Jan 08, 2013
In recent months, Lawyers for Civil Justice has submitted several formal comments to the U.S. Judicial Conference detailing the ways in which America’s civil justice system should be reformed.
In recent months, Lawyers for Civil Justice has submitted several formal comments to the U.S. Judicial Conference detailing the ways in which America’s civil justice system, which is in “serious need of repair,” could be improved to better address the skyrocketing costs of litigation.
An October 2012 comment submitted to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules urged the committee to consider the need for an integrated, meaningful package of amendments compels continued comment, especially in view of new sanctions and scope of discovery proposals. This comment was submitted in anticipation of the Committee’s November 2012 meeting and, as such, emphasized that proposed rule changes should be considered in the context of a complete package of fully integrated proposals governing the three pillars of discovery: (1) scope of discovery; (2) preservation sanctions and triggers; and (3) an incentive based cost default rule.
In October 2012, LCJ also submitted a comment on the Duke Subcommittee Sketches, applauding the Duke Subcommittee for dedicating serious effort to solving many of the chronic problems presented by the lack of clarity and guidance in the Civil Rules and, at the same time, expressing concerns over certain aspects of the proposals. As part of this comment, LCJ urged the committee to maintain focus on rule amendments that address the heart of today’s discovery problems, which encourage broad, expensive, and often unnecessary discovery.
Most recently, LCJ and the organized defense bar – DRI, FDCC and IADC - submitted a December 2012 comment to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in anticipation of their meeting on January 3-4, 2012. The comment was written to support the proposal by the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to publish proposed Rule 37(e) for comment in August, to share a few reservations about that proposal, and to offer our perspective on other proposals including the Duke Subcommittee draft.
LCJ will continue to advocate economical, incentive-based rules that address discovery problems head on as opposed to tinkering around the edges at a time when serious, meaningful revision is necessary.
|Copyright 2010 Lawyers for Civil Justice|