Commentary: Eastern District updates local rules

Supreme Court of Missouri Rule 50.01 allows each of the three districts of the Missouri Court of Appeals (Southern, Western, and Eastern) to “make rules governing the administration of judicial business” provided the rules “are not inconsistent with the rules of this Court, the Constitution or statutory law in force.”

Each district has used this authority to adopt local (special) rules governing brief word counts, oral argument requests, exhibits, extensions of time for records and briefs, and other filings and procedures:

Southern: https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=224

Western: https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=243

Eastern: https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=161

On January 13, 2026, the Eastern District made several important updates to its local rules.

Extensions for Briefs in Civil Cases (Rule 341). Most notably (in this author’s opinion), the Eastern District adopted a new rule (though it was an existing policy) governing extensions of time for filing briefs in civil cases.

Appellants seeking more than a 15-day extension to file a brief (for reasons unrelated to health), must include at least four things in their motion:

1. A statement of facts showing good cause for the extension;
2. Counsel’s verification that the party or authorized corporate representative of the party on whose behalf the continuance is requested has been informed of the request and understands that any resulting delay in submission is attributable to the request and not to the Court of Appeals;
3. An express waiver of the requirement of Rule 84.08; and
4. A statement of the position taken by the other party or parties to the appeal with respect to the requested extension of time.

Attorneys should pay close attention to the third requirement: Rule 84.08 waiver. Once a notice of appeal is filed, if the appellant does not take steps to secure review of the appeal within the time periods allowed or extended—for example, filing a timely brief—Rule 84.08 requires the Clerk to place the case on the dismissal docket and notify all parties that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant remedies the default at least 15 days from the date of the notice.

By waiving Rule 84.08, an appellant waives any notice or opportunity to cure. If the appellant does not file a brief by the extended deadline, the appeal can be dismissed immediately.

Respondents seeking more than a 15-day extension must satisfy the same requirements —good cause, corporate representative verification, and other parties’ position—except for the Rule 84.08 waiver, which applies only to appellants.

Rule 341 also requires “specific details” be given when an extension is sought because of the press of business. So rather than simply stating “press of business,” as many motions do, list the deadlines you have in other cases, with case numbers and names. This approach mirrors what Rule 396 already requires for continuances of oral argument.

Finally, Rule 341 states that the press of business alone will not constitute good cause for extensions exceeding 90 days from the original due date of the brief.

Exhibits and Paper Copies (Rule 333). The old rule allowed parties to e-file trial exhibits but only with opposing counsel’s consent.

The updated rule eliminates that requirement. Registered users can now electronically file copies of trial exhibits without consent, subject to the Supreme Court’s redaction requirements.

One limitation remains: photographs, oversize exhibits, and physical objects must still be deposited in paper. Aside from the obvious reason why physical objects could not be electronically filed, photographs can become blurred or distorted if they are e-filed, which is why I imagine the Court kept the paper-copy requirement.

Note that, as has been the rule for a while in the Eastern District, no paper copies of any other electronic filing are required.

Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal (Rule 400). The old rule required any party seeking attorneys’ fees on appeal, whether under contract, statute, or otherwise, to file a motion before submission. That typically meant before oral argument or before the case was submitted on the briefs. Other than that, the rule did not specify what that motion must include.

The new rule adds two specific requirements. The motion for fees on appeal:

First, must “provide citation to the specific contract provisions or statute.”

Second, must also include a “detailed list of the fees incurred for each legal service on appeal.”

The rule does not expressly require an affidavit. But given the new “detailed list” requirement, good practice would be to file one, just as you would if the case were remanded to the trial court to determine fees. Even a spreadsheet of billing entries is likely worthwhile. These can typically be filed under seal or redacted.

As with the old rule, this new requirement (the entire rule, in fact) does not apply to claims for damages for a frivolous appeal (Rule 84.19) or sanctions (Rule 55.03).

Self-represented party filings (Rules 330, 336, 380). With updates to three of its rules, the Eastern District sought to “streamline some of the filing requirements” for self-represented litigants.

First, Rule 330 allows self-represented parties to file more kinds of documents through e‑mail.

Previously, self-represented litigants could only file transcripts by paper. Now, electronic transcripts may be filed by e-mail to [email protected].

Similarly, trial exhibits (previously paper-only) may now be deposited by e-mail, though they must comply with the Supreme Court’s redaction requirements. Photographs, oversize exhibits, and physical objects remain paper-only (same as registered users in Rule 333).

Second, Rule 336 requires the court reporter to deliver to the appellant an electronic version of the transcript. It no longer requires the court reporter to deliver a paper copy. This pairs with Rule 330’s new provision allowing self-represented parties to file electronic transcripts by e-mail.

Third, Rule 380. Historically, if a party is represented by counsel, and that party files a pro se motion or other filing with the Eastern District, while still represented, the clerk’s office is directed not to accept that filing.

Two exceptions exist: (1) in criminal and postconviction appeals, the Court may accept a pro se motion for rehearing or application for transfer if counsel has not filed one; and (2) the court will accept a pro se motion to remove counsel.

The amendment tightens the second exception. Previously, the rule allowed a represented party to file pro se papers “concerning counsel.” This was broad language that could (conceivably) cover complaints about an attorney’s performance, requests for substitution, or nearly anything else.

The new rule limits this exception only to “motions in proper form addressing the removal of counsel,” (emphasis added), giving the clerk’s office authority to reject filings that don’t meet that narrower standard.

****

If you made it this far, I appreciate it. And if you have any additional questions or thoughts on these revised rules (or appeals in general), please feel free to reach out: [email protected].