alendar year, many may be surprised to hear that there are amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that took effect on December 1, 2022!What’s that, you say? You didn’t know that the Federal Rules were amended? Well, fear not, for most of us these amendments will have no practical impact on our practices. Unlike the changes to the Federal Rules in 2015, which broadly redefined the rules for e-discovery, these 2022 amendments are minor.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 has been modified to extend corporate disclosure requirements to nongovernmental corporations seeking to intervene. Additionally, a new rule under FRCP 7.1 has been introduced that requires parties or interveners in a diversity case to file a disclosure statement that names and identifies the citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervener.The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure were also amended. FRAP 25 was modified to extend the privacy protections of FRCP 5.2 for Social Security cases to Railroad Retirement actions. The amendment to FRAP 42 restored an old requirement that the circuit clerk must dismiss an appeal if all the parties file a signed dismissal agreement specifying how costs are to be paid, and the parties pay any court fees that are due. Last, supplemental rules for Social Security Review Actions under 42.U.S.C.§405(g) now establish a simplified procedure to review a final decision of the Commissioner, and clarify that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continue to apply to Social Security Review Actions except when inconsistent with the Supplemental Rules.So now you know that you really didn’t need to know what you didn’t know! Happy holidays!

Personally Identifiable Information: In some cases, personal identifiable information (PII) needs to be redacted pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, US or foreign privacy laws or an agreed-upon confidentiality agreement. For example, FRCP 5.2(a), which governs privacy protection for filings made with the court, requires attorneys to redact specific disclosure is limited to the last four digits of a Social Security or tax ID number, the year of an individual’s birth, a minor’s initials or the last four digits of a financial account number. Additional PII that may need to be redacted includes the following:Confidential Information: Redactions of confidential information typically cover two scenarios: (1) information about other projects or products that are not relevant to the dispute; or (2) information that is of a highly sensitive and business nature, such as internal business strategy.

The plaintiff offered an example in which more than 30 pages of a 37-page document were redacted. The court found that these broad redactions went “beyond the sort-of ‘line-item’ redactions of personal information or account numbers” sanctioned by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and instead “blocked out large chunks of information on documents that, by virtue of producing them, [the defendants] admit are discoverable.” Noting that the defendants did not assert any privilege protecting the redacted information, the court thus granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel.Party Required to Produce Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in Computer-Readable Format Where It Had Control Over the ESILandry v. Swire Oilfield Servs., L.L.C., No.

Instead, both the sealed and redacted versions must be filed in paper form. Filings in Social Security and immigration cases governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) also cannot be submitted through the electronic system. Documents related to membership in the Supreme Court Bar also cannot be submitted electronically.

Specifically, new Rule 34.6 incorporates the privacy protections found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 in most cases. Moreover, documents containing material under seal must not be submitted electronically but only in paper form.

Accordingly, the Court has promulgated new rules and guidelines to ensure that confidential information does not accidentally become public. Specifically, new Rule 34.6 incorporates the privacy protections found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 in most cases. Moreover, documents containing material under seal must not be submitted electronically but only in paper form. (This also holds true also for redacted forms of briefs submitted for the public record).Given the Supreme Court’s arcane procedural rules, Proskauer’s Appellate Department recommends that any party or amicus practicing before the Court use an appellate printer to assist with filings.

However, the Court then ordered the parties to confer and submit a joint statement for the Court’s consideration and approval, regarding redactions necessary to protect the reasonable privacy concerns of Salgado’ clients. The Court said that, while FRCP 5.2 establishes the floor regarding the redactions parties must make when filing documents in federal court, it is well within the Court’s discretion to order additional protections when necessary. The Court said it was concerned that Salgado’s clients likely and reasonably expected that, by turning to Salgado for help in filing tax returns, their information, particularly personal identifying information, would not become publicly available.

With some harsh wordsof warning, ajudge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has sanctioned another law firm for electronic filing of documents disclosing birth dates, names of minors, financial account numbers and at least one social security number in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a).In a decision issued on November 24, 2010 in the case of AllstateInsurance Company v. Linea Latina de Accidentes, Judge Joan N. Erickson noted that,"Every federal district has now embraced electronic filing. The days of attorneys being able to ignore the computer and shift blame to support staff in the event of an error are gone.