of Withdrawn Intention. Evidence of an intention as to which notice was given under subdivision (a) or (b), later withdrawn, is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the person who gave notice of the intention.
Judge Burdick MOVED to amend Rule 12.2(e), at line 3 by deleting the comma after the word "not" and inserting the word "admissible" and at line 4 inserting the words "or administrative" after the word "criminal" and deleting the word "admissible". Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Motion FAILED.
RULE 12.1(f), NDRCrimP
Professor Kraft MOVED to adopt Rule 12.1(f), NDRCrimP. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
(f) Inadmissibility of Withdrawn Alibi. Evidence of an intention to rely upon an alibi defense, later withdrawn, or of statements made in connection with such intention, is not, admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the person who gave notice of the intention.
RULE 11(b), NDRCrimP
Judge Leclerc MOVED to adopt Rule 11(b), NDRCrimP. Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. The committee discussed whether the rule should be amended to follow the federal rule. After the discussion Judge Leclerc withdrew his motion with the consent of Judge Kosanda. Mr. Bucklin MOVED to reject Rule 11(b), NDRCrimP. Judge Leclerc seconded the Motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick suggested that when considering proposed rules the procedure should be to call for amendments; if none, to call for a motion to adopt; if none, to call for a motion to reject. The committee agreed to proceed in this manner.
RULE 35, NDRCrimP
The committee reviewed theproposed amendments to Rule 35 and compared Rule 35 which was recently amended and adopted by the Supreme Court in September 1985 with Federal Rule 35. The
-8-
language style of Rule 35, NDRCrimP is quite different from that of the federal rule. Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 35(b), NDRCrimP be amended to conform to the federal rule and that the last sentence of Rule 35, NDRCrimP be retained in the amended rule. Mr. Heinley seconded the motion.
The motion was tabled until the next meeting so that staff may check the Joint Procedure Committee minutes to see why the committee changed the language style of Rule 35 from that of the federal rule.
SERVICE AND FILING FEE
The committee discussed proposed Rule 5(d)(4), NDRCivP. The committee did not feel that this change is needed at the present time. Judge Burdick had submitted an alternative proposed Rule 5(d), NDRCivP for consideration by the committee. Alternative Rule 5(d)(4) is as follows:
(4) If the summons has not been filed with the clerk, a defendant who has been served with the summons may require the plaintiff to file the summons and any pleading served upon that defendant within 20 days after receiving from the defendant a written request to do so. Failure of the plaintiff, without just cause, to comply with the request subjects the action, or any claim against the requesting defendant, to an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41. The motion to dismiss, with proof of service, and the order of dismissal may be filed with the clerk without payment of a filing fee.
Judge Burdick MOVED to amend proposed Rule 5(d)(4). Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED to adopt proposed Rule 5(d)(4), NDRCivP as amended. Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Motion FAILED.
The committee then discussed an amendment to Rule 4(d), NDRCivP, which would allow service of process by regular mail. Mr. Lamb MOVED to approve the amendments to proposed Rule 4(d). Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion FAILED.
MENTAL HEALTH APPEALS
Proposed Appellate Rule 2.1 was drafted for committee consideration whereby the rule would allow anonymity for the appealing mental health patient who ends up being involuntary committed. Mr. Lamb MOVED to adopt the proposed amendments to Rule 2.1. Mr. Bucklin seconded the motion. After discussion as to whether this is the proper method of providing for anonymity for the appealing mental health patient, Mr. Lamb withdrew his motion with Mr. Bucklin's consent. The committee discussed whether this problem could be solved by merely allowing the use of initials in the court's opinion and in the docket entry.
-9-
Mr. Lamb MOVED to refer this issue to staff for research in light of the committee's discussion. Judge O'Keefe seconded the motion. At this time the committee discussed whether they should be proposing any rule drafts concerning this issue, since this issue could probably be addressed administratively by an administrative order. Mr. Lamb amended his motion to refer this issue to the Supreme Court to consider an administrative order to address this issue, and if the Supreme Court does not take any action that the matter be referred to staff for consideration. Judge O'Keefe seconded the amended motion. Motion CARRIED.
RULE 5(d)(4), NDRCivP
Judge Burdick proposed the following amendment to Rule 5:
(4) The clerk must not accept for filing any pleading that designates as a party the name of any person who is not a litigant within the purview of the pleading. The clerk shall endorse on the pleading that it is rejected for filing pursuant to this Rule and return the pleading to the person who tendered it for filing.
Judge Burdick submitted this amendment in light of committee action at the last meeting concerning Rule 3.1(b), NDROC. The committee felt that the action they had taken at the last meeting concerning Rule 3.1(b), NDROC was sufficient to address the problem of litigants adding names to the caption of a lawsuit after the action has commenced. Judge Burdick withdrew his amendment to Rule 5(d)(4), NDRCivP.
JUDICIAL REFEREES
Administrative Rule 13, which addresses judicial referees was adopted by the Supreme Court in September 1985. Judge Leclerc indicated that since Administrative Rule 13 was adopted he does not feel that this subject needs to be addressed by the Joint Procedure Committee. The committee decided not to address the matter any further.
RULE 40, NDRCivP
Marguerite Aldrich, Court Administrator for Southeast Judicial District, submitted an amendment to Rule 40 to be considered by the committee. Judge Leclerc MOVED to accept the following proposed amendments to Rule 40: on lines 4-5, page 98 of the meeting materials delete "The names and addresses of respective counsel" and insert "The estimated length of trial"; on lines 6-7 delete "The estimated length of trial" and insert "The names and addresses of respective counsel"; on line 14 delete the word "he" and insert "that party" and on lines 18-19 delete the words "upon him". Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
-10-
Judge Burdick MOVED to reject all other language changes in Rule 40. Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED. The motion constitutes a rejection of all amendments to Rule 40.
RULE 40(b) NDRCivP
ASSIGNMENT OF CASES FOR TRIAL
(b) Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness.
(1) A party desiring to have an action placed on the calendar for trial shall prepare a certificate of readiness and note of issue and shall serve the same on counsel for all parties and file it, with proof of service, with the clerk of court within five days after such service. The certificate of readiness and note of issue shall certify, to the best knowledge and belief of the filing attorney, the following:
(A) That issues are joined and the case in all respects is ready for trial;
(B) That all discovery has been completed;
(C) That all pretrial motions have been disposed of;
(D) Sufficient time has elapsed to afford all parties reasonable opportunity to be ready for trial;
(E) There are no present prospects for settlement;
(F) Whether or not the case is for trial by jury and the size of the jury;
(G) That all pleadings of the filing attorney have been filed with the clerk of court;
(H) The names and addresses of respective counsel. The estimated length of trial.
(I) The estimated length of trial. The names and addresses of respective counsel.
Except as qualified in paragraph (2), the filing of a certificate of readiness and note of issue constitutes certification by all parties to the action that the case is ready for trial.
(2) If a party, other than the party filing the certificate of readiness, is not ready for trial, he that party shall prepare a certificate of non-readiness and shall serve the same on counsel for all parties and shall file it with the clerk of court within 10 days after the date of service of the certificate of readiness. upon him. The certification of non-readiness must set forth in what respects the case is not ready and must specify a time limit within which the case will be ready for trial.
(3) The case shall be placed on the trial calendar 14 days after the filing of the certificate of readiness and note of issue, or on the date specified in the certificate of nonreadiness, whichever is later.
-11-
(4) Any dispute with respect to the certificate of readiness or the certificate of nonreadiness must be brought before the court by motion of a party or the court. The court may impose appropriate sanctions, including payment of the reasonable expense incurred in bringing the motion.
Mr. Bucklin MOVED to amend the language contained in subdivision (F), which appears in the Rule 40 form, lines 22-24, page 101 of the meeting materials.
(F) This case is ready for trial:
By a jury of 6 _____________
By a jury of twelve ________
Largest jury size demanded __________
As a bench trial ____________
Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Leclerc MOVED that no further action be taken on the form following Rule 40. Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Staff counsel pointed out that there is an error in the form in that it indicates that the action will be placed on the calendar within 14 days after service of the note of issue rather than after the filing of the note of issue. Judge Leclerc with the consent of Judge Kosanda withdrew his motion.
Judge Leclerc MOVED to amend the form by deleting the word "service" at line 9, page 101 of the meeting materials, and inserting the word "filing". Judge Kosanda seconded the motion. Judge Burdick MOVED to change the language at lines 10 and 11, on page 101 of the meeting materials to read "Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness with the clerk of court for trial of the issues". Judge Leclerc agreed to add the change to his motion for amendment. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Glaser MOVED to reverse the language on the form contained in H. and I. appearing on lines 2-4, page 102 of the meeting materials. Mr. Kraft seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
[TITLE OF CASE] NOTE OF ISSUE
AND
CERTIFICATE OF READINESS
TO THE ABOVE NAMED PARTIES:
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, That the above-entitled action will be placed upon the calendar of the above named court within 14 days after service filing of this Note of Issue upon you,and Certificate of Readiness with the clerk of court for the trial of the issues.
I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that:
-12-
A. Issues are joined.
B. All discovery has been completed.
C. All pretrial motions have been disposed of.
D. Sufficient time has elapsed to afford all parties reasonable opportunity to be ready for trial.
E. There are no present prospects for settlement.
F. This case is ready for trial:
By a jury of 6 ___________
By a jury of 12 __________
Largest jury size demanded ________________
As a bench trial ______________
G. All pleadings of the filing attorney have been filed with the clerk of court.
H. The names and addresses of respective counsel are: The estimated length of trial is _____________
I. The estimated length of trial is __________ The names and addresses of respective counsel are:
Dated this _____ day of _____________, 19__.
________________ Attorney for
Address
Telephone
A party not ready for trial shall prepare a Certificate of Nonreadiness and shall serve the same on counsel for all parties and file it with the clerk of court within 10 days after the date of service of the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness.
The case will be placed on the trial calendar 14 days after the filing of this Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness, or an the date specified in the Certificate on Nonreadiness, whichever is later unless otherwise ordered by the court upon motion.
[TITLE OF CASE] CERTIFICATE OF
NONREADINESS
I HEREBY CERTIFY That the above-entitled action is not ready for trial in the following respects:
The above-entitled action will be ready for trial not later than _________ [date].
Dated this ___________ day of __________, 19__ .
______________________
Attorney for
Address
Telephone
Any dispure with respect to the Certificate of Readiness or the Certificate of Nonreadiness must be brought before the court by motion of a party or the court. The court may impose appropriate sanctions, including payment of the reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion.
-13-
RULE 11, NDRCimP
Judge Berning submitted a letter to the Joint Procedure Committee requesting that they consider amending Rule 11 to allow the court to participate in a limited matter in plea negotiations with the parties at some point prior to formal proceedings. The committee wished to defer action on this matter until Judge Berning has an opportunity to present his proposal in person to the committee.
LOCAL COURT RULES
The committee reviewed a report from the advisory committee on Local Court Rules in Southeast Judicial District. The Advisory committee believes that local rules should be avoided. No action was taken by the committee concerning this report.
MINNESOTA CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 47 (JURORS)
Judge Leclerc asked the committee to consider tracking the Minnesota rule concerning the examination of jurors and peremptory challenges. Judge Leclerc will prepare a proposal for the committee's consideration at the next meeting.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
The committee deferred action on the explanatory notes to Rule 38 NDRCivP, Rule 48 NDRCivP, Rule 23 NDRCrimP, Rule 45 NDRCivP, Rule 58 NDRCivP, Rule 68 NDRCivP and Rule 3.1 NDROC until the next meeting date.
The next meeting will tentatively be held on April 24-25, 1986. Notice will be sent to the committee members confirming this date within a few weeks.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
_____________________________
Secretary