New Rules of Engagement: Major Changes to NY's Rules of Court
Many practitioners are unaware that, this past February, the court system implemented new rules of practice for New York courts. Some of these rules significantly change the procedures governing court appearances, discovery and motion practice. In their Trial Practice column, Robert Kelner, Gail Kelner and Joshua Kelner discuss what they believe are the most important new rules.
May 24, 2021 at 12:00 PM
11 minute read
One of the many disadvantages of working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic is that we interact with our colleagues so much less frequently, making it less likely that information about new legal developments will circulate widely and quickly through the attorney community. Perhaps for this reason, we have found that many practitioners are unaware that, this past February, the court system implemented new rules of practice for New York courts. Some of these rules significantly change the procedures governing court appearances, discovery and motion practice.
The rules were put into effect by Administrative Order 270/2020, which was issued by Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks. In the preface to the order, Judge Marks stated that the Administrative Board of the Courts was of the view that "the COVID-19 pandemic has created unique opportunities for permanent reform." Thus, he continued, the board had deemed it advisable to make a number of rules currently followed in the Commercial Divisions generally applicable in most courts of general jurisdiction. In this column, we will discuss the content of what we believe are the most important new rules.
However, as we discuss in our conclusion, the New York State Bar Association recently requested that the enforcement of these rules be stayed for a year, to allow for additional comment. Accordingly, the question of whether the rules will be placed in limbo for a year and reevaluated remains very much a live one, placing the law into an even greater state of flux.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTik Tok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
6 minute readEnemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Phila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
- 2Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
- 3SEC’s Latest Enforcement Actions Fuel Demand for Big Law
- 4Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
- 5DOJ Takes on Largest NFT Scheme That Points to Larger Trend
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250