ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Southern District of Indiana adopts rule amendments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateAs noted in the prior column, as in the Northern District of Indiana, the Southern District has amended several Local Rules. These were approved in late December and took effect Jan. 1. Amendments were made to Local Rules 5-3, 5-5, 6-1, 7-1, 16-1, 80-2, 83-5, 83-6, 83-7, and Local Criminal Rule 49.1 regarding electronic filing. The full text of the amended rules is on the court’s website, with the key changes summarized below.

Local Rule 6-1(b) addresses automatic extensions of time, and is cleaned up and simplified to now read as follows:

(b) Automatic Initial Extension. The deadline for filing a response to a pleading or to any written request for discovery or admissions will automatically be extended upon filing a notice of the extension with the court that states:

(1) the deadline has not been previously extended;

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

(3) the extension does not interfere with the Case Management Plan, scheduled hearings, or other case deadlines;

(4) the original deadline and extended deadline;

(5) that all opposing counsel the filing attorney could reach agreed to the extension; or that the filing attorney could not reach any opposing counsel, and providing the dates, times and manner of all attempts to reach opposing counsel.

(c) Pro Se Parties. The automatic initial extension does not apply to pro se parties.

Because these notices are frequently used, practitioners should note this new format and ensure staff uses the proper form going forward.

Local Rule 7-1(a) is amended as follows, with the last sentence being a new addition to clarify that motions are not to be contained within briefs:

(a) Motions Must Be Filed Separately. Motions must be filed separately, but alternative motions may be filed in a single paper if each is named in the title. A motion must not be contained within a brief, response, or reply to a previously filed motion, unless ordered by the court.

Local Rule 56.1 is amended to make it clearer that objections as to admissibility at summary judgment are to be raised in briefs, not by separate motions:

(i) Collateral Motions. The court disfavors collateral motions — such as motions to strike — in the summary judgment process. Parties should address disputes over the admissibility or effect of evidence in their briefs. Any dispute over the admissibility or effect of evidence must be raised through an objection within a party’s brief.

Local Rules 83-5 and 83-6 address pro hac vice admission. These are substantially rewritten (indeed 83-6 is a new rule separately addressing pro hac vice admissions). Anyone moving for another’s pro hac vice admission needs to read and understand the new rule. The key change is a broadening of the disclosure requirements as to any disciplinary history.

Save The Date – The 7th Circuit Judicial Conference will be held May 5-7 in Indianapolis. For details, go to www.7thcircuitbar.org.•

__________

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT