Opinion · United States District Court
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (D.Alaska 4-28-1983)
Fed. Rules of Civil Proc., 97 F.R.D. 165 (United States District Court, D. Alaska 1983)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1983-04-28
- Topic
- general
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (D.Alaska 4-28-1983) 97 F.R.D. 165 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureUnited States District Court, D. Alaska April 28, 1983 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE[fn*][fn*] Editor's Note: Congress may postpone the proposed effectivedate of these rules or may decline to approve them or make changes. ORDERED: 1. That the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be, and they hereby are, amended by including therein new Rules 26(g), 53(f), 72 through 76 and new Official Forms 33 and 34, and amendments to Rules 6(b), 7(b), 11, 16, 26(a) and (b), 52(a), 53(a), (b) and (c) and 67, as hereinafter set forth: [See infra., pp. 166-188.] 2. That the foregoing additions and amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall take effect on August 1, 1983 and shall govern all civil proceedings thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, in proceedings then pending. 3.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (D.Alaska 4-28-1983). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
1. That the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be, and they hereby are, amended by including therein new Rules 26(g), 53(f), 72 through 76 and new Official Forms 33 and 34, and amendments to Rules 6(b), 7(b), 11, 16, 26(a) and (b), 52(a), 53(a), (b) and (c) and 67, as hereinafter set forth:
[See
2. That the foregoing additions and amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall take effect on August 1, 1983 and shall govern all civil proceedings thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, in proceedings then pending.
3. That THE CHIEF JUSTICE be, and he hereby is, authorized to transmit to the Congress the foregoing additions to and changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in accordance with the provisions of Section2072of Title 28, United States Code.West Page 166
Rule 6. Time
* * *(b) ENLARGEMENT. When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), 60(b), and 74(a), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.
* * *
Rule 7. Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions
* * *(b) MOTIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
* * *
(2) The rules applicable to captions and other matters of form of pleadings apply to all motions and other papers provided for by these rules.
(3) All motions shall be signed in accordance with Rule 11.
* * *West Page 167
Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers;Sanctions
Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper and state his address. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The rule in equity that the averments of an answer under oath must be overcome by the testimony of two witnesses or of one witness sustained by corroborating circumstances is abolished. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurredWest Page 168because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee.Rule 16. Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
(a) PRETRIAL CONFERENCES; OBJECTIVES. In any action, the court may in its discretion direct the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties to appear before it for a conference or conferences before trial for such purposes as(1) expediting the disposition of the action;
(2) establishing early and continuing control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of management;
(3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities;
(4) improving the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation, and;
(5) facilitating the settlement of the case.
(b) SCHEDULING AND PLANNING. Except in categories of actions exempted by district court rule as inappropriate, the judge, or a magistrate when authorized by district court rule, shall, after consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties, by a scheduling conference, telephone, mail, or other suitable means, enter a scheduling order that limits the time
(1) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings;
(2) to file and hear motions; and
(3) to complete discovery.
The scheduling order also may includeWest Page 169
(4) the date or dates for conferences before trial, a final pretrial conference, and trial; and
(5) any other matters appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
The order shall issue as soon as practicable but in no event more than 120 days after filing of the complaint. A schedule shall not be modified except by leave of the judge or a magistrate when authorized by district court rule upon a showing of good cause.
(c) SUBJECTS TO BE DISCUSSED AT PRETRIAL CONFERENCES. The participants at any conference under this rule may consider and take action with respect to
(1) the formulation and simplification of the issues, including the elimination of frivolous claims or defenses;
(2) the necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
(3) the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof, stipulations regarding the authenticity of documents, and advance rulings from the court on the admissibility of evidence;
(4) the avoidance of unnecessary proof and of cumulative evidence;
(5) the identification of witnesses and documents, the need and schedule for filing and exchanging pretrial briefs, and the date or dates for further conferences and for trial;
(6) the advisability of referring matters to a magistrate or master;West Page 170
(7) the possibility of settlement or the use of extrajudicial procedures to resolve the dispute;
(8) the form and substance of the pretrial order;
(9) the disposition of pending motions;
(10) the need for adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems; and
(11) such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action.
At least one of the attorneys for each party participating in any conference before trial shall have authority to enter into stipulations and to make admissions regarding all matters that the participants may reasonably anticipate may be discussed.
(d) FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Any final pretrial conference shall be held as close to the time of trial as reasonable under the circumstances. The participants at any such conference shall formulate a plan for trial, including a program for facilitating the admission of evidence. The conference shall be attended by at least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of the parties and by any unrepresented parties.
(e) PRETRIAL ORDERS. After any conference held pursuant to this rule, an order shall be entered reciting the action taken. This order shall control the subsequent course of the action unless modified by a subsequent order. The order following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.West Page 171
(f) SANCTIONS. If a party or party's attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, or if no appearance is made on behalf of a party at a scheduling or pretrial conference, or if a party or party's attorney is substantially unprepared to participate in the conference, or if a party or party's attorney fails to participate in good faith, the judge, upon motion or his own initiative, may make such orders with regard thereto as are just, and among others any of the orders provided in Rule 37(b)(2)(B), (C), (D). In lieu of or in addition to any other sanction, the judge shall require the party or the attorney representing him or both to pay the reasonable expenses incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, including attorney's fees, unless the judge finds that the noncompliance was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery
(a) DISCOVERY METHODS. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission.(b) DISCOVERY SCOPE AND LIMITS. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:West Page 172
(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods set forth in subdivision (a) shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. The court may act upon its own initiative after reasonable notice or pursuant to a motion under subdivision (c).
* * *West Page 173
(g) SIGNING OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS, RESPONSES, AND OBJECTIONS. Every request for discovery or response or objection thereto made by a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the request, response, or objection and state his address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that he has read the request, response, or objection, and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry it is: (1) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; (2) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and (3) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case, the discovery already had in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. If a request, response, or objection is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the party making the request, response or objection and a party shall not be obligated to take any action with respect to it until it is signed.
If a certification is made in violation of the rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who made the certification, the party on whose behalf the request, response, or objection is made, or both, an appropriate sanction,West Page 174which may include an order to pay the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Rule 52. Findings by the Court
(a) EFFECT. In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action. Requests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court. It will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence or appear in an opinion or memorandum of decision filed by the court. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rules 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in Rule 41(b).* * *West Page 175
Rule 53. Masters
(a) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION. The court in which any action is pending may appoint a special master therein. As used in these rules the word "master" includes a referee, an auditor, an examiner, and an assessor. The compensation to be allowed to a master shall be fixed by the court, and shall be charged upon such of the parties or paid out of any fund or subject matter of the action, which is in the custody and control of the court as the court may direct; provided that this provision for compensation shall not apply when a United States magistrate is designated to serve as a master pursuant to Title28, U.S.C. § 636(b)(2). The master shall not retain his report as security for his compensation; but when the party ordered to pay the compensation allowed by the court does not pay it after notice and within the time prescribed by the court, the master is entitled to a writ of execution against the delinquent party.(b) REFERENCE. A reference to a master shall be the exception and not the rule. In actions to be tried by a jury, a reference shall be made only when the issues are complicated; in actions to be tried without a jury, save in matters of account and of difficult computation of damages, a reference shall be made only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires it. Upon the consent of the parties, a magistrate may be designated to serve as a special master without regard to the provisions of this subdivision.West Page 176
(c) POWERS. The order of reference to the master may specify or limit his powers and may direct him to report only upon particular issues or to do or perform particular acts or to receive and report evidence only and may fix the time and place for beginning and closing the hearings and for the filing of the master's report. Subject to the specifications and limitations stated in the order, the master has and shall exercise the power to regulate all proceedings in every hearing before him and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance of his duties under the order. He may require the production before him of evidence upon all matters embraced in the reference, including the production of all books, papers, vouchers, documents, and writings applicable thereto. He may rule upon the admissibility of evidence unless otherwise directed by the order of reference and has the authority to put witnesses on oath and may himself examine them and may call the parties to the action and examine them upon oath. When a party so requests, the master shall make a record of the evidence offered and excluded in the same manner and subject to the same limitations as provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence for a court sitting without a jury.
* * *
(f) A magistrate is subject to this rule only when the order referring a matter to the magistrate expressly provides that the reference is made under this Rule.West Page 177
Rule 67. Deposit in Court
In an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party, upon notice to every other party, and by leave of court, may deposit with the court all or any part of such sum or thing, whether or not that party claims all or any part of the sum or thing. The party making the deposit shall serve the order permitting deposit on the clerk of the court. Money paid into court under this rule shall be deposited and withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of Title28, U.S.C., §§ 2041, and2042; the Act of June 26, 1934, c. 756, § 23, as amended (48 Stat. 1236,58 Stat. 845), U.S.C., Title 31, § 725v; or any like statute. The fund shall be deposited in an interest-bearing account or invested in an interest-bearing instrument approved by the court.Rule 72. Magistrates; Pretrial Matters
(a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. A magistrate to whom a pretrial matter not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party is referred to hear and determine shall promptly conduct such proceedings as are required and when appropriate enter into the record a written order setting forth the disposition of the matter. The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider objections made by the parties, provided they are served and filed within 10 days after the entry of the order, and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.West Page 178(b) DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND PRISONER PETITIONS. A magistrate assigned without consent of the parties to hear a pretrial matter dispositive of a claim or defense of a party or a prisoner petition challenging the conditions of confinement shall promptly conduct such proceedings as are required. A record shall be made of all evidentiary proceedings before the magistrate, and a record may be made of such other proceedings as the magistrate deems necessary. The magistrate shall enter into the record a recommendation for disposition of the matter, including proposed findings of fact when appropriate. The clerk shall forthwith mail copies to all parties.
A party objecting to the recommended disposition of the matter shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the magistrate deems sufficient, unless the district judge otherwise directs. Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.West Page 179Rule 73. Magistrates; Trial by Consent and Appeal Options
(a) POWERS; PROCEDURE. When specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by local rule or order of the district court and when all parties consent thereto, a magistrate may exercise the authority provided by Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c) and may conduct any or all proceedings, including a jury or nonjury trial, in a civil case. A record of the proceedings shall be made in accordance with the requirements of Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(7).
(b) CONSENT. When a magistrate has been designated to exercise civil trial jurisdiction, the clerk shall give written notice to the parties of their opportunity to consent to the exercise by a magistrate of civil jurisdiction over the case, as authorized by Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c). If, within the period specified by local rule, the parties agree to a magistrate's exercise of such authority, they shall execute and file a joint form of consent or separate forms of consent setting forth such election.
No district judge, magistrate, or other court official shall attempt to persuade or induce a party to consent to a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate under this rule, nor shall a district judge or magistrate be informed of a party's response to the clerk's notification, unless all parties have consented to the referral of the matter to a magistrate.
The district judge, for good cause shown on his own motion or under extraordinary circumstances shown by a party, may vacate a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate under this subdivision.West Page 180
(c) NORMAL APPEAL ROUTE. In accordance with Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(3), unless the parties otherwise agree to the optional appeal route provided for in subdivision (d) of this rule, appeal from a judgment entered upon direction of a magistrate in proceedings under this rule will lie to the court of appeals as it would from a judgment of the district court.
(d) OPTIONAL APPEAL ROUTE. In accordance with Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), at the time of reference to a magistrate, the parties may consent to appeal on the record to a judge of the district court and thereafter, by petition only, to the court of appeals.
Rule 74. Method of Appeal from Magistrate to District Judge underTitle28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(4) and Rule 73(d)
(a) WHEN TAKEN. When the parties have elected under Rule 73(d) to proceed by appeal to a district judge from an appealable decision made by a magistrate under the consent provisions of Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), an appeal may be taken from the decision of a magistrate by filing with the clerk of the district court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the date of entry of the judgment appealed from; but if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days of such entry. If a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days thereafter, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this subdivision, whichever period last expires.West Page 181The running of the time for filing a notice of appeal is terminated as to all parties by the timely filing of any of the following motions with the magistrate by any party, and the full time for appeal from the judgment entered by the magistrate commences to run anew from entry of any of the following orders: (1) granting or denying a motion for judgment under Rule 50(b); (2) granting or denying a motion under Rule 52(b) to amend or make additional findings of fact, whether or not an alteration of the judgment would be required if the motion is granted; (3) granting or denying a motion under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment; (4) denying a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.
An interlocutory decision or order by a magistrate which, if made by a judge of the district court, could be appealed under any provision of law, may be appealed to a judge of the district court by filing a notice of appeal within 15 days after entry of the decision or order, provided the parties have elected to appeal to a judge of the district court under Rule 73(d). An appeal of such interlocutory decision or order shall not stay the proceedings before the magistrate unless the magistrate or judge shall so order.
Upon a showing of excusable neglect, the magistrate may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon motion filed not later than 20 days after the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this rule.
(b) NOTICE OF APPEAL; SERVICE. The notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal, designate the judgment, order or part thereof appealed from, and state that theWest Page 182appeal is to a judge of the district court. The clerk shall mail copies of the notice to all other parties and note the date of mailing in the civil docket.
(c) STAY PENDING APPEAL. Upon a showing that the magistrate has refused or otherwise failed to stay the judgment pending appeal to the district judge under Rule 73(d), the appellant may make application for a stay to the district judge with reasonable notice to all parties. The stay may be conditioned upon the filing in the district court of a bond or other appropriate security.
(d) DISMISSAL. For failure to comply with these rules or any local rule or order, the district judge may take such action as is deemed appropriate, including dismissal of the appeal. The district judge also may dismiss the appeal upon the filing of a stipulation signed by all parties, or upon motion and notice by the appellant.
Rule 75. Proceedings on Appeal from Magistrate to District Judgeunder Rule 73(d)
(a) APPLICABILITY. In proceedings under Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c), when the parties have previously elected under Rule 73(d) to appeal to a district judge rather than to the court of appeals, this rule shall govern the proceedings on appeal.(b) RECORD ON APPEAL.
(1) Composition. The original papers and exhibits filed with the clerk of the district court, the transcript of the proceedings, if any, and the docket entries shall constitute the record on appeal. In lieu of this record the parties, within 10West Page 183days after the filing of the notice of appeal, may file a joint statement of the case showing how the issues presented by the appeal arose and were decided by the magistrate, and setting forth only so many of the facts averred and proved or sought to be proved as are essential to a decision of the issues presented.
(2) Transcript. Within 10 days after filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall make arrangements for the production of a transcript of such parts of the proceedings as he deems necessary. Unless the entire transcript is to be included, the appellant, within the time provided above, shall serve on the appellee and file with the court a description of the parts of the transcript which he intends to present on the appeal. If the appellee deems a transcript of other parts of the proceedings to be necessary, within 10 days after the service of the statement of the appellant, he shall serve on the appellant and file with the court a designation of additional parts to be included. The appellant shall promptly make arrangements for the inclusion of all such parts unless the magistrate, upon motion, exempts the appellant from providing certain parts, in which case the appellee may provide for their transcription.
(3) Statement in Lieu of Transcript. If no record of the proceedings is available for transcription, the parties shall, within 10 days after the filing of the notice of appeal, file a statement of the evidence from the best available means to be submitted in lieu of the transcript. If the parties cannot agree they shall submit a statement of their differences to the magistrate for settlement.West Page 184
(c) TIME FOR FILING BRIEFS. Unless a local rule or court order otherwise provides, the following time limits for filing briefs shall apply.
(1) The appellant shall serve and file his brief within 20 days after the filing of the transcript, statement of the case, or statement of the evidence.
(2) The appellee shall serve and file his brief within 20 days after service of the brief of the appellant.
(3) The appellant may serve and file a reply brief within 10 days after service of the brief of the appellee.
(4) If the appellee has filed a cross-appeal, he may file a reply brief limited to the issues on the cross-appeal within 10 days after service of the reply brief of the appellant.
(d) LENGTH AND FORM OF BRIEFS. Briefs may be typewritten. The length and form of briefs shall be governed by local rule.
(e) ORAL ARGUMENT. The opportunity for the parties to be heard on oral argument shall be governed by local rule.
Rule 76. Judgment of the District Judge on the Appeal under Rule73(d) and Costs
(a) ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. When the parties have elected under Rule 73(d) to appeal from a judgment of the magistrate to a district judge, the clerk shall prepare, sign, and enter judgment in accordance with the order or decision of the district judge following an appeal from a judgment of the magistrate, unless the district judge directs otherwise. The clerk shall mail to all parties a copy of the order or decision of the district judge.West Page 185(b) STAY OF JUDGMENTS. The decision of the district judge shall be stayed for 10 days during which time a party may petition the district judge for rehearing, and a timely petition shall stay the decision of the district judge pending disposition of a petition for rehearing. Upon the motion of a party, the decision of the district judge may be stayed in order to allow a party to petition the court of appeals for leave to appeal.
(c) COSTS. Except as otherwise provided by law or ordered by the district judge, costs shall be taxed against the losing party; if a judgment of the magistrate is affirmed in part or reversed in part, or is vacated, costs shall be allowed only as ordered by the district judge. The cost of the transcript, if necessary for the determination of the appeal, and the premiums paid for bonds to preserve rights pending appeal shall be taxed as costs by the clerk.West Page 186
You should be aware that your decision to consent, or not to consent, to the referral of your case to a United States magistrate must be entirely voluntary. Only if all the parties to the case consent to the reference to a magistrate will either the judge or magistrate to whom the case has been assigned be informed of your decision.
An appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate may be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for this judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of a district court. Alternatively, upon consent of all parties, an appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate may be taken directly to a district judge. Cases in which an appeal is taken to a district judge may be reviewed by the United States court of appeals for this judicial circuit only by way of petition for leave to appeal.
Copies of the Form for the "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate" and "Election of Appeal to a District Judge" are available from the clerk of the court.West Page 187
DISTRICT OF ______________
_________________________________x : Plaintiff, : : vs. : Docket : No. _______ : Defendant. : : _________________________________x
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
In accordance with the provisions of Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties to the above-captioned civil matter hereby voluntarily waive their rights to proceed before a judge of the United States district court and consent to have a United States magistrate conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial, and order the entry of a final judgment.
ELECTION OF APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE
[Do not execute this portion of the Consent Form if the parties desire that the appeal lie directly to the court of appeals.]
In accordance with the provisions of Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), the parties elect to take any appeal in this case to a district judge.
Note: Return this form to the Clerk of the Court only if all parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate.
III.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
The Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedurehas submitted to your Committee proposed amendments toRules6(b),7(b),11,16,26(a) and (b),52(a),53(a), (b) and (c) and67of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; new Rules 26(g),53(f) and 72 through 76; and new Official Forms 33 and 34. Theseproposed new rules and forms and the amendments to existingrules are set out in
March 9, 1982
TO: Judge Edward T. Gignoux, Chairman, and Members of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure
FROM: Walter R. Mansfield, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules
As indicated in our June 20, 1981, submission of an earlier draft of these amendments for public comment, the purposes of these proposals are as follows:
(1) The amendments of Rules 7 and 11 are designed to minimize abuse in the signing of pleadings, motions and other papers through a more precise definition of the standards to be met by the signing party or attorney and a requirement that sanctions be imposed for violation of these standards.
(2) Rule 16, which deals with pre-trial conferences and orders, has been revised to insure closer and more effective judicial scheduling, management and control of litigation as a means of avoiding unnecessary delay and expense.
(3) The amendments of Rule 26 are aimed at protecting against excessive discovery and evasion of reasonable discovery demands. As amended Rule 26(b) would require the court, when certain conditions exist, to limit the frequency and extent of use of discovery methods. Rule 26(g) would impose upon each party or attorney the duty, before proceeding with respect to any discovery matter, to make a reasonable inquiry and to certify that certain standards have been met. A violation of this duty would result in the imposition of sanctions.
(4) The Rule 52(a) proposal makes clear that a trial judge may make oral recorded findings and conclusions in nonjury trials.
(5) The Rule 67 amendment would facilitate deposits of money in court by broadening parties' power to do so and requiring that deposited funds be invested in interest bearing accounts or instruments.West Page 191
(6) The amendments of Rules 6, 53 and 72-76 seek to provide procedures that will conform to and implement the 1979 amendments to the Federal Magistrates Act.
As a result of wide circulation of the earlier draft in June 1981 to the bench, bar and public and the holding of public hearings in Washington in October 1981 and in Los Angeles in November 1981, our Committee received numerous oral and written comments and suggestions from judges, lawyers, professors of law, bar associations, committees and others with respect to the amendments. A substantial majority favored the proposals, with certain reservations and qualifications. After a careful review and analysis our Committee recommends their adoption as modified by the following changes contained in the attached redraft:
(1)
Instead of repeating the proposed certification standards and sanctions provisions in both rules, as was done in the original draft, the attached draft sets them forth once in Rule 11, which is incorporated by reference in Rule 7. The heading of Rule 11 has been amplified to refer to "Motions and Other Papers" and Rule 7(b)(3) revised to require that "All motions shall be signed in accordance with Rule 11." The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 11 has likewise been revised to make clear that the rule applies to motions and other papers. This revision eliminates unnecessary duplicative verbiage found in the originally-submitted rules and accompanying notes.
The certification language of Rule 11 has been changed slightly from the original June 1981 proposal by eliminating the word "primarily" (as used in the original draft, p. 6, lines 16-18) so that a pleader or movant would now certify that the paper is "not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of the litigation." The purpose of the revision is to eliminate any ambiguity arising out of the use of the word "primarily."
In addition, the draft has been revised to provide that an unsigned pleading, motion or other paper, instead of automatically being deemed ineffective as originally proposed, will be stricken unless signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant. The aim is to avoid unnecessary harshness in the case of a party who may have inadvertently failed to sign. Our Advisory Committee Note has also been amplified to make clear, in response to some comments, that the rule does not require a party or attorney to disclose privileged communications or work product.
In all other material respects the proposed amendments of Rules 7 and 11 remained unchanged. Although some persons opposed the proposals as unnecessary, as productive of abuse or of wasteful satellite litigation, asWest Page 192likely to be treated as mere formalities, and as invading the province of the attorney-client privilege, the majority was of the view, either expressly or impliedly, that more precise standards, including a duty of reasonable inquiry, would reduce frivolous claims, defenses or motions by leading litigants to stop, think and investigate more carefully before serving and filing papers. Mandating sanctions, such as expenses, upon the violator is viewed as a healthy deterrent against costly meritless maneuvers and worth the risk of satellite litigation.
(2)
As originally submitted this rule gave the erroneous impression to a few that a pre-trial conference for the purpose of formulating a scheduling order was mandated, even though the accompanying note stated that the judge could for that purpose communicate with the parties by telephone, mail or other means. In order to remove any misapprehension Rule 16(b) of the proposed draft has been changed to state that the court shall issue a scheduling order after consulting with the parties by a "scheduling conference, telephone, mail, or other suitable means."
As originally submitted, Rule 16(b) provided that only a "judge" (as distinguished from the "court," which could include a magistrate) may issue a scheduling order in each case. Based on empirical studies our Committee is satisfied that early intervention and management by a judge is important to the prompt and efficient movement and disposition of litigation on his calendar, since only an Article III judge possesses the crucial powers necessary to insure that a case will proceed rapidly toward settlement or trial, including the power, with knowledge of his trial calendar, to fix deadlines for motions, completion of discovery and trial, as well as the power to dismiss meritless claims, grant summary judgment, assess expenses or other sanctions for violation of his orders and make advance rulings on the admissibility of evidence. However, our Committee also recognizes that in some districts it may be impractical or difficult for the judge personally to handle the scheduling of every case on his calendar. Accordingly, Rule 16(b) has been revised to provide that "the judge, or a magistrate when authorized by district court rule," shall enter the scheduling order.
The requirement of the original draft of Rule 16(b) that a scheduling order issue within 90 days after filing of the complaint has been extended to 120 days in recognition that in some cases answers may be delayed, making it difficult or impractical to issue a scheduling order within the 90-day period.
Except for the foregoing and a few less important changes, the draft of proposed Rule 16 as submitted to the public remains substantially the same. The overwhelming majority of those commenting on the proposal either expressly favored the new rule as helpful in providing for essentialWest Page 193judicial management of litigation as a means of reducing expense and delay or indicated that they would favor the substance of the proposal if certain changes, including those adopted in the attached draft, were made.
(3)
In response to suggestions we have slightly revised the standards in Rule 26(b)(1)(iii), which provides for court limitation of discovery upon certain conditions, to make them as far as practicable the same as the discovery certification standards set forth in Rule 26(g)(3). Moreover, since a violation of the latter standards calls for mandatory imposition of sanctions, the amendment of Rule 26(b) has accordingly been changed to require the court, upon finding the equivalent of such a violation, to limit discovery rather than to act in its discretion.
Rule 26(g)(2), which prescribes certain discovery certification standards, has been revised to adopt some of the same standards as those provided in Rule 11 for certification of pleadings and motions, eliminating use of the word "primarily."
Rule 26(g) has also been revised to provide, in lieu of our earlier draft's provision that an unsigned request, response or objection shall be deemed ineffective, that it shall be stricken unless signed promptly after the omission of the signature is called to the party's attention. This accords with our treatment of the same matter in Rule 11.
Our Committee's Advisory Note has been amplified to make clear that the amended rule does not require a party or attorney to disclose privileged communications or work product.
Except for minor additional changes the proposed amendments to Rule 26 remain substantially the same as those sent out in June 1981. In our view they now reflect changes that are acceptable to most of the bench and bar. Our decision not to make certain requested changes was made only after careful review and appraisal of all relevant considerations.
(4)
In response to comments our Committee has eliminated from its June 1981 proposed amendments provisions in the last two sentences of that draft which would relieve a depositing party from liability for interest imposed by statute or rule and would leave contract interest unaffected by a deposit except for crediting interest earned on deposited money toward that liability. The Advisory Committee Note has been redrafted to reflect these changes. Our Committee is persuaded that these substantive issues should be left for judicial resolution rather than made the subject of a rule.West Page 194
The attached draft retains the provision authorizing any party, including a party claiming an interest in the funds, to deposit them with the court and, as amended, the redraft requires that deposited funds be placed in an interest-bearing account or invested in an interest-bearing instrument.
(5)
The draft amendments of these rules sent out in June 1981 remain unchanged except for a minor amendment of Rule 74(c), dealing with a stay pending appeal from a magistrate's decision to a district judge, which has been changed to provide that the stay may be conditioned upon the filing of a bond or other appropriate security in the district court.
We believe that the attached amendments, if adopted, will serve to reduce unnecessary delay and needless expense, as well as to increase efficiency, in the administration of justice.
The Advisory Committee on Federal Civil Rules
By
(b) ENLARGEMENT. When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 50(b)
* * *
* * *
(b) MOTIONS AND OTHER PAPERS
* * *
(2) The rules applicable to captions,signing, and other matters of form of pleadings apply to all motions and other papers provided for by these rules.
(3) All motions shall be signed in accordance withRule 11.
* * *
Experience shows that in practice Rule 11 has not been effective in deterring abuses. See 6 Wright Miller,
The amended rule attempts to deal with the problem by building upon and expanding the equitable doctrine permitting the court to award expenses, including attorney's fees, to a litigant whose opponent acts in bad faith in instituting or conducting litigation. See,
The expanded nature of the lawyer's certification in the fifth sentence of amended Rule 11 recognizes that the litigation process may be abused for purposes other than delay. See,
The words "good ground to support" the pleading in the original rule were interpreted to have both factual and legal elements. See,
The new language stresses the need for some prefiling inquiry into both the facts and the law to satisfy the affirmative duty imposed by the rule. The standard is one of reasonableness under the circumstances. See
The rule is not intended to chill an attorney's enthusiasm or creativity in pursuing factual or legal theories. The court is expected to avoid using the wisdom of hindsight and should test the signer's conduct by inquiring what was reasonable to believe at the time the pleading, motion, or other paper was submitted. Thus, what constitutes a reasonable inquiry may depend on such factors as how much time for investigation was available to the signer; whether he had to rely on a client for information as to the facts underlying the pleading, motion, or other paper; whether the pleading, motion, or other paper was based on a plausible view of the law; or whether he depended on forwarding counsel or another member of the bar.
The rule does not require a party or an attorney to disclose privileged communications or work product in order to show that the signing of the pleading, motion, or other paper is substantially justified. The provisions of Rule 26(c), including appropriate orders after
Amended Rule 11 continues to apply to anyone who signs a pleading, motion, or other paper. Although the standard is the same for unrepresented parties, who are obliged themselves to sign the pleadings, the court has sufficient discretion to take account of the special circumstances that often arise in
The provision in the original rule for striking pleadings and motions as sham and false has been deleted. The passage has rarely been utilized, and decisions thereunder have tended to confuse the issue of attorney honesty with the merits of the action. See generally Risinger,
The former reference to the inclusion of scandalous or indecent matter, which is itself strong indication that an improper purpose underlies the pleading, motion, or other paper, also has been deleted as unnecessary. Such matter may be stricken under Rule 12(f) as well as dealt with under the more general language of amended Rule 11.
The text of the amended rule seeks to dispel apprehensions that efforts to obtain enforcement will be fruitless by insuring that the rule will be applied when properly invoked. The word "sanctions" in the caption, for example, stresses a deterrent orientation in dealing with improperWest Page 200pleadings, motions or other papers. This corresponds to the approach in imposing sanctions for discovery abuses. See
The reference in the former text to wilfulness as a prerequisite to disciplinary action has been deleted. However, in considering the nature and severity of the sanctions to be imposed, the court should take account of the state of the attorney's or party's actual or presumed knowledge when the pleading or other paper was signed. Thus, for example, when a party is not represented by counsel, the absence of legal advice is an appropriate factor to be considered.
Courts currently appear to believe they may impose sanctions on their own motion. See
If the duty imposed by the rule is violated, the court should have the discretion to impose sanctions on either the attorney, the party the signing attorney represents, or both, or on an unrepresented party who signed the pleading, and the new rule so provides. Although Rule 11 has been silent on the point, courts have claimed the power to impose sanctions on an attorney personally, either by imposing costs or employing the contempt technique. See 5 Wright Miller,
Even though it is the attorney whose signature violates the rule, it may be appropriate under the circumstances of the case to impose a sanction on the client. See
A party seeking sanctions should give notice to the court and the offending party promptly upon discovering a basis for doing so. The time when sanctions are to be imposed rests in the discretion of the trial judge. However, it is anticipated that in the case of pleadings the sanctions issue under Rule 11 normally will be determined at the end of the litigation, andWest Page 201in the case of motions at the time when the motion is decided or shortly thereafter. The procedure obviously must comport with due process requirements. The particular format to be followed should depend on the circumstances of the situation and the severity of the sanction under consideration. In many situations the judge's participation in the proceedings provides him with full knowledge of the relevant facts and little further inquiry will be necessary.
To assure that the efficiencies achieved through more effective operation of the pleading regimen will not be offset by the cost of satellite litigation over the imposition of sanctions, the court must to the extent possible limit the scope of sanction proceedings to the record. Thus, discovery should be conducted only by leave of the court, and then only in extraordinary circumstances.
Although the encompassing reference to "other papers" in new Rule 11 literally includes discovery papers, the certification requirement in that context is governed by proposed new Rule 26(g). Discovery motions, however, fall within the ambit of Rule 11.
(a) PRETRIAL CONFERENCES; OBJECTIVES.In any action, the court may in its discretion direct the attorneys for the partiesand any unrepresented partiesto appear before it for a conferenceor conferences before trialto considerfor such purposes as
(1) expediting the disposition of the action;
(2) establishing early and continuing control so thatthe case will not be protracted because of lack ofmanagement;
(3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities;
(4) improving the quality of the trial through morethorough preparation, and;
West Page 202(5) facilitating the settlement of the case.
(1) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings;
(2) to file and hear motions; and
(3) to complete discovery.
(4) the date or dates for conferences before trial, afinal pretrial conference, and trial; and
(5) any other matters appropriate in the circumstancesof the case.
(1) theformulation andsimplification of the issues,including the elimination of frivolous claims ordefenses;
(2) the necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
(3) the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof,stipulations regarding the authenticity of documents,and advance rulings from the court on the admissibilityof evidence;
(4) the avoidance of unnecessary proof and ofcumulative evidence;
(5)(4)thelimitation of the number of expertidentification ofwitnessesand documents, the need andschedule for filing and exchanging pretrial briefs, andthe date or dates for further conferences and fortrial;
(6)(6)the advisability of apreliminary reference ofreferringissuesmattersto amagistrate ormasterforfindings to be used as evidence when the trial is to beby jury;
(7) the possibility of settlement or the use ofextrajudicial procedures to resolve the dispute;
(8) the form and substance of the pretrial order;
(9) the disposition of pending motions;
West Page 204(10) the need for adopting special procedures formanaging potentially difficult or protracted actionsthat may involve complex issues, multiple parties,difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems;and
(11)(6)such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action.
Major criticism of Rule 16 has centered on the fact that its application can result in over-regulation of some cases and under-regulation of others. In simple, run-of-the-mill cases, attorneys have found pretrial requirements burdensome. It is claimed that over-administration leads to a series of mini-trials that result in a waste of an attorney's time and needless expense to a client. Pollack,
Four sources of criticism of pretrial have been identified. First, conferences often are seen as a mere exchange of legalistic contentions without any real analysis of the particular case. Second, the result frequently is nothing but a formal agreement on minutiae. Third, the conferences are seen as unnecessary and time-consuming in cases that will be settled before trial. Fourth, the meetings can be ceremonial and ritualistic, having little effect on the trial and being of minimal value, particularly when the attorneys attending the sessions are not the ones who will try the case or lack authority to enter into binding stipulations. See generally
There also have been difficulties with the pretrial orders that issue following Rule 16 conferences. When an order is entered far in advance of trial, some issues may not be properly formulated. Counsel naturally are cautious and often try to preserve as many options as possible. If the judge who tries the case did not conduct the conference, he could find it difficult to determine exactly what was agreed to at the conference. But any insistence on a detailed order may be too burdensome, depending on the nature or posture of the case.
Given the signficant changes in federal civil litigation since 1938 that are not reflected in Rule 16, it has been extensively rewritten andWest Page 207expanded to meet the challenges of modern litigation. Empirical studies reveal that when a trial judge intervenes personally at an early stage to assume judicial control over a case and to schedule dates for completion by the parties of the principal pretrial steps, the case is disposed of by settlement or trial more efficiently and with less cost and delay than when the parties are left to their own devices. Flanders,
Although a mandatory scheduling order encourages the court to become involved in case management early in the litigation, it represents a degree of judicial involvement that is not warranted in many cases. Thus, subdivision (b) permits each district court to promulgate a local rule under Rule 83 exempting certain categories of cases in which the burdens of scheduling orders exceed the administrative efficiencies that would be gained. See Eastern District of Virginia, Local Rule 12(1). Logical candidates for this treatment include social security disability matters, habeas corpus petitions, forfeitures, and reviews of certain administrative actions.
A scheduling conference may be requested either by the judge, a magistrate when authorized by district court rule, or a party within 120 days after the summons and complaint are filed. If a scheduling conference is not arranged within that time and the case is not exempted by local rule, a scheduling order must be issued under Rule 16(b), after some communication with the parties, which may be by telephone or mail rather than in person. The use of the term "judge" in subdivision (b) reflects the Advisory Committee's judgment that it is preferable that this task shouldWest Page 208be handled by a district judge rather than a magistrate, except when the magistrate is acting under28 U.S.C. § 636(c). While personal supervision by the trial judge is preferred, the rule, in recognition of the impracticality or difficulty of complying with such a requirement in some districts, authorizes a district by local rule to delegate the duties to a magistrate. In order to formulate a practicable scheduling order, the judge, or a magistrate when authorized by district court rule, and attorneys are required to develop a timetable for the matters listed in Rule 16(b)(1)-(3). As indicated in Rule 16(b)(4)-(5), the order may also deal with a wide range of other matters. The rule is phrased permissively as to clauses (4) and (5), however, because scheduling these items at an early point may not be feasible or appropriate. Even though subdivision (b) relates only to scheduling, there is no reason why some of the procedural matters listed in Rule 16(c) cannot be addressed at the same time, at least when a scheduling conference is held.
Item (1) assures that at some point both the parties and the pleadings will be fixed, by setting a time within which joinder of parties shall be completed and the pleadings amended.
Item (2) requires setting time limits for interposing various motions that otherwise might be used as stalling techniques.
Item (3) deals with the problem of procrastination and delay by attorneys in a context in which scheduling is especially important-discovery. Scheduling the completion of discovery can serve some of the same functions as the conference described in Rule 26(f).
Item (4) refers to setting dates for conferences and for trial. Scheduling multiple pretrial conferences may well be desirable if the case is complex and the court believes that a more elaborate pretrial structure, such as that described in the
As long as the case is not exempted by local rule, the court must issue a written scheduling order even if no scheduling conference is called. The order, like pretrial orders under the former rule and those under new Rule 16(c), normally will "control the subsequent course of the action." See Rule 16(e). After consultation with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties — a formal motion is not necessary — the court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Since the scheduling order is entered early in the litigation, this standard seems more appropriate than a "manifest injustice" or "substantial hardship" test. Otherwise, a fear that extensions will not be granted may encourage counsel to request the longest possible periods for completing pleading, joinder, and discovery. Moreover, changes in the court's calendarWest Page 209sometimes will oblige the judge or magistrate when authorized by district court rule to modify the scheduling order.
The district courts undoubtedly will develop several prototype scheduling orders for different types of cases. In addition, when no formal conference is held, the court may obtain scheduling information by telephone, mail, or otherwise. In many instances this will result in a scheduling order better suited to the individual case than a standard order, without taking the time that would be required by a formal conference.
Rule 16(b) assures that the judge will take some early control over the litigation, even when its character does not warrant holding a scheduling conference. Despite the fact that the process of preparing a scheduling order does not always bring the attorneys and judge together, the fixing of time limits serves
to stimulate litigants to narrow the areas of inquiry and advocacy to those they believe are truly relevant and material. Time limits not only compress the amount of time for litigation, they should also reduce the amount of resources invested in litigation. Litigants are forced to establish discovery priorities and thus to do the most important work first.
Thus, except in exempted cases, the judge or a magistrate when authorized by district court rule will have taken some action in every case within 120 days after the complaint is filed that notifies the attorneys that the case
The reference in Rule 16(c)(1) to "formulation" is intended to clarify and confirm the court's power to identify the litigable issues. It has been added in the hope of promoting efficiency and conserving judicial resources by identifying the real issues prior to trial, thereby saving time and expense for everyone. See generally
The timing of any attempt at issue formulation is a matter of judicial discretion. In relatively simple cases it may not be necessary or may take the form of a stipulation between counsel or a request by the court that counsel work together to draft a proposed order.
Counsel bear a substantial responsibility for assisting the court in identifying the factual issues worthy of trial. If counsel fail to identify an issue for the court, the right to have the issue tried is waived. Although an order specifying the issues is intended to be binding, it may be amended at trial to avoid manifest injustice. See Rule 16(e). However, the rule's effectiveness depends on the court employing its discretion sparingly.
Clause (6) acknowledges the widespread availability and use of magistrates. The corresponding provision in the original rule referred only to masters and limited the function of the reference to the making of "findings to be used as evidence" in a case to be tried to a jury. The new text is not limited and broadens the potential use of a magistrate to that permitted by the Magistrate's Act.
Clause (7) explicitly recognizes that it has become commonplace to discuss settlement at pretrial conferences. Since it obviously eases crowded court dockets and results in savings to the litigants and the judicial system, settlement should be facilitated at as early a stage of the litigation as possible. Although it is not the purpose of Rule 16(b)(7) to impose settlement negotiations on unwilling litigants, it is believed that providing a neutral forum for discussing the subject might foster it. See Moore's
A settlement conference is appropriate at any time. It may be held in conjunction with a pretrial or discovery conference, although various objectives of pretrial management, such as moving the case toward trial, may not always be compatible with settlement negotiations, and thus a separate settlement conference may be desirable. See 6 Wright Miller,
In addition to settlement, Rule 16(c)(7) refers to exploring the use of procedures other than litigation to resolve the dispute. This includes urging the litigants to employ adjudicatory techniques outside the courthouse. See, for example, the experiment described in Green, Marks Olson,
Rule 16(c)(10) authorizes the use of special pretrial procedures to expedite the adjudication of potentially difficult or protracted cases. Some district courts obviously have done so for many years. See Rubin,
The rule simply identifies characteristics that make a case a strong candidate for special treatment. The four mentioned are illustrative, not exhaustive, and overlap to some degree. But experience has shown that one or more of them will be present in every protracted or difficult case and it seems desirable to set them out. See Kendig,
The last sentence of subdivision (c) is new. See Wisconsin Civil Procedure Rule 802.11(2). It has been added to meet one of the criticisms of the present practice described earlier and insure proper preconference preparation so that the meeting is more than a ceremonial or ritualistic event. The reference to "authority" is not intended to insist upon the ability to settle the litigation. Nor should the rule be read to encourage the judge conducting the conference to compel attorneys to enter into stipulations or to make admissions that they consider to be unreasonable, that touch on matters that could not normally have been anticipated to arise at the conference, or on subjects of a dimension that normally require prior consultation with and approval from the client.
At least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each party must be present at the final pretrial conference. At this late date there should be no doubt as to which attorney or attorneys this will be. Since the agreements and stipulations made at this final conference will control the trial, the presence of lawyers who will be involved in it is especially useful to assist the judge in structuring the case, and to lead to a more effective trial.
Since the amended rule encourages more extensive pretrial management than did the original, two or more conferences may be held in many cases. The language of Rule 16(e) recognizes this possibility and the corresponding need to issue more than one pretrial order in a single case.
Once formulated, pretrial orders should not be changed lightly; but total inflexibility is undesirable. See,
Many local rules make the plaintiff's attorney responsible for drafting a proposed pretrial order, either before or after the conference. Others allow the court to appoint any of the attorneys to perform the task, and others leave it to the court. See Note,
To reflect that existing practice, and to obviate dependence upon Rule 41(b) or the court's inherent power to regulate litigation,
Rule 16(f) incorporates portions of Rule 37(b)(2), which prescribes sanctions for failing to make discovery. This should facilitate application of Rule 16(f), since courts and lawyers already are familiar with the Rule 37 standards. Among the sanctions authorized by the new subdivision are: preclusion order, striking a pleading, staying the proceeding, default judgment, contempt, and charging a party, his attorney, or both with the expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by noncompliance. The contempt sanction, however, is only available for a violation of a court order. The references in Rule 16(f) are not exhaustive.
As is true under Rule 37(b)(2), the imposition of sanctions may be sought by either the court or a party. In addition, the court has discretion to impose whichever sanction it feels is appropriate under the circumstances. Its action is reviewable under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See
(b)
(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methodsset forth in subdivision (a) shall be limited by thecourt if it determines that: (i) the discovery soughtis unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or isobtainable from some other source that is moreconvenient, less burdensome, or lessWest Page 215expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has hadample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtainthe information sought; or (iii) the discovery isunduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account theneeds of the case, the amount in controversy,limitations on the parties' resources, and theimportance of the issues at stake in the litigation.The court may act upon its own initiative afterreasonable notice or pursuant to a motion undersubdivision (c).
* * *
The purpose of discovery is to provide a mechanism for making relevant information available to the litigants. "Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation."
Given our adversary tradition and the current discovery rules, it is not surprising that there are many opportunities, if not incentives, for attorneys to engage in discovery that, although authorized by the broad, permissive terms of the rules, nevertheless results in delay. See Brazil,
The first element of the standard, Rule 26(b)(1)(i), is designed to minimize redundancy in discovery and encourage attorneys to be sensitive to the comparative costs of different methods of securing information. Subdivision (b)(1)(ii) also seeks to reduce repetitiveness and to oblige lawyers to think through their discovery activities in advance so that full utilization is made of each deposition, document request, or set of interrogatories. The elements of Rule 26(b)(1)(iii) address the problem of discovery that is disproportionate to the individual lawsuit as measured by such matters as its nature and complexity, the importance of the issues at stake in a case seeking damages, the limitations on a financially weak litigant to withstand extensive opposition to a discovery program or to respond to discovery requests, and the significance of the substantive issues, as measured in philosophic, social, or institutional terms. Thus the rule recognizes that many cases in public policy spheres, such as employment practices, free speech, and other matters, may have importance far beyond the monetary amount involved. The court must apply the standards in an even-handed manner that will prevent use of discovery to wage a war of attrition or as a device to coerce a party, whether financially weak or affluent.
The rule contemplates greater judicial involvement in the discovery process and thus acknowledges the reality that it cannot always operate on a self-regulating basis. See Connolly, Holleman Kuhlman,
The court may act on motion, or its own initiative. It is entirely appropriate to resort to the amended rule in conjunction with a discovery conference under Rule 26(f) or one of the other pretrial conferences authorized by the rules.
If primary responsibility for conducting discovery is to continue to rest with the litigants, they must be obliged to act responsibly and avoidWest Page 219abuse. With this in mind, Rule 26(g), which parallels the amendments to Rule 11, requires an attorney or unrepresented party to sign each discovery request, response, or objection. Motions relating to discovery are governed by Rule 11. However, since a discovery request, response, or objection usually deals with more specific subject matter than motions or papers, the elements that must be certified in connection with the former are spelled out more completely. The signature is a certification of the elements set forth in Rule 26(g).
Although the certification duty requires the lawyer to pause and consider the reasonableness of his request, response, or objection, it is not meant to discourage or restrict necessary and legitimate discovery. The rule simply requires that the attorney make a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of his response, request, or objection.
The duty to make a "reasonable inquiry" is satisfied if the investigation undertaken by the attorney and the conclusions drawn therefrom are reasonable under the circumstances. It is an objective standard similar to the one imposed by Rule 11. See the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 11. See also
Rule 26(g) does not require the signing attorney to certify the truthfulness of the client's factual responses to a discovery request. Rather, the signature certifies that the lawyer has made a reasonable effort to assure that the client has provided all the information and documents available to him that are responsive to the discovery demand. Thus, the lawyer's certification under Rule 26(g) should be distinguished from other signature requirements in the rules, such as those in Rules 30(e) and 33.
Nor does the rule require a party or an attorney to disclose privileged communications or work product in order to show that a discovery request, response, or objection is substantially justified. The provisions of Rule 26(c), including appropriate orders after
The signing requirement means that every discovery request, response, or objection should be grounded on a theory that is reasonable under the precedents or a good faith belief as to what should be the law. This standard is heavily dependent on the circumstances of each case. The certification speaks as of the time it is made. The duty to supplement discovery responses continues to be governed by Rule 26(e).West Page 220
Concern about discovery abuse has led to widespread recognition that there is a need for more aggressive judicial control and supervision.
Because of the asserted reluctance to impose sanctions on attorneys who abuse the discovery rules, see Brazil,
The sanctioning process must comport with due process requirements. The kind of notice and hearing required will depend on the facts of the case and the severity of the sanction being considered. To prevent the proliferation of the sanction procedure and to avoid multiple hearings, discovery in any sanction proceeding normally should be permitted only when it is clearly required by the interests of justice. In most cases the court will be aware of the circumstances and only a brief hearing should be necessary.
* * *
(b) REFERENCE. A reference to a master shall be the exception and not the rule. In actions to be tried by a jury, a reference shall be made only when the issues are complicated; in actions to be tried without a jury, save in matters of account and of difficult computation of damages, a reference shall be made only upon a showing that some exceptional condition requires it.
(c) POWERS. The order of reference to the master may specify or limit his powers and may direct him to report only upon particular issues or to do or perform particular acts or to receive and report evidence only and may fix the time and place for beginning and closing the hearings and for the filing of the master's report. Subject to the specifications and limitations stated in the order, the master has and shall exercise the power to regulate all proceedings in every hearing before him and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance of his duties under the order. He may require the production before him of evidence upon all matters embraced in the reference, including the production of all books, papers, vouchers, documents, and writings applicable thereto. He may rule upon the admissibility of evidence unless otherwise directed by the order of reference and has the authority to put witnesses on oath and may himself examine them and may call the parties to the action and examine them upon oath. When a party so requests, the master shall make a record of the evidence offered and excluded in the same manner and subject to the same limitations as provided in
* * *West Page 224
The term "special master" is retained in Rule 53 in order to maintain conformity with28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2), authorizing a judge to designate a magistrate "to serve as a special master pursuant to the applicable provisions of this title and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts." Obviously, when a magistrate serves as a special master, the provisions for compensation of masters are inapplicable, and the amendment to subdivision (a) so provides.
Although the existence of magistrates may make the appointment of outside masters unnecessary in many instances, see,
A magistrate serving as a special master under28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2) is governed by the provisions of Rule 53, with the exceptional condition requirement lifted in the case of a consensual reference.
In an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party, upon notice to every other party, and by leave of court, may deposit with the court all or any part of such sum or thing,whetheror not that party claims all or any part of the sum orthing. The party making the deposit shall serve theorder permitting deposit on the clerk of the court.Money paid into court under this rule shall be deposited and withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of Title28, U.S.C., §§ 2041, and2042; the Act of June 26, 1934, c. 756, § 23, asWest Page 226amended (48 Stat. 1236,58 Stat. 845), U.S.C., Title 31, § 725v; or any like statute.The fund shall bedeposited in an interest-bearing account or invested inan interest-bearing instrument approved by the court.
The second change is the addition of a requirement that the order of deposit be served on the clerk of the court in which the sum or thing is to be deposited. This is simply to assure that the clerk knows what is being deposited and what his responsibilities are with respect to the deposit. The latter point is particularly important since the rule as amended contemplates that deposits will be placed in interest-bearing accounts; the clerk must know what treatment has been ordered for the particular deposit.
The third change is to require that any money be deposited in an interest-bearing account or instrument approved by the court.
(a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. A magistrate to whom apretrial matter not dispositive of a claim or defenseof a party is referred to hear and determine shallpromptly conduct such proceedings as are required andwhen appropriate enter into the record a written ordersetting forth the disposition of the matter.West Page 227The district judge to whom the case is assigned shallconsider objections made by the parties, provided theyare served and filed within 10 days after the entry ofthe order, and shall modify or set aside any portion ofthe magistrate's order found to be clearly erroneous orcontrary to law.
(b) DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND PRISONER PETITIONS. Amagistrate assigned without consent of the parties tohear a pretrial matter dispositive of a claim ordefense of a party or a prisoner petition challengingthe conditions of confinement shall promptly conductsuch proceedings as are required. A record shall bemade of all evidentiary proceedings before themagistrate, and a record may be made of such otherproceedings as the magistrate deems necessary. Themagistrate shall enter into the record a recommendtionfor disposition of the matter, including proposedfindings of fact when appropriate. The clerk shallforthwith mail copies to all parties.
A party objecting to the recommended disposition of thematter shall promptly arrange for the transcription ofthe record, or portions of it as all parties may agreeupon or the magistrate deems sufficient, unless thedistrict judge otherwise directs. Within 10 days afterbeing served with a copy of the recommendeddisposition, a party may serve and file specific,written objections to the proposed findings andrecommendations. A party may respond to another party'sobjections within 10 days after being served with aWest Page 228copy thereof. The district judge to whom the case isassigned shall make a de novo determination upon therecord, or after additional evidence, of any portion ofthe magistrate's disposition to which specific writtenobjection has been made in accordance with this rule.The district judge may accept, reject, or modify therecommended decision, receive further evidence, orrecommit the matter to the magistrate withinstructions.
No specific procedures or timetables for raising objections to the magistrate's rulings on nondispositive matters are set forth in the Magistrates Act. The rule fixes a 10-day period in order to avoid uncertainty and provide uniformity that will eliminate the confusion that might arise if different periods were prescribed by local rule in different districts. It also is contemplated that a party who is successful before the magistrate will be afforded an opportunity to respond to objections raised to the magistrate's ruling.
The last sentence of subdivision (a) specifies that reconsideration of a magistrate's order, as provided for in the Magistrates Act, shall be by the district judge to whom the case is assigned. This rule does not restrict experimentation by the district courts under28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) involving references of matters other than pretrial matters, such as appointment of counsel, taking of default judgments, and acceptance of jury verdicts when the judge is unavailable.
This rule implements the statutory procedures for making objections to the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations. The 10-day period, as specified in the statute, is subject to Rule 6(e) which provides for an additional 3-day period when service is made by mail. Although no specific provision appears in the Magistrates Act, the rule specifies a 10-day period for a party to respond to objections to the magistrate's recommendation.
Implementing the statutory requirments, the rule requires the district judge to whom the case is assigned to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, findings, or recommendations to which timely objection is made. The term "de novo" signifies that the magistrate's findings are not protected by the clearly erroneous doctrine, but does not indicate that a second evidentiary hearing is required. See
(a) POWERS; PROCEDURE. When specially designated toexercise such jurisdiction by local rule or order ofthe district court and when all parties consentthereto, a magistrate may exercise the authorityprovided by Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c) and may conductany or all proceedings, including a jury or nonjurytrial, in a civil case. A record of the proceedingsshall be made in accordance with the requirements ofTitle28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(7).
(b) CONSENT. When a magistrate has been designated toexercise civil trial jurisdiction, the clerk shall givewritten notice to the parties of their opportunity toconsent to the exercise by aWest Page 230magistrate of civil jurisdiction over the case, asauthorized by Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c). If, within theperiod specified by local rule, the parties agree to amagistrate's exercise of such authority, they shallexecute and file a joint form of consent or separateforms of consent setting forth such election.
No district judge, magistrate, or other court officialshall attempt to persuade or induce a party to consentto a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate underthis rule, nor shall a district judge or magistrate beinformed of a party's response to the clerk'snotification, unless all parties have consented to thereferral of the matter to a magistrate.
The district judge, for good cause shown on his ownmotion or under extraordinary circumstances shown by aparty, may vacate a reference of a civil matter to amagistrate under this subdivision.
(c) NORMAL APPEAL ROUTE. In accordance withTitle28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(3), unless the parties otherwise agreeto the optional appeal route provided for insubdivision (d) of this rule, appeal from a judgmententered upon direction of a magistrate in proceedingsunder this rule will lie to the court of appeals as itwould from a judgment of the district court.
West Page 231(d) OPTIONAL APPEAL ROUTE. In accordance withTitle28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), at the time of reference to amagistrate, the parties may consent to appeal on therecord to a judge of the district court and thereafter,by petition only, to the court of appeals.
The rule opts for a uniform approach in implementing the consent provision by directing the clerk to notify the parties of their opportunity to elect to proceed before a magistrate and by requiring the execution and filing of a consent form or forms setting forth the election. However, flexibility at the local level is preserved in that local rules will determine how notice shall be communicated to the parties, and local rules will specify the time period within which an election must be made.
The last paragraph of subdivision (b) reiterates the provision in28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(6) for vacating a reference to the magistrate.
West Page 233(a) WHEN TAKEN. When the parties have elected underRule 73(d) to proceed by appeal to a district judgefrom an appealable decision made by a magistrate underthe consent provisions of Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(4),an appeal may be taken from the decision of amagistrate by filing with the clerk of the districtcourt a notice of appeal within 30 days of the date ofentry of the judgment appealed from; but if the UnitedStates or an officer or agency thereof is a party, thenotice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60days of such entry. If a timely notice of appeal isfiled by a party, any other party may file a notice ofappeal within 14 days thereafter, or within the timeotherwise prescribed by this subdivision, whicheverperiod last expires.
The running of the time for filing a notice of appealis terminated as to all parties by the timely filing ofany of the following motions with the magistrate by anyparty, and the full time for appeal from the judgmententered by the magistrate commences to run anew fromentry of any of the following orders: (1) granting ordenying a motion for judgment under Rule 50(b); (2)granting or denying a motion under Rule 52(b) to amendor make additional findings of fact, whether or not analteration of the judgment would be required if themotion is granted; (3) granting or denying a motionunder Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment; (4)denying a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.
An interlocutory decision or order by a magistratewhich, if made by a judge of the district court, couldbe appealed under any provision of law, may be appealedto a judge of the district court by filing a notice ofappeal within 15 days after entry of the decision ororder, provided the parties have elected to appeal to ajudge of the district court under Rule 73(d). An appealof such interlocutory decision or order shall not staythe proceedings before the magistrate unless themagistrate or judge shall so order.
West Page 234Upon a showing of excusable neglect, the magistrate mayextend the time for filing a notice of appeal uponmotion filed not later than 20 days after theexpiration of the time otherwise prescribed by thisrule.
(b) NOTICE OF APPEAL; SERVICE. The notice of appealshall specify the party or parties taking the appeal,designate the judgment, order or part thereof appealedfrom, and state that the appeal is to a judge of thedistrict court. The clerk shall mail copies of thenotice to all other parties and note the date ofmailing in the civil docket.
(c) STAY PENDING APPEAL. Upon a showing that themagistrate has refused or otherwise failed to stay thejudgment pending appeal to the district judge underRule 73(d), the appellant may make application for astay to the district judge with reasonable notice toall parties. The stay may be conditioned upon thefiling in the district court of a bond or otherappropriate security.
(d) DISMISSAL. For failure to comply with theserules or any local rule or order, the district judge may takesuch action as is deemed appropriate, includingdismissal of the appeal. The district judge also maydismiss the appeal upon the filing of a stipulationsigned by all parties, or upon motion and notice by theappellant.
The time limits in subdivision (a) generally conform to those in Appellate Rule 4(a), except that the period in which a party may move for leave to file a late notice of appeal on grounds of excusable neglect is 20 days, rather than the 30-day period provided for in the Appellate Rules.
The term "appealable decision" as used in this rule embraces the "final decision" concept of28 U.S.C. § 1291and permits an appeal from a magistrate to a district judge in those situations in which an appeal from a district judge to the court of appeals would lie. That term, along with the specific provision in the rule permitting appeals of certain interlocutory orders, incorporates by reference the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1292and adopts, by analogy to Section 1292(b), a certification procedure for otherwise unappealable orders "where the order is based on a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Although no specific certification procedure is set forth, the rule contemplates that a magistrate may certify such an order for appeal, and the district judge, in his discretion, may allow the appeal. In the interest of expediting the trial, interlocutory appeals of any kind will not stay the proceedings unless the magistrate or district judge finds that the nature of the appeal or its relation to the remaining proceedings requires a stay.
In proceedings under28 U.S.C. § 636(c), an application for a stay of the judgment under Rule 62 initially will be made to the magistrate. The district judge under this rule may hear an application for a stay of the judgment upon a showing that the magistrate has refused to stay the judgment pending appeal to the district judge.West Page 236
(a) APPLICABILITY. In proceedings underTitle28, U.S.C. § 636(c), when the parties have previouslyelected under Rule 73(d) to appeal to a district judgerather than to the court of appeals, this rule shallgovern the proceedings on appeal.
(b) RECORD ON APPEAL.
(1) Composition. The original papers and exhibits filedwith the clerk of the district court, the transcript ofthe proceedings, if any, and the docket entries shallconstitute the record on appeal. In lieu of this recordthe parties, within 10 days after the filing of thenotice of appeal, may file a joint statement of thecase showing how the issues presented by the appealarose and were decided by the magistrate, and settingforth only so many of the facts averred and proved orsought to be proved as are essential to a decision ofthe issues presented.
(2) Transcript. Within 10 days after filing the noticeof appeal the appellant shall make arrangements for theproduction of a transcript of such parts of theproceedings as he deems necessary. Unless the entiretranscript is to be included, the appellant, within thetime provided above, shall serve on the appellee andfile with the court a description of the parts of theWest Page 237transcript which he intends to present on the appeal.If the appellee deems a transcript of other parts ofthe proceedings to be necessary, within 10 days afterthe service of the statement of the appellant, he shallserve on the appellant and file with the court adesignation of additional parts to be included. Theappellant shall promptly make arrangements for theinclusion of all such parts unless the magistrate, uponmotion, exempts the appellant from providing certainparts, in which case the appellee may provide for theirtranscription.
(3) Statement in Lieu of Transcript. If no record ofthe proceedings is available for transcription, theparties shall, within 10 days after the filing of thenotice of appeal, file a statement of the evidence fromthe best available means to be submitted in lieu of thetranscript. If the parties cannot agree they shallsubmit a statement of their differences to themagistrate for settlement.
(c) TIME FOR FILING BRIEFS. Unless a local rule orcourt order otherwise provides, the following timelimits for filing briefs shall apply.
(1) The appellant shall serve and file his brief within20 days after the filing of the transcript, statementof the case, or statement of the evidence.
West Page 238(2) The appellee shall serve and file his brief within20 days after service of the brief of the appellant.
(3) The appellant may serve and file a reply briefwithin 10 days after service of the brief of theappellee.
(4) If the appellee has filed a cross-appeal, he mayfile a reply brief limited to the issues on thecross-appeal within 10 days after service of the replybrief of the appellant.
(d) LENGTH AND FORM OF BRIEFS. Briefs may betypewritten. The length and form of briefs shall begoverned by local rule.
(e) ORAL ARGUMENT. The opportunity for the Darties tobe heard on oral argument shall be governed by localrule.
Although it is not anticipated that an appeal will often be taken from a hearing or trial of which no record was made, the parties do have the option to forego a record in routine matters under28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(7). In such cases a statement of the evidence will be prepared by the parties (or by the magistrate if the parties cannot agree) from the best availableWest Page 239means, including the recollections and notes of the parties and the magistrate.
The introductory clause of the rule recognizes the desirability of allowing local and individual variations in the filing of briefs, and the numbered clauses prescribe shorter periods than the corresponding intervals allowed by Appellate Rule 31(a). The provision allowing a reply brief for an appellee who has filed a cross-appeal is taken from Appellate Rule 28(c).
West Page 240(a) ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. When the parties have electedunder Rule 73(d) to appeal from a judgment of themagistrate to a district judge, the clerk shallprepare, sign, and enter judgment in accordance withthe order or decision of the district judge followingan appeal from a judgment of the magistrate, unless thedistrict judge directs otherwise. The clerk shall mailto all parties a copy of the order or decision of thedistrict judge.
(b) STAY OF JUDGMENTS. The decision of the districtjudge shall be stayed for 10 days during which time aparty may petition the district judge for rehearing,and a timely petition shall stay the decision of thedistrict judge pending disposition of a petition forrehearing. Upon the motion of a party, the decision ofthe district judge may be stayed in order to allow aparty to petition the court of appeals for leave toappeal.
(c) COSTS. Except as otherwise provided by law orordered by the district judge, costs shall be taxedagainst the losing party; if a judgment of themagistrate is affirmed in part or reversed in part, oris vacated, costs shall be allowed only as ordered bythe district judge. The cost of the transcript, ifnecessary for the determination of the appeal, and thepremiums paid for bonds to preserve rights pendingappeal shall be taxed as costs by the clerk.
You should be aware that your decision to consent, or not to consent, to the referral of your case to a United States magistrate must be entirely voluntary. Only if all the parties to the case consent to the reference to a magistrate will either the judge or magistrate to whom the case has been assigned be informed of your decision.
An appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate may be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for this judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of a district court. Alternatively, upon consent of all parties, an appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate may be taken directly to a district judge. Cases in which an appeal is taken to a district judge may be reviewed by the United States court of appeals for this judicial circuit only by way of petition for leave to appeal.
Copies of the Form for the "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate" and "Election of Appeal to a District Judge" are available from the clerk of the court.West Page 243
DISTRICT OF ______________
_________________________________x : Plaintiff, : : vs. : Docket No. __________ : Defendant. : : _________________________________x
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
In accordance with the provisions of Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties to the above-captioned civil matter hereby voluntarily waive their rights to proceed before a judge of the United States district court and consent to have a United States magistrate conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial, and order the entry of a final judgment.
________________________________________________________
____________ Date
ELECTION OF APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE
[Do not execute this portion of the Consent Form if the parties desire that the appeal lie directly to the court of appeals.]
In accordance with the provisions of Title28, U.S.C. § 636(c)(4), the parties elect to take any appeal in this case to a district judge.
________________________________________________________
____________ Date
Note: Return this form to the Clerk of the Court only if all parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate.