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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT