SUGGESTED 1999 UTCR CHANGES

(Reasons given below for particular actions of the Uniform Trial Court Rules Committee are not approved by the committee, but are abstracted by the reporter from committee discussions.)

The Uniform Trial Court Rules (UTCR) Committee is authorized to make recommendations to the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court about proposals for changes to the UTCR. Before the UTCR Committee makes final recommendations to the Chief Justice for changes to the UTCR, the initial recommendations are published for public comment, see UTCR 1.020.

At its fall meeting on October 16, 1998, the UTCR Committee made initial recommendations to the Chief Justice on proposals for changes to the UTCR. The initial recommendations of the UTCR Committee are described below in this notice.

This notice also contains two proposals for changes to the UTCR that were made to the Chief Justice after the fall regular meeting of the UTCR Committee that the Chief Justice has approved for publication for public comment.

This notice solicits public comment on the recommendations and proposals. Written comments should be submitted to:

UTCR Reporter
Supreme Court Building
1163 State Street
Salem, Oregon 97310

Any comment on the actions set out below must be received by the UTCR Committee at or before the date of its spring meeting (shown below) to consider public comment. Comments may be made both on proposals to make UTCR amendments, whether conditionally approved or conditionally disapproved, and on other actions taken by the committee or set out below. At the spring meeting, the committee may consider amendments to proposals, may reconsider proposals entirely, may reconsider conditionally disapproved proposals and may reconsider other actions taken by the committee whether or not the actions resulted in proposed changes to the UTCR.

The committee will review timely received public comment on these actions before the committee makes final recommendations to the Chief Justice on proposals or changes. Any final recommendations made by the committee and adopted by the Chief Justice will take effect August 1, 1999, and will be published in the Oregon Appellate Court Advance Sheets in June 1999 (No. 11).

QUICK SUMMARY OF ACTIONS

Committee proposed changes. The following summarize proposals conditionally approved by the committee as recommended changes to the UTCR (they are explained more fully under the "Committee Actions Taken, Conditionally Approved Changes That Would Amend UTCR" in section "A" below):

1. UTCR 1.010(1), amend to eliminate reference to district court.
2. UTCR 1.010(3), amend to correct statutory reference.
3. UTCR 1.040, amend to eliminate reference to district court.
4. UTCR 1.050(1)(a), amend to eliminate reference to district court rules.
5. UTCR 1.150, proposed new UTCR on hours of court operation.
6. UTCR 1.160, proposed new UTCR to designate filing location and allow related SLR.
7. UTCR 2.010(12)(c), amend to limit when motions and orders can be on the same page.
8. UTCR 2.010(13), amend to eliminate reference to district court.
9. UTCR 13.040(1), amend to eliminate reference to district court.

Other proposed UTCR changes published at request of the Chief Justice for public comment. The following summarize proposals for changes to the UTCR (they are explained more fully under the "Other Proposed UTCR Changes Approved by the Chief Justice for Publication for Public Comment" in section "E" below) that were submitted to the Chief Justice after the regular fall meeting of the UTCR Committee. The Chief Justice approved publication of these proposals for public comment so the UTCR committee can consider comments and make recommendations at its regular spring meeting:

1. UTCR 3.180, amend procedures for media in courts.
2. UTCR 7.030, amend presiding judge designation of complex cases.

Committee disapproved proposals. The following summarizes proposals conditionally disapproved by the committee. These are proposals or issues that came before the UTCR committee on which the committee is currently NOT recommending any change to the UTCR (they are explained more fully under the "Committee Actions Taken, Conditionally Disapproved Proposals" in section "B" below):

1. UTCR 2.010, proposal to clarify signature requirements.
2. UTCR 2.010(7,) proposal to change certification of document preparation.
3. UTCR chapter 6, proposal to require copies of motions to state whether other party opposes.
4. UTCR 7.010(2,) proposal to allow expedited dockets.
5. UTCR chapter 13 on arbitration, proposal to allow supplemental judgments.

Other actions taken. The following summarizes actions taken by the committee that are not subject to reconsideration at its regular spring meeting. These are proposals or issues that came before the UTCR committee on which the committee has already taken final action (they are explained more fully under the "Other Actions Taken By The Committee" in section "C" below):

1. UTCR 6.120, approve out-of-cycle amendments on handling exhibits.
2. UTCR Subcommittee on filing orders with motions (Miller, Darling, Lamvik).
3. UTCR Subcommittee on chapter 13 arbitration (Lamvik, Larson, Rapoport).
4. UTCR Subcommittee on family law and mediation (Miller, Campbell, Darling, Lamvik).

NOTE ON FORMAT OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE UTCR: Material proposed to be taken out of existing UTCR sections is bracketed. New material proposed to be added to existing UTCR is underlined. New material in entirely new sections is not underlined, unless for emphasis. Repealed UTCR are not set out.

A. COMMITTEE ACTIONS TAKEN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVED PROPOSALS THAT WOULD AMEND UTCR. The following are conditionally approved proposals. The committee actions on these proposals resulted in proposed changes to the UTCR by the committee. The committee may reconsider whether these merit UTCR changes or other action at its spring meeting:

1. Amend UTCR 1.010(1), eliminate reference to district court.

ACTION. Conditionally approve amendments to UTCR 1.010(1) (from agenda item C on page 824 of committee's fall meeting materials).

REASON. District courts in Oregon were merged into the circuit court as of January 1, 1998. The committee is amending UTCR to remove references to district court.

VOTE. Motion 68: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 1.010(1) are as follows:

1.010 SCOPE OF THESE RULES

(1) Effective October 1, 1985, these rules apply uniformly to all proceedings and actions in circuit [or district] court except those proceedings and actions specified in UTCR 1.010(3) or proceedings and actions for which a limited application is specifically provided by these rules.

(2) . . .

(4) These rules apply to attorneys and to persons representing themselves.

2. Amend UTCR 1.010(3), amend (3)(a) to reference ORS 36.400(4) not ORS 46.458.

ACTION. Conditionally approve amendments to UTCR 1.010(3) (from agenda item of committee's fall meeting materials).

REASON. Committee noted and corrected citation error.

VOTE. Motion 60: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 1.010 (3)(a) are as follows:

1.010 SCOPE OF THESE RULES

(1) . . .

. . .

(3) Chapters 2 to 13 of the UTCR do not apply to small claims or infractions or violations or parking violations, except that:

(a) UTCR Chapter 13 applies to a case filed in small claims when the case becomes subject to arbitration under ORS [46.458] 36.400(4).

(b) . . .

(4) . . .

3. Amend UTCR 1.040, to eliminate reference to district court.

ACTION. Conditionally approve amendments to UTCR 1.040 (from agenda item C on page 824 of committee's fall meeting materials).

REASON. District courts in Oregon were merged into the circuit court as of January 1, 1998. The committee is amending UTCR to remove references to district court.

VOTE. Motion 68: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 1.040 are as follows:

1.040 LOCAL RULES OF COURT NOT PERMITTED; EXCEPTION

No circuit [or district] court may make or enforce any local rule except as provided in UTCR 1.030, 1.050, and 1.060.

4. Amend UTCR 01.050(1)(a), eliminate reference to district court rules, ORS 46.280.

ACTION. Conditionally approve amendments to UTCR 1.050(1) (from agenda item C on page 824 of committee's fall meeting materials).

REASON. District courts in Oregon were merged into the circuit court as of January 1, 1998. The committee is amending UTCR to remove references to district court.

VOTE. Motion 68: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 1.050 are as follows:

1.050 PROMULGATION OF SLR; REVIEW OF SLR; ENFORCEABILITY OF LOCAL PRACTICES

(1) Promulgation of SLR

(a) Pursuant to ORS 3.220 [or 46.280], a court may make and enforce local rules consistent with and supplementary to these rules for the purpose of giving full effect to these rules and for the prompt and orderly dispatch of the business of the court.

5. Proposed new UTCR 1.150 to establish hours of court operation

ACTION. Conditionally approve amendments to UTCR 1.150 (from agenda item B8 on page 762 of committee's fall meeting materials).

REASON. Judge Seitz of the Douglas County Circuit Court (16th Judicial District) proposed this SLR by letter to the committee in September 1998. Her reasons for proposing the rule are as follows: "It is my hope to create a consistent standard around the state of Oregon for the hours in which a court clerk's office is open to receive filings of all papers. Presently, each county has their own unpublished standard. A consistent standard assist all attorneys and members of the public." The committee was unsure that this was an area that was appropriate to UTCR. Some were not sure this was the exclusive province of the Chief Justice. It was noted that this seemed to fall within the broad range of powers of the Chief Justice described in ORS 1.002, the same authority under which the UTCR were adopted. Some noted that this was a matter of concern for people. Some noted that this was a matter of resources in some courts. Some wondered if the proposal shouldn't be changed to state that courts must adopt their hours of operation for filing by SLR. It was decided to send out the proposal for public comment as it came in and take a look at public comment in the spring to see whether to change the proposal or go forward with it.

VOTE. Motion 66: 6 yes, 1 no, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

The proposed new UTCR 1.050 is as follows:

1.050 HOURS OF COURT OPERATION.

The office of the trial court administrator shall remain open in each judicial district to receive and file all papers delivered for that purpose in accordance with ORS 8.225(2)(d) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on each judicial business day pursuant to ORS 1.060.

6. Proposal for a new UTCR 1.160 on filing of documents.

ACTION. Conditionally approve proposed new UTCR 1.160 on filing of documents (from agenda item B1,consideration of SLR as possible UTCR).

REASON. The committee noted that two counties that had SLR addressing leaving of documents with judges for filing, Umatilla County SLR 1.015(2) and (3) and Multnomah County SLR 1.015 (3) and (4). The committee noted that attorneys should know not to file with judges because of Averill v. Red Lion, 118 Or App 298 (1993). There was discussion of whether a local court could adopt an SLR allowing filing some place other than the trial court administrator. Some members felt strongly that this was a matter of local concern that didn't need to be uniform. Some feel that adoption of a UTCR could solve the problem either way, and would provide a standard place where attorneys could look for a varying local practice. There was discussion about whether or not to include Umatilla SLR 1.015(3) or Multnomah SLR 1.015(4) [both dealing with use prestamped, attorney-completed post cards to give notice] but the committee decided to not go with either and just address the issue of where filing could take place. This way it sets a standard, but allows local variation where appropriate. The committee decided to send the idea out for public comment.

VOTE. Motion 2: 11 yes, 1 no, 1 abstain, 1 excused.

The proposed new UTCR 1.160 would read as follows:

1.160 FILING OF DOCUMENTS IN COURTS; LOCAL SLR

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this rule, a document to be filed with the court or the clerk of court or the trial court administrator must be filed with the office of the local trial court administrator or designee. No document delivered to a judge, judge's staff, judge's mailbox, courtroom, or chambers is filed until it is received by the office of the trial court administrator or designee. For every document to be filed, other than an order or judgment submitted to a judge for signature, the original is to be delivered to the trial court administrator's office and a copy, clearly indicated as copy, is to be provided to the judge hearing the matter.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this rule, local courts may adopt SLR to allow filing of documents in places other than required by subsection (1). Such SLR may allow such filing generally or in specific circumstances as convenient to the court adopting the SLR. SLR number 1.161 is reserved for the purposes of such SLR.

7. Amend UTCR 2.010(12)(c) to limit when motion and order can be placed on same page.

ACTION. Conditionally approve amendments to UTCR 2.010(12)(c) (from agenda item B5 on page 757 of committee's fall meeting materials and materials submitted at the meeting).

REASON. Last year this issue arose because of an e-mail from trial court personnel suggesting problems with the UTCR allowing motions and orders to be filed on the same page. Court clerks noted that some times this created a situation where there was an unsigned order in a case file. A subcommittee had been created in the last UTCR cycle (consisting of Miller, Darling and Lamvik) to look at this issue. This committee had made a proposal in spring 1998 that was carried over to the regular fall meeting of the committee. At the fall meeting, the committee received a letter from Steven L. Minetto, an attorney in Portland, who recounted his experiences with this problem when he was a clerk of Multnomah Courts. The committee discussed issues of local practice, need for local variation, possible waste of paper by always requiring separate motions. The committee modified the previous proposal of the subcommittee to allow courts to vary the practice by specific SLR. The committee language, except for the SLR exception, is trying to limit the practice of placing motions and orders on the same page to instances where the motion will not be contested and possibly have to be rewritten.

VOTE. Motion 65: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 2.010(12)(c) are as follows:

2.010 FORM OF DOCUMENTS

The form of all documents, including pleadings and motions, except where a different procedure is specified by statute or rule, must be:

(1) . . .

. . .

(12) Orders, Judgments, or Writs

(a) The judge's signature portion of any order, judgment, or writ prepared for the court must appear on a page containing at least two lines of the text. Orders, judgments, or writs embodying the ruling of a particular judge must have the name of the judge typed, stamped, or printed under the signature line.

(b) If the order, judgment, or writ is prepared by a party, the name and identity of the party submitting the order must appear therein, preceded by the words "submitted by."

(c) Motions and orders may be submitted as a single document only if the motion is stipulated or otherwise subject to ex parte ruling and is not subject to contest or when otherwise specifically allowed by SLR. Any other motion must be submitted as a separate document from any proposed form of order deciding the motion. A motion submitted as a single document with an order may not be filed unless the order has been ruled upon and signed by a judge.

(d) [(c)] When allowed to be submitted as a single document under paragraph (c) of this subsection, motions and orders submitted as a single document must contain a double solid line across the page separating the motion portion of the document from the order portion. The caption of the document must be labeled "Motion xxxxxxxx and Order" in the upper right-hand corner of the document. The full description of the motion must be included in the title. The order portion must be clearly labeled "Order" in the upper left-hand corner of the order portion of the document. A two-inch by two-inch space must be provided below the double solid line in the upper right-hand corner of the order portion for the file/date stamp of the order. The order portions must be written as clearly and simply as possible. Where appropriate, the order must consist of only two check boxes as follows: one for allowed, the other for denied. Where such check boxes are used in the order portion, they must be placed above the standard date and signature lines.

8. Amend UTCR 2.010(13) to eliminate reference to district court

ACTION. Conditionally approve amendments to UTCR 2.010(13) (from agenda item C on page 824 of committee's fall meeting materials).

REASON. District courts in Oregon were merged into the circuit court as of January 1, 1998. The committee is amending UTCR to remove references to district court.

VOTE. Motion 68: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 2.010(13) are as follows:

2.010 FORM OF DOCUMENTS

The form of all documents, including pleadings and motions, except where a different procedure is specified by statute or rule, must be:

(1) . . .

. . .

(13) Citation of Oregon Cases

In all matters submitted to the circuit [or district] courts, Oregon cases must be cited by reference to the Oregon Reports as: Blank v. Blank, or (year) or as State v. Blank, Or App (year). Parallel citations may be added.

(14) . . .

9. Amend UTCR 13.040(1) to eliminate reference to district court

ACTION. Conditionally approve amendments to UTCR 13.040(1) (from agenda item C on page 824 of committee's fall meeting materials).

REASON. District courts in Oregon were merged into the circuit court as of January 1, 1998. The committee is amending UTCR to remove references to district court.

VOTE. Motion 68: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 13.040(1) are as follows:

13.040 RELATIONSHIP TO COURT JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE RULES

(1) A case filed in the circuit [or district] court remains under the jurisdiction of that court in all phases of the proceedings, including arbitration. Except for the authority expressly given to the arbitrator by these rules, all issues shall be determined by the court of jurisdiction.

(2) . . .

B. COMMITTEE ACTIONS TAKEN, CONDITIONALLY DISAPPROVED PROPOSALS.

The following are conditionally disapproved proposals. The committee actions on these proposals did not result in proposed changes to the UTCR or other recommendation for change by the committee. The committee may reconsider whether some of these merit UTCR changes or other action at its spring meeting:

1. Proposal to amend UTCR 2.010 to clarify signature requirements.

ACTION TAKEN. No motion was made on the proposal, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B3, page 756, of committee's fall meeting materials.)

REASON. This issue was raised by an e-mail from Jim Adams, Trial Court Administrator, Jackson County Courts, which raised a concern about an attorney who was using a stamped signature. Mr Adams wondered if this use of stamped signatures was appropriate. The committee talked about whether this was an issue that was an evidence issue or an issue that clerks should be concerned about in any way. Some noted that if the other parties object, they could ask for sanctions under the UTCR where there was a specific requirement for a signature. No one on the committee had any specific proposal related to this issue, and the initial inquiry made none. With no motion, the committee moved on.

VOTE. No Motion.

There was no draft of language presented with the proposal.

2. Proposal to amend UTCR 2.010(7) to change or remove requirement for certificate of document preparation.

ACTION TAKEN. A motion was made and passed to leave the existing UTCR 2.010(7) as it is, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B4 of committee's fall meeting materials.)

REASON. This issue was requested to be placed on the meeting by a committee member at the regular 1998 spring meeting of the committee. The issue has recurred at the committee several times since the committee first adopted the requirement for a certificate of document preparation in UTCR 2.010(7). The provision was originally requested by the Unlawful Practice of Law Committee of the Oregon State Bar, and its adoption was supported at that time by the Chief Justice. Since adoption, the committee has considered the requirement several times because of questions about the following: whether the OSB committee was actually doing anything with the information; whether the requirement created additional work for court clerks and traps for unrepresented parties; whether the specifics of the requirements needed adjustment to provide more appropriate information or to more closely match the form; whether some variation should be allowed because some persons have modified the statements for their own forms; and similar questions. The committee discussed whether the rule was needed, the politics behind removing the rule, whether the rule should be limited to domestic relations cases, if there were ways to improve the rule. The committee decided not to change the rule at this time.

VOTE. Motion number 64, Motion to not change existing requirement: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

There was no draft of language presented with the proposal.

3. Proposal to amend UTCR chapter 6 to require motions submitted to the court to state whether the other party opposes the motion.

ACTION TAKEN. A motion was made to table the proposal until the 1999 regular fall meeting of the committee, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B10 of committee's fall meeting materials.)

REASON. This issue arose out of a discussion at the 1998 regular spring meeting of the UTCR committee and a committee member requested it be placed in the fall agenda. No other information was submitted to the committee. In the discussion of the issue, some on the committee felt this wasn't an issue (noting that if the other party agreed, then it would be a stipulated motion), some felt it could provide judges with some useful information.

VOTE. Motion number 67, Motion to table until fall of 1999: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

There was no draft of language presented with the proposal.

4. Proposal to amend UTCR 7.010(2) to allow SLR to create expedited dockets in specific situations.

ACTION TAKEN. No motion was made concerning the proposal, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From agenda item B7 of committee's fall meeting materials.)

REASON. UTCR 7.010(2) sets some rather specific time lines about minimum times for completion of certain processes like plea agreements, negotiations, discovery, and investigations in addition to setting maximum times for these processes. One original reason for setting minimum times was to provide some protection for defendants and fairness for defense attorneys. In fall 1997, one court proposed an SLR that would have shortened the amount of time defendants had for some of these processes in some cases. The committee recommended that the Chief Justice disapprove that SLR under UTCR 1.050 as inconsistent with UTCR 7.010 (the SLR was withdrawn without the Chief Justice needing to disapprove the SLR). At that time, a question arose about whether local courts should be allowed to adopt exceptions to the time limits in UTCR 7.010(2) by SLR for types of cases, like domestic abuse, where expediting the cases might be appropriate. Two members of the UTCR Committee, Campbell and Shipsey, were assigned to follow this issue in the county that proposed the SLR originally and see if something should be developed to address this issue. The committee members reported back that the court involved had been able to work out a system to expedite the process without limiting the time the defendants and defense counsel had under UTCR 7.010, and they saw no need to amend that UTCR to address a problem that could be cured without the amendment. No other comment was made concerning the issue. The committee moved on.

VOTE. No Motion.

There was no draft of language presented with the proposal.

5. Proposal to amend UTCR chapter 13 to allow supplemental awards.

ACTION TAKEN. A motion was made to table the proposal until the spring meeting, leaving the proposal conditionally disapproved. (From a letter received at the committee's fall meeting, page 768 of committee's fall meeting materials.)

REASON. This issue arose from a letter from Megan E. Hassen of Marion County Commission on Dispute Resolution. The letter noted a problem in the timing of awards in court-annexed mandatory arbitration under ORS 36.425(2)(c). According to the letter the problem is that the statutes do not specifically allow for arbitrators to make supplemental awards for attorney fees and costs. The letter suggests that the problem arises because arbitrators have too little time to determine fees and costs within the UTCR and the appeal time lines set out in statute. The letter suggested that the problem could be cured by amending UTCR 13.210 or UTCR 13.220 to allow for the issue of costs and attorney fees to be addressed in a supplemental award or to allow more time to file the award. No specific language for UTCR changes were submitted with the proposal. The UTCR committee believed that it may be difficult for arbitrators to meet the tight time lines required by the statutory scheme for an appeal of these arbitrations, but did not believe that UTCR could be used to get around the statutory time lines. The UTCR Committee thought it might be better to address this statutory issue by statutory change. The committee felt this was a complex issue that was submitted late and discussed late and was willing to reconsider in the spring, but tabled the proposal for the time being.

VOTE. Motion number 69, Motion to table until spring 1999 meeting: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

There was no draft of language presented with the proposal.

C. OTHER ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE. The following are actions taken by the UTCR Committee that do not require or recommend a change to the UTCR. Comments or suggestions may be made on the actions taken. The committee will consider comments on these actions at its spring meeting:

1. Amend UTCR 6.120 on how courts handle exhibits.

ACTION. Approve out-of-cycle amendments to UTCR 6.120 (from agenda item B6 on page 761 of committee's fall meeting materials).

REASON. This issue was originally raised at the regular spring 1998 UTCR meeting by a presentation of the ORAP committee to the UTCR Committee. At that time, the ORAP Committee noted that transmission of exhibits to the appellate courts for cases on appeal was becoming a problem in some cases. The ORAP committee believed part of the problem was caused by the method of handling exhibits under UTCR 6.120. The ORAP Committee proposed to address the issue by amendments to ORAP 3.25 and proposals to amend UTCR 6.120. The ORAP Committee was concerned at that time because ORAP changes were on a different cycle (changes generally take effect in January of each year) than UTCR amendments (which generally take effect August 1 of each year). The UTCR Committee expressed concern that the proposed amendments needed to be published for public comment and that trial court administrators needed to be brought into the discussion. The ORAP Committee agreed to these proposals and agreed to bring the comments back to the UTCR Committee. The ORAP Committee published its proposed changes to ORAP 3.25 and its proposals for UTCR 6.120 in the July 13, 1998, Oregon Appellate Courts Advance Sheets (no. 14) for public comment.

At the fall meeting members of the ORAP Committee, Jim Nass and Jim Adams reported to the UTCR Committee that no public comment had been received on the proposals and that the ORAP Committee had worked out changes to the proposals with a group of trial court administrators. The Chief Justice was requesting some action be taken so that the proposed changes to ORAP 3.25 could take effect reasonably closely to those or UTCR 6.120. The UTCR Committee made some changes to the proposal for UTCR 6.120 and recommended the Chief Justice make the changes to UTCR 6.120 effective in January 1999, which would be out-of-cycle for the UTCR.

VOTE. Motions 22 (out-of-cycle adoption) and 23 (changes to proposal): 12 yes, 1 abstain, 1 excused.

The approved amendments to UTCR 6.120 are as follows:

6.120 DISPOSITION OF EXHIBITS

(1) Unless otherwise ordered, all exhibits shall be returned to the custody of counsel for the submitting parties upon conclusion of the trial or hearing. [The custodian] Such counsel must sign an acknowledgment of receipt for the exhibits returned. [The party] Counsel to whom any [exhibit has] exhibits have been returned must retain custody and control until final disposition of the case unless the exhibits are returned to the trial court pursuant to subsections (2) or (3) of this rule. Both documentary and nondocumentary exhibits submitted by parties not represented by counsel shall be retained by the trial court, subject to subsection (4) of this rule.

(2) Upon the filing of a notice of appeal by any party, the trial court administrator promptly shall notify all counsel that they are required to return all documentary exhibits in their custody to the trial court within 21 days of receipt of the trial court's request. All counsel are required to comply with the notice. The trial court promptly will transmit the documentary exhibits to the appellate court, when requested to do so by the appellate court, under ORAP 3.25.

(3) [(2)] Upon request by an appellate court for transmission of nondocumentary exhibits, under ORAP 3.25, the trial court shall notify the party in whose custody the nondocumentary exhibits have been placed. The [custodian] party must resubmit the designated exhibits to the custody of the trial court for [submission] transmittal to the appellate court.

(4) [(3)] Exhibits not returned to the parties shall be processed as follows:

(a) Such exhibits shall be retained by the trial court until the appeal period has elapsed and there is a final disposition of the case.

(b) After final disposition of the case, a notice shall be sent to the parties of record that, unless they withdraw their respective exhibits within 30 days, the exhibits will be disposed of by the court.

(5) [(4)] Nothing contained in this rule shall prevent parties to any matter before the court from seeking the release or return of exhibits before the times specified in this rule.

(6) [(5)] Exhibits in the court's custody shall not be removed from the trial court administrator's control except by stipulation or by order of the court.

(7) For purposes of this rule, "documentary exhibits" include text documents, photos and maps, if not oversized, and audio and video tapes. An oversized document in one larger than standard letter size or legal size.

2. Continue the subcommittee on filing motions and orders on the same page.

ACTION TAKEN. A subcommittee existed consisting of UTCR Committee members Miller, Darling, and Lamvik (from agenda item D1 of the committee's fall meeting materials). As a specific item was put out for publication for public comment on this issue, the subcommittee was continued to follow the issue.

REASON. This subcommittee should continue to follow the proposal published by this notice for public comment on amending UTCR 2.010(12)(c) to limit when motions and orders could be placed on the same page.

VOTE. Motion 70, to continue subcommittee: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

3. Continue the subcommittee on UTCR chapter 13 on arbitration.

ACTION TAKEN. There was an existing subcommittee (consisting of Judge Orf, Judge Campbell, and Nancy Lamvik) created to review UTCR chapter 13 and bring proposals to the committee on improving the chapter. The subcommittee was continued, but Judge Orf (whose term on the committee expires) is replaced with Rapoport and Judge Campbell is replaced with Larson. (From agenda item D2 of committee's fall meeting.)

REASON. This subcommittee was created to look into the possibility of improving this area of the rules and did not feel it had completed its work.

VOTE. Motion 71, to continue subcommittee and make replacements: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

4. Continue subcommittee on domestic relations and add mediation.

ACTION TAKEN. There was an existing subcommittee (consisting of Miller, Darling, and Orf) created to review UTCR chapter 8 on domestic relations and bring proposals to the committee on improving the chapter. The subcommittee was continued, but membership was changed to include Darling, Miller, Campbell, and Lamvik. The committee wanted to look at UTCR chapter 8 generally and court parent plans and issues related to fast track enforcement of support or visitation specifically. The subcommittee added mediation to the list of things it wanted to review for the next regular fall meeting of the UTCR committee. (From agenda item D3 of committee's fall meeting.)

REASON. This subcommittee was created to look into the possibility of improving this area of the rules and did not feel it had completed its work.

VOTE. Motion 71, to continue subcommittee and make replacements: 7 yes, 1 abstain, 6 excused.

D. OTHER PROPOSED UTCR CHANGES APPROVED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOR PUBLICATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. The following are proposals for changes submitted to the Chief Justice after the regular meeting to the UTCR Committee that the Chief Justice is circulating for public comment so the UTCR committee can consider the public comment and make recommendations at its regular spring meeting concerning adoption:

1. Proposed amendments to UTCR 3.180 to change procedures for media in the courtroom.

PROPOSAL BACKGROUND. The following proposal was submitted to the Chief Justice by the Oregon Bar-Press-Broadcasters Council. The proposed change was approved for recommendation to the Chief Justice by the council by unanimous vote at its meeting on December 5, 1998. The proposal was brought to the Chief Justice by Judge Robert Selander, a circuit court judge of Clackamas County courts and a member of the council.

NOTE. This proposal has not been reviewed by the UTCR Committee but has been approved by the Chief Justice for publication to obtain public comment. The Chief Justice is referring this proposal to the UTCR Committee so it can review the public comment at its regular spring meeting and make recommendations concerning the proposal to the Supreme Court. UTCR 3.180 was adopted by the entire Oregon Supreme Court, and any changes to the rule will be made only with the consent of the Supreme Court.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 3.180 are as follows:

3.180 MEDIA OR OTHER PUBLIC ACCESS COVERAGE OF COURT EVENTS

(1) Except as authorized under this rule, no public access coverage shall be denied in any courtroom.[:]

[(a) There shall be no public access coverage in any courtroom or in any area on courthouse premises or environs under the control and supervision of the court.

(b) There shall be no public access coverage equipment in any courtroom at any time.]

[(2) As used in this rule:

(a) "Public access coverage" means coverage by means of any public access coverage equipment.

(b) "Public access coverage equipment" means any of the following in the possession of persons other than the court or the court's staff: television equipment; still photography equipment; audio, video, or other electronic recording or transmission equipment.]

[(3) Upon request or on the court's own motion, after notice to all parties, a judge may allow, in the following places, public access coverage that accords with this rule:

(a) In a courtroom. Even when a judge allows public access coverage in a courtroom, there shall be no public access coverage in the courtroom or in chambers of any of the following:

(i) Recesses of a court proceeding.

(ii) Proceedings in chambers.

(iii) Conferences involving counsel and the judge at the bench.

(iv) Conferences involving counsel and their clients.

(v) Proceedings in a jury trial from which the jury is excluded.

(b) In any area outside the courtroom that is on the courthouse premises or environs under the control and supervision of the court. There shall be no public access coverage in places described under this paragraph except as specifically allowed by the judge.]

(2) Upon request or on the court's own motion, after notice to all parties, a judge shall allow public access coverage that accords with this rule.

(a) However, there shall be no public access coverage of the following:

(i) Proceedings in chambers.

(ii) Any notes or conversations intended to be private.

(iii) Dissolution, juvenile, paternity, adoption, custody, visitation, support, mental commitment, trade secrets, and Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order proceedings.

(iv) At a victim's request, sex offense proceedings.

(v) Voir dire.

(vi) Any juror anywhere during the course of the trial in which he or she sits.

(b) There shall be no audio coverage of the following:

(i) Conferences involving counsel and the judge at the bench.

(ii) Conferences involving counsel and their clients; or video or still camera coverage of written or other materials used during the conference that could identify the content of the conversation.

(iii) Recesses.

(3) [(4)] Limitations on denial of Public Access Coverage in Courtrooms. A judge [has discretion to] may deny a request for or terminate public access coverage only if the judge makes findings of fact on the record setting forth substantial reasons for the denial. The judge [shall not allow] may prohibit public access coverage if there is a reasonable likelihood of any of the following:

(a) The public access coverage would interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial or would affect the presentation of evidence or outcome of the trial.

[(b) The public access coverage would unduly detract from the solemnity, decorum, or dignity of the court.]

(b) [(c)] Any cost or increased burden resulting from the public access coverage would interfere with the efficient administration of justice.

[(5) Under this rule, there shall be no public access coverage of any of the following:

(a) All dissolution, juvenile, paternity, adoption, custody, visitation, support, mental commitment, trade secrets, and Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order proceedings.

(b) At a victim's request, sex offense proceedings.

(c) Voir dire.

(d) Any juror anywhere in the courthouse, its premises, or environs under the control and supervision of the court.

(e) Any other proceeding in which the publicity might impair the fairness of a future trial.]

[(6) Each witness must be advised by the attorney or party who intends to call that witness in advance of giving testimony when public access coverage will be allowed during the proceeding. If a witness requests the witness's testimony not be subject to public access coverage, the court may summarily deny public access coverage of the testimony if the judge finds any of the following:

(a) Reasonable grounds exist to believe that the public access coverage would interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial or would affect the presentation of evidence or outcome of the trial.

(b) The legitimate privacy or safety interests of the witness outweigh the interests requesting public access coverage.]

(4) A judge may summarily prohibit public access coverage of a particular witness only if the judge finds on the record that public access coverage would endanger the welfare of the witness or materially hamper the witness' testimony.

(5) Areas Outside of Courtrooms. The presiding judge may allow public access coverage in any area outside the courtroom that is on the courthouse premises and under the control and supervision of the court. Courts are encouraged to designate an area or areas outside the courtroom that is on the courthouse premises for public access coverage.

(6) Public Access Coverage Defined. As used in this rule:

(a) "Public access coverage" means coverage by means of any public access coverage equipment.

(b) "Public access coverage equipment" means any of the following in the possession of persons other than the court or the court's staff: television equipment; still photography equipment; audio, video, or other electronic recording or transmission equipment.

(7) Equipment and Personnel for Public Access Coverage. The court may limit the location of public access coverage equipment. One pool video camera and one pool still camera and one pool tape recorder shall be permitted.

(a) [Not more than one video camera operated by not more than one camera person shall be permitted in any court proceeding.] No public access coverage device shall be operated by more than one person.

(b) No person shall use public access coverage equipment that is obtrusively audible in the courtroom. [The court may limit the number and location of public access coverage equipment.]

(c) The video camera must be mounted on a tripod or other device installed in the courtroom. The [video camera] tripod or other device must not be moved while the proceedings are in session. Video equipment must be screened where practicable or located and operated as unobtrusively as possible in the courtroom, as directed by the court, to provide the least possible distraction.

(d) No artificial lighting devices of any kind shall be allowed.

(e) A judge may impose other restrictions or limitations necessary to preserve the dignity of the court and to protect all parties, witnesses and jurors.

(f) [(e)] [Persons seeking public access coverage must be responsible for designating one representative to coordinate the public access coverage.] Any pooling arrangement required by limitations on equipment and personnel imposed by the judge or by this rule must be the sole responsibility of the persons seeking public access coverage, without calling upon the judge to mediate any disputes involved therein. In the absence of [advance] agreement on such issues by persons seeking public access coverage, the judge may exclude any or all public access coverage.

(8) A court may require a copy without expense of all video or audio tapes or still pictures for in camera inspection to assure compliance with this rule. The court must seal any copies not returned. [Upon request, any person engaging in public access coverage of a court event or in a courtroom, courthouse, its premises, or environs under the control and supervision of the court must provide to the court, without expense, or to any other person, if the requestor pays actual copying expense, a copy of any public access coverage the person performed.]

(9) [In authorizing public access coverage, if based on substantial reasons in the record,] A judge may impose other restrictions or limitations necessary to preserve the dignity of the court and to protect the parties, witnesses, and jurors. A judge may terminate any or all public access coverage at any point upon finding, based on substantial reasons in the record, that this UTCR or other rules imposed by the judge have been violated.[:

(a) This rule or other rules imposed by the judge have been violated; or

(b) Substantial rights of individual participants or rights to a fair trial will be prejudiced or the outcome of a case will be affected by the public access coverage.]

(10) Nothing in this rule is intended to limit the court's contempt powers.

(11) [(10)] Nothing in this rule shall alter or affect the rules of the Supreme Court promulgated under "Video-Trial Project No. 88-38." Under that project, the audio-video coverage constitutes the entire record. In all other courts, the record shall be preserved with court reporters or audiotape. Restrictions on releasing audio-video coverage in courts participating in the Video-Trial Project shall be set forth in separate rules.

NOTE: UTCR 3.180 was adopted by the entire Oregon Supreme Court, and any changes to the rule will be made only with the consent of the Supreme Court.

2. Proposed amendment to UTCR 7.030 on presiding judge designation of complex cases.

PROPOSAL BACKGROUND. The proposal comes from the Chief Justice's Civil Law Advisory Committee based on recommendations of the Pretrial Subcommittee of that committee. The proposal was approved for recommendation to the UTCR Committee by the Civil Law Advisory at its meeting on December 17, 1998, by consensus.

NOTE. This proposal has not been reviewed by the UTCR Committee but has been approved by the Chief Justice for publication to obtain public comment. The Chief Justice is referring this proposal to the UTCR Committee so it can review the public comment at its regular spring meeting and make recommendations concerning the proposal to the Supreme Court.

The proposed amendments to UTCR 7.030 are as follows:

7.030 COMPLEX CASES

(1) [Anytime prior to assignment of a trial date,] Any party in a case may apply to the presiding judge to have the matter designated as a "complex case." A presiding judge may designate a case as a "complex case" on the presiding judge's own motion at any time upon notice to the parties and judge handling the case.

(2) The criteria used for designation as a "complex case" may include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the number of parties involved, the complexity of the legal issues, the expected extent and difficulty of discovery, and the anticipated length of trial.

(3) A presiding judge shall assign any matter designated as a "complex case" [shall be assigned] to a specific judge who shall thereafter have full or partial responsibility for the case as determined by the presiding judge.

(4) A "complex case" shall not be subject to the time limitation or trial setting procedures set forth in UTCR 7.020(5), (6), and (7); however, any such case will be set for trial as soon as practical, but in any event, within two years from the date of filing unless, for good cause shown, the trial date is extended by the assigned judge.

E. OTHER ISSUES REQUESTED TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE UTCR COMMITTEE AGENDAS

The following are issues that have been placed on the UTCR Committee's agenda for future meetings by request subsequent to its regular fall meeting. Public comment may be submitted on the following issues:

1. Should the committee consider Klamath County SLR 7.005 (motion 27) as a UTCR to set a priority for cases involving juveniles? Committee placed this on its agenda for Fall 1999.

2. Should the committee consider Lane County SLR 7.005 (motion 30) as a possible UTCR setting how attorneys present settlements to the court in domestic relations cases? The committee placed this on its agenda for fall 1999.

3. Should the committee consider an amendment to UTCR chapter 6 to require parties to state on their motions whether the other party opposes the motion? (Tabled from fall meeting 1998 until fall meeting 1999, see item B.3. above.)

F. FUTURE UTCR COMMITTEE MEETINGS

The following are dates for future meetings already set by the committee:

1. SPRING MEETING, April 16, 1999, in Salem. At the spring meeting, the committee will review public comment on proposals in this notice and will make final proposals to the Chief Justice for UTCR changes to take effect August 1, 1999.

2. FALL MEETING, October 22, 1999, in Salem. At the fall meeting, the committee will review proposed SLR and make recommendations to the Chief Justice on disapproval of proposed SLR under UTCR 1.050. This one-day meeting will also be the only meeting in the 1999-2000 UTCR cycle at which the committee intends to accept proposals to make recommendations for UTCR changes that would take effect August 1, 2000.

BAS:bkv/E3B98042

12/98


Top of page Go home

divider line

State of Oregon Seal Created 12/30/98
Web authoring by Print Services