ADM File No. 2022-28 Amendments of Rules 1.109, 1.201, 2.622, 3.002, 3.218, 3.616, 3.903, 3.914, 3.921, 3.928, 3.946, 3.953, 3.956, 3.963, 3.965, 3.972, 3.979, 5.404, 6.006, 6.450, 6.903, 6.931, 6.933, 6.935, 6.937, 7.105, 7.202, 7.305, 8.103, 8.105, and 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules and Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners
To read ADM File No. 2022-28 dated May 3, 2023, visit https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49a15b/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/proposed-and-recently-adopted-orders-on-admin-matters/adopted-orders/202 2-28_2023-05-03_formor_housekeeping.pdf
ADM File No. 2002-37 Amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following amendment of Rule 1.109 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective Jan. 1, 2024.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 1.109 Court Records Defined; Document Defined; Filing Standards; Signatures; Electronic Filing and Service; Access
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Filing Standards.
(1)-(10) [Unchanged.]
(11) Change in Contact Information for Purposes of Service; Modified Captions of Documents.
(a) A party or attorney must file with the court and serve on other parties or attorneys written notice of a change in contact information that is needed for service under MCR 2.107(C) or MCR 1.109(G)(6)(a). Contact information includes name, physical address, mailing address, phone number, and when required, email address. The written notice of changed contact information must be served in accordance with MCR 2.107(C) or MCR 1.109(G)(6)(a), as applicable.
(i) In all cases, written notice of a change in name, physical address, mailing address, and phone number shall be on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office.
(ii) In cases using alternative electronic service under MCR 2.107(C)(4), written notice of a change in email address shall be on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office.
(iii) In cases using the electronic filing system for service, written notice of a change in email address shall be provided using the electronic filing system.
(b) The clerk of the court must update the case caption with the modified contact information; however, the case title shall not be modified as a result of a change of name.
(c) The court and parties to the case must send or serve subsequent documents to the new mailing address as required by MCR 2.107(C) or the new email address as required by MCR 1.109(G)(6)(a).
(E)-(F) [Unchanged.]
(G) Electronic Filing and Service.
(1)-(6) [Unchanged.]
(7) Transmission Failures.
(a)-(c) [Unchanged.]
(d) Notice of Undeliverable Transmission of Served Document. Electronic service by the electronic-filing system is complete upon transmission as defined in subrule (G)(6)(b) unless the person or entity making service learns that the attempted service did not reach the intended recipient.
(i) If the transmission is undeliverable, the person or entity responsible for serving the document must immediately serve by regular mail under MCR 2.107(C)
(3) or by delivery under MCR 2.107(C)(1) or (2) the document and a copy of the notice indicating that the transmission was undeliverable. The person or entity must also include a copy of the notice when filing proof of service with the court under this subrule.
(ii) A recipient who is served with a notice under subrule (7)(d)(i) should ensure the electronic filing system reflects their current email address.
(d)-(f) [Relettered (e)-(g) but otherwise unchanged.]
(H) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2002-37): The amendments of MCR 1.109(D) and (G) address e-filing issues relating to changes in contact information and e-service of documents that are returned as undeliverable to an email address in the e-filing system.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
ADM File No. 2022-11 Proposed Amendments of Rules 2.511 and 6.412 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering amendments of Rules 2.511 and 6.412 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 2.511 Impaneling the Jury
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Examination of Jurors; Discharge of Unqualified Juror. The court may conduct the examineation of prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys for the parties to do so. If the court examines the prospective jurors, it must permit the attorneys for the parties to:
(1) ask further questions that the court considers proper; or
(2) submit further questions that the court may ask if it considers them proper.
(D) Discharge of Unqualified Juror. When the court finds that a person in attendance at court as a juror is not qualified to serve as a juror, the court shall discharge him or her from further attendance and service as a juror.
(D)-(H) [Relettered (E)-(I) but otherwise unchanged.]
Rule 6.412 Selection of the Jury
(A)-(B) [Unchanged.]
(C) Voir Dire of Prospective Jurors.
(1) [Unchanged.]
(2) Conduct of the Examination. The court may conduct the examineation of prospective jurors or permit the attorneys for the partieslawyers to do so. If the court conducts the examinesation the prospective jurors, it mustmay permit the attorneys for the partieslawyers to: supplement the examination by direct questioning or by submitting questions for the court to ask.
(a) ask further questions that the court considers proper; or
(b) submit further questions that the court may ask if it considers them proper.
On its own initiative or on the motion of a party, the court may provide for a prospective juror or jurors to be questioned out of the presence of the other jurors.
(D)-(F) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-11): The proposed amendments of MCR 2.511(C) and 6.412(C) align with Fed Crim P 24 and Fed Civ R 47 and would require the court to allow the attorneys or parties to conduct voir dire in civil and criminal proceedings if the court examines the prospective jurors. The proposed requirement is subject to the court’s determination that the parties’ or attorneys’ questions are proper.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2023 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-11. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
Viviano, J., would decline to publish for comment.
ADM File No. 2022-14 Proposed Amendment of Rule 2.311 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 2.311 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 2.311 Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
(A) Order for Examination. When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental or blood examination by a physician (or other appropriate professional) or to produce for examination the person in the party’s custody or legal control. The order may be entered only on motion for good cause with notice to the person to be examined and to all parties. The order must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made., Upon request of a party, the orderand may also provide that
(1) the attorney for the person to be examined may be present at the examination, or.
(2) a mental examination be recorded by video or audio.
(B) If the court orders that a mental examination be recorded, the recording must
(1) be unobtrusive,
(2) capture the examinee’s and the examiner’s conduct throughout the examination, and
(3) be filed under seal.
(B) [Relettered (C) but otherwise unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-14): The proposed amendment of MCR 2.311 would allow a mental examination to be recorded by video or audio under certain circumstances.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2023 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-14. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2022-26 Proposed Amendment of Rule 6.425 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 6.425 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will also be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for each public hearing are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 6.425 Sentencing; Appointment of Appellate Counsel
(A)-(C) [Unchanged.]
(D) Sentencing Procedure.
(1) The court must sentence the defendant within a reasonably prompt time after the plea or verdict unless the court delays sentencing as provided by law. At sentencing, the court must, on the record:
(a)-(b) [Unchanged.]
(c) before imposing sentence
(i) provide the defendant’s attorney an opportunity to speak on the defendant’s behalf,
(ii) address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence,
(iii) provide the prosecutor an opportunity to speak equivalent to that of the defendant’s attorney, and
(iv) address any victim of the crime who is present at sentencing and permit the victim to be reasonably heard,
(c) give the defendant, the defendant’s lawyer, the prosecutor, and the victim an opportunity to advise the court of any circumstances they believe the court should consider in imposing sentence,
(d)-(f) [Unchanged.]
(2)-(3) [Unchanged.]
(E)-(H) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2022-26): The proposed amendment of MCR 6.425(D)(1)(c) would require a trial court, on the record before sentencing, to personally address the defendant regarding his or her allocution rights and to address any victim who is present and allow the victim to be reasonably heard, similar to FR Crim P 32(i)(4).
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2023 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2022-26. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2023-01 Supreme Court Appointment to the Foreign Language Board of Review
On order of the Court, pursuant to MCR 8.127(A) and effective immediately, Amy Etzel (court administrator member) is appointed to the Foreign Language Board of Review for the remainder of a term expiring on Dec. 31, 2025.
ADM File No. 2023-01 Supreme Court Appointment to the Justice For All Commission
On order of the Court, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2021-1 and effective immediately, Magistrate Carol Jackson (tribal court member) is appointed to the Justice For All Commission for the remainder of a term expiring on Dec. 31, 2023.
ADM File No. 2023-08 Amendment of Rule 7.202 of the Michigan Court Rules
On order of the Court, the following amendment of Rule 7.202 of the Michigan Court Rules is adopted, effective immediately. Concurrently, individuals are invited to comment on the form or the merits of the amendment during the usual comment period. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter also will be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for public hearings are posted on the Public Administrative Hearings page.
Immediate adoption of this proposal does not necessarily mean that the Court will retain the amendments in their present form following the public comment period.
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
Rule 7.202 Definitions
For purposes of this subchapter:
(1)-(5) [Unchanged.]
(6) “final judgment” or “final order” means:
(a) In a civil case,
(i)-(v) [Unchanged.]
(vi) in a foreclosure action involving a claim for remaining proceeds under MCL 211.78t, a postjudgment order deciding the claim.
(b) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2023-08): The amendment of MCR 7.202 includes in the definition of “final judgment” or “final order” postjudgment orders deciding a claim for remaining proceeds under MCL 211.78t.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of a new rule or amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the state court administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on the proposal may be submitted by Aug. 1, 2023 by clicking on the “Comment on this Proposal” link under this proposal on the Court’s Proposed & Adopted Orders on Administrative Matters page. You may also submit a comment in writing at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909 or via email at ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. When submitting a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2023-08. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal.
ADM File No. 2023-01 Assignment of Judges to the Court of Claims and Appointment of Chief Judge
On order of the Court, effective May 2, 2023, the following Court of Appeals judges are assigned to sit as judges of the Court of Claims for terms expiring May 1, 2025:
Hon. Elizabeth L. Gleicher
Hon. James R. Redford
Hon. Douglas B. Shapiro
Hon. Brock A. Swartzle
On further order of the Court, the Hon. Elizabeth L. Gleicher is appointed as chief judge of the Court of Claims for a term ending May 1, 2025.