On Dec. 1, 2015, what could arguably be considered the most significant amendments in recent history to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. These amendments alter the landscape of discovery, shorten critical deadlines, and expressly encourage the parties and judges to become more involved in the employing of the rules.
Perhaps the most significant amendments are those attributed to Rule 26(b)(1), where seemingly limitless authority to discover has been short-circuited by a more conservative approach some have dubbed “The Proportionality Rule.” For your reference, we’ve included below an at-a-glance chart of this and the other amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure currently in effect:
| Rule No. | Key Change(s) | Rationale(s) |
| Rule 1: Scope and Purpose | Explaining that the rules should be “construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties” for just, speedy, and inexpensive determination. | Emphasize that the parties, as well as the court, share the responsibility to employ the rules in the same way. |
| Rule 4(m): Time Limit for Service | Defendants must be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, 30 days shorter than the previous deadline.
The time of notice required by Rule 15 for relation back is also shortened. |
Reduce delay at the beginning of litigation, despite increasing the frequency of occasions to extend the time where additional time may be needed (i.e., request to waive service fails, defendant is difficult to serve, marshal is to make service, etc.) |
| Rule 16(b): Scheduling | Scheduling order must be issued 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared. | Reduce delay at the beginning of litigation. |
| Court has option of ordering that parties request a conference before filing a motion to compel or for protection. | Reduce the amount of time and expense spent on discovery motions. | |
| Deletes reference to scheduling conference by telephone, mail, or other means, although conferences may be held in person, by telephone, or by more sophisticated electronic means. | Scheduling conference is more effective if the court and parties engage in direct simultaneous communication. | |
| Rule 26(b)-(d), (f): Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery | Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense “and proportional to the needs of the case considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” | Reduce discovery that is unduly burdensome, expensive, or used as an instrument for delay or oppression.
This amendment does not foreclose impeachment evidence or discovery of the existence, custody, and location of discoverable matter. |
| Rule 30(a)-(b): Depositions by Oral Examination | When depositions may be taken with leave and with respect to duration is amended to parallel with Rules 31 and 33. | To reflect the recognition of proportionality in Rule 26(b)(1). |
| Rule 31(a): Depositions by Written Questions | When depositions may be taken with leave is amended to parallel with Rules 30 and 32. | To reflect the recognition of proportionality in Rule 26(b)(1). |
| Rule 33(a): Interrogatories to Parties | When leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted is amended to parallel with Rules 30 and 31. | To reflect the recognition of proportionality in Rule 26(b)(1). |
| Rule 34(b): Producing Documents, ESI, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes | Permits requests for documents to be served before the Rule 26 conference.
Requires parties to identify when documents will be produced or, if objections are made, then the objections must be specific .
“An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” |
Aimed at reducing the potential to impose unreasonable burdens by objections to requests to produce. |
| Rule 37(a), (e): Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions | If ESI has not been preserved because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it and it cannot be restored, then upon finding prejudice from loss of the ESI, the court may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use may:
1. Presume the lost information was unfavorable to the party; 2. Instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or 3. Dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. |
“Forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”
Resolves the circuit court split on whether negligence is sufficient for spoliation of ESI. |
| Rule 55(c): Setting Aside a Default or a Default Judgment | “The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b).” | To make plain the interplay between Rules 54(b), 55(c), and 60(b). A default judgment that does not dispose of all of the claims among all parties is not a final judgment unless the court directs entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b). |