A Footnote Holding on Abstracting: Permissible to Include Discovery Attached as Exhibits to Pleadings In the Addendum
A final appellate practice lesson on Francis v. Protective Life Insurance Company is that, contrary to former practice, "[p]leadings and documentary evidence shall not be abstracted.” Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(5) (2007).
Protective Life argued in this case that Francis's brief should be sent for rebriefing because she didn't include an abstract. The Court held in a footnote holding that in cases where there are no hearings and no testimony, an abstract is not required by the rules:
No abstract was provided in this case because no hearings were held and no testimony was taken. Protective Life claims that Elizabeth was not excused from abstracting the affidavits and responses to requests for admissions, as these documents are analogous to testimony. However, Protective Life cites us to a case decided pursuant to an old version of our rule on abstracting. Our current rule provides that “[p]leadings and documentary evidence shall not be abstracted.” Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(5) (2007). The discovery documents at issue here were submitted as exhibits attached to pleadings. Such evidence is appropriately included in the addendum, pursuant to Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(8) (2007).
