§16.4 Comparison with Federal Rule

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§16.4COMPARISON WITH FEDERAL RULE

Until 1983, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 was substantially similar to CR 16. In 1983 and again in 1993, the federal rule was significantly expanded. The rule was also amended in 1987; however, no substantive change was intended. Due to subsequent amendments, the current federal rule has the following additional subsections not contained in CR 16: (a) Pretrial Conferences; Objectives; (b) Scheduling and Planning; (c) Subjects to be Discussed at Pretrial Conferences; (d) Final Pretrial Conference; and (e) Sanctions. These subsections describe the objectives of the pretrial conference; provide for scheduling of amendments, motions, discovery, and other pretrial conferences; and suggest pretrial conference topics of discussion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 also provides that any final pretrial conference must include a program for facilitating the admission of evidence at trial. Finally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) provides that the court, upon motion or on its own initiative, may impose sanctions on any party for not complying with any scheduling or pretrial order or for failure to participate in good faith in any scheduling or pretrial conference. The court may impose sanctions as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B) or (C) or require the violating party to pay attorney fees and/or the reasonable expenses of the other party.

Under the federal rule, pretrial conferences are optional and scheduling orders are mandatory. Although the rule does not mandate a scheduling conference, it does allow the judge an opportunity to meet the parties' attorneys early in the litigation and to set the tone of and exercise control over the course of the litigation. The scheduling order should include: the parties' agreed schedule of disclosures and discovery; limits on...