Category Archives: U.S. District Courts

Head’s Up! How Long Will Federal Judiciary Funds Last?

23 Wednesday Jan 2019

Posted by in Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, U.S. District Courts, United States Supreme Court

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Judiciary Has Funds to Operate Through Jan. 31, United States Courts (Published on January 22, 2019)

https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2019/01/22/judiciary-has-funds-operate-through-jan-31

If you practice in any federal court, please note. Pay attention to your case’s court website and have a backup strategy. -CCE

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) now estimates that federal courts can sustain funded operations through Jan. 31, 2019. The Judiciary continues to explore ways to conserve funds so it can sustain paid operations through Feb. 1. No further extensions beyond Feb. 1 will be possible. The Judiciary previously had revised its estimate for exhausting available funds from Jan. 18 to Jan. 25.

*    *   *

Should funding run out before Congress enacts a new continuing resolution or full-year funding, the Judiciary would operate under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which permits mission critical work. . . . Each court would determine the staff necessary to support its mission critical work.

In response to requests by the Department of Justice, some federal courts have issued orders suspending or postponing civil cases in which the government is a party, and others have declined to do so. Such orders are published on court internet sites. Courts will continue to conduct criminal trials.

The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system remains in operation for electronic filing of documents, as does PACER, which enables the public to read court documents.  

*    *   *

Updates will be provided as more information becomes available.

Perfect Benchslap For Redaction Running Amuck.

08 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by in Benchslap, Court Orders, Federal Judges, Judges, Legal Writing, U.S. District Courts

≈ Comments Off on Perfect Benchslap For Redaction Running Amuck.

Tags

, , , , ,

Judge Trolls Lawyers Without Saying Anything At All, by Joe Patrice, Above The Law

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/08/judge-trolls-lawyers-without-saying-anything-at-all/

Joe beat me to it. Many thanks to Jessica L. Craft at Holden & Carr for the heads’ up. -CCE

Judge Charles Breyer proves that a redaction can be worth a thousand words. . . .

Continue reading →

An Expert’s Guide To Formatting An Appellate Brief.

20 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Brief Writing, Citations, Citations to the Record, Court Rules, Courts, Legal Writing, Local Rules, Table of Authorities

≈ Comments Off on An Expert’s Guide To Formatting An Appellate Brief.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

How to Format an Appellate Brief, by Deborah Savadra, Lawyerist Blog

(Deborah Savadra is editor and chief blogger at Legal Office Guru, which offers The WordPerfect Lover’s Guide to Word as well as Microsoft Office video tutorials. You can follow her on Twitter at @legalofficeguru.)

https://lawyerist.com/70334/format-appellate-brief-microsoft-word/

Appellate briefs are not a project for beginners. And, regardless of what you read in this tutorial, you must follow your appellate court rules to the letter.

When your court’s rules tell you that it wants citations done a certain way, it mean exactly that. If the court’s rules say a brief must not go over a certain number of pages, do not even think about “fudging” the rules by changing the font, page size, or line spacing.

You see, all courts, not just appellate ones, write local rules for a reason. Whatever “trick” you may try to skirt around those rules, that court has already seen it and knows it when it sees it again. Courts take their local rules seriously, and so should you.

There are many posts and articles posted on my blog about the strategy and nuances of writing appellate briefs, as well as many excellent books on the subject. This tutorial will help you with the nuts and bolts of writing the bare bones, which is always useful regardless of your writing proficiency.

I also highly recommend Ms. Deborah Savadra’s blog, Legal Office Guru. She does an excellent job. -CCE

35ygj4

The appellate brief is undoubtedly one of the most complex pleadings, formatting-wise. Formatting requirements vary from court to court, going so far as to dictate the size and font of your type, your margins and your line spacing. (If you’ve ever had to do a U.S. Supreme Court brief, I feel your pain.) Even before you consider the text of your argument, you have to wrap your head around which pages have which style of page numbers, whether you must furnish a table of authorities, and how you have to deal with any appendices or references to the record. . . .

Continue reading →

Big Changes For Civil Cases In The Southern District Of New York.

09 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Courts, E-Docketing, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Recent Links and Articles, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Big Changes For Civil Cases In The Southern District Of New York.

Tags

, , ,

Beyond Biglaw: The End of Paper Filing in the S.D.N.Y., by Gaston Kroub, Above The Law Blog

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/06/beyond-biglaw-the-end-of-paper-filing-in-the-s-d-n-y/

Yesterday marked the beginning of a new era for those who file civil cases in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.). Considering its status as one of the nation’s oldest, most prestigious Districts Courts, with a corresponding docket full of high-profile civil (and criminal) cases, the change from ‘paper filing’ to electronic filing is an important one. The announcement that the District would be going to electronic filing was in itself a bit surprising, considering that the clerk’s office and judges had resisted the temptation for many years. But change is constant, and starting yesterday [June 9, 2015], filing civil cases in the S.D.N.Y. will be done electronically in the vast majority of cases. . . .

Continue reading →

Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Employment Law, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Race Discrimination, Sanctions, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Don’t Hit That Delete Button: An Update On Litigation Holds For Employment Claims, by Andrew P. Sherrod, Inside Counsel Magazine

http://tinyurl.com/ka6thgo

By now, most companies are — or at least should be — well aware of their obligation to preserve relevant documents and electronic information when they reasonably anticipate litigation. This duty can arise in many contexts, but employment complaints are a prime example. Despite the multitude of judicial decisions and articles on the subject, companies continue to hinder their defense of employment claims by failing to undertake appropriate preservation measures.

The consequences of failing to implement and monitor a litigation hold in response to an employment claim were reinforced in a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Hawley v. Mphasis Corp.

In Hawley, an employee of the defendant company claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his ethnicity in a number of ways during the course of his employment. The employee filed an EEOC charge of race and national origin discrimination in September 2009. The company terminated the employee in November 2009, and he thereafter filed a second EEOC charge, which was mailed to the company in December 2009. The employee then filed a discrimination suit in January 2012 against the company under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state civil rights laws.

During his employment, the plaintiff received a company-issued laptop computer on which he was required to perform his work. After his termination, the employee returned the computer to the company in December 2009. The next month, the company reassigned the computer to another employee, permanently deleting all of the plaintiff’s data.

The company also waited until April 2012 — almost three months after the filing of the plaintiff employee’s lawsuit and more than two years after his EEOC charges — to instruct the plaintiff’s supervisor and several other employees to preserve all documents and communications related to the plaintiff. . . .

Federal Judge Benchslaps Counsel For Discovery Abuse In A Very Special Way.

03 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by in Depositions, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Objections, Sanctions, U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Iowa

≈ Comments Off on Federal Judge Benchslaps Counsel For Discovery Abuse In A Very Special Way.

Tags

, , , , ,

Biglaw Firm Ordered To Make A Video Apologizing For Discovery Abuses, by Joe Patrice, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/k9srego

Litigators get away with a lot of obnoxious stuff during discovery. For better or worse, the pre-trial discovery phase of civil litigation is every lawyer’s opportunity to relive those times when parents leave kids alone for the first time: every slight, disagreement, and jealousy on a slow boil explodes into anarchic back-biting once there’s no authority figure around to enforce civility. Bring on the mean-spirited letters and smack-talking RFAs.

When it comes to depositions, it doesn’t always reach ‘fatboy’ levels, but a federal deposition isn’t a deposition until someone threatens to call the magistrate — though never does.

Which is why this benchslap, where a federal judge levies a sanction straight out of elementary school, is so appropriate….

Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

27 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Android Phones, Appellate Law, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Computer Forensics, Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Experts, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Expert Witness, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Google, Internet, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Mac, PC Computers, Privacy, Search Warrants, Tablets, Trial Tips and Techniques, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Federal Judge Rules Gmail Account Can Be Accessed For Investigation, by evanino in Evanino Blog

http://www.evanino.com/federal-judge-rules-gmail-account-can-accessed-investigation/

In a landmark ruling that might fuel a nationwide debate, the New York Court issued a warrant against Google, giving access to user emails.

A New York Court issued a warrant against Google Inc ruling that the government can access all mails of a Gmail account of an individual under a money laundering probe. The judge said that courts have long been waiting for law enforcement to take the required documents in the custody if it is within the purview of the warrant.

Contrary to previous rulings

This decision is not in line with the previous court rulings including courts in the Districts of Columbia and Kansas, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted on Friday. Also, this latest ruling will spark a debate over the privacy, in the country, according to Computer World.

A District of Columbia judge denied from revealing the entire content of the email as this will seize a large amount of emails for which the authorities have not given any reason.

The Court in Kansas, also, did not rule in favor of a similar warrant, stating that it failed to ‘limit the universe of electronic communications and information to be turned over to the government to the specific crimes being investigated.’

However, the New York Court ruled in favor of such warrant, allowing authorities to take into account the emails and other information from a Google inc’s Gmail account, including the address book and draft mails, and also the authority to search the emails for certain specific categories of evidence.

Experts must scan emails, not Google employee

Judge Gorenstein argued that it is not possible to search the hard-disk drives of computers and other storage devices on the spot due to the complexities of electronic searches. Thus, the authorities can seize such storage.

‘We perceive no constitutionally significant difference between the searches of hard drives just discussed and searches of email accounts,’ the judge wrote. He added that in most of the cases data in an email account will be less ‘expansive’ compared to the information contained in the hard drive.

Judge Gorenstein stated that Google employees are not expert enough to know the importance of particular emails without having been given proper training in the substance of the investigation. Judge said this in response to an opinion by the District of Columbia court that gave the government the option of getting the email scanned by the host itself.

He said that an agent, who is completely absorbed in the investigation, will be able to understand the importance of a particular language in emails contrary to the employee.

Arrogant Legal Writing Gives Texas A Horrible, Terrible Very Bad Day.

26 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Courts, Voting Rights Act

≈ Comments Off on Arrogant Legal Writing Gives Texas A Horrible, Terrible Very Bad Day.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Bad Attitude Costs Texas in Fee Dispute, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/06/bad-attitude-costs-texas.html

 Hey, I get it—sometimes when you win and you think the other side’s position was bogus, it’s hard not to get all smug and self-righteous.

But you really should try.

Not trying very hard—well, not trying at all—cost the State of Texas a lot of money on June 18, when a judge awarded other parties in a voting-rights case $1,096,770 in legal fees and costs, even though Texas had a decent argument that it was the prevailing party and so it should get paid. (McClatchy DC; thanks, Mark.)

In the U.S., normally each side has to pay its own fees, but some statutes say the ‘prevailing party’ is entitled to recover fees from the loser. But exactly who ‘prevails’ in a lawsuit is not always clear, and that was the case in this lawsuit, which involved Texas’s plans to redraw its voting districts. (Skip down three paragraphs or so if that could not sound more boring.)

Under the Voting Rights Act—Still here? Nerd. Under the Voting Rights Act, Texas was one of the states that had to get federal ‘preclearance’ for redistricting because of the history of discrimination there. Texas decided to sue for a declaration that its plans were okay, and the feds opposed. Other parties (Democrats, basically) intervened because they also wanted to oppose. Texas mostly lost in the district court, and it appealed. In the meantime, though, it came up with new plans that were more likely to comply with the court’s order.

One day before the new plans became law, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Shelby County that all this VRA preclearance stuff was unconstitutional—or had become unconstitutional at some point over the last 50 years, anyway, discrimination now being a thing of the past, you see. Told you so, said Texas, and moved to dismiss the still-pending case involving its first set of plans.

Okay, so who ‘prevailed’ in that mess? The Democratic groups said they did, because Texas lost the first ruling and changed its plans, just like they wanted it to, and they filed motions seeking over $1 million in fees. Texas did not agree.

It did not agree so much, in fact, that it didn’t even bother to file responses. Or, rather, it did file something but it couldn’t bring itself to call the document a ‘response.’ It filed this three-page thing it called an ‘Advisory,’ saying that not only did Shelby County mean Texas won, it meant Texas had essentially always been right because the law was unconstitutional all along (an ‘affront’ and a ‘nullity’), and the case never should have been brought. That’s wrong for a couple of reasons, I think, but Texas was so sure of itself that it didn’t bother to say much of anything else.

As the judge’s decision made clear, this was a Bad Idea. . . .

New Mandatory Cover Sheet for U.S. District of Arizona.

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, E-Filing, Local Rules, U.S. District Court of Arizona

≈ Comments Off on New Mandatory Cover Sheet for U.S. District of Arizona.

Tags

, , , , ,

Notice of New, Automated Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44), from Newsletter, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona

Effective Monday, March 3, 2014, it will be mandatory for registered users of ECF to complete the new, automated Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44) when opening a civil case.

This automated form allows for the entry of multiple party and attorney names, provides drop-down lists for many categories and radio buttons to select the appropriate Nature of Suit. The final version includes only the selected information, resulting in a clean, easy to read document.

The automated Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44) is located in the Forms section of our website or by clicking the link below. http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/forms/js-44-civil-cover-sheet

If you have questions about ECF, take advantage of the experience of others by browsing our Frequently-Asked Questions by clicking on the link below, or copy and paste into your browser: http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/faqs/ecf.

[Emphasis added.]