3d Cir. L.A.R. 34.1

(a) The court will allow oral argument in all cases unless the panel, after examination of

the briefs and records or appendices, is unanimously of the opinion that oral argument is not

needed.

Table of Contents

(b) Any p arty to the appeal has the right to file a statement with the court setting forth

the reasons why, in the party's opinion, oral argument should be heard. Such statement must be

filed with the clerk within 7 days after the filing o f appellee's or respondent's brief. The request

must set forth the amount of argument time sought.

(c) In certain appeals, the clerk will inform the parties by letter of a particular issue(s)

that the panel wishes the parties to address.

(d) The court will grant a motion requesting rescheduling of the argument only where the

moving party shows extraordinary circumstances.

(e) A party may request oral argument by video-conference. Such a request may be made

by calling the clerk’s office. Counsel must notify all opposing sides that a request for video-conference has been made. Generally, a request for oral argument by video- conference should

be made when the party is notified of the calendaring of the case. In any case, a request for oral

argument by video must be made as soon as possible after counsel knows that a video -

conference is needed. Granting of the request is at the Court’s discretion.

Source: 1988 Court Rule 12.6

Cross-references: FRAP 21(b), 34; 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.1; Third Circuit Internal

Operating Procedures, Chapter 2 (1994)

Committee Comments: Because the panels are constituted in advance for a specific sitting,

rescheduling of an argument may result in a second panel being

assigned an appeal when one panel has already performed the

necessary study of the briefs and appendix. Alternatively, it may

result in members of the panel having to travel to Philadelphia at

additional government expense, disrupting previously established

schedules. Such needless waste of judicial resources underlies this

court's precedent of declining to reschedule except upon a showing

of extraordinary circumstances. Subsectio n (c), adopted in 1995,

contains a provision that counsel in certain cases will be notified

prior to the oral argument of a particular issue, if any, that is of

concern to the court. The portions of prior Court Rule 12.6 that

were repetitive of FRAP were deleted in 1995. Otherwise no

substantive change from prior Court Rule 12.6 is intended. The

rule was revised and simplified in 2000 and 2008.