Federal Bar Update: John Maley

Federal Bar Update: Proposed rule changes, redacting documents

August 27, 2014
John Maley
The Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Civil Rules has published proposed amendments to several rules and is seeking public comment.
More

Federal Bar Update: Free CLE, hyperlinks and award nominations

May 7, 2014
John Maley
As noted previously, a new pilot program was underway in the Southern District of Indiana for including hyperlinks in briefs.
More

Federal Bar Update: ND requires e-filing; SD launches hyperlink pilot

March 12, 2014
John Maley
Effective Feb. 24, all new complaints and removals in the Northern District of Indiana must be e-filed.
More

Federal Bar Update: Court launches new website, case management plan

January 15, 2014
John Maley
The Southern District’s website is revamped, with a new and improved look and feel. The case opinion search feature remains and allows searching by judge and/or date. It can be a useful tool to get recent standards, for instance, on common issues.
More

Federal Bar Update: Rule 45 amendments on subpoenas took effect Dec. 1

December 18, 2013
John Maley
Amendments took effect Dec. 1 to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, amendments took effect to several of the Southern District of Indiana’s Local Rules.
More

Federal Bar Update: Rule requires advance service of non-party document requests

October 23, 2013
John Maley
Unknown to some practitioners, since 1991 the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 requires advance notice to opposing parties of document subpoenas issued to non-parties.
More

Federal Bar Update: Southern District starts pilot program for employment cases

July 3, 2013
John Maley
The Southern District of Indiana has been experimenting this year with a pilot program for certain employment cases. The only eligible cases are individual Title VII, ADA and ADEA actions.
More

Federal Bar Update: Supreme Court takes rare steps on procedural decisions

May 8, 2013
John Maley
With its limited docket, the U.S. Supreme Court rarely decides procedural issues, focusing instead on weighty constitutional issues or resolving split interpretations of federal statutes. This term, however, the Supreme Court has addressed several procedural issues.
More

Federal Bar Update: Pilot program for discovery in employment cases

March 27, 2013
John Maley
In the Southern District of Indiana, if you are litigating an adverse-action employment case you might be part of a pilot program that aims to streamline and tailor discovery and scheduling.
More

Federal Bar Update: Southern District of Indiana adopts rule amendments

January 16, 2013
John Maley
The Southern District has amended several Local Rules. These were approved in late December and took effect Jan. 1.
More

Federal Bar Update: Rule changes, 7th Circuit procedural decisions

December 19, 2012
John Maley
As federal practitioners know, each Dec. 1 new federal rule amendments take effect. In most recent years there have been significant changes to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure each December.
More

Federal Bar Update: Northern, Southern District courts cleaning up local rulesRestricted Content

November 7, 2012
John Maley
Local Rule amendments are in the works in the Northern District and Southern District of Indiana, with amendments to take effect Jan. 1.
More

Federal Bar Update: Opinion provides insight on attorney fees in FDCPA casesRestricted Content

September 12, 2012
John Maley
Federal courts routinely determine fee petitions for prevailing parties in various fee-shifting cases. A recent opinion from Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue illustrates guiding principles here.
More

Federal Bar Update: No changes to federal rules this year

August 1, 2012
John Maley
Federal rule amendments take affect Dec. 1 of each year after a lengthy, time-consuming process of transmittal from the Judicial Conference to the Supreme Court and then to Congress. This coming December, for the first time in many years, there are no amendments on the horizon for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, or Federal Rules of Evidence.
More

Federal Bar Update: 6-month update on changes to removal statutesRestricted Content

June 6, 2012
John Maley
As readers will recall, the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 took effect Jan. 6. Since the act took effect, it has been cited by name in 13 reported decisions, most of which simply deal with the effective date of the act.
More

Federal Bar Update: Uniform Case Management Plan changesRestricted Content

April 11, 2012
John Maley
The Southern District of Indiana recently modified two sections of the court’s Uniform Case Management Plan regarding experts.
More

Federal Bar Update: Removal and venue changes now in effectRestricted Content

January 18, 2012
John Maley
Maley writes about the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.
More

Federal Bar Update: Removal and venue changes are on the horizonRestricted Content

December 21, 2011
John Maley
With the recent passage of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, key statutory changes to removal and venue are on the horizon.
More

Federal Bar Update: Comments sought for changes to local rulesRestricted Content

November 9, 2011
John Maley
John Maley writes about changes coming to local rules in each District Court.
More

Federal Bar Update: Comments accepted on Rule 45 amendmentsRestricted Content

September 14, 2011
John Maley
John Maley discusses proposed rule amendments and a study on 12(b)(6) motions.
More

Editorial: Personal jurisdiction theories still evolving

August 3, 2011
John Maley
As most litigators know, in Asahi Metal v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (1987), a plurality of the Supreme Court embraced the stream-of-commerce theory of personal jurisdiction, which generally holds that if a manufacturer or distributor has sufficient knowledge and control of its distribution system, it can be sued in a state in which its products cause injury. Since Asahi Metal, the theory has evolved somewhat in federal and state appellate courts but had not been revisited by the Supreme Court.
More

Federal Bar Update: Avoid multiple summary judgment motions

June 8, 2011
John Maley
The Southern District of Indiana has amended its Uniform Case Management Plan to include new language regarding summary judgment motions.
More

Federal Bar Update: Confidentiality not always enforceableRestricted Content

April 13, 2011
John Maley
As federal practitioners know, the 7th Circuit is particularly strict about protecting public access to federal court filings.
More

Federal Bar Update: Southern District amends civil and criminal rules

January 19, 2011
John Maley
Effective Jan. 1, the Southern District of Indiana amended three local rules affecting civil practice, plus Local Criminal Rule 13.1 affecting criminal practice and sentencing (see the court’s website for the text of all rule changes).
More

Federal Bar Update: Dec. 1 rule changes now in effect

December 22, 2010
John Maley
As previewed in prior columns, effective Dec. 1 various amendments took effect to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as appellate, criminal, and evidence rules).
More
Page  1 2 >> pager
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 like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT