Opinion ID: 860327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-Trial Conference

Text: Janet asserts that the Washington County Chancery Court has a local rule that requires a pre-trial conference. Janet maintains that this rule violates Miss. R. Civ. P. Rule 16. She also alleges that the pre-trial conference held in the instant case violated U.C.C.R. Rule 3.09. The local rule of the Washington County Chancery Court is not in the record. However, taking Janet's allegations as true, the local rule does violate Miss. R. Civ. P. Rule 16, which states: In any action the court may, on the motion of any party, and shall on the motion of all parties to the cause, direct and require the attorneys for the parties to appear before it at least twenty days before the case is set for trial for a conference . . . Miss. R. Civ. P. Rule 16 (emphasis added). The comment to Rule 16 states, First, the rule provides that pretrial conferences may be held on the motion of any party and shall be held on the motion of all parties. This provision was drafted to curb arbitrary local requirements that pretrial conferences be held in every action; as Judge J. Skelly Wright pointed out, above, routine cases probably do not require the attention of the court prior to trial. Clearly a local rule requiring a pretrial conference where neither party has made a motion requesting one violates Miss. R. Civ. P. 16. U.C.C.R. Rule 3.09 states, Oral agreements of counsel made in presence of the Court must be recorded by the Court Reporter, or an order entered in accordance therewith approved by counsel. All other agreements should be reduced to writing and filed among the papers in the case. The record lacks any formal record or writing reflecting the pretrial conference and the parties' agreement. As a result, the local rule requiring the pretrial conference also violates U.C.C.R. Rule 3.09, as applied in this case. We therefore order that the Washington County Chancery Court local rule requiring a pretrial conference be abolished. However, because Janet waived this issue by failing to object before the lower court's judgment and because no prejudice resulted from the pretrial conference in this case, we do not reverse on this issue.