ILNews

Southern District proposes mandatory e-filing, pro hac rule changes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nearly all federal court filings in the Southern District will have to be done electronically under local rule changes proposed for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Rule changes also are proposed for pro hac vice admission and automatic initial time extensions. Pro se litigants would no longer be granted automatic initial extensions under a proposed amendment.

The proposed pro hac admission language would require applicants to file a statement indicating they are in good standing in another U.S. or state court and require disclosure of any prior disciplinary history. The language is proposed new Local Rule 83-6.

Clerk Laura Briggs late Wednesday issued public notice of proposed local rule amendments. Comments on the proposed rules will be accepted through Dec. 14. If adopted, the rules would take effect Jan. 1.

Briggs said e-filing has been required for years in civil litigation. She said the proposed rules would formalize for criminal cases the current practice for practically all attorneys. A proposed amendment to Local Rule 5-3 regards e-filing, and a new Local Criminal Rule 49.1 also is proposed requiring filing through the court’s electronic case filing system.

Comments on the proposed rules may be emailed to LocalRules@insd.uscourts.gov. They also may be addressed to Local Rule Comments, Office of the Clerk, 105 U.S. Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio St., Indianapolis, IN 46204.



 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT