Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 29 Jun 2017 03:57 PM by  mmeltzer
R-17-0010 Petition to Amend the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, to Modify Rules 8, 8.1, 11, 16, 26, 26.1-.2, 29, 30, 31, 33–37, 45, 45.2; Abrogate Rule 16.3; Adopt New Rules 26.2 and 45.2; and Modify Rule 84
 8 Replies
Author Messages
mmeltzer
New Member
Posts:52 New Member

--
10 Jan 2017 11:56 AM
    Petitioner: Don Bivens, Chair
    Committee: Committee on Civil Justice Reform
    Mailing Address: 1501 West Washington Street, Suite 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    Phone: 602.452.3242
    FAX: 602.452.3480
    E-mail: [email protected]

    Petitioner requests amendments to rules concerning case management, discovery, and sanctions.

    Would amend rules relating to case management, discovery, and sanctions in order to reduce the cost and time required to resolve civil cases in Arizona’s superior courts.

    Filed January 10, 2017

    Comments due May 22, 2017.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure to Modify Rules 8, 8.1, 11, 16, 26, 26.1, 26.2, 29, 30, 31, 33-37, 45, 45.2; Abrogate Rule 16.3; Adopt New Rules 26.2 and 45.2 and Modify Rule 84 =ADOPTED as modified, effective July 1, 2018.

    3/30/2018
    IT IS ORDERED that Attachments A and B of the order are amended in the following respects:
    (a) In Attachment A, Rule 8.1(e)(5) is changed to delete the words “under Maricopa County Local Rule 3.12,” which appear at the end of the rule.
    (b) In Attachment B, Rule 48(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona is changed to read as follows:
    (b) Rules of Civil Procedure. Only the following Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to discipline and disability proceedings before the presiding disciplinary judge or the hearing panel, as specifically set forth in these rules: Rules 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 5.1(e), 5.2(b), 5.3, 6(a), 6(c), 7.1(a), 7.1(b), 8(b)(c)-(e)(f), 10(b)-(c), 11(a)-(d), 12(b), 12(c), 12(d), 12(e), 12(f), 16(a), 16(g)(f)(2)(A-E) and (J)(K), 16(i)(h), 26(a)-(f)(c) and (f)-(h), 29-36,
    38.1(b), 42(a), 43-45, 56, 60(b)-(d), 80(a), 80(c), and 80(d).

    9/13/2019
    SIXTH ORDER AMENDING 8/31/17 ORDER
    IT IS ORDERED that the Committee Comment to the 1991 Amendment to Rule 30(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, be deleted as shown in the attachment hereto, effective on this date. (Order can be found in Rule Amendments from Recent Rules Agenda(s))
    Attachments
    Terry Hurtado
    New Member
    Posts:10 New Member

    --
    17 Apr 2017 03:44 PM
    Commenter's Name: Honorable Randall H. Warner
    Civil Department Presiding Judge
    Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County
    Mailing Address: 101 West Jefferson Street, Suite 512, Phoenix, AZ 85003
    Phone Number: (602) 372-2966
    Email: [email protected]
    Attachments
    VictoriaK
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2017 11:48 AM
    Victoria Katz, Esq.
    Aderant
    200 Corporate Pointe, Suite 400
    Culver City, CA 90230
    (800) 444-0020
    SBN: CA 193234
    Attachments
    Isabel Humphrey
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    03 May 2017 01:42 PM
    Isabel M. Humphrey, Esq.
    Hunter, Humphrey & Yavitz, PLC
    (602) 275-7733 x103
    Fax: (480) 452-1374
    [email protected]
    Bar No. 015820

    COMMENT TO R-17-0010

    First, a general observation: While clearly well-intended, the new proposed rules continue the distressing trend of introducing more and more complexity and esoterica into the Rules of Civil Procedure, to the point that pro per litigants, even if well-educated, are entirely unable to comprehend or follow the rules. I am concerned about this trend from an access to justice standpoint. I recognize that simplification and translation of the rules into "plain English" is beyond the scope of this rule petition, but I believe every effort should be made to avoid worsening the problem.

    Second, the introduction of "tiers" of written discovery unfortunately reinforces the misconception shared by many attorneys and even many civil judges that written discovery is generally appropriate and necessary to "follow up" on Rule 26.1 disclosure. Although the committee states several times in the comments that initial disclosure should be "robust," the means to effectuate such robustness is to eliminate the requirement of "following up" with written discovery. The rules should focus more on disclosure and less on discovery, including: (1) clarifying that a party may not insist on a formal discovery request before responding to a request for disclosure, (2) clarifying that the court may not insist on a formal discovery request before compelling appropriate disclosure, (3) revising Rule 26.1(a)(1) to require disclosure of facts relating to any party's claims or defenses (rather than the factual "basis" of the "disclosing" party's claims or defenses), to clarify that it is not appropriate to conceal unfavorable facts that are not revealed in any document, (4) revising Rule 26.1(a)(3) to require disclosure of "the knowledge or information each [expected trial witness] is believed to possess" (echoing Rule 26.1(a)(4) regarding persons who are not expected to be called as witnesses), to avoid the similar tactic of concealing unfavorable facts known to a witness by placing them on the trial witness list and disclosing only the witness's "expected testimony", (5) clarifying that a party's obligation to seek and disclose documents within his custody and control includes documents held by his agents or others obligated to release them to the party upon request (e.g., the party's attorneys and accountants), as well as documents he holds on behalf of another person or entity (e.g., the party's single-member LLC).

    Finally, the proposed rule changes prohibiting "claiming" that an allegation in the complaint or a request for admission requests a legal conclusion is confusing to me. If the intention is to require substantive responses to allegations of law as well as allegations of fact, that intention should be made more clear, as it would certainly mark a change in civil litigation practice.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Isabel M. Humphrey
    Scott Palumbo
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    12 May 2017 11:43 AM
    Scott Palumbo for
    Arizona Association for Justice Committee on Civil Justice Reform
    1661 E. Camelback, Suite 204
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016
    602-235-9356
    (fax) 602-235-9331
    [email protected]
    SBN:021271

    Attachments
    Terry Hurtado
    New Member
    Posts:10 New Member

    --
    19 May 2017 11:34 AM
    Commenter's Name: Honorable Jay Polk
    Probate and Mental Health Department Associate Presiding Judge
    Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County
    Mailing Address: 125 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
    Phone Number: (602) 372-0879
    Email: [email protected]

    Attachments
    State Bar of Arizona
    Basic Member
    Posts:141 Basic Member

    --
    22 May 2017 04:18 PM
    Lisa M. Panahi, Bar No. 023421
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    602-340-7236
    [email protected]
    The State Bar of Arizona Board of Governors voted 7 to 3 to file this Comment.
    Attachments
    Linda Koschney
    New Member
    Posts:43 New Member

    --
    23 May 2017 02:08 PM
    J. Russell Skelton, Bar #002380
    Cory E. Tyszka, Bar #032412
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    Ph: (602) 263-1739
    Fax: (602) 200-7880
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    mmeltzer
    New Member
    Posts:52 New Member

    --


    ---