Eleventh Circuit Rule Amendments Effective April 2, 2018

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

The Eleventh Circuit has made a handful of changes to its rules affecting tax practitioners, appellate mediation, and the ability of counsel coming in after an appeal has been initiated to file a replacement brief. Specifically, the rule amendments:

  • Now require the Tax Court to prepare exhibits in the same way any District Court would, by deleting a sentence in Eleventh Circuit Rule 11-3.
  • Remove the local setting out a procedure for late-filed counsel to file a replacement brief before the Court, former Rule 31-6, and all references to it.
  • Delete the requirement that parties serve “an original and one copy” of the Civil Appeal Statement, and remove the requirement of filing copies of portions of the record with the statement, since electronic filing and access to dockets makes serving extra copies or record documents moot.

    • Without a specific rule governing replacement briefs, does this mean the Eleventh Circuit will no longer allow replacement brief practice? The answer is unclear, but I would counsel clients not to count on it.

    The new rules became effective April 2, 2018.

    Rules Governing Electronic Appendices and Records Amended to Ease Readability

    /in , , , , , , , , /by

    THE NEWS

    Effective Sunday, October 1, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court’s amendments to the appellate rules go into effect.  The amendments are largely designed to update the rules to comport with the realities of producing and easily reading electronic appendices and records.

    THE TRAP FOR THE UNWARY PRACTITIONER

    Rule 9.220 is amended, adding new requirements for an appendix.  Now, an appendix must:

    • contain a coversheet that meets specific requirements for content;
    • contain a certificate of service;
    • generally be filed as a separate, single PDF file;
    • be properly indexed and consecutively paginated, with the cover sheet being page 1 and the page numbers matching the PDF reader display;
    • “be bookmarked, consistently with the index, such that each bookmark states the date, name of the document which it references, and directs to the first page of that document;”
    • have bookmarks “viewable in a separate window.”

    Further, no condensed transcripts are permitted in an appendix without leave of court.  The rule also changes the format for paper appendices, when so authorized.

    The Fourth District has warned that it will strike any appendix that does not comply with the amended rules when they go into effect on October 1, 2017.

    The Fourth District has already issued an email to all 4th DCA eDCA Filers, stating “Effective October 1, 2017, electronic appendices which do not comply with the amended Rule 9.220 will be stricken.”  So be ready and be compliant!

    THE SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS SUMMARIZED

    9.020 – Adds a definition for “E-Filing System Docket.”

    9.120 – Details the format and contents of the documents to be transmitted from the district courts to the supreme court in situations where a party is seeking discretionary review

    9.141 – Removes the clerk’s exception that allowed it to avoid having to repaginate or reindex a record from a previously prepared record into a record for a collateral or postconviction criminal case.

    9.200 – The record shall now be submitted as a PDF document, uploaded to the e-filing system docket, and available for download to attorneys and parties who have registered for access to the system.  The appellate court may direct the lower clerk to submit a replacement record when an original record is found to be noncompliant with the technical requirements of rule 9.200(d).

    9.220 – See above.

    Rules 9.160 and  9.180 contain only minor changes in terms to reflect that their respective documents are “transmitted” rather than “sent” or “filed.”

    BONUS TIP FOR TRIAL LAWYERS


    The fact that the new rules forbid condensed transcripts in an Appendix should send a strong signal to trial lawyers not to file them with trial courts in general. Appellate judges do a lot of reading, and citing to a condensed transcript makes it that much harder for them to find what you are talking about. They just don’t track well or lend themselves to good notetaking on an iPad or other electronic screen. And since it is all being e-filed, there is much less of an issue with killing trees. If you are filing a transcript with the trial court, file the full transcript. The appellate judges will be a lot happier when reviewing your record. And that just makes it easier for everyone to focus on the merits rather than searching for the right record cite.

    THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT

    Florida State Courts have come a long way since the supreme court started this e-filing journey in 2013.  There have been a few hiccups, especially with the appellate courts, but the appellate rules are really starting to come into their own.

    That said, with any new rule amendment comes new opportunities for errors to be made.  If you have a case pending or about to be pending before a Florida appellate court, give DPW Legal a call so we can help you avoid any of the pitfalls.

     

    Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Tighten Word Limits and Ditch Mail Days for Electronic Service

    /0 Comments/in , , , /by

    A series of amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure designed to lighten the burdens on appellate judges by tightening page limits and clarify due process procedures for inmates go into effect today. (Download the .pdf of the rules and redline here. Transmitted to Congress back in April, the changes affect Appellate Rules 4, 5, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28.1, 29, 32, 35, and 40, Forms 1, 5, and 6, and create a new Form 7 for inmate filers and new Appendix to assist in determining the new, shorter, word limits for various filings. Notably, the rules also take away the so-called “mail days” from items served electronically. The rules also separate out procedures for amicus curiae participation at the merits stage of a case and on rehearing (more on this in a later blog post).

    The biggest change for appellate practitioners is the complete shift to word limits rather than page limits for all filings prepared by a computer in appellate matters, and the tightening of word limits for briefs and other items already governed by word counts. While the rules committee recognized that counting words would be burdensome to inmates preparing handwritten or typed matters, and therefore left in place page limits for documents prepared by those methods, for the rest of us our filings must now comply with word limits. As explained in the committee notes:

    The word limits were derived from the current page limits using the
    assumption that one page is equivalent to 260 words.

    But notably, this 260 word count is lower than the one used in previous rule changes. As the Committee Notes to Rule 28.1 points out, in 2005 the Committee had used a 280 words per page conversion, but “responding to concern about the length of briefs” has shaved 20 words per page from the conversion ratio. The Committee then applied this new standard to existing word counts:

    Principal Brief: 13,000 words (formerly 14,000)
    Reply Brief: 6,500 words (formerly 7,000)

    To ensure that everyone is counting the same words, the amendments createed a new 32(f) to clarify what is excluded from the word count, deleting the former Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). Don’t worry about your words in the following sections of your brief:

  • cover page
  • corporate disclosure statement
  • table of contents
  • table of citations
  • statement regarding oral argument
  • any addendum containing statutes, rules, or regulations
  • certificates of counsel
  • signature block
  • proof of service
  • any other item excluded by these rules or local rules

    • A certificate of compliance with these type-volume standards is required on most filings under new Rule 32(g) — it’s not much different than the old certificate, but it is located in a different subdivision of the rule now, so be sure to update your form briefs to make sure you are citing the correct rule in your certification and follow the updated Form 6 as your guide. The new form is more generic than the old, as it now refers to “document” rather than “brief” and must be used on all documents with type volume limit, not just briefs.

    The rule change also makes clear that local courts have the ability by local rule to enlarge these lengths, though the regional circuits must accept briefs that meet these lengths and can’t require shorter briefs. See FRAP 32(c).

    Finally, the drafters kindly put together a handy Appendix [.pdf] that includes a chart showing all of the new type-volume limitations, so there is an easy reference to knowing all the new volume limits.