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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT