Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 11 Jul 2016 09:17 AM by  Linda Koschney
R-16-0010 Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (all)
 13 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
mmeltzer
New Member
Posts:11 New Member

--
07 Jan 2016 05:06 PM
    R-16-0010

    Petition to amend the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Related Rules

    Would comprehensively revise the civil rules by stylistic and substantive amendments.

    Petitioners:
    William G. Klain and David B. Rosenbaum, co-chairs
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
    1501 West Washington Street, Ste. 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    (602) 452-3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov


    Date of Filing: January 7, 2016

    Comments shall be due according to the following:
    April 1, 2016 Initial Comments due
    May 13, 2016 Amended Petition, if any due
    June 20, 2016 Second round of comments due
    July 8, 2016 Petitioner's reply due

    AMENDED PETITION: The attached Amended Petition responds to comments provided during the first comment period. An Appendix to the Amended Petition contains a revised set of proposed rule amendments.

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2017.
    Attachments
    Stewart Bruner
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Jan 2016 02:59 PM
    Information Technology Division
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    Stewart Bruner
    1501 W. Washington
    Phoenix, AZ 85007

    For the reasons given below, the Information Technology Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts requests that the sentence “A text-searchable .pdf format is preferred.” be removed from the revision to Rule 5.1(c)(1)(A). While the requirement to submit .pdf, .odt, or .docx files is consistent with the direction of Commission on Technology (COT) in ACJA 1-506(D)(2), the stated preference for PDF in Rule 5 goes beyond the direction of COT by elevating one format above the others. Creation of text searchable PDF adds a step to the document creation process and creates a larger file than the native document. In addition, PDF no longer serves as a practical lock on a document’s format, so insufficient functional gain exists to offset the cost of storing larger files throughout the very long retention periods of superior court electronic documents.

    COT discussed file sizes in relation to specifying allowable formats for e-filing when ACJA 1-506 was being amended in 2009. AOC experiments indicated that PDF bloats the filesize of smaller filings over their native word processor size. The exact amount of bloat cannot be reliably predicted or controlled since many different consumer software products exist for crafting PDFs and many variables are available to users within each software product, from Internet freeware to Acrobat Professional. Files are saved in at least three places at the court and stored for many years or forever in accordance with retention requirements, so increased size yields increased cost and decreased useful lifetime of storage hardware, shortening replacement cycles.

    While storage devices may be inexpensive from a consumer’s standpoint, the long chain of costs associated with a larger filesize includes increased file access time, backup time, restoration time, uplift time to any replacement system, as well as increased biennial quality assurance testing time. Saving multiple versions on the filer’s computer system brings the same consequences. The costs of increased storage will be borne by filers, both directly and indirectly.

    Here are test results for three different types of representative filings.
    1-page text/table document
    Original Word filesize: 16 KB
    Saved as PDF in Word: 354 KB (22 times larger)
    Saved in Adobe Acrobat Pro: 81 KB (5 times larger)

    10-page text document
    Original Word filesize: 37 KB
    Saved as PDF in Word: 507 KB (14 times larger)
    Saved in Adobe Acrobat Pro: 105 KB (2.8 times larger)

    10-page tabular document
    Original Word filesize: 30 KB
    Saved as PDF in Word: 537 KB (18 times larger)
    Saved in Adobe Acrobat Pro: 130 KB (4.3 times larger)

    To summarize, insufficient functional improvement exists from PDF to warrant incentivizing its use with resulting faster consumption of resources for storage of multiple copies of files that can be 22 times larger than their native word processor format. Courts are well equipped to accept .docx and .odt native format filings from a variety of word processors without adding the steps and overhead necessitated by PDF. Preferring PDF format by rule is unnecessarily costly to both filers and the court.
    Joel Robbins
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    16 Feb 2016 03:23 PM
    On behalf of the Arizona Association for Justice (AAJ):
    Joel B. Robbins, AZ Bar ID #011065
    301 E. Bethany Home, #B-100
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    602-285-0100
    Fax: 602-265-0267
    Email: joel@robbinsandcurtin.com



    Attachments
    Joel Robbins
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    29 Feb 2016 12:34 PM
    On behalf of the Arizona Association for Justice (AAJ):
    Joel B. Robbins, AZ Bar ID #011065
    301 E. Bethany Home, #B-100
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    602-285-0100
    Fax: 602-265-0267
    Email: joel@robbinsandcurtin.com


    SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT ON THE NEW PROPOSED RULE CHANGES BY THE ARIZONA ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE

    RULE 26(b)(1)(C).

    While the committee maintains that the changes are not needed and invite unnecessary intervention, our particular concerns about the rule changes are moderated in the proposed comment to Rule 16, which details factors to be considered in the discussion of appropriateness. The Federal Rules differ substantially from Arizona’s Rules and the use of terms present in the Federal Rules would invite misuse of Federal cases where Arizona’s case law on discovery and disclosure has developed independently. To paraphrase Justice Louis Brandeis, the states are the laboratories of Democracy. Arizona’s independence in the area of the Civil Rules is and should remain a source of pride.
    Joel Robbins
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    16 Mar 2016 10:35 AM
    On behalf of the Arizona Association for Justice (AAJ):
    Joel B. Robbins, AZ Bar ID #011065
    301 E. Bethany Home, #B-100
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    602-285-0100
    Fax: 602-265-0267
    Email: joel@robbinsandcurtin.com


    The Committee has modified its comments to reflect modifications to the proposals which were not reflected in the last comment.
    Attachments
    SScharff
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Mar 2016 10:09 AM
    Spencer G. Scharff
    Thorpe Shwer, P.C.
    3200 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1560
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    602-682-6113 (office)
    602-682-6149 (fax)
    sscharff@thorpeshwer.com
    www.thorpeshwer.com
    SBN: 028946
    Attachments
    JennyY
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    31 Mar 2016 08:57 AM
    Jenny Yu, Esq.
    Aderant
    200 Corporate Pointe, Suite 400
    Culver City, CA 90230
    (310) 553-3355
    jenny.yu@aderant.com
    SBN: 281924
    Attachments
    PCBA Ad Hoc Rules Committee
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 02:26 PM
    Natasha Wrae, President
    Pima County Bar Association
    177 N. Church Ave., Suite 101
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    natashawraepc@natashawrae.com

    The Pima County Bar Association Ad Hoc Civil Rules Committee would discourage use of “should’ in the Rules because it is ambiguous as to the nature of the duty created by the Rule. If the rule requires an action, then “must” is appropriate. If the action is discretionary, then “may” is appropriate. “Should” implies a moral obligation but does not expressly state whether an action is discretionary or mandatory. If discretionary, then it would be better to use words that express that intention, such as “may,” “it is within the court’s discretion to …” or even “the court is encouraged to …” An alternative, though less preferable to our committee, would be to define the various uses of “should,” “must,” “may” and “shall” in a Definitions Provision or in “Committee Notes” to the Revised Rules.

    The Task Force’s proposed revisions seem to attempt to eliminate “shall,” but it still appears in some of the proposed revised rules. The PCBA Committee considers “shall” to be synonymous with “must.” For the sake of consistency and clarity, however, if the trend is toward substituting “must,” then it would be better not to use “shall” unless, for some reason that can be clearly articulated, the meaning of the rule requires it.

    Another concern is that the titles to the proposed revisions capitalize “principal” words in each heading/subheading. The Committee suggests it would be preferable and less confusing to keep the existing format which capitalizes the first word only.

    The Committee suggests a global review of the use of “stipulate/stipulation” and “agree/agreement” to make sure that the intended meaning is conveyed by the term that has been chosen for use. In our discussion, “ stipulate/stipulation" was felt to imply a writing, which would be consistent with Rule 80(d). In some usages, “agree/agreement” was felt to be less pretentious, more easily understood, and perhaps more accurate if a written stipulation was not required by the context. The task force appears to follow this line of thinking in places. For example, in revised ARCP 30(b)(1), the task force changes “Absent a stipulation of all parties…” to “Unless all parties agree…”. However, in our Committee’s discussion this afternoon, the majority sentiment was that stipulation” was clearer than “agreement” in the context of that rule.

    Attached are the comments and proposed changes offered by the Pima County Bar Association Ad Hoc Civil Rules Committee, Rules 1 through 37 and, separately, Rules 38 to end.
    Attachments
    State Bar of Arizona
    New Member
    Posts:26 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 05:55 PM
    John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    602-3407236
    patricia.seguin@staff.azbar.org
    Attachments
    John Doody
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 06:11 PM
    Commenter's Name: John R. Doody
    Committee Name: Committee To Revise The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
    Mailing Address: Confidential.
    Phone Number: 602-277-3630
    Fax Number: None.
    Email Address: john.doody@azbar.org
    Bar Number: 012995
    Attachments
    CJRC Workgroups
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    12 May 2016 01:57 PM
    R-16-0010

    Petitioners:
    William G. Klain and David B. Rosenbaum, co-chairs
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
    1501 West Washington Street, Ste. 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    (602) 452-3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    The attached Amended Petition responds to comments provided during the first comment period. An Appendix to the Amended Petition contains a revised set of proposed rule amendments.
    Attachments
    bcrmember
    New Member
    Posts:10 New Member

    --
    20 Jun 2016 03:06 PM
    Filed on behalf of :

    Dave K. Byers, Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 414
    Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    Projects2@courts.az.gov
    (602) 452-3301

    This Comment addresses Rule 5.1(d)(2), Service and Filing of Proposed Orders and Proposed Judgments.
    Attachments
    mmeltzer
    New Member
    Posts:11 New Member

    --
    Linda Koschney
    New Member
    Posts:43 New Member

    --
    Topic is locked