Category Archives: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Effective December 1, 2016

Recent bankruptcy rule amendments, effective December 1, 2016, address the continuing impact of the Stern v. Marshall case on bankruptcy proceedings. In Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court (i.e. courts without full judicial independence) lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim, even though Congress purported to grant such statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)2(C).

Also posted in Bankruptcy, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Stern v Marshall | Comments Off on Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Effective December 1, 2016

Amended Federal Rules Emphasize Proportionality and Cooperation

This is the second post concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), which became effective on December 1, 2015. This post focuses primarily on amendments to FRCP 1 and 26 governing the need for proportionality. The prior post concerned revisions to FRCP 37(e) governing the preservation of electronically stored information (“ESI”), the remedies for spoliation of ESI where a party has failed to take “reasonable steps” to preserve, and remedies arising from “prejudice” as compared to spoliation of ESI arising from “intent to deprive”.

Also posted in Discovery, Litigation | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Amended Federal Rules Emphasize Proportionality and Cooperation

Amended FRCP 37(e) Provides Rules Governing ESI Preservation and Sanctions

Amended Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), effective as of December 1, 2015, squarely addresses sanctions for the spoliation of electronically stored information (“ESI”) and overrules Second Circuit jurisprudence in the area. Some commentators have called FRCP 37(e) the most significant rule governing eDiscovery since the Zubulake line of cases. Prior to the adoption of FRCP 37(e), there existed a split among the Circuits as to the grounds for sanctions arising from the spoliation of ESI. In 2002, in Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of […]

Also posted in Litigation, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Amended FRCP 37(e) Provides Rules Governing ESI Preservation and Sanctions
  • LH&M is considered a debt relief agency.
    LH&M helps people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

    Attorney advertisement. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.