A Look at the New Local Rules of Practice of the Federal District Court for Utah
| Publication year | 1992 |
| Pages | 21 |
| Citation | Vol. 5 No. 3 Pg. 21 |
Robert S. Campbell, Jr. Chairman, Federal Rules Advisory Committee.
When I first began my practice at T T the Bar in 1958. the then authoritative treatise on civil procedure in United States courts was Moore's Federal Practice. Inclusive of all trial and appellate rules and Index, it totalled slightly more than five volumes. Professor Moore told his students that one of the ambitions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was simplicity of trial and appellate procedure. In 1992, Moore's Federal Practice has mushroomed in size to some 24 volumes in a seemingly endless drive toward "simplicity, " adding new meaning to the word.
As expanded and revised rules were added to the federal procedure arsenal to facilitate the evolving and more complex forms of statutory claims of recovery and redress, civil and criminal, during the 1960's and 1970's, it became apparent that not all rules had universal application throughout the federal system. To accommodate regional differences in practice and procedure, local rules of the various federal districts were developed, authorized by the Congress and the United States Supreme Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83 ("F.R.Civ.P.") and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57 ("F.R.Cr.P.").
Local rules of practice were given their baptism by the federal judges of Utah on February 1, 1980 upon study and recommendation of a Court appointed committee. They remained in force with some modifications and amendments through May 31, 1991. In September 1989, Chief Judge Bruce S. Jenkins appointed an Advisory Committee on the Local Rules. The Advisory Committee's Recommendations, after public hearing and comment, were in the main adopted and promulgated by the Utah District Court as its revised Rules of Practice effective June 1, 1991.
The Court's new Local Rules gave different structure and added subject and continuity to procedure. Where the civil, criminal and district court bankruptcy rules had developed and existed independently of each other, all are combined for convenience under the new Local Rules within a single volume and numbering system. In addition, the Bankruptcy Court Rules of Practice were added. Where some uncertainty existed in the prior Rules by cross-referencing from the criminal and bankruptcy to the civil rules, the revised Local Rules contain a General Section applicable to all practice and procedure with successive Sections for civil, criminal, district court bankruptcy and bankruptcy court rules.
The new Local Rules expand the scope and reach into areas which the Court believed were needed. A comprehensive review of the rule amendments and changes is neither feasible nor consistent with this article's purpose. Probably the best advice is to take an hour or so for a general read-through, rather than wait for a crisis-fed, momentary inspection. While not exactly compelling fireside reading, the Rules have a tolerable degree of character and interest.
There are, however, a couple of rule amendments which I believe are worthy of mentioning, not only because of frequency of application, but because the judges and personnel of the Court may find them of importance.
MOTION PRACTICE — SPECIFIC BASIS
Prior local Rule 5(d) gave no suggestion as to format or the elements that a motion requesting relief of the Court was to contain. The custom practice which has evolved has been to confine the motion, itself, to a one sentence statement, e.g., "plaintiff moves for summary judgement for the reasons set out in the accompanying memorandum." Of course, the Court and parties could tell that much about the motion from the title. Counsel has been inclined to leave the Court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial