Source: http://vermontjudiciary.org/attorneys/rules/proposed
Timestamp: 2018-12-12 03:58:01
Document Index: 567291073

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§1', '§2', '§ 1', '§ 1913', '§ 1913']

Proposed Amendments | Vermont Judiciary
The following Proposed Amendments are proposed by the Rules Committees and have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Proposed Amendment to Rule 18(d) of the Vermont Rules for Family Proceedings
The proposed amendment to Rule 18(d)(1) clarifies the process for appointment of a mediator when appointment has been ordered under subdivision (b). Under subparagraph (A), represented parties may choose the mediator. Under subparagraph (B), if the parties do not agree on a choice, or one or more of them is self-represented, the parties and the court may agree on a mediator from the Family Division Mediation Program’s list of mediators. If the parties cannot agree on an individual, the court may appoint a mediator from the list. If no mediator from the list is available, the court may appoint a mediator whose credentials are at least comparable to those for inclusion on the list. Those credentials include domestic-violence training.
Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by January 7, 2019, to Hon. Michael Kainen, Chair of the Advisory Committee on the Vermont Rules for Family Proceedings, at the following address:
Hon. Michael Kainen, Chair
Windsor Civil Division
Michael.kainen@vermont.gov
PROPOSEDVRFP18(d).pdf
Proposed Amendment to Rule 77(e) of the Vermont Rules of Probate Procedure
The proposed amendment conforms Rule 77(e)(1) to the provisions of 14 V.S.A. § 2(c) as amended by Act 195 of 2017 (Adj. Sess.), §1. The proposed amendment conforms Rule 77(e)(2) to a change in 14 V.S.A. §2 (e) also enacted by Act 195 of 2017 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, which provided that the prohibition of public inspection of the index of wills, like the prohibition of public inspection of wills, applies “during the life of the testator.” The proposed amended rule is intended to make clear that the death of a testator does not open the index to public inspection but authorizes the register to make the limited disclosure of information in it concerning a particular testator permitted by Rule 80.4(b).
Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by January 7, 2019, to Hon. Jeffrey Kilgore, Chair of Advisory Committee on the Vermont Rules of Probate Procedure, at the following address:
Hon. Jeffrey Kilgore
Washington Probate Division
Jeffrey.Kilgore@vermont.gov
PROPOSEDVRPP77(e).pdf
Proposed Order Promulgating Administrative Order No. 46
The proposed Administrative Order 46 provides for the administrative implementation and performance standards for V.R.A.P. 35, V.R.C.P. 79.2, V.R.Cr.P. 53, and V.R.P.P. 79.2 governing the use of devices in the court. The proposed administrative order contains processes for the media to obtain a permanent registration or a one-time registration and to add an authorized individual to an existing registration. The proposed order sets limits on equipment and personnel.
The comment period for this proposed amendment has been extended. Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by January 14, 2019, to Emily Wetherell, Deputy Clerk, at the Vermont Supreme Court, at the following address:
Proposed Order Abrogating and Replacing Rule 35 of the Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure
The proposal abrogates and replaces Rule 35 consistent with the simultaneous amendments to V.R.C.P. 79.2. Proposed Rule 35(b) provides definitions for terms used throughout the rule. Under proposed Rule 35(c) any person is authorized to possess any device in a courthouse and use it in a nondisruptive manner. Proposed Rule 35(d) addresses use inside a courtroom. The rule allows registered media, participants, and nonparticipants to possess and use devices in the courtroom, subject to general prohibitions and limits on number and position of devices for video recording and transmission. This is broader than the use allowed in the superior court because there are no witnesses or juries present at the Supreme Court. Proposed Rule 35(e) sets some limits on recording and transmission to ensure confidentiality of communications between members of the Court, between co-counsel, and between attorney and client. Under the proposal, the Court is authorized to prohibit, terminate, limit, or postpone recording or transmitting of a proceeding based on several factors.
Proposed Order Abrogating and Replacing Rule 79.2 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79.2 of the Vermont Rules of Probate Procedure, and Rule 53 of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure
The proposed rule was developed by a special committee composed of judges, court administrators, members of the Supreme Court’s procedural rules committees, and representatives of the media. The special committee’s draft was previously sent out for public comment, discussed by each of the procedural rules committees, and considered at a public hearing before a final version was recommended to the Supreme Court for promulgation. The Supreme Court made further alterations and is sending the proposal out for comment a second time.
The proposed rule governs both possession and use of recording and transmitting devices. It defines terms that are essential to the operation of the rule. Proposed Rule 79.2(c) broadly provides that a device may be used nondisruptively anywhere in a courthouse.
Proposed Rule 79.2(d) contains limits on use applicable to anyone possessing or using a device in a courtroom. The proposed rule, supplemented by Administrative Order No. 46, lays out a scheme for registration of media and their representatives entitling them to use devices to record and transmit courtroom proceedings. The proposed rule provides that participants may use devices in the courtroom with some restrictions. The proposed rule allows nonparticipants to possess devices in the courtroom, but to use them only in limited circumstances. Devices must be turned off or in silent mode except during nonevidentiary hearings when the jury or jury pool is not present. The proposed rule contains provisions applicable to jurors.
Proposed Rule 79.2(e) sets limits designed both to protect the decorum and the necessary confidentiality of certain proceedings. The proposed rule allows limits on use, but contains a presumption in favor of media access.
Proposed Rule 79.2(f) states that the court may waive any of the limitations imposed by the rule on request for good cause and subject to any necessary or appropriate restrictions.
The proposal also abrogates current rules V.R.Cr.P. 53 and V.R.P.P. 79.2 and replaces those rules with a statement making the civil rule applicable to proceedings in the criminal and probate divisions. No change is proposed for V.R.F.P. 4.0(a)(2) or V.R.E.C.P. 3 so V.R.C.P. 79.2 will continue to apply to public proceedings in the family and environmental divisions.
The proposal abrogates current Administrative Directive No. 28, which concerns use of electronic devices in a courtroom.
Proposed Order Adding Rule 902(13) to the Vermont Rules of Evidence
The proposed addition of Rule 902(13) reflects the enactment of 12 V.S.A. § 1913, a statute pertaining to the admissibility of evidence contained in blockchain records. Proposed Rule 902(13) mirrors the language and conditions set forth in § 1913(b)(1), a section declaring that blockchain records are self-authenticating.
Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by November 5, 2018, to Elizabeth Miller, Chair of the Committee on the Rules of Evidence, at the following address:
emiller@dunkielsaunders.com
PROPOSED VRE Adding (13) to 902.pdf
Proposed Administrative Order No. 47
Proposed Administrative Order No. 47 implements V.R.C.P. 43.1 and related rules that are simultaneously promulgated to provide for video and audio conference participation of parties and other necessary persons, as well as testimony of witnesses, in actions in the civil, environmental, family, and probate divisions of the superior court. See V.R.C.P. 43.1(e), Reporter’s Notes to simultaneous adoption of V.R.C.P. 43.1, and simultaneous amendments of V.R.F.P. 17 and V.R.P.P. 43(b). The technical standards are adopted by administrative order rather than by rule to permit more rapid and flexible change as necessary to take advantage of changing technological capabilities.
Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by March 23, 2018, to the Hon. John A. Dooley at the following address:
Hon. John A. Dooley, Chair
Special Committee on Video and Electronics in the Courtroom
John.Dooley@vermont.gov
PROPOSED Administrative Order No. 47.pdf
Proposed Amendments to Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, the Vermont Rules for Family Proceedings, and the Vermont Rules of Probate Procedure
The proposed amendment to V.R.C.P. 43(a) reflects the fact that new Rule 43.1 and proposed simultaneous amendments to the family and probate rules, permit testimony to be presented by video or audio conference in appropriate circumstances. The proposed amendment provides expressly that proceedings under Rule 43.1 are an exception to the existing requirement that “testimony… shall be taken orally in open court” unless otherwise provided by specific rules. That provision has been held to prohibit testimony by telephone or other means except by agreement of the parties.
The proposed addition of V.R.C.P. 43.1 provides a uniform procedure and standards for video or audio conference participation of parties and other necessary persons, as well as testimony of witnesses, in civil actions and in the civil division of the superior court.
The proposed amendment to V.R.F.P. 17 deletes the present text of the rule and the adds new subdivisions (a)-(d) providing that V.R.C.P. 43.1 applies in family division proceedings other than juvenile proceedings under V.R.F.P. 1, subject to specific provisions for certain statutory mental health and guardianship proceedings.
The proposed amendment to V.R.P.P. 43(b) reflects the fact that new V.R.C.P. 43.1, promulgated simultaneously, is applicable in the probate division and permits testimony to be presented by video or audio conference in appropriate circumstances. The proposed amendment provides expressly that proceedings under V.R.C.P. 43.1 are an exception to the existing requirement that “testimony ... shall be taken orally in open court” unless otherwise provided by specific rules.
Comments on these proposed amendments should be sent by March 23, 2018, to the Hon. John A. Dooley at the following address:
PROPOSED VRCP 43(a) 43.1 VRFP 17 VRPP 43(b).pdf
Proposed Amendments to V.R.C.P. 16.2 and 26
The proposed amendment to Rule 16.2 adds a reference to the use of a scheduling order provided in the proposed simultaneous amendment of V.R.C.P. 26(b)(5)(A)(i)-(v) and conforms the designation of the provisions of the rule to the format of other rules.
The proposed amendments to V.R.C.P. 26(b)(4) and (5) clarify their provisions and bring them more closely in line with comparable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the realities of current Vermont practice. The proposed amendments to V.R.C.P. 26(b)(5)(A) provide for automatic pretrial disclosure of all witnesses who will be offered as experts and the nature of their expected testimony. The proposed amendment to V.R.C.P. 26(b)(5)(A)(i) adapts language from the federal rule requiring automatic disclosure of all opinion witnesses qualified and testifying as experts under V.R.E. 702, 703, and 705 who may be used at trial. This disclosure requirement does not extend to lay opinion witnesses testifying under V.R.E. 701. The proposed amendment to V.R.C.P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) departs significantly from both prior Vermont practice and F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) by giving the same treatment to witnesses retained or employed solely to provide expert testimony and to fact witnesses with expert qualifications. The amended rule provides a simplified report requirement for all categories of experts. The proposed amendment to Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(iii) provides that the disclosures under subparagraphs (A)(i) and (ii) must ordinarily be made by stipulation or a scheduling order under Rule 16.2. Otherwise, the disclosures must be made by the earlier of the trial date or the date by which the case is to be ready for trial, except that evidence attacking another party’s evidence must be made within 30 days of that party’s disclosure. The proposed amendments to Rules 26(b)(5)(A)(iv) and (v) adapt the provisions of former Rules 26(b)(5)(A)(i) and (iii) to the disclosure requirements of amended Rule 26(b)(5)(A). Minor conforming amendments have been made in Rules 26(b)(5)(B), (C), and (E). No amendments have been made to Rule 26(b)(5)(D).
The proposed amendment to V.R.C.P. 26(e) adapts provisions of F.R.C.P. 26(e) as most recently amended in 2007, and makes it consistent with the simultaneous amendments to V.R.C.P. 26(b)(5). The new proposed V.R.C.P. 26(e)(1) follows the federal rule in spelling out a general duty to supplement both a disclosure made under V.R.C.P. 26(b)(5) and a response to other forms of discovery. The new proposed V.R.C.P. 26(e)(2) departs from the federal rule by including party-deponents within the duty to supplement.
Comments on this proposed amendment should be sent by March 23, 2018, to Allan Keyes, Esq., Chair of the Civil Rules Committee, at the following address:
Allan Keyes, Esq., Chair
Civil Rules Committee
Rutland, VT 05202-0310
ark@rsclaw.com
PROPOSED VRCP 16.2&26(b)&(e).pdf
Proposed Addition of V.R.C.P. Rule 23(g)
The proposed addition of Rule 23(g) provides for the disbursement of residual funds that remain after satisfaction of all claims under a class action judgment or settlement.
PROPOSEDVRCP 23(g).pdf