John R. Maley: What Judge Olson brings to the Southern District

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson took senior status in 2024 after 30 years of distinguished judicial service, including 1995 to 2007 in the Marion Superior Court, 2007 to 2010 as U.S. magistrate judge and 2010 to 2024 as district dudge including service as chief judge. With the Southern District’s continued heavy caseload, fortunately she continues to serve on senior status. That judgeship was filled in February of this year with the Honorable Justin R. Olson.

Olson’s background

His impressive biography from the court’s website includes the following information: Prior to his appointment as district judge, Judge Olson was an attorney at Kroger, Gardis & Regas LLP, focusing on government investigations, business litigation and Title IX litigation.

Olson began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush of the Indiana Supreme Court. From 2015 to 2019, he was an associate in the Indianapolis office of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP (now Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP) in the firm’s business litigation group. From 2019 to 2024, Olson served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana in the civil division.

As an AUSA, he served as the civil health care fraud coordinator and civil opioid coordinator, investigating and civilly prosecuting health care fraud. Olson also represented federal employees in civil litigation involving personal injury, medical malpractice and excessive force.

Judge Olson was born in Milwaukee but grew up in Indianapolis. He earned his bachelor’s degree in 2010 from Grove City College. He majored in history and French and spent his junior year studying abroad in Grenoble, France. He obtained his law degree from Indiana University Maurer School of Law in 2013 and was admitted to the Indiana bar the same year.

Practices and procedures

Since joining one of the busiest district courts in the nation, Olson has assumed a heavy caseload and has been very active. For those appearing before Judge Olson, take note (as with all other district judges) of his published practices and procedures on the court’s website. Indeed, the preamble provides, “Counsel and pro se parties are expected to have read and to comply with these Practices and Procedures. Counsel and pro se parties must seek leave of the Court and establish good cause to deviate from any part of these Practices and Procedures.”

Below are a few highlights from Judge Olson’s procedures, many of which are included in other district judges’ procedures and all rooted in common sense and efficiency.

• When electronically filing exhibits, number the exhibits and add a descriptive identifier, e.g., “Ex. 1 – Smith Dep” or “Ex. 3 – Smith Employment Agreement” instead of just “Exhibit 1” or “Exhibit 3.”
• At least 28 days before the dispositive motion deadline, counsel planning to move for summary judgment must contact opposing counsel to determine if any other party also plans to move for summary judgment. If opposing parties plan to move for summary judgment, a modified briefing process applies.
• Motions to exceed page limitations are disfavored and in most cases will be denied. “The court may allow a party to file a brief exceeding these page limits for extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Local Rule 7-1(e)(2). Parties seeking an extension of the page limit must do so at least five days in advance of their filing deadline and should explain with specificity the reasons necessitating the extension.
• If a party files a motion to extend the page limit at the same time the party’s brief is due, the extension request will be denied absent a compelling and unanticipated reason for violating this rule. The court will also not consider any arguments made in pages which exceed the local rules’ requirements.
• If a motion for summary judgment has been fully briefed for 180 days or any other motion has been fully briefed for 90 days — or in exceptional circumstances — counsel may file a status update explaining the effect of the pending motion on the parties and case progress. Such status updates are helpful to the court. Counsel may not ask off the record about when the court may rule on a substantive motion.
• All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence to generate, draft or revise the content of documents submitted to the court or chambers.
• The court does not deem information contained in footnotes to be argument. Accordingly, counsel should include all argument in the body of the brief.
• Unless it is a relevant appellate opinion decided after the close of briefing but before ruling, the court will not consider “supplemental authority” filed after briefing on a motion is complete. Appropriate supplemental authority as described above is limited to a citation to a case and does not contemplate any argument. If a party wishes to file supplemental authority other than as described above, it must seek leave to do so, but the court will grant such leave only in exceptional circumstances.

Magistrate judge

Separately, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore is retiring at the end of this year after 15 years of distinguished judicial service. The statutorily required merit selection panel is in action, and interviews are under way. That panel recommends five candidates to the district judges, who then select the new judicial officer subject to final FBI review.•

__________

Maley is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP. You can contact him at [email protected].