Collaborative Law

(a) Collaborative Law Defined. Collaborative law is a process in which parties and their respective trained collaborative lawyers and other professionals contract in writing to resolve disputes without seeking court action other than approval of a stipulated settlement. The process may include the use of neutrals as defined in Rule 114.02(b), depending on the circumstances of the particular case. If the collaborative process ends without a stipulated agreement, the collaborative lawyers must withdraw from further representation. (b) Deferral from Scheduling. Where the parties to an action request deferral in a form substantially similar to Form 111.03 and the court has agreed to attempt to resolve the action using a collaborative law process, the court shall defer setting any deadlines for the period specified in the order approving deferral. (c) Additional ADR following Collaborative Law. When a case has been deferred pursuant to subdivision (b) of this rule and is reinstated on the calendar with new counsel or a collaborative law process has resulted in withdrawal of counsel prior to the filing of the case, the court should not ordinarily order the parties to engage in further ADR proceedings without the agreement of the parties. (Added effective January 1, 2008.) Advisory Committee Comment - 1994 Amendment This rule is new. This rule is intended to establish a uniform, mandatory practice of dealing with scheduling in every case by some court action. The rule does not establish, however, a single means of complying with the scheduling requirement nor does it set any rigid or uniform schedules. In certain instances, other rules establish the event giving rise to the requirement that the scheduling procedures be followed. See, e.g., Rule 141 (condemnation scheduling triggered by appeal of commissioner's award); 144.01 (wrongful death scheduling triggered by filing paper in wrongful death action, not proceedings for appointment of trustee). Because applications to compel or stay arbitrations are, by statute, authorized to be handled by the District Court in a summary matter and without the commencement of a separate action, it is appropriate that they be exempted from the formal case scheduling requirements of Rule 111. Although the rule allows parties to submit scheduling information separately, this information may also be submitted jointly and required to be submitted jointly. In many cases, the efficient handling of the case may be fostered by the parties meeting to discuss scheduling issues and submitting a joint statement. The rule contemplates establishment of a separate deadline for completion of an independent medical examination because the Task Force believes that it is frequently desirable to allow such an examination to take place after the conclusion of other discovery. The rule does not create any specific schedule for independent medical examinations, but allows, and encourages, the court to consider this question separately. The timing of these examinations is best not handled by rigid schedule, but rather, by the exercise of judgment on the part of the trial judge based upon the views of the lawyers, any medical information bearing on timing and the status of other discovery, as well as the specific factors set forth in Minn. R. Civ. P. 35. The Task Force considered a new rule expressly to exempt the use of requests for admissions pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 36 from discovery Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE 78 MINNESOTA COURT RULES completion deadlines in the ordinary case. The Task Force determined that a separate rule exempting requests for admissions from discovery deadlines in all cases was not necessary, but encourages use of extended deadlines for requests for admissions in most cases. The primary function served by these requests is not discovery, but the narrowing of issues, and their use is often most valuable at the close of discovery. See R. Haydock & D. Herr, Discovery Practice section 7.2 (2d ed. 1988). Because requests for admissions serve an important purpose of narrowing the issues for trial and resolving evidentiary issues relating to trial, it is often desirable to allow use of these requests after the close of other discovery. Advisory Committee Comment - 2007 Amendment