Category Archives: Court Rules

Free App to Access PACER on iPhones and iPads.

30 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Apps, Bankruptcy Law, Cell Phones, Dockets, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Law, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, PACER, Trial Tips and Techniques, U.S. Courts of Appeal

≈ Comments Off on Free App to Access PACER on iPhones and iPads.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Review: DkT — access PACER on the iPad and iPhone, by Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog

http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2014/01/review-dkt-pacer.html

Jeff reviews a free app created by Matthew Zorn called “DkT.” In this post, Jeff leads you through the various steps to use this app. Because this is the first version, no doubt Matthew will tweak it as time goes by. Regardless of its minor flaws, if you practice in federal court, this is an incredibly useful tool for your iPad or iPhone. -CCE

If you ever practice in federal court, then using PACER is a part of your job.  PACER websites typically let you select a mobile option so that you can access PACER on an iPad or an iPhone, but the experience isn’t ideal.  You cannot save your username or password, it is difficult to manually enter case numbers, and every time you access a docket sheet or a document you have to pay to do so.  Matthew Zorn, an attorney at a large New York law firm, decided to do something about that, so he spent nine months writing a useful and beautifully designed app that he calls DkT.  The DkT app is free and can access PACER for federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts.

2014 Amendments to Oklahoma’s Workers’ Compensation Court Rules.

25 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by in Court Rules, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Workers' Compensation

≈ Comments Off on 2014 Amendments to Oklahoma’s Workers’ Compensation Court Rules.

Tags

, , ,

In Re Court Rules Of The Workers’ Compensation Court, 2014 OK 2, Decided January 16, 2014, Corrected January 17, 2014, published by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.

http://tinyurl.com/l7anrkw

Please note that the 2014 amendments to Oklahoma’s Workers’ Compensation Court Rules are not effective until January 31, 2014. –CCE

The Court Rules of the Workers’ Compensation Court as amended and approved by that Court on December 20, 2013, having been submitted to this Court for its consideration, are hereby approved. The rules are for official publication and shall become effective on January 31, 2014. The rules as amended shall be published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal three times. By today’s adoption of these rules, submitted by the Workers’ Compensation Court, this Court neither indicates what meaning should be ascribed to them in any given application nor settles their validity against challenges that may be launched on constitutional or statutory grounds, federal or state.

Nevada Supreme Court Amends Deposition Rules.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by in Court Rules, Depositions, Discovery, Nevada Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Nevada Supreme Court Amends Deposition Rules.

Tags

, , , ,

Supreme Court Amends NRCP 30 & 34, by Michael P. Lowery, Compelling Discovery

http://www.compellingdiscovery.com/?p=2492

On December 19, 2013 the Supreme Court of Nevada issued an order amending NRCP 30 and 34. These amendments take effect March 1, 2014. This order in ADKT 0487 partially disposes of a multitude of proposed changes to Nevada’s discovery rules. ADKT 0487 remains open, meaning other changes are still possible in the future.

Texas Supreme Court Embraces Email and Amends Civil Procedure Rules.

08 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Court Orders, Court Rules, Emails, Legal Technology, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Texas Supreme Court Embraces Email and Amends Civil Procedure Rules.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Texas Supreme Court Decides Email is Here to Stay, Amends Rules of Civil Procedure Accordingly, by Frank O. Carroll III, TexAppBlog

http://tinyurl.com/jwrwy7u

When it comes to civil courts in Texas, the theme for 2013 was “fast-tracking.” The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure saw a number of changes related to triaging and expediting low-dollar controversies and eliminating “frivolous” cases early in the litigation process. While limiting requests for production and depositions in cases under $100,000 is all well and good, civil courts in Texas face much greater problems on a day-to-day basis.

One such problem is the underutilization of technology. Before 2014, email didn’t exist as far as the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure were concerned, electronic filing by fax was the equivalent of placing an envelope in the mail, and FedEx was a great way to send birthday gifts, but an unacceptable way to send discovery requests. But a new day has dawned, and 2014 is upon us…

Counsel Scalded by Federal District Court’s E-Discovery Opinion.

21 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by in Cell Phones, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Requests for Production, Sanctions, Sanctions, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Counsel Scalded by Federal District Court’s E-Discovery Opinion.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Perils of E-Discovery Reflected in Sanctions Opinion, by Gareth Evans, a litigation partner at Gibson Dunn, Law Technology News

http://tinyurl.com/kcksw5v

Lest anyone think that hair-raising e-discovery sanctions opinions are a thing of the past, U.S. District Judge David Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois issued a blistering 51-page opinion (PDF) imposing nearly $1 million in punitive sanctions on the defendants in In re Pradaxa Products Liability Litigation on Dec. 9, 2013, and indicated that more sanctions are almost certainly on the way.

The case is an example of how electronic data discovery generally, and implementing legal holds in particular, can be fraught with peril.

Heads’ Up! A Summary of the New Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule.

19 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by in Appellate Law, Case Law, Citations, Court Rules, Legal Writing, Oklahoma Civil Appellate Procedure, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Research

≈ Comments Off on Heads’ Up! A Summary of the New Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule.

Tags

, , , , ,

IN RE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF DECISIONS, SCAD-2013-63, 2013 OK 109, Decided 12/16/2013

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=472452

There is a new official publisher of court opinions in town, and it’s not West Publishing.

On January 1, 2014, Rule 1.200 in Title 12 goes into effect. All Oklahoma practitioners should take note of this new rule affecting appellate procedure and citation format.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court becomes the “official” publisher of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Whenever either the Supreme Court or the Court of Civil Appeals files an opinion with the Court Clerk, the opinion is published that same day on the home page of OSCN, the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (http://www.oscn.net).

West Publishing Company, which had been the “official” publisher since January 2, 1954, will remain an “unofficial publisher,” along with the Oklahoma Bar Journal and other publications. Regardless, a parallel citation to the Pacific Reporter, a West publication, is still required by this rule.

If you practice in Oklahoma, you may recall when the Supreme Court started using its public domain citation form in 1997. This is now the required citation format – with some new tweaks.  Among the new requirements are citations to the opinion’s paragraph for spot citations.

The Court also addresses how it will publish Memorandum Opinions and Unpublished Opinions. For the first time, a party or individual who believes an unpublished opinion of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals has “substantial precedential value” may ask the Court to publish that opinion. Opinions designated for publication only in the Oklahoma Bar Journal (“For Publication in O.B.J”) may not be cited as precedent.

The Rule provides examples of the new variations of the required changes in citation format. The examples are logical, and easy to understand. If you wish to make a positive impression with either Court, I would follow these changes precisely. -CCE

Was It Appropriate to Produce Word Documents as PDF Files?

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Metadata, Native Format, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques, Word

≈ Comments Off on Was It Appropriate to Produce Word Documents as PDF Files?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Who Knew What When About the Form of Production, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/who-knew-what-when-about-the-form-of-production/

Magistrate Judge William Hussmann put a new spin on form of production analysis in Crissen v. Gupta: What form was discovery in and when was it in that form?

Feel the Need For A Kindergarten Refresher? Judge Sam Sparks Arranges Opportunity for Unfortunate Counsel.

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Discovery, Judges, Sanctions, Subpoenas

≈ Comments Off on Feel the Need For A Kindergarten Refresher? Judge Sam Sparks Arranges Opportunity for Unfortunate Counsel.

Tags

, , , , ,

Judge Defends “Kindergarten” Order, by Nathan Koppel, Wall Street Journal Law Blog

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/09/27/austin-judge-defends-his-kindergarten-order/

Changes To Federal Subpoena Amendments Effective December 1, 2013.

28 Thursday Nov 2013

Posted by in Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Subpoenas

≈ Comments Off on Changes To Federal Subpoena Amendments Effective December 1, 2013.

Tags

, , , ,

The Streamlined Subpoena Power under Amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 – Effective December 1, 2013, Barring Congressional Action, by Tony Lathrop, Litigation Blog

http://tinyurl.com/luyjbu4

 On December 1, 2013, some of the most long-awaited changes to the Civil Rules will take effect – the proposed amendments to Rule 45, which governs the use of subpoenas in federal civil actions.

 *     *     *

The major changes to Rule 45 include: (1) simplifying the rules regarding the court issuing a subpoena, (2) highlighting the notice requirements for document-only subpoenas, (3) clarifying the circumstances under which an officer of a party may be compelled to testify at trial, and (4) permitting the transfer of motions regarding enforcement of a subpoena.  We highlight the substance of these changes below, and provide a brief update regarding the status of the Discovery Amendments.

Michigan Court of Claims Changed Rule for Cases Against the State of Michigan.

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Appellate Law, Court Rules, Jurisdiction, Michigan Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques, Venue

≈ Comments Off on Michigan Court of Claims Changed Rule for Cases Against the State of Michigan.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Significant Changes for Michigan Court of Claims, Paul Hudson, James Woolard, Jr., MillerCanfield

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/significant-changes-for-michigan-court-o-20324/ 

Parties engaged in litigation against the State of Michigan in the Court of Claims will do so under new jurisdictional rules that were signed into law on November 12, 2013. The law, PA 164, moves the Court of Claims from the Ingham County Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals, where cases will be assigned to one of four designated judges. Those judges are Pat Donofrio (Troy), Deborah Servitto (Troy), Michael Talbot (Detroit) and Amy Ronayne Krause (Lansing). Their terms on the Court of Claims end in May 2015.

The new law takes effect immediately.

Court Says E-Discovery Search is “Easier Said Than Done”

17 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Says E-Discovery Search is “Easier Said Than Done”

Tags

, , , , ,

Triangulating Discovery Productions, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., BowTie Blog

http://tinyurl.com/key6ugd

 Judge William Orrick summed up a basic truth of eDiscovery: In the age of electronically-stored information (“ESI”), production of all relevant, not privileged and reasonably accessible documents in a company’s custody and control is easier said than done. Banas v. Volcano Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144139, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013).

Handwriting Expert’s Report and Testimony Are Inadmissible Under Daubert/Rule 702 Test.

17 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Admissibility, Court Rules, Evidence, Experts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Handwriting Expert’s Report and Testimony Are Inadmissible Under Daubert/Rule 702 Test.

Tags

, , , ,

Hand of One: Western District of Wisconsin Finds Handwriting Expert Testimony/Report Inadmissible, by Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pmkmalc

 

The Civil Appeals Profile Database for State Courts.

13 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Appellate Law, Court Rules, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Research, State Appellate Courts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on The Civil Appeals Profile Database for State Courts.

Tags

, , ,

Appellate Division of the New York State Supre...

http://bit.ly/1bvOkLs

 The National Center for State Court has created this compilation of civil appellate court practices and procedures.

The link takes you to a map of the United States. Click on your state, and you will get a breakdown of appellate procedures. The information is  somewhat like a “cheat sheet” for the state’s rules of appellate procedure.

Please note that the website recommends setting your printer to “landscape” for best results.

Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit to date.

12 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Case Law, Court Rules, Federal District Court Rules, Judges, Research, Statutes, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit to date.

Tags

, , , , ,

I have been following the updates about Judge Scheindlin on Judge Kopf’s blog, Hercules and the umpire. If you recall, this series began with Judge Scheindlin’s ruling on the current stop-and-frisk law in her jurisdiction, and her subsequent, hasty, and unprecedented (to my knowledge) removal by the Second Circuit of the Court of Appeals.  All related posts are below, and start with the first post by Judge Kopf. The Comments are equally interesting. CCE

What do you think about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin? – http://bit.ly/1cyvhiH (Posted here on November 2, 2013)

 A Cheat Shot – http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/11/03/a-cheap-shot/

More on “relatedness,” Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit — http://bit.ly/1cTmax4

In answer to Scott H. Greenfield regarding the Second Circuit’s treatment of Judge Scheindlin — http://bit.ly/17EEqZ9

“Do not go gentle into that good night . . . ” Dylan Thomas and Judge Scheindlin – http://bit.ly/1a39Re3

The filing by counsel for Judge Scheindlin — http://bit.ly/1c1GXcL

Kopf’s questions about the continuing but utterly depressing cage match at the Second Circuit? — http://bit.ly/1blVy2F

End it quickly – http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/11/11/end-it-quickly/ (Posted here on November 12, 2013)

A must read essay on Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit — http://bit.ly/19XlseL  (Posted here on November 12, 2013)

Judge Scheindlin was wrong to enter the fray at the Second Circuit — http://bit.ly/1eJ21tw

End it quickly

12 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Federal District Court Rules

≈ Comments Off on End it quickly

Tags

, , ,

More on the situation in the 2nd Circuit.

RGK's avatarHercules and the umpire.

If the Second Circuit has any sense, an order like the following would be entered today:

Various motions are pending. One has been filed by the district judge. One been filed by the appellees and one has been filed by the appellants. They all seek further and other relief as a result of our prior order staying these cases and requiring that a new district judge be assigned.

After due consideration, we deny all the motions. We also strike from our prior order the finding that the trial judge violated the Code of Conduct. However, that portion of our prior order staying these matters and requiring that a new trial judge be assigned to these cases remains effective. Finally, we refer these cases to the Clerk of Court for reassignment to a new panel. In doing so, we note that the Court en banc has this date denied all requests…

View original post 24 more words

What do you think about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin?

02 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in Appellate Law, Case Law, Court Rules, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Law, Legal Ethics, Research, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on What do you think about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin?

Tags

, , , ,

As always, Judge Kopf asks an interesting question. CCE

RGK's avatarHercules and the umpire.

Judge Scheindlin is a New York federal trial judge who has taken senior status.* She was handling high profile cases involving New York’s “stop and frisk” practices. She issued an opinion providing remedial relief and an injunction to the folks who were challenging the police department’s practices, and up the case went to the Second Circuit. On Thursday, without ruling on the merits of the appeal, and acting on its own without a request from the appellants, the Second Circuit removed Scheindlin.  The Court stated that the trial judge had violated the Code of Conduct and failed in her responsibility to uphold the appearance of impartiality (1) because of her statements to the parties regarding “related” cases and (2) because of interviews she gave to the media. The Second Circuit’s short opinion is here. Liberal legal commentators exploded in outrage. See, for example, here and here. The…

View original post 46 more words

A Discussion of the Burdens of Preserving E-Discovery

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules

≈ Comments Off on A Discussion of the Burdens of Preserving E-Discovery

Tags

, , ,

E-Discovery: Relieving The Burdens Of Preservation, The Editor interviews Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel
http://bit.ly/1c5fVG3

Please take particular note the linked articles on e-discovery at the end of the interview. CCE

AHIMA Concerned About Proposed E-Discovery Rule Changes

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Health Law

≈ Comments Off on AHIMA Concerned About Proposed E-Discovery Rule Changes

Tags

, , , ,

AHIMA Comments on Proposed Changes to Federal E-Discovery Rules,iHealthBeat
http://bit.ly/1aO1nVV

Ralph Losey’s Simplified Version of the Proposed Federal E-Discovery Rules Changes

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules

≈ Comments Off on Ralph Losey’s Simplified Version of the Proposed Federal E-Discovery Rules Changes

Tags

, , ,

Proposed Rules, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team ®
http://e-discoveryteam.com/proposed/

Spring 2013 Case Law Update on E-Discovery Self-Collection – When It’s Okay, When It’s Not, and the Potential Risks

27 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Court Rules, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Federal District Court Rules, Legal Technology, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Spring 2013 Case Law Update on E-Discovery Self-Collection – When It’s Okay, When It’s Not, and the Potential Risks

Tags

, , , , ,

Self-Collection: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, by Tony Merlino, DTI
http://dtiglobal.com/resources/articles/spring-2013-case-law-update/

South Carolina Court Says to Attorney: No Email = No License.

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by in Attorney Discipline, Court Rules, Emails, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Trust Accounts

≈ Comments Off on South Carolina Court Says to Attorney: No Email = No License.

Tags

, , , ,

No E-Mail, No License, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof, Legal Profession Blog
http://bit.ly/16v90hL

The South Carolina Supreme Court suspended an attorney for repeatedly refusing to follow its explicit rules to maintain and monitor a working email account. This transgression, plus other failures by the Respondent to follow the Court’s orders and rules, led to the attorney’s suspension. The lawyer’s license to practice law was until further order of the Court.

Proposed Federal Rules Narrow Discovery and Spur Cooperation Between the Parties

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Proposed Federal Rules Narrow Discovery and Spur Cooperation Between the Parties

Tags

, , ,

The Duke Rules Ahead: Part 1 Rule Amendments Will Narrow Discovery and Spur Cooperation, by James Kurz, EDVAUpdate, Redmon, Peyton & Braswell, LLP
http://bit.ly/1c1gVH4

Avoid Common Mistakes in Okahoma Civil Appeals

22 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Brief Writing, Court Rules, Legal Writing, Motions

≈ Comments Off on Avoid Common Mistakes in Okahoma Civil Appeals

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Pitfalls in Civil Appellate Practice, by Michael Richie and Barbara Swimley, Oklahoma Bar Journal
http://bit.ly/1h6tq80

Experts, Admissibility, and Rule 705

22 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Admissibility, Court Rules, Evidence, Expert Witnesses, Forensic Evidence, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Experts, Admissibility, and Rule 705

Tags

, , , , ,

Who Made You The Expert?: Rule 705 & The Admissibility of Underlying Facts or Data, by Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProfBlog
http://bit.ly/1a085YM

State and federal court rules, forms, and dockets — all in one place.

21 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by in Court Rules, Dockets, Legal Writing, Research

≈ Comments Off on State and federal court rules, forms, and dockets — all in one place.

Tags

, , , , , ,

LLRX Court Rules, Forms and Dockets
http://www.llrx.com/courtrules/

Legal research experts and librarians Sabrina I. Pacifici and Margaret Berkland last updated this site in January 2011. It contains over 1,400 links to state and federal court rules, forms, and dockets.