Proposed Amendments to the District Court's Local Rules - April 9, 2018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S LOCAL RULES
 

April 9, 2018

 

The District Court Local Rules Advisory Committee and the Court propose amendments to the following Local Rules:

 

Local Rule 16.1 Case Management Tracks

The Standard Track will include all civil cases unless otherwise provided for in other provisions of this Rule.

 

Local Rule 16.2 Scheduling Order

References to the Asbestos Track will be removed from Section (a).

 

Local Rule 16.3 Management Track Procedures

The Court intends to omit Subsection (c)(6) because new Subsection (7) specifies that Magistrate Judges and District Judges to whom the case is assigned, or the judicial officer who will preside over the trial in the case, will not conduct settlement conferences in those cases. 

 

Local Rule 26 – Discovery

This Rule will be amended to require the party seeking the hearing to confer with opposing counsel and agree on the relevant discovery materials that should be submitted to the Court with a new form Request for Conference.   The Rule will also be revised to clarify that discovery dispute conferences conducted the Court will be on the record, but will not be officially transcribed except on request of counsel or the Court.

 

Local Rule 72 Duties of United States Magistrate Judges

Sections (a) & (b) will be removed because the Court does not employ part-time Magistrate Judges.

References to “powers enumerated in Rules 5, 8, 9 and 10, Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Proceedings” will be omitted because Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 already addresses a Magistrate Judge’s authority in these cases.

Section (c) regarding settlement conferences was added to make clear that a Magistrate Judge to whom the case has been referred, or who will preside over the trial in the case, will not conduct a settlement conference in the same case.

 

Local Rule 72.1 – Objections to Pretrial Orders

Local Rule 72.1 will be revised to indicate that the parties must only file those discovery materials relating to what the Magistrate Judge ordered in connection with a discovery dispute.

 

Appendix IV Administrative Procedures Governing the Filing and Service by Electronic Means

Subsection (i) regarding privacy will be removed because there is no need to restate the redaction requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 And Fed.R.Crim.P. 49.1. New language will be added to make clear that the Clerk’s Office is not required to review documents filed with the Court for compliance with Rule 5.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  The responsibility to redact filings continues to rest with counsel and the party or nonparty making the filing.

 

New Court Form to Request Conference Re Discovery Dispute

If amendments to Local Rule 26 are approved by the Court, counsel will be required complete and electronically file a Request for a Conference Regarding a Discovery Dispute.

 

Please submit any comments on the proposed amendments no later than May 10, 2018. Comments may be delivered by email to localrules@med.uscourts.gov, or in writing to:

Christa K. Berry, Clerk
U.S. District Court
District of Maine
156 Federal Street
Portland, ME 04101