ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Free CLE, hyperlinks and award nominations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedBarMaley-sigFree CLE on medical issues in prisoner litigation – The Southern District of Indiana is holding a 4-hour free CLE program in Indianapolis June 27. Lawyers recently appointed by the court to represent a prisoner and those interested in accepting pro bono appointments are strongly encouraged by the court to attend this special seminar. See details and register at the court’s website, www.insd.uscourts.gov.

Hyperlinks in briefs – As noted previously, a new pilot program was underway in the Southern District of Indiana for including hyperlinks in briefs. This feature is now available to all filers. Hyperlinks will allow the reader (the court, counsel, etc.) immediate access to the referenced materials, such as CM/ECF filings, case and statute citations, attachments, and exhibits. This is an emerging trend in federal courts and might become mandatory in courts in the future.

This is a valuable process to undertake, but users will need to invest some time and training to be proficient at this. Full information is available on the court’s website with the April 11 announcement.

Nominees requested for ISBA / N.D. of Indiana Award - The Indiana State Bar Association’s Federal Judiciary Committee is currently seeking nominations for the Henry Hurst Judicial Assistance Award. The Hurst Award is named in memory of Henry Hurst, the first federal clerk of the District Court of Indiana, serving from 1817 through 1835.

This year the Hurst Award is to be presented to a member of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Nominees shall serve as a member of the District Court clerk’s office, the District Bankruptcy Court clerk’s office, as a staff member to a District Court or Bankruptcy judge, or as a member of the administrative personnel.

Nominations – including nominee’s job title and description of qualifications for the award – are due to Lyle Hardman at lhardman@hsk-law.com by June 1.

Fee fights – In Illiana Surgery and Medical Center, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins., 2014 WL 1094455, n.1 (N.D. Ind. March 19, 2014), Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich addressed various issues in a discovery-related fee petition. The opinion is a useful guide on many issues relating to fee awards. Interestingly, in addressing and rejecting a challenge to a 0.6 time entry, Judge Rodovich noted, “Consistent with Hartford’s approach to discovery in this case, it has spent more time and resources challenging two entries totaling 1 hour than the amount requested by the plaintiff for those entries. The court trusts that Hartford’s attorneys will notify their client how much they incurred in attorneys fees on these two entries.”

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, is a member of the Local Rules Advisory Committee for the N.D. of Indiana, and is a member of the 7th Circuit Civil Pattern Jury Instructions Committee. 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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT