ILNews

IBA: Pause for Professionalism

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The situations are all too familiar – maybe you have just received discovery requests from opposing counsel and they are asking for your clients to provide more information than if they were going through a Senate confirmation hearing. Or you have propounded reasonable discovery requests only to find that your opposing counsel is objecting to every request using just the phrase “We don’t want to provide that. “Or opposing counsel has sent you thousands of pages of documents and, for every discovery response, has stated “It’s probably in there somewhere.”

Discovery can be a time consuming and often very frustrating part of litigation. Often, the rules don’t provide enough information to cover every possible situation and you can often feel like you are adrift in a sea of responses.

As a part of its Pause for Professionalism video series, the Professionalism Committee has recently released a video of Hon. Tim A. Baker, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana in a video entitled “Civility in Discovery.” Judge Baker provides helpful hints for how to solve discovery disputes as well as some common pitfalls to avoid. Judge Baker also provides some insight for how much judges want parties to resolve their discovery issues without the intervention of the bench. Judge Baker’s comments and tips provide insight to practitioners across the board and can assist with discovery issues in every court.

New videos will be distributed every other month and are available on the IndyBar website at http://www.indybar.org/resources/video-gallery.php. If you have any suggestions for future topics regarding professionalism and civility, please email them to Caren Chopp at cchopp@indybar.org.•

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT