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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT