Category Archives: Courts

Learning E-Filing and E-Docketing the Hard Way.

27 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Courts, E-Docketing, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Technology, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

≈ Comments Off on Learning E-Filing and E-Docketing the Hard Way.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

A Painful Lesson in the Pitfalls of E-Filing and E-Docketing, by Scott P. Stolley and Richard B. Phillips, Jr., Texas Appellate Watch

http://tinyurl.com/ma6head

As mandatory e-filing (and the accompanying switch to e-service, e-dockets, and e-notices) spreads across Texas, we need to adopt new standard practices to ensure that we fulfill our duties to our clients. An appeal pending in the Federal Circuit provides a cautionary tale that should not be ignored. . . .

E-Discovery Federal Rule Amendments and More.

06 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Bankruptcy Law, Case Law, Court Rules, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Law, Litigation, Mandatory Law, Metadata, Preservation, Primary Law, Regulations, Research, Sanctions, State Law, Statutes, Technology, The Sedona Conference, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery Federal Rule Amendments and More.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Category Archives: FEDERAL RULES AMENDMENTS, by Electronic Discovery, K&L Gates

http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/articles/federal-rules-amendments/

 Notice and analysis of electronic discovery federal rule amendments. You can count on this website to be updated promptly and the information and analysis is accurate. Free subscription by RSS feed.

While you are there, it is worth your time to browse the variety of information published by K&L Gates. They are experts on e-discovery. You will find, among other things:

Just poke around. I do not think you will be disappointed. -CCE

Skype For Video Depositions?

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Court Rules, Depositions, Discovery, Employment Law, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Rules of Discovery, Video Deposition

≈ Comments Off on Skype For Video Depositions?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

“Stop and Think” About Skype for Depositions, by Joshua Gilliland, Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/another-skyping-judge/

Judge G.R. Smith issued a great reminder that lawyers must ‘stop and think’ when dealing with discovery disputes. This duty is imposed by Rule 26(g) and is ‘an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discovery in a responsible manner that is consistent with the spirit and purposes of Rules 26 through Rule 37, and obligates each attorney to stop and think about the legitimacy of a discovery request, a response thereto, or an objection.’ Hernandez v. Hendrix Produce, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4837 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2014) citing Bottoms v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143251, 2011 WL 6181423 at * 4 (D. Colo. Dec. 13, 2011). 

The case at issue requiring lawyers to ‘stop and think’ involved the plaintiffs in a farmworker rights lawsuit. Three of the plaintiffs were in Mexico and unable to return to Georgia for their depositions. The Defendants wanted the depositions to be held in Georgia. . . .

Latest Ninth Circuit Decision on Rule 26 Discovery From Testifying Experts.

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Attorney Work Product, Court Rules, Court Rules, Discovery, Evidence, Expert Witness, Experts, Federal District Court Rules, Federal Rules of Evidence, Requests for Production, Rule 26, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Latest Ninth Circuit Decision on Rule 26 Discovery From Testifying Experts.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Ninth Circuit Rules on Scope of Discovery from Testifying Experts, by Michael Kelleher, Cogent Legal Blog

http://tinyurl.com/knvhgv2

[A] new Ninth Circuit decision about the scope of expert discovery in federal court caught our attention. The decision in Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, No. 12-15572 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2014) poses the question: where the expert has served both as a confidential advisor to counsel and as a testifying expert, may counsel withhold documents shared with the expert by asserting an opinion work product objection? The short answer is no—documents from testifying experts must be produced unless protected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4).

Appellate Procedure Resource Guide for State Courts.

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Court Rules, Courts, Intermediate Appellate Courts, Judges, Pro Se Guides, State Appellate Courts, Unpublished Opinions

≈ Comments Off on Appellate Procedure Resource Guide for State Courts.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Appellate Procedure Resource Guide, National Center of State Courts

http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Appellate/Appellate-Procedure/Resource-Guide.aspx

There is a plethora of information here. It is diverse and abundant. Once you arrive at the website, please take your time and browse each section. Please do not overlook the button to the far right for “Companion Sights.” -CCE

The most common structure for a state appellate court system involves one court of last resort with largely discretionary review, commonly called a supreme court, and one intermediate appellate court with largely mandatory review.  Because of this jurisdiction, the intermediate appellate court is the court of final review for the vast majority of state court appeals. Ten states are without an intermediate appellate court. Various combinations based on mandatory versus discretionary jurisdiction, size of the courts, use of panels, geographical divisions, and division between criminal and civil jurisdiction by court exist in the state appellate systems.

The Legal Writing Debate on Footnotes Continues.

08 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Brief Writing, Citations, Court Rules, Footnotes, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on The Legal Writing Debate on Footnotes Continues.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Never Ending Debate Over Citational Footnotes, by Raymond Ward, the (new) legal writer

http://tinyurl.com/lh3t2co

Mr. Ward gives us a brief overview in these two paragraphs. In the remainder of his post, Mr. Ward expands on his variations for citations in footnotes and the preferences of Fifth Circuit judges  I mean no disrespect to Mr. Garner, but if Mr. Ward gives advice on legal writing, I pay attention. -CCE

Who would have thought that, for over 13 years now, the most controversial subject among litigation-oriented legal writers would be the location of legal citations in footnotes versus in text? Back in the spring of 2001, a judge in an intermediate Louisiana appellate court, in writing the majority’s opinion in a case, put her legal citations in footnotes. This drew a concurring opinion from the chief judge (withdrawn before final publication), agreeing with the result but objecting to the use of footnotes for citations. So the author wrote her own concurring opinion defending her use of footnotes. The case is Ledet v. Seasafe, Inc., 783 So. 2d 611 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001). The controversy stirred up by Ledet caught the attention of the New York Times. Here is my own little casenote on Ledet.

Fast-forward 13 years. Bryan Garner writes an article for the ABA Journal recommending the use of footnotes for legal citations—a position he’s held since I took my first Garner seminar in 1998. His fellow Texans Rich Phillips and Jason Steed write blog posts begging to differ. Different decade, pretty much the same debate.

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.

Reform Badly Needed for Michigan Tax Court.

20 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Tax Court

≈ Comments Off on Reform Badly Needed for Michigan Tax Court.

Tags

, , , ,

State May Replace Tribunal With Court In Appeals Process Reforms, by Christine MacDonald, The Detroit News

http://tinyurl.com/ozksmy3

Michigan officials are pushing for an overhaul in state tax appeals, arguing the process is too complicated and led by inexperienced officials who issue “inconsistent or poorly-reasoned results.”

That’s the conclusion of a draft of reforms being circulated by the Michigan Department of Treasury. The Detroit News obtained the proposal, which would eliminate the state Tax Tribunal that handles assessment appeals from property owners unsatisfied with rulings from local boards.

The state wants to replace the tribunal with a Michigan Tax Court whose judges and magistrates would have more experience and higher pay.

*           *           *

The proposals follow years of complaints that the tribunal — an administrative court created in 1974 — is too archaic, cumbersome and often hostile to everyday homeowners seeking tax relief. The agency fielded more than 13,400 appeals last year during its “small claims” process, which generally includes residential appeals but also can include some smaller business disputes. The agency doesn’t specifically track residential appeals.

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?

Texas Moves To Its New E-Filing Website.

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Courts, E-Filing, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas Moves To Its New E-Filing Website.

Tags

, , ,

We’ve moved! New e-filing website goes live, posted by Angela Morris, Texas Lawyer in Texas Law

http://shererandcrow.com/texas-law/weve-moved-new-e-filing-website-goes-live/

The state’s new system for electronically filing court documents has a new online home: EFileTexas.gov went live today, Dec. 6.

Starting Monday, the old site to access the e-filing system will go offline and anyone who visits TexFile.com will automatically be rerouted to EFileTexas.gov, according to a notice on TexFile.com.

 

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.

Are Judges Are Killing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Affirmative Action, Courts, Employment Law, Judges, Race Discrimination, Research, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Are Judges Are Killing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Tags

, , , , , ,

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the 1964 Civ...

When it comes to employment cases, judges are killing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by the Hon. Richard George Kopf, Hercules and the umpire Blog

http://tinyurl.com/phw85vu

After providing some background about rulings on employment cases, Judge Kopf reveals that:

[M]y summary judgment dismissal rate was higher than the aggregate rate for the Northern District of Georgia. That is, my dismissal rate was four points higher than the rate in the Northern District of Georgia (86% v. 82%). That caused me to write this: “The fact is that the law on summary judgment motions in employment cases favors the granting of summary judgment motions in a high percentage of the cases and, not surprisingly, that is what you see happening in the Northern District of Georgia and with ‘yours truly’ too.”

*     *     *

 [V]ince Powers, my friendly nemesis, advised me about a powerful article that Nancy Gertner has written on this subject. Gertner now teaches law at Harvard, and was for many years one of the most distinguished federal trial judges in the nation. She is also a really great person with a warm and funny sense of humor. Here is Nancy’s article. I urge you to read what she has written. It will make you think hard.

If you have trouble accessing the link to the Nancy Gertner’s article, you can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/olfpxdz. CCE

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