AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM LOCAL RULES   The Uniform Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana have been amended as follows.   LR26.3E  Disclosure Under FRCvP 26(a)   The scope and timing of disclosures under FRCvP 26(a)(2) and FRCvP(a)(3) shall be as directed by the court in the order issued after the preliminary conference held pursuant to Article One (1) of the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court.   LR26.4E Meeting of Parties Under FRCvP 26(f)   A.  Except as otherwise ordered in a particular case, the conference between the parties required by FRCvP 26(f) shall be held no later than seven working days before the scheduled preliminary conference.   B.  Except as otherwise ordered in a particular case or as indicated hereinafter, the parties are excused from submitting a written report outlining the proposed discovery plan and shall report orally on their proposed discovery plan at the Rule 16(b) conference. An oral report on the proposed discovery plan is not authorized when, during the Rule 26(f) conference, a party objects that the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) are not appropriate in the circumstances of the action. In such a case, no later than three working days prior to the scheduled preliminary conference, the parties must file a written report outlining the proposed discovery plan, including the nature of the objection(s) to the initial disclosure and statements by the parties detailing their positions on the objection(s) to the initial disclosure.   LR26.5E   Non-filing of Disclosure, Discovery Requests and Responses: Retention by Requesting Party is repealed.   LR26.5.1E   Filing of Disclosure or Discovery Materials is repealed.   LR26.5.2E  Construction of the Rule is repealed.   LR26.6E   Disputed Disclosure and Discovery Materials to Be Filed With Request for Relief is repealed.   LR26.7E   Pretrial Filing of Disclosure and Discovery Materials to Be Used at Trial is repealed.   LR26.8E   Filing of Disclosure or Discovery Materials for Appeal Purposes is repealed.   LR33.1E   Number of Interrogatories   Any party desiring to serve more than the 25 interrogatories permitted by FRCvP 33(a) shall file a written motion setting forth the proposed additional interrogatories and the reasons establishing good cause for their use. Leave to serve additional interrogatories shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles of FRCvP 26(b)(2).   LR47.5E   Interviewing Jurors   A.  No juror has any obligation to speak to any person about any case and may refuse all interviews or comments;   B.  No person may make repeated requests for interviews or questions after a juror has expressed a desire not to be interviewed;   C.  Under no circumstances except by leave of court granted upon good cause shown shall any attorney or party to an action or anyone acting on their behalf examine or interview any juror. No juror who may consent to be interviewed shall disclose any information with respect to the following:   1.  The specific vote of any juror other than the juror being interviewed;   2.  The deliberation of the jury; or   3.  For the purposes of obtaining evidence of improprieties in the jury's deliberations.   LCrR12.E  Pretrial Motions   Pretrial motions relative to discovery shall be filed within the time set by the magistrate judge, and shall be noticed for hearing on the motion day following the expiration of 15 days. The government shall file its response no later than eight calendar days before the scheduled hearing date.   These discovery motions shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel for the moving party stating that counsel have conferred in person or by telephone for the purpose of amicably resolving the issues and stating that they are unable to agree or stating that opposing counsel has refused to so confer after reasonable notice. Counsel for the moving party shall arrange the conference.   LCrR32.1.2E   Submission of Other Motions or Documents Connected with Sentencing   All submissions, other than those referred to in LCrR32.1.1E, must be filed no later than five working days before sentencing and all responses must be filed no later than three working days before sentencing.     March 27, 2001 LORETTA G. WHYTE, CLERK      

NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM LOCAL RULES Pursuant to Rule 83 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Public Notice is hereby given of proposed amendments to the Uniform Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Louisiana. The proposed amendments are listed below. LCrR12.E and LCrR32.1.2E are newly proposed rules. LR47.5E is amended by the deletion of the lined portions and the addition of the underlined portions.   LCrR12.E    Pretrial Motions Pretrial motions relative to discovery shall be filed within the time set by the magistrate judge, and shall be noticed for hearing on the motion day following the expiration of 15 days. The government shall file its response no later than eight calendar days before the scheduled hearing date. These discovery motions shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel for the moving party stating that counsel have conferred in person or by telephone for the purpose of amicably resolving the issues and stating why they are unable to agree or stating that opposing counsel has refused to so confer after reasonable notice. Counsel for the moving party shall arrange the conference.   LCrR32.1.2E    Submission of Other Motions or Documents Connected with Sentencing All submissions, other than those referred to in LCrR32.1.1E, must be filed no later than five working days before sentencing and all responses must be filed no later than three working days before sentencing.   LR47.5E    Interviewing Jurors A. No juror has any obligation to speak to any person about any case and may refuse all interviews or comments; B. No person may make repeated requests for interviews or questions after a juror has expressed a desire not to be interviewed; C. Under no circumstances except by leave of court granted upon good cause shown shall any attorney or party to an action or other person anyone acting on their behalf examine or interview any juror. No juror who may consent to be interviewed shall disclose any information with respect to the following: 1. The specific vote of any juror other than the juror being interviewed; 2. The deliberation of the jury; or 3. For the purposes of obtaining evidence of improprieties in the jury's deliberations. Comments may be made in writing addressed to the Clerk of Court before March 23, 2001. You may access this notice and the court's notice of amendments to Local Rule 26 at the court's web site (www.laed.uscourts.gov).     February 21, 2001 Loretta G. Whyte, Clerk    

NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE BAR DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE COURT'S EVIDENCE PRESENTATION SYSTEM The clerk's office for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is offering demonstrations of the court's new electronic evidence presentation system and an explanation of its basic use and function. We believe this will be invaluable to attorneys practicing in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The presentations will be conducted in the courtroom of the Honorable Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge, Room C-279. Sessions will last approximately 30 minutes and are scheduled for the dates and times listed below. Space is limited, so please contact Cindy Brantley or Dawn Fanning at 589-7650. Friday, March 2, 2001 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Friday, March 9, 2001 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Friday, April 6, 2001 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Friday, April 20, 2001 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.   January 26, 2001 Loretta G. Whyte, Clerk      

NOTICE TO THE BAR December 1, 2000     Among other recent amendments, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include requirements for mandatory initial disclosures (Rule 26(a)(1)) and early planning meetings of counsel (Rule 26(f)), a prohibition of certain Local Rule "opt out" provisions, a presumptive limit on the time duration of depositions, and a change in the Rule 26(b)(1) scope of discovery.     The order of the United States Supreme Court adopting the amendments provides that they took effect on December 1, 2000, and "shall govern all proceedings in civil cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings in civil cases then pending." In light of this order, the judges of this court have studied the amendments and their relationship to our Local Rules and determined en banc that our approach to their application in this court will be as follows:     Absent a showing of exceptional circumstances sufficient to support an order of the presiding judge in a particular case, the amendments to Rule 26(a)(1) (requiring early disclosure of certain information without any discovery request and prohibiting district courts from "opting out" by local rule from the disclosure requirement), Rule 26(d) (prohibiting district courts from "opting out" by local rule from the early bar of commencement of discovery), and Rule 26(f) (prohibiting district courts from "opting out" by local rule from the requirement that counsel meet and submit a report to the court concerning a discovery and case management plan) will not be applied to cases pending on or before December 1, 2000. These particular amendments are all designed and intended to occur in the early stages of litigation. The vast majority of cases pending on or before December 1, 2000 will have passed the stage at which the procedures mandated by the amendments to these three rules will be beneficial to development of such cases. Accordingly, this court has concluded that application of the amendments to Rules 26(a)(1), 26(d) and 26(f) to cases pending in this court on or before December 1, 2000 would not be "just and practicable," and the rules applicable prior to that date will be applied in this court to such cases, absent exceptional circumstances.     As to the remaining amendments, this court has determined that no general approach is advisable. For example, applying the new Rule 30(d)(2) presumptive seven-hour, one-day limit on depositions may not be just and practicable in a pre-December 1, 2000 case in which numerous depositions have already been conducted without being subject to the deposition time limit. On the other hand, applying the limit to a case filed before the effective date, but in which deposition discovery has not yet commenced, may be just and practicable. Similarly, it may be that the new distinction between attorney-managed discovery and court-managed discovery included in amended Rule 26(b)(1) would not justly and practicably be applied to a pre-December 1, 2000 case in which discovery rulings under the old standard have previously been made. On the other hand, the new scope of discovery standard in amended Rule 26(b)(1) might justly and practicably be applied, even in a case pending before December 1, 2000, if no discovery has been conducted, or if the Court has not yet made rulings concerning the scope of discovery in that case.     Accordingly, this court has determined that, unlike the amendments to Rules 26(a)(1), 26(d) and 26(f), the applicability of all other amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to cases pending on or before December 1, 2000 will be determined by each judge on a case-by-case basis.     The amendments have various effects on the continued viability and necessity of certain of this court's Local Rules. The bar is hereby notified that the judges of this court recognize that the most recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abrogate Local Rules 26.3E(A) and 26.4E as to all cases commenced after December 1, 2000. Our Court is in the process of reviewing our Local Rules, determining what revisions may be advisable in light of recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proposed Local Rules amendments, if any, will be published and submitted to the bar for input and comment before adoption, consistent with the procedures concerning Local Rules that have been employed in the past.   Adopted by the Judges of the Eastern District of Louisiana at the en banc meeting of the Court December 13, 2000.