Posted: October 30, 2025
Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment Period Closes December 15, 2025
URCP010. Form of pleadings and other papers. AMEND. – The amendments to this rule clarify in subparagraph (e) that orders electronically filed by attorneys must follow these signature line requirements, as well as include amendments to conform to the style guide for the rules. The Supreme Court has ordered the expedited effectiveness of the amendments to this rule pursuant to Code of Judicial Administration, Rule 11-105.
URCP026.1. Disclosure and discovery in domestic relations actions. AMEND. The proposed amendments to this rule include clarifying language in relation to Rule 26 in subparagraph (b) and a change in terminology in subparagraph (e)(2).
URCP073. Attorney fees. AMEND. The proposed amendments to this rule include increases to the default attorney fee amounts found in subparagraphs (f)(1), (2), and (3) by 35 – 40 percent, as well as some clarifying amendments to conform with the style guide for the rules.
URCP106. Modification of final domestic relations order. AMEND. The proposed amendments to this rule include an update to the statutory references after recodification, as well as, some clarifying language in subparaph (b).
URCP108. Objection to court commissioner’s recommendation. AMEND. The proposed amendments to this rule include clarifying the language in subparagraph (c) in regards to evidence presented to the commissioner, as well as, updating the terminology in subparagraph (d)(2) from the order to show cause language to the “motion to enforce order and for sanctions” language.
URCP109. Injunction in certain domestic relations cases. AMEND. The proposed amendments to this rule include updating the terminology in subparagraph (a) to “paternity.”
The proposed change to Rule 7(b) would require that “A request for an order related to a subpoena under Rule 45 must follow Rule 37(a).” But Rule 45(g) (45(c) under the proposed amendment) states, “Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person is punishable as contempt of court.” A motion seeking a contempt citation falls under Rule 7A. Often the subject of the motion will not be a party to the action, so a Rule 37(a) motion seems inappropriate, especially since Rule 37(a)(8) prohibits a request for sanctions.
Proposed rule 30(b)(C) states: “If timely objections are not resolved prior to the deposition, any party may seek resolution from the court in accordance with Rule 37, or if the notice seeks a deposition of a non-party organization, the non-party organization may seek resolution in accordance with Rule 45.” This is confusing in light of the proposed change to Rule 7 requiring that a request for an order relating to Rule 45 must be brought under Rule 37.
Proposed rule 37(a)(3) permits a non-party or person subject to a subpoena to object to a statement of discovery issues only if that non-party or person previously filed an objection. That limitation should be deleted. Due process requires that anyone affected by the statement of discovery issues be allowed to respond. For example, if a person fails to show for a deposition because that person never received notice, the person would also not have filed an objection. But the person should be allowed to respond to an SDI regarding that failure to show. Why require notice to the person (37(a)(2)(E)) and then deny the right to respond?
I recommend an additional change to Rule 73. Subparagraph (d) states: “The court will enter an order for the claimed amount unless another party objects within seven days after the affidavit and proposed order are filed.” The “will” should be changed to “may” to give the court discretion to reduce the fee if the court sua sponte determines the fee is unreasonable.