Cleaning Up Quotes and Cites for Readability -- The "Cleaned Up" Technique

Effective May 2, 2018, I have begun using a technique described as "cleaned up" for quotes that contain a lot of unnecessary "noise" in them.  I became aware of the technique from Bryan Garner's Law Prose Blog article titled Cleaned-Up Quotations and Citations. (Law Prose Blog #303 ___) [link not yet available, but it is included below], Garner gives credit for the technique to Jack Metzler who has an SSRN article on it titled Cleaning Up Quotations, here.
LawProse Lesson 303
Cleaned-Up Quotations and Citations
Bryan Garner Garner 
Last week, we discussed the circumstances in which it's permissible to tacitly change a quotation to regularize it to house style. This week, we'll discuss another type of cosmetic alteration, something like a bibliographic face-lift: the "cleaned-up" quotation. 
In recent years, some legal writers have become so obsessed with noting every little bibliographic detail-for example, a parenthetical saying "brackets in original in second instance only" or "ellipsis in original source quoted within quotation"-that there has been an understandable backlash to this cumbersome equipment. Increasingly, we see quotes within quotes within quotes. Signaling such minutiae becomes both tedious and pointless. If a recent opinion quotes an earlier source, using ellipsis dots and brackets, and in quoting that opinion you need to add still more, it's fair to clean it up and simply signal that you've done so. The way to do that is to add "(cleaned up)" at the end of the citation. This signal solves a problem that is bound to grow worse as more and more opinions contain third- and fourth-generation repetitions of quotations. 
You must not-we emphasize, must not-introduce any change in the substance of the quotation. Only then does the method work. 
The rationale behind the cleaned-up quotation is that when you use a quotation to draw on the authority of the court you're quoting, your reader doesn't need to know that the court itself was drawing on an earlier authority. In effect, the words of the quotation have become part of the new opinion. 
Not this: The Ninth Circuit has noted that "[u]nder the Westfall Act, federal employees receive absolute immunity from suit 'for their "negligent or wrongful act[s] or omission[s] . . . while acting within the scope of [their] office or employment."'" Jackson v. Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 735 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Green v. Hall, 8 F.3d 695, 699 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1))). 
But this: The Ninth Circuit has noted that under the Westfall Act, "federal employees receive absolute immunity from suit for their negligent or wrongful acts or omissions while acting within the scope of their office or employment." Jackson v. Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 735 (9th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up) (referring to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1)). 
Thanks-and praise-are due to Jack Metzler of Washington, D.C., who pioneered this practice. 
Metzler, Jack, Cleaning Up Quotations (March 17, 2017). 18 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 2018, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2935374 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2935374

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please make sure that your comment is relevant to the blog entry. For those regular commenters on the blog who otherwise do not want to identify by name, readers would find it helpful if you would choose a unique anonymous indentifier other than just Anonymous. This will help readers identify other comments from a trusted source, so to speak.