Abstract

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has generally not contributed to a significant difficulty with modem federal court practice: local procedural proliferation. Each of the remaining ninety-three federal district courts has prescribed and applied numerous local strictures that govern admiralty, bankruptcy, civil, criminal and evidentiary practice, while mounting numbers of these local provisos conflict with or repeat analogous federal rules or statutes. In contrast, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has promulgated and enforced relatively few local measures, and only a tiny percentage of them are redundant or inconsistent with corresponding federal rules or Acts of Congress. Indeed, the district court has understandably prescribed no admiralty requirements and none that it has explicitly denominated rules of evidence. Moreover, the strictures which this district has implemented for bankruptcy, civil, and criminal practice are somewhat limited in number and comparatively restricted in scope. Virtually all of these mechanisms comport with applicable federal rules and United States Code provisions but do not replicate them.

All of these propositions mean that local federal procedure in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona merits assessment, which this essay undertakes. Part I reviews the origins and development of local procedural proliferation nationally and in the Arizona District. It also reviews the efforts that the United States Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Conference have instituted to address multiplying local commands, numbers of which violate or duplicate concomitant federal rules or statutory mandates. Part II analyzes initiatives the Supreme Court. and the Judicial Conference have implemented that encourage all ninety-four federal district courts to adopt uniform numbering systems for local requirements. This portion ascertains that the vast majority of districts have conformed their local provisions, although some courts have yet to comply. The Arizona District only recently finished this task while abrogating and modifying numerous inconsistent and redundant strictures and elucidating unclear ones. Part III affords recommendations for the future, which are mainly addressed to counsel who practice and parties that litigate in the federal district court. Finally, Part IV will include a brief concluding paragraph.

The Arizona District Court has also been receptive to several major endeavors that the United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court implemented for remedying or ameliorating the complications that local procedural proliferation imposes. For example, both the lawmakers and the Supreme Court asked the Circuit Judicial Councils, the federal appellate courts' governing bodies, to scrutinize local commands that districts within their geographic purview employed as well as to abrogate or change any mandates that the Judicial Councils found inconsistent or repetitive. When the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council performed a thorough review of the Arizona District's local provisions and suggested modifications, the district court undertook a good faith attempt to consider and institute the recommendations.

Another important Supreme Court initiative requested that the ninetyfour federal districts conform the numbering of their local measures to a uniform system devised by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking arm for the federal courts. The Arizona District aligned the enumeration of its local provisos that cover bankruptcy with the analogous federal bankruptcy rules and the bankruptcy code and developed valuable guidance in the form of a topical alphabetical listing. However, the court did not implement a consistent numerical scheme for the local requirements that govern civil and criminal practice until quite recently and, therefore, may have frustrated efforts to attain a more uniform and simple federal procedure. When the district undertook the renumbering project, it concomitantly abolished or modified numerous inconsistent and redundant local provisos, while clarifying some unclear rules. Lawyers who represent clients and parties that litigate in the federal district court must also familiarize themselves with the renumbering system and the rule changes, which should facilitate their participation in cases.

All of these propositions mean that local federal procedure in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona merits assessment, which this essay undertakes. Part I reviews the origins and development of local procedural proliferation nationally and in the Arizona District. It also reviews the efforts that the United States Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Conference have instituted to address multiplying local commands, numbers of which violate or duplicate concomitant federal rules or statutory mandates. Part II analyzes initiatives the Supreme Court. and the Judicial Conference have implemented that encourage all ninety-four federal district courts to adopt uniform numbering systems for local requirements. This portion ascertains that the vast majority of districts have conformed their local provisions, although some courts have yet to comply. The Arizona District only recently finished this task while abrogating and modifying numerous inconsistent and redundant strictures and elucidating unclear ones. Part ill affords recommendations for the future, which are mainly addressed to counsel who practice and parties that litigate in the federal district court. Finally, Part IV will include a brief concluding paragraph.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2007

Download

Included in

Courts Commons

Share

COinS