PACER and Discovery Drop-Down Menu
Hilary
involving discovery has to be filed with the court, how come PACER has
a whole drop-down menu regarding discovery filings? Do Certificates of
Service have to be uploaded for each set of interrogatories and
requests for admissions, and for production of documents and
disclosures? If that is all that has to be uploaded, why are there
menu choices called "Admissions" and "Interrogatories," for example?
Now I am very confused.
Mike Jacobs
> I read a long thread a while back about interrogatories. If nothing
> involving discovery has to be filed with the court, how come PACER has
> a whole drop-down menu regarding discovery filings?
You apparently forgot the _other_ long thread awhile back, where I and
others here on MLM discussed with you what ECF and PACER are, how
these systems operate, and why there is _never_ any legal guidance
provided by, nor any valid conclusions to be drawn from, the fact that
PACER (or your court's ECF system) does or does not list a particular
kind of document on its drop-down menus. The ECF system's (which you
continue to conflate with PACER, a completely separate animal)* drop-
down menus simply provide a convenient way to "form fill" or "auto-
suggest" the title of a document you are about to file with the court,
letting you do so by making a single mouse click, instead of having to
type in the entire title of the document yourself. Of course, ECF
also offers a "fill in the blank" option for you to add more words to
the title of your document, as well as an "other" option to insert a
completely manually-typed title for your document.
ECF IS NOT intended as, nor should you EVER rely on it as, a robotic
"expert program" that will decide for you what kinds of papers you are
permitted to file, or required to file. Nor, (worse) should you ever
let it decide for you what kind of papers you SHOULD file with the
court. (If that's what you've been doing, _no_wonder_ you are
engaging in this bizarre exploration of all these sidetracks provided
on the ECF menu. And, that random walk you are taking is continually
leading you astray from the straight path to your goal.)
What you are apparently doing is just as silly as walking into a
Chinese restaurant and deciding you _have_to_ order a "combination
plate" and pick one from column A, one from column B, and one from
column C just because ordering that way is one of the options on the
menu, even if you're not hungry enough for an entire 3-course meal.
You are _allowed_ to order a la carte and just get an eggroll, if that
is all you want. You do not have to order a complete meal for six
just so you get free eggrolls.
Rather, what you should do is LOOK TO THE RULES (FedRCivP, and your
Local Rules) to see what filings are permitted or required, and LOOK
TO YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE of the facts of your particular case, and your
own sense of tactics and strategy, to see what kind of papers you
SHOULD file (i.e. which ones will HELP YOU reach your goal of being
able to present your case to a jury at trial) as opposed to which
kinds of filings will be of no use to you or will even help the
defense (if nothing else, by requiring you to waste your time on
useless sidetracks).
In any event, the reason the ECF system lists interrogatories, etc. on
its pull-down menus is because, sometimes, they ARE allowed or
required to be filed with the Court. Read the applicable Rule 5(d)
(1): in pertinent part, it says that "disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)
or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be
filed _until_they_are_used_in_the_proceeding_ or the _court_orders_
filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or
tangible things or to permit entry onto land, and requests for
admission" (emphasis added). So, there are at least 2 specific
circumstances (listed in the Rule itself) in which those pull-down
menus may actually get to be used, for filing of interrogs using the
ECF system.
* Electronic Court Filing (ECF) is the system by which lawyers and pro
se parties who are registered to use ECF, can file papers in court
remotely and electronically over a secure website. Participation in
ECF lets you UPLOAD papers that then become part of your official case
file, just as if you walked into the clerk's office and handed paper
copies to the clerk to be date-stamped and spindled into your case's
manila folder. It is _not_ a system or webpage that is available to
the general public - _up_-loading is available only to the litigants
(and of course to the Court, for filing orders, etc.) just as would be
the case with in-person paper filing.
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, OTOH, is
the Web-accessed database program that lets you (and anyone else who
registers and agrees to pay the quite reasonable per-page viewing fee)
_VIEW_ online the docket of any Federal case, and download and view
the contents of the PDF papers that are already part of the official
case file of a given case (those papers having been previously up-
loaded by someone authorized to access the secure ECF system). It is
a mistake for you to mix up these two related but quite distinct
websites, as you continue to do, Hilary.
> Do Certificates of
> Service have to be uploaded for each set of interrogatories and
> requests for admissions, and for production of documents and
> disclosures?
No. Per Rule 5, you only need to file a certificate of service for
papers that are "required to be served" and you file it _together_
with the paper itself. For discovery papers, you should _prepare_ a
certificate of service (generally, it is simply a one-paragraph
endorsement you insert at the end of the paper it refers to) so you
can keep track of when you actually served a paper on the other side
and to whom you served it, but you should not _file_ either the
certificate, or the paper that it is attached to, until it is going to
be used in the case, or until the court orders you to do so.
> If that is all that has to be uploaded,
Nothing "has to" be uploaded. If you CHOOSE to serve discovery
requests, you do so by _serving_ them on your opponent, but you do not
_file_ them with the court until the appropriate time, if ever.
> why are there
> menu choices called "Admissions" and "Interrogatories," for example?
Because sometimes those papers _do_ get to be filed; if they are going
to be used in the proceeding, or if the court so orders.
> Now I am very confused.
Yes, I think I can see why. Quit relying on the ECF pull-down menus
as your "quick-and-dirty idiot's guide to the Federal rules" and you
will avoid most of that confusion IMO.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Bob
You should not file any discovery with the court. That includes
proofs of service. You file motions related to discovery.
I don't know anything about the menu choices.
Hilary
> It is a mistake for you to mix up these two related but quite distinct
> websites, as you continue to do, Hilary.
I don't mix them up, Mr. Jacobs. I asked the significance of the drop-
down menu if discovery did not have to be, and in fact shouldn't be,
filed on ECF.
> > Do Certificates of
> > Service have to be uploaded for each set of interrogatories and
> > requests for admissions, and for production of documents and
> > disclosures?
>
> No. � Per Rule 5, you only need to file a certificate of service for
> papers that are "required to be served" and you file it _together_
> with the paper itself. �For discovery papers, you should _prepare_ a
> certificate of service (generally, it is simply a one-paragraph
> endorsement you insert at the end of the paper it refers to) so you
> can keep track of when you actually served a paper on the other side
> and to whom you served it, but you should not _file_ either the
> certificate, or the paper that it is attached to, until it is going to
> be used in the case, or until the court orders you to do so.
That brings me back to 1) the subpoena-by-certified-mail issue; 2) the
fact that in addition to not having Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis, I won't
have the power to subpoena anything at all, due to being unable to
hire someone to serve them; 3) the similar fact that I won't be able
to depose anyone, since I can't afford all the fees associated with
depositions; and 4) my consequently wondering why ANY in forma
pauperis filing is allowed, if courts will not assist plaintiffs in
litigating their case in any way. (No response needed; just an
observation on the eve of my summary judgment.)
> Yes, I think I can see why. �Quit relying on the ECF pull-down menus
> as your "quick-and-dirty idiot's guide to the Federal rules" and you
> will avoid most of that confusion IMO.
I'm not an idiot, and I don't even do things quick-and-dirty. But
thank you for the clarifications about the drop-down menu.
Cy Pres
<hilaryje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>. . .I won't
>have the power to subpoena anything at all, due to being unable to
>hire someone to serve them;
You don't need to hire a professional to serve people. Any third
party can serve process, so long as they're not you.
Mike Jacobs
> On Oct 26, 10:53 am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is a mistake for you to mix up these two related but quite distinct
> > websites, as you continue to do, Hilary.
>
> I don't mix them up, Mr. Jacobs.
Yes, you did. See below.
> I asked the significance of the drop-
> down menu if discovery did not have to be, and in fact shouldn't be,
> filed on ECF.
No, you didn't. Your words, in your OP on this thread, were: "how
come PACER has
a whole drop-down menu regarding discovery filings?" The drop-down
menu for filings is on the ECF system, _not_ on PACER.
Yes, I guessed correctly that you _wanted_ to ask about the drop-down
ECF menus, but that's _not_ what you actually asked. And, my point
was that you continue to conflate these two distinct websites,
treating them as though they were the same thing, as you still did
just above. You've got to get over that habit.
On a more general point, IMO it would also help you see things more
clearly if you wouldn't back down into a corner and get your hackles
up and claim, "No, I _didn't_ mix them up" when you so plainly and
clearly _did_. I say that for your own good, since if you put on
willful blinders about admitting even such a simple mistake as this,
goodness knows what whoppers of elephants in the room you may also be
failing to acknowledge. Really, all you had to say was, "Yes, I
meant ECF menus, not PACER menus. Thank you for pointing that out to
me. I realize I was using the terms as synonyms before and I won't
do that any more." See? That wasn't hard.
None of the above is intended to denigrate your intelligence, or your
worth as a person. To the contrary, I am suggesting that an
intelligent, mature adult must learn to _recognize_ when he or she has
made a mistake, acknowledge it, apologize to anyone who was hurt, make
amends or reparations and clean up your own mess as best you can, and
work harder in the future to avoid making the same mistake. We ALL
do that, and that process is called "life." But I'm afraid perhaps
your PTSD disability may be getting in the way of your having the
emotional strength to do that, which in turn is going to handicap you
in your ability to act as your own pro se advocate in your court
case. You have set what may be a nearly impossible goal for yourself,
to be the mentally disabled victim and the alert, able advocate at one
and the same time.
<snip>
> That brings me back to 1) the subpoena-by-certified-mail issue;
You saw my reply on another thread about that, right? In-hand
service is typically required, although perhaps your court's clerk can
tell you if cert mail service is permitted in your district. If it's
not, and if your petition for proceeding In Forma Pauperis has been
approved, I'm assuming you can ask the Court to have the clerk issue
subpoenas to the witnesses you want, and ask that the subpoenas be
given to the US Marshal for service on those witnesses. That's how
you do it, and (if you are IFP status) it doesn't cost you a nickel.
> 2) the
> fact that in addition to not having Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis,
Try www.lexisone.com - it's FREE, and gives you keyword-searchable or
cite-searchable access to all of LEXIS's caselaw materials for the
past 10 years, plus the entire SCOTUS oeuvre back to the beginning. I
doubt there are many cases you would need to look at that are more
than 10 years old, unless they are so widely cited (seminal cases with
lots of "progeny") that you could find such cases simply by Googling
the case name - Brown v. Board of Ed., frex, or Griggs v. Duke Power,
or McDonnell-Douglas, or any of the other well-known cases that set
the pattern for an anti-discrimination suit under the 1960's-era Civil
Rights statutes as amended to date.
> I won't
> have the power to subpoena anything at all, due to being unable to
> hire someone to serve them;
If you are In Forma Pauperis, ask the Court (by motion, citing Rule
45) respectfully requesting the judge to direct the clerk to issue the
specific subpoenas you need (giving the name and address of each
witness, and the date and place you want them each to appear) and ask
further that the judge direct the Marshal to serve them on the
witnesses for you. Attach a proposed order saying the result you
want, and I bet Bob's your uncle.
> 3) the similar fact that I won't be able
> to depose anyone, since I can't afford all the fees associated with
> depositions;
Magic words - IFP. File a motion, ask nicely, see what the judge
says. Even if he won't allow you an attorney at government expense,
he may be inclined to have the court's IFP budget pay for your court
reporters, etc. Or, perhaps you could arrange to subpoena your
witnesses to come _to_the_court_ where the court's _own_ (publicly
paid) reporter would take down their testimony in a pretrial hearing
right in the courtroom - with or without the judge having to be
present (I'm sure he has other things to do, and would be happy to not
be there unless an issue comes up and you need his ruling) and then,
ask away.
Keep in mind that you only really need to depose HOSTILE witnesses,
since if a witness is friendly, all you have to do is TALK TO HIM and
find out what he has to say WITHOUT any formal procedure being
required. But, once you find out from defense counsel (in discovery)
whom _he_ considers persons with material knowledge, and what each
such person knows (you did ask that, right?) you can decide which of
_those_ persons you need to depose, to pin down their stories.
Mostly likely you need to depose the resident manager you had dealings
with, and anyone else working for the defendant landlord that they
claim has some personal knowledge of the relevant facts.
Also, don't forget that if the people you need to depose are all
employees of the defendant company itself, you can file a "corporate
designee" deposition notice directed to the defendant landlord itself,
listing the subject matter areas on which you want to ask questions,
and then the defendant has to designate and bring to the deposition
those persons best able to answer those particular questions on behalf
of the corporation. YOU DO NOT NEED A SUBPOENA if your "deponent" is
in fact a party opponent - they are _already_ within the jurisdiction
of the court, and simply serving a proper Notice of Deposition on
defense counsel will compel them to appear at the time and place you
designate (_do_ try to work out the logistic details with opposing
counsel first, of course).
> and 4) my consequently wondering why ANY in forma
> pauperis filing is allowed, if courts will not assist plaintiffs in
> litigating their case in any way. (No response needed; just an
> observation on the eve of my summary judgment.)
Why do you assume the court will not assist you? HAVE YOU ASKED
(i.e., filed a proper Motion for the relief you seek)? The judge is
NOT going to ask YOU, "what can I do for you today?" The burden is
on YOU to ask HIM, if you need something.
Quit looking for EXCUSES, and get to work figuring out what you need,
then asking for it. As the lottery ads say, "You can't win, if you
don't play."
> > Yes, I think I can see why. Quit relying on the ECF pull-down menus
> > as your "quick-and-dirty idiot's guide to the Federal rules" and you
> > will avoid most of that confusion IMO.
>
> I'm not an idiot,
You already know I don't think you are an idiot. Why do you insist on
taking that comment personally?
Haven't you ever heard of the popular book series, "The Complete
Idiot's Guide to (X)"? That's what I meant to refer to. Lots of
people who use the "Idiot's Guide" books are not idiots - I freely
admit to using them, MYSELF. My point was that you should NOT rely on
the ECF pull-down menus as your Cliff's Notes, your Executive Summary,
your "Federal Rules for Dummies"* guidebook. You should read the
actual Rules instead.
* Another popular book series. I am not saying you're a dummy
either. I like the "Dummies" books too.
> and I don't even do things quick-and-dirty.
Not YOU - the BOOK. In my post, that adjective "quick-and-dirty"
modified "guide," not "idiot's" (which I was _also_ using as an
adjective here modifying "guide," not as a freestanding noun referring
to YOU as you seem to have taken it. "Cliff's Notes," like the
"Idiot's Guide" series, also gives a quick-and-dirty summary of, frex,
a Shakespeare play; but reading the Cliff's Notes version of Hamlet is
not the same as reading the play itself. That's what I meant.
Now that you understand what I meant, do you continue to deny that you
were relying on the ECF pull-down menus to, in effect, TELL you what
kind of papers you should be filing with the court, and which ones you
shouldn't? That was my original point, which got lost in the course
of your taking everything as a personal insult. All I'm saying is,
that's NOT what the ECF pull-down menus are for, and you shouldn't use
them for that.
> But
> thank you for the clarifications about the drop-down menu.
You're welcome.
Hilary
> Now that you understand what I meant, do you continue to deny that you
> were relying on the ECF pull-down menus to, in effect, TELL you what
> kind of papers you should be filing with the court, and which ones you
> shouldn't? �That was my original point, which got lost in the course
> of your taking everything as a personal insult. � All I'm saying is,
> that's NOT what the ECF pull-down menus are for, and you shouldn't use
> them for that.
Dear suffering Jesus, do you know how to yell at somebody. Then you're
a (real) saint and provide insights that nobody else on the planet
provides. There's "Matlock" Mr. J. and Mini-Mr. J. all in one.
First, THANK YOU for snipped information. I'm relying on dial-up at
the moment and am constantly being dropped. Now I think I understand
what the ECF "Motion for a Motion" means, thanks to you. (Why are some
lawyers so critical one minute and then so nice the next?)
Second, you don't understand the source of my paranoia about this
local judicial hero. A witch-hunt is going on in my hometown, the
depths of which are scaring the shit out of more than the judicial
idiots who started it (one of whom I have a sickening sinking feeling
is much less culpable than national media is making him out), and
which, unfortunately, feeds a king-can-do-no-wrong sentiment informing
the cadre surrounding my judge. He will most likely take any attempt
to be "IFP-imaginative" and use it to rip me new arseholes. I feel
like a seamstress who happened to have the bad luck of sewing a tear
in Marie Antoinette's gown, but who is going face-to-face not only
with Robespierre but with St. Just. And Scranton has no bourreaus with
handsome English ex-patriots in them.
I will however grovel as effectively as I can.
Daniel R.Reitman
You are misunderstanding.
The discovery requests themselves should not be filed. Discovery
schedules may be iissued by the court. Orders may need to be issued
to obtain depositions of witnesses not within the usual reach of
subpoena. Parties dissatisfied with the responses (or lack thereof)
to discovery requests may file motions to enforce the discovery rules.
And, as noted elsewhere in this thread, requests for admissions and
their exceptions may be filed, primarily because an admission can have
a direct efect on the case.
In my first year of law school, my Torts professor assigned Gerald M.
Stern, The Buffalo Creek Disaster (1977), which discussed the
litigation arising out of a 1972 flood from the collapse of a pile of
mining rubble piled in a stream. It gives a good picture of how
discovery procedures are used; you should be aware, however, that the
rules have been modified since the Buffalo Creek case and that you
need to look up the changes before you do anything yourself.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
Hilary
>
> Now I think I understand
> what the ECF "Motion for a Motion" means
I meant a Motion for Consideration.
Hilary
>
> And, as noted elsewhere in this thread, requests for admissions and
> their exceptions may be filed, primarily because an admission can have
> a direct efect on the case.
I have to reread the entire thread, then, because I did not know this.
Requests for admissions can be filed...but I don't understand what an
"exception" is. Also, wouldn't interrogatories and depositions and
requests for productions of documents have a direct effect on the case
as well? I wish very strongly that you or someone else on the group
would clarify this for me. (Of course I can Google it, but what search
terms would I use for "Which Discovery Can Be Filed and Which Can't?")
*Thank* you.
Hilary
>
>
> No. � Per Rule 5, you only need to file a certificate of service for
> papers that are "required to be served" and you file it _together_
> with the paper itself. �For discovery papers, you should _prepare_ a
> certificate of service (generally, it is simply a one-paragraph
> endorsement you insert at the end of the paper it refers to) so you
> can keep track of when you actually served a paper on the other side
> and to whom you served it, but you should not _file_ either the
> certificate, or the paper that it is attached to, until it is going to
> be used in the case, or until the court orders you to do so.
That's what I did. Do attorneys routinely use the Return Receipt (or
whatever it's called) function of Windows Mail? Because the defense
attorney in my case doesn't respond to the (few but important) emails
I have sent him, and for that matter hasn't responded to one very
important phone call I made to him either.
> Because sometimes those papers _do_ get to be filed; if they are going
> to be used in the proceeding, or if the court so orders.
Does the judge have to order them to be filed? If not, what are the
circumstances that lead to their ultimately being filed?
Thank you.
Mike Jacobs
> On Oct 26, 9:53 am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No. Per Rule 5, you only need to file a certificate of service for
> > papers that are "required to be served" and you file it _together_
> > with the paper itself. For discovery papers, you should _prepare_ a
> > certificate of service (generally, it is simply a one-paragraph
> > endorsement you insert at the end of the paper it refers to) so you
> > can keep track of when you actually served a paper on the other side
> > and to whom you served it, but you should not _file_ either the
> > certificate, or the paper that it is attached to, until it is going to
> > be used in the case, or until the court orders you to do so.
>
> That's what I did.
Good.
<new topic/question, apparently>
> Do attorneys routinely use the Return Receipt (or
> whatever it's called) function of Windows Mail?
I don't. I don't use Windows Mail either.
> Because the defense
> attorney in my case doesn't respond to the (few but important) emails
> I have sent him,
For papers that are filed thru ECF, you don't have to send him a copy;
he gets notices directly from ECF that they have been filed, and can
go to PACER and download a copy himself. That's all that's required;
no "certificate of service" is necessary for such papers.
As to discovery requests and responses, and other papers you have
_not_ filed thru ECF, all you have to do, as noted above, is "serve"
the other party. See Rule 5(b), "Service: How Made" for tips on
various ways to do that.
If your plan was to have your emails to opposing counsel count as
"service" on your opposing party, you must have HIS CONSENT, IN
WRITING, to receive service of non-ECF-filed papers by that means.
See Rule 5(b)(2)(E).
Otherwise, the safest (other than in-hand delivery, which always
works) and most standard means of serving a represented party with
various papers (_after_ that party has been brought under the
jurisdiction of the court by initial process) is simply to send the
papers to that party's attorney, by ordinary first class mail. Such
service is considered complete upon putting the envelope in the US
mail. Other means of service are considered complete only upon proof
of actual DELIVERY.
If this guy won't talk to you or respond to your emails, AND if you do
not have his WRITTEN CONSENT to serve him by email, YOU NEED TO MAIL
HIM HARD COPIES OF EVERYTHING except those papers that you file thru
ECF. It sounds like he is playing hardball and wants to trap you in
noncompliance with the rules on proper service, as many of us
predicted might happen given your pro se status, and that may be one
reason he is not responding at all to your missives.
> and for that matter hasn't responded to one very
> important phone call I made to him either.
Because once you and he actually get on the phone together, you could
ask him "What's up with your receipt of my discovery papers I emailed
to you?" and he would be ethically prohibited from actually _lying_ to
you about it - hence, he doesn't want to talk to you AT ALL.
Maybe if you point out to him that you DO know what the rules require
and that you ARE sending him hard copies by US mail, he will call you
back. If not, just keep corresponding with him by snailmail letter,
and then YOU will be building your own record, for future motions,
indicating that HE is the one being unreasonable and obstreperous,
when the judge gets you two together finally and asks. "Can't we all
just get along?"
> > Because sometimes those papers _do_ get to be filed; if they are going
> > to be used in the proceeding, or if the court so orders.
>
> Does the judge have to order them to be filed?
That's ONE way. That's what "if the court so orders" means.
> If not, what are the
> circumstances that lead to their ultimately being filed?
"if they are going to be used in the proceeding" as noted above, and
as set forth in Rule 5(d)(1).
Now, of course, we already know (from yet another paragraph of my same
10-26 reply post) that the ECF system does _not_ tell you _when_ it is
appropriate to file discovery materials; for that, you have to look to
your _complete_ understanding of the entire FedRCivP (and local rules)
as well as your own strategic and tactical wiles, to see, first, if
such papers are _permitted_ to be filed
_in_a_particular_circumstance_, and second, whether it is a
_good_idea_ for you to so file them (along with whatever motion, etc.
they will accompany). I'm sorry, it's impossible to give you a
capsule summary of _all_ the circumstances where you may want to, and
be able to, file your discovery papers in court. But, Rule 5 does
give you a sound guide: you may file them on ECF if either (a) they
are going to be "used in the proceeding," or (b) "the court so
orders." More than that, I cannot say.
> Thank you.
You're welcome.
Bob
<hilaryje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Do attorneys routinely use the Return Receipt (or
>whatever it's called) function of Windows Mail? Because the defense
>attorney in my case doesn't respond to the (few but important) emails
>I have sent him, and for that matter hasn't responded to one very
>important phone call I made to him either.
Can't speak for all attorneys, of course, but from a technical
standpoint someone receiving an e-mail can prevent the return receipt
from being sent anyway.
>> Because sometimes those papers _do_ get to be filed; if they are going
>> to be used in the proceeding, or if the court so orders.
>
>Does the judge have to order them to be filed? If not, what are the
>circumstances that lead to their ultimately being filed?
Generally, you submit discovery to a court when the discovery is
relevant to a motion. You serve document requests. The defendant
serves responses. You file a motion to compel (for whatever reason),
and you attach the requests and the responses to your motion so the
court can evaluate the merits of your motion.
Bob
<hilaryje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 31, 1:27�pm, "Daniel R.Reitman" <dreit...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>
>> And, as noted elsewhere in this thread, requests for admissions and
>> their exceptions may be filed, primarily because an admission can have
>> a direct efect on the case.
>
>Requests for admissions can be filed...but I don't understand what an
>"exception" is. Also, wouldn't interrogatories and depositions and
>requests for productions of documents have a direct effect on the case
>as well? I wish very strongly that you or someone else on the group
>would clarify this for me.
One more time. Discovery is not filed. It is served. Discovery that
was *previously* served may *later* be filed in conjunction with a
motion.
I don't know what Daniel means by exceptions either. Nor do I see
anywhere else in this thread that anyone explained why requests for
admission are treated differently from any other discovery instrument.
Michigan Attorney said: "Admissions, however, are a different
animal." But he didn't explain what he meant.
Cy Pres
>I don't know what Daniel means by exceptions either. Nor do I see
>anywhere else in this thread that anyone explained why requests for
>admission are treated differently from any other discovery instrument.
>Michigan Attorney said: "Admissions, however, are a different
>animal." But he didn't explain what he meant.
Admissions take facts off the table and thus, narrow the scope of the
case. Other discovery materials are generally just evidence to be
used at will. I still can't recall having seen admissions filed as
free-standing documents very often, if at all, though I've seen them
filed with motions fairly often, just like other discovery materials.
Mike Jacobs
> >On Oct 31, 1:27 pm, "Daniel R.Reitman" <dreit...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> >> And, as noted elsewhere in this thread, requests for admissions and
> >> their exceptions may be filed, primarily because an admission can have
> >> a direct efect on the case.
>
> >Requests for admissions can be filed...but I don't understand what an
> >"exception" is. Also, wouldn't interrogatories and depositions and
> >requests for productions of documents have a direct effect on the case
> >as well? I wish very strongly that you or someone else on the group
> >would clarify this for me.
>
> One more time. Discovery is not filed. It is served. Discovery that
> was *previously* served may *later* be filed in conjunction with a
> motion.
Or, conceivably, they could be "used in the proceeding" in some other
way, and would be filed in that instance as well. The rule does not
limit their use only to being attached to motions - although I cannot
presently _think_ of any other way, frex, a set of interrogatory
answers could be "used in the proceeding."
However, A Michigan Attorney raised a very good point today when he
suggested Hilary stop fretting over _all_ the possible procedural
choices that are presented on the ECF menu (or permitted by the Rules)
and focus on WHAT SHE NEEDS TO DO to advance her case, i.e. on what
steps she SHOULD take that will help her build a prima facie case for
trial as opposed to merely sidetracking her into useless procedural
cul-de-sacs. She is NOT (or should not be) taking a survey course in
Civil Procedure, where she needs to know everything from how to arrest
a vessel in Admiralty Law to how to serve process on a Foreign
Sovereign (neither of which procedural issues, I trust, will ever
arise in her case).
As to discovery requests, I remain puzzled over why Hilary would even
think she WANTS to file them with the Court thru the ECF system _now_,
at a time when she has no idea what she might eventually want to _do_
with them (i.e., how they might eventually be "used in the
proceeding"). By doing so, she is putting the cart before the
horse. ONLY AFTER some issue comes up, as to which a light bulb goes
off in her head and she says, frex, "Hey, I could use the defendant's
Answers to Interrogatories to prove/disprove that!" would she then
need to remember, "Hey, I _can_ file these rog answers with ECF _if_
I'm going to use them for _that_! So, here we go!"
> I don't know what Daniel means by exceptions either.
I'm guessing that's the Oregon word for a Response to a Request for
Admissions, or perhaps only if such a Response amounts to a Denial of
a particular Request. Maybe Mr. Reitman could explain it better.
> Nor do I see
> anywhere else in this thread that anyone explained why requests for
> admission are treated differently from any other discovery instrument.
> Michigan Attorney said: "Admissions, however, are a different
> animal." But he didn't explain what he meant.
Rule 5(d)(1), in pertinent part, says that "the following discovery
requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the
proceeding or the court orders filing: depositions, interrogatories,
requests for documents or
tangible things or to permit entry onto land, and
_requests_for_admission_." So, I have to agree with Bob, I'm not
sure exactly why A Michigan Attorney (AMA) puts requests for admission
in a different category than these other discovery requests, unless
he's talking about how often they actually _are_ "used in the
proceeding" as compared to other discovery responses. If that's all
AMA means, then I agree, RFAs are filed far more frequently than other
discovery answers, since, if no response is timely given, they
constitute binding admissions for use in the case.
Bob
>One more time. Discovery is not filed. It is served. Discovery that
>was *previously* served may *later* be filed in conjunction with a
>motion.
Take a look at Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rule 5.4. That
should answer your questions about service and filing of discovery.
Daniel R.Reitman
>I don't know what Daniel means by exceptions either. Nor do I see
>anywhere else in this thread that anyone explained why requests for
>admission are treated differently from any other discovery instrument.
>Michigan Attorney said: "Admissions, however, are a different
>animal." But he didn't explain what he meant.
That was an error. I meant responses.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
Bob
In the Middle District of Pennsylvania, there is a local rule NOT to
file discovery, including requests for admission. Personally, I would
never file admissions unless a rule or order required me to do so.
Frankly, I don't see a context in which someone would file an
admission without an accompanying motion or response to a motion that
explains the reason for doing so. What would the court make of such a
filing otherwise? Unless, of course, the court ordered it, but that
goes back to my original point.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> In the Middle District of Pennsylvania, there is a local rule
> NOT to file discovery, including requests for admission.
> Personally, I would never file admissions unless a rule or order
> required me to do so. Frankly, I don't see a context in which
> someone would file an admission without an accompanying motion
> or response to a motion that explains the reason for doing so.
> What would the court make of such a filing otherwise? Unless,
> of course, the court ordered it, but that goes back to my
> original point.
I'm not surprised there's a rule not to file discovery. In the old
days, when I got started, filing discovery was required. But at some
point the courts realized that they were being overwhelmed with
paperwork they didn't need, so they stopped it.