Proposed SDNY and EDNY Rule Changes

Download associated file: SDNY and EDNY proposed rule changes effective May 2007.pdf 

The United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York have proposed changes to their Local Civil Rules. The proposed changes, which are linked below, concern attorney admission and practice in cases involving pro se litigants.

Doug Pepe

Share this article:

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 37(c) Preclusion for 26(a)(1) Non-Disclosure Requires Harm to Opponent, And Harm Doesn’t Require Preclusion — Preclusion Factors (1st Cir.) — “Substantially Justified” And “Harmless[ness]” Exceptions — Late Disclosure Can Be Harmless Even If It Follows Filing of Summary Judgment Motion

Circuit Split: District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Modify Protective Order after Rule 41(a)(1) Dismissal (11th Cir. (2-1))— Not a “Collateral Matter” over Which Jurisdiction Remains (Like Costs, Fees, Contempt Sanctions, Rule 11 Sanctions, and Motions to Confirm Arbitral Awards) — Stipulated Protective Order Is an Enforceable Contract, Subject to Post-Dismissal Lawsuit — Strong Dissenting Opinion

“The purpose of a Rule 11 sanction is to punish ‘unprofessional conduct in litigation'” — Bankruptcy: Automatic Stay Does Not Preclude Imposition of Contempt Sanctions: “‘[a] litigant should not be allowed to delay the imposition of sanctions indefinitely by the expedient of declaring bankruptcy'”

Rule 11 Sanctions: Attorney May Not Rely on Clients When Objectively Unreasonable — Cannot Rely on Discovery to Bring Claims with No Factual Basis — Specific Identification Requirement — $10,000 Deterrent Penalty OK — Factors from Adv. Comm. Note Adopted

Rule 37 Sanctions for Impeding, Delaying, Frustrating Deposition — Intricacies of Remote Deposition Protocols and 30(b)(6) Witnesses Using Notes — No Duty to ID Which 30(b)(6) Topic a Question Relates to — When a Protective Order Is a R. 37(b) Order — Sanctions Must Be Proportional to Offense — Motion to Strike = Objection — When Inherent Power Sanctions for Deposition Misconduct Are Apt

Rule 37 Sanctions: Second Circuit Factors — Exclusion of Witness Not Disclosed Per 26(a) Apt — “Interviewing a Witness Late in the Process Does Not Provide Cover for a Revised Disclosure” — Reconsideration Factors

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Mandatory Damages Disclosure Does Not Extend to Disgorgement Because It Is An Equitable, And Not A Damages, Remedy

Supreme Court — Personal Jurisdiction — Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Require A Causal Relationship Between The Defendant’s In-State Activity And The Litigation — “Some Relationships Will Support Jurisdiction Without A Causal Showing”

One Score

Rule 37 Sanctions OK As Basis for Motion in Limine — Damages Evidence Excluded for 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Disclosure Violation — Whether A Statement Is Puffery Or A Representation of Fact Is A Question of Law — Attorney’s Fees Award Can Be Reduced for Block Billing

Archives