Proposal / Submission Type
Peer Reviewed Paper
Location
Daytona Beach, Florida
Start Date
20-5-2015 10:45 AM
Abstract
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) are subject to a unique process also once used in revising the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). Today, this process is followed in revisions of the FRCP, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules. This unique rulemaking process differs significantly from traditional notice and comment rulemaking required for a majority of federal regulatory agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).1 Most notably, rule-making for the federal courts’ procedural matters remain unaffected by the invalidation of legislative veto. It is still widely, but wrongly believed, that the legislative veto was completely invalidated by INS v. Chadda.
Scholarly Commons Citation
Schwerha, Joseph J.; Mitchell, Susan L.; and Bagby, John W., "Inivited Paper - Potential Changes to eDiscovery Rules in Federal Court: A Discussion of the Process, Substantive Changes and Their Applicability and Impact on Virginia Practice" (2015). Annual ADFSL Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law. 4.
https://commons.erau.edu/adfsl/2015/wednesday/4
Included in
Aviation Safety and Security Commons, Computer Law Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, Forensic Science and Technology Commons, Information Security Commons, National Security Law Commons, OS and Networks Commons, Other Computer Sciences Commons, Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons
Inivited Paper - Potential Changes to eDiscovery Rules in Federal Court: A Discussion of the Process, Substantive Changes and Their Applicability and Impact on Virginia Practice
Daytona Beach, Florida
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) are subject to a unique process also once used in revising the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). Today, this process is followed in revisions of the FRCP, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules. This unique rulemaking process differs significantly from traditional notice and comment rulemaking required for a majority of federal regulatory agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).1 Most notably, rule-making for the federal courts’ procedural matters remain unaffected by the invalidation of legislative veto. It is still widely, but wrongly believed, that the legislative veto was completely invalidated by INS v. Chadda.
