ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Court launches new website, case management plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedBarMaley-sigSouthern District’s new website – The Southern District’s website is revamped, with a new and improved look and feel. The case opinion search feature remains and allows searching by judge and/or date. It can be a useful tool to get recent standards, for instance, on common issues.

Southern District’s new case management plan – The Southern District has a new version of its Uniform Case Management Plan, effective Dec. 10. It is available on the court’s website under the Local Rules and Orders tab. It has several significant changes, so practitioners should ensure that colleagues, paralegals and secretaries start with the revised form off the court’s website.

One notable provision is the following: “Within 14 days after the non-expert discovery deadline, and consistent with the certification provisions of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(b) the party with the burden of proof shall file a statement of the claims or defenses it intends to prove at trial, stating specifically the legal theories upon which the claims or defenses are based.”

Also, regarding final witness and exhibit lists, the Uniform Plan provides, “All parties shall file and serve their final witness and exhibit lists on or before _____ [no later than 14 months from Anchor Date]. This list should reflect the specific potential witnesses the party may call at trial. It is not sufficient for a party to simply incorporate by reference ‘any witness listed in discovery’ or such general statements. The list of final witnesses shall include a brief synopsis of the expected testimony.”

Northern District’s new chair of Local Rules Committee – After many years of distinguished leadership and service as chair of the Northern District’s Local Rules Committee, Magistrate Judge Roger Cosbey is passing the baton to Magistrate Judge John Martin. The committee has been very active in improving and simplifying the court’s Local Rules during Judge Cosbey’s tenure. Any comments or suggestions on the court’s Local Rules are welcome, and should be sent to clerk Robert Trgovich.

7th Circuit Standards of Professional Conduct – For more than 20 years, the Standards for Professional Conduct Within the 7th Federal Judicial Circuit have been in existence. They provide useful guidance, but their Preamble states, “These standards shall not be used as a basis for litigation or for sanctions or penalties. Nothing in these standards supersedes or detracts from exiting disciplinary codes or alters existing standards of conduct against which lawyer negligence may be determined. These standards should be reviewed and followed by all judges and lawyers participating in any proceeding in this Circuit.”

In the Northern and Southern Districts, to be admitted as a member of the court or pro hac vice, counsel must certify that they have read and will abide by these standards. See N.D. Ind. LR 83-5; S.D. Ind. LR 83-5, 83-6. The Northern District’s Local Rules further provide, “Indiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct and the Seventh Circuit Standards of Professional Conduct (an appendix to these rules) govern the conduct of those practicing in the court.” N.D. Ind. LR 83-5(e).

In litigation, the standards have been cited by or within the 7th Circuit on scores of occasions. For instance, Judge John Tinder wrote for the 7th Circuit in one decision, “Failing to cite adverse controlling authority makes an argument frivolous. Not only that, but it is ‘imprudent and unprofessional.’ Thompson v. Duke, 940 F.2d 192, 198 (7th Cir. 1991). We expect more from attorneys who appear before us. See Standards for Professional Conduct Within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit, ‘Lawyer’s Duties to the Court.’” Gross v. Town of Cicero, 619 F.3d 697, 703 (7th Cir. 2010).

Locally, an example comes from Oakley v. Remy Int’l, 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 124477 (S.D. Ind. 2011), in which Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson wrote, “As far as motions to reconsider go, this motion was exceptionally aggressive. Given the effort that the Court devotes to pending cases – and this case has been no exception – Remy’s only barely veiled accusations that the Court either recklessly ignored or willfully refused to apply Circuit precedent is, therefore, unfortunate and disappointing. [See, e.g., dkt. 77 at 2 (‘The district court may not ignore or refuse to follow Seventh Circuit precedent.’]”

She continued, “Both bench and bar have reciprocal obligations to address each other with respect. See Standards for Professional Conduct Within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit, Lawyers’ Duties to the Court Standard 1 & Courts’ Duties to Lawyers Standard 1. Here, Remy’s counsel fell short of that obligation. The Court trusts that counsel will, in the future, exercise the civility to the bench that counsel has received and will continue to receive from the bench. One can disagree without being disagreeable.”

With the New Year upon us, reviewing these standards is timely and prudent.

Common Interest Privilege – Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch recently addressed the common interest privilege in Ducker v. Amin, 1:12-CV-01596 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 31, 2013). Her opinion contains a thorough discussion of this topic and concludes, “The common interest privilege protects from disclosure only communications between Ms. Ducker and Mr. Worthy that included one or both of their legal counsel, or included only their legal counsel, and which concerned their common interest. It does not protect from disclosure communications between Ms. Ducker and Mr. Worthy without the participation of counsel.”

Save the date – The 2014 annual federal civil practice seminar will return Dec. 19 this year; mark your calendars.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. He chairs the Local Rules Advisory Committee for the S.D. of Indiana and is a member of the Local Rules Advisory Committee for the N.D. of Indiana. 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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT