Cindy L Bedsaul
4222 East Fairmount Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
602-667-3255
[email protected] To suggest Rule 10(d) should not be amended simply because it would require a law firm to change its forms is unreasonable. This is a simple fix and does not require extensive computer experience to make the change.
The option of 1.5 line spacing (or "exactly 24 pt" which is virtually the same) was deleted from Rule 10(d) in 2004. Ms. Martin states she would "prefer to see the 'double space' reference changed if clarity is needed." In essence, this suggests changing Rule 10(d) back to the way it was prior to the 2004 amendment. Perhaps Ms. Martin continues to see parties using 28-line form pleading paper because they have refused or failed to make the necessary changes since the 2004 amendment. Changing line spacing from double to "exactly 24 pt" in pleadings allows up to five additional lines of text on each page. This practice defeats the purpose of page limitations set by the Rules. It is literally impossible to fit 28 lines of double-spaced text on one page with the required top and bottom margins of 1 1/2 and .5 inches, respectively.
Using the current "shall not exceed 28 lines per page" language as a loophole to alter line spacing in pleadings should not be tolerated. The Court of Appeals also requires double-spaced text in pleadings, yet most parties do not dare use "exactly 24 pt" line spacing in pleadings filed with the Court of Appeals. Yet many parties feel they do not have to adhere to the requirement of double-spaced text for pleadings filed with the Superior Court.
The Rules are in place for a reason. If they are not followed or enforced, why bother having them at all?
For these reasons, Rule 10(d) should be amended by either removing the "not exceed 28 lines per page" language or replacing it with "not exceed 22 lines per page."