V.R.C.P. 16.3
Reporter's Notes-2022 Amendment
Rule 16.3(b)(3) is amended, pursuant to the Supreme Court's directive under Administrative Order 49, ¶ 13, that the Civil Rules Advisory Committee "consider whether a permanent change to the rules relating to participation in remote mediation is advisable."
Prior to these amendments, Rule 16.3(b)(3) required parties and counsel to attend a mediation unless they "stipulate otherwise or the court, for good cause, excuses participation or authorizes telephone participation. AO 49, ¶ 13, however, suspended that rule. Paragraph 13 provides that "the judicial emergency" addressed by AO 49 "constitutes 'good cause' authorizing remote participation in mediation, by video or telephone, without a stipulation or further court order."
The present amendments retain the basic structure of Rule 16.3(b) that in-person attendance is the default position, with an option for remote mediation if the parties so stipulate or the court, in its discretion, so orders or excuses a party. In the amendment the court's discretion is substituted for "good cause" as the standard by which the court may determine whether to order remote mediation or excuse a party from it. For example, in a financial disparity between parties, where the disadvantaged party is out of state, absence may not be sufficient to meet a good cause standard, but it may be a fact that could convince a judge to use his/her discretion regarding remote mediation if it made sense to the court to do so, in striking a balance between the benefits of remote and in-person mediation in the circumstances of a particular case. For examples of the use of "in its discretion" see V.R.C.P. 3(a), 4(j), 23(f) (as it relates to the Supreme Court), 39(b), 55(c) and (d). The "in its discretion" language is also well litigated. This process would make it a bit easier to have remote mediation where the parties do not agree.
To clarify best practice, the present amendments specify that the default requirement of the rule is for "in person" attendance by parties and counsel, and that the alternative, whether by stipulation or court order, is remote attendance by either video or telephone. It should also be noted that the stipulation provided by Rule 16.3 occurs in connection with the pleading process. The parties may informally agree to remote mediation at any time.
Reporter's Notes
Rule 16.3, originally promulgated in 1999, is abrogated and replaced by the present rule, which is intended to conform to present practice. The new rule combines provisions of the former rule with a simpler organization similar in form to recently promulgated V.R.F.P. 18 and recently recommended V.R.P.P. 16.1. Thus, the title of the new rule and references throughout are "Mediation," rather than "Alternative Dispute Resolution," reflecting that preliminary evaluation (former Rule 16.3(d)) and forms ofADR other than mediation are no longer required or governed by the rule.
New Rule 16.3(a) essentially carries forward in simplified form the substance of former Rule 16.3(a). New Rule 16.3(b) incorporates in simplified form many of the provisions of former Rule 16.3(c), omitting detailed provisions for selection of the neutral, scheduling, and the contents and timing of the neutral's report. Paragraph (b)(3) provides that a party may be excused from personal attendance at a mediation by stipulation or court order and that nonparties who have a material interest or others such as experts or spouses whose presence is essential may be invited to attend by agreement. New Rule 16.3(c) is derived from former Rule 16.3(e), eliminating provisions for income guidelines for state payment of part of the neutral's fees and administrative orders listing preliminary evaluators and other neutrals available for referral.
New Rule 16.3(d)-(f) carry forward with little modification the provisions of former Rule 16.3(f)-(h).