The federal Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure released its latest Civil Rules Agenda Book on November 7, 2017. A copy of it is available here. A couple of items on the agenda should be of interest to blog readers.
The first topic has to do with proposed changes Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), dealing with corporate witness designations (see tab 5 beginning on page 171). The following changes are under consideration:
- Inclusion of specific reference to Rule 30(b)(6) among the topics for discussion at the Rule 26(f) conference, and in the report to the court under Rule 16.
- Amending Rule 30(b)(6) to clarify that testimony at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is not a judicial admission.
- Requiring and/or permitting supplementation of Rule 30(b)(6) testimony.
- Forbidding contention questions in Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.
- Adding a provision for objections at Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.
- Amending Rule 30(b)(6) to address the application of limits on the duration and number of depositions.
The second topic has to do with requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements (see tab 7B beginning on page 345). The proposed rules change would amend Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) to add a new subsection (v) to the items subject to mandatory initial disclosure:
(v) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any agreement under which any 5 person, other than an attorney permitted to charge a contingent fee representing a party, has a right to receive compensation that is contingent on, and sourced from, any proceeds of the civil action, by settlement, judgment or otherwise.
The committee notes several areas of “disagreement” that would have to be resolved before a rules change could be adopted. These are:
- Definition of what types of third-party litigation funding agreements are covered.
- Whether a new disclosure rule for third-party litigation funding should be parallel to the existing requirement for disclosure of a defendant’s insurance policies.
- Extent to which third-party litigation funders control or impact the conduct of the litigation at issue.
- Extent to which third-party litigation funders control or impact settlement of the litigation at issue.
- Possible impact of disclosure of third-party litigation funding on the parties’ strategic behavior.
- Potential for conflicts of interests created by third-party litigation funding.
- Whether disclosure of third-party litigation funding is important to judicial recusal.
- Whether disclosure of third-party litigation funding would be a threat to attorney/client privilege or work product protection.
- How proportionality affects disclosure of third-party litigation funding.
- Whether third-party litigation funding increases frivolous litigation.
- Possible conflict between disclosure of third-party litigation funding and state regulation of professional responsibility.
It appears uncertain whether the committee will seriously consider this proposal or continue to defer action as it did in 2014. A possible motivating factor, not present in 2014, is the threat of congressional action to amend the rules.
Readers who are interested in either of these two issues can comment on them here.