ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Northern, Southern District courts cleaning up local rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar Update

Local Rule amendments are in the works in the Northern District and Southern District of Indiana, with amendments to take effect Jan. 1. In the Northern District, the court has issued formal notice of its proposed amendments, inviting comments by Nov. 18. The amendments are posted on the website, but include the following of note:

Local Rule 6-1(b) on extensions of time would have no substantive change, but be cleaned up as follows with italics showing additions:

(b) Automatic Initial Extension. The deadline for filing a responsive pleading or a response to a written request for discovery or admissions will automatically be extended upon filing a notice of the extension with the court if: to respond to a pleading or a discovery request – including requests for admission – is automatically extended when an extension notice is filed with the court and:

(1) the deadline has not been extended before;

(2) the extension is for 28 or fewer days; and

(3) the party has diligently attempted to contact opposing attorneys to get their agreement to the extension;

(4) all opposing attorneys the party could reach have agreed to the extension; and

(5) the notice states:

(A) the original deadline and the requested deadline;

(B) the new deadline; that all opposing attorneys the party could reach have

agreed to the extension;
and

(C) that all opposing attorneys the attorney could reach agreed to the extension; or that the party could not reach any other opposing attorneys despite due diligence.

The amendment would also add subsection (c) to clarify no application to pro se parties, reading, (c) Pro Se Parties. The automatic initial extension does not apply to pro se parties.

In the Southern District, a similar cleanup to its Local Rule 6-1(b), along with several other modest Local Rule amendments, will be considered by the court and released for public comment.

Separately, the Northern District has posted for public comment a new set of Local Patent Rules. Although there are only six such rules proposed, they are lengthy and significant. Any patent litigators should review them and offer comments.

New magistrate judge

The Northern District of Indiana recently announced its selection of John Martin to succeed Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich in the Hammond Division effective March 1 after Judge Rodovich’s retirement. Martin is a graduate of the Valparaiso University School of Law and currently serves as deputy federal community defender in Hammond. He previously served as an associate with Salberg & Weiss, representing civil litigants. In 1988, he became a deputy prosecuting attorney with the Porter County Prosecutor’s Office. In 1990, Martin became an associate with the Law Offices of James V. Tsoutsouris & Bertig. During his years with Tsoutsouris & Bertig, he was appointed a part-time deputy public defender in the Porter Superior Court. While with the Porter County Public Defender’s Office, Martin served as the chief appellate public defender.

Interesting opinion on ‘expert witnesses’

In Goesel v. Boley Int’l Ltd., 2012 WL 5269234 (N.D. Ill Oct. 24. 2012), Judge Milton I. Shadur addressed various motions in limine, which are not noteworthy. What caught this author’s eye, however, was Judge Shadur’s description of “opinion witnesses” with a footnote to a five-paragraph appendix in which he explains that he “does not permit the label ‘expert witness’ to be used in its trials, nor does that label appear in its opinions. That stance is not a mere idiosyncrasy, and this Appendix . . . explains why.” (emphasis in original). Judge Shadur then describes his work as a member of the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence where this issue was discussed, and he also notes that in the 7th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, there is no use of the term “expert.”

Judge Shadur’s approach is novel and interesting. For practitioners seeking to keep an opposing party’s expert from being described as such in trial, a source for consideration.

Save the date

The annual Federal Civil Practice 3-hour CLE seminar will be Thursday, Dec. 20, from 1:30 – 4:45 p.m. in Indianapolis, with federal judges from the S.D. of Indiana as panelists. Register online through Indiana Lawyer at http://www.theindianalawyer.com/events.

__________

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. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT