Local Rule LR IA 1-1: TITLE

LR IA 1-1. TITLE These are the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. These rules are divided into the following parts: Part IA (Introduction); Part IB (United States Magistrate Judges); Part IC (Electronic Case Filing); Part II (Civil Practice); Part III (Patent Practice); Part IV (Criminal Practice); and Part V (Rules Applicable in Special Proceedings and Appeals). The rules in Parts II and IV are numbered to correspond to their Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure counterparts. The rules in Parts IA through II may be cited as "LR___"; those in Part III, as "LPR___"; those in Part IV, as "LCR___"; and those in Part V, as "LSR___."

2016 Committee Note LR IA 1-1 is amended as part of the general restyling of the rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. The parenthetical references to "Rules" and "Court" are deleted. Given that the full name of the rules and the court have been stated, subsequent references to the court and the rules are lowercased. LR IA 1-1 also is amended to reference new Part IC (Electronic Case Filing). It is also amended to reference new Part III (Patent Practice). Part III formerly contained the bankruptcy rules, which are now in a separate volume available at www.nvb.uscourts.gov. The patent rules formerly were located in Part II (Civil Practice).

Style Updates Guidance in drafting, usage, and style was based on Bryan A. Garner, Guidelines for Drafting and Editing Court Rules, Administrative Office of the United States Courts (5th ed. 2007) (available at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/style-resources) and Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage (3d ed. 2011).

In applying Garner's Guidelines, the Local Civil and Criminal Rules Committees sought to avoid ambiguities and inconsistencies in the rules. The committees further sought to improve the rules' clarity and brevity by eliminating unnecessary words, using the active voice whenever possible, and inserting structural divisions when necessary to improve readability. The committees removed words and concepts that are outdated and redundant. Finally, the committees sought to promote stylistic integration between the different rules and different parts, which were drafted by different people at different times.

One of the most significant stylistic revisions was the committees' decision to replace "shall" with another word of authority, when appropriate. As Garner explains, "shall" can bear five to eight senses including "must," "may," or something else, depending on the context. Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage, 952 (3d ed. 2011). Currently, "shall" is used more than 500 times in the rules, but it does not bear the same meaning throughout. The restyled rules replace "shall" with "must," "may," "will," or some other expression, depending on the context and the established interpretation of the rule. This style change was not intended to make changes in substantive meaning.