Generally, Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides specific requirements as it relates to time limits for filing court documents in federal civil actions. Beginning on December 1, 2016, amendments took effect relative to a variety of rules, including Rule 6(d).
Before this recent amendment, as it related to Rule 6(d), litigants enjoyed an additional three days on top of the applicable response period after being served in a manner other than personal service, including electronic service. The general theory behind this three additional day period to respond was to account for delays with mail or concerns over technical issues involving electronic communication, including the Case Management/Electronic Case Files, or CM/ECF system which could delay the intended recipient’s access to the filing. Over time, with improvements in technology, and advancements in individuals’ proficiency with electronic means of communication, these concerns became less warranted, which undoubtedly played a role in the recent update to Rule 6(d). In fact, studies performed determined the CM/ECF system has proved to be reliable which undermined the need for additional response time.
With the update to Rule 6(d), litigants no longer are afforded the additional three days for response, and each day counts towards the applicable deadline. In other words, the said deadline is firm. For example, Rule 27(3)(A) provides ten days for a litigant to respond to a motion after service unless shortened or extended by the court. Assume that the motion is served electronically on the applicable party on 12:01 a.m., Friday, December 30, 2016. Before the recent amendments, as per the counting rules as cited in Rule 6(a), the response would have been due Thursday, January 12, 2017. However, following the amendments, the response is now due on Monday, January 9, 2017, ten days following the date the motion was served.
As of December 1, 2016, parties need to be aware of this update and consider its applicability in order to respond in a timely manner, therefore avoiding the detrimental effect of an untimely response. In certain cases, a late response could result in substantial unintended consequences and liability.
For more information please contact Ross Ventre II at 570.961.3503 or rventre@wglaw.com
Disclaimer: The contents of this post are for informational purposes only, are not legal advice and do not create an attorney-client relationship.