Barkely ex rel. Sims v. Senior Living Properties, 2004 WL 831139 (NO. 6:04-CV-06)
Judge: Davis
Division: Tyler
Date: April 18, 2004
Holding: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Defense Costs DENIED
COMMENTS:
This is a medical malpractice case. Defendants asked the court to dismiss the case and award them attorney's fees and costs as sanctions against Plaintiff for failing to provide an expert report against each defendant health care provider within the time mandated by the statute ( Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 4590i, § 13.01). Judge Davis noted that the plaintiff claims, and the defendants do not deny, that the parties agreed to extend the expert report deadlines, as section 13.01(h) of the statute expressly permits. Although the extension was not signed by the defendant, as is required for the extension to be enforceable under the statute, Judge Davis held that the lack of a signature it does not preclude a federal court from enforcing an agreement that is not signed by both parties. "The Court is not aware of," Judge Davis wrote, "and Defendant has not presented, any rule or jurisprudence that allows an attorney in federal court to evade pretrial tolling agreements the attorney has entered into simply because the attorney did not sign a written memorialization of the agreement. The Court is not inclined to create such a rule."
New Local Rule Requires Redaction of Personal Information
On April 15, Chief Judge Heartfield signed General Order 04-10, which adds new section (c) to Local Rule
CV-10. The new rule requires parties to refrain for using where possible, and partially redact where not possible, the following information from documents filed with the court: (1) Social Security numbers; (2) names of minor children; (3) dates of birth; and (4) financial account numbers.
The change is a result of a recent Judicial Conference policy which created this requirement. Notably, the Judicial Conference did not seek to put this requirement into the federal rules, but merely enacted it as a "policy" so it has never been through any form of notice and comment. With respect to redacting the names of minor children, it is also worth noting that FRCP 10(a) requires parties to include the names of parties in the caption of the complaint.
Download 04-10.pdf
Posted by Michael C. Smith on April 30, 2004 at 11:34 AM in Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)