Rules for Comment

January 14, 2020 § 4 Comments

Yesterday I mentioned the high court’s order amending MRCP 26.

There is plenty of other change to the MRCP in the works.

If you will go to the MSSC’s site and click on Research/Rules/Rules for Comment, you will find nine MRCP posted inviting your comments.

The rules currently for comment are (Clicking on the link will take you to the committee’s motion):

29   Stipulations regarding discovery.

30   Depositions.

33   Interrogatories.

34   Production of documents and entry upon lands.

37   Failure to make or cooperate in discovery.

43   Taking of testimony.

45   Subpoena.

46   Exceptions unnecessary.

54   Judgments and costs. There also is a separate letter motion .

Although the comment deadline has elapsed on all but one posted rule, I have been old that the court will consider all comments received until the court takes up the rule for action. If my info is correct, why not take the opportunity to have your input?

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has sent more than a dozen more proposals for changes to other MRCP that the court has not (yet) put up for comment. Stay tuned.



§ 4 Responses to Rules for Comment

  • […] My earlier post is at this link. […]

  • Gail Thompson says:

    How do I make a proposal for consideration of an amendment to the Rules. Specifically, Rule 4 (d) (5) which provides: “Upon the State of Mississippi or any of its departments, officers or institutions, by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi.” When the rules were written it did not contemplate that the Department of Human Services would farm child support matters to an independent contractor. Indigent clients or those who fall below the poverty level, in particular, are forced to come up with fees to pay an independent process server to serve the AG in Jackson. Since Young Williams has representatives in the various counties. Why cannot there be a provision in these instances that allow those attorneys to be served, who in turn would notice the AG’s office. If we are committed to equal access to justice for our citizens, in instances like these, why can there not be an exception?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Rules for Comment at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.


%d bloggers like this: