Many People Overlook the Importance of Local Rules
Local rules often govern every stage of a case, starting at the very beginning with the complaint. For instance, the oft-overlooked District of Arizona Local Rule Civil 15.1 requires that a party file a redlined copy of any amended complaint showing how it has been changed. This rule has immense practical value. For the opposing party, it reveals the extent to which, and how, the pleading has been changed. And for the court, it may be difficult to analyze changes in pleadings without a redlined copy. All too often, parties overlook this rule, costing them time and money when the court strikes their amended pleading, which must then be refiled. Adhering to this local rule has practical value and will impress the court by showing that the party has made a clear effort to comply with the local rules.
Local rules also often govern the manner in which discovery disputes must be presented. In the District of Arizona, for instance, the local rules require a party moving to compel discovery to file a separate document with numbered paragraphs that includes:
- the question propounded;
- the interrogatory submitted;
- the designation requested or the inspection requested;
- the answer, designation, or response received; and
- the reason why said answer, designation, or response is deficient, unless there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a discovery request or set of discovery requests.
In the Western District of Texas, however, the moving party need only attach copies of the interrogatory or other disputed discovery item.
Failing to present the dispute to the court in the manner prescribed by the local rules risks wasting the court’s time by requiring it to sift through an unfamiliar-looking filing instead of efficiently addressing the legal merits and facts involved in your case.
Local Rule Violations Can Impact Your Reputation with the Court
A recent Westlaw search revealed 942 district court orders that found parties had violated local rules across the country over the past year. Sometimes, judges will address the violation by striking the offending pleading or denying the motion; in other cases, judges do not formally address a local rule violation—because it would waste time to strike a pleading and have a party file a new one—but express their displeasure by flagging the issue in an order. Either way, a party failing to adhere to the local rules risks harming their reputation with the court and, in egregious cases, could even be sanctioned.
Following local rules is especially important for those who frequently serve as local counsel and those drafting pleadings to be filed in cases pro hac vice. There is often a perception that out-of-district lawyers do not know how to litigate as effortlessly as those in state. Lawyers litigating outside their home district should make a good-faith effort to familiarize themselves with relevant local rules before embarking on the matter.
Be Careful about Reading Too Much into the Rules
While local rules are very important in day-to-day federal practice, they are not everything. To the extent a local rule conflicts with a federal rule or statute, the local rule must yield. For example, local rules often state that failure to respond to a motion can be treated as a consent to the summary granting of the motion. However, following a 2010 amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal district courts may not summarily dispose of motions for summary judgment, even if they are unopposed.
The situation is similar but less uniform across circuits, with motions to dismiss. In the Ninth Circuit, a party’s failure to respond to a motion to dismiss permits a court to summarily grant it when supported by local rules. In the Third Circuit, however, the court still must evaluate the merits of the motion, notwithstanding local rules to the contrary.
Thus, while parties should be deeply familiar with applicable local rules, they should also beware that higher authority can sometimes override them.
Local Rules Can Generate Ethical Entanglements
Understanding the local rules governing a case is especially important because courts can reference the local rules when evaluating whether an attorney’s conduct has constituted an ethical violation. For instance, a California federal district court judge recently looked to the local rules to determine whether class counsel had maintained a conflict of interest. A bankruptcy judge in the Western District of North Carolina referenced the local rules when discussing improper conduct by a bankruptcy attorney. While they are not often the linchpin of these court’s ethics analyses, the local rules still serve as an integral piece of the puzzle the court will discuss when evaluating unethical conduct.
Understand Other Rules of Practice
Although it is critical to understand the written local rules, each court also has its unwritten rules of practice. For example, in criminal cases in the District of Arizona, there is a routine practice of automatically staying a magistrate judge’s order releasing a defendant from pretrial custody to allow the US Attorney’s Office to appeal the order to a district judge. While increasingly controversial, this practice is widely followed yet not formalized anywhere in writing.
In addition, individual federal judges frequently enact their own standing orders governing practice in their courts. For instance, as generative artificial intelligence machines develop, some federal judges are adopting standing orders setting out the rules for using artificial intelligence in their cases.
Therefore, lawyers practicing in federal district court should not only familiarize themselves with the local rules but also understand any unwritten local rules of practice and their specific judge’s standing orders. The judges—and their law clerks—will thank you.
