1972 Amendment. Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) are derived from Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 33 as amended in 1970. Changes from the
existing rule expand the time for answering, permit interrogatories to be served with the initial pleading or at any time thereafter, and eliminate the requirement of a hearing on objections. If objections are made, the interrogating party has the responsibility of setting a hearing if that party wants an answer. If the interrogatories are not sufficiently important, the interrogating party may let the matter drop. Subdivision (b) covers the same matter as the present rule 1.340(b) except those parts that have been transferred to rule 1.280. It also eliminates the confusion between facts and opinions or contentions by requiring that all be given. Subdivision (c) gives the interrogated party an option to produce business records from which the interrogating party can derive the answers to questions. Subdivision (d) is former subdivision (c) without change. Former subdivision (d) is repealed because it is covered in rule 1.280(e). Subdivision (e) is derived from the New Jersey rules and is intended to place both the interrogatories and the answers to them in a convenient place in the court file so that they can be referred to with less confusion. The requirement for filing a copy before the answers are received is necessary in the event of a dispute concerning what was done or the appropriate times involved.
(c) Notice. The citation shall include the following notice to the defendant: “You have been sued. You may employ an attorney to help you in defending against this lawsuit. But you are not required to employ an attorney. You or your attorney must file an answer with the court. Generally, your answer is due by the end of the 14th day after the day you were served with these papers. If the 14th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, your answer is due by the end of the first day following the 14th day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Do not ignore these papers. If you do not file an answer by the due date, a default judgment may be taken against you. For further guidance, consult Rules of CivilProcedure 500-575, which are available online at
That process may now be in the early stages of repeating itself. Congress has again identified several contentious areas of patent law for reform, including pleading, discovery, attorneys’ fees, and customer suits. Those legislative proposals, however, have been blocked by interest groups worried about patent law becoming too favorable to defendants. In the meantime, other institutions are changing the law in those areas. The Supreme Court has enhanced courts’ discretion to award attorneys’ fees, the Federal Circuit may soon expand the customer suit exception, and, although not directly catalyzed by Congress, changes to the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure will soon negate the need for legislation on the issues of pleading and discovery. It remains to be seen whether other bodies’ engagement with these contentious issues will enable Congress to pass legislation that is narrowly tailored to fix discrete
RE: Comments to Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure My name is Patrick Oot. I am co-founder of the 501(c)(3) non-profit Electronic Discovery Institute (EDI). EDI’s core mission is to conduct research in the litigation and technology space as well as to educate judges, lawyers and technologists about technology solutions where they intersect with the practice of law. At EDI’s annual leadership summit, we gather hundreds of in-house practitioners, outside counsel, government attorneys, plaintiff’s attorneys and judges that volunteer their time to benchmark and discuss emerging issues in law and technology. For a sample of EDI’s good work, I have attached a special report from our recent discourse on Rule 37(e) led by EDI’s President, Robert Owen.
The work on the ELI/UNIDROIT Rules of civilprocedure revealed a number of linguistic and terminological issues pertaining to the formulation of the provisions aimed to be accepted across Europe. When it comes to the English version of the text, questions were raised as to whether the rules were not ‘too British’ or, on the contrary, incompatible with English legal terminology. Although Latin is considered the lingua franca of European private law, the use of customary Latin phrases in the English version of the text was also criticised. It was also a challenge to find the appropriate English expressions for some standard distinctions in other languages e.g., the distinction between Lasten and Pflichten mentioned above. The Working Group also found that the use of certain phrases such as ‘mediation’ or ‘conciliation’ may need to be reconciled with the use of these terms in some Romance languages, for instance, Italian. 33 Confronted with these challenges, the Working
Rule 430(b) By Publication
(1) Where service is by publication in an equity action, an action to quiet title or an ejectment action, it shall consist of a brief statement of the contents of the complaint, a notice to the persons served by the publication to plead on or before a date fixed in the notice, which date shall be not less than thirty (30) days after the date of the last publication, along with a notice complying with the form prescribed in Pa.R.C.P. 430(b) and naming the agency from whom legal help can be obtained as designated in B.R.C.P. 1018.1. If the subject matter of the action is real estate, the published notice shall contain a sufficient description of the real estate involved to identify it, but need not set forth a full and detailed description, if reference is made in said advertisement to the volume and page in the Recorder of Deeds office of this county where a recorded description of said property appears. In the absence of a special order of court, the published notice shall be inserted in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county and the Berks County Law Journal as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of CivilProcedure. The publication required by Pa.R.C.P. 1507 shall conform to the requirements of this Rule insofar as said requirements are applicable.
4 Enforcing the Rules
Take advantage of laws and technology tools designed to help enforce electronic rules and policies. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) is the federal law that gives U.S. employers the legal right to monitor all computer transmissions, activity, and records inside the organization’s system. Along with giving employers the legal right to monitor email and other computer activity, the ECPA makes clear the fact that employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy when using the company’s computer system.
Jim worked at the local plant for forty-two years. Jim was a meat and potatoes guy, who had a sedentary lifestyle and was overweight. Jim started having chest pain and was taken to the emergency room, where the doctors there found that his heart was enlarged. He was taken to surgery for a cardiac catheterization and placement of a stent. After the procedure, his heartbeat was irregular. Because of this, he was admitted to the hospital again. He was placed in the cardiac unit with continuous telemetry monitoring so that his doctors and nurses could more easily monitor his heart rhythm at a central desk. In the middle of one night, a Code Blue is called on Jim, because his heart had stopped. Despite the quick work of the doctors and nurses, Jim did not survive. Six months later, an attorney representing Jim’s family requested his medical records including all of the continuous monitoring data for the time that Jim was in the cardiac unit. The attorney also requests all of the images from the catheterization lab and the time sheets of all staff.
disputes. We will need to work together to ensure that we are having the right conversations with each other and with our adversaries. Potential issues could arise as clients, counsel, and judges adapt to the new rules. There is ample opportunity for dispute.
(a) When Defendant May Bring in Third Party. At any time after commencement of the action a defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a citation and petition to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him or to the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him. The third-party plaintiff need not obtain leave to make the service if he files the third-party petition not later than thirty (30) days after he serves his original answer. Otherwise, he must obtain leave on motion upon notice to all parties to the action. The person served, hereinafter called the third-party defendant, shall make his defenses to the third-party plaintiff's claim under the rules applicable to the defendant, and his counterclaims against the third-party plaintiff and cross- claims against other third-party defendants as provided in Rule 97. The third-party defendant may assert against the plaintiff any defenses which the third-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff's claim. The third-party defendant may also assert any claim against the plaintiff arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff. The plaintiff may assert any claim against the third-party defendant arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff, and the third-party defendant thereupon shall assert his defenses and his counterclaims and cross-claims. Any party may move to strike the third-party claim, or for its severance or separate trial. A third-party defendant may proceed under this rule against any person not a party to the action who is or who may be liable to him or to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the claim made in the action against the third-party defendant.
(a) Service: When Required. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, every order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the original complaint unless the court otherwise orders because of numerous defendants, every paper relating to discovery required to be served upon a party unless the court otherwise orders, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment, designation of record on appeal and similar paper shall be served upon each of the parties. No service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief against them shall be served upon them in the manner provided in Rule 4 for service of summons. In an action begun by seizure of property, in which no person need be or is named as defendant, any service required to be made prior to the filing of an answer, claim, or appearance shall be made upon the person having custody or possession of the property at the time of its seizure. (b) (1) Service: How Made. Whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made upon a party who is represented by an attorney of record in the proceedings, the service shall be made upon such attorney unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to him; or by transmitting it to him by electronic means; or by mailing it to him at his last known address, or if no address is known, by leaving it with the clerk of the court, or by transmitting it to the clerk by electronic means. Delivery of a copy within this rule means: handing it to the attorney or to the party; or leaving it at his office with his clerk or other person in charge thereof; or, if there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place therein; or, if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Service by electronic means is complete when the electronic equipment being used by the attorney or party being served acknowledges receipt of the material. If the equipment used by the attorney or party being served does not automatically acknowledge the transmission, service is not complete until the sending party obtains an acknowledgment from the recipient. Service by mail is complete upon mailing.
When any action or defense is founded upon an open account or other claim for goods, wares and merchandise, including any claim for a liquidated money demand based upon written contract or founded on business dealings between the parties, or is for personal service rendered, or labor done or labor or materials furnished, on which a systematic record has been kept, and is supported by the affidavit of the party, his agent or attorney taken before some officer authorized to administer oaths, to the effect that such claim is, within the knowledge of affiant, just and true, that it is due, and that all just and lawful offsets, payments and credits have been allowed, the same shall be taken as prima facie evidence thereof, unless the party resisting such claim shall file a written denial, under oath. A party resisting such a sworn claim shall comply with the rules of pleading as are required in any other kind of suit, provided, however, that if he does not timely file a written denial, under oath, he shall not be permitted to deny the claim, or any item therein, as the case may be. No particularization or description of the nature of the component parts of the account or claim is necessary unless the trial court sustains special exceptions to the pleadings.
1996 Amendment. Subdivision (i) is added to provide some formality to the practice of requesting waiver of service of process by a sheriff or person appointed to serve papers or by publication. The committee intends that only the manner of service will be waived by this procedure. By accepting service pursuant to this rule, the defendant will not waive any objection to venue or jurisdiction over the person or admit to the suf- ficiency of the pleadings or to allegations with regard to long-arm or personal jurisdiction. For example, service of process would be void should a motion to dismiss be granted because the complaint did not allege the basis for long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. City Contract Bus Service, Inc. v. H.E. Woody, 515 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Under such circumstances, the defendant must be served pur- suant to law or again waive service pursuant to this rule. Subdivision (i)(2)(F) allows the defendant 20 days from receipt (or 30 days if the defendant is outside of the United States) to return the waiver. Accordingly, the committee intends that the waiver be received by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney by the twentieth day (or the thirtieth day if the defendant is outside of the United States). The former subdivision (i) has been redesignated as subdivision (j). Form 1.902 may be used to give notice of an action and request waiver of process pursuant to this rule.
(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) below, in any matter brought under these Family Court Rules, a deci- sion by a conference officer, master or judge shall be entered, filed and served upon counsel for the parties, or any party not represented by counsel, not later than thirty (30) days after the conference, hearing or trial concludes, unless a shorter time frame is required by statute or another procedural rule.
encompasses many features of the proceedings such as the right to be heard, the independence and impartiality of the court and also the issue of publicity of the proceedings (III). These two main aspects of constitutional procedural rights (access to court and fair trial) are to be examined not only in the light of constitutional provisions since in many States, the Constitutional court and/or the civil courts have taken action in order to promote those rights through judicial interpretation. At a final stage (IV), this presentation will deal with a topic which has become of central importance in the last decades, due to the increase of international instruments aiming to protect human rights (such as the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 ratified by 47 European States 38 or the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969 applying in 23 States of Central and South America 39 ) and to create regional economic, political and legal organisations such as the European Union. What is nowadays the interplay between national constitutions and regional or even international instruments? What are the respective roles of domestic, regional and international courts in the protection of procedural rights? Is there a transnational dialogue between the actors of that protection? What about possible conflicting provisions and/or case law? These difficult issues have become essential in judicial practice.
considerations, our justice system prescribes speedy trial rules demanding the earliest feasible resolution of charges against defendants in criminal cases. The consequences described above, however, are not always, and not necessarily, of the complainant's making. Rather, to a large degree they reflect unintended side effects, byproducts of the lenient notice pleading standards embodied in Federal Rules of CivilProcedure 8(a) (“Rule 8(a)”) and 12(b)(6) and related case law. These rules are designed to insure that litigants with meritorious claims obtain adequate access to resolve their disputes in court. But, in a judicial instance of the duality that generally pervades so much of life, the same open door that welcomes the just cause also admits the nuisance suit; the flimsy or frivolous allegation is as free to enter the courthouse as the valid claim. As the Supreme Court has recognized, accusations of unconstitutional conduct on the part of public officials are easy to level, but very difficult and costly to defend against.