Proposed 2019 UTCRs

Comments are due by February 22, 2019 on the latest round of proposed changes to the UTCRs. These include:

New UTCRs

Proposed New UTCR 5.010 – Consumer Debt Collection Cases

Applies to cases filed by debt buyers and debt collectors acting on their behalf. Requires inclusion of identifying information in the action title, the body of the initiating pleading, and a completed Consumer Debt Collection Disclosure Statement (CDCDS). Directs the court to issue a 30-day notice of dismissal if the plaintiff fails to provide a CDCDS. When seeking a default, requires plaintiff to include a declaration under penalty of perjury that the plaintiff has complied with certain pleading requirements. Note: a sample CDCDS form will be made available by the OJD on its website. See proposed form on pages 70-73 of the Notice Seeking Public Comment on Proposed Uniform Trial Court Rules Changes for 2019.

Proposed New UTCR 11.110 – Exhibits in Juvenile Cases

Cedes power to local courts for creating a process to submit exhibits in juvenile cases. If electronic filing is permitted by SLR or order of the presiding judge, requires maintenance of an exhibit log, eFiling in conformance with UTCR 21.040, and a timeline for submission. Also see proposed amendments to UTCR 6.050, 6.120, 21.020, and 21.070; 11.120 (new).

Proposed New Chapter 24 – PCR Cases

Creates statewide rules for post-conviction relief (PCR) cases; replaces current SLRs on post-conviction relief. The proposed UTCRs would address case initiation; the defendant’s motion, demurrer, or answer; scheduling in complex cases with appointed counsel; exhibits; additional motions, briefings, and exhibits; disclosure of witnesses; appearance at hearings and trial; continuances; presiding post-conviction judge; and trial scheduling.

Repealed UTCRs

Repealed UTCR 2.010(7) – Certificate of Document Preparation

Removes the certificate of document preparation, which indicates whether a
litigant received assistance in completing the document and whether they paid
for that assistance.

Amended UTCRs

Amended UTCR 2.010(9) – Foreign Language Exhibits

Requires a person submitting a foreign language exhibit to simultaneously submit an English translation with a declaration signed by the translator. Forbids court interpreters from translating or interpreting exhibits during the course of a proceeding; allows interpreters to interpret oral testimony regarding the content of an exhibit.

Amended UTCR 2.010(13) – Format of Case Citations

Changes the format for case name citations from underlined to italicized to align trial court citations with the citation format used in the appellate courts.

Amended UTCR 5.150 – Streamlined Trials (Formerly Expedited)

Implements improvements to time to trial, pretrial conferences, written discovery agreements, limitations on discovery, deadline for completion of discovery, discovery disputes, trial stipulations, and the related forms.

Amended UTCR 8.010 – Declaration in lieu of Affidavit

Allows the use of a declaration as an alternative to notarized affidavits for filings in
certain family law proceedings. Also see proposed amendments to UTCR 8.040.

Amended UTCR 8.090 – Certificates Re Child Support Proceedings, Orders, or Judgments

Requires certificate to be placed at the end of the motion or petition, immediately above the declaration line; adds new information to certificate. A model form containing the required information is available on the OJD website.

Amended 10.020 – DMV Record

Requires the DMV to electronically file the record when a final order of suspension is appealed to a circuit court; would allow each circuit court to adopt its own SLR describing how and in what form the DMV record must be submitted. Also see proposed deletion of UTCR 21.070(3)(k) removing DMV records from the list of documents that must be conventionally filed.

Amended 21.070(3) – Conventional Filing of ERPO Petitions

Adds extreme risk protection order (ERPO) petitions, and supporting affidavits, to the list of documents that must be conventionally filed.

Amended 21.070(5) – Allowing Local Courts to Adopt SLR Requiring Separate Notice of Expedited Filings

Allows local courts to adopt an SLR requiring that filers separately notify the court that an expedited filing has been submitted.

Amended 23.020 – Complex Litigation Cases

Removes the requirement that parties to a case assigned to the Oregon Complex
Litigation Court (OCLC) must share the cost of copying and providing the trial
court file to the assigned OCLC judge, but allows the OCLC judge to direct the
parties to provide copies of documents, in a manner the judge specifies.

Commenting on the Proposed UTCRs

Comments can be submitted online, via email, or by traditional mail.

Online
Go to the Notice Seeking Public Comment on Proposed Uniform Trial Court Rules Changes for 2019 and click on the button next to the item of interest.

Email
utcr@ojd.state.or.us.

Traditional mail
UTCR Reporter
Supreme Court Building
1163 State Street
Salem, Oregon 97301-2563

To attend the spring meeting of the committee on March 8, 2019 contact the UTCR Reporter at utcr@ojd.state.or.us or Bruce C. Miller at 503-986-5500 to schedule a time for your appearance. Recommendations that are adopted by the Chief Justice will take effect August 1, 2019.

All Rights Reserved Beverly Michaelis 2019

 

Mastering Motions to Compel

Celia C. Elwell, the Researching Paralegal, recently pointed to an excellent article in the ABA Journal entitled “6 Keys to Acing Discovery.” The article focuses on preparing for and arguing motions to compel. Post author, Katherine A. Hopkins, cites the following as keys to success:

  1. Avoid canned briefs
  2. Research the court procedures
  3. Research the judge hearing your motion
  4. Research opposing counsel
  5. Make the judge’s life easy
  6. Finally, don’t be a jerk

Read the full article here.

Your first reaction may be: this sounds like a lot of work for a “simple” motion to compel. Perhaps it is. On the other hand, research is something you only need to do once. If you’re in a firm or have a network of fellow practitioners, it should be easy to make a few phone calls about an unfamiliar judge or opposing counsel.

Knowing the court procedures? You better know the court procedures! If it’s been a while or you are new to a particular judicial district in Oregon, start with the OJD Rules Center. Scroll the page to find UTCRs, SLRs, and “other rules,” including the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. If you are a Multnomah County practitioner, the new updated 2018 Attorney Reference Manual is now available on the Multnomah Bar Association website. Get it toot sweet!

I can heartily vouch for the tips about making the judge’s life easy and not being a jerk. No one likes the latter. Don’t take the bait if the other side is contentious. Keep your cool and your reputation intact.

As for the judge, put yourself in his/her position. A straightforward, well-organized motion with clearly marked exhibits is a great start. Your argument should be the same.

All Rights Reserved 2018 Beverly Michaelis

Revisiting eFiling Tips

Are you an eFiling expert? Even so, it never hurts to refresh your memory on the
“best of” eFiling tips. Here are some from our friends at Smokeball, purveyors of law practice management software:

Use a separate and distinct eFiling email address
This ensures that important court notices won’t get buried in your unread work or personal messages.

Check your spam and junk email folders
Court mail lands here more often than you might think.

Whitelist important senders
While not full proof, this step at least offers some assurance that messages are more likely to make it to your inbox. Learn more here.

Check the online court docket
This is a simple and effective way to verify that you’ve captured important court deadlines in your calendar.

Don’t wait until the last-minute
Last-minute filings are more likely to go wrong than right. Give yourself a cushion of time to do the job right – and recover from any mistakes.

Sound familiar? I’ve made these same points many times here, in CLEs, and elsewhere. See Nuts and Bolts of Oregon eCourt and Zero Tolerance for e-Filing Error.

Are you an eFiling novice?

If so, check out the “Oregon eFiling Checklist for First Time eFiler,” on the Professional Liability Fund website. From the homepage, select Practice Management > Forms > eCourt. For a thorough overview of eCourt malpractice traps, see my 2017 CLE.

The case for Oregon eService

Read the October issue of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin featuring “The Case for Oregon eService: An Underused Asset.” If you missed the Oregon eService CLE earlier this year, consider ordering the video or audio recording. Answers to frequently asked questions may be found here.

All Rights Reserved – 2018 – Beverly Michaelis

Tiplet: Proposed Judgments and Orders

Questions about submitting proposed judgments and orders under UTCR 5.100? Wondering what notice you have to give to the other side?  Here is a handy-dandy reference from Multnomah County’s Family Law Court, published by the Professional Liability Fund.

While this was written with family law practitioners in mind, it’s a useful resource for any practitioner.  Here are a few highlights:

What does UTCR 5.100 require?

With few exceptions, you must provide notice to the other party before submitting a proposed order or judgment. If the other party is self-represented, you must also include notice of the timeframe that party has to object. If you receive objections, you must attempt to resolve them.  Additionally, every proposed order and judgment must contain a Certificate of Readiness telling the Judge why the document is ready for judicial signature and setting out the status of any objections received.

Why do we need UTCR 5.100?

There are three main reasons why proposed orders and judgments must be processed according to this rule:

  1. Documents requiring judicial signature are routed separately through the court’s electronic case management system.  Segregating proposed orders and judgments is efficient and speeds up the signing process.
  2. There is no system which allows the court to “hold” documents waiting for time periods to pass prior to judicial signature.
  3. Pro se litigants need proper notice.

What is the notice period under UTCR 5.100?

“When the other side is represented, the drafter must wait 3 days, plus an additional 3, before submitting the document to court. When the other side is self-represented, the drafter must wait 7 days, plus an additional 3. The “3 extra days” requirement derives from ORCP 10B, which was modified by the 2015 Oregon Legislature to apply the 3-day extension to service by email, fax, and electronic service instead of just posted mail. UTCR 1.130 applies ORCP 10 to time periods set by the UTCRs.”

Other FAQs

Four pages of answers await here for practitioners.  Get answers to questions like:

  • What are the situations where a statute or rule authorizes submission [of a proposed order] without notice?
  • Can I combine my Certificate of Readiness with a Certificate of Service?
  • Is the Certificate of Readiness filed as a separate document, or somehow incorporated into my proposed order of judgment?
  • Does my Certificate of Readiness have to set out the address at which I served the other party with the copy of the proposed order/judgment?
  • Does this rule apply to Motions to Postpone?

Keep in mind that in some instances UTCR 5.100 is either unclear or does not explicitly address all situations.  This makes the FAQ re UTCR 5.100 in Multnomah County Family Court a very valuable reference.

All Rights Reserved – Beverly Michaelis – 2018

 

 

Asked and Answered: Oregon eService Questions

Last Wednesday’s Oregon eService CLE generated a lively discussion and some interesting questions. Here are a few that might interest you:

What is my date of filing?

  • The court considers a document submitted for an electronic filing when the electronic filing system receives the document.
  • If the court accepts the document for filing, the date and time of filing entered in the register relate back to the date and time the electronic filing system received the document. When the court accepts the document, the electronic filing system will affix the date and time of submission on the document.

For example: Assume you have a statute of limitations that runs on Wednesday, June 6, 2018.  You eFile on Wednesday, June 6, 2018.  Your document is received by the system on Wednesday, June 6, 2018.  On Monday, June 11, 2018 the court clerk reviews your filing and ACCEPTS it.  Your filing date is June 6, 2018.  The delay in processing your filing is disregarded.  Thanks to relation back, your filing is timely under UTCR 21.080(3)-(4).

Where do I find the entry date in the Register of Actions?

When interpreting the Register of Actions, refer to UTCR 21.060(3):

The following apply whether or not a document is electronically filed with the court:

(a) For the purpose of ORS 7.020(1) and (2), the date that a document was filed displays in the date column of the register of actions for the case in the court’s electronic case management system.

(b) For the purpose of ORS 7.020(2), entry occurs on the date an event is created in the register of actions. (Emphasis supplied.)

The entry date is what matters.  Always refer to the CREATED DATE field.

How does the 3-day rule in ORCP 10 apply to eCourt cases?

Thanks to Donna Van Eaton, paralegal extraordinaire with the Law Offices of Melinda M. Brown, we know that nothing has changed.

The 3-day count should start on the date your document was eFiled or submitted, i.e., the date on your Certificate of Service.  Here is the background:

ORCP 10 was last updated by the Council on Court Procedures (CCP) in 2014. The first draft of the amended rule did not refer to electronic service (January 29, 2014).  Five versions later, it was explicitly added (September 6, 2014).  The drafts and final amended rule are available to view here.

The CCP staff comments accompanying this change point out the intention – which was to treat all forms of service equally and continue current practices:

The amendment of section C continues the allowance of three additional days in computing the time in which to respond following service of a document by mail or by facsimile service without the intention to change the previous practice under Rule 9 F (facsimile service) and this section.  The same three-day extension is now made applicable to documents served by e‐mail and by the newly available electronic service, providing equal treatment of these forms of service and specifying that treatment in one provision.  The description of the additional time in section C is amended to improve clarity without the intention to change the rule’s meaning or operation.  With the establishment of eCourt, the word “paper,” appearing twice in section C, is replaced with “document.”

The 3-day computation starts on the date of submission (date of filing), not the court clerk’s acceptance date.  Keep in mind the goal of the amendment: to equalize the methods of service, preserve operation of the rule, and maintain existing practices. Historically, the 3-day extension provided by ORCP 10 was meant to compensate for possible delays when serving by mail. Extending the same benefit to service by email, fax, or eService may not be necessary, but the rule provides for it explicitly.

Withdrawing as attorney of record in the eCourt era

If you withdraw or the party you represent is dismissed from an action, UTCR 21.100(2)(a) states you “must remove (your) name and service email address as a designated service contact for a party.”  Obtaining a court order permitting your withdrawal will not automatically remove you as a service contact in the Odyssey eFileandServe system.

If you are unsure how to remove yourself as a service contact, get in touch withTyler Technologies:

If you weren’t able to attend Oregon eService, a copy of the program is available to purchase here at a cost of $25 (same as the registration fee).  Your purchase includes a video recording, audio recording, program and supplemental materials, and answers to poll questions. Apply for MCLE credit of 1.25 PS/general MCLE credits by submitting the providing MCLE 6 form.

All Rights Reserved – Beverly Michaelis – 2018

With a special thank you Donna Van Eaton at the Law Offices of Melinda M. Brown.  As Stacy D. Fawver said, “right on.”