Summary of 2017 Local Rule Changes
March 31, 2017
The Pierce County Superior Court Local Rules Committee hereby submits its proposed rule
changes to take effect September 1, 2017. We are soliciting input and comment from the
Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association. We request all comments to be submitted by not later
than May 8, 2017. Comments may be submitted to Judge Gretchen Leanderson:
[email protected].
PCLGR 30 Mandatory Electronic Filing. The Committee has two proposed changes to PCLGR
30.
First, the Committee has proposed a new rule which provides that certain ex parte civil orders
requiring judicial signature be required to be filed electronically, rather than by mail or in
person. The list of orders covered by this rule is attached and will be maintained by the County
Clerk on the County Clerk’s website. The mandatory filing fee for these orders will be $40,
which is the same fee currently charged for ex parte mail. These mandatory filings only apply
to attorneys; self-represented individuals may still physically bring these orders into ex parte
for judicial signature. The rule change was initiated by the Clerk’s Office and is part of the
Court’s ongoing efforts to reduce the processing time for both attorneys and the court and to
go paperless. The list of orders requiring ex-parte e-filing was vetted and pared down to a list
deemed beneficial to practitioners and the court alike. It is the goal that these electronically
filed ex parte orders be reviewed and signed electronically by a judicial officer within 24 hours
of electronic filing.
The second modification to PCLGR 30 was to eliminate 2 classifications of civil documents that
previously had been exempted from mandatory e-filing: (vii) Affidavits for Writs of
Garnishment and Writs of Execution on Garnishment; and viii) Voluminous Documents –
“voluminous document” is any document that exceeds 200 pages, including attachments.
These documents will now be subject to mandatory e-filing.
PCLR 3 Commencement of Actions/Case Schedule. . The Committee addressed the issue of
discovery cutoff dates. The Committee clarified that discovery in civil cases shall be completed
by the discovery cutoff date and that written discovery shall be propounded to allow for
completion prior to the discovery cutoff date. This applies to expedited cases, standard cases,
complex cases and dissolution cases. This clarification should result in fewer discovery motions
on this issue.
PCLR 7 Motions: Judges and Commissioners. The committee proposed two changes related to
motions for revision of a Commissioner’s Order or Judgment, and two changes related to
motions for reconsideration before a Judge or a Commissioner.
The first change concerning motions for revision before a Commissioner, provides that a
motion for revision of a Commissioner’s Order or Judgment will be struck and not considered if
it is filed more than 10 days of entry of the Order or Judgment. The 10 day time frame is
jurisdictional. This additional notice emphasizes to the parties that it is jurisdictional.
The second change is to eliminate the final sentence of that same timing section ((12) (A))
which currently reads “Failure to schedule the motion within the time prescribed shall be
deemed jurisdictional”. The sentence modifies the prior sentence requiring the scheduling of
argument on the assigned judicial department’s next available motion date but no sooner than
six working days of the Commissioner’s order nor later than 30 days, except for good cause
shown. Unlike the timing of the filing of the motion for revision, the scheduling of argument
date is not jurisdictional. Eliminating the last sentence corrects this error.
The first of two proposed changes as to Motions for Reconsideration eliminates Motions for
Reconsideration of Pro Tem Commissioner rulings. A Motion for Reconsideration of a
Commissioner’s ruling should be before the Commissioner that made the ruling. Pro Tem
Commissioners are called in when coverage is needed due to vacations, conflicts or position
vacancies; they are not on a fixed schedule. The sole recourse for review of a Pro Tem
Commissioner’s ruling will be a Motion for Revision before the assigned Superior Court trial
Judge.
The second proposed change as to Motions for Reconsideration is consistent with the prior
change, and specifies that that a Motion for Reconsideration be noted on the civil motion
docket of the Judge or Commissioner that heard the original motion.
Please also note that rules regarding Settlement Conferences in domestic cases were previously
adopted by the Court as of December 1, 2016 and will become part of the published Pierce
County Local Rules effective with this rules cycle. The rule changes relating to settlement
conferences, which are primarily in PCLR 16, may be found on the court’s website.
As always, we welcome your input and your comments.
Thank you,
Judge Gretchen Leanderson, Chair,
Pierce County Superior Court Local Rules Committee