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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT