NAAMJP argues that
§ 2071 “expressly incorporates the standard set forth in [§] 2072,” Appellant's Br. 41, which mandates that “[s]uch rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right,”
28 U.S.C. § 2072(b). The plain language of the statute, however, belies NAAMJP's argument. The phrase “[s]uch rules” in
§ 2072(b) clearly refers to the “general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence” that
§ 2072(a) permits the Supreme Court to prescribe. Moreover,
§ 2071's reference to
§ 2072 clearly refers to the “rules of practice and procedure” that come out of the
§ 2072 rule-making standard, not to
§ 2072's rule-making standard itself. In other words, the Rules Enabling Act tells district courts that they cannot use local rules to contradict the Supreme Court's rules of procedure. Consequently, this NAAMJP argument fails.