2016 Rules of Civil Procedure & Discovery Wrap-Up
The courts have been busy in 2016 addressing issues of discovery, and interpreting and rewriting the rules of civil procedure. Each of the below links will take you to either a case brief or memoranda analyzing these developments.
Maria Graham v. City of Talladega: An amended pleading is a nullity if it does not comply with ARCP 15, and once the original claims are dismissed, a party has 42 days from the date of dismissal to file an appeal, pursuant to ARCP 4.
Ex parte Tidra Corporation: A trial court may only require a party to submit to a mental examination under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 35, if one of parties requests such relief and demonstrates good cause.
2016 Amendments to FRCP 4, 6, and 82: A breakdown of the amendments to Rules 4, 6, and 82 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effective December 1, 2016.
Amendments to ARCP 4: A review of the July 1, 2016, amendments to Rule 4 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ex parte North American Adjusters, Inc.: Under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a jury demand is required to be endorsed, but not signed.
Ex parte Dr. Barbara Johnson: When a minor child is not a party to a custody dispute, his psychiatric records are privileged and not subject to an exception.
Guidelines for the Discoverability of Social Media Content in Civil Litigation: What social media content is discoverable, permissible methods of obtaining social media content, and authenticating social media content for admissibility at trial.
How to Respond to an Objection to Social Media Discovery Requests: Social media content is subject to discovery under the broad definitions provided in the discovery rules of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and is not usually privileged or protected by privacy rights.
McCullough v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company: When a motion for summary judgment is not amended to address claims alleged after filing of the summary judgment motion, a ruling granting summary judgment is a non-final judgment.
ENT Associates of Alabama, P.A., et al. v. Lauryn Diane Hoke: Where a plaintiff has no bona fide intent to serve defendants at the time a complaint is filed or prior to the running of the statute of limitations, the action is not commenced and is time-barred.
Carrie Crews v. Grace Jackson: Pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 64B, when a judgment creditor has failed to contest garnishment exemption claims, a court has no discretion to determine whether to dismiss a garnishment proceeding or to modify a writ of garnishment.