ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Uniform Case Management Plan changes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateExperts - The Southern District of Indiana recently modified two sections of the court’s Uniform Case Management Plan regarding experts, as follows:

F. Plaintiff(s) shall disclose the name, address, and vita of any expert witness, and shall serve the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before [no later than 13 months from Anchor Date]. Defendant(s) shall disclose the name, address, and vita of any expert witness, and shall serve the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before [30 days after Plaintiff(s) serves its expert witness disclosure]; or if Plaintiff has disclosed no experts, Defendant(s) shall make its expert disclosure on or before [no later than 14 months from Anchor Date].

G. If a party intends to use expert testimony in connection with a motion for summary judgment to be filed by that party, such expert disclosures must be served on opposing counsel no later than 60 days prior to the dispositive motion deadline. If such expert disclosures are filed the parties shall confer within 7 days to stipulate to a date for responsive disclosures (if any) and completion of expert discovery necessary for efficient resolution of the anticipated motion for summary judgment. The parties shall make good faith efforts to avoid requesting enlargements of the dispositive motions deadline and related briefing deadlines. Any proposed modifications of the CMP deadlines or briefing schedule must be approved by the court.

These provisions are straightforward and self-explanatory, but need to be reviewed, understood and calendared.

ECF civil case opening - Since Feb. 1, the Southern District has been accepting new case openings via ECF. To take advantage of this convenient option, attorneys and/or their support staff must attend a free two-hour training program at the court or via webinar. Payment of filing fees upon initiating a case via ECF occurs electronically through pay.gov, either by credit card or electronic funds withdraw from a bank account. For more information, contact the clerk’s office.

Northern District magistrate opening – The Judicial Conference has authorized a magistrate judge position in the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Applications are due by May 15. For information, see the court’s website, http://www.innd.uscourts.gov/.

Discovery from prosecutor in civil case – In Davis v. Carmel Clay Schools, No. 1:11-CV-771 (S.D. Ind. March 30, 2012), Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore issued a lengthy opinion addressing the ability to obtain various records from the prosecutor and police in connection with their criminal investigation of alleged bullying. The opinion grants in part and denies in part various motions to quash and compel. For counsel seeking investigative information from law enforcement, the opinion provides an excellent summary of many issues. The opinion also shows Dinsmore’s interest in and attention to detail in discovery issues.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT