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.

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.

The Southern District has amended several Local Rules. These were approved in late December and took effect Jan. 1.

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.

Local Rule amendments are in the works in the Northern District and Southern District of Indiana, with amendments to take effect Jan. 1.

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.

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.

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.

The Southern District of Indiana recently modified two sections of the court’s Uniform Case Management Plan regarding experts.

Maley writes about the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.

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.

John Maley writes about changes coming to local rules in each District Court.

John Maley discusses proposed rule amendments and a study on 12(b)(6) motions.

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.

The Southern District of Indiana has amended its Uniform Case Management Plan to include new language regarding summary judgment motions.

As federal practitioners know, the 7th Circuit is particularly strict about protecting public access to federal court filings.

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).

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).

In the Southern District of Indiana, settlement conferences are routinely held in most civil cases before the assigned magistrate judge.

For 2010, the Supreme Court approved a package of amendments in late April that will amend several appellate rules, bankruptcy rules, criminal rules, civil rules, and an evidence rule.

John Maley writes about how one recent discovery order is interesting and has potential broader significance beyond the dispute between the parties.

As federal practitioners well know by now, sweeping changes to the federal rules took effect Dec. 1, with most of those changes incorporating the “days are days” time computation amendments.

For diversity jurisdiction purposes, one area of uncertainty for many years has been how to determine the citizenship of a corporation.