ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Proposed rule changes, redacting documents

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedBarMaley-sigThe Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Civil Rules has published proposed amendments to several rules and is seeking public comment. The proposed amendments are posted on the judiciary’s website at www.uscourts.gov in the Rules section. The public comment period is open until Feb. 17, 2015, meaning that Dec. 1, 2015, is the earliest the amendments could take effect.

Most significantly, the proposed amendment to Rule 6(d) would eliminate the provision adding three extra days when service is made by electronic means. The committee notes explain: “Rule 6(d) is amended to remove service by electronic means under Rule 5(b)(2)(E) from the modes of service that allow 3 added days to act after being served. Rule 5(b)(2) was amended in 2001 to provide for service by electronic means. Although electronic transmission seemed virtually instantaneous even then, electronic service was included in the modes of service that allow 3 added days to act after being served. There were concerns that the transmission might be delayed for some time, and particular concerns that incompatible systems might make it difficult or impossible to open attachments. Those concerns have been substantially alleviated by advances in technology and in widespread skill in using electronic transmission.”

The notes further explain, “Diminution of the concerns that prompted the decision to allow the 3 added days for electronic transmission is not the only reason for discarding this indulgence. Many rules have been changed to ease the task of computing time by adopting 7-, 14-, 21-, and 28-day periods that allow ‘day-of-the-week’ counting. Adding 3 days at the end complicated the counting, and increased the occasions for further complication by invoking the provisions that apply when the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”

Redactions – The 7th Circuit – and Indiana’s federal judges – take seriously that judicial business is open to the public. This limits litigants’ ability to seal or redact filed documents. Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore recently addressed these issues in Eads v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 1:13-CV-01209 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 5, 2014).

In Eads, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint attaching documents that the defendant had produced as “confidential” under the court’s protective order; plaintiff simultaneously moved to file those materials under seal. Defendant then also moved to maintain the materials under seal.

At a hearing on the motion to amend, Magistrate Judge Dinsmore instructed defendant to submit the proposed documents with the admonishment to redact as little as necessary. In response to the request, defendant submitted a version of plaintiff’s memorandum with several sentences redacted and submitted two exhibits with the entirety of the content redacted, save the header and footer of each document, assertion that all of the information redacted qualifies as trade secrets. This was not well received by the court.

Magistrate Judge Dinsmore explained, “Upon reviewing motions to permanently seal documents that have been filed with the court, the Seventh Circuit requires that this Court be ‘ever vigilant to keep judicial proceedings public.’ Meharg v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, No. 1:08CV184DFH-TAB, 2009 WL 2960761 at *2 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2009) (citing Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006)). Documents that underpin judicial decisions are presumptively open to public examination. Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984)). Any action that ‘withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification.’ Hicklin Eng’g, L.C., 439 F.3d at 348. Thus, only documents that warrant long-term confidentiality–such as bona fide trade secrets–may be kept under permanent seal, and even then only after weighing the party’s interest in maintaining confidentiality against the public’s interest in access to the information. See Baxter Int’l, Inc., 297 F.3d at 545; Matter of Cont’l Illinois Sec. Litig., 732 F.2d 1302, 1313 (7th Cir. 1984).”

Magistrate Judge Dinsmore then wrote that “the Court’s review discovered that large portions of the redacted content are readily accessible in publications available to any visitor to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs website. It is therefore evident that Prudential disregarded the Court’s admonishment to redact as little as possible, and, contrary to the laws of the Seventh Circuit, is seeking to seal a substantial amount of material that is publicly available and could not possibly be a ‘trade secret.’ Id. (citations omitted). Defendant was thus ordered to ‘submit revised proposed redacted exhibits within seven (7) days of the date of this order, this time taking extreme care to redact only proprietary and confidential information that meets the Seventh Circuit standard to maintain under permanent seal. Furthermore, Prudential is advised that over-redaction a second time may result in complete denial of its motion to seal.’” Id. (emphasis in original).

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

__________

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. 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