Recent State/Federal Rules Changes as of July 2016: Daubert and Kumho Motions; Standard Track Scheduling Orders; and a Friendly Reminder About Corporate Disclosures
Written by Alicia F. Curtis
Daubert and Kumho motion practice now falls within the sweep of Local Rule 56. The procedure for parties who plan to file a Daubert and Kumho motion without moving for summary judgment is ambiguous. Caution suggests that anyone planning to file such a motion, whether linked to a summary judgment motion or not, should bring this to the attention of the Court under Local Rule 56(h), either through the joint motion with proposed schedule contemplated in Local Rule 56(h)(1), or by notice as contemplated in Local Rule 56(h)(2). In either case, proposed deadlines and page limits for the Daubert and Kumho motions must be submitted, either in the joint motion or at a pre-filing conference.
Local Rule 16.1(b)(2) now tracks the deadlines already imposed in Standard Track Scheduling Orders, with close of discovery five months after the Scheduling Order, and the trial-ready date seven months after the Order.
Although Local Rule 7.1 on corporate disclosure has not changed, the Court sent a reminder to parties that the local rule is broader than the federal rule, and requires disclosure of any entity owning more than 10% of a named party, whether that be a corporate parent or an affiliate, a person, LLC, or partnership.
Local Rule 16.2 governing the scheduling order has been amended. An attorney who requests a scheduling conference is no longer required to “professionally represent” to the Court that she has used her best efforts to reduce cost and delay and advised the client accordingly. This change eliminates a potential ethical conflict, as the attorney’s duty to advocate for her client is not always aligned with the Court’s interest in efficiency and cost control.
See a complete set of the Local Rules effective July 1, 2016