Effective July 1, the Southern District of Indiana made minor amendments to Local Rules 5-11 (sealed filings); Local Rule 6-1 (extensions of time); Local Rule 37-1 (discovery disputes); Local Rule 81-1 (removal); and Local Rule 83-5 (admission).
Although most civil cases proceed to resolution or judgment without the need for sealing or redacting any filings, many cases do include filings with personal identifiers, trade secrets or other matters potentially suitable for sealing or redaction.
Magistrate Judge Kellie Barr has created a unique program for attorneys with less than seven years in practice to gain in-court experience.
During January, Indiana federal judges issued multiple informative opinions on common procedural issues.
Pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, amendments to federal rules that have been approved by the Supreme Court by May 1 of each year take effect Dec. 1. This year the number and scope of amendments that will take effect Dec. 1 is modest.
In Allen v. Brown Advisory, LLC, 41 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2022), the plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of his action and denial of his motion to amend his complaint. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed; the discussion on seeking to amend pleadings after the amendment deadline has passed is relevant procedurally and provides an excellent primer.
The local federal courts regularly address procedural issues that recur from time to time. Most such decisions get little attention beyond the parties but are often informative for many federal practitioners. Whether and how to proceed under a pseudonym is one such example. Two informative opinions from the Southern District of Indiana provide excellent roadmaps.
The Northern District of Indiana approved amendments to five local rules effective Feb. 25, specifically to Local Rules 5-3, 6-1, 7-1, 7-6 and 56-1. Several of the amendments are significant and impact everyday federal civil practice.
Federal rule changes take effect each Dec. 1 and govern all proceedings in cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending
Federal practitioners regularly issue and respond to third-party subpoenas for documents. Expansive revisions to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were made in 2013, but many subpoenas are still issued that do not comply. One of the most common issues is failing to serve parties with the third-party subpoena prior to (or even after) service on the third party.
Case or controversy limitations on judicial power have permeated U.S. judicial history and include standing, ripeness and mootness. Although these core concepts have been fundamental to and well developed in federal court jurisprudence, they continue to arise and evolve, with the Supreme Court taking up and issuing opinions on these case or controversy topics in recent years, and the district and appellate courts addressing these topics repeatedly.
To recover or oppose a costs award, a working knowledge is important of the interplay among federal statutes, federal rules, local rules and caselaw.
Removal from state court to federal court is a routine aspect of federal court practice, though one fraught with procedural pitfalls. Federal judges in Indiana frequently address removal issues, yet errors continue.
Rules governing divisional jurisdiction vary in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, as illustrated by some recent rulings.
Indiana’s federal courts, as well as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, provide substantial and important practice resources, guidance and forms on their websites. Practitioners should peruse the sites periodically, and in particular with each new case, to see the latest local rules, forms, and practice requirements before the assigned judges.
Each year any federal rule amendments that work their way through the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Supreme Court, and then Congress, take effect Dec. 1. This year several rule amendments are scheduled to take effect on that date, as outlined below.
I’m still processing the news that this morning my court-appointed death-row client, Wesley Purkey, was executed. I was his pro bono counsel on three civil-rights/conditions of confinement claims in the Southern District of Indiana. So as I wrestle now — and hopefully for some time — with the legal and moral aspects of capital punishment that otherwise have been remote, it seems appropriate and timely to discuss the needs and opportunities for pro bono service in civil cases in our local federal courts. Both are robust.