Friday, February 17, 2017

New Judges And New Rules


  • In case you weren't already aware, there are two openings on the Eighth Judicial District Court bench. Applications for those openings in Depts. 10 and 18 are due on February 24, 2017. Because the Nevada Supreme Court and the Nevada Court of Appeals are moving from the Regional Justice Center on February 21, no applications will be accepted in Las Vegas. All applications must be delivered to the Supreme Court in Carson City by 5 pm on February 24. The appointment process is open to all Nevada attorneys with 10 years of legal experience, including two years in Nevada. More info and applications here
  • Defender of the First Amendment, Marc Randazza, got a big win in the 11th Circuit for his client Dr. Steven Novella. [Published Opinion]
  • The Supreme Court has decided it is time to update the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and have selected a committee. We have it on good authority that at least one, if not more of the people on that committee, are readers of the blog, so do you have any suggestions on rules you would like to see changed or added. Arizona recently did this and you can get a taste of the changes they did here.  [ADKT 0522]

26 comments:

  1. Nice to see a shout out for SGU and SBM on the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Make a rule informing the judges of the Eighth Judicial District Court that electronic signature are, in the eyes of the law, the equivalent of a wet ink signature. There is no reason to require wet ink signatures anymore. And, waiting to obtain a wet ink signature from opposing counsel just costs everyone more time and money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, hard copies, courteous or not, are an archaic waste of time and money.

      Delete
    2. Judges aren't reading electronic briefs. So the entire movement to eliminate paper copies and go to e-filing has meant that the recipient prints it out. Judges aren't going to print anything out so its on you.

      Delete
    3. This. This. This. Electronic signatures for everything!

      Delete
  3. It makes no sense to add three days when using electronic service.

    ReplyDelete
  4. oh where to begin. I agree with the electronic signature and three extra days for e-service. I think that the rules should contemplate allowing EDCR to have motions without hearings. There should also be some uniform rules about defaults and default judgments since the clerks' office and judges all have so many of their own rules. They should also contemplate some form interrogatories and request for production.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OST's MUST have a full briefing schedule included in the order.



    ReplyDelete
  6. Recognition that statutory deadlines shall be complied with by the Court. So when it says a Motion shall be heard in 5 days, the Court shall hear the matter in 5 days.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A rule saying no sur-replies or other nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, I just filed a sur-reply. It was totally justified, btw.

      Delete
  8. It is not clear, and I doubt, that District Court Local Rules such as the EDCR are included in our portfolio, as those are established in the first instance in the district and then "approved" by the NVSCT. I know there are many legitimate complaints about the EDCR and other local practices, but, at least until we know more, suggestions on the NRCP would be the most useful.
    Don

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NRCP 83 says the district courts may make rules not inconsistent with these rules, so what the Committee does with NRCP can have direct effect on EDCR.

      Delete
    2. Take a look at how the plain language movement successfully rewrote the FRCP and improved their clarity tenfold without changing their substance. Go and do thou likewise.

      Delete
  9. Don't get me wrong, I think there is wisdom in having experienced attorneys on the committee, but please make sure they get some younger blood involved that is familiar with technology and the actual work that is being done these days. Partners and judges have very little insight into what actually happens with the rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Panel is a joke. I like George Bochanis but not someone steeped in the NRCP. Polsenberg is a good lawyer but he is an appellate lawyer. This is the best we could do?

      Delete
    2. I"m assuming the Steve Morris appointed to the committee is Pickering's wife?

      Delete
    3. You assumed correctly. But Steve is (ok was) a really good trial lawyer.

      Delete
  10. When the applications are submitted for the District Court vacancies
    are submitted, they will NOT largely consist of solid, experienced, worthy attorneys. Instead, it will more closely resemble a low-budget horror film--"Night Of The Perennial Applicants And Worthless Hacks."

    For those who believe that the pool of judicial applicants for an appointed position greatly exceed the quality of judicial candidates for an elected position, the difference in quality between the two groups of people has closed to the point where there is often not much difference between the two groups.

    Notice that the majority of applicants for appointment to fill a vacancy, are the same people who sign up to run for an elected seat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's funny--particularly the title of the horror film about the perennial judicial contenders. But I'd like to hear from others as to whether they think there is any truth to what you say. Some of the same people apply for both appointment vacancies, as well as vacancies to be filled by election. But I assume the appointment vacancies generally attract better people.

      Delete
    2. This panel is not interested in your comments. They have already decided to make Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure more like the rules in Arizona and the federal rules. More sanctions, harsh application of deadlines, and restrictions on discovery. Bochanis is there to look out for NJA.

      Delete
    3. This. As Hardesty makes everything tougher but not better.

      Delete
  11. Chad Golightly no longer taking cases? Anyone have the scoop?

    ReplyDelete
  12. No objections for discovery questions to update NRCP.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Merge in SCR Part IX.
    Remove the safe harbor provision from NRCP 11.
    Merge in the language at WDFCR 53(14)(b).

    ReplyDelete