ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Comments sought for changes to local rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateNorthern District of Indiana

The Northern District of Indiana has posted on its website its proposed amendments to its local rules, welcoming public comment by Dec. 1. The proposed changes are stylistic not substantive, but nonetheless significant and include: (a) altering the numbering convention from L.R. 1.1 to L.R. 1-1; and (b) stylistic modifications consistent with style changes to federal rules in recent years. These amendments are scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2012.

The renumbering is aimed at avoiding confusion when a corresponding federal rule such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 uses a decimal. Under the old system, the N.D Ind. Local Rule was 5.1.1. Under the new system, the N.D. Ind. Local Rule will be 5.1-1. This will allow easier numbering and tracking going forward as the federal rules seem to be adding “.1” rules periodically to existing federal rules.

The restyling is aimed at trimming unnecessary verbiage in the local rules, and also using the same style and language used in the revised federal rules (FRCPs, FRAPs, etc.). Terms like “should, shall, may, and must” are addressed, with shall being deleted in favor of must when the rule requires something to be done. Practitioners and local rule committee members Tom Vetne and Brian Kubicki, in particular, deserve thanks and praise for hundreds of hours of work on this multi-year project.

Southern District of Indiana

The Southern District is in the process of amending its local rules as well, probably effective January 1 pending court action. The Southern District is likewise considering the same renumbering as the Northern District, and similar restyling. Watch for further notices on this front in this column and on the court’s website.

Fee Increases

Various court fees have increased effective Nov. 1 and are available on court websites. Meanwhile, per page costs on PACER are scheduled to increase from $.08 per page to $.10 per page on April 1.

Federal Civil Practice Seminar

The Annual Federal Civil Practice Seminar will be held Friday, Dec. 16 in Indianapolis, starting at 1:30 p.m. Three hours CLE will be provided. Panelists include Chief Judge Richard Young and Magistrate Judges Mark Dinsmore and Denise LaRue from the Southern District of Indiana, along with Clerk Laura Briggs and Don Wall from the 7th Circuit. See www.theindianalawyer.com for information and to register.•
__________

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT