{"events":[{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"368a3a4b1305395571266133ee651badb26ea839c83bcd46cabc74623863a67d","newHash":"b75f5f56318afa86c4fc67c245dbbb31616d696e4a374365f8a2398bd5a69fd2","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:21.436437+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"c1b59d8d1b715fb022790498db7720bc6f5984aae6e08395a6bfd5a7d5560744","newHash":"5916a6079682b3d86fe5bf649cb01e2e3b0b0f1cb8905c38b4c0dcdb668c3f96","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:20.756449+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"d82a9b27ec9f5ef4767131c77fac98ee9510474e2d6f3c87812e12385aebfe56","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/1d7ad7ef-589f-4c4a-3eda-08ddece20de6/ads","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/1d7ad7ef-589f-4c4a-3eda-08ddece20de6/ads","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:20.176023+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"278d679e422d7c5b791a84b90dd234110c6b3fb0045292f5a878763b9790dd20","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33cb8842-9482-45f4-3518-08de636ff965/ayp","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33cb8842-9482-45f4-3518-08de636ff965/ayp","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:20.164182+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"57687019d783ded1bfa20061869b08dd4a73da9390bad3400ad00b771719732e","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33e68914-24b3-40a5-3ed9-08ddece20de6/kes","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/33e68914-24b3-40a5-3ed9-08ddece20de6/kes","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:20.443497+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"53600260ae50f245164e28681568e1e034d9bf9c58325c90844a22ec2dbbbf91","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/3e4e42a0-7045-4e32-432f-08de214ff94e/dsr","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/3e4e42a0-7045-4e32-432f-08de214ff94e/dsr","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:20.445994+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"ad4984921137cebc3e4a36888af7d3b064812765662fffbe4123361dede64416","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/99da3dfe-00c8-4e85-3ec3-08ddece20de6/odw","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/99da3dfe-00c8-4e85-3ec3-08ddece20de6/odw","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:20.753820+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"0a6cc79d5d59c98f3202a820e7be4b839a7adc4d6d047e6b73df62a7b4e88bef","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/a9e85fb5-8f88-408d-3ec1-08ddece20de6/jfw","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/a9e85fb5-8f88-408d-3ec1-08ddece20de6/jfw","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:20.717341+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"61ae23dca0ad91417b30debee30492925b35f8d6effae0aa1dfc29ab2c3617ca","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/ad05fcf4-7d99-4dad-3739-08de58702db8/accv","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/ad05fcf4-7d99-4dad-3739-08de58702db8/accv","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:20.981497+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"ade87e1fbda0864c0985630325fcc552f67d4a2b623639c7bd4b7edc9d948e63","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/c2f8424c-aa26-4c30-3ed8-08ddece20de6/as","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/c2f8424c-aa26-4c30-3ed8-08ddece20de6/as","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:21.022356+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Judges’ Procedures and Schedules","id":"47e012064e03c8b21737964c6384ec0aed26d674025a1f02ac14668fbbe8a76b","newHash":"ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/e048d7c4-f266-4bec-3ed2-08ddece20de6/rao","snapshot":"snapshots/ac45d62cb3f8abcc644f150fc3f2d7e6053f8bf9800219b2322b46111e481e7b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/#/judge/e048d7c4-f266-4bec-3ed2-08ddece20de6/rao","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:21.016271+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,938 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+PLAINTIFF’S NAME,\n+Plaintiff(s) ,\n+v.\n+DEFENDANT’S NAME,\n+Defendant(s).\n+Case No.\n+CIVIL STANDING ORDER\n+PLEASE READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT GOVERNS THIS\n+CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES.\n+This action has been assigned to Judge Fred W. Slaughter. Both the court and\n+all counsel bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in this court. “Counsel,”\n+as used in this Order, includes parties appearing pro se.1 To secure the just, speedy,\n+−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−\n+1 This Court does not exempt parties appearing pro se from compliance with the\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. See Local Rules 1-3 and 83-\n+2.2.3.\n+1\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+and inexpensive determination of every action, all counsel are ordered to\n+familiarize themselves and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and\n+the Local Rules of the Central District of California. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.\n+UNLESS THE COURT ORDERS OTHERWISE, THE FOLLOWING\n+RULES APPLY.\n+I. Service of the Complaint\n+Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule\n+of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l)\n+and Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. Any defendant, including\n+any “Doe” or fictitiously named defendant, not served within 90 days after the\n+case is filed will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).\n+II. Removed Actions\n+Any Answers filed in state court must be refiled in this court as a supplement\n+to the Notice of Removal. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance\n+with Local Rule 7. If an action removed to this court contains a form pleading, e.g.,\n+a pleading in which boxes are checked, the party or parties that filed the form\n+pleading must file in this court within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice of\n+Removal a revised pleading that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7,\n+7.1, 8, 9, 10 and 11. An amended complaint filed within 30 days after removal to\n+replace a form complaint pursuant to this instruction shall be deemed an amended\n+complaint with “the court’s leave” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+15(a)(2).\n+III. Presence of Lead Counsel\n+Lead trial counsel shall attend any proceeding before this court, including all\n+Scheduling, Pretrial, and Settlement Conferences. In an effort to provide more\n+experience to the next generation of practitioners, the court encourages lead counsel\n+to permit junior counsel to fully participate in court proceedings, including to argue\n+motions and to examine witnesses at trial.\n+2\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+IV. Calendar Conflicts\n+Counsel shall notify both of the Judges’ courtroom deputies at least three (3)\n+days in advance. Counsel should defer to the most senior of the judges. A priority\n+before that Judge should be requested.\n+A “Notice of Unavailability” has no legal effect and should not be filed.\n+V. Scheduling Conference and Rule 26(f) Meeting of Counsel\n+Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the court will\n+issue an Order Setting a Scheduling Conference. Counsel shall meet no later than\n+twenty-one (21) days prior to the court-ordered Scheduling Conference pursuant\n+to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and applicable Local Rules. This meeting\n+may occur telephonically and need not occur in person. A written exchange of\n+correspondence will not satisfy this requirement.\n+VI. Joint Rule 26(f) Report\n+Unless otherwise ordered, no later than fourteen (14) days before the\n+Scheduling Conference, counsel shall file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. A Joint Rule\n+26(f) Report which is not timely filed or does not conform with this Order,\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), and/or applicable Local Rules will interfere\n+with preparation by the court and its staff and may result in the assessment of\n+sanctions, including dismissal. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report shall address the\n+matters set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), as well as those\n+enumerated in the court’s Order Setting Scheduling Conference.\n+VII. Discovery\n+All discovery matters have been referred to a Magistrate Judge, who will hear\n+all discovery disputes. The Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the District Judge’s\n+initials next to the case number. All discovery documents must include the words\n+“DISCOVERY MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing. Please do not\n+deliver courtesy copies of discovery documents to Judge Slaughter’s chambers.\n+Counsel must follow the Magistrate Judge’s procedures for scheduling matters\n+3\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+for hearing. These procedures are stated on each Magistrate Judge’s webpage.\n+In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Magistrate Judge’s decision\n+shall be final, and this court will not reverse any order of the Magistrate Judge\n+unless it has been shown that the Magistrate Judge’s order is clearly erroneous and\n+contrary to law. Any party may file and serve a motion for review and\n+reconsideration before this court. See Local Rule 72-2. The moving party must\n+file and serve the motion within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling\n+or an oral ruling that the Magistrate Judge states will not be followed by a written\n+ruling. The motion must specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous\n+and contrary to law, and the claim must be supported by points and authorities.\n+Counsel shall provide the Magistrate Judge’s chambers copies of the moving\n+papers and responses.\n+VIII. Motions − General Requirements\n+a. Pre-Filing Meet and Confer Requirement\n+Counsel should take note of Local Rule 7-3, which requires “counsel\n+contemplating the filing of any motion” to “first contact opposing counsel to\n+discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion\n+and any potential resolution.” Counsel shall discuss the issues sufficiently such\n+that if a motion is still necessary, the briefing may be directed to those substantive\n+issues requiring resolution by the court. Counsel shall resolve minor procedural\n+or other non-substantive matters during the conference. The notice of motion or\n+other request must include a statement of compliance with Local Rule 7-3. The\n+court may strike, outright deny a motion or order other relief, including sanctions,\n+if counsel fails to meet and confer in good faith. This requirement applies even to\n+self-represented parties; there is no exception to this rule for parties who appear\n+pro se. Nor are there any exceptions to this rule for futility or redundancy.\n+b. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions\n+Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This court hears\n+4\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+motions on Thursdays, beginning at 10:00 a.m. If Thursday is a court holiday,\n+motions will be heard on the next Thursday. Counsel shall not contact the\n+Courtroom Deputy to clear or reserve a civil motion hearing date. A list of closed\n+dates is located on Judge Slaughter’s webpage.\n+c. Length and Format of Motion Papers\n+Pursuant to Local Rule 11-6, absent leave of court Memoranda of Points and\n+Authorities in support of or in opposition to motions shall not exceed 7,000 words,\n+including headings, footnotes, and quotations but excluding the caption, the table of\n+contents, the table of authorities, the signature block, the certification required by\n+L.R. 11-6.2, and any indices and exhibits. Only for good cause shown will the\n+court grant an application to extend these page limitations. Pursuant to Local Rule\n+11-8, all Memoranda of Points and Authorities exceeding ten (10) pages must be\n+accompanied by a Table of Authorities and a Table of Contents. All briefing must\n+use Times New Roman font. Text must be no less than fourteen (14) point font;\n+footnotes shall be in the same font and the same size as the body of the\n+memorandum.\n+Counsel shall adhere to Local Rule 5-4.3 with respect to the conversion of all\n+documents to .pdf format so that when a document is electronically filed, it is in\n+proper size and is .pdf searchable. Further, all documents shall be filed in a format\n+so that text can be selected, copied, and pasted directly from the document. See\n+Local Rule 5-4.3.1.\n+All documents−including pleadings, motions, and exhibits−submitted to the\n+court must be text-searchable (i.e., “OCR’d”).\n+d. Documents with Declarations, Exhibits, and Other Attachments\n+If a filed or lodged document has declarations, exhibits, or other attachments,\n+each attachment must be filed as a separately-docketed attachment to the main\n+docket entry with a description of the attachment (e.g., Dkt. 20-1 Declaration of\n+Joe Smith; Dkt. 20-2 Ex. 1 - License Agreement; Dkt. 29-3 Evidentiary\n+5\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Objections). The court may strike or decline to consider motions, stipulations, or\n+other documents with attachments that are not filed in accordance with this Order.\n+e. Citations to Case Law\n+Citations to case law must identify the case cited and the specific page\n+referenced. For example, if a quotation is presented, the associated page citation\n+shall be provided. Similarly, if a case is cited in support of a proposition based on\n+language in the opinion, the page on which such language appears shall be\n+provided. Bluebook style is required.\n+f. Citations to Other Sources\n+Statutory references must identify with specificity the sections and subsections\n+referenced. Citations to treatises, manuals, and other materials should include the\n+volume, section, and pages being referenced. Citations to prior filings in the same\n+action shall include the docket entry number, section, and pages referenced.\n+Bluebook style is required.\n+g. Oral Argument\n+If the court deems a matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, the\n+court will take the matter under submission and notify the parties before the\n+hearing.\n+h. Artificial Intelligence\n+Any party who uses generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT,\n+Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a motion, brief,\n+pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing\n+the use of artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewed the\n+source material and verified that the artificially generated content is accurate\n+and complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.\n+IX. Motions − Specific Requirements\n+a. Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12\n+Many motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good\n+6\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a complaint,\n+answer, or counterclaim that can be corrected by amendment. C.f. Polich v.\n+Burlington Northern, Inc., 942 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that where\n+a motion to dismiss is granted, a district court should grant leave to amend unless it\n+is clear the complaint cannot be saved by amendment). Moreover, a party has the\n+right to amend the complaint “once as a matter of course at any time before a\n+responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Even after a complaint has\n+been amended or a responsive pleading has been served, the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure provide that leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so\n+requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit requires that this policy favoring\n+amendment be applied with “extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians\n+v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990).\n+Consequently, parties should carefully consider and weigh an opponent’s\n+contentions as to the deficiencies in a pleading. The court expects that, in most\n+instances, the parties will agree to any amendment that would cure the defect.\n+b. Motions to Amend\n+In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 15-1, all motions to amend\n+pleadings shall: (1) state the effect of the amendment; (2) be serially numbered to\n+differentiate the amendment from previous amendments (i.e., “First Amended\n+Complaint,” “Second Amended Complaint”); and (3) identify the pages, line\n+numbers, and wording of any proposed change or addition of material.\n+Counsel shall electronically file a “Notice of Lodging” attaching the proposed\n+amended pleading as a document separate from the motion, as well as a “redlined”\n+version of the proposed amended pleading identifying all additions and deletions\n+of material as an appendix to the moving papers. Before a motion to amend is filed,\n+the redlined version also must be delivered to opposing counsel at least two hours\n+in advance of the Local Rule 7-3 conference; and if the plaintiff later changes the\n+delivered version, counsel will be required to meet again about the revised pleading.\n+7\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+c. Motions in Limine\n+Motions in limine shall be filed and noticed for a hearing in accordance with\n+the court’s Scheduling Order. In no case shall any motion in limine be noticed\n+hearing date later than the Final Pretrial Conference.\n+d. Motions for Class Certification\n+If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to act diligently and\n+begin discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed\n+expeditiously. Parties are advised to refer to the court’s Order Setting Scheduling\n+Conference for additional guidance as to the filing and timing of motions for class\n+certification.\n+e. Motions for Default Judgment\n+Unless the court orders otherwise, motions for default judgment shall be filed\n+within 14 days after the later of (1) entry of default against the last remaining\n+defendant or (2) resolution of all claims against all defendants who have not\n+defaulted. The motion must include a showing of both subject-matter and personal\n+jurisdiction. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff who\n+moves for default judgment and wishes to seek attorney’s fees and and costs must\n+include in the motion a properly supported request for attorney’s fees and costs\n+together with the motion for default judgment. Failure to do so will result in the\n+striking of any subsequent motion for attorney’s fees and costs absent a showing\n+of good cause. The court may vacate the hearing on a motion for default\n+judgment if no opposition is timely filed, and the notice of motion should so state.\n+Unless the court orders otherwise, the movant must appear at the motion hearing\n+prepared to argue the motion and respond to any tentative opinion even in the\n+absence of an opposition.\n+f. Motions for Summary Judgment\n+No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is denominated a motion for\n+8\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+summary judgment or summary adjudication, without leave of court. If a party\n+believes this is one of the rare instances in which good cause exists for more than\n+one motion for summary judgment or to increase page limits, the party shall seek\n+leave by noticed motion setting forth a detailed showing of good cause. Pursuant\n+to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), when appropriate, based on undisputed\n+facts and controlling principles of law, the court may sua sponte enter summary\n+judgment in favor of the non-moving party.\n+Also, the court will not entertain cross-motions that seek to adjudicate the\n+same legal issues. If parties wish to cross-move for summary judgment, their\n+counsel shall meet and confer to determine which party will move and which will\n+oppose the one motion for summary judgment.\n+Parties need not wait until the motion cutoff date to bring motions for\n+summary judgment or partial summary judgment. The hearing on any such motion\n+shall be set for a date in advance of the last date to hear motions as stated in the\n+court’s Scheduling Order. This court requires an extended briefing schedule for\n+motions for summary judgment, as set forth below:\n+• Motions for Summary Judgment: Must be filed at least forty-two (42)\n+days before the noticed hearing date.\n+• Opposition: Must be filed twenty-eight (28) days before the noticed\n+hearing date.\n+• Reply: Must be filed twenty-one (21) days before the noticed hearing\n+date.\n+The above briefing schedule is the default. The parties may stipulate to a\n+modified schedule that is reasonable for all parties, subject to court approval. Any\n+briefing schedule must provide the court at least twenty-one (21) days between the\n+reply deadline and the hearing date.\n+The parties should prepare papers in a fashion that will assist the court in\n+processing and analyzing the volume of material (e.g., tables of contents, headings,\n+9\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+indices, bookmarks in electronic documents, pinpoint citations, etc.). The parties\n+shall comply with Local Rules 56-1 and 56-2, in addition to the court’s additional\n+requirements described below.\n+i. Statements of Uncontroverted Facts and Genuine Disputes\n+The separate statement of uncontroverted facts, statement of genuine disputes\n+of material fact, and response to statement of genuine disputes of material fact shall\n+be prepared in accordance with Local Rules 56-1−56-3. The factual statements\n+should be set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph should\n+contain a narrowly focused statement of fact. Each numbered paragraph should\n+address a single subject as concisely as possible. Do not include legal argument in\n+this document. The opposing party may dispute all or only a portion of the\n+statement, but if disputing only a portion, the document must clearly indicate\n+what part is being disputed. The court will not wade through a document to\n+determine whether a fact really is in dispute.\n+The opposing party may submit additional material facts that bear on the\n+issues raised by the movant. The additional facts shall follow the format of the\n+moving party’s separate statement and shall continue in sequentially numbered\n+paragraphs.\n+ii. Supporting Evidence\n+No party shall submit evidence other than the specific items of evidence or\n+testimony necessary to support or controvert a proposed statement of undisputed\n+fact. For example, entire deposition transcripts, entire sets of interrogatory\n+responses, and documents that do not specifically support or controvert material\n+in the separate statement shall not be submitted in support of or in opposition to\n+a motion for summary judgment.\n+Evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary\n+judgment should be submitted either by way of stipulation or as exhibits to\n+declarations sufficient to authenticate the proffered evidence and should not be\n+10\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+attached to the memorandum of points and authorities. Documentary evidence\n+for which there is no stipulation regarding foundation must be accompanied by\n+the testimony, either by declaration or properly authenticated deposition transcript,\n+of a witness who can establish authenticity.\n+iii. Objections to Evidence\n+If a party disputes a fact based in whole or in part on an evidentiary objection,\n+the ground for the objection should be stated succinctly in a separate statement of\n+evidentiary objections in a two column format. The left column should identify the\n+items objected to (including page and line number if applicable) and the right\n+column should set forth a concise objection (e.g., hearsay, lack of foundation, etc.)\n+with a citation to the Federal Rules of Evidence or, where applicable, a case\n+citation. A proposed order shall be filed and attached to the evidentiary objections\n+as a separate document in Word-processing format consistent with Local Rule\n+52-4.1 and emailed directly to the court’s chambers email address at\n+FWS_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+g. Motions for Attorneys’ Fees\n+Motions for attorneys’ fees shall be electronically filed and set for hearing\n+according to Local Rule 6-1 and this Order. Any motion or request for attorneys’\n+fees shall attach two summaries, in table form, of the hours worked by and billing\n+rate of each attorney with title (e.g., partner, counsel, associate, etc.).\n+The first table shall include a summary of the hours worked by each attorney,\n+organized by task (e.g., discovery, motion to dismiss, motion for summary\n+judgment). The second table shall include a summary of the hours worked by each\n+attorney, organized by attorney. Both tables shall list all the tasks on which the\n+attorney worked, the hours worked on each task, and the hourly rate of each\n+attorney. If the hourly rate charged by any individual attorney changed while the\n+action was ongoing, the party shall provide separate calculations for the total\n+number of hours the attorney spent in connection with each task at each hourly rate.\n+11\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+All tables shall be attached to the motion and electronically filed. The courtesy\n+copies of the tables shall be prepared in Excel, have all restrictions removed so the\n+spreadsheets can be edited, and be emailed to the court’s chambers email address\n+at FWS_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+h. Under Seal Filings\n+Local Rule 79-5 governs applications to file documents under seal. Local Rule\n+79-5.2.2 explains how to apply to file under seal and how to proceed if leave is\n+granted. Parties must comply with all provisions of Local Rule 79-5.\n+There is a strong presumption of public access in civil actions. Foltz v. State\n+Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). For each document\n+or other type of information a party seeks to file under seal, the party must identify\n+and discuss the factual and/or legal justification that establishes “good cause” or\n+“compelling reasons” for the information to be protected. Kamakana v. City and\n+Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006).\n+Documents that are not confidential or privileged in their entirety should not\n+be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted and filed separately\n+with a reasonable amount of effort. The parties should file a complete version of\n+the documents under seal and a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only\n+the portions that the Court has authorized to be filed under seal.\n+Sealing must be justified for each individual item−blanket claims of\n+confidentiality will result in the application to seal being denied. Counsel are\n+strongly encouraged to consider carefully whether sealing or redaction is absolutely\n+required for a given piece of evidence or argument. An application to seal that\n+includes meritless requests to seal or redact documents will be denied. The parties\n+also must meet and confer before filing an application to seal.\n+X. Proposed Orders\n+Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any\n+matter shall file, serve, and electronically lodge a proposed order setting forth the\n+12\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with\n+appropriate citations. The court requires strict compliance with Local Rule 5-4.4.2,\n+which states that “a Microsoft Word copy of the proposed document, along with a\n+PDF copy of the electronically filed main document, shall be e-mailed to the\n+assigned judge’s generic chambers e-mail address,” which for this court is\n+FWS_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. The court will not consider a motion,\n+stipulation, ex parte application, or other request for relief unless a compliant\n+proposed order is received by email. A filing may be stricken for failure to timely\n+comply.\n+XI. Chambers Courtesy Copies\n+Notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Local Rules, Judge Slaughter\n+does not require parties to provide Mandatory Chambers Copies of documents filed\n+through the court’s CM/ECF System in civil cases unless otherwise ordered by the\n+court. No party shall deliver a Mandatory Chambers Copy to Judge Slaughter in a\n+civil case unless specifically ordered to do so. If the court does order chambers\n+copies, such copies shall be delivered to Judge Slaughter’s chambers copy box on\n+the 10th Floor of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse\n+in Santa Ana or sent via overnight mail. If sent by overnight mail, the sender shall\n+notify the delivery service that the signature of the recipient is not required.\n+Mandatory chambers copies of sealed documents shall be delivered to the\n+Clerk’s Office Intake window, to be placed in the court’s internal mail box. If the\n+mandatory chambers copy of a document is an inch or more thick, the filing party\n+should place the court’s copy in a three-ring binder (no blue backing is required).\n+XII. Ex Parte Applications\n+Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief. To justify ex parte\n+relief, there must be a showing of irreparable prejudice and that the moving party is\n+without fault, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect. See\n+Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488,\n+13\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+492-93 (C. D. Cal. 1995).\n+The court directs counsel’s attention to Local Rule 7-19. The court considers\n+ex parte applications on the papers. Accordingly, counsel need not set ex parte\n+applications for a hearing date. The other parties’ opposition, or notice of non-\n+opposition to an ex parte application is due 24 hours after the other parties’ receipt\n+of the ex parte application, or within 24 hours after the ex parte application is filed,\n+whichever is earlier.\n+XIII. Injunctions and Restraining Orders\n+Parties seeking preliminary or emergency injunctive relief must comply with\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 65. Applications for a\n+Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) are also governed by Local Rule 7-19,\n+which applies to ex parte applications. Thus, oppositions to Applications for a\n+TRO must be filed within 24 hours following service of the Application or filing of\n+the Application, whichever is earlier. The court will not rule on any Application\n+for a TRO for at least 24 hours after the party subject to the requested order has\n+been served, unless notice is excused as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b),\n+or unless the interests of justice so require.\n+XIV. Continuances\n+Continuances are granted only on a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 16(b)(4). Requests for continuances must be by stipulation, motion or ex parte\n+application and must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the reasons for\n+the requested continuance. The declaration also should include whether there have\n+been any previous requests for continuances and whether these requests were\n+granted or denied by the court. See Local Rule 40-1 Stipulations extending dates\n+set by this court are not effective unless approved by the court.\n+The court’s determination of whether good cause has been shown focuses\n+upon evidence of diligence by the party or parties seeking a continuance and on\n+the potential for prejudice that might result from a denial of the continuance. See\n+14\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Matrix Motor Co. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha,\n+218 F.R.D. 667, 671 (C.D. Cal. 2003).\n+XV. Communications with Chambers\n+Counsel must not attempt to contact the court or chambers staff by email,\n+telephone, or by any other ex parte means. Counsel must not contact the Courtroom\n+Deputy regarding the status of any matter before the court or seek any legal advice.\n+Nor should counsel contact the Courtroom Deputy to inquire about court procedure\n+when the answer is readily available by consulting the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure, the Local Rules, or the court’s standing orders. Calls or emails regarding\n+the status of submitted motions, stipulations, or proposed orders will not be\n+returned. Counsel may determine the status of any submitted motion, stipulation,\n+or proposed order by accessing the docket sheet through PACER, which can be\n+accessed via the Central District of California’s website. Counsel may, for\n+appropriate matters only, contact the Courtroom Deputy via the court’s\n+chambers email at FWS_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. Any appropriate inquiry\n+directed to the Courtroom Deputy must be by email with a copy to counsel for all\n+parties. Counsel must include on all papers their email address, telephone number,\n+and fax number to facilitate communication with the Courtroom Deputy.\n+XVI. Guidance for Pro Se Litigants\n+Parties who represent themselves in civil litigation (i.e., appear pro se), should\n+be aware that the court holds these parties to the same standards of conduct to\n+which it holds attorneys. The following links may be helpful to those representing\n+themselves in civil matters:\n+• General information on how parties may represent themselves in civil\n+cases in the Central District of California can be found at\n+https://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/.\n+• Local Civil Rules for the Central District of California can be found at\n+http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/local-rules\n+15\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be found at\n+https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp.\n+Only individuals may represent themselves. A corporation or other entity\n+must be represented by counsel, and if counsel seeks to withdraw, counsel must\n+advise the entity of the dire consequences of failing to obtain substitute counsel\n+before seeking withdrawal−i.e., a plaintiff entity’s case will be dismissed or a\n+defendant entity will default. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.4.\n+XVII. Order Setting Scheduling Conference\n+Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the court will\n+issue an Order setting a Scheduling Conference. The parties must strictly comply\n+with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26, and Local Rule 26. Absent a\n+showing of good cause, the parties must propose a trial date that is within 18\n+months of the filing of the complaint.\n+XVIII. Settlement Conference and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)\n+As stated in Local Rule 16-15, the parties in every case must participate in a\n+Settlement Conference or Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) procedure. The\n+court will not hold a final pretrial conference or convene any trial unless and until\n+all parties, including the principals of all corporate parties, have completed ADR.\n+This court participates in the Court-Directed ADR Program whereby the court\n+refers the parties to the magistrate judge, the Court Mediation Panel, or to private\n+mediation. See General Order 11-10, § 5.1. If a Notice to Parties of Court-Directed\n+ADR Program (form ADR-08) has been filed in this case, counsel must furnish and\n+discuss it with their clients in preparation for the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+26(f) conference. In their Joint Rule 26(f) Report, counsel should indicate their\n+preferred ADR procedure. The court will refer the case to a procedure at the\n+initial scheduling conference. More information about the court’s ADR Program,\n+the Mediation Panel, and mediator profiles is available on the court’s website.\n+16\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+XIX. Notice of This Order\n+Counsel for Plaintiff shall immediately serve this Order on all parties,\n+including any new parties to the action. If this case came to the court by noticed\n+removal, the Defendant shall serve this Order on all other parties.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated:\n+HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+17","id":"e5b69e0e51636312dab2670eb912d82a1967ec2312a7c62755b047ca3e1779d6","newHash":"4fb79eaac8a0b57ad42dcbe0e6f32e041c32fe7766743337bbd8df7a220f2179","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/26c7e990-34b1-41f3-4d99-08dedec318af","snapshot":"snapshots/4fb79eaac8a0b57ad42dcbe0e6f32e041c32fe7766743337bbd8df7a220f2179.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/26c7e990-34b1-41f3-4d99-08dedec318af","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:21.683648+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,1290 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+NS INT'L TEXTILES\n+Plaintiff(s),\n+v.\n+FASHION MAGAZINE, INC. , et al.\n+Defendant(s).\n+Case No. 2:18−cv−00096−SJO−AFM\n+STANDING ORDER\n+FOR NEWLY\n+ASSIGNED CIVIL CASES\n+READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THIS CASE\n+AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES.\n+This case has been assigned to United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu.\n+Both the Court and all counsel bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in\n+this Court. “Counsel,” as used in this Order, includes attorneys and parties who\n+have elected to appear without an attorney and are representing themselves in\n+this civil litigation (hereinafter referred to as “\n+Pro Se Litigants”). To secure the\n+just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, all Counsel−\n+including Pro Se Litigants−are ordered to comply with this Order, the Federal\n+1.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of the Central District of California.\n+See L.R. 1-3; L.R. 83-2.2.3; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)\n+(holding that “[f]ailure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for\n+dismissal”).\n+A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Service of Order. Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve\n+this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case was\n+removed from state court, the defendant that removed the case must serve this\n+Order on all other parties.\n+2. Pro Se Litigants. Only individuals may represent themselves. A\n+corporation or other entity must be represented by counsel. If counsel seeks to\n+withdraw, counsel must advise the entity of the dire consequences of failing to\n+obtain substitute counsel before seeking withdrawal−i.e., a plaintiff entity’s\n+case will be dismissed or a defendant entity will default. See L.R. 83-2.3.4. The\n+following links may be helpful to Pro Se Litigants: (a) General information on\n+how parties may represent themselves in civil cases in the Central District of\n+California can be found at https://www.prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/; (b) Local Civil\n+Rules for the Central District of California can be found at\n+https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/local-rules; (c) Federal Rules of\n+Civil Procedure can be found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp.\n+3. Presence of Lead Trial Counsel. Lead trial counsel shall attend all\n+proceedings set by this Court, including scheduling, settlement, and pretrial\n+conferences, as well as trials. Lead trial counsel must be prepared to address and\n+resolve all matters within the scope of the proceeding. Only one attorney for a\n+party may be designated as lead trial counsel unless otherwise permitted by the\n+Court. If a second lead trial counsel is permitted by the Court, both counsel must\n+attend the pretrial conference. Believing that young lawyers need more\n+opportunities for appearances than they usually receive, the Court encourages lead\n+2.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+trial counsel to permit junior counsel, of five or fewer years out of law school, to\n+fully participate in Court proceedings, including arguing motions and examining\n+witnesses.\n+4. Counsel Calendar Conflicts. If any counsel discovers a calendar\n+conflict with a scheduled appearance, counsel must inform opposing counsel and\n+the Court’s Courtroom Deputy (CRD) via Chambers email at\n+WLH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov as soon as possible and not later than three\n+(3) days before the scheduled appearance. Counsel should attempt to agree on a\n+new date to accommodate the calendar conflict. Counsel must propose a new date\n+by Stipulation and Proposed Order. A “Notice of Unavailability” has no legal effect\n+and should not be filed. The Court expects that counsel will conduct themselves\n+professionally and will not deliberately schedule any proceeding when counsel are\n+unavailable.\n+5. Communications with Chambers. Neither counsel nor a party\n+shall initiate contact with the Court or its Chambers staff by telephone, or by any\n+other improper ex parte means. Counsel may contact the CRD with appropriate\n+inquiries. Contacting the CRD to inquire about the status of a ruling or to continue\n+a proceeding is not appropriate. The preferred method of communication with the\n+CRD is by email at WLH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. Counsel must copy all\n+parties on any such email. To facilitate communication with the CRD, counsel\n+should list their email addresses along with their telephone numbers on all papers.\n+6. Civility. All counsel who appear in this action must immediately\n+review and comply with the Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, which can\n+be found on the Court’s website at https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/\n+admissions/civility-and-professionalismguidelines. The Court expects everyone in\n+the courtroom to treat each other with dignity and respect. At a minimum, the\n+Court expects the following from counsel: (1) being punctual and prepared for all\n+court appearance; (2) being civil and respectful in all oral and written\n+3.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+communications with the Court and other parties; (3) being civil and respectful to\n+court personnel, including the CRD, court reporters, law clerks, and marshals;\n+(4) refraining from interrupting any person in the courtroom when that person\n+is speaking; (5) refraining from making gestures, facial expressions, or audible\n+comments indicating approval or disapproval of testimony or argument; and\n+(6) being considerate of the time constraints and pressures on the Court and\n+court staff inherent in their efforts to administer justice.\n+B. PLEADINGS REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Service of the Complaint. The plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the\n+Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service\n+pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). Any defendant(s), including “DOE” or fictitiously-\n+named defendant(s), not served within ninety (90) days after the case is filed shall\n+be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and by operation of this Order\n+without further notice, unless plaintiff requests and justifies the need for additional\n+time in the joint report and the Court grants an extension.\n+2. Removed Actions. Any Answers filed in state court must be refiled\n+in this Court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Any pending motions must\n+be re-noticed in accordance with L.R. 7. If an action removed to this Court contains\n+a form pleading, i.e., a pleading in which boxes are checked, the party or parties\n+that filed the form pleading must file in this Court within thirty (30) days of\n+receipt of the Notice of Removal a revised pleading that complies with Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 7, 7.1, 8, 9, 10 and 11. An amended complaint filed within thirty (30) days after\n+removal to replace a form complaint pursuant to this instruction shall be deemed\n+an amended complaint with “the court’s leave” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).\n+3. Status of Fictitiously Named Defendants.\n+(a) Plaintiff must identify and serve any fictitiously named or “Doe”\n+defendant(s) before the deadline set forth in the Court’s Order Setting Scheduling\n+Conference.\n+4.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+(b) Before moving to substitute a defendant for a Doe defendant,\n+plaintiff must seek the consent of counsel for all defendants, including counsel for\n+a represented Doe defendant. If denied consent, plaintiff must file a regularly\n+noticed motion. In diversity cases, plaintiff’s motion must address whether the\n+addition of the newly named party destroys diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.\n+§ 1447(c), (e).\n+C. FILING REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Electronic Filing. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3), L.R. 5-4,\n+and General Order 10-07, counsel shall electronically file (“e-file”) all filings.\n+Items that do not require the Court’s signature shall be e-filed in pdf format.\n+Proposed orders shall be e-filed in pdf format as an attachment to the main\n+documents. Pro Se Litigants may submit documents for filing through the Court’s\n+Electronic Document Submission System (“EDSS”) instead of mailing or bringing\n+documents to the Clerk’s Office. Only internet access and an email address are\n+required. Documents are submitted in PDF format through an online portal on the\n+Court’s website. To access EDSS and for additional information, visit the Court’s\n+website at https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/edss.\n+2. Documents with Declarations, Exhibits, and other Attachments.\n+If a filed or lodged document has declarations, exhibits, or other attachments, each\n+attachment must be filed as a separately docketed attachment to the main docket\n+entry with a description of the attachment (e.g., Dkt. 29-1 Smith Declaration, 29-2\n+Ex. 1 - License Agreement, 29-3 Request for Judicial Notice). The Court may\n+strike or decline to consider motions, stipulations, or other documents with\n+attachments that are not filed in accordance with this Order.\n+3. Proposed Orders.\n+(a) Proposed Orders Must be Lodged and Served. Each party\n+filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall serve\n+and lodge a proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief\n+5.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations.\n+(b) Use Applicable Templates. Use the Proposed Order Template\n+located on the Court’s website under “Orders & Additional Documents” at the\n+bottom of Judge Hsu’s webpage\n+(https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable−wesley−l−hsu). Failure to do so may\n+result in the striking of the request. Proposed orders must be on pleading paper.\n+Proposed orders should NOT contain any of the following: (1) attorney names,\n+addresses, etc. on the caption page; (2) a footer with the document name or\n+other information; or (3) a watermark or designation of the firm name. Proposed\n+orders should be formatted in the same fashion as motions.\n+(c) Email Proposed Orders to Chambers. The Court enforces\n+strict compliance with L.R. 5-4.4.2, which instructs: “After a document requiring\n+a judge’s signature has been lodged in accordance with L.R. 5-4.4.1 . . . ,\n+a Microsoft Word copy of the proposed document, along with a PDF copy of the\n+electronically filed main document, shall be e-mailed to the assigned judge’s\n+generic chambers e-mail address using the CM/ECF System,” namely,\n+WLH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. The Court will not consider a stipulation,\n+ex parte application, or other request for relief until a compliant proposed order\n+is received by email. If the proposed order is based on a stipulation or an ex parte\n+application, counsel must email both the order and the stipulation or ex parte\n+application. Otherwise, accompany documents (such as motions) should not be\n+emailed to Chambers.\n+4. Mandatory Chambers Copies.\n+(a) Motions, Pleadings, and Trial Documents. The parties must\n+provide one (1) Mandatory Chambers Copy only of Motions for Summary\n+Judgment filings the 26(f) Report and any post-trial motion filings. Please do not\n+send paper copies of any other documents unless requested by the Court.\n+\\\\\\\n+6.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+(b) Delivery Location, Timeliness, and Form. All Mandatory\n+Chambers Copies must be delivered to Judge Hsu’s Chambers copy box, which\n+is located outside of the Clerk’s Office on the fourth floor of the Felicitas and\n+Gonzalo Mendez United States Courthouse. Mandatory Chambers Copies must be\n+delivered no later than 12:00 p.m. (noon) the following business day after the\n+document is electronically filed. Mandatory chambers copies must be printed from\n+CM/ECF, and must include: (1) the CM/ECF-generated header (consisting of the\n+case number, document control number, date of filing, page number, etc.) at the\n+top of each page; and (2) the Notice of Electronic Filing (see L.R. 5-3.2.1) as the\n+last page of the document. L.R. 5-4.5. Mandatory Chambers Copies need not be\n+bluebacked. For security reasons, do not leave chambers copies in envelopes\n+or folders.\n+(c) Mandatory Chambers Copy Exhibits. All exhibits should be\n+separated by a tab divider on the right or bottom of the document. If the evidence\n+exceeds 50 pages, the Mandatory Chambers Copy must: (1) include a table of\n+contents; and (2) be in a tabbed binder with each exhibit separated by a tab divider\n+on the right or the bottom. All documents in the binder must be three-hole punched,\n+preferably with a larger hole size (13/32”), rather than the standard hole size\n+(9/32”) to facilitate ease of review. If the evidence exceeds 200 pages, the table of\n+contents and evidence must be placed in a Slant D-Ring binder. Binders should be\n+no larger than 4 inches. Binders must have both a cover sheet and a spine label that\n+includes the case name, case number, and a description of the contents.\n+5. Filings Under Seal.\n+(a) Local Rule 79-5. L.R. 79-5 governs applications to file under\n+seal. Parties must comply with all sections of L.R. 79-5. There is a “strong\n+presumption of access to court records” in civil cases. Foltz v. State Farm Mut.\n+Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). For each document or\n+other type of information a party seeks to file under seal, the party must identify\n+7.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+and discuss the factual and/or legal justification that establishes “good cause” or\n+“compelling reasons” for the document’s protection. Kamakana v. City and Cnty.\n+of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006).\n+(b) Redacted Version and Unredacted Version. Documents that\n+are not confidential or privileged in their entirety should not be filed under seal\n+if the confidential portions can be redacted and filed separately with a reasonable\n+amount of effort. The parties should file an unredacted version of the document\n+under seal, and a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the portions\n+that the Court has ordered may be filed under seal.\n+(c) Justification. Sealing must be justified for each individual item;\n+blanket claims of confidentiality will result in the application to seal being denied.\n+Counsel is strongly encouraged to consider carefully whether sealing or redaction\n+is required for a given piece of evidence or argument. An application to seal that\n+includes clearly meritless requests to seal or redact documents may be denied in its\n+entirety. The parties must also meet and confer before filing an application to seal.\n+D. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE FOR ENTIRE CIVIL CASE\n+The parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over the entire\n+civil case, including trial, rather than just discovery. One benefit to giving such\n+consent is that the parties almost always will be able to proceed to trial sooner than\n+on a District Court Judge’s calendar. Additionally, the parties are free to select\n+from among all Magistrate Judges available for this purpose, not just the Magistrate\n+Judge assigned to the parties’ case. The Magistrate Judges have experience and\n+expertise in a variety of areas, including patent and trademark litigation. If the\n+parties agree to consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, the parties should\n+consult the Central District website for the list of available Magistrate Judges and\n+should submit the appropriate consent form.\n+\\\\\\\n+\\\\\\\n+8.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+E. DISCOVERY\n+1. Magistrate Judge Referral for All Discovery Matters. All\n+discovery matters are referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. The\n+Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the Judge’s initials next to the case number. All\n+documents relating to discovery matters must include the words “DISCOVERY\n+MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing. Counsel should not deliver\n+chambers copies of discovery matters. Counsel must follow the Magistrate Judge’s\n+procedures for scheduling matters for hearing. These procedures are stated on each\n+Magistrate Judge’s webpage.\n+2. Limited District Court Review of Discovery Matters. The decision\n+of the Magistrate Judge on all discovery matters shall be final, subject to limited\n+review requiring a showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to\n+law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Any motion for review of a Magistrate Judge’s\n+decision must be noticed before the District Court Judge within fourteen (14) days\n+of service of the Magistrate Judge’s written ruling, or within fourteen (14) days of\n+an oral ruling that the Magistrate Judge states will not be followed by a written\n+ruling. The motion must specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous\n+or contrary to law, and the claim must be supported by points and authorities.\n+Counsel shall provide the Magistrate Judge chambers copies of the moving papers\n+and responses.\n+3. Timing of Discovery. Unless there is a likelihood that, upon motion\n+by a party, the court would order that discovery be stayed, the parties should begin\n+to propound discovery before the Scheduling Conference. The parties must comply\n+fully with the letter and spirit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and produce discovery\n+promptly. At the Scheduling Conference, the court will impose firm deadlines\n+governing the completion of discovery.\n+\\\\\\\n+\\\\\\\n+9.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+4. Discovery Protective Orders. Proposed protective orders for\n+discovery must be submitted to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Such orders should\n+not purport to allow, without further order of the Court, the filing under seal of\n+pleadings or documents filed in connection with a dispositive motion, a class\n+certification motion, or trial before the Court. The existence of a protective order\n+does not alone justify the filing of pleadings or other documents under seal, in\n+whole or in part.\n+F. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE\n+Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.16(b), the Court will issue an Order Setting\n+Scheduling Conference. The parties are required to strictly comply with Fed. R.\n+Civ. P. 16 and 26, as well as this Court’s Orders.\n+G. MOTIONS − GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL\n+MOTIONS\n+1. Local Rule 7-3 Pre-Filing Meet and Confer Requirement.\n+(a) Scope. The Court strictly enforces L.R 7-3, which requires\n+counsel to engage in a prefiling conference “to discuss thoroughly . . . the\n+substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” This\n+requirement applies in all cases, including those with Pro Se Litigants. This Court\n+requires parties through Counsel to meet and confer about any potentially disputed\n+matter (except those identified in L.R. 7-3 and 16-12) before presenting it to the\n+Court, including requests to continue any matter, applications to file under seal,\n+and other filings seeking a court order. The purpose of meeting and conferring\n+is to attempt to obviate the need for a motion and thus avoid unnecessary Court\n+intervention. If the parties are unable to fully resolve the dispute, they shall\n+attempt to narrow the scope of contested issues. Counsel must meet and confer\n+in good faith.\n+(b) Method. Parties must meet and confer either by videoconference\n+or in person. Email correspondence is insufficient.\n+10.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+(c) Compliance Statement Required. The moving party must\n+include in the signed notice of motion a truthful representation of full compliance\n+with L.R. 7-3, stating that the parties “thoroughly discussed the substance and\n+potential resolution of the filed motion [by videoconference or in person].”\n+(d) Non-Compliance. If an opposing party refuses to participate\n+in good faith, the moving party shall explain the refusal in detail. Failure by any\n+party to comply in good faith with the “meet and confer” requirement may result in\n+an order to show cause re: sanctions−including, as appropriate, striking or denying\n+the motion, deeming the motion unopposed, and/or awarding monetary sanctions.\n+2. Scheduling Motions Hearings. Motions must be filed in accordance\n+with L.R. 6 and 7. Judge Hsu hears civil motions on Fridays beginning at 1:30 p.m.\n+It is not necessary to clear a hearing date with the CRD before filing a motion.\n+Immediately before filing the motion, parties must check the closed motion dates\n+column located on the right side of Judge Hsu’s Procedures and Schedules Pages\n+on the Court’s website to make sure the hearing date has not been closed. The\n+close date column is typically updated on a weekly and sometimes daily basis.\n+If a motion is noticed for a date that is not available, the Court may strike or\n+reset the motion.\n+3. Briefing Schedule. To allow Chambers enough time to prepare, the\n+parties must adhere to the briefing schedule set forth in L.R. 7-9 and 7-10 for all\n+motions, except Rule 56 motions. For Rule 56 motions, the parties should review\n+and comply with Judge Hsu’s Standing Order for Motions for Summary Judgment,\n+which include joint briefing requirements. The parties’ Joint Brief must be filed no\n+later than six (6) weeks before the scheduled hearing date. In patent cases, the\n+parties should review and comply with Judge Hus’s Standing Order regarding\n+Patent Cases. When scheduling motion hearing dates, professional courtesy\n+dictates that the parties should accommodate each other’s schedules, including\n+vacation and holiday schedules, whenever possible.\n+11.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+4. Length and Format of Motion Papers. Memoranda of points and\n+authorities in support of or in opposition to motions (besides motions in limine)\n+shall not exceed 7,000 words. Replies shall not exceed 4,000 words. These page\n+counts include headings, footnotes, and quotations but exclude the caption, the\n+table of contents, the table of authorities, the signature block, the certification\n+required by L.R. 11-6.2, and any indices and exhibits. Only rarely and for good\n+cause shown will the Court grant an application to extend these word count\n+limitations. Pursuant to L.R. 11-3.1.1, either a proportionally spaced or\n+monospaced face may be used. Typeface shall comply with L.R. 11-3.1.1. Times\n+New Roman font must be no less than 14 point; Courier font must be no less than\n+12 point. Footnotes shall be in the same font and the same size as the body of the\n+memorandum. Counsel shall adhere to L.R. 5-4.3 with respect to the conversion\n+of all documents to .pdf format so that when a document is electronically filed,\n+it is in proper size and is .pdf searchable. Further, all documents shall be filed in\n+a format so that text can be selected, copied, and pasted directly from the\n+document. See L.R. 5-4.3.\n+5. Limitations on Briefing.\n+(a) Notice of Supplemental Authority. No supplemental briefs may\n+be filed without prior leave of court. Parties, however, may file a Notice of\n+Supplemental Authority after submitting their brief but before the Court has issued\n+a final decision to provide the Court with a recently decided case that is either\n+persuasive or controlling authority. The Notice of Supplemental Authority must\n+only contain the case(es) or citation(s) that the parties request that the Court\n+consider but shall not include any substantive arguments unless leave to do so\n+has been granted.\n+(b) Certificate of Compliance. A certificate of compliance is\n+required for every brief filed before this Court as set forth in Local Rule 11-6.2.\n+The certificate of compliance must contain a word count, which complies with\n+12.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+the above-mentioned word limitations discussed in Section G.4. Failure to\n+include the certification of compliance and/or word count may result in the motion\n+being stricken.\n+6. Citations to Authority. Statutes should be cited in accordance with\n+the Bluebook. Citations that support a statement in the main text must be included\n+in the main text, not in footnotes.\n+(a) Case Citations. Case citations must identify both the case cited\n+and the specific page referenced. Parties should not use string cites without a good\n+reason. When using string cites, a party should include a parenthetical explanation\n+for each cited case. When citing to legal databases (which is not encouraged), cite\n+to Westlaw whenever possible.\n+(b) Statutory References. Statutory references should identify with\n+specificity the sections and subsections referenced. Citations should be to the\n+relevant official statutory code (e.g., the U.S. Code) and should not merely\n+reference the popular name of an act.\n+(c) Citations to Other Sources. Citations to treatises, manuals,\n+and other materials should include the volume, section, and relevant pages. Attach\n+copies if these materials are not accessible on Westlaw, especially for historical\n+materials (e.g., older legislative history).\n+H. MOTIONS − SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Many\n+motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good faith as\n+required by L.R. 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or\n+counterclaim that can be corrected by amendment. See Polich v. Burlington\n+N., Inc., 942 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that where a motion to\n+dismiss is granted, a district court should grant leave to amend unless it is clear\n+the complaint cannot be saved by amendment). Moreover, a party has the right to\n+amend the complaint “once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive\n+13.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Even after a complaint has been\n+amended or a responsive pleading has been served, the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure provide that leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so\n+requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit requires that this policy\n+favoring amendment be applied with “extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of\n+Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Consequently,\n+parties should carefully consider and weigh an opponent’s contentions as to the\n+deficiencies in a pleading to determine if an amendment would cure the defects.\n+The moving party, in turn, should agree to any amendment that would cure the\n+defect.\n+2. Motions to Amend. In addition to the requirements of L.R. 15-1,\n+all motions to amend pleadings shall: (1) state the effect of the amendment; (2) be\n+serially numbered to differentiate the amendment from previous amendments;\n+and (3) state the page and line number(s) and wording of any proposed change\n+or addition of material. Counsel shall electronically file a “Notice of Lodging”\n+attaching the proposed amended pleading as a document separate from the motion,\n+as well as a “redlined” version of the proposed amended pleading identifying all\n+additions and deletions of material as an appendix to the moving papers.\n+3. Motions and Stipulations to Continue. Continuances are granted\n+only on a showing of good cause. Requests for continuances must be made before\n+the date to be continued and by motion or stipulation, along with a proposed order.\n+Motions and stipulations must be accompanied by a detailed declaration setting\n+forth the specific reasons for the requested continuance and the precise deadline(s)\n+the parties propose. A stipulation that fails to list the precise date(s) the parties wish\n+to move, and the new date(s) they propose, will be denied for failure to comply with\n+this Standing Order. For example, if the stipulation improperly proposes that all\n+deadlines be moved by “60 days” without specifying the proposed new dates that\n+would result from that requested continuance, the Court will deny the request. The\n+14.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+declaration also should state whether there have been any previous requests for\n+continuances; whether these requests were granted or denied by the Court; what\n+efforts were made to meet the existing deadline; and what, if any, prejudice would\n+result if the request is denied. Stipulations extending dates set by this Court are not\n+effective unless approved by the Court. Continuances will not be granted routinely.\n+4. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine shall be noticed for hearing\n+on the Final Pretrial Conference Date.\n+5. Daubert Motions. Daubert motions shall be noticed for hearing\n+not later than eight (8) weeks before the Final Pretrial Conference date.\n+6. Motions for Class Certification. If this action is a putative class\n+action, the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that\n+the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. This Court requires\n+an extended briefing schedule for motions for class certification. Parties are\n+advised to refer to the Court’s Order Setting Scheduling Conference for\n+additional guidance as to filing and timing of motions for class certification.\n+7. Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56\n+(Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication Motions). For the requirements\n+specific to Rule 56 motions, the parties shall refer to the Court’s Standing Order\n+for Motions for Summary Judgment located on the Court’s website\n+(https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable−wesley−l−hsu). The parties are\n+expected to comply with all the Court’s requirements.\n+8. Motions for Attorneys’ Fees. Motions for attorneys’ fees shall be\n+electronically filed and set for hearing according to L.R. 6-1 and this Order. Any\n+motion or request for attorneys’ fees shall attach two summaries, in table form,\n+of the hours worked by and billing rate of each attorney with title (e.g., partner,\n+counsel, associate, etc.). The first table shall include a summary of the hours\n+worked by each attorney, organized by task (e.g., discovery, motion to dismiss,\n+motion for summary judgment). The second table shall include a summary of\n+15.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+the hours worked by each attorney, organized by attorney. Both tables shall list\n+all the tasks on which the attorney worked, the hours worked on each task, and the\n+hourly rate of each attorney. If the hourly rate charged by any individual attorney\n+changed while the action was ongoing, the party shall provide separate calculations\n+for the total number of hours the attorney spent in connection with each task at\n+each hourly rate. All tables shall be attached to the motion and electronically filed.\n+The courtesy copies of the tables shall be prepared in Excel, have all restrictions\n+removed so the spreadsheets can be edited, and be emailed to the Court’s chambers\n+email address at WLH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+9. PLRA Exhaustion Motions. The issue of exhaustion under the\n+Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) must be raised at the beginning of the\n+litigation. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). A party seeking to\n+obtain a judicial determination of any material fact dispute precluding summary\n+judgment on the exhaustion issue must file before this Court a request for a hearing\n+within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the order denying summary judgment.\n+The failure to file a timely request may be construed as a waiver of the exhaustion\n+issue.\n+I. HEARINGS\n+1. Oral Argument Time Limits. If oral argument is permitted, the\n+parties will have a ten (10) minutes each for oral argument, unless the Court\n+states otherwise. If the Court believes that the matter warrants less or more time,\n+it will advise counsel at the hearing.\n+2. Submission Without Oral Argument. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78\n+and L.R. 7-15, the Court may deem a matter appropriate for decision without oral\n+argument. If, however, a written request for oral argument is filed by any side\n+before a ruling, stating that a lawyer of five or fewer years out of law school will\n+conduct the oral argument or at least the lion’s share, then the Court will hear oral\n+argument, believing that young lawyers need more opportunities for appearances\n+16.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+than they usually receive. Such a request must be submitted at least two weeks\n+prior to the scheduled hearing via separate docket entry.\n+3. Remote Appearances. Remote appearances are disfavored absent\n+good cause shown in a declaration concurrently filed with the moving papers or\n+the opposition.\n+4. Telephonic Hearings. The Court seldom permits telephonic\n+appearances. The Court strongly prefers counsel to appear in person for motion\n+hearings and pretrial and settlement conferences. If exceptional circumstances\n+exist, counsel may file an application to appear telephonically detailing such\n+circumstance.\n+5. Settlement. Counsel must notify the Court at least two (2) weeks\n+before the scheduled hearing if the parties are conducting settlement discussions\n+that may render the motion moot and must notify the Court immediately if a\n+settlement is reached. A belated notice of settlement wastes scarce judicial\n+resources.\n+J. EX PARTE APPLICATIONS (INCLUDING TEMPORARY\n+RESTRAINING ORDERS AND APPLICATIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE\n+RELIEF)\n+The Court considers ex parte applications on the papers and does not usually\n+set these matters for hearing. If a hearing is necessary, the parties will be notified.\n+Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and should be used with\n+discretion. See Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883\n+F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Any party seeking ex parte relief, including\n+temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65,\n+must comply with L.R. 7-19 (and L.R. 65 for temporary restraining orders and\n+preliminary injunctions). The moving party must also serve the opposing party\n+by email, fax, or personal service, and notify that party that opposing papers must\n+be filed not later than forty-eight (48) hours following service or by 3:00 p.m. on\n+17.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+the first court day after the service, whichever is later. The opposing party should\n+advise the CRD as soon as possible whether it intends to oppose the ex parte\n+application. The application will not be considered until a Mandatory Chambers\n+Copy has been provided. Reply briefs in support of ex parte applications are not\n+permitted. The parties must provide chambers copies of TRO-related documents\n+on the same day they are filed. The Court generally will not rule on any application\n+for such relief for at least forty-eight (48) hours (or two (2) court days) after the\n+party subject to the requested order has been served unless service is excused or\n+unless the interests of justice so require. The parties should not assume that an\n+unopposed ex parte application will be granted; and a last-minute application\n+(or stipulation) that is denied will not serve to relieve a party of an underlying\n+obligation (e.g., a soon-to-expire deadline).\n+K. USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN PROCEEDINGS IN\n+THIS COURT\n+1. Generally. The Court is aware of technological developments\n+regarding artificial intelligence and the impacts on litigation. The use of\n+generative AI (hereafter referred to as “AI”), which can create unique content at a\n+user’s prompting, is of particular relevance for federal practice. The use of AI tools\n+is not prohibited in this Court, but counsel and parties are cautioned that unqualified\n+reliance on AI-generated content can result in filings that rely on misrepresentations\n+and hallucinated, nonexistent caselaw.\n+2. Applicability. Provisions herein providing restrictions on the use of\n+AI in this Court do not apply to tasks unrelated or only tangentially related to the\n+practice of law, or to tasks not involved in the creation of text for submission to this\n+court, unless expressly stated otherwise. These provisions are to be reasonably\n+construed and applied as AI technology continues to develop.\n+3. AI and Case Management. Parties are encouraged to raise AI-related\n+issues and proposals at case management conferences.\n+18.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+4. State and American Bar Association Guidelines. Counsel are\n+expected to abide by the California State Bar’s guidance on the use of AI and\n+should also conduct themselves in accordance with the ABA’s Resolution 604\n+(2023) regarding accountability for the use of AI.\n+5. Rule 11 Obligation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 imposes a duty on counsel to\n+certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and determined that any\n+papers filed with this court are well-grounded in fact and legally tenable. All\n+generative AI outputs must be reviewed for accuracy, but counsel must do more\n+than simply detect and eliminate false AI-generated results to practice due diligence.\n+Professional judgment cannot be delegated to an AI tool. Counsel alone bears\n+responsibility for all statements made in filings. Failure to exercise due care in\n+reviewing and filing any work product created with the assistance of AI tools may\n+violate Rule 11 and subject the filer to sanctions.\n+6. Required Certification of Filings. Any filing prepared using AI\n+should indicate as such on its caption title. Any party who uses AI to generate any\n+portion of a filing, must attach to that filing a separate declaration that, in a clear\n+and plain factual statement: (1) discloses the use of AI, (2) certifies that the filer has\n+reviewed the source material and verified the accuracy of all content and each\n+citation in the filing and (3) specifies which portions of the filing were prepared\n+using AI. Such certifications should be made by a litigant’s lead counsel.\n+7. Retention of Records. Counsel is responsible for maintaining records\n+of all prompts of inquiries submitted to any AI tools. Counsel is also responsible\n+for maintaining records sufficient to identify which portions of filings submitted\n+were prepared using an AI tool.\n+8. Discovery. As AI tools become more widely adopted, this Court\n+recognizes that AI-generated documents may become evidence or exhibits in\n+litigation or be the subject of factual disputes. Accordingly, parties must disclose\n+and produce AI-generated evidentiary material during discovery. Counsel shall\n+19.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+serve a notice identifying any AI-generated material introduced as evidence, with\n+sufficient specificity to locate such material by Bates number. AI-generated\n+material introduced without this accompanying notice will not be considered. At\n+the time of submitting any AI-generated evidentiary material to the Court, parties\n+must file and serve declarations to address each materials’ authenticity as required\n+under the Federal Rules of Evidence.\n+9. Restrictions on Uploading of Discovery to Public Generative AI\n+Systems. Parties shall refrain from uploading discovery received from the other side\n+to public generative AI systems. This prohibition does not extend to uploads to\n+enterprise or closed/private AI systems.\n+10. Confidentiality. The owners of any AI tool may have access to\n+information, prompts, and inquiries entered. Thus, counsel and parties must\n+maintain confidentiality with privileged information when using any AI tool,\n+including complying with protective orders. Counsel must also anonymize any\n+client information in any prompts to an AI tool and maintain records sufficient to\n+establish their compliance with the confidentiality provisions of this order.\n+11. Arbitration. Any arbitrator presiding over an action referred from\n+this Court may not delegate any part of their work to an AI tool. Such arbitrators\n+may not rely on information generated by an AI tool outside of the factual records.\n+Arbitrators remain responsible for all aspects of an award, regardless of any\n+potential use of any AI tool in decision making.\n+L. CLASS ACTION\n+1. Generally. If this action is a putative class action, the parties are\n+to act diligently and begin discovery immediately so that the motion for class\n+certification can be filed expeditiously. A motion for class certification must be\n+filed not later than one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date initially set\n+for the scheduling conference, unless the Court orders otherwise.\n+\\\\\\\\\n+20.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+2. Preliminary Approval. In any motion for preliminary approval of a\n+class actions settlement, the parties should address the settlement administrator’s\n+procedures for securely handling class member data (including technical,\n+administrative, and physical controls; retention; destruction; audits; crisis response;\n+etc.), the settlement administrator’s acceptance of responsibility and maintenance\n+of insurance in case of errors, the anticipated administrative costs, the\n+reasonableness of those costs in relation to the value of the settlement and who will\n+pay the costs. The motion must also address the following:\n+3. Fraud Prevention in Settlement Fund. The Court is aware of the\n+increasing incidence of fraudulent claims in class action settlements. Accordingly,\n+the parties should consider retaining experienced claims administrators that\n+incorporate fraud prevention and detection systems. The parties must include a\n+claims administrator’s fraud prevention measures in any motion for preliminary\n+approval to allow the Court to evaluate their adequacy. Parties should make sure\n+the settlement agreement allows the claims administrator with sufficient authority\n+and time to implement such procedures, including, where appropriate, the ability\n+to request supplemental information or documentation from class members and to\n+employ verification techniques.\n+4. Notice Distribution Plan. The parties should explain how the notice\n+distribution plan is effective. Class counsel should consider different methods to\n+enhance notice to class members, including identifying potential class members\n+through third-party data sources; using text messaging and social media; retaining a\n+marketing specialist; creating a settlement website that allows class members to\n+estimate their claims amounts and is periodically updated to reflect accurate claim\n+amounts based on participation; and offering direct deposit for distributions. The\n+parties should also evaluate whether notice by mail, email, and/or social media is\n+appropriate to provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances,\n+consistent with Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover,\n+21.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+the parties should consider whether claims and opt-out forms may be filed online\n+and whether maintaining a settlement website is appropriate. If any of these\n+measures are not implemented, the parties should be prepared to explain why.\n+Finally, the notice plan should address whether a significant portion of the class\n+has limited English proficiency and, if so, whether notice should be provided in\n+additional languages.\n+M. OTHER MATTERS\n+1. ERISA Cases (Benefits Claims). The Court will hear motions to\n+determine the standard of review, whether discovery will be permitted, and the\n+scope of the administrative record. Counsel are discouraged from filing motions\n+for summary judgment or partial summary judgment on any other issue. If they\n+choose to do so, they must distinguish Kearney v. Standard Insurance Co.,\n+175 F.3d 1084, 1093-95 (9th Cir. 1999) in the moving papers and explain why\n+summary judgment is not precluded. The parties may receive a scheduling\n+conference order as a matter of course. Because the ordinary pretrial and trial\n+schedule does not apply to these ERISA cases, the parties need only submit a\n+joint status report identifying any special issues that should be considered.\n+The parties should proceed with the preparation of the administrative record\n+and briefing without delay upon service of the complaint. A court trial, ordinarily\n+limited to oral argument on the administrative record, will be scheduled within\n+six (6) months from the filing of the original complaint, unless good cause for\n+additional time is shown in the status report. If the Court concludes that the\n+decision would not benefit from oral argument, the matter may be submitted for\n+decision on the papers.\n+2. Bankruptcy Appeals. Counsel must comply with the Notice\n+Regarding Appeal from Bankruptcy Court issued at the time the appeal is filed\n+in the district court. The matter is deemed under submission on the filing of the\n+appellant’s reply brief. The Court considers bankruptcy appeals on the papers and\n+22.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+usually does not set these matters for hearing.\n+N. CONSEQUENCES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER\n+If, without satisfactory explanation, counsel fail to file the required Joint Rule\n+26(f) Report or the required pretrial documents, fail to appear at any scheduled\n+proceeding, or otherwise fail to comply with the Court’s Orders or rules, the\n+Court shall take any action it deems appropriate, including: (i) dismissal of the case\n+for failure to prosecute, if the failure occurs on the part of the plaintiff; (ii) striking\n+the answer resulting in default if such failure occurs on the part of the defendant;\n+and/or (iii) imposing monetary sanctions against the offending party and counsel.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: June 25, 2026\n+______________________________________\n+HON. WESLEY L. HSU\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+23.","id":"57a312a856bfab2f8da2df50d1239ef873a3512674be16bb59ac1b223be7a85b","newHash":"64f13c905b22edd230621af6a2fc15149028da4a1dc519c9481b38d45c775585","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/4f65396c-ed46-4536-7330-08dee8d9116a","snapshot":"snapshots/64f13c905b22edd230621af6a2fc15149028da4a1dc519c9481b38d45c775585.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/4f65396c-ed46-4536-7330-08dee8d9116a","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:21.548102+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,840 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+,\n+Plaintiff(s),\n+v.\n+,\n+Defendant(s).\n+Case No.\n+STANDING ORDER REGARDING\n+NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES\n+READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THIS CASE.\n+This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Michelle Williams Court.\n+The responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts falls not only upon\n+the attorneys in the action, but upon the Court as well. “To secure the just, speedy, and\n+inexpensive determination of every action,” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“ Fed. R.\n+Civ. P.”) 1, all parties or their counsel are hereby ordered to familiarize themselves with\n+the Fed. R. Civ. P., particularly Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26, the Local R ules of the Central\n+District of California, and this Court’s Orders.\n+//\n+//\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+2\n+UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE FOLLOWING\n+RULES SHALL APPLY:\n+1. Use of Artificial Intelligence\n+Lawyers and pro se litigants who use technology like ChatGPT, Google Bard,\n+Bing AI Chat, or other generative artificial intelligence services to prepare documents\n+that the parties file in the record in this case are cautioned that generative AI\n+technologies sometimes may produce factually or legally inaccurate content. Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) requires that all parties who present papers to the Court\n+certify “that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after\n+an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” the factual and legal contentions are\n+“warranted,” “nonfrivolous,” and “have evidentiary support.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\n+11(b)(2)–(3).\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+1. Use of Artificial Intelligence ............................................................................. 2\n+a. Declaration Certifying Use or Non-Use of Artificial Intelligence ............ 3\n+2. Civility ............................................................................................................... 3\n+3. Service of the Complaint. .................................................................................. 4\n+4. Removed Actions. .............................................................................................. 4\n+5. Presence of Lead Counsel. ................................................................................. 4\n+6. Filing. ................................................................................................................. 5\n+7. Discovery. .......................................................................................................... 5\n+8. Motions - General Requirements ....................................................................... 6\n+9. Specific Motion Requirements .......................................................................... 9\n+10. Proposed Orders. .......................................................................................... 12\n+11. Chambers Copies. ......................................................................................... 12\n+12. Telephonic Hearings. .................................................................................... 12\n+13. Ex Parte Applications. ................................................................................. 13\n+14. TROs and Injunctions. .................................................................................. 13\n+15. Continuances. ............................................................................................... 13\n+16. Communications with Chambers. ................................................................ 14\n+17. Order Setting Scheduling Conference. ......................................................... 14\n+18. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ....................................................... 15\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+3\n+a. Declaration Certifying Use or Non-Use of Artificial Intelligence\n+Every motion, pleading, or other paper must attach to the filing a separate\n+declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, disclosing the use or non-use of generative\n+Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) (e.g., Claude, ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google\n+Board). The preparer of the filing must certify that either (a) no portion of the filing\n+was drafted by AI, or that (b) AI was used in drafting a portion of the filing, and that\n+the filer has reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially gene rated\n+content is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations. The declaration\n+must identify which, if any, portion of the filing incorporates Generative AI outputs.\n+The Court warns that a party who presents to the Court a pleading, written motion, or\n+other paper incorporating inaccurate or undeclared Generative AI outputs may be\n+subject to sanctions, including referral to the State Bar, without further warning. See\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). Failure to submit a declaration attesting to the us e or non-\n+use of AI may result in the Court striking the filing.\n+2. Civility\n+All counsel1 who appear in this action must immediately review and comply with\n+the Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, which can be found on the Court’s website\n+at https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-professionalism-\n+guidelines. The Court expects everyone in the courtroom to treat each other with dignity\n+and respect. At a minimum, the Court expects the following from counsel: (1)\n+punctuality and preparation for all court appearances; (2) civility and respect in all oral\n+and written communications with the Court other parties; (3) civility and respect to court\n+personnel, including the courtroom deputy, court reporters, law clerks, and marshals;\n+(4) refraining from interrupting any person in the courtroom when that person is\n+speaking; (5) refraining from making gestures, facial expressions, or audible comments\n+indicating approval or disapproval of testimony or argument; and (6) consideration of\n+1 All references to “counsel” or “lawyers” in this Standing Order includes parties appearing pro se.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+4\n+the time constraints and pressures on the Court and court staff inherent in their efforts\n+to administer justice.\n+3. Service of the Complaint.\n+The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R.\n+Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to the Local Rules. Any Defendant(s)\n+not timely served shall be dismissed from the action without prejudice. Any “DOE” or\n+fictitiously-named Defendant(s) who is not identified and served within 90 days after\n+the case is filed shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).\n+4. Removed Actions.\n+Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to\n+the Notice of Removal. Upon removing the action to federal court, and within seven\n+(7) days after the case is assigned to this Court, Defendant must submit a complete copy\n+of the Superior Court action’s docket sheet that details every state court filing and action\n+that took place prior to removal. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance\n+with the Local Rules. If an action removed to this Court contains a form pleading (i.e.,\n+a pleading in which boxes are checked), the party or parties utilizing the form pleading\n+must file an appropriate pleading with this Court within thirty (30) days of receipt of\n+the Notice of Removal. The appropriate pleading referred to must comply with the\n+requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 7.1, 8, 9, 10 and 11.\n+5. Presence of Lead Counsel.\n+The attorney attending any proceeding before this Court, including all status and\n+settlement conferences, must be the lead trial counsel. All requests to substitute another\n+attorney in place of lead counsel must be filed at least seven (7) days prior to the Court\n+proceeding.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+5\n+6. Filing.\n+The Court’s CM/ECF system is available 24/7 for electronic filing of documents.\n+Parties may register for access to PACER. For more information, please visit the\n+Court’s website.2\n+Unrepresented litigants who cannot electronically file their documents in the\n+CM/ECF system may mail their filings to the Clerk of Court at 255 E. Temple Street,\n+Suite TS-134, Los Angeles, CA 90012-3332 or submit documents for filing through the\n+Court’s E lectronic Document Submission System (EDSS). 3 For additional filing\n+information, please visit the Court’s website, and click on the heading “People without\n+Lawyers” to answer further questions.4\n+Attorneys who are required to manually file documents pursuant to the Local\n+Rules must mail their filings to the Clerk of Court at the above address.\n+Non-paper physical exhibits exempted from electronic filing shall be sent via\n+U.S. Mail or other commercial delivery to the Clerk of Court at the above address.\n+7. Discovery.\n+Counsel are advised to actively begin discovery before the Scheduling\n+Conference. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate\n+Judge to hear all discovery disputes. (The Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the Judge’s\n+initials next to the case number.) All documents must include the words “DISCOVERY\n+MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing. Counsel are directed to contact the\n+Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy Clerk to schedule matters for hearing.\n+The decision of the Magistrate Judge shall be final, subject to modification by the\n+2 See NextGen CM/ECF, Central District of California, https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/e -\n+filing/nextgen-cmecf.\n+3 For more information, please refer to the Court’s webpage designated for Electronic Document\n+Submission System for People Without Lawyers, located at https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/edss.\n+4 See People Without Lawyers: Resources for Pro Se Litigants in the Central District of California,\n+https://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+6\n+District Court Judge only where it has been shown that the Magistrate Judge ’s order is\n+clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Any party may file and serve a motion for review\n+and reconsideration before this Court. The moving party must file and serve the motion\n+within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling or within fourteen (14) days of\n+an oral ruling that the Magistrate Judge states will not be followed by a written ruling.\n+The motion must specify which portions of the text are clearly erroneous or contrary to\n+law, and the claim must be supported by points and authorities. Counsel shall provide\n+the Magistrate Judge with chambers copies of the moving papers and responses\n+consistent with the corresponding judge’s procedures.\n+8. Motions - General Requirements\n+a. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions : Motions shall be filed in\n+accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. This Court only hears motions on Fridays, 5\n+beginning at 1:30 p.m. If the motion date selected is not available, the Court will\n+continue the hearing to the next available date on the Court’s calendar. (Counsel are\n+advised to check the availability of a selected date immediately prior to filing the\n+motion.) Opposition or reply papers due on a holiday must be filed the preceding\n+business day (i.e., Thursday)—not the following business day (i.e., Monday)—and must\n+be hand- delivered or emailed to opposing counsel on the preceding business day.\n+Professional courtesy dictates that moving parties should, whenever possible, avoid\n+filing motions for which opposition papers will be due the Thursday preceding a\n+holiday. Such a filing is likely to cause a requested continuance to be granted.\n+Adherence to the timing requirements is mandatory for chambers’\n+preparation of motion matters.\n+b. Pre-filing Requirement: Counsel must comply with Local Rule 7-3,\n+which requires counsel to engage in a pre -filing conference “to discuss\n+5 Please refer to the Court’s “Motion Calendar” table on the right -hand side of the Court’s webpage,\n+located at: https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable -michelle-williams-court. If a civil calendar\n+date is not “Closed,” then it is open and the parties may select that date for hearing on a civil motion.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+7\n+thoroughly . . . the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.”\n+Counsel should discuss the issues to a sufficient degree that if a motion is still necessary,\n+the briefing may be directed to those substantive issues requiring resolution by the\n+Court. Counsel should resolve minor procedural or other non- substantive matters\n+during the conference. The pro se status of one or more parties does not negate this\n+requirement. The parties are further advised that email correspondence alone is\n+insufficient to satisfy this requirement. If the parties do not comply with Local Rule\n+7-3, the Court may strike or deny the motion.\n+c. Length and Format of Motion Papers : Memoranda of points and\n+authorities in support of or in opposition to motions shall not exceed 25 pages. Replies\n+shall not exceed 12 pages. Only in rare instances and for good cause shown will the\n+Court grant an application to extend these page limitations. Pursuant to the Local Rules,\n+either a proportionally spaced or monospaced font may be used. A proportionally\n+spaced face must be 14 -point or larger, or as the Court may otherwise order. A\n+monospaced face may not contain more than 101⁄2 characters per inch. These typeface\n+requirements apply to footnoted material. Counsel shall adhere to Local Rule 5- 4.3\n+with respect to the conversion of all documents to PDF format so that when a document\n+is electronically filed, it is in proper size and is text-searchable. Further, all documents\n+shall be filed in a format so that text can be selected, copied, and pasted directly from\n+the document. See C.D. Cal. Local Rule 5-4.3.1. Failure to comply with formatting\n+requirements may result in the Court striking the motion.\n+d. Documents with Declarations, Exhibits, and Other Attachments: If\n+a filed or lodged document has declarations, exhibits, or other attachments, each of these\n+must be filed as a separately docketed attachment to the main docket entry with a\n+description of the attachment (e.g., Dkt. 29-1 Smith Declaration).\n+e. Citations to Case Law: Citations to case law must identify not only\n+the case cited, but the specific page referenced. Citations to cases must be in Bluebook\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+8\n+format. Counsel may omit parallel citations. For unreported cases, the Court prefers\n+Westlaw citations.\n+f. Citations to Other Sources : Statutory references should identify\n+with specificity the sections and subsections referenced ( e.g., “Jurisdiction over this\n+cause of action may appropriately be found in 47 U.S.C. § 33, which grants the district\n+court jurisdiction over all offenses of the Submarine Cable Act, whether the infraction\n+occurred within the territorial waters of the United Stat es or on board a vessel of the\n+United States outside said waters.” ). Statutory references that do not specifically\n+indicate the appropriate section and subsection (e.g., “Plaintiffs allege conduct in\n+violation of the Federal Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, et\n+seq.”) are to be avoided. Citations to treatises, manuals, and other materials should\n+include the volume, section, and pages being referenced.\n+g. Oral Argument: The Court strongly prefers in-person appearances.\n+Requests for a remote appearance will only be considered upon a written application\n+filed at least seven (7) days before the hearing and supported by an appropriate\n+declaration establishing good cause. The Court typically disfavors holding hearings on\n+civil motions. If the Court requires oral argument, counsel are allocated ten (10)\n+minutes per side total, including time for rebuttal arguments. If the Court deems a\n+matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court will notify the parties\n+at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance.\n+The Court encourages parties to permit less experienced lawyers, including\n+lawyers from historically under- represented groups, to actively participate in the\n+proceedings by presenting argument at motion hearings or examining witnesses at trial.\n+The Court is more likely to hear oral argument if any party files a notice at least seven\n+(7) days before a scheduled hearing stating that junior counsel, including lawyers from\n+historically under-represented groups, will conduct the argument, or most of it.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+9\n+9. Specific Motion Requirements\n+h. Declaration Certifying Artificial Intelligence Use or Non- Use: All\n+motions require attaching a separate declaration, adhering to the requirements in Section\n+1(a) of this Court’s Standing Order, certifying the filer’s use or non -use of generative\n+AI in preparing the filing. The Court may strike any filing that does not comply with\n+this requirement.\n+i. Motions Pursuant to Rule 12: Many motions to dismiss or to strike\n+can be avoided if the parties confer in good faith (as required under Local Rule 7- 3),\n+especially for perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that could be\n+corrected by amendment. See Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996)\n+(where a motion to dismiss is granted, a district court should provide leave to amend\n+unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment). Moreover,\n+a party has the right to amend the complaint once as a matter of course within\n+twenty-one (21) days of serving it or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive\n+pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after\n+service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is greater.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\n+15(a)(1). Even after a complaint has been amended or the time for amending it as a\n+matter of course has run, the Federal Rules provide that leave to amend should be\n+“freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit\n+requires that this policy favoring amendment be applied with “extreme liberality.”\n+Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). These\n+principles require that plaintiff’s counsel carefully evaluate defendant’s contentions as\n+to the deficiencies in the complaint. In most instances the moving party should agree\n+to any amendment that would cure the defect.\n+j. Motions to Amend: In addition to the requirements of Local Rule\n+15-1, all motions to amend pleadings shall: (1) state the effect of the amendment; (2) be\n+serially numbered to differentiate the amendment from previous amendments; (3) state\n+the page and line number(s) and wording of any proposed change or addition of\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+10\n+material; and (4) include as an attachment a “redlined” version of the proposed amended\n+pleading indicating all additions and deletions of material.\n+k. Summary Judgment Motions: Parties need not wait until the motion\n+cutoff to bring motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. Moreover,\n+the court expects that the party moving for summary judgment will strictly observe the\n+timing requirements of the Local Rules and this Standing Order. A motion under Rule\n+56 must be filed at least forty -nine (49) days prior to the date on which the motion is\n+noticed for hearing. The opposition is due not later than twenty- one (21) days before\n+the date designated for the hearing of the motion, and the reply not later than fourteen\n+(14) days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion. Because summary\n+judgment motions are fact -dependent, parties should prepare papers in a fashion that\n+will assist the court in absorbing the mass of facts (e.g., generous use of tabs, tables of\n+contents, headings, indices). The parties are to comply precisely with Local Rule 56-1\n+through 56-4. No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56,\n+regardless of whether such motion is denominated as a motion for summary judgment\n+or summary adjudication, without leave from the Court.\n+i. Statement of Undisputed Facts and Statement of Genuine Issues:\n+The separate statement of undisputed facts shall be prepared in a two- column\n+format. The left-hand column sets forth the allegedly undisputed fact. The right -hand\n+column sets forth the evidence that supports the factual statement. The factual\n+statements should be set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph\n+should contain a narrowly focused statement of fact. Each numbered paragraph should\n+address a single subject as concisely as possible.\n+The opposing party’s statement of genuine issues must be in two columns and\n+track the movant’s separate statement exactly as prepared. The left-hand column must\n+restate the allegedly undisputed fact, and the right-hand column must state either that it\n+is undisputed or disputed. The opposing party may dispute all or only a portion of the\n+statement, but if disputing only a portion, it must clearly indicate which part is being\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+11\n+disputed, followed by the opposing party’s evidence controverting the fact. The court\n+will not wade through a document to determine whether a fact really is in dispute. To\n+demonstrate that a fact is disputed, the opposing party must briefly state why it disputes\n+the moving party’s asserted fact, cite to the relevant exhibit or other piece of evidence,\n+and describe what it is in that exhibit or evidence that refutes the asserted fact. No legal\n+argument should be set forth in this document.\n+The opposing party may submit additional material facts that bear on or relate to\n+the issues raised by the movant, which shall follow the format described above for the\n+moving party’s separate statement. These additional facts shall continue in sequentially\n+numbered paragraphs and shall set forth in the right -hand column the evidence that\n+supports that statement. For example, if the movant’s separate statement of undisputed\n+facts continues from Fact Number 1 until Fact Number 100, then the opposing party’s\n+additional material facts should begin at Fact Number 101.\n+ii. Supporting Evidence: No party shall submit evidence other than the\n+specific items of evidence or testimony necessary to support or controvert a proposed\n+statement of undisputed fact. For example, entire deposition transcripts, entire sets of\n+interrogatory responses, and documents that do not specifically support or controvert\n+material in the separate statement shall not be submitted in support of opposition to a\n+motion for summary judgment. The court will not consider such material. Evidence\n+submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion should be submitted either by way\n+of stipulation or as exhibits to declarations sufficient to authenticate the proffered\n+evidence, and should not be attached to the memorandum of points and authorities. The\n+court will accept counsel’s authentication of deposition transcripts, written discovery\n+responses and the receipt of documents in discovery if the fact that the document was\n+in the opponent’s possession is of independent significance. Documentary evidence as\n+to which there is no stipulation regarding foundation must be accompanied by the\n+testimony, either by declaration or properly authenticated deposition transcript, of a\n+witness who can establish authenticity.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+12\n+iii. Objections to Evidence: If a party disputes a fact based in whole or\n+in part on an evidentiary objection, the ground of the objection, as indicated above,\n+should be stated in a separate statement but not argued in that document. For instance,\n+a party asserting an evidentiary objection in a separate statement may provide\n+“Objection: [Basis for Objection],” e.g., “Objection: Hearsay.” Both the grounds and\n+legal argument underlying the evidentiary objection shall be contained in a separate\n+filing.\n+10. Proposed Orders.\n+Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter\n+shall serve, and electronically lodge, a proposed order setting forth the relief or action\n+sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations.\n+Proposed Orders must be on pleading paper and must not include attorney information\n+on the caption page, should not contain a footer with the document name or other\n+information, and should not contain a watermark or designation of the firm name in the\n+margin. In addition, a copy of the proposed order in Word format shall be emailed\n+directly to the Court’s chambers email address at MWC_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+on the date the document is electronically filed. If the proposed order is based on a\n+stipulation or an ex parte application, counsel must email both the order and the\n+stipulation or ex parte application. Otherwise, accompanying documents (such as\n+motions) should not be emailed to chambers.\n+11. Chambers Copies.\n+Please do not provide chambers/courtesy copies. In the rare instance in which\n+the Court would like chambers copies for a particular situation, the Court will issue an\n+order requesting them.\n+12. Telephonic Hearings.\n+The Court does not permit appearances or arguments by way of telephone\n+conference calls.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+13\n+13. Ex Parte Applications.\n+The Court considers ex parte applications on the papers and does not usually set\n+these matters for hearing. If a hearing is necessary, the parties will be notified. Ex parte\n+applications are solely for extraordinary relief, are rarely granted, and should be used\n+with discretion. Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of ex parte applications. See\n+Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Ex\n+parte applications that fail to conform to Local Rule 7-19 will not be considered, except\n+on a specific showing of good cause.\n+Counsel for the applicant must provide advance notice of the application by\n+telephone and email to all other parties. In addition to the information required by Local\n+Rule 7 -19.1, the notice must advise the other parties of the anticipated deadline to\n+oppose the application. The applicant must serve the application by facsimile, email,\n+or personal service, even if electronic service is effected under Local Rule 5- 3.2.1.\n+Oppositions to ex parte applications must be filed within 24 hours of the filing of t he\n+application, subject to Rule 6(a)(2). If an opposing party does not intend to oppose the\n+ex parte application, counsel must inform the Courtroom Deputy Clerk by email as soon\n+as possible.\n+14. TROs and Injunctions.\n+Parties seeking emergency or provisional relief shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.\n+65 and Local Rule 65. The Court will not rule on any application for such relief for at\n+least twenty-four hours after the party subject to the requested order has been served,\n+unless service is excused. Such party may file opposing or responding papers in the\n+interim.\n+15. Continuances.\n+This Court has a strong interest in keeping scheduled dates certain. Changes in\n+dates are strongly disfavored and rarely granted. Trial dates set by the Court are firm\n+and will rarely be changed. Therefore, a stipulation to continue the date of any matter\n+before this Court must be supported by a sufficient basis that demonstrates good cause\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+14\n+why the change in the date is essential. Without such compelling factual support,\n+stipulations continuing dates set by this Court will not be approved. Counsel requesting\n+a continuance must lodge a proposed stipulation and order including a detailed\n+declaration of the grounds for the requested continuance or extension of time. The\n+requesting party must also set forth: (1) whether there have been prior requests for\n+extension, (2) whether these requests were granted by the Court, (3) a description of the\n+diligence of the party seeking the continuance, and (4) any prejudice that may result if\n+the continuance is denied . Failure to comply with the Local Rules and this Order\n+will result in rejection of the request. Proposed stipulations extending scheduling\n+dates do not become effective unless and until this Court so orders. Counsel wishing to\n+know whether a stipulation has been signed shall comply with the applicable Local Rule.\n+16. Communications with Chambers.\n+Counsel shall not attempt to contact the Court or its staff by telephone or by any\n+other ex parte means unless contact has been first initiated by chambers staff. Counsel\n+must not contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk regarding the status of any matter before\n+the Court. Counsel may contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk with appropriate\n+inquiries only. The Court cannot provide legal advice. The preferred method of\n+communication with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk is email to the Chambers email\n+address MWC_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. To facilitate communication with the\n+Courtroom Deputy Clerk , counsel should list their email addresses along with their\n+telephone numbers on all papers.\n+17. Order Setting Scheduling Conference.\n+Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the Court will issue an Order setting a\n+Scheduling Conference as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and the Local Rules of this\n+Court. Strict compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 26 is required. Upon receipt of\n+the parties’ Joint Rule 26(f) Report, the Court generally issues the Civil Trial Order\n+containing the deadlines for the case. If the parties fail to timely submit a Rule 26(f)\n+Report, the Court will issue a Civil Trial Order without a Rule 26(f) Report.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+15\n+18. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).\n+This Court participates in the Court -Directed ADR Program. If counsel have\n+received a Notice to Parties of Court -Directed ADR Program (ADR-08), the case will\n+be presumptively referred to the Court Mediation Panel or to private mediation at the\n+time of the initial scheduling conference. See General Order 11- 10, § 5.1. Counsel\n+should include their shared or separate views regarding a preference for the Court\n+Mediation Panel or private mediation, and when the mediation should occur, in the\n+written report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1. This Court\n+generally does not refer settlement conferences to magistrate judges. For information\n+about the Court’s ADR Program, the Mediation Panel, and mediator profiles, visit the\n+“ADR” page of the Court website.\n+19. Notice of this Order.\n+Counsel for plaintiff or plaintiff (if appearing on their own behalf) shall\n+immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If\n+this case came to the Court by a Petition for Removal, the removing defendant(s) shall\n+serve this Order on all other parties.\n+Dated: _______________________________________\n+HON. MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+//\n+//\n+//\n+//\n+//\n+//\n+//\n+//","id":"821b7dfa9f1a731fa790734b13d23e13dff8e015baea26a6bc1602c08a15f09b","newHash":"1630e10ad389805511233f1e3432107b2eea80e5c51b40a35e43a9607e956c80","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/7e7a0336-d4d0-4af7-317f-08df0388792c","snapshot":"snapshots/1630e10ad389805511233f1e3432107b2eea80e5c51b40a35e43a9607e956c80.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/7e7a0336-d4d0-4af7-317f-08df0388792c","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:22.380343+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,377 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 1 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+The above matter is set for trial before the Honorable Josephine L. Staton,\n+United States District Judge, Courtroom 8A, First Street Courthouse, 350 West 1st\n+Street, Los Angeles, California. Counsel shall comply with this Order. Failure to\n+comply with this Order may subject counsel to sanctions.\n+Judge Staton’s Procedures web page is incorporated in this Order. The\n+parties and counsel are ORDERED to review and comply with the Court’s\n+applicable procedures and notices, which may be accessed at:\n+https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable-josephine-l-staton\n+In Local Criminal Rule 57-1, the Local Civil Rules are made “applicable directly\n+or by analogy.”\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n+Plaintiff,\n+v.\n+,\n+Defendant(s).\n+Case No. 0:00-CR-00000 JLS\n+ORDER RE CRIMINAL\n+PROCEEDINGS\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 2 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+MOTION PRACTICE\n+1. Conference of counsel. No fewer than three days prior to the filing\n+of any criminal motion, counsel must confer to determine whether the parties are in\n+agreement regarding the issue(s) to be presented to the Court, and to determine if\n+the scope of issue(s) to be presented to the Court can be narrowed. In the notice of\n+motion, the moving party shall report to the Court that counsel conferred regarding\n+the substance of the motion.\n+2. Limitations on Briefing. Limitations on the length of briefs are\n+specified in Local Civil Rule 11-6.1. A certification of compliance is required as\n+set forth in Local Rule 11-6.2. In addition, because reply briefs should by their\n+nature be shorter than motion and opposition briefs, the Court imposes an\n+additional limitation on reply briefs, limiting those to 4,200 words rather than\n+7,000 words. Only in rare instances and for good cause shown will the Court grant\n+an application to extend these page limitations. No supplemental briefs may be\n+filed without prior leave of court.\n+3. Use of Artificial Intelligence\n+Any party who uses any form of generative artificial intelligence to generate\n+any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate\n+declaration disclosing the use of artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer\n+has reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated content\n+is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.\n+4. Hearing Time Estimates Required. For all motions, counsel’s\n+estimate of the time required for presentation of the motion must be set forth\n+adjacent to the caption. Opposition briefs shall also set forth a time estimate.\n+5. Hearing Date(s) for Pretrial Criminal Motions. Counsel are\n+encouraged to file their pretrial motions as early as feasible. At the latest, all\n+pretrial motions in criminal cases, including motions in limine, must be noticed for\n+hearing at the pretrial status conference, which is set by the CRD for the Friday\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 3 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+morning eleven (11) days in advance of trial. However, pretrial motions may be\n+heard at an earlier date, and counsel are encouraged to file them at an earlier date.\n+For all motions to be heard prior to the pretrial status conference, counsel shall\n+contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk (“CRD”) in advance to clear a date and time\n+for the hearing.\n+6. Briefing Schedule for Pretrial Motions. The briefing schedule shall\n+be that specified in Local Rules 6-1, 7-9, and 7-10, which require that motions be\n+filed no fewer than twenty-eight (28) days in advance of the hearing, and that\n+opposition and reply briefs be filed twenty-one (21) and fourteen (14) days in\n+advance of the hearing, respectively.\n+7. Discovery Motions. Before filing any motion for discovery, a party\n+shall consult with opposing counsel to ascertain whether the requested discovery\n+will be provided. All discovery motions shall state with particularity what is\n+requested, the basis for the request, whether the discovery has been requested from\n+opposing counsel, and whether the discovery has been declined, in whole or in\n+part. Motions made without prior consultation with opposing counsel or that fail to\n+include the above information may be stricken.\n+DISCOVERY AND NOTICE\n+8. Duty to Produce and Disclose. Counsel for the government and\n+counsel for the defendant shall comply promptly with discovery and notice\n+pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 15 and 16.\n+Upon government counsel’s discovery of any evidence within the scope of Brady\n+v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), such evidence shall be produced forthwith to\n+counsel for the defendant. Counsel for the government shall also disclose to\n+counsel for the defendant the existence or non-existence of: (1) evidence obtained\n+by electronic surveillance; and (2) testimony by a government informant.\n+Counsel for the defendant shall comply with the reciprocal discovery\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 4 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+deadlines when the duty to do so has arisen. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b).\n+Until such time as a Local Rule fixes another deadline, the parties may\n+jointly propose by stipulation or may by ex parte application seek specific\n+deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G)(ii) and\n+(b)(1)(C)(ii), relating to the government’s and defendant’s expert disclosure\n+requirements. In the absence of a Local Rule or case-specific deadline, the\n+government’s deadline shall be six weeks in advance of trial, and the defendant’s\n+deadline shall be four weeks after the government’s disclosure.\n+TRIAL\n+9. Trial Schedule. Trials will commence on Tuesday and continue on\n+Wednesday and Thursday. If the trial is more than 3 days, it will continue Monday\n+through Thursday until completed. Trial hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.,\n+and 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., with a 15-minute break during each session. All\n+counsel shall arrive at the Courtroom at 8:30 a.m. on the first day of trial.\n+10. Government’s Witness List, Exhibit List, and Exhibits.\n+No later than the first day of trial, Government counsel shall provide the\n+CRD with the following:\n+a. Five copies of the government’s witness list;\n+b. Five copies of the government’s exhibit list;\n+c. Binders containing the government’s original exhibits,\n+separated by divider tabs containing exhibit numbers. Specifically, counsel must\n+deliver two sets for the Court (one for the bench and one for the witness stand\n+(which will be submitted to the jury after trial)), and a set for defense counsel.\n+Additionally, before each witness takes the stand, Government counsel shall\n+provide the CRD with:\n+d. A separate binder for each witness that contains only those\n+exhibits the government expects to use when examining each witness.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 5 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+Specifically, counsel must provide a copy for the witness, a copy for the Court, and\n+a copy for defense counsel. The witness binders will not be provided to the jury.\n+11. Defense Witness List and Exhibits. Defense counsel need not\n+deliver their exhibits to the CRD on the first day of trial; however, defense counsel\n+is responsible for affixing completed exhibit tags to the original of each exhibit\n+they intend to introduce during the trial, and for providing government counsel\n+with one copy and the CRD with two copies of each exhibit. Defense counsel\n+must also prepare witness binders, described above. If defense counsel intends to\n+call witnesses other than the defendant, five copies of defendant’s witness list shall\n+be provided to the CRD prior to the start of defendant’s case.\n+12. Exhibit Tags. All exhibits presented to the Court by either side shall\n+have the Court’s official exhibit tags attached to the lower right-hand corner of the\n+first page of each exhibit. All exhibits longer than one page shall be internally\n+paginated in the lower right-hand corner.\n+13. Voir Dire. At least four (4) court days prior to trial, each counsel\n+shall file and serve on opposing counsel any special questions requested to be put\n+to prospective jurors by the Court during voir dire. Counsel will be given a brief\n+period of time, usually approximately ten to fifteen minutes, to ask follow-up\n+questions of the prospective jurors.\n+14. Summary of the Indictment. In any case in which reading the entire\n+indictment to the jury during voir dire would be inappropriate, at least four (4)\n+court days prior to trial, the parties shall file a summary of the indictment that may\n+be read by the Court in lieu of the indictment. The summary should be agreed\n+upon by all parties. If the parties cannot agree on a summary of the indictment,\n+they should advise the Court in a joint filing.\n+15. Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms. In a jury trial, no later than\n+one (1) week before trial, counsel shall submit JOINT jury instructions and a\n+JOINT proposed verdict form (if a special verdict is desired). In order to prepare\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 6 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+these joint documents, counsel shall meet and confer sufficiently in advance of the\n+required submission date with the goal of agreeing upon instructions and a verdict\n+form. The instructions should be submitted in the order in which the parties wish\n+to have the instructions read. This order should reflect a single organized sequence\n+agreed to by all of the parties.\n+The jury instructions shall be submitted as follows:\n+a. Agreed upon JOINT jury instructions;\n+b. Instructions propounded by the government to which the\n+defendant(s) objects; and\n+c. Instructions propounded by defendant(s) to which the\n+government objects.\n+Instructions upon which agreement cannot be reached should reflect the\n+basic disagreements among the parties as to the law. Counsel shall include both\n+general and substantive instructions. In addition, counsel must email all proposed\n+instructions in Microsoft Word format to the Court at the following email address:\n+JLS_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+Attribution and case citation for each instruction should be placed on pages\n+following a proposed instruction. For disputed instructions, a party should note its\n+objections to a proposed instruction and its reasons for putting forth its alternative\n+on pages placed after its own alternative instruction.\n+SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS\n+16. If a defendant is convicted, the sentencing proceedings will be\n+conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 and the Local Rules.\n+If any party wishes to present material to the Court which has (a) not been\n+previously filed with the Court or presented at trial, or (b) not been previously\n+provided to the opposing party and the assigned United States Probation Officer,\n+such party must file and serve the information or evidence no later than two\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 7 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+(2) weeks before the scheduled sentencing hearing.\n+Notwithstanding the foregoing, a statement of each party’s position\n+concerning sentencing shall be filed and served no later than two (2) weeks before\n+the sentencing hearing, and the proof of service shall reflect service on the\n+assigned United States Probation Officer. Timely filing is important to enable the\n+Probation Officer sufficient time to prepare and disclose any addendum to the\n+Probation Report that may be required in response to new information and/or\n+evidence and/or a party’s sentencing position. Failure to timely file and serve such\n+information, evidence, or statement of position may result in such information not\n+being considered by the Court in imposing defendant’s sentence.\n+Absent leave of Court based upon a showing of good cause, the Court does\n+not permit submission or playing of sentencing videos.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+DATED:\n+JOSEPHINE L. STATON\n+United States District Judge\n+Revised: May 29, 2026","id":"16e3be7d733b47048a291934430420a85161adaed79a1da7659e83b82b9c2d31","newHash":"6eb9e775868b7ad70c32bc150a9b947b2e7ba9bea6690f7e591ac90d38eb10aa","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/86bc0b4c-9e67-4d27-e4c0-08debdb90c5c","snapshot":"snapshots/6eb9e775868b7ad70c32bc150a9b947b2e7ba9bea6690f7e591ac90d38eb10aa.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/86bc0b4c-9e67-4d27-e4c0-08debdb90c5c","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:22.247492+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,492 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 1 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+Plaintiff/s,\n+v.\n+Defendant/s.\n+Case No.: SACV - JLS(XXXx)\n+INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR\n+CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE\n+JOSEPHINE L. STATON\n+PLEASE READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT GOVERNS THIS CASE\n+AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES.\n+This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Josephine L. Staton. Both\n+the Court and counsel bear responsibility for the progress of this litigation in federal\n+court. To “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this case, as called\n+for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, all parties or their counsel are ordered to\n+become familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Central\n+District of California, and this Court’s Orders.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 2 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:\n+Judge Staton’s Procedures web page is incorporated in this Order.\n+The parties and counsel are ORDERED to review and comply with those\n+procedures and notices, which may be accessed at:\n+https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable-josephine-l-staton\n+1. Filing of Civil Cases\n+The initiating documents (e.g., complaints and notices of removal) of most civil\n+cases must be e-filed. See Local Rule 3-2.\n+2. Service of the Complaint\n+Service is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The plaintiff shall\n+promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Rule 4 and file the proofs of service.\n+Although Rule 4(m) allows 90 days for service of the summons and complaint, the Court\n+expects service to be effectuated more promptly. The Court will require plaintiffs to show\n+good cause to extend the service deadline beyond 90 days.\n+3. Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions\n+Parties seeking emergency or provisional relief shall comply with Federal Rule of\n+Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 65. The Court will not rule on any application for\n+such relief for at least twenty-four (24) hours after the party subject to the requested order\n+has been served, unless service is excused. Such party may file opposing or responding\n+papers in the interim.\n+4. Cases Removed from State Court\n+All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to the\n+complaint, answers, and motions, must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to the\n+notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(b). If the defendant has not yet answered or\n+filed a pre-answer motion, the defendant’s answer or motion must be filed in this Court\n+and must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. If a\n+motion was pending in state court before the case was removed, it must be re-noticed for\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 3 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+hearing in accordance with Local Rule 6-1. Counsel shall file with their first appearance\n+a Notice of Interested Parties in accordance with Local Rule 7.1-1.\n+If the complaint, answer, or any similar pleading in an action that is removed to\n+this Court consists of only a form pleading in which boxes are checked, the party or\n+parties utilizing the form pleading must file an appropriate pleading with this Court\n+within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Notice of Removal. The new pleading must\n+comply with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 through 11.\n+5. Status of Fictitiously Named Defendants\n+Generally, in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C), real\n+parties in interest shall be identified and substituted for “Doe” defendants within the 90-\n+day time limit set forth set forth in Rule 4(m). Where the Court issues a scheduling order\n+that sets an earlier deadline for the filing of motions to add parties or amend pleadings,\n+that deadline must be met. Plaintiffs seeking to substitute parties after the earlier of these\n+two dates must establish good cause to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).\n+6. Discovery\n+a. Discovery Matters Referred to Magistrate Judge\n+All discovery matters have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate\n+Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. Any party may move for review and\n+reconsideration of a discovery ruling within fourteen days after such ruling. See Local\n+Rule 72-2. However, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court will not\n+reverse any order of the Magistrate Judge unless the moving party demonstrates that the\n+ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The motion must specify which portions of\n+the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law and support the contention with points\n+and authorities. As to all filings related to motions for review and reconsideration of a\n+discovery order, counsel shall deliver mandatory chambers copies to both the District\n+Judge and the Magistrate Judge.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 4 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+b. Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)\n+The parties shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 26(a). The Court’s Scheduling Order will impose firm deadlines to complete\n+discovery.\n+7. Applications to Seal\n+Counsel are directed to consider carefully whether to seek leave to file documents\n+under seal. The procedure for obtaining leave is lengthy. Applications must in all\n+instances be supported by good cause, and at times are subjected to an even higher\n+standard. Most of the time, documents may not be filed under seal in their entirety, and\n+appropriately redacted documents must still be filed on the public docket.\n+When seeking leave to file any material under seal in a civil case, the parties and\n+counsel are directed to fully comply with all steps of the multi-step procedure set forth in\n+Local Rule 79-5. The parties are directed to follow the instructions in the Guide to\n+Electronically Filing Under-Seal Documents in Civil Cases which is attached in PDF\n+format to Judge Staton’s Procedures web page.\n+Counsel are reminded that there is a strong presumption that the public has a right\n+of access to records in civil cases. For materials related to non-dispositive motions, the\n+Designating Party must show good cause for the materials to be filed and maintained\n+under seal. For materials related to dispositive motions, the standard is higher, and the\n+Designating Party must articulate compelling reasons for maintaining the confidentiality\n+of the document(s) and must seek relief that is narrowly tailored to the protected interest.\n+See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 667-79 (9th Cir. 2010).\n+8. Motions\n+a. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions\n+Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This Court hears motions\n+on Fridays, beginning at 10:30 a.m. It is not necessary to clear a hearing date with the\n+Court Clerk before filing a motion in a civil motion. Counsel must check the Court’s\n+website for Closed Motion Dates.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 5 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+b. Pre-Filing Requirement To Meet and Confer\n+Counsel must comply with Local Rule 7-3, which requires counsel to engage in a\n+pre-filing conference “to discuss thoroughly . . . the substance of the contemplated\n+motion and any potential resolution.” Counsel should discuss the issues to a sufficient\n+degree that if a motion is still necessary, the briefing may be directed to those substantive\n+issues requiring resolution by the Court. Counsel should resolve minor procedural or\n+other non-substantive matters during the conference. This provision applies even to self-\n+represented parties; there is no exception to this rule for parties who appear pro se.\n+c. Limitations on Briefing.\n+Limitations on the length of briefs are specified in Local Civil Rule 11-6.1. A\n+certification of compliance is required as set forth in Local Rule 11-6.2. In addition,\n+because reply briefs should by their nature be shorter than motion and opposition briefs,\n+the Court imposes an additional limitation on reply briefs, limiting those to 4,200 words\n+rather than 7,000 words. Only in rare instances and for good cause shown will the Court\n+grant an application to extend these page limitations. No supplemental briefs may be\n+filed without prior leave of court.\n+d. Supporting Evidence\n+Parties shall not proffer evidence other than the specific items of evidence or\n+testimony in support of or in opposition to a motion. For example, the parties should\n+provide excerpts rather than entire deposition transcripts or entire sets of interrogatory\n+responses. Where a motion must be supported by admissible evidence, authenticity must\n+be established by stipulation of the parties, declaration, or other appropriate means.\n+e. Citations to Legal Authority\n+Citations to legal authority should include pinpoint citations to specific page(s),\n+section(s), and subsection(s) referenced. Citations to secondary sources such as treatises,\n+manuals, and other materials should include the volume, section, and page(s) cited.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 6 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+f. Use of Artificial Intelligence\n+Any party who uses any form of generative artificial intelligence to generate any\n+portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration\n+disclosing the use of artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewed the\n+source material and verified that the artificially generated content is accurate and\n+complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.\n+9. Specific Motions\n+a. Motions Pursuant to Rule 12\n+Many motions to dismiss or to strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good\n+faith (as required by Local Rule 7-3), especially for pleading deficiencies that could be\n+corrected by amendment. See Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996) (where\n+a motion to dismiss is granted, a district court should provide leave to amend unless it is\n+clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment). Moreover, a party has\n+the right to amend the complaint “once as a matter of course” within 21 days after service\n+of the answer or Rule 12(b) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A)-(B).\n+b. Motions to Amend\n+In addition to meeting the requirements of Local Rule 15-1, counsel shall attach as\n+an appendix to the moving papers a “redlined” version of the proposed amended pleading\n+indicating all additions and deletions of material. All motions to amend pleadings shall:\n+(1) state the effect of the amendment and (2) identify the page and line number(s) and\n+wording of any proposed change or addition of material. The proposed amended\n+pleading shall be serially numbered to differentiate it from previously amended pleadings\n+(e.g., “Second Amended Complaint” or “Third Amended Answer and Counterclaims”).\n+If leave to amend is granted, the filing party must comply with Local Rule 15-1 through\n+15-3 in filing the amended pleading.\n+c. Summary Judgment Motions\n+A party may file only one summary judgment motion in a case. Parties need not\n+wait until the motion cutoff date to bring motions for summary judgment or partial\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 7 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+summary judgment. The parties should prepare papers in a fashion that will assist the\n+Court in absorbing the facts (e.g., generous use of tabs, tables of contents, headings,\n+indices, etc.).\n+i. Statements of Uncontroverted Facts and Genuine Issues\n+The Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law (“Statement of\n+Uncontroverted Facts”), as required by Local Rule 56-1, shall be formatted based on the\n+following example:\n+The opposing party’s Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact (required by\n+Local Rule 56-2) must be in two columns and track the movant’s Statement of\n+Uncontroverted Facts exactly as prepared, but must combine the moving party’s fact\n+statements and the supporting evidence into one column. Thus, the first column must\n+restate the allegedly undisputed fact and the alleged supporting evidence, and the second\n+column must state either that the fact proffered by the moving party is undisputed or\n+disputed. The opposing party may dispute all or only a portion of the statement, but if\n+disputing only a portion, it must clearly indicate what part is being disputed. Whenever\n+all or part of a proffered fact is disputed, the opposing party must briefly state why it\n+disputes the moving party’s proffered fact, cite to the relevant exhibit(s) or other\n+evidence, and must describe what it is in that exhibit or evidence that refutes the\n+proffered fact. To illustrate:\n+1. (Moving party’s first uncontroverted\n+fact)\n+(Supporting evidence\n+citation(s))\n+2. (Moving party’s second undisputed\n+fact)\n+(Supporting evidence\n+citation(s))\n+1. (Moving party’s first uncontroverted\n+fact). (Supporting evidence citation(s)).\n+1. Undisputed.\n+2. (Moving party’s second undisputed\n+fact). (Supporting evidence citation(s)).\n+2. Disputed. Plaintiff’s Rule\n+30(b)(6) witness testified to\n+the contrary. (Pltf’s Ex. 14,\n+Clark Depo. at 24:5-26:17.)\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 8 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+The opposing party may submit additional material facts that bear on or relate to\n+the issues raised by the movant. Presentation of those additional material facts by the\n+non-moving party shall follow the format described above for the moving party’s\n+Statement of Uncontroverted Facts. These additional facts shall continue in sequentially\n+numbered paragraphs and shall set forth in the right-hand column the evidence that\n+supports that statement. A Reply fact statement may be filed by the moving party in a\n+manner consistent with Local Rule 56-3.\n+No legal argument should be set forth in the Statement of Uncontroverted Facts\n+or the Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact. Legal argument should be\n+reserved for the parties’ briefs. Objections and the relevant Federal Rule of Evidence\n+or other basis therefor may be noted, but citations to case law and/or legal argument\n+should be presented in the separate document described below.\n+ii. Objections to Evidence\n+If a party relies in whole or in part on an evidentiary objection to dispute a\n+material fact, the ground(s) of the objection(s) shall be succinctly stated in a separate\n+statement of evidentiary objections in a two-column format. The left column should\n+identify and describe the item(s) objected to (including page and line number if\n+applicable) and the right column should set forth a concise objection (e.g., hearsay, lacks\n+foundation, etc.) with a citation to the Federal Rules of Evidence or, where applicable, a\n+case citation. Any response to the objections shall incorporate and build upon the two-\n+column format set forth in the objections in the same manner as the Statement of Genuine\n+Disputes of Material Fact incorporates and builds upon the Statement of Uncontroverted\n+Facts.\n+The Court will expressly rule on objections only when it deems it necessary to do.\n+Generally, the Court will expressly rule on objections only as to evidence that factors into\n+the Court’s rationale for its rulings.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov 9 jls_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+d. Daubert Motions\n+Unlike other motions in limine, Daubert motions are usually due to be filed\n+within seven days after the expert discovery cut-off date set in the Scheduling Order.\n+The parties shall notice Daubert motions for hearing on the first available\n+motions date at the time of their filing, unless that date is after the final pretrial\n+conference date, in which case the Daubert motions will be heard at the final pretrial\n+conference.\n+10. Notice of This Order\n+Plaintiff’s counsel or plaintiff (if appearing on his or her own behalf) shall\n+immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If\n+this case was removed from state court, the removing defendant(s) shall serve this Order\n+on all other parties.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated:\n+JOSEPHINE L. STATON\n+United States District Judge\n+Revised: May 29, 2026","id":"8c15744f8207a033254576ad79bf3bb62f716f60773aaf79010bae5ce934e8ce","newHash":"643aea5160b8d3dfa55e81e9329bfda00e09537b14b49c3b28ab1b2297970706","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9e1bb2d6-488e-4130-e4c2-08debdb90c5c","snapshot":"snapshots/643aea5160b8d3dfa55e81e9329bfda00e09537b14b49c3b28ab1b2297970706.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9e1bb2d6-488e-4130-e4c2-08debdb90c5c","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:22.471261+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,899 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+[PLAINTIFFS], ET AL.,\n+Plaintiff(s),\n+v.\n+[DEFENDANTS], ET AL.,\n+Defendant(s).\n+Case No. EDCV XX-XXXX-KK (XXx)\n+CIVIL STANDING ORDER\n+PLEASE READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT GOVERNS THIS CASE\n+AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES.\n+“To secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and\n+proceeding,” FED. R. CIV. P. 1, all counsel are hereby ordered to familiarize\n+themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the\n+Central District of California, and this Court’s Orders.1 “Counsel,” as used in this\n+order, includes parties appearing pro se. This Court does not exempt parties\n+appearing pro se from compliance with any of the Local Rules, including Local Rules\n+16 and 7-3.\n+1 Copies of the Local Rules are availabl e on the Central District of California\n+website at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov. In addition, Counsel shall review and\n+comply with Judge Kato’s Schedule and Procedures, available at\n+https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable-kenly-kiya-kato.\n+2\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE\n+FOLLOWING RULES SHALL APPLY:\n+I. CIVILITY AND PROFESSIONALISM\n+The Court expects counsel to treat each other, the parties, and the Court,\n+including Court staff, with dignity and respect. As set forth in the preamble to the\n+Central District of California’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, “[u]ncivil\n+behavior does not constitute effective advocacy; rather, it serves to increase litigation\n+costs and fails to advance the client’s lawful interests. Perhaps just as importantly, this\n+type of behavior causes the public to lose faith in the legal profession and its ability to\n+benefit society. For these reasons, . . . civility and professionalism among advocates,\n+between lawyer and client, and between bench and bar are essential to the\n+administration of justice.” For more detailed guidance, counsel are advised to refer to\n+the Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, which can be found at\n+http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-professionalism-\n+guidelines.\n+II. SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT\n+Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule\n+of Civil Procedure 4 and file proofs of service pursuant to the Local Rules. This\n+Order serves as notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) that failure\n+by plaintiff(s) to file a timely proof of service of the summons and complaint will\n+result in the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. In addition, any\n+defendant(s) not timely served will be dismissed from the action without prejudice\n+and any “Doe” or fictitiously named defendant who is not identified and served\n+within ninety (90) days after the case is filed will be dismissed pursuant to Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).\n+III. CONSENT TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n+Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, the parties may consent to have a magistrate judge\n+preside over all proceedings, including trial. The magistrate judges who accept those\n+3\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+designations are identified on the Central District’s website at\n+http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/judges-requirements/court-programs/voluntary-\n+consent-magistrate-judges, which also contains a link to the consent form CV-11D.\n+The parties can select a participating magistrate judge from any of the three divisions\n+in the Central District of California. In addition, magistrate judges do not handle\n+felony criminal trials; therefore, civil trial dates are not at risk of being preempted by a\n+felony criminal trial, which normally has priority. Further, in most cases, a magistrate\n+judge may be able to assign a more flexible trial date than a district judge. There may\n+be other advantages or disadvantages which you will want to consider.\n+Parties wishing to consent to a magistrate judge shall complete and attach Form\n+CV-11D (Statement of Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge) to a Notice\n+of Lodging of Consent Form, which shall be e-filed as required by Local Rule 5-4.4 as\n+a proposed document.\n+IV. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION\n+No case will proceed to trial unless all parties, including the principals of all\n+corporate parties, have appeared personally at a settlement conference under the\n+Court-Directed Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) Program (Local Rule 16-\n+15.4) and complied with Local Rule 16-15.5.\n+Upon receipt of oral or written notice that a case has settled, the Court\n+will administratively close the case and if no agreed final order or judgment is\n+thereafter submitted within thirty (30) days, or if no party files a motion to\n+reopen within such time, the case shall, without further order, stand dismissed\n+with prejudice.\n+V. DISCOVERY\n+Parties are to commence discovery as soon as the first answer or motion to\n+dismiss is filed. The parties should note that, unless otherwise ordered, discovery\n+will not be stayed while any motion is pending, including any motion to dismiss,\n+4\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+motion for protective order, or motion to stay. Similarly, discovery will not be\n+stayed pending completion of the Court’s mandatory ADR requirement.\n+Whenever possible, the Court expects counsel to resolve discovery disputes\n+among themselves in a courteous, reasonable, and professional manner. Discovery\n+disputes should, therefore, be limited to those rare occasions where the parties cannot\n+resolve a matter despite diligent and good faith efforts to meet and confer.\n+All discovery matters have been referred to the assigned magistrate judge, who\n+will hear all discovery disputes. The magistrate judge’s initials follow the district\n+judge’s initials next to the case number. All discovery-related documents must include\n+the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing.\n+Counsel are directed to review the magistrate judge’s Procedures and Schedules on the\n+Central District’s website to schedule discovery matters for hearing. Discovery is\n+governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules of the\n+Central District of California. In particular, counsel must strictly comply with Civil\n+Local Rule 37, including the meet and confer and joint stipulation requirements.\n+Counsel are expressly cautioned that failure to comply with or cooperate in the Local\n+Rule 37 procedures and/or the filing of frivolous motions may result in the\n+imposition of sanctions. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11; L.R. 37-4.\n+In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the magistrate judge’s decision\n+shall be final, and this Court will not reverse any order of the magistrate judge unless\n+it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to\n+law. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). Any party may file and serve a motion for review and\n+reconsideration before this Court. See L.R. 72-2. The moving party must file and\n+serve the motion within fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling or an oral\n+ruling that the magistrate judge states will not be followed by a written ruling. The\n+motion must specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to\n+law, and the claim must be supported by points and authorities.\n+5\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+In addition, the magistrate judge does not have authority to order discovery\n+after the discovery cut-off or to continue the discovery cut-off. See United States v.\n+Celgene Corp., No. CV 10-3165-GHK-SSx, 2015 WL 9661172, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct.\n+16, 2015) (holding a magistrate judge “does not have the authority to order discovery\n+after the deadline set by the District Judge”). Accordingly, any stipulations or\n+motions to continue discovery deadlines shall be separately filed and noticed for\n+hearing before Judge Kato. However, the Court is not inclined to grant any\n+extensions of the discovery or other case-related deadlines. The parties are,\n+therefore, directed to conduct any necessary discovery as soon as possible.\n+VI. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Any party who uses generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey,\n+CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or\n+other filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of\n+artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and\n+verified that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer’s\n+Rule 11 obligations. Non-compliance and/or citations to non-existent or inaccurate\n+sources will result in sanctions of $500 for an initial violation and $500 for each\n+subsequent violation. All counsel are reminded of their ongoing obligation to ensure\n+all representations to the Court are “to the best of the person’s knowledge,\n+information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.”\n+FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b).\n+VII. MOTIONS – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions\n+This Court hears civil motions on Thursdays, beginning at 9:30 a.m. If\n+Thursday is a court holiday, motions will be heard on the next Thursday. It is not\n+necessary to clear a hearing date with the Court Clerk before filing a motion. Counsel\n+must check the Court’s website for Closed Motion Dates. If the motion date selected\n+is not available, the Court will issue a minute order continuing the date.\n+6\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Adherence to the timing requirements is mandatory for chambers’ preparation\n+of motion matters. The parties may stipulate to a different briefing schedule, so long\n+as the schedule provides at least two weeks between the filing of the reply and the\n+hearing date.\n+If the parties are able to resolve the issue, or if a party intends to\n+withdraw or declines to oppose a motion, the Court must be notified as soon as\n+possible, but no later than seven days before the hearing date. Failure to\n+oppose a motion will likely result in the motion being granted immediately\n+after the opposition would have been due. See L.R. 7-12.\n+2. Pre-Filing Conference Requirement\n+Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, which\n+requires “counsel contemplating filing of any motion” to “first contact opposing\n+counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the\n+contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” The parties must discuss in real-\n+time all issues to be raised in the motion, as well as the law and evidence relevant to\n+those issues, so that the parties’ briefing reflects that they are fully cognizant of the\n+other side’s position(s). Letters and e-mail are insufficient to satisfy the prefiling\n+conference requirements of Local Rule 7-3. The notice of motion must include a\n+statement of compliance with Local Rule 7-3. The Court may strike or summarily\n+deny a motion if counsel fails to adequately meet and confer in good faith.\n+3. Proposed Orders\n+Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any\n+matter shall serve and electronically lodge – at the time the moving or opposition\n+papers are filed – a proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief\n+statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. In addition, a\n+copy of the proposed order in Word format shall be e-mailed to chambers at\n+kk_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov on the day the document is e-filed.\n+7\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+VIII. SPECIFIC MOTIONS\n+1. Motions for Class Certification\n+The parties in a putative class action are to act diligently and begin discovery\n+immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. For\n+any action purporting to commence a class action, other than an action subject to the\n+Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, plaintiff(s) shall file a motion for\n+class certification no later than 100 days from the set date of the scheduling\n+conference, regardless of whether the scheduling conference is later vacated. This\n+deadline will be continued only upon a showing of due diligence and good cause.\n+2. Motions to Dismiss or Strike\n+Many motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good\n+faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a complaint,\n+answer, or counterclaim that can be corrected by amendment. See Eminence Cap.,\n+LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (where a motion to dismiss\n+is granted, a district court should provide leave to amend unless it is clear that the\n+complaint could not be saved by any amendment). Even after a complaint has been\n+amended or a responsive pleading has been served, the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure provide that leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so\n+requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit requires that this policy\n+favoring amendment be applied with “extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found.\n+Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001).\n+Consequently, parties should carefully consider and weigh an opponent’s\n+contentions as to the deficiencies in a pleading. The Court expects that, in most\n+instances, the parties will agree to any amendment that would cure the defect.\n+3. Motions to Amend\n+In addition to complying with the requirements of Local Rule 15-1, all motions\n+to amend pleadings shall: (1) state the effect of the amendment; and (2) identify the\n+page and line number(s) and wording of any proposed change or addition of material.\n+8\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+The proposed amended pleading shall be serially numbered to differentiate it from\n+previously amended pleadings (e.g., “Second Amended Complaint” or “Third\n+Amended Answer and Counterclaims”). In addition to Local Rule 15-1’s requirement\n+of electronic lodging of the proposed amended pleading as a document separate from\n+the motion, counsel shall attach as an appendix to the moving papers a “redlined”\n+version of the proposed amended pleading, indicating all additions and deletions of\n+material.\n+4. Continuances or Extensions of Time\n+Requests for continuances will not be granted routinely. Counsel must submit\n+any request for a continuance or extension of time no later than five (5) court days\n+prior to the expiration of the scheduled date. Requests to continue dates that have\n+passed will be denied. Stipulations extending scheduling dates set by this Court are\n+not effective unless approved by the Court. The caption of any request for a\n+continuance or extension of time shall indicate how many previous extensions\n+have been requested (e.g., First, Second, Third, etc. Request for Extension).\n+Counsel requesting a continuance must submit a properly noticed motion or\n+stipulation, with a detailed declaration that demonstrates good cause as to why the\n+change in the date is essential, and a proposed order. The motion or stipulation must\n+also indicate whether there have been any previous requests for continuances and\n+whether those requests were granted or denied by the Court. Any continuances that\n+are requested without an accompanying declaration will be rejected without further\n+notice to the parties.\n+If it is necessary to file an ex parte application seeking an extension of any\n+deadlines, the application must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the\n+reasons for the requested extension of time. The declaration must also indicate\n+whether there have been any previous requests for continuances and whether those\n+requests were granted or denied by the Court.\n+9\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+The Court sets firm dates and will not change them without a showing of good\n+cause. Such a showing generally requires unforeseeable circumstances and a showing\n+of diligence by the parties in pursuing discovery. See Johnson v. Mammoth\n+Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’\n+standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”).\n+5. Ex Parte Applications\n+Counsel are reminded that ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary\n+relief and are discouraged. Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp.\n+488, 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A party seeking ex parte relief must show: (1) “the moving\n+party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according\n+to regular noticed motion procedures”; and (2) “the moving party is without fault in\n+creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief,” or “the crisis occurred as a result of\n+excusable neglect.” Id. at 492. Applications that do not meet the requirements set\n+forth in Local Rule 7-19 will not be considered. Sanctions may be imposed for misuse\n+of ex parte applications. The Court considers ex parte applications on the papers and\n+usually does not set these matters for hearing.\n+The moving party shall file and serve the opposing party by electronic mail or\n+hand delivery and shall notify the opposing party that opposing papers must be filed\n+not later than twenty-four hours following such electronic mail or hand service. The\n+twenty-four-hour clock runs on business days only.\n+The moving party’s declaration in support of an ex parte application shall\n+demonstrate compliance with Local Rule 7-19 and this Order. Failure to comply with\n+the Local Rules and this Order will result in the application being denied.\n+If a party does not intend to oppose an ex parte application, the party must\n+inform the CRD as soon as possible but not later than twenty-four hours following\n+service. Unless otherwise ordered, reply briefs are not allowed and will be stricken.\n+///\n+///\n+10\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+6. TROs and Injunctions\n+Parties seeking emergency or provisional relief shall comply with Federal Rule\n+of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 65. The caption of any such request for\n+relief shall indicate whether the request is “Unopposed” or “Opposed.” The\n+Court will not rule on any application for such relief for at least twenty-four hours\n+after the party subject to the requested order has been served, unless service is\n+excused. Such party may file opposing or responding papers in the interim.\n+7. Summary Judgment Motions\n+Each side is allowed one motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 56, regardless of whether such motion is denominated as a\n+motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. To the extent it is\n+appropriate based on undisputed facts and controlling principles of law, the court may\n+sua sponte enter summary judgment for the nonmoving party.\n+Counsel should not wait until the motion cut-off to file their motion for\n+summary judgment or partial summary judgment. All potentially dispositive motions\n+shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Court’s Civil Trial Scheduling\n+Order.\n+8. Motions for Default Judgment\n+Unless otherwise ordered, motions for default judgment shall be filed no later\n+than 14 days after the later of (1) entry of default against the last remaining defendant,\n+or (2) resolution of all claims against all defendants who have not defaulted. A\n+motion for default judgment must include a showing of both subject matter\n+jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir.\n+1999).\n+9. Motions for Attorney’s Fees\n+Motions for attorney’s fees shall be electronically filed and set for hearing\n+according to Local Rule 6-1 and this Order. Any motion or request for attorney’s fees\n+11\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+shall attach a summary, in table form, of the hours worked by and billing rate of each\n+attorney with title (e.g., partner, counsel, associate, etc.).\n+The table shall include a summary of the hours worked by each attorney,\n+organized by attorney. The table shall list all the tasks on which the attorney worked,\n+the hours worked on each task, and the hourly rate of each attorney. If the hourly\n+rate charged by any individual attorney changed while the action was ongoing, the\n+party shall provide separate calculations for the total number of hours the attorney\n+spent in connection with each task at each hourly rate.\n+The table shall be attached to the motion and electronically filed. The courtesy\n+copies of the table shall be prepared in Excel, have all restrictions removed so the\n+spreadsheets can be edited, and be emailed to opposing counsel and the Court’s\n+chambers email address at kk_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+An opposing party shall specify its objections to the fee requests and time spent\n+in the form set forth below:\n+ATTORNEY DATE DESCRIPTION TIME\n+CHALLENGED\n+REDUCE\n+BY\n+OBJECTION REASON FOR\n+OBJECTION\n+J. Doe 1/21/21 T/C with\n+consultant\n+3.0 3.0 Vague Fails to\n+articulate who\n+the consultant\n+was and what\n+the\n+conversation\n+concerned.\n+S. Roe 2/1/21 Research Notice\n+of Related Cases\n+2.5 2.3 Excessive Notice of\n+Related Cases is\n+a form\n+document.\n+Attorney S. Roe\n+should not\n+charge for basic\n+research.\n+J. Doe 2/21/21 Calendar ed dates 1.3 1.3 Clerical work Attorney\n+cannot charge\n+for clerical\n+work.\n+///\n+12\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+IX. CASES REMOVED FROM STATE COURT\n+Any answers filed in state court must be re-filed in this Court separately as a\n+supplement to the Notice of Removal. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in\n+accordance with Local Rule 6-1. If a removed action contains a “form pleading,” i.e.,\n+a pleading in which boxes are checked, the party or parties that filed the form\n+pleading must file an appropriate pleading with this Court within thirty (30) days of\n+the filing of the notice of removal. If a responsive pleading is required, the responsive\n+pleading shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n+This Court adheres to the following procedures when a complaint with\n+fictitiously named defendants is removed to this Court on diversity grounds. See 28\n+U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1447.\n+(a) Plaintiff(s) must ascertain the identi ty of and serve any fictitiously named\n+defendants before the date of the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. The Court\n+generally will dismiss “Doe” defendants on or after the date of the scheduling\n+conference, as they prevent the Court from accurately tracking its cases.\n+(b) If plaintiff(s) believe (by reas on of the necessity for discovery or\n+otherwise) that all fictitiously named defendants cannot be identified within\n+that period, a request to extend the time must be made in the Joint Rule 26(f)\n+Report. Counsel should state the reasons why fictitiously named defendants\n+have not been identified and served.\n+(c) If plaintiff(s) want to substitute a defendant for one of the fictitiously\n+named defendants, plaintiff(s) must first seek the consent of counsel for all\n+defendants (and counsel for the fictitiously named party, if that party has\n+separate counsel). If consent is withheld or denied, plaintiff(s) should file a\n+regularly noticed motion. The motion and opposition should address whether\n+the matter should thereafter be remanded to the superior court if diversity is\n+destroyed by the addition of the newly substituted party. See 28 U.S.C.\n+§§ 1447(c) and (e).\n+13\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+X. ERISA CASES INVOLVING BENEFITS CLAIMS\n+The Court may issue an Order Setting Scheduling Conference as a matter of\n+course in ERISA cases involving benefits claims. However, because the ordinary\n+pretrial and trial schedule does not apply to these cases, the parties need only submit a\n+Joint Status Report identifying any special issues that should be considered.\n+The parties should proceed with the preparation of the administrative record\n+and briefing without delay upon service of the complaint. If necessary, the Court will\n+hear motions to determine the standard of review, whether discovery will be\n+permitted, and the scope of the administrative record. Counsel are discouraged from\n+filing motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment for a merits\n+determination. See Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1095 (9th Cir. 1999)\n+(en banc) (noting the difference in procedures between Rule 56 and Rule 52). A\n+bench trial, ordinarily limited to oral argument on the administrative record, will be\n+scheduled within six months from the filing of the original complaint, unless good\n+cause for additional time is shown in the Joint Status Report. If the Court concludes\n+that the decision would not benefit from oral argument, the matter may be submitted\n+for decision on the papers.\n+XI. NOTICES OF UNAVAILABILITY\n+A “Notice of Unavailability” has no force or effect in this Court and should\n+not be filed. The filing of such a document may result in sanctions. The Court\n+nonetheless expects that counsel will conduct themselves appropriately and will not\n+deliberately schedule Court or other proceedings when opposing counsel are\n+unavailable.\n+XII. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHAMBERS\n+Counsel must not attempt to contact the Court or its chambers staff by\n+telephone or by any other ex parte means unless contact has been first initiated by\n+chambers staff. Counsel may contact the courtroom deputy clerk with appropriate\n+inquiries. The preferred method of communication with the courtroom deputy clerk\n+14\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+is through the Court’s chambers email address at kk_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+All counsel shall be included on any communications with the courtroom deputy\n+clerk. In addition, to facilitate communication with the courtroom deputy clerk,\n+counsel should list their email addresses along with their telephone numbers on all\n+papers.\n+XIII. PRESENCE OF LEAD COUNSEL\n+Lead trial counsel must attend any proceeding set by this Court, including all\n+scheduling, pretrial, and settlement conferences. Only ONE attorney for a party may\n+be designated as lead trial counsel unless otherwise permitted by the Court. Counsel\n+should not claim to be co-lead trial counsel for the purpose of avoiding this\n+requirement. If counsel purport to be co-lead trial counsel, both must attend the\n+pretrial conference. Unless lead trial counsel’s absence is excused by the Court for\n+good cause no less than five (5) court days in advance of the hearing, or is due to an\n+emergency that prevented prior notice, the Court reserves the right to designate the\n+attorney handling such proceeding as lead counsel for all purposes. Failure of lead\n+counsel to appear will be grounds for sanctions.\n+XIV. INTERPRETER SERVICES\n+Counsel in civil actions are responsible for arranging for the services of an\n+interpreter. The Interpreter’s Office may be reached at (213) 894-4599.\n+XV. CHAMBERS COURTESY COPIES\n+The Court does not require chambers copies of any motion papers or\n+exhibits and discourages the parties from sending chambers courtesy copies,\n+with the following exceptions: the Court requires (1) one mandatory chambers\n+copy of motions for summary judgment and motions for class certification, as well as\n+any associated briefing, including oppositions and replies, and (2) one mandatory\n+chambers copy of overlength briefs when the Court has granted a party’s request for\n+leave to file an overlength brief. Chambers copies shall be delivered to Judge Kato’s\n+“Mandatory Chambers Copies” box, located on the third floor of the George E.\n+15\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Brown Federal Building, 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, CA 92501. A mandatory\n+chambers copy must comply with Local Rule 11-3 (i.e. font size, page numbering,\n+exhibit tabbing, etc.) but need not be blue-backed. The mandatory chambers copy\n+must be prominently labeled MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY on the face page.\n+XVI. GUIDANCE FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS\n+Parties proceeding pro se, i.e., without an attorney, often face special challenges\n+in federal court. The Public Service Law Corporation runs a free Federal Pro Se\n+Clinic at the following federal courthouses where pro se litigants can get information\n+and guidance:\n+(1) Roybal Federal Building and Cour thouse, 255 East Temple Street, Suite\n+170, Los Angeles, California 90012. The Los Angeles location of the clinic\n+operates by appointment only. Pro se litigants may schedule an appointment\n+either by calling the clinic at (213) 385-2977, ext. 270, or submitting an internet\n+request at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/los-angeles. Clinic staff can respond\n+to many questions with a telephonic appointment or through email. It may be\n+more convenient to email your questions or schedule a telephonic\n+appointment. Staff can also schedule you for an in-person appointment.\n+(2) George E. Brown Federal Buildin g, 3470 Twelfth Street, Room 125,\n+Riverside, CA 92501. For more information, pro se litigants may call (951)\n+682-7968 or visit http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/riverside.\n+(3) Ronald Reagan Federal Building an d United States Courthouse, 411 W.\n+4th Street, Room 1055, Santa Ana, CA 92701. For more information, pro se\n+litigants may call (714) 541-1010, ext. 222, or visit\n+http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/santa-ana.\n+Further information about the Federal Pro Se Clinic may be found on the\n+Court’s website at https://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/.\n+///\n+///\n+16\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+XVII. NOTICE\n+Counsel for plaintiff(s) or plaintiff(s) (if appearing on their own behalf) shall\n+immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If\n+this case was removed from state court, the removing defendant(s) shall serve this\n+Order on all other parties.\n+The Court thanks the parties and their counsel for their anticipated cooperation\n+in complying with these requirements.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated:\n+HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO\n+United States District Judge","id":"9826412352077392f7debe93891e636cb7a406eb1c8b63f9db304c8746305557","newHash":"8053c107e5a9b3c52a348ce84309ef1eb280222e3075e4660140e5dfaf8c0a5b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bbd27d32-7593-4457-9e6f-08def326596c","snapshot":"snapshots/8053c107e5a9b3c52a348ce84309ef1eb280222e3075e4660140e5dfaf8c0a5b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bbd27d32-7593-4457-9e6f-08def326596c","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:22.622800+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,562 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+XXX,\n+Plaintiff(s),\n+v.\n+XXX,\n+Defendant(s).\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+Case No. CV FMO (___x)\n+INITIAL STANDING ORDER\n+PLEASE READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT GOVERNS THIS CASE AND DIFFERS\n+IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES.\n+The term “Counsel,” as used in this Order, includes parties appearing pro se.\n+In an effort to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 1’s mandate “to secure the just, speedy, and\n+inexpensive determination of every action[,]” the court orders as follows.\n+I. SERVICE.\n+A. This Order: Counsel for plaintiff(s) shall serve this Order immediately on all\n+parties and/or their counsel, including any new parties to the action. If this\n+case was removed from state court, defendant(s) who removed the case shall serve\n+this Order on all other parties.\n+B. The Complaint: Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed.\n+R. Civ. P. 4 and 5 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1.2. Any\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+defendant not timely served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) shall be dismissed from the\n+action without prejudice.\n+II. CONSENT TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE.\n+Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, the parties may consent to have a magistrate judge preside over\n+all proceedings, including trial. The magistrate judges who accept those designations are\n+identified on the Central District’s website, which also contains the consent form. If the parties\n+indicate in their Rule 26(f) report that they wish to consent to a magistrate judge, they\n+should, if possible, indicate to which judge the parties will consent.\n+III. DISCOVERY.\n+A. Generally.\n+Discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable Local\n+Rules. Whenever possible, the court expects counsel to resolve discovery disputes among\n+themselves in a courteous, reasonable and professional manner. The court expects that counsel\n+will adhere strictly to the Civility and Professionalism Guidelines (available on the Central District’s\n+website under Information for Attorneys > Attorney Admissions).\n+The court allows discovery to commence as soon as the first answer or motion to dismiss\n+is filed. The parties should note that, unless otherwise ordered, discovery shall not be stayed\n+while any motion is pending, including any motion to dismiss, motion for protective order or motion\n+to stay. The parties are directed to conduct any necessary discovery as soon as possible,\n+as the court is not inclined to grant any extensions of the discovery or other case-related\n+deadlines.\n+B. Discovery Matters Referred to Magistrate Judge.\n+Unless otherwise ordered, all discovery matters have been referred to the assigned\n+magistrate judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. The magistrate judge’s initials follow the\n+district judge’s initials next to the case number. All discovery-related documents must include the\n+words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing. Counsel are directed to\n+review the magistrate judge’s Procedures and Schedules on the Central District’s website to\n+schedule discovery matters for hearing.\n+2\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+C. Review of Magistrate Judge’s Decision.\n+The court will not reverse any order of the magistrate judge unless it has been shown that\n+the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).\n+Any party may file and serve a motion for review of the magistrate judge’s decision within fourteen\n+(14) days of service of a written ruling or an oral ruling that the magistrate judge states will not be\n+followed by a written ruling. The motion must be accompanied by a memorandum of points and\n+authorities and specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.\n+Counsel are advised that a motion for review that contains declarations or arguments that\n+were not presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance will normally not be considered.\n+See 14 Moore’s Federal Practice § 72.11[1][a] (3d ed. 2025) (“A party’s failure to present timely\n+arguments, case law, or evidentiary materials to a magistrate judge prior to the magistrate’s ruling,\n+thereby depriving the magistrate of the opportunity to rectify any alleged errors, waives that party’s\n+right to present those arguments or materials to the district court on appeal from the magistrate’s\n+nondispositive order.”); Seven For All Mankind, LLC v. GenX Clothing, Inc., 2006 WL 5720346,\n+*3 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“The district judge will normally not consider arguments, case law, or\n+evidentiary material which could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the\n+first instance.”).\n+IV. MOTIONS.\n+A. General Requirements.\n+1. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions.\n+Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. The court hears motions on\n+Thursdays, beginning at 10:00 a.m. unless otherwise ordered by the court. If a Thursday\n+is a national holiday, motions will be heard on the next Thursday. It is not necessary to\n+clear a hearing date with the court’s courtroom deputy clerk (“CRD”) before filing a motion.\n+If the motion date selected is not available, counsel should notice the motion for the next\n+available date. Unless otherwise ordered, any motion that is noticed more than 35 days\n+beyond the date the motion is filed may be stricken or advanced to an earlier motion date.\n+3\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+If the motion is advanced to an earlier motion date, counsel shall comply with the briefing\n+schedule dictated by the new hearing date. See Local Rules 7-9 & 7-10.\n+2. Compliance with Local Rule 7-3.\n+Local Rule 7-3 requires counsel “contemplating the filing of any motion . . . [to] first\n+contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly . . . the substance of the contemplated\n+motion and any potential resolution. The conference must take place in person, by\n+telephone, or via video conference at least 7 days prior to the filing of the motion.” Letters\n+and e-mail are insufficient to satisfy the prefiling conference requirements of Local Rule 7-3.\n+If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, “counsel for the moving party must include\n+a declaration, under penalty of perjury, the set forth at a minimum the date(s) the\n+conference took place and the position of each party with respect to each disputed issue\n+that will be the subject of the motion.”\n+The court takes this rule seriously; counsel shall discharge their obligations under\n+Local Rule 7-3 in good faith. The purpose of the Local Rule 7-3 prefiling conference is\n+twofold: first, it facilitates possible informal resolution of an issue without court intervention;\n+second, it enables the parties to brief the remaining disputes in a thoughtful, concise and\n+useful manner. Counsel should have sufficiently discussed the issues so that the briefing\n+will be directed to those substantive issues that require resolution by the court. Minor\n+procedural or other non-substantive matters should be resolved by counsel during the\n+course of the conference.\n+a. Unless otherwise ordered or when a pro se party is incarcerated, the\n+parties, including those appearing pro se, are required to meet and confer in\n+compliance with Local Rule 7-3.\n+b. Notwithstanding the exception for preliminary injunction motions in\n+Local Rule 7-3, counsel contemplating a preliminary injunction motion are required\n+to meet and confer, in substantive compliance with Local Rule 7-3, at least five (5)\n+days prior to the filing of such a motion.\n+3. Length and Format of Motion Papers.\n+4\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Local Rule 11-6.1 limits all memoranda of points and authorities to “7,000 words,\n+including headings, footnotes, and quotations but excluding the caption, the table of\n+contents, the table of authorities, the signature block, the certification required by L.R. 11-\n+6.2, and any indices and exhibits.” An application for leave to exceed the word limitation\n+will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances; the requesting party must provide\n+specific facts supporting their request. Any supplemental briefs filed without prior leave\n+of court will be stricken.\n+If documentary evidence in support of or in opposition to a motion exceeds 50\n+pages, the evidence must be separately bound and tabbed and include an index. If such\n+evidence exceeds 300 pages, the documents shall be placed in a three-ring binder, with\n+an index and with each item of evidence separated by a tab divider on the right side. In\n+addition, counsel shall provide a flash drive of the documents in a single, OCR-scanned,\n+.pdf file with each item of evidence separated by labeled bookmarks. Counsel shall ensure\n+that all documents are legible.\n+4. Citations to Case Law and Other Sources.\n+Citations to case law must identify not only the case cited but the specific page\n+referenced. Statutory references should identify with specificity the sections and\n+subsections referenced. Citations to treatises, manuals and other materials should include\n+the volume, section, and pages being referenced.\n+5. Artificial Intelligence.\n+If any party or attorney uses an artificial intelligence tool in the preparation of any\n+filing, the submission of that document signifies that the individual responsible for the filing\n+has certified that she/he reviewed all source material and verified the accuracy of any AI\n+content. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.\n+6. Citations to the Record.\n+Counsel should cite to docket numbers (and sub-numbers) when citing to the record.\n+7. Proposed Orders.\n+5\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter\n+shall serve and lodge – at the time the moving or opposition papers are filed – a proposed\n+order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the\n+decision with appropriate citations. In addition, a copy of the proposed order in\n+WordPerfect or Word format shall be e-mailed to chambers at\n+fmo_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov on the day the document is e-filed.\n+8. Oral Argument.\n+If the court deems a matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, the court\n+will notify the parties in advance. See Local Rule 7-15. The court strongly encourages\n+parties to permit less experienced lawyers to actively participate in the proceedings by\n+presenting argument at motion hearings or examining witnesses at trial. The court is\n+amenable to permitting multiple lawyers to argue for one party if this creates an opportunity\n+for junior attorneys to participate. Counsel shall provide the CRD with the names of the\n+less experienced attorneys that will be arguing motions or examining witnesses at least ten\n+(10) calendar days before the court proceeding.\n+B. Specific Motions.\n+1. Motions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.\n+a. Unless clearly justified under the circumstances of the case, “motions\n+to dismiss or in the alternative for summary adjudication” are discouraged. These\n+composite motions tend to blur the legitimate distinctions between the two motions,\n+which have different purposes. Frequently, the composite motions introduce\n+evidence that is extrinsic to the pleadings. On the one hand, such evidence is\n+generally improper for consideration on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, while on the other\n+hand, treatment of the motion as a Rule 56 motion frequently results in reasonable\n+invocation of Rule 56(d) by the non-moving party.\n+b. Motions to dismiss or to strike are discouraged unless counsel have\n+a good faith belief that such motions will likely result in dismissal, without leave to\n+amend, of all or at least some of the claims or counterclaims under applicable law.\n+6\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Many motions to dismiss or to strike can be avoided if the parties confer in\n+good faith (as required by Local Rule 7-3), especially for perceived defects in a\n+complaint, answer or counterclaim that could be corrected by amendment. See\n+Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding\n+that where a motion to dismiss is granted, a district court should provide leave to\n+amend unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment).\n+Moreover, a party has the right to amend the complaint “once as a matter of\n+course[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Even after a complaint has been amended or\n+a responsive pleading has been served, “[t]he court should freely give leave [to\n+amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit\n+requires that this policy favoring amendment be applied with “extreme liberality.”\n+Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001).\n+These principles require that plaintiff’s counsel carefully evaluate defendant’s\n+contentions as to the deficiencies in the complaint. In most instances, the moving\n+party should agree to any amendment that would cure the defect.\n+2. Motions to Amend.\n+In addition to complying with Local Rule 15-1, all motions to amend pleadings\n+shall: (1) state the effect of the amendment; and (2) identify the page and line\n+number(s) and wording of any proposed change or addition of material. The\n+proposed amended pleading shall be sequentially named to differentiate it from\n+previously amended pleadings (e.g., First Amended Complaint, Second Amended\n+Complaint, etc.).\n+In addition to Local Rule 15-1’s requirement of electronic lodging of the\n+proposed amended pleading as a document separate from the motion, counsel shall\n+attach as an appendix to the moving papers a “redlined” version of the proposed\n+amended pleading, indicating all additions and deletions of material.\n+3. Dispositive Motions.\n+7\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Each side is allowed one motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.\n+Civ. P. 56, regardless of whether such motion is denominated as a motion for\n+summary judgment. To the extent it is appropriate based on undisputed facts and\n+controlling principles of law, the court may sua sponte enter summary judgment for\n+the nonmoving party.\n+Counsel should not wait until the motion cutoff to file their motion for\n+summary judgment or partial summary judgment. All potentially dispositive\n+motions shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Court’s Order Re:\n+Summary Judgment Motions, which will be issued at the time the court issues\n+its Case Management and Scheduling Order.\n+V. EX PARTE APPLICATIONS.\n+Ex parte applications are considered on the papers and are not normally set for hearing.\n+Counsel are advised to file and serve their ex parte applications as soon as they realize that\n+extraordinary relief is necessary. The court entertains ex parte applications only in extraordinary\n+circumstances; sanctions may be imposed for misuse of the ex parte process. See Chapman v.\n+Horace Mann Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 2025 WL 1421293, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (“An ex parte\n+application is a means of obtaining extraordinary relief and is appropriate only in rare\n+circumstances.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Do v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 2025 WL\n+873012, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (“The Court’s standing requirements . . . provide that sanctions may\n+be imposed for misuse of ex parte applications.”) (emphasis omitted).\n+Ex parte applications that fail to conform to Local Rules 7-19 and 7-19.1, including a\n+statement of opposing counsel’s position, will not be considered except on a specific showing\n+of good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). The moving party shall electronically serve the\n+opposing party, if possible. A party is considered served once the ex parte application has been\n+e-filed (all parties set up for electronic service are sent a notification of ECF filing each time a\n+document is e-filed with a link to the document for one free view). For those parties set up for\n+service by fax or mail, the ex parte application must be served by fax or personal service.\n+8\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+Following service of the ex parte papers, the moving party shall notify the opposing party\n+that its opposition papers must be filed no later than twenty-four (24) hours (or one court day)\n+following service, except in cases where the opposing party has not previously appeared. Where\n+the opposing party has not previously appeared, the moving party shall, following service of the\n+ex parte papers, notify the opposing party that its opposition papers must be filed no later than\n+forty-eight (48) hours following service. If a party does not intend to oppose an ex parte\n+application, the party must inform the CRD via email as soon as possible. Unless otherwise\n+ordered, reply briefs are not allowed and will be stricken.\n+On the day the documents are e-filed, a conformed copy of the moving, opposition or\n+notice of non-opposition papers must be hand-delivered to the Clerk’s Office on the 4th Floor of\n+the First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.\n+VI. MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPIES.\n+A copy of all papers filed with the court shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office on the 4th\n+Floor of the First Street Courthouse, no later than 12:00 noon the following business day. All\n+chambers copies shall comply fully with the document formatting requirements of Local Rule 11-3\n+and the “backing” requirements of Local Rule 11-4.1.1. Counsel may be subject to sanctions for\n+failure to deliver a mandatory chambers copy in full compliance with this Order and Local Rules\n+11-3 and 11-4.1.1.\n+VII. CONTINUANCES OR EXTENSIONS OF TIME.\n+Counsel must submit any request for a continuance or extension of time no later than five\n+(5) court days prior to the expiration of the scheduled date. Requests for continuances will\n+not be granted routinely. A stipulation to continue the date of any matter must be supported by\n+a detailed declaration that demonstrates good cause justifying the requested date change. The\n+stipulation must also indicate whether there have been any previous requests for continuances\n+and whether those requests were granted or denied by the court. Counsel requesting a\n+continuance must file a stipulation containing a detailed explanation of the grounds for the\n+requested continuance as well as lodge a proposed order.\n+9\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+If it is necessary to file an ex parte application seeking an extension of a deadline, the\n+application must be accompanied by a declaration setting forth the reasons for the requested\n+extension of time. The declaration must also indicate whether there have been any previous\n+requests for continuances and whether those requests were granted or denied by the court.\n+VIII. CASES REMOVED FROM STATE COURT.\n+All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to the complaint, answers\n+and motions, must be re-filed in this court as a supplement to the notice of removal. See 28\n+U.S.C. § 1447(a)-(b). If defendant has not yet answered or filed a motion in response to the\n+complaint, the answer or responsive pleading filed in this court must comply with the Federal\n+Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. Irrespective of whether defendant filed a motion\n+or demurrer in response to the complaint in state court, defendant must file an answer or\n+responsive pleading in this court that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the\n+Local Rules. Counsel shall file with their first appearance a Notice of Interested Parties in\n+accordance with Local Rule 7.1-1.\n+If the removed action contains a form pleading (i.e., a pleading in which boxes are\n+checked), the party or parties using the form pleading must file an appropriate pleading with this\n+court within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the notice of removal. The appropriate pleading\n+must comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 7.1, 8, 9, 10 and 11.\n+Dated: July 2025.\n+/s/\n+Fernando M. Olguin\n+United States District Judge\n+10","id":"ae6490a10c97034ddbd97aa20cb0f063775df25f3a0807a74e6e1526cdd30d53","newHash":"209d9cc0d3354b378e7d034297d2f5cfaf5a378c7b6543e5b37a4c80d72dc9ec","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bd1c7516-3cae-41b8-a4da-4ddf08b1e138","snapshot":"snapshots/209d9cc0d3354b378e7d034297d2f5cfaf5a378c7b6543e5b37a4c80d72dc9ec.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/bd1c7516-3cae-41b8-a4da-4ddf08b1e138","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:22.940284+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,1163 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+,\n+Plaintiff(s),\n+v.\n+,\n+Defendants(s).\n+Case No.\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL\n+CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE\n+STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR.\n+[Updated 1/6/26]\n+READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT CONTROLS THIS CASE\n+AND DIFFERS IN PART FROM THE LOCAL RULES. FAILURE TO\n+COMPLY MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS.\n+Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve this order on all parties,\n+including any new parties to the action. If this case was removed from state court, the\n+defendant that removed the case must serve this order on all other parties. A\n+hyperlinked table of contents appears below.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+2\n+1. C OUNSEL\n+a. Civility . All counsel must immediately review and comply with the\n+Court’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at\n+www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-\n+professionalism-guidelines. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.\n+b. Presence of Lead Counsel . Only one attorney for a party may be\n+designated as lead counsel—and the designation must appear on the\n+docket if a party has more than one attorney. Lead counsel must attend\n+all proceedings other than motion hearings. For motion hearings, lead\n+counsel is encouraged to permit junior lawyers to participate. Only one\n+counsel may be designated to argue a motion absent Court approval.\n+c. Self-Represented Parties (a /k/a “Pro Se” Litigants). Parties\n+representing themselves (pro se litigants) are required to comply with all\n+Local Rules, including Local Rule 16 (“Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling;\n+Management”). In this order, the term “counsel” includes pro se\n+litigants. Only individuals may represent themselves and only in their\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+1. Counsel 9 . Ex Parte Applications\n+2. Communications with Chambers 10. Continuances\n+3. Pleadings 1 1 . Class Actions\n+4. Discovery 1 2 . ERISA Cases (Benefit Claims)\n+5. Filing Requirements 1 3 . Bankruptcy Appeals\n+6. General Motion Requirements 14. Consent to Magistrate Judge\n+7. Specific Motion Requirements 15. Sanctions for Failing to Comply\n+8. Hearings\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+3\n+individual capacities. A corporation or other entity must be represented\n+by counsel, and if counsel seeks to withdraw, counsel must advise the\n+entity of the dire consequences of failing to obtain substitute counsel\n+before seeking withdrawal—i.e., a plaintiff entity’s case will be\n+dismissed or a defendant entity will default. See Local Rule 83-2.3.4.\n+d. Duty to Notify of Settlement . Counsel must advise the Court\n+immediately if (1) the case or any pending matter has been resolved or\n+(2) a motion is pending and the parties are engaged in serious\n+negotiations that appear likely to resolve the case or the pending motion\n+(as discussed in more detail in § 8(f), infra). Failure to provide timely\n+notice of settlement may result in sanctions. The filing of a settlement\n+notice does not excuse counsel from appearing at any scheduled hearing\n+or conference that has not been vacated.\n+e. No “Notices of Unavailability.” A “Notice of Unavailability” has no\n+legal effect and should not be filed.\n+d. Substitution or Withdrawal of Counsel. Any attorney seeking to\n+substitute in as counsel must certify that the substitution will not delay\n+the prosecution of the case. See L.R. 83-2.3.5. If unable to so certify,\n+counsel must file a motion or stipulation showing good cause for the\n+delay and that substitution serves the interests of justice. Counsel\n+remains responsible for representation until the Court approves the\n+withdrawal or substitution.\n+2. C OMMUNICATIONS WITH CHAMBERS\n+Counsel shall not contact the courtroom deputy clerk (CRD) to inquire about\n+(1) the status of a pending matter or (2) court procedure addressed in the Local Rules\n+and the Court’s standing orders. Any appropriate inquiry directed to the CRD must be\n+by email only, copied to all parties. Email requests for relief that should be filed on\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+4\n+the docket—e.g., a request for a remote appearance or continuance—will generally be\n+ignored and will not excuse noncompliance with any applicable rule or order.\n+3. P LEADINGS\n+a. Service of the Summons and Complaint . The plaintiff(s) shall\n+promptly obtain the summons and serve the summons and complaint in\n+accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant\n+to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). Any defendant, including any “Doe” or\n+fictitiously named defendant, not served within 90 days after the case is\n+filed shall be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).\n+b. Removed Actions. Any answer filed in state court must be refiled in this\n+Court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Any motion pending in\n+state court at the time of removal must be re-noticed in accordance with\n+Local Rule 7. If a removed action includes a “form pleading” (i.e., a\n+check-the-box pleading), the party that filed the form pleading must file a\n+pleading in this court that complies with the federal rules within 30 days\n+of the filing of the removal notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 7.1, 8, 9, 10,\n+and 11. An amended complaint filed within 30 days after removal to\n+replace a form complaint pursuant to this instruction shall be deemed an\n+amended complaint with “the court’s leave” pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2).\n+c. Status of Fictitiously Named Defendants.\n+i. The plaintiff should identify and serve any fictitiously named\n+defendants before the date of the mandatory scheduling conference\n+(MSC) held pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).\n+ii. All Doe defendants remaining 60 days after the MSC (or on the\n+date set forth in the scheduling order, if applicable) are dismissed\n+by operation of this Order without further notice unless the\n+plaintiff requests and justifies the need for additional time in the\n+joint report for the MSC and the Court grants an extension.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+5\n+iii. Before moving to substitute a de fendant for a Doe defendant, the\n+plaintiff must seek the consent of counsel for all defendants,\n+including counsel for a represented Doe defendant. If denied\n+consent, the plaintiff must file a regularly noticed motion. In\n+diversity cases, the plaintiff’s motion must address whether the\n+addition of the newly named party destroys diversity jurisdiction.\n+See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (e).\n+4. D ISCOVERY\n+a. Magistrate Judge Referral . All discovery matters are referred to the\n+assigned magistrate judge. All discovery documents must include the\n+words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing.\n+Do not deliver chambers copies of these documents to Judge Blumenfeld.\n+The decision of the magistrate judge shall be final, subject to limited\n+review requiring a showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or\n+contrary to law. Any party may file and serve a motion for review within\n+14 days of either (i) service of a written ruling or (ii) an oral ruling that\n+expressly will not be followed by a written ruling. The motion must\n+specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or contrary to\n+law, supported by points and authorities. Counsel shall deliver a\n+conformed copy of the moving papers and responses to the magistrate\n+judge’s clerk at the time of filing.\n+b. Discovery Protective Orders . Proposed protective orders for discovery\n+must be submitted to the assigned magistrate judge. Such orders should\n+not purport to allow, without further order of Judge Blumenfeld, the\n+filing under seal of pleadings or documents filed in connection with a\n+dispositive motion, a class certification motion, or trial before Judge\n+Blumenfeld. The existence of a protective order does not alone justify\n+the filing of pleadings or other documents under seal, in whole or in part.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+6\n+c. Prompt Commencement of Discovery. The Court encourages the\n+parties to begin discovery early and expects written discovery to be\n+served promptly after the parties have conferred as required under Fed.\n+R. Civ. P. 26(f). A protective order, when necessary, shall be agreed\n+upon within one week of the Rule 26(f) conference.\n+d. Juvenile Records. In cases that will require access to juvenile records,\n+the parties shall identify the necessary records and file all requests for\n+such records with the appropriate state court by no later than the MSC. If\n+the parties fail to do so, the Court is unlikely to grant a continuance based\n+on delay in the process for obtaining juvenile records.\n+5. FILING REQUIREMENTS\n+a. Text Searchability . All documents—including pleadings, motions, and\n+exhibits—submitted to the Court must be text-searchable (i.e., “OCR’d”).\n+b. Documents with Declarations, Exhibits, and Other Attachments.\n+Except for filings in support of summary judgment motions (see MSJ\n+Standing Order), if a filed document has declarations, exhibits, or other\n+attachments, each attachment must be filed as a separately docketed\n+attachment to the main docket entry with a description of the attachment\n+(e.g., Dkt. 29-1 Smith Declaration, 29-2 Ex. 1 - License Agreement, 29-3\n+Request for Judicial Notice). The Court may decline to consider\n+documents not filed in accordance with this order.\n+c. Artificial Intelligence. Any party who uses generative artificial\n+intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to\n+generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the\n+filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of artificial intelligence\n+and certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified\n+that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the\n+filer’s Rule 11 obligations.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+7\n+d. Proposed Orders . Each party filing a motion or seeking the\n+determination of any matter shall serve and lodge a proposed order\n+setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the\n+rationale for the decision with appropriate citations.\n+i. Templates. Use the “Proposed Order” or the “CMO Continuance\n+Order” template—whichever is applicable—found on the “Orders\n+and Additional Documents” tab on Judge Blumenfeld’s webpage.\n+Failure to do so may result in the striking of the request. Proposed\n+orders should not contain: (1) attorney names, addresses, etc. on\n+the caption page; (2) a footer with the document name or other\n+information; or (3) a watermark or designation of the firm name.\n+Proposed orders should be formatted in the same fashion as\n+motions. See § 6(c)(iv), infra.\n+ii. Email. Consistent with Local Rule 5-4.4.2, the Court strictly\n+requires that a Microsoft Word copy of a proposed order, along\n+with a PDF copy of the electronically filed main document, be e-\n+mailed to the chambers e-mail address. The Court will not\n+consider a stipulation, ex parte application, or other request for\n+relief until a compliant proposed order is received by email. A\n+filing may be stricken for failure to timely comply.\n+e. Chambers Copies . Chambers copies (paper copies that are sent to\n+chambers upon electronic filing of the document) are required for the\n+following documents only: (1) motion papers (motions, oppositions,\n+replies, and related documents1), including motions in limine; (2) ex parte\n+applications for temporary restraining orders; and (3) pretrial documents\n+(memoranda of fact and law, witness and exhibit lists, pretrial conference\n+1 A motion to dismiss should include a copy of the challenged pleading.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+8\n+statement, jury instructions, verdict forms, etc.). Chambers copies must\n+comply with the rules below.\n+i. Timeliness and location. Deliver chambers copies promptly to\n+Judge Blumenfeld’s mailbox outside the Clerk’s Office on the\n+fourth floor of the First Street Courthouse. Applicable documents\n+will not be considered until chambers copies are submitted.\n+ii. Format. Chambers copies should be copies of the filed\n+document—i.e., they should have the docket information on the\n+top of each page. Filings that include highlighting, color\n+photographs, “redlining,” or the like should be printed in color.\n+Short filings should be fastened by a staple or binder clip in the top\n+left corner. Larger filings should be delivered in a three-ring\n+binder. Binders must have both a cover sheet and a spine label that\n+includes the case name, case number, and a description of the\n+contents.\n+iii. Exhibits. Separate all exhibits by a tab divider on the right or\n+bottom of the document. If the evidence exceeds 50 pages, the\n+chambers copy must: (1) include a table of contents; and (2) be in\n+a tabbed three-ring binder with each exhibit separated by a tab\n+divider on the right or the bottom.\n+f. Notices of Deficiency . When a filing fails to comply with court rules,\n+the Clerk’s Office may issue a notice of deficiency, which typically states\n+that no action is required unless the Court directs otherwise. The parties\n+should not treat the deficient filing as having been stricken unless the\n+Court separately orders it stricken. A deficiency notice by itself does not\n+relieve any party of its obligations with respect to a filing (e.g., timely\n+filing an opposition or appearing at a noticed hearing).\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+9\n+6. G ENERAL MOTION REQUIREMENTS\n+a. “Meet and Confer” Requirement . Local Rule 7-3 requires counsel to\n+conduct a prefiling conference at least seven days before a motion is\n+filed2 “to discuss thoroughly . . . the substance of the contemplated\n+motion and any potential resolution” and to include with each motion “a\n+declaration . . . that sets forth at a minimum the date(s) the conference\n+took place and the position of each party with respect to each disputed\n+issue that will be the subject of the motion.”\n+i. Scope. This requireme nt applies in all cases, including those with\n+pro se litigants, and extends to all issues. If the parties are unable\n+to fully resolve the dispute, they shall attempt to narrow the scope\n+of the contested issues. Parties must meet and confer in person or\n+by videoconference; email correspondence is insufficient. A\n+motion not supported by the certification below may be stricken or\n+summarily denied.\n+ii. Certification. The moving party shall include a signed certification\n+as part of the declaration required by Local Rule 7-3 as follows:\n+“I certify that the parties met in person or by videoconference,\n+thoroughly discussed each and every issue raised in the\n+motion, and attempted in good faith to resolve the motion in\n+whole or in part.”\n+If a nonmoving party refuses to participate in good faith, the\n+moving party shall explain the refusal in detail.\n+iii. Sanctions. Failure by any party to comply in good faith with the\n+meet-and-confer requirement shall result in an order to show cause\n+2 In the event that the Court sets an expedited deadline that does not allow the parties\n+to meet at least seven days before the motion is filed, the parties shall meet and confer\n+as soon as practicable; they are not excused from compliance with Local Rule 7-3.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+10\n+re sanctions—including, as appropriate, striking or denying the\n+motion, deeming the motion unopposed, and/or awarding monetary\n+sanctions.\n+b. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions. This Court hears civil motions\n+on Fridays at 8:30 a.m.\n+i. Holidays. If Friday is a cour t holiday, select another Friday.\n+Opposition or reply papers due on a Friday holiday may be filed\n+the following Monday.\n+ii. Closed Dates. Hearing dates ar e closed at least four weeks in\n+advance, and closed hearing dates are noted on Judge\n+Blumenfeld’s webpage. A motion filed on a closed hearing date\n+will be stricken or continued at the Court’s discretion. A party that\n+waits too long and files a motion to be heard on a date that turns\n+out to be unavailable risks having the motion stricken and not\n+considered at all.\n+iii. Non-Opposition. Failure to timely oppose a motion will likely\n+result in the motion being granted after the opposition would have\n+been due. See Local Rule 7-12 (failure to timely file “may be\n+deemed consent to the granting . . . of the motion”).\n+iv. Resolution. If the parties reso lve the issue(s) presented in a\n+motion, by settlement or otherwise, the Court must be notified\n+immediately to avoid unnecessary judicial work.\n+c. Length, Footnotes, and Format of Motion Papers\n+i. Length. Unless otherwise e xpressly permitted, no supporting or\n+opposing memorandum shall exceed 7,000 words (or 25 pages,\n+double spaced, if handwritten), and no reply memorandum shall\n+exceed 4,000 words (or 15 pages, double spaced, if handwritten)—\n+excluding only indices and exhibits. Counsel shall certify\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+11\n+compliance with the word count pursuant to Local Rule 11-6.2.\n+Good cause to extend these limitations will rarely be found. A\n+memorandum that exceeds the allowable length may be stricken.\n+ii. Footnotes. Use no more than ei ght footnotes in any supporting or\n+opposing brief, and no more than five footnotes in any reply.\n+Citations that support a statement in the main text should be\n+included in the main text, not in footnotes.\n+iv. Format. Use only 14-point Times New Roman font, including for\n+footnotes. Footnotes shall be separated by 12-point spacing.\n+v. Reply Briefs. The purpose of a reply brief is to respond succinctly\n+to the arguments in the opposition. A reply brief should not repeat\n+the background or legal standard contained in the motion and\n+should not repeat arguments except to the extent necessary to\n+respond to the opposition.\n+d. Citations to Authority. Any argument or statement of law not\n+supported by legal authority may be deemed waived or forfeited to the\n+extent allowed by law. The parties should comply with Bluebook\n+formatting and the citation requirements below.\n+i. Pin Cites. Case c itations must identify both the case cited and the\n+specific page referenced.\n+ii. String Cites. Parties should not use string cites without a good\n+reason. When using string cites, a party should include a\n+parenthetical explanation for each cited case.\n+iii. Legal Databases. When citing to unpublished materials in legal\n+databases, cite to Westlaw (not Lexis) whenever possible.\n+However, parties that do not have access to Westlaw will not be\n+penalized for citing to other sources.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+12\n+iv. U.S. Statutes. Statutory referen ces should identify with specificity\n+the sections and subsections referenced. Citations should be to the\n+relevant official statutory code (e.g., the U.S. Code) and should not\n+merely reference the popular name of an act.\n+v. Treatises, Manuals, and the Like. Citations to treatises, manuals,\n+and other materials should include the volume, section, and\n+relevant pages. Attach copies if these materials are not accessible\n+on Westlaw, especially for historical materials (e.g., older\n+legislative history).\n+7. S PECIFIC MOTION REQUIREMENTS\n+a. Motions Pursuant to Rule 12 . Most motions to dismiss or strike,\n+especially motions raising alleged defects in a complaint, answer, or\n+counterclaim that could be corrected by amendment, can be avoided if\n+the parties confer in good faith as required by Local Rule 7-3. In general,\n+the Court will provide leave to amend upon granting a motion to dismiss\n+unless it is clear the complaint is not correctible. See Rosenberg Bros. &\n+Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406, 406 (9th Cir. 1960) (requiring “extreme\n+liberality” in favor of amendments). A good-faith meet-and-confer may\n+avoid this costly and inefficient process. If the plaintiff, counterclaimant,\n+or crossclaimant believes its pleading can be strengthened by adding facts\n+that would help it survive a pleading challenge, the better course is to\n+amend before the parties devote resources to briefing a motion. The\n+Court expects the parties to thoroughly discuss any proposed\n+amendments during their meet-and-confer and to agree to amendment if\n+doing so will avoid the need for serial motions. Otherwise, if the Ninth\n+Circuit’s “extreme liberality” standard applies to a meritoriously filed\n+motion, the Court may summarily grant leave to amend. If the Court\n+grants a motion to dismiss with leave to amend, the plaintiff must file an\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+13\n+amended complaint within seven days, unless otherwise specified.\n+Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in dismissal with\n+prejudice.\n+b. Motions to Amend Pleadings . A motion to amend the pleadings must\n+describe and state the effect of the proposed amendment and be\n+accompanied by a “redlined” version of the proposed amended pleading\n+indicating all additions and deletions to the prior version of the pleading.\n+Before the motion is filed, the redlined version must be delivered to\n+opposing counsel at least two hours in advance of the Local Rule 7-3\n+conference; and if the plaintiff later changes the delivered version,\n+counsel will be required to meet again about the revised pleading. In\n+addition to the requirements of the Local Rules, all amended pleadings\n+must be serially numbered to differentiate each amendment (i.e., “First\n+Amended Complaint,” “Second Amended Complaint” . . .).\n+c. Motions for Summary Judgment . Please refer to Judge Blumenfeld’s\n+Standing Order re Motions for Summary Judgment found on the Orders\n+and Additional Documents tab on Judge Blumenfeld’s webpage at\n+https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable-stanley-blumenfeld-jr.\n+d. PLRA Exhaustion Motions. The issue of exhaustion under the Prison\n+Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) must be raised at the beginning of the\n+litigation. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). A party\n+seeking to obtain a judicial determination of any material fact dispute\n+precluding summary judgment on exhaustion must file a request for a\n+hearing within 14 days of the filing of the order denying summary\n+judgment. The failure to file a timely request may be construed as a\n+waiver or forfeiture of the exhaustion issue.\n+e. Motions for Default Judgment. Unless the Court orders otherwise,\n+motions for default judgment shall be filed within 14 days after the later\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+14\n+of (1) entry of default against the last remaining defendant or\n+(2) resolution of all claims against all defendants who have not defaulted.\n+The motion must include a showing of both subject-matter and personal\n+jurisdiction. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). A\n+plaintiff who moves for default judgment and wishes to seek attorney’s\n+fees and costs must include in the motion a properly supported request\n+for attorney’s fees and costs together with the motion for default\n+judgment. Failure to do so will result in the striking of any subsequent\n+motion for attorney’s fees and costs absent a showing of good cause. The\n+Court may vacate the hearing on a motion for default judgment if no\n+opposition is timely filed, and the notice of motion should so state.\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, the movant must appear at the motion\n+hearing prepared to argue the motion and respond to any tentative\n+opinion even in the absence of an opposition.\n+f. Motions for Attorney’s Fees. A motion for attorney’s fees must be\n+supported by documentation of the billed hours for which the movant\n+seeks to recover fees. The movant shall additionally provide by email to\n+the CRD an Excel spreadsheet documenting the hours for which the\n+movant seeks recovery, using the format in the following example:\n+Date Name Position Task Category Hours Rate Amount\n+3/2/23 John\n+Smith\n+Associate Researched choice\n+of law for motion to\n+dismiss\n+MTD 0.7 $300 $210.00\n+3/5/23 Jane\n+Doe\n+Partner Spoke with client\n+about medical\n+history\n+CC 0.2 $500 $100.00\n+3/5/23 Jerry\n+Roe\n+Paralegal Assembled case\n+folder\n+ADM 0.1 $150 $15.00\n+If the parties use abbreviations in th e category column (as in the example\n+provided), they shall include a legend identifying the meaning of each\n+abbreviation.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+15\n+g. Applications to Seal . If the Court has previously granted leave to seal a\n+particular exhibit, the parties need not file a new application to file that\n+exhibit under seal in connection with a new filing. The parties may\n+simply file the exhibit under seal together with a statement that the Court\n+has already permitted sealing of the exhibit, with a citation to the relevant\n+order.\n+h. Reports and Recommendations. Objections to a magistrate judge’s\n+report and recommendation, as well as responses to objections, shall be\n+limited to 10 pages absent leave of court.\n+8. MOTION HEARINGS\n+a. Remote Appearances. Remote appearances are not permitted absent\n+good cause shown in a declaration concurrently filed with the moving\n+papers or the opposition. Absent a concurrent filing, a party requesting to\n+appear remotely must submit a declaration establishing that the party is\n+unable to appear in person due to an unanticipated and unavoidable\n+emergency and that the request was made promptly upon learning of the\n+emergency. Instructions for remote appearance can be found on Judge\n+Blumenfeld’s webpage. Counsel appearing remotely are responsible for\n+ensuring that their equipment and the internet connection in the location\n+from which they will be participating are reliable and adequate for\n+uninterrupted video participation.\n+b. Submission without Argument . The Court may take a motion off\n+calendar if it concludes the decision will not benefit from oral argument.\n+c. Time. If oral argument is permitted, the parties will have a total of 20\n+minutes, divided equally between the sides, unless the Court states\n+otherwise. If the Court believes that the matter warrants less or more\n+time, it will advise counsel at the hearing.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+16\n+d. Tentatives . The Court often issues written tentative rulings and makes\n+them available on Judge Blumenfeld’s webpage the afternoon before the\n+hearing by 6:00 p.m. The purpose of the tentative ruling is to focus the\n+discussion at the hearing. No party shall file any written response to the\n+tentative ruling without leave of court. A tentative ruling does not\n+represent the final decision of the Court, and the parties are strictly\n+prohibited from filing it as an exhibit or otherwise in any case.\n+e. Oral Argument . If a tentative has issued, the parties should be prepared\n+to explain why the analysis is correct or incorrect. The Court often tests\n+its reasoning by asking questions and expects counsel to respond directly\n+and candidly.\n+f. Settlement. Counsel must notify the Court at least two weeks before the\n+scheduled hearing if the parties are conducting settlement discussions\n+that may render the motion moot and must notify the Court immediately\n+if a settlement is reached. A belated settlement notice wastes scarce\n+judicial resources and will subject the offending parties to sanctions—\n+and it may also result in the release of the tentative ruling.\n+g. Evidentiary Hearings. If the parties seek an evidentiary hearing on any\n+matter, they shall (1) notify the Court at the time of filing that they intend\n+to present evidence and (2) provide an estimate of the time required. No\n+later than seven days before the hearing, the parties shall file joint\n+witness and exhibit lists—including a list of challenged exhibits—that\n+comply with the requirements in the Court’s Civil Pretrial and Trial\n+Order. Failure to timely request an evidentiary hearing or to file the\n+required materials will be deemed a waiver of any right to an evidentiary\n+hearing.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+17\n+9. EX PARTE APPLICATIONS\n+A party seeking ex parte relief, includi ng a temporary restraining order, must\n+comply fully with Local Rule 7-19.3\n+a. Notice . The applicant must (1) notify the other party (or parties) that\n+opposing papers are to be filed no later than 48 hours following service\n+or by 3:00 p.m. on the first court day after the service, whichever is later,\n+and (2) advise the Court in a declaration whether any party opposes the\n+application.\n+b. Submission . The application will not be considered until a chambers\n+copy has been provided. Once the application is submitted for decision,\n+the Court will rule on the papers unless it elects to set a hearing. Do not\n+contact chambers about the status.\n+c. No Tolling of Obligation . An application or stipulation does not serve\n+to toll, or relieve a party of, an underlying obligation (e.g., a soon-to-\n+expire deadline). Parties should not assume that an unopposed ex parte\n+application or stipulation will be granted; and a last-minute application or\n+stipulation that is denied may result in a party’s defaulting on the\n+underlying obligation.\n+10. C ONTINUANCES\n+The Court grants continuances of pret rial and trial deadlines only on a timely\n+showing of good cause. The Court applies the same standard of good cause to all\n+extension requests—whether opposed, unopposed, or jointly requested.\n+a. Good Cause . Good cause requires a specific, detailed, and non-\n+conclusory showing of diligence from the outset of the case, describing:\n+(1) all relevant work previously done (including when each item was\n+completed), (2) all relevant work that remains to be done, (3) why the\n+3 A party seeks ex parte relief when proceeding without a noticed motion, even if the\n+filing is improperly styled as a motion.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+18\n+remaining work could not previously have been done (including efforts\n+made to complete each remaining item), and (4) why the amount of time\n+requested is needed to complete the remaining work.\n+b. Diligence. The Case Management Order (CMO) that the parties will\n+receive following the MSC contains an attachment with information that\n+must be submitted in table form to show diligence. Diligence generally\n+will not be found when a party delays serving or pursuing written\n+discovery, engages in strategic staging of discovery or other tasks, or opts\n+for in-person depositions that prevent completion within the existing\n+deadline. The parties should plan to complete discovery far enough in\n+advance of the discovery deadline to allow for both the filing of a\n+discovery motion if necessary and the completion of any court-ordered\n+discovery. Moreover, a desire to engage in settlement discussions does\n+not constitute good cause to extend existing deadlines. The parties are\n+strongly encouraged to agree to exchange initial disclosures promptly and\n+to actively commence discovery before the MSC.\n+c. Proposed Order . The parties must complete and submit the CMO\n+Extension Order Template found at the “Orders & Additional\n+Documents” tab on Judge Blumenfeld’s webpage. Please follow the\n+highlighted directions at the end of the document. File the proposed\n+order and submit an electronic Word copy to Judge Blumenfeld’s\n+chambers email.\n+d. Denied with Prejudice. Denial of an extension request, including\n+summary denial, is with prejudice. The parties should therefore present\n+all available information showing that the outstanding discovery or other\n+litigation tasks cannot be completed within the existing deadlines despite\n+all reasonable diligence from the outset of the case. A party is not\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+19\n+permitted to resubmit a denied extension request with additional\n+information that was previously available.\n+* * *\n+Failure to comply with the procedural requirements above—including the use\n+and proper completion of the table in the MSC Order attachment and the CMO\n+Extension template—may result in the extension request being stricken or\n+summarily denied. An improper resubmission of a denied extension request\n+may result in sanctions.\n+11. C LASS ACTIONS\n+The parties in a putative class action are to act diligently and begin discovery\n+immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. A\n+motion for class certification must be filed no later than 120 days from the date\n+initially set for the scheduling conference unless the Court orders otherwise.\n+12. ERISA CASES (BENEFIT CLAIMS)\n+The parties may receive an MSC Order as a matter of course. Because the\n+ordinary pretrial and trial schedule does not apply to ERISA cases that will be decided\n+on the administrative record, the parties need only submit a joint status report\n+identifying any special issues that should be considered, as described in § 3(d) of the\n+MSC Order. The parties should proceed with the preparation of the administrative\n+record and briefing without delay upon service of the complaint. If necessary, the\n+Court will hear motions to determine the standard of review, whether discovery will\n+be permitted, and the scope of the administrative record. Counsel are discouraged\n+from filing motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment for a merits\n+determination. See Kearney v. Standard Insurance Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1095 (9th Cir.\n+1999) (en banc) (noting the difference in procedures between Rule 56 and Rule 52).\n+A court trial, ordinarily limited to oral argument on the administrative record, will be\n+scheduled within six months from the filing of the original complaint, unless good\n+cause for additional time is shown in the status report. If the Court concludes that the\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+20\n+decision would not benefit from oral argument, the matter may be submitted for\n+decision on the papers.\n+13. B ANKRUPTCY APPEALS\n+Counsel must comply with the Notice Regarding Appeal from Bankruptcy\n+Court issued at the time the appeal is filed in the district court. The matter is deemed\n+under submission on the filing of the appellant’s reply brief. The Court considers\n+bankruptcy appeals on the papers and usually does not set these matters for hearing.\n+14. C ONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n+The parties may consent to have a magistrate judge preside over the entire case,\n+including trial. The parties may choose any magistrate judge on the Voluntary\n+Consent List found on the Central District website. If the parties consent, they should\n+contact the courtroom deputy of the selected magistrate judge to confirm his or her\n+availability and, upon confirmation, promptly file a “Notice of Lodging of Consent”\n+along with Form CV-11D (Statement of Consent to Proceed Before a United States\n+Magistrate Judge, found at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/forms)\n+attached thereto. If the magistrate judge to whom the parties have consented becomes\n+unavailable after the case has been referred, the parties shall meet and confer in good\n+faith to select another magistrate judge on the Voluntary Consent List to preside over\n+the case.\n+15. S ANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY\n+If, without satisfactory explanation, counsel fail to file the required joint Rule\n+26(f) report or the required pretrial documents, fail to appear at any scheduled\n+proceeding, or otherwise fail to comply with judicial orders or rules, the Court shall\n+take any action it deems appropriate, including: (1) dismissal of the case for failure to\n+prosecute, if the failure occurs on the part of the plaintiff; (2) striking the answer\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+21\n+resulting in default if such failure occurs on the part of the defendant; (3) imposing\n+monetary sanctions against the offending party and counsel, and/or (4) where\n+applicable, revoking the pro hac vice status of attorneys so admitted.\n+Date: January 14, 2026 ___________________________\n+Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.\n+United States District Judge","id":"9a2989d27734a9dcf4f6bc7d7d3bb118b709445fef3126ab78ee5d64fc0a35e3","newHash":"d02ad87a830ec1b0e9976b8e274e3bfe3abfc4e2da201d116c51a4de25135067","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/d722706b-9e07-4f2d-d1c5-08de5387c55f","snapshot":"snapshots/d02ad87a830ec1b0e9976b8e274e3bfe3abfc4e2da201d116c51a4de25135067.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/d722706b-9e07-4f2d-d1c5-08de5387c55f","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:23.084453+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"f56b2978c056eb69038ff6b5e6cb3575f5bbec47a4368b51676763970326e2b2","newHash":"0b884be01f8a4b4cc0ce062f2829ecabdd21d4554442f07271f83cc2533cfe7c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://arcourts.gov/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arcourts.gov/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:23.069840+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"a2fd76df52b9125d2ae0739b518f035ac640512c87252f024fbe6d3580244466","newHash":"92f6d31bfa59e507823cf12ead144752dfdbfab5743e641006004fc9cdebfe5e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:23.259632+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"b3e7e3ede7f8db60706e17ebc515da15b92ac88104eb94d7a7ae8b18ddc0c81a","newHash":"e159270cf0bd4e043ce65c0908562fba6965795d85972f4d81bfdb2ff11dbb52","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://azcjc.azcourts.gov/Portals/5/137/rules/2025%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://azcjc.azcourts.gov/Portals/5/137/rules/2025%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:24.865726+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,600 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE JUDGE EUMI K. LEE\n+(Updated August 31, 2026)\n+I. CONFORMITY TO RULES .........................................................................................1\n+II. COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT ...................................................................1\n+III. EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS ..................................................................................1\n+IV. PRONOUNS AND TITLES ..........................................................................................1\n+V. SCHEDULING ..............................................................................................................1\n+VI. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES ..................................................................2\n+VII. FILINGS AND CHAMBERS COPIES .........................................................................5\n+VIII. MOTIONS AND HEARINGS .......................................................................................7\n+IX. SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...........................................................................................10\n+X. DISCOVERY .............................................................................................................. 11\n+XI. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS ............................................................................12\n+XII. REQUESTS FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES .........13\n+XIII. UNREPRESENTED PARTIES ...................................................................................13\n+ATTACHMENT A .........................................................................................................................14\n+1\n+I. CONFORMITY TO RULES\n+Parties and counsel shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil\n+Local Rules, and the General Orders of the Northern District of California, except as superseded\n+by this Court’s standing orders.\n+II. COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT\n+Parties and counsel shall not engage in any ex parte communication with Judge Lee or\n+her chambers staff by telephone, facsimile, e-mail, or any other means, unless such contact has\n+been authorized in advance. Parties and counsel may contact Judge Lee’s Courtroom Deputy at\n+eklcrd@cand.uscourts.gov with inquiries regarding scheduling or other administrative matters.\n+All counsel and unrepresented parties shall be included on any e-mail communications with\n+Judge Lee’s Courtroom Deputy.\n+Judge Lee does not review or respond to letters or letter briefs providing case information\n+or seeking relief from the Court, even if the letter is filed on the docket. All requests for the\n+Court to take action shall be made either by stipulation and proposed order or by an appropriate\n+motion filed pursuant to the Civil Local Rules.\n+III. EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS\n+Counsel should call and email Judge Lee’s Courtroom Deputy at (408) 535-5330 and\n+eklcrd@cand.uscourts.gov to notify her if they submit an application for a temporary restraining\n+order, a stipulation that requires a response from the Court within 24 hours, or any other\n+emergency request.\n+A party moving for emergency relief must demonstrate that it made every reasonable\n+effort to notify the opposing party and the opposing party’s counsel, at the earliest possible time,\n+of its intent to seek emergency relief. Failure to do so will likely result in denial of the request.\n+IV. PRONOUNS AND TITLES\n+If they so choose, litigants and lawyers may indicate their pronouns (e.g., she/her, he/him,\n+they/their) and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.) by adding the information in the name block\n+or signature line of the pleadings, by filing a letter on the public docket, or by informing the\n+Court at the start of a hearing.\n+V. SCHEDULING\n+Parties should review Judge Lee’s calendar and scheduling notes on the website\n+(https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/ekl/lee-eumi-k) for the most recent information regarding when\n+and where hearings are held and specific date availability.\n+Civil motions are heard by reservation only. After reviewing the website, parties and\n+counsel shall meet and confer to identify proposed hearing dates that are amenable to all relevant\n+2\n+parties and counsel. Parties shall jointly contact Judge Lee’s Courtroom Deputy via email at\n+eklcrd@cand.uscourts.gov to reserve a hearing date. When reserving a hearing date, parties must\n+indicate the number and type(s) of motions to be filed.\n+Once a hearing date is reserved, the motion(s) shall be filed within fourteen (14) days\n+thereafter. Failure to timely file any motion will result in the expiration of the hearing\n+reservation without further notice to the parties, and the moving party must obtain a new\n+reservation before filing the motion(s).\n+After the Court issues a scheduling order, continuances in civil cases are granted only\n+upon a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Any request for a continuance or\n+extension of time that requires a court order must be filed not later than three (3) court days prior\n+to the deadline that the party wishes to extend. Parties and counsel must demonstrate good\n+cause; they may not simply stipulate that good cause has been shown. The caption of any\n+request for a continuance or extension shall indicate how many previous extensions have been\n+requested (e.g., “First Request for Extension”). The request must state whether the Court has\n+granted those extensions and whether the Court has stated that no further extensions will be\n+granted.\n+VI. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, case management conferences will be held remotely\n+via Zoom. The attorney appearing at a case management conference must have full authority to\n+make decisions about any issue that may come up during the conference but need not be lead\n+counsel.\n+If a defendant files a motion to dismiss that is dispositive of the entire case, the parties\n+can stipulate to move the initial case management conference to 21 days after the hearing on\n+that motion. Otherwise, the initial case management conference generally will not be moved.\n+Parties must prepare and file a joint case management statement fourteen (14) days prior\n+to the date of any case management or status conference. The joint case management statement\n+shall comply with the “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California –\n+Contents of Joint Case Management Statement” and Civil Local Rule 16-9. In their joint case\n+management statement for the initial case management conference, the parties must propose a\n+full litigation schedule, including a proposed last day to amend pleadings as well as a deadline to\n+complete ADR.\n+Target dates and deadlines are set forth below, including ranges to account for the\n+complex nature of the case. Proposals that deviate from the timeline set forth below must be\n+explained. The Court may vacate a case management conference and issue a scheduling order\n+based on the parties’ written submission.\n+3\n+Case Stage Deadline\n+Deadline to Request Leave to\n+Amend Pleadings (per Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 15)\n+No later than 60 days after the initial case management\n+conference\n+Deadline to Complete Initial ADR\n+Session\n+Generally 120 days after the initial case management\n+conference\n+Further Case Management\n+Conference\n+Four to eight (4-8) weeks before the close of fact\n+discovery\n+Close of Fact Discovery Six to eight (6-8) months after the initial case\n+management conference\n+Close of Expert Discovery No more than four (4) months after the close of fact\n+discovery\n+Close of Briefing on Summary\n+Judgment and Daubert\n+motions\n+No more than ten (10) weeks after the close of expert\n+discovery\n+Hearing on Summary Judgment and\n+Daubert motions\n+Four (4) weeks after the final brief is submitted\n+Pretrial Conference At least twelve (12) weeks after the last day to hear\n+summary judgment and Daubert motions, and at least\n+four (4) weeks before trial begins, with a joint pretrial\n+statement due three (3) weeks before the conference\n+Trial Twelve to twenty (12-20) months after the initial case\n+management conference\n+Mid-Discovery Case Management Statement: The Court may set a deadline for the\n+filing of a mid-discovery case management statement, not to exceed ten (10) pages, at the\n+approximate midpoint of the fact discovery period. The statement should address the status of\n+the case and any other matters that warrant the Court’s attention. If any party believes a\n+conference is needed, the party shall identify the issue(s) that require the Court’s attention and\n+detail the efforts that the parties have made to resolve the issue. Such requests should be made\n+on an extremely limited basis after extensive efforts to meet and confer in person or by\n+videoconference.\n+4\n+Further Case Management Conference: The Court will hold a further case\n+management conference approximately four to eight (4-8) weeks before the close of fact\n+discovery. No later than fourteen (14) days before the further case management conference, the\n+parties shall file a joint case management statement, not to exceed ten (10) pages, containing the\n+following information:\n+• Motions: All prior and pending motions, the status thereof, and any anticipated\n+motions. If no briefing schedule has been set for summary judgment, Daubert, class\n+certification, and any other motions, the parties shall jointly propose a schedule.\n+• Status of Discovery: If discovery has not been completed, the scope of any\n+anticipated further discovery, proposed modifications to the discovery plan, and a\n+realistic estimate of when discovery will be complete.\n+• Settlement and ADR: A description of all ADR efforts to date and whether further\n+ADR efforts should be pursued prior to trial.\n+• Bifurcation and Separate Trial of Issues: A statement addressing whether bifurcation\n+or a separate trial of specific issues is appropriate or desired.\n+• Trial: A brief statement describing each party’s readiness for trial, whether the case\n+will be tried before a jury or to the Court, and a realistic estimate of the length of the\n+trial.\n+Close of Fact Discovery: The close of fact discovery is the date by which all discovery\n+must be completed, including motions to compel, hearings on discovery motions, and any\n+additional discovery resulting from orders on discovery motions. Accordingly, all discovery\n+requests shall be served sufficiently in advance of the close of fact discovery to allow the\n+discovering party enough time prior to the cut-off date to challenge allegedly deficient responses\n+via motion to compel and to receive the necessary responses if the motion is granted. Notice of\n+depositions must be given at least 30 days prior to the close of fact discovery.\n+Class Certification: In putative class actions, the Court’s general practice is to issue a\n+schedule through the class certification hearing. However, in their initial case management\n+statement, the parties may propose a full case schedule through trial for the Court’s\n+consideration. The parties should also address whether class certification and summary\n+judgment motions will be briefed concurrently or consecutively. The Court typically does not\n+bifurcate discovery but encourages prioritization of discovery on issues that will best serve the\n+parties’ proposed case schedule.\n+Daubert and Summary Judgment Motions: Motions challenging the reliability of\n+expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579\n+(1993), shall be noticed for hearing no later than the summary judgment hearing deadline. The\n+parties must allow at least twelve to sixteen (12-16) weeks between the proposed summary\n+judgment hearing date and the proposed final pretrial conference.\n+5\n+Trial Date: Generally, parties should budget no more than twelve to twenty (12-20)\n+months between the initial case management conference and trial. Parties requesting longer\n+pretrial periods must be prepared to justify that request at the initial case management\n+conference. A trial date typically will be set at the initial case management conference, except\n+for class action and patent cases. In such cases, the Court will set a trial date after ruling on class\n+certification or claim construction, respectively. Trial dates will not be continued absent a strong\n+showing of good cause.\n+VII. FILINGS AND CHAMBERS COPIES\n+A. Amended Pleadings\n+All amended pleadings shall attach as an exhibit a redlined or highlighted document\n+showing the changes made to the previously-filed pleading.\n+B. Documents Filed on ECF\n+When filing documents on ECF, each motion, supporting declaration, and exhibit should\n+be filed as a separate text-searchable PDF. A declaration, along with any exhibits, should\n+generally be filed as one docket entry, with the declaration as the “Main Document” in ECF, and\n+each exhibit filed separately as an “Attachment.” For example, if the motion is Docket No. 20,\n+and the supporting declaration is Docket No. 21, Exhibit A would be filed as Docket No. 21-1,\n+Exhibit B would be Docket No. 21-2, and so on. When filing motions, declarations, and\n+exhibits, the ECF “Description” of each document should include the name of the document.\n+Where each party relies on the same exhibit, the later-filing party should cite to the earlier-filed\n+exhibit and should not file a duplicate exhibit. If possible, the parties should meet and confer\n+prior to filing a motion and submit a joint appendix of evidence.\n+C. Chambers Copies\n+The moving party is required to deliver two (2) complete chambers copies of the briefing\n+on a motion, except for administrative motions, within two (2) court days after briefing\n+concludes. Chambers copies for sealing motions are addressed below in Section VII.D.\n+Chambers copies should be double-sided and should bear the ECF filing “stamp” (case\n+number, docket number, date, and ECF page number) along the top of the page when possible.\n+All exhibits shall be clearly delineated with labels along the right side. If the filing includes\n+exhibits over two-inches thick, the parties shall place the copies in a binder. Binders should not\n+exceed three inches. The copies shall be marked “Chambers Copy” and submitted to the Clerk’s\n+Office in an envelope marked with “Judge Lee,” the case number, and “Chambers Copy.”\n+For Social Security appeals, the Court requests that the Commissioner submit one\n+chambers copy of the administrative record within five court days after electronically filing it.\n+The chambers copy should be placed in one or more binders. Each document should be tabbed\n+with labels along the right side. The chambers copy should be submitted to the Clerk’s Office\n+and labeled with the case number, “Judge Lee,” and “Chambers Copy.”\n+6\n+D. Sealed Documents\n+The Court requires strict compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Public access to court\n+records is a fundamental aspect of our democracy and justice system. The filing party must\n+make a specific showing as to each statement or document to be sealed. Blanket requests that\n+make generic reference to “competitive harm” are almost always insufficient. If a party files a\n+request that is significantly overbroad or fails to provide a specific reason for sealing, the Court\n+may deny the request in its entirety.\n+Each document filed under seal must be highlighted to show the proposed redactions. If\n+a party believes it is appropriate to seal an entire document, the filed document should be labeled\n+to indicate that sealing is sought in full.\n+In addition to complying with Civil Local Rule 79-5, each motion to seal must include a\n+chart, in the format set forth below, that includes the following columns: (1) ECF number or\n+exhibit number of the document sought to be sealed; (2) description or name of the document\n+sought to be sealed; (3) portion(s) of the document to seal; and (4) reason(s) why the document\n+should be sealed, including citation to the applicable declaration. Each separate document for\n+which sealing is sought shall have its own row in the table.\n+ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing\n+252 Plaintiff’s Motion\n+for Summary\n+Judgment\n+Highlighted portions\n+at 4:9-12; 10:2-7.\n+Contains confidential information\n+relating to the parties’ licenses and\n+negotiations with third parties, and\n+Plaintiff’s internal financial and\n+business strategies. See Doe Decl.\n+¶¶ 3-7. Public disclosure of this\n+information would cause harm to\n+Plaintiff. Id.\n+In addition, the motion must be accompanied by a proposed order that complies with\n+Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is organized in the following format. Proposed orders should be filed\n+in PDF format on ECF and sent in Microsoft Word format to eklpo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Granted/Denied\n+252 Plaintiff’s Motion\n+for Summary\n+Judgment\n+Highlighted portions\n+at 4:9-12; 10:2-7.\n+[Leave blank]\n+Chambers copies of sealing motions shall include only unredacted documents;\n+chambers copies of redacted documents need not and shall not be submitted to the Court.\n+7\n+Chambers copies of unredacted documents shall clearly indicate with yellow highlighting the\n+portions that the party is requesting to seal.\n+VIII. MOTIONS AND HEARINGS\n+A. Meet and Confer Requirement\n+At least seven (7) days before filing any motion, the moving party must meet and confer\n+with the opposing party or parties in person or by videoconference. During the conference, the\n+moving party shall disclose the bases for its anticipated motion. The purpose of this conference\n+is to resolve or narrow disputed issues where possible to reduce motion practice.\n+In the notice of motion, counsel for the moving party must certify that this meet-and-\n+confer requirement has been satisfied, citing specifically to this section of the Civil Standing\n+Order. If the notice of motion does not include such a certification, the Court may strike the\n+motion and order the moving party to re-file the motion with a certification once the meet-and-\n+confer requirement has been met.\n+The meet-and-confer requirement will be excused only under emergency circumstances\n+where the moving party cannot reasonably comply. In such cases, the moving party must still\n+certify that it has notified all other relevant parties in advance of filing its motion, and must detail\n+the efforts made to meet and confer.\n+B. Page Limits\n+Absent leave of court, the page limits for the following types of motions and proceedings\n+shall be 25 pages for the motion or opening brief, 25 pages for the opposition or response brief,\n+and fifteen (15) pages for the reply brief: motions brought under Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure 12, 23, 50, 56, 59, or 65; motions for certification of a collective action under the Fair\n+Labor Standards Act; motions brought under California’s anti-SLAPP statute; Social Security\n+appeals; and claim construction briefing.\n+Absent leave of court, the page limits for all other types of motions and proceedings,\n+except for those addressed above or those for which specific page limits are set forth in the Civil\n+Local Rules or the Court’s Standing Orders, shall be ten (10) pages for the motion or opening\n+brief, ten (10) pages for the opposition or response brief, and five (5) pages for the reply brief.\n+Motions subject to these limits include motions for sanctions, motions for attorneys’ fees, motions\n+to stay, motions to compel arbitration, and motions to remand.\n+If a party files its own motion and joins in another party’s motion, both the party’s own\n+motion and the joined motion will count toward the party’s page limits. Where multiple parties\n+are represented by the same counsel, all motions filed by those parties are limited to a single\n+brief which complies with the page limits set forth above, absent leave of court.\n+These page limits are maximums, not minimums. Counsel and parties are encouraged to\n+be concise. Excess pages will not be considered by the Court.\n+8\n+Footnotes shall not be used to cite to legal authorities or evidence. All citations to legal\n+authorities or evidence shall be in the body of the brief. Excessive footnotes will be disregarded.\n+In general, no more than five (5) footnotes per brief should be necessary.\n+All factual and legal bases for a party’s position with respect to a motion must be\n+presented in the briefing on that motion. Arguments presented in earlier-filed briefs or\n+documents may not be incorporated by reference.\n+Requests to enlarge page limits will rarely be granted. Stipulated requests must be filed\n+at least three (3) court days prior to filing the underlying motion. If the request is made by\n+administrative motion rather than stipulation, the motion must be filed at least five (5) court days\n+prior to filing the underlying motion and any opposition must be filed: (a) at least three (3) court\n+days before the underlying motion is filed; or (b) within the time allowed by Civil Local Rule 7-\n+11, whichever is sooner.\n+C. Proposed Orders\n+Each motion or stipulation requesting relief from the Court shall be accompanied by a\n+proposed order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2(c). Each proposed order shall comply with any\n+applicable Civil Local Rule. See, e.g., Civil L.R. 6-3 (proposed orders to change time), 7-11\n+(proposed orders for administrative relief), 16-9 (proposed case management orders), 65-1 (proposed\n+temporary restraining orders), 72-2 (proposed orders for relief from a non-dispositive Magistrate\n+Judge order), 79-5 (proposed orders to seal documents). When any party requests a continuance or\n+extension of time, the party must file a proposed order listing, in chart format, all future deadlines\n+and the proposed extensions, illustrating how the requested relief would impact the case schedule.\n+Proposed orders submitted in connection with motions for injunctive relief should state the specific\n+relief sought. A party opposing a motion need not submit a proposed order.\n+Each proposed order should be filed in PDF format on ECF. In addition, the moving\n+party should submit a Microsoft Word copy of the proposed order to eklpo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+The Court’s signature block should not appear on a standalone page. The subject line of the\n+email should include the case number and name, along with the title of the order. The email\n+should not be used by litigants for substantive communications.\n+D. Briefing Schedules\n+The parties may stipulate to and request Court approval of a briefing schedule that differs\n+from that set forth in the Civil Local Rules, noting the differences in their stipulation. Generally,\n+the briefing schedule for any motion shall allow at least fourteen (14) days between the final\n+filing and the hearing date. The briefing schedule for summary judgment, Daubert, and class\n+certification motions shall allow at least 28 days between the final filing and the hearing date.\n+9\n+E. Hearing Attendance and Participation\n+Hearings on civil motions will be held in-person. The Court will consider requests to\n+appear via Zoom on a case-by-case basis. Joint requests are strongly preferred, and parties are\n+required to meet and confer regarding such requests. If a request is granted, it will generally be\n+applicable to all parties participating in the hearing as hybrid hearings are discouraged.\n+Parties wishing to appear via Zoom shall file an administrative request to appear via\n+Zoom and a proposed order at least one (1) week prior to the scheduled hearing date. If all\n+parties wish to appear via Zoom, the parties should file a joint administrative request or\n+indicate that the request is unopposed. If a request is granted, the parties must follow the\n+directions provided on the Court’s website for remote participation\n+(https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/ekl/lee-eumi-k). To ensure the quality of the record, any party\n+appearing remotely must have a good connection and must avoid participating from a public\n+space or any other environment with background noise that could disrupt the proceedings.\n+The Court welcomes and encourages oral argument by less-experienced attorneys on any\n+matters before the Court. More experienced counsel for the same party may still offer argument\n+for a few minutes at the end of the hearing.\n+The Court may provide tentative rulings in advance of a motion hearing. If the Court\n+determines that a hearing is not necessary, the hearing will usually be vacated no later than two\n+(2) court days before the scheduled hearing date.\n+F. Demonstratives and Presentations\n+Any demonstratives or audio-visual presentations to be used at a hearing must be\n+exchanged with opposing counsel and submitted to the Court at least 48 hours before the hearing.\n+If this date falls on a weekend, parties are required to exchange and submit them by Friday at\n+5:00 p.m. Parties shall email electronic copies of the demonstratives or presentations to Judge\n+Lee’s Courtroom Deputy at eklcrd@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+G. Duty of Candor\n+All case citations and factual statements must be completely accurate. A citation to a\n+case, statute, or other authority is counsel’s representation to the Court that the authority stands\n+for the proposition asserted and is good law. A quotation of a case or other authority is counsel’s\n+representation that the quoted language is complete and present in the authority cited. Counsel\n+must ensure that the use of ellipses or elisions in quotes does not mislead the Court or\n+misrepresent the substance of the holding or other authority. Counsel’s representations of facts\n+are subject to the same requirements of completeness and accuracy. Misrepresentations of law or\n+fact, however subtle, may result in sanctions and a referral to the District’s Standing Committee\n+on Professional Conduct.\n+10\n+H. Use of Generative AI Tools\n+Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate\n+representations of the record, procedural history, and cited legal authorities. Use of generative\n+artificial intelligence tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm for\n+themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel alone bears\n+ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings. Any submission containing AI-\n+generated content must include a certification that lead trial counsel has personally verified the\n+content’s accuracy. Failure to include this certification or comply with this verification\n+requirement will be grounds for sanctions. Counsel is responsible for maintaining records of all\n+prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools in the event those records become\n+relevant at any point.\n+IX. SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n+Each party is limited to filing one (1) motion for summary judgment. Any party wishing\n+to exceed this limit must request leave of court. Unless otherwise ordered, the parties must meet\n+and confer to determine if they will file cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court will\n+schedule a hearing for approximately four (4) weeks after the final brief has been submitted.\n+Where the parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment, only the following briefs\n+will be allowed: (1) opening brief by the plaintiff side; (2) opening/opposition brief by the\n+defense side; (3) opposition/reply brief by the plaintiff side; and (4) reply brief by the defense\n+side. The parties may agree to reverse the order, and to have the defense side file its opening\n+brief first, without order of the Court. Before the first brief is filed, the parties must submit a\n+stipulation and proposed order setting a briefing schedule for the cross-motions. The first two\n+briefs are limited to 25 pages; the third brief is limited to twenty (20) pages; and the fourth brief\n+is limited to fifteen (15) pages. The fourth brief must be filed at least 28 days before the hearing.\n+At least seven (7) days before the opening brief is filed, the parties shall file a concise\n+joint status report that identifies: (1) the claims, counterclaims, and defenses that remain to be\n+decided; (2) the pleading in which each claim, counterclaim, or defense is asserted; and (3) each\n+claim, counterclaim, defense, or issue for which a party will move for summary judgment.\n+Moving Separate Statement: Any party moving for summary judgment, partial\n+summary judgment, or summary adjudication must include a separate, short and concise\n+statement identifying each claim or defense for which the moving party contends there is no\n+genuine issue to be tried. In most cases, the statement should not exceed fifteen (15) pages. For\n+each claim, defense, or part thereof, the moving separate statement must: (a) identify the\n+relevant elements or issues; (b) list the asserted material facts establishing or negating those\n+elements or issues; and (c) cite to record evidence demonstrating that the asserted material facts\n+are undisputed (e.g., deposition testimony, declaration, or discovery response). Upon filing, the\n+moving party shall provide the moving separate statement to all other parties in Microsoft Word\n+format for ease of response. The moving separate statement must be organized in the form of a\n+chart as shown in Attachment A.\n+11\n+Responsive Separate Statement: The papers opposing a motion for summary judgment,\n+partial summary judgment, or summary adjudication must include a responsive separate\n+statement which: (a) incorporates the moving separate statement; (b) indicates whether each of\n+the facts listed in the moving separate statement is disputed or undisputed; and (c) identifies any\n+additional material facts the party contends will establish a genuine issue to be tried. If the\n+opposing party contends that a fact is in dispute, the opposing party must cite to evidence in the\n+record establishing the dispute.\n+In most cases, the responsive separate statement should add no more than five (5) pages\n+to the moving separate statement. The responsive separate statement must be organized in the\n+form of a chart as shown in Attachment A.\n+Reply Separate Statement: The moving party may file a reply separate statement which\n+incorporates and responds to the responsive separate statement in the same manner described\n+above. The reply separate statement shall not introduce any new asserted material facts.\n+Deemed Admitted Unless Controverted: Each numbered fact in the separate\n+statements will be deemed to be admitted, for purposes of the motion only, unless specifically\n+controverted by the opposing party, so long as the moving party meets its burden under Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 56.\n+Attestation: Each separate statement must be signed by counsel or unrepresented party\n+who has reviewed the document and attests as follows: I attest that the evidence cited herein\n+fairly and accurately supports or disputes the facts as asserted.\n+Additional Guidance: The separate statements shall not include argument in support of\n+the summary judgment motion and shall not be used to circumvent the page limits that apply to\n+summary judgment briefing. Parties should include only those facts that are actually cited in the\n+briefs. Facts that are not cited in the summary judgment briefs will not be considered.\n+Objections: Objections to evidence shall be contained within the objecting party’s brief.\n+X. DISCOVERY\n+Discovery in almost all cases will be referred to a magistrate judge. The parties must\n+follow the magistrate judge’s procedures. Upon the development of an impasse with respect to\n+discovery, the parties must first meet and confer; that is, counsel for each party shall meet and\n+confer in person or via videoconference to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere\n+exchange of letters, emails, or telephone calls does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement.\n+Parties requesting a protective order are encouraged to base any proposed order on the\n+model protective orders on the Northern District of California’s website. When filing a\n+proposed protective order, at the very beginning of their stipulation or motion, parties must\n+indicate whether they have based their proposed order on one of the Northern District’s model\n+orders. If they have, they must identify any deviations from the model order by submitting as\n+an exhibit a redlined or highlighted comparison of their proposed order and the model order.\n+12\n+XI. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS\n+In connection with motions for approval of class settlements, the parties shall comply\n+with the requirements set forth in the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action\n+Settlements, available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules-forms-fees/northern-district-\n+guidelines/procedural-guidance-class-action-settlements. In addition, the following shall\n+apply.\n+A. Preliminary Approval\n+The Court conducts a searching inquiry at the preliminary approval stage to avoid the\n+costs and pitfalls of proceeding to final approval of a settlement that is unlikely to satisfy Rule\n+23(e). Release language should make clear that the class members are releasing claims based\n+only on the identical factual predicate. Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010).\n+Each proposed notice should make that clear as well.\n+If a proposed notice to class members (or prospective class members) requires a written\n+objection as a prerequisite to appearing in court to object to the settlement, the notice must\n+specify that this requirement may be excused upon a showing of good cause. The Court will\n+require only substantial compliance with the requirements for submitting an objection, and this\n+should be made clear in any notice to class members.\n+B. Notice and Claims Procedure\n+The proposed notices, claims forms, and other documents associated with preliminary\n+approval should be sent in Microsoft Word format to eklpo@cand.uscourts.gov. For large\n+settlements, the parties are encouraged to include an opt-out form and an objection form.\n+Proposed notices must be written in plain language without unnecessary acronyms. The\n+parties should consider using the model notices provided by the Federal Judicial Center,\n+https://www.fjc.gov/content/301253/illustrative-forms-class-action-notices-introduction, and\n+the Notice Project, https://noticeproject.org/templates-downloads. The motion must discuss\n+whether notice by email and/or social media, use of online claims and opt-out forms, and a\n+website for the settlement are appropriate, and if not, explain why not.\n+In a proposed settlement involving the distribution of money to a class, the motion must\n+discuss whether unclaimed funds should be redistributed to class members who claimed their\n+share, and if not, explain why not. If the settlement requires class members to file claims, as\n+opposed to simply receiving checks, the motion must address why that is appropriate.\n+C. Final Approval\n+In proposing a schedule for final approval of a class settlement, the parties must ensure\n+that the motion for attorneys’ fees is filed at least 35 days before the deadline for objecting to the\n+settlement. The Court will order parties to re-send notices if the motion for attorneys’ fees is\n+filed late. The proposed order granting final approval should list all dates relating to the\n+administration of the settlement, including the dates for when the checks distributing the\n+13\n+settlement fund payments will be mailed to class members. The parties shall file a proposed\n+judgment separately from their proposed order granting final approval.\n+Within 21 days after the settlement funds have been fully distributed to class members\n+(but before distribution to cy pres recipients), class counsel will be required to file a Post-\n+Distribution Accounting, as described in the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class\n+Action Settlements. In addition to the information contained in the Guidance, the Post-\n+Distribution Accounting must discuss any significant or recurring concerns communicated by\n+class members to the settlement administrator or counsel since final approval, any other issues in\n+settlement administration since final approval, and how any concerns or issues were resolved.\n+The Court will typically withhold between 10% and 20% of the attorneys’ fees granted at final\n+approval until after the Post-Distribution Accounting has been filed. The proposed order\n+granting final approval should specify what percentage class counsel believes it is appropriate to\n+withhold. With the Post-Distribution Accounting, class counsel should submit a proposed order\n+releasing the remainder of the fees.\n+XII. REQUESTS FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES\n+The Court generally does not refer cases for settlement with a magistrate judge unless the\n+parties have already completed one of the other processes set forth in ADR Local Rule 3-4 (i.e.,\n+Early Neutral Evaluation, Mediation, or Private ADR). Parties who complete one of these\n+processes without reaching a settlement may request referral to a magistrate judge at that time. If\n+the parties believe their case merits an exception to this rule, they should discuss their views in\n+the initial case management statement.\n+XIII. UNREPRESENTED PARTIES\n+Parties representing themselves may wish to contact the Federal Pro Se Program, a free\n+program that offers limited legal services to pro se litigants. The Federal Pro Se Program has an\n+office in the San Jose Courthouse in Room 2070 on the 2nd Floor. Parties may make\n+appointments by visiting the office or calling (408) 297-1480. Additional information is\n+available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: August 31, 2026\n+EUMI K. LEE\n+United States District Judge\n+14\n+ATTACHMENT A\n+Template for Moving Separate Statement\n+Claim or Defense Moving Party’s Undisputed Facts\n+& Supporting Evidence\n+Opposing Party’s Response &\n+Supporting Evidence\n+Claim 1: Breach of Contract\n+Issue 1. Plaintiff did\n+not perform under\n+the contract\n+Fact 1. Defendant issued a\n+homeowner’s insurance policy to\n+Plaintiff.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 4-5 and Ex. A\n+(policy).\n+[Left blank for opposing party’s\n+response]\n+Fact 2. Plaintiff failed to pay\n+premiums required by the policy.\n+Jones Decl. ¶ 6\n+Issue 2. Defendant\n+did not breach the\n+contract\n+Fact 3. The policy expressly\n+excludes coverage for loss resulting\n+from theft.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 and Ex. A\n+(policy).\n+Punitive Damages\n+Issue 1. Plaintiff\n+cannot establish that\n+Defendant acted\n+with oppression,\n+fraud, or malice\n+Fact 4. Defendant timely\n+investigated Plaintiff’s insurance\n+claim.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 18-20.\n+15\n+Template for Responsive Separate Statement\n+Claim or Defense Moving Party’s Undisputed Facts\n+& Supporting Evidence\n+Opposing Party’s Response &\n+Supporting Evidence\n+Claim 1: Breach of Contract\n+Issue 1. Plaintiff did\n+not perform under\n+the contract\n+Fact 1. Defendant issued a\n+homeowner’s insurance policy to\n+Plaintiff.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 4-5 and Ex. A\n+(policy).\n+Undisputed.\n+Fact 2. Plaintiff failed to pay\n+premiums required by the policy.\n+Jones Decl. ¶ 6\n+Disputed. Plaintiff timely paid\n+the premiums required by the\n+policy. Smith Dep. 22:4-23:19.\n+Opposing Party’s Additional Material Facts on this Issue\n+Additional Fact 1. Defendant has\n+failed to record Plaintiff’s timely\n+premium payments on two prior\n+occasions.\n+Smith Dep. 72:8-14.\n+[Left blank for moving party’s\n+reply]\n+Issue 2. Defendant\n+did not breach the\n+contract\n+Fact 3. The policy expressly\n+excludes coverage for loss resulting\n+from theft.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 and Ex. A\n+(policy).\n+Disputed. The policy does not\n+exclude coverage for loss\n+resulting from theft.\n+Jones Decl. Ex. A (policy).\n+Punitive Damages\n+Issue 1. Plaintiff\n+cannot establish that\n+Defendant acted\n+with oppression,\n+fraud, or malice\n+Fact 4. Defendant timely\n+investigated Plaintiff’s insurance\n+claim.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 18-20.\n+Disputed. Defendant waited\n+more than 4 months before\n+investigating Plaintiff’s claim.\n+Smith Dep. 79:15-80:4.","id":"7493c98e8a16d4938aa20b9ec6eeedca8ad7c46a40d5621c66b8c8b52701cdde","newHash":"913f464b3dd2360c06f39d83775ee4f782c7b448bb4384a6f17b5c55c24e98cd","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/913f464b3dd2360c06f39d83775ee4f782c7b448bb4384a6f17b5c55c24e98cd.txt","sourceUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:24.333206+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"f315a0b83b461c839a12c91c7e2170844d60e5e0f4b4a064cbd45738c71ecf09","newHash":"453f373a352ff5469259b1e7962f94621018f8df0665c41d83f3940d7ae6a4f4","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cl.cobar.org/features/the-2026-ai-related-amendments-to-the-colorado-rules-of-professional-conduct/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://cl.cobar.org/features/the-2026-ai-related-amendments-to-the-colorado-rules-of-professional-conduct/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:23.743915+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"c8fd9dec8bec5fa18517020ded5544ab9dff421933e3018e54c22472bf413178","newHash":"0a565ba21f2e77b666bac9c34f99ada71ac5fdf3275dbb7a171c27a76fc34683","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:24.717170+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"d0bb5cf56855a7532044324e677f2a77139cd17d8a4800f2472a0545d5f8feb3","newHash":"0396c51494e9ebe302321a09ee6560d45049552d8c4a94d0ac035e7e9f6d9d39","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:24.835482+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"ceef85df7bd85df83752244d644646e3a3618a325bdff06870f99d42ae965f61","newHash":"56daeb2beb6e077e6a8e57605145be7867bd81c02f8b416101003b0ade0bee7f","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266848","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:25.182718+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"63190e8bdca44efa1c9ccecc3fa40d29142b3efa65143f0e773bf02ae776df57","newHash":"3c2b66367edc41b39cfac3842ec41c708a8e25fedeb13cd480adedafed0f9f27","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:28.430690+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"70d98e1a3359ba0034279db687b302a1332316658d2857ffebccdde4cfe82bc1","newHash":"933828dd55e27678292a3a50dbc17c8b894df0a58e38f34766b553424fd72492","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://feeds.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/82fcdf4ed67f4f439da5f6f69e1397eb.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://feeds.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/82fcdf4ed67f4f439da5f6f69e1397eb.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:25.711525+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"f2a20eed755fff73c714d7e92fae27d60007157b9be03467842118898e2a36bb","newHash":"932f9555e73fb4b1c39d6116c5db6d92a8335aa411d10263ff6c1380bcfe8e39","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:25.692226+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"6de3604fd90a968722ea7ed688d01b78fad0d19fd28f4e030767bae9e2ed6ce2","newHash":"154bb2b0831aa1a915ebf1c2f77a84021186ef2a9f3824678e7fce6e3505ccd2","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://flcourts18.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/26-10.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://flcourts18.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/26-10.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:25.887059+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"871f10315b00be2ea06e20e6b99e15f1a02e42bf1aec53e24993001b8d7d6c4f","newHash":"22054e18a0ca42307b79a1ddd6370903d19f055e49abe0b309470438497c5b3a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:26.262466+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"9408e7d2efa612ec13cbc3b181f0b5a3d50b7663c7a4bd7492f370936d904633","newHash":"f84cb05cc319ac4ce0a14c5c7e42397b8c82fafc41dfdc3812bf4f4758587516","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:26.723694+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"ce8c20cfcfb831d5585a22584576c72e5c2074689fe08b96300f0484fd72024a","newHash":"5a5951634639fe443c3c9b4bf91e971a9f2b190080672e24952ba4204ea3e993","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/entity/ad-hoc-committee-on-artificial-intelligence-and-the-courts/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/entity/ad-hoc-committee-on-artificial-intelligence-and-the-courts/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:31.010619+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"5ee2b0410033f79478bcc15afff7f49b49d3be2bad509bc2db04a1d40ade6953","newHash":"139eea8528713fc2e090e747059d636fcf587294569ccbc3c1927af9b60c2153","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://jcaoc.georgiacourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/AI_Committee_Orders.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:27.737483+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF KANSAS\n+I N R E : )\n+) STANDING ORDER 26-01\n+USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) )\n+IN PREPARING COURT FILINGS )\n+Courts are seeing an increasing nu mber of filings that include false statements of fact or\n+law, including citations to fabricated or incorrect legal authority. It is po ssible that such filings\n+have been generated by using artificial intelligence (“AI”). Although AI can assist the legal system\n+in advancing the goal of furtheri ng the “just, speedy, and inexpens ive” resolution of cases, see\n+FED. R. CIV . P. 1, AI tools can produce false stat ements of fact or law, including citations to\n+fabricated or incorrect legal authority. This can waste judicial and party resources and undermine\n+the integrity of the proceedings.\n+The court therefore reminds and cautions all lawyers and parties, including pro se litigants,\n+that they may not make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to the Court or fail to correct\n+a false or misleading statement of material fact or law previously made to the Court. Litigants are\n+responsible for the content of th eir own filings and for complying with all applicable procedural\n+rules and duties of candor even when they use AI to generate all or por tions of court filings.\n+Litigants are therefore responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy of a ll content filed\n+with this court that was drafted or assisted by an AI tool. This includes citations to legal authority,\n+quotations, paraphrased a ssertions, legal analysis, factual a nd procedural backgrounds, and the\n+like.\n+If the court has reason to believe that a litigant has not reviewed and verified the accuracy\n+of the content in any court filing, the court may impose a range of sanctions. First and foremost,\n+the court may sua sponte strike any filing that appears to violate the standards mentioned above—\n+with or without prejudice to re filing. Upon notice, the court ma y also impose more significant\n+sanctions depending on the facts and circumstances of particular violati ons, such as imposing\n+monetary sanctions, referring counsel to disciplinary authorities, disqualifying counsel, imposing\n+filing restrictions, or dismissing a party’s case.\n+The court also has broad discretion to requi re a party in any case to include a sworn\n+statement in all filings disclosing the extent to which AI was used to generate the filing, naming\n+the AI tool used, identifying which portion of th e filing includes AI-generated content, and/or\n+certifying that the filer personally reviewed and verified the accuracy of each legal authority cited\n+therein.\n+This order will remain in effect until further order of the Court.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of January, 2026.\n+_s/ John W. Broomes_______\n+John W. Broomes\n+Chief United States District Judge","id":"ba8d48415a73b9cdd4666a2ac1400ad96c854202ec45273264a67ac4bff7bc8f","newHash":"76d367ca9d9c5242103e0c7e7e55ee4e5501c874afcdb7e9faedb5fce9d22c8c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Standing%20Order%2026-01%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/76d367ca9d9c5242103e0c7e7e55ee4e5501c874afcdb7e9faedb5fce9d22c8c.txt","sourceUrl":"https://ksd.uscourts.gov/sites/ksd/files/Standing%20Order%2026-01%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:27.468997+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"66dcc3b0d0fb6578b43e1b8ea0d42ea96fe8a16193d8ea16fd47e209ec81c327","newHash":"6e864c5aca3a250f1ae5f96fc3d7daeb4bbe270285caf29fdf5b739cf56d3ea8","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:28.540403+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"53bc26ef77e430351f85507cbc4d483bc9f30b1655ce0acbbff63cc45f327ac7","newHash":"aaccad0d0b5324eb8e142b928b94fc01c8ea1c3e2b7eeba2e2e56cba9982f35d","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:28.667331+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"8d6b6ccfda4388e21219542a942ca422494f33dc82c15f5b04b44b1e94f8b5d5","newHash":"395e8039bb7a1163e7f752ad61209fc3081a30dd4d4839b039f3c84ca5dde891","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://mnbars.org/?pg=MSBAAnnouncements&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=112704","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://mnbars.org/?pg=MSBAAnnouncements&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=112704","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:29.587572+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"c2201b3ddf01bf408a2cb3cf6acfddccb0af432c0ec7b5d5e2e3962c91ce1a36","newHash":"77ee864a13e316e5d90413a16e8d90d15e441eda695f289a3dfab88a94fbe0ef","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:29.426713+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"614dfaa64130be65a810201a69a04f009b9d1879a4762699fd709fbe7e22116d","newHash":"ff21ae28ba29588543d937a641aa08d68af0b442b7c4d9d34c9b23560e611051","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinions-search/by-year/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinions-search/by-year/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:29.494126+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"9ce7393a7f0b4695340807685ff350a2a2766cf85532cfeed70cc9e1c4a3362d","newHash":"ffce173c615f683fcd4405903fe04c69f72859d6e114187a8f76a76556acccd2","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:30.718209+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"dbe10927a5a7c282e4059fb3e19ca536576b3e74e064bb056127d013c6e19beb","newHash":"e2261c84c89d3ccfa9ac9390ce5ea0ee51afdbd419133281d2905edc95024d34","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:35.009319+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"33e54b09c047cd042eef1cb844dbfa66a0375de70cd2e1a2acafb0179478141f","newHash":"2af192d6a81c2a490b5e5d604a32ada4bab0f1b86d8a1f37c32aa42952a4adfb","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:31.231985+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"e7f8273ae89ed9a4ec968da19c5c580e0d8901206ab4a75f7b148698fc54b70f","newHash":"020e4c9d945d0b81e2034d579821daf09c95998420791fb836c94aaf304435bc","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-02-14%20-%20Law%20-%20Cleary%20-%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Jury%20Trials_1.pdf?VersionId=52.h8FUkpiXjregHJvFdSuOJhYBlw9KZ","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-02-14%20-%20Law%20-%20Cleary%20-%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Jury%20Trials_1.pdf?VersionId=52.h8FUkpiXjregHJvFdSuOJhYBlw9KZ","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:31.424543+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"5ea49793430462073f5b9290c8c5ef478b6923c72b2b81f9b01453c97bac9e96","newHash":"f6c41b4a9cdcece5e2de57f5ca1c138363f4d111cdd78542b5984d3bfab8457a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-09-03%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Calendar%2060.pdf?VersionId=YRDoJGoI.2Z31xJ_wHTxT7mAn75Dy.NG","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/2024-09-03%20Standing%20Order%20-%20Calendar%2060.pdf?VersionId=YRDoJGoI.2Z31xJ_wHTxT7mAn75Dy.NG","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:33.593426+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"be7c2739d336a0c069fe57298578253d69816b563f8a2c61e664d7bc3cb43b47","newHash":"e3993a452f2910f89f10770c5eac8ea2528de7d538653acf0303f8558d116de3","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2060%20-%20Judge%20Seaton%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28eff.%20Feb.%2019%2C%202025%29.pdf?VersionId=Ibr6OItJ.1LuHyim4q4ICmAdsXbtUt4g","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2060%20-%20Judge%20Seaton%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28eff.%20Feb.%2019%2C%202025%29.pdf?VersionId=Ibr6OItJ.1LuHyim4q4ICmAdsXbtUt4g","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:35.188237+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"ead38bb5135ec4dc09498a72a3f1c4491b29d867d3a1f6419147817b4b76abe0","newHash":"dc28918223e170efdaf530a62838419599c72a3cad78ca4383744b6f7634cc25","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2064%20-%20Judge%20Wright%20-%20Amended%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2031%202024%29_0.pdf?VersionId=8PBF.tc2_f6Vfc.eitTlZ_LoTUqjIS4v","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Chancery%20-%20Calendar%2064%20-%20Judge%20Wright%20-%20Amended%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2031%202024%29_0.pdf?VersionId=8PBF.tc2_f6Vfc.eitTlZ_LoTUqjIS4v","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:33.878238+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"8c216964c75841f1c095dc0245a8fc9cfc2399594716b5d5f3b8dd1d19849c12","newHash":"40cb3d93dbf833837767f07ac74e7e6856695bcd09434d64b0a2aac9952865ed","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Courtroom%202309%20-%20Golden%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28Aug%2012%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=9sZ6uAI7IMiGGQPofIDu6mSR_YgtJmYr","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Courtroom%202309%20-%20Golden%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28Aug%2012%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=9sZ6uAI7IMiGGQPofIDu6mSR_YgtJmYr","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:34.106555+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"e9444f9fcc50cab4b718ffc3b2328316e18838c68caff62761192334b1c938ed","newHash":"14e42efe13a58ebcd7fe6988b34a47eb780ade20d8e3ba250a420b425804fce0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/SO%202024%20CH%20Judge%20Horan%20Calendar%209%20Calendar%20Courtroom%20Procedures%20%28Apr.%205%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=bD2yzSkzx_owNaYWACofBcjjmOLSuHM7","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/SO%202024%20CH%20Judge%20Horan%20Calendar%209%20Calendar%20Courtroom%20Procedures%20%28Apr.%205%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=bD2yzSkzx_owNaYWACofBcjjmOLSuHM7","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:35.101212+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"b4c00842db94cd91ec51781158f5f38d1727206e497e7de98e2a517f9fcb73fc","newHash":"81ba252dcc3b49f30fdeb229f3dcc63cac5c82604975d75ef8fc8e405766c95c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://okcourtsandmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GENERATIVE-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://okcourtsandmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GENERATIVE-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:35.327609+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"e26df1cda7235cdd3c259f76cec445c4f9095b3a4a5d35e7fd3d13d0759eb7f4","newHash":"de9ebf2b6b5962ee0fe0df6357bdabed7d83f5630135c66a7b198d44e1b91b1f","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:35.518831+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"23442cf9ec09f19160ddc18450d0d22a288725b7f18ae0198a0e1dd63c52395f","newHash":"fecfecc54a8c94c4e0a3f10dbf94a0a6458138261b76a771db93b3ca3d381a35","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:35.645151+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"3ee850d64cc169b871a59230d4c640c073a43979627c5396522302de9e806d98","newHash":"c1d34799f33a4f35aec3dad7e7aef0efe2b44e34dcf26c20e2c9eea69de0c7af","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:35.685611+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"2a5c40b52b59d93ef4fa10d3fb78974e535b6224f53395ef2b2f959502777eca","newHash":"89a0c20fef2a9f1208a720b82daf16c75b6f7001c5cb39a180835027cfbb1d1c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:36.383587+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"b3a9c4e4b9328b7b63987b8b2887b726105eb1f93e1de1c61710c373fcee0c61","newHash":"347d8cc9f39c9d169223cb8257823927941e2a8c9e678971eab9b68376d8ee28","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1997","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1997","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:36.361215+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"67077639400b86a51fc164ee76d0869102c3b4eb7e9198269d0297aaf6b866dd","newHash":"3ff7f218023209a456cb25ffbf5585f9bafea10da94687713a7995e845527907","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2265","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2265","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:37.741645+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"5b2b64174d497c6ef602c74e1433ab108605faea62a64b82a87361aa8b074ba4","newHash":"c0642ba2fdf1b3b4c0d6268bebcf75234364aba24824b17ae3f6fa24110945c2","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2297","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2297","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:36.908368+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"68f2d8524c71520a822e684fa334791e58e5ce266246e3f994d950bde4e15cd2","newHash":"94d29baf11628422d27d56f369992f735a784dcff65f2e780f95afd2ee4cd011","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2504","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2504","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:38.316127+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"6f69658969b723ed4a5ac53e6d55eef309fc72d4ea3d8897c3f8033d45590a52","newHash":"c55f97a8cee8dad9b3f15e816451568f02d9af6df9a424898ba9d6404107bd49","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2640","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2640","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:37.109799+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"b75f9c2c808c2e5cb8d890820077a565ce3921e5961e2ee2518f8d08ec76729b","newHash":"13fe6a5a94cf9b8f299491848ff4af40002fc8156390a344242ef1e1315659fc","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2719","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2719","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:37.782124+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"bcd35dc1d791d48a4fe85a5b365facb085fe85379300a9084dc8e40efbdd3fa6","newHash":"44d139ce136026f78fd1f2287eb93b9e1da837d3a6891b75935dbd1673e77ed6","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:39.394927+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"6100e1f1792b52fcc55eef19de18112fb12f36aee7fea2892357e49b20962c18","newHash":"18926efd885168d769be11713bf2d789c330a8e6df2010a43c36c7b98cb8919b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2810","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2810","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:38.972072+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"485f8e98fba317264b6d407124ae288a519d5b62da21395fdaf8a2db3de2501f","newHash":"b2d34405f5f88e4f855e19708e3ad6855eca290b7c31c806a0b259a10ac12d6d","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2905","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2905","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:38.772194+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"8dfe00bf48a02c1e6973940b785e88454032cf20314235df409b225c14e2ca60","newHash":"c0b353c3e8b21a1fc495bf867ad8a05e0b95d223db5f03be84a0a96227832fdd","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2928","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2928","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:40.804314+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"1ea1a3573d55e9bc8a76ef8e22203b914f63d3b83cfeb1f280243403627617b3","newHash":"f8c25703f07bdf94e7b02b4722986dd7ea38b2e68014808952dfbefb2da52103","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2986","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2986","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:39.734670+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"f89afabb9d68ebd8b26d82039d0513dfcba17db00c36d849172c32d0fb9741fa","newHash":"6585654469e62ae0c72f3136069a7ba4c061d4e4d08b02215517a162912c2900","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3015","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3015","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:42.046284+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"017967d7beac03ec2b76c598df07d2621e48ddca1c4ff0acee539e10737b0236","newHash":"8b235a2f57e9149845554769875c1bdb6b9e74da369d4ea4c553c520fad0479f","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3022","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3022","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:41.392902+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"2e0167ce815acfb3155cc34cc9ef6d7fde3a69f5ccb92e33cbd39527d4665f79","newHash":"d34fa0fcfcd0b6afc1a2b5d8ada85dcc9973885a02ce08e862923d96723ca0d7","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3023","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3023","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:40.554801+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"ee2db14ff123682de6d17928e4a77378e4903ce491af8d7bd73a051c8958ef64","newHash":"74bafe747bcb727bc4d530784c77b4224626899ea0240bd07b0bd548cdb978b9","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3097","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3097","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:41.561131+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"4a5427675d03f6033f201f1132d6c1fa6e876021665fdc54ea93a54c48f8387b","newHash":"3303c534260076dc15c8bb25c2ea356c3a5fcb74682d97247ea1c42a8d38bd59","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3103","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3103","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:41.943326+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@\n+LOCAL RULE AT-3 Standards of Practice to be Observed by Attorneys | Eastern District of Texas | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+Contact Us\n+Subscribe\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+Eastern District of Texas\n+Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III, Chief Judge\n+David A. O'Toole, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search\n+Court Information\n+United States Court Sites\n+Judges\n+Rules & Orders\n+Filing\n+Resources\n+FAQs\n+Attorneys\n+Jurors\n+Pro Se\n+Forms\n+LOCAL RULE AT-3 Standards of Practice to be Observed by Attorneys\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Attorney Rule\n+3\n+Attorneys who appear in civil and criminal cases in this court shall comply with the following standards of practice in this district:4\n+(a) In fulfilling his or her primary duty to the client, a lawyer must be ever conscious of the broader duty to the judicial system that serves both attorney and client.\n+(b) A lawyer owes candor, diligence, and utmost respect to the judiciary.\n+(c) A lawyer owes, to opposing counsel, a duty of courtesy and cooperation, the observance of which is necessary for the efficient administration of our system of justice and the respect of the public it serves.\n+(d) A lawyer unquestionably owes, to the administration of justice, the fundamental duties of personal dignity and professional integrity.\n+(e) Lawyers should treat each other, the opposing party, the court, and court staff with courtesy and civility and conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times.\n+(f) A client has no right to demand that counsel abuse the opposite party or indulge in offensive conduct. A lawyer shall always treat adverse witnesses and suitors with fairness and due consideration.\n+(g) In adversary proceedings, clients are litigants and though ill feeling may exist between clients, such ill feeling should not influence a lawyer’s conduct, attitude, or demeanor toward opposing lawyers.\n+(h) A lawyer should not use any form of discovery or the scheduling of discovery as a means of harassing opposing counsel or counsel’s client.\n+(i) Lawyers will be punctual in communications with others and in honoring scheduled appearances and will recognize that neglect and tardiness are demeaning to the lawyer and to the judicial system.\n+(j) If a fellow member of the bar makes a just request for cooperation or seeks scheduling accommodation, a lawyer will not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold consent. The court is not bound to accept agreements of counsel to extend deadlines imposed by rule or court order.\n+(k) Effective advocacy does not require antagonistic or obnoxious behavior, and members of the bar will adhere to the higher standard of conduct which judges, lawyers, clients, and the public may rightfully expect.\n+(l) The court also encourages attorneys to be familiar with the Codes of Pretrial and Trial Conduct promulgated by the American College of Trial Lawyers, which can be found on the court’s website, located at txed.uscourts.gov, and to conduct themselves accordingly.\n+(m) If the lawyer, in the exercise of his or her professional legal judgment, believes that the client is best served by the use of generative artificial intelligence technology, then the lawyer is cautioned that certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content and should never replace the lawyer’s most important asset – the exercise of independent legal judgment. If a lawyer chooses to employ generative artificial intelligence technology in representing a client, the lawyer continues to be bound by the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Local Rule AT-3, and all other applicable standards of practice and must review and verify all content to ensure that it complies with all such standards.\n+4 [1] The standards enumerated here are set forth in the en banc opinion in Dondi Props. Corp. v. Commerce Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Tex. 1988).\n+1.00\n+local_rule_history\n+Amended GO-25-07 Dec 1, 2025\n+Home\n+Contact Us\n+Employment\n+ECF\n+Forms\n+Links\n+Sitemap |\n+Privacy","id":"e45ef82110d4431c53e53776373e47ad4649b4e17fbedc0f8896c59447b24a9d","newHash":"3c311661343b25d58a864276dc04d3042e9b924da879b2d4053fb1411f06ca77","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-3-standards-practice-be-observed-attorneys","snapshot":"snapshots/3c311661343b25d58a864276dc04d3042e9b924da879b2d4053fb1411f06ca77.txt","sourceUrl":"https://txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-3-standards-practice-be-observed-attorneys","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:41.709193+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"e33f5fe20898336e73313049f06ba720fc3395e1d1fb44b0424092c2de679b1a","newHash":"0f2d0e38edaffb3911268f1d7f5671ea8d393f833d416ce9e0a4e92a4c6c435f","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://vsb.org/Site/Site/news/rules-news/20250327-prop-1901-fees-ai.aspx","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://vsb.org/Site/Site/news/rules-news/20250327-prop-1901-fees-ai.aspx","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:42.377925+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"780f74a64f155838d024795f26c30033d68bf89e5a78735bc65d667c618f62e5","newHash":"18ec6978daf6e5b76ac7ad6e4f25d2b7aeb7cf5fde49019b3a0843dd28b9dad4","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:42.418355+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"08e2e2e7a35bebd0f4ee2690749b74cdd81dc0e85f7f2e68bbd75d2a4df651a4","newHash":"70b60a589252f16746b9b0ebd27261ae683a2e0616df886cdffbadf09598f377","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-26-Civ-Amendment-2-With-Exhibits-A-M-_04-15-2025-2.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:46.096493+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"0a333ef5cde2c78333cf2c001c9260b289d9aa966633d6e9d320be5cd256cbfa","newHash":"9b6da5e0f58b783ac0c0558000993acf0ceb5c6ce0b405398250d55fd4b2959d","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AO2026-03-GEN-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AO2026-03-GEN-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:43.308283+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"1f14e8435d63fc7ff7584b166c28cbe67f6417d740668764fc9a1c9c347d7a62","newHash":"57a6d54ab00d3cd75c9d2b41fdc7cbf4d606ae2cfc51cf23c880fc51d8ad0dc0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:43.856604+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"c7372205a3c8baf1386755999501917fb5bd26000c45c8ebacf48728d6f5d0e4","newHash":"73e4a0ef065e7796328f5a1be54ea6b5310d5dd3359e3e96ce404c565c0ba687","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/artificial-intelligence-use-best-practices-under-existing-professional-conduct-rules/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/artificial-intelligence-use-best-practices-under-existing-professional-conduct-rules/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:43.712242+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,433 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA\n+________ DIVISION\n+[Name of plaintiff(s)], )\n+)\n+Plaintiff(s), )\n+)\n+v. ) C ivil Action No.\n+)\n+[Name of defendant(s)], )\n+)\n+Defendant(s). )\n+INITIAL ORDER\n+GOVERNING ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS\n+This order governs all proceedings in this action, unless modified by written\n+order for good cause shown.\n+Judge Axon’s staff will not answer questions from attorneys or unrepresented\n+parties over the telephone. Therefore, each attorney or unrepresented party appearing\n+in this case and practicing in this court should carefully review this order and the\n+court’s local rules available at www.alnd.uscourts.gov. If an attorney or an\n+unrepresented party has a question that cannot be answered by reference to this order\n+or the local rules, the attorney or unrepresented party must email chambers\n+(axon_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov) with a copy to all opposing counsel or, if a\n+party is unrepresented, the unrepresented party. The court will not respond to ex\n+parte communication from any attorney or unrepresented party.\n+2\n+I. GENERAL PROVISIONS\n+A. Communication With Chambers\n+Any and all questions should be sent to axon_chambers@\n+alnd.uscourts.gov, with a copy to all opposing counsel or, if a party is unrepresented,\n+the unrepresented party. Emails that do not include all counsel of record, or if a\n+party is unrepresented, the unrepresented party, will not receive a response.\n+If an unrepresented party does not have an e-mail address, the parties may file\n+a motion for a telephone conference.\n+B. HIPAA Compliance\n+In accordance with the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and\n+Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996),\n+and its regulations, when “protected health information” is relevant to the claims or\n+defenses pre sented in an action, the party seeking such “protected health\n+information” shall present a valid authorization at the Rule 26 planning meeting to\n+be executed by the party from whom such “protected health information” is sought.\n+The parties shall include i n their report a deadline (specific date) by which the\n+authorization will be executed. The parties may file with the court a motion for a\n+“qualified protective order,” to which all parties stipulate, and, at the same time, e -\n+mail to axon_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov a proposed “qualified protective order,”\n+in substantially the form attached to this order as Appendix I.\n+3\n+C. Dismissal of Non-Served Defendants\n+Any defendant who has not been served with a summons and complaint within\n+90 days after the filing of the complaint (or within 90 days after the party was added\n+to the action) may be dismissed without further order of the court unless the party\n+on whose behalf such service is required shows good cause why service has not been\n+perfected.\n+D. Suitability of Action for Alternative Dispute Resolution\n+All parties should give early consideration to the possibility of settlement to\n+avoid unnecessary costs and fees. The court requires that the attorneys for all parties\n+make an early analysis of the case along with their clients and be prepared to discuss\n+settlement at an early date. The parties shall also consider and discuss whether this\n+action may be suitable for mediation, whether under the court’s ADR plan or\n+otherwise. In the absence of an objection by any of the parties, the court will order\n+this case to mediation before the submission of dispositive motions.\n+Each attorney is directed to immediately forward a copy of the initial order to\n+his or her client. Plaintiff(s)’ attorney(s) are ordered to immediately discuss the\n+feasibility of settlement with Defendant(s)’ attorney(s).\n+4\n+E. Courtesy Copies\n+For all submissions exceeding thirty (30) pages (including exhibits), the filing\n+party must submit, within three (3) business days of filing, an exact courtesy copy\n+of the submission, reflecting the CM/ECF case number, document number, date, and\n+page stamp on each page, to the Clerk’s office for delivery to chambers. Deliveries\n+are not accepted in the court’s chambers. COURTESY COPIES SHOULD BE\n+DOUBLE-SIDED TO CONSERVE PAPER AND SECURELY BOUND IN A\n+THREE-RING BINDER OR BY LARGE CLIP.\n+The parties must also email a copy of any brief filed with the court to\n+chambers in Microsoft Word format.\n+F. Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence\n+All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence\n+(“AI”) in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the court. If any attorney\n+or pro se party uses AI in any way to prepare a filing or submission to the court, the\n+attorney or pro se party MUST sign and file a d isclosure of the use of artificial\n+intelligence stating, as follows:\n+This document was generated with the assistance of [identify AI tool\n+name]. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that, despite use of an\n+AI tool, I have independently reviewed this document to confirm the\n+accuracy, legitimacy, and use of good and applicable law, pursuant to\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.\n+5\n+The court cautions c ounsel and pro se parties that it does not recognize\n+mistake, lack of technical expertise, and time constraints as a good faith excuse for\n+submission of documents that either violate Rule 11 or this disclosure rule. In\n+particular, arguments in briefs that are supported by AI-generated caselaw (i.e., cases\n+or quotations from cases that do not actually exist) are not acceptable. Failure to\n+comply with this rule may result in appropriate sanctions, up to and including\n+dismissal or default judgment.\n+II. Electronic Submissions\n+A. CM/ECF Record\n+The official record of this case is maintained electronically pursuant to\n+CM/ECF. Documents must be filed through CM/ECF in PDF (Portable Document\n+Format) in searchable format, unless submitted by a party appearing pro se, in which\n+case documents should be filed with the Clerk of Court. All filings must comply with\n+the Court’s Civil Administrative Procedures Manual found on the court’s website.1\n+B. Type Size\n+The court requires all documents created by counsel for submission to the\n+court to be in 14 point type, except that footnotes may be in 12 point type.\n+1 The Administrative Procedures Manual is available on the court’s website by clicking the\n+“Policies and Procedures” link under the “For Attorneys” tab.\n+(https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/AL-N%20Civil%20Administrative%20Procedure\n+s%20Manual.Revision.05-18-2021.pdf)\n+6\n+C. Sealed and/or Redacted Protected Information\n+The Civil Administrative Procedures Manual for CM/ECF, located on the\n+main page of CM/ECF generally outlines the requirements and procedures with\n+respect to redaction and sealing. All parties should confirm compliance with those\n+provisions in advance of any filing. The failure to properly redact information may\n+result in sanctions.\n+Parties must seek the court’s permission to file any documents under seal by\n+following the procedure outlined in the Civil Administrative Procedures Manual for\n+CM/ECF, even when filing information designated as confidential pursuant to a\n+confidentiality pr otective order. In the Eleventh Circuit, there is a presumptive\n+constitutional public right of access to judicial records. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr.\n+v. Advance Loc. Media, LLC , 918 F.3d 1161, 1166 (11th Cir. 2019); Chicago\n+Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Fire stone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001).\n+The parties cannot overcome this presumption, which protects a right held by the\n+public, by agreeing in a protective order that documents may be filed under seal. See,\n+e.g., Advance Loc. Media, LLC , 918 F.3d at 1166 . To overcome the public’s\n+constitutional right of access, the party moving to seal must establish that good cause\n+warrants filing the judicial records under seal. See id. at 1169; Callahan v. United\n+Network for Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356, 1363 (11th Cir. 2021). All parties should\n+note that the designation of a document as confidential does not, standing alone,\n+7\n+sustain the burden of establishing good cause. Motions to seal that fail to show good\n+cause will be denied. See, e.g., Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1310.\n+D. Required Electronic Submissions to Chambers\n+Counsel must email to chambers copies of all proposed orders in Word Format\n+with opposing counsel or pro se parties copied. The address for the undersigned\n+judge’s chambers is axon_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov.\n+III. MOTION PRACTICE\n+A. Dispositive Motions\n+Any motion(s) for summary judgment filed in this action must comply with\n+all requirements of Appendix II to this order. Any other dispositive motion must\n+comply with the requirements of Appendix II to the extent practicable.\n+B. Other Motions\n+All motions longer than ten pages in length must comply with the\n+requirements in Appendix II to this order to the extent practicable. Before filing any\n+motion (other than a motion to remand), moving counsel shall contact the opposing\n+counsel and determine if counsel opposes the moti on. All motions shall include, in\n+the caption under the case number, a notation that the motion is either “Opposed” or\n+“Unopposed.” The first paragraph shall briefly summarize the parties’ attempts to\n+resolve the issue(s) and set forth areas of agreement and disagreement. Failure of the\n+8\n+parties to abide by these requirements can result in a sua sponte denial of the motions\n+for failure to comply.\n+Parties must seek leave of the court before filing a motion about a discovery\n+dispute. The motion for leave of the court must specify the nature of the discovery\n+dispute and the steps the parties have taken to resolve that dispute. The motion need\n+only include the facts relevant to the dispute. Legal argument and/or legal citations\n+are not necessary. Opposing counsel MUST file a response to the motion for leave\n+within three days of its filing, explaining why the court should not grant leave to file\n+the discovery motion. If the court grants leave to file, the parties will receive an\n+opportunity to make substantive arguments at that time.\n+C. Motion of Counsel to Withdraw\n+Once an attorney has appeared as counsel for a party, he or she may not\n+withdraw from the action merely by filing a “notice of withdrawal,” but must file a\n+motion stating the specific grounds for withdrawal and seeking permission of the\n+court to do so. Any motion to withdraw which, if granted, would leave a party\n+unrepresented by counsel must include a certification tha t the moving attorney has\n+served a copy of the motion on his or her client and has informed the client of the\n+right to promptly file an objection with the court. The motion must also include the\n+notation, “Future notice to (name of party) is to be made at the following address:\n+(state last known address of the party).\n+9\n+D. Motions for Extensions of Time\n+Any motion that seeks an extension of the discovery deadline by more than\n+thirty days must provide: (1) a description of all discovery conducted up to the point\n+of filing the motion for an extension and the dates said discovery was served and\n+answered; (2) what depositions the parties have taken up to the point of filing the\n+motion; and (3) a discovery plan setting the date on which each outstanding\n+discovery issue will be resolved. Successive motions for extensions of time are\n+strongly disfavored.\n+III. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN CASES\n+A. ATTORNEY FEE SHIFTING CASES\n+If a party anticipates that during or upon the completion of this action it may\n+for any reason (other than as a sanction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)\n+seek an award of attorneys’ fees from the opposing party pursuant to any statute or\n+other law, the party must comply with the following requirements as a precondition\n+to any such award:\n+(a) Counsel must maintain a separate record of time with a complete and\n+accurate accounting of all time devoted to this particular action (to the nearest\n+1/10 of an hour), recorded contemporaneously with the time expended, for\n+each attorney and with suffic ient detail to disclose the nature of the work\n+performed in the action (i.e., not just “research” but the specific matter being\n+10\n+researched; not just “conference” but the identity of persons conferring and\n+general subject matter of the conference).\n+(b) If a claim will be made for services performed by any person not a\n+member of the bar, a separate time record shall be maintained for each such\n+individual in accordance with (a) above.\n+(c) Counsel is directed to review and verify all attorney and non-\n+attorney time records no less than once per month.\n+(d) Although the court does not require counsel to file a copy of the time\n+records before a request for a fee, counsel may file with the C lerk of C ourt\n+either a copy of the time record refer enced in (a) above, or a separately\n+prepared document setting forth the information described in (a) above. If\n+counsel elects to file reports, they should be filed by the 15th day of the month\n+following the month in which the work was performed during the pendency\n+of the case. If counsel elects to file time reports, the material filed may be filed\n+under seal, subject to further court order, by placing the same in a sealed\n+envelope with the case name and number along with “ATTORNEY TIME\n+RECORDS - FILE UNDER SEAL” written thereon. However, if the material\n+is filed under seal, then the filing party must, at the time of such filing, also\n+file (and serve a copy on opposing parties or their counsel) a document stating\n+the total of the hours represented by the sealed filing, allocated as to total\n+11\n+attorney hours and total non-attorney hours included in the current filing under\n+seal. Upon the conclusion of this case, without further order the seal will be\n+lifted as to all attorney fee materials filed under seal.\n+(e) A petition for attorney fees shall be accompanied by counsel’s\n+certification that all time records are accurate; that such records were prepared\n+contemporaneously with the performance of the work for which the fees are\n+claimed; and that counsel reviewed and verified all attorney and non-attorney\n+time records no less frequently than once per month.\n+B. CASES THAT REQUIRE EEOC CHARGES\n+If this case is one in which the filing of a charge of discrimination with the\n+Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or similar agency is required as a\n+prerequisite to suit, then the plaintiff(s) must file with the Clerk of Court at the time\n+of filing the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1): (a) a\n+copy of all charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC and which form the bases\n+of the action; and (b) a copy of the EEOC’s response to all such charges of\n+discrimination filed with that agency, including the notice of right to sue.\n+DONE and ORDERED this May 23, 2025.\n+_________________________________\n+ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+12\n+13\n+APPENDIX I\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA\n+________ DIVISION\n+AAA, )\n+)\n+Plaintiff(s), )\n+)\n+v. ) Civil Action No. ___\n+)\n+BBB, )\n+)\n+Defendant(s). )\n+QUALIFIED HIPAA PROTECTIVE ORDER\n+The court GRANTS the parties the right, upon compliance with the applicable\n+discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the orders of this\n+court, to obtain from any health care provider, health plan, or other entity covered\n+by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Pub.\n+L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996), any and all information relating to the past,\n+present, or future medical condition of any individual who is a party to this action\n+(or the decedent or ward of a party who sues in a representative capacity), as well as\n+any and all information relating to the provision of health care to such individual and\n+payment for the provision of such health care.\n+14\n+This order authorizes any third -party who is provided with a subpoena\n+requesting the production of documents or commanding attendance at deposition or\n+trial to disclose the p rotected health information in response to such request or\n+subpoena. This order is intended to authorize such disclosures under the privacy\n+regulations issued pursuant to HIPAA. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(i).\n+The court expressly prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected\n+health information obtained pursuant to this order for any purpose other than this\n+action. Further, the court orders the parties either to return to the covered entity from\n+whom or which such protected health information was obtained, or to destroy the\n+protected health information (including all copies made), immediately upon\n+conclusion of this action. See 45 C. F. R. §§ 163.502(b); 164.512(e)(1)(v).\n+DONE and ORDERED this ________ day of ________________, ______.\n+_______________________\n+Annemarie Carney Axon\n+United States District Judge\n+APPENDIX II\n+SUMMARY JUDGMENT REQUIREMENTS\n+NOTICE\n+This exhibit contains specific, mandatory instructions regarding the preparation and\n+submission of briefs and evidentiary materials in support of and in opposition to\n+potentially dispositive motions. These instructions must be followed strictly. Except\n+for good cause shown, briefs and evidentiary materials that do not conform to the\n+following requirements may be stricken.\n+SUBMISSION DATES\n+The court’s scheduling order will provide a deadline for filing summary\n+judgment motions. Any motion for summary judgment and evidentiary materials\n+will be due on or before that deadline. Briefs in support of or in opposition to\n+summary judgment must be filed within one business day of the filing of the\n+dispositive motion and/or evidentiary submissions. The court will enter a briefing\n+schedule upon receipt of the brief in support of the motion for summary judgment.\n+To ensure that each party is afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard,\n+the parties must deliver copies of briefs and evidentiary materials to opposing parties\n+without undue delay and, generally, on the same date the party submits the brief.\n+16\n+SUBMISSIONS\n+The parties’ submissions in support of and opposition to summary judgment\n+motions must consist of: (1) a brief containing, in separately identified sections, (i) a\n+statement of allegedly undisputed relevant material facts and (ii) a discussion of\n+relevant legal authorities; and (2) copies of any evidentiary materials upon which the\n+party relies. More detailed requirements for these submissions are explained in the\n+following sections.\n+REQUIREMENTS FOR BRIEFS\n+A. Format\n+Initial and response briefs are limited to thirty- five pages. Reply briefs are\n+limited to ten pages. Briefs that exceed twenty pages must include a table of contents\n+that accurately reflects the organization of the document. The table of contents is not\n+included in the page limit. The text of briefs must be double -spaced (except for\n+quotations exceeding fifty words, which may be block indented from the left and\n+right margins and single spaced) using fourteen point typeface, preferably Times\n+New Roman.\n+The court will not consider arguments incorporated by reference to earlier\n+filings and will not consider substantive arguments made in footnotes. The court\n+may strike any brief that would exceed the page limits because of attempts to\n+incorporate by reference or include substantive arguments in footnotes.\n+17\n+B. Submissions\n+The parties must electronically file the original brief. The parties also shall e-\n+mail to the court’s chambers (axon_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov) the brief in Word\n+format. The email must copy opposing counsel, or if a party is unrepresented, the\n+unrepresented party.\n+For requirements about the submission of courtesy copies of evidentiary\n+materials, see Part III.D. of the initial order.\n+C. Binding\n+The Clerk will not accept bound materials for filing, but the parties must\n+securely bind the court’s “courtesy copy” of the brief in a three-ring binder or large\n+clip for ease of use and to prevent inadvertent loss of pages. In addition, all pages\n+submitted in the court’s “courtesy copy” shall be three-hole punched.\n+D. Manner of Stating Facts\n+All briefs submitted either in support of or opposition to a motion must begin\n+with a statement of allegedly undisputed relevant material facts set out in separately\n+numbered paragraphs. Counsel must state facts in clear, unambiguous, simple,\n+declarative sentences. Each statement of fact must be supported by specific reference\n+to the CM/ECF document and page number of the evidentiary submissions.\n+18\n+1. Moving Party’s Initial Statement of Facts\n+The moving party shall list in separately numbered paragraphs each material\n+fact the movant contends is true and not in genuine dispute, and upon which the\n+moving party relies to demonstrate that it is entitled to summary judgment. Each\n+statement of fact must be followed by a specific reference to those portions of the\n+evidentiary record that the movant claims supports it.\n+2. Opposing Party’s Statement of Facts\n+Each party opposing a summary judgment motion also must submit a\n+statement of facts divided as follows.\n+a. Response to Movant’s Statement of Facts\n+The first section must consist of only the non-moving party’s disputes, if any,\n+with the moving party’s claimed undisputed facts. The non-moving party’s response\n+to the moving party’s claimed undisputed facts shall be in separately numbered\n+paragraphs that coincide with those of the moving party’s claimed undisputed facts.\n+Any statements of fact that are disputed by the non-moving party must be followed\n+by a specific reference to those portions of the evidentiary record upon which the\n+dispute is based. All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving\n+party will be deemed to be admitted for summary judgment purposes unless\n+controverted by the response of the party opposing summary judgment.\n+19\n+b. Additional Undisputed Facts\n+The second section may contain additional, allegedly undisputed facts set out\n+in separately numbered paragraphs that the opposing party contends require the\n+denial of summary judgment. The second section of the opposing party’s statement\n+of facts, if any, shall be clearly designated as such. Each statement of fact in this\n+section shall be supported by its own evidentiary citation. The opposing party should\n+include only facts that the opposing party contends are true and not in genuine\n+dispute.\n+c. Additional Disputed Facts\n+The third section may contain additional, allegedly disputed facts set out in\n+separately numbered paragraphs that the opposing party contends require the denial\n+of summary judgment. The third section of the opposing party’s statement of facts,\n+if any, shall be clearly designated as such. Each statement of allegedly disputed facts\n+must be followed by specific reference to those portions of the evidentiary record\n+which both support and contradict the alleged fact.\n+3. Moving Party’s Reply\n+The reply submission, if any, must include the moving party’s disputes, if any,\n+with the non -moving party’s additional claimed undisputed facts. The moving\n+party’s response to the non-moving party’s additional claimed undisputed facts shall\n+be in separately numbered paragraphs that coincide with those of the non-moving\n+20\n+party’s additional claimed undisputed facts. Any statements of fact that are disputed\n+by the moving party must be followed by a specific reference to those portions of\n+the evidentiary record upon which the disputation is based. All additional material\n+facts set forth in the statement required of the opposing parties will be deemed to be\n+admitted for summary judgment purposes unless controverted by the statement of\n+the movant.\n+REQUIREMENTS FOR EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS\n+To facilitate the court’s requirement that the parties cite to the CM/ECF\n+document and page numbers, the parties must electronically file all evidentiary\n+materials ( e.g., affidavits, exhibits, depositions, or other products of discovery)\n+relied upon in support of or opposition to summary judgment motions before they\n+file their briefs in support of or opposition to summary judgment. The parties may\n+file their briefs, with citations to the CM/ECF document and page numbers, one\n+business day after making their evidentiary submissions.\n+Any party opposing a summary judgment motion may reference materials\n+included in the moving party’s initial evidentiary submission without resubmitting\n+that evidentiary submission. Parties should refrain from r e-submitting additional\n+copies of the same documents.\n+While the court reserves the right to consider evidentiary materials that are\n+not specifically referenced in the brief, no party should assume the court will\n+21\n+consider such materials. A specific reference must include the CM/ECF document,\n+page, and, when appropriate, line number.\n+A. Organization\n+Each volume of evidentiary materials must include a table of contents\n+that includes a brief narrative description of each document included: e.g.,\n+“Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, the Deposition of John Jones.” Each affidavit, exhibit,\n+deposition, or other product of discovery must be separately identified by a capital\n+letter or numeral (i.e., “Exhibit A” or “Exhibit 1”); and, if the exhibit contains more\n+than one page, each page must be separately numbered. Deposition travel transcripts\n+that are submitted as part of the evidentiary record should include no more than four\n+pages of deposition text per 81⁄2” by 11” page.\n+Counsel are directed to submit entire depositions , including all exhibits\n+to the depositions, even if relying only on excerpts. However, if the deposition or\n+exhibits to the deposition contain information designated as confidential under a\n+protective order and the parties agree that the confidential information is not\n+necessary to the court’s determination of the summary judgment motion, the parties\n+may seek to be relieved of the obligation to submit the full deposition with all\n+exhibits. If a party seeks to be relieved of this obligation, the party should move for\n+that relief at least one calendar week before the due date for the summary judgment\n+22\n+motion. The motion should specify whether the party will redact parts of the\n+deposition or will omit or redact exhibits.\n+B. Number of Sets Submitted\n+The parties must electronically file one set of evidentiary materials. The\n+parties must submit a “courtesy copy” to the Clerk of Court for delivery to the court’s\n+chambers by the Clerk, an exact copy of the filed set of evidentiary materials,\n+reflecting the CM/ECF case number, document number, date, and page stamp on\n+each page, within three business days of electronic filing. Additionally, the\n+evidentiary material should include a tab corresponding to each document.\n+Regarding courtesy copies of depositions, parties shall include the entire deposition,\n+in travel transcript format consisting of no more than four pages of deposition text\n+per 8 1⁄2 by 11 inch page, as well all exhibits to the depositions with sub-tabs, clearly\n+labeled.\n+C. Binding\n+The Clerk will not accept bound materials for filing, but the parties must\n+securely bind the court’s “courtesy copy” of the evidentiary submission —in\n+separately numbered volumes, if necessary—for ease of use and to prevent\n+inadvertent loss of pages.","id":"53cd885ca4816094433f54f81e7e9f18f2b91457a3d290dd019b392247df93f4","newHash":"dd7cff3019436d7e4ea230863bff89c587bb644c4087595f3c7d88dfaa0761a0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/ACA%20Initial%20Order%2011-05-2025.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/dd7cff3019436d7e4ea230863bff89c587bb644c4087595f3c7d88dfaa0761a0.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/ACA%20Initial%20Order%2011-05-2025.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:44.197007+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,510 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA\n+_______ DIVISION\n+,\n+Plaintiff,\n+v.\n+,\n+Defendant.\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+Case No.:\n+INITIAL ORDER\n+GOVERNING ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS\n+This order governs all further proceedings in this court. The court assumes\n+that all attorneys and pro se parties have read this order and the Local Rules of the\n+Northern District of Alabama and will comply with them. The Local Rules are\n+available at www.alnd.uscourts.gov.\n+I. DUTIES UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(f)\n+A. The Planning Conference\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires the parties to confer “as soon\n+as practicable,” which in this action is no later than twenty-one days from the date\n+of this order. At this planning conference, the parties must, at a minimum:\n+• Discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses;\n+• Discuss the possibility of a prompt settlement or resolution of the case (see\n+also infra Part I.D);\n+2\n+• Make or arrange for the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 26(a)(1);\n+• Develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the parties’ views and\n+proposals concerning the matters addressed in Rule 26(f)(1) -(4); and, in\n+appropriate cases,\n+• Consider whether to consent to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction\n+under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).\n+If the parties fail to agree within seven days of the date of this order upon a\n+date, time, or place for such conference, the parties are hereby ORDERED to\n+telephone the chambers of the undersigned judge to report their failure to so agree\n+and receive further instructions. If a party is proceeding without counsel, the\n+obligation to telephone chambers rests upon counsel for the opposing party.\n+B. Report of the Planning Conference\n+Within fourteen days of the planning conference, the parties must jointly file\n+a report with the Clerk of Court that follows the general format of Appendix III to\n+this order. The report should include a brief synopsis of the case that advises the\n+court of the general claims and defenses of the parties. Such synopsis must not\n+exceed one page. Should the parties disagree about an item in the report, the\n+positions of the parties as to that item should be clearly set forth in separate\n+paragraphs.\n+When preparing the report, the parties should be aware that absent\n+extraordinary circumstances, this case should be ready for trial within fifteen months\n+from the date of service of the complaint. If the parties believe that the case will take\n+3\n+more than fifteen months to bring to trial, the parties must state with specificity their\n+grounds for suggesting deadlines beyond that time frame.\n+The report must include a discovery plan stating the parties’ views and\n+proposals on:\n+• any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored\n+information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced; and\n+• any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial -preparation\n+materials, including the time for complying with Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 26(b)(5)(A). If the parties agree on a procedure to assert these\n+claims after production ( i.e., a “clawback” agreement), the report should\n+include a statement whether they want the court’s scheduling order to adopt\n+their agreement under Federal Rule of Evidence 502.\n+Upon receipt of the report, the court may set a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+16(b) scheduling conference. If the parties would like for the court to set such a\n+conference, the parties should request one in their report.\n+C. Compliance with HIPAA\n+In accordance with the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and\n+Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996),\n+and regulations promulgated thereto, when Protected Health Information is relevant\n+to the claims or defenses presented in an action, a party seeking such Protected\n+Health Information must present a valid authorization at the Rule 26 planning\n+meeting to be executed by the party from whom such Protected Health Information\n+is sought. This authorization need not be filed with the court.\n+4\n+The parties may file with the court a motion for a qualified protective order,\n+to which all parties stipulate, and, contemporaneously with that filing, e -mail to\n+Manasco_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov, a proposed qualified protective order, in\n+substantially the form attached to this order as Appendix I, to be entered by\n+stipulation of counsel for all parties.\n+D. Suitability of Action for Alternative Dispute Resolution\n+To avoid unnecessary costs and fees, the court requires that the attorneys for\n+all parties make an early analysis of the case along with their clients and be prepared\n+to discuss settlement at the planning conference. The parties must also consider and\n+discuss at that time whether this action may be suitable for mediation, whether under\n+the court’s ADR plan or otherwise. The parties should expect the court to order this\n+case to mediation before the submission of dispositive motions.\n+E. Commencement of Discovery\n+The parties are authorized to commence discovery pursuant to the terms of\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 immediately after the required planning report\n+has been filed. In cases removed from state court in which any discovery requests\n+were filed before such removal, those discovery requests shall be deemed to have\n+been filed on the date the parties file the required planning report. The court instructs\n+the parties to review Local Rule 5.3 regarding the non-filing of discovery materials\n+in civil cases.\n+5\n+II. Submissions Procedures\n+A. CM/ECF Record\n+The official record of this case is maintained electronically pursuant to\n+CM/ECF. Documents must be filed through CM/ECF in Portable Document Format\n+(“PDF”), unless submitted by a party appearing pro se, in which instance documents\n+should be filed with the Clerk of Court. Except in extraordinary circumstances, all\n+filings must be consistent with the Civil Administrative Procedures Manual found\n+on the court’s website.\n+B. Protected Information\n+Counsel a re reminded to comply with the Administrative Procedures\n+Manual’s requirements for redacting personal identifiers (e.g., Social Security\n+numbers, drivers’ license numbers, birth dates, addresses, telephone numbers, and\n+bank account or credit card information) and other personal or sensitive information\n+in compliance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat.\n+2899 (2002), and regulations promulgated thereto.\n+The parties must comply with the Administrative Procedures Manual when\n+filing materials under seal.\n+C. Required Electronic Submissions to Chambers\n+Counsel must e-mail a copy of any filed motion or brief, and any proposed\n+order, to Manasco_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov. All digital copies should be sent\n+in Microsoft Word format. All communications to the chambers e-mail address must\n+6\n+show a copy to opposing counsel or pro se parties. If a pro se party does not have an\n+e-mail address on file, the sender must certify that a copy of the communication will\n+be sent to the physical address given.\n+D. Required Paper Submissions to Chambers\n+For all submissions exceeding fifty pages (including exhibits), the filing party\n+must submit, within three business days of filing, an exact courtesy copy of the\n+submission, reflecting the CM/ECF filing stamps at the top of each page , to the\n+Clerk’s office for delivery to chambers. Deliveries are not accepted in chambers. All\n+hard copies must be double-sided and securely bound, whether in a three -ring\n+binder or with a large clip.\n+III. Motion Practice\n+All motions must comply with the requirements of this order. Except for good\n+cause shown, motions and briefs that do not conform to the requirements of this\n+order may be stricken. Materials submitted after the close of the submission schedule\n+will not be considered absent leave of court.\n+A. Format\n+The parties’ motions and briefs must be in Times New Roman font and\n+fourteen-point type, except that footnotes may be in twelve-point type. Documents\n+must be double-spaced except that footnotes and indented quotations may be single-\n+spaced. The court will not consider arguments incorporated by reference to earlier\n+7\n+filings and will not consider substantive arguments raised only in footnotes.\n+Citations to the record must refer to the CM/ECF document number, page number,\n+and, where available, paragraph or line number.\n+Requests for oral argument, if applicable, must appear on the first page of the\n+motion, brief, or opposition directly below the case number in the caption of the\n+pleading.\n+For all motions other than summary judgment motions, an indication whether\n+the motion is opposed or unopposed must appear in both the title and the caption of\n+the motion.\n+B. Separately Filed Exhibits\n+When parties submit evidentiary materials in connection with a motion, brief,\n+or response thereto (except on summary judgment), each exhibit must be separately\n+filed in CM/ECF as its own sub-document to the motion, brief, or response thereto,\n+which should be designated in CM/ECF as the main document. For example, a\n+motion might be Doc. 12, and exhibit A to that motion would be Doc. 12-1. Special\n+requirements for separately filed evidentiary submissions in connection with\n+summary judgment motions are enumerated in Appendix II, infra.\n+Parties must contact chambers for further instructions to submit evidentiary\n+materials that may not be electronically filed through CM/ECF, such as video\n+recordings or physical items.\n+8\n+C. Proposed Orders\n+Any motion, opposition, or reply may be accompanied by a proposed order.\n+All proposed orders must be both filed in CM/ECF (as a separate sub-document\n+to the main filing) and e-mailed (in Microsoft Word format) to the chambers e-\n+mail address.\n+D. Dispositive Motions\n+Any motion for summary judgment filed in this action must comply with all\n+requirements of Appendix II to this order. Any other dispositive motion must comply\n+with the requirements of Appendix II to the extent practicable.\n+E. Other Motions\n+A party filing a motion that is not a summary judgment motion may either\n+incorporate in the motion the arguments and authorities upon which it relies, or\n+simultaneously file a separate brief with its motion. The total number of pages filed\n+must not exceed fifteen (exclusive of exhibits).\n+If the court requires briefing, the court will set a briefing schedule. If a non-\n+moving party wishes to file an opposition, counsel for that party may send a message\n+to Manasco_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov to request a briefing schedule. If the non-\n+moving party does not promptly request a briefing schedule, the court may rule on a\n+motion without briefing. Responsive briefs are limited to fifteen pages, exclusive of\n+exhibits. Reply briefs, if any, are limited to ten pages. Sur-replies are not permitted\n+without leave of court.\n+9\n+F. Motions About Discovery Disputes\n+Parties must seek leave of the court before filing a motion about a discovery\n+dispute. Counsel for the moving party must confer with opposing counsel to attempt\n+to resolve their disagreements regarding discovery. If the parties are unable to\n+resolve their dispute in that manner, then the party filing the motion for leave of the\n+court shall describe all efforts taken to resolve the disputed matter and shall certify\n+in the motion that the parties conferred pursuant to this order and were unable to\n+reach an agreement. If an attorney makes a good faith effort but is unable to contact\n+opposing counsel, then the attorney shall describe in the motion the attorney’s efforts\n+to contact and coordinate with opposing counsel. Failure to include a statement of\n+the parties’ attempt to resolve the matter without the court’s intervention may result\n+in an automatic denial of the motion.\n+If a motion for leave is opposed, the non -moving party may file a response\n+within three days. The motion for leave must specify the nature of the discovery\n+dispute and the steps the parties have taken to resolve it. The motion for leave need\n+only include th e facts relevant to the dispute; legal argument and citations are not\n+necessary in the motion for leave. If the court grants leave, the moving party must\n+file the discovery motion no later than the next business day.\n+G. Motion of Counsel to Withdraw\n+10\n+Once an attorney has appeared as counsel for a party, he or she may not\n+withdraw from the action merely by filing a “notice of withdrawal,” but must file a\n+motion stating the specific grounds for withdrawal and seeking permission of the\n+court to do so. Any motion to withdraw which, if granted, would leave a party\n+unrepresented by counsel must include a certification that the moving attorney has\n+served a copy of the motion on his or her client and has informed the client of the\n+right to promptly file an objection with the court. The motion must also include the\n+notation, “Future notice to (name of party) is to be made at the following address:\n+(state last known address of the party).”\n+H. Motions for Extension of Time\n+Absent extraordinary unforeseen circumstances, any motion for an extension\n+of any deadline must be filed three or more days before the deadline sought to be\n+extended. Motions for an extension of time that do not satisfy this requirement will\n+ordinarily be automatically denied. Successive requests for extensions by the same\n+party are disfavored. Parties may agree among themselves to adjust deadlines for\n+expert testimony without leave of court so long as such adjustments are agreed upon\n+by all parties and do not affect the discovery cutoff or dispositive motions deadline.\n+Extensions for the deadlines set to complete all discovery and file\n+dispositive motions will not be granted absent extraordinary cause.\n+11\n+Any motion to extend the deadline to complete all discovery must state when\n+the moving party first propounded discovery requests and/or noticed depositions and\n+must include any other information that will help the court determine how effectively\n+the parties have used the amount of time originally allowed for discovery.\n+I. Motions To Seal\n+Any motion to seal must satisfy the legal standard in Romero v. Drummond\n+Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007). Motions that do not satisfy this standard\n+will be routinely denied.\n+J. Oral Argument\n+If any party desires to have the opportunity for oral argument on a motion,\n+that party should request argument in its motion (or response).\n+To develop future generations of practitioners, in deciding whether to have\n+argument the court will consider, among other things, whether an attorney with\n+fewer than seven years of experience will be arguing. If the court grants the request\n+for oral argument and one of the participating attorneys has fewer than seven years\n+of experience, the court will give the parties additional time for argument to provide\n+a more experienced attorney the opportunity to supplement the less experienced\n+attorney’s argument (and an appropriate response).\n+All attorneys will be held to the highest professional standards. All attorneys\n+are expected to be prepared and to have a degree of authority commensurate with\n+12\n+the proceeding. The court recognizes that there may be many different circumstances\n+in which it is not appropriate for a newer attorney to argue a motion. Thus the court\n+emphasizes that it draws no inference from a party’s decision not to have such an\n+attorney argue any particular motion. Additionally, the court draws no inference\n+about the relative importance of a particular motion, or about the merits of a party’s\n+arguments, from the party’s decision to have (or not to have) a newer attorney argue\n+the motion.\n+IV. Warning Regarding Artificial Intelligence\n+All parties are advised that if any filing contains false statements of fact or\n+law generated by artificial intelligence, counsel whose names appear in the signature\n+block for such filing may be ordered to show cause why they should not be\n+sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the court’s inherent authority,\n+Local Rule 83.1(f), and/or Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 for making\n+false statements of fact or law to the court. All parties are further advised that in that\n+unfortunate circumstance, show-cause proceedings will include not only an in-\n+person hearing, but also sworn affidavits from counsel detailing the sequence of\n+events giving rise to the false statements, counsel’s use of generative artificial\n+intelligence, and any other relevant matters. For examples of sanctions the court has\n+imposed in such circumstances, the parties are directed to: Sanctions Order, Johnson\n+v. Dunn, No. 2:21 -cv-1701-AMM (N.D. Ala. July 3, 2025) Dkt. No. 204; Order,\n+13\n+Rivera v. Triad Props . Corp., No. 2:24 -cv-1802-AMM (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2026)\n+Dkt. No. 116.\n+DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2026.\n+_________________________________\n+ANNA M. MANASCO\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+APPENDIX I\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA\n+________ DIVISION\n+[Name of plaintiff(s)], )\n+)\n+Plaintiff(s), )\n+)\n+v. ) Case No.:\n+)\n+[Name of defendant(s)], )\n+)\n+Defendant(s). )\n+QUALIFIED HIPAA PROTECTIVE ORDER\n+The court GRANTS the parties the right, upon compliance with the applicable\n+discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the orders of this\n+court, to obtain from any health care provider, health plan, or other entity covered\n+by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-\n+191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (“HIPAA”), any and all information relating to the past,\n+present, or future medical condition of any individual who is a party to this action\n+(or the decedent or ward of a party who sues in a representative capacity), as well as\n+any and all information relating to the provision of health care to such individual and\n+payment for the provision of such health care.\n+15\n+This order authorizes any third -party who is provided with a subpoena\n+requesting the production of documents or commanding attendance at deposition or\n+trial to disclose the Protected Health Information in response to such request or\n+subpoena. This order is intended to authorize such disclosures under the privacy\n+regulations issued pursuant to HIPAA. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(i).\n+The court expressly prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the\n+Protected Health Information obtained pursuant to this order for any purpose other\n+than this action. Further, the court orders the parties either to return to the covered\n+entity from whom or which such protected health information was obtained, or to\n+destroy the protected health information (including all copies made), immediately\n+upon conclusion of this action. See 45 C. F. R. §§ 163.502(b); 164.512(e)(1)(v).\n+DONE and ORDERED this ________ day of ________________, ______.\n+__________________________\n+Anna M. Manasco\n+United States District Judge\n+APPENDIX II\n+SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PRACTICE\n+This appendix contains mandatory instructions that must be followed.\n+Except for good cause shown, briefs and evidentiary submissions that do not\n+conform to the following requirements may be stricken.\n+I. SUBMISSION DATES\n+The court will set a deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions. Any\n+motion for summary judgment and briefs and evidentiary submissions must be filed\n+on or before that deadline. The opponent’s responsive brief must be filed no later\n+than twenty-one days after the movant’s brief, unless otherwise ordered by the court.\n+The movant’s reply brief, if any, must be filed no later than fourteen days after the\n+date on which the opponent files its responsive brief, unless otherwise ordered by\n+the court. If the due date for a response or reply falls on a weekend or court holiday,\n+the due date shall be the next business day. To ensure that each party is afforded a\n+full and fair opportunity to be heard, the parties must deliver copies of briefs and\n+evidentiary submissions to opposing parties without undue delay and, generally, on\n+the same date such materials are submitted to the court.\n+II. SUBMISSIONS\n+The parties’ submissions in support of and opposition to summary judgment\n+motions must consist of: (1) a brief containing, in separately identified sections (a) a\n+17\n+statement of allegedly undisputed relevant material facts (or rebuttal to such\n+statement, for an opposition filing) and (b) a discussion of relevant legal authorities;\n+and (2) copies of any evidentiary materials upon which the party relies. More\n+detailed requirements for these submissions are explained below.\n+III. REQUIREMENTS FOR BRIEFS\n+A. Format\n+Initial and response briefs are limited to thirty- five pages. Reply briefs are\n+limited to fifteen pages. Briefs that exceed twenty pages must include a table of\n+contents that accurately reflects the organization of the document. The table of\n+contents is not included in the page limit. The text of briefs must be double -spaced\n+(except for quotations exceeding fifty words, which may be block indented from the\n+left and right margins and single -spaced) using fourteen-point Times New Roman\n+typeface.\n+The court will not consider arguments incorporated by reference to\n+earlier filings and will not consider substantive arguments made in footnotes.\n+The court may strike any brief that would exceed the page limits because of attempts\n+to incorporate by reference or include substantive arguments in footnotes.\n+18\n+B. Submissions\n+The parties must electronically file the original brief. The parties also must e-\n+mail to Manasco _chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov such brief in Microsoft Word\n+format, contemporaneously with the filing of the brief.\n+C. Manner of Stating and Supporting Facts\n+Counsel must state facts in clear, unambiguous, simple, declarative sentences.\n+All statements of fact, in all sections of the brief, must be supported by specific\n+reference to the CM/ECF document and page number of the evidentiary submission.\n+COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT WILL NECESSITATE\n+FILING THE EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE BRIEF\n+SEPARATELY FROM THE BRIEF AND MAY NECESSITATE FILING\n+THE EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSION ONE OR MORE DAYS PRIOR TO\n+FILING THE BRIEF . BOTH THE BRIEF AND EVIDENTIARY\n+SUBMISSION MUST BE FILED ON OR BEFORE THE FILING\n+DEADLINE.\n+1. Moving Party’s Initial Statement of Facts\n+The moving party ’s brief must set forth each material fact that, when\n+construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the movant contends\n+is true, material, and not in genuine dispute, and upon which the moving party relies\n+to demonstrate that it is entitled to summary judgment. Each statement of fact must\n+19\n+be followed by a specific reference to those portions of the evidentiary record that\n+the movant claims support it.\n+2. Opposing Party’s Statement of Facts\n+Each party opposing a summary judgment motion also must submit a\n+statement of facts. This statement of facts must include (although not necessarily in\n+this order) (1) the non-movant’s disputes, if any, with the movant’s claimed\n+undisputed facts; (2) additional undisputed facts, if any, that the non -movant\n+contends require denial of summ ary judgment; and (3) disputed facts that the non -\n+movant contends require denial of summary judgment. Each statement of fact must\n+be followed by a specific reference to those portions of the evidentiary record that\n+the opposing party claims support it.\n+All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will\n+be deemed to be admitted for summary judgment purposes unless controverted by\n+the response of the party opposing summary judgment.\n+3. Moving Party’s Reply\n+The reply submission, if any, must include the moving party’s disputes, if any,\n+with the non-moving party’s additional claimed undisputed facts. Any statements\n+of fact that are disputed by the moving party must be followed by a specific reference\n+to those portions of the evidentiary record upon which the dispute is based. All\n+additional material facts set forth in the statement required of the opposing parties\n+20\n+will be deemed to be admitted for summary judgment purposes unless controverted\n+by the statement of the movant.\n+IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSIONS\n+T o facilitate the court’s requirement that the parties ’ briefs cite to CM/ECF\n+document and page numbers, the parties must electronically file all evidentiary\n+materials ( e.g., affidavits, exhibits, depositions, or other products of discovery)\n+relied upon in support of or opposition to summary judgment motions separately\n+from their briefs and before they file their briefs in support of or opposition to\n+summary judgment.\n+Any party opposing a summary judgment motion may reference materials in\n+the moving party’s evidentiary submission without refiling those materials. Parties\n+should refrain from re-submitting additional copies of the same documents.\n+A. Organization\n+The evidentiary submission must include a table of contents that includes a\n+brief narrative description of each document included: e.g ., “Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1,\n+the Deposition of John Jones.” For ease of citation, each affidavit, exhibit,\n+deposition, or other product of discovery must be separately identified by a capital\n+letter or numeral (i.e., “Exhibit A” or “Exhibit 1”); and, if the exhibit contains more\n+than one page, each page must be separately numbered.\n+21\n+B. Depositions\n+The parties must submit entire depositions, even if they rely only on excerpts,\n+including all exhibits to the depositions. Deposition travel transcripts that are\n+submitted as part of the evidentiary record should include no more than four pages\n+of deposition text per 81⁄2 by 11 inch page.\n+C. Submissions\n+T he parties must electronically file their evidentiary submissions. The parties\n+must also submit to the Clerk of Court a courtesy copy of their evidentiary\n+submissions, reflecting the CM/ECF filing stamps at the top of each page, for\n+delivery to the court’s chambers. The courtesy copy should follow the instructions\n+for courtesy copies that appear in the Initial Order. Additionally, the courtesy copy\n+should include a tab corresponding to each item of evidence.\n+Regarding courtesy copies of depositions, parties must include the entire\n+deposition, in travel transcript format consisting of no more than four pages of\n+deposition text per 8 1⁄2 by 11 inch page, as well all exhibits to the depositions with\n+sub-tabs, clearly labeled.\n+The courtesy copy must be provided to the Clerk within three business days\n+of the electronic filing of the evidentiary submission.\n+D. Conventional Submissions\n+22\n+To the extent a party cannot electronically file a piece of evidence in\n+accordance with this Appendix, Section IV.C., the evidence must be conventionally\n+filed with the Clerk of Court.\n+To conventionally file a piece of evidence, the party must file a Notice of\n+Conventional Filing at the time they electronically file their evidentiary submissions.\n+The subject evidence must be conventionally filed with the Clerk of Court within\n+twenty-four hours of the Notice of Conventional Filing. Including conventionally\n+filed evidence with the courtesy copy to chambers is not filing and does not satisfy\n+this obligation.\n+If a party fails to comply with this requirement, that party bears the risk of\n+loss of or destruction to the evidence.\n+APPENDIX III\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA\n+________ DIVISION\n+[Name of plaintiff(s)], )\n+)\n+Plaintiff(s), )\n+)\n+v. ) Case No.:\n+)\n+[Name of defendant(s)], )\n+)\n+Defendant(s). )\n+REPORT OF THE PARTIES’ PLANNING MEETING\n+1. Synopsis of the case: <Provide a brief synopsis of the case that advises the\n+court of the general claims and defenses of the parties. This synopsis must not\n+exceed one page.>\n+2. The following persons participated in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)\n+conference on <Date> by <State the method of conferring>:\n+<Name>, representing the <plaintiff(s)>\n+<Name>, representing the <defendant(s)>\n+3. Initial Disclosures. The parties [have completed] [will complete by <Date>]\n+the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1).\n+4. Discovery Plan. The parties propose this discovery plan:\n+<Use separate paragraphs or subparagraphs if the parties disagree.>\n+(a) Discovery will be needed on these subjects: <Describe>.\n+(b) <Dates for commencing and completing discovery, including discovery\n+to be commenced or completed before other discovery.>\n+(c) <Maximum number of interrogatories by each party to another party,\n+along with the dates the answers are due.>\n+24\n+(d) <Maximum number of requests for admission, along with the dates\n+responses are due.>\n+(e) <Maximum number of depositions by each party, excluding experts and\n+parties.>\n+(f) <Limits on the length of depositions, in hours.>\n+(g) <Dates for exchanging reports of expert witnesses.>\n+(h) <Dates for supplementations under Rule 26(e).>\n+5. Other Items:\n+(a) <A date if the parties ask to meet with the court before a scheduling\n+order.>\n+(b) <Final dates for the plaintiff to amend pleadings or to join parties.>\n+(c) <Final dates for the defendant to amend pleadings or to join parties.>\n+(d) <Final dates to file dispositive motions.>\n+(e) <State the prospects for settlement.>\n+(f) <Identify any alternative dispute resolution procedure that may\n+enhance settlement prospects.>\n+(g) <Suggested trial date and estimate of trial length.>\n+(h) <Other matters.>\n+Date: <Date> <Signature of the attorney or unrepresented\n+party>\n+____________________________________\n+<Printed name>\n+<Address>\n+<E-mail address>\n+<Telephone number>\n+Date: <Date> <Signature of the attorney or unrepresented\n+party>\n+____________________________________\n+<Printed name>\n+<Address>\n+<E-mail address>\n+<Telephone number>","id":"e2a41f4c9c47a4143e686513724f026af406704da5dbd4a9017384a0779e2247","newHash":"0b67461061a71f3abdb3ee2d5e72877d4c288045ebeacb3e60caab4553b88f48","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/AMM%20-%20Initial%20Order%206.15.2026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/0b67461061a71f3abdb3ee2d5e72877d4c288045ebeacb3e60caab4553b88f48.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/AMM%20-%20Initial%20Order%206.15.2026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:44.838328+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA\n+Choose an item. DIVISION\n+Plaintiff(s).,\n+Plaintiff,\n+v.\n+Defendant(s).,\n+Defendants.\n+}\n+}\n+}\n+}\n+}\n+}\n+}\n+}\n+}\n+}\n+Case No.: Case Number.\n+HAIKALA CHAMBERS INITIAL ORDER\n+The Court enters this order to help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive\n+determination” of this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The Court expects the parties to be\n+adversaries with respect to the substantive issues litigated in this action, but counsel\n+should cooperate in the litigation process in the spirit of Rule 1.\n+The information contained in the sections that follow address these topics:\n+I. Initial Screening of the Complaint\n+II. Motions to Dismiss\n+III. Rule 26(f) Obligations/Draft Scheduling Orders\n+IV. Protective Orders\n+V. Communication with the Court\n+VI. Required E-Mail Submissions to Chambers\n+VII. Briefing Format and Requirements including AI Disclosures\n+VIII. Filing Procedures\n+IX. Fee Shifting Cases\n+X. Oral Argument\n+2\n+XI. Use of AI to Create Court Submissions\n+Please read this order closely; this initial order governs all proceedings in this case.*\n+I. Initial Screening of the Complaint\n+The Court has reviewed the complaint, and the Court finds that it may exercise\n+jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. The Court has an ongoing\n+obligation to assess subject matter jurisdiction. Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco\n+Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is\n+obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be\n+lacking.”); see also Burr & Forman v. Blair, 470 F.3d 1019, 1035 n. 38 (11th Cir.\n+2006). If, on motion from a party or on its own review, the Court determines that it\n+may not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action, then the Court will\n+give the parties an opportunity to address the jurisdictional issue.\n+II. Motions to Dismiss\n+When a defendant files a motion to dismiss, the Court will enter an order that\n+sets either a briefing schedule or a hearing to discuss the motion.\n+The Court often receives motions to dismiss that describe perceived\n+deficiencies in the factual allegations of a complaint. Under the Federal Rules of\n+Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim\n+showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff\n+* This case is not governed by the Uniform Initial Order for the Northern District of Alabama.\n+3\n+may amend a complaint to address pleadings deficiencies that cause a complaint to\n+fall short of the requirements of Rule 8. A district court must “freely give leave” to\n+amend “when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Accordingly, if counsel\n+for a defendant believes that factual allegations in a complaint do not meet Rule 8’s\n+notice requirement, then counsel for the defendant must confer with counsel for the\n+plaintiff before filing a motion to dismiss and ask counsel for the plaintiff to cure the\n+perceived deficiencies.\n+If the plaintiff’s attorney agrees to amend the complaint, then the parties shall\n+file a notice advising the Court that they have conferred, and the plaintiff has opted\n+to file an amended complaint. The joint notice relieves the defendant(s) of the\n+obligation of responding to the original complaint. If , after conferring with the\n+plaintiff, the parties are not able to agree, and the defendant files a motion to dismiss,\n+then the defendant shall state on the first page of the motion that the parties conferred\n+before the defendant filed the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.\n+The obligation to confer pertains only to Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss\n+based on the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the complaint. There is no such\n+obligation for other motions to dismiss.\n+This instruction does not apply to cases in which individuals are handling their\n+cases pro se without the assistance of an attorney.\n+4\n+III. Rule 26(f) Obligations\n+Within 14 days of the appearance of a ll defendants, the parties must confer\n+pursuant to Rule 26(f). 1 If this case involves more than one defendant and if, 90\n+days from the date on which the plaintiff(s) filed the complaint, the defendants have\n+not all been served and/or appeared, the parties shall file a joint notice advising the\n+Court of the status of the case.\n+At least seven days before the parties conduct a discovery conference\n+pursuant to Rule 26(f), the parties shall exchange the initial disclosures that Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) requires. The Court asks the parties to please\n+exchange as much information as possible before the discovery conference to\n+facilitate better discussions during the discovery meeting.2\n+The parties’ discussions during their Rule 26(f) conference shall cover the\n+following topics:\n+• the nature of the claims and defenses, the complexity of the case, and\n+the possibility of a prompt settlement or resolution of the case through\n+formal mediation or informal settlement negotiations;\n+• preservation of discoverable information;\n+1 Rule 26(f)(2) provides: “[T]he court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference\n+in person.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)(2). The Court does not require the parties to meet in person, but\n+the Court encourages the parties to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference in person or by video\n+conference.\n+2 The Court recognizes that in some circumstances, a party may not be able to provide complete\n+initial disclosures before the Rule 26(f) conference. The parties must supplement initial\n+disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(e).\n+5\n+• a proposed discovery plan that briefly describes the parties’ positions\n+and provides proposed deadlines for the matters addressed in sub -\n+paragraphs (A) through (F) of FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)(3); and\n+• execution of authorization(s) for disclosure of “protected health\n+information” in cases in which the provisions of the Health Insurance\n+Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), Pub. L. No.\n+104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996), and regulations promulgated under the\n+Act, apply.3\n+Within three days of the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties must file a joint report\n+of their planning meeting. The report must include:\n+• a brief description of the nature of the case;\n+• a list of related cases or proceedings pending bef ore another judge of\n+this court or before another court or administrative body;\n+• an indication of the parties’ assessment of the complexity of the case;\n+and\n+• an analysis of the case’s suitability for an early settlement conference\n+or mediation.\n+Using the Word template at https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-madeline-\n+h-haikala, t he parties shall email to chambers at\n+haikala_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov in Word a draft scheduling order that\n+provides proposed deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions and proposed\n+3 If the parties require a HIPAA protective order, they may find a draft order at the Court’s website\n+at https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-madeline-h-haikala. The parties should tailor the\n+draft order to the needs of their case and email the ir draft protective order to the chambers email\n+address, haikala_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov.\n+6\n+limits on the number of discovery requests. The Court will provide a date for a post-\n+discovery status conference.\n+IV. Protective Orders\n+If the parties a nticipate an exchange of information that is confidential or\n+proprietary, then the parties shall please email a draft protective order to chambers\n+at haikala_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov in Word format. T he parties shall please\n+include the following language in a proposed protective order:\n+Any person who reviews or receives confidential material shall not\n+disclose such information to any other person except as allowed by and\n+in strict conformity with this Order. Attorneys of record shall advise\n+all persons who are given access to confidential information of the\n+terms of this order and shall have all persons who are given access to\n+confidential information other than members of the attorneys’ staff sign\n+a copy of this order to acknowledge their familiarity with the terms of\n+the order and its binding force. Individuals who are shown confidential\n+information shall not be allowed to retain copies and shall not use the\n+confidential information for any purpose unrelated to this litigation.\n+V. Communication with the Court\n+The Court may not engage in ex parte communications. If attorneys need to\n+contact chambers, the y shall email chambers at\n+haikala_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov and copy all counsel of record on the email.\n+VI. Required E-Mail Submissions to Chambers\n+Counsel must e-mail to chambers in Word format copies of all filed motions\n+that exceed 10 pages, copies of all filed briefs, and copies of all proposed orders. All\n+7\n+communications to the chambers email address must show a copy to all opposing\n+counsel.\n+VII. Briefing Format and Requirements\n+Documents that the parties file shall use Times New Roman Font and 14-point\n+font; footnotes may be in 12- point font. Documents must be double -spaced;\n+footnotes and indented quotations that exceed three lines should be single-spaced.\n+The party filing a motion shall indicate on the first page of the motion whether\n+the motion is opposed or unopposed and whether the party requests oral argument.\n+Citations to the record shall refer to the CM/ECF document number , page\n+number, and paragraph or deposition line number, where available. Evidence cited\n+in a brief must be filed in CM/ECF before a party files a brief to enable the party to\n+cite to the evidence by CM/ECF document and page number. If a party cannot file\n+evidence electronically before filing a brief, then the party shall, within three days\n+of filing a brief, email to chambers (haikala_chambers@alnd.uscourts.gov) a Word\n+version of the brief with CM/ECF record citations.\n+VIII. Filing Procedures\n+a. CM/ECF Record\n+The official record of this case is maintained electronically in CM/ECF.\n+Except in extraordinary circumstances, all fili ngs must comply with the Court’s\n+Administrative Procedures Manual. Attorneys must register for electronic filing and\n+8\n+service through the “Attorney Registration” link on the Court’s website,\n+www.alnd.uscourts.gov.4 Pro se litigants who lack electronic access may file\n+documents conventionally in paper format.\n+Documents filed through CM/ECF must be in .pdf (Portable Document\n+Format). Should counsel or a pro se litigant have trouble filing a document, (s)he\n+may call the Clerk’s Office at (205) 278-1700 and select option 3 for the Help Desk\n+for assistance.\n+b. Protected Information\n+Counsel are reminded to please comply with the Court’s Administrative\n+Procedures Manual for electronic filing (on the Court’s website) with respect to\n+personal identifiers ( e.g., Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, birth\n+dates, addresses, telephone numbers, bank account and credit card information) and\n+other personal or sensitive information, in compliance with the E-Government Act.\n+c. Sealing Documents\n+If a party believes that information contained in a motion or an exhibit should\n+be placed under seal, then the party must file a motion for leave to file the document\n+under seal. If the Court grants the motion, the Court will review the information\n+4 After an attorney has registered, his/her registration becomes permanent; (s)he is not required to\n+re-register in each individual case.\n+9\n+placed under seal. Upon review, if the Court is inclined to lt the seal partially or\n+entirely, then the Court will give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard.\n+IX. Fee Shifting Cases\n+The Court’s website contains standard orders for fee shifting cases. The\n+parties may access the Court’s website at http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/content/\n+judge-madeline-h-haikala. Parties must comply with those orders if they plan to\n+seek an award of fees.\n+X. Oral Argument\n+The Court welcomes oral argument. Requests for oral argument shall appear\n+on the first page of a motion or brief directly below the case number in the caption\n+of the pleading.\n+XI. Artificial Intelligence – Use of AI to Create Court Submissions\n+Lawyers and pro se litigants who use technology like ChatGPT, Google Bard,\n+Bing AI Chat, or other generative artificial intelligence services to prepare\n+documents that the parties file in the record in this case are cautioned that generative\n+AI technologies sometimes may produce factually or legally inaccurate content. The\n+Court does not prohibit the use of AI, but to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal\n+Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable legal and ethical standards, attorneys\n+and pro se litigants must review and verify computer -generated content to ensure\n+that it is accurate and complies with all such governing standards.\n+10\n+Conclusion\n+Counsel of record shall instruct all attorneys who work on this case, including\n+in-house counsel, to review this order. The Court looks forward to working with the\n+parties on this case.","id":"1beec7cc82a884e578ced85680c075cab966b87a65277c07b4a8b24400fbb31c","newHash":"7e0ca34786e8a9fd319615309b71b8a382af7c4501417fa386e98beb67952e2b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/MHH%20Initial%20Order%20as%20of%207-8-24.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/7e0ca34786e8a9fd319615309b71b8a382af7c4501417fa386e98beb67952e2b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/MHH%20Initial%20Order%20as%20of%207-8-24.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:44.486748+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"af8f4de5e6628097bd8f5726a6a90321df7b085070c908d32badbe0d8b9754e7","newHash":"a73aaf605829dd29f13aed3cdaa33f02ec6328696a9ab463bcbeec02dda926db","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.azbar.org/media/4lynbyiv/ao-2024-33.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.azbar.org/media/4lynbyiv/ao-2024-33.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:45.264733+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"4f57bd33ace311f20d2fb6c7e1181f8e40c4353a1b77b2eff6a16b2092ba8b22","newHash":"9f3b05c6b6bd3cc0442becf16e5c92ae5e7ea09e04559bcdd1ece567670c10c5","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:45.086596+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"668ccf87370751d9c63496ef06e92a452e843d5a4d7296aeb4ad7d3218795b22","newHash":"0bd778029c185adcccd3c56889c951db3481d2e98dac9d97b02f2af059e1c7a8","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:45.571811+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@\n+United States Court of Appeals\n+FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT\n+Court Decision on Proposed Rule\n+“The court, having considered the proposed rule, the accompanying comments, and the use of\n+artificial intelligence in the legal practice, has decided not to adopt a special rule regarding the use\n+of artificial intelligence in drafting briefs at this time. Parties and counsel are reminded of their\n+duties regarding their filings before the court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure\n+46(b)(1)(B). Parties and counsel are responsible for ensuring that their filings with the court,\n+including briefs, shall be carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy as the rules already\n+require. “I used AI” will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.”","id":"677011da0c80f27b68285876ba09e089672e680111cc4e0a88864f04353d1f73","newHash":"ee450e4ffd1ce1ee51c78a7554b281e52a885a680fbc7802d13cac068f2b8f84","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/ee450e4ffd1ce1ee51c78a7554b281e52a885a680fbc7802d13cac068f2b8f84.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:45.510326+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@\n+UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n+Notice of Proposed Amendment to 5TH CIR. R. 32.3\n+Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2071, we give notice the court is considering amending 5TH CIR.\n+R. 32.3 and Form 6 as shown below. Proposed changes are “redline text.”\n+We solicit written comments for consideration on the proposed changes through January 4, 2024.\n+You may mail comments to:\n+Clerk of Court\n+U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit\n+ATTN: Rule Changes\n+600 South Maestri Place\n+New Orleans, LA 70130\n+or send comments electronically to Changes@ca5.uscourts.gov.\n+Lyle W. Cayce\n+Clerk of Court\n+Fifth Circuit Rule 32.3\n+32.3. Certificate of Compliance. See Form 6 in the Appendix of Forms to the Fed. R.\n+App. P . Additionally, c ounsel and unrepresented filers must further certify that no\n+generative artificial intelligence program was used in drafting the document presented for\n+filing, or to the extent such a program was used, all generated text, including all citations\n+and legal analysis, has been reviewed for accuracy and approved by a human. A material\n+misrepresentation in the certificate of compliance may result in striking the document and\n+sanctions against the person signing the document.\n+FORM 6.\n+CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT\n+Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limit,\n+Typeface Requirements, and Type-Style Requirements\n+1. This document complies with [the type-volume limit of FED. R. APP. P. [insert\n+Rule Citation; e.g. 32(a)(7)(B)]] [the word limit of FED. R. APP. P. [insert Rule citation; e.g.,\n+5(c)(1)]] because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by FED. R. APP. P. 32(f)\n+[and [insert applicable Rule citation, if any]]:\n+ this document contains [state the number of] words, or\n+ this brief uses a monospaced typeface and contains [state the number\n+of] lines of text.\n+2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of FED. R. APP. P.\n+32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because:\n+ this document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced\n+typeface using [state name and version of word-processing program]\n+in [state font size and name of type style], or\n+ this document has been prepared in a monospaced typeface using\n+[state name and version of word-processing program] with [state\n+number of characters per inch and name of type style].\n+3. This document complies with the AI usage reporting requirement of 5th\n+Cir. R. 32.3 because:\n+ no generative artificial intelligence program was used in the\n+drafting of this document, or\n+ a generative artificial intelligence program was used in the\n+drafting of this document and all generated text, including all\n+citations and legal analysis, has been reviewed for accuracy\n+and approved by a human.\n+s/____________________________________\n+Attorney for __________________________\n+Dated: ________________________________","id":"6860bc65f1dea69e05e4e2407502f376be2a6e0737e30d244d64584a7cc554c0","newHash":"197cad6b27b7f57cea3e0cbb35eda95228bdd019ed5fbe6194b7f679afb55f84","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/5995382a-c99d-4f5e-9e3f-8b0498dbd643/public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/197cad6b27b7f57cea3e0cbb35eda95228bdd019ed5fbe6194b7f679afb55f84.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/5995382a-c99d-4f5e-9e3f-8b0498dbd643/public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:45.847439+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@\n+RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF\n+AI TOOLS TO GENERATE DOCUMENTS FOR\n+FILING WITH THE COURT\n+Please be aware that AI tools may generate text that appears authoritative but is incorrect,\n+incomplete, outdated, or inapplicable to the facts or law of a particular case. As a result, AI may\n+provide unreliable legal advice. AI tools may also generate fabricated or non-existent content,\n+including \"hallucinated\" case citations, quotations, statutes, rules, docket entries, or procedural\n+requirements.\n+More specifically, AI-Generated materials may:\n+• misstate or omit controlling authority, including binding precedent or applicable rules;\n+• provide inaccurate citations, incorrect quotations, or citations to cases that do not exist;\n+• confuse jurisdictions, courts, or procedural rules, including rules that do not apply in the\n+Central District of California;\n+• mischaracterize the record, the relief requested, deadlines, or the effect of an order;\n+• include unsupported factual assertions, improper evidentiary statements, or conclusory\n+allegations;\n+• produce inconsistent statements across sections of the same document; and\n+• create formatting or content that does not comply with applicable rules or Court\n+requirements.\n+Therefore, before filing any document prepared with the assistance of an AI tool, the filer should\n+conduct a careful, line-by-line review to confirm that the document is accurate, complete, and\n+well-founded. At a minimum, the filer should confirm all of the following:\n+• that every cited case, statute, rule, and quotation exists and is accurately quoted and\n+properly cited;\n+• that the cited authority applies in the Central District of California and to the specific\n+procedural posture and facts of the case.\n+• that all factual statements are true, supported by the record, and consistent with any\n+declarations or exhibits;\n+• that the relief requested is authorized and clearly stated; and\n+• that the document complies with applicable federal and local rules, Court orders and\n+filing requirements.\n+Please note that the filing of documents that contain inaccurate citations, fabricated authorities,\n+misstatements of law, or unsupported factual assertions may result in adverse consequences,\n+including: the imposition of sanctions, monetary or otherwise; denial of the requested relief; or\n+any other consequence that the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.\n+a. .","id":"41cfafb1cc6d209971f0a7b4feb5647dbcc0a7e69404e09ea6a2d919efa28725","newHash":"bbade1ec6931047ea94708b086ab34691e7b30cc760317d75b2bb38ee6a43f56","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/Risk%20Associated%20with%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20Tools.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/bbade1ec6931047ea94708b086ab34691e7b30cc760317d75b2bb38ee6a43f56.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/Risk%20Associated%20with%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20Tools.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:46.049827+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,496 @@\n+Using AI Tools in Your Case | Northern District of California | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+An official website of the United States government\n+Here’s how you know\n+Here’s how you know\n+Official websites use .gov\n+A\n+.gov website belongs to an official government\n+organization in the United States.\n+Secure .gov websites use HTTPS\n+A\n+lock\n+(\n+Lock\n+Locked padlock icon\n+) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to\n+the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.\n+Home\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Chief District Judge\n+Mark B. Busby, Clerk of Court\n+Close menu\n+Main Menu\n+Search\n+Search\n+About the Court\n+General information about the Northern California District Court\n+About\n+the\n+Court\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+General information about the Northern California District Court\n+Popular\n+Working for the Court\n+List of Judges\n+Visitors with Special Needs\n+Press/Media Resources\n+About\n+the\n+Court\n+Clerk's Office\n+The Clerk's Office is the administrative arm of the court\n+Clerk's Office\n+The Clerk's Office is the administrative arm of the court\n+Back\n+Clerk's\n+Office\n+Civil Docketing Assignments\n+Criminal Docketing Assignments\n+Finance\n+Delivery Information\n+Procurement\n+Emergency Response & Continuity of Court Operations\n+How we deal with the unexpected\n+Contact Us\n+List of ways to get in contact with the court\n+Locations & Hours\n+Our court operates out of four Northern California locations\n+Locations & Hours\n+Our court operates out of four Northern California locations\n+Back\n+Locations\n+&\n+Hours\n+San Francisco\n+Oakland\n+San Jose\n+Eureka-McKinleyville\n+Visitors with Disabilities & Special Needs\n+Court Holidays\n+A list of all the days the Court will be recessed for holiday\n+Jurisdiction Map\n+The court serves 15 counties, stretching from the Oregon border to Big Sur.\n+Court Programs & Services\n+Learn about court programs and services to help provide fair and impartial justice\n+Court Programs & Services\n+Learn about court programs and services to help provide fair and impartial justice\n+Back\n+Court\n+Programs\n+&\n+Services\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)\n+ADR is an informal, non-binding process to aid in settling/streamlining litigation\n+Cameras in the Courtroom\n+Community Outreach & Civics Programming\n+Court Reporters\n+Interpreter Services\n+Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)\n+Information about Cases that span multiple Court Districts\n+Naturalization\n+Ombudsperson Program\n+Petty Offense Docket / Traffic Tickets\n+Problem Solving Courts and Programs\n+Human Resources\n+Recruiting, hiring and retaining outstanding people to provide quality service to our community.\n+Human Resources\n+Recruiting, hiring and retaining outstanding people to provide quality service to our community.\n+Back\n+Human\n+Resources\n+Working for the Federal Judiciary\n+Clerk's Office Careers\n+Current opportunities and more about working with the court\n+Chambers Staff Employment\n+Your Employee Rights and How to Report Wrongful Conduct\n+Media Resources\n+Information and guidelines for media professionals covering court cases and reporting on the court\n+Northern District History\n+Read more about this Court's storied history here\n+Northern District History\n+Read more about this Court's storied history here\n+Back\n+Northern\n+District\n+History\n+Article III Judges of the Northern District\n+Northern District Historical Society\n+Judges\n+The Judges of the Northern District of California work to ensure equal justice under the law\n+Judges\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+The Judges of the Northern District of California work to ensure equal justice under the law\n+Popular\n+Public Hearing Zoom Links\n+Cases of Interest\n+List of Judges\n+Upcoming Zoom Hearings\n+Judges\n+Our Judges\n+A list of all the Judges in the Northern California District\n+Judges' Weekly Calendars\n+Details on the upcoming schedules of each of our Judges\n+Standing Orders\n+The Standing Orders of all of our Judges\n+Duty Schedules\n+See who the District and Magistrate Duty Judges are this month\n+Courtroom Technology\n+Information about the technical capabilities of each courtroom\n+Remote Access to Court Proceedings\n+How to access live and recorded video of Court Proceedings\n+Remote Access to Court Proceedings\n+How to access live and recorded video of Court Proceedings\n+Back\n+Remote\n+Access\n+to\n+Court\n+Proceedings\n+Public Hearing Zoom Links\n+Upcoming Zoom Hearings\n+Zoom Access to Hearing Request Form\n+Participating in Court Proceedings via Zoom\n+Judicial Misconduct or Disability Complaints\n+How and when a complaint alleging a Judge has committed misconduct or has a disability may be filed\n+Cases & e-Filing\n+Cases may be managed using PACER, CM/ECF, or by visiting the courthouse where the case was filed.\n+Cases\n+&\n+e-Filing\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Cases may be managed using PACER, CM/ECF, or by visiting the courthouse where the case was filed.\n+Popular\n+CM/ECF\n+PACER\n+Cases\n+&\n+e-Filing\n+Opening A New Civil Case\n+Information and procedures for creating a new Civil case\n+Opening A New Civil Case\n+Information and procedures for creating a new Civil case\n+Back\n+Opening\n+A\n+New\n+Civil\n+Case\n+Case Opening Documents to be Served on Opposing Counsel\n+CM/ECF Information\n+CM/ECF is the electronic filing system used by the federal courts in the United States\n+CM/ECF Information\n+CM/ECF is the electronic filing system used by the federal courts in the United States\n+Back\n+CM/ECF\n+Information\n+Setting Up Your CM/ECF Account\n+Managing Your CM/ECF Account\n+Preparing Your CM/ECF Filing\n+E-Filing Case Documents\n+CM/ECF Support & Troubleshooting\n+Obtaining Information about Cases\n+View documents online, get copies/transcripts, and sign up for email notifications\n+Obtaining Information about Cases\n+View documents online, get copies/transcripts, and sign up for email notifications\n+Back\n+Obtaining\n+Information\n+about\n+Cases\n+Obtaining Copies of Court Documents\n+Digital Audio Recordings\n+Self Registration Instructions for Special Mailing Groups\n+Existing Case Information FAQs\n+Transcripts & Court Reporters\n+Information about the record of court proceedings\n+Transcripts & Court Reporters\n+Information about the record of court proceedings\n+Back\n+Transcripts\n+&\n+Court\n+Reporters\n+Important Things to Know Before Ordering A Transcript\n+Court Reporter Contact List\n+Transcript Pricing Explanation & Examples\n+Court Transcript Page Rates\n+Transcript Forms\n+Information for Pro Tem Court Reporters\n+Recently Filed Cases\n+A searchable list of Cases that have been recently filed\n+Recently Filed Case Documents\n+Access documents filed in Cases before the Court recently\n+Cases of Interest\n+Information on Cases that may be of interest to the Public\n+Multi-District Litigation Cases\n+Cases involving multiple districts assigned to this Court\n+Rules, Forms, & Fees\n+Links to the local rules of practice and procedures, forms, and fees.\n+Rules,\n+Forms,\n+&\n+Fees\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Links to the local rules of practice and procedures, forms, and fees.\n+Popular\n+Local Rules\n+Rules,\n+Forms,\n+&\n+Fees\n+Local Rules\n+The Local Rules of practice/procedure\n+Local Rules\n+The Local Rules of practice/procedure\n+Back\n+Local\n+Rules\n+Civil Local Rules\n+Criminal Local Rules\n+Patent Local Rules\n+ADR Local Rules\n+Habeas Corpus Local Rules\n+Admiralty & Maritime Local Rules\n+Local Rules Attorney Advisory Committees\n+Forms\n+A sortable, filterable list of form documents for court procedures\n+General Orders\n+Generally applicable Orders issued by the Courts\n+General Orders\n+Generally applicable Orders issued by the Courts\n+Back\n+General\n+Orders\n+Abrogated General Orders\n+Miscellaneous Orders\n+Other Orders issued by the Courts\n+Northern District Guidelines\n+Information to assist attorneys practicing before the Court\n+Northern District Guidelines\n+Information to assist attorneys practicing before the Court\n+Back\n+Northern\n+District\n+Guidelines\n+Attorney Practice Resources\n+ESI Guidelines & Model Stipulated Orders\n+Model Protective Orders\n+Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements\n+Court Fee Schedule\n+Details on the fees for filing, attorney admission, documents/copies, and more\n+Federal Rules\n+The Federal Rules, along with our Local Rules, determine how the Court operates\n+Attorneys\n+Information for attorneys practicing in our courts\n+Attorneys\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Information for attorneys practicing in our courts\n+Popular\n+CJA Billing Rates\n+Bar Membership Status\n+Pro Hac Vice Appearance\n+Attorneys\n+Admission & Bar Membership\n+Information for Attorneys wishing to practice in our Court\n+Admission & Bar Membership\n+Information for Attorneys wishing to practice in our Court\n+Back\n+Admission\n+&\n+Bar\n+Membership\n+Attorney Bar Membership Status\n+CM/ECF Information\n+CM/ECF is the electronic filing system used by the federal courts in the United States\n+Attorney Practice Resources\n+Materials, procedures, and guidelines to assist attorneys practicing in the Northern District\n+Courtroom Technology\n+Information about the technical capabilities of each courtroom\n+Criminal Justice Act (CJA)\n+For attorneys participating in the CJA program\n+Criminal Justice Act (CJA)\n+For attorneys participating in the CJA program\n+Back\n+Criminal\n+Justice\n+Act\n+(CJA)\n+Billing Increment Chart\n+Pro Bono Opportunities\n+For attorneys interested in serving Pro Bono\n+Lawyer Representatives to the Ninth Circuit\n+Current attorney liaisons to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council\n+Jurors\n+Jury service is an important civic duty to protect right and liberties.\n+Jurors\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Jury service is an important civic duty to protect right and liberties.\n+Popular\n+Jury Questionnaire\n+Locations/Parking\n+Beware of Juror Scams\n+FAQs\n+Jurors\n+Contact the Jury Office\n+Information on how to reach the Jury Supervisior and Staff\n+Juror FAQs\n+A compilation of questions frequently asked by Jurors\n+Reporting Instructions & Proof of Service\n+How to get your reporting instructions and proof of jury service\n+Responding to Your Jury Summons\n+How to respond when you have been summoned to jury duty\n+How Prospective Jurors Are Selected\n+Details on the process the Court uses to select jurors\n+Juror Scams​\n+People are being targeted by scams threatening prosecution for failing to comply with jury service\n+Representing Yourself\n+Information for those representing themselves before the court.\n+Representing\n+Yourself\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Information for those representing themselves before the court.\n+Popular\n+Consenting to a Magistrate Judge\n+Forms\n+Local Rules\n+Representing\n+Yourself\n+Pro Se Handbook\n+A comprehensive guide to court procedures and documents\n+Using AI Tools in Your Case\n+Guidelines and rules that you must follow if using AI tools\n+Free Legal Help for People Without Lawyers\n+Information on no-cost legal help that may be available to you\n+Legal Help Center Templates & Packets\n+Resources for self-represented persons\n+Finding a Lawyer\n+Everyone coming before the Court is encouraged to have representation\n+Tips for Pro Se Filers\n+A collection of helpful tips for self-represented parties\n+Web Resources for Prisoners\n+Links and other information specifically for incarcerated persons\n+Privacy Protections Under the Federal Rules\n+Understand your privacy rights in the Court\n+Select language\n+|\n+Find a location\n+Search\n+Close\n+Search\n+Search\n+Menu\n+Representing Yourself\n+Pro Se Handbook\n+Using AI Tools in Your Case\n+Free Legal Help for People Without Lawyers\n+Legal Help Center Templates & Packets\n+Finding a Lawyer\n+Tips for Pro Se Filers\n+Web Resources for Prisoners\n+Privacy Protections Under the Federal Rules\n+Home\n+Representing Yourself\n+Using AI Tools in Your Case\n+Using AI Tools in Your Case\n+Using AI in arguing your case is permitted, though there are guidelines and rules that you must follow. Most importantly, regardless of which tools you use, you are responsible for everything you file with the Court. The FAQs below may answer specific questions that you have.\n+Expand all\n+Collapse all\n+What should I know before using AI tools?\n+If you choose to use an AI tool, you remain responsible for everything you file with the Court.\n+Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, when you file a document, you certify that:\n+Your claims and arguments are legally supported.\n+Your factual statements have evidentiary support.\n+Your filing is not misleading or improper.\n+These responsibilities apply regardless of whether you used an AI tool.\n+Can I use AI tools to help prepare my filings?\n+You may use AI tools to assist with:\n+Understanding legal terms or procedures.\n+Organizing information.\n+Drafting text.\n+However, AI tools:\n+Are not lawyers.\n+Do not provide legal advice.\n+May produce incorrect or misleading information.\n+What are the risks of using AI tools?\n+AI tools may:\n+Provide incorrect legal information.\n+Generate nonexistent or inaccurate case citations, sometimes referred to as “hallucinations.”\n+Misstate the law or apply the wrong legal standard.\n+Misinterpret the facts of your case or include inaccurate facts.\n+Be discoverable by a party in your case.\n+The Court may take action, such as imposing sanctions, if a filing contains false or misleading information.\n+Do I need to verify information from AI tools?\n+Yes.\n+Before including any information in a filing, you should:\n+Confirm that any cited case exists.\n+Read the case to ensure it supports your position.\n+Verify that statutes, rules, and quotations are accurate and current.\n+Review the original sources and not rely on AI-generated summaries.\n+You may use reliable sources such as:\n+Official court websites.\n+Public law libraries.\n+Recognized legal research databases.\n+Do I have to tell the Court if I used an AI tool?\n+Some judges in the Northern District of California have requirements about disclosing the use of AI tools.\n+You should:\n+Review your assigned judge’s Standing Orders and the Local Rules.\n+Follow any applicable requirements.\n+If you are unsure, you may wish to disclose your use of AI tools and confirm that you reviewed all content for accuracy.\n+Can I upload my documents or information into AI tools?\n+Use caution when entering information into AI tools.\n+AI tools are typically operated by third-party companies. Information you provide to (or receive from) AI tools may:\n+Be stored or processed outside your control.\n+Not be confidential.\n+Potentially be used by the AI service provider.\n+Not be protected by attorney-client privilege.\n+Be discoverable by a party in the case.\n+You may wish to avoid entering:\n+Sensitive personal information.\n+Confidential or private details.\n+Information subject to legal privilege.\n+What happens if I file incorrect information generated by an AI tool?\n+Submitting inaccurate information may result in:\n+The Court disregarding your filing.\n+Sanctions or other consequences.\n+Harm to your credibility with the Court.\n+You are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all filings.\n+Can AI tools replace a lawyer?\n+No.\n+AI tools cannot:\n+Represent you in court.\n+Provide legal advice.\n+Exercise professional legal judgment.\n+If possible, you are encouraged to seek assistance from:\n+The Court’s Legal Help Centers.\n+A licensed attorney.\n+Final thoughts on using AI in court documents\n+Remember that any information you provide to AI, or receive from AI, is not confidential.\n+Carefully review all AI-generated content.\n+Verify all legal authorities and citations.\n+Confirm that factual statements are accurate.\n+Ensure your filing is accurate and complete.\n+Return to top\n+Return to top\n+Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Careers\n+FAQs\n+Home\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+Privacy and Security\n+Website Feedback\n+(415) 522-2000\n+media@cand.uscourts.gov\n+Find a location\n+Youtube\n+Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Chief District Judge\n+Mark B. Busby, Clerk of Court","id":"ab2a3dcd3712f12cf99364c837baab95abadb4991ba7a181c771c73fe44e8865","newHash":"95fbc3340ff4bb3fab78a4bfefda67a33748a9d2ed174089fd5b9f0f4db4b762","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/using-ai-tools-your-case","snapshot":"snapshots/95fbc3340ff4bb3fab78a4bfefda67a33748a9d2ed174089fd5b9f0f4db4b762.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/tips-pro-se-filers/using-ai-tools-your-case","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:47.650646+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@\n+1\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE\n+DISTRICT JUDGE ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN\n+(Revised August 26, 2026)\n+Parties shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, the Northern District of\n+California’s Local Rules and General Orders, and this Standing Order, all of which are available at\n+http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. A party’s failure to comply with any of the rules or orders may be\n+grounds for monetary sanctions, dismissal, entry of judgment, or other appropriate sanctions.\n+A. COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT\n+Counsel shall not attempt to contact Judge Martínez-Olguín or her chambers staff by telephone,\n+email, or any other ex parte means, but may contact her Courtroom Deputy, Alexis Solorzano-\n+Rodriguez, at amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov, regarding scheduling or other appropriate matters.\n+Before contacting the Courtroom Deputy, counsel must ensure that their inquiry is not otherwise\n+addressed by any Federal or Local Rule, any General or Standing Order of this Court, or any\n+information available on the Court’s webpage.\n+B. SCHEDULING\n+Except in pro se prisoner cases, parties should notice motions (other than discovery motions)\n+pursuant to the Civil Local Rules. The Court does not reserve hearing dates for parties, but parties\n+should confirm the Court’s availability prior to filing any noticed motion by referring to the Court’s\n+scheduling page. See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/martinez-olguin-araceli-amo/. For\n+scheduling questions that are not addressed by the Court’s scheduling page, parties may contact\n+Judge Martínez-Olguín’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis Solorzano-Rodriguez, at\n+amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov. Noticed days may be reset as the Court’s calendar requires, with order\n+of call to be determined by the Court. Absent exceptional circumstances, motions noticed for\n+hearing with less than four weeks between the close of briefing and the hearing may be\n+automatically re-noticed by the Court. Any motion noticed for hearing on a closed hearing date will\n+automatically be re-set by the Court. Parties are reminded that their motions and case may be\n+resolved more quickly by consenting to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.\n+Civil motions are heard in person at the United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,\n+California on Thursdays at 2:00 p.m.\n+Civil case management and status conferences are held in person at the United States Courthouse,\n+1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.\n+2\n+Pretrial conferences are held in person at the United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,\n+California on Thursdays at 11:00 a.m.\n+Any changes to these default settings will be communicated by the Court via the case docket, public\n+calendar, and/or email correspondence. It is the parties’ responsibility to keep appraised of changes\n+to the Court calendar.\n+No Continuance Without Court Approval. Parties may not continue a case management\n+conference, status hearing, pretrial conference, or any other deadline set by the Court without Court\n+approval. Any party seeking an extension of a court deadline must seek an extension at least seven\n+(7) days prior to the deadline by filing an appropriate motion or stipulation, in compliance with the\n+Civil Local Rules. Requests for extensions contained in a case management statement or brief will\n+not be entertained.\n+C. APPEARANCES AND ORAL ARGUMENT\n+1. In-Person Appearances. The Court may notify the parties in advance of a setting\n+that will be conducted via Zoom rather than in person, but the default rule is that all settings are held\n+in person. Each party shall email Judge Martínez-Olguín’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis Solorzano-\n+Rodriguez, at amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov, with a list of counsel who will be taking the lead\n+speaking role on behalf of a party, along with any other counsel who will be appearing for that party.\n+The list shall be emailed at least two (2) court days in advance of the scheduled proceeding. If\n+they so choose, litigants and lawyers may indicate their pronouns (e.g., she/her, he/him, they/them)\n+and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.) by including the information in the list of counsel to be\n+emailed to the Courtroom Deputy.\n+2. Virtual Appearances. Parties may request to have a setting held remotely via Zoom\n+video conference. Such requests must be supported by a declaration certifying that counsel met and\n+conferred regarding the conversion of the setting from in-person to remote. If the parties agree that\n+the hearing should be held via Zoom, they must file a joint administrative motion requesting such\n+relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11 at least seven (7) days in advance of the setting. If the\n+parties cannot agree to jointly request a remote setting, the party seeking leave to appear remotely\n+shall file a unilateral administrative motion at least seven (7) days in advance, and the supporting\n+declaration must also establish good cause for the remote appearance.\n+Requests submitted without a showing of good cause and/or submitted fewer than seven (7)\n+days prior to the scheduled setting will likely face denial. If the Court has approved a request to hold\n+a setting by Zoom video, each party shall email Judge Martínez-Olguín’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis\n+Solorzano-Rodriguez, at amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov, with a list of counsel who will be taking the\n+lead speaking role on behalf of a party, along with any other counsel who will be appearing for that\n+party. The list shall be emailed at least two (2) court days in advance of the scheduled proceeding.\n+If they so choose, litigants and lawyers may indicate their pronouns (e.g., she/her, he/him,\n+they/them) and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.) by including the information in the list of\n+counsel to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy.\n+3\n+3. Participation by Junior Lawyers. The Court strongly encourages parties to permit\n+less experienced attorneys to actively participate in the proceedings by presenting argument at\n+motion hearings, examining witnesses at trial, or taking a speaking role at case management\n+conferences. The Court permits more than one attorney to present on behalf of a party if this creates\n+an opportunity for less experienced attorneys to participate. If a party files a letter requesting oral\n+argument stating that a lawyer eight or fewer years out of law school will conduct all or most of the\n+oral argument, the Court will entertain in-person oral argument on the principle that less experienced\n+lawyers need more opportunities for appearances than they typically receive.\n+4. Format of Argument. During motion hearings, the parties should expect to first\n+answer the Court’s questions. Thereafter, unless a case is particularly complex, each side is typically\n+allotted five (5) minutes of additional oral argument.\n+5. Demonstratives. The Court does not generally permit the use of demonstratives. If a\n+party would like to use audio-visual demonstratives during a hearing (e.g., PowerPoint presentation),\n+it shall file an administrative motion requesting leave to use demonstratives at least 14 court days\n+before the hearing, explaining why the demonstratives will aid the Court.\n+D. CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT\n+1. Case Management Conference Statements. No later than ten (10) days before\n+the initial case management or status conference, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management\n+Statement in full compliance with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of\n+California, a copy of which is available at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/martinez-olguin-\n+araceli-amo/. In cases involving litigants unrepresented by counsel, the parties may file separate\n+case management statements. Any case management statement proposing a case schedule that\n+contemplates motions for summary judgment or Daubert motions shall conform to the requirements\n+set forth in Paragraphs E and G, below.\n+2. Proposed Scheduling Orders. In proposing a case schedule, the parties should agree\n+on a trial date that is no later than 18 months from the case filing date and work backward from that\n+date to ensure adequate time for expert discovery, dispositive and Daubert motions, class\n+certification motions, and other events. Daubert motions must be filed and heard by the dispositive\n+motion hearing deadline. The parties must allow at least twelve weeks between the proposed\n+dispositive and Daubert motions hearing deadline and the proposed final pretrial conference. The\n+parties must also allow at least four weeks between the proposed final pretrial conference and the\n+first day of the proposed trial. Parties must email a Word version of any proposed scheduling order\n+to amopo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+3. Counsel at Case Management Conference. At the case management conference,\n+counsel or unrepresented parties shall (1) be prepared to address all matters referred to in the\n+Northern District of California’s general standing order on Joint Case Management Statements; and\n+(2) have full authority to enter stipulations and make admissions pursuant to that order.\n+4\n+4. Recordings and Transcripts of Court Proceedings. All hearings, case management\n+conferences, status conferences, and pretrial conferences are audio recorded; court reporters are\n+usually not provided. Parties may request a copy of the audio recording (on CD), a transcription of\n+the audio recording, or the court reporter’s transcript if applicable by following the procedures set\n+forth at http://cand.uscourts.gov/transcripts.\n+E. Motions for Summary Judgment\n+1. Pre-Filing Conference Required. At least 21 days prior to the close of expert\n+discovery, any party seeking to file a motion for summary judgment must file a letter brief,\n+identifying the legal and factual grounds for their summary judgment motion. The letter shall not\n+exceed three (3) single-spaced pages in length, including any attached exhibits or other supporting\n+papers.\n+Within three (3) days of the moving party’s letter, any party who would oppose the\n+proposed summary judgment motion must file a written response addressing the substance of the\n+moving party’s letter. This response shall also be limited to three (3) single-spaced pages, including\n+any attached exhibits or supporting papers. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court may\n+schedule a conference with the parties, usually within 7-10 days of the response letter.\n+2. One Motion Per Side. All issues shall be contained within one motion, which may\n+not exceed 25 pages in length, and shall conform to Civil Local Rule 7-2. Only one summary\n+judgment motion may be filed collectively per side, absent leave of court. Leave of court to file\n+more than one motion may be requested if multiple parties comprise one or both sides.\n+3. Evidence Submitted. Any evidence submitted in connection with summary\n+judgment briefing or any other submissions to the Court shall underline, highlight, or otherwise (e.g.,\n+by hyperlink) specific lines of the documents and transcripts upon which they rely in support of or in\n+opposition to a motion.\n+F. EXPERTS AND THEIR REPORTS\n+All witnesses who will provide expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705,\n+whether retained or non-retained, must be disclosed and must provide written reports in compliance\n+with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). All expert reports shall number each paragraph to\n+facilitate any motion practice challenging the specifics of any opinions and shall include a table of\n+contents. The reports shall list each opinion to be proffered and provide an executive summary of\n+each.\n+Any percipient witness who may also testify at trial with technical expertise akin to an independent\n+expert shall be identified by name no later than the date of expert disclosures to allow for deposition,\n+if necessary.\n+5\n+At the time of disclosure of a written report, the disclosing party must identify all written materials\n+upon which the expert relies in that report and produce those materials if they have not done so\n+previously.\n+G. DAUBERT MOTIONS\n+1. Limits. Each side is limited to three (3) Daubert motions throughout the entire case\n+absent leave of court. Daubert motions must clearly specify the paragraphs or portions of the report\n+that the party seeks to exclude. Parties are reminded that issues going to the weight and credibility\n+to be given to a report are not proper bases to bring a Daubert motion. Daubert opening and\n+responsive briefs shall not exceed five (5) pages. Replies shall not exceed three (3) pages.\n+2. Sequence. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, briefing on Daubert motions shall\n+trail the filing of a motion for summary judgment and commence with the filing of the non-moving\n+party’s opposition to summary judgment as set forth below. A party that anticipates filing a Daubert\n+motion must include a suggested briefing schedule in any proposed scheduling order that tracks the\n+following sequence:\n+• The initial moving party’s motion for summary judgment.\n+• Plaintiff’s opposition to motion for summary judgment and Daubert motion(s).\n+• Defendant’s reply in support of motion for summary judgment, Daubert motion(s),\n+and opposition(s) to Plaintiff’s Daubert motion(s).\n+• Plaintiff’s reply in support of Daubert motion(s), opposition to Defendant’s Daubert\n+motion(s).\n+• Defendant’s reply in support of Daubert motion(s).\n+H. PLEADINGS AND DOCKETING\n+1. Amended Pleadings. If a party files an amended pleading, they shall concurrently\n+file a redlined or highlighted version comparing the amended pleading to the prior operative\n+pleading. Any amended pleading authorized by the Court must be filed as a stand-alone entry on the\n+docket.\n+2. Documents Filed on ECF. All exhibits to motions and/or discovery dispute joint\n+statements should be separately filed on ECF. For example, if the motion is Docket No. 30, and the\n+declaration with 10 exhibits is Docket No. 31, Exhibit A would be filed as Docket No. 31-1, Exhibit\n+B would be Docket No. 31-2, and so on. Electronically filed documents must be text-searchable\n+PDFs whenever possible.\n+3. Footnotes, String Cites, Requests for Judicial Notice, and Incorporation by\n+Reference. Use of footnotes in court filings shall be limited to providing brief points of\n+clarification. Argument in footnotes will not be considered by the Court. Footnotes must comply\n+with the formatting requirements, including font size and spacing, set forth in the Civil Local Rules.\n+The Court may strike any filing that includes excessive or improper footnotes.\n+6\n+String citations without any analysis or descriptive parentheticals contained in any court\n+filing will be disregarded. Pincites to any materials in the record shall be as specific as possible.\n+Requests for judicial notice must be contained within the brief to which it pertains. Parties may not\n+incorporate by reference prior arguments submitted in the case. This practice creates substantial\n+administrative burdens and may be construed as circumventing page limits. The Court may strike\n+any filing that improperly incorporates material by reference.\n+4. Artificial Intelligence (AI). Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with\n+complete and accurate representations in any submission (including filings, demonstratives,\n+evidence, or oral argument), consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the California Rules\n+of Professional Conduct, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidance. Use of ChatGPT or\n+other such tools is not prohibited, but counsel must at all times personally confirm for themselves the\n+accuracy of any content generated by these tools. At all times, counsel—and specifically designated\n+lead trial counsel—bears responsibility for any submission made by the party that the attorney\n+represents. Any submission containing AI-generated content must include a certification that lead\n+trial counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy. Failure to include this certification or\n+comply with this verification requirement will be grounds for sanctions. Counsel is responsible for\n+maintaining records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools in the event\n+those records become relevant at any point.\n+5. Pronouns and Honorifics. If they so choose, litigants and lawyers may indicate\n+their pronouns (e.g., she/her, he/him, they/them) and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.) by adding\n+the information in the name block or signature line of the pleadings.\n+6. Chambers Copies. Except for filings of less than 8 pages, chambers copies of any\n+filing must be provided within two (2) days of filing. Chambers copies should be double-sided\n+(when possible) and three-hole punched along the left side of the page, and should bear the ECF\n+filing “stamp” (case number, docket number, date, and ECF page number) along the top of the page.\n+All exhibits shall be clearly delineated with labels or tabs along the right side. If the filing includes\n+exhibits over two inches thick, the parties shall place the chambers copies in a binder. The chambers\n+copies shall be marked “Chambers Copy” and submitted to the Clerk’s Office, in an envelope\n+marked with “Judge Martínez-Olguín,” the case number, and “Chambers Copy.” If the Court\n+requires electronic copies of a filing, it will specifically request it from the parties. Parties should\n+not otherwise email amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov with electronic copies of filings.\n+7. Motions to File Under Seal. Parties are reminded that court proceedings are\n+presumptively public, and no document shall be filed under seal without request for a court order\n+that is narrowly tailored to cover only the document, the particular portion of the document, or the\n+category of documents for which good cause exists for filing under seal. If a party wishes to file a\n+document under seal, that party shall first file an administrative motion to seal in accordance with\n+Local Rule 79-5 and include a proposed order which includes a chart in the following format:\n+8\n+The parties are strongly encouraged to submit a joint statement, but in the rare instances\n+when a joint statement is not possible, each side may submit a statement of not more than two (2)\n+pages (12-point font or greater).\n+The joint statement or individual statements shall be e-filed (unless the case is exempt from\n+e-filing requirements). Whether joint or individual, the statement must be filed under the Civil\n+Events category of “Motions and Related Filings > Motions – General > Discovery Letter Brief.”\n+Upon review of the parties’ submission(s), the Court will advise the parties of how the Court\n+intends to proceed, which may include referring discovery to a magistrate judge. The Court may\n+issue a ruling or schedule a videoconference with the parties and, at such conference, may issue\n+rulings, order more formal briefing, or set further hearing dates. The Court may also order the\n+parties to come to the courthouse to meet and confer in good faith.\n+3. Discovery Disputes Between a Party and a Non-Party. For discovery disputes\n+involving non-parties (usually Federal Rule 45 disputes), the parties may utilize the procedure\n+identified above, provided the parties and non-parties agree to that procedure. Absent agreement,\n+the moving party should file a noticed motion pursuant to Local Rule 7. In either event, before the\n+dispute may be brought to the Court’s attention, lead trial counsel must meet and confer in person or\n+by videoconference.\n+4. Protective Orders/ESI Orders. Parties who seek a protective order or order\n+regarding discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) must, where practicable, use one of\n+the model stipulated orders available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules-forms-fees/northern-district-\n+guidelines/model-protective-orders. Parties must file one of the following with any proposed\n+protective order or order regarding discovery of ESI: (a) a declaration stating that the proposed order\n+is identical to one of the model orders except for the addition of case-identifying information or the\n+elimination of language denoted as optional; (b) a declaration explaining each modification to the\n+model order, along with a redline version comparing the proposed order with the model order; or\n+(c) a declaration explaining why use of one of the model orders is not practicable.\n+5. Privilege Logs. If a party withholds material as privileged under Federal Rule\n+26(b)(5) or 45(d)(2)(A), it must produce a privilege log as quickly as possible, but no later than 14\n+days after its disclosures or discovery responses are due, unless the parties stipulate to or the Court\n+sets another date. Privilege logs must contain the following: (a) the subject matter or general nature\n+of the document (without disclosing its contents); (b) the identity and position of its author; (c) the\n+date it was communicated; (d) the identity and position of all addressees and recipients of the\n+communication; (e) the document’s present location; and (f) the specific privilege and a brief\n+summary of any supporting facts. Failure to furnish this information promptly may be deemed a\n+waiver of the privilege or protection.\n+10\n+K. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS\n+Any motion for preliminary or final approval of a class action settlement must address the respective\n+guidelines in the Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements,\n+available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules-forms-fees/northern-district-guidelines/procedural-\n+guidance-class-action-settlements, in the order the guidelines are presented on the website. Motions\n+failing to address the Procedural Guidance in the order presented will likely face denial.\n+As reflected in the Guidance, the Court will require a post-distribution accounting within 21 days\n+after the final distribution of settlement funds. In addition to the information contained in the\n+Guidance, the post-distribution accounting must discuss any significant or recurring concerns\n+communicated by class members to the settlement administrator or counsel since final approval, any\n+other issues in settlement administration since final approval, and how any concerns or issues were\n+resolved.\n+L. PARTIES UNREPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY\n+Parties representing themselves, without the assistance of a lawyer, should visit the webpage entitled\n+“Representing Yourself” available on the Court’s website at https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-\n+litigants/. The page discusses the Court’s Legal Help Center which provides free assistance for\n+unrepresented parties over the phone. Parties can make an appointment by calling (415) 782-8982 or\n+emailing fedpro@sfbar.org.\n+M. FAILURE TO OPPOSE\n+The failure of a party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion\n+shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: August 26, 2026\n+ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN\n+United States District Judge","id":"890f320b280d099288cebd35af3e4a4527a915d11c95da91d6fc181d6a9e8bd9","newHash":"009d72f011a31716d36795fbbd7c1d51366622ccabde7641b3db0895b9d9f1bf","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/009d72f011a31716d36795fbbd7c1d51366622ccabde7641b3db0895b9d9f1bf.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:47.102934+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,600 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE JUDGE EUMI K. LEE\n+(Updated August 31, 2026)\n+I. CONFORMITY TO RULES .........................................................................................1\n+II. COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT ...................................................................1\n+III. EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS ..................................................................................1\n+IV. PRONOUNS AND TITLES ..........................................................................................1\n+V. SCHEDULING ..............................................................................................................1\n+VI. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES ..................................................................2\n+VII. FILINGS AND CHAMBERS COPIES .........................................................................5\n+VIII. MOTIONS AND HEARINGS .......................................................................................7\n+IX. SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...........................................................................................10\n+X. DISCOVERY .............................................................................................................. 11\n+XI. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS ............................................................................12\n+XII. REQUESTS FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES .........13\n+XIII. UNREPRESENTED PARTIES ...................................................................................13\n+ATTACHMENT A .........................................................................................................................14\n+1\n+I. CONFORMITY TO RULES\n+Parties and counsel shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil\n+Local Rules, and the General Orders of the Northern District of California, except as superseded\n+by this Court’s standing orders.\n+II. COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT\n+Parties and counsel shall not engage in any ex parte communication with Judge Lee or\n+her chambers staff by telephone, facsimile, e-mail, or any other means, unless such contact has\n+been authorized in advance. Parties and counsel may contact Judge Lee’s Courtroom Deputy at\n+eklcrd@cand.uscourts.gov with inquiries regarding scheduling or other administrative matters.\n+All counsel and unrepresented parties shall be included on any e-mail communications with\n+Judge Lee’s Courtroom Deputy.\n+Judge Lee does not review or respond to letters or letter briefs providing case information\n+or seeking relief from the Court, even if the letter is filed on the docket. All requests for the\n+Court to take action shall be made either by stipulation and proposed order or by an appropriate\n+motion filed pursuant to the Civil Local Rules.\n+III. EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS\n+Counsel should call and email Judge Lee’s Courtroom Deputy at (408) 535-5330 and\n+eklcrd@cand.uscourts.gov to notify her if they submit an application for a temporary restraining\n+order, a stipulation that requires a response from the Court within 24 hours, or any other\n+emergency request.\n+A party moving for emergency relief must demonstrate that it made every reasonable\n+effort to notify the opposing party and the opposing party’s counsel, at the earliest possible time,\n+of its intent to seek emergency relief. Failure to do so will likely result in denial of the request.\n+IV. PRONOUNS AND TITLES\n+If they so choose, litigants and lawyers may indicate their pronouns (e.g., she/her, he/him,\n+they/their) and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.) by adding the information in the name block\n+or signature line of the pleadings, by filing a letter on the public docket, or by informing the\n+Court at the start of a hearing.\n+V. SCHEDULING\n+Parties should review Judge Lee’s calendar and scheduling notes on the website\n+(https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/ekl/lee-eumi-k) for the most recent information regarding when\n+and where hearings are held and specific date availability.\n+Civil motions are heard by reservation only. After reviewing the website, parties and\n+counsel shall meet and confer to identify proposed hearing dates that are amenable to all relevant\n+2\n+parties and counsel. Parties shall jointly contact Judge Lee’s Courtroom Deputy via email at\n+eklcrd@cand.uscourts.gov to reserve a hearing date. When reserving a hearing date, parties must\n+indicate the number and type(s) of motions to be filed.\n+Once a hearing date is reserved, the motion(s) shall be filed within fourteen (14) days\n+thereafter. Failure to timely file any motion will result in the expiration of the hearing\n+reservation without further notice to the parties, and the moving party must obtain a new\n+reservation before filing the motion(s).\n+After the Court issues a scheduling order, continuances in civil cases are granted only\n+upon a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Any request for a continuance or\n+extension of time that requires a court order must be filed not later than three (3) court days prior\n+to the deadline that the party wishes to extend. Parties and counsel must demonstrate good\n+cause; they may not simply stipulate that good cause has been shown. The caption of any\n+request for a continuance or extension shall indicate how many previous extensions have been\n+requested (e.g., “First Request for Extension”). The request must state whether the Court has\n+granted those extensions and whether the Court has stated that no further extensions will be\n+granted.\n+VI. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, case management conferences will be held remotely\n+via Zoom. The attorney appearing at a case management conference must have full authority to\n+make decisions about any issue that may come up during the conference but need not be lead\n+counsel.\n+If a defendant files a motion to dismiss that is dispositive of the entire case, the parties\n+can stipulate to move the initial case management conference to 21 days after the hearing on\n+that motion. Otherwise, the initial case management conference generally will not be moved.\n+Parties must prepare and file a joint case management statement fourteen (14) days prior\n+to the date of any case management or status conference. The joint case management statement\n+shall comply with the “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California –\n+Contents of Joint Case Management Statement” and Civil Local Rule 16-9. In their joint case\n+management statement for the initial case management conference, the parties must propose a\n+full litigation schedule, including a proposed last day to amend pleadings as well as a deadline to\n+complete ADR.\n+Target dates and deadlines are set forth below, including ranges to account for the\n+complex nature of the case. Proposals that deviate from the timeline set forth below must be\n+explained. The Court may vacate a case management conference and issue a scheduling order\n+based on the parties’ written submission.\n+3\n+Case Stage Deadline\n+Deadline to Request Leave to\n+Amend Pleadings (per Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 15)\n+No later than 60 days after the initial case management\n+conference\n+Deadline to Complete Initial ADR\n+Session\n+Generally 120 days after the initial case management\n+conference\n+Further Case Management\n+Conference\n+Four to eight (4-8) weeks before the close of fact\n+discovery\n+Close of Fact Discovery Six to eight (6-8) months after the initial case\n+management conference\n+Close of Expert Discovery No more than four (4) months after the close of fact\n+discovery\n+Close of Briefing on Summary\n+Judgment and Daubert\n+motions\n+No more than ten (10) weeks after the close of expert\n+discovery\n+Hearing on Summary Judgment and\n+Daubert motions\n+Four (4) weeks after the final brief is submitted\n+Pretrial Conference At least twelve (12) weeks after the last day to hear\n+summary judgment and Daubert motions, and at least\n+four (4) weeks before trial begins, with a joint pretrial\n+statement due three (3) weeks before the conference\n+Trial Twelve to twenty (12-20) months after the initial case\n+management conference\n+Mid-Discovery Case Management Statement: The Court may set a deadline for the\n+filing of a mid-discovery case management statement, not to exceed ten (10) pages, at the\n+approximate midpoint of the fact discovery period. The statement should address the status of\n+the case and any other matters that warrant the Court’s attention. If any party believes a\n+conference is needed, the party shall identify the issue(s) that require the Court’s attention and\n+detail the efforts that the parties have made to resolve the issue. Such requests should be made\n+on an extremely limited basis after extensive efforts to meet and confer in person or by\n+videoconference.\n+4\n+Further Case Management Conference: The Court will hold a further case\n+management conference approximately four to eight (4-8) weeks before the close of fact\n+discovery. No later than fourteen (14) days before the further case management conference, the\n+parties shall file a joint case management statement, not to exceed ten (10) pages, containing the\n+following information:\n+• Motions: All prior and pending motions, the status thereof, and any anticipated\n+motions. If no briefing schedule has been set for summary judgment, Daubert, class\n+certification, and any other motions, the parties shall jointly propose a schedule.\n+• Status of Discovery: If discovery has not been completed, the scope of any\n+anticipated further discovery, proposed modifications to the discovery plan, and a\n+realistic estimate of when discovery will be complete.\n+• Settlement and ADR: A description of all ADR efforts to date and whether further\n+ADR efforts should be pursued prior to trial.\n+• Bifurcation and Separate Trial of Issues: A statement addressing whether bifurcation\n+or a separate trial of specific issues is appropriate or desired.\n+• Trial: A brief statement describing each party’s readiness for trial, whether the case\n+will be tried before a jury or to the Court, and a realistic estimate of the length of the\n+trial.\n+Close of Fact Discovery: The close of fact discovery is the date by which all discovery\n+must be completed, including motions to compel, hearings on discovery motions, and any\n+additional discovery resulting from orders on discovery motions. Accordingly, all discovery\n+requests shall be served sufficiently in advance of the close of fact discovery to allow the\n+discovering party enough time prior to the cut-off date to challenge allegedly deficient responses\n+via motion to compel and to receive the necessary responses if the motion is granted. Notice of\n+depositions must be given at least 30 days prior to the close of fact discovery.\n+Class Certification: In putative class actions, the Court’s general practice is to issue a\n+schedule through the class certification hearing. However, in their initial case management\n+statement, the parties may propose a full case schedule through trial for the Court’s\n+consideration. The parties should also address whether class certification and summary\n+judgment motions will be briefed concurrently or consecutively. The Court typically does not\n+bifurcate discovery but encourages prioritization of discovery on issues that will best serve the\n+parties’ proposed case schedule.\n+Daubert and Summary Judgment Motions: Motions challenging the reliability of\n+expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579\n+(1993), shall be noticed for hearing no later than the summary judgment hearing deadline. The\n+parties must allow at least twelve to sixteen (12-16) weeks between the proposed summary\n+judgment hearing date and the proposed final pretrial conference.\n+5\n+Trial Date: Generally, parties should budget no more than twelve to twenty (12-20)\n+months between the initial case management conference and trial. Parties requesting longer\n+pretrial periods must be prepared to justify that request at the initial case management\n+conference. A trial date typically will be set at the initial case management conference, except\n+for class action and patent cases. In such cases, the Court will set a trial date after ruling on class\n+certification or claim construction, respectively. Trial dates will not be continued absent a strong\n+showing of good cause.\n+VII. FILINGS AND CHAMBERS COPIES\n+A. Amended Pleadings\n+All amended pleadings shall attach as an exhibit a redlined or highlighted document\n+showing the changes made to the previously-filed pleading.\n+B. Documents Filed on ECF\n+When filing documents on ECF, each motion, supporting declaration, and exhibit should\n+be filed as a separate text-searchable PDF. A declaration, along with any exhibits, should\n+generally be filed as one docket entry, with the declaration as the “Main Document” in ECF, and\n+each exhibit filed separately as an “Attachment.” For example, if the motion is Docket No. 20,\n+and the supporting declaration is Docket No. 21, Exhibit A would be filed as Docket No. 21-1,\n+Exhibit B would be Docket No. 21-2, and so on. When filing motions, declarations, and\n+exhibits, the ECF “Description” of each document should include the name of the document.\n+Where each party relies on the same exhibit, the later-filing party should cite to the earlier-filed\n+exhibit and should not file a duplicate exhibit. If possible, the parties should meet and confer\n+prior to filing a motion and submit a joint appendix of evidence.\n+C. Chambers Copies\n+The moving party is required to deliver two (2) complete chambers copies of the briefing\n+on a motion, except for administrative motions, within two (2) court days after briefing\n+concludes. Chambers copies for sealing motions are addressed below in Section VII.D.\n+Chambers copies should be double-sided and should bear the ECF filing “stamp” (case\n+number, docket number, date, and ECF page number) along the top of the page when possible.\n+All exhibits shall be clearly delineated with labels along the right side. If the filing includes\n+exhibits over two-inches thick, the parties shall place the copies in a binder. Binders should not\n+exceed three inches. The copies shall be marked “Chambers Copy” and submitted to the Clerk’s\n+Office in an envelope marked with “Judge Lee,” the case number, and “Chambers Copy.”\n+For Social Security appeals, the Court requests that the Commissioner submit one\n+chambers copy of the administrative record within five court days after electronically filing it.\n+The chambers copy should be placed in one or more binders. Each document should be tabbed\n+with labels along the right side. The chambers copy should be submitted to the Clerk’s Office\n+and labeled with the case number, “Judge Lee,” and “Chambers Copy.”\n+6\n+D. Sealed Documents\n+The Court requires strict compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Public access to court\n+records is a fundamental aspect of our democracy and justice system. The filing party must\n+make a specific showing as to each statement or document to be sealed. Blanket requests that\n+make generic reference to “competitive harm” are almost always insufficient. If a party files a\n+request that is significantly overbroad or fails to provide a specific reason for sealing, the Court\n+may deny the request in its entirety.\n+Each document filed under seal must be highlighted to show the proposed redactions. If\n+a party believes it is appropriate to seal an entire document, the filed document should be labeled\n+to indicate that sealing is sought in full.\n+In addition to complying with Civil Local Rule 79-5, each motion to seal must include a\n+chart, in the format set forth below, that includes the following columns: (1) ECF number or\n+exhibit number of the document sought to be sealed; (2) description or name of the document\n+sought to be sealed; (3) portion(s) of the document to seal; and (4) reason(s) why the document\n+should be sealed, including citation to the applicable declaration. Each separate document for\n+which sealing is sought shall have its own row in the table.\n+ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing\n+252 Plaintiff’s Motion\n+for Summary\n+Judgment\n+Highlighted portions\n+at 4:9-12; 10:2-7.\n+Contains confidential information\n+relating to the parties’ licenses and\n+negotiations with third parties, and\n+Plaintiff’s internal financial and\n+business strategies. See Doe Decl.\n+¶¶ 3-7. Public disclosure of this\n+information would cause harm to\n+Plaintiff. Id.\n+In addition, the motion must be accompanied by a proposed order that complies with\n+Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is organized in the following format. Proposed orders should be filed\n+in PDF format on ECF and sent in Microsoft Word format to eklpo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Granted/Denied\n+252 Plaintiff’s Motion\n+for Summary\n+Judgment\n+Highlighted portions\n+at 4:9-12; 10:2-7.\n+[Leave blank]\n+Chambers copies of sealing motions shall include only unredacted documents;\n+chambers copies of redacted documents need not and shall not be submitted to the Court.\n+7\n+Chambers copies of unredacted documents shall clearly indicate with yellow highlighting the\n+portions that the party is requesting to seal.\n+VIII. MOTIONS AND HEARINGS\n+A. Meet and Confer Requirement\n+At least seven (7) days before filing any motion, the moving party must meet and confer\n+with the opposing party or parties in person or by videoconference. During the conference, the\n+moving party shall disclose the bases for its anticipated motion. The purpose of this conference\n+is to resolve or narrow disputed issues where possible to reduce motion practice.\n+In the notice of motion, counsel for the moving party must certify that this meet-and-\n+confer requirement has been satisfied, citing specifically to this section of the Civil Standing\n+Order. If the notice of motion does not include such a certification, the Court may strike the\n+motion and order the moving party to re-file the motion with a certification once the meet-and-\n+confer requirement has been met.\n+The meet-and-confer requirement will be excused only under emergency circumstances\n+where the moving party cannot reasonably comply. In such cases, the moving party must still\n+certify that it has notified all other relevant parties in advance of filing its motion, and must detail\n+the efforts made to meet and confer.\n+B. Page Limits\n+Absent leave of court, the page limits for the following types of motions and proceedings\n+shall be 25 pages for the motion or opening brief, 25 pages for the opposition or response brief,\n+and fifteen (15) pages for the reply brief: motions brought under Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure 12, 23, 50, 56, 59, or 65; motions for certification of a collective action under the Fair\n+Labor Standards Act; motions brought under California’s anti-SLAPP statute; Social Security\n+appeals; and claim construction briefing.\n+Absent leave of court, the page limits for all other types of motions and proceedings,\n+except for those addressed above or those for which specific page limits are set forth in the Civil\n+Local Rules or the Court’s Standing Orders, shall be ten (10) pages for the motion or opening\n+brief, ten (10) pages for the opposition or response brief, and five (5) pages for the reply brief.\n+Motions subject to these limits include motions for sanctions, motions for attorneys’ fees, motions\n+to stay, motions to compel arbitration, and motions to remand.\n+If a party files its own motion and joins in another party’s motion, both the party’s own\n+motion and the joined motion will count toward the party’s page limits. Where multiple parties\n+are represented by the same counsel, all motions filed by those parties are limited to a single\n+brief which complies with the page limits set forth above, absent leave of court.\n+These page limits are maximums, not minimums. Counsel and parties are encouraged to\n+be concise. Excess pages will not be considered by the Court.\n+8\n+Footnotes shall not be used to cite to legal authorities or evidence. All citations to legal\n+authorities or evidence shall be in the body of the brief. Excessive footnotes will be disregarded.\n+In general, no more than five (5) footnotes per brief should be necessary.\n+All factual and legal bases for a party’s position with respect to a motion must be\n+presented in the briefing on that motion. Arguments presented in earlier-filed briefs or\n+documents may not be incorporated by reference.\n+Requests to enlarge page limits will rarely be granted. Stipulated requests must be filed\n+at least three (3) court days prior to filing the underlying motion. If the request is made by\n+administrative motion rather than stipulation, the motion must be filed at least five (5) court days\n+prior to filing the underlying motion and any opposition must be filed: (a) at least three (3) court\n+days before the underlying motion is filed; or (b) within the time allowed by Civil Local Rule 7-\n+11, whichever is sooner.\n+C. Proposed Orders\n+Each motion or stipulation requesting relief from the Court shall be accompanied by a\n+proposed order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2(c). Each proposed order shall comply with any\n+applicable Civil Local Rule. See, e.g., Civil L.R. 6-3 (proposed orders to change time), 7-11\n+(proposed orders for administrative relief), 16-9 (proposed case management orders), 65-1 (proposed\n+temporary restraining orders), 72-2 (proposed orders for relief from a non-dispositive Magistrate\n+Judge order), 79-5 (proposed orders to seal documents). When any party requests a continuance or\n+extension of time, the party must file a proposed order listing, in chart format, all future deadlines\n+and the proposed extensions, illustrating how the requested relief would impact the case schedule.\n+Proposed orders submitted in connection with motions for injunctive relief should state the specific\n+relief sought. A party opposing a motion need not submit a proposed order.\n+Each proposed order should be filed in PDF format on ECF. In addition, the moving\n+party should submit a Microsoft Word copy of the proposed order to eklpo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+The Court’s signature block should not appear on a standalone page. The subject line of the\n+email should include the case number and name, along with the title of the order. The email\n+should not be used by litigants for substantive communications.\n+D. Briefing Schedules\n+The parties may stipulate to and request Court approval of a briefing schedule that differs\n+from that set forth in the Civil Local Rules, noting the differences in their stipulation. Generally,\n+the briefing schedule for any motion shall allow at least fourteen (14) days between the final\n+filing and the hearing date. The briefing schedule for summary judgment, Daubert, and class\n+certification motions shall allow at least 28 days between the final filing and the hearing date.\n+9\n+E. Hearing Attendance and Participation\n+Hearings on civil motions will be held in-person. The Court will consider requests to\n+appear via Zoom on a case-by-case basis. Joint requests are strongly preferred, and parties are\n+required to meet and confer regarding such requests. If a request is granted, it will generally be\n+applicable to all parties participating in the hearing as hybrid hearings are discouraged.\n+Parties wishing to appear via Zoom shall file an administrative request to appear via\n+Zoom and a proposed order at least one (1) week prior to the scheduled hearing date. If all\n+parties wish to appear via Zoom, the parties should file a joint administrative request or\n+indicate that the request is unopposed. If a request is granted, the parties must follow the\n+directions provided on the Court’s website for remote participation\n+(https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/ekl/lee-eumi-k). To ensure the quality of the record, any party\n+appearing remotely must have a good connection and must avoid participating from a public\n+space or any other environment with background noise that could disrupt the proceedings.\n+The Court welcomes and encourages oral argument by less-experienced attorneys on any\n+matters before the Court. More experienced counsel for the same party may still offer argument\n+for a few minutes at the end of the hearing.\n+The Court may provide tentative rulings in advance of a motion hearing. If the Court\n+determines that a hearing is not necessary, the hearing will usually be vacated no later than two\n+(2) court days before the scheduled hearing date.\n+F. Demonstratives and Presentations\n+Any demonstratives or audio-visual presentations to be used at a hearing must be\n+exchanged with opposing counsel and submitted to the Court at least 48 hours before the hearing.\n+If this date falls on a weekend, parties are required to exchange and submit them by Friday at\n+5:00 p.m. Parties shall email electronic copies of the demonstratives or presentations to Judge\n+Lee’s Courtroom Deputy at eklcrd@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+G. Duty of Candor\n+All case citations and factual statements must be completely accurate. A citation to a\n+case, statute, or other authority is counsel’s representation to the Court that the authority stands\n+for the proposition asserted and is good law. A quotation of a case or other authority is counsel’s\n+representation that the quoted language is complete and present in the authority cited. Counsel\n+must ensure that the use of ellipses or elisions in quotes does not mislead the Court or\n+misrepresent the substance of the holding or other authority. Counsel’s representations of facts\n+are subject to the same requirements of completeness and accuracy. Misrepresentations of law or\n+fact, however subtle, may result in sanctions and a referral to the District’s Standing Committee\n+on Professional Conduct.\n+10\n+H. Use of Generative AI Tools\n+Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate\n+representations of the record, procedural history, and cited legal authorities. Use of generative\n+artificial intelligence tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm for\n+themselves the accuracy of any research conducted by these means, and counsel alone bears\n+ethical responsibility for all statements made in filings. Any submission containing AI-\n+generated content must include a certification that lead trial counsel has personally verified the\n+content’s accuracy. Failure to include this certification or comply with this verification\n+requirement will be grounds for sanctions. Counsel is responsible for maintaining records of all\n+prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools in the event those records become\n+relevant at any point.\n+IX. SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n+Each party is limited to filing one (1) motion for summary judgment. Any party wishing\n+to exceed this limit must request leave of court. Unless otherwise ordered, the parties must meet\n+and confer to determine if they will file cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court will\n+schedule a hearing for approximately four (4) weeks after the final brief has been submitted.\n+Where the parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment, only the following briefs\n+will be allowed: (1) opening brief by the plaintiff side; (2) opening/opposition brief by the\n+defense side; (3) opposition/reply brief by the plaintiff side; and (4) reply brief by the defense\n+side. The parties may agree to reverse the order, and to have the defense side file its opening\n+brief first, without order of the Court. Before the first brief is filed, the parties must submit a\n+stipulation and proposed order setting a briefing schedule for the cross-motions. The first two\n+briefs are limited to 25 pages; the third brief is limited to twenty (20) pages; and the fourth brief\n+is limited to fifteen (15) pages. The fourth brief must be filed at least 28 days before the hearing.\n+At least seven (7) days before the opening brief is filed, the parties shall file a concise\n+joint status report that identifies: (1) the claims, counterclaims, and defenses that remain to be\n+decided; (2) the pleading in which each claim, counterclaim, or defense is asserted; and (3) each\n+claim, counterclaim, defense, or issue for which a party will move for summary judgment.\n+Moving Separate Statement: Any party moving for summary judgment, partial\n+summary judgment, or summary adjudication must include a separate, short and concise\n+statement identifying each claim or defense for which the moving party contends there is no\n+genuine issue to be tried. In most cases, the statement should not exceed fifteen (15) pages. For\n+each claim, defense, or part thereof, the moving separate statement must: (a) identify the\n+relevant elements or issues; (b) list the asserted material facts establishing or negating those\n+elements or issues; and (c) cite to record evidence demonstrating that the asserted material facts\n+are undisputed (e.g., deposition testimony, declaration, or discovery response). Upon filing, the\n+moving party shall provide the moving separate statement to all other parties in Microsoft Word\n+format for ease of response. The moving separate statement must be organized in the form of a\n+chart as shown in Attachment A.\n+11\n+Responsive Separate Statement: The papers opposing a motion for summary judgment,\n+partial summary judgment, or summary adjudication must include a responsive separate\n+statement which: (a) incorporates the moving separate statement; (b) indicates whether each of\n+the facts listed in the moving separate statement is disputed or undisputed; and (c) identifies any\n+additional material facts the party contends will establish a genuine issue to be tried. If the\n+opposing party contends that a fact is in dispute, the opposing party must cite to evidence in the\n+record establishing the dispute.\n+In most cases, the responsive separate statement should add no more than five (5) pages\n+to the moving separate statement. The responsive separate statement must be organized in the\n+form of a chart as shown in Attachment A.\n+Reply Separate Statement: The moving party may file a reply separate statement which\n+incorporates and responds to the responsive separate statement in the same manner described\n+above. The reply separate statement shall not introduce any new asserted material facts.\n+Deemed Admitted Unless Controverted: Each numbered fact in the separate\n+statements will be deemed to be admitted, for purposes of the motion only, unless specifically\n+controverted by the opposing party, so long as the moving party meets its burden under Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 56.\n+Attestation: Each separate statement must be signed by counsel or unrepresented party\n+who has reviewed the document and attests as follows: I attest that the evidence cited herein\n+fairly and accurately supports or disputes the facts as asserted.\n+Additional Guidance: The separate statements shall not include argument in support of\n+the summary judgment motion and shall not be used to circumvent the page limits that apply to\n+summary judgment briefing. Parties should include only those facts that are actually cited in the\n+briefs. Facts that are not cited in the summary judgment briefs will not be considered.\n+Objections: Objections to evidence shall be contained within the objecting party’s brief.\n+X. DISCOVERY\n+Discovery in almost all cases will be referred to a magistrate judge. The parties must\n+follow the magistrate judge’s procedures. Upon the development of an impasse with respect to\n+discovery, the parties must first meet and confer; that is, counsel for each party shall meet and\n+confer in person or via videoconference to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere\n+exchange of letters, emails, or telephone calls does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement.\n+Parties requesting a protective order are encouraged to base any proposed order on the\n+model protective orders on the Northern District of California’s website. When filing a\n+proposed protective order, at the very beginning of their stipulation or motion, parties must\n+indicate whether they have based their proposed order on one of the Northern District’s model\n+orders. If they have, they must identify any deviations from the model order by submitting as\n+an exhibit a redlined or highlighted comparison of their proposed order and the model order.\n+12\n+XI. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS\n+In connection with motions for approval of class settlements, the parties shall comply\n+with the requirements set forth in the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action\n+Settlements, available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules-forms-fees/northern-district-\n+guidelines/procedural-guidance-class-action-settlements. In addition, the following shall\n+apply.\n+A. Preliminary Approval\n+The Court conducts a searching inquiry at the preliminary approval stage to avoid the\n+costs and pitfalls of proceeding to final approval of a settlement that is unlikely to satisfy Rule\n+23(e). Release language should make clear that the class members are releasing claims based\n+only on the identical factual predicate. Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010).\n+Each proposed notice should make that clear as well.\n+If a proposed notice to class members (or prospective class members) requires a written\n+objection as a prerequisite to appearing in court to object to the settlement, the notice must\n+specify that this requirement may be excused upon a showing of good cause. The Court will\n+require only substantial compliance with the requirements for submitting an objection, and this\n+should be made clear in any notice to class members.\n+B. Notice and Claims Procedure\n+The proposed notices, claims forms, and other documents associated with preliminary\n+approval should be sent in Microsoft Word format to eklpo@cand.uscourts.gov. For large\n+settlements, the parties are encouraged to include an opt-out form and an objection form.\n+Proposed notices must be written in plain language without unnecessary acronyms. The\n+parties should consider using the model notices provided by the Federal Judicial Center,\n+https://www.fjc.gov/content/301253/illustrative-forms-class-action-notices-introduction, and\n+the Notice Project, https://noticeproject.org/templates-downloads. The motion must discuss\n+whether notice by email and/or social media, use of online claims and opt-out forms, and a\n+website for the settlement are appropriate, and if not, explain why not.\n+In a proposed settlement involving the distribution of money to a class, the motion must\n+discuss whether unclaimed funds should be redistributed to class members who claimed their\n+share, and if not, explain why not. If the settlement requires class members to file claims, as\n+opposed to simply receiving checks, the motion must address why that is appropriate.\n+C. Final Approval\n+In proposing a schedule for final approval of a class settlement, the parties must ensure\n+that the motion for attorneys’ fees is filed at least 35 days before the deadline for objecting to the\n+settlement. The Court will order parties to re-send notices if the motion for attorneys’ fees is\n+filed late. The proposed order granting final approval should list all dates relating to the\n+administration of the settlement, including the dates for when the checks distributing the\n+13\n+settlement fund payments will be mailed to class members. The parties shall file a proposed\n+judgment separately from their proposed order granting final approval.\n+Within 21 days after the settlement funds have been fully distributed to class members\n+(but before distribution to cy pres recipients), class counsel will be required to file a Post-\n+Distribution Accounting, as described in the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class\n+Action Settlements. In addition to the information contained in the Guidance, the Post-\n+Distribution Accounting must discuss any significant or recurring concerns communicated by\n+class members to the settlement administrator or counsel since final approval, any other issues in\n+settlement administration since final approval, and how any concerns or issues were resolved.\n+The Court will typically withhold between 10% and 20% of the attorneys’ fees granted at final\n+approval until after the Post-Distribution Accounting has been filed. The proposed order\n+granting final approval should specify what percentage class counsel believes it is appropriate to\n+withhold. With the Post-Distribution Accounting, class counsel should submit a proposed order\n+releasing the remainder of the fees.\n+XII. REQUESTS FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES\n+The Court generally does not refer cases for settlement with a magistrate judge unless the\n+parties have already completed one of the other processes set forth in ADR Local Rule 3-4 (i.e.,\n+Early Neutral Evaluation, Mediation, or Private ADR). Parties who complete one of these\n+processes without reaching a settlement may request referral to a magistrate judge at that time. If\n+the parties believe their case merits an exception to this rule, they should discuss their views in\n+the initial case management statement.\n+XIII. UNREPRESENTED PARTIES\n+Parties representing themselves may wish to contact the Federal Pro Se Program, a free\n+program that offers limited legal services to pro se litigants. The Federal Pro Se Program has an\n+office in the San Jose Courthouse in Room 2070 on the 2nd Floor. Parties may make\n+appointments by visiting the office or calling (408) 297-1480. Additional information is\n+available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: August 31, 2026\n+EUMI K. LEE\n+United States District Judge\n+14\n+ATTACHMENT A\n+Template for Moving Separate Statement\n+Claim or Defense Moving Party’s Undisputed Facts\n+& Supporting Evidence\n+Opposing Party’s Response &\n+Supporting Evidence\n+Claim 1: Breach of Contract\n+Issue 1. Plaintiff did\n+not perform under\n+the contract\n+Fact 1. Defendant issued a\n+homeowner’s insurance policy to\n+Plaintiff.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 4-5 and Ex. A\n+(policy).\n+[Left blank for opposing party’s\n+response]\n+Fact 2. Plaintiff failed to pay\n+premiums required by the policy.\n+Jones Decl. ¶ 6\n+Issue 2. Defendant\n+did not breach the\n+contract\n+Fact 3. The policy expressly\n+excludes coverage for loss resulting\n+from theft.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 and Ex. A\n+(policy).\n+Punitive Damages\n+Issue 1. Plaintiff\n+cannot establish that\n+Defendant acted\n+with oppression,\n+fraud, or malice\n+Fact 4. Defendant timely\n+investigated Plaintiff’s insurance\n+claim.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 18-20.\n+15\n+Template for Responsive Separate Statement\n+Claim or Defense Moving Party’s Undisputed Facts\n+& Supporting Evidence\n+Opposing Party’s Response &\n+Supporting Evidence\n+Claim 1: Breach of Contract\n+Issue 1. Plaintiff did\n+not perform under\n+the contract\n+Fact 1. Defendant issued a\n+homeowner’s insurance policy to\n+Plaintiff.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 4-5 and Ex. A\n+(policy).\n+Undisputed.\n+Fact 2. Plaintiff failed to pay\n+premiums required by the policy.\n+Jones Decl. ¶ 6\n+Disputed. Plaintiff timely paid\n+the premiums required by the\n+policy. Smith Dep. 22:4-23:19.\n+Opposing Party’s Additional Material Facts on this Issue\n+Additional Fact 1. Defendant has\n+failed to record Plaintiff’s timely\n+premium payments on two prior\n+occasions.\n+Smith Dep. 72:8-14.\n+[Left blank for moving party’s\n+reply]\n+Issue 2. Defendant\n+did not breach the\n+contract\n+Fact 3. The policy expressly\n+excludes coverage for loss resulting\n+from theft.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 and Ex. A\n+(policy).\n+Disputed. The policy does not\n+exclude coverage for loss\n+resulting from theft.\n+Jones Decl. Ex. A (policy).\n+Punitive Damages\n+Issue 1. Plaintiff\n+cannot establish that\n+Defendant acted\n+with oppression,\n+fraud, or malice\n+Fact 4. Defendant timely\n+investigated Plaintiff’s insurance\n+claim.\n+Jones Decl. ¶¶ 18-20.\n+Disputed. Defendant waited\n+more than 4 months before\n+investigating Plaintiff’s claim.\n+Smith Dep. 79:15-80:4.","id":"7d2707e096a8fa07393f654815077a98511fd7811febaa8f0609369978ae6321","newHash":"913f464b3dd2360c06f39d83775ee4f782c7b448bb4384a6f17b5c55c24e98cd","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/913f464b3dd2360c06f39d83775ee4f782c7b448bb4384a6f17b5c55c24e98cd.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/EKL-CivilStandingOrder_8-31-2026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:47.386375+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,257 @@\n+1\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NOTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+CIVIL STANDING ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE LISA J. CISNEROS\n+Parties shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the\n+Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rules and General Orders, and this Standing Order,\n+all of which are available at www.cand.uscourts.gov/rules/. Failure to comply may result in the\n+imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, and/or entry of judgment.\n+See Civ. L.R. 1-4.\n+A. CALENDAR DATES AND SCHEDULING\n+Civil motions are heard on Tuesdays at 10:30 a.m., except that when Judge Cisneros is on\n+criminal duty, civil motions are heard on Thursdays at 1:30 p.m. Motion hearings are in person\n+unless otherwise ordered by the Court; any request for a remote hearing must be made by\n+administrative motion or by stipulation and proposed order. Hybrid hearings, with some counsel\n+in person and others appearing remotely, are disfavored. Parties should notice motions pursuant\n+to the local rules. Parties need not reserve a hearing date but should confirm the Court’s\n+availability by viewing the calendar and scheduling notes available at\n+https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lisa-j-cisneros/. Hearing dates may be reset as the Court’s\n+calendar requires or matters may be decided without a hearing.\n+For scheduling requests that fall within the parameters for Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and\n+6-3, including requests to advance or enlarge time to hear a motion, such request shall be made\n+through the procedures set forth in those rules. For other administrative questions concerning the\n+Court’s schedule, contact Judge Cisneros’s Courtroom Deputy (“CRD”) at\n+ljccrd@cand.uscourts.gov or (415) 522-2043. For further information on contact with chambers,\n+see section I below.\n+Civil case management conferences are heard Thursdays at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom webinar\n+videoconference.\n+Settlement conferences are held on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, starting at\n+10:30 a.m. Telephonic pre-settlement conference meetings are held Thursdays at 10:30 a.m.\n+Claim construction hearings are held on Fridays, staring at 10:30 a.m.\n+B. CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS\n+1. Chambers Copies of Voluminous Filings. Chambers copies are required only\n+for filings that necessitate action by the Court and exceed 50 pages inclusive of supporting\n+declarations and exhibits. Chambers copies must bear the PACER/ECF header (with case\n+number, docket number, date, and page number) and be clearly marked with the judge’s initials\n+(LJC) and the designation “Chambers Copy.” Chambers copies must be bound at the top or side;\n+2\n+voluminous filings (those over two inches in thickness) should be placed in binders. Exhibits\n+must be tabbed. Chambers copies may be accompanied by a flash drive where appropriate.\n+Chambers copies shall arrive at the Court within 48 hours after e-filing.\n+2. Chambers Copies of Sealed Material. The Court may request electronic\n+chambers copies of material filed under seal, particularly when a filing includes multiple sealed\n+docket entries or sub-entries. Parties filing material under seal should be prepared to send PDF\n+chambers copies via email or (at a party’s option) their own secure file transfer systems if\n+requested by the Court.\n+3. Proposed Orders. A proposed order is required for all filings that necessitate\n+action by the Court. Proposed orders in civil cases shall be submitted in Word format (.doc or\n+.docx) via email to ljcpo@cand.uscourts.gov on the day of filing. This email address is to be\n+used only for civil proposed orders unless otherwise directed by the Court. Proposed orders\n+should state with specificity the relief that a party proposes to be ordered, without extraneous\n+analysis or commentary.\n+C. CONSENT CASES\n+In civil cases assigned to Judge Cisneros for all purposes, the parties should file their\n+written consent to the assignment of a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes or their\n+written declination of consent as soon as possible and in no event later than the deadlines\n+specified in Civil Local Rule 73-1. The form is available at www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms.\n+D. CASE MANAGEMENT\n+1. Case Management Conference Statements. The parties shall file a joint case\n+management statement at least 7 days prior to the case management conference. In cases\n+involving unrepresented litigants, the parties may file separate statements. The statements shall\n+address all matters set forth in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of\n+California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, which is available at\n+https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/rules/judges-standing-orders/. See Civ. L.R. 16-9(a). Unless\n+proceeding pro se (in which case, the party must personally appear), each party shall be\n+represented at the conference by counsel who has full authority and is fully prepared to:\n+(a) address the matters set forth in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of\n+California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, as well as in Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure 16(c) and 26(f); (b) enter into stipulations and make admissions as contemplated in\n+Rule 16(c); and (c) select an ADR process (if one has not been selected).\n+2. Pronouns and Honorifics. Litigants and lawyers may indicate their pronouns, titles\n+(e.g. Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.), or pronunciation of their names by any reasonable means, including but not\n+limited to in signature of blocks of filings, at the time of appearance in court, or by sending an email or\n+passing a note to the Courtroom Deputy. Lawyers may similarly advise the Court regarding appropriate\n+identification of clients or witnesses. Judge Cisneros’s pronouns are she/her.\n+3\n+3. Lawyer Development. The Court encourages parties to contribute to the\n+development of the bar by permitting lawyers with less than five years of experience to argue\n+motions, have a significant participatory role in settlement conferences, and examine witnesses at\n+trial.\n+E. MOTION PRACTICE\n+1. Meet and Confer Requirement. The parties shall meet and confer (in person, by\n+video conference, or by phone) before filing any motion or non-stipulated request. All motions\n+or non-stipulated requests shall include a certification, which may be submitted separately or\n+included in the body of the filing, that the parties have complied with this meet and confer\n+requirement. The Court may strike filings that do not comply.\n+2. Failure to Oppose. The failure of the opposing party to file a timely response to\n+any motion or non-stipulated request may be construed as consent to the granting of the motion\n+or request as unopposed.\n+3. Summary Judgment Motions. Absent prior leave of Court, the parties are\n+limited to filing one summary judgment motion per side, not to exceed 25 pages in length.\n+Aligned parties (e.g., co-defendants) are to file joint briefs. If the parties wish to depart from the\n+standard briefing schedule and page limits set by Civil Local Rule 7-2 and 7-3 (for example, to\n+set a schedule involving one party’s motion followed by another party’s consolidated opposition\n+and cross-motion), they shall make this proposal in a joint case management statement that is\n+filed in advance of a case management conference, or file an administrative motion or stipulation\n+and proposed order no later than three weeks before the first motion for summary judgment will\n+be filed.\n+4. Technological Assistance. Counsel and parties appearing without legal\n+representation are responsible for providing complete and accurate representations in any\n+submission to the Court to the extent required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure, the California Rules of Professional Conduct, and any other applicable legal or\n+ethical guidance. Parties are not categorically prohibited from using any sort of lawful\n+technological assistance in researching or drafting briefs, including artificial intelligence (AI)\n+tools that assist in the preparation of material for submission to the Court. That said, attorneys\n+and unrepresented parties must understand the limitations of any tools that they use, and they\n+remain fully responsible for the final products they submit to the Court. The Court will impute\n+any errors by computer-based tools to the attorney or unrepresented party whose signature\n+appears on the document containing those errors. Failure to verify the accuracy of briefs, and\n+4\n+particularly the accuracy of citations to law and evidence, may be grounds for sanctions and/or\n+striking a filing.1\n+F. DISCOVERY\n+1. General. Parties shall propound disclosures and discovery in accordance with\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 and the corresponding Civil Local Rules for the\n+Northern District of California. A copy of the Local Rules is available at the Clerk’s Office and\n+at the Court’s website (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov). No exceptions to the limitations\n+established in the Federal and Local Rules shall be permitted except pursuant to stipulation of the\n+parties or order of the Court.\n+2. Evidence Preservation. After a party has notice of this order, it must take the\n+steps needed to preserve information relevant to the issues in question in the litigation, including\n+suspending any document-destruction programs.\n+3. Document Disclosures. To the maximum extent feasible, all party files and\n+records should be retained and produced in their original form and sequence, and the originals\n+should remain available for inspection by any counsel on reasonable notice.\n+Except for good cause, no item will be received in evidence if the proponent failed to\n+produce it in the face of a reasonable and proper discovery request covering the item, regardless\n+of whether a motion to overrule any objection thereto was made.\n+4. Written Discovery. The Court encourages the party propounding discovery to\n+provide courtesy copies of all requests for written discovery (i.e., interrogatories, document\n+requests, requests for admission) to the responding party in an electronic format (e.g., Microsoft\n+Word, or other word processing application) that easily permits the responding party to copy the\n+requests for purposes of responding to them.\n+5. Discovery Disputes. This order’s meet and confer and joint letter procedures for\n+discovery disputes apply to disputes among the parties to this action and to disputes between\n+parties and non-parties who have been served with subpoenas.\n+All discovery disputes before the Court shall proceed as follows: when there is a\n+discovery dispute, the parties must first make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before\n+seeking Court intervention. After attempting to address the issue(s) via letter, phone call, and/or\n+email, any party or non-party may demand a formal meet and confer within two weeks’ notice.\n+Counsel for each party must meet and confer in person or by videoconference. A mere exchange\n+1 This Standing Order should not be construed as reducing an attorney’s duty of care under any\n+rule of professional conduct, or as creating an exception to any such rule or other authority that\n+might limit the use of AI or other technological assistance.\n+5\n+of letters, e-mails, or telephone calls does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement. If\n+disagreements remain, the parties shall file a joint letter no later than five business days after the\n+formal meet and confer, unless otherwise directed by the Court. Lead trial counsel for both\n+parties must sign the letter, which shall include an attestation that the parties met and conferred\n+in person or by video regarding all issues prior to filing the letter.\n+The joint letter must include a paragraph listing relevant discovery dates and case\n+management deadlines, such as:\n+(1) the fact and expert discovery cut-off dates;\n+(2) the last day to hear or file dispositive motions;\n+(3) the claim construction or class certification briefing deadlines and hearing dates; and\n+(4) pretrial conference and trial dates.\n+Going issue-by-issue, the joint letter shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize\n+each party’s position with appropriate legal authority, and provide each party’s final proposed\n+compromise before moving to the next issue. In the rare instance that a joint letter is not\n+possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed two pages, which shall include an\n+explanation of why a joint letter was not possible.\n+The parties shall submit one exhibit that sets forth each disputed discovery request in full,\n+followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be\n+included in the exhibit. An additional set of exhibits is allowed for declarations or other\n+documents relevant to the discovery dispute. Such exhibits shall not exceed twenty-five pages\n+without leave of the Court.\n+Joint letters must be filed in ECF under the Civil Events category of Motions and Related\n+Filings > Motions: General > Discovery Letter Brief. Joint letters shall be in text-searchable\n+PDF format and shall not exceed five pages (12-point font or greater; single-spaced, margins no\n+less than one inch) without leave of the Court. The Court will review the submission(s) and\n+determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are necessary.\n+The Court expects the parties to cooperate in the preparation of their joint letter so that\n+each side has adequate time to prepare its own arguments and address its adversary’s arguments\n+before submission of the letter. Unjustified delay or refusal to participate meaningfully in the\n+formal meet and confer or in the preparation of the joint letter may be grounds for entry of an\n+order adverse to the delaying or non-participating party.\n+If necessary, the Court will set a hearing to address the discovery dispute. Hearings\n+concerning discovery disputes are generally held via Zoom and set on the Civil Law & Motion\n+calendar. See Part A (Calendar Dates and Scheduling).\n+6\n+6. Protective Orders. If parties believe a protective order is necessary, they are\n+encouraged to use one of the Court’s model protective orders (available at\n+http://cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders). Parties shall file one of the following with\n+their proposed protective order:\n+(1) a declaration stating that the proposed order is identical to one of the model orders\n+except for the addition of case-identifying information or the elimination of language\n+denoted as optional;\n+(2) a declaration explaining each modification to the model order, along with a redline\n+version comparing the proposed protective order with the model order; or\n+(3) a declaration explaining why use of one of the model orders is not practicable.\n+7. Privilege Logs. If a party withholds responsive information by claiming that it is\n+privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall produce a privilege log. See\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).\n+Privilege logs must be sufficiently detailed for the opposing party to assess whether the\n+assertion of privilege is justified. Unless the parties agree to alternative logging methods, the log\n+should include:\n+(1) the title and description of the document, including number of pages or Bates number\n+range;\n+(2) the subject matter addressed in the document;\n+(3) the identity and position of its author(s);\n+(4) the identity and position of all addressees and recipients;\n+(5) the date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was sent\n+to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and\n+(6) the specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged or protected.\n+The privilege log will be produced as quickly as possible, but no later than fourteen (14)\n+days after its disclosures or discovery responses are due, unless the parties stipulate to, or the\n+Court sets, another date.\n+8. Depositions. Absent extraordinary circumstances, counsel shall consult in\n+advance with opposing counsel and unrepresented proposed deponents to schedule depositions at\n+mutually convenient times and places. Where an agreement cannot be reached as to any party\n+deponent or a deponent represented by counsel of record, the following procedure may be\n+invoked by the party seeking such any such deposition. The party seeking such a deposition may\n+notice it at least thirty days in advance. If the noticed date and place is unacceptable to the\n+deponent or the deponent’s counsel, then within ten days of receipt of the notice, the deponent or\n+counsel for the deponent must reply and counter-propose in writing an alternative date and place\n+falling within thirty days of the date noticed by the party seeking the deposition.\n+7\n+Counsel and parties must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1).\n+Deposition objections must be as to privilege or form only. Speaking objections are prohibited.\n+When a privilege is claimed, the witness should nevertheless answer questions relevant to the\n+existence, extent, or waiver of the privilege, such as the date of a communication, who made the\n+statement, to whom and in whose presence the statement was made, other persons to whom the\n+contents of the statement have been disclosed, and the general subject matter of the statement,\n+unless such information is itself privileged. Private conferences between deponents and\n+attorneys in the course of interrogation, including a line of related questions, are improper and\n+prohibited except for the sole purpose of determining whether a privilege should be asserted.\n+9. Emergencies. In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any\n+party may, after exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial\n+intervention pursuant to Civil L.R. 37-1(b) by contacting the Court through the courtroom\n+deputy. Before calling, the parties must first send a short email describing the nature of the\n+dispute to ljccrd@cand.uscourts.gov. If the Court is unavailable, the discovery event shall\n+proceed with objections noted for the record.\n+G. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES\n+Settlement conferences ar e governed by Judge Cisneros’s Settlement Conference\n+Standing Order, available at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lisa-j-cisneros/. Please note that\n+Settlement Conference Statements and Confidential Settlement Letters are to be lodged (not\n+filed) by emailing to ljcsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+H. ELECTRONIC FILINGS\n+Electronically filed documents must be text-searchable PDFs and compatible with text-\n+to-speech readers, such as Adobe Acrobat, whenever possible.\n+I. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHAMBERS AND COURT STAFF\n+Except as otherwise permitted by this Standing Order or by another order of the Court,\n+parties and attorneys should not communicate with Judge Cisneros or her staff (including the\n+Courtroom Deputy) about a case except in open court (including remote video proceedings) or\n+through filings in the ECF docket. For example, requests to clarify an order, set or continue a\n+hearing, or allow a remote appearance should be made through appropriate filings in the docket,\n+which depending on circumstances might include administrative motions, noticed motions, or\n+stipulations and proposed orders.\n+Requests for clarification of purely administrative matters (e.g., if a motion previously set\n+for a hearing does not appear on the Court’s public calendar) may be directed to the Courtroom\n+Deputy at ljccrd@cand.uscourts.gov, with opposing counsel cc’d. If in doubt, any such request\n+may also be made through an appropriate filing on the docket.\n+8\n+In an emergency, such as an individual’s inability to make a scheduled appearance due to\n+last-minute factors beyond their control, counsel or parties may attempt to contact the Courtroom\n+Deputy at ljccrd@cand.uscourts.gov or (415) 522-2043.\n+The limitations provided in this section do not apply to cases referred to Judge Cisneros\n+for settlement proceedings, which are addressed in a separate standing order.","id":"2744a90226d37607f8fb9f5857c2870e57edd12c88e05bf5db618f8e95c8232f","newHash":"8825f7fa94dfb731d18023345b86b5fbd35055ebee8dce70c17a83a2e0c80962","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/LJC-CivilStandingOrder_2-17-26.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/8825f7fa94dfb731d18023345b86b5fbd35055ebee8dce70c17a83a2e0c80962.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/LJC-CivilStandingOrder_2-17-26.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:47.318625+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,820 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE\n+MAGISTRATE JUDGE PETER H. KANG\n+(Effective and Last Revised on July 16, 2025)\n+I. APPLICABILITY OF STANDING ORDER\n+Unless otherwise indicated by the Court, this Standing Order applies to all categories of civil\n+cases before Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang. The Parties shall follow the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure, as well as the Northern District of California’s Local Rules and General Orders, except\n+as expressly modified herein. Counsel shall also comply with the Northern District of California’s\n+Guidelines for Professional Conduct . See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/professional_\n+conduct_guidelines. Counsel shall review and be familiar with this Standing Order. Failure to\n+comply with any of the applicable rules and orders, including this Standing Order, may be deemed\n+sufficient grounds for sanctions ( monetary or otherwise), revocation of pro hac vice admission,\n+referral to appropriate state or local bar authorities, dismissal, entry of default judgment, or other\n+appropriate sanctions. Plaintiff (or in the case of removed cases, any removing Defendant) is\n+directed: (a) to serve copies of this Standing Order and Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery\n+in Civil Cases upon all other Parties to the action within seven (7) calendar days of the appearance\n+of these other Parties, including any subsequently joined Parties, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure 4 and 5; and (b) to file with the Clerk of the Court a certificate reflecting such service, in\n+accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-5.\n+II. CONSENT CASES\n+In civil cases that are randomly assigned to Judge Kang for all purposes, the Parties will be\n+provided a Clerk’s notice of the deadline to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction. The\n+form for “Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” is available at:\n+https://cand.uscourts.gov/mj_consent-declination_form_10-2020/. All Parties should promptly file\n+this form indicating their written consent to assignment of a magistrate judge for all purposes, or\n+their written declination of such consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(2); Civil L.R. 73.\n+If a Party files a dispositive motion (such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for remand),\n+2\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+the moving party must file the consent or declination simultaneously with the motion. In no event\n+shall the consent or declination be filed later than the deadlines specified in Civil L ocal Rule 73-\n+1(a)(1) and (2).\n+The Parties are directed to inform the Court of all reasonable bases for recusal at the earliest\n+possible date.\n+III. AMENDED PLEADINGS\n+All proposed amended complaints, answers, counterclaims, or other pleadings shall be filed\n+contemporaneously with a separate red-line version of the amended document showing the changes\n+made to the previously operative pleading.\n+IV. SCHEDULING HEARINGS AND CONFERENCES\n+Civil Law and Motion is generally heard on Thursdays at 1:30 p.m. unless otherwise ordered\n+by the Court. When Judge Kang is on criminal duty, Civil Law and Motion is heard on Thursdays\n+at 2:30 p.m. or as otherwise ordered by the Court. The Parties should notice civil motions for hearing\n+in accordance with the Civil Local Rules (however, with respect to discovery disputes, counsel\n+should review and follow the procedure in Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil\n+Cases). Counsel need not reserve hearing dates but should check Judge Kang’s calendar (at\n+https://www.cand.uscourts.gov under “Calendar” and “Judges’ Weekly Calendars”) before noticing\n+civil motions for hearing to confirm the Court’s availability. The availability of the civil calendar\n+on Zoom does not constitute a hybrid hearing. All litigants must appear in person unless otherwise\n+ordered by the Court.\n+Criminal Law and Motion is heard on Tuesdays at 1:30 p.m.\n+Case Management Conferences are held on Wednesdays at 11:00 a.m.\n+Pretrial Conferences are held on Wednesdays at 1:30 p.m.\n+All counsel listed on the Parties’ pleadings and briefing must be fully apprised of the status\n+of the pending matter and must be authorized to respond to calendar settings and modifications to\n+the case schedule entered by the Court.\n+Noticed dates may be reset by the Court as Judge Kang’s calendar requires or as otherwise\n+ordered by the Court. Parties (including their counsel) shall not attempt to make ex parte contact\n+3\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+with Judge Kang or his chambers staff by email, telephone, fax, text or messaging app, or any other\n+means. With the exception of discovery disputes (see Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery\n+in Civil Cases ), or unless expressly permitted by the Court, Parties shall not submit letters to the\n+Court, and any communication with the Court must be in pleading form filed manually or e -filed\n+with the Clerk of Court, including but not limited to status reports, requests for continuances, and\n+requests for remote appearances.\n+No changes to the Court’s schedule shall be made except by order of the Court. Parties\n+seeking to continue hearings, request special status conferences, modify briefing schedules, or make\n+any other procedural or scheduling changes shall submit a proposed order and fully executed\n+stipulation explaining the need for the requested modification, or, if stipulation is not possible, a\n+motion for administrative relief. See Civil L.R. 7-11. A Party seeking to enlarge a filing deadline\n+or other matter by way of a motion for administrative relief is admonished to file such a motion\n+sufficiently in advance of the filing deadline sought to be enlarged to allow time for any opposition\n+to be filed under Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), and to allow time for the Court to review prior to the\n+original deadline, rather than at the last minute (such as on ly a day or two before a brief or other\n+matter is due). Continuances are generally disfavored and will be granted only upon a showing of\n+good cause, with a particular focus on diligence (or lack thereof) by the Party seeking the\n+continuance and prejudice that may result if the continuance is denied (or granted).\n+Parties should address all questions regarding scheduling to Judge Kang’s Courtroom\n+Deputy (“CRD”) via email at PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+V. CHAMBERS COPIES\n+Pursuant to General Order 7 8, no paper or hard courtesy copies will be accepted by Judge\n+Kang pending further order of the Court. Instead, courtesy copies of as-filed documents may be\n+emailed to PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov. In addition, any proposed stipulation or proposed order in\n+a case subject to electronic filing shall be sent in Word format by email to\n+PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov. This address is to be used only for these purposes, unless otherwise\n+directed by the Court.\n+4\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+VI. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES\n+The Parties to an action shall file their joint case management conference statement no later\n+than seven (7) calendar days in advance of the case management conference date. The statement\n+must include all elements requested in the “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District\n+of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement.” See Civil L.R. 16-9. To the extent\n+not already included, the joint case management conference statement may also discuss any issues\n+under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(2) which any of the Parties desire the Court to consider\n+at or in connection with the case management conference.\n+As discussed further herein, t he Court recognizes that generative AI (including related\n+technologies and tools) are an evolving area impacting the practice of law and clients. In addition\n+to issues relating to electronic discovery, counsel and parties shall meet and confer on any concerns,\n+issues, and proposals for handling generative AI -related issues specific to or anticipated in their\n+case, and shall report on and raise any such AI -related issues in the ir Joint Case Management\n+Conference and Pretrial Statements.\n+The Parties shall caption their filing to read either “Initial Joint Case Management\n+Statement” or “Further Joint Case Management Statement,” as appropriate.\n+In the joint case management conference statement, any law firm with more than 25 lawyers\n+nationwide shall submit a specific plan for how that firm intends, in th is case, to provide\n+opportunities for less experienced lawyers (six years or less out of law school) to develop skills by\n+participating meaningfully in court and in the case, including a plan for such lawyers to argue\n+motions in court, to take and defend depositions, to represent a Party in court at case management\n+and other conferences, to present Party positions at settlement conferences, to present argument\n+during pretrial conferences and during trial, to examine (including cross-examine) witnesses at trial,\n+and to participate meaningfully at any other court proceeding. Specific junior lawyers shall be\n+identified.\n+In cases involving pro se litigants, the Parties shall attempt to file a joint case management\n+statement; if after due diligence, an agreement cannot be reached, the Parties may file separate case\n+management statements, with each statement complying with Civil L.R. 3-4, 16-9, and this Standing\n+5\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+Order, where each statement shall be limited to seven (7) pages in length.\n+Unless proceeding pro se , each Party shall be represented at each case management\n+conference by counsel knowledgeable about the case and its status, and with full and complete\n+authority to address all of the matters referred to in : (1) the joint case management statement; (2)\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(c) and 26(f); (3) the “Standing Order for All Judges of the\n+Northern District of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement;” and (4) the orders\n+issued in the instant action, including this Standing Order. Counsel must also have full and complete\n+authority to enter stipulations and make admissions.\n+No scheduled or noticed case management, status, or pretrial conference will be continued\n+by stipulation or agreement of the Parties alone. Noticed conference dates may be continued only\n+as ordered by the Court. If a Party files a motion that would be dispositive of the entire case (e.g.,\n+a motion to dismiss or remand), the Parties may file a stipulation and proposed order to continue the\n+initial case management conference to fifteen (15) calendar days after the hearing on that case-\n+dispositive motion. If the motion to dismiss (or remand) is not entirely case dispositive, the initial\n+case management conference will not be continued. In their joint case management statement for\n+the initial case management conference, the Parties shall propose a full schedule for their action ,\n+including a proposed last day to amend pleadings, regardless of whether they have received a ruling\n+on any such motion to dismiss or remand.\n+Parties shall indicate in their joint case management conference statement (or by a separate\n+notice filed contemporaneously therewith) if they intend to have a less experienced lawyer present\n+a Party’s positions on an issue in dispute or identified for discussion at the case management\n+conference and may request the case management conference be conduct ed in person for that\n+purpose.\n+Subject to the Court’s calendar, t he Court generally encourages in-person appearances for\n+case management, status, and pretrial conferences. Permission for a Party to attend by remote means\n+(e.g., videoconference/Zoom or telephone) may be granted, in the Court’s discretion and on a case-\n+by-case basis, only upon a Party’s filing a motion for administrative relief at least two (2) weeks in\n+advance of the conference should the Court determine that good cause exists to excuse personal\n+6\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+attendance and that personal attendance is not needed in order to have an effective conference. The\n+facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the motion for administrative relief and supported\n+by declaration(s) under oath establishing those facts. Absent compelling circumstances, the Court\n+will generally not grant a motion for administrative relief to appear by videoconference or\n+telephonically for Parties or counsel who reside or have an office located within any of the Bay Area\n+counties (Alamed a, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and\n+Sonoma) or are otherwise located within 100 miles of the courthouse . In addition, the Court\n+generally will not grant a request to appear remotely made by a Party that has raised or identified an\n+issue for discussion or dispute in a case management conference statement.\n+If a motion for administrative relief to appear by remote means is granted, the Party granted\n+remote appearance must contact Judge Kang’s CRD by email for specific instructions on appearing\n+remotely. To ensure the quality of the record, the Parties should avoid the use of mobile phones,\n+speakerphones, public telephone booths, or the use of laptops, tablets, or cellphones in other public\n+places. All case management, status and pretrial conferences are audio recorded ; t hey are not\n+reported by a court reporter unless counsel requests a court reporter in advance.\n+VII. MOTIONS\n+A. Form of Filing Motions and Supporting Papers\n+All motions and declarations shall be filed as separate documents. This includes motions\n+and declarations e-filed with the Court. All exhibits to motions should be separately filed on ECF.\n+For example, if the motion is Docket No. 30, and a supporting declaration with 10 exhibits is Docket\n+No. 31, Exhibit A should be filed as Docket No. 31-1, Exhibit B should be Docket No. 31-2, and so\n+on. Electronically filed documents must be text-searchable PDFs whenever possible. In situations\n+where leave of Court has been granted to electronically file a declaration with its exhibits as a single\n+.pdf file, that combined declaration and exhibits must be bookmarked ( i.e., if the declaration\n+references an exhibit, the declaration must contain a hyperlink to the corr esponding exhibit). The\n+foregoing applies regardless of page length.\n+For motions to seal, a ny Party who submits a request to file a document or material under\n+seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 shall include a statement to inform the Court: (1) whether the\n+7\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+document, or portion thereof, has been the subject of a previous request to file under seal; and (2) if\n+so, provide the docket numbers of the request and order on the request, and identify whether the\n+request was granted or denied. Parties shall also submit by email to PHKpo@cand.uscorts.gov a\n+complete unredacted chambers copy of any brief or supporting papers lodged under seal with all\n+confidential material highlighted or otherwise clearly indicating which portions the Parties seek to\n+seal. Parties shall not submit redacted versions of the documents that they seek to seal as chambers\n+copies.\n+Each Party filing a motion shall also file and serve a proposed order that sets forth the relief\n+or action sought and a short statement of the rationale of decision. Each Party opposing a motion\n+may file and serve a proposed order (with a short statement of the rationale of decision) if that Party\n+seeks a specific ruling by the Court other than mere denial of the motion. Any proposed order\n+should be filed contemporaneously with the motion or opposition. As noted above, any proposed\n+stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall also be sent in Word format\n+by email to PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+For discovery motions, see Judge Kang’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases.\n+B. Summary Judgment Motions\n+For summary judgment motions, each Party or side in an action is presumptively limited to\n+filing one summary judgment motion. Any Party wishing to exceed this limit must request leave of\n+the Court well in advance of the dispositive motions deadline. Counsel are encouraged and expected\n+to raise any such issue in connection with case management statements and conferences. Briefing\n+shall comply with Civil Local Rules 7-2 through 7-5. Separate statements of proposed undisputed\n+facts and/or conclusions of law are prohibited, and thus, will not be considered by the Court. Joint\n+statements of undisputed facts are encouraged and should be filed if agreed upon. If Parties submit\n+excerpts of deposition transcripts in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment,\n+they shall highlight the relevant portions for ease of reference.\n+Unless otherwise ordered, the Parties shall meet and confer no later than forty-five (45)\n+calendar days before the end of fact discovery to determine if they will file cross -motions for\n+summary judgment. If so, only four briefs will be allowed: (1) opening brief by the plaintiff side;\n+8\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+(2) opening/opposition brief by the defense side; (3) opposition/reply brief by the plaintiff side; and\n+(4) reply brief by the defense side. The Parties may agree to reverse the briefing sequence, and may\n+have the defense side file its opening brief first, without order of the Court. The first two briefs are\n+limited to twenty-five (25) pages each; the third brief is limited to twenty (20) pages; and the fourth\n+brief is limited to fifteen ( 15) pages. Before the first brief is filed, the Parties shall submit a\n+stipulation and proposed order setting a briefing schedule for the cross-motions and a general, one-\n+sentence description of the subject matter of each of the cross-motions. The proposed schedule shall\n+require that the fourth brief must be filed at least twenty-one (21) calendar days before the hearing\n+date on the cross -motions. If the parties agree to change the procedure or scheduling for cross -\n+motions for summary judgment, they may submit a stipulation and proposed order explaining the\n+grounds for such requested change.\n+C. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Filings with the Court\n+The Court is aware of recent developments regarding generative AI and its impact on\n+litigation. Accordingly, the Court provides the following guidance for parties and their counsel in\n+this evolving area. If parties have specific proposals for modifying, adding to, or addressing AI -\n+related issues in their matter, counsel are encouraged and expected to raise such proposals as part of\n+the case management procedures above and as appropriate during the progress of an action.\n+AI and specifically generative AI (as referred to herein) denote a category of automated tools\n+that are capable of formulating unique content, such as text that has not been expressly programmed\n+into the computer system at issue. Generative AI is thus distinguishable from other categories of AI,\n+which may operate based on pre -established algorithms and , of particular relevance to the\n+administration of justice, do not generate original content or text . The Court recognizes that\n+generative AI, AI tools, and the applications using such technology are evolving areas, with\n+changing terminology and technical approaches. Therefore, these provisions are to be reasonably\n+construed as these AI tools develop further, with the overarching purpose of the provisions in mind.\n+At one end of the spectrum of available software tools, the provisions herein do not apply to the use\n+of applications, solutions, or tools which implicate AI for tasks unrelated to or at best tangentially\n+related to the practice of law and not involved in or responsible for the creation or drafting of text\n+9\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+for submissions to the Court. For example, these provisions do not apply to counsel’s use of\n+software, applications, or vendors’ offerings which may in some way incorporate a technology\n+labeled as “AI” in performing law firm or lawyer administrative or mi nisterial tasks ( e.g.,\n+timekeeping, invoicing, HR, accounting, business development, and similar back office or business\n+of law solutions). Nor do these provisions apply to counsel’s or a pro se party’s use of traditional\n+legal research, word processing, spellchecking, grammar checking, or formatting software tools\n+(e.g., Lexis, Westlaw, Microsoft Word, or Adobe Acrobat).\n+AI and Briefs/Pleadings Filed with the Court: As a baseline matter, c onsistent with\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the Court’s Education Guidelines as set forth in ESI Guideline\n+3.01, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidelines, it is expected that counsel for the parties,\n+including all counsel who have appeared, as well as all others responsible for making representations\n+to the Court or opposing counsel (whether or not they make an appearance) and pro se parties, shall\n+competently and responsibly use automated, computer-based software or hardware application s in\n+drafting briefs, pleadings, or other documents to be submitted to the Court , whether such tools are\n+labelled as AI, generative AI, language model, natural language processing tool, machine learning\n+tool, artificial neural network, deep learning neural network, or any other automated generator of\n+text. Counsel and pro se parties shall make use of such tools with competent training, knowledge,\n+and understanding of the limitations and risks of such automated tools. Counsel are expected to\n+abide by existing and evolving California State Bar guidance and advisory opinions on the use of\n+AI in the legal profession, and counsel should conduct themselves in a manner consistent with ABA\n+Resolution 604’s (Feb. 6, 2023) admonishment regarding accountability of individuals and\n+organizations for any use of AI products, systems, and capabilities (and the Resolution’s provisions\n+regarding operators of AI systems and capabilities). See https://perma.cc/A6WC-6X6P. As with\n+any prudent approach in an evolving area of law, counsel and pro se parties are expected to be\n+competent and knowledgeable about evolving judicial and legal standards in the use of generative\n+AI tools, including case law and opinions addressing such issues (not limited to case law imposing\n+sanctions for failure to use generative AI in an ethical manner).\n+Any brief, pleading, or other document submitted to the Court the text of which was created\n+10\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+or drafted with any use of an AI tool shall be identified as such in its title or pleading caption, in a\n+table preceding the body text of such brief or pleading, or by a separate Notice filed\n+contemporaneously with the brief, pleading, or document. Counsel shall maintain records sufficient\n+to identify, if requested by the Court, those portions of the text of a pleading, brief, or document\n+submitted to the Court which was created or drafted by an AI tool. Parties and counsel shall not file\n+or otherwise pre sent to the Court any briefs, pleadings, materials, other documents, or argument\n+which contain AI-hallucinated citations to law, case or legal citations which are fictitious or non -\n+existent, or any uncorroboratable assertions of law or fact. A pro se party or a counsel’s failure to\n+confirm or double -check the accuracy, veracity, or even existence of a case or legal citation (or\n+assertion of fact) created by an AI tool is grounds for potential sanctions.\n+AI and Evidence: The Court recognizes that, as AI tools proliferate generally in society,\n+there may arise situations in which AI-generated documents or materials (for example, created by a\n+Party prior to the commencement of litigation) are or may become exhibits, evidence, or the subject\n+of factual disputes in an action. In such situations, a pro se party or counsel shall follow the\n+procedures below with regard to proffer ing evidence, documents, or other factual material which\n+that Party or counsel knows or has any reasonable basis to believe is or was created in whole by a\n+generative AI or a ny AI tool for creating text, documents, images, video, graphics, audio, or any\n+other material:\n+1) If a Party or counsel seeks to file or otherwise present to the Court any such AI -generated\n+evidentiary material, no such material shall be considered unless previously disclosed or\n+produced timely in discovery (or, with respect to demonstrative exhibits, by the deadline for\n+exchange or disclosure of demonstrative exhibits).\n+2) Contemporaneous with the production or disclosure of any such AI -generated evidentiary\n+material, counsel shall serve a Notice to the opposing Party or side identifying such material\n+with sufficient specificity to locate it (such as by Bates or production n umber, by attaching\n+a copy to such Notice, by promptly responding to any request for counsel to provide a copy\n+of such material, or by any other means which reasonably permits the other Party or side to\n+identify and locate the material promptly). Any such AI-generated material which does not\n+11\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+have an accompanying Notice shall not be considered by the Court. Absent stipulation\n+between the Parties or other order of the Court on scheduling, at the time of the submission\n+or filing of any such material to the Court, the Party or counsel proffering such AI-generated\n+material to the Court shall file and serve any declarations, affidavits, or sworn testimony to\n+address the material’s authenticity under the Federal Rules of Evidence.\n+3) If a Party or counsel chooses to use an AI or other automated tool as part of a process for\n+creating exhibits, demonstratives, or other material to be filed or presented to the Court, they\n+shall only do so consistent with their ethical and legal obligations and shall use such tools\n+responsibly and with competent training, knowledge, a nd understanding of the limitations\n+and risks of such automated tools. Parties and counsel shall not file , proffer, or otherwise\n+present to the Court exhibits, demonstratives, or other evidentiary or factual material which\n+contain AI-hallucinated assertions of fact, uncorroboratable statements as to factual matters\n+or evidence, or any fictitious or non-existent references or citations to law or fact. A pro se\n+party’s or a counsel’s failure to confirm or double -check the accuracy, veracity, or even\n+existence of a basis for an assertion of fact or evidence created by an AI tool is grounds for\n+potential sanctions. Any exhibit, demonstrative, or other material to be filed or presented to\n+the Court which was created or drafted with any assistance or use of an AI tool shall be\n+identified as such in its title or caption, in a table preceding the body of exhibit,\n+demonstrative, or other material, or by a separate Notice filed contemporaneously with the\n+document or material. Counsel shall maintain records sufficient to identify, if requested by\n+the Court, those portions of that exhibit, document, or material created or drafted by use of\n+an AI tool.\n+AI and Confidentiality: Third parties and non -parties to an action may own and operate\n+publicly available AI tools such as large language models, machine learning tools, artificial neural\n+networks, deep learning neural networks, and all other forms of generative AI for creating t ext,\n+documents, or other materials . The owner or operator of any such AI tool may have access to,\n+ownership of, or otherwise retain information input or submitted to such AI tool, including queries\n+or prompts. Accordingly, in the course of preparing filings with the Court or other documents for\n+12\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+submission in an action, counsel and Parties choosing to use an AI or other automated tools shall\n+fully comply with any applicable protective order and all applicable ethical/legal obligations\n+(including issues relating to privilege) in their use, disclosure to, submission to, or other interaction\n+with any such AI tools. Such counsel and parties using any AI tool shall maintain records sufficient\n+to establish and corroborate their compliance with this Standing Order, if asked by the Court, such\n+as by keeping records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any such third-party AI tools.\n+D. Motion Hearings\n+Parties shall indicate in their motion or opposition papers (or by a separate notice filed\n+contemporaneously therewith) if they intend to have a less experienced lawyer argue all or part of\n+the motion and may request an in-person hearing for that purpose.\n+Subject to the Court’s calendar, t he Court generally encourages in-person appearances for\n+motion hearings. Permission for a Party to attend by remote means (e.g., videoconference/Zoom or\n+telephone) may be granted, in the Court’s discretion and on a case-by-case basis, only if a Party files\n+a motion for administrative relief at least two (2) weeks in advance of the motion hearing should the\n+Court determine that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance and that personal attendance\n+is not needed in order to have an effective hearing. The facts establishing good cause must be set\n+forth in the motion for administrative relief and supported by declaration(s) under oath establishing\n+those facts. Absent compelling circumstances, the Court will generally not grant a motion for\n+administrative relief to appear by videoconference or telephonically for Parties or counsel who\n+reside or have an office located within any of the Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,\n+Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma) or are otherwise located within 100\n+miles of the courthouse. In addition, the Court will not generally grant a motion for administrative\n+relief to appear remotely made by the moving Party on any motion that is the subject of the hearing.\n+If a request to appear by remote means is granted, the Party granted remote appearance must\n+contact Judge Kang’s Courtroom Deputy by email for specific instructions on appearing remotely.\n+To ensure the quality of the record, the Parties should avoid the use of mobile phones,\n+speakerphones, public telephone booths, or the use of laptops, tablets, or cellphones in other public\n+places. All motion hearings are audio recorded ; they are not reported by a court reporter unless\n+13\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+counsel requests a court reporter in advance.\n+Any matters that are taken under submission shall remain submitted until further order of\n+the Court. If the Court rules verbally at a hearing and directs one or both Parties to prepare a\n+corresponding order, the Court fully expects counsel for the Parties to cooperate in preparing any\n+jointly submitted proposed order.\n+VIII. SETTLEMENT\n+Parties and their counsel are directed to review and comply with Judge Kang’s Settlement\n+Conference Standing Order. Parties are encouraged to engage in or continue any ongoing settlement\n+negotiations throughout the course of an action. The Parties shall notify chambers promptly by\n+email at PHKsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov if their case settles, particularly if any settlement is\n+prior to a noticed hearing, trial, or other court deadline.\n+IX. UNREPRESENTED (PRO SE) LITIGANTS\n+Parties representing themselves are encouraged to review the information and resources\n+provided for pro se litigants contained on the Northern District of California website. Parties may\n+access this information by clicking the “PRO SE LITIGANTS” link located at the top of the Court’s\n+homepage: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. Legal assistance may also be available to unrepresented\n+litigants through the Legal Help Center, located in Room 2796 on the 15th Floor of the San Francisco\n+Courthouse. Additional information about the program is available in the “Pro Se Litigants” section\n+of the Court’s website or can be obtained by calling (415) 782-8982.\n+X. MODE OF ADDRESS\n+Litigants and lawyers may indicate their preferred pronouns ( e.g., she/her, he/him,\n+they/their) and honorifics ( e.g., Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.) either : (a) confidentially by sending a\n+confidential email to PHKpo@cand.uscourts.gov or mailing a confidential letter to Judge Kang’s\n+chambers; or (b) by making such request non-confidentially by filing a request on the case docket,\n+indicating as such verbally at a hearing or conference with the Court, or by adding such information\n+in the name block or signature block of the pleadings.\n+In actions in which a plaintiff is seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of the\n+Social Security Administration denying that plaintiff social security payments, the Court generally\n+14\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+uses the first name and initial of last name (or only the initials) of the plaintiff in its orders to protect\n+the plaintiff’s privacy.\n+XI. COMMUNICATIONS WITH JUDGE KANG’S STAFF\n+Unless ordered otherwise by the Court, Parties are not to participate in communications with\n+Court staff. Parties are not to email requests seeking extensions of dates, remote appearances, or\n+status updates on cases. Any email correspondence which is not requested by the Court will be\n+ignored.\n+Additionally, Parties shall not attempt to make ex parte contact with Judge Kang or his\n+chambers staff by telephone, email, facsimile, text message, messaging app, or any other means.\n+Parties should address all questions regarding scheduling to Judge Kang’s CRD via emai l at\n+PHKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+XII. PRACTICE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE BAR\n+The Court strongly encourages Parties and senior lawyers to permit less experienced\n+lawyers, including lawyers from historically under -represented groups and/or First Generation\n+lawyers, to participate actively in proceedings by presenting argument or a Party’s positions at a\n+case management conference, motion hearing, settlement conference, pretrial conference, or at trial.\n+The Court is amenable to permitting a number of lawyers to present positions or argue for one Party\n+if this creates an opportunity for such lawyers to participate.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: July 16, 2025\n+PETER H. KANG\n+United States Magistrate Judge","id":"8b91dfaeb5fd1d8cd2133d5b164abcf37efa698ba960544137d8f371043f7596","newHash":"480f516550f98fdcc779ad88561aec44c910e58153573cb9ea1067903a528842","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/480f516550f98fdcc779ad88561aec44c910e58153573cb9ea1067903a528842.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:48.353123+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@\n+Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice Before the Court | Court of International Trade | United States\n+Skip to main content\n+United States\n+Court of International Trade\n+Hon. Mark A. Barnett • Chief Judge | Gina Justice • Clerk of the Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+About the Court\n+About the Court\n+Court History\n+Court Hours & Holidays\n+Court Address & Directory\n+Directions to the Court\n+Visitor Information\n+Access Coordinators\n+Weekly Court Calendar\n+Audio Recordings of Select Public Court Proceedings\n+Emergency Contact Information\n+CIT Judicial Conferences\n+Contact the Webmaster\n+CM/ECF\n+Registration\n+CM/ECF Information\n+CM/ECF Forms\n+CM/ECF FAQ\n+RSS Feed\n+Support\n+Rules and Forms\n+Judges\n+Judges\n+Judicial Ethics\n+Opinions & Orders\n+Daily Disposition Sheet\n+Slip Opinions by Year\n+Attorney Info\n+Trade Adjustment Assistance\n+Human Resources\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice Before the Court\n+Friday, March 21, 2025\n+Attorneys using generative artificial intelligence should be mindful of any individual chambers procedures or orders regarding confidential or business proprietary information and also the obligations of Rule 11 regarding attorneys’ representations to the Court.\n+Home | Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Security & Privacy Policy","id":"53db2fb9bf6a0479abfe809ba81bfda94c8505107764838d7697a6f75a7051ee","newHash":"ef6d0ca526e551a098a81d4be16c858b427d0f0e9a039d14e34bfc6469d259d3","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/news/use-artificial-intelligence-practice-court","snapshot":"snapshots/ef6d0ca526e551a098a81d4be16c858b427d0f0e9a039d14e34bfc6469d259d3.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/news/use-artificial-intelligence-practice-court","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:48.564138+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@\n+UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE\n+THE HONORABLE JENNIFER CHOE-GROVES\n+STANDING ORDER ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+The Court is cognizant of the increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) by\n+counsel and pro se litigants in preparation of litigation. Though AI tools can provide a benefit,\n+their use raises certain concerns for the Court, including, but not limited to, the reliability of\n+information presented, transparency of how submissions and evidence were created, and\n+protection of confidential or business proprietary information. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+11 imposes upon parties an obligation to ensure that information submitted to the Court is\n+factually accurate and does not misrepresent the state of the law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The Rules\n+of the Court of International Trade also require counsel and parties to take special care to protect\n+sensitive and non-public information. See USCIT R. 5(g); 73.2(c)(2); 81(h). The use of AI in\n+the creation of a submission does not alleviate counsel or parties of these obligations. Because\n+generative AI challenges the Court’s ability to monitor the veracity of submissions and to protect\n+against the disclosure of confidential or business proprietary information, it is hereby\n+ORDERED that any submission in a case assigned to Judge Choe-Groves that contains\n+text drafted with the assistance of a generative AI program on the basis of natural language\n+prompts must be accompanied by:\n+(1) A disclosure notice that identifies the program used, the manner in which it was\n+used, and the specific portions of text that have been drafted;\n+(2) A certification that counsel or the party has reviewed the included text and legal\n+research for factual and legal accuracy; and\n+Page 2\n+(3) A certification that the use of such AI program has not resulted in the\n+unauthorized disclosure of any confidential or business proprietary information;\n+and it is further\n+ORDERED that following the filing of such notice, any party may file with the Court\n+any motion provided for by statute or the Rules of the Court of International Trade seeking any\n+appropriate relief.\n+/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves\n+Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge\n+Dated: July 3, 2025\n+New York, New York","id":"9bdb930e6feaac2a1ab3fec9feb6d947a655ffa373b46e5922a7a0ef6296938e","newHash":"7a9f98abad2a8ddb7815b2c80bf1582775b7ef525b48921b729beacd6e6150d9","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Choe-Groves.StandingOrder.ArtificialIntelligence.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/7a9f98abad2a8ddb7815b2c80bf1582775b7ef525b48921b729beacd6e6150d9.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Choe-Groves.StandingOrder.ArtificialIntelligence.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:48.719813+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@\n+UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE\n+THE HONORABLE JANE A. RESTANI, JUDGE\n+ORDER ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Generative artificial intelligence programs that supply natural language answers to user\n+prompts, such as ChatG PT or Google Bard, create novel risks to the security of confidential\n+information. Because generative artificial intelligence programs challenge the Court’s ability to\n+protect confidential and business proprietary information from access by unauthorized parties , it\n+is hereby:\n+ORDERED that any submission in a case assigned to Judge Restani that contains text\n+drafted with the assistance of a generative artificial intelligence program on the basis of natural\n+language prompts, including but not limited to ChatGPT and Google Bard, must be accompanied\n+by:\n+(1) A disclosure notice that identifies the program used and the specific portion of text that\n+have been so drafted;\n+(2) A certification that the use of such program has not resulted in the disclosure of any\n+confidential or business proprietary information to any unauthorized party; and it is\n+further\n+ORDERED that, following the filing of such notice, any party may file with the Court any\n+motion provided for by statute or the Rules of the Court of International Trade seeking any relief\n+the party believes the facts disclosed warrant.\n+SO ORDERED.\n+/s/ Jane A. Restani\n+Jane A. Restani, Judge\n+Dated: July 24, 2025\n+New York, New York","id":"cd476de9d2e70fb931b65dcde99d5f8cfb705a9a0edd4894c80a1d8d051d8908","newHash":"f16519ccb5ebd3c40ac219488573662e074fb686dc8edc3081a9ad5f6ac8a86d","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/f16519ccb5ebd3c40ac219488573662e074fb686dc8edc3081a9ad5f6ac8a86d.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/JAR_Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:48.774860+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@\n+UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE\n+THE HONORABLE STEPHEN ALEXANDER VADEN, JUDGE\n+ORDER ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Pai·ties must conform to many rules when they file briefs in a case before the Court\n+of International Trade. For instance, briefs must state with particularity the grounds for\n+seeking a desired orde1· and make \"the legal argument necessary to support it.\" USCIT Rule\n+7(b)(l)(B). They must follow certain requirements of form, including those that govern the\n+use of captions, exhibits, and paragraphing. USCIT Rule 7(b)(2); USCIT Rule 10. However,\n+perhaps the most important of these rules are those that concern confidential or business\n+proprietary information . The Court has taken special care to ensure that bringing a claim\n+will not result in the disclosure of sensitive non-public information owned by any party\n+before it. Accordingly, the Court requires that briefs containing confidential or business\n+proprietary information \"must identify that information by enclosing it in b1·ackets,\" that\n+parties must file a non-confidential version of such a brief and redact the bracket ed\n+information, and that recipients of the confidential brief may not disclose its contents to any\n+party not authorized to receive such information. USCIT Rule 5(g). In pa1·ticular, an\n+attorney may only receive confidential or business proprietary information if he 01· she has\n+filed a Business Proprietary Information Certification and received an order from the Court\n+granting access to such information . USCIT Rule 73.2(c)(2).\n+Generative artificial intelligence programs that supply natural language answe1·s to\n+user prompts, such as ChatGPT or Google Bard, create novel risks to the security of\n+confidential information. Users having \"conversations\" with these programs may includ e\n+Page 2\n+confidential information in their prompts, which in turn may result in the corporate owner\n+of the program retaining access to the confidential information. Although the owners of\n+generative artificial intelligence programs may make representations that they do not\n+retain information supplied by users, their programs \"learn\" from every user conversation\n+and cannot distinguish which conversations may contain confidential information. In\n+recognition of this risk, corporations have prohibited their employees from using generative\n+artificial intelligence programs. See, e.g., Samsung Bans Staff's AI Use After Spotting\n+ChatGPT Data Leah, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023 -05-\n+02/samsung-bans-chatgpt-and-other-generative-ai-use-by-staff-after-leak (last visited June\n+8, 2023).\n+Because generative artificial intelligence programs challenge the Court's ability to\n+protect confidential and business proprietary information from access by unauthorized\n+parties, it is hereby:\n+ORDERED that any submission in a case assigned to Judge Vaden that contains\n+text drafted with the assistance of a generative artificial intelligence program on the basis\n+of natural language prompts, including but not limited to ChatGPT and Google Bard, must\n+be accompanied by:\n+(1) A disclosure notice that identifies the program used and the specific portions of\n+text that have been so drafted;\n+(2) A certification that the use of such program has not resulted in the disclosure of\n+any confidential or business proprietary information to any unauthorized party;\n+and it is further\n+Page 3\n+ORDERED that, following the filing of such notice, any party may file with the Court\n+any motion provided for by statute or the Rules of the Court of International Trade seeking\n+any relief the party believes the facts disclosed warrant.\n+SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: k 8', 20Z.3\n+New Y&k.New York","id":"b1990ec789c38e8474658708d07df41d0a3d3d086d76bb6aa95e5d1aaf3bf12a","newHash":"be19151d40302a9f696e30ec5a21b38ce353ae6b26c14cb7e4921f339356428e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/be19151d40302a9f696e30ec5a21b38ce353ae6b26c14cb7e4921f339356428e.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order%20on%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:49.516621+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@\n+UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE\n+THE HONORABLE CLAIRE R. KELLY, JUDGE\n+ORDER ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Generative artificial intelligence programs that supply natural language\n+answers to user prompts, such as ChatGPT or Google Bard, create novel risks to the\n+security of confidential information. Because generative artificial intelligence\n+programs challenge the Court's ability to protect confidential and business\n+proprietary information from access by unauthorized parties, it is hereby:\n+ORDERED that any submission in a case assigned to Judge Kelly that\n+contains text drafted with the assistance of a generative artificial intelligence\n+program on the basis of natural language prompts, including but not limited to\n+ChatGPT and Google Bard, must be accompanied by:\n+(1) A disclosure notice that identifies the program used and the specific\n+portion of text that have been so drafted;\n+(2) A certification that the use of such program has not resulted in the\n+disclosure of any confidential or business proprietary information to any\n+unauthorized party; and it is further\n+ORDERED that, following the filing of such notice, any party may file with\n+the Court any motion provided for by statute or the Rules of the Court of International\n+Trade seeking any relief the party believes the facts disclosed warrant.\n+SO ORDERED.\n+/s/ Claire R. Kelly\n+Claire R. Kelly, Judge\n+Dated: July 24, 2025\n+New York, New York","id":"f38ceb91ff2ab62416aab6b183f9be99692986c6385b493e9a1c67b743c6275d","newHash":"b1b821d642107106c1a2b012076800ebf479fa1330713fb618ec1f12fdda81f2","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence-Judge_Kelly.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/b1b821d642107106c1a2b012076800ebf479fa1330713fb618ec1f12fdda81f2.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/Order_on_Artificial_Intelligence-Judge_Kelly.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:48.973351+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,683 @@\n+1\n+Revised March 2026\n+MEMORANDUM\n+TO: Counsel and Parties in Civil Cases\n+FROM: Judge John L. Kane\n+RE: Pretrial and Trial Pr ocedures – CIVIL CASES\n+______________________________________________________________________________\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+I. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................... .............. 3\n+II. GENERAL PROCEDURES .................................................................................................... 3\n+A. Applicable Rules .................................................................................................................. 3\n+B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ......................................................................................... 3\n+C. Communications with Chambers ......................................................................................... 3\n+D. Magistrate Judges ......................................................................................................... ....... 4\n+E. Settlements ............................................................................................................... ............ 4\n+III. SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY CONFERENCE .......................................................... 4\n+IV. MOTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 5\n+A. Duty to Confer in Advance of Motion ................................................................................. 5\n+B. Certification Regarding the Use of Ge nerative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) .................. 5\n+C. Format for Motions ........................................................................................................ ...... 6\n+D. Index of Attached Exhibits ................................................................................................ .. 6\n+E. Incorporation by Reference ................................................................................................ .. 6\n+F. Deadlines ................................................................................................................. ............. 7\n+G. Untimely or Noncomplying Motions, Ob jections, Responses, or Replies .......................... 7\n+H. Motions for Extensions of Time .......................................................................................... 7\n+I. Motions to Continue ....................................................................................................... ....... 7\n+J. Motions for Default Judgment .............................................................................................. 7\n+K. Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders ........................................................................ 8\n+L. Motions for Protective Orders and Motions to Restrict ....................................................... 8\n+M. Motions to Dismiss ........................................................................................................ ..... 8\n+N. Motions for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment ........................................ 8\n+2\n+O. Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony .............................................................................. 11\n+P. Awards of Reasonable Expenses and Attorney Fees ......................................................... 11\n+Q. Proposed Orders ................................................................................................................. 11\n+R. Oral Argument on Motions ................................................................................................ 1 2\n+S. Timing of Motions .............................................................................................................. 12\n+V. IN-COURT PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................................ 12\n+A. Courtroom Protocol ........................................................................................................ ... 12\n+B. Record of Proceedings ..................................................................................................... .. 12\n+C. Exhibits .................................................................................................................. ............ 13\n+D. Timelines and Other Demonstrative Aids ......................................................................... 14\n+E. Witnesses ............................................................................................................................ 14\n+F. Use of Deposition Testimony ............................................................................................. 15\n+G. Special Equipment (Audio/Video) ..................................................................................... 15\n+H. Time Limits................................................................................................................ ........ 16\n+VI. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS .............................................................................................. 16\n+A. Pretrial Order and Conference ........................................................................................... 1 6\n+B. Motions in Limine .............................................................................................................. 17\n+C. Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms .................................................................................. 17\n+D. Trial Briefs .............................................................................................................. ........... 18\n+E. Final Trial Preparation Conference .................................................................................... 18\n+F. Pretrial Deadlines ........................................................................................................ ....... 18\n+VII. JURY TRIALS .................................................................................................................... 19\n+3\n+I. PURPOSE\n+The purpose of these practice standards is to facilitate “the just, speedy, and inexpensive\n+determination of every action and proceeding,” as mandated by Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 1.\n+II. GENERAL PROCEDURES\n+A. Applicable Rules\n+Those appearing in the District Cour t in civil cases must know and follow:\n+1) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;\n+2) The Federal Rules of Evidence;\n+3) The Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of\n+Colorado;\n+4) The Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil Cases); and\n+5) These Practice Standards.\n+The Local Rules of Practice and Electronic Case Filing Procedures are available on the\n+District of Colorado website at www.cod.uscourts.gov and from the Clerk’s Office. These\n+practice standards and my forms are located under my tab on the District of Colorado website at\n+http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/JudicialOfficers/SeniorArticleIIIJudges/HonJohnLKane.aspx\n+[hereinafter “my website”].\n+B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n+Please consider the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as if they are sitting on a three-\n+legged stool consisting of 1) Notice Pleadings; 2) Liberal Discovery, and 3) the Pretrial Order.\n+Without all three, the system collapses.\n+C. Communications with Chambers\n+1. Chambers staff cannot give legal advice or grant oral requests over the telephone. Please do\n+not ask to speak directly with law clerks about pending matters unless previously authorized\n+or invited to do so. If after fully and carefully reading these Practice Standards and the Local\n+Rules of Practice, you still have a question about procedure, you may contact my chambers at\n+303-844-6118 or Kane_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov.\n+2. Ex parte communications: Unless specifically authorized for scheduling or other purposes,\n+neither counsel nor pro se litigants may communicate about a case by letter, email, or\n+telephone to the court. All communications must be made in the form of a motion, brief,\n+notice, or status report, and must be served on all opposing counsel and any pro se parties.\n+4\n+3. For information about courtroom technology, trial preparation, submission of trial exhibits,\n+and courtroom protocol, please contact the Court Operations Supervisor, Nick Richards, at\n+nicholas_richards@cod.uscourts.gov.\n+D. Magistrate Judges\n+If at any point during the pendency of a case the parties would like referral to a\n+magistrate judge for mediation or settlement purposes, they need only notify my chambers, and\n+the case will be referred for that purpose.\n+E. Settlements\n+The parties should provide prompt notice (the same or next business day) of any\n+settlement or partial settlement specifying the claim or defense settled, the parties affected, and\n+the claims defenses, and parties which remain in controversy, as well as the time and date\n+previously set for hearing or trial. Previously set conferences or deadlines (including trial) will\n+not be vacated without the filing of dismissal papers, unless otherwise ordered.\n+III. SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY CONFERENCE\n+1. Once responsive pleadings have been filed and a ny initial motions to dismiss have been ruled\n+on, the court will set a scheduling conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16\n+and D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 and 16.2.\n+2. Unless otherwise ordered, no formal discovery shall be undertaken by the parties until they\n+meet and attempt to agree on the stipulated Scheduling and Discovery Order. See Fed. R.\n+Civ. P. 26(f). This Rule 26(f) meeting shall be held at least 21 days before the proposed\n+Scheduling and Discovery Order is due to be submitted. The parties shall exchange the\n+disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) at or within 14 days of their\n+Rule 26(f) meeting. The parties are not to file any disclosure statements with the court.\n+3. The stipulated Scheduling and Discovery Order shall be submitted for my approval no later\n+than five days before the Scheduling Conference or as otherwise ordered. It is the\n+responsibility of the plaintiff’s counsel to schedule meetings and then file and submit the\n+proposed Order. If the parties agree, the plaintiff may delegate the filing responsibility to the\n+defendant. The Scheduling and Discovery Order shall be in the form specified on my website\n+and shall include the signatures of counsel and pro se litigants. Please note that the stipulated\n+Scheduling and Discovery Order template on my website in some instances requires more or\n+different information than that required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2. The proposed\n+Scheduling and Discovery Order should be filed in CM/ECF and submitted electronically in\n+editable Word format to my chambers at Kane_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov.\n+4. As provided in the Local Rules, counsel and pro se parties should try in good faith to agree\n+upon the matters addressed in their proposed Scheduling and Discovery O\n+rder. If there are\n+5\n+any areas of disagreement, the parties should make a brief statement in the proposed Order\n+concerning the basis for disagreement. In suggesting deadlines for discovery, counsel must\n+be prepared to justify each request at the Scheduling Conference, being mindful of their\n+obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. The parties should expect that I will\n+discuss these and any other issues affecting the management of the case at the Scheduling\n+Conference and that I may modify their proposed Order.\n+5. At the Scheduling Conference, I want to learn what the case is about in counsel’s own words,\n+I want to learn what the costs of litigation will be and what steps the parties are taking to\n+reduce costs. I want the parties’ best estimate of when in the course of pretrial it makes sense\n+to discuss settlement and whether a magistrate judge can assist in that endeavor or whether a\n+private mediator will be selected. I want to learn if experts will be retained, the subject area\n+of expertise and the proposed methodology to be used by each such expert.\n+IV. MOTIONS\n+A. Duty to Confer in Advance of Motion\n+I require complete complia nce with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), which imposes a duty to\n+confer in advance of filing a motion. Before filing any motion, status report, statement, or other\n+paper that includes a request for relief, the filing party shall have conferred or made a reasonable,\n+good-faith effort to confer with opposing counsel to resolve the issue in full or in part. Parties are\n+encouraged to discuss and agree upon collateral matters such as proposed briefing schedules,\n+requests for hearing, sub-issues to which they may be able to stipulate, and other matters that can\n+be resolved through the extension of mutual courtesies or other demonstrations of civility.\n+Filings shall include a statement describing counsel’s efforts in this regard and the\n+matters on which agreement was reached. Certification that a telephone call or email was\n+directed to opposing counsel fewer than 24 hours before the paper was intended to be filed and\n+“no response” was received is per se NOT a good-faith effort.\n+Unopposed motions shall be designated as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(c).\n+B. Certification Regarding the Use of Ge nerative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)\n+In every filing with the Court which is prepared—in whole or in part—using GenAI\n+(such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Bard, etc.), the preparer of the filing shall include a\n+certification identifying the portion of the filing that was prepared with the use of GenAI and\n+affirming that any language drafted by GenAI (even if later edited by a human being) was\n+personally reviewed by the filer or another human being for accuracy using print reporters or\n+traditional legal databases and attesting that the legal citations are to actual existing cases or cited\n+authority. To the extent GenAI is used in the preparation of a filing, Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 11 remains applicable, as does 28 U.S.C. § 1927.\n+6\n+C. Format for Motions\n+1. Motions and all supporting arguments should be contained in a single document. Motions\n+with separately filed briefs or memoranda are strongly discouraged.\n+2. It is not possible to predetermine the length of a good brief. Accordingly, I do not adhere to\n+any prescribed page limits for briefs. Counsel are expected to exercise good judgment.\n+Consider, however, that the longer it takes to make a point, the less likely it is to be\n+understood, and I will disregard string citations and repetitive arguments. Any case, statute,\n+or article cited in a brief as authority is accepted as certified by counsel’s signature that such\n+has been read and known not to have been overruled, modified, or amended. Furthermore,\n+counsel should bear in mind that sarcastic, rude, or ungrammatical briefs are not persuasive\n+and often counterproductive.\n+3. I prefer the body of the text and the footnotes to be in Times New Roman 12-point font. The\n+page numbers of motions and briefs should correspond with those given by CM/ECF, i.e., the\n+numbering should start with “1” and continue uninterrupted throughout the document.\n+4. Responses and replies shall identify by title and CM/ECF docket number the pleading or\n+motion to which they relate.\n+D. Index of Attached Exhibits\n+1. Each filing with one or more exhibits should contain an index of the exhibit(s) that accompany\n+the filing as the final page of the filing (i.e., after the Certificate of Service). Then, each exhibit\n+should be attached to the actual filing in CM/ECF. This includes any declaration in support of the\n+filing, even if the declaration has its own attachments. In the case of such declarations, the\n+declaration should be a single exhibit to the filing in CM/ECF and each of the attachments to the\n+declaration should be its own exhibit to the filing. For example, the Exhibit List on the last page\n+of the filing would state:\n+Ex. 1: Decl. of _____, dated ___\n+Ex. 2: Att. 1 to Decl. of _____, Email from ___ to ___, dated ___\n+Ex. 3: Att. 2 to Decl. of _____, . . . .\n+2. Restricted exhibits may necessarily be filed as separate entries in CM/ECF.\n+3. If a document has already been filed in the docket, the previous entry should be cited and\n+the document should not be re-filed unless there is a compelling reason for doing so.\n+E. Incorporation by Reference\n+I do not allow the incorporation of motions or arguments by reference. I permit only the\n+adoption by reference of a statement in a pleading as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 10(c) and documents specifically identified as pleadings in Rule 7(a).\n+7\n+F. Deadlines\n+See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 and D.C.COLO.LCivR 56.1 for applicable time limits for\n+filing response and reply briefs. The computation of time is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 6.\n+G. Untimely or Noncomplying Motion s, Objections, Responses, or Replies\n+1. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), a motion shall not be included in a response or reply to\n+the original motion. All requests for the court to take any action, make any type of ruling, or\n+provide any type of relief must be contained in a separate, written motion. This paragraph\n+applies as well to requests for attorney fees or other sanctions.\n+2. No surreply or supplemental briefs shall be filed without leave of the court.\n+3. Motions that are untimely, noncomplying, or filed without a certification pursuant to\n+D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a) may be denied without prejudice or stricken sua sponte. Untimely\n+or noncomplying objections, responses, or replies may be stricken or ignored.\n+H. Motions for Extensions of Time\n+Motions for extension of time require a showing of good cause, which must be\n+established with particularity. Any motion for extension of time shall be filed as far in advance\n+of the deadline as possible, and no later than one business day before the date the filing would\n+otherwise be due.\n+I. Motions to Continue\n+Motions to continue (including motions to vaca te or reset) hearings and trials will be\n+determined pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1 and 7.1; these Practice Standards; and Rogers v.\n+Andrus Transportation Services, 502 F.3d 1147, 1151 (10th Cir. 2007). Motions to continue\n+should be made without delay at the earliest possible opportunity. Stipulations for continuance\n+are not effective unless and until approved by the court.\n+J. Motions for Default Judgment\n+1. For default judgment to enter, the Clerk of the Court must first enter default against the\n+defaulting party. If the Clerk has not entered the party’s default, the party seeking default\n+judgment must move for the entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).\n+The motion for default must establish valid service on the particular party in accordance with\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.\n+2. Once default has entered, a mo tion for default judgment may be filed under Federal Rule of\n+Civil Procedure 55(b). The motion shall indicate whether a hearing is required, and a\n+proposed form of judgment should be attached, reciting the language requested to be\n+included in the body of the judgment.\n+8\n+K. Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders\n+1. Conferral. To minimize delays, I strongly encourage counsel to confer, in advance, with the\n+opposing party’s counsel (or, if not yet represented, with the party itself).\n+2. Ex Parte Motions. As a general rule, ex parte motions for issuance of temporary restraining\n+orders will be granted only upon strict compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+65(b) and (c). In appropriate circumstances, I may deny the motion, set a hearing, or issue an\n+order to show cause to the party to be enjoined.\n+L. Motions for Protective Or ders and Motions to Restrict\n+Absent good cause, the parties shall use my form Stipulated Protective Order regarding\n+the treatment of confidential information exchanged in discovery. Note that this form Order\n+requires the parties and their counsel to obtain affidavits from recipients before disclosing\n+confidential information to others and imposes additional requirements before confidential\n+information may be filed as restricted. These provisions or their equivalent must be included in\n+any proposed protective order submitted for my approval. Any motion to restrict or otherwise\n+seal the contents of a filing must comply with the requirements set forth in my form Protective\n+Order. The form Order is available on my website. Please be aware that restricted filings are\n+disfavored except in the limited circumstances authorized by law.\n+M. Motions to Dismiss\n+1. Motions filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) are discouraged if the defect\n+is correctable by an amended pleading. Counsel should confer before the filing of the motion\n+if the deficiency is correctable by amendment and should exercise their best efforts to\n+stipulate to appropriate amendments. For Rule 12(b) motions, the following format should be\n+used:\n+2. For each claim for relief that the movant seeks to have dismissed, clearly enumerate each\n+element the movant contends must be alleged but was not.\n+3. If the respondent contends that a sufficient factual allegation has been made in the complaint\n+for a particular element, the respondent should identify the page and paragraph containing the\n+required factual allegation.\n+4. If matters outside the pleadings are submitted in support of or in opposition to a Rule 12(b)\n+motion, the party should discuss whether the 12(b) motion should be converted to a summary\n+judgment motion.\n+N. Motions for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment\n+Motions seeking relief pursuant to Federa l Rule of Civil Procedure 56 are governed by\n+D.C.COLO.LCivR 56.1. Deadlines will be strictly applied. Upon receipt of a Motion for\n+9\n+Summary Judgment filed in accordance with these instructions, I generally adhere to the briefing\n+schedule set forth in D.C.COLO.LCiv.R 56.1 (i.e., 21 days for a response, 14 days for a reply)\n+but may order a shorter or longer briefing schedule as I deem appropriate. In every case, unless\n+otherwise ordered, the movant need not seek permission to file a reply brief.\n+Any party submitting a motion for summary judgment should be familiar with Professor\n+Arthur R. Miller’s article The Pretrial Rush to Judgment: Are the “Litigation Explosion,”\n+“Liability Crisis,” and Efficiency Clichés Eroding our Day in Court and Jury Trial\n+Commitments?, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 982, 1132 (June 2003).\n+All summary judgment briefing submitted by the parties must comply with the following\n+requirements:\n+1. In a section of the motion styled “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,” the movant shall\n+set forth in simple, declarative sentences, separately numbered and paragraphed, each\n+material fact that the movant believes is not in dispute and that supports the movant’s claim\n+that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\n+2. Each separately numbered and paragraphed fact must be accompanied by a specific reference\n+to evidence in the record that establishes that fact. General references to pleadings,\n+depositions, or documents are insufficient if the document is over one page in length. A\n+“specific reference” means:\n+a. In the case of papers filed with the court, the title of the paper, the date on which it\n+was filed or served, and a specific paragraph or page and line number; or, if the paper\n+is attached to the motion, the paragraph or page and line number;\n+b. In the case of interrogatories or requests for admission (the pertinent parts of which\n+must be filed with the motion), the number of the interrogatory or request;\n+c. In the case of depositions or other documents bearing line numbers (pertinent parts of\n+which must be filed with the motion), the specific page and line(s) establishing the\n+fact;\n+d. In the case of affidavits submitted in support of the motion, the specific paragraph\n+number establishing the fact; and\n+e. In the case of other evidence not numbered by paragraph, line, or page, a reference\n+that points to the fact without requiring review of the entire document. The effort at\n+specificity may be made by highlighting, manual underscoring, or pagination supplied\n+by the movant.\n+3. Only if the nature of the material fact does not permit a specific reference (e.g., “The contract\n+contains no provision for termination.”) is a general reference sufficient.\n+4. Any party opposing the motion for summary judgment shall in a section of the response\n+10\n+styled “Response to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,” admit or deny the asserted\n+material facts set forth by the movant. The admissions or denials shall be made in paragraphs\n+numbered to correspond to the movant’s paragraph numbering. Any denial shall be\n+accompanied by a brief factual explanation of the reason(s) for the denial and a specific\n+reference to evidence in the record supporting the denial. Formulaic explanations repeatedly\n+incanted are distracting and unpersuasive and are therefore discouraged. Stipulating to facts\n+not reasonably in dispute strengthens credibility and is encouraged.\n+5. If the nonmovant believes there are additional disputed material questions of fact not\n+adequately addressed in its “Response to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” (e.g.,\n+disputed facts concerning an affirmative defense), the nonmoving party shall, in a separate\n+section of its brief styled “Statement of Additional Facts,” set forth in simple, declarative\n+sentences, separately numbered and paragraphed, each additional material disputed fact that\n+it believes undercuts the movant’s claim of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Each\n+separately numbered and paragraphed fact shall be accompanied by a specific reference to\n+evidence in the record that establishes the fact or demonstrates it is disputed.\n+6. In its reply brief (if any) the movant shall:\n+a. In a separate section styled “Reply Concerning Undisputed Material Facts,” set forth\n+any factual reply it cares to make to the nonmovant’s “Response to Statement of\n+Undisputed Facts.” This reply shall be made in separate paragraphs numbered\n+according to the original motion and the opposing party’s response and shall be\n+supported by specific references to evidence of record.\n+b. In a separate section styled “Response Concerning Additional Facts,” admit or deny\n+any of the asserted material facts set forth by the nonmovant in its “Statement of\n+Additional Material Facts.” The admissions or denials shall be made in paragraphs\n+numbered to correspond to the nonmovant’s paragraph numbering. Any denial shall\n+be accompanied by a brief factual explanation of the reason(s) for the denial and a\n+specific reference to evidence in the record supporting the denial.\n+7. The sole purpose of these procedures is to establish facts and determine whether any of them\n+are in dispute. Legal argument is not permitted here and should be reserved for separate\n+portions of the briefs. If a party believes an undisputed fact is immaterial, for example, the\n+fact should be admitted and the party’s belief regarding its lack of materiality should be\n+expressed in the portion of its brief devoted to legal argument. If, on the other hand, a party\n+believes the asserted fact is simply not supported by the referenced evidence, this factual\n+argument should be included in the party’s response to the allegedly undisputed fact.\n+8. Absent leave of the court, which will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, a party\n+may only file one motion for summary judgment.\n+9. Failure to follow these procedures may result in an order striking the motion or brief.\n+11\n+O. Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony\n+A party objecting to the admissibility of opinion testimony by an expert witness shall file\n+a written motion seeking its exclusion. The failure of an opponent to file such a motion,\n+however, does not relieve the proponent of its burden to show that the proffered testimony is\n+admissible at trial. The deadline for filing motions objecting to any testimony of an expert\n+witness based on the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.\n+579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), and their progeny will be after\n+the Pretrial Conference. However, in many cases, it may be prudent to file such motions before\n+or at the time motions for summary judgment are filed. Any expert motion not specifically\n+identified in the Pretrial Order and filed by the deadline will be deemed waived, unless otherwise\n+ordered.\n+All motions filed under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall include the expert witness’s\n+report as an exhibit, and shall identify with specificity each opinion the moving party seeks to\n+exclude. The motion shall also identify the specific ground(s) on which each opinion is\n+challenged, e.g., relevancy, sufficiency of facts and data, or methodology.\n+Upon the filing of a motion, I may, in my discretion, set a hearing to determine whether\n+the challenged opinions are admissible. The setting of such hearing does not obviate the need for\n+opposing counsel to respond to such motion. If such a hearing is ordered, the expert witness\n+whose testimony or opinion is proffered shall be present at the hearing.\n+P. Awards of Reasonable Expenses and Attorney Fees\n+If I award reasonable expenses and/or attorney fees in connection with a motion or other\n+action, I generally use the following procedure. First, the party receiving the award shall confer\n+with the paying party in an attempt to reach an agreement on the amount of the award. If the\n+parties are able to reach an agreement, they shall jointly submit a notice setting out the agreed\n+upon amount of the award and briefly summarizing why that amount is believed to be\n+reasonable. If the parties cannot reach agreement, the receiving party shall file a statement\n+itemizing the expenses it incurred with an affidavit attesting to the reasonableness of any\n+attorney fees sought. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3. In its response to that statement, the paying\n+party shall propose the amount of expenses it contends were reasonably incurred. Whichever\n+party’s proposal is furthest from the ultimate amount of reasonable expenses I award will bear\n+the expenses that the other party incurred in litigating the amount of the award. In other words, if\n+I award an amount closer to the receiving party’s proposal, that party will be entitled to the\n+additional amount it expended in filing its Statement of Expenses. And, if I award an amount\n+closer to the paying party’s proposal, that party will be able to deduct the expenses it incurred in\n+responding to the Statement of Expenses from the amount awarded to the receiving party.\n+Q. Proposed Orders\n+All proposed orders should be emailed to Kane_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov in editable\n+Word format. The email message should identify the case name and number in the subject line\n+and refer to the underlying motion by CM/ECF document number.\n+12\n+R. Oral Argument on Motions\n+While oral argument and/or evidentiary hearings on motions may be requested by a party,\n+they will be scheduled at my sole discretion. Pro forma or generic requests failing to describe\n+reasons for oral argument or an evidentiary hearing will not be considered.\n+S. Timing of Motions\n+Motions filed after 4 p.m. on the last business day of the week will be ruled on no sooner\n+than the next business day.\n+V. IN-COURT PROCEEDINGS\n+A. Courtroom Protocol\n+1. Courtroom Decorum. Creating a courtroom where all litigants, witnesses, and counsel feel\n+welcome and respected is of utmost importance to this Court. Courtesy and civility to and\n+from one and all is expected. All parties should observe the following courtroom decorum:\n+a. Stand when the Judge enters or leaves the courtroom, when addressing the Court, and\n+when the jury enters or leaves the courtroom;\n+b. Stand at the lectern when speaking, and communicate clearly and distinctly;\n+c. Request permission to approach the bench; and\n+d. Refer to all other persons by their surnames, prefaced by the individual’s title (e.g.,\n+Dr., Agent, Officer, Mr. or Ms., etc.).\n+It will not normally be necessary for counsel to approach a witness on the stand. The\n+courtroom deputy, upon request of counsel, will hand a witness an exhibit.\n+2. Oaths. Please note and advise all persons appe aring with you in court, including co-counsel,\n+paralegals, clients, witnesses, and spectators that oath taking is treated formally in my\n+courtroom. The courtroom deputy is directed to administer an oath to a jury or witness\n+ONLY when all other activity in the courtroom has ceased. Attorneys are directed to observe\n+the administration of the oath and to stop all other activity.\n+3. Cell phones. Cellphones must be placed in “s ilent mode” or “off” in the courtroom.\n+B. Record of Proceedings\n+1. The official record of all trials and proceedings will be taken by a court reporter. Before any\n+courtroom proceeding, please provide the court reporter with your business card or other\n+means of contacting you, as well as a glossary of unusual or technical terminology, difficult-\n+to-spell names, and/or acronyms. Requests for realtime or daily or hourly copy should be\n+communicated to the reporter as soon as practicable, no later than two weeks before the\n+proceeding.\n+13\n+2. Transcripts of any court proceeding can be ordered directly from the court reporter sitting at\n+the particular hearing. If you do not remember the reporter’s name, consult the Minute Entry\n+for that proceeding. Court reporters’ contact information can be found at www.cod.uscourts.\n+gov/AbouttheDistrict/ContactUs.aspx#report.\n+C. Exhibits\n+1. When to File Exhibit List. For motions hear ings, exhibit lists shall be filed via CM/ECF\n+two business days before the hearing. For trials, parties shall file their final unified exhibit\n+list via CM/ECF and email an editable Word version to Kane_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov\n+no later than seven days before the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+2. Format of Exhibit List. Parties must use th e form Exhibit List available on my website,\n+indicating which exhibits are stipulated and which are not and the basis for any objections.\n+Counsel shall stipulate to the admissibility of exhibits to the maximum extent possible. A\n+failure to stipulate to authenticity of any particular exhibit must set forth specific reasons for\n+the objection.\n+3. Marking Exhibits. Each party must pre-mark all e xhibits that will be used or identified in a\n+hearing or trial. Each exhibit shall be marked with its number under the unified system.\n+Exhibits not pre-marked or exchanged before a hearing or trial may not be admitted. The\n+plaintiff’s exhibits should be marked with numbers starting at 1. The defendant’s exhibits\n+should be marked with numbers starting with where the plaintiff’s proposed exhibits leave\n+off. It matters not whether the exhibit is offered by the plaintiff or defendant; the point is to\n+avoid duplication and confusion. There is no need for a party to seek to admit exhibits\n+offered by another party and admitted by the court. Once an exhibit is marked, that number\n+will be permanent and no new additional number(s) should be used to mark it. Each\n+document exhibit shall be paginated, including any attachments thereto.\n+4. Paper Exhibits. Paper copies of exhibits shall be submitted in 3-ring binders, which shall be\n+labeled with the following information: (i) caption, (ii) nature of proceeding, (iii) scheduled\n+date and time, and (iv) “original” or “copy.” Paper exhibits, including the set of original\n+exhibits, shall bear extended tabs showing the number of the exhibit. If exhibits are not\n+bound and labeled properly, the hearing or trial may be delayed or continued until they are.\n+5. Number of Sets of Exhibits.\n+a. Original Exhibits: At the start of every tr ial or evidentiary hearing, the parties shall\n+submit a set of original exhibits (labeled as “original”) to my courtroom deputy. The\n+“original” set will be for the witness stand and will be the only set that goes to the jury\n+room during deliberations in a jury trial.\n+b. Copies of Exhibits: In addition to the origin al exhibit binder(s), the parties shall provide\n+copies of exhibits to the court as follows:\n+i. In addition to the original set of exhibits, each party should provide three separate\n+14\n+sets of the exhibits. These copies shall be submitted in the same format as the\n+original exhibits. One set is for opposing counsel, the others are for the court.1\n+ii. The parties shall also submit their exhibits on a flash drive for the court reporter.\n+If an exhibit cannot be presented in digital form on a flash drive, the party shall\n+contact the court reporter to discuss an alternate format.\n+D. Timelines and Other Demonstrative Aids\n+1. In cases in which a sequence of events is relevant or helpful to deciding any issue presented,\n+the parties shall prepare a stipulated demonstrative that sets out the timeline of these events.\n+If any element of this timeline is disputed, the demonstrative should so indicate.\n+2. The parties are also encouraged to submit similar demonstrative aids for reference during the\n+course of their presentations if such would assist the court or the jury.\n+3. The parties should provide three total copies of any demonstrative aid, unless it is\n+prohibitively expensive or difficult to make copies of a particular demonstrative aid.\n+Demonstrative aids will not be provided to the jury during its deliberations, unless otherwise\n+ordered.\n+E. Witnesses\n+1. When to File Witness List. For motions hear ings, witness lists should be filed via CM/ECF\n+two business days before the hearing. For trials, the parties shall file their final witness lists\n+via CM/ECF no later than seven days before the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+2. Format of Witness List. The parties should use the form Witness List available on my\n+website. It should list the witnesses to be called by each party in its case in chief and set forth\n+the best estimate of the time required for that witness for direct examination. It should also\n+include potential rebuttal witnesses. This witness list is counsel’s representation, upon which\n+opposing counsel may rely, that the witnesses listed will be present and available for\n+testimony. The witness list should note any testimony that is expected to occur via video\n+teleconferencing, but such testimony will not be permitted, unless a related motion is made\n+and granted. The witness list must include witnesses whose testimony is to be presented by\n+way of deposition.\n+3. Witness Sequestration. Upon motion, witnesses will be sequestered until a particular\n+witness’s testimony is complete. Each party may retain one advisory witness throughout the\n+trial. If an expert witness’s testimony is based in part on observations at trial, the need for the\n+witness’s presence must be disclosed not later than the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+1 For trials, one court copy of the parties’ proposed exhibits shall be delivered to my chambers, and a\n+copy to opposing counsel, no later than seven days before the Final Trial Preparation Conference. The\n+original set and additional copy of the final exhibits may be brought to the courtroom the first morning of\n+the trial, along with exhibits needing to be replaced in the copies already provided based on rulings from\n+the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+15\n+F. Use of Deposition Testimony\n+1. The use of depositions in court proceedings is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+32, together with this practice standard.\n+2. At the beginning of a hearing or trial, a party shall deliver to the courtroom deputy\n+the original transcripts of all depositions the party intends to or may use, whether for\n+impeachment or otherwise.\n+3. For depositions to be used at a hearing, counsel shall exchange with each other their\n+designations of anticipated deposition and videotape deposition testimony at least seven\n+days before the hearing. Objections shall be filed at least two business days before the\n+hearing. If objections are made, the offering party should provide the court with a notebook\n+containing the deposition transcripts with tabs that identify the relevant testimony at least\n+two business days before the hearing.\n+4. If the parties intend to offer deposition testimony in lieu of a live witness at trial, counsel\n+shall exchange with each other their designations of anticipated deposition and video\n+deposition testimony. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(B), these\n+disclosures must be made at least 30 days before trial. After the original exchange,\n+counsel shall notify opposing counsel of any counter-designated deposition testimony,\n+exchange objections to all designated testimony, and make a good-faith attempt to resolve\n+such objections. Objections to any portion of a proposed deposition, including a videotaped\n+deposition, shall be filed before the Final Trial Preparation Conference. Any objectionable\n+portion of the deposition shall be identified with specificity, e.g., by page and line. The\n+parties shall also submit the transcript(s) of the designated deposition testimony to my\n+chambers at Kane_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov before the Final Trial Preparation\n+Conference. In the transcript(s), plaintiff’s designations should be highlighted in yellow,\n+defendant’s designations should be highlighted in blue, and testimony that is the subject of\n+an objection should be highlighted in red. I will make every effort to resolve objections at the\n+Final Trial Preparation Conference to speed things along and to facilitate any necessary\n+redaction.\n+5. For jury trials, parties shall provide a person to read the deposition answers.\n+6. For bench trials, depositions will not usually be read in open court. Instead, I will read them\n+before trial in chambers in any requested sequence. The offering party shall provide the\n+relevant deposition transcript as an exhibit with its designated portions highlighted. If both\n+parties seek to use portions of the same deposition transcript, they shall confer beforehand\n+and the exhibit provided shall contain the plaintiff’s portions highlighted in yellow and the\n+defendant’s in blue.\n+G. Special Equipment (Audio/Video)\n+The court has audio-visual a nd other special equipment that may be used by the parties.\n+16\n+Notify the Court Operations Supervisor, Nick Richards, at nicholas_richards@cod.uscourts.gov no\n+later than 14 days before a hearing or trial regarding use of such equipment or any request to\n+bring your own equipment through security for use in the courtroom. You may schedule a time with\n+Mr. Richards to visit the courtroom and run through your technology needs.\n+H. Time Limits\n+Unless specified in an order setting a matter for hearing, there are no time limits imposed.\n+Brevity is encouraged.\n+VI. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS\n+A. Pretrial Order and Conference\n+1. Preparation for Pretrial Conference.\n+a. When the ca\n+se is at issue, meaning discovery is completed and all motions that might\n+dispose of the case have been decided, counsel will be directed to call in to set a date for\n+the Pretrial Conference.\n+b. At least 14 days before the scheduled date of the Pretrial Conference, counsel shall\n+meet and confer to jointly develop the contents of the proposed Pretrial Order. It is the\n+responsibility of plaintiff’s counsel to schedule meetings and then file and submit the\n+jointly proposed Pretrial Order. If the parties agree, plaintiff may delegate responsibility\n+for filing and submission to defendant.\n+c. Unless otherwise ordered, the parties shall submit their proposed Pretrial Order for the\n+court’s approval no later than seven days before the date of the Pretrial Conference.\n+The proposed Pretrial Order should be filed in CM/ECF and submitted electronically in\n+editable Word format to my chambers at Kane Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov .\n+2. Form of Proposed Pretrial Order.\n+The parties should use the form for Pretrial Orders\n+available on my website. The Pretrial Order will include, among other information:\n+a. a list of witnesses to be called;\n+b. a list of the exhibits to be offered;\n+c. important deadlines for filings; and\n+d. a list of as many stipulations as the parties can achieve.\n+3. Attendance at Pretrial Conference. As requi red by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, at\n+least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of the parties, as well as any\n+unrepresented parties, must attend the Pretrial Conference.\n+4. Enforceability of Pretrial Orders. I consider Pretrial Orders of utmost importance. The\n+17\n+Pretrial Order will supersede the pleadings and control the subsequent course of the case and\n+the trial.\n+B. Motions in Limine\n+Motions in limine are discouraged when the motion is evidence driven and cannot be\n+resolved until evidence is presented at trial.\n+C. Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms\n+1. I place great emphasis on the preparation of narrative instructions that clearly and accurately\n+inform the jurors of the law that applies in a given case. Jury instructions and verdict forms\n+will be submitted to the court, argued, revised, and approved before trial begins. This\n+practice allows counsel to refer to the instructions in their opening statements, presentation of\n+testimony and exhibits, and closing arguments. In my experience, the repeated use of the\n+instructions results in more efficient trials and informed decision-making by the jury. Please\n+refer to the published articles I have written that are available on my website: Riding Jury\n+Instructions to Victory and Judging Credibility.\n+2. The parties will jointly submit proposed jury instructions and verdict forms. The parties shall\n+consult and base their instructions on the “Sample Jury Instructions-Civil” on my website.\n+The jury instructions shall identify the source of the instruction and supporting authority,\n+e.g., “Judge Kane’s Sample Instruction 2” or “§ 103, Fed. Jury Practice, O’Malley, Grenig,\n+and Lee (5th ed.).” While the instructions should be tailored to the facts and circumstances of\n+the particular case, parties should, where appropriate, consult the most current editions of the\n+Federal Jury Practice and Instructions and the Colorado Jury Instructions for guidance on\n+instructions relating to substantive legal claims. Please refrain from using legalese where\n+commonly used words are available (e.g., not “prior” or “subsequent” but “before” and\n+“after”). And please use the names of the parties rather than “plaintiff” and “defendant.”\n+3. To the maximum extent possible, the parties shall agree on one stipulated set of proposed\n+jury instructions. The filed Jury Instructions shall include all of the parties’ stipulated,\n+proposed, and counter-proposed instructions in a single, page-numbered document. Do not\n+submit jury instructions individually or as separate Word files. Each instruction should\n+be numbered (e.g., “Stipulated” or “Government’s [Defendant’s] Proposed” Instruction No.\n+1) for purposes of making a record at the Final Trial Preparation Conference. A party’s\n+written objection to a proposed instruction should immediately follow the objected to\n+instruction and accompanied by that party’s counter-proposed instruction, if any. A counter-\n+proposed instruction should be a redlined version of the opposing party’s proposed\n+instruction. For examples on how to submit the jury instructions, see Case Nos. 16-cr-00111-\n+JLK, Doc. 81, and 16-cv-02327-JLK, Doc. 148. The parties are expected to work together to\n+craft the instructions and should exchange proposals and attempt to work through objections\n+well before the submission due date.\n+4. The parties shall submit their instructions and verdict forms via CM/ECF and email them in\n+an editable Word format to Kane Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov .\n+18\n+5. Stipulated Facts: All stipulations of fact should be formatted as a jury instruction and will be\n+read as any other instruction.\n+D. Trial Briefs\n+Trial briefs identifying issues and legal authority with which you wish me to be familiar\n+before trial may be helpful, as may timelines or glossaries of names, technical terms,\n+abbreviations, or acronyms. Trial briefs must be submitted no later than seven days before the\n+Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+E. Final Trial Preparation Conference\n+1. A Final Trial Preparation Conference will be held approximately three to ten days before\n+trial. Counsel who will try the case and a representative for each party must attend.\n+2. The Pretrial Order should be reviewed by counsel before this final conference because it will\n+control the course of the conference and the trial. If proposed amendments to the Pretrial\n+Order are believed to be necessary, counsel must file a motion requesting such amendments\n+no later than seven days before the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+3. The parties should be prepared to argue any pending motion in limine or other evidentiary\n+objections at the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+4. The jury instructions and verdict form will be reviewed and counsel will be offered the\n+opportunity to make their record on any objections.\n+5. Timelines, glossaries, or similar demonstrative aids need not be filed in CM/ECF but shall be\n+provided to the court and opposing counsel at the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+6. One court copy of the parties’ proposed exhibits shall be delivered to my chambers, and one\n+copy should be provided to opposing counsel, no later than seven days before the Final\n+Trial Preparation Conference. The original set and additional copy of the final exhibits\n+may be brought to the courtroom the first morning of the trial, along with exhibits needing to\n+be replaced in the copies already provided to the court and opposing counsel based on rulings\n+from the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+F. Pretrial Deadlines\n+At the appropriate time, the parties will be directed to contact chambers to set the pretrial\n+and trial dates. The court will then issue an order confirming the trial and Final Trial Preparation\n+Conference dates and specifying deadlines for the tasks to be completed before the Final Trial\n+Preparation Conference. Those deadlines are roughly:\n+1) Expert Motions will be due 30 days after the Pretrial Conference.\n+2) Motions in Limine will be due 60 days after the Pretrial Conference.\n+19\n+3) The parties’ proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms will be due 90 days after\n+the Pretrial Conference.\n+4) The deadline for any objections to deposition designations will be seven days before\n+the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+5) The deadline to file Witness and Exhibit Lists and to deliver a copy of the exhibits\n+to the court will be seven days before the Final Trial Preparation Conference.\n+VII. JURY TRIALS\n+1. Optional Exhibit Notebooks for Individual Jurors. There is equipment available in the\n+courtroom for parties to present exhibits to the jury and the court. However, if the parties so\n+choose, counsel may provide each juror with a notebook containing copies of the parties’ key\n+exhibits to reference in the courtroom during the trial. (Only the original set of exhibits will\n+be available in the jury room during deliberations.)\n+a. If used, counsel should confer and provide one individual juror notebook for each\n+juror that includes selected exhibits of each party.\n+b. Individual juror exhibit notebooks should include only those exhibits previously\n+admitted by stipulation or admitted at the Final Trial Preparation Conference. If\n+additional key exhibits are admitted during the trial, the parties may provide the\n+courtroom deputy with copies of these additional admitted exhibits to be placed in the\n+individual juror exhibit notebooks.\n+2. Trial Schedule. Counsel will be present to deliver the exhibits and go over any last-minute\n+items with the courtroom deputy at 8:30 a.m. on the first day of trial. The normal trial day\n+begins at 9:00 a.m. and continues until 4:30 p.m. Lunch recess normally is from 12:00 to\n+1:15 p.m. We may continue beyond 4:30 p.m., but jurors have a right to rely on their being\n+excused for the day no later than 5:00 p.m. For the convenience of everyone, additional\n+recesses are scheduled for 10:15 to 10:30 a.m. and 3:15 to 3:30 p.m. If a recess is needed at\n+any other time, make a request, and it will be granted.\n+3. Voir Dire. I will conduct a voir dire examination. Counsel will have 30 minutes per side to\n+conduct supplemental voir dire. I do not require counsel to submit voir dire questions in\n+advance, but if they choose to do so, they should be submitted at least two business days\n+before the Final Trial Preparation Conference. No questions concerning jury\n+nullification or agreement or disagreement with any applicable law contained in the\n+instructions or to be offered will be permitted.\n+4. Note-taking and Questions. Jurors will be perm itted to take notes during the trial and to\n+submit questions for the court or for counsel in writing. Copies of juror questions will be\n+provided to counsel and a record made outside the presence of the jury before an answer is\n+given.\n+20\n+5. Jury Instructions. I will use the Statement of the Case or Preliminary Instruction during voir\n+dire and will read all but the closing instructions to the jury after they are sworn in. After\n+being sworn in, each individual juror will also receive a notebook of instructions, which\n+(unless otherwise ordered) will be compiled by my staff and may include the forms of\n+verdict. Counsel are encouraged to use the instructions in opening statements and in\n+presenting their case. In addition to any record created at the Final Trial Preparation\n+Conference or other supplemental jury instruction conference(s), counsel will be provided the\n+opportunity to make a record of objections before final arguments and after the close of\n+evidence.","id":"10e7f5386a9761cd7587b330f3825d284d7daecd1cc8ca05cd5c9ee6f7531ab4","newHash":"3b017a53c7566ce55e5e0dc10e580e7cab4cb301451b400a306bfcba44310752","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/JLK_Pretrial_and_Trial_Procedures_Memo_Civil.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/3b017a53c7566ce55e5e0dc10e580e7cab4cb301451b400a306bfcba44310752.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/JLK_Pretrial_and_Trial_Procedures_Memo_Civil.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:50.026092+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@\n+1\n+Artificial Intelligence (AI)—as that term has been used for the last few years—is a powerful tool. It\n+presents opportunities for innovation, growth, and increased access to justice, and we should\n+learn to leverage it responsibly.\n+In recent months, much of the conversation about Generative AI (GenAI) has focused on\n+hallucinations: instances when a GenAI tool invents quotes and legal authority. These incidents\n+are serious and deserve attention. But when the narrative begins and ends with hallucinations, it\n+limits the kind of thoughtful exploration that’s essential for responsible innovation. It also risks\n+distracting us from other, equally important issues raised by AI’s growing role in law and society.\n+With this document, the Court provides guidance to the parties practicing before it. The guidance\n+is focused on the issue of “hallucinations, ” but also seeks to move the conversation beyond that.\n+The goal is to encourage open dialogue about AI, foster grace and collaboration, and promote\n+continued learning and growth as we navigate this evolving landscape together.\n+To that end, the Court shares the following:\n+I. Responsible AI use could strengthen our systems . The use of certain AI tools may\n+reduce the cost of legal work, increase work-life balance, equip attorneys to take on more\n+pro bono cases, help courts better serve the public, and narrow the access-to-justice-\n+gap. Thus, there is value in boldly exploring AI capabilities.\n+II. Hallucinations are new, but inaccuracies are not . Hallucinations in court submissions\n+are a serious matter. But all inaccurate statements made to a tribunal, regardless of how\n+they were generated, are a serious matter. Cutting and pasting from a template without\n+verifying the content, for example, could similarly result in inaccurate statements.\n+III. The same rules apply. The source of error may change with technology, but the same\n+rules apply. Cite checking is still critical. Verification is still necessary. Accuracy, candor,\n+integrity, and competence are all still cornerstones of our professional responsibility.\n+IV. We all need a little grace. This is a demanding profession. The pressures of modern\n+practice—long hours, increasing demands, and for some, shrinking resources—stretch\n+many to the brink of their limits. As we adapt to new technologies, we should offer each\n+other a measure of grace. There is an important distinction between the reckless use of\n+AI, and ordinary human error in the face of change. This is not a call to set aside\n+accountability. It is a reminder that learning curves are real, and a culture that balances\n+2\n+accountability with grace will strengthen our profession and better serve the public we are\n+all here to help.\n+V. When an opponent’s filing contains a hallucination. When an attorney encounters a\n+hallucination in an opponent’s court-filed document, they should exercise their own\n+judgment in determining the appropriate response. However, the Court suggests the\n+following framework when the hallucination is in a motion or other document pending\n+before this Court:\n+(1) Confer\n+The purpose of the conferral is to (a) confirm the error is a hallucination; (b) discuss\n+how the party responsible for the hallucination (“Drafter”) can correct or withdraw it\n+without further harm; and (c) explore whether further remedial measures are\n+appropriate, and if so, attempt to agree on them.\n+(2) Inform the Court\n+To avoid perpetuating inaccuracies, the parties should inform the Court of the issue.\n+Thus, after conferral, the parties may send a joint email to:\n+BraswellChambers@cod.uscourts.gov, advising the Court of the issue, agreed-upon\n+resolution, and continuing disagreements, if any.\n+(3) Escalate, if necessary\n+If the Drafter is unresponsive or refuses to engage in good faith, the matter may need\n+to be escalated by filing a formal Notice that alerts the Court to the issue.\n+VI. This Court ’s considerations when addressing hallucinations . When conferral does not\n+resolve the matter, or when the Court’s involvement otherwise becomes necessary, the\n+Court will consider the specific facts and circumstances before it to determine an\n+appropriate course of action. This may include but is not limited to:\n+ Whether the Drafter promptly engaged in good faith with the attorney that alerted\n+them to the issue.\n+ Whether the Drafter took responsibility.\n+ Whether the Drafter took immediate steps to mitigate any resulting harm.\n+ Whether the Drafter follows an AI Use Policy that demonstrates responsible\n+practices.\n+ Whether the Drafter took reasonable steps to verify accuracy before filing the\n+document.\n+ Whether the Drafter is a pro.se party, which may impact the Court’s assessment of\n+“reasonable steps to verify accuracy. ”\n+3\n+ The nature and extent of the hallucination(s), which may indicate whether the use\n+of AI was reckless.\n+ Whether the hallucination(s) caused meaningful prejudice or harm to anyone.\n+ Whether the hallucination(s) resulted in a significant waste of judicial resources.\n+VII. Hallucinations are only one part of the conversation . Hallucinations have captured our\n+attention, but they are far from the greatest AI-related challenge. The legal profession, and\n+society more broadly, will have to confront deeper and more complex questions: how to\n+safeguard privacy in an era of pervasive data collection, how to detect and prevent (or at\n+least interrupt) bias, how to protect against misinformation/deepfakes/fabricated\n+evidence, how to ensure humans retain meaningful control and autonomy over decisions\n+that affect our lives, how to prepare the next generation of lawyers and judges for this new\n+environment, and much more. Beyond those immediate concerns lie even larger\n+questions about alignment, safety, and the long-term trajectory of increasingly powerful\n+AI systems. Those issues warrant thoughtful engagement and remind us that\n+hallucinations, while important, are only one part of a much larger conversation about the\n+responsible integration of AI into law and society.\n+VIII. Closing Remarks. This document is not an order and does not establish new rules or\n+requirements. Nothing should be interpreted to modify or supersede any applicable law,\n+rule, professional obligation, or order issued by another judge. Rather, it reflects one\n+judge’s view that accountability can coexist with grace, and that we all benefit from the\n+continued exploration of AI’s risks and benefits.","id":"017e62595fdecc48d71e5a63c3cfce5a8c47c5098b2413676f505696c30b422f","newHash":"97c7ad8de33c18d667d3a16e8a2f9563b4aede6737c6f3860d77c4ff3aed07a5","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/MDB/MDB_AI_Guidance.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/97c7ad8de33c18d667d3a16e8a2f9563b4aede6737c6f3860d77c4ff3aed07a5.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/MDB/MDB_AI_Guidance.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:49.941707+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@\n+STANDING ORDER REGARDING THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL\n+INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) IN COURT FILINGS\n+Judge Nina Y. Wang\n+United States District Court\n+District of Colorado\n+Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse\n+901 19th Street, Courtroom A-902\n+Denver, Colorado 80294-3589\n+Email: Wang_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov\n+Telephone: 303.335.2600\n+Effective: December 1, 2025\n+2\n+USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) IN COURT FILINGS\n+A. Certification Re: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) for Drafting\n+1. Every filing shall contain an AI Certification regarding the use, or non-use,\n+of generative AI (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini) in preparing\n+the filing, signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting of the filing.\n+To the extent that generative AI was used in any drafting of the filing, each\n+individual must certify that any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a\n+human) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy\n+and that all legal citations reference actual non- fictitious cases or cited\n+authority. The AI Certification does not count against any page limitations. All\n+filings remain subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927,\n+and applicable ethical rules.\n+Examples of acceptable AI Certifications are provided below for illustrative\n+purposes only:\n+The undersigned counsel certifies/certify that generative artificial\n+intelligence was not used to draft this filing.\n+or\n+The undersigned counsel certifies /certify that generative artificial\n+intelligence—specifically, ChatGPT—was used to draft this filing. I/we\n+further certify that [Party] was/were advised of and consented to such use.\n+All cited authority was manually reviewed by counsel of record.\n+2. Filings that do not comply with the AI Certification requirement may be\n+stricken without substantive consideration and with leave to re-file a compliant\n+document.","id":"e8d12e672b1b59782d09503078f6e847420014914b2988fcdbb69566c4109374","newHash":"7923731fa1ee93a6208e698123fb2d600a7b9913226cfa78361643456f660a69","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/7923731fa1ee93a6208e698123fb2d600a7b9913226cfa78361643456f660a69.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/NYW/NYW_Standing_Order_Regarding_AI_Certification.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:49.777888+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,466 @@\n+1\n+S. Kato Crews\n+United States District Judge\n+Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse\n+Courtroom C201\n+(303) 335-2124\n+Crews_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES\n+Revised: January 1, 2026\n+2\n+Contents\n+A. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3\n+1. The Uniform Civil Practice Standards ........................................................................... 3\n+2. The Court’s Mission ................................................................................................................ 3\n+3. Statement Re: Attorney Mentoring & Training .......................................................... 3\n+4. Notice Encouraging Consideration of Consent to Magistrate Judge\n+Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................................... 4\n+B. Communications with Chambers ..................................................................................................... 4\n+C. Motions Practice ................................................................................................................................. 5\n+1. Duty to Confer Before Filing a Motion ........................................................................... 5\n+2. Certification Re: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Drafting 6\n+3. Format of Pleadings and Documents Presented for Filing ................................... 6\n+4. Motions for Summary Judgment ...................................................................................... 6\n+D. Proposed Final Pretrial Order .......................................................................................................... 9\n+E. Trial Information ............................................................................................................................... 10\n+ATTACHMENT 1 ................................................................................................................................... 14\n+ATTACHMENT 2 ................................................................................................................................... 17\n+3\n+A. Introduction\n+1. The Uniform Civil Practice Standards\n+This Court subscribes to the United Stat es District Court for the District of\n+Colorado Uniform Civil Practice Standards. This Standing Order supplements the\n+Uniform Civil Practice Standards. Civil litigants before this Court are expected to be\n+familiar and comply with the Uniform Practice Standards, this Standing Order, the\n+Local Rules of Practice, and the practice st andards of the magistrate judge assigned\n+to their case. The Uniform Civil Practice Standards are available on this U.S. District\n+Court’s website.\n+2. The Court’s Mission\n+The mission of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is\n+“to serve the public by providing a fair and impartial forum that ensures equal access\n+to justice in accordance with the rule of law, protects rights and liberties of all\n+persons, and resolves cases in a timely and efficient manner.” Litigation is an\n+emotional, stressful, time-consuming, and expensive process. The Court’s mission is\n+best served when litigants treat each other with civility and professionalism. Though\n+litigation is understood to be an “adversari al” process, it is possible for counsel and\n+parties to disagree and zealously advocate their positions while at the same time\n+treating each other with courtesy and respect. The Court expects nothing less.\n+3. Statement Re: Attorney Mentoring & Training\n+The Preamble to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct acknowledge that\n+lawyers should “seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the\n+administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession.”\n+These goals are best achieved when experienced lawyers provide inexperienced and\n+young lawyers, and lawyers from underre presented backgrounds, opportunities to\n+participate in judicial proceedings. “Stand up time” for these lawyers is critical to\n+their development. Both non-evidentiary and evidentiary hearings before this Court\n+are opportune moments to afford these lawyers “stand up time.” This Court welcomes\n+and appreciates the active participation of inexperienced and young lawyers, and\n+lawyers from underrepresented backgrounds, in its courtroom. The Court encourages\n+seasoned lawyers to facilitate the mentorin g and development of these lawyers that\n+will enrich the legal profession and the work of the United States District Court.\n+4\n+4. Notice Encouraging Consideration of Consent to Magistrate Judge\n+Jurisdiction\n+This district’s magistrate judges play a crucial role in the work and structure\n+of the district court and the ad ministration of justice. Under Local Rule 72.2 , the\n+parties have the option to consent to their case being presided over by a magistrate\n+judge instead of a district judge. This court encourages parties to meaningfully confer\n+and consider consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction. There are many benefits to\n+consenting. One such benefit is having a si ngle judicial officer preside over every\n+aspect of your case rather than two. A second benefit is the certainty of not having\n+your trial date vacated when set before a magistrate judge. District judges preside\n+over felony criminal cases and those cases receive priority over civil cases because of\n+a criminal defendant’s speedy trial rights. Magistrate judges do not preside over\n+felony criminal cases, and therefore, they do not have to vacate civil trials because of\n+criminal cases.\n+If the parties do not choose to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, they\n+should keep in mind Local Rule 72.3 . Under this rule, the parties may consent to\n+the final determination of a dispositive motion (motion for summary judgment or\n+motion to dismiss) by the assigned magistra te judge by filing a notice of consent for\n+that motion. Please refer to Local Rule 72.3 for more information on that option.\n+Consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction is voluntary, and no adverse\n+consequence will result if one or more parties decline to consent.\n+B. Communications with Chambers\n+My Chambers includes my judicial assistant, career law clerk, and term law\n+clerk. Your communications with my sta ff are expected to be professional and\n+respectful. If I learn any attorney contacted my Chambers and was rude or otherwise\n+disrespectful or inappropriate with my staff, I will take the matter up directly with\n+the attorney or law firm involved. Please instruct your staff accordingly in the event\n+members of your staff contact mine.\n+While the Court cannot engage in ex parte communications with counsel or\n+parties, my staff is available to answer questions of an administrative or logistical\n+nature. You should contact my Chambers only by a joint email to\n+crews_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov. My staff is not permitted to provide legal advice,\n+interpret orders or rules, grant oral requ ests, or provide specific information about\n+the progress of any pending motion.\n+5\n+I also have a courtroom deputy assigned to Chambers. My courtroom deputy is\n+Cathy Pearson. Please direct questions regarding courtroom proceedings, technology,\n+or other equipment needs to her at (303) 335-2089 or\n+cathy_pearson@cod.uscourts.gov.\n+Documents required to be submitted to Chambers pursuant to local rule, court\n+order, or practice standards, shall be submitted via email to\n+crews_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov. Please include the case number, case name, and\n+document description in the subject line of the email.\n+C. Motions Practice\n+1. Duty to Confer Before Filing a Motion\n+I expect parties to take their conferral obligation seriously. Consistent with the\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Practice, parties have\n+an affirmative obligation to meet and confer prior to filing certain motions. This\n+includes motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. The duty to\n+meet and confer requires the parties to di scuss the specific dispute at issue and the\n+requested relief, preferably by telephone or an in-person or virtual “face-to-face,” and\n+not solely through email or written correspondence , and provide opposing\n+counsel a reasonable amount of time to resp ond prior to filing a motion. The duty to\n+meet and confer also requires the parties to react timely and to be responsive over\n+the course of conferring. I expect the parties to return each other’s emails or\n+voice messages within 24 hours barring extenuating circumstances.\n+If your motion is opposed by the other side, your Certification of Conferral in\n+the motion must substantively describe your conferral efforts and must state\n+the reason given by opposing counsel or the opposing party for opposing\n+the motion . Statements to the following effect are insufficient and will not be\n+accepted: “Counsel certifies they conferred with opposing counsel before filing this\n+motion. The motion is opposed.” The Certificate of Conferral does not count against\n+any page limitations.\n+The duty to confer applies the same to those parties who are not represented\n+by counsel ( pro se parties) unless the party who is not represented by counsel is\n+incarcerated. Pro se parties and attorneys who confer are expected to communicate\n+with each other respectfully and professionally at all times.\n+6\n+2. Certification Re: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) for\n+Drafting\n+The Court takes no position on attorneys’ use of generative AI in their filings,\n+other than it is imperative that attorney s who use AI double (and triple) check AI’s\n+work to avoid filing documents with erro neous and fictitious case law or other\n+references that mislead the Court and waste time. See, e.g., Colorado RPC 3.3. (“A\n+lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a\n+tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to\n+the tribunal by the lawyer[.]”). Thus, ev ery substantive motion—including, but not\n+necessarily limited to, motions under Fe d. R. Civ. P. 12, 56, and 65—and the\n+corresponding response and reply, shall contain an AI Certification regarding the use,\n+or non-use, of generative AI in preparing the filing.\n+The preparer of the filing must certify ei ther that (1) no portion of the filing\n+was drafted by AI, or that (2) any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a\n+human) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and all\n+legal citations are to actual, non-fictitious cases or cited authority. The Court will\n+strike any filing (without prejudice) from a party who fails to include the AI\n+Certification in the above-mentioned motions. The AI Certification does not count\n+against any page limitations.\n+3. Format of Pleadings and Documents Presented for Filing\n+The parties should follow Unif orm Practice Standard 10.1 except that all\n+papers filed with this Court shall be in Century Schoolbook 12-point font,\n+including footnotes, and conform to the other formatting requirements (margins,\n+line spacing, etc.) of D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1.\n+4. Motions for Summary Judgment\n+These rules apply over Uniform Practice Standard 7.1D:\n+a. Single Motion. Absent leave of Court and exceptional circumstances, a\n+party may file only one motion for summary judgment.\n+b. Page Limitations. Motions and responses shall not exceed 20 pages.\n+Replies shall not exceed 10 pages. These page limits shall not include\n+the cover page, table of contents (if any), signature block, certificate of\n+service, conferral certification, or AI certification.\n+7\n+c. Before Filing a Motion for Summa ry Judgment. No later than\n+10 days after the close of discovery, a party intending to file a\n+motion for summary judgment must meaningfully confer with the\n+opposing party and jointly contact chambers by email to set a pre-motion\n+status conference with the Court. At that status conference, the movant\n+will be expected to explain which claims they intend to seek summary\n+judgment on, and the undisputed material facts which support moving\n+on those claims. And the Court will explain the chart (described below\n+and in Attachment 1) the part ies must complete regarding the\n+Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. The Court will order a\n+deadline for filing motions for summary judgment at the status\n+conference.\n+If no party seeks to file a summary judgment motion, Counsel shall then\n+jointly email Chambers to obtain dates for trial and a trial preparation\n+conference.\n+d. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. The parties shall file\n+separate Statements of Undisputed Material Facts using the three-\n+column chart found at Attachment 1, as follows:\n+1. For the Moving Party: A Statement of Undisputed Material Facts\n+in support of the motion must separately identify each material fact\n+claimed to be without dispute. Absent prior leave of Court, a movant\n+shall not file more than 80 sepa rately-numbered statements of\n+undisputed material facts. In a three-column format, the statement\n+must state in numerical sequence the undisputed material facts in\n+the first column, followed by a specific reference to material in the\n+record that establishes those undisputed facts in that same column.\n+The pages of the chart are not included in the page limits for motions\n+for summary judgment. There is no page limit on the\n+evidence/exhibits attached in support of the motion.\n+2. For the Non-moving Party: A separate Statement of Undisputed\n+Material Facts in opposition to the motion for summary judgment\n+must contain the following in a thr ee-column format: (a) in the first\n+column, the verbatim entries that were prepared by the movant at\n+step one; (b) in the second column, directly opposite the recitation of\n+the movant’s material facts and supporting evidence, the response\n+must state whether the fact is “disputed” or “undisputed.” An\n+opposing party who contends the fact is “disputed” must state, in the\n+8\n+second column of the page directly opposite the fact in dispute, the\n+nature of the dispute followed by a specific reference to material in\n+the record that supports the positi on that the fact is controverted.\n+Also in the second column, after the Movant’s verbatim entries, the\n+opposing party shall set forth any a dditional material facts which it\n+contends are undisputed, followed by a specific reference to material\n+in the record that establishes those additional material facts as\n+undisputed in that same column. Absent prior leave of Court, a\n+respondent to a summary judgment motion shall not file more than\n+40 separately-numbered statements of additional facts. The pages of\n+the chart are not included in the page limits for the response. There\n+is no page limit on the evidence/e xhibits attached in support of the\n+motion.\n+3. For the Movant’s Reply Filing: A separate Statement of\n+Undisputed Material Facts in support of the motion must contain the\n+following in a three-column format : (a) the first two columns shall\n+contain the verbatim entries prepar ed by movant at step one, and\n+the verbatim entries prepared by th e responding party at step two;\n+(b) in the third column, directly opposite the recitation of the\n+opposing party’s material facts and supporting evidence, the reply\n+must state whether the fact is “disputed” or “undisputed.” The\n+moving party who contends the fact is “disputed” must state, in the\n+third column of the page directly opposite the fact in dispute, the\n+nature of the dispute followed by a specific reference to material in\n+the record that supports the positi on that the fact is controverted.\n+Also in the third column, if the mo ving party contests the opposing\n+party’s dispute of the moving party’s recitation of undisputed\n+material fact, the moving party may make specific reference to any\n+additional supporting material in the record.\n+4. Citing the Record: When making a specific reference to material\n+in the record which establishes a fact, general references are\n+insufficient if the document is longer than one page. A “specific\n+reference” means reference to: a page number; a line number; a\n+paragraph number; a CM/ECF Docket entry number (with additional\n+internal specific reference provid ed); or any combination of these\n+references to assist the Court to easily locate the pertinent\n+information. The effort at spec ificity may be further aided by\n+highlighting, underlining, or ma nually underscoring the pertinent\n+information.\n+9\n+5. Editable Copy of the Chart for the Opposing Party: In addition\n+to filing its Statement of Undisputed Material Facts with the Court,\n+each party shall provide to the opposing party an editable electronic\n+version of its Statement in Word format for the opposing party’s use\n+in preparing its Statement. Thus, for example, the moving party\n+shall provide its Statement to the opposing party, with the first\n+column completed, and the opposing party shall provide its\n+Statement to the moving party, with the first and second columns\n+completed.\n+D. Proposed Final Pretrial Order\n+This Court presides over the Final Pr etrial Conference. A Final Pretrial\n+Conference will be set after all dispositive motions have been ruled on, or, after the\n+dispositive motion deadline has passed and no motions have been filed. The parties\n+proposed Final Pretrial Order is due at least seven days before the combined Final\n+Pretrial Conference, and a Word version should also be emailed to chambers at\n+crews_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov.\n+The proposed Final Pretrial Order should reflect the narrowing of issues to\n+those that will actually be tried, the witn esses that will be called, and the exhibits\n+that will be presented. The form propos ed Final Pretrial Order available on our\n+district court’s website should be used, and shall incorporate the following changes\n+to that form:\n+a. Section 3: Claims and Defenses: Parties are discouraged from\n+submitting a narrative summary of th e claims, defenses, facts, and legal\n+theories. If a narrative summary is included, it should not exceed one page,\n+and shall be in addition to the following: Separately enumerate each claim\n+and affirmative defense (a defense on which the Defendant bears the\n+burden of proof) that will be tried. (An example is at Attachment 2.) For\n+each claim and affirmative defense designate:1\n+i. the standard of proof and controlling law; and,\n+ii. each element that must be proved. Under each element,\n+identify the facts that establish that element, and reference\n+the witness whose testimony, or the exhibit the contents of\n+which, will establish that fact at trial.\n+b. Section 4: Stipulations: To save time and expense, and to focus the trial,\n+1 Any claims or affirmative defenses not specifically identified may be deemed waived.\n+10\n+the parties shall stipulate to all material facts that are not in dispute. 2\n+Stipulated facts will be included in a jury instruction given to the jury prior\n+to opening statements.\n+c. Section 6: Witnesses: In addition to listing witnesses as required by the\n+form, the parties should also attach their witness lists using the form found\n+on the Court’s website on the page for Judge Crews.\n+d. Section 7: Exhibits: Only the parties’ exhibit lists should be attached,\n+using the form found on the Court’s website on the page for Judge Crews.\n+E. Trial Information\n+1. Motions in Limine: These motions are allowed. The Court will set a\n+deadline for their submission at the Final Pretrial Conference.\n+2. Fed. R. Evid. 702 Motions: The deadline for filing these motions is the\n+same as the date set for the Final Pretrial Conference. In other words, if the Court\n+sets the Final Pretrial Conference for March 5, 2026, the deadline for filing Rule 702\n+motions is March 5, 2026.\n+3. Trial Briefs: Trial briefs are encouraged only where there are unusual\n+issues of law. They should be filed 14 days before trial. They should not exceed 10\n+pages and should not attach exhibits.\n+4. Trial Readiness Conference: Within one week of commencement of\n+trial, the Court will set a Trial Readiness Conference. Lead trial counsel must attend.\n+The purpose of the conference is to conf irm the parties are ready for trial. This\n+includes confirming the parties have stipul ated to the admissibility of as many trial\n+exhibits as possible, know the foundations they will need to set when seeking the\n+admission of any unstipulated exhibits at trial, have witnesses appropriately\n+subpoenaed or otherwise prepared to attend, etc., and may include bringing a sample\n+of any voluminous trial exhibits that the Court previously ordered the party to break\n+out into separate exhibits.\n+2 Please be cognizant of the difference betw een disputing the existence of a fact and\n+disputing the significance of that fact. A stipulation to the existence of a fact ( e.g.,\n+that the sun set at 7:00 p.m. on the day in question) does not prevent the party from\n+arguing the significance of that fact (e.g., that there was or was not adequate daylight\n+at 7:00 p.m.).\n+11\n+5. Final Witness and Exhibit Lists: By no later than Noon on the Friday\n+before the start of trial, the parties sha ll submit their respective final witness and\n+exhibit lists via CM/ECF.\n+6. Access to the Courtroom Prior to Trial: The courtroom will be made\n+available to all parties before the start of trial so they may bring in items for trial or\n+to test technical equipment. My Courtroom Deputy is Cathy Pearson. She can be\n+reached at (303) 335-2089 or cathy_pearson@cod.uscourts.gov. Please contact Ms.\n+Pearson in advance if you would like to access the courtroom before trial.\n+7. Jury Trials:\n+a. Proposed Jury Instructions and Verd ict Forms: Jury instructions and\n+verdict forms shall be both e-filed on CM/ECF, and e-mailed to my\n+chambers ( crews_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov) in Word format. The\n+Court will order a deadline for submission of these materials at the Final\n+Pretrial Conference. Counsel (and any pro se parties) shall confer and\n+stipulate to as many instructions as possible. Up to four sets of\n+instructions should be submitted to the Court, as necessary: (1) one set\n+of stipulated jury instructions; (2) one set of opposed or disputed jury\n+instructions; (3) one set of stipulated verdict forms (if any); and/or (4)\n+one set of disputed or opposed verdict forms (if any). Jury instructions\n+should be appropriately titled and must include citations to\n+relevant authority in footnotes.\n+b. Exhibits:\n+i. Plaintiff’s exhibits should be marked using numbers. Defendant’s\n+exhibits should be marked using letters A through Z, then using\n+A-1 through A-99, then B-1 through B-99, etc. The parties\n+should avoid duplicate exhibits between their respective\n+lists. The parties must confer and stipulate to the\n+admissibility of as many exhibits as possible.\n+ii. There will be no juror exhibit no tebooks. Instead, the Court will\n+provide a projector and television screen, or other technology, for\n+purposes of publishing admitted exhibits to the jury. The parties\n+may use the projector system provided by the Court or may bring\n+in their own technology for purposes of publishing exhibits.\n+Questions concerning exhibits and courtroom\n+equipment/technology may be directed to Ms. Pearson.\n+12\n+iii. Only one exhibit notebook is required as a backup for the witness\n+stand and which will also be the notebook the jury receives during\n+deliberations. Your single exhibit notebook should contain that\n+party’s original exhibits, properly marked and tabbed, with the\n+pages of each exhibit numbered. You should also bring two\n+electronic copies of your exhibi ts on a thumb drive on the first\n+trial day to provide to my courtr oom deputy and court reporter.\n+The court reporter does not need media files such as videos or\n+photos, only document exhibits.\n+c. Voir Dire: If trial is to a jury, the Court will conduct an initial orientation\n+and voir dire. The Court’s voir dire is designed to address issues of juror\n+hardship. The Court will leave the inquiry of impartiality and potential\n+juror bias to the parties during th eir voir dire. Unless the Court is\n+persuaded otherwise, the parties will be permitted 20 minutes each to\n+conduct voir dire. In most circums tances, the Court does not condone\n+inculcating the jury pool with specific facts of the case during voir dire.\n+If there are questions about whether intended voir dire approaches that\n+line, those questions should be raised in advance.\n+d. Number of Jurors: The jury will normally consist of at least nine jurors,\n+with each side afforded three pe remptory challenges. The Court will\n+inform the parties of the intended number of jurors for their specific case\n+during the Trial Preparation Conf erence. The Court does not seat\n+alternate jurors in civil cases.\n+e. Notes by Jurors: Jurors will be permitted to take notes during trial.\n+f. Time for Giving Jury Instructions: Preliminary instructions will be\n+given prior to opening statements. Final instructions will be given after\n+closing arguments.\n+g. Court Reporter:\n+i. Transcript of Proceedings: The proceedings will be transcribed by\n+my Court Reporter, Mary George. Any request for transcripts\n+should be directed to her at mary_george@cod.uscourts.gov, or\n+(303) 335-2109.\n+ii. Hard Copy Transcripts: If you require hourly or daily transcripts\n+for a trial, you must make arrangements with my Court Reporter\n+at least 14 days before trial. If you require hourly or daily copy\n+13\n+transcripts for a hearing or oral argument, my Court Reporter\n+appreciates as much advance notice as possible.\n+iii. Realtime Reporting: If you require realtime reporting to your\n+laptop or other electronic device for a trial, you must make\n+arrangements with my Court Repo rter at least 10 days before\n+trial. If you require realtime reporting for a hearing or oral\n+argument, you must consult with my Court Reporter prior to the\n+date of the proceeding to ensure that all technical issues have\n+been resolved prior to the commencement of the proceeding.\n+iv. Word List: If the trial contains technical or medical terms, a list\n+containing these words shall be provided to my Court Reporter by\n+email to mary_george@cod.uscourts.gov, no later than 8:00 a.m.\n+the Friday before trial.\n+[Attachments 1 and 2 follow.]\n+14\n+ATTACHMENT 1\n+Format for Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts\n+Movant’s Statement\n+15\n+Opposing Party’s Statement\n+16\n+Moving Party’s Reply Statement\n+17\n+ATTACHMENT 2\n+Format for Section 3 of Proposed Final Pretrial Order Form\n+Example:\n+Claim 1: Breach of contract under Colorado law: Plaintiff has burden of proof by a\n+preponderance of the evidence\n+Elements: (1)-(3) offer, acceptance, consideration\n+(a) the parties stipulate that these elements are satisfied\n+(4) performance by the plaintiff\n+(a) On March 3, 2004, Peter Plaintiff delivered one\n+crate of widgets to Widget Packers, Inc. (Testimony\n+of Peter Plaintiff; Don Defendant; Exhibits 1, 4)\n+(b) The widgets conformed to the specifications in\n+the contract. (Testimony of Peter Plaintiff; Exhibit\n+2)\n+(c) The widgets were deliver ed on the date set by\n+the contract. (Exhibit 2)\n+(5) non-performance by the defendant\n+(a) Widget Packers, Inc. failed to remit payment on\n+the terms set by the contra ct. (Testimony of Barry\n+Bookkeeper; Exhibit 2)\n+(b) Peter Plaintiff has made several written demands\n+for payment. (Peter Plaintiff; Exhibits 3, 5, 7)\n+(6) damages\n+(a) Peter Plaintiff has been damaged in the contract\n+amount of $10,000. (Testimony of Peter Plaintiff; Exhibit\n+2).\n+Claim 2: Unjust Enrichment under Colorado law: Plaintiff has burden of proof on\n+all elements by a preponderance of the evidence\n+Elements: (1) Defendant has received a benefit\n+(a) On March 3, 2004, Peter Plaintiff delivered one\n+crate of widgets to Widget Packers, Inc. pursuant\n+to a contractual agreement. (Testimony of Peter\n+18\n+Plaintiff; Don Defendant; Exhibits 1, 2, 4).\n+(2) the benefit is at the Plaintiff’s expense\n+(a) Widget Packers, Inc. failed to remit payment on the\n+terms set by the contract. (Testimony of Barry\n+Bookkeeper, Exhibit 2)\n+(3) justice requires that Defendant reimburse the\n+Plaintiff for the benefit received\n+(a) The widgets have a market value of $15,000.\n+(Testimony of Peter Plaintiff)\n+(b) Don Defendant is in breach of the contract.\n+(Testimony of Peter Plaintiff)\n+Affirmative Defense to Claim 2: Failure to mitigate under Colorado law: Defendant\n+has burden of proof on all elements by a preponderance of the evidence\n+Elements:\n+(1) Plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to avoid injury\n+(a) On March 5, 2004, Don Defendant left a\n+message on Peter Plaintiff’s voice mail offering to\n+return the crate of widgets unopened. (Testimony of\n+Don Defendant; Peter Plaintiff)\n+(b) On March 8, 2004, Don Defendant wrote to Peter\n+Plaintiff, offering to assign the contract for the\n+purchase of widgets to WidgetCo. (Don Defendant;\n+Warren Widget; Exhibit 6)\n+(2) Plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail itself of\n+opportunities to avoid injury\n+(a) Peter Plaintiff did not respond to the March 5,\n+2004 message. (Don Defendant)\n+(b) Peter Plaintiff did not respond to the March 8,\n+2004 (Don Defendant)","id":"78a7354e6fd3d64dc03ede84c02b25ca1b727cd27f5e7942df614f9e9244a8c7","newHash":"f6963510eda672b92f4254099a4fc1765c165a94393e9f0cc2ce87b785b94ab5","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SKC/SKC_Standing_Order_Civil_Cases.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/f6963510eda672b92f4254099a4fc1765c165a94393e9f0cc2ce87b785b94ab5.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SKC/SKC_Standing_Order_Civil_Cases.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:50.490983+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO\n+Susan Prose\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+(303) 335-2722\n+Prose chambers@cod.uscourts.gov\n+STANDING ORDER REQUIRING CERTIFICATION RE: USE OF ARTIFICIAL\n+INTELLIGENCE (AI) IN FILINGS\n+In addition to a Certification of Conferral, in cases before this court in which the parties\n+have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, every motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.\n+12, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, or to amend a pleading, and any opposed motion (to include the\n+corresponding response and reply), shall contain a Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of\n+generative artificial intelligence (AI) (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Bard, etc.) in\n+preparing the filing, including any proposed amended pleadings.\n+The preparer of the filing must certify either that (a) no portion of the filing was drafted\n+by AI, or that (b) any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a human being) was\n+personally reviewed by the filer or another human being for accuracy using print reporters or\n+traditional legal databases and attesting that the legal citations are to actual existing cases or cited\n+authority. The court will strike any filing from a party who fails to include this certification in the\n+above-mentioned motions.\n+In cases in which this court is in the referral role, this order applies only to\n+nondispositive, opposed motions that are referred to this court.\n+2\n+DATED: October 21, 2024 BY THE COURT:\n+Susan Prose\n+United States Magistrate Judge","id":"2f9df79b7b42dae54ba25a5ebdec424d4d3d07b1318ed353107a0ffdb224479a","newHash":"565b29fcfde65c51c10af7bb1f8ca148a734fb463d16cde60ba6f78909fcecb1","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SP/SP_Standing_Order_AI_Filings.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/565b29fcfde65c51c10af7bb1f8ca148a734fb463d16cde60ba6f78909fcecb1.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/SP/SP_Standing_Order_AI_Filings.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:50.364039+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"4083a73543b50f94e4ef7bc3e7a25d4bc0bbcc0b896129a990b2bfc64202ae6c","newHash":"369e2209600dc81176d70876d3abbd5a385b48a6decc65be12b23d07f1ff756c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:50.700092+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"b50905e7a9e54441e3e58de16d92cd1d310f82268923e9e6a50a15cfa54969c0","newHash":"d19318328e54ee547ab86d47046dc785af72758c590790b08264a5bbd6132305","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:51.334113+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"2119d90264f2a4e0a929c1c08e2ba0bd1c5971603d172faadf506ed5203b4b4d","newHash":"0c6f57e95f41e69111e2d8af179bef22f7ef375de48cb4b285c9b14a6604ad08","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:50.859079+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"4369cf9fda354add0a9bf7af4a2bb9c9aa6133d04033786e27737e2d0036e8ba","newHash":"800b43f4025e3dd66658d0416b41866e86e3bbefedaafe1088e41c648c380317","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/AIEthics_063026.asp","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/AIEthics_063026.asp","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:51.071061+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"b0b2f60179dc680da6d2810bbd0d0481f079c8635d938562dbecb8dc19a82f8a","newHash":"6a824005f122da964dff95e8ae44d18f5277144aa8543f5e187e385d6e94344c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266838","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266838","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:51.252420+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"3c66b1ce330b30a87c877fb4a427ecbdc2a6f05943c3a838eb893f3dc7f9df37","newHash":"5072358e382548b0c6e3c2fda77a36602ffd0e55a9d58e29a557ee8b93a99b96","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/rules/Documents/NoticeRegardingCourtImpositionOfSanctionsForSubmissionOfFabricatedAuthorityProducedByAI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:51.755321+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"23a461055ece7161912e71605d3eedf0de011cd46b91449d783af5bfb0fde6ff","newHash":"4c68de29750da5fd428533605f1fa1dbfbfb6160bb88c714388849f7e4ff47f0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/help/Documents/Using%20AI%20Guide%20English.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/help/Documents/Using%20AI%20Guide%20English.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:51.734448+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"159140af093a765f182d8e5463f7cebc7ea8b8e71a56c8bbd6866f3559fb42da","newHash":"cbe7f14902f53718b601d2407de965d74a39e8ac8a831d555530f349cffe9a76","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:52.298166+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"4b05296936e35e616ab11623c786bcc4331d64590296e3b7bec3295400a2f493","newHash":"d7827b92e555c8ad0f9366d262dcb104e3efcd09427f2b0b9e50981816538c53","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:52.081695+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"e0b26018ad503f567b62f987d3f879c48d67e20fcf0abacdea5f38d86fee22dd","newHash":"9563da570f629303f54f9450d371faded4eb7550be7761b494b3735fcb5bb6a6","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:53.505666+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"cd65dca1b8ef0f9039cda3b476c94f8341355eb8a780dcb95164516633082ab2","newHash":"36e7d7af65387f141bbf8bf978d86faab06bec4ec92bf70334e78c7185b5a784","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/order584.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/order584.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:52.494911+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT\n+9/12/25\n+Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research\n+Attorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting\n+any AI-generated language in filings before the Court. Use of AI without verification of\n+the accuracy of the information it generates–like any other shoddy research method\n+from other sources or tools–implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the central\n+purpose of which is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus to streamline the\n+administration and procedure of the federal courts. Rule 11 applies fully to actions\n+filed by pro se litigants.\n+Therefore, all parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for\n+any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise\n+severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent\n+reasonable excuse. See generally Willis v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n et al, No. 3:25-CV-\n+516-BN, 2025 WL 1408897 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2025).\n+Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk of Court","id":"85e8e147c0985774b0059a572f667ff7b84f0ccd97908281787f65ca7872b3af","newHash":"d065257c57d3fd1a754d3bc51adf6b805c5c95c93f13b5e7e12c8949b959bc04","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/d065257c57d3fd1a754d3bc51adf6b805c5c95c93f13b5e7e12c8949b959bc04.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:52.838011+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"8b32f2f9b7528bb464d18fdd408899b5b80d17357ef95c6840e07de1adc2b952","newHash":"73e2323282d93e552efe5aee083e0c5e403a6cb39973b8b9dd8b18f0c36b5a57","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:53.406089+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n+JACKSONVILLE DIVISION\n+IN RE: Use of Generative Artificial\n+Intelligence\n+/\n+STANDING ORDER\n+Due to the increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (“ AI”) in the\n+researching and drafting of legal documents, including pleadings, motions, briefs, and\n+other filings, the undersigned requires all parties appearing before her, through counsel\n+or pro se, to certify at the end of any filing:\n+(1) That no generative AI was used in the drafting and preparation of the filing; or\n+(2) To the extent that generative AI was used in any drafting of the filing, that any\n+language drafted by AI —even if later edited by a human—was personally\n+reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and that all legal citations\n+reference actual, non-fictitious cases or cited authority and accurately reflect\n+the contents of such authority.\n+The AI Certification does not count against any page limitations.\n+Filings that do not comply with this Order may be stricken without substantive\n+consideration and without leave to amend. Numerous failures to comply with the\n+certification requirement set forth in this Order or to otherwise properly review and ensure\n+the accuracy of AI generated content will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal\n+of claims with prejudice, default, and referral to the proper licensing authority.\n+All filings remain subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927,\n+and applicable ethical rules.\n+2\n+DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on April 2, 2026.","id":"fc763711228b0360059d70e69c0133fa7151e3519258c1f06143262b3a4c7352","newHash":"c9c35c88a777dae2758499f414b8fbf34d143688605bf2ef729170d359017e81","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/c9c35c88a777dae2758499f414b8fbf34d143688605bf2ef729170d359017e81.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-order-on-ai.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:53.293276+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\n+ORLANDO DIVISION\n+STANDING ORDER REQUIRING DISCLOSURE\n+OF THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+This Order requires that every filing must contain a certification whether artificial\n+intelligence was used in the preparation of the filing.\n+I. Purpose\n+The Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest United States District Courts in the\n+nation. Artificial intelligence is, at times, obviously used in filings submitted to this\n+Court. While there is no rule that prohibits the use of artificial intelligence, whether a\n+filer is a licensed attorney or represents himself or herself, it is imperative that every\n+filer understand the risks and potential consequences associated with the use of\n+artificial intelligence. Among other things, the use of artificial intelligence can result in\n+the generation of a filing that relies on cases that do not exist, or that could not\n+reasonably be considered supportive of the argument. The Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure govern the filings in this case, and Rule 11 states that\n+[b]y presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper —whether by\n+signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party\n+certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after\n+an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:\n+(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,\n+cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;\n+(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or\n+by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for\n+establishing new law;\n+Case 6:24-cv-01987-AGM-RMN Document 193 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID 3751\n+2\n+(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so\n+identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable\n+opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and\n+(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or,\n+if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of\n+information.\n+Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the use of artificial\n+intelligence can easily lead to submission of filings without the required consideration\n+of whether “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing\n+law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law\n+or for establishing new law.” When this happens, the cost is asymmetric. That is, the\n+filing was easy to prepare, but forces the taxpayers to incur a real cost by directing the\n+Court’s finite resources to consider a filing that is not supported by existing law. If\n+those resources are expended only to arrive at the conclusion that a cited case does not\n+exist—or could not reasonably be said to stand for the cited proposition— then\n+whether the filer is pro se or a licensed attorney, sanctions may be entered against the\n+filer under Rule 11. Those sanctions may include an efficient sanction meant to exceed\n+the cost of conducting the necessary legal research. To facilitate every filer’s\n+inescapable recognition of his or her obligations under Rule 11, and because the Federal\n+Rules of Civil Procedure are to be construed in a manner to “secure the just, speedy,\n+and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,” Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ.\n+P., any filing in this case may be stricken if it fails to be accompanied by an affirmative\n+representation to the Court about the use of artificial intelligence.\n+Case 6:24-cv-01987-AGM-RMN Document 193 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID 3752\n+3\n+II. Failure to Include Certification\n+Any filing that does not contain one of the two permissible certifications below,\n+verbatim, may be stricken. If the filing is a motion, complaint, or petition, the n the\n+relief requested may be denied without prejudice.\n+III. Doubts to be Resolved in Favor of Disclosure\n+If a filer is unsure whether anything used in the preparation of the filing might be\n+considered “artificial intelligence,” the filer should select the certification language for\n+when artificial intelligence was used. The certification disclosing the use of artificial\n+intelligence includes a section where the filer must explain what artificial intelligence\n+was used, and after that explanation the filer may note any uncertainty about whether\n+what was used qualifies as “artificial intelligence.” Every doubt about whether\n+something is “artificial intelligence” should be resolved in favor of disclosure that\n+artificial intelligence was used.\n+IV. Verbatim Disclosure Required\n+The acceptable certification language is below. No other form of certification is\n+permitted. Although the law recognizes substantial compliance in some contexts, here\n+only strict compliance will be recognized because it is an inefficient use of the Court’s\n+finite resources to analyze what latent significance there may be in “substantially\n+compliant” certifications.\n+V. Use of Traditional Legal Research or Traditional Search Engines\n+For avoidance of doubt, the traditional use of Westlaw or LexisNexis for legal research\n+(together, “Traditional Legal Research”) or the use of a search engine like Google,\n+Case 6:24-cv-01987-AGM-RMN Document 193 Filed 05/27/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3753\n+4\n+Brave, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, or Bing for other research (together, “Traditional Search\n+Engines”), is not considered use of artificial intelligence that must be disclosed for the\n+purposes of this Standing Order. If (1) the filer used either Traditional Legal Research\n+or a Traditional Search Engine but (2) no other form of artificial intelligence was used,\n+then it is acceptable to select and use the Certification Under Penalty of Perjury That\n+Artificial Intelligence Was Not Used in the Preparation of This Filing . See Section\n+VI.A.\n+VI. Contents of Certification\n+A. If Artificial Intelligence Was Not Used\n+If artificial intelligence was not used in the preparation of the filing (or if the only\n+artificial intelligence used was Traditional Legal Research or a Traditional Search\n+Engine), then the certification must state, verbatim:\n+Certification Under Penalty of Perjury That Artificial Intelligence\n+Was Not Used in the Preparation of This Filing\n+I have reviewed the Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the use of\n+artificial intelligence. After diligent inquiry and under penalty of perjury,\n+I certify that artificial intelligence was not utilized in the preparation of\n+this filing in any way. I understand that, whether I represent myself or I\n+am an attorney representing a client, I have an affirmative obligation to\n+read each case cited in this filing. If I fail to do so and a case upon which\n+I rely does not exist or does not reasonably stand for the cited\n+proposition, I understand that the Court may treat this as a violation of\n+Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I have reviewed Rule\n+11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and I understand that this rule\n+applies equally to counsel and unrepresented parties, and I am familiar\n+with the sanctions available for violations of Rule 11. If this certification\n+is made by counsel, I further understand that citation to a case that either\n+does not exist or does not reasonably stand for the cited proposition may\n+be treated as a violation of my oath of candor toward the tribunal and a\n+basis on which my admission to practice in the Middle District of Florida\n+could be revoked or suspended. Further, whether I represent myself or\n+Case 6:24-cv-01987-AGM-RMN Document 193 Filed 05/27/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID 3754\n+5\n+I am an attorney representing a client, I understand that by making this\n+certification under penalty of perjury I could be referred for criminal\n+prosecution if the statements I make here are false.\n+B. If Artificial Intelligence Was Used\n+If any form of artificial intelligence (other than Traditional Legal Research or a\n+Traditional Search Engine) was used in preparation of the filing, then the certification\n+must state, verbatim:\n+Certification Under Penalty of Perjury That Artificial Intelligence\n+Was Used in the Preparation of This Filing\n+I have reviewed the Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the use of\n+artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence was used in the preparation\n+of this filing in the following way: [insert description ]. However, under\n+penalty of perjury, I certify that before filing, I personally reviewed Rule\n+11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and I personally read every\n+case. I understand that if a case upon which I rely does not exist or does\n+not reasonably stand for the cited proposition, the Court may treat this\n+as a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I have\n+reviewed Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and I\n+understand that this rule applies equally to counsel and unrepresented\n+parties, that as the person signing this filing I am the person who will be\n+held responsible for its contents even if it was prepared by someone else,\n+and I am familiar with the sanctions available for violations of Rule 11.\n+If this certification is made by counsel, I further understand that citation\n+to a case that either does not exist or does not reasonably stand for the\n+cited proposition may be treated as a violation of my oath of candor\n+toward the tribunal and a basis on which my admission to practice in the\n+Middle District of Florida could be revoked or suspended. Further,\n+whether I represent myself or I am an attorney representing a client, I\n+understand that by making this certification under penalty of perjury I\n+could be referred for criminal prosecution if the statements I make here\n+are false.\n+VII. Ultimate Responsibility for Truth of Certification\n+The ultimate responsibility for the truth of the certification lies with the person who\n+signs the filing. Consequently, the person who signs the filing should take whatever\n+Case 6:24-cv-01987-AGM-RMN Document 193 Filed 05/27/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID 3755\n+6\n+steps are necessary to be certain that the certification is true. I f a filing contains\n+reference to a case that does not exist or does not reasonably stand for the cited\n+proposition, it will be no defense that the document was drafted by someone other\n+than the person who signed the filing.\n+VIII. Requirements for Motions Filed Prior to Entry of This Standing Order/Safe\n+Harbor/Certification of Compliance With Rule 11\n+If documents were filed in this case prior to the entry of this Standing Order, Rule 11\n+applied to those filings. The purpose of this section is to, with respect to every\n+document filed prior to the entry of this Standing Order, (1) confirm compliance with\n+Rule 11 and (2) grant a limited safe harbor to counsel and pro se parties who filed\n+documents prior to this Standing Order that may not have complied with Rule 11. To\n+that end, if, in an abundance of caution, counsel or a pro se litigant wishes to withdraw\n+a filing within the next ten days, withdrawal of the filing will be permitted pursuant to\n+this section. Leave to re-file the withdrawn filing may be requested with reference to\n+this section. If, on consideration of Rule 11, this Standing Order, and the filings made\n+in this case, the filer is confident that either (1) artificial intelligence was not used, or\n+(2) artificial intelligence was used but every cited authority was personally reviewed by\n+the filer, then the following certification should be filed no later than ten days from the\n+date this Standing Order is entered on the docket:\n+Certification of Compliance With Rule 11\n+I certify that I have reviewed the Standing Order Requiring Disclosure\n+of the Use of Artificial Intelligence. With regard to docket entries [insert\n+docket numbers], by my signature below I confirm under penalty of perjury\n+that either (1) artificial intelligence was not used in the preparation of the\n+Case 6:24-cv-01987-AGM-RMN Document 193 Filed 05/27/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID 3756\n+7\n+filing or, (2) if artificial intelligence was used, every cited authority was\n+personally reviewed by the filer in advance of the filing.\n+IX. Failure to Timely Certify Under Section VIII or Withdraw Filing\n+Filings may be stricken without prejudice if, within ten days of the date this Standing\n+Order is entered, (1) no Certification of Compliance With Rule 11 appears on the\n+docket with reference to that filing and (2) the filing was not timely withdrawn pursuant\n+to this Standing Order.\n+DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida on May 27, 2026.\n+Copies to:\n+Counsel of Record\n+Unrepresented Parties\n+Case 6:24-cv-01987-AGM-RMN Document 193 Filed 05/27/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID 3757","id":"17e2f1d6a0369ff5c775ec42a8b226b7540b3d5ddfb08f04065cf148e051e7ea","newHash":"6cfa9e491f65396827b092e7d42545aa71e69966941fead311270f250f5a4775","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-moe-standing-order-6-24-cv-1987.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/6cfa9e491f65396827b092e7d42545aa71e69966941fead311270f250f5a4775.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-moe-standing-order-6-24-cv-1987.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:53.432558+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"d7ca9945ee84727d8ba73261f6c575301e2fa3aa4ee3d242326883887516be8f","newHash":"9882158a28495673a023d978498d51c54b4f831f0905e69ef9a505afaf242c66","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Ellerbe/Use%20of%20Artifical%20Intelligence%20Order%20rev%206%202026.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Ellerbe/Use%20of%20Artifical%20Intelligence%20Order%20rev%206%202026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:53.971592+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"2ee222562e520629bef5b71f37637c813acdd60863e6fd1ac7f2a405fb5568cf","newHash":"2d0797a5522b86b5d479f7f6f81a4613536c8659f4f731679782808bd760a83d","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/emadi-standing_order_for_AI.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/emadi-standing_order_for_AI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:53.940454+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"3a910928ca60461392f7818eb7e66ff4bcc36d6b63fb638010fa5a1774f4e0d5","newHash":"99a276b2c7bbba8a0d8033a0d78b6b99619d88b55493e85b2724377ce9d7cf39","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/schwall-standing_order_re_AI_0.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/schwall-standing_order_re_AI_0.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:54.199341+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,377 @@\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA\n+ATLANTA AND GAINESVILLE DIVISIONS\n+INSTRUCTIONS FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO\n+THE HONORABLE STEVE C. JONES\n+This matter has been assigned to the Honorable Steve C. Jones. The purpose of this\n+order is to inform the parties and their counsel of the Court’s policies, practice, and\n+procedure. Pro se litigants shall also govern themselves in accordance with these\n+instructions. This order, in combination with the Northern District’s Local Rules\n+and the Federal Rules of Procedure, shall govern this case. Any previous\n+instructional order is hereby superseded.\n+2\n+Revised August 2026\n+Table of Contents\n+I. General Matters .......................................................................................................................... 3\n+II. Case Administration .................................................................................................................. 3\n+A. Contacting chambers ........................................................................................................... 3\n+B. Courtesy copies .................................................................................................................... 3\n+C. Admission of counsel pro hac vice ...................................................................................... 4\n+D. Withdrawal or substitution of counsel ............................................................................. 4\n+E. Pro se litigants ....................................................................................................................... 4\n+F. Disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence ...................................................5\n+III. Case Management ................................................................................................................... 5\n+A. Motions for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction............................ 5\n+B. Extensions of time ................................................................................................................ 6\n+C. Page limit extensions ........................................................................................................... 6\n+D. Objections to Magistrate Reports and Recommendations ............................................. 6\n+E. Discovery disputes and objections to discovery ............................................................. 7\n+F. Motions to seal ..................................................................................................................... 7\n+G. Electronic filing of exhibits and attachments ................................................................... 8\n+H. Brief titles .............................................................................................................................. 9\n+I. Motions for summary judgment ........................................................................................... 9\n+J. Requests for oral argument on motions ............................................................................... 9\n+K. Proposed orders ................................................................................................................. 10\n+IV. Trial Matters ........................................................................................................................... 10\n+A. Deposition objections...............................................................................10\n+B. Motions in limine ............................................................................................................... 10\n+C. Pretrial conference ............................................................................................................. 10\n+D. Presentation of evidence ................................................................................................... 11\n+E. Exhibits ................................................................................................................................ 11\n+F. Jury trials ............................................................................................................................. 11\n+a. Voir dire ........................................................................................................................... 11\n+b. Exhibits ............................................................................................................................ 12\n+c. Requests to charge ......................................................................................................... 12\n+G. Specific Instructions for Criminal Cases ......................................................................... 13\n+3\n+Revised August 2026\n+I. GENERAL MATTERS\n+Attorneys and pro se litigants appearing in this court in civil litigation must\n+observe three sets of rules:\n+1. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules are available at\n+https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-\n+procedure.\n+2. The local rules of this District Court and Instructions Regarding Pretrial\n+Proceedings. The local rules of this Court are available for downloading at\n+https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/local-\n+rules. Various forms and the Court’s pretrial instruction package are availa-\n+ble at https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/.\n+3. The rules and practices of the district judge, and magistrate judge if\n+appropriate, assigned to your case, including this standing order.\n+II. CASE ADMINISTRATION\n+A. Contacting chambers\n+Courtroom Deputy Clerk Pamela Wright is your principal point of contact\n+on matters relating to this case. Neither the parties, nor their counsel, should\n+discuss the merits of the case with Ms. Wright or any of the Court’s law clerks .\n+Ms. Wright’s contact information is as follows:\n+Ms. Pamela Wright\n+Courtroom Deputy Clerk\n+1967 United States Courthouse\n+75 Ted Turner Drive, SW\n+Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3309\n+pamela_wright@gand.uscourts.gov\n+404-215-1284\n+B. Courtesy copies\n+Except for emergency motions filed pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(B), the\n+delivery of a hard copy of a document, in addition to the electronically filed copy,\n+4\n+Revised August 2026\n+is not necessary, as the Court prefers to rely on its electronic access to court filings.\n+The Court may, however, request courtesy copies of motions with voluminous\n+exhibits.\n+Courtesy copies of such motions should be hand -delivered to chambers in\n+Room 1967 on the 19th floor of the Richard B. Russell Federal Building or\n+submitted via regular mail to the attention of the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at the\n+above-provided address. The courtesy copies provided shall be stamped filed with\n+the CM/ECF (Case Management/Electronic Case Filing) header.\n+C. Admission of counsel pro hac vice\n+In the event that lead counsel has been admitted pro hac vice, local counsel is\n+required to be familiar with the case and may be called upon to attend hearings or\n+participate in conferences on behalf of the lead counsel.\n+All counsel, including counsel admitted pro hac vice, must register with and\n+participate in the Court’s electronic filing system, CM/ECF. NDGa Standing\n+Order 04-01.\n+D. Withdrawal or substitution of counsel\n+It is counsel’s responsibility to keep the Court informed of any change of\n+status. Counsel should comply with Local Rule 83.1, NDGa, when substituting or\n+withdrawing as counsel. Attorneys who fail to comply with this Local Rule will\n+not be permitted to withdraw from the case until compliance is achieved.\n+E. Pro se litigants\n+Parties proceeding pro se (without an attorney) are ADVISED that they\n+must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), as well\n+as the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of\n+Georgia (“LR, NDGa”). Pro se parties may obtain certain basic materials and hand-\n+outs from the Office of the Clerk of Court located on the 22nd Floor of the United\n+States Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia. Many documents\n+are also available on the Court’s website at www.gand.uscourts.gov. Pro se\n+litigants also may utilize the Eleventh Circuit’s law library located in the Elbert P.\n+Tuttle U.S. Court of Appeals Building at 56 Forsyth Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia\n+30303.\n+5\n+Revised August 2026\n+F. Disclosure of use of artificial intelligence (AI)\n+All counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence (AI)\n+in any capacity to prepare documents submitted to the Court. If AI was used in any\n+way to prepare a filing or submission to the Court or chambers, counsel and/or pro\n+se parties are REQUIRED to sign and file a Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence\n+stating, as follows:\n+“This document was generated with the assistance of [identify A I tool name]. I\n+hereby certify under penalty of perjury that, despite reliance on an A I tool, I have\n+independently reviewed this document to confirm accuracy, legitimacy, and use of\n+good and applicable law, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure.”\n+Counsel and pro se parties are cautioned that mistake, lack of technical\n+expertise, and time constraints are typically not recognized by the Court as a good\n+faith excuse for submission of documents that either violate Rule 11 or this disclosure\n+rule. In particular, arguments in briefs to the Court which are supported by A I-\n+generated caselaw (i.e., cases that do not actually exist) are not acceptable.\n+Counsel and pro se parties shall not input, upload, or otherwise expose any\n+information subject to a protective order into any artificial intelligence program, tool\n+or application.\n+Failure to comply with this rule may result in appropriate sanctions, up to and\n+including dismissal or entry of default.\n+III. CASE MANAGEMENT\n+A. Motions for temporary restraining order or preliminary\n+injunction\n+Any request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or for preliminary\n+injunctive relief must be made by a separate motion . A request for a TRO or\n+preliminary injunction found only in the complaint will not be considered. After\n+filing an appropriate motion, the movant must contact Ms. Wright to request\n+expedited consideration.\n+Any motion for TRO or preliminary injunction which requests injunctive or\n+equitable relief should be accompanied by a proposed order.\n+6\n+Revised August 2026\n+B. Extensions of time\n+Parties are reminded that in this jurisdiction, extensions of deadlines may\n+not be obtained by stipulation—the Parties must file a joint motion. Parties should\n+also not assume that a joint motion will be granted.\n+Motions for extension, whether joint, unopposed, or designated as consent,\n+will not be granted as a matter of course.\n+The Court expects parties seeking an extension to submit motions as early as\n+possible and to avoid last-minute requests for extensions. Parties seeking an\n+extension should explain with specificity the unanticipated or unforeseen\n+circumstances necessitating the extension and should set forth a timetable for the\n+completion of the tasks for which the extension is sought. Parties should indicate\n+whether opposing counsel consents to the extension. A proposed order should also\n+be provided.\n+C. Page limit extensions\n+Parties seeking an extension of the page limit must do so at least five (5)\n+days in advance of their filing deadline and should explain with specificity the\n+reasons necessitating the extension. If a party files a motion to extend the page\n+limit at the same time his or her brief is due, the extension request will be denied\n+absent a compelling and unanticipated reason for violating the Rule.\n+D. Objections to Magistrate Reports and Recommendations\n+Absent prior permission of the Court, objections to magistrate report and\n+recommendations and opposing party responses are limited in length to\n+twenty-five (25) pages. Said objections and responses shall also comply with the\n+formatting requirements of Local Rule 5.1, NDGa.\n+7\n+Revised August 2026\n+E. Discovery disputes and objections to discovery\n+Prior to filing a motion to compel discovery, motion to quash, or motion for\n+protective order and only after conferring with opposing counsel in a good faith\n+effort to resolve the discovery dispute by agreement, an attorney (or pro se litigant)\n+must contact Ms. Wright and notify her that there is a discovery dispute.\n+Ms. Wright will then schedule a conference call or videoconference in which the\n+Court will attempt to resolve the matter, without the necessity of a formal motion.\n+This conference call or videoconference will be taken down by a duly appointed\n+court reporter.\n+A party shall not include in its response to a discovery request a “Preamble”\n+or a “General Objections” section stating that the party objects to the discovery\n+request “to the extent that” it violates some general discovery rule, e.g., the\n+attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or the prohibition against\n+discovery requests that are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, or unduly\n+burdensome. Instead, each individual discovery request must be met with specific\n+objections which apply to each request. Any general objections shall be\n+disregarded by the Court.\n+F. Motions to seal\n+As a general matter, this Court will seal only those items enumerated in the\n+Court’s Standing Order 04-02 regarding sensitive information and public access to\n+electronic case files. If a party has very good cause to request sealing of material\n+marked or identified as “CONFIDENTIAL,” 1 said party, after notification to the\n+opposing party, may file a motion to seal in accordance with the Court’s\n+Procedures for Electronic Filing Documents Under Seal, located in Section II(J) of\n+Appendix H to the Local Rules of the Northern District of Georgia.2 After entry on\n+1 As further clarification, the Court notes that a mere reference or discussion of\n+confidential information does not warrant the entire document and all attachments to be\n+filed under seal. Instead, the Court will seal (or allow parties to file in a redacted format)\n+only very specific portions of documents that contain or refer to confidential information.\n+2 The Procedures for Electronic Filing Documents Under Seal only apply to attorneys. All\n+pro se parties must manually file a motion to seal at the Clerk’s Office. The material\n+8\n+Revised August 2026\n+the docket, the Court will review the material in camera and decide whether to\n+grant or deny the motion to seal.\n+G. Electronic filing of exhibits and attachments\n+Parties should make every effort to label all electronically uploaded exhibits\n+and attachments according to their content to assist the Court in making its ruling.\n+For example, documents should be uploaded with file names such as “Ex. A: Smith\n+Deposition,” “Ex. B: Employment Contract,” and “Ex. C: Jones Letter,” rather than\n+letter or number identifiers only.\n+Individual exhibits should be uploaded as separate attachments with file\n+names labeled accordingly. Parties should not upload voluminous attachments\n+that contain multiple exhibits. For example, a motion for summary judgment\n+should not be accompanied by one large attachment that contains all exhibits being\n+proffered in support of that motion. Instead, a party should upload the motion as\n+the main document, with the brief, statement of material facts, and supporting\n+exhibits all attached separately and labeled with files names as directed above. 3\n+Should a party’s attachments prove too difficult to navigate, the Court may require\n+the party to refile the motion, brief, and corresponding attachments.\n+When a party proffers deposition testimony in support of or in opposition\n+to a motion, the party shall submit excerpts of the specific pages referenced and\n+any surrounding pages necessary to provide context for cited passages in a text-\n+searchable PDF format. 4 The party should not attach to the brief a copy of the\n+entire deposition transcript unless the entire transcript is less than thirty (30)\n+pages. All excerpts from one person’s deposition shall be submitted as one\n+attachment. The entire deposition transcript is to be filed separately under a notice\n+of filing original deposition transcript.\n+subject to the seal request should be attached as an exhibit to the motion. The Clerk will\n+enter the motion on the docket under a provisional seal, without public viewing access.\n+3 Further, while the Court does not require parties to include a table of contents,\n+identifying exhibit pages, or exhibit stamps on documents, the Court advises parties that\n+such additions likely will assist the Court in reviewing submitted materials.\n+4 The Court advises parties that scanned copies of documents are unlikely to conform\n+with this requirement.\n+9\n+Revised August 2026\n+H. Brief titles\n+Briefs should be titled on CM/ECF as follows: The initial brief of a movant\n+should be titled “Brief in Support of [state the motion].” The brief of the\n+responding party should be titled “[name of respondent]’s Response\n+in Opposition to [state the motion].” The reply of the moving party should be titled\n+“Reply in Support of [state the motion].” Though surreplies should not be filed in\n+the normal course, if the Court authorizes a surreply, it should be titled “[name of\n+party filing the surreply]’s Surreply to [name of motion].”\n+I. Motions for summary judgment\n+All citations to the record evidence should be contained in each party’s brief,\n+not just in the party’s statement of undisputed (or disputed) facts. The party shall\n+include in the brief, immediately following the evidentiary reference, a citation\n+indicating (1) the paragraph, page, and/or transcript line numbers (if applicable)\n+where the referenced evidence can be found and (2) the paragraph number(s) of\n+the statement of undisputed (or disputed) facts where the fact stated can be found.\n+If a party fails to cite to specific paragraphs, pages, and/or line numbers, the Court\n+may require it to refile its motion, brief, and exhibits.\n+In addition to following the form instructions set out in Local Rule 56.1(B),\n+NDGa, a party responding to a statement of material facts shall copy into its\n+response document the numbered statement to which it is responding and provide\n+its response to that statement immediately following. Each party shall file these\n+documents in a text-searchable PDF format. 5 Statements of material fact that do\n+not conform with these instructions will be returned to counsel for revision.\n+J. Requests for oral argument on motions\n+In accordance with Local Rule 7.1(E), motions are usually decided without\n+oral argument, but the Court will consider requests for hearing. If oral argument\n+is requested, the party or parties should specify the particular reasons argument\n+may be helpful to the Court and what issues will be the focus of the proposed\n+argument.\n+5 See supra n.4.\n+10\n+Revised August 2026\n+K. Proposed orders\n+The filing party shall include a proposed order granting the motion for\n+all consent, unopposed, or joint motions.\n+IV. TRIAL MATTERS6\n+A. Deposition objections\n+Any objections to depositions and to any questions or answers in the\n+depositions shall be filed in writing no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days\n+before the date of trial. Objections not perfected in this manner will be deemed\n+waived or abandoned. All depositions shall be reviewed by counsel of record in an\n+effort to narrow the deposition designations and to resolve the objections amongst\n+themselves. In addition, all extraneous and unnecessary matter, including non -\n+essential colloquy of counsel, shall be deleted.\n+B. Motions in limine\n+Motions in limine shall be filed with the Clerk no later than fourteen (14)\n+calendar days before the date of trial. Responses to motions in limine shall be filed\n+with the Clerk no later than seven (7) calendar days before the date of trial.\n+C. Pretrial conference\n+The Court will conduct a pretrial conference in all cases (civil and criminal)\n+noticed for trial. For civil cases, only the attorneys (and not the parties) are\n+required to appear. For criminal cases, the Defendant is required to appear. Pro se\n+litigants are also required to appear at pretrial conferences and govern themselves\n+in accordance with these instructions.\n+The purpose of the conference is to simplify the issues to be tried and to rule\n+on evidentiary objections raised in the pretrial order (for civil cases).\n+At the pretrial conference (civil cases), counsel (or the pro se litigant) will be\n+required to identify the specific witnesses that will be called in the case-in-chief.\n+The Court may require counsel (or the pro se litigant) to bring trial exhibits\n+6 At the time a case is noticed for trial or at the request of a party or counsel, the Court will\n+issue a trial outline/overview, which will provide additional procedural information.\n+11\n+Revised August 2026\n+to the pretrial conference in order to determine objections to said exhibits.\n+D. Presentation of evidence\n+Attorneys and pro se litigants shall request permission to approach prior to\n+approaching a witness or the bench.\n+E. Exhibits\n+Counsel (or the pro se litigant) shall separately and sequentially number each\n+of their exhibits. Exhibits shall not be labeled or grouped as categories, for\n+example, “hospital records” or “photographs.”\n+F. Jury trials\n+When the jury is in the courtroom, it is the Court’s and the litigants’\n+responsibility to use the jury’s time efficiently. If matters need to be taken up\n+outside the presence of the jury, they should be raised during breaks or before the\n+start of the trial day. It is each party’s responsibility to have enough witnesses on\n+hand for each day’s proceedings.\n+a. Voir dire\n+Proposed voir dire questions shall be filed with the Clerk no later than seven\n+(7) calendar days before the date of trial, if not previously filed as a part of the\n+pretrial order. The Court will review the submissions and notify the parties of the\n+approved questions at or prior to the pretrial conference.\n+During voir dire, the Court will ask certain qualifying questions and request\n+the jurors to verbally respond to a printed juror questionnaire (containing general\n+questions regarding their residence, occupation, education, prior jury service, and\n+spouse, if applicable). The Court will then permit the attorneys to ask approved\n+voir dire questions for a period of thirty (30) minutes per side, per panel of\n+potential jurors.\n+All challenges for cause will be heard at the close of the questioning of all\n+jurors.\n+There will be a fifteen (15) minute break at the conclusion of juror\n+12\n+Revised August 2026\n+questioning in order to allow the attorneys time to review their notes prior to\n+striking the jury.\n+In all criminal cases, twelve jurors will be selected, along with two alternates\n+who will not deliberate unless replacing another juror. If the attorneys desire\n+additional alternates, they shall notify the Court at the beginning of trial. The\n+Court will entertain arguments to this regard.\n+In all civil cases, eight jurors will be selected to deliberate for cases expected\n+to last one week or less. The Court will empanel additional jurors for cases\n+expected to last more than one week. The number of jurors to empanel will be\n+determined after receiving input from the parties. No alternates will be empaneled\n+for civil cases.\n+b. Exhibits\n+Arrangements with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk for the use of\n+demonstrative exhibits or other visual aids should be made sufficiently in advance\n+so that they may be set up while court is not in session.\n+Exhibits must be examined and marked before trial in compliance with\n+Local Rule 16.4, NDGa. The parties should confer with the Courtroom Deputy\n+Clerk prior to the start of trial to determine how the Court will receive a copy of\n+the exhibits for use by the Judge on the bench during proceedings. Ordinarily, the\n+Court requests notebooks of exhibits to be provided on the first day of trial.\n+c. Requests to charge\n+Requests to charge shall be filed with the Clerk of Court no later than seven\n+(7) calendar days before the date of trial. An editable, electronic version of the\n+proposed charges (in Microsoft Word) shall be emailed to Ms. Wright on the same\n+day that the proposed charge is filed with the Clerk.\n+These proposed jury charges shall be a single, unified set of proposed jury\n+instructions. The parties should first list all requested charges that are agreed\n+upon. After the agreed -upon instructions, the parties should list their requested\n+instructions to which opposing counsel objects. The parties should indicate (1)\n+who is proposing the instruction, (2) the legal basis for the instruction, and (3) the\n+basis for the other party’s opposition to the instruction.\n+13\n+Revised August 2026\n+Counsel must use the latest edition of the Eleventh Circuit’s Pattern Jury\n+Instructions, if applicable. If there is no appropriate Eleventh Circuit charge,\n+counsel should use instructions from the latest edition of O’Malley’s Federal Jury\n+Practice and Instructions . If state law applies, counsel shall present the appropriate\n+pattern instruction from the applicable state. Counsel should be sure to include all\n+substantive law issues and should not assume that the Court has its own charge\n+on the substantive law.\n+G. Specific Instructions for Criminal Cases\n+All sentencing memoranda shall be filed at least forty-eight (48) hours prior\n+to the scheduled sentencing date.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of August, 2026.\n+HONORABLE STEVE C. JONES\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+28th","id":"51348a4670473b8e827e98c5c705b57e7de53bf155603cb1785f59cbd91df95b","newHash":"9d0c3c114cf338c068c34ddaf22933026f92dbf4cb40e431f04b5766110fec71","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SCJ%20Standing%20Case%20Instructions.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/9d0c3c114cf338c068c34ddaf22933026f92dbf4cb40e431f04b5766110fec71.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SCJ%20Standing%20Case%20Instructions.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:55.051295+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,695 @@\n+1\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA\n+ATLANTA DIVISION\n+IN RE: CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED TO\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+STEVEN D. GRIMBERG\n+STANDING ORDER REGARDING CIVIL LITIGATION\n+This Standing Order is a must read. It will likely answer any question you\n+may have during the pre-trial stage of this case about my procedures and\n+preferences. It may very well also help you avoid tragic pitfalls. Please review and\n+refer to it early and often.\n+To the extent this Standing Order conf licts with the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure or Local Rules of this Court, this Order cont rols. If a Magistrate Judge\n+is assigned to this case, orders issued by that judge, rather than this Standing\n+Order, govern while the case is pending before the Magistrate Judge.\n+You must comply with the Standing Or der entered on the docket of your\n+case, but you are not responsible for co mplying with any updated or amended\n+version of the Standing Order that appears on the Court’s website. However, if\n+you want an updated or amended version of this Standing Order (or a provision\n+therein) to apply to your case, you are we lcome to do so with all parties’ written\n+consent. You may memorialize any such agreement by filing a notice of same on\n+the docket of your case.\n+2\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+I. Case Administration ............................................................................................. 4\n+a. Communications with Chambers ............................................................ 4\n+b. Courtesy Copies of Documents ................................................................ 5\n+c. Pro Se Parties ............................................................................................... 5\n+II. Case Management ................................................................................................. 6\n+a. Diversity Jurisdiction ................................................................................. 6\n+b. Certificate of Interested Persons ............................................................... 7\n+c. Responses to Pleadings .............................................................................. 8\n+d. Motions and Briefs ..................................................................................... 8\n+e. Amended Complaints and Motions to Dismiss or\n+Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings ................................................. 9\n+f. Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders or\n+Preliminary Injunctive Relief .................................................................. 10\n+g. Electronic Filing of Exhibits and Attachments ..................................... 11\n+h. Proposed Orders ....................................................................................... 11\n+i. Extensions of Time ................................................................................... 12\n+j. Enlargement of Page Limit...................................................................... 13\n+k. Conferences ............................................................................................... 13\n+l. Oral Argument .......................................................................................... 14\n+m. Courtroom Technology ........................................................................... 14\n+n. Mediation ................................................................................................... 15\n+o. Settlements ................................................................................................. 16\n+3\n+III. Discovery .............................................................................................................. 16\n+a. General Principles of Discovery ............................................................. 16\n+b. Rule 26(f) Conference and Joint Preliminary Report and\n+Discovery Plan .......................................................................................... 17\n+c. Initial Disclosures ..................................................................................... 18\n+d. Written Discovery Responses ................................................................. 18\n+e. Depositions ................................................................................................ 20\n+f. Discovery Disputes .................................................................................. 21\n+g. Discovery Period Extensions .................................................................. 23\n+h. Protective Orders and Motions to Seal .................................................. 24\n+i. Expert Witness Disclosure and Discovery ............................................ 27\n+IV. Summary Judgment ............................................................................................ 27\n+a. Successive Motions for Summary Judgment Prohibited .................... 27\n+b. Record Citations ....................................................................................... 27\n+c. Statements of Undisputed or Disputed Material Facts ....................... 28\n+d. Failure to Respond to Motions for Summary Judgment .................... 28\n+e. Daubert Motions ........................................................................................ 28\n+V. Trial ........................................................................................................................ 29\n+a. Consolidated Proposed Pretrial Order .................................................. 29\n+b. Trial Order ................................................................................................. 30\n+c. Artificial Intelligence ................................................................................ 30\n+d. Feedback .................................................................................................... 31\n+Appendix A: Special Instructions for Pro Se Litigants .............................................. 33\n+4\n+I. Case Administration\n+a. Communications with Chambers\n+My Courtroom Deputy Clerk (CRD) is Danielle Brye, and she will be your\n+principal point of contact with my Chambers, although one of my law clerks may\n+also contact you from time to time. These communications will generally be\n+oriented around scheduling or logistics. Please do not discuss the merits of the\n+case through these informal communications unless authorized by this Standing\n+Order or as otherwise directed. Please also note that we may file on the docket any\n+written communication submitted to Chambers.\n+Email is our much-favored form of communication. It avoids ex parte\n+communications (because you should alwa ys copy co- and opposing counsel on\n+your emails) and helps us internally route the communication to the right\n+person(s). CRD Brye’s email address is: Danielle_Brye@gand.uscourts.gov.\n+Please always include the style of the case and case number in the subject\n+line of your email, and if you are referring to a motion or other docket entry, please\n+reference the title of that item and ECF number.\n+We generally try to email counsel to confirm availability in advance of\n+scheduling a conference or hearing. This is a professional courtesy. Please return\n+the courtesy by responding to the email wi thin 24 hours. If you fail to do so, the\n+conference or hearing will be scheduled without further notice.\n+5\n+If you wish to check on the status of a pending motion, please be mindful\n+that our court is busy, one of the busiest federal district courts in the nation, and\n+we are doing our best. You can realisti cally anticipate that any contested\n+dispositive motion will take at least six months to resolve.\n+If there is a time-sensitive motion or other matter that you wish to bring to\n+our attention, please copy my career law clerk, KJ Jones, on your email to CRD\n+Brye. Ms. Jones’s email is: Kristina_Jones@gand.uscourts.gov.\n+Although disfavored, if necessary, you may contact Chambers by telephone\n+(404-215-1470), or by mail or hand delivery to the following address:\n+The Honorable Steven D. Grimberg\n+ATTN: Courtroom Deputy Danielle Brye\n+1701 United States Courthouse\n+75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W.\n+Atlanta, Georgia 30303\n+b. Courtesy Copies of Documents\n+Courtesy copies of filings should not be provided to the Court unless\n+requested.\n+c. Pro Se Parties\n+Specific procedures applicable to pro se parties are contained in the\n+Appendix to this Standing Order and should be followed by individuals who are\n+not represented by counsel, in addition to the provisions contained in this\n+Standing Order itself.\n+6\n+II. Case Management\n+a. Diversity Jurisdiction\n+Federal courts are courts of limited ju risdiction, and it is my responsibility\n+to ensure that cases are properly in federa l court. Subject matter jurisdiction is a\n+predicate to my ability to hear your case. For cases based on diversity jurisdiction,\n+if I enter an Order to Show Cause inquirin g into a party’s citizenship, it is your\n+responsibility to properly allege that party’s citizenship and the existence of\n+subject matter jurisdiction.\n+To demonstrate diversity of citizenship as the basis for this court’s subject\n+matter jurisdiction, the complaint or noti ce of removal must sufficiently allege\n+more than $75,000 in controversy and the citizenship of the parties. For domestic\n+parties, this means state citizenship. I realize that often we think of citizenship in\n+terms of countries, but for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, domestic parties must\n+be citizens of different states. Citizenship for individuals for this purpose is\n+equivalent to domicile, not to a person’s residence. McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d\n+1254, 1257–58 (11th Cir. 2002 ) (Domicile is a party’s “t rue, fixed, and permanent\n+home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning\n+whenever he is absent therefrom.”).\n+One of the most common mistakes we se e in originally filed complaints or\n+notices of removal alleging diversity juri sdiction is reliance on allegations of a\n+7\n+party’s residence rather than the party’s citizenship. I recognize that these words\n+may appear to say the same thing, but trus t me, the Eleventh Circuit does not. If\n+you fail to properly allege diversity of citizenship, your case will be dismissed or\n+remanded.\n+The citizenship of an artificial entity depends on the form of the entity. You\n+are advised to confirm, prior to making any jurisdictional allegation, how the\n+citizenship of that specific entity is determined. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). I\n+have observed countless litigants struggle to properly allege the citizenship of a\n+domestic LLC. The citizenship of the LLC is determined by the citizenship of each\n+of its members and submembers until the Co urt is left with only individuals or\n+corporations. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings LLC, 374 F.3d 1020,\n+1022 (11th Cir. 2004). It is irrelevant, for purposes of citizenship, under which\n+state’s laws the domestic LLC was formed.\n+b. Certificate of Interested Persons\n+Each party must file a certificate of interested persons and corporate\n+disclosure statement (CIP) at the time of first appearance, using the current version\n+of the form provided in the Court’s Local Rules. See Local Rule 3.3(C). This is\n+important to ensure that no conflict of in terest exists and for me to assess (where\n+necessary) whether the parties are of dive rse citizenship. Please file your CIP\n+8\n+timely. Failure to do so may result in sa nctions, up to and including dismissal or\n+default.\n+c. Responses to Pleadings\n+If you are filing an answer to a complaint, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-\n+party complaint, you must copy into your answer the paragraph of the pleading\n+to which you are responding and pr ovide the answer to that paragraph\n+immediately following.\n+A responsive pleading must admit or deny each of the averments of the\n+adverse party’s pleading. For example, if the complaint alleges, “A copy of the\n+parties’ contract is attached as Exhibit A,” the defendant may not plead,\n+“Defendant admits that Exhibit A is attached to the complaint,” or “the document\n+speaks for itself.” Evasive denials such as these will be di sregarded, and the\n+averments to which they are directed will be deemed admitted.\n+d. Motions and Briefs\n+You need not file a moti on and supporting brief as separate documents on\n+the docket. Rather, you should consolidate your motion and brief into one\n+document, and file it on the docket as a motion.\n+9\n+e. Amended Complaints and Motions to Dismiss or Motions for\n+Judgment on the Pleadings\n+If, in response to a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the\n+pleadings, a plaintiff properly files an amended complaint, the pending motion\n+will be denied as moot. The defendant-movant must answer the amended\n+complaint or file a renewed motion to di smiss (or similar moti on under Fed. R.\n+Civ. P. 12) within 14 days of the court’s order. The plaintiff may not file a second\n+amended complaint without leave of court or the consent of all opposing parties.\n+If a plaintiff fails to timely respond to a motion to dismiss or motion for\n+judgment on the pleadings, in whole or in part, the claim(s) that are the subject\n+of that motion will be deemed abandoned and dismissed.\n+During the pendency of a motion to dismiss (or similar Rule 12 motion) by\n+any party, in whole or in part, all litigatio n activity is automatically stayed until I\n+rule on the motion or otherwise direct , unless all parties agree in writing\n+otherwise. This stay includes the Local Rule 16.1 conference, the Joint Preliminary\n+Report and Discovery Plan, initial disclosu res, and discovery. This stay does not\n+apply to the parties soberly reevaluating the strength of their respective cases and\n+seeking a resolution among themselves or wi th the assistance of a neutral. If you\n+would like me to refer your case to a United States Magistrate Judge for mediation\n+at any stage of the case, please see Section II.n. of this Standing Order.\n+10\n+If you believe good cause exists for any or all pretrial activity to continue or\n+deadlines to remain in effect notwithstanding the pendency of a motion to dismiss\n+(or similar Rule 12 motion), you may submit a request pursuant to the discovery\n+dispute procedures outlined in Section III.f. of this Standing Order.\n+f. Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders or Preliminary\n+Injunctive Relief\n+Any request for a temporary restraining order or for preliminary injunctive\n+relief must be made by separate motion. If you request such relief only in the\n+complaint or other pleading but fail to file a separate motion seeking the same, the\n+request will not be considered until the merits of the case are addressed.\n+After filing such a motion, you should contact Chambers by email to request\n+expedited consideration. If you do not reach out to us, we will presume that it is\n+not time-sensitive for you. If your motion, in whole or in part, has been filed under\n+seal, please attach the sealed filings to your email. If your motion seeks an ex parte\n+temporary restraining order, please include a proposed order in your filing. Your\n+email to Chambers should attach a Word version of all the proposed orders that\n+you have filed. Please see more about proposed orders in Section II.h. of this\n+Standing Order.\n+11\n+g. Electronic Filing of Exhibits and Attachments\n+You should make every effort to label all electronically uploaded exhibits\n+and attachments according to their conten t. For example, documents should be\n+uploaded as Ex. A: Smith Deposition; Ex. B: Employment Contract; Ex. C: Jones\n+Letter, etc., rather than simply Ex. A, Ex. B, and Ex. C. When practicable, you\n+should file documents in a text-searcha ble PDF format. Exhibits or attachments\n+that are not referenced and relied on in the body of your submission will not be\n+considered.\n+h. Proposed Orders\n+My practice is to enter many non-disp ositive orders by docket entry only,\n+with no “paper” order attached. The text of these docket entry orders will\n+generally begin with: “ORDER (by docket entry only) . . . .” Please monitor the\n+electronic docket of your case carefully so as not to miss an important deadline or\n+instruction.\n+For this reason, you generally need no t prepare and file a proposed order\n+unless we request one. One exception to this is motions seeking ex parte temporary\n+restraining orders (as referenced above). If a proposed order is submitted, please\n+do not include the word “Proposed” in the title or any other words that would\n+necessarily need to be deleted before en try. All orders submitted by counsel are\n+proposed until and unless we’ve entered them. In other words, please prepare the\n+12\n+proposed order exactly as you would want it entered, save for my signature on it.\n+Please style the signature line as follows:\n+________________________________\n+Steven D. Grimberg\n+United States District Judge\n+Please email Chambers a Word version of your proposed orders.\n+i. Extensions of Time\n+I am responsible for moving cases towards a prompt and just resolution. To\n+that end, I try to set reasonable but firm deadlines. Motions for extension of time,\n+even if joint or unopposed, may not be granted as a matter of course. You may not\n+stipulate to an extension of time that I have not approved, except those explicitly\n+allowed elsewhere in this Standing Order.\n+If you are seeking an extension of time for any non-discovery related\n+deadline, please file a motion and indicate in the title of the motion whether it is\n+opposed or unopposed. The title of the motion should also indicate how many\n+previous extensions of the same deadline have been sought an d received, if any:\n+for example, “Third Unopposed Motion for Extension of the Answer Deadline.”\n+Failure to do so may result in denial of the motion for this reason alone. For further\n+information concerning discovery-related extensions, see Section III.g. of this\n+Standing Order.\n+13\n+If a motion for extension of time is filed less than two business days prior to\n+the deadline, you should follow the procedure for time-sensitive motions outlined\n+in Section I.a. of this Standing Order.\n+j. Enlargement of Page Limit\n+If you are seeking an enlargement of th e page limit on a brief or objections\n+to a Report and Recommendation, you must file a motion requesting same at least\n+two business days in advance of the filin g deadline explaining the circumstances\n+necessitating additional pages. Your motion should indicate whether the opposing\n+party consents to the request for addi tional pages, and if so, whether a\n+corresponding request for additional pages is being made for subsequent response\n+and/or reply briefs. Please follow the time-sensitive motion process in Section I.a.\n+of this Standing Order if your brief or objections are due in less than two business\n+days.\n+If you file a motion to enlarge the page limit simultaneously with the\n+enlarged brief or objections, or worse, neve r seek leave to do so at all, your brief\n+or objections may be stricken without notice.\n+k. Conferences\n+I try to make myself as available to counsel as practicable. You are\n+encouraged to request a conference with me at any time if you believe it will help\n+move the case along. To do so, please contact Chambers as outlined in Section I.a.\n+14\n+of this Standing Order. For discovery-related conferences, please reference Section\n+III.f.\n+l. Oral Argument\n+We review all dispositive motions with an eye towards whether oral\n+argument would be helpful in resolving the matter or clarifying the issues in\n+dispute. That said, you are welcome to request oral argument by filing a\n+standalone motion requesting same, ideally at the same time as the underlying\n+motion or response thereto.\n+In my experience, civil litigators do not get enough court appearances,\n+especially early in their careers, and I want to do my part to correct that gap. If you\n+represent in your motion for oral argument that an attorney with less than five\n+years of experience will conduct the oral argument (or a substantial part thereof),\n+I will most likely grant the motion for oral argument.\n+m. Courtroom Technology\n+My courtroom has various electronic equipment available to counsel for use\n+at trial or hearings, and oftentimes counsel do not take enough advantage of the\n+tools available to enhance their presentations. It is your responsibility to make sure\n+you know in advance of the hearing or trial how to use the equipment available,\n+to have the cables necessary to hook up your equipment, and to ensure that your\n+equipment will interface with the Court’s technology. Please contact CRD Brye if\n+15\n+you wish to set up an appointment to do so. As with all things technology-\n+oriented, however, please always be prep ared to proceed without the benefit of\n+the courtroom technology if necessary.\n+If you do not have an Attorney Identification Card (i.e., a Blue Card) for our\n+courthouse, I encourage you to get one. More information can be found on our\n+court’s website, at: gand.uscourts.gov/attorney-identification-id-card.\n+Without a Blue Card, you must file a motion and proposed order if you\n+would like to bring any electronic equipment into the courthouse for a scheduled\n+hearing or trial, including cell phones, laptop computers, electronic tablets, cords,\n+or cables. The proposed order should identify the person(s) seeking to bring in the\n+electronic equipment, specify the type of equipment and date(s) of the hearing or\n+trial to which you desire to bring the equipment, and identify the courtroom (mine\n+is generally Courtroom 1701) to which the equipment will be brought. The motion\n+and accompanying order should be filed at least two business days prior to the\n+hearing or trial, and you should email a Word version of the proposed order to\n+CRD Brye.\n+n. Mediation\n+You are encouraged to mediate and to do so as early as practicable. The\n+earlier you do so, the more likely it is that I will agree to stay discovery and other\n+pretrial deadlines during the pendency of mediation.\n+16\n+Our court has a terrific program that allows me to refer parties to mediation\n+before a United States Magistrate Judge pu rsuant to Local Rule 16.7(B). There is\n+no cost for this mediation service, and our magistrate judges have an excellent\n+track record of resolving cases. Requests to mediate before a magistrate judge may\n+be made jointly or ex parte by emailing Chambers.\n+o. Settlements\n+If you reach a tentative settlement or agree to a settlement in principle but\n+have not yet completed all steps necessary to document the settlement, please\n+notify Chambers immediately. This he lps us to potentially avoid expending\n+unnecessary time and resources on a case that is likely going away. You may do\n+so by filing a Notice of Settlement on the docket or by emailing Chambers. The\n+sooner the better. Please.\n+III. Discovery\n+a. General Principles of Discovery\n+In conducting discovery, your guidin g principles should be three “C’s”:\n+courtesy, candor, and common sense. I cannot emphasize enough the importance\n+of stepping away from your keyboard and engaging with opposing counsel face-\n+to-face (in person or by videoconference) or at least by phone to resolve discovery\n+issues. I realize you are busy and firing off a passive-aggressive email may feel\n+good in the moment, but in the end you w ill likely regret it. I am amenable to\n+17\n+imposing sanctions on counsel who demonstrate a lack of professionalism of any\n+variety, including repeated non-responsiveness.\n+b. Rule 26(f) Conference and Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery\n+Plan\n+Notwithstanding Local Rule 16.1, parties by agreement may conduct their\n+Rule 26(f) Conference by videoconferenc e rather than in person. Parties by\n+agreement may also extend the date by which the Rule 26(f) Conference is\n+completed. However, extensions for fi ling the Joint Preliminary Report and\n+Discovery Plan (Joint Report) must be requested by motion.\n+After the Joint Report is filed, I w ill generally enter a Scheduling Order by\n+docket entry. For this reason, it is unne cessary to submit a proposed order with\n+your Joint Report unless you are reques ting specific intervening discovery\n+deadlines (such as deadlines for expert discovery, etc.). I will rarely authorize an\n+initial discovery period that is longer than six months (u nless the case is initially\n+assigned to an eight-month track). If you would like a scheduling conference\n+(which generally will be held by Zoom), pl ease request one in your Joint Report\n+and email Chambers. Neither the timing of a conference nor entry of the\n+Scheduling Order delays the start of discov ery, so whether you hear from us or\n+not please get started because time is of the essence.\n+18\n+c. Initial Disclosures\n+Initial disclosures should be as co mplete as practicable based on the\n+information reasonably available at the time of disclosure. Responses may not be\n+reserved for later supplementation. Parties by agreement may extend the date by\n+which initial disclosures are exchanged.\n+d. Written Discovery Responses\n+The Federal Rules prohibit boilerplate and general objections in response to\n+written discovery requests, and I agree. Pl ease do not carelessly invoke the usual\n+litany of rote objections, i.e., attorney-client privilege, work-product protection,\n+overly broad/unduly burdensome, irrelevant, or not reasonably calculated to lead\n+to the discovery of admissible evidence.\n+You should not include in response to a discovery request a “Preamble” or\n+a “General Objections” section stating that you object to a discovery request “to\n+the extent that” it violates some rule pe rtaining to discovery. Instead, you must\n+respond to each individual discovery request with every specific objection\n+thereto—but only those objections that actually apply to that particular request.\n+Otherwise, it is impossible for the party on which the discovery response is served\n+(or me) to know exactly what objections have been asserted to each request. For\n+this reason, if a discovery dispute with general objections comes to me for\n+19\n+resolution, I will disregard all objections that are not specifically tailored to the\n+discovery request at issue.\n+If you object in part and respond in part to a discovery request, you must\n+indicate whether the response is complete, i.e., whether additional information or\n+documents would have been provided but for the objection(s). For example, you\n+may not raise objections and then state, “Subject to these objections and without\n+waiving them, the response is as follows . . . .” unless you expressly indicate\n+whether additional information would have been included in the response but for\n+the objection(s).\n+If a privilege objection is made, the claim must be supported by a privilege\n+log or statement of particulars sufficient to enable the requesting party (and me)\n+to assess the validity of the claim. In the case of a document, the privilege log or\n+statement should specify the privilege re lied on and, when available, generally\n+include: the date, title, subject, and purpose of the document; the name and\n+position of the author; and the names and positions of all the recipients. In the case\n+of an oral communication, the privilege log or statement should include the\n+privilege relied on and generally identify: the date, place, subject, and purpose of\n+the communication; and the names and positions of all individuals present.\n+You are expected to observe the limitations regarding the number and scope\n+of interrogatories as stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and 33, but the parties by\n+20\n+agreement may vary from those rules. Pa rties by agreement may also extend the\n+date by which written discovery responses are due.\n+e. Depositions\n+Barring extraordinary circumstances, a ll parties should be consulted, and\n+the convenience of counsel, witnesses, and the parties accommodated, before a\n+deposition is noticed.\n+If the parties enter into stipulations at the beginning of a deposition, the\n+terms of each stipulation should be fully stated on the record. General stipulations\n+such as “all objections except as to form are reserved” or “the usual stipulations”\n+are disfavored.\n+Objections to the manner of taking the deposition, to the evidence, or to the\n+conduct of a party shall be noted on the record, but the evidence objected to shall\n+be taken subject to the objection. In the absence of a good fait h claim of privilege\n+or witness harassment, instructions not to answer are rarely justified and may lead\n+to sanctions. Speaking objections and ot her tactics for coaching a witness during\n+the deposition are not permissible. Please try to resolve deposition objections\n+without my involvement; I will rarely be available to address issues in the midst\n+of a deposition, so your best bet is to make a record and raise the issue afterwards\n+by utilizing the discovery dispute procedure set forth in Section III.f. of this\n+Standing Order.\n+21\n+f. Discovery Disputes\n+You must confer with the opposing pa rty in good faith before bringing\n+discovery disputes to my attention. The duty to confer is not satisfied by simply\n+sending a written document (e.g. , email or letter) to the opposing party, unless\n+repeated attempts to confer by telephone, videoconference, or in person are\n+unsuccessful. As noted previously, repeat ed instances of non-responsiveness are\n+a valid ground to seek sanctions.\n+The filing of discovery-related motion s against a party to the litigation\n+(except for unopposed, consent, or joint motions) is prohibited. This prohibition\n+includes motions for discovery-related sanctions. Instead, please email Chambers\n+a statement outlining your position and re quest a conference with the Court. All\n+parties must be copied on such emails. Unless the issues are complex or numerous,\n+the statement should not exceed 3 pages, as its purpose is simply to apprise me of\n+the issue(s). It is not intended as a subs titute for full briefing. You may attach to\n+your email particularly pert inent exhibits if you wish (such as an excerpt of the\n+discovery requests and the responses or ob jections in dispute), but please do not\n+inundate us with voluminous exhibits. Again, the purpose of the written statement\n+is simply to flag the issues and determine whether a conference or formal briefing\n+is necessary. The opposing party may email a responding statement, subject to the\n+22\n+same limitations, no later than 24 hour s before a scheduled conference on the\n+matter or as I otherwise direct.\n+Please note that the statements you submit, and the exhibits you attach, will\n+generally not be placed on the docket. If you wish to preserve these items as part\n+of the record, you may enter them on the docket with the lead document titled\n+“Notice of Filing,” describing the items you have attached. To the extent you wish\n+some or all of these filings to be sealed, please reference Section III.h. of this\n+Standing Order.\n+Following receipt of a di scovery-dispute statement, we will either provide\n+further instructions via email or docket entry, or we will schedule a conference\n+(generally by Zoom). During the conference , I will try to resolve or rule on the\n+dispute without the necessity of formal briefing, if practicable. The conference will\n+be transcribed by a court reporter like any other hearing.\n+If a dispute between a party and a non-party arises ( e.g., a disagreement\n+regarding a third-party subpoena), the party must promptly inform the non-party\n+of this discovery-dispute policy. In rais ing the discovery disp ute with the Court,\n+both the party and the non-party must follow the same procedure detailed above.\n+If a non-party fails to provide any response at all to a properly served subpoena,\n+the party issuing the subpoena must file a formal motion seeking relief and alert\n+Chambers to the filing via email so that the motion can receive prompt attention.\n+23\n+g. Discovery Period Extensions\n+Please formulate your discovery plans early to facilitate the completion of\n+necessary discovery before the close of the discovery period. That said, if all parties\n+agree that an extension or reopening of the discovery period is necessary, please\n+file a consent motion. The consent motion should state: (1) the original (and, if\n+applicable, current) date from which the extension or reopening is being sought;\n+(2) the number of previous requests for extensions or reopenings that have been\n+made, if any; and (3) why the extension or reopening is needed to complete\n+identifiable tasks. Failure to do so may result in denial of the extension request for\n+these reasons alone.\n+The parties may agree in writing and without the necessity of seeking Court\n+approval to complete certain discrete discovery items out of time, such as\n+conducting a particular deposition or re sponding to certain outstanding written\n+discovery requests, if it will not otherwise disrupt pending Court deadlines (such\n+as the dispositive motion or proposed pretrial order deadline).\n+Where requests to extend or reopen the discovery period are not made by\n+consent, or are otherwise opposed, the requesting party should provide the same\n+information outlined above but make th e request using the discovery dispute\n+procedure outlined in Section III.f. of this Standing Order.\n+24\n+Absent extraordinary circumstances, requests or motions for extension of\n+discovery must be filed prior to the expiration of the existing discovery period.\n+Failure to do so may result in denial of the request for that reason alone.\n+h. Protective Orders and Motions to Seal\n+The parties may jointly seek by moti on the entry of a protective order\n+concerning discovery materials, or they may file an agreed-upon stipulation on\n+the docket. However, subsequent opinions and orders entered in the case may\n+publicly disclose material that has previously been designated by a party or the\n+parties as confidential or f iled under seal if I determine that such designation or\n+sealing is not warranted under the circ umstances. Addition ally, if any party\n+wishes to challenge a confidentiality designation, the party must follow the\n+Court’s discovery dispute procedure set fo rth in Section III.f. of this Standing\n+Order, notwithstanding any contrary procedure agreed-upon by the parties, even\n+if that procedure is memorialized in a protective order that has been entered on\n+the docket.\n+Absent extraordinary circumstances making prior consultation impractical\n+or inappropriate, the party seeking to file documents containing confidential\n+information should first consult with the party who designated the document as\n+confidential to determine if some less restrictive measure than filing the document\n+25\n+under seal may provide adequate protection. Any motion to file under seal should\n+indicate whether it is by consent, unopposed, or opposed.\n+In the absence of a protective order ente red by the Court, to request to file\n+material under seal, counsel should follow the procedures described in the Local\n+Rules and consult the Court’s Procedures for Electronic Filing Under Seal in Civil\n+Cases, which can be found at: www.gand.uscourts.gov/cv-sealed-procedures.\n+These procedures require filing an unredacted version of the document as\n+provisionally under seal and publicly filing a redacted version of the document, in\n+addition to the motion to file under seal. Counsel are encouraged to email the\n+unredacted version of all sealed filings to Chambers simultaneously with their\n+filing.\n+When filing the unredacted, provisionally sealed document, counsel should\n+use the CM/ECF event code “Notice of Filing.” The Notice of Filing should be the\n+lead document, and the brief and all supporting documents should be included as\n+exhibits to the notice. For example, if the party is requesting that Exhibit A to a\n+Motion for Summary Judgment and a po rtion of the memorandum of law in\n+support of the motion be filed under seal, the Notice of Filing Sealed Document\n+should attach as exhibits: the motion for summary judgment, the unredacted\n+supporting memorandum of law, Exhibit A, and all other exhibits to the motion.\n+If you are filing documents under seal pursuant to a protective order that has been\n+26\n+entered by the Court, no motion to file under seal is necessary. The Notice of Filing\n+should indicate the applicable provision of the protective order under which the\n+documents are being sealed. You also need not file a motion to file under seal\n+information that is required to be redacted by NDGa Standing Order Nos. 04-02\n+and 08-02, including Social Security numb ers, names of minor children, dates of\n+birth, street addresses, and financial account numbers.\n+These instructions do not apply to parties appearing pro se . For pro se\n+litigants, motions to seal must be filed with the Clerk of Court in person or by mail.\n+In such instances, the material subject to the request to seal should be attached as\n+an exhibit to the motion. The Clerk will enter the motion on the docket under a\n+provisional seal, without public viewing access.\n+The party filing the motion to file under seal should clearly indicate the type\n+o f m a t e r i a l t h e p a r t y i s s e e k i n g t o s e a l and the justification for protecting that\n+material from disclosure. Please note that sealing motions will not be granted as a\n+matter of course, and I will only do so on a showing of good cause. Given the\n+public’s interest in disclosure, good cause will generally only be established where\n+the materials contain trade secrets, person al identifying information, or sensitive\n+commercial information.\n+27\n+i. Expert Witness Disclosure and Discovery\n+Absent explicit deadlines provided in the scheduling order, expert\n+witnesses must be disclosed at least 60 days prior to the close of the discovery\n+period, and rebuttal experts must be disclosed within 30 days of the initial expert\n+disclosure. There is no separate “exp ert discovery period” that follows fact\n+discovery unless explicitly provided in the scheduling order.\n+IV. Summary Judgment\n+a. Successive Motions for Summary Judgment Prohibited\n+The filing of piecemeal or successive motions for summary judgment by a\n+single party is prohibited, absent prior permission. This prohibition does not\n+preclude a party from filing both a moti on for summary judgment asserting an\n+immunity from suit and a later motion for summary judgment addressing any\n+issues that may remain in the case. This prohibition also is not triggered when, as\n+permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), the Court elects to treat a motion filed pursuant\n+to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or 12(c) as a summary judgment motion.\n+b. Record Citations\n+Record citations should be made only in the statement of undisputed\n+(or disputed) material facts or responses thereto (hereinafter collectively referred\n+t o a s “ S M F s ” ) . S u m m a r y j u d g m e n t b r i e f s s h o u l d c i t e o n l y t o t h e r e l e v a n t\n+numbered paragraph(s) of the SMFs, not the underlying record.\n+28\n+c. Statements of Undisputed or Disputed Material Facts\n+Opening SMFs are each limited to 25 pages absent prior permission of the\n+Court. A party responding to SMFs shou ld copy the statement to which it is\n+responding and provide its response to that statement immediately following.\n+Failure to do so will render the statement as admitted.\n+d. Failure to Respond to Motions for Summary Judgment\n+I require a written response to all motions for summary judgment. If you do\n+not wish to contest it, then say so, but a written response is required. If you fail to\n+respond, you will be subject to sanction s for failure to follow a court order,\n+including but not limited to possible dismissal of the claim(s) or defense(s) that are\n+the subject of that motion.\n+e. Daubert Motions\n+Absent an explicit deadline in the scheduling order, parties should file any\n+Daubert or other expert witness-related motion no later than the dispositive motion\n+deadline. The parties should state explicitly in their respective briefings whether\n+they believe an evidentiary hearing is re quired to resolve any issues related to\n+expert witnesses.\n+29\n+V. Trial\n+a. Consolidated Proposed Pretrial Order\n+A consolidated proposed pretrial order must be filed by the parties within\n+30 days after the close of discovery or a ruling on all remaining dispositive\n+motions, whichever is later. In listing witnesses and exhibits in the proposed\n+pretrial order, a party may not reserve the right to supplement the list and may\n+not adopt another party’s list by reference. Witnesses and exhibits not identified\n+in the proposed pretrial order may not be used during trial, (1) unless the witness\n+or exhibit is solely for impeachment or rebuttal and could not have been\n+anticipated in advance, or (2) to prevent a manifest injustice.\n+By written agreement of all parties, you may file a streamlined proposed\n+pretrial order that does not include, or varies from, the items set forth in Local Rule\n+16.4(B) (except for the witness and exhibits lists referenced above). In making this\n+determination, you should consider the deadlines that will be set forth in my\n+subsequent Trial Order (see Section V.b. of this Standing Order).\n+Counsel must file any Notice of Leave of Absence requests on the docket no\n+later than the filing of the consolidated proposed pretrial order. Counsel may\n+include on this Notice any dates that conflict not only for themselves, but also for\n+their clients or designated client representatives, as well as key witnesses. The trial\n+and pretrial conference will be scheduled thereafter without further notice. Best\n+30\n+efforts will be made to avoid conflicti ng dates, but given competing scheduling\n+demands this cannot be guaranteed. For th is reason, you are encouraged to only\n+include dates in your Notice that are truly in need of protection.\n+b. Trial Order\n+Following the parties’ filing of their consolidated proposed pretrial order, I\n+will enter a Trial Order. The Trial Order w ill schedule a final pretrial conference\n+and trial date. It will also set deadlines and provide in structions for motions in\n+limine briefing, proposed voir dire, proposed jury charges, and the submission of\n+final exhibit lists and witness lists to Ch ambers. Read this Tr ial Order carefully\n+after it is entered in your case and inte rnally calendar for yourself the deadlines,\n+because you will be bound to them. I wi ll address any questions you have about\n+trial procedure during the Pretrial Conference.\n+If you want to get a jump start, a te mplate Trial Order is available on the\n+Court’s website at https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/DJdir/SDG. The Trial Order\n+entered on the docket of your case at the appropriate time will control over the\n+Trial Order on the Court’s website, to the extent they conflict.\n+c. Artificial Intelligence\n+Many courts and individual judges around the country have entered\n+specific rules or procedures concerning th e use of artificial intelligence tools. My\n+rule is simple: You can use whatever AI tools you like, but only human beings will\n+31\n+be held responsible for the outcome. So, if a pleading or paper that is filed in a case\n+contains factual or legal errors, the part y and lawyers who filed it will be held\n+responsible. This includes each and every lawyer listed on the signature block of\n+the filing. Govern yourself accordingly, as they say.\n+d. Feedback\n+I am asked from time to time by counsel who have appeared in my\n+courtroom for a hearing or trial to provide feedback on how they did. My answer\n+is always yes. But if the case is still pendin g, or if there is an actual or potential\n+appeal pending, my feedback will necessarily be limited to the non-case related\n+performative aspects of the presentation rather than the underlying merits. If you\n+would like to schedule such a meeting, either in person or by Zoom, please email\n+Chambers.\n+By the same token, I do not receive enou gh (honest) feedback in this job. If\n+you have any constructive feedback to provide, whether it’s about this Standing\n+Order or an experience you have during the course of your case, I welcome you\n+emailing it to Chambers. Please refrain fr om doing so until your case (and any\n+other case you may have before me) is fully and finally resolved, including\n+potential appeals.\n+32\n+I look forward to working with you to achieve an efficient and just\n+resolution of this case.\n+SO ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2026.\n+Steven D. Grimber g\n+United States District Judge\n+33\n+APPENDIX A:\n+SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS\n+Parties proceeding pro se (without an attorney) must comply with the\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) as well as the Court’s Local\n+Rules (“NDGa LR”). Pro se parties may obtain certain basic materials and hand-\n+outs from the Office of the Clerk of Court located on the 22nd Floor of the Richard\n+B. Russell Federal Building, 75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.\n+Many documents are also available on the Court’s website at\n+www.gand.uscourts.gov.\n+Litigants are generally prohibited from engaging in ex parte communications\n+with the Court. “ Ex parte communications” means any fo rm of contact with the\n+Court outside the presence of the opposing party or opposing party’s counsel. If a\n+litigant seeks court action, the appropriate procedure is to put the request in\n+writing, in the form of a motion, file the motion with the Clerk’s office, and serve\n+the opposing party or party’s counsel.\n+A pro se litigant is required to (1) provide the Clerk with an original of any\n+further pleadings or other papers filed after the Complaint, and (2) serve on the\n+opposing party or party’s co unsel, by mail or hand delivery, a copy of every\n+additional pleading or other paper described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Once counsel for\n+the opposing party has appe ared in the case, the opposing party should not be\n+served individually; service should be made directly on the opposing party’s\n+34\n+counsel. The Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service will not serve\n+documents filed by either party, unless expressly directed to do so by the Court.\n+Each pleading or paper described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 shall include a\n+certificate stating the date on which an accurate copy of that document was served.\n+This Court may disregard any papers that have not been properly filed with the\n+Clerk, or that do not include a certificate of service. Pro se litigants are also advised\n+that, under NDGa LR 7.1, if the deadline for a response to a motion passes without\n+a response being filed, the motion is deemed unopposed. Further, under NDGa\n+LR 56.1(B)(2)(a)(2), if a respondent to a motion for summary judgment contests\n+facts included in the movant ’s statement of material facts, the respondent must\n+file, along with the response brief, a response to the movant’s statement of material\n+facts, otherwise the Court will deem the movant’s facts as admissions.\n+Pro se litigants are further REQUIRED to keep the Court advised of their\n+current address at all times during th e pendency of the lawsuit. NDGa LR\n+83.1(D)(3) provides that parties appearing pro se have a duty to notify the Clerk’s\n+Office by letter of any change in address or telephone number. A pro se litigant’s\n+failure to do so where such failure “causes delay or adversely affects the\n+management of a case” may be subject to sanction by the Court. Pro se litigants are\n+encouraged to provide the opposing party/counsel with an email address for\n+purposes of communicating regarding the case and serving copies of court filings\n+35\n+and discovery. Pro se litigants are advised, however, that the Court serves papers\n+via regular mail only and not via email.","id":"607ab59cc07f200744ebe267c1ab440c51204e85ea1feebebc78e9e1c2388044","newHash":"f9a154f224aa02703d596f3c0c97fa8554f92e8346b1d9669f3a938de91a2a00","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SDG_CVStandingOrder_20260210.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/f9a154f224aa02703d596f3c0c97fa8554f92e8346b1d9669f3a938de91a2a00.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/SDG_CVStandingOrder_20260210.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:54.644394+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,681 @@\n+Modified 09/01/2026\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA\n+ATLANTA DIVISION\n+GUIDELINES TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL IN CIVIL CASES PROCEEDING\n+BEFORE THE HONORABLE TIFFANY R. JOHNSON\n+This case has been assigned to Judge Tiffany R. Johnson. These Guidelines\n+inform the parties and their counsel of the Court’s policies, procedures, and practices\n+and are designed to promote the just, speedy, and economical disposition of cases.\n+These Guidelines, in combination with the Local Rules of this Court and the Federal\n+Rules of Civil Procedure, shall govern this case. Parties should be aware that a filing\n+or submission may be rejected or denied for failure to comply with these Guidelines.\n+Within seven (7) days of entry of these Guidelines in this case, lead counsel for\n+each party and any pro se litigants are required to sign and file a Certificate of\n+Compliance in a format consistent with the attached Certificate of Compliance.\n+______________________________\n+TIFFANY R. JOHNSON\n+United States District Judge\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+1. GENERAL MATTERS ...................................................................................................... 1\n+2. CASE ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................. 1\n+A. Contacting Chambers .......................................................................................... 1\n+B. Transcripts .......................................................................................................... 2\n+C. Courtesy Copies of Documents ........................................................................... 2\n+D. Attorneys ............................................................................................................. 2\n+i. Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice .......................................................... 2\n+ii. Leaves of Absence .................................................................................... 2\n+iii. Withdrawal or Substitution of Counsel ................................................. 2\n+iv. Corporate Representation ....................................................................... 3\n+v. Proposed Orders ....................................................................................... 3\n+E. Pro Se Parties ...................................................................................................... 3\n+3. PRETRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 5\n+A. Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence......................................................... 5\n+B. Temporary Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctive Relief .................... 6\n+C. Extensions of Time .............................................................................................. 6\n+D. Page Limits for Objections to R&Rs and Responses to Objections ................... 7\n+E. Page Limit Extensions ........................................................................................ 7\n+F. Legal Citations .................................................................................................... 7\n+G. Conferences with the Court ................................................................................ 8\n+H. Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan ................................................... 8\n+I. Discovery ............................................................................................................. 8\n+i. Discovery Responses: Boilerplate and General Objections ..................... 9\n+ii. Interrogatories ......................................................................................... 9\n+iii. Requests for Production or Inspection ................................................. 10\n+iv. Requests for Admission ......................................................................... 10\n+v. Depositions ............................................................................................. 11\n+vi. Discovery Disputes ................................................................................ 12\n+vii. Confidentiality Agreements, Protective Orders & Motions to Seal ... 13\n+J. Motions Practice ................................................................................................ 14\n+i. Electronic Filing of Exhibits and Attachments ...................................... 14\n+ii. Brief Nomenclature ................................................................................ 15\n+iii. Amended Complaints and Pending Motions ........................................ 15\n+iv. Motions for Summary Judgment .......................................................... 15\n+v. Statements of Material Facts and Responses ....................................... 15\n+vi. Requests for Oral Argument on Motions .............................................. 16\n+4. TRIALS ..................................................................................................................... 16\n+A. Pretrial Conference ........................................................................................... 16\n+B. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ........................................ 17\n+C. Jury Trial .......................................................................................................... 17\n+D. Voir Dire ............................................................................................................ 17\n+E. Courtroom Communications ............................................................................. 18\n+F. Exhibits ............................................................................................................. 19\n+G. Jury Charges ..................................................................................................... 19\n+H. Courtroom Technology ...................................................................................... 20\n+CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................ Appendix\n+1\n+1. GENERAL MATTERS\n+Attorneys and pro se parties appearing before this Court in civil litigation must\n+observe three (3) sets of rules:\n+A. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules are available at\n+https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-\n+procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.\n+B. The Civil Local Rules of this Court (NDGA Local Rules). The Local Rules are\n+available at https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-\n+orders/local-rules. Various forms and the Court’s pretrial instruction package\n+are available at https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly-used-forms.\n+C. The rules and practices of the District Judge , and Magistrate Judge if\n+applicable, assigned to your case.\n+2. CASE ADMINISTRATION\n+A. Contacting Chambers\n+Uzma Wiggins, Judge Johnson’s Courtroom Deputy, is your principal point of\n+contact on matters related to your case. Communications with the Courtroom Deputy\n+should be via email ( TRJ_CRD@gand.uscourts.gov) or in writing, addressed as\n+follows:\n+Chambers of Judge Tiffany R. Johnson\n+ATTN: Uzma Wiggins, Courtroom Deputy\n+2142 United States Courthouse\n+75 Ted Turner Drive, SW\n+Atlanta, GA 30303-3309\n+Neither the parties nor their counsel should discuss the merits of the case\n+with any member of Judge Johnson’s chambers. The parties and their counsel should\n+also refrain from sending communications that seek information relating to pending\n+motions, such as asking when a motion will be ruled on. The Court will consider\n+matters as they are filed in the normal course.\n+2\n+B. Transcripts\n+Communications regarding transcripts should be directed to the Official Court\n+Reporter who transcribed the proceeding . If any party desires a daily copy or rough\n+draft copy of a proceeding, that party s hall contact chambers at least two (2) weeks\n+before the proceeding.\n+C. Courtesy Copies of Documents\n+Courtesy copies of filings should not be sent to chambers unless requested by\n+the Court. If the Court requests courtesy copies from the parties, paper copies should\n+be hand -delivered to chambers in Room 2142 on the 21st floor of the Richard B.\n+Russell Federal Building . Paper copies should be printed from the CM/ECF docket\n+with the blue header and should be single-sided.\n+D. Attorneys\n+i. Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice\n+If lead counsel has been admitted pro hac vice, local counsel is required to be\n+familiar with the case and may be called upon to attend hearings or participate in\n+conferences on behalf of lead counsel.\n+All counsel—including counsel admitted pro hac vice —shall register and\n+participate in the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. Pro se parties are not part of the\n+Court’s electronic filing system and should be served directly.\n+ii. Leaves of Absence\n+Requests or notices of leaves of absence shall comply with Local Rule 83.1 and\n+shall be electronically filed. Mailed or hand-delivered copies to chambers will not be\n+considered. Counsel are encouraged to review their calendars and submit as early as\n+possible any requests or notices of leaves of absence.\n+iii. Withdrawal or Substitution of Counsel\n+It is counsel’s responsibility to keep the Court informed of any change in his or\n+her status representing a party . Withdrawal is not automatic and requires Court\n+approval. Counsel shall comply with Local Rule 83.1 when substituting or\n+withdrawing as counsel. Counsel who fail to comply with Local Rule 83.1 will not be\n+3\n+permitted to withdraw from the case until compliance is achieved. Additionally,\n+depending on the status of the case and the reasons for withdrawal, counsel may not\n+be permitted to withdraw.\n+iv. Corporate Representation\n+Corporate entities must be represented in court by an attorney. A corporate\n+officer may not represent the corporation unless that officer is also licensed to practice\n+law in the state of Georgia. Local Rule 83.1 states:\n+[A corporation or organization] may only be represented by\n+an attorney, who must sign all pleadings and papers\n+submitted to the C ourt; a corporate officer may not\n+represent the client unless that officer is admitted to the\n+bar of this Court as a regular member or has been admitted\n+pro hac vice in the case; and failure to comply with this rule\n+could result in a default judgment against the client[.]\n+Failure to comply with this rule will result in dismissal of a corporation’s complaint\n+or a default judgment against the corporation.\n+v. Proposed Orders\n+For all consent, unopposed, or joint motions, the filing party shall include as\n+an exhibit to the motion a proposed order granting the motion.\n+E. Pro Se Parties\n+Parties proceeding pro se (without an attorney) are ADVISED that they must\n+comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FED. R. CIV. P.) as well as the Local\n+Rules of this Court. Pro se parties may obtain certain basic materials and hand-outs\n+from the Office of the Clerk of Court located on the 22nd Floor of the Richard B.\n+Russell Federal Building. Many documents are also available on the Court’s website\n+at www.gand.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties may also utilize the Eleventh Circuit’s law\n+library located in the Elbert P. Tuttle U.S. Court of Appeals Building at 56 Forsyth\n+Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.\n+Counsel and pro se parties are prohibited from engaging in ex parte\n+communications with the Court or the Court’s staff. “ Ex parte communications” are\n+any form of contact with the Court outside the presence of the opposing party or\n+4\n+opposing party’s counsel. This includes, but is not limited to, telephone calls, written\n+correspondence, or in-person contact, by one party or party’s counsel. If counsel or a\n+pro se party seeks court action, the appropriate procedure is to put the request in\n+writing, in the form of a motion, file the motion with the Clerk’s office, and serve the\n+opposing party or party’s counsel. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5; Local Rules 5.1 and 5.2; see\n+also Local Rule 7.4. (“Communications to judges seeking a ruling or order, including\n+an extension of time, shall be by motion and not by letter. A letter seeking such action\n+ordinarily will not be treated as a motion. Counsel [and pro se parties] shall not\n+provide the Court with copies of correspondence among themselves relating to\n+matters in dispute.”).\n+The Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service will not serve documents\n+filed by either party, unless expressly directed to do so by the Court. The Court will\n+only direct the Clerk or the U.S. Marshals Service to serve documents in the following\n+instances: (1) in the event a plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis\n+(without prepayment of fees), the Court will direct the Clerk to prepare (and deliver to\n+the U.S. Marshals Service , if necessary) a service package containing the case\n+initiating document(s) or (2) in exceptional circumstances under the Court’s\n+discretion. The National Association of Professional Process Servers provides a\n+search engine for locating process servers across the nation at its website\n+(www.napps.org).\n+A pro se party is REQUIRED to provide the Clerk with an original of any further\n+pleadings or other papers filed with the Court after the complaint. Under FED. R. CIV.\n+P. 5, a pro se party who is not participating in the Court’s CM/ECF filing system is\n+further REQUIRED to SERVE upon the opposing parties or counsel for the opposing\n+parties, by mail or by hand delivery, a copy of every additional pleading or other paper,\n+unless the parties agree to an alternative method of service.\n+Each pleading or paper described in FED. R. CIV. P. 5, including pleadings,\n+papers related to discovery required to be served, motions, notices , and similar\n+papers, shall include a certificate stating the date on which an accurate copy of that\n+pleading or document was mailed or hand-delivered to the opposing parties or counsel\n+5\n+for the opposing parties . The Court will disregard any papers submitted that have\n+not been properly filed with the Clerk, or that do not include a certificate of service.\n+Pro se parties are also ADVISED that, under Local Rule 7, “PLEADINGS\n+ALLOWED; FORM OF MOTIONS,” if the deadline for a response to a motion passes\n+without a response being filed, the motion is treated as unopposed. Under Local Rule\n+56.1, failing to file a response to a motion for summary judgment or contest the\n+movant’s statement of material facts will be taken as an admission of those facts.\n+A pro se party is further REQUIRED to keep the Court advised of their current\n+address at all times during the pendency of the lawsuit. Local Rule 83.1D(3) provides\n+that counsel and pro se parties have, in all cases, a duty to notify the Clerk’s Office\n+by letter of any change in address and/or telephone number. Per this rule, “ [i]f a\n+failure to provide notice of any such change causes delay or adversely affects the\n+management of a case, the Court may impose an appropriate sanction .” A pro se\n+party is encouraged to provide the opposing party or counsel for the opposing party\n+with an email address for purposes of communicating regarding the case and serving\n+copies of pleadings filed and served via regular mail. If a pro se party provides an\n+email address, the opposing party or counsel for the opposing party shall serve copies\n+of all pleadings via email and regular mail. Pro se parties are ADVISED, however,\n+that the Court serves documents via paper only and not via email.\n+3. PRETRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT\n+A. Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence\n+Counsel and pro se parties must disclose the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”)\n+to prepare documents filed and submitted to the Court. If AI was used in any way to\n+prepare a filing or submission to the Court or chambers, counsel and pro se parties\n+are REQUIRED to sign and file a Disclosure of Use of Artificial Intelligence stating,\n+as follows:\n+“This document was generated with the assistance of [identify AI tool name]. I\n+hereby certify under penalty of perjury that, despite reliance on an AI tool, I have\n+independently reviewed this document to confirm accuracy, legitimacy, and use of\n+6\n+good and applicable law, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”\n+Counsel and pro se parties are cautioned that mistake, lack of technical\n+expertise, and time constraints are typically not recognized by the Court as a good\n+faith excuse for submission of documents that either violate Rule 11 or this disclosure\n+rule. In particular, arguments in brie fs to the Court that are supported by AI -\n+generated caselaw (i.e., cases that do not actually exist) are not acceptable. Failure\n+to comply with this disclosure rule may result in appropriate sanctions, up to and\n+including dismissal and/or default judgment.\n+B. Temporary Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunctive Relief\n+The Court will not entertain granting a temporary restraining order or\n+preliminary injunctive relief absent a properly supported motion with attached\n+evidence pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 65. See Local Rule 7.1A(1). If a party requests\n+such relief only in their complaint or other pleadings but fails to file a separate motion\n+seeking the same, that request will not be considered until the merits of the case are\n+addressed.\n+C. Extensions of Time\n+The Court, along with each party , is responsible for processing cases toward\n+prompt and just resolutions. To that end, the Court seeks to set reasonable but firm\n+deadlines. Motions for extensions of time, whether designated as consent, unopposed,\n+or joint, will not be granted as a matter of course. A party seeking an extension of\n+time must file a motion before the expiration of the deadline and should explain with\n+specificity the unanticipated or unforeseen circumstances necessitating the\n+extension. The party should also set forth a timetable for the completion of the tasks\n+for which the extension is sought. The parties may not stipulat e to an extension of\n+time—they must file a motion. If the motion is opposed, the filing party must indicate\n+the opposition in their motion.\n+For motions seeking an extension of the discovery period, in addition to\n+explaining with specificity the unanticipated or unforeseen circumstances\n+necessitating the extension, the motion should include: (1) the original (and, if\n+7\n+applicable, current) date from which the extension is being sought; (2) the number of\n+previous requests for extensions, if any; (3) whether these previous requests were\n+granted or denied; (4) whether the opposing party consents and, if not, the reasons\n+given by the opposing party for refusing to consent; (5) what discovery has been taken\n+as of the date of the motion; (6) the reason additional time is needed ; and (7) a\n+timetable for completing the remaining needed discovery. A consent, unopposed, or\n+joint motion to extend the discovery period should be clearly designated as such.\n+A motion to extend the discovery period must be filed prior to the expiration of the\n+existing discovery period. The Court will not enforce the private agreements between\n+the parties and/or their counsel to conduct discovery beyond the conclusion of the\n+discovery period. The Court also will not allow evidence at trial that was requested\n+and not revealed during the discovery period.\n+D. Page Limits for Objections to R&Rs and Responses to Objections\n+Objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and\n+responses to objections shall be limited to fifteen (15) pages, absent prior approval\n+from the Court.\n+E. Page Limit Extensions\n+Parties seeking an extension of the page limit must do so at least five (5) days\n+prior to their filing deadline and should explain with specificity the reasons\n+necessitating the extension. The parties may not stipulate to additional pages—they\n+must file a motion. If a party files a motion to extend the page limit at the same time\n+the party’s brief is due, the extension request will be denied. Filings that exceed the\n+page limit may be denied or rejected with instructions to resubmit a compliant filing.\n+F. Legal Citations\n+Legal citations should be in Bluebook format (i.e., citations should appear in\n+the text of a brief immediately following the propositions they support, and not in\n+footnotes or endnotes). The Court may reject a party’s filing and order the party to\n+resubmit the filing if it does not contain proper Bluebook formatting.\n+8\n+G. Conferences with the Court\n+Scheduling, discovery, pretrial, and settlement conferences promote the\n+speedy, just, and efficient resolution of cases. Therefore, the Court encourages the\n+parties to request a conference with the Court when the parties believe that a\n+conference will be helpful, and the parties should have specific goals and an agenda\n+for the conference. Conferences may be requested by contacting the Courtroom\n+Deputy via email.\n+H. Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan\n+If a party files a pre-answer Rule 12 motion (including motions to dismiss a\n+counterclaim) or a motion to compel arbitration, the parties’ discovery obligations and\n+obligations under Local Rule 16 are stayed until an order on the motion is entered by\n+the Court.\n+Local Rule 16.1 provides that, prior to filing the Joint Preliminary Report and\n+Discovery Plan, the parties are required to confer in an effort to settle the case,\n+discuss discovery, limit issues, and discuss other matters addressed in the Joint\n+Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. See Local Rule 16.1. The Court encourages\n+the parties to conduct this conference in-person.\n+In certain cases, the Court may schedule a Rule 16 conference with the parties.\n+Whether a conference will be scheduled generally will be determined after the Court\n+reviews the Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan filed by the parties. The\n+Court will typically schedule a conference if any party requests it.\n+I. Discovery\n+Initial disclosures should be as complete as possible based upon information\n+reasonably available. Responses may not be reserved for later supplementation. In\n+addition to the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A), if a party is aware of video\n+or audio footage capturing the subject of the parties’ dispute (typically, body camera\n+footage, surveillance or closed-circuit footage, or cell phone video), the video or audio\n+footage must be produced with a party’s initial disclosures or within fourteen (14)\n+days of the party’s discovery of such video or audio footage.\n+9\n+i. Discovery Responses: Boilerplate and General Objections\n+FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2)(B) prohibit boilerplate and general\n+objections in response to discovery requests. Parties should not carelessly invoke the\n+usual litany of rote objections, i.e. , attorney-client privilege, work -product doctrine,\n+overly broad/unduly burdensome, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the\n+discovery of admissible evidence.\n+A party shall not include in his response to a discovery request a “Preamble”\n+or a “General Objections” section stating that the party objects to the discovery\n+request “to the extent that” it violates some rule pertaining to discovery, e.g. , the\n+attorney-client privilege, the work -product doctrine, the requirement that discovery\n+requests be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and\n+the prohibition against discovery requests that are vague, ambiguous, overly broad,\n+or unduly burdensome. Instead, each individual discovery request must be met with\n+every specific objection thereto—but only those objections that actually apply to that\n+particular request. Otherwise, it is impossible for the Court or the party upon whom\n+the discovery response is served to know exactly what objections have been asserted\n+to each individual request. All such general objections shall be disregarded by the\n+Court.\n+Finally, a party who objects to a discovery request but then responds to the\n+request must indicate whether the response is complete, i.e. , whether additional\n+information or documents would have been provided but for the objection(s). F ED. R.\n+CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C). For example, in response to an interrogatory, a party is not\n+permitted to raise objections and then state, “Subject to these objections and without\n+waiving them, the response is as follows . . .” unless the party expressly indicates\n+whether additional information would have been included in the response but for the\n+objection(s).\n+ii. Interrogatories\n+Interrogatories should be limited to requesting objective facts, such as the\n+identification of persons or documents, dates, places, transactions, and amounts.\n+Argumentative interrogatories, attempts to cross -examine, and multiple repetitive\n+10\n+interrogatories are objectionable.\n+When in doubt about the meaning of an interrogatory, the responding party is\n+to give the interrogatory a reasonable interpretation (which may be specified in the\n+response) and answer it so as to provide, rather than deny, information.\n+Generally, the responding party is required to produce information only in the\n+form in which it is maintained or is available. If an answer is made by reference to a\n+document, the responding party shall attach it or identify it and make it available for\n+inspection. Generalized cross-references, such as to a deposition transcript, are not\n+acceptable answers.\n+iii. Requests for Production or Inspection\n+Absent prior approval from the Court, the parties are limited to twenty-five\n+(25) requests for production . To the extent possible, requests should specify with\n+particularity the title and description of documents or records requested. Information\n+needed for specification can often be obtained by informal discovery, deposition s, or\n+interrogatories, if necessary. The certification requirement of F ED. R. CIV. P. 26(g)\n+applies.\n+All responsive documents should be Bates-numbered or labeled with a unique\n+identifier on each page. Documents should be produced either (1) with labels\n+corresponding to the categories in the specific requests to which they respond, or (2) in\n+a format where it is clear which document is responsive to each particular request.\n+Opening a warehouse for inspection by the requesting party, burying the responsive\n+documents in a mass of materials, and similar procedures do not meet the good faith\n+requirements of the rules.\n+iv. Requests for Admission\n+Requests for admission are an economical and efficient means of narrowing\n+issues and making a record of informal exchanges of information, stipulations, and\n+matters subject to judicial notice. Absent prior approval from the Court, the parties\n+are limited to twenty-five (25) requests for admissions. Each request should be brief,\n+clear, simple, addressed to a single point and stated in neutral, nonargumentative\n+11\n+words. Requests ordinarily should deal with only objective facts. They may be\n+combined with interrogatories to ask for the factual basis of a claim or a denial.\n+Counsel’s or a pro se party’s signature certifies compliance with FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g).\n+v. Depositions\n+Barring extraordinary circumstances, counsel and pro se parties should be\n+consulted, and the convenience of counsel, witnesses, and the parties accommodated,\n+before a deposition is noticed. When counsel or a pro se party enters into stipulations\n+at the beginning of a deposition, the terms of the stipulation should be fully stated on\n+the record of the deposition. Questions should be brief, clear, and simple. A deposition\n+should not be used to harass or intimidate a witness. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 30(c)(2),\n+objections to the manner of taking the deposition, to the evidence, or to the conduct\n+of a party shall be noted on the record, but the evidence objected to shall be taken\n+subject to the objection.\n+In the absence of a good faith claim of privilege, instructions not to answer a\n+question during a deposition are rarely justified and may lead to sanctions under FED.\n+R. CIV. P. 37. Speaking objections and other tactics for coaching a witness during the\n+deposition are prohibited . If counsel or a pro se party believes that a motion to\n+terminate or limit the examination under F ED. R. CIV. P. 30(d) would be warranted\n+or that counsel or a pro se party is obstructing the deposition to the extent that\n+sanctions or another deposition will be requested, the parties should promptly contact\n+the Courtroom Deputy to schedule a conference call with the Court to attempt to\n+resolve the problem. The Court will endeavor to address the problem as quickly as\n+possible once the issue is raised. The Court prefers handling such situations with a\n+conference call rather than a later motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(4) should be consulted\n+regarding expert disclosures. Experts who are prospective witnesses are normally\n+produced for deposition by the opposing party as a matter of course.\n+The parties are expected to observe the limitations on depositions specified in\n+FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b) and 30 and, in particular, to avoid unnecessary depositions.\n+12\n+vi. Discovery Disputes\n+The parties shall not file discovery motions (including motions to compel,\n+motions for protective orders, and motions for sanctions) absent prior approval from\n+the Court. These disputes are often resolved in a conference with the Court . In the\n+event a discovery dispute arises, the parties must first meet and confer in-person to\n+attempt to resolve the dispute. Counsel and pro se parties are required to confer in\n+good faith before bringing a discovery dispute to the Court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)\n+and 37(a)(1); Local Rule 37.1A. The duty to confer is NOT satisfied by sending a\n+written communication or conducting a telephone conference UNLESS repeated\n+attempts to confer in -person are unsuccessful due to the conduct of the opposing\n+party.\n+If the dispute cannot be resolved, the parties must file a joint “ Notice of\n+Discovery Dispute” via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. The parties must also notify\n+the Courtroom Deputy via email that the notice of discovery dispute was filed. The\n+parties should not include any substantive arguments regarding the discovery dispute\n+in their email communication to the Courtroom Deputy. No motions to compel or to\n+impose discovery sanctions shall be filed absent express leave from the Court. In the\n+consolidated submission, the parties should outline their respective positions on each\n+of the discovery items in dispute. If there are four (4) or less issues, the consolidated\n+submission should not exceed five (5) pages. If there are five (5) to ten (10) issues, the\n+submission should not exceed ten ( 10) pages. If there are more than ten ( 10) issues,\n+the s ubmission should not exceed twelve ( 12) pages. The s ubmission should be\n+formatted in a logical order, i.e., identify each issue in dispute followed by a discussion\n+from each of the parties setting forth an explanation of their respective positions on\n+the issue. For example:\n+I. Identify Discovery Issue #1\n+A. Party A’s Position\n+B. Party B’s Response\n+The parties are required to attach as an exhibit to the consolidated submission\n+an excerpt of the relevant discovery requests , including only the language of the\n+13\n+specific requests and, potentially, the responses that are the subject of the dispute.\n+The parties should not attach an entire copy of their interrogatories , requests for\n+production of documents, or requests for admission. No other exhibits , including\n+email correspondence between the parties, are allowed absent prior approval from\n+the Court. The Court will determine whether the dispute can be resolved on the papers\n+or whether a conference is necessary and will notify the parties accordingly. All\n+discovery conferences will be recorded by a C ourt Reporter. If the dispute cannot be\n+resolved during the conference with the Court, the Court will direct further\n+proceedings.\n+vii. Confidentiality Agreements, Protective Orders, and Motions to Seal\n+The Court avoids the excess use of protective orders that allow counsel to\n+designate documents, tangible things, and information as “Confidential” and/or\n+“Confidential—For Attorney’s Eyes Only.”\n+While the Court recognizes the legitimacy of such orders in some cases, the\n+Court’s experience is that such orders are used—and abused—more often than truly\n+necessary. The Court is aware that the parties will , at times , agree to designate\n+documents as “confidential.” The Court, however, will not approve consent protective\n+orders that conflict with the Court’s view on the sealing of materials. As a guide to\n+the parties , the Court notes that documents, tangible things, and information\n+ordinarily are not truly confidential unless they constitute either (1) a “trade secret,”\n+as defined by Section 1(4) of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, or for cases applying\n+Georgia law, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-761(4); (2) personal identifying information, such as a\n+Social Security number; or (3) personal health information protected by the Health\n+Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Parties should also be aware that the\n+Court is not hesitant to sanction counsel and/or parties for abusing a protective order\n+by too readily designating documents, tangible things, and/or information as\n+“Confidential” and/or “Confidential—For Attorney’s Eyes Only.”\n+If the parties find that a confidentiality agreement or protective order is\n+necessary, the parties must follow the practice for filing and sealing documents as\n+described in the Court’s Procedure for Electronic Filing Under Seal in Civil Cases,\n+14\n+and must include this provision in any proposed agreement or protective order\n+submitted for the Court’s consideration:\n+Any documents (including briefs), tangible things, or\n+information designated as Confidential that are submitted\n+to the Court in support of , or in opposition to , a motion or\n+introduced at a hearing or during trial may retain their\n+protected confidential status only by compliance with the\n+Court’s Procedures for Electronic Filing Under Seal in Civil\n+Cases.\n+For documents filed other than during a hearing or trial, as a general matter,\n+the Court will seal only those items enumerated in the Court’s Standing Order 04-02\n+regarding sensitive information and public access to electronic case files. Absent\n+extraordinary circumstances making prior consultation impractical or inappropriate,\n+the party seeking to file the documents under seal shall first consult with the party\n+who designated the document as confidential to determine if some measure less\n+restrictive than filing the document under seal may serve to provide adequate\n+protection. As further clarification, the Court notes that a mer e reference or\n+discussion of confidential information does not warrant sealing of the entire\n+document. Instead, the Court is only interested in sealing (or filing in a redacted\n+format) very specific portions of documents that contain or refer to confidential\n+information. The parties should refrain from sealing an entire document when only\n+certain informat ion is confidential. Additionally, the Court normally will not seal\n+documents used in open court at a hearing or trial absent extraordinary\n+circumstances.\n+J. Motions Practice\n+i. Electronic Filing of Exhibits and Attachments\n+Parties are directed to label all electronically -uploaded exhibits and\n+attachments according to their content to assist the Court in navigating the docket\n+to locate record evidence. For example, documents should be uploaded and identified\n+on the docket as “Ex. 1 – Smith Deposition” rather than “Ex. 1.” If a party is filing\n+more than twenty -five (25) exhibits, the party should file a summary chart listing\n+those exhibits according to their content descriptor and the CM/ECF docket number\n+15\n+containing the exhibit. This chart may be filed after the brief and exhibits are filed.\n+ii. Brief Nomenclature\n+Briefs should be titled on CM/ECF as follows: The initial brief of a movant\n+should be titled “Brief in Support of [state the motion].” The brief of the responding\n+party should be titled “Response in Opposition to [state the motion].” The reply of the\n+moving party should be titled “Reply in Support of [state the motion].” Though\n+surreplies are not permitted absent leave from the Court, if the Court authorizes a\n+surreply, it should be titled “Surreply to [state the motion].”\n+iii. Amended Complaints and Pending Motions\n+If, in response to a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff files an amended complaint\n+pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1), the Court will deny as moot any pending Rule 12\n+motion or request for preliminary injunctive relief.\n+iv. Motions for Summary Judgment\n+When filing summary judgment briefs, all citations to the record evidence shall\n+be contained in each party’s brief, not just in the party’s statement of undisputed (or\n+disputed) material facts. If possible, citations to the record evidence in a brief should\n+include the CM/ECF docket number . Deposition transcripts should not be attached\n+to summary judgment briefs. Instead, before filing a brief in support of , or in\n+opposition to, a motion for summary judgment, the party must file on the docket the\n+complete transcript of each deposition referenced in the brief. Filing the deposition\n+transcripts before the briefs will allow the parties to cite to the docket number in the\n+briefs. The party should include in the brief, immediately following the deposition\n+reference, a citation indicating the page and line numbers of the transcript where the\n+referenced testimony can be found. Parties are encouraged to quote testimony from\n+depositions and are cautioned not to mischaracterize deposition testimony.\n+v. Statements of Material Facts and Responses\n+Absent prior approval from the Court, statements of material facts are limited\n+to fifty (50) facts. Subparts are not permitted.\n+In addition to following the form instructions set out in Local Rule 56.1(B), a\n+16\n+party responding to a statement of material facts shall copy into its response the\n+numbered statement to which it is responding and provide its response to that\n+statement immediately following. A party that chooses to reply to a response shall\n+copy into its reply its original numbered statement of material fact and the opposing\n+party’s response, then provide its reply to that statement immediately following.\n+Each party shall file its documents in a text-searchable PDF format.\n+vi. Requests for Oral Argument on Motions\n+In accordance with Local Rule 7.1(E), motions are usually decided without oral\n+argument, but the Court will consider any request for hearing. If oral argument is\n+requested, the party or parties should specify the particular reasons oral argument\n+may be helpful to the Court and what issues will be the focus of the proposed oral\n+argument. Moreover, the Court shall grant a request for oral argument on a contested\n+substantive motion if the request states that a lawyer who is less than five (5) years\n+out of law school will conduct the oral argument, it being the Court’s belief that new\n+lawyers need more opportunities for Court appearances than they usually receive.\n+4. TRIALS\n+A. Pretrial Conference\n+The Court will conduct a pretrial conference prior to trial. The purpose of the\n+pretrial conference is to simplify the issues to be tried and to rule on evidentiary\n+objections raised in the pretrial order. See Local Rule 16.4. Parties should bring to\n+the pretrial conference a copy of the proposed pretrial order and attachments thereto,\n+as well as any outstanding motions.\n+Unless otherwise directed, all motions in limine shall be filed at least fourteen\n+(14) days before the pretrial conference. Briefs in opposition to motions in limine shall\n+be filed at least seven (7) days before the pretrial conference.\n+Counsel for the plaintiff shall initiate, and all parties shall participate in, a\n+meeting no later than ten (10) days before the pretrial conference to: (a) discuss\n+settlement; and (b) stipulate to as many facts and issues as possible.\n+In accordance with Local Rule 26.2C, Daubert motions shall be filed no later\n+17\n+than the date the proposed pretrial order is submitted. Briefs in opposition to Daubert\n+motions shall be filed within fourteen (14) days following the filing of the Daubert\n+motions, and reply briefs shall be filed seven (7) days thereafter. The Court will often\n+schedule a Daubert hearing to occur at the pretrial conference. Accordingly, the\n+parties should be prepared to present oral argument regarding any Daubert motions,\n+and expert witnesses that are the subject of a Daubert motion should be prepared to\n+appear and testify at the pretrial conference.\n+B. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\n+When counsel is required to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions\n+of law, see Local Rule 16.4B(25), in addition to electronically filing the document ,\n+counsel should provide a Word version of the filing to the Courtroom Deputy via\n+email.\n+C. Jury Trial\n+The Court usually is in session from 8 :30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. There will be\n+breaks in the morning and afternoon as well as a lunch break. When the jury is in\n+the courtroom, it is the Court’s and the parties ’ responsibility to use the jury’s time\n+efficiently. If matters need to be taken up outside the presence of the jury, they should\n+be raised during breaks or before the start of the trial day. It is each party’s\n+responsibility to have enough witnesses on hand for each day’s proceedings.\n+D. Voir Dire\n+Proposed voir dire questions shall be filed with the pretrial order as provided\n+in Local Rule 16.4(B). During voir dire, the jurors will verbally respond to a printed\n+juror questionnaire (containing general questions regarding their residence,\n+occupation, education, recreational activities, prior jury service , and children, if\n+applicable). The Court will then permit the attorneys to ask voir dire questions—as\n+previously approved by the Court. All challenges for cause will be heard at the close\n+of the questioning of all jurors. There will be a fifteen (15) minute break at the\n+conclusion of juror questioning to give all parties time to review their notes prior to\n+striking members of the jury. The number of jurors empanel ed will be determined\n+18\n+after receiving input from the parties regarding the length of trial and any other\n+relevant considerations.\n+E. Courtroom Communications\n+i. Presentation\n+To assist the Court Reporter, all communications to the Court should be made\n+standing before a microphone from a position at counsel table or from the lectern.\n+Only one (1) attorney per party may object to the testimony of a witness being\n+questioned by an opposing party. The objection must be made by the attorney who\n+has conducted or is to conduct the examination of the witness. Examination of a\n+witness should be limited to questions addressed to the witness.\n+Counsel and parties should refrain from making disparaging remarks or\n+displaying ill will toward other counsel and parties and from causing or encouraging\n+any ill feeling among counsel and parties . Counsel and parties are to refrain from\n+making gestures, facial expressions, or audible comments as manifestations of\n+approval or disapproval of testimony, argument, or rulings by the Court. Counsel ,\n+parties, and witnesses are to refrain from making extraneous statements, comments,\n+or remarks during examinations.\n+ii. Sidebar\n+Offers or requests for stipulations should be made privately, not within the\n+hearing of the jury. Counsel and parties should refrain from putting any matter\n+before the jury in the form of a question that counsel and parties know or expect will\n+be subject to an objection that is likely to be sustained. Such matters should be taken\n+up with the Court outside the presence of the jury. Counsel and parties should not\n+ordinarily make motions in the presence of the jury. Such matters may be raised at\n+the first recess or at a sidebar conference. A motion for mistrial must be made\n+immediately, but the Court may require argument at the next recess or excuse the\n+jury. The Court expects five (5) to six (6) hours of testimony per day in jury trials and\n+will not allow sidebar conferences or lengthy hearings outside the presence of the jury\n+to disrupt the orderly presentation of evidence.\n+19\n+iii. Objections\n+When making an objection, counsel and parties shall state only the legal basis\n+of the objections (e.g., “leading” or “hearsay”) and should not elaborate, argue, or refer\n+to other evidence unless asked to do so by the Court . Counsel and parties are\n+prohibited from addressing comments or questions to each other. All arguments,\n+objections, and motions should be addressed to the Court.\n+F. Exhibits\n+Exhibits and witness lists must be provided to all parties at least th irty (30)\n+days before the start of trial. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(3). The parties should use AO\n+Form 187 for their exhibit and witness lists, which can be found at\n+https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao187.pdf. Exhibits must be examined\n+and marked before trial in compliance with Local Rule 16.4. The parties should confer\n+with the Courtroom Deputy prior to the start of trial to determine how the Court will\n+receive a copy of the exhibits for use by Judge Johnson on the bench during\n+proceedings. Ordinarily, the Court requests notebooks of exhibits to be provided on\n+the first day of trial.\n+All papers intended for Judge Johnson should be handed to the Courtroom\n+Deputy, who will pass them to the Judge Johnson. Counsel and parties are not\n+required to obtain permission from the Court to approach a witness in order to show\n+the witness an exhibit or other document.\n+G. Jury Charges\n+The parties must file a unified set of proposed jury instructions three (3) days\n+after the pretrial conference with the Court . The parties should also send a Word\n+version of the unified proposed jury instructions to the Courtroom Deputy via email.\n+Where an instruction is not agreed upon, the parties should indicate who is proposing\n+the instruction, the legal basis for the instruction, and the legal basis for the opposing\n+party’s opposition to the instruction. The parties must request leave from the C ourt\n+to file supplemental jury charges. Ordinarily, the Court will charge the jury before\n+closing arguments. The jury will be provided with a written copy of the jury charges.\n+20\n+H. Courtroom Technology\n+A court order is required to bring boxes of exhibits, projectors, laptops —\n+virtually anything necessary for use at trial—into the courthouse. The parties should\n+file a motion detailing the equipment they wish to bring into the courtroom and the\n+individuals requesting permission to bring the equipment . This should be done not\n+less than three (3) business days prior to the proceeding to allow for proper\n+notification to the U .S. Marshals Service. Generally, while attorneys and support\n+staff may request such permission, parties will not be granted access to personal\n+electronics in the courthouse.\n+The courtroom has various electronic equipment for use by the parties at trial.\n+For more information on the equipment, or to schedule an opportunity to test the\n+equipment, please contact the Courtroom Deputy. It is the parties’ responsibility to\n+make sure they know how to use the equipment available, to have the necessary\n+accessories to connect their equipment, and to ensure that their equipment will\n+interface with the Court’s technology. Trial will not be delayed for technical\n+difficulties or equipment failure.\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA\n+ATLANTA DIVISION\n+,\n+:\n+:\n+: CIVIL ACTION NO.\n+Plaintiff[s], : 1:______-cv-______-TRJ\n+:\n+v. :\n+:\n+,\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+Defendant[s]. :\n+CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\n+I hereby certify that I have read the Guidelines to Parties and Counsel in Civil\n+Cases Proceeding Before the Honorable Tiffa ny R. Johnson, and I will comply with\n+its provisions during the pendency of this litigation.\n+_____________________________\n+[Signature of lead counsel\n+or pro se party]","id":"7584799c3b8ab1a74ecead8641df21d58cd0a782dced9057996c968ff5245ce1","newHash":"a16b44cdc759bae252882100f0250a4fd02398f8407cedb6d8cd0c6d6b62be9e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/a16b44cdc759bae252882100f0250a4fd02398f8407cedb6d8cd0c6d6b62be9e.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:55.404813+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,1867 @@\n+25609 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+1 Executive Order 14110, 88 FR 75191 (November\n+1, 2023).\n+2 Id at 75193.\n+3 Events for the Artificial Intelligence and\n+Emerging Technologies Partnership, 87 FR 34669\n+(June 7, 2022); Inventorship Guidance for AI-\n+Assisted Inventions, 89 FR 10043 (February 13,\n+2024).\n+4 ‘‘Inventing AI—Tracing the diffusion of artificial\n+intelligence with U.S. patents,’’ (October 2020).\n+Available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/\n+documents/OCE-DH-AI.pdf.\n+England Fishery Management Council;\n+telephone: (978) 465–0492.\n+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\n+1. Tuesday, April 30, 2024, from 9:30\n+a.m.–4 p.m., Westin Hotel, 157 High\n+Street, Portland, ME 04101;\n+2. Tuesday, May 1, 2024, from 9:30\n+a.m.–4 p.m., Four Points by Sheraton,\n+One Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA\n+01880;\n+3. Wednesday, May 2, 2024, from 9:30\n+a.m.–4 p.m., 20 Hotel Drive, South\n+Kingstown, RI 02879.\n+Agenda\n+The Council is holding three regional\n+workshops to identify challenges and\n+develop alternatives for addressing\n+Atlantic cod management considering\n+the new biological stock units. The\n+Council is conducting these workshops\n+to collect important feedback from\n+fishing industry members and other\n+stakeholders. The workshops are a\n+platform for discussions and gathering\n+different perspectives. A summary\n+report of the workshops will be\n+provided to the Council to help inform\n+the development of its Atlantic Cod\n+Management Transition Plan. For more\n+details, see the Council’s web page:\n+https://www.nefmc.org/library/atlantic-\n+cod-management-transition-plan.\n+Although non-emergency issues not\n+contained on the agenda may come\n+before this Council for discussion, those\n+issues may not be the subject of formal\n+action during these meetings. Council\n+action will be restricted to those issues\n+specifically listed in this notice and any\n+issues arising after publication of this\n+notice that require emergency action\n+under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-\n+Stevens Act, provided the public has\n+been notified of the Council’s intent to\n+take final action to address the\n+emergency. The public also should be\n+aware that the meeting will be recorded.\n+Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy\n+of the recording is available upon\n+request.\n+Special Accommodations\n+These meetings are physically\n+accessible to people with disabilities.\n+Requests for sign language\n+interpretation or other auxiliary aids\n+should be directed to Cate O’Keefe,\n+Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at\n+least 5 days prior to the meeting date.\n+Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.\n+Dated: April 8, 2024.\n+Rey Israel Marquez,\n+Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable\n+Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.\n+[FR Doc. 2024–07727 Filed 4–10–24; 8:45 am]\n+BILLING CODE 3510–22–P\n+DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\n+Patent and Trademark Office\n+[Docket No. PTO–P–2024–0013]\n+Guidance on Use of Artificial\n+Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice\n+Before the United States Patent and\n+Trademark Office\n+AGENCY: United States Patent and\n+Trademark Office, Department of\n+Commerce.\n+ACTION: Notice.\n+SUMMARY: The United States Patent and\n+Trademark Office (USPTO) issues this\n+guidance to inform practitioners and the\n+public of the important issues that\n+patent and trademark professionals,\n+innovators, and entrepreneurs must\n+navigate while using Artificial\n+Intelligence (AI) in matters before the\n+USPTO. The USPTO recognizes the\n+possibility that AI will be used to\n+prepare and prosecute patent and\n+trademark applications, as well as other\n+filings before the Office including filings\n+submitted to the Patent Trial and\n+Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark\n+Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). While\n+the USPTO is committed to maximizing\n+AI’s benefits and seeing them\n+distributed broadly across society, the\n+USPTO recognizes the need, through\n+technical mitigations and human\n+governance, to cabin the risks arising\n+from the use of AI in practice before the\n+USPTO. At this time, based on the\n+USPTO’s engagement with stakeholders\n+through the USPTO’s AI and Emerging\n+Technologies (ET) Partnership (AI/ET\n+Partnership) and a review of existing\n+rules, the USPTO has determined that\n+existing rules protect the USPTO’s\n+ecosystem against such potential perils.\n+This guidance reminds individuals\n+involved in proceedings before the\n+USPTO of the pertinent rules and\n+policies, helps inform those same\n+individuals of the risks associated with\n+the use of AI systems, and provides\n+suggestions to mitigate those risks. The\n+USPTO will continue to engage with the\n+public, including through the AI/ET\n+Partnership, as the use of AI advances\n+and evolves.\n+DATES: This guidance on the use of AI\n+in practicing before the USPTO is\n+applicable as of April 11, 2024.\n+FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : For\n+patent matters contact Matthew Sked,\n+Senior Legal Advisor, at 571–272–7627\n+or Nalini Mummalaneni, Senior Legal\n+Advisor, at 571–270–1647, both with\n+the Office of Patent Legal\n+Administration, Office of the Deputy\n+Commissioner for Patents.\n+For matters regarding the PTAB\n+contact Michael W. Kim, Vice Chief\n+Administrative Patent Judge, or Charles\n+J. Boudreau, Lead Administrative Patent\n+Judge, at 571–272–9797.\n+For trademark matters contact Robert\n+J. Lavache, Senior Trademark Legal\n+Policy Advisor, Office of the Deputy\n+Commissioner for Trademark\n+Examination Policy, at 571–272–5881.\n+For matters regarding the TTAB\n+contact Cheryl A. Butler, Senior Counsel\n+and Editor of the Trademark Board\n+Manual of Procedure, at 571–272–4259.\n+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\n+I. Background\n+Recognizing that ‘‘[r]esponsible AI use\n+has the potential to help solve urgent\n+challenges while making our world\n+more prosperous, productive,\n+innovative, and secure,’’ while ‘‘[a]t the\n+same time, irresponsible use could\n+exacerbate societal harms such as fraud,\n+discrimination, bias, and\n+disinformation; displace and\n+disempower workers; stifle competition;\n+and pose risks to national security,’’\n+President Biden issued the Executive\n+Order on the Safe, Secure, and\n+Trustworthy Development and Use of\n+Artificial Intelligence on October 30,\n+2023 (‘‘Executive Order’’).1 The\n+Executive Order calls upon the Federal\n+Government to enact and enforce\n+protections as to AI-related harms,\n+including ‘‘in critical fields like\n+healthcare, financial services,\n+education, housing, law, and\n+transportation’’ (emphasis added), while\n+promoting responsible uses of AI.2 This\n+notice, which recognizes the ways in\n+which the USPTO’s existing protections\n+address AI-related harms, is one of the\n+USPTO’s numerous efforts, such as the\n+AI/ET Partnership and the Inventorship\n+Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions,3 to\n+address AI considerations at the\n+intersection of innovation, creativity,\n+and intellectual property (IP).\n+As we see AI being increasingly\n+integrated with and deployed into a\n+variety of sectors including finance,\n+manufacturing, healthcare, and\n+transportation,4 we also see a growth in\n+the use of AI in the legal field and in\n+practice before the Office. With the\n+advent of large language models and\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES\n+25610 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+5 See ‘‘New PE2E Search Tool Using AI Search\n+Features,’’ 1494 OG 251 (January 11, 2022).\n+6 See ‘‘New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in\n+PE2E Search,’’ 1504 OG 359 (November 15, 2022).\n+7 ‘‘AI tools and data’’ AI/ET Partnership Series #4,\n+September 2023 (recording available at https://\n+www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/aiet-partnership-\n+series-4-ai-tools-and-data).\n+8 See OPINION AND ORDER ON SANCTIONS at\n+2, Mata v. Avianca Inc., Case No. 22–CV–1461\n+(S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2023) (lawyers sanctioned for\n+filing a brief that included non-existent citations\n+and quotations that were output by a generative AI\n+system).\n+9 See Panel Discussion on Practitioners’\n+Evaluation and Use of AI, ‘‘AI tools and data’’ AI/\n+ET Partnership Series #4, September 2023\n+(recording available at https://www.uspto.gov/\n+about-us/events/aiet-partnership-series-4-ai-tools-\n+and-data).\n+10 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary\n+at 5, available at www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/\n+year-end/2023year-endreport.pdf (Dec. 31. 2023).\n+11 See ABA forms task force to study impact of\n+artificial intelligence on the legal profession,\n+American Bar Ass’n (Aug. 28, 2023), https://\n+www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-\n+archives/2023/08/aba-task-force-impact-of-ai/.\n+12 See, e.g., Standing Order Re: Artificial\n+Intelligence (‘‘AI’’) in Cases Assigned to Judge\n+Baylson (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2023), available at\n+www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/\n+documents/locrules/standord/Standing%\n+20Order%20Re%20Artificial%\n+20Intelligence%206.6.pdf).\n+13 Notice of Proposed Amendment to 5th Cir. R.\n+32.3, available at www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/\n+default-source/default-document-library/public-\n+comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.\n+14 The February 2024 Guidance is available at\n+www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/\n+directorguidance-aiuse-legalproceedings.pdf.\n+15 Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted\n+Inventions, 89 FR 10043.\n+16 www.uspto.gov/initiatives/artificial-\n+intelligence/ai-and-emerging-technology-\n+partnership-engagement-and-events. For more\n+information on the USPTO’s work at the\n+intersection of AI and IP, see https://\n+www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ai-and-\n+inventorship-guidance-incentivizing?utm_\n+campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_\n+medium=email&utm_name=&utm_\n+source=govdelivery&utm_term=.\n+generative AI, legal professionals and\n+others who practice before the Office are\n+currently exposed to AI-based solutions\n+that can create content, author legal\n+research memos, perform due diligence\n+analysis, extract legal principles\n+contained in court opinions, and assist\n+in deposition preparation. The ability of\n+AI to analyze massive amounts of data\n+and find patterns that are undetectable\n+to the human eye makes it a valuable\n+asset in the toolkits of examiners,\n+parties, and practitioners. For example,\n+patent examiners are performing AI-\n+enabled prior art searches using features\n+like More Like This Document (MLTD) 5\n+and Similarity Search 6 in the Office’s\n+Patents End-to-End (PE2E) Search tool.\n+Patent practitioners are increasingly\n+relying on AI-based tools to research\n+prior art, automate the patent\n+application review process, and to gain\n+insights into examiner behavior.\n+These tools have the potential to\n+lower the barriers and costs of\n+practicing before the Office as well as\n+helping law practitioners offer services\n+to their clients with improved quality\n+and efficiency. As the use of AI\n+continues to grow in the IP community,\n+however, it is essential to address the\n+legal and ethical considerations that\n+arise with the use of these technologies.\n+Some of these considerations were\n+discussed in a panel on practitioners’\n+use of AI at the AI/ET Partnership event,\n+‘‘AI tools and data,’’ held at the USPTO\n+on September 27, 2023.7 Patent\n+practitioners suggested that AI tools\n+have the potential to make prior art\n+searches, claim charting, and document\n+reviews easier while acknowledging that\n+human verification of the outputs of AI\n+tools is necessary. They also discussed\n+confidentiality and ethical issues that\n+may be of concern when using such\n+tools.\n+Incomplete or inaccurate outputs by\n+AI, which, when not thoroughly verified\n+by parties and practitioners, can also\n+result in critical misstatements and\n+omissions. For example, legal briefs and\n+motions, the preparation of which was\n+assisted by AI, have included\n+fictionalized citations and quotations,\n+resulting in sanctions for the attorneys\n+filing these briefs.8 Other issues arise\n+from seeking AI assistance by sharing\n+sensitive and confidential client\n+information to third-party AI systems,\n+including those potentially located\n+outside of the United States.9\n+The legal community has recognized\n+the need to identify and explore AI risks\n+in legal proceedings. For example, in\n+the 2023 Year-End Report on the\n+Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts\n+identified that AI has the potential to\n+‘‘increase access to key information for\n+lawyers and non-lawyers alike’’ but\n+comes with risks such as ‘‘invading\n+privacy interests and dehumanizing the\n+law.’’ 10 The American Bar Association\n+(ABA) created the ABA Task Force on\n+Law and Artificial Intelligence to\n+provide the legal community with\n+insights for developing and using AI in\n+a trustworthy and responsible manner.11\n+Several federal and state court judges\n+have issued standing orders requiring,\n+for example, certifications by filers that\n+any court filings, or citations, assertions,\n+or analysis therein, generated by AI are\n+verified to be accurate.12 Following the\n+lead of these judges, courts are\n+beginning to propose local rules to\n+address such issues for all judges on\n+those courts.13 Recognizing the\n+importance of these issues, on February\n+6, 2024, the USPTO Director issued\n+guidance (‘‘February 2024 Guidance’’) to\n+the PTAB and TTAB to remind those\n+business units about the scope and\n+applicability of existing rules.14\n+Given the uncertainties faced by\n+practitioners in the use of AI tools, the\n+USPTO publishes this guidance to\n+remind practitioners about existing\n+rules and policies that may be relevant\n+to the use of these tools, and to help\n+educate practitioners on possible risks\n+presented by the use of these tools so\n+that practitioners can mitigate these\n+risks. In the event of any conflict\n+between the February 2024 Guidance\n+and this notice, this notice controls.\n+This guidance is not intended to\n+provide an exhaustive list of possible\n+rules, policies, or issues that may arise\n+with use of AI in matters before the\n+USPTO. As noted above, the USPTO has\n+separately addressed the use of AI\n+before the office when AI is used as part\n+of the inventive process.15 The USPTO\n+continues to engage with stakeholders\n+through the AI/ET Partnership to seek\n+the public’s views on various policy\n+issues that uniquely affect the AI/ET\n+community.16 The USPTO will continue\n+to study considerations raised by the\n+use of AI within the IP community,\n+including impacts on the integrity and\n+accessibility of the IP system.\n+This notice is organized as follows:\n+Section II provides an overview of the\n+USPTO’s existing rules and policies.\n+Section III describes how these existing\n+rules and policies apply in the context\n+of the use of AI tools in matters before\n+the USPTO. Specifically, section III(A)\n+discusses the use of AI systems in\n+drafting documents for submission to\n+the USPTO. Section III(B) addresses the\n+filing of documents at the USPTO with\n+the assistance of AI tools. Section III(C)\n+discusses USPTO information\n+technology (IT) systems and the\n+appropriate use of AI tools in interacting\n+with those systems. Finally, section\n+III(D) raises confidentiality and national\n+security concerns related to the use of\n+AI systems.\n+Disclaimer: This guidance does not\n+constitute substantive rulemaking and\n+does not have the force and effect of\n+law. The guidance does not create any\n+right or benefit, substantive or\n+procedural, enforceable by any party\n+against the USPTO. This guidance is not\n+intended to announce any new USPTO\n+practice or procedure and is meant to be\n+consistent with current USPTO policy.\n+However, if any earlier guidance from\n+the USPTO, including any section of the\n+current Manual of Patent Examining\n+Procedure (MPEP), is inconsistent with\n+the guidance set forth in this notice,\n+USPTO personnel are to follow this\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES\n+25611 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+17 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (9th\n+Edition, rev. 07.2022, February 2023) (MPEP)\n+2001.03.\n+18 MPEP 2001.04.\n+19 Id.\n+20 Id (citing In re Tendler, Proceeding No. D2013–\n+17 (USPTO Jan. 1, 2014) (suspending a practitioner\n+for four years for failure to correct the written\n+record after learning of inaccuracies in a declaration\n+the practitioner had filed)); see also MPEP 2011\n+(‘‘When an error is discovered, applicant should\n+take steps to ensure that the error is corrected as\n+soon as possible.’’).\n+21 Id.\n+22 See, e.g., MPEP 711.03(C) (‘‘The Office usually\n+relies upon the applicant’s duty of candor and good\n+faith and accepts the statement that ‘the entire delay\n+in filing the required reply from the due date for\n+the reply until the filing of a grantable petition\n+pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 was unintentional’\n+without requiring further information in the vast\n+majority of petitions under 37 CFR 1.137.’’); MPEP\n+717.02(b) (‘‘The applicant(s) or the representative(s)\n+of record have the best knowledge of the ownership\n+of their application(s) and reference(s), and their\n+statement of such is sufficient because of their\n+paramount obligation of candor and good faith to\n+the USPTO.’’).\n+23 See MPEP 2016.\n+24 37 CFR 1.765(a) (‘‘A duty of candor and good\n+faith toward the Patent and Trademark Office and\n+the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the\n+Secretary of Agriculture rests on the patent owner\n+or its agent, on each attorney or agent who\n+represents the patent owner and on every other\n+individual who is substantively involved on behalf\n+of the patent owner in a patent term extension\n+proceeding.’’).\n+25 See 37 CFR 11.18(a); see also 37 CFR 1.33(b);\n+37 CFR 42.6(a)(4) (‘‘Signature; identification.\n+Documents must be signed in accordance with\n+§§ 1.33 and 11.18(a) of this title, and should be\n+identified by the trial number (where known).’’); 37\n+CFR 42.11(b) (‘‘Every petition, response, written\n+motion, and other paper filed in a [PTAB AIA Trial]\n+proceeding must comply with the signature\n+requirements set forth in § 11.18(a) of this\n+chapter.’’). Certain patent-related correspondence,\n+including a notice of appeal to the PTAB, are not\n+subject to these signature requirements. See, e.g., 37\n+CFR 41.31(b).\n+26 37 CFR 1.4(d)(5)(ii).\n+guidance. This guidance will be\n+incorporated into the MPEP in due\n+course.\n+II. The USPTO’s Existing Rules and\n+Policies\n+The USPTO’s rules and policies\n+described in this guidance—including\n+those meant to ensure full, fair and\n+accurate disclosure to the USPTO and to\n+protect clients of USPTO practitioners—\n+apply broadly, regardless of any AI\n+assistance in preparing submissions to\n+the USPTO. These broadly applicable\n+rules and policies help mitigate the risks\n+of AI assistance and require\n+practitioners and others to exercise\n+special care when using AI as a tool in\n+connection with USPTO practice.\n+A. Duty of Candor and Good Faith\n+Each individual associated with a\n+proceeding at the USPTO (e.g., patent\n+and trademark examination,\n+reexamination, appeal or other\n+proceedings before the PTAB or TTAB)\n+has a duty of candor and good faith in\n+dealing with the Office. For\n+practitioners, these duties are detailed\n+in 37 CFR 11.303 and apply to practice\n+before the USPTO including any USPTO\n+tribunal. Furthermore, other rules may\n+act cumulatively to § 11.303. In patent\n+examination and reissue proceedings,\n+for example, individuals owe the Office\n+a duty of candor and good faith as\n+detailed in 37 CFR 1.56(a), which states\n+in part: ‘‘[e]ach individual associated\n+with the filing and prosecution of a\n+patent application has a duty of candor\n+and good faith in dealing with the\n+Office, which includes a duty to\n+disclose to the Office all information\n+known to that individual to be material\n+to patentability as defined in this\n+section.’’ This duty extends to all\n+dealings these individuals have with the\n+USPTO and is not limited to\n+representations or dealings with a\n+patent examiner.17 Therefore, the duty\n+of candor and good faith covers other\n+interactions associated with a\n+proceeding at the USPTO such as,\n+without limitation, filing a petition to\n+the USPTO Director or filing a response\n+to a pre-examination notice from the\n+Office of Patent Application Processing.\n+Included within the duty of candor\n+and good faith in patent proceedings is\n+the duty of disclosure. The duty of\n+disclosure requires that each individual\n+identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c) disclose to\n+the USPTO all information known to be\n+material to patentability as defined in 37\n+CFR 1.56(b). While § 1.56(a) refers to the\n+duty to disclose material information to\n+the USPTO, the duty of candor and good\n+faith is broader.18 The rule states ‘‘no\n+patent will be granted on an application\n+in connection with which fraud on the\n+Office was practiced or attempted or the\n+duty of disclosure was violated through\n+bad faith or intentional misconduct.’’\n+The duty of candor and good faith\n+applies to positions taken by applicants\n+or parties involving the claimed subject\n+matter.19 It also applies to errors that\n+occur during the course of the\n+proceeding. ‘‘If a party to a USPTO\n+proceeding discovers that an earlier\n+position taken in a submission to the\n+USPTO or another Government agency\n+was incorrect or inconsistent with other\n+statements made by the party, the party\n+must promptly correct the record.’’ 20\n+Under the duty of candor and good\n+faith, any acts of fraud and intentional\n+misconduct are not permitted.\n+The duty of candor and good faith\n+operates to achieve the important\n+functions of safeguarding the integrity of\n+proceedings before the USPTO and\n+ensuring robust and reliable patents are\n+issued. ‘‘The rules serve to remind\n+individuals associated with the\n+preparation and prosecution of patent\n+applications of their duty of candor and\n+good faith in their dealings with the\n+Office, and will aid the Office in\n+receiving, in a timely manner, the\n+information it needs to carry out\n+effective and efficient examination of\n+patent applications.’’ 21 Further, the\n+duty also provides for the efficient\n+resolution of matters by permitting the\n+USPTO to accept certain applicant\n+statements as true without further\n+investigation.22 Those individuals\n+subject to the duty of candor and good\n+faith should exercise care to avoid any\n+potential negative consequences.23\n+The duty of candor and good faith in\n+patent proceedings extends beyond ex\n+parte patent examination and reissue\n+proceedings. In reexamination\n+proceedings and supplemental\n+examination, 37 CFR 1.555(a) states:\n+‘‘Each individual associated with the\n+patent owner in a reexamination\n+proceeding has a duty of candor and\n+good faith in dealing with the Office,\n+which includes a duty to disclose to the\n+Office all information known to that\n+individual to be material to patentability\n+in a reexamination proceeding.’’ When\n+parties and individuals are involved in\n+a proceeding before the PTAB, they are\n+also subject to the duty of candor and\n+good faith pursuant to 37 CFR 42.11.\n+The duty of candor and good faith\n+applies in patent term extension\n+proceedings as well.24\n+As the duty of candor and good faith\n+applies to all conduct before the\n+USPTO, the duty underlies all the\n+discussions on the use of AI systems in\n+matters before the USPTO throughout\n+Section III. However, the duty is\n+explicitly referenced in Section III(A).\n+For example, this section explains that\n+those involved in patent proceedings\n+have a duty to disclose all information—\n+including on the use of AI tools by\n+inventors, parties, and practitioners—\n+that is material to patentability.\n+B. Signature Requirement and\n+Corresponding Certifications\n+Generally, all patent correspondence\n+filed in the USPTO must bear a person’s\n+signature.25 By including this signature,\n+the individual inserting the signature or\n+submitting the paper is certifying that\n+the person’s signature appearing on the\n+document was actually inserted by that\n+person.26 In other words, a person,\n+including a practitioner, must insert\n+their own signature on the paper. ‘‘The\n+requirement does not permit one person\n+(e.g., a secretary) to type in the signature\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES\n+25612 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+27 MPEP 502.02(subsection II).\n+28 37 CFR 11.18(a).\n+29 Presenting a correspondence includes signing,\n+filing, submitting, or later advocating. It is noted\n+that while many of the rules of professional conduct\n+are directed at practitioners, 37 CFR 11.18 applies\n+to anyone presenting a paper, including pro se\n+applicants.\n+30 37 CFR 1.4(d)(5)(i); see also 37 CFR 42.11(c)\n+(‘‘By presenting to the Board a petition, response,\n+written motion, or other paper—whether by signing,\n+filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an\n+attorney, registered practitioner, or unrepresented\n+party attests to compliance with the certification\n+requirements under § 11.18(b)(2) of this chapter.’’).\n+31 MPEP 410.\n+32 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) (‘‘To the best of the party’s\n+knowledge, information and belief, formed after an\n+inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (i) The\n+paper is not being presented for any improper\n+purpose, such as to harass someone or to cause\n+unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost\n+of any proceeding before the Office; (ii) The other\n+legal contentions therein are warranted by existing\n+law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the\n+extension, modification, or reversal of existing law\n+or the establishment of new law; (iii) The\n+allegations and other factual contentions have\n+evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,\n+are likely to have evidentiary support after a\n+reasonable opportunity for further investigation or\n+discovery; and (iv) The denials of factual\n+contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if\n+specifically so identified, are reasonably based on\n+a lack of information or belief.’’).\n+33 MPEP 2002.02.\n+34 MPEP 2001.06(e).\n+35 See 37 CFR 11.18(c); 37 CFR 42.12.\n+36 See ‘‘Changes to Representation of Others\n+Before the United States Patent and Trademark\n+Office,’’ 86 FR 28442 (May 26, 2021).\n+37 See 37 CFR 11.107–109.\n+38 See 35 U.S.C. 184(a) (‘‘Filing in Foreign\n+Country. Except when authorized by a license\n+obtained from the Commissioner of Patents a person\n+shall not file or cause or authorize to be filed in any\n+foreign country prior to six months after filing in\n+the United States an application for patent or for the\n+registration of a utility model, industrial design, or\n+model in respect of an invention made in this\n+country. A license shall not be granted with respect\n+to an invention subject to an order issued by the\n+Commissioner of Patents pursuant to section 181\n+without the concurrence of the head of the\n+departments and the chief officers of the agencies\n+who caused the order to be issued. The license may\n+be granted retroactively where an application has\n+been filed abroad through error and the application\n+does not disclose an invention within the scope of\n+section 181.’’).\n+of a second person (e.g., a practitioner)\n+even if the second person directs the\n+first person to do so.’’ 27\n+Except for trademark correspondence\n+that is required to be signed by the\n+applicant, registrant or party to a\n+proceeding, each piece of trademark\n+correspondence filed in the Office by a\n+trademark practitioner must bear a\n+signature, personally signed or inserted\n+by such practitioner.28 This signature\n+may be: (1) a handwritten signature\n+personally signed in permanent ink by\n+the person named as the signatory, or a\n+true copy thereof, or (2) an electronic\n+signature on correspondence filed on\n+paper or through the USPTO’s\n+electronic filing systems that meets the\n+requirements of 37 CFR 2.193(c) and is\n+personally entered by the person named\n+as the signatory.\n+By signing or presenting a piece of\n+correspondence,29 the party is making a\n+certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b).30\n+That section is based upon and includes\n+the same substantive requirements as\n+Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure (2007).31 Under 37 CFR\n+11.18(b)(1), the party presenting the\n+paper certifies that ‘‘[a]ll statements\n+made therein of the party’s own\n+knowledge are true, all statements made\n+therein on information and belief are\n+believed to be true, and all statements\n+made therein are made with the\n+knowledge that whoever, in any matter\n+within the jurisdiction of the Office,\n+knowingly and willfully falsifies,\n+conceals, or covers up by any trick,\n+scheme, or device a material fact, or\n+knowingly and willfully makes any\n+false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements\n+or representations, or knowingly and\n+willfully makes or uses any false writing\n+or document knowing the same to\n+contain any false, fictitious, or\n+fraudulent statement or entry, shall be\n+subject to the penalties set forth under\n+18 U.S.C. 1001 and any other applicable\n+criminal statute, and violations of the\n+provisions of this section may\n+jeopardize the probative value of the\n+paper.’’ In addition to the certification\n+under 37 CFR 11.18(b)(1), 37 CFR\n+11.18(b)(2) imposes a duty of reasonable\n+inquiry.32 This duty ensures that ‘‘the\n+paper is not being presented for any\n+improper purpose, the legal contentions\n+are warranted by law, the allegations\n+and other factual contentions have\n+evidentiary support, and the denials of\n+factual contentions are warranted on the\n+evidence.’’ 33 The existence and extent\n+of this duty is based on the\n+circumstances known to the party\n+presenting the paper to the USPTO.34\n+Failure to inquire when the\n+circumstances warrant it could result in\n+sanctions or other appropriate action.35\n+As will be discussed in Section III(B),\n+below, the signature requirement and\n+corresponding certifications ensure that\n+documents drafted with the assistance\n+of AI systems have been reviewed by a\n+person and that person believes\n+everything in the document is true and\n+not submitted for an improper purpose.\n+This issue is more fully discussed in\n+Section III(B).\n+C. Confidentiality of Information\n+Under 37 CFR 11.106(a), ‘‘[a]\n+practitioner shall not reveal information\n+relating to the representation of a client\n+unless the client gives informed\n+consent, the disclosure is impliedly\n+authorized in order to carry out the\n+representation, the disclosure is\n+permitted by paragraph (b) of this\n+section, or the disclosure is required by\n+paragraph (c) of this section.’’ This rule\n+requires practitioners to maintain the\n+confidentiality of client information\n+except in limited circumstances. This\n+rule was amended in 2021 to bring this\n+provision into alignment with the 2012\n+amendments to the ABA Model Rule\n+1.6.36 In particular, 37 CFR 11.106(d)\n+was added, which states: ‘‘[a]\n+practitioner shall make reasonable\n+efforts to prevent the inadvertent or\n+unauthorized disclosure of, or\n+unauthorized access to, information\n+relating to the representation of a\n+client.’’ Therefore, practitioners must\n+take steps to maintain the\n+confidentiality of their clients’\n+information including reasonable steps\n+to prevent inadvertent and unauthorized\n+disclosure. In addition, the USPTO\n+Rules of Professional Conduct\n+concerning conflicts of interest\n+generally prohibit a practitioner from\n+using information relating to the\n+representation of a client (or a former\n+client) to the disadvantage of that\n+client.37 Use of AI systems to perform\n+prior art searches, application drafting,\n+etc. may result in the inadvertent\n+disclosure of client-sensitive or\n+confidential information to third parties\n+through the owners of these systems,\n+causing harms to the client.\n+In light of these considerations, those\n+using AI systems in practicing before\n+the USPTO, such as drafting\n+applications, should be cognizant of the\n+risks and take steps to ensure\n+confidential information is not divulged\n+as discussed in Section III(D).\n+D. Foreign Filing Licenses and Export\n+Regulations\n+Patent practitioners must comply with\n+foreign filing license requirements prior\n+to filing any patent application in a\n+foreign country or exporting technical\n+data for purposes related to the\n+preparation, filing or possible filing, and\n+prosecution of a foreign application. In\n+particular, under 37 CFR 5.11(a), ‘‘[a]\n+license from the Commissioner for\n+Patents under 35 U.S.C. 184 38 is\n+required before filing any application\n+for patent . . . or for the registration of\n+a utility model, industrial design, or\n+model, in a foreign country or in a\n+foreign or international intellectual\n+property authority, . . . if the invention\n+was made in the United States, and: (1)\n+An application on the invention has\n+been filed in the United States less than\n+six months prior to the date on which\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES\n+25613 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+39 Scope of Foreign Filing Licenses, 73 FR 42781\n+(July 23, 2008) (citing MPEP 140 (8th ed., Rev. 5,\n+Aug. 2006)); See also MPEP 140 (‘‘Note that the\n+export of subject matter abroad for purposes not\n+related to foreign filing of a patent application or\n+a registration of an industrial design, such as\n+preparing an application in a foreign country for\n+subsequent filing in the USPTO is not covered by\n+any license from the USPTO.’’).\n+40 Id.\n+41 Id.\n+42 See, e.g., ‘‘Legal Framework for Patent\n+Electronic System’’ at 28 (October 23, 2019)\n+(available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/\n+documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) (‘‘A\n+sponsoring practitioner must take reasonable steps\n+to ensure compliance by each sponsored\n+practitioner support person with . . . the\n+restrictions on the export (including deemed\n+export) of technology and software included in\n+patent applications in section 7. If a sponsored\n+practitioner support person is not a U.S. citizen,\n+their access to the technology and software\n+constitutes an export.’’).\n+43 See MPEP 502.05.\n+44 https://ptacts.uspto.gov/interferences/ui/home.\n+45 https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ui/home.\n+46 See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/\n+patent-trial-and-appeal-case-tracking-system-p-\n+tacts.\n+47 ‘‘United States Patent and Trademark Office\n+Trademark Verified USPTO.gov Account\n+Agreement’’ (October 2023) (available at https://\n+www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TM-\n+verified-account-agreement.pdf).\n+48 Id.\n+49 Id.\n+50 See also TTAB Manual of Procedure (TBMP)\n+section 110.01.\n+51 Terms of Use for USPTO websites (available at\n+https://www.uspto.gov/terms-use-uspto-websites).\n+the application is to be filed; or (2) No\n+application on the invention has been\n+filed in the United States.’’ Further, 37\n+CFR 5.11(b) provides that ‘‘[t]he license\n+from the Commissioner . . . referred to\n+in paragraph (a) . . . would also\n+authorize the export of technical data\n+abroad for purposes related to . . . [t]he\n+preparation, filing or possible filing, and\n+prosecution of a foreign application.’’\n+Under 37 CFR 5.11(c), ‘‘[w]here\n+technical data in the form of a patent\n+application, or in any form, are being\n+exported for purposes related to the\n+preparation, filing or possible filing and\n+prosecution of a foreign application,\n+without the license from the\n+Commissioner for Patents referred to in\n+paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, or\n+on an invention not made in the United\n+States, the export regulations contained\n+in 22 CFR parts 120 through 130\n+(International Traffic in Arms\n+Regulations of the Department of State),\n+15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (Export\n+Administration Regulations of the\n+Bureau of Industry and Security,\n+Department of Commerce), and 10 CFR\n+part 810 (Assistance to Foreign Atomic\n+Energy Activities Regulations of the\n+Department of Energy) must be\n+complied with unless a license is not\n+required because a United States\n+application was on file at the time of\n+export for at least six months without a\n+secrecy order under § 5.2 being placed\n+thereon.’’\n+Practitioners are further reminded,\n+however, that ‘‘[a] foreign filing license\n+from the USPTO does not authorize the\n+exporting of subject matter abroad for\n+the preparation of patent applications to\n+be filed in the United States.’’ 39 Rather,\n+‘‘the export of subject matter abroad\n+pursuant to a license from the USPTO,\n+such as a foreign filing license, is\n+limited to purposes related to the filing\n+of foreign patent applications,’’ and\n+‘‘[a]pplicants who are considering\n+exporting subject matter abroad for the\n+preparation of patent applications to be\n+filed in the United States should contact\n+the Bureau of Industry and Security\n+(BIS) at the Department of Commerce for\n+the appropriate clearances.’’ 40 ‘‘The BIS\n+has promulgated the Export\n+Administration Regulations (EAR)\n+governing exports of dual-use\n+commodities, software, and technology,\n+including technical data, which are\n+codified at 15 CFR parts 730 through\n+774.’’ 41 Release of controlled\n+technology to a foreign person may be\n+deemed an export. 15 CFR 734.13(b).42\n+Practitioners must be mindful of these\n+concerns and ensure data is not\n+improperly exported when using AI\n+systems as discussed in Section III(D).\n+E. USPTO Electronic Systems’ Policies\n+In addition to the requirements set\n+forth above, access to USPTO electronic\n+systems is subject to a number of terms\n+and conditions. Exceeding authorized\n+access or violating those terms and\n+conditions in connection with accessing\n+USPTO electronic systems may result in\n+criminal or civil liability under federal\n+law (including the Computer Fraud and\n+Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030) and/or state\n+law. In addition, such conduct may\n+result in penalties or sanctions\n+administered by the USPTO.\n+The USPTO’s websites provide access\n+to a rich collection of information and\n+services including online filing for\n+patents and trademarks, fee handling,\n+and search. Some of these services may\n+require the user to create and use a\n+dedicated account. For example, users\n+may use the USPTO patent electronic\n+filing system, Patent Center, to\n+electronically file patent\n+correspondence or view the status of,\n+and documents filed in or associated\n+with, patent applications and\n+proceedings, including appeals to the\n+PTAB with respect to such applications.\n+In order to take advantage of all the\n+capabilities of Patent Center, a user\n+must be a registered user by creating a\n+USPTO.gov account and completing the\n+Patent Electronic System Verification\n+Form PTO–2042a including the Patent\n+Electronic Subscriber agreement.43 The\n+USPTO.gov account is exclusive to an\n+individual and it is not permitted to be\n+shared with other users. Even support\n+staff individuals who are sponsored by\n+one or more practitioners must create\n+and use their own individual\n+USPTO.gov account. Likewise, users are\n+required to have an active USPTO.gov\n+account in order to access the USPTO’s\n+Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking\n+System (P–TACTS) for filing documents\n+in connection with interferences 44 and\n+inter partes disputes 45 established\n+under the Leahy-Smith America Invents\n+Act (AIA), including inter partes review\n+(IPR), transitional program for covered\n+business method patents (CBM), post\n+grant review (PGR), and derivation\n+(DER) proceedings.46\n+Similarly, trademark applicants and\n+registrants are required to electronically\n+file trademark correspondence through\n+the trademark electronic filing systems.\n+Users can view the status of, and\n+documents filed in or associated with,\n+trademark applications and registrations\n+in the trademark electronic filing\n+systems. In order to take advantage of all\n+trademark electronic systems, a user\n+must be a registered user by creating a\n+USPTO.gov account and completing an\n+online or paper-based verification\n+including the Trademark Verified\n+USPTO.gov Account Agreement.47 The\n+USPTO.gov account is exclusive to an\n+individual and it is not permitted to be\n+shared with other users.48 Even support\n+staff individuals who are sponsored by\n+one or more practitioners must create\n+and use their own individual\n+USPTO.gov account.49\n+Trademark applicants, registrants, and\n+parties to a proceeding before the TTAB\n+are required to file submissions and\n+correspondence electronically, currently\n+through Electronic System for\n+Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).\n+37 CFR 2.126(a).50\n+Additionally, the Terms of Use apply\n+to all USPTO websites, applications,\n+software, and services that are intended\n+for public use on the USPTO.gov\n+domain or USPTO-branded mobile\n+applications and social media\n+presences.51 In other words, the Terms\n+of Use are the policies that all users\n+must abide by when accessing USPTO\n+services. These Terms of Use prohibit\n+the unauthorized access, actions, use,\n+modification, or disclosure of the data\n+contained in the USPTO system or in\n+transit to/from the system.\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES\n+25614 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+52 See 37 CFR 11.101, 11.103.\n+53 See Changes to Representation of Others Before\n+The United States Patent and Trademark Office, 78\n+FR 28445 (2013).\n+54 37 CFR 11.101.\n+55 See Model Code of Prof’l Conduct r. 1.1, cmt.\n+(Am. Bar Ass’n 2012) (‘‘To maintain the requisite\n+knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast\n+of changes in the law and its practice, including the\n+benefits and risks associated with relevant\n+technology . . .’’).\n+56 See 37 CFR 11.103.\n+57 See 37 CFR 11.501–503.\n+58 A duty to disclose the use of such tools is\n+implicated when the use rises to the level of\n+materiality under 37 CFR 1.56(b).\n+59 See Opinion and Order on Sanctions at 2, Mata\n+v. Avianca Inc., Case No. 22–CV–1461 (S.D.N.Y.,\n+July 7, 2023).\n+60 An AI hallucination, or sometimes referred to\n+as ‘‘confabulation,’’ is a phenomenon where the AI\n+tool outputs inaccurate or nonexistent information.\n+Further information on USPTO’s\n+electronic system policies and how they\n+relate to the use of AI systems in filing\n+documents and accessing USPTO\n+systems can be found in Sections III(B)\n+and (C).\n+F. Duties Owed to Clients\n+The USPTO Rules of Professional\n+Conduct require that a practitioner\n+provide competent and diligent\n+representation to a client.52 The USPTO\n+adopted the competence and diligence\n+rules in 2013 to correspond to ABA\n+Model Rules 1.1 and 1.3, respectively,\n+and guided practitioners to refer to the\n+Comments and Annotations to the ABA\n+Model Rules, as amended through\n+August 2012, for useful information on\n+how to interpret the equivalent USPTO\n+Rules.53 Under 37 CFR 11.101, a\n+practitioner must have ‘‘the legal,\n+scientific, and technical knowledge,\n+skill, thoroughness and preparation\n+reasonably necessary for the\n+representation.’’ 54 Practitioners must\n+keep abreast of the benefits and risks\n+associated with any technology used to\n+handle client matters before the\n+USPTO.55 The diligence requirement,\n+which corresponds to ABA Model Rule\n+1.3, states that the practitioner shall act\n+with reasonable diligence in\n+representing a client.56\n+In addition, 37 CFR 11.104 requires a\n+practitioner to ‘‘reasonably consult with\n+the client about the means by which the\n+client’s objectives are to be\n+accomplished’’ and ‘‘explain a matter to\n+the extent reasonably necessary to\n+permit the client to make informed\n+decisions regarding the representation.’’\n+A practitioner who supervises the work\n+of other practitioners and non-\n+practitioner assistants in representing a\n+client is responsible for making\n+reasonable efforts to ensure that the\n+practitioners and non-practitioner\n+assistants comply with the professional\n+obligations of the practitioner or the\n+USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.57\n+When using AI tools, practitioners\n+must ensure they are not violating the\n+duties owed to clients as highlighted in\n+Section III(A). For example,\n+practitioners must have the requisite\n+legal, scientific, and technical\n+knowledge to reasonably represent their\n+client.\n+III. Application of the Existing Rules as\n+to the Use of AI, Including Generative\n+AI, Before the USPTO\n+As set forth above, parties and\n+practitioners appearing or practicing\n+before the USPTO (including the PTAB\n+and TTAB), or accessing USPTO\n+electronic resources, are subject to a\n+number of conditions and obligations.\n+Those conditions and obligations\n+readily apply to situations in which the\n+party or practitioner uses AI as a tool,\n+as set forth in the examples below.\n+A. The Use of Computer Tools for\n+Document Drafting\n+For years, computer tools have been\n+ubiquitous in document drafting. Word\n+processing software with features such\n+as spelling and grammar check are\n+commonplace in most industries. More\n+recently, word processing software and\n+other computer tools have begun\n+adopting generative AI features that can\n+develop a written document with much\n+less human involvement. For example,\n+recent tools directed to the IP industry\n+include the ability to draft technical\n+specifications, generate responses to\n+Office actions, write and respond to\n+briefs, and even draft patent claims.\n+The capabilities of these tools\n+continue to grow, and there is no\n+prohibition against using these\n+computer tools in drafting documents\n+for submission to the USPTO. Nor is\n+there a general obligation to disclose to\n+the USPTO the use of such tools.58\n+However, and especially absent such an\n+obligation, applicants, registrants,\n+practitioners, parties to proceedings,\n+and others submitting papers to the\n+USPTO are reminded of the related\n+USPTO policies and duties to the Office\n+and clients (if applicable) when using\n+these computer tools. These policies\n+and duties apply in a variety of\n+exemplary contexts.\n+1. All Submissions and Correspondence\n+With the USPTO\n+As explained above, nearly all forms\n+of correspondence with the USPTO\n+must be signed. This includes\n+documents that were drafted entirely by\n+AI tools or drafted with the assistance\n+of AI tools. By presenting to the Office\n+(whether by signing, filing, submitting,\n+or later advocating) any paper, a party\n+(i.e., the person signing, filing,\n+submitting, or later advocating for the\n+paper) certifies under 37 CFR 11.18(b)\n+that all statements to the party’s own\n+knowledge are true and that the party\n+performed an inquiry reasonable under\n+the circumstances. In order to obtain the\n+knowledge necessary to make these\n+certifications, the party presenting the\n+paper must have reviewed and verified\n+the paper and its contents.\n+Accordingly, any paper submitted to\n+the USPTO must be reviewed by the\n+party or parties presenting the paper.\n+Those parties are responsible for the\n+contents therein. Simply relying on the\n+accuracy of an AI tool is not a\n+reasonable inquiry.59 Therefore, if an AI\n+tool is used in drafting or editing a\n+document, the party must still review its\n+contents and ensure the paper is in\n+accordance with the certifications being\n+made. For example, given the potential\n+for generative AI systems to omit,\n+misstate, or even ‘‘hallucinate’’ 60 or\n+‘‘confabulate’’ information, the party or\n+parties presenting the paper must\n+ensure that all statements in the paper\n+are true to their own knowledge and\n+made based on information that is\n+believed to be true. Additionally, the\n+party or parties should also perform an\n+inquiry reasonable under the\n+circumstances confirming all facts\n+presented in the paper have or are likely\n+to have evidentiary support and\n+confirming the accuracy of all citations\n+to case law and other references. This\n+review must also ensure that all\n+arguments and legal contentions are\n+warranted by existing law, a\n+nonfrivolous argument for the extension\n+of existing law, or the establishment of\n+new law. For example, if an AI system\n+is used to draft a portion of a response\n+to an examiner Office action, the party\n+should review the response, including\n+checking the accuracy of the citations\n+and ensuring the arguments are legally\n+warranted. Further, practitioners and\n+others involved in a matter before the\n+USPTO may be required to disclose\n+certain known facts to the USPTO under\n+their duty of candor and good faith. For\n+example, in patents and patent\n+applications, all patent claims must\n+have a significant contribution by a\n+human inventor. Thus, if an AI system\n+is used to draft patent claims that are\n+submitted for examination, but an\n+individual listed in 37 CFR 1.56(c) has\n+knowledge that one or more of the\n+claims did not have a significant\n+contribution by a human inventor, that\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES\n+25615 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+61 37 CFR 1.56(a); See also Inventorship Guidance\n+for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 FR at 10049.\n+62 See 37 CFR 11.18(c).\n+63 ‘‘A practitioner shall not bring or defend a\n+proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein,\n+unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so\n+that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith\n+argument for an extension, modification or reversal\n+of existing law.’’\n+64 See also 37 CFR 11.303(a).\n+65 See, e.g., 37 CFR 1.105, 11.52.\n+66 See 37 CFR 11.101.\n+67 37 CFR 11.102(a) (‘‘Subject to paragraphs (c)\n+and (d) of this section, a practitioner shall abide by\n+a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of\n+representation and, as required by § 11.104, shall\n+consult with the client as to the means by which\n+they are to be pursued. A practitioner may take\n+such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly\n+authorized to carry out the representation. A\n+practitioner shall abide by a client’s decision\n+whether to settle a matter.’’).\n+68 Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted\n+Inventions, 89 FR at 10049.\n+69 MPEP 2004 (citing U.S. Industries v. Norton\n+Co., 210 USPQ 94, 107 (N.D. N.Y. 1980)) (‘‘[i]n\n+short, the question of relevancy in close cases,\n+should be left to the examiner and not the\n+applicant.’’). (emphasis added)\n+70 See MPEP 2164.02 (‘‘The claims should be\n+drafted in a manner that assists readers in\n+differentiating between actual working examples\n+and prophetic examples (i.e., prophetic examples\n+should not be described using the past tense, but\n+rather in future or present tense)’’); MPEP 2004\n+(item 8).\n+71 See MPEP 608.04(a).\n+72 Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted\n+Inventions, 89 FR 10043.\n+73 Id at 10047.\n+74 See e.g., Juristat IDS, available at\n+www.resources.juristat.com/information-disclosure-\n+statement; ClaimMaster, available at\n+www.patentclaimmaster.com/blog/filling-out-ids-\n+forms-with-claimmaster.\n+information must be disclosed to the\n+USPTO.61\n+Upon review of the document drafted\n+with the assistance of an AI tool, any\n+errors or omissions in the document\n+must be corrected. Filing a paper with\n+the USPTO that includes erroneous\n+facts, arguments, or authorities would\n+not be in compliance with 37 CFR\n+11.18(b). Similarly, filing a paper with\n+known material omissions in not\n+accordance with the duty of candor and\n+good faith. Violations of 37 CFR 11.18\n+could include striking the offending\n+paper, referring the practitioner’s\n+conduct to the Director of the Office of\n+Enrollment and Discipline, or\n+terminating the proceedings in the\n+Office.62 Additionally, practitioners are\n+prohibited under 37 CFR 11.301 63 from\n+bringing or defending a proceeding, or\n+asserting or controverting an issue\n+therein, unless there is a basis in law or\n+fact for doing so.64\n+While those parties presenting a paper\n+to the USPTO are under a duty to\n+review the information in the paper and\n+correct any errors, there is not presently\n+a general duty to inform the USPTO that\n+an AI tool was used in the drafting of\n+the paper unless specifically requested\n+by the USPTO.65 However, practitioners\n+must competently represent their\n+clients.66 That is, they must have the\n+requisite legal, scientific, and technical\n+knowledge to reasonably represent their\n+client.\n+In addition, under 37 CFR\n+11.104(a)(2), practitioners must\n+reasonably consult with the client about\n+the means by which their clients’\n+objectives are to be accomplished.67\n+2. Additional Examples in the Patent\n+Context\n+While there is no per se requirement\n+to notify the USPTO when AI tools are\n+used in the invention creation process\n+or practicing before the USPTO,\n+applicants and practitioners should be\n+mindful of their duty of disclosure. This\n+is, if the use of an AI tool is material to\n+patentability as defined in 37 CFR\n+1.56(b), the use of such AI tool must be\n+disclosed to the USPTO. For example,\n+as discussed in more detail in the\n+Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted\n+Inventions, material information could\n+include evidence that a named inventor\n+did not significantly contribute to the\n+invention because the person’s\n+purported contributions were made by\n+an AI system.68 This could occur where\n+an AI system assists in the drafting of\n+the patent application and introduces\n+alternative embodiments which the\n+inventor(s) did not conceive and\n+applicant seeks to patent. If there is a\n+question as to whether there was at least\n+one named inventor who significantly\n+contributed to a claimed invention\n+developed with the assistance of AI,\n+information regarding the interaction\n+with the AI system (e.g., the inputs/\n+outputs of the AI system) could be\n+material and, if so, should be submitted\n+to the USPTO.69\n+Practitioners are also under a duty to\n+refrain from filing or prosecuting patent\n+claims that are known to be\n+unpatentable. Therefore, in situations\n+where an AI tool is used to draft patent\n+claims, the practitioner is under a duty\n+to modify those claims as needed to\n+present them in patentable form before\n+submitting them to the USPTO. In\n+situations where the specification and/\n+or drawings of the patent application are\n+drafted using AI tools, practitioners\n+need to take extra care to verify the\n+technical accuracy of the documents\n+and compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112.\n+Also, when AI tools are used to produce\n+or draft prophetic examples, appropriate\n+care should be taken to assist the\n+readers in differentiating these examples\n+from actual working examples.70 This\n+should be done before initial filing with\n+the USPTO because amending the\n+specification and/or drawings after the\n+initial submission may constitute new\n+matter.71 Care should be taken to ensure\n+that the disclosures of foreign or\n+international patent applications drafted\n+using AI tools, to which the U.S. patent\n+application claims priority, are\n+technically accurate to avoid loss of\n+priority due to the filing of amendments\n+to correct technical errors in the U.S.\n+application.\n+When AI systems are relied upon to\n+draft or modify claims, such drafts or\n+changes could impact inventorship or\n+patentability (e.g., 35 U.S.C. 112(a)). For\n+example, when AI makes contributions\n+to drafting portions of the specification\n+and/or claims (e.g., introducing\n+alternate embodiments not\n+contemplated by the inventor(s)), it is\n+appropriate to assess whether the\n+contributions made by natural persons\n+rise to the level of inventorship, in\n+accordance with the law and recent\n+USPTO guidance.72 In particular, each\n+named inventor must have significantly\n+contributed to a claimed invention of\n+the application as described by the\n+Pannu factors.73 Therefore, practitioners\n+should carefully reevaluate that the\n+appropriate inventors are listed on the\n+patent application. It is particularly\n+important for a practitioner to review\n+applications prepared with the\n+assistance of AI, before filing, to see that\n+information is not incorrectly or\n+incompletely characterized.\n+AI systems could also be used in the\n+submission of evidence of patentability\n+or unpatentability (e.g., evidence of\n+secondary considerations). Though AI\n+may be used to identify evidence or\n+even draft affidavits, petitions,\n+responses to Office actions, etc.,\n+practitioners are required to verify the\n+accuracy of factual assertions, both\n+technical and legal, and ensure that all\n+documents, including those prepared\n+with the assistance of AI, do not\n+introduce inaccurate statements and\n+evidence into the record, either\n+inadvertently or intentionally, or omit\n+information that is material to\n+patentability.\n+Additionally, AI may be used to\n+automatically populate the USPTO’s\n+PTO/SB/08 form (Information\n+Disclosure Statement (IDS) form) with\n+citations for submission to the USPTO,\n+and may be used to collect prior art\n+references in the first place.74 While AI\n+could be attractive to some patent\n+applicants and practitioners, the\n+unchecked use of AI poses the danger of\n+increasing the number and size of IDS\n+submissions to the USPTO, which could\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES\n+25616 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+75 See MPEP 2004 (advising parties to\n+‘‘[e]liminate clearly irrelevant and marginally\n+pertinent cumulative information’’).\n+76 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)(i).\n+77 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)(i) and (iii).\n+78 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) and 2.193(a).\n+79 Id.; see also 37 CFR 11.18(a) (‘‘For all\n+documents filed in the Office in patent, trademark,\n+and other non-patent matters, and all documents\n+filed with a hearing officer in a disciplinary\n+proceeding, except for correspondence that is\n+required to be signed by the applicant or party, each\n+piece of correspondence filed by a practitioner in\n+the Office must bear a signature, personally signed\n+or inserted by such practitioner, in compliance with\n+§ 1.4(d) or § 2.193(a) of this chapter.’’).\n+80 ‘‘Non-natural person’’ used herein refers to\n+those entities who would not qualify as a natural\n+person under the law (e.g. sovereigns, corporations,\n+or machines).\n+81 See, e.g., MPEP 502.02; TMEP 611.\n+82 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2)(i).\n+83 Some submissions, such as an initial filed\n+patent application, do not require a USPTO.gov\n+account.\n+84 Legal Framework for Patents Electronic\n+Systems at 6 (‘‘No user, whether registered or\n+unregistered, is permitted to file documents in\n+applications, reexamination proceedings, or\n+supplemental examination proceedings in which\n+they are not authorized.’’); Trademark Verified\n+USPTO.gov Account Agreement at 2 (‘‘I understand\n+that my use of a trademark verified USPTO.gov\n+account is . . . further limited to use in connection\n+with applications and/or registrations I am\n+authorized to access. I understand that any other\n+use is strictly prohibited.’’).\n+85 See, e.g., Legal Framework for Patents\n+Electronic Systems at 2, 6, and 26.\n+burden the Office with large numbers of\n+cumulative and irrelevant submissions.\n+First, 37 CFR 1.4(d) requires a natural\n+person to personally sign or insert their\n+signature on the IDS. By signing, that\n+person is certifying that they have\n+performed a reasonable inquiry—\n+including not just reviewing the IDS\n+form but reviewing each piece of prior\n+art listed on the form—and determined\n+the paper is compliant with 37 CFR\n+11.18(b). Regardless of where prior art is\n+found, submitting an IDS without\n+reviewing the contents may be a\n+violation of 37 CFR 11.18(b). After the\n+contents have been reviewed, clearly\n+irrelevant and marginally pertinent\n+cumulative information to the instant\n+proceeding should be removed to avoid\n+violating 37 CFR 11.18 by\n+overburdening the examiner with a large\n+amount of irrelevant information.75\n+Including such information in an IDS\n+could be construed as a paper presented\n+for an improper purpose because it\n+could ‘‘cause unnecessary delay or\n+needless increase in the cost of any\n+proceeding before the Office.’’ 76\n+Similarly, third-party preissuance\n+submissions under 37 CFR 1.290 must\n+also be signed by a natural person and,\n+therefore, implicate the certifications\n+under 37 CFR 11.18(b).\n+The duty of disclosure applies to the\n+individuals identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c).\n+This duty cannot be transferred to\n+another person or a computer system\n+such as an AI tool. Therefore, it is the\n+§ 1.56(c) individuals who must ensure\n+that all material information is\n+submitted to the USPTO. Therefore,\n+IDSs should also be reviewed to ensure\n+that all material information is disclosed\n+to prevent material information from\n+being unknowingly omitted.\n+3. Additional Examples in the\n+Trademark Context\n+Trademark and TTAB submissions\n+generated or assisted by AI must be\n+carefully reviewed prior to filing to\n+ensure that the facts and statements\n+provided are true and have appropriate\n+evidentiary support, consistent with the\n+requirements of 37 CFR 11.18(b). This\n+includes any information or evidence\n+provided in trademark applications,\n+registration maintenance filings, and\n+TTAB proceedings, as well as legal\n+arguments and citations made in\n+response to refusals and requirements in\n+Office actions or in briefs before the\n+TTAB, whether in appeals or trial cases.\n+Particular care should be taken to avoid\n+submitting any AI-generated specimens,\n+which do not show actual use of the\n+trademark in commerce, or any other\n+evidence created by AI that does not\n+actually exist in the marketplace. In\n+addition, AI-generated material that\n+misstates facts or law, includes\n+irrelevant material, or includes\n+unnecessarily cumulative material,\n+could be construed as a paper presented\n+for an improper purpose because it\n+could ‘‘cause unnecessary delay or\n+needless increase in the cost of any\n+proceeding before the Office.’’ 77\n+B. Filing Documents With the USPTO\n+Beyond assisting with the preparation\n+of documents, AI tools could be used to\n+assist or automate the mechanical\n+aspects of filing documents with the\n+USPTO. For example, these tools could\n+potentially autocomplete USPTO forms,\n+access information on USPTO websites,\n+and upload documents and other\n+information to USPTO servers. Care\n+should be taken by persons using such\n+tools to ensure USPTO rules and\n+policies are not violated.\n+As previously explained, nearly all\n+forms of correspondence filed with the\n+USPTO must bear a signature.78 This\n+must be the signature of a ‘‘person.’’ 79\n+It would not be acceptable for the\n+correspondence to have the signature of\n+an AI tool or other non-natural person.80\n+The signer must insert their signature in\n+accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(d) and\n+2.193(c).81 The signer of the document\n+cannot delegate this act to another\n+person or entity. Thus, it is not\n+compliant with the rules to have the AI\n+tool apply the signature of a person\n+without being personally entered by that\n+person.82 This requirement ensures that\n+natural persons are overseeing the\n+submissions to the USPTO and ensuring\n+they are compliant with USPTO rules\n+and policies.\n+Another issue practitioners and others\n+should consider when using AI tools to\n+submit papers to the USPTO is the\n+USPTO’s policies regarding electronic\n+filing, websites, and other services. For\n+example, in order to submit papers to\n+the USPTO through the Patent Center,\n+Trademark Electronic Application\n+System (TEAS), P–TACTS, or other\n+USPTO electronic systems, a user\n+should obtain a USPTO.gov account.83\n+Because obtaining a USPTO.gov account\n+requires individual agreement to the\n+Terms of Use for USPTO websites, the\n+USPTO Patent Electronic System\n+Subscriber Agreement (as applicable),\n+and the Trademark Verified USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement (as applicable),\n+USPTO.gov accounts are limited to\n+natural persons and cannot be obtained\n+by non-natural persons. Therefore, AI\n+systems may not obtain a USPTO.gov\n+account. Further, practitioners may not\n+sponsor AI tools as a support staff\n+individual to obtain an account.\n+C. Accessing USPTO IT Systems\n+While AI tools have the capabilities to\n+access and interact with USPTO IT\n+systems, attention should be paid to\n+ensure the use of these tools does not\n+run afoul of federal and state law, and\n+USPTO regulations and policies. One\n+important policy to note is the\n+requirement that users must not file\n+documents or access information for\n+which they do not have authorization.84\n+In order to be authorized, a user must\n+be the applicant, registrant, party to a\n+proceeding, inventor, third party (who\n+may submit some papers such as third-\n+party submissions via a dedicated\n+interface), a practitioner of record, a\n+practitioner acting in representative\n+capacity pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34, or a\n+sponsored support staff individual.85\n+Further, in addition to being authorized,\n+only registered users may file follow-on\n+documents in applications. An AI\n+system or tool is not considered a\n+‘‘user’’ for filing and/or accessing\n+documents via the USPTO’s electronic\n+filing systems, and as such, cannot\n+obtain a USPTO.gov account. If a person\n+is using a computer tool, including an\n+AI system, to assist in submitting\n+documentation to the USPTO, that\n+person is responsible for ensuring that\n+computer tool does not exceed\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES\n+25617 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / Notices\n+86 Id at 28; Trademark Verified USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement at 7–8; Terms of Use for\n+USPTO websites.\n+87 Terms of Use for USPTO websites.\n+88 Available at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-\n+resources/bulk-data-products.\n+89 See 37 CFR 11.501–503.\n+90 See, e.g., 37 CFR 5.11; Scope of Foreign Filing\n+Licenses, 73 FR 42781 (July 23, 2008); Bureau of\n+Industry and Security Online Training Room\n+(available at www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/online-\n+training-room).\n+91 See, e.g., 15 CFR 734.13.\n+92 Terms of Use for USPTO websites.\n+authorized access, including submitting\n+or accessing papers in an application\n+that the person does not have\n+authorization to access. Violations of the\n+Legal Framework for Patent Electronic\n+System, Trademark Verified USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement, Terms of Use for\n+USPTO websites, or other applicable\n+policies may lead to revocation of the\n+user’s USPTO.gov account, in addition\n+to criminal, civil, and/or administrative\n+action and penalties as previously\n+described.86\n+Users should also be extremely\n+careful when attempting to data mine\n+information from USPTO databases.\n+Using computer tools, including AI\n+systems, in a manner that generates\n+unusually high numbers of database\n+accesses violates the Terms of Use for\n+USPTO websites, and users using tools\n+in this way will be denied access to\n+USPTO servers without notice and\n+could be subject to applicable state\n+criminal and civil laws.87 Instead, users\n+should consider using the USPTO’s bulk\n+data products for permitted and\n+appropriate data mining efforts.88\n+D. Confidentiality and National Security\n+Considerations\n+Use of AI in practice before the\n+USPTO can result in the inadvertent\n+disclosure of client-sensitive or\n+confidential information, including\n+highly-sensitive technical information,\n+to third parties. This can happen, for\n+example, when aspects of an invention\n+are input into AI systems to perform\n+prior art searches or generate drafts of\n+specification, claims, or responses to\n+Office actions. AI systems may retain\n+the information that is entered by users.\n+This information can be used in a\n+variety of ways by the owner of the AI\n+system including using the data to\n+further train its AI models or providing\n+the data to third parties in breach of\n+practitioners’ confidentiality obligations\n+to their clients under, inter alia, 37 CFR\n+11.106. If confidential information is\n+used to train AI, that confidential\n+information or some parts of it may\n+filter into outputs from the AI system\n+provided to others.\n+When practitioners rely on the\n+services of a third party to develop a\n+proprietary AI tool, store client data on\n+third-party storage, or purchase a\n+commercially available AI tool,\n+practitioners must be especially vigilant\n+to ensure that confidentiality of client\n+data is maintained. Practitioners who\n+supervise the work of other practitioners\n+and non-practitioner assistants must\n+ensure that the practitioners and staff\n+under their supervision comply with the\n+USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct\n+when relying on AI tools and/or AI-\n+related third party services.89\n+Such disclosures can also implicate\n+national security, export control, and\n+foreign filing license issues.90\n+Specifically, practitioners must be\n+mindful of the possibility that AI tools\n+may utilize servers located outside the\n+United States, raising the likelihood that\n+any data entered into such tools may be\n+exported outside of the United States,\n+potentially in violation of existing\n+export administration and national\n+security regulations or secrecy orders.\n+Even if the servers are located within\n+the United States, certain activities\n+related to the use of AI systems hosted\n+by these servers by non-U.S. persons\n+may be deemed an export subject to\n+these regulations.91 Moreover, AI\n+system developers or maintainers may\n+suffer data breaches, further subjecting\n+user data to disclosure risks. Therefore,\n+before using these AI tools, it is\n+imperative for practitioners to\n+understand an AI tool’s terms of use,\n+privacy policies, and cybersecurity\n+practices.\n+E. Fraud and Intentional Misconduct\n+The USPTO does not tolerate fraud or\n+intentional misconduct in any manner\n+in a proceeding before the Office or in\n+connection with accessing USPTO IT\n+systems. As explained above, all\n+individuals associated with a\n+proceeding before the USPTO have a\n+duty of candor and good faith. The duty\n+extends not only to the personal actions\n+of these individuals, but also to the\n+actions these individuals take with any\n+automated tools, including AI tools.\n+Additionally, the use of AI tools on\n+USPTO websites for the ‘‘[u]nauthorized\n+access, actions, use, modification, or\n+disclosure of the data contained herein\n+or in transit to/from [USPTO web\n+systems] constitutes a violation of the\n+Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.’’ 92 The\n+USPTO monitors network traffic to\n+identify such behaviors. As previously\n+discussed, violators are subject to\n+criminal, civil, and/or administrative\n+action and penalties.\n+IV. Conclusion\n+This guidance on the use of AI Before\n+the Office is not meant to be exhaustive.\n+Those appearing before the USPTO or\n+accessing its systems are reminded to\n+comply with the laws, regulations,\n+precedent, and guidance in force at the\n+time of their dealings with the USPTO.\n+Katherine K. Vidal,\n+Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual\n+Property and Director of the United States\n+Patent and Trademark Office.\n+[FR Doc. 2024–07629 Filed 4–10–24; 8:45 am]\n+BILLING CODE 3510–16–P\n+DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n+Office of the Secretary\n+Modification To Childbirth Support\n+Services Covered Under the TRICARE\n+Childbirth and Breastfeeding Support\n+Demonstration\n+AGENCY: Department of Defense.\n+ACTION: Notice of demonstration\n+modifications.\n+SUMMARY: The Director of the Defense\n+Health Agency (DHA) is notifying the\n+public of adjustments to the\n+reimbursement and provider\n+qualifications for childbirth support\n+services under the Childbirth and\n+Breastfeeding Support Demonstration\n+(CBSD).\n+DATES: The Phase 2 changes will be\n+fully implemented by January 1, 2025,\n+with a transition period starting June 10,\n+2024. The two modifications to the\n+certified labor doulas (CLD) certification\n+requirement are effective April 11, 2024.\n+FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :\n+Erica Ferron, 303–676–3626,\n+erica.c.ferron.civ@health.mil.\n+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\n+A. Background\n+Section 746 of the William M. (Mac)\n+Thornberry National Defense\n+Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY)\n+2021 (NDAA FY 2021) directed the\n+Secretary of Defense to establish a five-\n+year demonstration project under\n+TRICARE to evaluate the cost, quality of\n+care, and impact on maternal and fetal\n+outcomes of covering the services of\n+doulas and lactation consultants or\n+counselors not otherwise TRICARE-\n+authorized, and to determine whether it\n+would be appropriate to implement\n+permanent coverage. Section 746 also\n+required the Secretary to conduct a\n+maternity survey.\n+This demonstration was implemented\n+as the CBSD, with details announced in\n+a Federal Register notice (FRN)\n+VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:50 Apr 10, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\11APN1.SGM 11APN1khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES","id":"418a5751db3f7ed25d3b72f076ccd69885f62577489c3c4afe9fb0e1315359b6","newHash":"d206cbccf3a9bb1b0ab7fb09aed86406263f54a21641cc8646074e8faee4b013","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-11/pdf/2024-07629.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/d206cbccf3a9bb1b0ab7fb09aed86406263f54a21641cc8646074e8faee4b013.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-11/pdf/2024-07629.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:55.417966+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@\n+DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS –\n+GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Chambers of United States District Judge\n+Leslie E. Kobayashi\n+1. Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of\n+Civil Procedure, and the certifications required\n+thereunder, the Court directs that any party, whether\n+appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any\n+generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in the\n+preparation of any documents to be filed with the\n+Court, must disclose in the document that AI was used\n+and the specific AI tool that was used. The\n+unrepresented party or attorney must further certify in\n+the document that the person has checked the accuracy\n+of any portion of the document drafted by generative\n+AI, including all citations and legal authority.\n+2. If generative AI is utilized in the preparation of\n+any documents filed with the Court, the unrepresented\n+party or attorney will be held responsible for the\n+contents thereof, in accordance with Rule 11 and\n+applicable rules of professional conduct and/or\n+attorney discipline.\n+3. The failure to make the disclosure and\n+certification described in paragraph 1 may result in\n+the imposition of sanctions.","id":"1ddd057b94a8f1900f8e43e29ed80d119f6a2722ac398eb767c922d7cadf59d2","newHash":"889064af7e1c0565abc673f9e7703242a2742993d03279a239e7c4f099b2cba9","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/889064af7e1c0565abc673f9e7703242a2742993d03279a239e7c4f099b2cba9.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/95f11dcf-7411-42d2-9ac2-92b2424519f6/AI%20Guidelines%20LEK.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:55.605555+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"2000e8096fae0819d37c0c0e4629426b73102ba1ac16e637906ef7c77a149795","newHash":"53c6937fdb083aa5e85fd3e9f45e97ba6c095b0e6bfd8c833fd31faca09d4d21","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.iardc.org/EducationAndOutreach/ArtificialIntelligence","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.iardc.org/EducationAndOutreach/ArtificialIntelligence","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:55.725631+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@\n+Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Southern District of Iowa | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of Iowa\n+Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge | Chandlor G. Collins, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+Court Info\n+About Us\n+Judges\n+Directory\n+Court Locations\n+Courthouse Security\n+Federal Holidays\n+Courtroom Technology\n+Naturalization\n+Employment\n+Schedule of Fees\n+Customers Presenting Checks to Iowa Southern District Court\n+ADA Accommodations\n+POWER Act Presentation\n+CM/ECF\n+Login\n+Policies & Procedures\n+Help & Training\n+NextGen\n+Rules and Orders\n+Local Rules\n+Federal Rules\n+Administrative Orders\n+Speedy Trial Act Plan\n+Your Employee Rights and How to Report Wrongful Conduct\n+Iowa Southern Privacy Policy\n+Criminal Justice Act Plan\n+Artificial Intelligence (AI)\n+Jury\n+Copy of Summons\n+Jury Plan\n+Jury Handbooks\n+Jury Service Video\n+Hotels\n+Restaurants\n+Parking\n+Jury Scam Information\n+Protection of Jurors Employment\n+Jury FAQ\n+For Attorneys\n+Contact Information\n+Attorney Admissions\n+Annual Renewal Fee\n+Certificate of Good Standing\n+CJA Resources\n+Bill of Costs Guidelines\n+Attorney Admission Fund\n+Guidelines for Attorney Expenses in Civil Pro Bono Cases\n+Jury Evidence Recording System (JERS)\n+Filing Without an Attorney\n+Procedures for Filing in the Southern District\n+Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Self-Representation Links\n+Pro Se Filing Notice Re: Copies and Mailing\n+Pro Se FAQs\n+Forms\n+Civil Forms\n+Criminal Forms\n+Prisoner Forms\n+Pro Se Forms\n+Links\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Rules and Orders\n+Artificial Intelligence (AI)\n+Parties are strongly encouraged to use caution when using artificial intelligence (AI). The use of AI in litigation carries significant risks. Although AI can be a helpful tool, it is not always accurate. There have been several instances, particularly in the realm of legal writing and research, where AI has entirely fabricated cases and their holdings or representations. Parties are personally responsible for verifying the accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness of their filings—including the use of AI generative content. The failure to review and verify accuracy may result in sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those sanctions could include a monetary penalty, or if appropriate, dismissal of your lawsuit.\n+FAQs Regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI):\n+Can I use AI to help me with my legal proceedings?\n+At this time, it is not prohibited for litigants to use AI to assist them in their legal proceedings. However, the Court encourages litigants to use AI with extreme caution. As a reminder, all litigants are personally responsible for verifying the accuracy of the AI generated material, including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis, before submitting it to the Court. The failure to read, review and ensure accuracy could result in sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You would need to take steps to correct any errors introduced by your use of AI tools.\n+Do I have to disclose my use of AI to the Court?\n+The Southern District of Iowa does not currently require disclosure regarding the use of AI in court filings. However, the Court could require disclosure via a Court Order should the use of AI become a problem in a specific case.\n+May a person who is not a licensed attorney provide legal advice or representation to me?\n+While individuals can represent themselves (pro se) in court, nonlawyers cannot represent other people. Nonlawyers are strictly prohibited from the practice of law and representing others in federal court.\n+Local Rules\n+Federal Rules\n+Administrative Orders\n+Speedy Trial Act Plan\n+Your Employee Rights and How to Report Wrongful Conduct\n+EDR Plan\n+Judicial Conduct and Disability Act\n+Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings\n+Judicial Conduct and Disability Complaint Form\n+Anti-Discrimination Harassment Notice\n+How to Address Wrongful Conduct in the Workplace\n+Your Rights In a Federal Judiciary Workplace\n+Iowa Southern Privacy Policy\n+Criminal Justice Act Plan\n+Artificial Intelligence (AI)\n+Home | Contact Us | Employment\n+Privacy Policy","id":"13714dae3d68b78b87f30226e2e1cc0a6594eba70bd30e00a35e3be6686b03de","newHash":"b223b57c582601d7f916c9520ed738c69b7b9c391e01dbeb62d30722ce935106","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai","snapshot":"snapshots/b223b57c582601d7f916c9520ed738c69b7b9c391e01dbeb62d30722ce935106.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/artificial-intelligence-ai","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:55.814327+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,535 @@\n+Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of Illinois\n+Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge | Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court\n+search\n+menu\n+close\n+Home\n+Judges\n+expand_more\n+Judicial Absence\n+Motion Schedule\n+Mediation Program for the Western Division\n+Rules\n+expand_more\n+Local Rules\n+Federal Rules\n+Internal Operating Procedures\n+Internal Operating Procedures (PDF)\n+General Orders\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution (Western Division)\n+Pattern Jury Instructions\n+Local Rule 78.5 Request for Decision/Status Report\n+Mediation Program for the Western Division\n+Local Rules for ADR\n+Clerk's Office\n+expand_more\n+Operations\n+Judicial Support\n+Information Systems\n+Administrative Services\n+Human Resources\n+Attorney\n+CM/ECF\n+expand_more\n+Register for CM/ECF\n+CM/ECF User Guide\n+CM/ECF Quick Reference Guide\n+CM/ECF Training Videos\n+CM/ECF Password Reset Request\n+General Order on Electronic Case Filing\n+Written Opinions\n+Recently Filed Cases\n+Access to CM/ECF for the Northern District of Illinois\n+24-Hour Automated Phone Line for Case Updates\n+Daily Calendars\n+Jurors\n+MDL\n+Forms\n+Pro Se / Representing Yourself\n+expand_more\n+Pro Se Forms\n+Federal Civil Case Forms\n+Guide to Filing a Case in Federal Court Without an Attorney\n+Guide to Understanding the Federal Courts\n+Settlement Assistance Program\n+Settlement Assistance Program Appearance Form\n+Illinois Legal Aid Online – Pro Se Resources\n+Pro Se Filer PDF Submissions\n+Receive Notices of Electronic Filings by Email\n+William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program Help Desk\n+Schedule an Appointment with the Hibbler Help Desk\n+USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (GenAI) IN YOUR COURT CASE\n+Media\n+Naturalization, Civics Education & Community Outreach\n+expand_more\n+Civics Education\n+Court History Documentary\n+Naturalization Ceremony\n+Court History Museum\n+Court Lectures\n+About the Court\n+expand_more\n+History of the Court\n+Proper forms of identification and items not allowed in Courthouses.\n+Divisional County Map\n+Careers\n+close\n+Home»Judges»\n+Judge Information\n+District Judges\n+Magistrate Judges\n+Emergency Judges\n+Order Transcript\n+Judge\n+Alexakis\n+Alonso\n+Appenteng\n+Aspen\n+Bass Ehler\n+Berry III\n+Blakey\n+Bucklo\n+Chang\n+Coleman\n+Cummings\n+Daniel\n+Dow Jr.\n+Durkin\n+Ellis\n+Fuentes\n+Gettleman\n+Gilbert\n+Gottschall\n+Guzman\n+Harjani\n+Holleb Hotaling\n+Hunt\n+Iasparro\n+Jantz\n+Jenkins\n+Johnston\n+Kendall\n+Kennelly\n+Kim\n+Kness\n+Kocoras\n+Lefkow\n+McLaughlin\n+McNally\n+McShain\n+Pacold\n+Pallmeyer\n+Perry\n+Reinhard\n+Rowland\n+Schneider\n+Seeger\n+Shah\n+Tharp Jr.\n+Valderrama\n+Valdez\n+Weisman\n+Wood\n+Select Judge\n+Alexakis\n+Alonso\n+Appenteng\n+Aspen\n+Bass Ehler\n+Berry III\n+Blakey\n+Bucklo\n+Chang\n+Coleman\n+Cummings\n+Daniel\n+Dow Jr.\n+Durkin\n+Ellis\n+Fuentes\n+Gettleman\n+Gilbert\n+Gottschall\n+Guzman\n+Harjani\n+Holleb Hotaling\n+Hunt\n+Iasparro\n+Jantz\n+Jenkins\n+Johnston\n+Kendall\n+Kennelly\n+Kim\n+Kness\n+Kocoras\n+Lefkow\n+McLaughlin\n+McNally\n+McShain\n+Pacold\n+Pallmeyer\n+Perry\n+Reinhard\n+Rowland\n+Schneider\n+Seeger\n+Shah\n+Tharp Jr.\n+Valderrama\n+Valdez\n+Weisman\n+Wood\n+Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman\n+meeting_room\n+Courtroom: 1241 gavel\n+Chambers: 1260 phone\n+Telephone: (312) 435-6885 fax\n+Fax: (312) 554-8078\n+error\n+Change in Judge Coleman's Court Call\n+Judge Coleman will not be hearing motions on November 2 and November 3, 2026; November 11, 2026; November 19 and November 20, 2026; November 26 and 27, 2026. For emergency matters contact the courtroom deputy, Yvette Montanez at 312-408-5159 or Yvette_Montanez@ilnd.uscourts.gov.\n+In-person appearances of counsel are preferred for all hearings but are especially encouraged for initial status hearings and motion hearings.\n+MOTION HEARINGS\n+ALL motions (even if they are unopposed, including for attorney withdrawals, and motions to modify or to continue) must be noticed up for presentment and will be proceeding in-person unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This is the Court's requirement as a courtesy to the Court's schedule, the opposing parties, and for record keeping to be clear. If there is an agreement or no objection, please state that clearly in the motion and the Court will quickly consider striking the presentment. The presentment date will proceed unless the Court enters a minute entry order stating that no appearance is necessary. The Court will determine if a motion requires briefing and will automatically receive a standard briefing schedule of 28 days for the response brief and 14 days for the reply brief, unless the Court approves an alternative schedule that has been agreed to by the parties. The Court will take any fully briefed motion under advisement unless the Court determines that oral argument is needed, or if the Court, in its discretion, grants a party’s request for oral argument. Whether an oral argument takes place also depends on the availability of the courthouse and staff; in rare circumstances, an oral argument may also take place by video at the Court’s discretion. Parties are to provide courtesy copies of substantive and/or dispositive motions, including all memorandums and briefs.\n+If there are any questions about these procedures, please contact the Courtroom Deputy.\n+New Instructions Regarding Cited Authority\n+Judge Coleman no longer requires parties to attach copies of all cited authorities that are published only on Westlaw or Lexis. The new rule is that parties must attach copies of all cited authorities that are published on neither Westlaw nor Lexis. Courtesy copies of all filed exhibits (along with copies of the motion) are still required. If possible, citations to Westlaw (rather than Lexis) are preferred. Additionally, please see the new rule below concerning the use of AI.\n+Any requests for extensions of time or to reset a scheduled hearing must be filed as a motion on the case docket and noticed for presentment. The Court will not allow any requests by any parties to be by phone or email.\n+In light of Amended General Order 20-0012:\n+For emergency matters, as defined by Local Rule 77 .2, that arise during business hours (Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.), parties are directed to send an e-mail message to Emergency_Judge@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The Clerk will monitor the mailbox and send a response. If an emergency matter arises outside of regular business hours, arrangements to bring that matter before the emergency judge may be made by calling (312) 702-8875 and leaving a complete message, including a return telephone number. The Clerk will return the call.\n+error\n+Important Information\n+The information on this and linked pages contains important information about my pretrial case management procedures. Please take the time to read it carefully. These policies and rules have been designed to facilitate the prompt, efficient and equitable disposition of civil cases on my docket. The success of this court’s trial procedures depends on your willingness to familiarize yourself with these materials and to act accordingly. Counsel will be expected to fully explain to the court any failure to comply with the court’s pretrial procedures.\n+Three business days notice is required for the filing of all motions. The day you file your motion is not considered a full business day.\n+Defendants are required to appear for hearing on all motions for modification of supervised release, whether agreed or not, unless otherwise ordered by the court.\n+The Court requires courtesy copies of all documents, including sentencing memoranda, that are over fifteen pages in length, including all exhibits. Courtesy copies are to be delivered to Courtroom Deputy Yvette Montanez in room 1238 within 24 hours of filing.\n+Any party—counsel and unrepresented parties alike— using Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or memorandum of law in this Court must comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court prohibits the use AI-generated legal research containing false or inaccurate propositions or citing non-existent cases.\n+summarize Case Procedures\n+event Calendar Schedule\n+date_range Motion Schedule\n+groups Chambers Staff\n+Procedures to be followed in cases assigned to\n+Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman\n+Courtesy Copies\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Parties are to provide courtesy copies of substantive and/or dispositive motions, including all memorandums and briefs, as well as all response and reply briefs filed in connection with such motions.\n+Warrant Applications in Pending Criminal Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 41, Judge Coleman has issued a standing order that any and all search warrants or seizure warrants related to criminal case assigned to Judge Coleman are to be brought to Judge Coleman for consideration, not to the duty magistrate judge, the designated magistrate judge, or the emergency judge.\n+General Jury Questionnaire\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+General Jury Questionnaire\n+Schedule A Counterfeit Product Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Standing Order Re Schedule A Counterfeit Product Cases\n+Default\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Judge Coleman requires all motions for entry of default or default judgment to be noticed for presentment. In addition, parties should be prepared to prove up damages either by affidavit or at hearing. *See \"Counterfeit Product Cases\" tab for more information on such cases.\n+Criminal Matters\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Motions for pretrial release or modification of the conditions of pretrial release will not be considered unless the defendant and a knowledgeable pretrial service officer are present in court. It is the parties' obligation to notify the pretrial services officer of court hearings and to ensure their availability or that a written report is provided in advance of the hearing. Motions to release a defendant to a third-party custodian will not be considered unless the proposed third-party custodian is present in court and available for examination.\n+Motions for modification of supervised release or early termination of supervised release will not be considered unless the defendant and the assigned probation officer are present in court. It is the parties' obligation to notify the probation officer of court hearings and to ensure their availability.\n+Emergency Motions\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Please be advised that the Court will hear emergency motions only in exceptional circumstances after making a preliminary determination of whether an actual emergency exists.\n+Emergency matters must be of such a nature that a delay in hearing them would cause serious harm to one or more of the parties. Requests to set a hearing on an emergency motion shall be made to the courtroom deputy (Room 1238) with as much advance notice as possible. All reasonable efforts must be made to give actual notice to opposing counsel.\n+Telephonic Appearances\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+**Beginning January 1, 2023, all hearings will presumptively require the parties' in-person attendance. Please refer to the minute entry or order entered on the case docket if your hearing will proceed via telephone conference.**\n+Although disfavored, this Court will consider requests for leave to appear telephonically at routine hearings that will not require substantive argument when counsel is located or is otherwise unable to appear in Court. Slight geographic inconvenience (such as commuting from the Chicago suburbs) will not justify a telephonic hearing. Cases that have been pending longer than two years and cases set for initial status must appear in person. Under no circumstances will this Court proceed with a hearing when neither party is present in open court.\n+Requests to appear telephonically must be e-mailed to the Courtroom Deputy no later than one full business day prior to the hearing. The e-mail must include the case name and number, the date and time of the hearing, the name of the attorney seeking to appear by telephone, the name of the party he or she represents, and a direct telephone number where he or she can be reached when the case is called. The e-mail shall also briefly explain why a telephonic appearance is necessary and shall indicate if local counsel will also be appearing. Courtesy notice must be provided to all parties.\n+If a telephonic hearing is permitted, the courtroom deputy will email the parties with the call in number.\n+Proposed Orders for Electronic Entry\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Proposed orders are not to be filed in ECF. Instead, they must be submitted in Microsoft Word format to the Court’s proposed order e-mail inbox, Proposed_Order_Coleman@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The subject line of the e-mail must include the case number and name, the docket number of the corresponding motion, and the title of the order that is proposed. Such proposed orders must be served on all parties.\n+The Court will not entertain or enter proposed orders that do not correspond to a pending motion unless the order is being submitted with prior leave of Court. The proposed order inbox may only be used for the submission of proposed orders and may not be used to communicate with the Court or to submit motions or other pleadings. Please direct all questions regarding proposed orders to the Courtroom Deputy.\n+Correspondence with the Court\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Unless directed by the Court and with the exception of courtesy copies, neither counsel nor pro se litigants may communicate about a case by letter. All communications must be made in the form of a motion, brief, or a status report, properly noticed and served on opposing counsel.\n+Initial Status Conferences\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Newly Filed Cases:\n+The Court will set all newly filed cases for status approximately 60 days from the filing of complaint. The parties shall file a joint written status report, not to exceed five pages in length, at least three business days prior to the initial status hearing unless otherwise directed.\n+New Case Joint Status Report\n+Reassigned Cases:\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, in all cases assigned to Judge\n+Coleman's calendar from the calendar of another judge, the Court directs the\n+parties to file a joint written status report, not to exceed five pages in length, within 14 business days of reassignment. Thereafter, the Court will advise parties of further action.\n+Reassigned\n+Case Joint Status Report\n+Discovery Motion Practice\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes and thus discourages the filing of discovery motions. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion or non-dispositive dispute unless the movant has complied with the \"meet and confer\" requirement of Local Rule 37.2. The motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2. Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes and communication that takes place face to face or by telephone. The exchange of correspondence will not normally be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2.\n+All parties should be fully prepared to argue any discovery motion on the date that it is presented. The Court most often will rule on discovery motions after hearing argument at the motion call and without briefing. If after hearing argument, the Court believes that the motion requires briefing, the Court normally will set an expedited briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly.\n+Parties are reminded to immediately notify the Court if they are withdrawing any previously filed discovery motions.\n+Parties are reminded that there is no \"order\" in which discovery must occur, and that one party's failure or inability to respond to discovery will not excuse any other party's prompt compliance. Parties are also reminded that the pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not operate as a stay of discovery.\n+Electronic discovery disputes:\n+If the parties have reached an impasse regarding the discovery of voluminous records from a database, server, computer, service provider or similar electronic storage facility (ESF), before filing a motion to compel, the parties are required to meet and confer with an IT representative of the ESF to be searched in order to determine the most effective way to retrieve the requested material. The party seeking the discovery must also bring its IT specialist to this meeting in order to discuss the proper format for the retrieval of the records. This electronic discovery conference must take place in person and both sides should be prepared to discuss specifically the parameters of both the search and the ESF.\n+Deposition disputes:\n+When disputes arise during depositions outside the courthouse, counsel should contact the Courtroom Deputy, who will make arrangements for a conference call at which the Judge or Magistrate Judge will be available to rule on such disputes on the record over the telephone.\n+Motion Practice\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Civil and criminal motions are heard on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. but the Court is available to hear motions any day during the work week. For days and times that are outside of a Tuesday or Wednesday, please contact the courtroom deputy to ensure that the Court has availability.\n+All electronically filed motions must be filed no later than the third business day preceding the day the motion is to be heard. All motions (including joint or agreed motions) must be noticed for presentment pursuant to Local Rule 5.3(b) in order to be considered by this Court. Presentment is not required, however, when a briefing schedule has already been set on the motion being filed. Motions noticed for presentment after a scheduled status hearing may be addressed at that status hearing by agreement of the parties or at the Court’s discretion. Motions for extension of time must be presented prior to the expiration of the deadline or demonstrate excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B).\n+The Court requires courtesy copies of all documents, including sentencing memoranda, that are over fifteen pages in length, including exhibits. Courtesy copies are to be delivered to Courtroom Deputy Yvette Montanez in room 1238 within 24 hours of filing. Confirmation of receipt will not be available. Courtesy copies need not be delivered in an envelope unless they contain materials that are under seal.\n+When seeking an entry of default, it is preferred practice that the requesting party file a motion for entry of default, as opposed to a request to the Clerk of Court. Judge Coleman requires all motions for entry of default or default judgment to be noticed for presentment. In addition, parties should be prepared to prove up damages either by affidavit or at a hearing. *See \"Schedule A Counterfeit Product Cases\" tab for more information on such cases.\n+Joint, uncontested, or agreed motions should be so identified in the title and body of the motion.\n+Motions to extend a discovery cutoff date or to reset a trial date, whether uncontested or contested, must be in writing and will require a court appearance.\n+Attorney motions for leave to proceed pro hac vice do not need to be noticed up for presentment.\n+The Court will not entertain any motions that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and this Court’s standing orders.\n+Oral Arguments\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The Court does not allow oral arguments on substantive motions as a matter of course. In cases involving limited issues the parties can agree to brief argument in lieu of written briefing with prior notice to the courtroom deputy. Pro se litigants will always be permitted the opportunity to argue their positions on a substantive motion following the close of briefing. Otherwise, the Court will inform the parties regarding the Court’s need for oral argument following the close of briefing.\n+The Court strongly encourages all attorneys and their clients to provide substantive speaking opportunities to less experienced attorneys during any of the Court’s motion hearings, status calls, settlement conferences, pretrial conferences, and especially during evidentiary or trial proceedings. Recognizing that newer attorneys do not have as many opportunities to appear and argue in court, the Court will consider scheduling oral arguments on substantive motions if a party requests such arguments and commits to entrust the argument to an attorney who has been out of law school for fewer than six years.\n+Memorandum of Law Requirements\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The fifteen (15) page limitation on all memoranda contained in Local Rule 7.1 shall be strictly enforced. A motion for leave to exceed that limit shall not be granted unless warranted.\n+Parties must attach to their motion memoranda, as an exhibit, copies of any cited authority that is unpublished on both Westlaw and Lexis. There is no need to attach any cited authority present on either Westlaw or Lexis. If possible, citations to Westlaw (rather than Lexis) are preferred.\n+Illinois cases should be cited to both Illinois Appellate Court Reports and N.E.2d.\n+Any party—counsel and unrepresented parties alike— using Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or memorandum of law in this Court must comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court prohibits the use AI-generated legal research containing false or inaccurate propositions or citing non-existent cases.\n+Briefing schedules are generally set by Court order. A motion for extension of time shall not be granted except on a showing of good cause. The circumstances warranting an extension shall be set forth in detail by written motion.\n+The Court will also consider motions at scheduled status hearings, so long as the notice requirements of Local Rule 5.3 have been met.\n+Summary Judgment Motions\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Unless otherwise ordered, motions for summary judgment must be filed or scheduled to be filed within 60 days of the close of discovery. In order to avoid disruption of the Court's trial schedule, untimely motions for summary judgment will not be considered.\n+Motions for summary judgment and responses must comply with Local Rules 56.1(a) and 56.1(b), as well as the procedures outlined herein. All statements of undisputed material facts and their responses shall be filed separately from the memoranda of law and shall include the line, paragraph, or page number where the supporting material may be found in the record.\n+Failure to abide by the Local Rules may result in the Court striking briefs, disregarding statements of fact, deeming statements of fact admitted, and denying summary judgment. See Buttron v. Sheehan, No. 00 C 4451, 2003 WL 21801222 (N. D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2003).\n+The movant shall not file more than 80 statements of undisputed material facts without prior leave of the Court. The respondent shall be limited to 40 statements of undisputed material facts without prior leave of the Court. In complex cases, the Court may request that the parties submit a timeline of events in addition to the statements of undisputed material facts.\n+If you are representing yourself, please refer to Local Rule 56.2 - Notice to Pro Se Litigants Opposing Summary Judgment.\n+Final Pretrial Orders\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The Court sets firm trial dates. All parties should be prepared to proceed on their trial dates. The Final Pretrial Conference will be held at least 10 days before trial. In the event that a date for the Final Pretrial Conference has not been previously set, the parties are to obtain a date from the Courtroom Deputy. Unless otherwise ordered, motions in limine are due two weeks before the Final Pretrial Conference. Responses to motions in limine and the final pretrial order are due one week before the Final Pretrial Conference. For jury trials, the Final Pretrial Order does not need to contain findings of fact unless the parties agree and stipulate to the findings.\n+For criminal cases, the Government must also submit a written certification that it has reviewed its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and has disclosed all material exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense as of the date of certification.\n+FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER IN CIVIL TRIAL CASES\n+Final Pretrial Conference\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The purpose of the Final Pretrial Conference in a civil or criminal trial is to avoid surprises and to streamline the trial. At the conference, Judge Coleman will address pending motions in limine, witness and exhibit lists (including the pronunciation of witness names), objections to witnesses and exhibits, and proposed voir dire questions, and will discuss trial procedures and scheduling. Lead trial counsel fully prepared and with authority to discuss all aspects of the case must attend. Any media/technical needs for presentation of the case by either side should be made known to the court at that time.\n+The Court directs counsels’ attention to Local Rule 54.2, which permits the Court to tax the parties for the cost of unused jury panels.\n+The parties should review Judge Coleman's Trial Procedures in advance of the final pretrial conference.\n+Jury Instructions\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The parties' initial submissions of jury instructions with the final pretrial order, and any subsequent submissions prior to the formal jury instruction conference, are to comply with the requirements set forth in this Court's directions concerning final pretrial orders.\n+The parties are required to meet and confer regarding jury instructions prior to the formal jury instruction conference with the Court, which will occur as soon as possible after the close of the plaintiff or prosecution’s case.\n+Once the jury instruction conference has been held, it is the parties' responsibility to provide the Court with jury instruction packets to be issued to the jury. The final instructions are to be unnumbered and are not to have titles or reference to the legal authority or pattern instruction on which they are based. They are to be printed single sided without page numbers and are not to be stapled or otherwise bound.\n+The parties are responsible for ensuring that all of the approved instructions are consistent in style and formatting. The parties are to provide enough copies of the jury instructions for each juror, and five additional copies for counsel and the Court. An electronic copy of the instructions in Microsoft Word format must also be sent to this Court's proposed order inbox.\n+7th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions\n+Individuals Representing Themselves (Pro Se)\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Individuals who make the serious decision to represent themselves are referred to by the Court as pro se litigants. If you are a pro se litigant with a case in this district, theDistrict Court Self-Help Assistance Program may be able to provide you with assistance regarding your case. The help desk attorney operates by appointment only. Appointments are made at the Clerk’s Office Intake Desk on the 20th floor or by calling 312-435-5691.\n+Use of the help desk attorney is not a substitute for an attorney. You should seriously consider trying to obtain professional legal assistance. Below are lists of organizations that may be able to offer you free or low-cost legal assistance or a referral to an attorney if you can afford to pay for legal services.\n+Free or low-cost legal services\n+Referral Services\n+Additional Resources/Information:\n+Local Rule 56.2 - Notice to Pro Se Litigants Opposing Summary Judgment\n+Filing a Civil Case Without An Attorney: A Guide For The Pro Se Litigant\n+Title VII and Section 1981: A Guide for Appointed Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois\n+The Americans With Disabilities Act An Age Discrimination In Employment Act: A Guide for Appointed Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois\n+Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Magistrate Judges handle a myriad of civil and non-felony criminal cases at various stages. Too often litigants are unaware of the efficiencies to be gained by having their cases tried before United States Magistrate Judges.\n+The court strongly encourages counsel to inform their clients of this option, and to discuss it with opposing counsel.\n+Settlement Conferences\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+This Court urges parties to undertake settlement negotiations at the earliest practicable point in the litigation. Parties who desire a settlement conference should request one in open court or by telephone from the courtroom deputy. In bench trials, settlement conferences are usually referred to the magistrate judge.\n+Prior to a settlement conference with Judge Coleman, please submit either a joint or individual statement to the Courtroom Deputy (Room 1238) briefly describing the status and potential for settlement, including any offers or demands that have been made. Persons with settlement authority must be present in-person or available by phone.\n+Settlement Dismissal Orders\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Prior to submitting a proposed Order of dismissal, counsel should review the following Seventh Circuit cases which discuss the retention of federal jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass’n v. American Express Co., 467 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) and Shapo v. Engle, 463 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006). The parties also may wish to review the article, \"What’s an Attorney to Do? Ensuring Federal Jurisdiction Over Settlement Agreements in Light of Recent Seventh Circuit Cases,\" by Judge Denlow that may be accessed at: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/JUDGE/DENLOW/FederalJurisdiction.pdf. The Court directs counsels' attention to LR 54.2 taxing costs for unused jury panels to the parties.\n+Bankruptcy Appeals\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Notice of Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy must be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment by the Bankruptcy Court. Any motions to extend time must be filed within the 14-day period. Appellant's Opening Brief is due 30 days after docketing of the record, responses are due 30 days thereafter and replies are due within 14 days of the response. Briefs are limited to 15 pages each.\n+Patent Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Judge Coleman follows the Local Patent Rules for the Northern District of Illinois in all patent cases, unless ordered otherwise.\n+Local Patent Rules\n+LPR Appendix A\n+LPR Appendix B\n+Estimated Patent Case Schedule\n+Select a date below to view all schedules.\n+Wednesday, November 4, 2026\n+17 cases\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+1:24-cv-05086\n+Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC v. Dunican\n+09:30AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:19-cv-06473\n+Securities and Exchange Commission v. SBB Research Group, LLC\n+09:45AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:25-cv-04569\n+Blakelick Properties LLC v. Village of Glen Ellyn, The\n+09:45AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:26-cv-10582\n+Steadfast Insurance Company v. Partner Assessment Corporation\n+09:45AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:20-cv-04985\n+Zhu Zhai Holdings Limited v. Ivankovich\n+10:00AM\n+Notice of Motion\n+1:25-cv-06182\n+Bronstin v. Servbank SB\n+10:00AM\n+Notice of Motion\n+1:25-cv-11044\n+Guo v. Zepto Life Technology, LLC\n+10:00AM\n+Motion Hearing\n+1:25-cv-11558\n+Smith v. Schejbal\n+10:00AM\n+Notice of Motion\n+1:26-cv-04638\n+Mauigoa v. United Airlines, Inc.\n+10:00AM\n+Notice of Motion\n+1:26-cv-07004\n+Camelbak Products, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability C\n+10:00AM\n+Notice of Motion\n+1:26-cv-09954\n+Christian Dior S.A. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations I\n+10:00AM\n+Notice of Motion\n+1:26-cv-10582\n+Steadfast Insurance Company v. Partner Assessment Corporation\n+10:00AM\n+Notice of Motion\n+1:22-cr-00628\n+USA v. Mosley\n+10:15AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:25-cv-14885\n+Perkin v. Chicago Transit Authority\n+10:15AM\n+Show Cause Hearing\n+1:26-cv-10010\n+Autotech Technologies, L.P. v. Radwell International, Inc\n+10:15AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:25-cr-00397\n+USA v. Richardson\n+10:30AM\n+Change of Plea Hearing\n+1:17-cr-00757\n+USA v. Edwards\n+01:30PM\n+Sentencing\n+Thursday, November 5, 2026\n+1 case\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+1:18-cr-00052\n+USA v. Sheppard\n+01:30PM\n+Status Hearing\n+Friday, November 6, 2026\n+9 cases\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+1:15-cr-00462\n+USA v. Hannah\n+09:45AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:26-cv-03568\n+Bell v. Hoffman\n+09:45AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:26-cv-10590\n+Doe v. Decker\n+09:45AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:24-cv-12538\n+Townes of Rockwell Place Condominium Association v. Insurance Company of Greater New York\n+10:00AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:26-cv-10514\n+Klappa-Cales v. Utz Brands, Inc.\n+10:00AM\n+Notice of Motion\n+1:25-cv-13739\n+Pippin v. Daubert Chemical Company, Inc.\n+10:15AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:26-cv-03760\n+Watts v. Ecolab, Inc.\n+10:15AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:26-cv-08658\n+Santos v. Bretford Manufacturing, Inc.\n+10:15AM\n+Status Hearing\n+1:22-cr-00576\n+USA v. Montgomery\n+10:30AM\n+Change of Plea Hearing\n+Number of days notice:\n+At least 3 business days from the date of the filing of the motion.\n+All motions, even if they are unopposed, must be noticed up for presentment as if they will be proceeding in-person.\n+Motion Type\n+Day\n+Time\n+All Cases\n+Tuesday and Wednesday\n+10:00 a.m.\n+Courtroom Deputy\n+Yvette Montanez\n+(312) 408-5159\n+Room 1238Court Reporter\n+Tracey McCullough\n+(312) 435-5570\n+Room 1232\n+summarize Related Links\n+Law Clerk Hiring Information\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of Illinois\n+Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge | Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court\n+Court Telephone Directory\n+Accessibility Information\n+Judicial Misconduct Complaints\n+Other Courts\n+Your Employee Rights and How to Report Wrongful Conduct\n+Judicial Disclosure Of Judges' Privately Funded Educational Seminars\n+©2025\n+Notice: This is a restricted website for official U.S. Court business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited\n+and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged.","id":"ee3969253aa235c275fb0174bc28e34804f97d07bd2be491922d779a93736336","newHash":"2b49afbe01eec14cb7fd12e6dad7d59c8533354513a450a394c2a2fbf3584dda","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Coleman","snapshot":"snapshots/2b49afbe01eec14cb7fd12e6dad7d59c8533354513a450a394c2a2fbf3584dda.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Coleman","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:56.293837+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,595 @@\n+Judge Iain D. Johnston\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of Illinois\n+Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge | Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court\n+search\n+menu\n+close\n+Home\n+Judges\n+expand_more\n+Judicial Absence\n+Motion Schedule\n+Mediation Program for the Western Division\n+Rules\n+expand_more\n+Local Rules\n+Federal Rules\n+Internal Operating Procedures\n+Internal Operating Procedures (PDF)\n+General Orders\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution (Western Division)\n+Pattern Jury Instructions\n+Local Rule 78.5 Request for Decision/Status Report\n+Mediation Program for the Western Division\n+Local Rules for ADR\n+Clerk's Office\n+expand_more\n+Operations\n+Judicial Support\n+Information Systems\n+Administrative Services\n+Human Resources\n+Attorney\n+CM/ECF\n+expand_more\n+Register for CM/ECF\n+CM/ECF User Guide\n+CM/ECF Quick Reference Guide\n+CM/ECF Training Videos\n+CM/ECF Password Reset Request\n+General Order on Electronic Case Filing\n+Written Opinions\n+Recently Filed Cases\n+Access to CM/ECF for the Northern District of Illinois\n+24-Hour Automated Phone Line for Case Updates\n+Daily Calendars\n+Jurors\n+MDL\n+Forms\n+Pro Se / Representing Yourself\n+expand_more\n+Pro Se Forms\n+Federal Civil Case Forms\n+Guide to Filing a Case in Federal Court Without an Attorney\n+Guide to Understanding the Federal Courts\n+Settlement Assistance Program\n+Settlement Assistance Program Appearance Form\n+Illinois Legal Aid Online – Pro Se Resources\n+Pro Se Filer PDF Submissions\n+Receive Notices of Electronic Filings by Email\n+William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program Help Desk\n+Schedule an Appointment with the Hibbler Help Desk\n+USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (GenAI) IN YOUR COURT CASE\n+Media\n+Naturalization, Civics Education & Community Outreach\n+expand_more\n+Civics Education\n+Court History Documentary\n+Naturalization Ceremony\n+Court History Museum\n+Court Lectures\n+About the Court\n+expand_more\n+History of the Court\n+Proper forms of identification and items not allowed in Courthouses.\n+Divisional County Map\n+Careers\n+close\n+Home»Judges»\n+Judge Information\n+District Judges\n+Magistrate Judges\n+Emergency Judges\n+Order Transcript\n+Judge\n+Alexakis\n+Alonso\n+Appenteng\n+Aspen\n+Bass Ehler\n+Berry III\n+Blakey\n+Bucklo\n+Chang\n+Coleman\n+Cummings\n+Daniel\n+Dow Jr.\n+Durkin\n+Ellis\n+Fuentes\n+Gettleman\n+Gilbert\n+Gottschall\n+Guzman\n+Harjani\n+Holleb Hotaling\n+Hunt\n+Iasparro\n+Jantz\n+Jenkins\n+Johnston\n+Kendall\n+Kennelly\n+Kim\n+Kness\n+Kocoras\n+Lefkow\n+McLaughlin\n+McNally\n+McShain\n+Pacold\n+Pallmeyer\n+Perry\n+Reinhard\n+Rowland\n+Schneider\n+Seeger\n+Shah\n+Tharp Jr.\n+Valderrama\n+Valdez\n+Weisman\n+Wood\n+Select Judge\n+Alexakis\n+Alonso\n+Appenteng\n+Aspen\n+Bass Ehler\n+Berry III\n+Blakey\n+Bucklo\n+Chang\n+Coleman\n+Cummings\n+Daniel\n+Dow Jr.\n+Durkin\n+Ellis\n+Fuentes\n+Gettleman\n+Gilbert\n+Gottschall\n+Guzman\n+Harjani\n+Holleb Hotaling\n+Hunt\n+Iasparro\n+Jantz\n+Jenkins\n+Johnston\n+Kendall\n+Kennelly\n+Kim\n+Kness\n+Kocoras\n+Lefkow\n+McLaughlin\n+McNally\n+McShain\n+Pacold\n+Pallmeyer\n+Perry\n+Reinhard\n+Rowland\n+Schneider\n+Seeger\n+Shah\n+Tharp Jr.\n+Valderrama\n+Valdez\n+Weisman\n+Wood\n+Judge Iain D. Johnston\n+meeting_room\n+Courtroom: 5200 gavel\n+Chambers: Rockford: 6200 phone\n+Telephone: (815) 987-4255 fax\n+Fax:\n+error\n+Scheduling Notice\n+Motions for Judge Johnston should not be set for presentment. Rather, the Court will schedule motions for presentment as needed.\n+error\n+Important Information\n+Amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2)\n+Parties to cases alleging diversity jurisdiction are alerted to amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2), which requires each party to file a statement disclosing its citizenship.\n+The information on this and linked pages contains important information about my pretrial case management procedures. Please take the time to read it carefully. These policies and rules have been designed to facilitate the prompt efficient and equitable disposition of civil cases on my docket. The success of this court's trial procedures depends on your willingness to familiarize yourself with these materials and to act accordingly. Counsel will be expected to fully explain to the court any failure to comply with the court's pretrial procedures which include but are not limited to the following highlights:\n+• lead counsel must appear at the initial status hearing prepared to discuss all aspects of the case including anticipated discovery;\n+• counsel must arrive to Court on time;\n+• counsel must appear in person for presentment of motions;\n+• counsel must not operate a vehicle and must be in a quiet location for telephonic status hearings;\n+• counsel cannot stipulate to extend any discovery deadline set in the case management order; and\n+• parties must provide notice to a non-party of any motion to enforce a subpoena on that non-party.\n+Relief may be obtained only by filing a motion with the court, not through letters or calls to the Court's staff.\n+Courtesy paper copies must be mailed or delivered to Operations Specialist Yvonne Pedroza in Room 2200. Please do not bring courtesy copies to chambers: they will not be accepted and no confirmation signature will be available. We do not have capabilities for faxed or e-mailed courtesy copies. If providing courtesy copies is too onerous on a party, such as a pro se party, the party can request to be relieved of this requirement. A simple one page motion would work. Alternatively, a party can verbally request to be relieved from the requirement by asking at a status or motion hearing, including any proceeding before the Magistrate Judge.\n+DO NOT attempt to e-mail Judge Johnston directly. Proposed orders must be directed to Judge Johnston's proposed order inbox, and all other documents must be filed.\n+summarize Case Procedures\n+event Calendar Schedule\n+date_range Motion Schedule\n+groups Chambers Staff\n+Procedures to be followed in cases assigned to\n+Judge Iain D. Johnston\n+ADR/Mediation\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) can have many\n+advantages over traditional litigation.\n+ADR generally leads parties to a faster resolution of their case; is\n+less expensive than the formal litigation process; and allows parties to craft\n+creative solutions tailored to their needs and underlying interests. Recognizing these benefits, the court has\n+developed its Mediation Program to give all parties an opportunity to take\n+advantage of what ADR can offer.\n+At all initial status conferences, the parties must be\n+prepared to discuss the issue of mediation.\n+The court’s description of its Alternative Dispute Resolution Plan and\n+its Local Rules for the Program can be accessed through the Mediation Program for the Western Division webpage or retrieved from the Clerk’s Office. The parties shall familiarize themselves with\n+these documents, along with the Court's Case Management Order, so that they are\n+prepared to discuss the possibility of mediation at the initial status\n+conference. The Court's Case Management Order requires that all counsel certify that they have discussed with their\n+clients the benefits of the Mediation Program, among other things. By certifying that they have done so, counsel\n+are certifying to the Court that they have complied with the Court's\n+order. Obviously, false certifications\n+made in Court orders have consequences.\n+Agreed Motions\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+If the following motions are uncontested, and are agreed, they need not be noticed up and presented in open court: Motion for Substitution of Counsel; Motion to Add Additional Counsel; Motion to File An Amended Pleading (provided the amended pleading is filed before the expiration date established in the case management order, if any); Motion for an Initial Extension of Time to File Answer; Stipulation to Dismiss; and Motions to Cite Additional Authority.\n+These motions should contain representation by counsel that the motion is agreed and should be captioned as such. These motions will not require an appearance and need not be set on the motion calendar unless, in the unlikely event, the Court notifies counsel that an appearance is necessary.\n+These motions should be filed and a proposed order submitted to Proposed_Order_Johnston@ilnd.uscourts.gov. All other motions must be presented in open court.\n+Artificial Intelligence (AI)\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Some of the Court's standing orders address the Court's idiosyncrasies, such as its procedures for filing summary judgment motions.\n+But other standing orders—which are unfortunately necessary—are often terse reminders that all filers need to follow statutes,\n+the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.\n+The Court believes that a reasonable standing order on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) would fall into the latter category. So here's this Court's standing order on AI: Anyone—counsel and unrepresented parties alike—using AI in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this Court or the serving/delivering of a request, response, or objection to discovery must comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other relevant rule,\n+including any applicable ethical rule. See Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm & Daniel G. Brown, Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary?,\n+107 Judicature 68 (2023).\n+Bench Trials\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Parties to a bench trial shall comply with the following procedures and requirements. The parties must order the transcript upon the completion of the trial. Thirty-five days after completion of the transcript, the parties must jointly file a Proposed Statement of Stipulated Facts. The parties must reasonably agree on the Proposed Statement of Stipulated Facts. The Court understands that facts and the inferences drawn from facts can be—and usually are—very different. Undisputed facts should be admitted and the inferences drawn from those facts can be litigated in the memoranda of law. The Proposed Statement of Stipulated Facts should be filed with the Court and a courtesy copy provided in Word format through the Court’s proposed order portal.\n+Twenty-one days after the filing of the Proposed Statement of Stipulated Facts, the plaintiff shall file a memorandum of law with citations to the trial transcript and pertinent authority, along with any supplemental statements of fact not in the Statement of Stipulated Facts. Twenty-one days after the filing of the plaintiff’s memorandum, the defendant shall file a response brief, along with any supplemental statements of fact not in the Statement of Stipulated Facts and responses to the plaintiff’s supplemental statements of fact. Fourteen days after the filing of the response brief, the plaintiff shall file a reply brief and responses to the defendant’s supplemental statements of fact. All supplemental statements of fact and responses to supplemental statements of fact shall include citations to the transcript.\n+The court shall rule by mail unless the parties are otherwise notified. If counsel think of a better process, they are free to propose it to the Court. It’s all ears.\n+Case Management Orders\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The Court expects the parties to hold a 26(f) conference before the initial status conference. At the initial status conference, the Court will provide a deadline for filing a joint proposed Case Management Order. The proposed Case Management Order shall be e-filed by the deadline.\n+The parties must use the following fillable form for the proposed Case Management Order. It shall not be retyped. Additional pages may be attached for information that does not fit on the form, such as the names of additional parties and/or counsel.\n+Parties' Proposed Case Management Order (revised 3/4/2024)\n+Cell-Site Simulators\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The Court's standing order on Cell-Site Simulators can be found here: Cell-Site Simulators.\n+Confidentiality Orders\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Before requesting entry of a confidentiality order to preserve the confidentiality of materials disclosed in discovery, counsel shall carefully review Rule 26(c) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires, among other things, that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. See Citizens First Nat'l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999) (Posner, J.); Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd, 30 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 1994); and Union Oil Co. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2000).\n+For agreed confidentiality orders in civil cases, to the extent possible, counsel should use the model confidentiality order developed by the Northern District of Illinois which is located on the Northern District's website. If the proposed agreed confidentiality order differs from the model, in addition to a clean Word or WordPerfect version of the revised model order counsel must provide a red-lined copy showing the differences. The clean and red-lined copies shall be submitted to Judge Johnston's proposed order inbox: Proposed_Order_Johnston@ilnd.uscourts.gov. If the confidentiality order anticipates that any documents or confidential materials submitted to the court are to be filed under seal, the confidentiality order must include, at a minimum a carefully-drafted definition of the materials to be protected, with an explanation of why these documents are entitled to protection. No document shall be filed under seal unless counsel secures a court order allowing the filing of a document under seal. The parties are to refer to this Court's standing order on sealed documents for further guidance.\n+Any designation of materials as \"Confidential\" must be made in good faith by counsel, and each page of confidential material must be marked \"Confidential.\" If all confidential matters such as Social Security numbers have been redacted from a document, then it should not be marked \"Confidential.\" When parties receive redacted documents they should not attempt to \"unredact\" the documents. For directions on the proper methods to redact a document that will prevent such attempt, several useful articles are available on the internet.\n+Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Magistrate Judge Consent Form\n+Criminal Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Once a trial date has been set, the parties shall submit proposed pretrial deadlines by the date given. They must confer and submit their agreed proposed deadlines using the Court's form found here. The completed form shall be submitted to the Court's proposed order inbox at Proposed_Order_Johnston@ilnd.uscourts.gov.\n+Default Judgments\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+In the most primitive\n+concepts of justice, one of the fundamental requisites for the exercise of\n+judicial authority over the person or property of another is notice. The\n+exceptions to this rule are rare indeed.\n+Skarpinski v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 98 N.E.2d 858, 859 (Ill. App.\n+Ct. 1951)\n+Default is a drastic remedy. Consequently, the process used must be\n+carefully followed, including providing the proper notice to the party against\n+which default is being sought (“defaulting party”). Default judgments sought\n+under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) require a two-step process. Counsel must\n+not conflate the two procedures and must rigorously adhere to the time frames\n+specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.\n+First, there must be an entry of default, either by the Clerk of the Court or\n+by a court order directing the Clerk to enter the default. A written\n+request for an entry of default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) shall be\n+accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing that the defaulting party:\n+(1) is not an infant, in the military, or an incompetent person; (2) has failed\n+to plead or otherwise defend the action; and (3) has been properly served with\n+the pleading. A copy of the proof of service must also be attached to the motion if not already docketed.\n+Second, there must be a motion for default judgment. A party moving for a\n+default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) shall file a motion and\n+supporting legal documents and properly notice the motion for\n+presentment. Service of the motion for default judgment and notice of presentment must occur at\n+least seven (7) days before the motion for default judgment is presented.\n+The Court will strike all motions for default judgment that fail to provide\n+sufficient notice. The moving party shall also append as exhibits to the\n+motion for default judgment: (1) a copy of the Clerk’s entry of default; (2)\n+supporting affidavits or declarations; and (3) a proposed form of default\n+judgment. The motion, exhibits, and notice of presentment shall be mailed by regular and\n+certified mail to the defaulting party at the last known address of the\n+defaulting party. A copy of the return receipt evidencing delivery, when\n+returned by the post office, shall be filed with the Court. In cases\n+involving joint and several liability, it may be premature to move for a\n+default judgment against one defendant in a multi-defendant case because a\n+damages hearing will not be held until the liability of each non-defaulting\n+defendant has been resolved. See In re Uranium Antitrust Litig.,\n+617F.2d 1248, 1262 (7th Cir. 1980). However, a determination of damages against\n+the defaulting party can be made if the claims against the non-defaulting\n+parties are dismissed. See Domanus v. Lewcki, 742 F.3d 290,\n+304(7th Cir. 2014).\n+As provided by\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) a default judgment for a sum certain may be sought\n+from the clerk by written request accompanied by an affidavit providing the information\n+detailed in the rule.\n+Failure to comply with this standing order will result in the denial of the motion.\n+Emergency Motions\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The 3-day notice requirement does not apply to the filing of emergency motions. To qualify as an emergency, a motion must arise from an unforeseen circumstance. If a party needs to present an emergency motion, the moving party must phone the Operations Specialist before filing the motion and provide the general nature of the motion and the reason it requires emergency treatment. A party seeking to present an emergency motion must make reasonable efforts to provide the opposing party with actual notice of the motion. Those efforts must be stated in the motion.\n+Failure to Respond\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Attorneys—not the Court—are responsible for making their own arguments. Furthermore, if attorneys raise an argument, the Court expects that they will do their own research and developed that argument. If the parties do not care about an argument, or a claim, enough to spend time litigating that argument or claim, then the Court should not be expected to shoulder the responsibility for them. Additionally, if after reviewing an opponent’s motion, a party wishes to abandon a claim, that party should affirmatively stipulate to that concession on the record.\n+1. Waiving Arguments\n+If a party fails to respond to an opponent’s argument, the Court will find that the argument is waived for the purpose of the pending motion (but not for the purpose of future motions). Furthermore, perfunctory and undeveloped arguments are waived. United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1383 (7th Cir. 1991). For example, a two-sentence “argument” that cites no legal authority is not a legal argument. It is perfunctory, and the Court will not consider it. See Martinez v. Colvin, 12 CV 50016, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41754, at *26–27 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2014) (“[T]he Court notes that parties should not view judges as bloodhounds who are merely given a whiff of an argument and then expected to search the record high and low in an effort to track down evidence to locate and capture a party’s argument.”). Additionally, when an argument effectively requires analogous reasoning (think qualified immunity) but the brief contains no analogous reasoning, the Court may find waiver. And when responding to an argument, mere contradiction rather than a developed argument results in waiver. Id. at *27 (“[M]erely contradicting an opposing party’s developed argument with a single, unsupported sentence is not an argument.”).\n+2. Waiving Claims\n+Waiver of claims is treated differently. If the plaintiff evidences an intent to abandon a claim, it will be deemed waived. But critically, merely failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment is not evidence of abandonment of the claim. This occurs, for example, when a defendant moves for summary judgment, and the plaintiff fails to respond to the motion for summary judgment on one or all of its claims. Because the defendant bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment, the Seventh Circuit has instructed district courts not to summarily hold for the defendant when the plaintiff fails to respond to the motion on all or some claims. Robinson v. Waterman, 1 F.4th 480, 483 (7th Cir. 2021).\n+Still, when the plaintiff fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment on all or some claims, one of two things is true (or both). Either the plaintiff does not care about the claim enough to form an argument, or the plaintiff affirmatively intends to abandon the claim. In either case, the Court should not have to waste valuable judicial resources researching and deciding the issue. Thus, if a plaintiff fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment, on all or a subset of the claims, the Court will order the plaintiff to show cause why the claim should not be considered abandoned. Failure to respond to the Court’s order will result in a dismissal of the claim with prejudice for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).\n+3. Motions to Dismiss\n+“Our system of justice is adversarial, and our judges are busy people. If they are given plausible reasons for dismissing a complaint, they are not going to do the plaintiff’s research and try to discover whether there might be something to say against the defendants’ reasoning.” Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 1039, 1041 (7th Cir. 1999)). If the Court is presented with a colorable argument in a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff fails to respond to that motion, the Court will assume that the plaintiff concedes the insufficiency of its complaint. Indeed, failing to make an argument before the district court would, in the end, amount to a waiver of the argument on appeal. Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Conrail, 965 F.3d 596, 601 (7th Cir. 2020).\n+Nevertheless, the insufficiency of allegations in a complaint is not dispositive. Plaintiffs might be able to repair insufficient allegations without violating counsel’s obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the Rules of Professional Conduct. And the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly instructed district courts that plaintiffs must generally be afforded “at least one opportunity to try to amend [their] complaint before the entire action is dismissed.” White v. Ill. State Police, 15 F.4th 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2021). Therefore, when a plaintiff fails to respond to a colorable motion to dismiss, the Court will grant the dismissal without prejudice, but will afford the plaintiff one additional opportunity to cure the deficiencies in the complaint. Failure to respond to a second motion, or to timely repair the complaint, will result in a dismissal of the action for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).\n+FLSA Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+At the initial status hearing on cases brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Court will provide a deadline for filing a joint proposed FLSA Scheduling Order in lieu of a proposed Case Management Order. The parties must use the following fillable form for the proposed FLSA Scheduling Order. It shall not be retyped. Upon completion, the parties shall submit the proposed FLSA Scheduling Order to the Court’s proposed order inbox at Proposed_Order_Johnston@ilnd.uscourts.gov.\n+Click here for FLSA Scheduling Order (revised 3/4/2024).\n+General Status and Motion Practice\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+If moving counsel is aware that there is no objection to a motion, or that the motion is agreed, that information must be stated in the title and body of the motion.\n+Counsel or a party must appear in person for the presentment of a motion. Noticing a motion for presentment telephonically does not get around the Court's requirement that motions be presented in person.\n+For status hearings, the Court may allow the parties to participate telephonically if, in its discretion, the circumstances of the case allow for a telephonic status. Status hearings will be telephonic only if ordered by the Court. During a telephonic status hearing, counsel shall not operate motor vehicles or heavy machinery during the call. Likewise, during telephonic status calls, counsel should be in a quiet location. By way of example, a hallway in the Daley Center, any property of or near the CTA, and counsel’s children’s day care are not considered quiet locations. Although a golf course might be a quiet location, it is not an appropriate location for a telephonic status hearing. Before participating in a telephonic status hearing, counsel must first read this Court’s standing order on Telephonic Status Hearings.\n+A courtesy copy of all motions must be delivered to Operations Specialist Yvonne Pedroza in Room 2200 at least 48 hours before the time of presentment.\n+Parties must include with their motion or any supporting memorandum copies of any authority that is published only on an electronic database, such as Westlaw and Lexis. Copies of that authority must be legible. Absent leave of Court, all motions and memoranda of law must comply with the 15-page limitation set forth in Local Rule 7.1. Parties must also ensure that a motion or memorandum is double spaced. Line spacing of 1.5 is no longer permitted under the Local Rules. The Court requires compliance with Local Rule 5.2, which requires that a judge’s copy must be bound on the left side and must have protruding tabs for exhibits, and further requires a list of exhibits if more than one exhibit is attached.\n+Judge Johnston will not hear or consider any discovery motion unless there has been a 'meet and confer' meeting between the parties. Any motion for discovery or production of documents, shall state when and how the movant complied with the meet and confer meeting. Local Rule 37.2.\n+If a party is seeking to enforce a subpoena on a non-party, the party must provide notice of the motion to that non-party.\n+Except for discovery motions involving privilege issues, the Court will generally rule on discovery motions on the day of presentment after argument and without further briefing. But nothing prevents a party from filing a written response to a discovery motion before the motion is set for presentment.\n+Except to the extent specified by the court on motion of either party, discovery must be completed before the discovery closing date. Discovery requested before the discovery closing date, but not scheduled for completion before the discovery closing date, does not comply with this order.\n+Discovery issues, including motions to extend discovery, must be presented to the Court before the close of discovery. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 231 F.R.D. 331, 332 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Indeed, the Court might not consider discovery issues long known to the parties but not brought to the Court's attention until the eve of the close of discovery. Haviland v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, 692 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1044 (S.D. Iowa 2010).\n+Initial Status Conferences and Reports\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The Court will set all newly filed cases for an initial\n+status approximately 45 days from the filing of complaint. Lead counsel must\n+appear at the initial status hearing, must have knowledge of the\n+case, and must be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case\n+including anticipated discovery. At least four (4) business days before\n+the initial status hearing or by the date set by the Court, any party that has\n+appeared shall join in completing and filing this Court's Joint Initial Status Report (revised 6/25/2025). The parties must use the\n+form available on this webpage and shall not edit or retype it. Any\n+additional information the parties want to share with the Court or that does\n+not fit on the form should be attached to the form.\n+Local Rule 3.2 First Pleading\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The attorneys are to comply with LR3.2 when filing the first pleading on behalf of a party. The Judge will disqualify himself from hearing any case where he or his wife own stock in the following public company, including any affiliates:\n+Disney (DIS)\n+Partial Motions to Dismiss\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+If a party is moving to dismiss some, but not all, of the claims against it, it shall answer all of the claims against it and file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) directed at the claims on which it seeks judgment. Partial motions to dismiss brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) that seek to dismiss fewer than all claims against a party will be stricken, as will partial answers that accompany such motions, and the party who filed them will be directed to this standing order. A helpful article is The Forgotten Pleading by Judge Amy St. Eve and Michael Zuckerman available at https://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2010/SaintEve2.pdf.\n+Pretrial Procedure\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The Western Division has adopted the Standing Order Establishing Pretrial Procedure of the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois, except for paragraph 2 , which is replaced by the provisions of this webpage regarding initial status conferences, and paragraph 10 , which is replaced by this court’s Final Pretrial Order Form and Trial Exhibit List .\n+Judge Johnston does not require trial briefs, unless he otherwise orders that they be filed.\n+Prisoner Litigation\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+In all cases involving an incarcerated party unrepresented by counsel, the opposing side shall arrange for the incarcerated party to appear telephonically during any status hearing or hearing on a motion filed by either side. Counsel shall contact the court's Operations Specialist at least 48 hours before the scheduled hearing with dialing instructions. The court directs the party’s place of incarceration to facilitate his or her participation by telephone.\n+Privacy Protection for Filings\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Filings must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and so social security numbers, full birth dates, minor's names, and financial account numbers must be redacted as specified in that rule. If a party fails to comply and the Court must direct that party to provide redacted copies of filings, the party must pay for the time the Court's clerk spends substituting the redacted filings for the offending filings at a rate of $100 an hour, made payable to the Clerk of the Court.\n+Privilege Logs\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+In the event that a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege, the withholding party generally must provide a log of the documents withheld on the ground of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and Advisory Committee Comments to 1993 Amendments. Any privilege log must be detailed enough to enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege asserted, and should include: (1) the name and capacity of each individual from whom or to whom a document and any attachments were sent (including which persons are lawyers); (2) the date of the document and any attachments; (3) the type of document; (4) the Bates numbers of the documents, (5) the nature of the privilege asserted; and (6) a description of the subject matter in sufficient detail to determine if legal advice was sought or revealed, or if the document constitutes work product;. See Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 84, 88 (N.D. Ill. 1992).\n+The Court reminds the parties that the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 37.2 apply to privilege disputes, just as they do to other discovery disputes.\n+Proposed Orders\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+All Proposed Orders, other than Proposed Case Management Orders and Pretrial Orders, are technically not to be \"filed.\" Rather, they are to be \"submitted\" to the judge to consider, to modify, if appropriate, and to enter electronically. For example, proposed orders such as stipulated confidentiality orders require court approval before actually being given full effect. To prevent confusion, such proposed orders must be attached to an e-mail sent to the e-mail address of the assigned judge, Proposed_Order_Johnston@ilnd.uscourts.gov. .The subject line of the e-mail must include the case number and name, the docket number of the corresponding motion, if any, and the title of the order that is proposed. All such documents must be submitted to the Court in a format compatible with Microsoft Word, which is a \"Save As\" option in most word processing software. Such proposed orders should also be served on all parties. Proposed Case Management Orders shall be filed with courtesy copies provided to the Court in accordance with the standing order on Case Management Orders.\n+Sealed Documents\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+All litigants are directed to Local Rule 5.8 for the filing of material under seal. Also a standing order has been entered by Judge Reinhard as to the form that is to be attached to the envelope of the sealed document. Standing Order Implementing General Rule 10 of the Local Rules. Attached Form\n+Parties are reminded that the standard to seal a document is much higher than to mark something confidential, and thus any application to file a document under seal should contain an explanation, on a document by document basis, why each should be sealed. See generally Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (\"Secrecy is fine at the discovery stage, before the material enters the judicial record. But those documents, usually a small subset of all discovery, that influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality.\" (citations omitted)).\n+Removed Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+If a defendant removes an action from state court to this Court, but then raises lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or lack of Article III standing, this Court may summarily remand the action back to state court.\n+On removal, the defendants have the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. The Court will not permit a defendant to simultaneously assert and challenge the Court’s jurisdiction. This behavior wastes the parties’ time and money and consumes scarce judicial resources that could be spent elsewhere. Moreover, the Court does not believe this litigation strategy complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 and 11(b) and the Rules of Professional Conduct, among other things.\n+Defendants are on notice that the Court may summarily remand. If the defendants waste the Court’s judicial resources by opposing remand, the Court will require the defendants’ counsel (not the client) to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and the Court will sanction defendants’ counsel (not the client) an amount equal to one hour of the Court’s time. That sanction will be paid to the Clerk of Court. The Court will also order the defendants’ counsel to provide a copy of the order to the client, so that the client can address with counsel the payment of attorneys’ fees for removing a case to federal court, only to ask that it be sent back to state court.\n+In any action removed to this Court, within 7 business days, defense counsel must also file a certification that they have read this standing order. In addition, the defendant must file a disclosure of the state(s) of its citizenship, which Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires be filed at the time of removal.\n+Settlement Conferences\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Click here to view the Standing Order for Settlement Conferences\n+(revised 3/4/2024).\n+Social Security Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) govern Social Security disability appeals. Unless the Court has set a different briefing schedule, the following schedule applies. The Commissioner shall file a certified copy of the administrative record within 60 days of notice of the action. Suppl. Rule 4. Plaintiff’s opening brief requesting remand or reversal of the Commissioner’s final decision must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the administrative record. Suppl. Rule 6. The Commissioner’s response brief in support of the final decision is due 30 days thereafter. Suppl. Rule 7. Plaintiff may file a reply brief within 14 days of the Commissioner’s response brief being filed. Suppl. Rule 8.\n+Motions for summary judgment are not required; the action is presented for decision by the parties’ briefs. Suppl. Rule 5. Absent leave of Court, all briefs must comply with the 15-page limitation set forth in Local Rule 7.1.\n+A. The Plaintiff’s Memorandum\n+The plaintiff shall identify the specific grounds for reversal or remand. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The plaintiff shall include only those facts that relate to the issues presented. It is not necessary to include the plaintiff’s entire medical history if it is not relevant to the issues raised. It is also not necessary to devote multiple pages to the well-recognized standards for the five-part test. Cite a case that you believe accurately states the legal principles you wish the Court to apply, and make the Court aware of relevant contrary authority. Be sure and cite to specific record evidence in support of each argument.\n+B. The Commissioner’s Memorandum\n+The Commissioner shall specifically respond to the plaintiff’s assertions and arguments. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The Commissioner’s brief may supplement the plaintiff’s facts where needed, but it should not repeat facts included in the plaintiff’s brief if they are not in dispute. Be sure to cite to specific record evidence in support of each argument.\n+Motions To Strike\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Motions to strike are strongly disfavored. Custom Vehicles,Inc. v. Forest River, Inc., 464 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2006) (Easterbrook,J., in chambers). For example, if a party believes that the other side's brief contains inaccurate facts or that the other side's Local Rule 56.1 statement(in summary-judgment briefing) contains an unsupported assertion, then the complaining party should make that argument in the response or reply brief.\n+Likewise,the Court recognizes that raising arguments for the first time in a reply brief is dirty pool. In re Leventhal, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1328, *9 n. 3 (N.D. Ill.2012). The Court is capable of seeing that practice for what it is. There is no need to file a motion to strike the reply brief. Indeed, motions to strike should be constrained to their limited scope as identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).\n+Summary Judgment Motions\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Standing Order on Motions for Summary Judgment\n+1. It’s Time To Put The “Summary” Back In “Summary Judgment”\n+At the risk of sounding like Jerry Seinfeld, did you ever notice that procedures allegedly designed to streamline litigation often don’t? (Think requests to admit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36.) Indeed, these procedures often just generate more work for everybody—the parties and the Court—without reaching the goal of a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the actions. Summary judgment motions can be like this. First, summary judgment motions are often filed unnecessarily, without real forethought. Second, summary judgment motions often result in satellite procedural litigation with a raft of ancillary filings. The Court hopes that this standing order will eliminate—or at least reduce—these occurrences. Sometimes, summary judgment motions should be filed. The goal of this standing order is for the Court to see only those kinds of motions, keeping in mind that even denied motions were not necessarily filed unnecessarily. To that end, at the close of fact discovery, the Magistrate Judge will refer the parties to this standing order whenever a party indicates its intent to file a summary judgment motion.\n+2. Before Filing Summary Judgment Motions Let’s Talk\n+Summary judgment motions aren’t cheap. Properly prepared summary judgment motions require extensive attorney time and client expense. Filing summary judgment entails more than just throwing together that short motion at the end of the process. Instead, summary judgment motions require an extensive memorandum. And experience teaches that for whatever reason counsel struggle with keeping the memorandum under 15 pages. Further, in the Northern District of Illinois, summary judgment motions also require Local Rule 56.1 statements of fact, which creates a separate significant expense.\n+Unfortunately, sometimes summary judgment motions are unnecessarily filed. As Judge Shadur noted years ago, filing summary judgment motions as a Pavlovian response to the close of fact discovery is an all too often occurrence. Lee v. Waukegan Hosp. Corp., No. 10 CV 2956, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36187, *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2012). A careful examination of the record after discovery has closed may reveal contested factual issues making the granting of the motion impossible. A real and thorough cost-benefit analysis should be completed before a summary judgment motion is filed. Hon. Milton I. Shadur, From the Bench: Trial or Tribulations (Rule 56 Style)?, Litig., 5 (Winter 2003). Moreover, by their very nature, some actions do not lend themselves to Rule 56’s procedure. Claims of excessive force are a prime example of actions that are far less likely to result in summary judgment. Cyrus v. Town of Mukonago, 624 F.3d 856, 862 (7th Cir. 2010); Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 773 (7th Cir. 2005). This is true for either side—even when there is a video recording of the incident. Godinez v. City of Chicago, No. 16 CV 7344, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187996 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2019). Reasonableness is a quintessential jury question. Becker v. City of Evansville, No. 12 CV 182, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8414 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2015). To avoid unnecessary summary judgment motions, it may be helpful for the Court to hold a prefiling conference. This conference will be an informal, off-the-record discussion in chambers with lead counsel to consider whether it makes sense—economically and otherwise—to file a summary judgment motion.\n+So, before filing a summary judgment motion, counsel must confer and jointly submit to the Court’s proposed order inbox a date and time for the prefiling conference. These prefiling conferences will be conducted telephonically. No written submissions should be made. This prefiling conference is not intended to be an oral argument on the merits of the case. Instead, any party seeking summary judgment should be prepared to identify the uncontested facts that support judgment as a matter of law in its favor. Likewise and unsurprisingly, the opposing party should be prepared to identify whether those facts are truly contested. If counsel don’t know what these facts are and whether they are truly contested by the time of the prefiling conference, then that’s a sign of a bigger problem. Also, don’t start writing the summary judgment motion before the prefiling conference. Again, don’t submit anything in writing supporting or opposing summary judgment before the prefiling conference. It won’t be read. But rest assured, no party will ever be prevented from filing a summary judgment motion that is consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The goal of the prefiling conference is to have a careful, informed discussion of the issues before significant time and expense have been incurred. If lead counsel believe it will be helpful for a client to be present during the prefiling conference, they are more than welcome.\n+Prefiling conferences should be set for either a Monday or Friday at 11:00 a.m. The parties should submit a second choice for a date in case of a conflict with the Court’s schedule. Once submitted, the Court will confirm the date of the conference by minute order.\n+3. Filing Summary Judgment Motions: What To Exclude And Include\n+Summary judgment is designed to resolve an action in a summary fashion. But, like The Trouble with Tribbles, summary judgment motions often spawn a cascade of ancillary motions that become overwhelming.\n+Take, for example, the timing of summary judgment motions. Filing a summary judgment motion before the close of fact discovery can be problematic. A deposition after the filing might elicit sworn testimony that creates a genuine issue of material fact that renders the motion meritless. Moreover, the responding party can always file a Rule 56(d) affidavit that simply forestalls the summary judgment motion, particularly when fact discovery has not closed. Smith v. OSF HealthCare System, 933 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2019). The process only gets gummed up further if the movant then contests the Rule 56(d) affidavit, which will then beget a reply brief. And a summary judgment motion filed before the close of fact discovery also dovetails into the problem of multiple or successive motions. It should come as no surprise that district court judges don’t like multiple or successive motions for summary judgment. See generally 11 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §56.121[1][a] at 56-299 (3d ed. 2019). Certainly, sometimes successive summary judgment motions make sense and a court has discretion to allow them. Id. For example, a summary judgment motion for failing to exhaust administrative remedies may be appropriate before the close of all fact discovery. (Of course, this assumes that summary judgment is even appropriate in that circumstance. Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir. 2015).) The prefiling conference discussed above should hopefully resolve these issues.\n+Another ancillary motion in the brood is the motion for leave to file a surrreply, which are disfavored. See Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888, 903 (7th Cir. 2012). The common argument in favor of surreplies is that a new argument (as opposed to a reply to an argument raised in the response brief) was raised for the first time. Raising new arguments for the first time in a reply brief is dirty pool. See Darick M. v. Berryhill, No. 17 CV 50140, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21196, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2019). The Court can see that practice for what it is. There is no need to file a motion for a surreply to alert the Court to this chicanery. Sometimes, the purported assertion that the reason for filing a surreply is to address new arguments is simply a pretext for trying to get in the last word. That is just a different form of dirty pool. Naturally, surreplies beget requests to file “sur-surreplies.” The Court doesn’t want to see them either.\n+Ancillary filings also grow out of Local Rule 56.1 filings. Rule 56.1 is supposed to simplify summary judgment determinations, not invite satellite litigation. Mirza v. Dept. of Treasury ex rel. Ruben, 17 F. Supp. 2d 759, 762 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (discussing former Local Rules 12(M) and 12(N)); see also Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 923 (7th Cir. 1994) (purpose is to assist the court with a roadmap). The most common ancillary filing relating to Local Rule 56.1 is the dreaded motion to strike. Motions to strike are strongly disfavored. Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. Forest River, Inc., 464 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2006) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers). A motion to strike begets both a response and reply brief. Don’t file motions to strike. There’s a better way. If a party believes that the other side's brief contains inaccurate facts or that the other side's Local Rule 56.1 statement contains an unsupported assertion, then the complaining party should argue that in the response or reply brief. Indeed, motions to strike should be constrained to their limited purpose of attacking pleadings as identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which does not include Daubert challenges. (More on those later.) Another common ancillary motion relating to Local Rule 56.1 is the “motion to deem facts admitted.” Don’t file those either. They are unnecessary, and like a motion to strike, result in at least two more filings. The Court knows that if a party does not respond or fails to respond properly to Local Rule 56.1 statements of facts that those facts are admitted. See Farina v. Ciccone Food Prods., No. 04 CV 2383, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9962, at *7 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2005). Motions to deem facts admitted are even more problematic when the moving party itself failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1. See Blackhawk Molding Co. v. Portola Packaging, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 948, 952 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Kids these days call that a “self own.” The required filings are plenty. There is no need to file these additional motions, especially when they produce even more filings.\n+Having said all that, motions for summary judgment and responses must comply with Local Rules 56.1(a) and 56.1(b), as well as the procedures set out in this standing order. The Local Rules and this standing order are not mere suggestions or the Court’s musings on best practices. Failure to abide by the Local Rules and this standing order may result in the Court striking briefs, disregarding statements of fact, deeming statements of fact admitted, and denying summary judgment. See Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009). With regard to Local Rule 56.1, counsel must comply with the following:\n+All statements of undisputed material facts and their responses must be filed separately from the memoranda of law and must include the line, paragraph, or page number where the supporting material may be found in the record. You can even highlight the specific relevant portion if you think that’s helpful. But if you end up highlighting an entire page, that might tell you something.\n+The movant shall not file more than 80 statements of undisputed material facts without prior leave of the Court. Those statements must be limited to concise, discrete factual propositions, not paragraphs of assertions. The respondent shall be limited to 40 statements of undisputed material facts without prior leave of the Court. These statements must similarly be limited to concise, discrete facts.\n+For cases involving pro se litigants, in addition to the motion, memorandum, statement of facts, and exhibits, counsel must also serve the pro se party with (1) the statement required by Local Rule 56.2, (2) an entire copy of Local Rule 56.1, (3) a copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and (4) a copy of this standing order.\n+The Court has one last point on the topic of Local Rule 56.1 statements of fact. Try to tell a coherent, chronological story with the facts. The statement of facts should not read like a Quentin Tarantino script. And have a point: It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.\n+The only ancillary motions that might be appropriate with a summary judgment motion relate to expert testimony. There are two. The first motion is a motion in limine seeking to exclude opinion testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Boatman v. Comcast of the South, L.P., No. 17 CV 536, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24458, at *24 n.5 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2020). That is a substantive motion that should be filed separately. Some claims require expert testimony to survive, and if the testimony does not meet the requirement of Daubert, then summary judgment will be granted. See, e.g., Winters v. Fru-Con, Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 743-44 (7th Cir. 2007). Motions to exclude expert opinions under Daubert should only be filed either with summary judgment briefing or at trial. The Court is fully aware that occasionally a party will want to bar an expert’s opinion before retaining its own expert to allegedly save money. The Court is also often told that this motion will “streamline the case.” But see the first sentence of this standing order. This procedure is unlikely to save time or money. Indeed, if a party is so convinced that the opponent’s expert’s opinion is junk, then the party should be confident in its decision not to hire its own rebuttal expert. The second motion is a motion to bar opinions not disclosed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), (C). Opinions appearing for the first time in summary judgment briefing will be barred, unless the proponent can establish that the failure to timely disclose the opinions is harmless or substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); Clomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 641-43 (7th Cir. 2008). Be forewarned, that is a heavy burden to meet. See Mannoia v. Farrow, 476 F.3d 453, 456-57 (7th Cir. 2007) (barring at summary judgment expert affidavit first disclosed in summary judgment briefing). And, even in the rare circumstances you meet that burden, there will be other consequences, including financial. See, e.g., Beauchamp v. City of Dixon, No. 11 CV 50121, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29453, at *22 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2014). Parties who believe that expert opinions were not properly disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2) should immediately file a separate motion to bar. The Court will consider the motion at the same time as the summary judgment motion.\n+If parties have any other questions about summary judgment motions, they can raise them at the informal conference.\n+Supporting Memoranda and Exhibits\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+All motions must be supported by memorandum, not to exceed 15 pages. See Local Rule 7.1. Alternatively, the motion may contain the principle argument and relevant authority that otherwise would comprise a supporting memorandum. Skeletal and unsupported arguments will not be considered and the argument will be deemed waived. See Perry v. Sullivan, 207 F.3d 379, 383 (7th Cir. 2000); American Family Mutual Insurance v. Roth, 2007 WL 2410074 at *2 (N.D.Ill. 2007)(collecting cases); McWilliams v. McWilliams, 2006 WL 3775952 (N.D.Ill. 2006)(collecting cases)\n+Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered. See Hodgdon v. Northwestern University, 245 F.R.D. 337, 340 n.3 (N.D. Ill. 2007)(collecting cases).\n+Cases that are published only on electronic databases such as Westlaw and Lexis must be attached as exhibits to the memorandum.\n+Exhibits must be legible. For example, copies of portions of a deposition transcript should be printed as full pages, not as mini-scripts or condensed versions.\n+The Court urges litigants to rely on cases that were decided in the same procedural posture. In memoranda supporting or opposing a motion to dismiss, cases that were decided on summary judgment (or on appeal of summary judgment) are not particularly helpful because of the differing standards. See, e.g., Winchester v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. 19-CV-01356-NJR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148760, *6-7 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2020) (discussing what is required to state a claim under the FMLA versus what is required to prevail upon a claim under the FMLA); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009) (“The question presented by a motion to dismiss for insufficient pleadings does not turn on the controls placed on the discovery process.”). Indeed, the Court is on dangerous ground when it relies on summary judgment opinions when it is deciding motions to dismiss. Kaminski v. Elite Staffing, Inc., No. 21-1616, at 5-6 (7th Cir. Jan. 19, 2022); Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). This applies to the inverse as well. See Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 889 (1990) (An opinion decided on a motion to dismiss “is of no relevance here, since it involved not a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment but a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss on the pleadings. The latter, unlike the former, presumes that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.”) (cleaned up). As everybody hopefully learned in the first semester of law school, counsel should rely on decisions involving motions to dismiss when briefing a motion to dismiss and decisions involving motions for summary judgment (or Rule 50) when briefing a motion for summary judgment.\n+Telephonic Status Hearings\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Click here to view the Telephonic\n+Status Hearings\n+Select a date below to view all schedules.\n+Monday, November 2, 2026\n+3 cases\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+3:21-cv-50232\n+Brandon, II v. City Of Rockford\n+01:00PM\n+Status Hearing\n+3:22-cr-50069\n+USA v. Mickle\n+01:30PM\n+Detention Hearing\n+3:23-cv-50026\n+Jackson v. Schipper\n+02:30PM\n+Status Hearing\n+Wednesday, November 4, 2026\n+4 cases\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+3:19-cr-50047\n+USA v. Price\n+09:30AM\n+Status Hearing\n+3:26-cr-50022\n+USA v. Brito\n+11:00AM\n+Change of Plea Hearing\n+3:25-cr-50036\n+USA v. Martin\n+01:30PM\n+Change of Plea Hearing\n+3:16-cr-50044\n+USA v. Patterson\n+02:30PM\n+Status Hearing\n+Thursday, November 5, 2026\n+3 cases\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+3:23-cr-50009\n+USA v. Schneider\n+11:00AM\n+Initial Appearance/Revocation\n+3:19-cr-50047\n+USA v. Price\n+01:30PM\n+Sentencing\n+3:25-cr-50045\n+USA v. O'Brien\n+01:30PM\n+Status Hearing\n+Friday, November 6, 2026\n+3 cases\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+3:25-cr-50016\n+USA v. Inman\n+09:00AM\n+Change of Plea Hearing\n+3:25-cr-50036\n+USA v. Foster\n+11:00AM\n+Change of Plea Hearing\n+3:25-cv-50462\n+Macias v. Crozier et al\n+01:30PM\n+Telephone Conference\n+Number of days notice:\n+In the rare and unlikely circumstance that counsel needs to present a motion, please contact the Court’s Operations Specialist. See IOP11(d).\n+Motion Type\n+Day\n+Time\n+Civil\n+N/A\n+N/A\n+Criminal\n+N/A\n+Operations Specialist\n+Yvonne Pedroza\n+(779) 772-8609\n+Room 2200Court Reporter\n+Heather Perkins-Reiva\n+(779) 772-8309\n+Room 5406Law Clerk\n+Noah Borgeson\n+Charles Beveridge\n+Noah Yust\n+summarize Related Links\n+Proposed Order Portal\n+Know the Answer to Federal Jurisdiction\n+A Modest Proposal for Better Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions\n+Apex Witnesses Claim They Are Too Big to Depose\n+So You've Been Asked to Take a Prisoner Litigation Case\n+Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Program\n+Preponderance Standard for Section 1983 Punitive Damages?\n+Boilerplate Objections in Discovery -- Tread Lightly\n+The Case for Drawing Reasonable—and Only Reasonable—Factual Inferences in Analyzing Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of Illinois\n+Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge | Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court\n+Court Telephone Directory\n+Accessibility Information\n+Judicial Misconduct Complaints\n+Other Courts\n+Your Employee Rights and How to Report Wrongful Conduct\n+Judicial Disclosure Of Judges' Privately Funded Educational Seminars\n+©2025\n+Notice: This is a restricted website for official U.S. Court business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited\n+and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged.","id":"9eb702b9731e8ed54c70e575f1720c2a2f243f85ab59421bd0bee2d722b8e3c0","newHash":"c7734cb459a6ee0a514added6c29becf0a2c3d7dbc2784767120a763b90673e4","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Johnston","snapshot":"snapshots/c7734cb459a6ee0a514added6c29becf0a2c3d7dbc2784767120a763b90673e4.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Johnston","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:56.481465+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,410 @@\n+Judge Maria Valdez\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of Illinois\n+Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge | Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court\n+search\n+menu\n+close\n+Home\n+Judges\n+expand_more\n+Judicial Absence\n+Motion Schedule\n+Mediation Program for the Western Division\n+Rules\n+expand_more\n+Local Rules\n+Federal Rules\n+Internal Operating Procedures\n+Internal Operating Procedures (PDF)\n+General Orders\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution (Western Division)\n+Pattern Jury Instructions\n+Local Rule 78.5 Request for Decision/Status Report\n+Mediation Program for the Western Division\n+Local Rules for ADR\n+Clerk's Office\n+expand_more\n+Operations\n+Judicial Support\n+Information Systems\n+Administrative Services\n+Human Resources\n+Attorney\n+CM/ECF\n+expand_more\n+Register for CM/ECF\n+CM/ECF User Guide\n+CM/ECF Quick Reference Guide\n+CM/ECF Training Videos\n+CM/ECF Password Reset Request\n+General Order on Electronic Case Filing\n+Written Opinions\n+Recently Filed Cases\n+Access to CM/ECF for the Northern District of Illinois\n+24-Hour Automated Phone Line for Case Updates\n+Daily Calendars\n+Jurors\n+MDL\n+Forms\n+Pro Se / Representing Yourself\n+expand_more\n+Pro Se Forms\n+Federal Civil Case Forms\n+Guide to Filing a Case in Federal Court Without an Attorney\n+Guide to Understanding the Federal Courts\n+Settlement Assistance Program\n+Settlement Assistance Program Appearance Form\n+Illinois Legal Aid Online – Pro Se Resources\n+Pro Se Filer PDF Submissions\n+Receive Notices of Electronic Filings by Email\n+William J. Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program Help Desk\n+Schedule an Appointment with the Hibbler Help Desk\n+USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (GenAI) IN YOUR COURT CASE\n+Media\n+Naturalization, Civics Education & Community Outreach\n+expand_more\n+Civics Education\n+Court History Documentary\n+Naturalization Ceremony\n+Court History Museum\n+Court Lectures\n+About the Court\n+expand_more\n+History of the Court\n+Proper forms of identification and items not allowed in Courthouses.\n+Divisional County Map\n+Careers\n+close\n+Home»Judges»\n+Judge Information\n+District Judges\n+Magistrate Judges\n+Emergency Judges\n+Order Transcript\n+Judge\n+Alexakis\n+Alonso\n+Appenteng\n+Aspen\n+Bass Ehler\n+Berry III\n+Blakey\n+Bucklo\n+Chang\n+Coleman\n+Cummings\n+Daniel\n+Dow Jr.\n+Durkin\n+Ellis\n+Fuentes\n+Gettleman\n+Gilbert\n+Gottschall\n+Guzman\n+Harjani\n+Holleb Hotaling\n+Hunt\n+Iasparro\n+Jantz\n+Jenkins\n+Johnston\n+Kendall\n+Kennelly\n+Kim\n+Kness\n+Kocoras\n+Lefkow\n+McLaughlin\n+McNally\n+McShain\n+Pacold\n+Pallmeyer\n+Perry\n+Reinhard\n+Rowland\n+Schneider\n+Seeger\n+Shah\n+Tharp Jr.\n+Valderrama\n+Valdez\n+Weisman\n+Wood\n+Select Judge\n+Alexakis\n+Alonso\n+Appenteng\n+Aspen\n+Bass Ehler\n+Berry III\n+Blakey\n+Bucklo\n+Chang\n+Coleman\n+Cummings\n+Daniel\n+Dow Jr.\n+Durkin\n+Ellis\n+Fuentes\n+Gettleman\n+Gilbert\n+Gottschall\n+Guzman\n+Harjani\n+Holleb Hotaling\n+Hunt\n+Iasparro\n+Jantz\n+Jenkins\n+Johnston\n+Kendall\n+Kennelly\n+Kim\n+Kness\n+Kocoras\n+Lefkow\n+McLaughlin\n+McNally\n+McShain\n+Pacold\n+Pallmeyer\n+Perry\n+Reinhard\n+Rowland\n+Schneider\n+Seeger\n+Shah\n+Tharp Jr.\n+Valderrama\n+Valdez\n+Weisman\n+Wood\n+Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez\n+meeting_room\n+Courtroom: 1041 gavel\n+Chambers: 1058 phone\n+Telephone: (312) 435-5690 fax\n+Fax: (312) 554-8941\n+error\n+NOTICE:\n+For all court related matters, please contact Courtroom Deputy, Kerwin Posley at (312)408-5135, or via email at\n+kerwin_posley@ilnd.uscourts.gov\n+IN ALL CIVIL CASES, Parties must not file a notice of motion with any submission. After a motion is filed, the Court will set a motion hearing or briefing schedule if necessary. No courtesy copies are to be submitted unless specifically requested by the Court.\n+ALL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES will be held by video, on the Webex platform.\n+IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES, all motions will be presented before the Court as is normally required. However, prior to filing a notice of motion, the movant shall contact Kerwin Posley for a presentment date and time.\n+All pleadings and other papers filed with the Court must conform with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 11, and/or 26(g). Any violations of those rules including, but not limited\n+to, the misuse of artificial intelligence, may result in sanctions.\n+error\n+Important Discovery Information\n+To achieve the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s command of a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” Magistrate Judge Valdez has endorsed The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation dated July 2008.\n+In cases where discovery supervision is within the district court’s referral order and in consent cases where discovery is ongoing, please read The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation carefully prior to the initial status conference. Counsel should be fully prepared to discuss methods and techniques to accomplish cooperative fact-finding in their case at the initial status conference.\n+View The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation\n+summarize Case Procedures\n+event Calendar Schedule\n+date_range Motion Schedule\n+groups Chambers Staff\n+Procedures to be followed in cases assigned to\n+Judge Maria Valdez\n+Contacting Chambers\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Counsel must never contact the Courtroom Deputy or chambers on\n+any matter that can be answered by reviewing the Court’s website and Standing\n+Orders. Any messages seeking information that is available on the website will\n+not be returned.\n+It is never appropriate to email chambers staff of Judge Valdez\n+without prior permission of the Court. Counsel should also ordinarily not call\n+chambers for any reason. Should an extraordinary circumstance require a\n+telephone call to chambers, counsel for all parties should be on the call. Ex\n+parte telephone calls to chambers on case-related matters should never\n+occur unless it is impossible or impracticable to have all counsel for all\n+parties on the call. When counsel or their agents call chambers ex parte\n+absent an extraordinary circumstance, chambers staff have been instructed to\n+inform the person calling that case-related matters may not be discussed ex\n+parte by telephone. Anything that counsel or their agents should not say ex\n+parte directly to the judge cannot be said to her chambers staff.\n+In the event it is necessary to communicate with chambers by\n+telephone, anyone calling chambers should conduct themselves in the same manner\n+as if they were speaking directly to the judge.\n+Status Reports\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+The parties are advised\n+that a status report is intended to make the Court aware of potential\n+issues. It does not take the place of a properly supported motion. Any disputes requiring adjudication MUST be raised by motion.\n+Upon assignment of cases to Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez, the parties may be ordered to file an initial status report. The report must comply with the following Order Setting Initial Status Report for Cases Assigned to Judge Valdez:\n+• Order Setting Initial Status Report\n+In cases where no discovery deadlines have been set, counsel may also be ordered to file an Agreed Scheduling Order:\n+• Agreed Scheduling Order\n+Status and Motion Practice (Civil & Criminal)\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+In-court status hearings in civil cases will generally be set on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m.\n+Civil motion hearings will generally be heard on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.\n+Criminal motions are heard on Tuesday and Thursday at 11:00 a.m.\n+Arraignments are heard on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at 11:00 a.m.\n+FILING OF DOCUMENTS:\n+No civil motions may be noticed for presentment. After a motion is filed, the Court will set a date for a hearing and/or a briefing schedule.\n+Service of motions must be accomplished no later than 4:00 p.m. the day after a motion is filed. Absent leave of Court, all memoranda of law must comply with the 15-page limitation set forth in Local Rule 7.1. No courtesy copies shall be delivered unless specifically requested by the Court. Any proposed or draft order must be submitted in compliance with the section entitled “Submitting a Proposed Order, Agreed or Otherwise, for Electronic Entry by the Judge,” infra.\n+TELEPHONIC OR REMOTE APPEARANCE:\n+The Court believes that status and motion hearings are\n+substantive matters that require in-person participation and finds it difficult\n+to have meaningful hearings by telephone or video. As a result, telephonic or remote appearances\n+are not allowed in status or motion hearings. If extraordinary circumstances exist, a party may contact\n+the Courtroom Deputy, Kerwin Posley, in advance to seek permission to participate\n+by phone.\n+Motion Requirements\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+a. Discovery Motions\n+The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes and thus discourages the filing of discovery motions. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motions unless the parties have complied with the meet and confer requirement under Local Rule 37.2 . Any discovery motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2 . In addition, the motion must briefly summarize the substance of the parties' discussions.\n+Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes and, other than in exceptional circumstances, timely communication that takes place face to face or by telephone conference is required. The mere exchange of correspondence will not normally be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2 .\n+All parties must be fully prepared to orally argue any discovery motion on the date that it is scheduled to be heard. The Court most often will decide most discovery motions after oral argument at the motion call and without briefing. If after argument the Court believes that the motion requires briefing, the Court normally will set an expedited briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly.\n+All discovery disputes should be brought to the Court’s\n+attention well before the relevant discovery deadline passes. The parties may\n+not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the discovery deadline unless they meet the relevant legal standard necessary to extend the schedule. If the parties informally\n+agree to conduct discovery after the discovery deadline but do not move for an\n+extension, any discovery disputes raised after the expiration of the deadline\n+will be deemed waived.\n+b. Joint Motions to Extend Deadlines or Hearing Dates\n+Where the parties by agreement wish to move a deadline or a hearing date that does not affect the dispositive motion deadline or any other deadline set by the District Judge, the parties shall do so by filing an agreed or joint motion which (1) sets forth the deadline or date the parties seek to move; (2) sets forth the new deadline or date requested; and (3) states that the request to move the deadline does not affect any dates set by the District Judge. The Court will ordinarily grand such motions by minute order and without a hearing within approximately 24 hours of the filing of the motion. Parties seeking to move a hearing date must consult this Court's Standing Order governing Status and Motion Practice when choosing a new date. If the parties request a date that is outside this Court's standard schedule, the motion cannot be granted without a hearing.\n+c. Summary Judgment\n+Motions for summary judgment and responses must comply with Local Rules 56.1(a) and 56.1(b) as amended, as well as the procedures outlined herein. The statements of undisputed material fact and responses shall be filed separately from the memoranda of law and shall include the line, paragraph, or page number where the supporting material may be found in the record. Failure to abide by the Local Rules may result in the Court striking briefs, disregarding statements of fact, deeming statements of fact admitted, or denying summary judgment. See, e.g., Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 401 F.3d 803, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2005); Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 816-18 (7th Cir. 2004); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 682-83 (7th Cir. 2003); Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 582-87 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (comprehensive overview of summary judgment procedure in the Northern District of Illinois).\n+The movant shall not file more than 80 statements of undisputed material fact without prior leave of court. The respondent shall be limited to 40 statements of undisputed material fact absent prior leave of court.\n+d. Motions in Limine\n+A motion in limine must be filed as a separate document from the Pretrial Order. (See also Final Pretrial Order, infra.) Each motion in limine must be filed as a separate motion and each must cite authority supporting the relief sought.\n+Many motions in limine can be avoided by stipulation of counsel. Therefore, each motion in limine must also contain a statement of efforts to reach an accord regarding that motion containing the recitations that Local Rule 37.2 requires for discovery motions. Any motion in limine not containing such a statement is subject to being stricken.\n+e. All Motions\n+1. The Court will apply the meet and confer requirement to all motions that a party files. Every motion filed must cite legal authority supporting the motion and the relief sought. The body of any motion must state if the motion is joint, or if the other parties have authorized the movant to state that the parties either agree to the motion or have no objection to it. Every motion must state with specificity what the parties did to comply with the meet and confer requirement.\n+In particular, with respect to any motions for summary judgment, the Court requires the moving party and the opposing party to meet and confer, during which time the opposing party should advise the moving party of factual matter or legal authority that it believes would defeat the motion. After this consultation, if the movant still wishes to file the motion, the movant should do so and the Court will address it.\n+2.\n+All motion briefs shall focus on the particular dispute(s) remaining at issue at the conclusion of the meet and confer process and should avoid discussion of historical or resolved matters. Briefs should also avoid voluminous supporting documentation and only include those portions of exhibits containing factual information necessary to the ruling on the motion.\n+3. Lawyers\n+appearing before the court should work to achieve their client’s objectives\n+expeditiously and as economically as possible in a civil and professional\n+manner. Written\n+materials submitted to the court should always be factual and concise,\n+accurately state current law, and fairly represent the parties’ positions\n+without unfairly attacking the opposing party or opposing counsel. A lawyer should\n+at all times be civil, courteous, and accurate in communicating with\n+adversaries, whether in writing or orally. Failure to follow these guidelines\n+could result in sanctions.\n+Emergency Motion\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+A party requiring immediate relief may file an emergency motion in very limited circumstances and may not be filed without prior leave. To qualify as an \"emergency,\" a motion must arise from an unforeseen circumstance that arises suddenly and unexpectedly and requires immediate action in order to avoid serious or irreparable harm to one or more of the parties. If the matter does not fully meet the standard, it will be set for a hearing in the ordinary course. Requests for an emergency motion shall be made to the Courtroom Deputy prior to filing the motion. A party seeking to present an emergency motion must make all reasonable efforts to provide the opposing party with actual notice of the motion.\n+Restricting Orders\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Before requesting that the Court enter a restricting order, commonly referred to as a protective order, to preserve the confidentiality of materials disclosed in discovery, or filing a confidential document under seal, counsel shall carefully review the following:\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c);\n+Local Rules 5.7, 5.8, and 26.2, as amended;\n+The decisions of the Seventh Circuit in Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd, 30 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 1994), Citizens First Nat'l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999), and Union Oil Co. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2000); and\n+In a case that is before the Court on referral for discovery supervision, any standing order or instructions from the District Judge regarding protective orders and restricting orders.\n+The Court will not enter a protective order, even if agreed, that does not comply with the requirements set out by the Seventh Circuit (and, for cases on referral, the assigned District Judge). If the protective order anticipates that any documents or confidential materials submitted to the court are to be filed under seal, the proposed protective order must include, at a minimum, the following:\n+A carefully-drafted definition of the categories of documents or other materials to be protected (e.g., personnel files, medical information, personal identity information, trade secrets, confidential financial matters, etc.), with an explanation of why confidentiality is necessary as to each category, consistent with the Seventh Circuit's descriptions of what is protectable;\n+A provision that no document may be filed under seal absent an order by the court granting a motion, filed and noticed for hearing prior to the due date of the particular filing, showing good cause for sealing that particular document or portion of document;\n+A procedure for the use of confidential documents at the depositions of witnesses, and a listing of the persons who may be given access to confidential materials;\n+A provision that parties are ordered to retain copies of all documents containing confidential information which are provided under the protective order;\n+A provision stating that nothing in the order shall be construed to affect the admissibility of any document, material or information at any trial or hearing; any request for confidentiality, closure or sealing of any hearing or trial must be made to the judge then presiding;\n+An explicit procedure under which a party or interested member of the public can challenge the confidential designation of particular documents that have been filed under seal; and\n+Instructions for the disposition of the documents designated as confidential following the conclusion of the case.\n+Please note that any designation of materials as \"confidential\" must be made in good faith by counsel, not by the client, and each page of confidential material must be clearly marked \"confidential,\" \"protected,\" or otherwise restricted.\n+The foregoing are minimum requirements. Counsel should, in addition, anticipate possible areas of future dispute and attempt to set out agreed procedures in advance to deal with them, appropriate to the nature of the case.\n+Filing Confidential Documents\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Counsel should be aware that amendments to Local Rule 26.2 in April 2006 changed certain aspects of the way documents designated as confidential must be dealt with in filings with the court. First, pursuant to amended L.R. 26.2(b), no document may be filed under seal without a prior order of the court specifying the particular document or portion of a document to be filed under seal. This amendment changed the rule by making clear that only the particular document that has been previously determined by the court to be deserving of protection may be filed under seal, regardless of the existence of any protective order. Thus, parties are not to file briefs or compilations of exhibits as restricted or under seal unless the court has expressly so ordered, with respect to the particular briefs or exhibits. See Committee Comments to L.R. 26.2. Second, pursuant to L.R. 26.2(c) and (d), the amended rule now offers Judges two options regarding how to handle documents designated as confidential when those documents are submitted for consideration in connection with a motion, brief or other matter. The two options are as follows:\n+1. Filing the confidential document with the Clerk's Office. Under this option, the confidential documents must be filed with the Clerk's Office, and each confidential document presented for filing must include a copy of a restricting order entered by the Judge for that specific document or portion of document. The attorney or party submitting the confidential document must file it in a sealed enclosure that conspicuously states on the face of the enclosure the attorney's or party's name and address, including email address if the attorney is registered as a Filing User of electronic case filing, the caption of the case, and the title of the document. See L.R. 26.2(c). The final paragraph of the restricting order shall provide: (1) the identity of the persons, if any, who are to have access to the confidential materials without further order of court; and (2) instructions for the disposition of the restricted documents following the conclusion of the case. See L.R. 26.2(b).\n+2. Submitting the confidential document in chambers and filing a redacted copy with the Clerk's Office. Under this option, documents designated as confidential shall not be filed with the Clerk's Office. Rather, any such documents requiring the court's review shall be submitted to chambers in camera in a sealed envelope bearing the caption of the case, case number, the title of the motion or response to which the submitted confidential information pertains, and the name and telephone number of counsel submitting the documents. The producing party must file a redacted copy of all documents containing confidential information with the Clerk's Office for the record. In addition, the producing party must maintain the original documents intact for any further review. See L.R. 26.2(d).\n+In cases where a protective order is within the scope of the District Judge's referral, Judge Valdez will enforce the filing practice of the referring District Judge.\n+In consent cases, Judge Valdez follows the first option discussed above. Counsel seeking to file documents previously designated as restricted pursuant to a protective order must therefore use the following procedure:\n+If a party intends to file a motion or other paper with the court which contains information designated as confidential by the other party or a non-party pursuant to a protective order between the parties, the filing party shall give reasonable notice of that intention to the designating party. A party seeking to file its own confidential information under seal, or a designating party given notice that a party intends to file the designating party's confidential information, shall file and notice for hearing a Motion to File Under Seal prior to the due date of the particular filing. The Motion to File Under Seal must demonstrate good cause by including a specific description of the document (or categories of documents) that the party seeks to file under seal and explaining why confidentiality is necessary, consistent with the Seventh Circuit's descriptions of what is protectable. The movant's counsel shall bring a copy of the document or documents to the hearing for examination by the court.\n+Privilege Logs\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+In the event that a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege, the withholding party generally must provide a log of the documents withheld on the ground of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and Advisory Committee Comments to 1993 Amendments. Any privilege log must be detailed enough to enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege asserted, and should include: (1) the name and capacity of each individual from whom or to whom a document and any attachments were sent (including which persons are lawyers); (2) the date of the document and any attachments; (3) the type of document; (4) the Bates numbers of the documents; (5) the nature of the privilege asserted; and (6) a description of the subject matter in sufficient detail to determine if legal advice was sought or revealed, or if the document constitutes work product. See Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 84, 88 (N.D. Ill. 1992). The Court reminds the parties that the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 37.2 apply to privilege disputes, just as they do to other discovery disputes\n+Settlement Conferences\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+All settlement conferences will take place on video, via Webex. All parties must read and comply with the Court's Instructions for Settlement Conference and any communications from chambers personnel.\n+Instructions for Settlement Conference\n+Final Pretrial Order\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Final Pretrial Order\n+Standard Voir Dire Questions to Jurors\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Click here to open Standard Voir Dire Questions to Jurors document.\n+Submitting a Proposed Order, Agreed or Otherwise, for Electronic Entry by the Judge\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+When appropriate, the parties may submit to the Court a Proposed Order for the judge to consider, modify if necessary, and enter electronically. All Proposed Orders must be attached to an e-mail sent to Proposed_Order_Valdez@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The subject line of the e-mail must include the case number and name, the docket number of the corresponding motion, if any, and the title of the order that is proposed. Clean versions of all such documents must be submitted to the court in a format compatible with Microsoft Word. Any Proposed Order must also be served on all parties.\n+Submitting a Proposed Order electronically is not a substitute for filing a motion. A Proposed Order may only be submitted after the corresponding motion has been filed unless the Court has given prior leave to submit an order without motion.\n+The Court will not read or consider any motion or correspondence sent to the Proposed Order Inbox without prior authorization.\n+Standing Order in Social Security Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+Standing Order in Social Security Cases\n+Judicial Approval of Settlement in Consent Cases\n+chevron_right\n+print\n+For consent cases in which judicial approval of settlement is statutorily required, the parties' motion for approval must include a calculation of the amount of damages claimed and the damages paid; and a statement of how the parties reached the settlement values, including fees and costs. A copy of the settlement agreement must also be filed as an exhibit.\n+Select a date below to view all schedules.\n+Monday, November 2, 2026\n+1 case\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+1:24-cv-00903\n+Brown v. Select One, Inc\n+11:00AM\n+Settlement Conference\n+Tuesday, November 3, 2026\n+1 case\n+expand_more\n+Case No.\n+Name\n+Time\n+Type\n+1:26-cv-06693\n+Swanson Tool Co., Inc. v. Speed North America, Inc.\n+10:00AM\n+Status Hearing\n+Number of days notice:\n+3\n+Motion Type\n+Day\n+Time\n+Civil\n+Tu, W\n+10:00 a.m.\n+Criminal\n+Tu, Th\n+11:00 a.m.\n+Courtroom Deputy\n+Kerwin Posley\n+(312) 408-5135\n+Room 1036Law Clerk\n+Michelle Mills\n+Mia Neally\n+summarize Related Links\n+Order Transcript\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of Illinois\n+Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge | Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court\n+Court Telephone Directory\n+Accessibility Information\n+Judicial Misconduct Complaints\n+Other Courts\n+Your Employee Rights and How to Report Wrongful Conduct\n+Judicial Disclosure Of Judges' Privately Funded Educational Seminars\n+©2025\n+Notice: This is a restricted website for official U.S. Court business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited\n+and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged.","id":"5c07b10bf4bde371309927d475f50c01ee7757847e825bf7bdf703eb2b91f2c6","newHash":"57ffaacf2ef9b99e17399d54e323975dda00022a11f219c88f695e3f11ccd944","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Valdez","snapshot":"snapshots/57ffaacf2ef9b99e17399d54e323975dda00022a11f219c88f695e3f11ccd944.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Valdez","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:56.358423+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"9cb98c07f3646b951db9869ed422ebe3eb69c59c36ef282e97d363ea4b311d0e","newHash":"5f3f5642d1635c96275831d082e4cbb24a31b1a0c7142d14622aff76aa317a09","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/1007/files/2231/embedDocument/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:56.922741+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"52efc3562357b364e7306c7576341a989b42ebbcb5f0c14e3cf32ac9cfb0223b","newHash":"f778d4347c7720a0720ea7101d1826d29530049a378aff8c8c1f445a64904078","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/ao-html/1b10ef43-b414-40e5-88d7-401f46d0a081.html","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/ao-html/1b10ef43-b414-40e5-88d7-401f46d0a081.html","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:57.385952+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"de82e48e50d50a311fc55af18de0878a101b614fdd6adfe081a430f132925031","newHash":"39ecc277bf6bfbf56addc8f2a32db5704f1a8272638fd724e2b63c476626a26e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/10932461063-1-26-03%20Prohibition%20on%20use%20of%20Non-Approved%20Generative%20AAI%20Platforms%20by%20Court%20Personnel-%20ogc-CONFORMED.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/judges_forms/10932461063-1-26-03%20Prohibition%20on%20use%20of%20Non-Approved%20Generative%20AAI%20Platforms%20by%20Court%20Personnel-%20ogc-CONFORMED.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:57.594462+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"21b0e2546148d6863b8da40805e6e925b2797548ec3d362ef9ea220fe1b63948","newHash":"f682a86c0f4ba91913b326f1c0af1c566b22409b8099262d13e708174ab4adf8","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline=","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline=","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:57.399338+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"caf8e1d2a26a736eace7c18097959a682ec2e2b5fc77ce46b990dcf637cfc5d0","newHash":"83af55ad205e5c60486f8e99b18dce27c2a4171ef024257340bca23a18d6b6b0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:58.349207+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"dd4249b863781f624339f0f6ccfdc0bb2289860401049faa66d1e3019225d500","newHash":"545135fe9044d65221088b333339db69dd050291ae530460f567e227ff3a743e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:57.946626+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"3efc77813fdbfa66eb6b6cadce6646cb61f4262a42dac1a82c1ac92b98dca6d8","newHash":"972474594db84d5f50843520eab8575929e3ea35edebfcada1bf3867204e5cbf","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:59.200528+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1 @@\n+Case 1:00-mc-00308 Document 176 Filed 08/05/26 Page 1 of 1","id":"12c616c413a6c7e3f867947ca59835088059e25b9fbe828d573aa7763d9b13f9","newHash":"e4fe1077f27b6f7139d24ae394dad30267945f7397dcf1c9d64c6703408862a1","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/e4fe1077f27b6f7139d24ae394dad30267945f7397dcf1c9d64c6703408862a1.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:58.635832+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"2bd474ecf505f5d91a08afde812bdc7c362b2ac959a8c1f935036b09fcc1be82","newHash":"a00a6df114511aa4d030dcbf7a23ef26d9e3e1bf7c28970e2f4a4f5bc3e49c79","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/News/NewsDetail/State-Bar-of-Michigan-releases-comprehensive-report-on-AI-and-the-legal-profession","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/News/NewsDetail/State-Bar-of-Michigan-releases-comprehensive-report-on-AI-and-the-legal-profession","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:58.821920+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"ed6e4a720825baba4f6ed98c0e8cf21ba7ab7fdc55aa4825570b74254eb1827a","newHash":"8ce944f493d1a1ad21175caf4ecaec8f6372f0c3701dd64aae213467d10208ef","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/publications/pdfs/Age_of_AI_Report_June25.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/publications/pdfs/Age_of_AI_Report_June25.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:01.213819+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"3a321392990101d848576182823fa3255dedcc8ff8fe87a3a388acfab4bed71b","newHash":"88b41a3d6769c7febcdf959f119862b5cbe35b4db8deb2c0cc663690d2701bf1","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:59.243349+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"f228b7dfc22c44007a516afb96bc3a203bfa1508ecdad350ba0a71250554ac88","newHash":"cd2ca52ae7e537e8ad261a139312c4eb21f8a4f8d2910a04f42b0e47b8d840dd","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:59.586035+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"d2d438f1b37a47ec950c0a837ba38bcdd16b3bb8058113ffeed590d2a3adfdda","newHash":"b99134de18f9a4ccb9e8c3f3daee1929a98e9926a1bddea4876aca26ab3e145c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-381","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-381","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:50:59.650167+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@\n+December 8, 2023\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN\n+539 THEODORE LEVIN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE\n+231 W. LAFAYETTE BOULEVARD DIVISIONAL OFFICES\n+KINIKIA D. ESSIX DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226 ANN ARBOR\n+COURT ADMINISTRATOR www.mied.uscourts.gov BAY CITY\n+PHONE: 313-234-5051 FLINT\n+FAX: 313-234-5399 PORT HURON\n+NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL RULES\n+At their regular meeting on December 4, 2023, the Judges of the United States District Court for the\n+Eastern District of Michigan approved for publication and comment amendments to the following local\n+rules:\n+ LR 5.1, Filing of Papers\n+ LR 83.4, Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interest\n+ LR 83.32, Possession and Use of Electronic Devices in Federal Court Facilities\n+In order to be assured consideration, comments in writing, which may include recommended changes to\n+the proposed amendments, should be received by the Court no later than January 19, 2024. Comments\n+may be sent to Local_Rules@mied.uscourts.gov or to Local Rules, 539 Theodor e Levin United States\n+Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226.\n+[Additions are indicated by underline, and deletions by strikethrough.]\n+LR 5.1 Filing of Papers\n+(a) Papers presented for filing must comply with the following:\n+(1) – (3) [Unchanged]\n+(4) Disclosing Use of Artificial Intelligence.\n+(A) “Artificial intelligence” or “AI” means the capability of computer systems or\n+algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior.\n+(B) “Generative artificial intelligence” or “Generative AI” means artificial intelligence\n+that is capable of generating new content (such as images or text) in response to a submitted prompt\n+(such as a query) by learning from a large reference database of examples.\n+(C) If generative AI is used to compose or draft any paper presented for filing, the filer\n+must disclose its use and attest that citations of authority have been verified by a human being by using\n+Notice of Proposed Amendments to Local Rules Page 2\n+Comments Due January 19, 2024\n+December 8, 2023\n+print volumes or traditional legal databases and that the language in the paper has been checked for\n+accuracy by the filer.\n+(b) – (e) [Unchanged]\n+LR 83.4 Disclosure of Entity Corporate Affiliations, and Financial Interest, and Citizenship\n+(a) Parties Required to Make Disclosure.\n+(1) With the exception of the United States Government or agencies thereof, or a state\n+government or agencies or political subdivisions thereof, all corporate parties Every non-governmental\n+entity that is a party to a civil case , a non- governmental entity that seeks to intervene, an entity and all\n+corporate defendants in a criminal case must file a Statement of Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and\n+Financial Interest as described in part (d). A negative report is also required.\n+(2) For the purposes of this Rule and the Statement of Disclosure, the term “entity” refers to\n+any corporation, partnership, trust, limited liability company, unincorporated association, and any other\n+organization with a legally recognized existence.\n+(b) Entities - Financial Interest to be Disclosed.\n+(1) Whenever a corporation which is a party to a case is a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of any\n+non-party entity publicly owned corporation not named in the case, counsel for the corporation which is a\n+party entity must identify file on the sStatement of dDisclosure provided in (c) identifying the non-party\n+entity parent corporation or affiliate and the its relationship to between it and the corporation which is a\n+party entity to the case. A corporation party entity is considered an affiliate of a publicly owned corporation\n+non-party entity for purposes of this Rule if it the party entity controls, is controlled by, or is under\n+common control with a publicly owned corporation the non-party entity.\n+(2) A party entity must identify any non-party entity that owns 10% or more of the non-party\n+entity’s stock or otherwise has at least a 10% ownership interest in the party entity.\n+(3) Whenever, by reason of insurance, a franchise agreement, lease, profit sharing agreement,\n+or indemnity agreement, a publicly owned corporation non-party entity or its affiliate, not a party to the\n+case, has a substantial direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, counsel for the party entity\n+whose interest is aligned with that of the publicly owned corporation or its affiliate non-party entity must\n+identify on the Statement of Disclosure file the statement of disclosure provided in (c) identifying the\n+publicly owned corporation non-party entity and the nature of its or its affiliate’s substantial that non-party\n+entity’s direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. (3) The duty of disclosure by the corporate\n+parties described in this Rule is continuing.\n+(c) Parties in Diversity Cases. Whenever the jurisdiction of a cause of action is based on diversity\n+of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), every party entity must identify on the Statement of Disclosure\n+the name and citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party.\n+Notice of Proposed Amendments to Local Rules Page 3\n+Comments Due January 19, 2024\n+December 8, 2023\n+(d) Statement of Disclosure. The sStatement of dDisclosure must be made on a form provided by\n+the Clerk. A party entity must and filed, the Statement of Disclosure as part of the first pleading or paper\n+filed by the party in this Court, or as soon as the party becomes aware of the corporate affiliation or\n+financial interest, or as otherwise ordered by the judge to whom the case is assigned. The duty of\n+disclosure described in this Rule is continuing, and a party must file promptly a supplemental statement\n+immediately upon filing new or additional information immediately upon learning new or additional\n+information, including when any later event occurs that could affect the Court’s jurisdiction under §\n+1332(a).\n+LR 83.32 Possession and Use of Electronic Devices in Federal Court Facilities\n+(a) [Unchanged]\n+(b) Exempted Persons and Uses Permitted and Prohibited Practices\n+(1) [Unchanged]\n+(2) Exempted Persons - Subject to subparagraph (c), below, the following persons are permitted\n+to carry and use Electronic Devices within federal court facilities in the Eastern District of Michigan:\n+(A) – (H) [Unchanged]\n+(I) Attendees at Naturalization Ceremonies may use a Personal Electronic or Computing\n+Device only to take still photographs in the Detroit Room or any courtroom in which the ceremony takes\n+place.\n+(3) – (5) [Unchanged]\n+(c) Conditions for authorized use of Personal Electronic Devices\n+Unless express permission to the contrary is given by the presiding judicial officer, the following\n+conditions and restrictions apply to those individuals authorized to carry a Personal Electronic Device:\n+(1) – (5) [Unchanged]\n+(6) Prospective jurors and seated jurors may bring into a Federal Court facility their Personal\n+Electronic Device, and electronic book readers of any kind, including but not limited to Kindles, Nooks,\n+iPads, and any type of electronic tablet reading device, but may not use the device in on any way except\n+upon permission of a judicial officer. No juror may use an electronic device to access the Internet in any\n+Federal Court facility or its environs.\n+(d) Conditions for authorized use of General Purpose Computing Devices\n+(1) – (3) [Unchanged]\n+(4) A district judge or magistrate judge may authorize Ii nternet access is not provided for\n+personally owned devices . and cCounsel, however, should still come prepared with all needed material\n+Notice of Proposed Amendments to Local Rules Page 4\n+Comments Due January 19, 2024\n+December 8, 2023\n+loaded on the device prior to the commencement of court in case there is an issue receiving internet service.\n+A user may NOT access the Internet by any wireless means during jury selection while in the courtroom.\n+(5) – (10) [Unchanged]\n+(e) Permitted and Prohibited Uses\n+(1) [Unchanged]\n+(2) Taking photographs or video or audio recordings in connection with any Judicial Proceeding\n+(including any participants in a Judicial Proceeding while they are in a courtroom or its environs), and the\n+recording or broadcasting of Judicial Proceedings by radio or television or other means is prohibited.\n+(3) [Unchanged]\n+(4) A district judge or magistrate judge may authorize:\n+(A) [Unchanged]\n+(B) The radio or television broadcasting, audio or video recording or photographing of\n+court proceedings, but only pursuant to, a resolution of the Judicial Conference of the United States.\n+The judicial officer will provide by written notice to the United States Marshal that such permission has\n+been granted.\n+(5) [Unchanged]\n+(f) – (h) [Unchanged]","id":"4410c28256bf172fe86fd6339c52954c11c154d7b9bb492d07a517a63514d276","newHash":"f66096dad39e488be5d0e137b68edc2c65decead7e0aa35316fb59c5ce2d0730","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/f66096dad39e488be5d0e137b68edc2c65decead7e0aa35316fb59c5ce2d0730.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/notice_proposed_LocalRules_amendments_12-2023.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:00.348418+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@\n+U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota\n+GenAI FAQ\n+October 1, 2025\n+What is Generative AI?\n+Generative AI, often referred to as “GenAI,” is a set of AI tools and techniques trained to detect\n+complex patterns within large textual and audio-visual data sets it is fed. GenAI creates new\n+content, such as text, images, audio, video, and computer code, based on those patterns and\n+in response to human inputs and instructions called “prompts.”\n+What is Generative AI used for?\n+Some litigants use GenAI to help research facts and issues, create �irst drafts of documents\n+and communications (or revise and re�ine human-created drafts of content), summarize\n+large volumes of text, paraphrase existing text, translate foreign-language content, compare\n+documents, and create images and other audio-visual content for presentations.\n+What are the limitations of Generative AI?\n+GenAI’s responses depend on the content and quality of the training data. Responses may be\n+out of date, plausible in appearance but inaccurate (a phenomenon known as “AI\n+hallucination”), or re�lective of biases in the training data . GenAI responses are especially\n+unreliable when relating to facts and issues that are underrepresented in training data. GenAI\n+cannot check the accuracy of its own responses.\n+Do litigants need to disclose the use of GenAI tools to the Court?\n+The District of Minnesota does not currently require disclosure of AI use in court �ilings.\n+Litigants should be aware, however, of AI-use disclosure requirements in other jurisdictions.\n+What are some practice pointers for the use of GenAI tools to assist with legal tasks?\n+When using GenAI tools to assist with legal tasks, be aware that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P . 11\n+and 26(g), you are ultimately responsible for the accuracy and suf�iciency of the resulting\n+work product, and for any other impacts of your GenAI use. Here are some practice pointers:\n+• Av\n+oid entering privileged, con�idential, or otherwise sensitive information into a GenAI\n+tool if you are concerned that data inputs may be retained by the tool or may be\n+intercepted or otherwise accessed by malicious actors . Whenever possible, assess the\n+tool’s terms of use and security statement.\n+• Use detailed prompts to instruct the GenAI tool on the requirements and constraints of\n+the task and on the desired structure of the response. Use follow-up prompts to revise and\n+re�ine initial GenAI responses.\n+• Review the overall accuracy and reliability of GenAI-created factual assertions to avoid the\n+risk of hallucinated content.\n+• Con�irm that GenAI-provided legal research and citations are valid references to existing\n+caselaw, statutes, or regulations that have not been superseded or overruled, and that\n+cited excerpts are not taken out of context.\n+• Review GenAI-created content for professionally appropriate tone, language, and imagery.\n+You must always use GenAI in a manner consistent with applicable ethical obligations ,\n+obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, including Fed. R. Civ. P .\n+11 and 26(g), and duties under controlling protective orders.","id":"90c90be69b3f6cf52c72d495e97afd46ec4c91c91ed02d2625116d1e75dda1ea","newHash":"272f7a5d806a05e6952e32b0119e73caf7b099734f873addba95fbdb0c1584f4","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/272f7a5d806a05e6952e32b0119e73caf7b099734f873addba95fbdb0c1584f4.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:00.647782+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@\n+Artificial Intelligence | Eastern District of Missouri | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+United States District Court\n+Eastern District of Missouri\n+Hon. Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge • Nathan M. Graves, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+Home\n+Court Business\n+Daily Docket\n+Local Rules\n+Administrative Orders\n+Judges' Contact Information and Requirements\n+Courtroom Technology\n+Written Opinions\n+Interpreter Services\n+Forms\n+Financial Matters\n+Jury Instructions\n+Speedy Trial Act Plan - Revised April 2019\n+Jury Plan\n+Processes for Statements Regarding Cooperation and Letters Regarding Sentencing\n+Process for Further Protection of Highly Sensitive Documents\n+Guidance on Filing Sealed Materials for Filers\n+Looking to Pay a Violation Notice Received on Federal Property?\n+Courthouse Accessibility\n+Clerk's Office\n+Hours & Contact Information\n+District Reports\n+Federal Holidays\n+Fee Schedule\n+Transcripts\n+Document Requests\n+Media Information\n+Employment\n+Electronic Device Policy\n+CM/ECF\n+Probation\n+Hours & Contact Information\n+Mission and Vision\n+District Information\n+New to Supervision?\n+Videos/Multimedia\n+Electronic Reporting System\n+Family Support Program\n+Federal Public Defender's Office\n+Treatment Services\n+Forms\n+Money Smart Program\n+Probation Job Opportunities\n+Internship Opportunities\n+Project Home\n+Restoration of Rights\n+Resource Maps\n+Speakers Bureau\n+Fine and Restitution Payments\n+Workforce Development Program\n+Pretrial Services\n+Hours & Contact Information\n+Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)\n+Mission and Vision\n+History\n+SAIL Program\n+Pretrial Diversion Program\n+Motion For Kids\n+MRT Program\n+Job Opportunities\n+Jury Service\n+Jury Selection\n+St. Louis Jurors\n+Hannibal Jurors\n+Cape Girardeau Jurors\n+U.S. Courts National Website\n+Jury Scam or Fraud Alerts\n+Juror FAQs\n+Attorneys\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)\n+Application for Admission\n+Appointed Counsel Fees and Expenses (Civil)\n+Artificial Intelligence\n+Attorney Bar Search\n+Attorney Re-Registration\n+Certificates of Good Standing\n+Changes to Attorney Account Information\n+Courtroom WiFi Service\n+Criminal Justice Act (CJA)\n+Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedures\n+Guidance on Filing Sealed Materials for Filers\n+Information Regarding Entry of Default\n+Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction\n+Pro Bono Service Opportunities\n+Processes for Statements Regarding Cooperation and Letters Regarding Sentencing\n+Process for Further Protection of Highly Sensitive Documents\n+Federal Practice Quadrennial Seminar\n+Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement\n+Self-Represented Litigants (SRL)\n+Prisoner Self Representative\n+Non-Prisoner Self Representative\n+Self-Represented Litigants (SRL) - FAQs\n+Lawyer Referral and Information Service\n+Legal Advice Clinic, Self Help Resources, and Lawyer Search\n+Helpful Links\n+Legal Terms\n+Basics Concerning Discovery\n+About the Court\n+Judges' Contact Information and Requirements\n+District Reports\n+Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse\n+Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr. U.S. Courthouse\n+Hannibal Federal Building\n+8th Circuit U.S. Courts Library\n+Educational Programs\n+Court History\n+Courthouse Tours\n+Counties by Division\n+Privately Funded Seminars\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Attorneys\n+Artificial Intelligence\n+By presenting to the Court any pleading, written motion, or other paper – whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it – self-represented parties and attorneys acknowledge they will be held responsible for its contents, including any portion generated with artificial intelligence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).\n+Attorneys\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)\n+Application for Admission\n+Appointed Counsel Fees and Expenses (Civil)\n+Artificial Intelligence\n+Attorney Bar Search\n+Attorney Re-Registration\n+Certificates of Good Standing\n+Changes to Attorney Account Information\n+Courtroom WiFi Service\n+Criminal Justice Act (CJA)\n+Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedures\n+Guidance on Filing Sealed Materials for Filers\n+Information Regarding Entry of Default\n+Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction\n+Pro Bono Service Opportunities\n+Processes for Statements Regarding Cooperation and Letters Regarding Sentencing\n+Process for Further Protection of Highly Sensitive Documents\n+Federal Practice Quadrennial Seminar\n+Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement\n+Home | Contact Us | Glossary of Legal Terms | Employment | X\n+|Judicial Seminar Disclosure | Judicial Complaints | Privacy Policy | ReachDeck Toolbar","id":"fd36789d253111ac1e3f9da6eb75fec5c80a6b4df512d399652fca9b1fe9d94d","newHash":"9dbc5eddebdd468e7dceace9deef9354099674804a7ca4dbdbfd763c3057ae61","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence","snapshot":"snapshots/9dbc5eddebdd468e7dceace9deef9354099674804a7ca4dbdbfd763c3057ae61.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.moed.uscourts.gov/attorneys/artificial-intelligence","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:00.666518+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"24e4839184897702e69afbb8c7fa4fb5e6e88afc8bfaa8c08d93199962685171","newHash":"08832f68c7b4d0996a4ba036024846f33433781fc5f5e68c7aebdad852aac887","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.montanalawhelp.org/resource/ai-and-legal-resources","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.montanalawhelp.org/resource/ai-and-legal-resources","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:00.722589+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"fed03b123ce71e26c2db0b4b4afae4734131403a7f259351493b28b648aa26db","newHash":"b6d055d0a432e668080f7ceb6dd15f760360c3d5f99193ad0ed4e8ad446fb0f6","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Maryland_Lawyer_Referred_to_Attorney_Grievance_Commission_for_Citing_Fake%20AI_Cases.aspx","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Maryland_Lawyer_Referred_to_Attorney_Grievance_Commission_for_Citing_Fake%20AI_Cases.aspx","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:01.611818+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"5be60d8104d456fe9910a1d5741220553caf9af95998341911a3e4004516bbd7","newHash":"811ff19710d8b267c208e56680134d7c8f9bbab9cc01e90fe222aa54080c415e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:01.682888+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@\n+Case 3:24-mc-00104-MR Document 2 Filed 07/29/26 Page 1 of 5\n+Case 3:24-mc-00104-MR Document 2 Filed 07/29/26 Page 2 of 5\n+Case 3:24-mc-00104-MR Document 2 Filed 07/29/26 Page 3 of 5\n+Case 3:24-mc-00104-MR Document 2 Filed 07/29/26 Page 4 of 5\n+Case 3:24-mc-00104-MR Document 2 Filed 07/29/26 Page 5 of 5","id":"c6e726177efb30d99d81911a54c366cc749ec1f0f8a18563e130806443ff8785","newHash":"3425822492c907cd362a55c023a381e1225ac14e55b811cc92abb49f0861cb27","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/3425822492c907cd362a55c023a381e1225ac14e55b811cc92abb49f0861cb27.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/local_rules/7-29-26%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%203-24mc104.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:01.916997+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,2138 @@\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+i\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA\n+CIVIL RULES\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+1.1 Definitions. .......................................................................................................... 1\n+3.2 Prepayment of Filing Fees. ................................................................................ 1\n+3.3 Applications to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ................................................... 1\n+(a) Financial Affidavit. ................................................................................... 2\n+(b) Prisoner Applications; Trust Account Information. .............................. 2\n+(1) Consent to Release of Information and Fee Payment. .............. 2\n+(2) Continuing Payment Obligation. .................................................. 2\n+(c) Multiple Plaintiffs. .................................................................................... 2\n+4.1 Summons. ........................................................................................................... 2\n+5.1 Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF). ...................................................................... 2\n+(a) Mandatory Electronic Case Opening and Filing. .................................. 3\n+(b) Non-prisoner Pro Se Party Case Filing. ................................................. 3\n+(c) Exceptions. ............................................................................................... 3\n+(d) Facsimile and E-mail Filings Not Allowed. ............................................ 3\n+(e) Timely Filing. ............................................................................................ 4\n+(f) Official Record. ........................................................................................ 4\n+(1) Documents Filed Nonelectronically. ........................................... 4\n+(2) Original Documents Scanned and Discarded. ............................ 4\n+(3) Copies of Filings. .......................................................................... 4\n+(g) File Date. ................................................................................................... 4\n+5.2 Electronic Service. ............................................................................................. 5\n+5.3 Privacy. ................................................................................................................ 5\n+(a) Mandatory Redaction. ............................................................................. 5\n+(b) Discretionary Redaction. ......................................................................... 5\n+(c) Restricting Access to Unredacted Documents. .................................... 6\n+(1) Motion. ........................................................................................... 6\n+(A) Procedure. ........................................................................... 6\n+(B) Unredacted Document Not Attached. ............................... 6\n+(2) Order. ............................................................................................. 6\n+(3) Docket Sheet Entries. ................................................................... 6\n+5.4 Restrictions on Filing Discovery. ...................................................................... 7\n+(a) In General. ................................................................................................ 7\n+(b) Electronic Service of Discovery. ............................................................ 7\n+6.1 Time. .................................................................................................................... 7\n+(a) Computation. ............................................................................................ 7\n+(b) Response Time Computation. ................................................................ 7\n+7.1 Motion Practice. .................................................................................................. 7\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+ii\n+(a) Supporting a Motion. ............................................................................... 8\n+(1) Supporting Brief. ........................................................................... 8\n+(A) Substantial Issue of Law. ................................................... 8\n+(B) No Substantial Issue of Law. ............................................. 8\n+(2) Evidence and Evidence Index. ..................................................... 8\n+(A) Factual Support. ................................................................. 8\n+(B) How to File. ......................................................................... 8\n+(C) Required Affidavit. ............................................................. 9\n+(D) Citations to Evidence. ........................................................ 9\n+(b) Opposing a Motion. ................................................................................. 9\n+(1) Opposing Brief. ............................................................................. 9\n+(A) Form and Content. ........................................................... 10\n+(B) Time for Filing. .................................................................. 10\n+(C) Effect of Failure to File. .................................................... 10\n+(2) Evidence and Evidence Index. ................................................... 10\n+(A) Factual Support. ............................................................... 10\n+(B) How to File. ....................................................................... 10\n+(C) Required Affidavit. ........................................................... 11\n+(c) Replying to Opposing Briefs and Evidence. ....................................... 11\n+(1) Time for Filing. ............................................................................ 11\n+(2) Contents of Reply Brief. ............................................................. 11\n+(3) Leave of Court; When Required. ................................................ 11\n+(d) Word Limits, Generative AI, and Certificate of Compliance. .............. 11\n+(1) Word Limits. ................................................................................ 11\n+(A) Supporting and Opposing Briefs. ................................... 11\n+(B) Reply Briefs. ..................................................................... 11\n+(C) Text Included. ................................................................... 12\n+(2) Motion to Exceed Limits. ............................................................ 12\n+(3) Generative Artificial Intelligence. ............................................... 12\n+(4) Certificate of Compliance. .......................................................... 12\n+(A) Word Limits. ...................................................................... 12\n+(B) Generative Artificial Intelligence. .................................... 13\n+(5) Consequence of Noncompliance. .............................................. 13\n+(e) Request for Oral Argument or Evidentiary Hearing. ........................... 13\n+(f) Request to Present Oral Testimony. .................................................... 13\n+(g) Submission of Motion. .......................................................................... 13\n+(h) Procedures for Summary Judgment Motions. .................................... 13\n+(i) Extensions of Time for Filing or Responding to Motions. ................. 14\n+(j) Discovery Motions. ................................................................................ 14\n+(k) Conference Telephone Calls. ................................................................ 14\n+7.2 Proposed Order. ............................................................................................... 14\n+7.3 Agreements and Stipulations. ......................................................................... 14\n+7.4 Motion to Certify a Question to State Court. .................................................. 14\n+7.5 Sealed Documents and Objects. ..................................................................... 15\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+iii\n+(a) Procedure. .............................................................................................. 15\n+(1) Motion to Seal. ............................................................................. 15\n+(2) Sealed Document not Attached. ................................................ 15\n+(3) Order. ........................................................................................... 15\n+(b) Notice. ..................................................................................................... 15\n+(c) Docket Sheet Entries. ............................................................................ 15\n+(d) Motion to Unseal. ................................................................................... 16\n+7.6 Denial of Pending Motions Upon Reference. ................................................. 16\n+9.1 Pleading Special Matters. ................................................................................ 16\n+(a) Social Security Cases. ........................................................................... 16\n+(1) Social Security Number Required. ............................................ 16\n+(2) Electronic Filing. ......................................................................... 16\n+(A) Transcript or Administrative Records. ........................... 16\n+(b) Claim of Unconstitutionality. ................................................................ 17\n+(c) Request for 3-Judge Court. ................................................................... 17\n+(d) Privacy Issues. ....................................................................................... 17\n+10.1 Form of Documents. ......................................................................................... 17\n+(a) Electronic Filings. .................................................................................. 17\n+(1) Legibility. ..................................................................................... 17\n+(2) Evidence, Exhibits, and Attachments. ...................................... 18\n+(A) Listing or Index. ................................................................ 18\n+(B) Excerpts Required. ........................................................... 18\n+(C) Paper Documents. ............................................................ 18\n+(D) Additional Information. .................................................... 18\n+(3) Content. ....................................................................................... 19\n+(4) Hyperlinks. ................................................................................... 19\n+(A) Cited Authority. ................................................................ 19\n+(B) Responsibility for Hyperlinks. ......................................... 19\n+(b) Nonelectronic Filings. ........................................................................... 19\n+(1) Paper Size; Margins. ................................................................... 19\n+(2) Presentation. ............................................................................... 20\n+(3) Additional Materials. ................................................................... 20\n+(4) Content. ....................................................................................... 20\n+(5) Physical Media Required. ........................................................... 20\n+11.1 Signing of Documents. .................................................................................... 20\n+(a) Electronic Filings. .................................................................................. 20\n+(1) Attorney's Signature. .................................................................. 21\n+(A) Format. .............................................................................. 21\n+(B) Challenges to Authenticity. ............................................. 21\n+(2) Nonattorney Signature. .............................................................. 21\n+(A) Maintenance of Original Document. ............................... 21\n+(B) Disputes. ........................................................................... 21\n+(3) Multiple Signatures. .................................................................... 22\n+(A) Filing Methods. ................................................................. 22\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+iv\n+(B) Disputes. ........................................................................... 22\n+(b) Nonelectronic Filings. ........................................................................... 22\n+12.1 Motions to Dismiss; Suspension of Time to Answer. ................................... 22\n+15.1 Motion to Amend Pleading. ............................................................................. 22\n+(a) Form and Content. ................................................................................. 22\n+(b) Pro Se Cases. ......................................................................................... 23\n+(c) Filing of Amended Pleading. ................................................................. 23\n+16.1 Scheduling Orders. .......................................................................................... 23\n+(a) Entered by Magistrate Judges. ............................................................. 23\n+(b) Excepted Proceedings. ......................................................................... 23\n+(c) Pro Se Cases. ......................................................................................... 24\n+16.2 Pretrial Procedure in Civil Cases. ................................................................... 24\n+(a) Matters to Be Completed Before Final Pretrial Conference. .............. 24\n+(1) Exhibit List. .................................................................................. 24\n+(A) Objections. ........................................................................ 24\n+(B) Exception for Good Cause. ............................................. 25\n+(C) Effect of Listing. ............................................................... 25\n+(2) Proposed Final Pretrial Order. ................................................... 25\n+(A) Exhibits. ............................................................................ 25\n+(B) Uncontroverted Facts. ..................................................... 25\n+(C) Controverted and Unresolved Issues. ............................ 25\n+(D) Witnesses. ......................................................................... 26\n+(E) Expert Witness Qualifications. ........................................ 26\n+(F) Voir Dire. ........................................................................... 26\n+(G) Number of Jurors. ............................................................ 26\n+(H) Verdict. .............................................................................. 27\n+(I) Briefs, Instructions, and Proposed Findings. ................ 27\n+(J) Length of Trial. ................................................................. 27\n+(K) Trial Date. .......................................................................... 27\n+(b) Representation Required. ..................................................................... 27\n+(c) \"Impeachment Purposes\" Defined. ...................................................... 27\n+23.1 Class Action Procedures. ................................................................................ 27\n+(a) Designation on Pleading. ...................................................................... 28\n+(b) Notice to Class Members. ..................................................................... 28\n+(c) Filing of Documents Submitted by Class Members............................ 28\n+26.1 Service of Disclosures. .................................................................................... 28\n+(a) Certificate of Service. ............................................................................ 28\n+(b) Service by E-Mail or Fax. ....................................................................... 28\n+29.1 Discovery Stipulations. .................................................................................... 28\n+30.1 Video Depositions. ........................................................................................... 28\n+(a) Notice. ..................................................................................................... 29\n+(b) Identification of Camera Operator. ....................................................... 29\n+(c) Swearing of Witness. ............................................................................. 29\n+(d) Camera Operation. ................................................................................. 29\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+v\n+(e) Voluntary Resolution of Objections. .................................................... 29\n+(f) Unresolved Objections. ......................................................................... 29\n+32.1 Editing Video Depositions for Court Proceedings. ....................................... 29\n+(a) Notice to Opposing Parties. .................................................................. 29\n+(b) Overruled Objections. ........................................................................... 30\n+(c) Copy to Opposing Parties. .................................................................... 30\n+33.1 Interrogatories. ................................................................................................. 30\n+(a) Sequential Numbering. .......................................................................... 30\n+(b) Separate Definitions Prohibited. .......................................................... 30\n+(c) Number of Interrogatories. .................................................................... 30\n+(d) Form of Response. ................................................................................ 30\n+(e) Certificate of Service. ............................................................................ 30\n+(f) Alternative Methods of Service. ........................................................... 31\n+34.1 Requests for Production or Inspection. ......................................................... 31\n+(a) Form of Response. ................................................................................ 31\n+(b) Certificate of Service. ............................................................................ 31\n+(c) Alternative Methods of Service. ........................................................... 31\n+34.2 Persons Not Parties. ........................................................................................ 31\n+36.1 Requests for Admission. ................................................................................. 31\n+(a) Sequential Numbering. .......................................................................... 31\n+(b) Form of Response. ................................................................................ 31\n+(c) Certificate of Service. ............................................................................ 32\n+(d) Alternative Methods of Service. ........................................................... 32\n+38.1 Notation of \"Jury Demand\" on Pleading. ....................................................... 32\n+39.1 Opening Statements and Closing Arguments. .............................................. 32\n+(a) Opening Statements. ............................................................................. 32\n+(b) Closing Arguments. ............................................................................... 32\n+39.2 Briefs. ................................................................................................................ 33\n+(a) Trial Briefs. ............................................................................................. 33\n+(b) Motion Briefs. ......................................................................................... 33\n+(c) Abandonment of Issues. ....................................................................... 33\n+(d) Habeas Corpus and Post-Conviction Relief. ....................................... 33\n+39.3 Trial Exhibits. .................................................................................................... 33\n+(a) Delivery to Clerk Before Trial. ............................................................... 33\n+(b) Custody. ................................................................................................. 33\n+(c) Special Cases. ........................................................................................ 33\n+(d) Numbering Exhibits. .............................................................................. 34\n+40.1 Trial Calendar. ................................................................................................... 34\n+(a) Setting Trial. ........................................................................................... 34\n+(b) Request for Place of Trial; Form. ......................................................... 34\n+(1) Conflicting Requests. ................................................................. 35\n+(2) Amended Request. ...................................................................... 35\n+(c) Calendaring Cases................................................................................. 35\n+(d) Trial Judge's Designation of Place of Trial. ......................................... 35\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+vi\n+41.1 Settlement Procedures. ................................................................................... 35\n+41.2 Dismissal of Action. ......................................................................................... 36\n+45.1 Subpoenas to Nonparties. ............................................................................... 36\n+(a) Notice to Adverse Party. ....................................................................... 36\n+(b) Objections. ............................................................................................. 36\n+(c) Effect of Failure to Object. .................................................................... 36\n+47.1 Jury Selection. .................................................................................................. 36\n+(a) Voir Dire. ................................................................................................. 36\n+(b) Peremptory Challenges. ........................................................................ 36\n+(c) Waiver of Peremptory Challenges. ....................................................... 37\n+47.2 Disclosure of Juror Identity. ............................................................................ 37\n+48.1 Number of Jurors. ............................................................................................ 37\n+48.2 Jury Deliberations. ........................................................................................... 37\n+(a) Recess. ................................................................................................... 37\n+(b) Attorney Availability. ............................................................................. 37\n+(c) Verdict. .................................................................................................... 37\n+51.1 Proposed Jury Instructions. ............................................................................ 37\n+(a) When Filed and Submitted. ................................................................... 38\n+(b) Objections. ............................................................................................. 38\n+(c) Form. ....................................................................................................... 38\n+52.1 Proposed Findings. .......................................................................................... 38\n+54.1 Taxation of Costs. ............................................................................................ 38\n+(a) Handbook. .............................................................................................. 38\n+(b) Bill of Costs; When Filed; Form. .......................................................... 38\n+(c) To Whom Payable. ................................................................................. 39\n+(d) Waiver of Costs. ..................................................................................... 39\n+(e) Attorney's Fees Excluded. .................................................................... 39\n+54.2 Jury Cost Assessment. .................................................................................... 39\n+54.3 Award of Attorney's Fees and Nontaxable Expenses. .................................. 39\n+(a) Time and Method. .................................................................................. 39\n+(b) Support for Application. ........................................................................ 39\n+(c) Potential Award Issues. ......................................................................... 40\n+54.4 Fee Application Guidelines. ............................................................................. 40\n+(a) Services Performed. .............................................................................. 40\n+(b) Expenses Incurred. ................................................................................ 41\n+(c) Rates of Compensation Requested...................................................... 41\n+55.1 Default Judgment. ............................................................................................ 41\n+(a) Clerk's Entry of Default. ........................................................................ 41\n+(b) Clerk's Entry of Default Judgment. ...................................................... 41\n+(c) Court's Entry of Default Judgment. ...................................................... 42\n+56.1 Summary Judgment Procedure. ..................................................................... 42\n+(a) Moving Party. ......................................................................................... 42\n+(1) Concise Statement of Material Facts. ........................................ 42\n+(2) Form; Citation to Record. ........................................................... 42\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+vii\n+(3) Content. ....................................................................................... 43\n+(4) Filing. ........................................................................................... 43\n+(b) Opposing Party. ..................................................................................... 43\n+(1) Response to Movant's Statement of Material Facts. ................ 43\n+(A) Form; Citation to Record. ................................................ 43\n+(B) Contents of Response. .................................................... 43\n+(2) Statement of Additional Material Facts. .................................... 44\n+(3) Filing. ........................................................................................... 44\n+(c) Reply. ...................................................................................................... 44\n+(d) Effect of Admission. .............................................................................. 44\n+(e) Compliance. ........................................................................................... 45\n+(f) Stipulated Material Facts. ...................................................................... 45\n+58.1 Satisfaction of Judgment. ................................................................................ 45\n+65.1.1 Security; Proceedings Against Sureties. ....................................................... 45\n+(a) General Requirements. .......................................................................... 45\n+(b) Unacceptable Sureties. ......................................................................... 46\n+(c) Corporate Surety. .................................................................................. 46\n+(d) Personal Surety. .................................................................................... 46\n+(e) Cash Bonds. ........................................................................................... 46\n+(f) Cost Bonds. ............................................................................................ 47\n+(g) Insufficiency; Remedy. .......................................................................... 47\n+67.1 Deposits. ........................................................................................................... 47\n+(a) Receipt of Funds. ................................................................................... 47\n+(b) Investment of Registry Funds. ............................................................. 47\n+(c) Assessment of Fees. ............................................................................. 48\n+(d) Withdrawal of Deposit. .......................................................................... 48\n+72.1 Magistrate Judge Duties. ................................................................................. 48\n+72.2 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order or Findings and Recommendations.\n+........................................................................................................................... 49\n+(a) Statement of Objections. ....................................................................... 49\n+(b) Evidence. ................................................................................................ 49\n+(1) Nondispositive Orders. ............................................................... 49\n+(2) Dispositive Orders. ..................................................................... 49\n+(c) No Stay of Nondispositive Order Pending Resolution of Objections.\n+................................................................................................................. 49\n+(d) Nondispositive Orders; Consent Cases Excluded.............................. 50\n+(e) Dispositive Orders; Remand. ................................................................ 50\n+(f) Dispositive Orders; Failure to Object. .................................................. 50\n+72.3 Review of Magistrate Judge's Order in Special Master Report. ................... 50\n+73.1 Magistrate Judge; Trial by Consent. ............................................................... 50\n+(a) Random Assignment. ............................................................................ 50\n+(b) Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge. ....................................... 51\n+79.1 Custody of Files and Exhibits. ........................................................................ 51\n+(a) Clerk's Custody. ..................................................................................... 51\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+viii\n+(b) Viewing and Copying Court Files. ........................................................ 51\n+(1) Paper Files. .................................................................................. 51\n+(2) Electronic Files. ........................................................................... 51\n+(3) Payment for Copies. ................................................................... 51\n+(c) Inspecting Physical Evidence. .............................................................. 52\n+(d) Temporary Withdrawal of Paper Court Files, Exhibits, and\n+Documents. ............................................................................................ 52\n+(e) Permanent Withdrawal of Files and Documents. ................................ 52\n+(f) Withdrawal or Destruction of Exhibits at Case Conclusion. .............. 52\n+(1) Withdrawal. .................................................................................. 52\n+(A) Duty to Retain Exhibits. ................................................... 52\n+(B) Sanctions. ......................................................................... 53\n+(2) Destruction. ................................................................................. 53\n+81.1 Removed Actions. ............................................................................................ 53\n+85.1 Title; Citation. .................................................................................................... 53\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+1\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA\n+CIVIL RULES\n+1.1 Definitions.\n+The following definitions apply to these rules, unless stated otherwise.\n+(a) \"Judge\" means any district or magistrate judge serving this district.\n+(b) \"Court\" means \"judge\" or, collectively, the judges of this district.\n+(c) \"Clerk\" means the clerk or a deputy clerk of this district.\n+(d) \"Marshal\" means the United States Marshal or a deputy marshal of this\n+district.\n+(e) \"System\" means the District of Nebraska' s Case Management/Electronic\n+Case Files (CM/ECF) System.\n+(f) \"Electronic filing\" or \"electronically file \" means uploading a document\n+directly from a registered user's computer, using the court's Internet-based\n+System to file that document in the court 's case file. Electronic filing also\n+includes uploading to the System done by the clerk of documents given to\n+the court in paper format or as .pdf ( \"Portable Document Format \") files .\n+Sending a document to the court via electronic mail (e- mail) or facsimile\n+transmission (fax) is not electronic filing.\n+(g) \"Filing\" or \"file\" means \"electronic filing \" or \"electronically file. \" A paper\n+document is considered filed on the date the clerk receives and file stamps\n+it rather than the date the clerk uploads it to the System.\n+(h) \"NEF\" means \"notice of electronic filing.\"\n+3.2 Prepayment of Filing Fees.\n+Statutory filing fees must be paid before a case is filed and process is issued .\n+Exceptions are proceedings in forma pauperis as governed by statute or local\n+rules.\n+3.3 Applications to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+2\n+(a) Financial Affidavit.\n+A financial affidavit that substantially complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and\n+discloses the applicant 's income, assets, expenses, and liabilities must\n+accompany an application to proceed in forma pauperis.\n+(b) Prisoner Applications; Trust Account Information.\n+In addition to submitting a financial affidavit, a prisoner as defined by 28\n+U.S.C. § 1915A(c) filing a complaint and seeking leave to proceed in forma\n+pauperis must file a certified copy of the prisoner's trust account information\n+that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).\n+(1) Consent to Release of Information and Fee Payment.\n+An application to proceed in forma pauperis is consent for the\n+institution to release trust account information to the clerk and to pay\n+any filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).\n+(2) Continuing Payment Obligation.\n+The court must continue to collect, and the institution must continue\n+to pay, the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) until the fee\n+is fully paid, despite dismissal of a case in which the court granted\n+leave to proceed in forma pauperis . This subparagraph does not\n+apply to petitions for writ of habeas corpus.\n+(c) Multiple Plaintiffs.\n+If more than one person brings a civil action for which leave to proceed in\n+forma pauperis is requested, each plaintiff must file an application, affidavit,\n+and, if applicable, trust account information. In multiplaintiff prisoner civil\n+rights cases, the assigned judge may require each prisoner to pay the full\n+district court filing fee; joinder of plaintiffs is allowed if appropriate under\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.\n+4.1 Summons.\n+The plaintiff is responsible for completing a summons and arranging service. The\n+clerk is authorized to sign orders specially appointing persons to serve process .\n+The clerk is authorized to sign, seal, and issue summonses and subpoenas\n+electronically. Electronically issued summonses and subpoenas may not,\n+however, be served electronically.\n+5.1 Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF).\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+3\n+(a) Mandatory Electronic Case Opening and Filing.\n+Attorneys filing new civil cases in this district are required to open the cases\n+themselves using the System. All documents must be filed electronically.\n+(b) Non-prisoner Pro Se Party Case Filing.\n+(1) Only non- prisoner pro se part ies to pending civil cases may file\n+documents electronically. The clerk will deny any request for\n+electronic filing made by prisoners or pro se part ies who are not\n+parties to pending civil cases.\n+(2) An initial request to electronically file in this court must be submitted\n+through PACER. See NEGenR 1.3(b)(1). Subsequent requests to\n+electronically file in later -filed cases must be made to the clerk by\n+email at clerk@ned.uscourts.gov.\n+(c) Exceptions.\n+The following matters or individuals are excepted from mandatory electronic\n+case opening and filing:\n+(1) pro se parties who are not registered users;\n+(2) cases filed under seal by court order;\n+(3) exhibits, evidence, or attachments, the nature of which precludes\n+electronic filing;\n+(4) cases or documents excepted by statute or rule; and\n+(5) situations in which an attorney applies for and receives permission\n+from:\n+(A) the chief judge to have the clerk open the new case on the\n+System; or\n+(B) the assigned judge to file documents nonelectronically.\n+(d) Facsimile and E-mail Filings Not Allowed.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+4\n+A document is not filed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure until the\n+filing party receives a System generated NEF after uploading the document\n+to the System. A document faxed or e-mailed to the clerk or assigned judge\n+is not considered filed without a court order.\n+(e) Timely Filing.\n+A document is considered timely filed if filed before midnight Central\n+Standard Time (or Central Daylight Time, if in effect) . However, the\n+assigned judge may order a document filed by a time certain.\n+(f) Official Record.\n+The clerk does not maintain a paper court file in any case unless required\n+by law or local rule. When a document is filed electronically, the official\n+record is the electronic recording of the document as stored by the court,\n+and the filing party is bound by the document as filed.\n+(1) Documents Filed Nonelectronically.\n+The official record also includes documents filed nonelectronically\n+under local rule.\n+(2) Original Documents Scanned and Discarded.\n+The clerk scans and discards original documents brought to the clerk\n+for filing unless the document's size or nature requires that it be kept\n+in a paper format. An attorney who wishes to have an original\n+document returned after the clerk scans and uploads it to the System\n+may, before submitting the document to the clerk, ask the assigned\n+judge for writte n authorization for the document 's return .\n+Authorization is granted on a case-by-case basis. The court does not\n+allow blanket authorizations for the return of all original documents\n+filed by an attorney or office.\n+(3) Copies of Filings.\n+A party who requests a copy of a paper document submitted for filing\n+must, at the time of filing, supply the clerk's office with the copy and,\n+if the return is to be made by mail, a self -addressed, stamped\n+envelope.\n+(g) File Date.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+5\n+Except for documents first filed with the court nonelectronically and then\n+uploaded to the System, a document filed electronically is considered filed\n+as of the date and time stated on the NEF.\n+5.2 Electronic Service.\n+A party filing electronically must serve a nonregistered user of the System with (A)\n+a paper copy of any electronically filed document, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a); and (B)\n+proof of the filing, defined as a copy of either (i) the associated NEF or (ii) the\n+document bearing the header printed by the System.\n+5.3 Privacy.\n+(a) Mandatory Redaction.\n+See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) or Federal Rule of Bankruptcy\n+Procedure 9037 regarding mandatory redaction in electronic and\n+nonelectronic filings. The following privacy rules also apply to all documents\n+and exhibits filed in the district and bankruptcy courts.\n+(b) Discretionary Redaction.\n+The filing party may also redact the following information from all documents\n+and exhibits filed electronically or nonelectronically, unless the assigned\n+judge orders otherwise:\n+(1) personal identifying numbers, such as driver's license numbers;\n+(2) home street addresses;\n+(3) medical or psychological records;\n+(4) employment history;\n+(5) individual financial information;\n+(6) proprietary or trade secret information;\n+(7) information that may identify a cooperating individual;\n+(8) information regarding a crime victim;\n+(9) national security information;\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+6\n+(10) sensitive security information as described in 49 U.S.C. § 114(s);\n+(11) education records as defined by 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A); and\n+(12) other data as the court orders.\n+(c) Restricting Access to Unredacted Documents.\n+With the court's leave, a party may restrict access to a document containing\n+the unredacted personal data identifiers listed in Nebraska Civil Rule 5.3(b),\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, or Federal Rule of Bankruptcy\n+Procedure 9037.\n+(1) Motion.\n+(A) Procedure.\n+A party seeking to file an unredacted document must\n+electronically file a motion to restrict access to the document\n+under the E -Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 347,\n+116 Stat. 2899 (Dec. 17, 2002) (codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 3701-\n+3707 and scattered sections) ( \"E-Government Act \"). The\n+motion must state why filing an unredacted document is\n+necessary and why redaction would not reduce or eliminate\n+the need for restriction.\n+(B) Unredacted Document Not Attached.\n+The unredacted document must not be attached to the\n+motion, but rather filed separately as a restricted document .\n+The document remains provisionally restricted pending the\n+ruling on the motion to restrict access . If the court denies the\n+motion, it will direct the clerk to lift the restriction on the\n+unredacted document.\n+(2) Order.\n+In ruling on the motion, the assigned judge may lift the restriction on\n+the document, strike it, or order the filing party to place a redacted\n+copy of the document on the public docket.\n+(3) Docket Sheet Entries.\n+When access to a document is restricted under the E -Government\n+Act, an entry noting the restricted access appears on the public\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+7\n+electronic docket sheet; however, only parties of record and court\n+users may routinely access the document electronically . The public\n+does not have remote access to the restricted document from the\n+docket sheet. The court may grant the public leave for remote access\n+upon motion.\n+5.4 Restrictions on Filing Discovery.\n+(a) In General.\n+Disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and (2),\n+depositions, interrogatories, answers and objections to interrogatories,\n+requests for admissions, answers and objections to requests for\n+admissions, requests to produce or inspect, and responses to requests to\n+produce or inspect must not be filed until needed for trial, resolution of a\n+motion, or on the court's order. If a member of the public asks the clerk for\n+nonfiled documents, the parties must make the documents available for\n+inspection, subject to the entry of protective orders under the Federal Rules\n+of Civil Procedure and other applicable law provisions.\n+(b) Electronic Service of Discovery.\n+Notwithstanding the restrictions on filing discovery documents in\n+subparagraph (a) of this rule, the parties may agree at any time to serve\n+discovery documents electronically (e.g., by e-mail or fax).\n+6.1 Time.\n+(a) Computation.\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 applies when computing any period of\n+time stated in these rules.\n+(b) Response Time Computation.\n+Unless a local rule states otherwise, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6\n+governs the computation of response time.\n+7.1 Motion Practice.\n+All miscellaneous motions, applications, requests, and petitions are filed and\n+considered under this rule. Unless this rule states otherwise, a party who does not\n+follow this rule may be considered to have abandoned in whole or in part that\n+party's position on the pending motion.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+8\n+(a) Supporting a Motion.\n+A moving party must state the basis for the motion and the specific relief\n+requested.\n+(1) Supporting Brief.\n+(A) Substantial Issue of Law.\n+A motion raising a substantial issue of law must be supported\n+by a brief filed and served together with the motion. The brief\n+must be separate from, and not attached to or incorporated in,\n+the motion or index of evidence. The brief must concisely state\n+the reasons for the motion and cite to supporting authority . A\n+party's failure to brief an issue raised in a motion may be\n+considered a waiver of that issue . The brief must not recite\n+facts unless supported as described in Nebraska Civil Rule\n+7.1(a)(2).\n+(B) No Substantial Issue of Law.\n+A brief is not required if (i) a motion raises no substantial issue\n+of law and (ii) relief is within the court 's discretion. Examples\n+include motions to which all parties consent, to withdraw as\n+counsel to a party, for an extension of time, or for leave to\n+proceed in forma pauperis . If the court concludes that a\n+motion raises a substantial issue of law, however, it may treat\n+the failure to file a brief as an abandonment of the motion.\n+(2) Evidence and Evidence Index.\n+(A) Factual Support.\n+If a motion requires the court to consider any factual matters\n+not stated in the pleadings, when filing the supporting brief the\n+moving party must also file and serve supporting evidentiary\n+materials not previously filed.\n+(B) How to File.\n+Evidentiary materials in support of a brief or statement of\n+undisputed material facts must be filed separately with an\n+evidence index listing each item of evidence being filed and\n+identifying the motion to which it relates. Electronically filed\n+exhibits must include both a category (e.g., Exhibit A or Exhibit\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+9\n+1) and a description (e.g., Deposition of John Doe), identified\n+in the evidence index.\n+(C) Required Affidavit.\n+An affidavit must identify and authenticate any documents\n+offered as evidence. The affidavit must be made on personal\n+knowledge, set forth facts that would be admissible in\n+evidence, show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to\n+testify to the matters stated, and identify the related motion.\n+Evidentiary materials authenticated by the affidavit must be\n+filed separately in accordance with NECivR 7.1(2)(B), and\n+may not be filed in the same document as the affidavit.\n+The affidavit must identify the evidence being authenticated\n+using the relevant exhibit category provided in the evidence\n+index (e.g., Exhibit A or Exhibit 1). Affidavits may, but are not\n+required to, identify evidence using the description, so long as\n+the exhibit category is also present (e.g., Exhibit A (Deposition\n+of John Doe)).\n+(D) Citations to Evidence.\n+A factual assertion in the motion and the supporting brief must\n+cite to the pertinent page of the pleading, affidavit, deposition,\n+discovery material, or other evidence on which the moving\n+party relies.\n+For already-filed evidence, citations must indicate the correct\n+docket number and the docket page number (e.g., Filing no.\n+1-2 at 7). Citations should not include the \"Page ID\" number.\n+For contemporaneously filed evidence, citations must identify\n+the exhibit category from the index and the page number (e.g.,\n+Exhibit A at 7).\n+Citations may, but are not required to, include the description\n+of the evidence, so long as the exhibit category is also present\n+(e.g., Exhibit A (Deposition of John Doe) at 7; Filing no. 1- 2\n+(Deposition of John Doe) at 7).\n+(b) Opposing a Motion.\n+(1) Opposing Brief.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+10\n+(A) Form and Content.\n+The party opposing a motion must not file an \" answer,\"\n+\"opposition,\" \"objection,\" or \"response,\" or any similarly titled\n+responsive filing. Rather, the party must file a brief that\n+concisely states the reasons for opposing the motion and cites\n+to supporting authority. The brief must not recite facts unless\n+supported as stated in Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(b)(2).\n+(B) Time for Filing.\n+A brief opposing a motion to dismiss, for judgment on the\n+pleadings, for a more definite statement, or for summary\n+judgment must be filed and served within 21 days after the\n+motion and supporting brief are filed and served. A brief\n+opposing any other motion must be filed and served within 14\n+days after the motion and supporting brief are filed and\n+served.\n+(C) Effect of Failure to File.\n+Failure to file an opposing brief is not considered a confession\n+of a motion but precludes the opposing party from contesting\n+the moving party's statement of facts.\n+(2) Evidence and Evidence Index.\n+(A) Factual Support.\n+When filing the opposing brief, the opposing party must also\n+file and serve supporting evidentiary material not previously\n+filed. A factual assertion in the opposing brief must cite to the\n+pertinent page of the pleading, affidavit, deposition, discovery\n+material, or other evidence on which the opposing party relies.\n+(B) How to File.\n+Evidentiary materials may be attached to the brief , or the\n+statement respecting undisputed material facts in response to\n+a summary judgment motion, if the brief includes a listing of\n+each item of evidence being filed, and the evidence citations\n+within the brief provide hyperlinks to the evidence attached\n+and offered in support of the factual statements . In all other\n+cases, evidentiary materials may not be attached to the brief\n+but rather must be filed separately with an index listing each\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+11\n+item of evidence being filed and identifying the motion to\n+which it relates.\n+(C) Required Affidavit.\n+An affidavit must identify and authenticate any documents\n+offered as evidence. The affidavit must be made on personal\n+knowledge, set forth facts that would be admissible in\n+evidence, show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to\n+testify to the matters stated, and identify the related motion.\n+(c) Replying to Opposing Briefs and Evidence.\n+(1) Time for Filing.\n+A reply brief and index of evidence in support of a motion for\n+summary judgment may be filed within 14 days after the opposing\n+party files and serves the opposing brief. A reply brief in support of\n+any other motion must be filed and served within 7 days after the\n+opposing party files and serves the opposing brief.\n+(2) Contents of Reply Brief.\n+The reply brief may not merely repeat the moving party 's initial\n+arguments, but rather must address factual or legal issues raised in\n+the opposing brief. Without leave of court, a reply brief may not raise\n+new grounds for relief or present matters that do not relate to the\n+opposing party's response.\n+(3) Leave of Court; When Required.\n+No party may file further briefs or evidence without the court's leave.\n+If the moving party does not file an initial brief, it may not file a reply\n+brief without the court's leave.\n+(d) Word Limits, Generative AI, and Certificate of Compliance.\n+(1) Word Limits.\n+(A) Supporting and Opposing Briefs.\n+Except with the court 's prior permission, a party 's supporting\n+brief or opposing brief may not exceed 13,000 words.\n+(B) Reply Briefs.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+12\n+Except with the court's prior permission, a moving party's reply\n+brief may not exceed 6,500 words.\n+(C) Text Included.\n+All text —including the caption, headings, footnotes, and\n+quotations—counts toward these limits.\n+(2) Motion to Exceed Limits.\n+A party who seeks to exceed these word limits must first obtain the\n+court's permission to do so by filing and serving a motion of no more\n+than 500 words that (1) indicates whether the motion is unopposed\n+or opposed after conferring with opposing parties; (2) explains the\n+reason for the requested relief; and (3) states the proposed number\n+of additional words. The court will grant such a motion only up on a\n+showing of good cause. A party who opposes such a motion may,\n+within 7 days, file and serve a response in opposition of no more than\n+500 words. A motion under this section shall not serve to extend the\n+deadline for filing the brief, and any extension must be separately\n+sought and granted.\n+(3) Generative Artificial Intelligence.\n+All parties are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of their legal\n+briefing—including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions,\n+and legal analysis —regardless of whether generative artificial\n+intelligence programs drafted any portion of that filing. See Fed. R.\n+Civ. P. 11(b). All parties are expected, if using generative artificial\n+intelligence programs, to verify the contents of their filings.\n+(4) Certificate of Compliance.\n+A brief shall include a certificate executed by the author affirming that\n+the brief complies with the requirements of this subsection.\n+(A) Word Limits.\n+The certificate must state how many words the brief contains.\n+Certifying authors may rely on the word-count function of their\n+word-processing software if they certify that the function was\n+applied to include all text, including the caption, headings,\n+footnotes, and quotations, and include the name and version\n+of the word-processing software used.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+13\n+(B) Generative Artificial Intelligence.\n+The certificate must state that no generative artificial\n+intelligence program was used in drafting the document, or\n+that to the extent such a program was used, a human\n+signatory of the document verified the accuracy of all\n+generated text, including all citations and legal authority.\n+(5) Consequence of Noncompliance.\n+Any brief not in compliance with this subsection may be stricken, with\n+or without further notice, in the sole discretion of the court. A material\n+misrepresentation in the certificate of compliance may result in\n+striking the document and sanctions against the person signing the\n+document. The opposing party shall not file a motion to strike based\n+on alleged noncompliance with this subsection.\n+(e) Request for Oral Argument or Evidentiary Hearing.\n+Any request for oral argument or for an evidentiary hearing by a moving\n+party must be included in the motion or else presented by a separate motion\n+filed no later than the deadline for filing a reply brief. Any request for oral\n+argument or for an evidentiary hearing by an opposing party must be\n+presented by a motion filed no later than the deadline for filing an opposing\n+brief. In general the court does not allow oral argument or evidentiary\n+hearings on motions. The party requesting oral argument or an evidentiary\n+hearing must state (1) why argument or a hearing is necessary and (2) an\n+estimate of the time required for the argument or hearing.\n+(f) Request to Present Oral Testimony.\n+A party failing to request the opportunity to present oral testimony consents\n+to the motion' s submission without oral testimony . No oral testimony is\n+allowed without the court's prior leave.\n+(g) Submission of Motion.\n+Unless the court grants leave for oral argument, a motion is submitted on\n+the briefs and any evidence filed when the time limit specified in Nebraska\n+Civil Rule 7.1(c) expires.\n+(h) Procedures for Summary Judgment Motions.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+14\n+See Nebraska Civil Rule 56.1.\n+(i) Extensions of Time for Filing or Responding to Motions.\n+See Nebraska Civil Rule 6.1.\n+(j) Discovery Motions.\n+To curtail undue delay in the administration of justice, this court only\n+considers a discovery motion in which the moving party, in the written\n+motion, shows that after personal consultation with opposing parties and\n+sincere attempts to resolve differences, the parties cannot reach an accord.\n+This showing must also state the date, time, and place of the\n+communications and the names of all participating persons . \"Personal\n+consultation\" means person-to-person conversation, either in person or on\n+the telephone. An exchange of letters, faxes, voice mail messages, or e-\n+mails is also personal consultation for purposes of this rule upon a showing\n+that person-to-person conversation was attempted by the moving party and\n+thwarted by the nonmoving party.\n+(k) Conference Telephone Calls.\n+The judge may conduct a motion hearing by telephone or video conference.\n+7.2 Proposed Order.\n+A party may submit a proposed order to the assigned judge's chambers by e-mail\n+sent to the address listed on the judge' s information page on the court 's website.\n+See https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/attorney/judges-information. A proposed order\n+may not be filed by a party.\n+7.3 Agreements and Stipulations.\n+An agreement, stipulation or consent between parties is binding only if (a) in writing\n+and signed by the parties or their attorneys, or if oral, made a part of the record\n+and (b) approved by an appropriate court order or ruling if required. For provisions\n+on multiple signatures on electronically filed documents, see Nebraska Civil Rule\n+11.1(a)(3). For discovery stipulations, see Nebraska Civil Rule 29.1. The attorney\n+who electronically files a joint stipulation must file a certificate of service.\n+7.4 Motion to Certify a Question to State Court.\n+A party may move to certify a question of state law to the highest court of that state\n+when it appears that (a) an issue of that state' s law is determinative of the case\n+and (b) there is no clear controlling state law precedent . The moving party's brief\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+15\n+must include a statement of the precise issue to be certified. If the court grants the\n+motion, it orders the parties to prepare and file stipulated facts, which this court\n+forwards to the state court. The filing fees and court costs of the state court must\n+be paid directly to the clerk of the state court.\n+7.5 Sealed Documents and Objects.\n+(a) Procedure.\n+(1) Motion to Seal.\n+A party seeking to file a sealed document or object must\n+electronically file a motion to seal. The motion must state why sealing\n+is required and whether redaction could eliminate or reduce the need\n+for sealing. A motion to seal is not required if the document or object\n+is already subject to a protective order or included within a category\n+of documents or objects considered sealed under a federal statute\n+or rule of procedure, local rule, or standing order of this court.\n+(2) Sealed Document not Attached.\n+The document to be sealed must not be attached to the motion but\n+rather filed separately as a provisionally sealed document . The\n+document remains provisionally sealed until the court rules on the\n+motion to seal.\n+(3) Order.\n+In ruling on the motion, the assigned judge may also unseal the\n+document, strike it, or order the filing party to electronically file a\n+redacted copy.\n+(b) Notice.\n+When a sealed document is filed, the System does not provide notice of\n+electronic filing to all parties in the case. The filing party must use alternate\n+forms of service to provide all parties entitled to notice with copies of the\n+sealed document.\n+(c) Docket Sheet Entries.\n+When a sealed document is filed electronically, an entry appears on the\n+electronic docket sheet only for court users . The parties and the public do\n+not have remote access to the sealed document from the docket sheet\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+16\n+unless otherwise ordered by the court.\n+(d) Motion to Unseal.\n+A motion to unseal or view a document or object may be made on any legal\n+grounds.\n+7.6 Denial of Pending Motions Upon Reference.\n+When a district judge refers a case with pending motions to mediation or to the\n+bankruptcy court, the clerk is authorized to enter a text-only order (a) automatically\n+denying all pending motions as of the date of the reference and (b) stating that the\n+denial is made under this rule and without prejudice to refiling.\n+9.1 Pleading Special Matters.\n+(a) Social Security Cases.\n+(1) Social Security Number Required.\n+A person seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner\n+of Social Security under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42\n+U.S.C. § 405(g) must provide, on a separate document attached to\n+the copy of the complaint served on the Commissioner, the social\n+security number of the worker on whose wage record the application\n+for benefits was filed. The complaint must also state that the social\n+security number has been attached to the copy of the complaint\n+served on the Commissioner . Failure to provi de a social security\n+number to the Commissioner may result in sanctions that do not\n+include dismissal of the complaint.\n+(2) Electronic Filing.\n+Absent a showing of good cause, all documents in social security\n+cases filed in this court must be filed and noticed electronically\n+according to local rule, except as noted below.\n+(A) Transcript or Administrative Records.\n+Social security transcripts or administrative records may be\n+nonelectronically filed and served. If a transcript or\n+administrative record is filed nonelectronically, the clerk\n+dockets a text -only event stating that the transcript or\n+administrative record is available to parties and counsel of\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+17\n+record in paper format from the clerk.\n+(b) Claim of Unconstitutionality.\n+A party who pleads the unconstitutionality of an act of Congress or a state\n+statute in any action in which the United States, the state, or a federal or\n+state agency, officer or employee is not a party must notify the court of the\n+question either by (1) checking the appropriate box on the civil cover sheet\n+or (2) stating in the caption of the pleading that alleges unconstitutionality:\n+\"Claim of Unconstitutionality.\" A party raising a claim of unconstitutionality\n+after the complaint must file a document enti tled \"Notice of Claim of\n+Unconstitutionality.\"\n+(c) Request for 3-Judge Court.\n+If a party believes a 3 -judge district court is required to hear an action or\n+proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 or any other federal law, the party must\n+include the words \"3- Judge District Court Requested\" or the equivalent\n+immediately after the title of the first pleading in which the cause of action\n+requiring a 3- judge court is pleaded. Unless the basis for the request is\n+apparent from the pleading, it must be stated in the pleading or in a brief\n+attached statement.\n+(d) Privacy Issues.\n+Documents containing personal identifying information must conform to the\n+E-Government Act . See also NECivR 5.0.3(a); NEGenR 1.3(c) . Parties,\n+attorneys, and court personnel should be vigilant in protecting sensitive\n+personal information found in documents including mental competency\n+evaluations, substance abuse evaluations, and medical reports.\n+10.1 Form of Documents.\n+(a) Electronic Filings.\n+Absent a contrary local rule or assigned judge' s order, all documents must\n+be filed electronically on the System as .pdf files . To make these .pdf files\n+text-searchable, filers should convert word processed documents to .pdf\n+format and then upload them to the System; filers should avoid printing the\n+documents on paper and then scanning them to produce .pdf files for\n+uploading. The following provisions apply to all electronically filed\n+documents.\n+(1) Legibility.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+18\n+The filing party is responsible for the legibility of any scanned\n+document uploaded to the System . If a document cannot be easily\n+read after scanning, the filing party must file it nonelectronically with\n+the clerk.\n+(2) Evidence, Exhibits, and Attachments.\n+(A) Listing or Index.\n+Court filings which include hyperlinks to attached evidence,\n+exhibits, and documents must include a listing of each item of\n+evidence being filed . In all other cases, evidence, exhibits,\n+and attachments in support of a motion must be identified on\n+an electronically filed index of evidence, which must identify\n+the related motion.\n+(B) Excerpts Required.\n+A filer must submit as exhibits or attachments only excerpts\n+of the referenced documents that are directly relevant to the\n+matter under consideration. Excerpted material must be\n+clearly and prominently identified. Persons who file excerpts\n+of documents as exhibits or attachments under this rule do so\n+without prejudice to their right to timely file additional excerpts\n+or the complete document. Responding parties may timely file\n+additional relevant excerpts or, if relevant, the complete\n+document. The court ma y require parties to file additional\n+excerpts or the complete document.\n+(C) Paper Documents.\n+If the court grants a party leave to submit evidentiary materials\n+in paper, the party must also file a paper index of evidence\n+listing each item of evidence being filed and identifying the\n+motion to which it relates . The party must serve copies of\n+nonelectronically filed supporting materials on other parties as\n+if not subject to electronic filing procedures.\n+(D) Additional Information.\n+Additional information on filing evidence or exhibits is\n+available on the court 's website at\n+https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/attorney/electronic-case-filing.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+19\n+(3) Content.\n+A document must plainly show the case caption, a description or\n+designation of its contents, and the party or person/entity on whose\n+behalf it is filed . All documents after the pleading initiating a\n+proceeding must also show the correct docket number . A demand\n+for jury trial, designation of a class action, claim of unconstitutionality\n+of a statute, or request for a 3- judge court must be noted in the\n+pleading caption.\n+(4) Hyperlinks.\n+Electronically filed documents allow only two types of hyperlinks: to\n+other parts of the same document; and to an Internet location that\n+contains a source document for a citation . A hyperlink to evidence\n+attached to a court filing becomes a permissible hyperlink to an\n+Internet location upon filing in CM/ECF . These hyperlinks are\n+provided only for users ' convenience. Users are cautioned that\n+hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees.\n+(A) Cited Authority.\n+Hyperlinks to cited authority may not replace standard citation\n+format. The text of the filed document must include complete\n+citations. Neither a hyperlink, nor any site to which it refers,\n+may be considered part of the record.\n+(B) Responsibility for Hyperlinks.\n+The court accepts no responsibility for and does not endorse,\n+approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or\n+products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the court\n+has no agreements with any of these third parties or their\n+websites. The court accepts no responsibility for any\n+hyperlink's availability or functionality. Thus, the fact that a\n+hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site\n+does not affect the court's opinion.\n+(b) Nonelectronic Filings.\n+If a document must be filed nonelectronically, the following provisions apply.\n+(1) Paper Size; Margins.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+20\n+The paper used must be 82\" x 11\", white, and of standard weight. A\n+2-inch margin must appear at the top of the first page for the clerk 's\n+filing stamp.\n+(2) Presentation.\n+All documents must be single- sided and legibly typewritten,\n+photocopied, printed, or handwritten if necessary, and without\n+materially defacing erasures or interlineations . Attached exhibits\n+must be similarly typewritten, printed, photocopied, or handwritten if\n+necessary, in clear, legible, and permanent form.\n+(3) Additional Materials.\n+Any materials filed in connection with a motion must be accompanied\n+by an index listing each item attached. If not pre- bound, such as a\n+transcript or book, all attachments to the index printed on 82 \" x 11\"\n+paper must be bound together by fasteners . All materials not\n+amenable to binding must be submitted in an envelope or other\n+closeable container.\n+(4) Content.\n+A document filed nonelectronically must include the same\n+information as an electronically filed document . See NECivR\n+10.1(a)(3).\n+(5) Physical Media Required.\n+Electronic documents filed nonelectronically, such as audio or video\n+files, must be provided to the Clerk of the Court and parties entitled\n+to service in the case by a commonly used physical media format,\n+such as an optical disc or flash drive. Providing a document only by\n+linking to a cloud storage service such as Dropbox or OneDrive is\n+not sufficient.\n+11.1 Signing of Documents.\n+(a) Electronic Filings.\n+The user login and password required to file documents on the System\n+serve as the filer 's signature on electronically filed documents and for\n+purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, these local rules, and any\n+other signature requirement.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+21\n+(1) Attorney's Signature.\n+An electronically filed document that requires an attorney's signature\n+must be signed as follows: \"s/ (attorney name).\"\n+(A) Format.\n+The correct format for an electronic signature follows.\n+s/ Judith Attorney\n+Bar Number: 12345\n+Attorney for (Plaintiff/Defendant)\n+ABC Law Firm\n+123 South Street\n+Omaha, Nebraska 68000\n+Telephone: (402) 123-4567\n+Fax: (402)123-4567\n+E-mail: judith_attorney@law.com\n+(B) Challenges to Authenticity.\n+Any party challenging the authenticity of an electronically filed\n+document or an electronic signature must file an objection\n+within 7 days of receiving the NEF.\n+(2) Nonattorney Signature.\n+If an original document requires a nonattorney 's signature, the filer\n+may (A) scan and upload the signed document to the System or (B)\n+electronically file the document with the nonattorney signature\n+represented by an \" s/\" and the name typed in the space where the\n+signature would otherwise appear.\n+(A) Maintenance of Original Document.\n+The filer must maintain the original signed document in paper\n+form until all time periods for appeal expire. At the court 's\n+request, the filer must provide the original document for\n+review.\n+(B) Disputes.\n+A nonfiling signatory or party who disputes i) the authenticity\n+of an electronically filed document with a nonattorney\n+signature or ii) the authenticity of the signature on a document\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+22\n+must file an objection within 7 days of receiving the NEF.\n+(3) Multiple Signatures.\n+(A) Filing Methods.\n+Documents requiring signatures of more than one party must\n+be electronically filed by i) submitting a scanned document\n+containing all necessary signatures; ii) representing the other\n+parties' consent on the document; or iii) any other court\n+approved manner.\n+(B) Disputes.\n+A nonfiling signatory or party who disputes the authenticity of\n+an electronically filed document containing multiple signatures\n+or the authenticity of the signatures must file an objection\n+within 7 days of receiving the NEF.\n+(b) Nonelectronic Filings.\n+The name, address, telephone number, fax number, and a bar number must\n+be typed under each attorney signature.\n+12.1 Motions to Dismiss; Suspension of Time to Answer.\n+When a party files a motion to dismiss, the time for that party to file an answer to\n+all claims, including those not addressed in the motion, is suspended until 14 days\n+after the court issues a ruling on the motion.\n+15.1 Motion to Amend Pleading.\n+(a) Form and Content.\n+A party who moves for leave to amend a pleading (including a request to\n+add parties) must file as an attachment to the motion an unsigned copy of\n+the proposed amended pleading that clearly identifies the proposed\n+amendments. Except as stated in these rules or court order, the proposed\n+amended pleading must be a complete pleading that, if allowed to be filed,\n+supersedes the original pleading in all respects; no part of the prior pleading\n+may be incorporated into the proposed am ended pleading by reference .\n+The motion for leave to amend must (1) specifically state the proposed\n+amendments and (2) state whether the motion is unopposed or opposed,\n+after conferring with opposing parties.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+23\n+(b) Pro Se Cases.\n+In considering pro se litigants' amended pleadings, the court may consider\n+the amended pleading as supplemental to, rather than as superseding, the\n+original pleading, unless the pleading states that it supersedes the prior\n+pleading.\n+(c) Filing of Amended Pleading.\n+The granting of the motion for leave to amend does not constitute filing the\n+amended pleading. If granted leave to amend, the party must then file the\n+amended pleading.\n+16.1 Scheduling Orders.\n+(a) Entered by Magistrate Judges.\n+(1) Magistrate judges may enter scheduling orders under Federal Rule\n+of Civil Procedure 16(b).\n+(2) In this district, a scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 16 (b) is called a \"Case Progression Order.\"\n+(b) Excepted Proceedings.\n+The proceedings listed below are inappropriate for the scheduling order\n+required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b):\n+(1) habeas corpus cases and motions for post -conviction relief filed\n+under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, and 2255;\n+(2) Social Security cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and any other\n+action for judicial review of an administrative decision of a\n+government agency where review is based on the administrative\n+record;\n+(3) actions to compel arbitration or to confirm or set aside arbitration\n+awards;\n+(4) proceedings to compel or challenge efforts to obtain testimony or\n+production of documents under a subpoena or summons issued by\n+an officer, agency , or instrumentality of the United States not\n+authorized to compel compliance;\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+24\n+(5) appeals from the bankruptcy court;\n+(6) actions for enforcement of a civil fine, penalty , or forfeiture of\n+property;\n+(7) naturalization proceedings;\n+(8) proceedings under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552;\n+and\n+(9) proceedings to compel testimony or production of documents relative\n+to actions in another district or perpetuation of testimony for use in\n+any court.\n+(c) Pro Se Cases.\n+Pro se cases assigned to a district judge for trial are exempt from the\n+disclosure and conference requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+26. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, approximately 30 days after the\n+last defendant files an answer, the court will issue an \"Order Setting\n+Schedule for Progression of Case\" addressing discovery and other issues.\n+No discovery may take place until this progression order is entered except\n+upon motion and order.\n+16.2 Pretrial Procedure in Civil Cases.\n+(a) Matters to Be Completed Before Final Pretrial Conference.\n+(1) Exhibit List.\n+Unless the court orders otherwise, before the pretrial conference\n+documents and objects expected to be introduced as exhibits must\n+be physically numbered and inspected. Exhibits must be listed on\n+approved forms available from the clerk and on the court 's website,\n+https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/forms \" Exhibit List, \" or on forms\n+prepared in substantially the same format . Documents and objects\n+expected to be used solely for impeachment purposes that have not\n+been given to opposing parties need not be numbered or listed until\n+identified at trial. Except upon a showing of good cause, failure to list\n+an exhibit required by this rule to be listed results in its\n+nonadmissibility over an objection.\n+(A) Objections.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+25\n+All objections to the admissibility of any listed exhibit must be\n+noted on the exhibit list . Objections not disclosed on the\n+exhibit list, other than objections under Federal Rules of\n+Evidence 402 and 403, are considered waived unless\n+excused by the court for good cause.\n+(B) Exception for Good Cause.\n+The judge holding the pretrial conference may, for good cause\n+shown, authorize the parties to defer listing exhibits or\n+objections until a later date specified by that judge.\n+(C) Effect of Listing.\n+Merely because a party lists an exhibit on an exhibit list does\n+not mean that an opposing party may offer it into evidence\n+without meeting all necessary evidentiary prerequisites.\n+(2) Proposed Final Pretrial Order.\n+Unless the court orders otherwise, a proposed \"Order on Final\n+Pretrial Conference\" that includes each matter listed below must be\n+jointly prepared and presented to the judge at the pretrial conference.\n+An acceptable pretrial order form is available from the clerk or on the\n+court's website, https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/forms \"Order on Final\n+Pretrial Conference.\"\n+(A) Exhibits.\n+A complete list of exhibits and objections prepared under\n+Nebraska Civil Rule 16.2(a)(1) must be attached to the\n+proposed order.\n+(B) Uncontroverted Facts.\n+The parties must jointly state any facts that may be accepted\n+as established at trial, in a form that may be read to the jury.\n+(C) Controverted and Unresolved Issues.\n+The parties must jointly list all remaining legal issues to be\n+determined, setting out in detail each element of the genuinely\n+controverted unresolved claim or defense (including issues on\n+the merits and issues of jurisdiction, venue, joinder, validity of\n+appointment of a representative of a party, class action,\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+26\n+substitution of parties, attorney 's fees and applicable law\n+under which fees are claimed, and prejudgment interest). The\n+following must be specified: (i) any claimed special damages\n+or permanent injuries; (ii) any elements of negligence and\n+contributory negligence; and (iii) any other unresolved matters\n+requiring the court 's attention, for example, possible\n+consolidation for trial, bifurcated trials on specified issues, and\n+pending motions.\n+(D) Witnesses.\n+Each party must separately list all witnesses, including\n+rebuttal witnesses, whom that party expects to call to testify,\n+except witnesses who may be called for impeachment\n+purposes as defined in Nebraska Civil Rule 16.2(c) . The list\n+must (1) include the city and state where each witness resides\n+and (2) identify witnesses whom the party expects to be\n+present and whom the party may call. Except upon a showing\n+of good cause, a witness whose name and city of residence\n+does not appear on the list will not be permitted to testify over\n+objection for any purpose except impeachment . The witness\n+list must identify each witness whose only testimony is\n+intended to establish foundation for an exhibit for which\n+foundation has not been waived, and unless the witness was\n+disclosed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3), over\n+objection the witness may not testify for any other purpose. A\n+witness appearing on any party's witness list may be called by\n+any other party.\n+(E) Expert Witness Qualifications.\n+The parties must separately list persons whom they expect to\n+call as expert witnesses and (i) state each witness 's\n+qualifications or (ii) attach the witness's curriculum vitae.\n+(F) Voir Dire.\n+In cases to be tried to a jury, parties must state any requests\n+regarding the conduct of juror examination . See Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 47(a); NECivR 47.2(a).\n+(G) Number of Jurors.\n+In cases to be tried to a jury, parties must state a preference\n+regarding the number of jurors . See Fed. R. Civ. P. 48;\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+27\n+NECivR 48.1.\n+(H) Verdict.\n+In cases to be tried to a jury, the parties must state whether\n+they will stipulate to a less-than-unanimous verdict.\n+(I) Briefs, Instructions, and Proposed Findings.\n+Parties must state any requests regarding: deadlines for filing\n+trial briefs, see NECivR 39.2(a); proposed jury instructions,\n+see NECivR 51.1(a); or proposed findings of fact, see NECivR\n+52.1.\n+(J) Length of Trial.\n+Parties must estimate the length of trial (in days) and state\n+both the minimum and maximum number of trial days that the\n+court should reserve.\n+(K) Trial Date.\n+Parties must state any special requests regarding the setting\n+of a trial date.\n+(b) Representation Required.\n+Unless otherwise approved in advance by the judge conducting the\n+conference, each party for whom an attorney has filed an appearance must\n+be represented at the conference by the lead trial attorney who has\n+adequate information and authority to responsibly and effectively participate\n+in every aspect of the conference. All attorneys attending the final pretrial\n+conference must be identified in the final pretrial order and may be required\n+to sign the order approving its form at the conference.\n+(c) \"Impeachment Purposes\" Defined.\n+With regard to this rule, \"impeachment purposes\" means only to attack or\n+support (1) a witness 's credibility or (2) the validity of or the weight to be\n+given to the contents of a document or object used solely to attack or\n+support a witness 's credibility. It does not include evidence that merely\n+contradicts other evidence.\n+23.1 Class Action Procedures.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+28\n+(a) Designation on Pleading.\n+In a case filed as a class action, the complaint or other pleading asserting\n+a class action must include in its caption the phrase \"Class Action.\"\n+(b) Notice to Class Members.\n+In addition to the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+23(c)(2)(B), all notices to class members must specifically state that all\n+documents sent to the court by any class member, including any letter or\n+document expressing the member 's desire to be excluded from the class\n+and any objection to a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or\n+compromise, are filed electronically by the clerk and therefore will be\n+available for public review.\n+(c) Filing of Documents Submitted by Class Members.\n+Before the clerk electronically files any document submitted by a class\n+member, the clerk must provide the document to the assigned judge' s\n+chambers. The judge will instruct the clerk concerning the filing of the\n+document and its appropriate docket entry.\n+26.1 Service of Disclosures.\n+(a) Certificate of Service.\n+When serving disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)\n+and (2), the disclosing party must electronically file a certificate of service.\n+(b) Service by E-Mail or Fax.\n+To the extent practicable and if all parties agree, Rule 26(a)(1) and (2)\n+disclosures may be served by e-mail or fax.\n+29.1 Discovery Stipulations.\n+If stipulations to extend the time stated in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34,\n+and 36 for responses to discovery would interfere with court -imposed discovery\n+deadlines, motion deadlines, or trial dates, the stipulations are effective only upon\n+court order. All other discovery stipulations are effective when the parties file a\n+written stipulation signed by all parties that specifies the agreed upon change.\n+30.1 Video Depositions.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+29\n+Video depositions are authorized without a prior motion and order.\n+(a) Notice.\n+The deposition notice must state that the deposition will be recorded by\n+video.\n+(b) Identification of Camera Operator.\n+At the deposition, the camera operator must be identified . An employee of\n+the attorney who noticed the deposition may operate the camera.\n+(c) Swearing of Witness.\n+The witness must be sworn on camera.\n+(d) Camera Operation.\n+The camera must be directed at the witness at all times, showing a head\n+and shoulders view. Close-up views of exhibits are allowed as requested by\n+the questioning attorney.\n+(e) Voluntary Resolution of Objections.\n+Before trial, a party seeking to use the deposition at trial must initiate the\n+voluntary resolution of objections made at the deposition.\n+(f) Unresolved Objections.\n+The party seeking to use the deposition at trial must submit any unresolved\n+objections to the court in a motion in limine after the deposition, but no later\n+than 7 days before trial or, alternatively, the date set by the pretrial order. A\n+transcript of the video must accompany the motion.\n+32.1 Editing Video Depositions for Court Proceedings.\n+(a) Notice to Opposing Parties.\n+After the court rules on the unresolved objections raised in a motion in limine\n+brought under Nebraska Civil Rule 30.1(f), the party seeking to use the\n+deposition must notify opposing parties of the pages and line numbers of\n+the deposition transcript that the party plans to delete from the tape. The\n+party seeking to use the video deposition at trial must then edit the tape\n+accordingly and bear the editing expense.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+30\n+(b) Overruled Objections.\n+If the court overrules an objection made during the deposition, the objection\n+need not be deleted. If requested, the court will give an instruction regarding\n+objections heard on the video when the deposition is shown at trial.\n+(c) Copy to Opposing Parties.\n+At least 7 days before showing the video, the party seeking to use the tape\n+at trial must deliver a copy of the edited video to opposing attorneys . An\n+opposing attorney may only object if (1) the edited version does not comply\n+either with (A) the parties ' agreement described in Nebraska Civil Rule\n+30.1(e), or (B) the court's ruling on the motion in limine filed under Nebraska\n+Civil Rule 30.1(f); or (2) the quality of the video will make it difficult for the\n+jury to understand. Any objections must be in writing and served at least 24\n+hours before the video is to be shown.\n+33.1 Interrogatories.\n+(a) Sequential Numbering.\n+A party must number each interrogatory sequentially, despite the number\n+of interrogatory sets.\n+(b) Separate Definitions Prohibited.\n+A party may not separately define words used in an interrogatory without\n+the court's leave.\n+(c) Number of Interrogatories.\n+In determining the number of interrogatories, including subquestions, each\n+inquiry seeking a discrete item of information is counted as one\n+interrogatory. For example, the following question is counted as 3\n+interrogatories: \"Please state the name, address, and telephone number of\n+any witness to the accident set forth in the complaint.\"\n+(d) Form of Response.\n+In answering or objecting to interrogatories, the responding party must first\n+state verbatim the interrogatory and immediately thereafter the responsive\n+answer or objection.\n+(e) Certificate of Service.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+31\n+The demanding party, when serving interrogatories, must file a certificate of\n+service. The responding party must also file a certificate of service upon\n+serving a response.\n+(f) Alternative Methods of Service.\n+If all parties agree, interrogatories and answers or objections may be served\n+by e-mail or fax. The answering party must maintain during the pendency\n+of the proceeding a paper copy of all answers to interrogatories, sworn to\n+and signed as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b), and must\n+produce this copy upon a party's request.\n+34.1 Requests for Production or Inspection.\n+(a) Form of Response.\n+In responding or objecting to requests to produce or inspect, the party must\n+first state verbatim the propounded request and immediately thereafter the\n+party's response or objection.\n+(b) Certificate of Service.\n+The demanding party, upon serving a request for production or inspection,\n+must file a certificate of service. The responding party must also file a\n+certificate of service upon serving a response.\n+(c) Alternative Methods of Service.\n+If all parties agree, requests and responses or objections may be served by\n+e-mail or fax.\n+34.2 Persons Not Parties.\n+For the rule on subpoenas to nonparties, see Nebraska Civil Rule 45.1.\n+36.1 Requests for Admission.\n+(a) Sequential Numbering.\n+A party must number each request sequentially, despite the number of sets\n+of requests for admission.\n+(b) Form of Response.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+32\n+In answering or objecting to requests for admission, the responding party\n+must first state verbatim the propounded request and immediately\n+thereafter the party's answer or objection.\n+(c) Certificate of Service.\n+The demanding party, upon serving requests for admission, must file a\n+certificate of service . The responding party must also file a certificate of\n+service upon serving answers or objections.\n+(d) Alternative Methods of Service.\n+If all parties agree, requests and answers or objections may be served by\n+e-mail or fax.\n+38.1 Notation of \"Jury Demand\" on Pleading.\n+If a party demands a jury trial by including it on a pleading, as Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 38(b) allows, a notation must be on the front page and immediately after\n+the title of the pleading, stating \"Demand for Jury Trial\" or the equivalent . This\n+notation serves as a sufficient demand under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+38(b). Failure to use this manner of noting the demand does not result in a waiver\n+under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(d) . Regarding jury trials in removed\n+cases, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(3).\n+39.1 Opening Statements and Closing Arguments.\n+(a) Opening Statements.\n+After the jury is selected and sworn, the party on whom the burden of proof\n+rests may, without arguing, make an opening statement, after which each\n+adverse party may do the same.\n+(b) Closing Arguments.\n+The parties may each make a final argument . The judge, after conferring\n+with the attorneys, allots time for each argument. The plaintiff's attorney may\n+take no more than one-third of the plaintiff's allotted time for rebuttal. Unless\n+ordered otherwise, during rebuttal the plaintiff 's attorney may discuss only\n+subjects previously discussed during either party's closing argument. If the\n+defendant waives closing argument, the plaintiff may not offer rebuttal .\n+However, if the plaintiff waives closing argument, the defendant may make\n+a closing argument. If the party having the burden of proof is not the plaintiff,\n+that party is treated as the plaintiff for purposes of this rule.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+33\n+39.2 Briefs.\n+(a) Trial Briefs.\n+Unless ordered otherwise, each party must file a trial brief at least 7 days\n+before the trial begins.\n+(b) Motion Briefs.\n+Motion briefs must be prepared according to Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1.\n+(c) Abandonment of Issues.\n+Except as stated in Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(b)(1)(C), when by local rule or\n+separate order a time has been set for filing a brief, a judge may treat a\n+party's failure to file a brief or discuss an issue in a brief as an abandonment\n+of that party's position on any issue not briefed or discussed.\n+(d) Habeas Corpus and Post-Conviction Relief.\n+In matters brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254, counsel must file the\n+briefs submitted by the petitioner on direct appeal . In cases brought under\n+§§ 2241, 2254, and 2255, direct appeal briefs may be considered as part of\n+the record of the habeas case. They must not, however, be incorporated by\n+reference in, or considered to be, the petitioner 's brief. Pro se parties are\n+not required to electronically file briefs or other documents.\n+39.3 Trial Exhibits.\n+(a) Delivery to Clerk Before Trial.\n+On the day before the trial begins, attorneys must deliver to the clerk an\n+exhibit list as described in Nebraska Civil Rule 16.2(a)(1).\n+(b) Custody.\n+Exhibits offered or received into evidence during a hearing or trial must be\n+left in the clerk's custody.\n+(c) Special Cases.\n+In cases involving a large number of exhibits or in cases requiring special\n+provisions for access, safekeeping, or inspection of exhibits, attorneys must\n+confer with the courtroom deputy to establish procedures for handling\n+exhibits during and after the trial. Attorneys should (1) prepare trial evidence\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+34\n+that includes a large number of paper documents in an electronic format\n+and (2) may consult with the court 's information technology staff for\n+assistance.\n+(d) Numbering Exhibits.\n+Each party shall affix/add an exhibit sticker and each exhibit sticker shall\n+include the case number and exhibit number. Each party is responsible for\n+numbering that party's intended trial exhibits. In a case with one plaintiff and\n+one defendant, the defendant numbers exhibits with the next 100 series\n+after the plaintiff's last exhibit number (e.g., Ex. 201 where the plaintiff's last\n+exhibit was Ex. 154) . In a case with multiple plaintiffs with separate\n+attorneys and one defendant, each plaintiff numbers ex hibits with a\n+separate 100 series (e.g., Exs. 1-100 for the first plaintiff, Exs. 101-200 for\n+the second plaintiff, and so on); the defendant numbers exhibits with the\n+next 100 series after the final plaintiff 's last exhibit number (e.g., Ex. 501\n+where the fourth plaintiff's last exhibit was Ex. 475) . In cases with multiple\n+defendants with separate attorneys and one plaintiff, the first defendant\n+numbers exhibits with the next 100 series after the plaintiff 's last exhibit\n+number (e.g., Ex. 201 where the plaintiff 's last exhibit was Ex. 154); each\n+defendant numbers exhibits with a subsequent, separate 100 series (e.g.,\n+Ex. 501 for the fourth defendant where the third defendant's final exhibit was\n+Ex. 417).\n+40.1 Trial Calendar.\n+(a) Setting Trial.\n+The court may issue occasional orders or communicate by e- mail to all\n+affected attorneys of record regarding trial settings . Attorneys must keep\n+informed of the progress of the court 's business and be ready when their\n+cases are reached. The district court annually determines trial sessions in\n+North Platte by general order.\n+(b) Request for Place of Trial; Form.\n+The plaintiff at the time of filing a complaint in a civil action, or the removing\n+party at the time of filing a petition for removal, must request trial in Omaha,\n+Lincoln, or North Platte. For cases filed electronically, the place of trial\n+selected on the CM/ECF filing system during case opening will serve as the\n+plaintiff's (or removing party's) designated place of trial. Each defendant or\n+third-party defendant at the time of filing that defendant's first pleading in a\n+civil action, or the plaintiff in a removed action, within 14 days after service\n+of the notice of removal, may file a written request for trial at Omaha,\n+Lincoln, or North Platte. A request for a place different from that requested\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+35\n+by the plaintiff, third- party plaintiff, or removing party must be filed as a\n+motion. Any other party then has 14 days to respond.\n+(1) Conflicting Requests.\n+Conflicting requests may be resolved without oral argument. Except\n+for cases governed by the special rules for the Nebraska docket and\n+the death penalty, see NEGenR 1.4(a)(5)-(6), a judge considers the\n+convenience of the parties, lawyers, witnesses, other related\n+matters, and the interests of justice.\n+(2) Amended Request.\n+A party may amend an initial or opposing request for place of trial at\n+any time based on a change in material circumstances.\n+(c) Calendaring Cases.\n+The clerk calendars a case according to the initial request . If the parties\n+make no initial request, the clerk calendars a case in the city where the case\n+is filed.\n+(d) Trial Judge's Designation of Place of Trial.\n+When circumstances and the interests of justice warrant, the judge to whom\n+the case is assigned may at any time prior to trial designate a place of trial\n+different from that requested by the plaintiff, third-party plaintiff, or removing\n+party. The trial judge shall state the reasons for designating a different place\n+of trial in an order or on the record. In such event, the parties shall have the\n+opportunity to respond either in writing or on the record. Such responses\n+must be filed within 14 days of the tri al judge's designation of a different\n+place of trial unless the trial judge specifies a shorter time within which\n+responses must be filed or entered on the record.\n+41.1 Settlement Procedures.\n+Attorneys must notify the court or clerk when the parties settle an action, and within\n+30 days after notification file all documents necessary to terminate the action,\n+unless the court directs otherwise by written order . If the parties fail to file all\n+documents, the court may dismiss the action without further notice and without\n+prejudice to the right to secure reinstatement of the case within 30 days after the\n+date of the order by showing good cause as to why the parties did not consummate\n+the settlement. If the parties engaged in mediation, the notification to the court or\n+clerk should also state the mediator 's name, the dates of the mediation, and\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+36\n+whether the mediation was successful.\n+41.2 Dismissal of Action.\n+At any time, after appropriate notice, a case not being prosecuted with reasonable\n+diligence may be dismissed for lack of prosecution.\n+45.1 Subpoenas to Nonparties.\n+(a) Notice to Adverse Party.\n+No subpoenas for production or inspection may be issued for service on a\n+nonparty without giving the adverse party notice stating the name and\n+address of the nonparty being subpoenaed, the documents or items to be\n+produced or inspected, the time and place for production or inspection, and\n+the date on which the subpoena will issue.\n+(b) Objections.\n+After receipt of the notice, the adverse party has 7 days to serve written\n+objections to the subpoena on the noticing party . The adverse party must\n+specifically identify the grounds for the objections and must file a certificate\n+of service with the court . No subpoena may be issued for documents or\n+premises whose inspection or production is contested under this rule until\n+the parties resolve the objections . Any unresolved objections will be\n+resolved by the court on appropriate motion filed in accordance with\n+Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1 . Nothing in this rule affects the availability of\n+objections described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d) and (e).\n+(c) Effect of Failure to Object.\n+Failure to object to issuance of a subpoena to a nonparty does not preclude\n+an adverse party from moving for a protective order under Federal Rule of\n+Civil Procedure 26(c).\n+47.1 Jury Selection.\n+(a) Voir Dire.\n+The court determines whether the court, the attorneys, or both will conduct\n+voir dire. The court may limit an attorney's examination by time and subject\n+matter.\n+(b) Peremptory Challenges.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+37\n+Unless ordered otherwise, all parties exercise peremptory challenges\n+alternately, beginning with the plaintiff . Each party is informed, after the\n+exercise of each peremptory challenge, of the identity of each prospective\n+juror peremptorily challenged by each other party.\n+(c) Waiver of Peremptory Challenges.\n+Passing or refusing to exercise a peremptory challenge constitutes a waiver\n+of the right to exercise the challenge. If a party waives the right to exercise\n+a peremptory challenge, the court exercises it after the parties exercise or\n+waive all other challenges to which they are entitled.\n+47.2 Disclosure of Juror Identity.\n+Documents identifying jurors or potential jurors in a case must not appear in the\n+public case file or be given to the public at the courthouse or electronically.\n+48.1 Number of Jurors.\n+After consulting the attorneys, the court determines the number of jurors, which\n+must be between 6 and 12.\n+48.2 Jury Deliberations.\n+(a) Recess.\n+After trial, the court may recess while the jury deliberates . The court may\n+direct the jurors that upon arriving at a verdict they must seal it, give it to the\n+courtroom deputy, and return to the courtroom at a predetermined time for\n+the opening and reading of the verdict.\n+(b) Attorney Availability.\n+Attorneys must be available on short notice during jury deliberations .\n+Attorneys must inform the courtroom deputy of their whereabouts at all\n+times during deliberations.\n+(c) Verdict.\n+Attorneys and parties need not be present when the court announces the\n+verdict.\n+51.1 Proposed Jury Instructions.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+38\n+(a) When Filed and Submitted.\n+Unless ordered otherwise, each party must file requested instructions 7\n+days before the first day of trial. In addition, a party should submit requested\n+instructions in a word processing format on a CD delivered, or through an\n+e-mail addressed to, the trial judge's chambers. A party may file and submit\n+to the trial judge additional requested instructions relating to matters arising\n+during the trial at any time before the trial ends.\n+(b) Objections.\n+Objections to requested jury instructions, with supporting authority, must be\n+filed at least 3 days before the first day of trial.\n+(c) Form.\n+Each requested instruction must be numbered, state the presenting party,\n+and cite the instruction' s source and any additional supporting authority .\n+Parties must use the latest edition of the Eighth Circuit Model Jury\n+Instructions whenever possible. If a submitted instruction is modified from\n+the pattern instruction, deleted material must be in parentheses and\n+additions must be underscored. Requests for routine instructions are\n+unnecessary and should not be filed.\n+52.1 Proposed Findings.\n+In civil nonjury trials, each party must submit detailed proposed findings of fact\n+that, if adopted, would sufficiently form an adequate factual basis, supported by\n+anticipated evidence, to resolve the case and support a judgment . Parties should\n+file their proposed findings of fact at least 7 days before the first day of trial.\n+54.1 Taxation of Costs.\n+(a) Handbook.\n+Attorneys should read the Bill of Costs Handbook available on the court 's\n+web page, https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/plans -and-policies \" Bill of Costs\n+Form (Handbook),\" or from the clerk before submitting a bill of costs or filing\n+a response to a bill of costs.\n+(b) Bill of Costs; When Filed; Form.\n+A party entitled to recover costs must file within 30 days after entry of\n+judgment a verified bill of costs on a form available on the court's web page,\n+https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/forms \"Bill of Costs Form \" or from the clerk .\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+39\n+Post-trial motions do not extend the time for filing a verified bill of costs\n+under this rule.\n+(c) To Whom Payable.\n+Except in (1) suits for civil penalties for violations of criminal statutes and\n+(2) government cases not handled by the Department of Justice, all taxed\n+costs are payable directly to the entitled party and not to the clerk, unless\n+the court orders otherwise.\n+(d) Waiver of Costs.\n+A party failing to file a bill of costs within the time allowed waives taxable\n+costs.\n+(e) Attorney's Fees Excluded.\n+\"Costs\" as used in this rule does not include attorney 's fees. For attorney\n+fee awards, see Nebraska Civil Rule 54.3.\n+54.2 Jury Cost Assessment.\n+To avoid the unnecessary attendance of jurors, parties should notify the clerk of a\n+settlement at least 24 hours before trial is scheduled to begin. The court may\n+assess all juror costs and fees against one or more parties if the parties do not\n+timely notify the clerk of a settlement and a jury is summoned. The court may also\n+assess all juror costs and fees against one or more parties if parties settle a civil\n+action during trial.\n+54.3 Award of Attorney's Fees and Nontaxable Expenses.\n+(a) Time and Method.\n+Where a party may be entitled to receive attorney 's fees and related\n+nontaxable expenses, the court may order, on its own or a party 's motion,\n+the time and method of making showings regarding a fee award. Otherwise,\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) controls the time and method for\n+filing a claim for attorney's fees and related nontaxable expenses.\n+(b) Support for Application.\n+A party applying for attorney's fees and related nontaxable expenses must\n+support the application with appropriate and reliable evidence and authority,\n+including affidavits and any written argument . \"Block billing\"—meaning an\n+entry containing multiple tasks with only one increment of time noted (like\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+40\n+3.20 hours) and one amount billed ($304.00) for the collection of listed\n+tasks—is prohibited. Attorneys should follow appropriate criteria in\n+connection with fee applications.\n+(c) Potential Award Issues.\n+Where a potential fee award issue exists, attorneys should consult the Fee\n+Application Guidelines in Nebraska Civil Rule 54.4.\n+54.4 Fee Application Guidelines.\n+With respect to services performed and expenses incurred in any case, including\n+a Criminal Justice Act case, the following guidelines should help attorneys present\n+to the court information essential to a reasoned explanation of the fee award .\n+Attorneys should also review the most recent circuit court decisions for additional\n+guidance. These fee guidelines also may be appropriate in applications for\n+sanctions.\n+(a) Services Performed.\n+(1) Identify with particularity the work done.\n+(A) For a conference, state who was present, the subjects\n+discussed, and how long it lasted.\n+(B) For research, state who did it, the subjects and issues\n+researched, and whether the results were incorporated into a\n+brief, motion, or pleading.\n+(C) For travel time, segregate it, state who traveled, and the\n+purpose and mode of travel.\n+(D) For filings, identify the filing and who prepared it.\n+(2) Identify the status and background (attorney, paralegal, law student)\n+of each person performing an item of work.\n+(3) If a paralegal or law student performed any services, state the salary\n+or other wage rate at which the attorney or law firm pays the\n+paralegal or law student.\n+(4) If the services apply to more than one case, identify the relative\n+applicability to each case.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+41\n+(b) Expenses Incurred.\n+Identify the expense with particularity.\n+(1) For photocopies, state the items copied, why they were copied, how\n+they were used, and the number of pages copied.\n+(2) For depositions, list the court reporter's name, the date of taking, the\n+deponent's identity, the purpose of the deposition (discovery or\n+evidentiary), and the use made of the deposition.\n+(3) For long-distance telephone calls, list the date, by whom, to whom,\n+and the location of the person called, and the subject of the call.\n+(c) Rates of Compensation Requested.\n+Except in Criminal Justice Act cases, attorneys must file affidavits or other\n+evidence in support of claimed hourly rates and hours.\n+55.1 Default Judgment.\n+(a) Clerk's Entry of Default.\n+To obtain a clerk 's entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+55(a), a party must:\n+(1) file a motion for the clerk's entry of default; and\n+(2) e- mail a proposed clerk 's entry of default to the clerk at\n+clerk@ned.uscourts.gov. This clerk 's entry of default should state\n+that a default is being entered for failure to plead or otherwise defend\n+under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).\n+(b) Clerk's Entry of Default Judgment.\n+If a party requests the clerk to enter a default judgment under Federal Rule\n+of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1), the party must:\n+(1) file a motion for clerk's judgment by default;\n+(2) file an affidavit (a) stating the amount, for a sum certain or that can\n+by computation be made certain, and that does not exceed the\n+amount asked for in the complaint plus the exact computation of\n+interest and costs, and (b) stating that the defendant against whom\n+judgment is to be entered is not an infant or incompetent person as\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+42\n+stated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1); and\n+(3) e- mail a proposed clerk 's judgment for the clerk 's signature to\n+clerk@ned.uscourts.gov.\n+(c) Court's Entry of Default Judgment.\n+If a party requests a judgment from the court under Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 55(b)(2), the party must, after obtaining a clerk's entry of default\n+under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and Nebraska Civil Rule\n+55.1(a):\n+(1) file a motion for default judgment;\n+(2) file an affidavit stating that the party against whom the default\n+judgment is requested is (a) not an infant or incompetent person as\n+stated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55(b)(2) or (b) meets\n+the exceptions stated in Federal Rule 55(b)(2);\n+(3) e- mail to the judge's chambers a proposed judgment; and\n+(4) in cases in which damages must be proved, request an evidentiary\n+hearing before the trial judge.\n+56.1 Summary Judgment Procedure.\n+Unless this rule states otherwise, the procedures of Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1 apply\n+to summary judgment motions. Generally, the court does not hear oral argument\n+on summary judgment motions.\n+(a) Moving Party.\n+(1) Concise Statement of Material Facts.\n+A summary judgment motion shall be supported by a brief and a\n+separate statement of material facts about which the moving party\n+contends there is no genuine issue to be tried and that entitles the\n+moving party to judgment as a matter of law . A fact is \"material\" if\n+pertinent to the outcome of the issues identified in the summary\n+judgment motion. Failure to submit a statement of material facts may\n+be grounds to deny the motion.\n+(2) Form; Citation to Record.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+43\n+The statement of material facts should consist of short numbered\n+paragraphs. Each numbered paragraph shall contain pinpoint\n+references to affidavits, pleadings, discovery responses, deposition\n+testimony (by page and line), or other materials that support the\n+material facts stated in the paragraph. Failure to provide citations to\n+the exact locations in the record supporting the factual allegations\n+may be grounds to deny the motion.\n+(3) Content.\n+The statement of material facts must describe the parties and recite\n+all facts supporting the court's venue and jurisdiction. The statement\n+must not contain legal conclusions.\n+(4) Filing.\n+The statement of material facts shall be filed in a separate document\n+from the motion for summary judgment and brief in support of the\n+motion. The word limits of Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(d) shall apply to\n+briefs supporting or opposing summary judgment but shall not apply\n+to a separate statement of material facts or response to such\n+statement.\n+(b) Opposing Party.\n+(1) Response to Movant's Statement of Material Facts.\n+(A) Form; Citation to Record.\n+The party opposing a summary judgment motion must file a\n+brief and a separate statement of concise responses to the\n+moving party 's statement of material facts . The statement\n+should consist of separate numbered paragraphs\n+corresponding to the numbered paragraphs in the movant's\n+separate statement of facts , and must include pinpoint\n+references to affidavits, pleadings, discovery responses,\n+deposition testimony (by page and line), or other materials\n+upon which the opposing party relies.\n+(B) Contents of Response.\n+Each response must clearly state that the asserted fact is:\n+(i) undisputed,\n+(ii) disputed, or\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+44\n+(iii) undisputed in part and disputed in part.\n+Properly referenced material facts in the movant 's statement\n+are considered admitted unless controverted in the opposing\n+party's response.\n+If the response admits in part and disputes in part the asserted\n+fact, it must specify which part of the asserted fact is admitted\n+and which part is disputed. A response may not assert legal\n+arguments except to make an objection to the evidentiary\n+support for the asserted fact or the admissibility of that\n+evidence. Arguments about the relevance or materiality of an\n+asserted fact may be raised in the argument section of a brief,\n+but are not a proper basis for disputing that fact.\n+(2) Statement of Additional Material Facts.\n+If the party opposing a summary judgment motion wishes to assert\n+facts not set forth in the moving party's statement of material facts,\n+the opposing party may include in its response its statement of\n+additional material facts, in the same form and manner as set forth\n+in sections (a)(2), (3), and (4), above.\n+(3) Filing.\n+The opposing party's brief and response to movant's statement of\n+material facts may be filed within 21 days after service of the motion\n+and supporting statement . The responsive statement of facts shall\n+be filed in a separate document from the brief opposing the motion.\n+Failure to file an opposing brief or statement alone is not considered\n+confession of a motion; however, nothing in this rule excuses a party\n+opposing a summary judgment motion from meeting the party 's\n+burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.\n+(c) Reply.\n+If the party opposing summary judgment submits a statement of additional\n+material facts as provided in section (b)(2) above, the moving party shall,\n+within 14 days after service of the opposing statement, serve and file a\n+statement of concise responses to the opposing party's statement of\n+additional material facts, in the same form as set forth in section (b)(1)(A),\n+above.\n+(d) Effect of Admission.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+45\n+Facts deemed admitted pursuant to this rule are admitted solely for\n+purposes of summary judgment, and shall not be deemed admitted for any\n+other purpose, including as admissions at trial.\n+(e) Compliance.\n+If a party files a statement of material facts, statement of additional material\n+facts, or brief that does not comply with this rule, the court may require\n+immediate compliance or provide any other relief that the court deems\n+appropriate. The opposing part y shall not file a motion to strike based on\n+alleged noncompliance with this rule. Any dispute over the admissibility of\n+evidence should be raised through an objection, in the objecting party's brief\n+or responsive statement, to the facts relying on that evidence.\n+(f) Stipulated Material Facts.\n+Parties are encouraged to stipulate to facts, and may in connection with a\n+motion for summary judgment separately file a stipulation setting forth facts\n+to which the parties have agreed solely for purposes of summary judgment,\n+which shall not be used for any other purpose in the absence of express\n+language to that effect. Facts so stipulated do not require citations to\n+evidentiary support.\n+58.1 Satisfaction of Judgment.\n+The clerk notes satisfaction of a judgment on the docket sheet when any of the\n+following events occurs:\n+(a) the judgment creditor or the creditor's attorney of record executes and files\n+a written satisfaction of judgment;\n+(b) the marshal files a return of execution showing the judgment the marshal\n+has collected; or\n+(c) the judgment is paid into the registry account of the court, but the payment\n+may only be made after an order of the court authorizes the payment.\n+65.1.1 Security; Proceedings Against Sureties.\n+(a) General Requirements.\n+The principal obligor and one or more sureties qualified as stated in this rule\n+must execute a bond, recognizance, or other undertaking required by law\n+or court order in any proceeding.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+46\n+(b) Unacceptable Sureties.\n+An attorney in a case, the attorney's spouse or employee, a party to a case,\n+and the party 's spouse may not act as a surety on a bond or other\n+undertaking in a civil case.\n+(c) Corporate Surety.\n+A corporate surety upon any undertaking in which the United States is the\n+obligee must be qualified under 31 U.S.C. §§ 9301-9309 and approved by\n+the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. The parties may consult\n+with the clerk to confirm that a surety is qualified. In all other instances, a\n+corporate surety qualified to write bonds in the State of Nebraska is an\n+acceptable surety. In all cases, a power of attorney showing the authority of\n+the agent signing the bond must be attached to the bond.\n+(d) Personal Surety.\n+Persons competent to convey real estate who own land in the State of\n+Nebraska of an unencumbered value of at least the stated penalty of the\n+bond may obtain consideration for qualification as a surety by attaching an\n+acknowledged justification showing:\n+(1) a legal description of the real estate;\n+(2) a complete list of all encumbrances and liens on the real estate;\n+(3) market value based on recent sales of like property;\n+(4) a waiver of inchoate rights of any character and certification that the\n+real estate is not exempt from execution; and\n+(5) certification for the aggregate amount of the penalties of any other\n+subsisting undertakings assured by the bondsman as of that date.\n+The judge before whom the proceeding is pending approves or disapproves\n+the surety after reviewing the justification and certifications.\n+(e) Cash Bonds.\n+Cash bonds may be deposited into the court's registry only upon execution\n+and filing of a written bond (1) sufficient in form and (2) stating the bond' s\n+conditions. Withdrawal of cash bonds so deposited may not be made except\n+upon a written court order.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+47\n+(f) Cost Bonds.\n+The court on motion or its own initiative may order a party to file an original\n+bond for costs or additional security for costs in an amount and under\n+conditions designated in the order.\n+(g) Insufficiency; Remedy.\n+An opposing party may object to a bond' s form or timeliness or the\n+sufficiency of the surety. If a bond is found to be insufficient, the judge may\n+order that a sufficient bond be filed within a stated time. If the party required\n+to file the bond does not comply, the judge may dismiss the case for want\n+of prosecution or take other appropriate action.\n+67.1 Deposits.\n+(a) Receipt of Funds.\n+(1) No money may be sent to the court or its officers for deposit into the\n+court's registry without a court order by the presiding judge in a\n+pending or adjudicated case.\n+(2) All money ordered to be paid to the court or received by its officers\n+in any pending or adjudicated case must be deposited with the\n+Treasurer of the United States in the name and to the credit of this\n+court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2041 through depositories designated\n+by the Treasury to accept such deposit on its behalf.\n+(3) The party making the deposit or transferring the funds to the court 's\n+registry must serve the order permitting the deposit or transfer on the\n+clerk.\n+(b) Investment of Registry Funds.\n+(1) Funds on deposit with the court will be placed in interest -bearing\n+instruments in the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS)\n+administered by the Administrative Office of the United States\n+Courts, which is the only investment mechanism authorized.\n+(2) Under CRIS, monies deposited in each case will be \"pooled\" together\n+with those on deposit with the Treasury to the credit of other courts\n+in CRIS and used to purchase Government Account Series\n+securities through the Bureau of Public Debt, which will be held at\n+the Treasury in an account in the name and to the credit of the\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+48\n+Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.\n+(3) An account for each case will be established in CRIS titled in the\n+name of the case giving rise to the investment in the fund . Income\n+generated from fund investments will be distributed to each case\n+based on the ratio each account 's principal and earnings has to the\n+aggregate principal and income total in the fund.\n+(4) The court will direct that post-adjudication deposits held on behalf of\n+minors until their age of majority be invested in the Minors ' Fund\n+within CRIS.\n+(5) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, interpleader funds deposited\n+under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 will be deposited in the CRIS Disputed\n+Ownership Fund.\n+(c) Assessment of Fees.\n+Depending on the CRIS fund used, one of two fees is assessed by the AO\n+on behalf of the courts each time interest is credited to the investment.\n+(1) The CRIS Fee is assessed against deposits in the CRIS Liquidity\n+Fund or any other funds created.\n+(2) The Disputed Ownership Fund (DOF) Fee is assessed against\n+deposits in the CRIS Disputed Ownership Fund.\n+(d) Withdrawal of Deposit.\n+To withdraw money deposited with the court under Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 67 and these rules, a party must file a motion for withdrawal of\n+the funds and simultaneously submit a proposed order and completed IRS\n+Form W-9.\n+72.1 Magistrate Judge Duties.\n+Magistrate judges are authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) to perform any duties\n+assigned to them by a district judge of this court that are consistent with the\n+Constitution and laws of the United States . A full-time magistrate judge is\n+responsible for (a) scheduling trials; (b) conducting any discovery, pretrial, and\n+settlement conferences; (c) hearing and determining pretrial procedural and\n+discovery motions; (d) issuing progression orders; and (e) presiding over\n+proceedings related to executions of judgments under Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 69.\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+49\n+72.2 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order or Findings and Recommendations.\n+(a) Statement of Objections.\n+A party may object to a magistrate judge's order in a nondispositive matter\n+or findings and recommendation in a dispositive matter by filing a\n+\"Statement of Objections to Magistrate Judge' s Order\" or \"Objections to\n+Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations \" within 14 days after\n+being served with the order or findings and recommendations, unless the\n+order or recommendation states a different time. The party must specify (1)\n+the parts of the order or findings and recommendations to which the party\n+objects and (2) the legal basis of the objections. The statement of objections\n+should also indicate whether the objecting party relies on a previously or\n+newly filed brief. Unless ordered otherwise, an opposing party may file an\n+opposing brief within 14 days of being served with the statement of\n+objections. This brief may refer to previously filed briefs. The objecting party\n+may not file a reply brief without the court's leave.\n+(b) Evidence.\n+If evidentiary materials were filed or received in evidence when the matter\n+was before the magistrate judge, the parties need not refile or re- offer the\n+materials and may refer to them in their legal arguments.\n+(1) Nondispositive Orders.\n+A party may not offer additional evidentiary materials without a court\n+order.\n+(2) Dispositive Orders.\n+A party may not offer additional evidentiary materials; however, if the\n+magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing, the objecting party may\n+request a supplemental hearing to offer additional evidence . The\n+district judge may hold the supplemental hearing if the party shows\n+good cause why the evidence was not presented to the magistrate\n+judge.\n+(c) No Stay of Nondispositive Order Pending Resolution of Objections.\n+The filing of a statement of objections to a nondispositive order does not\n+stay the magistrate judge' s order pending resolution of the statement of\n+objections. The magistrate judge whose order is objected to decides a\n+motion for stay pending the resolution of the statement of objections . If the\n+magistrate judge denies the motion for stay, the party may address the\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+50\n+motion to the assigned district judge.\n+(d) Nondispositive Orders; Consent Cases Excluded.\n+A party may not object to a nondispositive order of a magistrate judge in\n+which the parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See\n+NECivR 73.1.\n+(e) Dispositive Orders; Remand.\n+If the district judge remands a dispositive matter to the magistrate judge, the\n+magistrate judge's subsequent recommendation is also subject to objection\n+under this rule.\n+(f) Dispositive Orders; Failure to Object.\n+Failure to object to a finding of fact in a magistrate judge's recommendation\n+may be construed as a waiver of the right to object to the district judge' s\n+order adopting the recommendation of the finding of fact.\n+72.3 Review of Magistrate Judge's Order in Special Master Report.\n+When a magistrate judge is designated as a special master with the parties '\n+consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2), or without the parties' consent under Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b), a party may request review of or action on the\n+special master report filed by the magistrate judge under Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 53(f).\n+73.1 Magistrate Judge; Trial by Consent.\n+(a) Random Assignment.\n+Unless ordered otherwise, the clerk assigns each civil action to a district or\n+magistrate judge by automated random selection. When the clerk assigns\n+an action to a magistrate judge, each party must file either (1) a consent to\n+the referral to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) or (2) an\n+election for reassignment to a district judge . The parties may indicate on\n+Form 35 (the Rule 26(f) report) or other consent form provided by the court\n+whether they consent to trial before a magistrate judge. Failure to timely\n+return the election form will result in case reassignment to a district judge.\n+Consent to a magistrate judge' s authority does not constitute a waiver of\n+any jurisdictional defense unrelated to the grant of authority under 28 U.S.C.\n+§ 636(c).\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+51\n+(b) Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge.\n+The clerk notifies the parties in a case assigned to a district judge that under\n+28 U.S.C. § 636(c) they may consent to have a magistrate judge (1) conduct\n+any proceedings in the case, including a jury or nonjury trial, and (2) enter\n+final judgment. This notice is provided as soon as practicable after the case\n+is filed and before the case is first scheduled for trial . If all parties consent\n+on the required form to proceed before the magistrate judge, the clerk\n+notifies the district judge of the consent . The district judge considers the\n+consent and reassigns the case to the magistrate judge if appropriate.\n+79.1 Custody of Files and Exhibits.\n+(a) Clerk's Custody.\n+In general, documents or physical items belonging to the court 's paper or\n+electronic files remain in the clerk 's custody throughout a judicial\n+proceeding.\n+(b) Viewing and Copying Court Files.\n+(1) Paper Files.\n+The public may view files and documents in the clerk 's office in\n+Omaha and Lincoln between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on days when\n+the courthouses are open for business . Upon request, the clerk 's\n+staff copies public documents for a fee as allowed by 28 U.S.C.\n+§ 1914.\n+(2) Electronic Files.\n+Electronic access to the electronic docket and documents filed in the\n+System is available to the public at no charge at the clerk 's office in\n+Omaha and Lincoln between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on days when\n+the courthouses are open for business. Fees to print a paper copy of\n+an electronic filing and to obtain a certified copy of an electronically\n+filed document are allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1914.\n+(3) Payment for Copies.\n+Payment must be made when service is requested in cash, by credit\n+card, or by check or money order payable to \"Clerk, U.S. District\n+Court.\" Fees apply to copying services for the United States if the\n+record or paper requested can be electronically accessed. Clerk's\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+52\n+staff cannot make change for cash payments.\n+(c) Inspecting Physical Evidence.\n+No one may inspect physical evidence in the clerk 's custody, including\n+photographic negatives, tape recordings, contraband (including drugs and\n+narcotics, firearms, and ammunition), currency, negotiable instruments,\n+computer disks or tapes, and other items designated by a judicial officer\n+except while in the presence and under the control of the clerk . The clerk\n+may limit or preclude access and copying in order to preserve evidence.\n+(d) Temporary Withdrawal of Paper Court Files, Exhibits, and Documents.\n+Paper court files, exhibits, documents, and transcripts may not be taken\n+from the clerk 's office or custody without a written order of the assigned\n+judge. To request permission to check out a court file, exhibit, document, or\n+transcript, an attorney must electronically file a written motion. If the\n+assigned judge grants the motion, the attorney may have the court file,\n+exhibit, document, or transcript upon delivery of a receipt for the file to the\n+clerk. The attorney must return the court file, exhibit, document, or transcript\n+when the judge directs or no later than 7 days, in the same condition and\n+order in which it was filed in the clerk's office. The judge may direct the file,\n+exhibit, document, or transcript to be returned the next morning.\n+(e) Permanent Withdrawal of Files and Documents.\n+Upon a showing of good cause, the court may order an item in a file to be\n+permanently withdrawn. The clerk may require a party requesting\n+withdrawal to provide a copy of the item for certification and a receipt for the\n+original. The certified copy and receipt are filed in lieu of the original, and\n+the party receiving the original must pay the clerk any costs.\n+(f) Withdrawal or Destruction of Exhibits at Case Conclusion.\n+(1) Withdrawal.\n+After trial or as soon as possible, but within 14 days after a verdict is\n+rendered or a judgment is entered, the offering attorney must\n+withdraw all exhibits in the clerk's custody and give the clerk a receipt\n+for the exhibits.\n+(A) Duty to Retain Exhibits.\n+An attorney must:\n+Effective December 1, 2024 Nebraska Civil Rules\n+53\n+(i) retain exhibits withdrawn from the clerk's custody for at\n+least 1 year after the judgment is final and is therefore\n+no longer subject to appellate review;\n+(ii) preserve the retained exhibits in the same condition\n+they were in when offered into evidence;\n+(iii) if an opposing attorney requests the exhibits, make\n+them available for examination and use at reasonable\n+times and places; and\n+(iv) upon request, promptly return the exhibits to the clerk.\n+(B) Sanctions.\n+Sanctions may be awarded for the failure to abide by this rule.\n+Despite entry of judgment, the court retains jurisdiction over\n+the parties and attorneys for purposes of enforcing this rule.\n+(2) Destruction.\n+After the judgment is no longer subject to appellate review, the\n+attorney may destroy or otherwise dispose of the exhibits without\n+further authorization. If the attorney does not claim and withdraw the\n+exhibits, the clerk may destroy or otherwise dispose of any exhibits\n+not claimed and withdrawn. On the date the clerk destroys the\n+exhibits, the clerk enters a remark on the docket sheet reflecting the\n+date of destruction.\n+81.1 Removed Actions.\n+If a motion is pending and undecided in state court at the time of removal, the court\n+will not consider the motion unless and until a party refiles the motion in federal\n+court in conformity with federal practice requirements.\n+85.1 Title; Citation.\n+These rules are the Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of\n+Nebraska (\"Nebraska Civil Rules\"). They may be cited as \"NECivR.\"","id":"7d1a54e3356e4d59e10e5b632144ded8bf7ab2b8b9cdb3d43fd99fe0b5679d18","newHash":"d81539ab7748b292d1426ca8c47cbac1731ea6dba2c5ba8217e8d47cb80dcb1d","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/d81539ab7748b292d1426ca8c47cbac1731ea6dba2c5ba8217e8d47cb80dcb1d.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/localrules/NECivR.2024.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:03.898092+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"95c3bb1b6a5363a9316b73e0dfb662ed7383c8d04361bc6a9a143551a4c5c6b0","newHash":"ebeb03ea94f17f268910ca680716bc8a9b5ce77c2acf127c9b8fc71a4c1bdc69","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:02.567715+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"f7eddd1278ad37ce68008adf3d6844e4442edb66f8bb2fd0c789a32629973fe6","newHash":"763994ae697098fcb9af20e50be32c1520f9962c6eb3b3d8b0fc579d32747590","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:02.249210+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"136c8c8e5967c1ec4ae9ef0f5695b1273289a1a09d8ddc5ee29937ebcb4704af","newHash":"6517163ae560a6cff00196b5df701f5d180552c42e5caf4bb31f8128fbe7e7bc","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/notices/2024/01/n240125a.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:02.826341+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,550 @@\n+JUDGE EVELYN PADIN’S\n+GENERAL PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURES\n+Revised: September 10, 2026\n+2\n+I. PRELIMINARY GENERAL MATTERS1\n+A. Professionalism and Civility\n+Litigants should be polite, courteous, and otherwise civil to one another, as well as to all\n+parties, witnesses, and Court personnel at all times. Litigants should be punctual for all\n+conferences, hearings, oral arguments, and trials. Judge Padin expects litigants to confer with and\n+keep their clients up to date (1) with respect to substantive submissions to the Court, (2) in advance\n+of Court appearances, and (3) as to material developments in the client’s case. All of the matters\n+addressed in these Procedures apply to all litigants in any matter pending before Judge Padin,\n+including all pro se litigants, unless stated otherwise.\n+In general, litigants should bring matters to the Judge’s attention only after they have\n+been discussed with opposing counsel and a reasonable effort has been made to resolve a\n+dispute and the positions of all interested parties on the matter needing the Court’s attention\n+have been shared.\n+The examination of witnesses during hearings or trials should be conducted from the\n+lectern or from counsel table. Speakers should always rise to address the Court unless\n+specifically instructed otherwise. In addition, speakers will direct all comments to the Court or to\n+the witness under examination and not to other litigants or to the jury. To the extent possible, the\n+Court should be alerted to issues that will need to be ruled upon during the day at the start of the\n+day’s proceedings, or during recess out of the jury’s presence.\n+B. Pro se litigants\n+Pro se (unrepresented) litigants are advised that ex parte (one-sided) and/or personal\n+communications and submissions are not advised and will generally not be accepted. All\n+substantive correspondence with the Court should be filed on the CM/ECF docket. Any writings\n+sent to the Court will generally be posted on the public CM/ECF docket.\n+C. Correspondence with the Court\n+Before corresponding with the Court, litigants must consult the relevant rules for the Third\n+Circuit, the District of New Jersey, this document, and the docket on the CM/ECF system. In\n+general, communications with the Court should be made through the CM/ECF, not by fax, email,\n+or phone call to chambers. Every communication requesting the Court’s input must indicate the\n+requesting party’s efforts to first confer with the other party(ies) to resolve the matter. If a party\n+emails Chambers, the y must copy chambers_of_judge_evelyn_padin@njd.uscourts.gov on all\n+correspondences.\n+1 To the extent that the rules for the Third Circuit or the District of New Jersey conflict\n+with any of the preferences set forth in this document, the rules of the Third Circuit and the\n+District of New Jersey control.\n+3\n+To the extent you wish to contact the Court on a routine scheduling matter (e.g., an\n+extension for the submission of a brief), please do so via CM/ECF with as much advance notice\n+as possible.\n+Direct correspondence to advise the Court that a case has been settled or dismissed is\n+also appropriate, as is correspondence on any matter when specifically requested by the Court.\n+Any written communication requesting action by the Court on any subject should include at a\n+minimum: (1) a very brief description of the situation requiring the Court’s attention; (2) the\n+position of the opposing party(ies) (i.e., consent or opposition); and (3) the specific relief sought.\n+All litigants should be sent a contemporaneous copy of all correspondence sent to the\n+Court. All other communications with the Court should be made by the formal filing of pleadings,\n+motions, applications, briefs, or legal memoranda.\n+In general, and unless otherwise directed by the Court, all discovery-related\n+correspondence, as well as any correspondence related to non-dispositive motions, should\n+be addressed to the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case. All correspondence related to\n+dispositive motions, trials, and related oral arguments should be addressed to Judge Padin.\n+D. Telephone Correspondence with the Court\n+Calls to the Court should be reserved for emergencies. Callers should let the Court know\n+(1) their name(s); (2) the case name and civil action number on which they are calling; (3) the\n+party(ies) they represent; and (4) their question. Further information is not required unless\n+requested by the Court. Please review the docket before contacting the Court, as litigants’\n+questions can often be answered by reviewing the docket.\n+E. Communication with Law Clerks\n+Judge Padin permits limited communications with her law clerks solely regarding\n+administrative matters. Unless directed otherwise by the Court, litigants should never contact\n+law clerks for advice on substantive or procedural matters other than of a very rudimentary\n+nature (such as to confirm the Court’s administrative policies and procedures or to alert the Court\n+of some actual emergency that cannot be timely handled by conventional correspondence or\n+formal filings). Communications with the Court about scheduling matters should be directed\n+to Judge Padin’s Courtroom Deputy. Communications from litigants purporting to justify litigants’\n+conduct because “Your Honor’s law clerk [or Deputy] said . . .” are highly disfavored and are\n+never appropriate as an explanation of litigants’ strategic or tactical choices.\n+F. Telephone Conferences\n+Telephone conferences with all litigants may be used at the Court’s discretion to resolve\n+scheduling matters, time extensions, or other disputes. Litigants will be notified of the date and\n+time for the telephone conference.\n+4\n+Absent prior permission from the Court, parties are each limited to two attorneys each\n+appearing at telephone conferences. Only one attorney per side will be permitted to address the\n+Court during the call. Counsel should file a notice of appearance prior to appearing at a telephone\n+conference or they will not be permitted to speak.\n+Failure to observe basic telephone courtesy will result in the Court’s refusal to use\n+telephone conferences in matters involving the offending participants.\n+G. Oral Arguments and Evidentiary Hearings\n+Judge Padin does not set aside specific days or times for oral argument, motions, or\n+evidentiary hearings. Hearings and arguments are scheduled on an ad hoc basis. The Court\n+endeavors to provide litigants with appropriate advance notice of scheduled hearings, arguments,\n+and conferences—and expects litigants to refrain from last minute (i.e., less than 48 hours)\n+requests to cancel, postpone, or reschedule such matters in the absence of actual emergencies.\n+H. Pro Hac Vice Admissions\n+Please refer to Local Civil Rule 101.1(c). These requests will generally be handled by the\n+assigned Magistrate Judge.\n+II. CIVIL CASES\n+A. Pretrial Procedures and Final Pretrial Conference with Magistrate Judge\n+Generally, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case schedules an initial pretrial\n+conference pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16. These conferences are held after the filing of the\n+defendant’s answer or a dispositive motion. The Magistrate Judge assigned to the case\n+determines associated procedures. At the close of discovery, the Magistrate Judge will hold a\n+final pretrial conference. Prior to that conference, the Magistrate Judge will provide the litigants\n+with a proposed form of final pretrial order.\n+B. Following Final Pretrial Conference with Magistrate Judge\n+Judge Padin may hold a telephone conference to set a date for a settlement conference.\n+Where settlement is not possible, Judge Padin will set dates for pre- trial submissions. Generally,\n+dates for trial briefs and in limine motions are set for forty-five (45) days before the trial date.\n+C. Settlement Conference\n+Absent leave of Court, trial counsel and clients with full settlement authority must attend\n+all settlement conferences.\n+5\n+D. Chambers Courtesy Copies of Motions\n+Litigants should submit one courtesy copy of all motion papers to the Court , unless the\n+materials comprise more than one large binder, in which case they should be submitted on a USB\n+drive. The courtesy copies should be single -sided and stapled. If any motion papers are filed\n+under seal, litigants should provide a USB drive with all motion papers and related filings. When\n+submitting a USB drive, l itigants may coordinate with the Courtroom Deputy to submit USB\n+exhibits. L itigants should provide the USB in a folder that is labeled with the case name, case\n+number, and the docket entry numbers that correspond to the files saved on the USB drive. All\n+USB files should be clearly organized and labeled as the files are named in the briefs.\n+E. Motions\n+i. Pre-Motion Conference in Civil Cases\n+In an effort to resolve cases expeditiously, before bringing a motion to dismiss, motion for\n+a more definite statement, motion to remand, motion for change of venue, motion to compel\n+arbitration, or motion for judgment on the pleadings in civil matters, a party must submit a letter,\n+not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, including counsel’s signature, requesting a pre-motion\n+conference. The letter must set forth the basis for the anticipated motion and include citations to\n+relevant authority. Within seven (7) days after receipt of this letter, all adversaries must submit a\n+written response, not to exceed three (3) single -spaced pages. No party may submit a reply letter\n+unless directed by the Court. Affidavits and exhibits are not permitted unless directed by the Court.\n+A proffer by the attorney, however, of the contents of any such affidavit(s) and/or exhibit(s) shall\n+suffice.\n+The Court may attempt to resolve the dispute(s) by ordering the parties to meet and confer\n+to discuss the substance of the contemplated motion(s) and to permit litigants the opportunity to\n+cure any alleged deficiencies. The Court may also attempt to resolve the dispute at a pre- motion\n+conference (in person or via telephone/videoconference), to the extent possible. Only issues raised\n+in the letters will be discussed at the pre -motion conference. If the dispute cannot be resolved\n+through meeting and conferring or at a pre-motion conference (or if the Court determines that a\n+conference would not be helpful), the moving party may proceed with filing its motion. To be\n+clear, this procedure does not preclude a party from filing any of the above motions pursuant to\n+Local Civil Rule 12.1. Rather, the Court hopes to use this procedure to advance the case efficiently\n+and minimize the costs of litigation to the parties. In addition, compliance with this procedure shall\n+not be deemed a waiver of any parties’ defenses as to lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue,\n+insufficient process, or insufficient service of process.\n+A party’s submission of a pre-motion letter will toll that party’s time to file its motion (or\n+answer) through (i) the date of the pre-motion conference or (ii) the Court’s decision not to conduct\n+such a conference. If the Court determines that a pre-motion conference would not be helpful and\n+instructs a party to proceed with filing its proposed motion without a conf erence, that party shall\n+have an additional seven (7) days to file after its Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a) deadline, unless additional\n+time is stipulated or the Court so orders.\n+6\n+The procedures set forth supra Section I(G) apply to pre -motion telephone conferences.\n+The pre-motion letter requirement does not apply in cases in which either side is pro se or in\n+bankruptcy or social security appeals.\n+ii. Motions to Seal\n+The assigned Magistrate Judge handles motions to seal.\n+iii. Continuances and Extensions\n+Litigants should expect the Court to maintain the dates contained in the Scheduling\n+Order, unless there is good cause to justify a change. Generally, Judge Padin will grant a short (i.e.,\n+two weeks or fewer) continuance or extension that will not affect discovery dates, motion-\n+decision dates, hearing dates, or trial dates, if requested with the agreement of all litigants.\n+Any other request for a continuance or extension should set forth in detail the basis for\n+the request and whether the request is agreed to or opposed by the other litigant(s). A request for\n+an extension or continuance of longer than two (2) weeks regarding the trial date, a discovery cutoff\n+date, or the deadline for filing dispositive motions must be made sufficiently prior to the due date\n+to allow time for the Court to consider it and should set forth compelling reason(s) for the relief\n+sought. An unopposed request may be made by letter to the Court and should include the\n+reasons for the request. All such letters—as with all correspondence with the Court—should be\n+filed electronically via CM/ECF.\n+iv. General Motion Practice\n+Except as set forth here, motion practice will be conducted in accordance with Local\n+Civil Rule 7.1. Failure to follow motion practice rules, including these Procedures or motion\n+scheduling orders, may result in denial without prejudice or the administrative termination of the\n+motion. Judge Padin requires strict compliance with the length limitations and format\n+requirements for briefs set forth in Local Rule 7.2. Requests for overlength briefs are highly\n+disfavored. Judge Padin also requires compliance with Local Rule 5.1(h) that all PDF filings be\n+text searchable and at a minimum 400 dpi. Failure to abide by these requirements may result in\n+rejection of the papers.\n+v. Oral Argument on Motions\n+If the Court determines that oral argument will be helpful in deciding a matter, Judge\n+Padin will schedule it and the parties will be specifically advised of a date and time for oral\n+argument via CM/ECF.\n+Judge Padin strongly encourages parties to allow junior attorneys (i.e., attorneys in\n+their first six (6) years of practice) to present arguments whenever possible. If a party provides\n+advance notice to the Court that a junior attorney will present argument, Judge Padin may be\n+more inclined to permit oral argument, and may permit more experienced counsel to assist in\n+the argument should the need arise.\n+7\n+vi. Reply and Sur-Reply Briefs\n+Replies are generally permitted pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d). However, according\n+to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(3), no reply papers shall be filed to cross-motions under Local Civil\n+Rule 7.1(h); Reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i); Case Management under Local Civil\n+Rule 16.1(g)(2); and Discovery under Local Civil Rule 37.1(b)(3), unless the Court permits\n+otherwise.\n+No sur-replies are permitted without prior permission. They are strongly discouraged\n+unless it is apparent on the face of the submission that such additional briefing is necessary\n+to rebut an issue not discussed in the initial briefs. Permitted Sur-reply briefs may be filed and\n+served within seven (7) days of service of the brief to which the sur-reply responds unless the\n+Court sets a different schedule. Sur-reply submissions should not contain a repeat recitation of\n+the facts of the case and, without leave of Court for good cause shown, must not exceed ten (10)\n+pages in total. No other briefs may be filed without leave of Court for good cause shown.\n+F. Summary Judgment Motions\n+Local Civil Rule 56.1 requires:\n+On motions for summary judgment, the movant shall furnish a statement which\n+sets forth material facts as to which there does not exist a genuine issue, in\n+separately numbered paragraphs citing to the affidavits and other documents\n+submitted in support of the motion. A motion for summary judgment\n+unaccompanied by a statement of material facts not in dispute shall be dismissed.\n+L. Civ. R. 56.1 (a) (emphasis added). Additionally, the Court will not consider any assertion of a\n+fact that is not supported by a pinpoint citation to the record.\n+A litigant opposing summary judgment must submit a responsive statement of facts,\n+repeating the facts alleged to not be in dispute, and indicating agreement or disagreement and, if\n+not agreed, stating each material fact in dispute and citing to record evidence in support. Failure\n+to address the moving party’s factual contentions in this manner will lead to the Court’s\n+consideration of the moving party’s factual assertion(s) as undisputed.\n+Local Civil Rule 56.1 statements may not include legal argument or conclusions of law\n+(including evidentiary objections). All points of law and surrounding argument must be made in\n+the briefs . Failure to comply with these requirements may also lead to the administrative\n+termination of the summary judgment motion(s) to allow the parties to properly complete their\n+56.1 statements.\n+Judge Padin prefers that parties file their summary judgment briefs in accordance with the\n+old Appendix N to the Local Rules. Specifically, any dispositive motions should first be served on\n+the opposition. Then, briefs in oppositions should be served, followed by any replies. The parties\n+shall refrain from filing the aforementioned documents until all briefing is complete. At that point,\n+the parties should consecutively file the moving papers, oppositions, and replies thereto on the\n+8\n+docket (i.e., the moving papers should be docketed before the corresponding oppositions , and the\n+oppositions should be docketed before the corresponding replies) . After filing their summary\n+judgment papers, litigants should provide an index detailing what exhibits accompany their filings\n+and where those exists are filed on the docket. For example, if D.E. 75- 6 contains Exhibits AA–\n+CC and GG–JJ, and D.E. 75-7 contains Exhibits DD–FF, the litigants’ index should provide this\n+information, along with the names of each exhibit as they are referred to in the parties’ papers.\n+To the extent a party believes that their adversary’s 56.1 statements are non-compliant, that\n+party shall promptly request a conference with the magistrate judge on the case to resolve any\n+disputes. And, should a party anticipate arguing that an expert’s opinion or report should be\n+excluded at the summary judgment stage, they shall raise that issue to the Court to determine\n+whether those motions should be filed before or in conjunction with any summary judgment\n+motion(s).\n+G. Motions Seeking Emergent Relief\n+When seeking emergent relief, the parties must, absent a true emergency, detail their prior\n+efforts to address the issue with the other litigant(s) and serve the papers upon them.\n+Submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for temporary\n+restraining order (“TRO”) and injunction hearings will be required. The time for submission of\n+these items will be set at the pre-hearing conference.\n+H. Pretrial Combined Submissions (In Hard Copy and Microsoft Word Format)\n+i. Exhibit Lists and Bench Books\n+The parties must submit, at least one week prior to trial—in hard copy and in Word\n+Format—a consolidated/combined joint exhibit list to minimize the duplication of the exhibits.\n+The list should be a chart separated into three columns: (1) the exhibit; (2) the opponent’s objection\n+(a very short statement containing the relevant rule and/or concept); and ( 3) the proponent’s\n+rationale for admissibility (e.g., the relevance rationale or on-point hearsay exception).\n+Litigants shall also submit three (3) copies of the bench book of trial exhibits, unless\n+otherwise advised by Chambers. The Courtroom Deputy will use the originals. However, during the\n+course of trial, if litigants change exhibit tabs or add new exhibits, litigants must update two\n+copies that will be left in the Courtroom at 4:30 pm. These copies are for the Judge and the Law\n+Clerk assigned to the trial.\n+ii. Combined Neutral Statement of Facts\n+The litigants should submit a short proposed statement of the case that the Court will read\n+during jury selection as part of the Court’s initial statements. Any disagreements by the\n+litigants should be submitted in column form. The column on the left will contain Plaintiff’s (or\n+the Prosecution’s) proposals. The column on the right will contain the Defendant’s proposals.\n+9\n+iii. Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions, Final Jury Instructions, and\n+Verdict Sheet\n+Instead of separate submissions from the litigants, Judge Padin requires one combined\n+submission, identifying any areas of disagreement. Where the litigants are unable to agree, the\n+submission should be split into two columns as discussed above.\n+Each proposed instruction should be double-spaced and include citations to specific\n+authority using footnotes. Proposed instructions without citations to specific legal authority\n+will not be considered. Cases and model jury instructions that are cited should be accurately\n+quoted and a pinpoint page reference should be provided.\n+If a model jury instruction is submitted, for instance, from the Third Circuit Model\n+Instructions at http://www.ca3.usCourts.gov/modeljuryinstructions.htm, Devitt & Blackmar,\n+Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, or Sand, Modern Federal Jury Instructions, the\n+submitting litigant shall state whether the proposed jury instruction is unchanged or modified. If\n+a litigant modifies a model jury instruction, additions should be bolded and underlined and\n+deletions should be noted with strikethrough font.\n+Judge Padin strongly prefers jury instructions that track the relevant model. She disfavors\n+jury instructions containing case-specific facts or contentions except where absolutely necessary.\n+Because Judge Padin usually charges the jury before closing arguments, and because she\n+disfavors the inclusion of facts or contentions in the jury charge, litigants are encouraged to\n+include facts and contentions in their summations. Judge Padin may, after consultation with\n+counsel, provide a written copy of the final jury instructions to the jurors.\n+iv. Voir Dire Questions\n+Ordinarily, Judge Padin will conduct voir dire. Instead of separate submissions from the\n+litigants, Judge Padin requires one combined submission, identifying any questions in dispute. The\n+Court will, upon request, provide an example of voir dire questions that were used during a recent\n+trial. Litigants should utilize a similar format in crafting the proposed voir dire question for their\n+case.\n+v. Prepared Script for Counsel’s Review\n+Judge Padin will provide a prepared script she will read at voir dire . The script will be\n+available for counsel to review prior to voir dire selection.\n+I. Pretrial Meeting\n+Before jury selection, Judge Padin will hold an in-person housekeeping meeting with\n+litigants. The meeting will include (but will not be limited to) marking exhibits and\n+previewing objections, discussing the voir dire, and discussing jury instructions.\n+10\n+J. Trial Procedure\n+i. General\n+Counsel will provide their cell and office phone numbers to the Court.\n+ii. Approaching the Witness\n+If a litigant wishes to approach the witness, the litigant should ask for permission to do so.\n+If a litigant needs to approach one witness many times, a single request for permission will\n+suffice.\n+iii. Objections and Sidebars\n+If a litigant wishes to make an objection, he or she should stand, state the objection, and\n+simply state the basis for the objection, such as “hearsay” or “relevance.” The Court disfavors\n+speaking objections. If a litigant believes a more extensive conference is required, then the\n+litigant should request a sidebar conference. The Court usually will grant the request so long as\n+such circumstances are not abused. Litigants are encouraged to bring any evidentiary questions to\n+the Court’s attention outside the presence of the jury, preferably before or after the day’s\n+proceedings.\n+iv. Witness and Jury\n+Litigants have the responsibility to advise witnesses that no witness may talk to the jury\n+at any time during the pendency of the case. For example, if the witness has stepped down\n+from the witness stand to testify as to an exhibit, the witness should not have any private\n+conversation whatsoever with any juror. The witness may, of course, direct his or her answers to\n+the jury’s direction, so long as the witness is still answering a litigant’s questions.\n+v. Documents and Exhibits\n+Any and all documents to be provided to the Court or viewed by the jury should first be\n+handed to the Courtroom Deputy.\n+vi. Scheduling\n+Judge Padin will typically hold trial on Monday through Thursday, from 9:30 a.m. until\n+3:30 p.m., with two fifteen minute breaks, so that the early morning and late afternoon periods\n+can be used for addressing matters outside the presence of the jury.\n+vii. Cases Involving Out-of-Town Parties or Witnesses\n+Other than in rare and exceptional circumstances, Judge Padin schedules the trial of cases\n+involving out -of-town litigants, parties, or witnesses the same as all other cases, leaving the\n+scheduling of witnesses to litigants.\n+11\n+viii. Conflicts of Litigants\n+Litigants should notify the Court and opposing counsel immediately upon learning\n+of any unavoidable and compelling professional or personal conflicts affecting the trial schedule.\n+Once a trial date has been set, the Court expects that obligation to take precedence over other\n+matters (except serious, unanticipated personal or professional emergencies).\n+ix. Note Taking by Jurors\n+Judge Padin does not permit jurors to take notes. Note taking is not necessary and will\n+distract jurors from paying attention to what a witness is saying and his or her manner on the\n+witness stand. The jurors will be able to rely on their collective memory about the testimony and\n+other evidence when the jury is deliberating. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for having a number\n+of persons on the jury.\n+Although the Court reporter will be transcribing the testimony, litigants should not\n+assume that transcripts will be available for review by jurors during jury deliberations.\n+x. Juror Questions to Witnesses\n+Judge Padin does not permit jurors to submit questions to the Court to be posed to a witness.\n+xi. Trial Briefs\n+Generally, Judge Padin requires the submission of trial briefs no later than forty- five\n+(45) days before trial.\n+xii. In Limine Motions\n+Submission dates for in limine motions are set during the initial telephone\n+conference with Judge Padin following the Magistrate Judge’s final pretrial conference.\n+Typically, in limine motions are due forty-five (45) days before trial.\n+xiii. Peremptory Challenges\n+Judge Padin prefers that counsel stand and announce their peremptory challenges, and\n+Judge Padin will typically permit only one pass by a party without forfeiture.\n+xiv. Examination of Witnesses or Argument by More Than One Attorney\n+Judge Padin will permit more than one attorney for a party to examine different witnesses\n+or to argue different points of law before the Court, but only one attorney per party may examine\n+the same witness. Although Judge Padin permits different attorneys to give the opening and\n+summation, the opening attorney must provide the full opening and the closing attorney must\n+provide the full summation.\n+12\n+The attorney conducting direct or cross examination shall be the only litigant speaking\n+at sidebar conference.\n+xv. Trial Equipment\n+Equipment and the smooth presentation of exhibits in video or other electronic form is\n+the responsibility of litigants and should be attended to with care. Back-up plans in the event of\n+equipment failure should be available. Litigants are required to ensure that they are fully familiar\n+with the equipment before appearing in Court so that the proceedings run smoothly, without\n+being hampered by avoidable technology problems. Should litigants wish to use equipment\n+provided by the Court or to set up the Courtroom before their appearance to test the technology,\n+please contact Judge Padin’s Courtroom Deputy at least one week prior to the start of trial.\n+xvi. Offering Exhibits into Evidence\n+Generally, unless the litigants have an agreement as to the admissibility of a proposed\n+exhibit, a witness may not testify as to its content until it has been admitted into evidence.\n+xvii. “Directed Verdict” Motions\n+Motions for judgment as a matter of law in jury trials and motions for an\n+involuntary dismissal in non-jury trials should be in writing where possible.\n+xviii. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\n+The Court will set a timeframe for submitting proposed findings of fact and\n+conclusions of law in non-jury cases depending on the complexity of the matter. The Court\n+will generally require litigants to submit a joint submission of proposed findings of fact in\n+column format as follows: (1) in each column, litigants must provide consecutively\n+numbered paragraphs with headings and subheadings to indicate issues and sub-issues; (2)\n+litigants must indicate which facts are agreed upon; and (3) litigants must include specific\n+reference to testimonial or documentary evidence in support of the proposals.\n+xix. Unavailability of Witnesses\n+Because a witness may be unavailable at the time of trial, as defined in Federal Rule of\n+Civil Procedure 32(a)(3), the Court expects oral or videotaped depositions to be used at trial\n+for any witness whose testimony a litigant believes essential to the presentation of that\n+litigant’s case, whether the witness is a party, a non-party, or an expert. The unavailability\n+of such witness will not be a ground to delay the commencement or progress of trial\n+absent good cause shown.\n+13\n+xx. Lay Witness Opinion\n+Any litigant expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay witnesses pursuant to Federal\n+Rule of Evidence 701 with respect to issues of liability or damages shall, at the time required\n+for submission of expert reports, serve the opposing litigants with the same information and/or\n+documents required with respect to such expert witnesses.\n+K. Trial Procedure\n+i. Timing of Jury Charge\n+In most cases, Judge Padin will charge the jury before closing arguments, providing the\n+jurors with an opportunity to learn the law before hearing summations that match the facts and\n+contentions to the law.\n+ii. Written Jury Instructions\n+Judge Padin may provide jurors with copies of the instructions after conferring with\n+counsel.\n+iii. Exhibits in the Jury Room\n+Unless good cause is shown, Judge Padin will permit all exhibits containing\n+substantive or real evidence to be available to the jury for deliberation. Litigants should confer\n+with each other as to which exhibits should go into the jury room. Before deliberation,\n+litigants will confer with the Courtroom Deputy to confirm which exhibits including\n+demonstratives (and which versions of exhibits) will go into the jury room.\n+iv. Handling Jury Requests to Read Back Testimony or Replay Tapes\n+At the jury’s request, if the transcript is available, Judge Padin will permit a copy of the\n+sanitized transcript to go into the jury room, but only with the consent of the litigants.\n+v. Availability of Litigants During Jury Deliberation\n+Unless excused by the Court, litigants should remain in the Courthouse during jury\n+deliberations, and, in any event, be no more than 10 minutes away from the Courthouse.\n+vi. Polling the Jury\n+Judge Padin will poll the jury upon request.\n+vii. Meeting with the Jury\n+Judge Padin may meet with jurors after a verdict but counsel and parties are prohibited\n+from doing so.\n+14\n+III. CRIMINAL CASES\n+Policies and procedures for criminal cases are generally the same as those set forth\n+above for civil cases.\n+A. Communication with the Court\n+Motions, letters, scheduling requests, and all other communications with the Court must\n+be filed on the CM/ECF docket. Email requests sent to Chambers will not be considered.\n+Any request for an adjournment —including of filing deadlines and court appearances —\n+must be filed on the docket. For all adjournment requests, the attorney(s) submitting the request\n+must represent whether they obtained consent from all parties for the request, and if consent is not\n+obtained, inform the Court that consent was sought. Requests for adjournments for medical\n+reasons must be accompanied by a note from a healthcare professional.\n+If a party believes it is necessary to email Chambers instead of filing on the CM/ECF docket\n+(e.g., sentencing material submissions or sealed documents) , they must copy Judge Padin’s\n+chambers (chambers_of_judge_evelyn_padin@njd.uscourts.gov) on their email, and a redacted\n+version of the materials must be filed on the docket.\n+B. Oral Argument and Motions\n+Judge Padin may permit oral argument on a substantive motion in a criminal case. Judge\n+Padin disfavors the submission of letter -motions. Parties should submit attorney certifications\n+alongside letter-motions to the extent they feel letter -motions are warranted in lieu of a formal\n+notice of motion.\n+C. Indictments and Informations\n+Generally, Judge Padin does permit the jury to have a copy of the redacted\n+indictment. During deliberation, any question regarding what to redact should be made to the\n+Courtroom Deputy.\n+D. Pleas\n+All plea-related documents shall be submitted to Chambers at least two weeks prior to the\n+plea date.\n+E. Sentencing Memoranda\n+i. Timing\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a party moving for a variance, downward departure,\n+or submission in mitigation of a sentence (a “Moving Submission”) is instructed to directly\n+serve the Court, in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsection ii below, no fewer\n+15\n+than two weeks prior to the sentencing date. The responsive party’s submission (a “Responsive\n+Submission”) to any related motions shall be submitted and served, in accordance with the\n+procedures set forth in subsection ii below, no fewer than one week prior to the sentencing date.\n+Failure to timely submit sentencing materials may result in the Court rescheduling the sentencing.\n+ii. Submissions\n+All sentencing memoranda, supporting exhibits , and correspondence (collectively,\n+the “Sentencing Materials”), shall be submitted directly to the Court. The submitting party is also\n+expected to furnish copies to all Counsel of Record and the United States Probation Department.\n+Although the submitting party is not required to file its memorandum on the Court’s CM/ECF\n+system, the submitting party is required to file a notice via CM/ECF (a “Submission Notice”) on\n+the form prescribed by the Clerk of the Court. The Court prefers that character letters submitted\n+on behalf of a defendant be notarized by the letter’s author, though notarization is not mandatory.\n+Any interested member of the public or press who wishes to obtain a copy of the\n+Sentencing Materials (a “Requestor”) must make a Request for Disclosure on a form prescribed\n+by the Clerk of the Court within 48 hours of receiving the Submission Notice. A Request for\n+Disclosure made after 48 hours of receiving the Submission Notice may or may not be considered\n+by the Court prior to the sentencing hearing. A Requestor or the Requestor’s attorney is\n+encouraged to contact Judge Padin’s chambers to confirm that their Request for Disclosure has\n+been received by the Court.\n+Upon a Request for Disclosure, Counsel of Record is required to meet and confer to\n+determine what non-public information should be redacted from the Sentencing Materials in\n+accordance with subsection iii below. All proposed redactions to the Sentencing Materials\n+shall be made prior to disclosure regardless of whether the parties to the underlying criminal\n+matter agree on all the redactions. Redacted Sentencing Materials shall be electronically filed\n+via CM/ECF within 48 hours after the Request for Disclosure is filed on the docket.\n+A member of the public or the press who wishes to have access to portions of the redacted\n+sections of the Sentencing Materials shall advise the Court, via a written submission on the\n+docket (or if unrepresented by counsel, via e-mail to the Courtroom Deputy and all Counsel of\n+Record) that it seeks access to redactions contained within the Sentencing Materials. Such written\n+submission shall identify the name of the requesting party, the name of counsel for the requesting\n+party, if any, the specific portions of the sentencing memoranda sought to be disclosed, and\n+any legal arguments supporting disclosure (not to exceed to 5 pages). Within two days of such\n+written submission, the parties shall electronically file a response (not to exceed 5 pages).\n+Thereafter, Judge Padin will either conduct a conference, enter an appropriate briefing\n+schedule, or rule summarily.\n+iii. Presumptively Non-Public Information\n+When letters are attached to a sentencing memorandum, those letters should be grouped\n+together as attachments to a single document. Any letters sent directly to the Court and not\n+16\n+attached as an exhibit to a sentencing memorandum will be presumptively deemed confidential\n+unless and until ruled otherwise by Judge Padin.\n+Counsel of Record during the meet and confer process should take great care to redact\n+Presumptively Non-Public Information prior to e -filing on CM/ECF. Presumptively\n+Non-Public Information includes the following: references to the Presentence Report\n+(“PSR”); names of victims, witnesses, and other individuals whose identity and roles were not\n+previously disclosed; information regarding cooperation by the defendant and others that was\n+not previously disclosed; sensitive personal information concerning the defendant and others,\n+including but not limited to medical or psychological reports and data; personal identifying\n+information such as addresses, social security numbers, account numbers, and dates of birth; and\n+information obtained during the course of a Grand Jury or law enforcement investigation\n+that was not previously disclosed. All redactions should be sufficient to ensure that the content of\n+the redacted information is not apparent from the context of the surrounding text.\n+F. Probation Reports\n+Judge Padin will not ordinarily permit the defendant or counsel for either party to review\n+the Probation Department’s recommendations regarding sentencing.\n+G. Continuances\n+Defense counsel will be expected to consult with their client and set forth in papers submitted\n+to the Court their client’s position with respect to any request for a continuance. The\n+defendant’s written agreement with the request must be submitted to the Court at the time of the\n+defense motion to arrive no later than ten (10) business days before sentencing.\n+H. Miscellaneous\n+Prior to seeking relief to home confinement or bracelet monitoring conditions, counsel is\n+obligated to first seek the consent of the Government and pretrial services. Any motion for relief\n+must be filed on the CM/ECF docket no later than 7 days prior to date of the requested modification\n+(e.g., release to family for special occasions, medical appointments, etc.). Failure to comply with\n+this deadline, absent extenuating circumstances, will result in a denial of the request.\n+I. Attendance\n+Minors are prohibited from attending criminal proceedings.\n+17\n+IV. OTHER GENERAL MATTERS\n+A. Miscellaneous Courtroom Conduct Issues\n+i. Cell Phones\n+Please note that all cell phones, cameras, and other electronic devices are strictly\n+prohibited in this Courtroom. If a cellphone or other electronic device goes off during a Courtroom\n+proceeding, the Courtroom Deputy may confiscate the device.\n+ii. Transcripts\n+It is a litigant’s obligation to make all necessary arrangements with Judge Padin ’s Court\n+Reporter, Fran DiBella ( francesca_dibella@njd.uscourts.gov) for securing a transcript of the\n+proceedings.\n+B. Final Considerations\n+i. Conflicts with These Procedures\n+Parties are advised that this document governs proceedings in this Court, unless otherwise\n+directed by Judge Padin. However, if other conflicts arise or if a deviation is appropriate, the\n+Court is willing to entertain a prompt and reasonable request to depart from these Procedures.\n+As stated above, if conflicts arise between these Procedures and the rules for the Third\n+Circuit or the District of New Jersey, please follow the rules of the Third Circuit or District of New\n+Jersey.\n+ii. Civility\n+This Court puts a high premium on civility. To repeat comments set forth above, Judge\n+Padin expects punctuality and courtesy from litigants to the Court and to each other, both in\n+the presence of the Court and otherwise.\n+iii. Additional Remarks and Questions for the Court\n+It is this Court’s priority to provide prompt and efficient adjudication of justice. The\n+Court looks forward to working with litigants to achieve this important goal, and hopes these\n+Procedures aid litigants in that process. If litigants have a specific question on a matter not\n+addressed above, litigants are encouraged to contact Judge Padin’s staff.","id":"63b10171b062348ae316a14725c68ce66fb5d17ffede15b2cd1327713435fba9","newHash":"d4e68ee4be614ee6130dfd838d2ab9dd7b5fbaf86140177d5a73fb61a64f6582","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/d4e68ee4be614ee6130dfd838d2ab9dd7b5fbaf86140177d5a73fb61a64f6582.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:03.671439+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@\n+United States District Court\n+District of New Mexico\n+United States Courthouse\n+100 N. Church Street, Suite 590\n+Las Cruces, NM 88001\n+Telephone: 5 75-528-1640\n+BULLETIN\n+TO: Counsel and Unrepresented Parties Appearing in the United States District\n+Court for the District of New Mexico\n+CC: United States Judges of the District Court of New Mexico\n+Mitchell R. Elfers, Clerk of Court\n+FROM: Chief United States District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales\n+DATE: May 9, 2025\n+SUBJECT: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the United States District Court for the\n+District of New Mexico\n+In recent years, and with growing frequency, litigants in the United States District Court for the\n+District of New Mexico have used Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to prepare motions and other\n+papers filed in this Court. As a result, I find it necessary to remind all litigants that appear in\n+this Court of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure\n+that the legal contentions in papers they sign and file with the Court are warranted by existing\n+law.\n+The Court recognizes that AI can be beneficial to attorneys and their clients and to unrepresented\n+litigants. Even so, examples of filings have been brought to my attention that appear to include\n+AI-generated arguments and citations that are not warranted by existing law. In these cases,\n+attorneys have filed documents that appear to use AI and citations to non-existent cases. This\n+practice is prohibited.\n+The Judges of this Court have an obligation to maintain and enforce high standards of conduct,\n+to uphold the integrity of the Court, and to maintain the public confidence in the judiciary.\n+Toward these ends, the Judges also have inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of\n+attorneys and unrepresented parties appearing in their courtrooms, including the authority to\n+discipline. Sanctions may include fines, non-monetary directives such as completing educational\n+programs, reporting to the disciplinary boards of the bars of which the attorney is a member, and\n+other appropriate and necessary sanctions.\n+Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued commitment to maintaining\n+the integrity of the judicial system.","id":"f212315360bc1f08ab16b8201a13c8b171b16a208e6062811618b6a0fd09acfd","newHash":"9e16c9e6551847ab16d03850548cfc8a3dd51ef3d3b58ac47b04d2bae87dd4ab","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/9e16c9e6551847ab16d03850548cfc8a3dd51ef3d3b58ac47b04d2bae87dd4ab.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Bulletin_Artificial%20Intelligence_KG%20May%202025.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:03.342478+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO\n+IN RE: All Cases Assigned to District Judge Margaret I. Strickland\n+STANDING ORDER ESTABLISHING DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION\n+REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+1. Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the\n+certifications required thereunder, the Court orders that any party, whether appearing pro\n+se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in the\n+preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court, must disclose in the document that\n+AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used. The unrepresented party or attorney\n+must further certify in the document that the person has checked the accuracy of any portion\n+of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations and legal authority.\n+2. If generative AI is utilized in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court,\n+the unrepresented party or attorney will be held responsible for the contents thereof, in\n+accordance with Rule 11 and the applicable rules of professional conduct and /or attorney\n+discipline.\n+3. The failure to make the disclosure and certification described in paragraph 1 may\n+result in the imposition of sanctions.","id":"899b1a8b62423715e2d5c4fb39c91789d08158bdbc708d2b528bc309531b11a9","newHash":"bed772eeac8da58a8793c16aa39d381dfe8c82794162e6b145dd353bdba1a744","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/bed772eeac8da58a8793c16aa39d381dfe8c82794162e6b145dd353bdba1a744.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/sites/nmd/files/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:03.842064+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@\n+1\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF NEV ADA\n+SECOND AM\n+ENDED STANDING ORDER & CHAMBERS PRACTICES\n+of United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III\n+Effective August 17, 2026\n+United States District Court\n+Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse\n+333 Las Vegas Blvd. South\n+Las Vegas, NV 89101\n+Chambers Phone: 702-464-5540\n+Courtroom Administrator Tawnee Renfro: 702-464-5427\n+Chambers Email: court_mdc@nvd.uscourts.gov\n+This St\n+anding Order establishes requirements and procedures for all civil cases assigned to\n+Judge Couvillier. A copy of this Order can be found at the District of Nevada’s website on Judge\n+Couvillier’s biographical page. Counsel and pro se parties (those unrepresented by an attorney)\n+must familiarize themselves with the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada as well as\n+the individual rules prescribed by this order. The Local Rules can be found on the Court’s website.\n+I. CONFORMI\n+TY WITH RULES\n+Parties shall follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Nevada’s Local\n+Rules And General Orders, excep\n+t as superseded by this Standing Order. A party’s failure to follow\n+this Standing Order, Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in their filings\n+being stricken, revocation of pro hac vice admission, and other appropriate sanctions or penalties.\n+II. DISCOVER\n+Y\n+A. Motions\n+to Dismiss and Staying Discovery\n+The fil\n+ing of a motion to dismiss does not stay discovery. Rather, the parties are required\n+to comply with the rules of discovery as required by the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure. See LR 26-1 et. seq.; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 et. seq . If a party believes that discovery\n+should be stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss, the party is required to file a motion\n+to stay. Judge Couvillier follows the pragmatic approach and all briefs regarding staying discovery\n+pending ruling on a motion to dismiss must address the factors articulated in Schrader v. Wynn Las\n+Vegas, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021); see\n+also Aristocrat Techs., Inc. v. Light & Wonder, Inc ., No. 2:24- cv-00382-GMN-MDC, 2024 WL\n+2302151, at *3 (D. Nev. May 21, 2024).\n+B. Discov\n+ery Disputes\n+Pursuant\n+to LR 1- 1(b)(2), Judge Couvillier requires the parties to follow the procedure s\n+outlined below regarding any discovery dispute. No discovery motion may be filed until the\n+following procedure has been followed and such motion is ordered by Judge Couvillier:\n+1. If a dis\n+covery dispute arises the parties must first meet and confer to try to resolve\n+their dispute in compliance with LR IA 1-3(f). Lead counsel for each party shall meet and confer\n+2\n+in person, videoconference, or telephone. A mere exchange of letters or e -mails does not satisfy\n+the meet and confer requirement.\n+2. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally after a good-faith effort,\n+the parties must file a single document captioned “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute” that\n+addresses each one of the following items:\n+i. A brief, joint summary of the discovery dispute not to exceed one (1) page;\n+ii. A restatement of the full text of the discovery requests, or deposition question, in\n+dispute as originally stated and the responses to the requests. This may be done in single-spaced,\n+10-font. A joint summary of the meet-and-confer efforts as required by LR IA 1-3(f), which\n+includes: (1) a summary of discussions; (2) identification of time, place, manner, and\n+participants; and (3) certification from counsel that, despite a sincere effort, the parties were\n+unable to resolve or narrow the dispute without court intervention. This joint meet-and-confer\n+summary may not exceed two (2) pages.\n+iii. An explanation, without boilerplate language, of the position taken by each side,\n+not to exceed two (2) pages per side. Such explanation must include relevant authorities\n+supporting the parties’ respective position. It is not necessary to include case law of general\n+discovery principles. Rather, the parties should include case law addressing their specific\n+position or matters at issue.\n+iv. Each side must make a proposal of compromise or resolution of the disputed\n+discovery (e.g., request, interrogatory, deposition question). The proposal may not exceed two\n+(2) pages per side.\n+3. Upon review of the filed “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute,” Judge\n+Couvillier may set a telephonic conference, order written briefing, or enter an order deciding the\n+dispute without conference or briefing.\n+C. Emergency Discovery Disputes\n+In emergencies during discovery events – which should be exceedingly rare - such as\n+depositions, any party may, after exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek\n+judicial intervention pursuant to LR 26-6(d) by contacting Judge Couvillier through his law clerks.\n+Before calling Judge Couvillier’s chambers, the parties must first send a short email\n+describing the emergency and nature of the dispute to court mdc@nvd.uscourts.gov . After\n+sending such email, the parties may call chambers at 702-464-5540.\n+If Judge Couvillier is unavailable, the deposition or other discovery event shall proceed\n+with objections noted for the record and resolved later via the “Stipulation Regarding Discovery\n+Dispute” process addressed above.\n+//\n+3\n+III. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)\n+Any counsel or party may use AI to draft documents or process discovery consistent with\n+Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.), this Standing Order, and any\n+other applicable legal or ethical obligations.\n+1. Certification of AI Use In Drafting Filings. Any party that files (manually\n+or e-filing) a brief, motion, request, pleading, or other similar document with the Court which\n+includes content generated or drafted by artificial intelligence (i.e., ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel,\n+Google Gemini, or any other such application) must include the following certification above the\n+signature line:\n+“I certify that artificial intelligence was used to generate a portion of\n+this filing. I have reviewed the source material and verified that the\n+artificially generated content in the filing is accurate and complies\n+with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.”\n+Failure to include such certification may result in sanctions.\n+2. Citations to Authorities. A pro se party or a counsel’s failure to confirm\n+or double-check the accuracy, veracity, or existence of a case or legal citation (or assertion of fact)\n+obtained from an AI tool or created by an AI tool is grounds for potential sanctions. All citations\n+to authority or assertions of fact must be corroborated and comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and LR\n+IA 7-3.\n+3. Protective Orders. Parties are strongly encouraged to address the use of\n+AI in proposed protective orders. In particular, such orders should include protocols addressing\n+the type of permissible AI systems (e.g., closed AI system v. open AI system) and any limitations\n+relative to using AI tools for processing discovery materials that contain personal-data identifiers,\n+confidential material, trade secrets, or similar.\n+4. Sealed Documents and Court Documents Containing Personal -Data\n+Identifiers May Not Be Uploaded to Open AI System. Counsel and parties are prohibited from\n+uploading onto any open AI system - where the source code, learning materials, and underling\n+models may be publicly accessible - any filed documents which: (a) have been filed under seal; or\n+(b) contain personal-data identifiers listed in LR IC 6-1(a)(1)-(6). Violation may result in sanctions.\n+IV. OPPORTUNITIES FOR LESS-EXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS\n+Per LR 78-1, all motions may be considered and decided with or without a hearing. Any\n+party making or opposing a motion who believes oral argument may assist the court may request\n+a hearing by inserting the words ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED below the title of the\n+document on the first page of the motion or response.\n+Judge Couvillier encourages litigants to permit more junior members of the litigation team\n+to present oral argument and gain courtroom experience. Thus, if a party requests oral argument,\n+the party should further note in the caption of the motion that a junior, less experienced attorney\n+will be responsible for presenting argument. Allowing junior, less experienced attorneys to argue\n+will weigh in favor of holding a hearing.\n+4\n+V . TRANSCRIPTS\n+All hearings and case management, status and pretrial conferences are audio recorded .\n+Court reporters are usually not provided. Forms necessary to request a copy of either the audio\n+recording (on CD) or a transcription of the audio recording, or the court reporter’s transcript, if\n+applicable, are available on the District of Nevada’s website at:\n+https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-information/forms/.\n+VI. REQUESTS FOR COURT ACTION\n+When a party requests the Court to act on a filing, the party s hould caption and file-code\n+such filing as a “Stipulation” ; “Motion”; (opposed, joint , or unopposed) ; or “Application”\n+(opposed, joint, or unopposed). That will flag such filing and bring it to the Court’s attention.\n+Documents captioned and filed as “Notices”; “Reports”; “Status Reports”; and the like may not be\n+flagged for the Judge’s review and action.\n+VII. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT\n+Counsel and parties should not contact Judge Couvillier’s chambers ex parte - except as\n+provided for in LR IA 7- 1(a) or in connection with Early Neutral Evaluation or Settlement\n+Conference proceedings. Parties should contact the Clerk’s Office at (702) 464- 5400 or Judge\n+Couvillier’s Courtroom Deputy, Tawnee Renfro, at (702) 464-5427, with any scheduling or other\n+non-substantive issues. See LR IA 7-2(c). Substantive matters should be addressed through filings\n+that are served upon all parties.\n+Dated: August 17, 2026.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED\n+_______________________________\n+Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III","id":"8d1b8ac82ff6a239c9abca483b1db6c77ca6f2347a66fd3a45b52c5276458f41","newHash":"9f138b3723c30e58cb6afbfcb87a164a0639bd93af887153a0cc918f83d32208","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/9f138b3723c30e58cb6afbfcb87a164a0639bd93af887153a0cc918f83d32208.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2nd-Revised-FINAL-Standing-Order-081726-v8.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:04.271710+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"48f48f5cc4f2cebc08e46d4f4cacf97348c5d06d77a4e81829f2602d4e3fe300","newHash":"92d03561c02b03ec4cc05cc505bc813ba7dcb94256f2eb97a2f3ab4cacb0fc37","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6-ethical-issues-affecting-use-of-ai-to-record-transcribe-and-summarize-conversations-with-clients/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:04.822199+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,3833 @@\n+i\n+EFFECTIVE\n+September 30, 2024\n+REVISED: August 2, 2004\n+October 17, 2005\n+August 4, 2008\n+December 1, 2009\n+April 16, 2012\n+August 1, 2013\n+December 1, 2014\n+December 1, 2015\n+December 1, 2016\n+December 1, 2017\n+June 9, 2020\n+December 1, 2021\n+August 14, 2023\n+September 30, 2024\n+ii\n+PART I: COMMENCEMENT OF CASE; PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO\n+PETITION AND ORDER FOR RELIEF ............................................................. 1\n+Rule 1001-1 SHORT TITLE; APPLICABILITY; ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ...............1\n+Rule 1002-1 FILING OF PETITION .....................................................................................2\n+Rule 1005-1 DEBTOR'S ADDRESS IN PETITION .............................................................3\n+Rule 1007-1 DUTY TO FILE A LIST OF CREDITORS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH\n+THE PETITION UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 1007(a)(1) ........................3\n+Rule 1007-2 DEBTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND PROPOSED CASE CONFERENCE ORDER\n+TO BE FILED IN CHAPTER 11 CASES .........................................................4\n+Rule 1007-3 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY DEBTOR\n+THAT IS A BUSINESS ENTITY OF ANY KIND ..........................................7\n+Rule 1009-1 NOTICE OF AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULES IN CHAPTER 11 CASES ...8\n+Rule 1010-1 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT TO BE FILED IN AN\n+INVOLUNTARY CASE BY EACH PETITIONER THAT IS ABUSINESS\n+ENTITY OF ANY KIND ..................................................................................8\n+Rule 1011-1 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY A\n+BUSINESS ENTITY OF ANY KIND THAT IS A RESPONDENT TO AN\n+INVOLUNTARY PETITION OR PETITION FOR RECOGNITION .............9\n+Rule 1014-1 TRANSFER OF CASES..................................................................................10\n+Rule 1073-1 ASSIGNMENT OF CASES AND PROCEEDINGS ......................................10\n+Rule 1074-1 RESOLUTION OR OTHER STATEMENT AUTHORIZING FILING ........12\n+PART II: OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION; NOTICES; MEETINGS;\n+EXAMINATIONS; ELECTIONS; ATTORNEYS AND ACCOUNTANTS .. 13\n+Rule 2002-1 NOTICE TO UNITED STATES TRUSTEE ..................................................13\n+Rule 2002-4 NOTICE OF PETITION FOR RECOGNITION IN CHAPTER 15 CASE ....13\n+Rule 2002-5 COMPILATION AND FILING OF MASTER SERVICE LISTS IN MEGA\n+CHAPTER 11 CASES .....................................................................................13\n+Rule 2004-1 UNIFORM DEFINITIONS FOR EXAMINATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR\n+PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 2004.............................14\n+Rule 2007.1-1 ELECTION OF TRUSTEE IN CHAPTER 11 CASES ..................................15\n+Rule 2007.2-1 APPOINTMENT OF PATIENT CARE OMBUDSMAN IN A HEALTH\n+CARE BUSINESS CASE ................................................................................15\n+Rule 2014-1 EMPLOYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL PERSONS .......................................16\n+Rule 2015-1 STORAGE OF BOOKS AND RECORDS .....................................................16\n+Rule 2016-1 COMPENSATION OF PROFESSIONALS....................................................16\n+Rule 2016-2 COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IN CHAPTER\n+7 CASES ..........................................................................................................17\n+Rule 2090-1 ADMISSION TO PRACTICE; WITHDRAWAL AS ATTORNEY OF\n+RECORD .........................................................................................................18\n+PART III: CLAIMS AND DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS AND EQUITY\n+INTEREST HOLDERS; PLANS ........................................................................ 19\n+Rule 3002-1 DEADLINE IN CHAPTER 7 CASES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS\n+PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9) ..........................................................19\n+iii\n+Rule 3003-1 REQUESTS FOR ORDERS ESTABLISHING DEADLINES FOR FILING\n+CLAIMS IN CHAPTER 11 CASES................................................................19\n+Rule 3008-1 RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS ..............................................................20\n+Rule 3011-1 DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED FUNDS UNDER A CONFIRMED\n+CHAPTER 11 PLAN .......................................................................................20\n+Rule 3015-1 CHAPTER 13 PLANS: MODEL PLAN AND CONFIRMATION ORDER;\n+TREATMENT OF DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY'S FEES AS\n+ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES; SERVICE ................................................21\n+Rule 3015-2 MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 13 PLAN BEFORE CONFIRMATION ..22\n+Rule 3015-3 HEARING ON CONFIRMATION OF CHAPTER 13 PLAN .......................22\n+Rule 3017-1 PROPOSED DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS IN CHAPTER 9 AND\n+CHAPTER 11 CASES: TRANSMITTAL AND DISCLAIMER ...................22\n+Rule 3018-1 CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF PLANS IN\n+CHAPTER 9 AND CHAPTER 11 CASES .....................................................24\n+Rule 3018-2 ACCEPTANCES OR REJECTIONS OF PLAN SOLICITED BEFORE\n+PETITION IN CHAPTER 11 CASES .............................................................25\n+Rule 3019-1 MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 11 PLAN BEFORE CLOSE OF VOTING\n+..........................................................................................................................25\n+Rule 3020-1 TIME FOR OBJECTING TO CONFIRMATION IN CHAPTER 9 AND\n+CHAPTER 11 CASES .....................................................................................26\n+Rule 3020-2 CONFIRMATION ORDER FORMAT ...........................................................26\n+Rule 3021-1 POST-CONFIRMATION REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER 11 CASES .....27\n+Rule 3022-1 CLOSING REPORTS IN CHAPTER 11 CASES ...........................................28\n+PART IV: THE DEBTOR: DUTIES AND BENEFITS ....................................................... 30\n+Rule 4001-1 RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY ...........................................................30\n+Rule 4001-1.1 PAYMENT AND CURE OF PRE-PETITION JUDGMENT OF\n+POSSESSION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ..........................31\n+Rule 4001-2 REQUESTS FOR USE OF CASH COLLATERAL OR TO OBTAIN\n+CREDIT ...........................................................................................................32\n+Rule 4002-1 DUTIES OF DEBTORS – PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE\n+IMPLEMENTATION OF BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTION 521 ...............41\n+Rule 4003-1 EXEMPTIONS ................................................................................................41\n+–Rule 4004-2 DEBTOR’S CERTIFICATION CONCERNING DOMESTIC SUPPORT\n+OBLIGATIONS IN A CASE UNDER CHAPTER 12 OR CHAPTER 13.....42\n+Rule 4007-2 WITHDRAWAL OR SETTLEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO\n+DETERMINE DISCHARGE AND DISCHARGEABILITY .........................43\n+Rule 4008-1 REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENTS .............................................................43\n+PART V: COURTS AND CLERKS ..................................................................................... 45\n+Rule 5001-1 CLERK’S OFFICE: HOURS; AFTER HOURS FILING ...............................45\n+Rule 5005-1 FILING PAPERS .............................................................................................45\n+Rule 5005-2 FILING BY ELECTRONIC MEANS .............................................................46\n+Rule 5005-3 PAYMENT OF COURT FEES .......................................................................46\n+iv\n+Rule 5009-1 FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND CLOSING REPORT IN A\n+CHAPTER 7 CASE .........................................................................................47\n+Rule 5009-2 CLOSING A CHAPTER 15 CASE .................................................................48\n+Rule 5010-1 REOPENING CASES .....................................................................................49\n+Rule 5011-1 WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE................................................................49\n+Rule 5070-1 OBTAINING A RETURN DATE ...................................................................50\n+Rule 5073-1 PHOTOGRAPHING, BROADCASTING, AND TELEVISING IN\n+COURTROOMS AND ENVIRONS ...............................................................50\n+Rule 5073-2 REMOTE ACCESS TO PROCEEDINGS ......................................................50\n+Rule 5075-1 CLERK’S USE OF OUTSIDE SERVICES AND AGENTS; CLAIMS AND\n+NOTICING AGENTS .....................................................................................51\n+Rule 5078-1 PAYMENT OF FEES ......................................................................................52\n+PART VI: COLLECTION AND LIQUIDATION OF THE ESTATE ............................... 52\n+Rule 6004-1 SALES OF PROPERTY, APPRAISALS, AND AUCTIONS ........................52\n+Rule 6005-1 AUCTIONEERS ..............................................................................................56\n+Rule 6006-1 EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES........................58\n+Rule 6007-1 ABANDONMENT OR DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY ..............................61\n+PART VII: ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS.......................................................................... 61\n+Rule 7005-1 FILING OF DISCOVERY-RELATED DOCUMENTS .................................61\n+–Rule 7007.1-1 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY A\n+BUSINESS ENTITY OF ANY KIND THAT IS A PARTY TO AN\n+ADVERSARY PROCEEDING .......................................................................62\n+Rule 7016-2 INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE............................................................62\n+Rule 7026-1 UNIFORM DEFINITIONS IN DISCOVERY REQUESTS ...........................63\n+Rule 7027-1 DEPOSITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ADVERSARY\n+PROCEEDING OR PENDING APPEAL WHEN DEPOSITION IS MORE\n+THAN 100 MILES FROM COURTHOUSE ..................................................63\n+Rule 7030-1 DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION MORE THAN 100 MILES\n+FROM COURTHOUSE ..................................................................................63\n+Rule 7033-1 INTERROGATORIES ....................................................................................64\n+Rule 7034-1 OBJECTIONS TO, AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO,\n+PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ................................................................66\n+Rule 7036-1 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION .....................................................................67\n+Rule 7037-1 DISCOVERY-RELATED MOTION PRACTICE ..........................................68\n+Rule 7052-1 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .........68\n+Rule 7055-1 CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT .......................................................................69\n+Rule 7055-2 DEFAULT JUDGMENT .................................................................................69\n+Rule 7056-1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ..............................................................................70\n+PART VIII: APPEALS ............................................................................................................... 72\n+Rule 8003-1 COPIES OF NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR PRO SE PARTIES .......................72\n+Rule 8007-1 SUPERSEDEAS BOND ..................................................................................72\n+Rule 8009-1 RECORD ON APPEAL ..................................................................................73\n+v\n+Rule 8010-1 NOTICE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THE FILING OF A\n+PRELIMINARY MOTION WITH AN APPELLATE COURT .....................73\n+Rule 8024-1 ORDER, JUDGMENT, OR REMAND BY APPELLATE COURT ..............73\n+PART IX: GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 75\n+Rule 9001-1 DEFINITIONS – Amended August 1, 2013....................................................75\n+Rule 9004-1 FORM OF PAPERS ........................................................................................76\n+Rule 9004-2 CAPTION ........................................................................................................77\n+Rule 9006-1 TIME FOR SERVICE AND FILING OF MOTIONS AND ANSWERING\n+PAPERS ...........................................................................................................78\n+Rule 9006-2 AUTOMATIC EXTENSION OF TIME WHEN TIMELY MOTION TO\n+EXTEND TIME IS FILED ..............................................................................80\n+Rule 9011-1 SIGNING OF PAPERS ...................................................................................80\n+Rule 9013-1 MOTION PRACTICE .....................................................................................82\n+Rule 9013-2 NOTICES OF PRESENTMENT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN\n+APPLICATIONS .............................................................................................82\n+Rule 9013-3 CERTIFICATE OF NO OBJECTION ............................................................84\n+Rule 9014-1 CONTESTED MATTERS...............................................................................85\n+Rule 9014-2 FIRST SCHEDULED HEARING ...................................................................86\n+Rule 9015-1 JURY TRIALS.................................................................................................87\n+Rule 9018-1 MOTIONS TO PUBLICLY FILE REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND TO\n+FILE UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL .................................87\n+Rule 9019-1 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..................................................88\n+Rule 9019-2 LOSS MITIGATION FOR INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS WITH RESIDENTIAL\n+REAL PROPERTY AT RISK OF FORECLOSURE OR IMMINENT\n+DEFAULT .......................................................................................................89\n+Rule 9019-3 MEDIATION FOR DEBTORS WITH STUDENT LOAN DEBT .................89\n+Rule 9020-1 DEFAULT SANCTIONS; IMPOSITION OF COSTS ...................................89\n+Rule 9021-1 ENTRY OF ORDERS, JUDGMENTS, AND DECREES ..............................90\n+Rule 9023-1 MOTIONS FOR REARGUMENT ..................................................................90\n+Rule 9025-1 SURETIES .......................................................................................................91\n+Rule 9028-1 ACTION IN ABSENCE OF ASSIGNED JUDGE .........................................92\n+Rule 9033-1 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN CERTAIN CORE\n+PROCEEDINGS ..............................................................................................92\n+Rule 9037-1 REDACTION OF PERSONAL DATA IDENTIFIERS .................................93\n+Rule 9070-1 COPIES OF FILED PAPERS ..........................................................................94\n+Rule 9072-1 CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS .............................................................................95\n+Rule 9074-1 SUBMISSION OR SETTLEMENT OF AN ORDER, JUDGMENT, OR\n+DECREE ..........................................................................................................95\n+Rule 9075-1 REQUEST FOR HEARING ............................................................................96\n+Rule 9076-1 STATUS CONFERENCES .............................................................................96\n+Rule 9077-1 ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE; EX PARTE ORDERS ...................................97\n+Rule 9078-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................98\n+1\n+LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULES\n+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n+PART I: COMMENCEMENT OF CASE; PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO\n+PETITION AND ORDER FOR RELIEF\n+Rule 1001-1 SHORT TITLE; APPLICABILITY; ADDITIONAL RESOURCES\n+(a) Short Title. These rules shall be known and cited as the \"Local Bankruptcy Rules.\"\n+(b) Applicability. The Local Bankruptcy Rules shall apply to all cases in this district\n+governed by the Bankruptcy Code.\n+(c) Additional Resources. The court’s website, https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov, contains the\n+following additional items that practitioners should consult:\n+(1) Procedural guidelines and policies referenced in these rules and general orders\n+that supplement these Rules and that govern various procedural matters\n+(https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/content/procedural-guidelines-policies-and-\n+general-orders);\n+(2) Official and Local Forms referenced in these rules\n+(https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/forms); and\n+(3) Judges’ individual rules of practice (https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/chambers-\n+rules-0).\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 1.\n+Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9029, \"[e]ach district court may make\n+and amend rules governing practice and procedure which are not\n+inconsistent with\" the Bankruptcy Rules and \"[i]n all cases not provided\n+for by rule, the court may regulate its practice in any manner not\n+inconsistent with\" the Bankruptcy Rules. The Judges of this district have\n+been authorized to make and amend rules of practice and procedure\n+pursuant to an order of the District Court (Griesa, C.J.), dated December 1,\n+1994.\n+Pursuant to the Memorandum of the Administrative Office of the\n+United States Courts, dated November 22, 1994, the appropriate citation\n+form for a local bankruptcy rule, using the uniform numbers, is \"LBR.\"\n+For example, this rule would be cited as \"LBR 1001-1.\" In a brief or other\n+document in which the district prescribing the rule must be identified, this\n+rule would be cited as \"S.D.N.Y. LBR 1001-1.\"\n+From time to time, the Court may issue standing or general orders\n+to supplement these Local Bankruptcy Rules. In prior years these were\n+available on the Court’s website through a link that included a\n+2\n+chronological list of all general orders. However, that list included not\n+only procedural orders of general applicability but also many relatively\n+routine matters, such as orders granting exemptions from the payment of\n+electronic public access fees. In 2023, the website was reconfigured so\n+that any procedural order of general applicability that has not already been\n+incorporated into these Local Bankruptcy Rules will be available on the\n+“Procedural Guidelines and Policies” page on the Court’s website. This\n+change should make it easier for parties to identify the general orders that\n+are still in force and the current versions of those orders.\n+Capitalized terms used in these Local Bankruptcy Rules are\n+defined in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9001-1.\n+In 2017, a number of grammatical and conforming amendments\n+were made generally to these rules. Among other items, consistency in the\n+use of “must”, “shall” and “may” was employed, numbering conventions\n+were employed consistently, references to amendments and repeal of rules\n+was updated and made consistent, and certain other grammatical changes\n+were implemented.\n+Subsection (b) was amended in 2024 to delete the reference to the\n+former Bankruptcy Act, because there are no more open cases governed\n+by the Bankruptcy Act in this Court.\n+Subsection (c) was added in 2024 to ensure that parties are aware\n+of other procedural guidelines, orders and chambers rules that may be\n+applicable, and to provide links to those additional resources.\n+Rule 1002-1 FILING OF PETITION\n+(a) A petition commencing a case under the Bankruptcy Code may be filed in any office of\n+the Clerk or by electronic means established by the Court.\n+(b) Notice Regarding Filing of a Chapter 11 or Chapter 15 Petition. To the extent practicable,\n+when a prospective chapter 11 debtor or chapter 15 petitioner anticipates the need to seek\n+orders for immediate relief, counsel for the debtor or petitioner must contact the United\n+States Trustee and the Clerk prior to filing a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11\n+or chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, for the purpose of advising the United States\n+Trustee and the Clerk of the anticipated filing of the petition (without disclosing the\n+identity of the debtor or petitioner) and the matters on which the debtor or petitioner\n+intends to seek immediate relief.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 9(a).\n+Practitioners should refer to Local Bankruptcy Rule 5005-2, which\n+governs filing by electronic means.\n+3\n+Subsection (b) of this rule was added in 2016. Subsection (b) is\n+designed to alert the Court of impending motions seeking immediate first\n+day relief and to give the United States Trustee time to review proposed,\n+complex orders that may be entered at the conclusion of a “first day\n+hearing,” including debtor in possession orders and the like.\n+Rule 1005-1 DEBTOR'S ADDRESS IN PETITION\n+The petition must state the debtor's residence or place of business, whichever is\n+applicable, including the street number, street, apartment or suite number, and zip code.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 50(a).\n+The rule was amended for clarification in December 2017.\n+Rule 1007-1 DUTY TO FILE A LIST OF CREDITORS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH\n+THE PETITION UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 1007(a)(1)\n+(a) Duties Generally. The list of creditors and other entities required to be filed under\n+Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a)(1), and the creditors’ matrix, must include the full name and\n+complete mailing address, including street number or post office box, if any, and zip\n+code. If a debt is owed to an agency or department of the United States, the list and\n+matrix must include the name and address of the particular agency or department to\n+which such debt is owed.\n+(b) Attorneys Filing Electronically.\n+(1) Debtor’s counsel, at the time of filing the petition, must (i) file the list of creditors\n+and other entities required under Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a)(1), and (ii) unless a\n+claims and noticing agent has been retained by the debtor in accordance with\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 5075-1, upload the creditors’ matrix into the CM/ECF\n+creditors’ database. Reference should be made to Procedures for Filing Creditors’\n+List, which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/content/procedures- filing-creditors-list).\n+(2) When amending a schedule to add a creditor or other entity required to be on the\n+list filed under Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a)(1), debtor’s counsel must file the\n+amended schedule on the docket and pay the applicable fee and, unless a claims\n+and noticing agent has been retained by the debtor in accordance with Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 5075-1, upload the newly-added entity into the CM/ECF\n+creditor database. Additionally, debtor’s counsel must serve any newly-added\n+entity with notice of the case and file timely proof of service in accordance with\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 9078-1.\n+4\n+(3) When amending a schedule to modify an address, the filing of the amended\n+schedule must be accompanied by a letter indicating which entity is the subject of\n+the modification and how the address has been modified\n+(c) Debtors Not Represented by an Attorney.\n+(1) A debtor not represented by an attorney must, at the time of filing the petition, file\n+a paper document setting forth, for each creditor or other entity required to be on\n+the list filed under Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a), the full name and complete mailing\n+address, including street number or post office box, if any, and zip code. In\n+addition to such paper document, the debtor must provide the list required to be\n+filed under Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a)(1) in an electronic format (such as a USB\n+flash drive). Reference should be made to Procedures for Filing Creditors’ List,\n+which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/content/procedures-filing-creditors-list).\n+(2) When amending a schedule to add a creditor or modify a creditor’s address, the\n+filing of the amended schedule must be accompanied by (i) a letter indicating\n+which creditor is being added or, if modification of a creditor’s address is sought,\n+which creditor is the subject of the modification and how the address has been\n+modified, and (ii) payment of the applicable fee. Additionally, the debtor must\n+serve any newly-added creditor or other entity with notice of the case and file\n+timely proof of service in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9078-1.\n+Comment\n+Filing requirements with respect to lists, statements and schedules\n+were governed by General Order M-192 until it was superseded by\n+General Order M-408 in 2010. General Order M-408 was abrogated and\n+replaced by this Local Bankruptcy Rule in 2013. Amendments in 2013\n+also made mandatory certain procedures which General Order M-408\n+indicated that the debtor or the debtor’s attorney “should” follow. Other\n+clarifying amendments were also made in 2013.\n+Subsection (c)(1) of this rule was amended in 2016 to remove the\n+reference to “diskette” as an acceptable electronic format, and it was\n+further amended in 2024 to remove the reference to a “CD” as an\n+acceptable electronic format. Diskettes and CDs are no longer supported\n+as acceptable electronic formats.\n+The Clerk’s Office maintains a register of mailing addresses of\n+federal and state governmental units and certain taxing authorities\n+pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 5003(e).\n+Rule 1007-2 DEBTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND PROPOSED CASE CONFERENCE\n+ORDER TO BE FILED IN CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+(a) Contents of Affidavit. A debtor in a chapter 11 case must file an affidavit setting forth:\n+5\n+(1) the nature of the debtor's business and a concise statement of the circumstances\n+leading to the debtor's filing under chapter 11;\n+(2) if the case originally was commenced under chapter 7 or chapter 13, the name and\n+address of any trustee appointed in the case and, in a case originally commenced\n+under chapter 7, the names and addresses of the members of any creditors'\n+committee;\n+(3) the names and addresses of the members of, and attorneys for, any committee\n+organized prior to the order for relief in the chapter 11 case, and a brief\n+description of the circumstances surrounding the formation of the committee and\n+the date of its formation;\n+(4) the following information with respect to each of the holders of the twenty (20)\n+largest unsecured claims, excluding insiders: the name, the address (including the\n+number, street, apartment or suite number, and zip code, if not included in the\n+post office address), the telephone number, e-mail address, the name(s) of\n+person(s) familiar with the debtor's account, the amount of the claim, and an\n+indication of whether the claim is contingent, unliquidated, disputed or partially\n+secured;\n+(5) the following information with respect to each of the holders of the five (5) largest\n+secured claims: the name, the address (including the number, street, apartment or\n+suite number, and zip code, if not included in the post office address), the amount\n+of the claim, a brief description and an estimate of the value of the collateral\n+securing the claim, and whether the claim or lien is disputed;\n+(6) summary of the debtor's assets and liabilities;\n+(7) the number and classes of shares of stock, debentures or other securities of the\n+debtor that are publicly held, and the number of holders thereof, listing separately\n+those held by each of the debtor's officers and directors and the amounts so held;\n+(8) a list of all of the debtor's property in the possession or custody of any custodian,\n+public officer, mortgagee, pledgee, assignee of rents or secured creditor, or agent\n+for any such entity, giving the name, address, and telephone number of each such\n+entity and the court in which any proceeding relating thereto is pending;\n+(9) a list of the premises owned, leased or held under other arrangement from which\n+the debtor operates its business;\n+(10) the location of the debtor's substantial assets, the location of its books and records,\n+and the nature, location and value of any assets held by the debtor outside the\n+territorial limits of the United States;\n+(11) the nature and present status of each action or proceeding, pending or threatened,\n+against the debtor or its property where a judgment against the debtor or a seizure\n+of its property may be imminent; and\n+(12) the names of the individuals who comprise the debtor's existing senior\n+management, their tenure with the debtor, and a brief summary of their relevant\n+responsibilities and experience.\n+6\n+(b) Additional Information if Business is to Continue. If the debtor intends to continue to\n+operate its business, the affidavit must so state and set forth:\n+(1) the estimated amount of the weekly payroll to employees (exclusive of officers,\n+directors, stockholders and partners) for the thirty (30) day period following the\n+filing of the chapter 11 petition;\n+(2) the amount paid and proposed to be paid for services for the thirty (30) day period\n+following the filing of the chapter 11 petition –\n+(A) if the debtor is a corporation, to officers, stockholders and directors;\n+(B) if the debtor is an individual or a partnership, to the individual or the\n+members of the partnership; and\n+(C) if a financial or business consultant has been retained by the debtor, to the\n+consultant; and\n+(3) a schedule, for the thirty (30) day period following the filing of the chapter 11\n+petition, of estimated cash receipts and disbursements, net cash gain or loss,\n+obligations and receivables expected to accrue but remain unpaid, other than\n+professional fees, and any other information relevant to an understanding of the\n+foregoing.\n+(c) When to File. In a voluntary chapter 11 case, the affidavit must accompany the petition.\n+In an involuntary chapter 11 case, the affidavit must be filed within fourteen (14) days\n+after the date on which (i) the order for relief is entered, or (ii) a consent to the petition is\n+filed.\n+(d) Waiver of Requirements. Upon motion of the debtor on notice to the United States\n+Trustee showing that it is impracticable or impossible to furnish any of the foregoing\n+information, the Court may dispense with any of the foregoing provisions, with the\n+exception of those contained in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) of subdivision (a) of this\n+rule.\n+(e) Proposed Case Conference Order. Except in a case under subchapter V of chapter 11 and\n+except as provided in Local Bankruptcy Rule 2007.2-1, debtor’s counsel must submit to\n+the Court with the chapter 11 petition a proposed case conference order in the form\n+available on the Court’s website (http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/1007-\n+2-e-procedures.docx). Any initial conference must be conducted approximately thirty\n+(30) days after the filing of the petition or at such other time as the Court may direct.\n+Attorneys should consult judges’ individual rules of practice with respect to the\n+scheduling of the initial conference.\n+(f) Case Management Orders for Cases Under Subchapter V of Chapter 11. In a case under\n+Subchapter V of Chapter 11, the Subchapter V trustee must submit to the Court a\n+proposed Case Management Order Regarding Procedures in Chapter 11 Subchapter V\n+Cases, Scheduling Case Conference, and Setting Deadlines for Filing Plan, in the form\n+available on the Court website (https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/news/new-case-\n+management-order-chapter-11-subchapter-v-cases).\n+7\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 52, with\n+the exception of subdivisions (a)(5) and (a)(11), which are derived from\n+former Standing Order M-147.\n+Subdivision (e) of this rule, added in 1996, is intended to aid in the\n+implementation of Local Bankruptcy Rule 9076-1.\n+Subdivision (c) of this rule was amended in 2009 to change the\n+time period from fifteen (15) to fourteen (14) days. The purpose of the\n+amendment was to conform the time period in this rule to the 2009 time-\n+related amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.\n+Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules,\n+most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so\n+that the number of days is in multiples of seven (7), thereby reducing the\n+likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+Subdivision (a)(4) of this rule was amended in 2017 to require e-\n+mail addresses of the 20 largest unsecured creditors.\n+Subdivision (e) of this rule was amended in 2017 to clarify that it\n+is the responsibility of Debtor’s counsel to submit the proposed case\n+conference order. It was amended in 2024 to alert parties to check judges’\n+individual rules of practices regarding case conferences. It was further\n+amended in 2024 to carve out cases under subchapter V of chapter 11\n+because, in those cases, an initial conference is scheduled by the Court\n+pursuant to section 1188(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and also to reflect the\n+provisions of Local Bankruptcy Rule 2007.2-1 with respect to debtors that\n+are health care businesses.\n+Rule 1007-3 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY DEBTOR\n+THAT IS A BUSINESS ENTITY OF ANY KIND\n+The Corporate Ownership Statement required to be filed by any debtor that is a\n+corporation with the petition under Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a)(1), must also be filed by any debtor\n+that is a business entity of any kind irrespective of whether it is of a kind enumerated in section\n+101(9)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. In addition to the information required under Bankruptcy\n+Rule 7007.1, the statement must include the name and address of any corporation whose\n+securities are publicly traded in which the debtor directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of any\n+class of the corporation’s equity interests, and any general or limited partnership or joint venture\n+in which the debtor owns an interest.\n+Comment\n+Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a), as amended effective December 1, 2003,\n+requires a Corporate Ownership Statement containing the information\n+8\n+described in Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1 to be filed by the debtor with the\n+petition. Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a), however, only refers to a debtor that is\n+a corporation. “Corporation” is broadly defined under section 101(9) of\n+the Bankruptcy Code (and includes, among other entities, limited liability\n+companies and other unincorporated companies or associations), but it\n+does not cover general or limited partnerships. The reasons for which this\n+rule was enacted – to give the Judges of this Court information by which\n+they can determine whether or not they need to recuse themselves in a\n+particular case – apply equally without regard to the legal form of a\n+business entity. Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-3 was therefore amended in\n+2024 to mandate that the Corporate Ownership Statement referenced in\n+Bankruptcy Rule 1007(a) be filed by a business entity of any kind.\n+The heading of this rule was amended in 2009 to more accurately\n+reflect the substance of the rule.\n+Rule 1009-1 NOTICE OF AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULES IN CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+Whenever the debtor or trustee in a chapter 11 case amends the debtor’s schedules to\n+change the amount, nature, classification or characterization of a debt owing to a creditor, the\n+debtor or trustee promptly must transmit notice of the amendment to the creditor.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 53.\n+Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a) states that notice of an amendment to the\n+debtor’s schedules “shall” be given to the trustee “and to any entity\n+affected thereby.” Local Bankruptcy Rule 1009-1 makes clear that any\n+change in the amount, nature, classification or characterization of a debt is\n+a change for which notice is required.\n+The term “characterization,” as used in this rule, includes a\n+description of whether the debt is disputed or undisputed, fixed or\n+contingent, and liquidated or unliquidated.\n+Amendments to schedules also must comply with the provisions of\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-1(b)(2) and (c)(2).\n+Rule 1010-1 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT TO BE FILED IN AN\n+INVOLUNTARY CASE BY EACH PETITIONER THAT IS ABUSINESS\n+ENTITY OF ANY KIND\n+The Corporate Ownership Statement required to be filed under Bankruptcy Rule 1010(b)\n+by each petitioner that is a corporation must also be filed by each petitioner that is a business\n+entity of any kind irrespective of whether it of a kind enumerated in section 101(9)(A) of the\n+Bankruptcy Code.\n+9\n+Comment\n+This rule was amended in 2024 to clarify the entities to which it\n+applies.\n+Bankruptcy Rule 1010(b), which became effective on December 1,\n+2008, requires a Corporate Ownership Statement containing the\n+information described in Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1 to be filed by each\n+petitioner that is a corporation. Bankruptcy Rule 1010(b), however, only\n+refers to a petitioner that is a corporation. \"Corporation\" is broadly defined\n+under section 101(9) of the Bankruptcy Code (and includes, among other\n+entities, limited liability companies and other unincorporated companies\n+or associations), but it does not cover general or limited partnerships.\n+The reasons for which Bankruptcy Rule 1010(b) was enacted – to\n+give the Judges of this Court information by which they can determine\n+whether or not they need to recuse themselves in a particular case – apply\n+equally without regard to the legal form of a business entity. Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 1010-1 was therefore amended in 2024 to mandate that\n+the Corporate Ownership Statement referenced in Bankruptcy Rule\n+1010(b) be filed by a business entity of any kind.\n+Rule 1011-1 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY A\n+BUSINESS ENTITY OF ANY KIND THAT IS A RESPONDENT TO AN\n+INVOLUNTARY PETITION OR PETITION FOR RECOGNITION\n+The Corporate Ownership Statement required to be filed under Bankruptcy Rule 1011(f)\n+by a corporation responding to an involuntary petition or under Bankruptcy Rule 1012(c) by a\n+corporation responding to a petition for recognition of a foreign proceeding must also be filed by\n+any entity responding to an involuntary petition or a petition for recognition of a foreign\n+proceeding that is a business entity of any kind irrespective of whether it is of a kind enumerated\n+in section 101(9)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. If the responding entity is the debtor, in addition to\n+the information required under Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1, the statement must include the\n+information described in Bankruptcy Rule 1007-3.\n+Comment\n+Bankruptcy Rule 1011(f), which became effective on December 1,\n+2008, requires a Corporate Ownership Statement containing the\n+information described in Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1 to be filed by any\n+corporation responding to an involuntary petition or a petition for\n+recognition of a foreign proceeding. \"Corporation\" is broadly defined\n+under section 101(9) of the Bankruptcy Code (and includes, among other\n+entities, limited liability companies and other unincorporated companies\n+or associations), but it does not cover general or limited partnerships. The\n+reasons for which this rule was enacted – to give the Judges of this Court\n+information by which they can determine whether or not they need to\n+10\n+recuse themselves in a particular case – apply equally without regard to\n+the legal form of a business entity. Local Bankruptcy Rule 1011-1 was\n+therefore amended in 2024 to mandate that the Corporate Ownership\n+Statement referenced in Bankruptcy Rule 1011(f) be filed by a business\n+entity of any kind. If the responding entity is the debtor, the additional\n+information described in the second sentence of Local Bankruptcy Rule\n+1007-3 must be included.\n+Rule 1014-1 TRANSFER OF CASES\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, whenever a case is ordered transferred from this\n+district, the Clerk, promptly after entry of the order, shall effectuate the transfer of the case to the\n+transferee court.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 7 and is\n+an adaptation of Civil Rule 83.1 of the Local District Rules. Although not\n+expressly stated, this rule contemplates that whenever transfer of a case\n+under the Bankruptcy Code is ordered by a District Judge, the District\n+Clerk will transmit the order and related documents to the Clerk of the\n+Court.\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to eliminate the need for the Clerk\n+to transmit certified copies or originals of documents in the age of\n+electronic transmission. The District Court similarly amended Civil Rule\n+83.1 of the Local District Rules in recognition of the electronic filing of\n+documents.\n+Rule 1073-1 ASSIGNMENT OF CASES AND PROCEEDINGS\n+(a) Cases. Where the principal place of business in the District of the debtor set forth on the\n+petition is in (i) New York County or Bronx County, the Clerk shall assign the case to a\n+Judge sitting in New York County; (ii) Rockland County or Westchester County, the\n+Clerk shall assign the case to a Judge sitting in Westchester County; or (iii) Dutchess\n+County, Orange County, Putnam County, Sullivan County, Columbia County, Ulster\n+County or Greene County, the Clerk shall assign the case to a Judge sitting in Dutchess\n+County. No case assignment will be based upon a post office box address. Where more\n+than one Judge is sitting in a county, cases, other than chapter 13 cases, shall be assigned\n+by random selection so that each Judge shall be assigned approximately the same number\n+of cases. The Judges may direct that chapter 13 cases be referred to the same Judge or\n+Judges. The Clerk shall have no discretion in determining the Judge to whom any case is\n+assigned; the action shall be solely ministerial.\n+(b) Cases Involving Affiliates. Cases involving debtors that are affiliates shall be assigned to\n+the same Judge.\n+11\n+(c) Proceedings. Except as otherwise provided in the Bankruptcy Code or Bankruptcy Rules,\n+the assignment of a case to a Judge includes the assignment of all proceedings arising\n+under title 11 or arising in, or related to, a case under title 11.\n+(d) Adversary Proceedings or Contested Matters in Cases Pending Outside of this Court. An\n+adversary proceeding or contested matter that does not arise out of a case pending in this\n+Court shall be designated by the Clerk to an office of the Clerk in New York County,\n+Westchester County or Dutchess County. In making the designation, the Clerk shall take\n+into consideration the residence of the defendant, the convenience of litigants, counsel\n+and witnesses, and the place where the cause of action arose. Unless the Court orders\n+otherwise, the county designated by the Clerk shall be the place of trial and all other\n+proceedings. The designation shall be made at the time of commencement or transfer of\n+the adversary proceeding or contested matter, and the Clerk shall give prompt notice\n+thereof to the parties or their counsel. After the designation, the adversary proceeding or\n+contested matter shall be assigned to a Judge in the manner provided in subdivision (a) of\n+this rule. Objections, if any, to the designation shall be made on notice to opposing\n+counsel, before the Judge to whom the adversary proceeding or contested matter has been\n+assigned.\n+(e) Assignments and Reassignments. The Chief Judge shall supervise and rule upon all\n+assignments and reassignments of cases, adversary proceedings, contested matters and\n+actions.\n+(f) Mega Chapter 11 Cases. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of this rule, the Clerk shall\n+assign a mega chapter 11 case to a Judge in the District by random selection irrespective\n+of the courthouse in which the case is filed. A chapter 11 case qualifies as a mega\n+chapter 11 case if the assets or liabilities of the debtor are equal to or greater than $100\n+million. A multi-debtor chapter 11 case qualifies as a mega chapter 11 case if the\n+cumulative assets or cumulative liabilities of the filing debtors are equal to or greater than\n+$100 million.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 5. This\n+rule was amended in 2004 to eliminate the use of a post office box address\n+as the basis for case assignment.\n+This rule was amended in 2017 to eliminate the reference to venue\n+and assignment of removed actions that do not arise from cases pending in\n+this Court.\n+This rule was amended in 2021 to provide for the random\n+assignment of mega chapter 11 cases irrespective of the courthouse in\n+which the case is filed.\n+This rule was amended in 2023 to memorialize concurrent\n+jurisdiction in Columbia County, in addition to Ulster and Greene\n+Counties.\n+12\n+Rule 1074-1 RESOLUTION OR OTHER STATEMENT AUTHORIZING FILING\n+A voluntary petition, or a consent to an involuntary petition, that is filed by or on behalf\n+of a business entity of any kind must be accompanied by (a) a copy of the duly attested\n+resolution, consent or other appropriate document that authorizes the filing, and (b) a duly\n+attested statement that all persons whose consent is required for the filing have consented to the\n+filing.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 51. The\n+provision regarding the filing of a duly attested statement regarding\n+consents to a partnership filing was added in 1996.\n+This rule was amended in 2024 to make clear that any entity of any\n+kind that files a voluntary petition or that consents to an involuntary\n+petition must provide the required evidence that the filing or consent has\n+been authorized and the required attestation that consents have been\n+obtained from all persons whose consents are required.\n+13\n+PART II: OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION; NOTICES; MEETINGS;\n+EXAMINATIONS; ELECTIONS; ATTORNEYS AND ACCOUNTANTS\n+Rule 2002-1 NOTICE TO UNITED STATES TRUSTEE\n+Unless the case is a chapter 9 case or the United States Trustee requests otherwise, any\n+notice required to be given to creditors under Bankruptcy Rule 2002 also must be given to the\n+United States Trustee.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 36.\n+Rule 2002-4 NOTICE OF PETITION FOR RECOGNITION IN CHAPTER 15 CASE\n+A foreign representative commencing a chapter 15 case must forthwith submit a\n+proposed scheduling order, provide notice required by Bankruptcy Rule 2002(q)(1) in\n+accordance with the terms of that scheduling order, and file proof of service in accordance with\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 9078-1. In addition to the information required under Bankruptcy Rule\n+2002(q), the notice must include a statement that, at the hearing, the Court may order the\n+scheduling of a case management conference to consider the efficient administration of the case.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 to include in the Local Bankruptcy\n+Rules the notice requirements relating to chapter 15 cases promulgated by\n+General Order M-323, with stylistic changes to conform to Bankruptcy\n+Rule 2002(q)(1). The second sentence was added so that parties have\n+notice that the Court may, at the hearing on the petition for recognition of\n+a foreign proceeding, schedule a case management conference to consider\n+the efficient administration of the case. General Order M-323 was\n+abrogated and replaced by this local rule in 2013.\n+The rule was amended in 2024 to make clear that a foreign\n+representative must submit a proposed scheduling order, which is already\n+the prevailing practice in this district.\n+Rule 2002-5 COMPILATION AND FILING OF MASTER SERVICE LISTS IN MEGA\n+CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+(a) The debtor(s) in possession in a mega chapter 11 case (or in a set of procedurally\n+consolidated mega chapter 11 cases) must prepare and file a master service list that\n+includes the following persons:\n+(i) the Office of the United States Trustee;\n+(ii) the attorneys for the debtor(s);\n+14\n+(iii) those persons who have filed notices of appearance and who have requested\n+service pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002;\n+(iv) the attorneys for each official committee;\n+(v) all applicable government agencies to the extent required by Bankruptcy Rule\n+2002(j); and\n+(vi) such other parties in interest as the court may direct.\n+(b) If a claims agent is retained, then the claims agent shall prepare and maintain the\n+consolidated master service list required under subparagraph (a), and the list shall be\n+made available on the claims agent’s website.\n+(c) The master service list shall be compiled and filed within seven (7) business days after\n+the commencement of a case. Thereafter, the party responsible for the compilation and\n+maintenance of the list shall update and file a copy of the updated master service list at\n+least every fourteen (14) days.\n+Comment\n+This Rule was added in 2024. The Court has the power pursuant to\n+Bankruptcy Rule 2002(i) to limit the service of certain motions or other\n+notices to the official committees in a given case and to creditors and\n+equity security holders who have filed requests that all notices be sent to\n+them. In addition, courts often direct that motions that are not governed\n+by Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a) be served upon parties in interest who have\n+filed requests for notices. However, there is no established practice by\n+which lists of such parties are compiled and made readily available. The\n+purposes of Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-5 is to establish such a practice.\n+This rule is not intended to modify the requirements of Bankruptcy\n+Rule 2002 or other Bankruptcy Rules regarding the persons upon whom\n+service of particular motions is required. Practitioners should consult the\n+rules that govern each particular motion.\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9013 and Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1 govern\n+situations in which the Bankruptcy Rules or these Local Bankruptcy Rules\n+require notice but do not specify the parties upon whom service is\n+required.\n+Rule 2004-1 UNIFORM DEFINITIONS FOR EXAMINATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR\n+PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 2004\n+Civil Rule 26.3 of the Local District Rules shall apply to requests for examinations and\n+the production of documents under Bankruptcy Rule 2004.\n+15\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 to clarify that the uniform definitions\n+set forth in Civil Rule 26.3 of the Local District Rules are applicable to\n+examinations and the production of documents under Bankruptcy Rule\n+2004. Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7026-1, the uniform definitions\n+are applicable to discovery requests in cases and proceedings.\n+Rule 2007.1-1 ELECTION OF TRUSTEE IN CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+A meeting of creditors convened for the purpose of electing a chapter 11 trustee pursuant\n+to section 1104(b) of the Bankruptcy Code shall be deemed a meeting of creditors under section\n+341 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n+Comment\n+This rule clarifies that a meeting convened for the purpose of\n+electing a chapter 11 trustee pursuant to section 1104(b) of the Bankruptcy\n+Code satisfies the requirement of section 702(b) of the Bankruptcy Code\n+that a trustee be elected at a meeting of creditors held under section 341 of\n+the Bankruptcy Code.\n+Rule 2007.2-1 APPOINTMENT OF PATIENT CARE OMBUDSMAN IN A HEALTH\n+CARE BUSINESS CASE\n+Counsel for a debtor that is a “health care business” as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A)\n+must schedule with the Court a case conference to occur as soon as practicable upon the filing of\n+the bankruptcy petition but no later than fourteen (14) days after the petition date to discuss the\n+provisions of section 333 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 2007.2. If the debtor\n+intends to seek a finding that the appointment of a patient care ombudsman is not necessary then\n+the Court will set a schedule for the consideration of that issue that is consistent with the deadlines\n+set forth in section 333 and Bankruptcy Rule 2007.2. The scheduling of a conference under this\n+Rule shall excuse counsel from the requirement under Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2(e) to submit\n+an order scheduling an initial case conference.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2024. Section 333 of the Bankruptcy Code\n+requires the appointment of a patient care ombudsman in a chapter 7, 9 or\n+11 case in which the debtor is a health care business and provides that\n+such appointment shall be made “no later than 30 days” after the\n+commencement of the case, unless the court finds that the appointment is\n+not necessary for the protection of patients under the specific facts of the\n+case. Bankruptcy Rule 2007-2(a) further provides that the court “shall”\n+order the appointment of a patient care ombudsman in a chapter 7, 9 or 11\n+case in which the debtor is a health care business unless the court finds,\n+based on a motion filed no later than 21 days after the commencement of\n+16\n+the case, that such an appointment is not necessary under the specific\n+circumstances of the case for the protection of patients. This rule provides\n+a procedure to ensure that any orders and determinations required by\n+Section 333 and Bankruptcy Rule 2007.2 are made within the required\n+time frames.\n+Rule 2014-1 EMPLOYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL PERSONS\n+An application for the employment of a professional person pursuant to sections 327 and\n+328 of the Bankruptcy Code must state the specific facts showing the reasonableness of the terms\n+and conditions of the employment, including the terms of any retainer, hourly fee or contingent\n+fee arrangement.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 39. The\n+information required by Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a) and this rule may be\n+contained in the same application.\n+Rule 2015-1 STORAGE OF BOOKS AND RECORDS\n+The trustee or debtor in possession may place in storage, at the expense of the estate, the\n+debtor's books, records, and papers. If stored, electronic records must be stored in their original\n+electronic formats. Non-electronic records may be converted and stored in electronic format.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 43.\n+This rule sets no time limit on the storage of books and records.\n+On request, the Court may issue an appropriate order limiting storage of\n+the debtor's books, records, and papers. Disposal of the debtor's books,\n+records, and papers is governed by sections 363 and 554 of the\n+Bankruptcy Code.\n+This rule was amended in 2016 to permit the electronic storage of\n+documents. The estate may electronically store preexisting electronic\n+records in their original formatting and may convert and store other\n+documents in electronic format as well. The rule was intended to provide\n+a more cost-effective alternative to store the debtor’s books, records and\n+papers.\n+Rule 2016-1 COMPENSATION OF PROFESSIONALS\n+(a) A person requesting an award of compensation or reimbursement of expenses for a\n+professional must comply with the Amended Guidelines for Fees and Disbursements for\n+17\n+Professionals in Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Cases promulgated by the\n+Court, which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/m447.pdf).\n+(b) A person requesting an award of compensation or reimbursement of expenses for a\n+professional must use in connection with the application a form order that conforms to\n+the Order Granting Application(s) for Allowance of Interim/Final Compensation and\n+Reimbursement of Expenses promulgated by the Court, including any applicable\n+schedules, which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2016-1-b-order.docx).\n+(c) A person requesting an order establishing procedures for monthly compensation and\n+reimbursement of expenses for professionals must comply with the Procedures for\n+Monthly Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of Professionals promulgated\n+by the Court, which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2016-1-c-procedures.docx).\n+Comment\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to include links to the guidelines,\n+procedures, and form orders referenced therein. The guidelines,\n+procedures, and forms may be amended by the Court after giving notice\n+and opportunity for comment as is appropriate, in which case revised\n+versions will be posted on the website at the places identified in the above\n+links.\n+Rule 2016-2 COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IN CHAPTER\n+7 CASES\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, a person seeking an award of compensation or\n+reimbursement of expenses in a chapter 7 case must file an application with the Clerk and serve a\n+copy on the trustee and the United States Trustee not later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the\n+date of the hearing on the trustee's final account. Failure to file and serve an application within\n+the time prescribed by this rule may result in its disallowance. Unless the Court orders otherwise,\n+the United States Trustee shall file any objection to such application at least two (2) days prior to\n+the date of the hearing.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from former Standing Order M-90.\n+This rule supplements Local Bankruptcy Rule 2016-1 and\n+facilitates the expeditious closing of chapter 7 cases. Pursuant to Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 5009-1, the trustee is obligated to set forth the language\n+contained in this rule, or words of similar import, on the notice of filing of\n+a final account.\n+This rule was amended in 2009 to change the relevant time period\n+from twenty (20) to twenty-one (21) days. The purpose of the amendment\n+18\n+was to conform the time period in this rule to the 2009 time-related\n+amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Throughout\n+the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules, most time\n+periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so that the\n+number of days is in multiples of seven (7), thereby reducing the\n+likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+The deadline in the last sentence of this rule was also amended in\n+2009 to delete the reference to “business” days so that the time period will\n+be computed by calendar days, consistent with the 2009 amendments to\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a).\n+Rule 2090-1 ADMISSION TO PRACTICE; WITHDRAWAL AS ATTORNEY OF\n+RECORD\n+(a) General. An attorney who may practice in the District Court pursuant to Civil Rule 1.3(a)\n+and (b) of the Local District Rules may practice in this Court.\n+(b) Pro Hac Vice. Upon motion to the Court, a member in good standing of the bar of any\n+state or of any United States District Court may be permitted to practice in this Court in a\n+particular case, adversary proceeding, or contested matter. Forms and instructions\n+pertaining to pro hac vice admission can be found on the Court’s website\n+(https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/pro-hac-vice).\n+(c) Repealed.\n+(d) Pro Se Designation of Address. An individual appearing pro se must include the\n+individual's residence address and telephone number in the individual's initial notice or\n+pleading.\n+(e) Withdrawal as Attorney of Record. An attorney who has appeared as attorney of record\n+may withdraw or be replaced only by order of the Court for cause shown.\n+(f) Exceptions. Local Bankruptcy Rule 2090-1 shall not apply to (i) the filing of a proof of\n+claim or interest, or (ii) an appearance by a child support creditor or such creditor's\n+representative.\n+Comment\n+Subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule are derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 3. Subdivisions (d), (e), and (f)(i) of this rule are derived\n+from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 4 and are an adaptation of Civil\n+Rules 1.3(c), (d), and 1.4 of the Local District Rules. Subdivision (f)(ii) of\n+this rule, added in 1996, is derived from section 304(g) of the Bankruptcy\n+Reform Act of 1994, which permits child support creditors or their\n+representatives to appear and intervene without charge and without\n+meeting any special local court rule requirements for attorney\n+appearances.\n+19\n+Subdivision (c) of this rule, requiring a local address for service,\n+was repealed in 2004 because it could have been construed to require\n+retention of local counsel when the attorney for the debtor or for a\n+petitioning creditor does not have an office located in the district.\n+The link to the Court’s website containing forms and instructions\n+on pro hac vice admission was added to subdivision (b) in 2024.\n+PART III: CLAIMS AND DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS AND EQUITY\n+INTEREST HOLDERS; PLANS\n+Rule 3002-1 DEADLINE IN CHAPTER 7 CASES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS\n+PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9)\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, any request in a chapter 7 case for allowance of an\n+administrative expense for the value of goods delivered to a debtor in the ordinary course of the\n+debtor’s business within twenty (20) days prior to the commencement of the case pursuant to 11\n+U.S.C. § 503(b)(9) shall be made by a written motion filed with the Court no later the bar date that\n+has been set for the filing of claims in that chapter 7 case. Notice of the deadline established by\n+this Rule shall be included in any notice of the chapter 7 bar date. Failure to file a timely request\n+for allowance in accordance with this Rule will result in denial of administrative expense\n+treatment for such claim unless the movant can show that it did not have proper notice.\n+Comment\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 3002-1 was adopted in 2024. It applies\n+only in chapter 7 cases. In chapter 11 cases, the deadlines for the filing of\n+claims or motions pursuant to 503(b)(9) will be set by court order. In\n+chapter 7 cases in which it does not appear that assets will be available for\n+distribution the setting of a bar date is usually deferred, and in such cases\n+the deadline for the filing of motions pursuant to section 503(b)(9) will\n+similarly be deferred.\n+Rule 3003-1 REQUESTS FOR ORDERS ESTABLISHING DEADLINES FOR FILING\n+CLAIMS IN CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+A request for an order establishing a deadline for filing proofs of claim in a chapter 11\n+case must conform to the Procedural Guidelines for Filing Requests for Orders to Set the Last\n+Date for Filing Proofs of Claim, which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/3003-1-guidelines.pdf).\n+Comment\n+Procedures for requesting deadlines for filing claims, traditionally\n+known as “bar dates,” were originally promulgated by General Order M-\n+386.\n+20\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to refer to the Procedural\n+Guidelines that apply to bar date orders and to include a link to the Court’s\n+website where practitioners may access the governing procedures.\n+Rule 3008-1 RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS\n+No oral argument shall be heard on a motion to reconsider an order of allowance or\n+disallowance of a claim unless the Court grants the motion and specifically orders that the matter\n+be reconsidered upon oral argument. If a motion to reconsider is granted, notice and a hearing\n+shall be afforded to parties in interest before the previous action taken with respect to the claim\n+may be vacated or modified.\n+Comment\n+This rule, added in 1996, is derived from the Advisory Committee\n+Note to Bankruptcy Rule 3008 and Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 13(i).\n+Rule 3011-1 DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED FUNDS UNDER A CONFIRMED\n+CHAPTER 11 PLAN\n+(a) A chapter 11 plan must provide for the distribution of any unclaimed property that cannot\n+be distributed pursuant to section 347(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, including that any\n+unclaimed property may be\n+(1) Reallocated pursuant to the absolute priority rule;\n+(2) Reallocated for distribution pursuant to the plan’s distribution scheme; or\n+(3) Donated to a not-for-profit, non-religious organization designated to receive\n+unclaimed property.\n+(b) If a confirmed chapter 11 plan does not provide for the disposition of unclaimed property\n+that cannot be distributed pursuant to section 347(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, or such\n+unclaimed property has not otherwise been disposed of pursuant to an order of the Court,\n+such unclaimed property shall be reallocated for distribution pursuant to the plan’s\n+distribution scheme.\n+(c) If a confirmed chapter 11 plan does not provide for the disposition of unclaimed property\n+that cannot be distributed pursuant to section 347(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, or such\n+unclaimed property has not otherwise been disposed of pursuant to an order of the Court,\n+and all claims have been paid in full, then the Court may, after notice and a hearing,\n+approve a motion by the plan administrator, or similar appointee, to donate any\n+unclaimed property to an appropriate not-for-profit, non-religious organization.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2016. Section 347(b) governs the treatment\n+of any property “remaining unclaimed” at the expiration of the time\n+21\n+allowed for acts necessary for participation in a plan confirmed under\n+chapter 9, 11 or 12. Section 1143 establishes a five year limit from the\n+date the confirmation order is entered to take such acts. Under section\n+347(b), any “security, money, or other property” remaining unclaimed at\n+this time reverts to the debtor or to the entity that acquired the assets of the\n+debtor under the plan.\n+Section 347(b) may not provide a satisfactory result in the\n+liquidating chapter 11 case of a debtor in which no entity acquires most of\n+the debtor’s assets and the debtor essentially ceases to exist. Although\n+there may remain a shell entity to which assets can be returned, doing so\n+may serve no useful purpose. The rule’s proposed solution is to require\n+the inclusion of preemptive provisions in the chapter 11 liquidating plan,\n+to provide for the alternative distribution of any unclaimed property within\n+five years of the date the confirmation order is entered. This would avoid\n+the five year distribution deadline created by section 1143 and the\n+resulting application of section 347(b).\n+Subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule were amended in 2017 to\n+clarify that unclaimed property that has been disposed of pursuant to an\n+order of the Court is not subject to the provisions of the rule.\n+Rule 3015-1 CHAPTER 13 PLANS: MODEL PLAN AND CONFIRMATION ORDER;\n+TREATMENT OF DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY'S FEES AS\n+ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES; SERVICE\n+(a) Model Plan and Confirmation Order. In a chapter 13 case, the plan must conform to the\n+Model Chapter 13 Plan adopted by this Court, and the proposed confirmation order must\n+conform to the local form of Chapter 13 Confirmation Order adopted by this Court. The\n+local forms of the Model Chapter 13 Plan and Chapter 13 Confirmation Order are\n+available on the Court’s website at (https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/chapter-13-filing-\n+and-plan-information).\n+(b) Notice and Hearing for Attorney’s Fees to be Treated as Administrative Expense. If the\n+compensation, or any portion thereof, of the attorney for a chapter 13 debtor is to be\n+treated as an administrative expense under the plan, the attorney must provide adequate\n+notice of that fact to the trustee, the United States Trustee, and all creditors. If the\n+application for compensation does not exceed $1,000, Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-\n+1(b)(1) shall apply. The notice shall be deemed adequate if the plan is transmitted timely\n+to all parties in interest and states with particularity the timing and amount of any\n+payments to be made to the attorney.\n+(c) Service of Plan. Unless the court orders otherwise, the debtor must serve the plan and any\n+amended plan that changes the treatment of any party on the chapter 13 trustee, the\n+United States trustee, and all creditors at least twenty-eight (28) days, plus an additional\n+three days if service is by mail, before the confirmation hearing. The debtor must file\n+timely proof of service in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9078-1.\n+22\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was amended in 2013 to state in the\n+rule the link to the Court’s website where practitioners may access the\n+referenced forms, which were originally promulgated by General Order\n+M-384. General Order M-384 was abrogated and replaced by this Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule. It was further amended in 2024 to update the link\n+containing the form of Model Chapter 13 Plan adopted by this Court in\n+December 2021.\n+Subdivision (c) of this rule was amended in 2013 to include the\n+requirements established by General Order M-406, relating to service of\n+chapter 13 plans. General Order M-406 was abrogated and replaced by\n+this local rule.\n+Subdivision (b) of this Rule was amended in 2024 to correspond\n+with amendments to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1 regarding applications\n+on notice of presentment.\n+Rule 3015-2 MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 13 PLAN BEFORE CONFIRMATION\n+If the debtor seeks to modify a chapter 13 plan prior to confirmation, the debtor must\n+serve a copy of the modified plan on the chapter 13 trustee, the United States Trustee, and such\n+creditors as the Court may direct.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 60 and\n+supplements section 1323 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n+Rule 3015-3 HEARING ON CONFIRMATION OF CHAPTER 13 PLAN\n+The debtor must attend the hearing on confirmation of the chapter 13 plan, unless the\n+Court, upon application of the debtor on such notice as the Court directs, and for cause shown,\n+orders otherwise.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 59.\n+Rule 3017-1 PROPOSED DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS IN CHAPTER 9 AND\n+CHAPTER 11 CASES: TRANSMITTAL AND DISCLAIMER\n+(a) Transmittal. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the proponent of a plan must transmit all\n+notices and documents required to be transmitted by Bankruptcy Rule 3017(a). Upon\n+23\n+request, the Clerk shall supply the proponent, at a reasonable cost, with any available\n+matrix of creditors for the purpose of preparing address labels.\n+(b) Disclaimer Other Than in Small Business Cases. Except in a case where the debtor is a\n+small business, before a proposed disclosure statement has been approved by the Court,\n+the proposed disclosure statement must have on its cover, in boldface type, the following\n+language, or words of similar import:\n+This is not a solicitation of acceptance or rejection of the plan. Acceptances or\n+rejections may not be solicited until a disclosure statement has been approved by the\n+Court. This disclosure statement is being submitted for approval but has not been\n+approved by the Court.\n+(c) Disclaimer in Small Business Cases. In a case where the debtor is a small business that\n+has not elected to proceed under subchapter V of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code,\n+after conditional approval but before final approval of a proposed disclosure statement\n+has been given, the proposed disclosure statement must have on its cover, in boldface\n+type, the following language, or words of similar import:\n+The debtor in this case is a small business. As a result, the debtor is permitted to\n+distribute and has distributed this disclosure statement before its final approval by\n+the court. If an objection to this disclosure statement is filed by a party in interest,\n+final approval of this disclosure statement will be considered at or before the\n+hearing on confirmation of the plan.\n+Comment\n+Subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule are derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 55. Subdivision (c) of this rule, added in 1996, is derived\n+from section 217 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994.\n+Bankruptcy Rule 3017(a) provides that the plan and the disclosure\n+statement shall be mailed with the notice of the hearing to the debtor, the\n+trustee, each committee, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the\n+United States Trustee, and any party in interest who requests in writing a\n+copy of the disclosure statement or plan.\n+Bankruptcy Rule 2002(b) permits the Court to require a party other\n+than the Clerk to bear the responsibility for transmitting the notices and\n+documents specified in this rule. The reasonable cost, if any, provided for\n+in subdivision (a) of this rule is the fee prescribed by the Judicial\n+Conference of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1930(b).\n+The rule was amended in 2024 to make clear that subdivision (c)\n+applies only to small business cases that are not governed by the\n+provisions of subchapter V, since there is no separate disclosure statement\n+in a subchapter V case unless the Court orders otherwise for cause.\n+24\n+Rule 3018-1 CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF PLANS IN\n+CHAPTER 9 AND CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+(a) Certification of Vote. At least seven (7) days prior to the hearing on confirmation of a\n+chapter 9 or chapter 11 plan, the proponent of a plan or the party authorized to receive the\n+acceptances and rejections of the plan must certify to the Court in writing the amount and\n+number of allowed claims or allowed interests of each class accepting or rejecting the\n+plan and any ballots not counted. A copy of the certification must be served upon the\n+debtor, the trustee, each committee, and the United States Trustee. The Court may find\n+that the plan has been accepted or rejected on the basis of the certification.\n+(b) Notice of Ineffective Election. If a plan in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 case permits the\n+holder of a claim or interest to make an election with respect to the treatment of the claim\n+or interest, and for any reason the holder's election is deemed ineffective or otherwise is\n+not counted by the person authorized to tabulate ballots, that person must give notice of\n+that fact to the holder at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing on confirmation.\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 54 and is intended to permit the Court to rely on a\n+certification in determining whether a plan has been accepted or rejected\n+under section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code. If an issue has been raised\n+with respect to the acceptance or rejection of a plan, the Court may hold\n+an evidentiary hearing. Where acceptances or rejections of a plan of\n+reorganization have been solicited prior to the commencement of the case,\n+the certification may be filed together with the petition.\n+Subdivision (b) of this rule, added in 1996, is intended to enable a\n+creditor or interest holder who has the right to elect the treatment of its\n+claim or interest on a ballot to be notified if its ballot was not counted or\n+was rejected, and therefore that its election may not be effective.\n+Subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule were amended in 2009 to\n+change the time periods from five to seven days. The purpose of the\n+amendment was to conform the time periods in this rule to the 2009 time-\n+related amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.\n+Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules,\n+most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so\n+that the number of days is in multiples of seven, thereby reducing the\n+likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+Subdivision (a) of the rule was amended in 2016 to require the\n+proponent of the plan, or party authorized to receive votes on the plan, to\n+include in the certification to the Court any ballots not counted. This was\n+done to enhance transparency and increase access to voting results.\n+25\n+Rule 3018-2 ACCEPTANCES OR REJECTIONS OF PLAN SOLICITED BEFORE\n+PETITION IN CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+A party seeking to obtain confirmation of any plan proposed and accepted before the\n+commencement of a chapter 11 case must comply with the Procedural Guidelines for\n+Prepackaged Chapter 11 Cases, which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/3018-2-guidelines.pdf)\n+Comment\n+Procedures with respect to prepackaged chapter 11 plans were\n+promulgated by General Order M-387. This rule was amended in 2013 to\n+specify the title of the procedures promulgated by General Order M-387\n+and to state in the rule the link to the Court’s website where practitioners\n+may access the governing procedures. The procedures set forth in the\n+Procedural Guidelines for Prepackaged Chapter 11 Cases, which also may\n+be obtained from the Clerk, may be further amended by the Court after\n+giving notice and opportunity for comment as is appropriate.\n+Rule 3019-1 MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 11 PLAN BEFORE CLOSE OF VOTING\n+If the proponent of a chapter 11 plan files a modification of the plan after transmission of\n+the approved disclosure statement and before the close of voting on the plan, the proponent must\n+serve a copy of the plan, as modified, upon the debtor, the trustee, each committee, the United\n+States Trustee, all entities directly affected by the proposed modification and such other entities\n+as the Court may direct. On notice to such entities, the Court shall determine whether the\n+modification adversely affects the treatment of the claim of any creditor or the interest of any\n+equity security holder who has not accepted the modification in writing. If the Court determines\n+that the modification is not adverse, the plan, as modified, shall be deemed accepted by all\n+creditors and equity security holders who accepted the plan prior to modification. If the\n+modification is adverse, the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 3017 shall apply to the modified\n+plan and any amendment of the disclosure statement necessitated by the modification.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 56.\n+Pursuant to section 1127(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the proponent\n+of a chapter 11 plan may modify the plan at any time before confirmation.\n+While Bankruptcy Rule 3019 governs modification of a plan after\n+acceptance and before confirmation, this rule governs modification\n+subsequent to the transmission of an approved disclosure statement and\n+before the close of voting.\n+26\n+Rule 3020-1 TIME FOR OBJECTING TO CONFIRMATION IN CHAPTER 9 AND\n+CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, objections to confirmation of a plan in a chapter 9 or\n+chapter 11 case must be filed not later than seven (7) days prior to the first date set for the\n+hearing to consider confirmation of the plan.\n+Comment\n+This rule, which is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule\n+57, designates a fixed time for objecting to confirmation as permitted by\n+Bankruptcy Rule 3020(b)(1). The three (3) day deadline was amended to\n+seven (7) days in 2009 to give the Court and the parties more time to\n+consider objections before the confirmation hearing.\n+Former subdivision (b) of this rule required disclosure of the\n+circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of, or failure to prosecute, any\n+objections to confirmation. This subdivision was abrogated in 2013 so as\n+to leave to the Court’s discretion on a case-by-case basis whether to\n+require disclosure, and the manner and extent of such disclosure, of the\n+terms of any agreement between the plan proponent and the objecting\n+party relating to the withdrawal of, or the failure to prosecute, an objection\n+to confirmation of a plan.\n+Rule 3020-2 CONFIRMATION ORDER FORMAT\n+(a) The confirmation order must have the form of plan confirmed by the Court (including\n+any changes made prior to the entry of the confirmation order) annexed as an exhibit to\n+the confirmation order. If any provision has been modified since it was submitted to the\n+Court, then the plan proponent shall submit to the Court an exhibit showing the changes\n+that were made.\n+(b) The proposed order confirming a chapter 11 plan shall not reiterate any provision in the\n+plan, unless (i) a modification is set forth in the order that is not included in the form of\n+the plan that is attached to the order, or (ii) cause can be shown at the confirmation\n+hearing to include a provision from the plan in the proposed order.\n+(c) The proposed order confirming a chapter 11 plan shall not reiterate the authorization to\n+enter into, execute, or perform under the transactions contemplated in the plan or plan\n+supplement.\n+(d) Except as necessary under Bankruptcy Rule 3020(c)(1) to describe plan injunctions\n+against conduct not otherwise enjoined under the Bankruptcy Code or to support releases,\n+settlements, contract or lease assumptions or contract modifications that are set forth in\n+the plan, the proposed order confirming a chapter 11 shall not include any findings of\n+facts or conclusions of law as to the satisfaction of the individual provisions of Sections\n+1122, 1123, 1125, 1126, 1129, and 1145 of the Bankruptcy Code except to the extent that\n+such findings or conclusions are necessary to reflect the Court’s rulings on issues that\n+27\n+actually were the subject of dispute. If the plan’s satisfaction of particular requirements\n+has not been disputed, it shall be sufficient to state that the facts and legal arguments set\n+forth in the declarations and memoranda submitted by the parties, and in the evidence and\n+argument at the confirmation hearing, show that those requirements for confirmation\n+have been satisfied.\n+(e) The proposed order confirming a chapter 11 plan shall not include any recitals of the\n+related procedural history of the chapter 11 case and shall not repeat any requested relief\n+previously granted by the Court in an order.\n+(f) If a chapter 11 plan (including a plan in a subchapter V case) will not be immediately\n+effective upon confirmation, then the confirmation order should include a provision\n+requiring the debtor to send a notice to all parties in interest informing them that the plan\n+has become effective, and to do so promptly after the effective date has occurred.\n+(g) The Court, by order, may modify any of the provisions of this Local Bankruptcy Rule as\n+they relate to particular cases.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2024 to encourage the use of “short form”\n+orders of plan confirmation in chapter 11 cases and to eliminate\n+unnecessary materials from such orders. Subdivision (f) sets forth a\n+procedure by which notices of effective dates will be sent to all parties in\n+interest in the event that plans are not immediately effective upon\n+confirmation.\n+Rule 3021-1 POST-CONFIRMATION REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+(a) Unless the Court orders otherwise, within fourteen (14) days after the entry of an order\n+confirming a chapter 11 plan, the plan proponent or other responsible person under the\n+plan must submit to the Court on presentment in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule\n+9074-1 a proposed order that shall contain a timetable with the steps proposed for\n+achieving substantial consummation of the plan and entry of a final decree, including\n+resolution of claims and resolution of avoidance and other bankruptcy court litigation\n+outstanding or contemplated. The law firms or individuals responsible for safeguarding\n+and accounting for the proceeds of all recoveries on behalf of the estate shall be identified\n+therein.\n+(b) Unless the Court orders otherwise, the plan proponent or responsible person under the\n+plan must submit to the Court a report whenever necessary, but no less than every six\n+months after the entry of the order issued in accordance with subdivision (a) of this rule,\n+identifying the actions taken under the order, the location of and steps taken to protect\n+any funds or other property recovered on behalf of the estate, and any necessary revisions\n+to the timetable.\n+(c) Unless the Court orders otherwise, as a condition to serving as a liquidating trustee or a\n+successor trustee to a post confirmation liquidating, or similar trust, the liquidating plan\n+28\n+must specify what steps the trustee shall take to monitor and ensure the safety of the\n+trusts’ assets.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from former Standing Order M-111. Where the\n+circumstances warrant, the Court has the discretion to alter the time\n+periods prescribed herein. This rule was amended in 2004 to repeal former\n+subdivision (b) and delete paragraph (3) of the former Post-Confirmation\n+Order and Notice form contained in subdivision (c), each of which related\n+to the post-confirmation requirement to pay to the Clerk any special\n+charges that may be assessed by the Court. The Court no longer assesses\n+such charges.\n+Paragraph (3) of the former Post-Confirmation Order and Notice\n+form contained in subdivision (c) of this rule was amended in 2009 to\n+change the time period from fifteen (15) to fourteen (14) days. The\n+purpose of the amendment was to conform the time period in this rule to\n+the 2009 time-related amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\n+Procedure. Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local\n+Bankruptcy Rules, most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days\n+were changed so that the number of days is in multiples of seven (7),\n+thereby reducing the likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or\n+Sunday.\n+This rule was amended in 2013 regarding post-confirmation\n+requirements in chapter 11 cases. The “Post-Confirmation Order and\n+Notice” form was abrogated.\n+Subsection (c) of this rule was added in 2016 to require the post-\n+confirmation liquidating trustee to disclose the procedures that will be\n+taken to secure the trusts’ assets. Subsection (c) is not meant to expand or\n+limit the scope of a trustee’s fiduciary duties.\n+Rule 3022-1 CLOSING REPORTS IN CHAPTER 11 CASES\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, within fourteen (14) days after the estate is fully\n+administered and the Court has discharged any trustee serving in the case, the debtor, trustee or\n+estate representative must file and serve upon the United States Trustee a closing report\n+substantially in the form available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/3022-1-report.docx).\n+Comment\n+This rule was amended in 2009 to change the time period from\n+fifteen (15) to fourteen (14) days. The purpose of the amendment was to\n+conform the time period in this rule to the 2009 time-related amendments\n+to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Throughout the Bankruptcy\n+29\n+Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules, most time periods that are\n+shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so that the number of days is in\n+multiples of seven (7), thereby reducing the likelihood that time periods\n+will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to conform to section 350(a) of the\n+Bankruptcy Code. Prior to its amendment, the rule required a closing\n+report within fourteen (14) days following “substantial consummation,”\n+which required that distributions under the plan be commenced rather than\n+completed. Despite substantial consummation, there may have remained\n+unresolved claim allowance litigation, preference and fraudulent\n+conveyance adversary proceedings, and other proceedings that should\n+have been resolved before the case was closed. The amended language of\n+this rule tracks section 350(a) on the closing of cases. This amended rule\n+should give greater assistance to the Court, which is required by\n+Bankruptcy Rule 3022 to enter a final decree closing the case after the\n+estate is fully administered.\n+The amendment to this rule in 2013 also provides a link to the\n+closing report form on the Court’s website.\n+This rule was amended in 2016 to allow any estate representative\n+to file and serve the closing report on the United States Trustee.\n+30\n+PART IV: THE DEBTOR: DUTIES AND BENEFITS\n+Rule 4001-1 RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY\n+(a) A party moving for relief from the automatic stay under section 362 of the Bankruptcy\n+Code must obtain a return date for the motion that is not more than thirty (30) days after\n+the date on which the motion will be filed.\n+(b) If the debtor is an individual, the motion must be supported by an affidavit, based on\n+personal knowledge, attesting to the circumstances of any default with respect to an\n+obligation related to the motion.\n+(c) If the debtor is an individual, a party moving for relief from the automatic stay under\n+section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code relating to a mortgage on real property or a security\n+interest in a cooperative apartment must file, as an exhibit to the motion, a completed\n+copy of the form available on the Court’s website at the following link\n+(https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/362worksheetA.pdf). Compliance\n+with this subdivision shall constitute compliance with subdivision (b) of this rule.\n+(d) Any order granting relief from the automatic stay to permit the continuation of a\n+foreclosure action in the New York State courts regarding property of an estate must\n+include the following terms, a sample form for which can be found on the Court’s\n+website at https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/4001-1_model_order.docx:\n+(i) that the party in whose favor such relief has been granted must (a) provide\n+advance written notice to the trustee and debtor of any scheduled foreclosure sale,\n+(b) provide contemporaneous written notice to the trustee and debtor of any\n+referee’s report of sale, and (c) provide written prompt notice to the trustee and\n+debtor of any surplus moneys arising from the sale, as determined pursuant to\n+section 1354 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law;\n+(ii) that notwithstanding the provisions of section 1354(4) of the New York Real\n+Property Actions and Proceedings Law, all surplus moneys constitute property of\n+the bankruptcy estate that is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the\n+Bankruptcy Court, and all such surplus proceeds shall be turned over to the trustee\n+or debtor-in-possession for administration under the Bankruptcy Court’s\n+supervision; and\n+(iii) that notwithstanding the provisions of section 1354(4) of the New York Real\n+Property Actions and Proceedings Law, any person claiming any entitlement to\n+any portion of the surplus proceeds must do so in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant\n+to the applicable terms of the Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Rules.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 44(a)\n+Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a) provides that a request for relief from the\n+automatic stay shall be made by motion. Section 362(e) of the Bankruptcy\n+31\n+Code contemplates that a hearing will commence within thirty (30) days\n+from the date of the request for relief from the automatic stay. Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9006-1 governs the time within which responsive papers\n+may be served.\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was amended in 2004 to put the burden\n+of obtaining a timely return date on the movant. It does not attempt to deal\n+with the ramifications of the movant’s failure to comply with the rule.\n+Subdivision (b) of this rule was added in 2004 to assure the Court\n+of the accuracy of allegations of default in cases concerning an individual\n+debtor.\n+Subdivision (c) of this rule, which derives from General Order M-\n+346 as amended by General Order M-347, was added in 2008 to assure the\n+Court of the accuracy of allegations of default in proceedings relating to a\n+mortgage on real property or a security interest in a cooperative apartment\n+of an individual debtor. The Court may direct the submission of the form\n+set forth in subdivision (c) of this rule in connection with other motions,\n+including motions for adequate protection. In 2024, a link was added to\n+this subdivision for ease of access to the form referenced in the rule.\n+Subdivision (d) of this rule was added in 2024 to address cases in\n+which surplus proceeds remain after the conduct of foreclosure sales\n+regarding property of an estate. The provisions ensure that the parties to\n+the bankruptcy case have proper notice of the events in the foreclosure\n+case and of the availability of surplus funds (if there are any), and further\n+ensure that the Bankruptcy Court retains its proper jurisdiction over the\n+distribution of those surplus proceeds and the resolution of claims to those\n+surplus proceeds.\n+Rule 4001-1.1 PAYMENT AND CURE OF PRE-PETITION JUDGMENT OF\n+POSSESSION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY\n+(a) A debtor is deemed to have complied with section 362(l)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code\n+by:\n+(1) Making the required certification by completing Official Form 101A, Initial\n+Statement About An Eviction Judgment Against You, including the landlord’s\n+name and address; and\n+(2) Delivering to the Clerk, together with the Voluntary Petition (or within one day of\n+the filing, if the Voluntary Petition is filed electronically) a certified or cashier’s\n+check or money order, made payable to the lessor, in the amount of any rent that\n+would become due during the thirty-day period after the filing of the petition.\n+(b) If the debtor complies with the requirements set forth in subdivision (a), the Clerk shall,\n+within one day, send notice of compliance to the lessor who shall then have the option,\n+32\n+exercisable no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the notice, to consent to\n+receive the check (in which event the lessor must provide payment instructions), or file\n+an objection to the debtor’s certification, which objection shall constitute a request for\n+hearing. A lessor is deemed to have consented to receive the check if the lessor does not\n+respond within the fourteen (14) day deadline, in which event the Clerk shall send the\n+check to the lessor at the address set forth in the debtor’s certification.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 to include in the Local Bankruptcy\n+Rules the requirements established by General Order M-385, which relate\n+to the requirements set forth in section 362(l)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n+General Order M-385 was abrogated and replaced by this local rule in\n+2013. This rule was amended in 2015 to conform to the new Official Form\n+101A, Initial Statement About An Eviction Judgment Against You,\n+effective December 1, 2015.\n+Rule 4001-2 REQUESTS FOR USE OF CASH COLLATERAL OR TO OBTAIN\n+CREDIT\n+(a) Contents of Motions. The following provisions enumerated below, to the extent\n+applicable, are added to the enumerated lists of material provisions set forth in\n+Bankruptcy Rule 4001(b)(1)(B), (c)(1)(B), and (d)(1)(B). These provisions should be\n+prominently highlighted and easily identified in the motion; failure to do so may result in\n+such provisions being deemed denied by the Court:\n+(1) the amount of cash collateral the party seeks permission to use or the amount of\n+credit the party seeks to obtain, including any committed amount or the existence\n+of a borrowing base formula and the estimated availability under such formula;\n+(2) material conditions to closing and borrowing limitations or restrictions, including\n+budget provisions and financial covenants;\n+(3) pricing and economic terms, including interest, original issue discount, letter of\n+credit fees, unused line fees, commitment fees, make whole or other premium,\n+any other fees, and the treatment of costs and expenses of the lender(s), any agent\n+for the lender(s), and their respective professionals;\n+(4) any effect on existing liens of the granting of collateral or adequate protection\n+provided to the lender(s) and any priority or superpriority provisions, including\n+whether the non-consensual priming of liens is contemplated;\n+(5) any carve-outs from liens or superpriority provisions;\n+(6) any cross-collateralization provision or other provision that elevates prepetition\n+debt to administrative expense (or higher) status or that secures prepetition debt\n+with liens on postpetition assets (which liens the creditor would not otherwise\n+have by virtue of the prepetition security agreement or applicable law);\n+33\n+(7) any rollup provision that applies the proceeds of postpetition financing to pay, in\n+whole or in part, prepetition debt or which otherwise has the effect of converting\n+prepetition debt to postpetition debt, including (i) the ratio of the total amount of\n+rolled-up debt to the total amount of credit committed and (ii) the amount of the\n+rollup to be approved on an interim versus final basis;\n+(8) any provision that would limit the Court’s power or discretion in a material way,\n+or would interfere with the exercise of the fiduciary duties, or restrict the rights\n+and powers, of the trustee, debtor in possession, or a committee appointed under\n+sections 1102 or 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code, or any other fiduciary of the\n+estate, in connection with the operation, financing, use or sale of the business or\n+property of the estate, but excluding any agreement to repay postpetition\n+financing in connection with a plan or to waive any right to incur liens that prime\n+or are pari passu with liens granted under section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code;\n+(9) any limitation on the lender’s obligation to fund certain activities of the trustee,\n+the debtor in possession or a committee appointed under sections 1102 or 1114 of\n+the Bankruptcy Code;\n+(10) termination or default provisions, including events of default, any effect of\n+termination or default on the automatic stay or the lender’s ability to enforce\n+remedies, any cross-default provision, and any terms that provide that the use of\n+cash collateral or the availability of credit will cease on (i) the filing of a\n+challenge to the lender’s prepetition lien or the lender’s prepetition claim based on\n+the lender's prepetition conduct; (ii) entry of an order granting relief from the\n+automatic stay other than an order granting relief from the stay with respect to\n+material assets; (iii) the grant of a change of venue with respect to the case or any\n+adversary proceeding; (iv) management changes or the departure, from the debtor,\n+of any identified employees; (v) the expiration of a specified time for filing a\n+plan; (vi) the making of a motion by a party in interest seeking any relief (as\n+distinct from an order granting such relief), or (vi) the termination of any\n+transaction support agreement (or similar agreement);\n+(11) any change-of-control provisions;\n+(12) any provision establishing a deadline or milestone;\n+(13) any prepayment penalty or other provision that affects the debtor’s right or ability\n+to repay the financing in full during the course of the chapter 11 reorganization\n+case;\n+(14) in jointly administered cases, terms that govern the joint liability of the debtors\n+including any provisions that would govern the nature and/or priority, if any, of\n+any interdebtor claims that would result if a debtor were to repay debt incurred by\n+or for the benefit of another debtor;\n+(15) any provision for the funding of non-debtor affiliates with cash collateral or\n+proceeds of the loan, as applicable, and the approximate amount of such funding;\n+34\n+(16) any provisions that require the debtor to pay an agent’s or lender’s expenses and\n+attorney’s fees in connection with the proposed financing or use of cash collateral,\n+without any notice or review by the Office of the United States trustee, the\n+committee appointed under section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code (if formed) or,\n+upon objection by either of the foregoing parties, the Court;\n+(17) defined terms must either be defined in the motion or the motion shall include a\n+specific reference to where the terms are defined in the applicable loan\n+agreements or proposed order;\n+(18) any provision providing for the reaffirmation of the prepetition loan agreement or\n+the covenants of such agreement;\n+(19) any commitment to roll any portion of the financing into exit financing and any\n+rights to convert the financing or purchase equity of the reorganized debtor;\n+(20) any provision waiving any rights under section 506(c), the doctrine of\n+marshalling, or the equities of the case doctrine under section 522(b), waiving the\n+right to challenge a credit bid for cause under section 363(k), or the granting of a\n+lien on or recovery of proceeds of any avoidance action;\n+(21) the proposed release of any claims and any provision described in subsection\n+(g)(4) of this Local Rule (including a detailed explanation for any such provision);\n+and\n+(22) any other limitation on the use of cash collateral or proceeds of any financing,\n+including the ability to refinance the financing.\n+(b) Disclosure of Efforts to Obtain Financing and Good Faith. A motion seeking authority to\n+obtain credit shall describe in general terms the efforts of the trustee or debtor in\n+possession to obtain financing, the basis on which the debtor determined that the\n+proposed financing is on the best terms available, and material facts bearing on the issue\n+of whether the extension of credit is being extended in good faith.\n+(c) Amount of Any Interim Relief. A motion that seeks entry of an emergency or interim order\n+before a final hearing under Bankruptcy Rule 4001(b)(2) or (c)(2) shall describe the\n+amount and purpose of funds sought to be used or borrowed on an emergency or interim\n+basis and shall set forth facts to support a finding that immediate or irreparable harm will\n+be caused to the estate if immediate relief is not granted before the final hearing. A single\n+motion may be filed seeking entry of an interim order and a final order, which orders\n+would be normally entered at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing and the final\n+hearing, respectively, as those terms are used in Bankruptcy Rules 4001(b)(2) and (c)(2);\n+provided that the proposed form of final order, together with a redline marked against the\n+interim order, shall be filed with the Court no later than three calendar days before the\n+deadline fixed by the Court for objections to the final order.\n+(d) Adequacy of Budget And Compliance with Financial Covenants. If the debtor in\n+possession or trustee will be subject to a budget and/or financial covenants under a\n+proposed cash collateral or financing order or agreement, the motion filed under\n+Bankruptcy Rule 4001(b), (c), or (d) shall include a copy of such budget, a statement\n+35\n+identifying any variance limitations under the proposed use of cash collateral or\n+financing, a statement by the trustee or debtor in possession as to whether it has reason to\n+believe that it will comply with the financial covenants and that the budget will be\n+adequate, considering all available assets, to pay all administrative expenses due or\n+accruing during the period covered by the financing or the budget.\n+(e) Notice. Notice of a preliminary or final hearing shall be given to the persons required by\n+Bankruptcy Rules 4001(b)(3) and 4001(c)(3), as the case may be, the United States\n+Trustee, and any other persons whose interests may be directly affected by the outcome\n+of the motion or any provision of the proposed order.\n+(f) Presence at Hearing. Unless the court directs otherwise,\n+(1) counsel for each proposed lender, or for an agent representing such lender, shall\n+be present at all preliminary and final hearings on the authority to obtain credit\n+from such lender, and counsel for each entity, or for an agent of such entity, with\n+an interest in cash collateral to be used with the entity’s consent shall be present at\n+all preliminary and final hearings on the authority to use such cash collateral; and\n+(2) a business representative of the trustee or debtor in possession, the proposed\n+lender or an agent representing such lender, and any party objecting to the motion\n+for authority to obtain credit, each with appropriate authority, must be present at,\n+or reasonably available by telephone for, all preliminary and final hearings for the\n+purpose of making necessary decisions with respect to the proposed financing.\n+(g) Required Sections and Provisions in the Proposed Order.\n+(1) Jurisdiction. The proposed order shall identify the basis for the Court’s\n+jurisdiction over the matter.\n+(2) Findings of Fact.\n+(A) A proposed order approving the use of cash collateral under Section\n+363(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, or granting authority to obtain credit\n+under section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code, shall limit the recitation of\n+findings to essential facts, including the facts required under section 364\n+of the Bankruptcy Code regarding efforts to obtain financing on a less\n+onerous basis and (where required) facts sufficient to support a finding of\n+good faith under section 364(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, and shall not\n+include any findings extraneous to the use of cash collateral or to the\n+financing.\n+(B) A proposed emergency or interim order shall include a finding that\n+immediate and irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the estate if\n+immediate financing is not obtained and should state with respect to notice\n+only that the hearing was held pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 4001(b)(2) or\n+(c)(2), that notice was given to certain parties in the manner described, and\n+that the notice was, in the debtor’s belief, the best available under the\n+circumstances.\n+36\n+(C) A proposed final order may include factual findings as to notice and the\n+adequacy thereof.\n+(D) To the extent that a proposed order incorporates by reference to, or refers\n+to a specific section of, a prepetition or postpetition loan agreement or\n+other document, the proposed order shall also include a statement of such\n+section’s import.\n+(3) Mandatory Provisions. The proposed order shall contain all applicable provisions\n+included in the enumerated lists of material provisions set forth in Bankruptcy\n+Rule 4001(b)(1)(B), (c)(1)(B) and (d)(1)(B), as supplemented by subsection (a) of\n+this Local Bankruptcy Rule.\n+(4) Stipulations and Investigation Period. The proposed order may contain language\n+where the debtor stipulates, acknowledges or otherwise admits to the validity,\n+enforceability, priority or amount of a claim that arose before the commencement\n+of the case, or of any lien securing the claim; however, such stipulations,\n+acknowledgements, or admissions shall not be listed as “factual findings” by the\n+Court. If such stipulations, acknowledgements, or admissions are included in the\n+proposed order, either the proposed order shall include a provision that permits a\n+committee appointed under section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code and other\n+parties in interest to undertake an investigation of the facts relating thereto, and\n+proceedings relating to such determination (or the motion shall explain why the\n+proposed order does not contain such a provision) until at least::\n+(A) sixty (60) days after the appointment of the committee of unsecured\n+creditors appointed under section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code (or such\n+longer period as the Court orders for cause shown before the expiration of\n+such period) to investigate the facts and file a complaint or a motion\n+seeking authority to commence litigation as a representative of the estate;\n+or\n+(B) if no such committee has been appointed, seventy-five (75) days (or such\n+longer period as the Court orders for cause shown before the expiration of\n+such period) from the entry of the interim order to investigate the facts and\n+file a complaint or a motion seeking authority to commence litigation as a\n+representative of the estate;\n+provided that, the foregoing periods may be shortened for cause shown,\n+including in prepackaged or prearranged cases.\n+(5) Cross-Collateralization, Rollups and Credit Bidding. A proposed order approving\n+cross-collateralization, a rollup or a right to credit bid a rollup shall include\n+language that reserves the right of the Court to unwind or partially unwind, after\n+notice and hearing, the postpetition protection provided to the prepetition lender\n+or the pay down of the prepetition debt, whichever is applicable, in the event that\n+there is a timely and successful challenge to the validity, enforceability, extent,\n+perfection or priority of the prepetition lender’s claims or liens, and/or a\n+determination that the prepetition debt was undersecured as of the petition date,\n+37\n+and as a result of which, in each case, the cross-collateralization or rollup unduly\n+advantaged the lender.\n+(6) Waivers, Consents or Amendments with Respect to the Loan Agreement. A\n+proposed order may permit the parties to enter into waivers or consents with\n+respect to the loan agreement without the need for further court approval, and a\n+proposed order may permit the parties to enter into amendments thereof without\n+the need for further court approval, provided that (i) the agreement as amended is\n+not materially different from that approved, (ii) notice of all amendments is filed\n+with the Court, and (iii) notice of all amendments (other than those that are\n+ministerial or technical and do not adversely affect the debtor) are provided in\n+advance to counsel for any committee appointed under sections 1102 or 1114 of\n+the Bankruptcy Code, all parties requesting specific notice and the United States\n+Trustee.\n+(7) Conclusions of Law. A proposed interim order may provide that the debtor is\n+authorized to enter into the loan or other agreement, but the proposed order shall\n+state that to the extent that a loan or other agreement differs from the order, the\n+order shall control.\n+(8) Statutory Provisions Affected. The proposed order shall specify those provisions\n+of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules and Local Bankruptcy Rules relied\n+upon as authority for granting relief, and shall identify those sections that are, to\n+the extent permitted by law, being limited or abridged.\n+(9) Limitations on Interim Relief. Unless expressly and separately addressed by the\n+Court, an interim order approving use of cash collateral or obtaining credit may\n+not contain, and any application requesting such provisions in an interim order\n+shall be deemed denied, with respect to any provisions waiving any rights under\n+section 506(c), the doctrine of marshalling, a lien on or recovery of proceeds of\n+any avoidance action or the equities of the case doctrine under section 552(b).\n+(10) Enforcement and Remedies. The proposed order may specify the events and\n+consequences of default.\n+(A) Order to Obtain Credit. If the proposed order contains a provision that\n+modifies or terminates the automatic stay or permits the lender to enforce\n+remedies after an event of default, either the proposed order shall require\n+at least seven (7) days’ notice to the trustee or debtor in possession, the\n+United States Trustee and each committee appointed under sections 1102\n+or 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code (or the largest creditors if no committee\n+has been appointed under section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code), before\n+the modification or termination of the automatic stay or the enforcement\n+of the lender’s remedies, or the motion shall explain why such notice\n+provision is not contained in the proposed order.\n+(B) Order on Cash Collateral. If the proposed order contains a provision that\n+terminates the use of cash collateral, either the proposed order shall\n+require at least five (5) days’ notice before the use of cash collateral ceases\n+38\n+(provided that the use of cash collateral conforms to any budget in effect)\n+or the motion shall explain why such notice provision is not contained in\n+the proposed order.\n+(11) Carve-Outs. Any provision in a proposed order relating to a carve-out from liens\n+or super priorities shall disclose when a carve-out takes effect, whether it remains\n+unaltered after payment of interim fees made before an event of default, and any\n+effect of the carve-out on any borrowing base or borrowing availability under the\n+postpetition loan. If a provision relating to a carveout provides disparate\n+treatment for the professionals retained by a committee appointed under sections\n+1102 or 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code, when compared with the treatment for\n+professionals retained by the trustee or debtor in possession, or if the carve-out\n+does not include fees payable to either the Bankruptcy Court or the United States\n+Trustee, reasonable expenses of committee members (excluding fees and\n+expenses of professionals employed by such committee members individually),\n+and reasonable post-conversion fees and expenses of a chapter 7 trustee, or if a\n+carve-out does not include the costs of investigating whether any claims or causes\n+of action against the lender exist, there shall be disclosure thereof under\n+subdivision (a) of this Local Bankruptcy Rule and the motion shall contain a\n+detailed explanation of the reasons therefor.\n+(12) Joint Obligations. In jointly-administered cases, if one or more debtors will be\n+liable for the repayment of indebtedness for funds advanced to or for the benefit\n+of another debtor, the proposed order shall describe, with specificity, any\n+provisions of the agreement or proposed order that would affect the nature and\n+priority, if any, of any inter-debtor claims that would result if a debtor were to\n+repay debt incurred by or for the benefit of another debtor.\n+(13) Conclusions of Law Regarding Notice. A proposed final order may contain\n+conclusions of law with respect to the adequacy of notice under section 364 of the\n+Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 4001.\n+(h) Drafting Recommendations With Respect to Proposed Order. To facilitate the Court’s\n+review and the uniform application of common provisions regarding the proposed use of\n+cash collateral and financings, the following is recommended:\n+(1) Generally speaking, the proposed order should be concise and avoid superfluous\n+language and undue length;\n+(2) Defined terms should be listed in an annex attached to the proposed order, include a\n+specific reference to where such term is defined, and, to the extent prudent, cross-\n+reference defined terms utilized in the underlying loan agreement;\n+(3) Factual findings should not be duplicative and should be limited to those necessary to\n+support the relief requested; and\n+(4) Counsel is referred to the illustrative and non-binding model form of order set forth on\n+the Court’s website at https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/4001-\n+2_model_order.docx.\n+39\n+Comment\n+This rule was amended in its entirety in 2008 to conform to the\n+2007 amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 4001 and to replace the procedures\n+for requests for the use of cash collateral or to obtain credit that were\n+governed by former General Order M-274. Thus, this rule should be read\n+in conjunction with Bankruptcy Rule 4001 as the requirements contained\n+in this rule are meant to supplement, but not duplicate, Bankruptcy Rule\n+4001. This rule is not intended to fundamentally change practice under\n+former General Order M-274, except as expressly provided.\n+As provided in former General Order M-274, a single motion may\n+be filed seeking entry of an interim order and a final order, which orders\n+would be normally entered at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing\n+and the final hearing, respectively, as those terms are used in Bankruptcy\n+Rules 4001(b)(2) and (c)(2). In addition, where circumstances warrant, the\n+debtor may seek emergency relief for financing limited to the amount\n+necessary to avoid immediate and irreparable harm to the estate pending\n+the preliminary hearing, but in the usual case, only a preliminary and a\n+final hearing will be required.\n+Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (i), emergency and\n+interim relief may be entered after the best notice available under the\n+circumstances; however, emergency and interim relief will ordinarily not\n+be considered unless the United States Trustee and the Court have had a\n+reasonable opportunity to review the motion, the financing agreement, and\n+the proposed interim order, and the Court normally will not approve\n+provisions that directly affect the interests of landlords, taxing and\n+environmental authorities and other third-parties without notice to them.\n+As suggested in former General Order M-274, prospective debtors\n+may provide substantially complete drafts of the motion, interim order,\n+and related financing documents to the United States Trustee in advance\n+of a filing, on a confidential basis. Debtors are encouraged to provide\n+drafts of financing requests, including proposed orders, to the United\n+States Trustee as early as possible in advance of filing to provide that\n+office with the opportunity to comment.\n+The hearing on a final order for use of cash collateral under section\n+363(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, or for authority to obtain credit under\n+section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code will ordinarily not commence until\n+there has been a reasonable opportunity for the formation of a creditors\n+committee under section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code and either the\n+creditors committee’s appointment of counsel or reasonable opportunity to\n+do so.\n+Reasonable allocations in a carve-out provision may be proposed\n+among (i) expenses of professionals retained by committees appointed in\n+40\n+the case, (ii) expenses of professionals retained by the debtor, (iii) fees\n+payable to either the Court or the United States Trustee, (iv) the\n+reasonable expenses of committee members, and (v) reasonable post-\n+conversion fees and expenses of a chapter 7 trustee, and the lender may\n+refuse to include in a carve-out the costs of litigation or other assertions of\n+claims against it.\n+As provided in former General Order M-274, non-essential facts\n+regarding pre-petition dealings and agreements may be included in an\n+order approving the use of cash collateral or granting authority to obtain\n+credit under a heading entitled “stipulations between the debtor and the\n+lender” or “background”,” but should not be presented as findings of fact\n+by the Court.\n+As provided in former General Order M-274, an interim order will\n+not ordinarily bind the Court with respect to the provisions of the final\n+order provided that (i) the lender will be afforded all the benefits and\n+protections of the interim order, including a lender’s section 364(e) and\n+363(m) protection with respect to funds advanced during the interim\n+period, and (ii) the interim order will not bind the lender to advance funds\n+pursuant to a final order that contains provisions contrary to or\n+inconsistent with the interim order.\n+Subdivision (c)(1) of this rule was amended in 2009 to change the\n+time period from five (5) to seven (7) days. The purpose of the amendment\n+was to conform the time period in this rule to the 2009 time-related\n+amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Throughout\n+the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules, most time\n+periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so that the\n+number of days is in multiples of seven (7), thereby reducing the\n+likelihood that time period will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+The deadlines in subdivisions (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this rule were\n+also amended in 2009 to delete the references to “business” days so that\n+the time periods will be computed by calendar days, consistent with the\n+2009 Amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a). The three (3) day\n+deadline in subdivision (c)(2) of this rule was amended in 2009 to change\n+the time to five (5) days to compensate for the change in the computation\n+of time under the 2009 amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a).\n+This rule was amended in 2017 to clarify and expand the list of\n+items that must be identified with specificity in financing motions and\n+orders, to identify the consequences of failing to comply with the\n+requirements of the rule, to conform challenge periods to customary\n+practice and to make a number of other updating and clarifying changes\n+that are consistent with current practice.\n+41\n+The rule was further amended in 2024 to add to the list of items to\n+be identified with specificity in financing motions and orders, and also to\n+include reference to a model format for proposed orders.\n+Rule 4002-1 DUTIES OF DEBTORS – PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE\n+IMPLEMENTATION OF BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTION 521\n+(a) Payment Advices Required by Section 521(a)(1)(B)(iv). In a chapter 7, chapter 12 or\n+chapter 13 case in which the debtor is an individual, copies of payment advices or other\n+evidence of current income made available to the trustee under Bankruptcy Rule\n+4002(b)(2) shall not be filed with the Court.\n+(b) Request by Party in Interest for an Order of Dismissal under Section 521(i)(2). If a party\n+in interest requests an order of dismissal under section 521(i)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code,\n+the following procedures shall apply:\n+(1) The party in interest must serve a copy of the request on the debtor’s attorney and\n+the debtor at the same time that the party in interest sends the request to the Court.\n+(2) If the debtor objects to the request within seven (7) days of service, the debtor’s\n+objection will be treated as a request for a hearing, which the Court shall schedule\n+promptly.\n+(3) No order of dismissal will be entered until the debtor’s objection has been\n+resolved, except that nothing herein shall affect the right of any party in interest to\n+seek dismissal, or the authority of the Court to dismiss the case, pursuant to any\n+other provision of applicable bankruptcy law.\n+Comment\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to include in the Local Bankruptcy\n+Rules the provisions contained in General Order M-382, relating to section\n+521(a)(1)(B)(iv) and section 521(i)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule expands the scope of General Order M-382 by\n+making it applicable chapter 12 cases, as well as in chapter 7 and chapter\n+13 cases and is amended further to conform to, and not duplicate,\n+Bankruptcy Rule 4002(b). General Order M-382 was abrogated and\n+replaced by this local rule in 2013.\n+Rule 4003-1 EXEMPTIONS\n+(a) Amendment to Claim of Exemptions. An amendment to a claim of exemptions pursuant to\n+Bankruptcy Rules 1009 and 4003 shall be filed and served by the debtor or dependent of\n+the debtor on the trustee, the United States Trustee and all creditors.\n+(b) Automatic Extension of Time to File Objections to Claim of Exemptions In Event of\n+Amendment to Schedules to Add a Creditor. Unless the Court orders otherwise, if the\n+schedules are amended to add a creditor, and the amendment is filed and served either (i)\n+42\n+fewer than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the time set forth in Bankruptcy Rule\n+4003(b) for the filing of objections to the list of property claimed as exempt, or (ii) at any\n+time after such filing deadline, the added creditor shall have thirty (30) days from the date\n+of service of the amendment to file an objection to the list of property claimed as exempt.\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 37. See Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b), which permits the\n+trustee or any creditor to object to the list of property claimed as exempt\n+within thirty (30) days following the conclusion of the meeting of\n+creditors held pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2003(a), or the filing of any\n+amendment to the list or supplemental schedules unless, within such\n+period, the Court grants additional time.\n+Rule 4004-2 DEBTOR’S CERTIFICATION CONCERNING DOMESTIC SUPPORT\n+OBLIGATIONS IN A CASE UNDER CHAPTER 12 OR CHAPTER 13\n+(a) Subsections (b), (c) and (d) of this rule only apply to a chapter 12 or chapter 13 debtor\n+who is or was required to pay a domestic support obligation by a judicial or\n+administrative order or by statute during the pendency of his or her bankruptcy case.\n+(b) In a chapter 12 or chapter 13 case in which the debtor has or had a duty to pay a domestic\n+support obligation during the pendency of the case, within thirty (30) days before the date\n+on which the last payment is due under the plan, or when the debtor files a motion to\n+request a hardship discharge under section 1228(b) or section 1328(b) of the Bankruptcy\n+Code, whichever is earlier, the Standing Trustee must furnish the debtor with a Debtor’s\n+Certification Regarding Domestic Support Obligation in Support of Discharge in a\n+Chapter 12 or Chapter 13, which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/forms).\n+(c) The debtor must complete, sign, and return to the Standing Trustee the Debtor’s\n+Certification Regarding Domestic Support Obligation in Support of Discharge in a\n+Chapter 12 or Chapter 13 when submitting the check for the last payment under the\n+chapter 12 or chapter 13 plan or, if the debtor has filed a motion to request a hardship\n+discharge, no later than the date of the hearing on the debtor’s motion. In a joint case,\n+each debtor must complete and sign a separate Debtor’s Certification Regarding\n+Domestic Support Obligation in Support of Discharge in a Chapter 12 or Chapter 13.\n+(d) The Standing Trustee shall attach the completed Debtor’s Certification Regarding\n+Domestic Support Obligation in Support of Discharge in a Chapter 12 or Chapter 13\n+when electronically filing the Notice of Request for a Discharge or, in a case in which the\n+debtor seeks a hardship discharge, shall otherwise make it available on the docket of that\n+case.\n+43\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 to include in the Local Bankruptcy\n+Rules the provisions established by General Order M-338, relating to the\n+debtor’s certifications regarding domestic support obligations. Though\n+General Order M-338 provided that the Standing Trustee “should” furnish\n+the debtor with the certification form, and “should” attach the completed\n+form to the Notice of Request for a Discharge, this rule makes these\n+provisions mandatory. General Order M-338 was abrogated and replaced\n+by this local rule in 2013.\n+This rule was amended in 2015 to conform to the renumbering of\n+the Director’s Procedural Form B2830, Chapter 13 Debtor’s Certifications\n+Regarding Domestic Support Obligations and Section 522(q), effective\n+December 1, 2015.\n+This rule was amended in 2017 to clarify that it applies only to\n+cases where the debtor is or was required to pay domestic support\n+obligations by judicial or administrative order or by statute. It also\n+substituted a local form in lieu of the national form of certification in\n+support of discharge.\n+Rule 4007-2 WITHDRAWAL OR SETTLEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO\n+DETERMINE DISCHARGE AND DISCHARGEABILITY\n+(a) Withdrawal of Complaint. In the event of the withdrawal of a complaint objecting to\n+discharge or failure to prosecute an adversary proceeding objecting to discharge, no\n+discharge shall be granted unless the debtor shall make and file an affidavit and the\n+debtor’s attorney shall make and file a certification that no consideration has been\n+promised or given, directly or indirectly, for the withdrawal or failure to prosecute.\n+(b) Settlement of Proceedings. In all instances not governed by section 524(d) of the\n+Bankruptcy Code, no adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a debt\n+shall be settled except pursuant to an order of the Court after due inquiry into the\n+circumstances of any settlement, including the terms of any agreement entered into\n+between the debtor and creditor relating to the payment of the debt, in whole or in part.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 48.\n+Rule 4008-1 REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENTS\n+A person filing a reaffirmation agreement shall adhere to the Guidelines for Filing a\n+Reaffirmation Agreement in the Southern District of New York, which shall be available on the\n+Court’s website (http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/4008-1-guidelines.pdf).\n+44\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 to include in the Local Bankruptcy\n+Rules the requirements established by General Order M-404, relating to\n+reaffirmation agreements. The procedures set forth in the Guidelines for\n+Filing a Reaffirmation Agreement in the Southern District of New York\n+may be amended by the Court after giving notice and opportunity for\n+comment as is appropriate. The Guidelines, which are available on the\n+Court’s website, also may be obtained from the Clerk.\n+45\n+PART V: COURTS AND CLERKS\n+Rule 5001-1 CLERK’S OFFICE: HOURS; AFTER HOURS FILING\n+Unless otherwise posted on the Court’s website, the offices of the Clerk shall be open\n+Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except on legal and Court holidays, and\n+shall be closed on Saturdays and Sundays. When the Clerk’s Office is closed, papers not filed\n+electronically may be filed with the Court by depositing them in the night depository maintained\n+by the District Clerk and are deemed filed as of the date and time stamped thereon. Any required\n+fees for such filings shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office no later than noon on the next\n+business day.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 8 as\n+modified to conform to Civil Rule 1.2 of the Local District Rules.\n+Bankruptcy Rule 5001(c) permits the adoption of a local rule\n+setting forth the business hours of the Clerk.\n+The District Clerk maintains a night depository at the United States\n+Courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. The filing\n+of papers in the District Court’s night depository is intended to be used\n+where exigent circumstances exist and is not intended as a regular\n+alternative for filing papers with the Court during normal business hours\n+or electronically at any time.\n+Under Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 8, papers filed in the District\n+Court’s night depository were deemed filed in the Court as of 8:30 a.m.\n+the following business day. In accordance with Civil Rule 1.2 of the\n+Local District Rules and Greenwood v. New York, 842 F.2d 636 (2d Cir.\n+1988), this rule deems papers deposited in the District Court’s night\n+depository to have been filed as of the date and time stamped thereon.\n+The next business day deadline in this rule was amended in 2009 to\n+delete the reference to “business” so that the time period will be consistent\n+with the 2009 amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a).\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to clarify that the times and days\n+when the Clerk’s Office is opened may be altered as posted on the Court’s\n+website.\n+Rule 5005-1 FILING PAPERS\n+Except as provided in Local Bankruptcy Rule 1002-1, unless submitted by electronic\n+means, all papers may be submitted for filing in the Clerk’s office located in any of the three\n+divisions of the Court identified in Local Bankruptcy Rule 1073-1(a). However, all chambers\n+46\n+copies required by Rule 9070-1(b) must be submitted in the Clerk’s office located where the\n+Judge assigned to the case or proceeding sits.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 9(a).\n+Rule 5005-2 FILING BY ELECTRONIC MEANS\n+Unless the Court directs otherwise, all attorneys practicing in the Court, including\n+attorneys admitted pro hac vice, are required to file all pleadings, motions, or other documents\n+(except documents to be placed under seal) by electronic means, and all such documents required\n+to be signed or verified shall be signed or verified by electronic means, in each case consistent\n+with the Procedures for the Filing, Signing, and Verification of Documents by Electronic Means\n+issued by the Court, which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/5005-2-procedures.pdf). If electronic filing,\n+signing, or verification is not feasible in a particular situation, the Court may provide reasonable\n+accommodation or excuse the requirement that documents be filed, signed, or verified by\n+electronic means under the particular circumstances.\n+Comment\n+This rule, which implements the authority contained in Bankruptcy\n+Rule 5005(a), was amended in 2013 to clarify that all attorneys practicing\n+in the Court are required to file, sign, and verify pleadings, motions, and\n+other documents by electronic means, unless the Court directs otherwise in\n+a particular case or the document is filed under seal.\n+This rule was also amended in 2013 to specify the title of the\n+procedures promulgated by General Order M-399 and to state in the rule\n+the link to the Court’s website where practitioners may access the\n+governing procedures governing filing, signing, and verifying papers by\n+electronic means. The procedures also may be obtained from the Clerk. It\n+is anticipated that these guidelines will be amended from time to time To\n+account for changes in technology or the law.\n+Rule 5005-3 PAYMENT OF COURT FEES\n+(a) Unless another form of payment is required by the Court, filers must pay by credit card,\n+through the CM/ECF system, all applicable filing fees at the time of filing or by the end\n+of the day on which the filing occurred.\n+(b) If fees are not paid within four days of the date incurred, the filer will be locked out of the\n+CM/ECF system until full payment is made.\n+47\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 to state the means and timing\n+regarding payment of the filing fees, as well as the consequences of a\n+failure to pay such fees.\n+Rule 5009-1 FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND CLOSING REPORT IN A\n+CHAPTER 7 CASE\n+(a) Final Report and Account. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the notice given by the\n+trustee of the filing of a final report and account in the form prescribed by the United\n+States Trustee in a chapter 7 case must have on its face in bold type the following\n+language, or words of similar import:\n+A person seeking an award of compensation or reimbursement of expenses must file\n+an application with the clerk and serve a copy on the trustee and the United States\n+Trustee not later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the date of the hearing on the\n+trustee’s final account. Failure to file and serve such an application within that time\n+may result in the disallowance of fees and expenses.\n+(b) Closing Report in an Asset Case. Unless the Court orders otherwise, in a chapter 7 asset\n+case, the trustee must file and serve upon the United States Trustee, together with the\n+affidavit of final distribution, a closing report substantially in the form available on the\n+Court’s website (http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/5009-1-b-report.docx).\n+(c) Closing Report in a No Asset Case. In a chapter 7 no asset case, the trustee must file a\n+No Distribution Report as a virtual docket text entry in accordance with the guidelines\n+promulgated by the Office of the United States Trustee.\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is derived from former Standing Order\n+M-90.\n+Subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule, added in 1996, complement\n+section 704(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. Although not specifying a\n+particular time period, subdivision (b) of this rule contemplates that the\n+trustee will file the closing report as soon as practicable after the filing of a\n+final account and the final allowance of fees. Thereafter, the Clerk may\n+close the case upon the entry of a final decree.\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was amended in 2009 to change the\n+time period from twenty (20) to twenty-one (21) days. The purpose of the\n+amendment was to conform the time period in this rule to the 2009 time-\n+related amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.\n+Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules,\n+most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so\n+48\n+that the number of days is in multiples of seven, thereby reducing the\n+likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+Subsection (c) of this rule was amended in 2013 to clarify that a\n+separate form need not be attached to the “No Distribution” docket entry\n+in a no asset chapter 7 case.\n+Subsection (a) was stylistically revised in 2016 to offset the\n+warning language required. No substantive change was intended.\n+Rule 5009-2 CLOSING A CHAPTER 15 CASE\n+(a) Closing the Case. In a case under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court shall\n+close the case when there is a presumption under Bankruptcy Rule 5009(c) that the case\n+has been fully administered or the Court, after notice and a hearing, determines that the\n+purpose of the foreign representative’s appearance in the chapter 15 case has been\n+completed, whichever is earlier.\n+(b) Reopening the Case. A case under chapter 15 may be reopened to provide appropriate\n+relief to the foreign representative or for other cause.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 to provide for the closing of a chapter\n+15 case, as well as reopening a case for cause.\n+The Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules impose certain\n+reporting requirements on the foreign representative so that the Court is\n+aware of the status of the case. In particular, section 1518 of the\n+Bankruptcy Code imposes on the foreign representative the duty to\n+promptly file a notice informing the Court of any substantial change in the\n+status of the foreign proceeding or of the foreign representative’s\n+appointment, and of any other foreign proceeding regarding the debtor.\n+Bankruptcy Rule 2015(e) requires the filing of such reports within 14 days\n+after the foreign representative becomes aware of such information. Under\n+Bankruptcy Rule 5009(c), the foreign representative is also required to file\n+and transmit to the United States Trustee a final report describing the\n+nature and results of the foreign representative’s activities in the Court\n+when the purpose of the foreign representative’s appearance in the Court\n+is completed, and to give notice of the report to certain parties. The\n+foreign representative must file a certificate with the Court certifying that\n+such notice has been given. Under Bankruptcy Rule 5009(c), if no\n+objection has been filed within thirty (30) days after the certificate is filed,\n+there is a presumption that the case has been fully administered. At that\n+time, the case should be closed. However, even in the absence of a\n+certificate, the Court has the discretion, after notice and a hearing, to close\n+49\n+the case if it finds that the purpose of the foreign representative’s\n+appearance in the case has been completed.\n+Rule 5010-1 REOPENING CASES\n+(a) Contents of Motion. A motion to reopen a case pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 5010 must\n+be in writing and state the name of the Judge to whom the case was assigned at the time it\n+was closed.\n+(b) Reference. A motion to reopen a case shall be filed with the Clerk. The Clerk shall refer\n+the motion to the Judge to whom the case was assigned at the time it was closed. If that\n+Judge is no longer sitting, the motion shall be assigned in accordance with Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 1073-1.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 11\n+Rule 5011-1 WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE\n+A motion for withdrawal of the reference shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. An\n+original and three (3) copies of the District Court Civil Cover Letter Sheet shall be submitted to\n+the Court. The Clerk of the Court will transmit the motion and supporting documents to the\n+District Court. The movant shall obtain from the Clerk of the Court the District Court civil case\n+number and name of the District Judge assigned to the motion.\n+Comment\n+This rule was amended in 2004 to specify the procedural\n+requirements imposed on the party moving for withdrawal of the reference\n+under 28 U.S.C. §157(d).\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to clarify that the Clerk now opens\n+the motion to withdraw the reference on the District Court’s electronic\n+filing system. The movant must obtain the District Court civil case\n+number and name of the District Judge assigned to the motion from the\n+Clerk.\n+This rule was amended in 2017 to reflect the current practice in\n+this Court. Additionally, the District Court no longer requires paper\n+copies from the movant of the motion and other documents previously\n+listed and only requires paper copies of the Civil Cover Sheets.\n+50\n+Rule 5070-1 OBTAINING A RETURN DATE\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, prior to serving a motion, cross-motion, or\n+application, the moving party or applicant must obtain a return date from the assigned Judge’s\n+chambers.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from former Standing Order M-99. Pursuant to\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 9004-2(b), the return date obtained under this rule\n+must be included in the upper right-hand corner of the caption of the\n+motion or application.\n+The title of this rule was amended in 2016. No substantive change\n+was intended.\n+Rule 5073-1 PHOTOGRAPHING, BROADCASTING, AND TELEVISING IN\n+COURTROOMS AND ENVIRONS\n+The taking of photographs and the use of recording devices in a courtroom or its\n+environs, except by officials of the Court in the conduct of the Court’s business, and radio or\n+television broadcasting from a courtroom or its environs, during the progress of, or in connection\n+with, judicial proceedings or otherwise, whether or not the Court is actually in session, are\n+prohibited.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 35 and is\n+an adaptation of Civil Rule 1.8 of the Local District Rules. This rule\n+extends the District Court’s restrictions to all bankruptcy courtrooms in\n+this district, including those located in White Plains and Poughkeepsie.\n+Rule 5073-2 REMOTE ACCESS TO PROCEEDINGS\n+Access by parties, parties in interest and the public to proceedings before the Court will be\n+governed by the revised policy, effective September 22, 2023, of the Judicial Conference of the\n+United States, which provides that “a judge presiding over a civil or bankruptcy non-trial\n+proceeding may, in the judge’s discretion, authorize live remote public audio access to any portion\n+of that proceeding in which a witness is not testifying.” Further information on the policy is\n+available at the following link: Judicial Conference Policy. Pursuant to that policy, courtrooms\n+will be open and, where applicable, remote access may be provided to parties and parties in\n+interest for access to hearings and trials, and public access may be provided to the extent permitted\n+by the Judicial Conference policy. Access to proceedings may be limited by other statutes and\n+rules, including without limitation section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code, Rule 9018 of the Federal\n+Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Each Judge’s\n+policies regarding remote access to proceedings will be set forth in such Judge’s chambers rules.\n+51\n+Rule 5075-1 CLERK’S USE OF OUTSIDE SERVICES AND AGENTS; CLAIMS AND\n+NOTICING AGENTS\n+(a) The Court may direct, subject to the supervision of the Clerk, the use of agents either on\n+or off the Court’s premises to file Court records, either by paper or electronic means, to\n+issue notices, to maintain case dockets, to maintain Judges’ calendars, and to maintain\n+and disseminate other administrative information where the costs of such facilities or\n+services are paid for by the estate.\n+(b) Estate Retention of Claims and Noticing Agent\n+(1) In a case in which the number of creditors and equity security holders, in the\n+aggregate, is 250 or more, the estate shall retain, subject to approval of the Court,\n+a claims and noticing agent in accordance with the Protocol for the Employment\n+of Claims And Noticing Agents under 28 U.S.C. §156(c), which shall be available\n+on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/newClaimsAgentsProtocol.p\n+df).\n+(2) With court approval, the estate may retain a claims and noticing agent in\n+accordance with such protocol in a case in which the number of creditors and\n+equity security holders, in the aggregate, is less than 250.\n+(3) The costs of services provided by such agent must be paid by the estate. When the\n+case is closed, the claims and noticing agent must deliver to the Clerk an\n+electronic copy of the claims register.\n+(c) Upon request of the Clerk, the agent shall provide a copy of all electronic records\n+maintained by the agent to the Clerk and shall provide public access to the Claims\n+Registers, including complete proofs of claim with attachments, if any, without charge.\n+(d) The order providing for the retention of an agent under this rule shall provide for\n+(i) the discharge of the agent at the conclusion of the case, or as otherwise provided by\n+entry of an additional order by the Court, and (ii) the disposition of any records,\n+documents and the like, that have been provided or delivered to such agent, whether in\n+paper or electronic form in accordance with the Protocol for the Employment of Claims\n+Agents.\n+Comment\n+This rule complements 28 U.S.C. §156(c). Pursuant to the\n+guidelines of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Clerk is\n+responsible for the security and integrity of all Court records.\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to add as new subdivision (b) the\n+provisions of General Order M-409, relating to the use of claims and\n+noticing agents, and to state in the rule the link to the Court’s website\n+where practitioners may access the governing protocols. The substance of\n+former subdivision (b) has been deleted. The Clerk does not maintain\n+duplicate electronic records of the claims register held by the claims and\n+52\n+noticing agent. Such claims register is delivered to the Clerk upon the\n+closing of the case. General Order M-409 was abrogated and replaced by\n+this local rule in 2013.\n+Subsection (b) of this rule was stylistically revised in 2016. No\n+substantive change was intended. The subsection was amended in 2024 to\n+clarify that the claims register delivered to the Clerk at the conclusion of\n+the case must be in electronic format.\n+Subsection (c) of this rule was amended and subsection (d) was\n+added in 2016 to require open access to claims registries in accordance\n+with existing requirements and Clerk’s Office procedures, as well as\n+section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 3002(b) and\n+5005(a).\n+Rule 5078-1 PAYMENT OF FEES\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Clerk shall not be required to render any service\n+for which a fee is prescribed by statute or the Judicial Conference of the United States unless the\n+fee is paid in advance.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 10 and is\n+an adaptation of Civil Rule 1.7 of the Local District Rules.\n+An application for permission to make installment payments may\n+be filed pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1006(b).\n+PART VI: COLLECTION AND LIQUIDATION OF THE ESTATE\n+Rule 6004-1 SALES OF PROPERTY, APPRAISALS, AND AUCTIONS\n+(a) Notice. The trustee may sell property of the estate that the trustee reasonably believes has\n+an aggregate gross value of no more than $10,000 by public or private sale on seven (7)\n+days’ written notice to any party with an interest in such property, the landlord of the\n+premises on which the property is located, and such other parties as the Court may direct.\n+The notice of any proposed sale of property of the estate having an aggregate gross value\n+of at least $2,500 shall include the time and place of the proposed sale, whether the sale\n+will be public or private, and the terms and conditions of the proposed sale.\n+(b) Appraisals. Unless the Court orders otherwise, if an appraiser has been employed, the\n+property to be appraised must not be sold until after the appraisal has been filed.\n+(1) Caption. All appraisals filed with the Court must have a cover sheet bearing the\n+caption of the case in compliance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9004-2 and the\n+date, if any, of the proposed sale.\n+53\n+(2) Filing and Access. Unless the Court orders otherwise, any appraiser employed\n+pursuant to section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code must file with the Court and\n+the United States Trustee each appraisal made of property of the estate not later\n+than 12:00 noon on the day prior to the scheduled sale of the property. Each\n+appraisal shall be kept under seal upon filing and treated as confidential by the\n+Court and the United States Trustee. Access to the appraisal may be had only by\n+the Court, the United States Trustee and such other parties as the Court may\n+direct, and neither they nor the appraiser shall disclose any of the contents thereof\n+until after the conclusion of the bidding at any sale of the appraised property, at\n+which time the Court may order the appraisal to be unsealed. Unless the Court\n+orders otherwise, the appraisal shall be unsealed six (6) months from the date on\n+which the appraisal is filed.\n+(3) Conformity with Auctioneer’s Catalogue of Sale. If property is to be appraised\n+and sold at auction, upon request, the auctioneer promptly shall deliver the\n+catalogue of sale to the appraiser. The appraisal shall conform to the catalogue to\n+the greatest extent possible.\n+(c) Manner of Display and Conduct of Auction. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the\n+auction must be conducted in the following manner:\n+(1) the property shall be on public display for a reasonable period of time prior to the\n+sale;\n+(2) prior to receiving bids, the auctioneer shall announce the terms of sale;\n+(3) where practicable, the property shall be offered for sale first in bulk and then in\n+lots; and\n+(4) any property that is not to be included in the sale shall be set apart and\n+conspicuously marked “not included in the sale,” and such fact shall be\n+announced by the auctioneer before the sale.\n+(d) Joint Sales.\n+(1) If the trustee and a secured party, or other third party having an interest in the\n+property, desire to conduct a joint auction sale, or if the joint sale of property in\n+more than one (1) bankruptcy estate is anticipated to be more cost effective or\n+beneficial for all the bankruptcy estates, the Court shall enter an order prior to the\n+sale fixing the method of allocating the commissions and expenses of sale.\n+(2) The commissions and expenses incurred on behalf of one (1) bankruptcy estate in\n+a joint auction sale must not be charged to any other estate unless the motion\n+requesting the joint auction reveals the identity and number of any other estate\n+participants in the joint auction sale, and how such commissions and expenses\n+shall be apportioned among them.\n+(3) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the trustee from participating in a joint sale with\n+a non-debtor, provided it is in the best interest of the debtor’s estate and its\n+creditors.\n+54\n+(e) Proceeds of Sale. Upon receipt of the proceeds of sale, the auctioneer immediately must\n+deposit the proceeds in a separate account that the auctioneer maintains for each estate in\n+accordance with the requirements of section 345(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. Unless the\n+Court orders otherwise, payment of the gross proceeds of the sale, less the auctioneer’s\n+reimbursable expenses, must be made promptly by the auctioneer to the trustee or debtor\n+in possession, but in no event later than fourteen (14) days after the date on which the\n+proceeds are received with respect to each item or lot sold.\n+(f) Report of Sale. Unless the Court orders otherwise, (i) within twenty-one (21) days after\n+the last date of the auction, the auctioneer must file a report with the Court and transmit a\n+copy of the report to the United States Trustee, and (ii) if all proceeds of the auction have\n+not been received by such date, the auctioneer must file a supplemental report within\n+fourteen (14) days after all proceeds have been received. The report shall set forth:\n+(1) the time, date and place of the sale;\n+(2) the gross dollar amount of the sale;\n+(3) if property was sold in lots, a description of the items in each lot, the quantity in\n+each lot, the dollar amount received for each lot, and any bulk bid(s) received;\n+(4) an itemized statement of expenditures, disbursements, and commissions allowable\n+under Local Bankruptcy Rule 6005-1, including the name and address of the\n+payee, together with the original receipts or canceled checks, or true copies\n+thereof, for the expenditures or disbursements. Where labor charges are included,\n+the report must specify the days worked and the number of hours worked each\n+day by each person and the last four digits of the person’s social security number.\n+If the canceled checks are not available at the time the report is filed, the report\n+must so state, and the canceled checks must be filed as soon as they become\n+available;\n+(5) where the auctioneer has a blanket insurance policy covering all sales conducted\n+by the auctioneer, for which original receipts and canceled checks are not\n+available, an explanation of how the insurance expense charged to the estate was\n+computed;\n+(6) if any articles were withdrawn from the sale because of a third party claim of an\n+interest therein, a separate itemized statement of the articles reflecting the names\n+of such third parties;\n+(7) the names and addresses of all purchasers;\n+(8) the sign-in sheet, if any; otherwise, the approximate number of people attending\n+the sale;\n+(9) the items for which there were no bids and the disposition of those items;\n+(10) the terms and conditions of sale that were read to the audience immediately prior\n+to the commencement of the sale;\n+55\n+(11) a statement of the manner and extent of advertising of the sale;\n+(12) a statement of the manner and extent of the availability of the items for\n+inspection; and\n+(13) any other information that the United States Trustee may request.\n+(g) Affidavit to Accompany Report of Sale. The auctioneer must submit with the report of\n+sale an affidavit stating: (i) that the auctioneer is a duly licensed auctioneer; (ii) the\n+auctioneer’s license number and place of business; (iii) the authority pursuant to which\n+the auctioneer conducted the auction; (iv) the date and place of the auction; (v) that the\n+labor and other expenses incurred on behalf of the estate as listed in the report of sale\n+were reasonable and necessary; and (vi) that the gross proceeds of sale, exclusive of\n+expenses, were remitted to the trustee or debtor in possession and the date of the\n+remittance.\n+(h) Advertisement and Publication of Notice of Sale. An advertisement or publication of\n+notice of a sale by auction or otherwise may be made without Court approval if it is\n+sufficient to provide adequate notice of the sale and is advertised or published at least\n+once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or county in which the property is\n+located. The advertisement or publication must include: (i) the date, time and place of the\n+sale; (ii) a description of the property to be sold including, with respect to real property,\n+the approximate acreage of any real estate outside the limits of any town or city, the\n+street, lot and block number of any real estate within any town or city, and a general\n+statement of the character of any improvements upon the property; (iii) the terms and\n+conditions of the sale; and (iv) the name, address and telephone number of the trustee or\n+debtor in possession. The Court may fix the manner and extent of advertising and\n+publication at any time.\n+(i) [intentionally omitted]\n+(j) Compliance with Guidelines of the Court. In addition to the foregoing requirements,\n+parties conducting a sale of property of the estate, including trustees and auctioneers,\n+must comply with the Guidelines for the Conduct of Asset Sales by the Court, which\n+shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/6004-1-j-Guidelines.pdf).\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was added in 1996. Subdivision (b) of\n+this rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 40. Subdivisions\n+(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this rule are derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 41. Subdivision (h) of this rule is derived from Former\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 42. Subdivision (i) of this rule is derived from\n+Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 45(g).\n+Subdivision (d) of this rule was amended in 2004 to provide for\n+joint sales of property from more than one estate. Subdivision (e) makes\n+clear that the proceeds of an auction shall be turned over within the time\n+56\n+specified, even if the auction has not yet concluded. Unlike subdivision\n+(e), which requires the turnover of proceeds with respect to each lot or\n+item of property, subdivision (f) contemplates the filing of a report within\n+the time specified after the auction has been concluded and the\n+supplementing of such report when the proceeds are received thereafter.\n+Due to privacy concerns, subdivision (f) of this rule was amended in 2004\n+to delete the requirement that an auctioneer include in its report the social\n+security numbers of people being paid labor charges.\n+The contents of a notice of a proposed sale are governed by\n+Bankruptcy Rule 2002(c)(1).\n+In 2009, subdivision (a) of this rule was amended to change the\n+time period from five (5) to seven (7) days, and subdivision (b) of this rule\n+was amended to change the time period from ten (10) to fourteen (14)\n+days. The purpose of these amendments was to conform the time periods\n+in this rule to the 2009 time-related amendments to the Federal Rules of\n+Bankruptcy Procedure. Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the\n+Local Bankruptcy Rules, most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30)\n+days were changed so that the number of days is in multiples of seven (7),\n+thereby reducing the likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or\n+Sunday.\n+The business day deadline in subdivision (b)(2) of this rule was\n+also amended in 2009 to delete the reference to “business” so that the time\n+period will be consistent with the 2009 amendments to Bankruptcy Rule\n+9006(a).\n+Guidelines for the conduct of asset sales were promulgated by\n+General Order M-383. This rule was amended in 2013 to specify the title\n+of the procedures promulgated by General Order M-383 and to state in the\n+rule the link to the Court’s website where practitioners may access the\n+governing procedures. The procedures also may be obtained from the\n+Clerk. The procedures set forth in the Guidelines for the Conduct of Asset\n+Sales may be amended by the Court after giving notice and opportunity for\n+comment as is appropriate.\n+Subsection (i) was revised to conform to the 2016 amendments\n+relocating Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-2 to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-\n+1(c). Subsection (i) now refers to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1(c),\n+instead of Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-2.\n+Subsection (i) was repealed in 2017.\n+Rule 6005-1 AUCTIONEERS\n+(a) No Official Auctioneer. There shall be no official auctioneer.\n+57\n+(b) Compensation. Unless the Court orders otherwise for cause, compensation and\n+reimbursement of expenses shall be allowed to an auctioneer for sales of property as\n+follows:\n+(1) commissions on each sale conducted by the auctioneer at the following rates:\n+(A) 10% of any gross proceeds of sale up to $50,000;\n+(B) 8% of any gross proceeds of sale in excess of $50,000 but not more than\n+$75,000;\n+(C) 6% of any gross proceeds of sale in excess of $75,000 but not more than\n+$100,000;\n+(D) 4% of any gross proceeds of sale in excess of $100,000 but not more than\n+$150,000;\n+(E) 2% of any gross proceeds of sale in excess of $150,000; and\n+(2) reimbursement for reasonable and necessary expenses directly related to the sale,\n+including labor, printing, advertising and insurance, but excluding workers’\n+compensation, social security, unemployment insurance and other payroll taxes.\n+When directed by the trustee or debtor in possession to transport goods, the\n+auctioneer shall be reimbursed for expenditures related thereto. No travel\n+expenses shall be allowed, except as ordered by the Court.\n+(c) Buyer’s Premiums. If a “buyer’s premium” is to be sought at any auction there must be\n+disclosure of this intent to the Court prior to the conduct of the auction and prior to the\n+approval of the auctioneer’s compensation. With the advance approval of the Court such\n+buyer’s premium may constitute the compensation payable to the auctioneer in lieu of\n+other compensation. Otherwise, any buyer’s premium shall be treated as part of the sale\n+price that is payable to the estate, unless the Court expressly orders otherwise. No\n+auctioneer be entitled to both a “buyer’s premium” and a separate fee unless the Court\n+has expressly authorized such compensation in advance of an auction.\n+(d) Purchase Prohibited. An auctioneer, or officer, director, stockholder, agent or employee\n+of an auctioneer, must not purchase directly or indirectly, or have a financial interest in\n+the purchase of, any property of the estate that the auctioneer has been employed to sell.\n+(e) Bond. An auctioneer employed pursuant to section 327 of the Bankruptcy Code must not\n+act until the auctioneer files with respect to each estate, at the auctioneer’s expense, a\n+surety bond in favor of the United States, to be approved, and in such sum as may be\n+fixed, by the United States Trustee, which is conditioned upon:\n+(1) the faithful and prompt accounting for all monies and property that may come into\n+the auctioneer’s possession;\n+(2) compliance with all rules, orders, and decrees of the Court; and\n+(3) the faithful performance of the auctioneer’s duties.\n+58\n+(f) Blanket Bond. In lieu of a bond in each case, an auctioneer may be permitted to file, at\n+the auctioneer’s own expense, a blanket bond covering all cases in which the auctioneer\n+may act. The blanket bond shall be in favor of the United States in such sum as the\n+United States Trustee shall fix and shall be conditioned for each estate on the same terms\n+as bonds in separate estates.\n+(g) Application for Commissions. An auctioneer shall file an application with the Court for\n+approval of commissions on not less than seven (7) days’ notice to the debtor, the trustee,\n+the United States Trustee and each committee. No application shall be granted unless the\n+report of sale referred to in Local Bankruptcy Rule 6004-1(f) has been filed.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 41.\n+Subdivision (b) regarding “buyer’s premiums” was added in 2024\n+to provide a standardized practice for the disclosure of such terms and to\n+ensure that the full scope of auctioneers’ compensation is clarified in\n+advance of any auction. The other subdivisions of this Rule were re-\n+designated after new subdivision (b) was added.\n+Advertisements of auction sales are governed by Local Bankruptcy\n+Rule 6004-1(h).\n+Subdivision (g) of this rule (formerly subdivision (f)) was amended\n+in 2009 to change the time period from five (5) to seven (7) days. The\n+purpose of the amendment was to conform the time period in this rule to\n+the 2009 time- related amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\n+Procedure. Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local\n+Bankruptcy Rules, most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days\n+were changed so that the number of days is in multiples of seven, thereby\n+reducing the likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or\n+Sunday.\n+Rule 6006-1 EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES\n+(a) Motion to Assume, Reject, or Assign Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease. A motion\n+to assume, reject, or assign an executory contract or unexpired lease shall be served in\n+accordance with the time limits set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9006-1(b), which may\n+be waived or modified upon the written consent of all parties entitled to notice of the\n+motion. In the event that a nonconsensual order is sought on less than fourteen (14) days’\n+notice, Local Bankruptcy Rule 9077-1 shall govern and an actual hearing shall be held.\n+(b) Assumption of Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease in Chapter 7 Case.\n+(1) Unless the Court orders otherwise, in a chapter 7 case, a trustee moving to assume\n+an executory contract or unexpired lease of residential real property or personal\n+property of the debtor shall seek to obtain a return date for the hearing on the\n+59\n+motion that is within sixty (60) days after the order for relief or, if the time to\n+assume has been extended, before the expiration of such extended period. If the\n+trustee files a motion to assume or to extend the time to assume or reject an\n+executory contract or unexpired lease of residential real property or personal\n+property, and the motion is filed not later than sixty (60) days after the order for\n+relief (or, if the time to assume or reject the executory contract or unexpired lease\n+has been extended previously by order of the Court, before the expiration of the\n+extended time) with a return date no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of\n+such filing, the time to assume or reject the executory contract or unexpired lease\n+shall be extended automatically and without court order until the entry of the\n+order resolving the motion.\n+(2) The assumption by an individual debtor of a lease of personal property that is no\n+longer property of the estate pursuant to Section 365(p)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy\n+Code shall not require the approval of the Court. Any party in interest that\n+requests an order of the Court approving such an assumption shall in its request\n+prominently state the reasons for seeking such an order notwithstanding its\n+knowledge that an order of the Court is not required for such assumption.\n+(c) Motion to Assume Unexpired Lease of Nonresidential Real Property. Unless the Court\n+orders otherwise, in a case under any chapter, a debtor, debtor in possession or trustee\n+moving to assume an unexpired lease of nonresidential real property under which the\n+debtor is the lessee shall seek to obtain a return date for the hearing on the motion that is\n+within one hundred twenty (120) days after the order for relief or, if the time to assume\n+has been extended, before the expiration of such extended period. If the debtor, debtor in\n+possession or trustee files a motion to assume or to extend the time to assume or reject an\n+unexpired lease of nonresidential real property, and the motion is filed not later than one\n+hundred-twenty (120) days after the order for relief (or, if the time to assume or reject the\n+unexpired lease has been extended previously by order of the Court, before the expiration\n+of the extended time) with a return date no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of\n+such filing or, if the Court is unable to schedule a return date within such fourteen (14)\n+day period, as soon thereafter as the return date may be scheduled by the Court, the time\n+to assume or reject the unexpired lease will be extended automatically and without court\n+order until the entry of the order resolving the motion, except that the time for the debtor,\n+debtor in possession or trustee to assume or reject such unexpired lease shall not be\n+extended beyond the date that is two hundred ten (210) days after the entry of the order\n+for relief without the prior written consent of the landlord.\n+(d) Aircraft Equipment and Vessels. Unless the Court orders otherwise, a debtor in\n+possession or trustee moving for approval of an agreement to perform all obligations of\n+the debtor pursuant to section 1110(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code shall seek to obtain\n+a return date for the hearing on the motion that is within sixty (60) days after the order for\n+relief or, if the time to assume has been extended by order of the Court, before the\n+expiration of such extended period.\n+(e) Rolling Stock Equipment. Unless the Court orders otherwise, a trustee moving for\n+approval of an agreement to perform all obligations of the debtor pursuant to section\n+1168(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code shall seek to obtain a return date for the hearing\n+on the motion that is within sixty (60) days after the date of commencement of the case\n+60\n+or, if the time to assume has been extended by order of the Court, before the expiration of\n+such extended period.\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is derived from former Standing Order\n+M-118. Subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule are derived from Former\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 44(b) and (c). Subdivisions (d) and (e) of this rule,\n+added in 1996, are derived from sections 1110 and 1168 of the Bankruptcy\n+Code.\n+Section 365(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates that a\n+hearing on a motion by a chapter 7 trustee to assume an executory contract\n+or unexpired lease of residential real property or personal property of the\n+debtor ordinarily will take place within sixty (60) days from the date of the\n+order for relief. In addition, section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code\n+contemplates that a final hearing on a motion by a debtor, debtor in\n+possession or trustee to assume an unexpired lease of nonresidential real\n+property of the debtor ordinarily will take place within one hundred\n+twenty (120) days from the date of the order for relief.\n+Under section 365(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, in a chapter 7\n+case, the Court may, for cause, extend the sixty (60)-day time period for\n+assuming or rejecting an executory contract or unexpired lease of\n+residential real property or personal property. Similarly, under section\n+365(d)(4), the Court may, for cause, extend the one hundred twenty (120)-\n+day time period for assuming or rejecting an unexpired lease of\n+nonresidential real property. In 2004, subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule\n+were amended to avoid the necessity of obtaining a “bridge order”\n+extending these time periods in the event that a timely motion to assume\n+or a timely motion to extend the time was filed but not resolved by the\n+Court before the expiration of the time to assume or reject the contract or\n+lease. Adequate cause for an extension of time to assume or reject the\n+executory contract or unexpired lease until the Court rules on the motion\n+exists by virtue of the fact that a motion to assume or to extend the time\n+was filed in a timely manner. Any party in interest objecting to the\n+extension of time may request a hearing on an expedited basis. To prevent\n+abuse of the automatic extension, the return date of the motion must be no\n+later than fourteen (14) days after the motion is filed.\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was amended in 2009 to change the\n+time period from ten (10) to fourteen (14) days. The purpose of the\n+amendment was to conform the time period in this rule to the 2009 time -\n+related amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.\n+Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules,\n+most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so\n+that the number of days is in multiples of seven (7), thereby reducing the\n+likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+61\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to include in the new paragraph (2)\n+of subdivision (b) the provisions of General Order M-415, which relates to\n+an individual debtor’s assumption of a lease of personal property under\n+section 365(p) of the Bankruptcy Code. General Order M-415 was\n+abrogated and replaced by this local rule in 2013.\n+Subdivision (c) was amended in 2013 so that the automatic\n+extension of time would apply if the Court is unable to schedule a return\n+date within fourteen (14) days after the motion is filed, provided that the\n+return date is as soon thereafter as it may be scheduled by the Court.\n+Subdivision (d) was amended in 2013 to update the Bankruptcy Code\n+cross reference to reflect Bankruptcy Code amendments subsequent to this\n+local rule’s promulgation.\n+Rule 6007-1 ABANDONMENT OR DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY\n+(a) Unless the Court orders otherwise, the notice of a proposed abandonment or disposition\n+of property pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 6007(a) shall describe the property to be\n+abandoned or disposed of, state concisely the reason for the proposed abandonment or\n+disposition, and, in the case of abandonment, identify the entity to whom the property is\n+proposed to be abandoned.\n+(b) If the trustee files a notice of abandonment of a residential real property lease, other than\n+a proprietary lease for a cooperative residence, the notice need only be served on the\n+debtor and the landlord.\n+Comment\n+This rule, added in 1996, simplifies the procedure for abandonment\n+of an individual debtor’s leased residence that is of no value to the estate\n+so that the debtor may remain in such premises.\n+PART VII: ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS\n+Rule 7005-1 FILING OF DISCOVERY-RELATED DOCUMENTS\n+Except as otherwise provided in these Local Bankruptcy Rules or by Court order, transcripts of\n+depositions, exhibits to depositions, interrogatories, answers to interrogatories, document\n+requests, responses to document requests, requests for admissions, and responses to requests for\n+admissions may not be filed with the Court.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Civil Rule 5.1 of the Local District Rules.\n+62\n+In 2017, this rule was amended to delete subparagraph (b). The\n+rule contained in subparagraph (b) is reiterated in Local Bankruptcy Rule\n+8009-1(a), in Part VIII of the Local Bankruptcy Rules governing Appeals.\n+As such, subparagraph (b) of this rule was felt to be redundant. No\n+substantive change is intended.\n+Rule 7007.1-1 CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY A\n+BUSINESS ENTITY OF ANY KIND THAT IS A PARTY TO AN\n+ADVERSARY PROCEEDING\n+The Corporate Ownership Statement required under Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1 shall also\n+be filed by any party or proposed intervenor to an adversary proceeding, other than the debtor or\n+a governmental entity, that is a business entity of any kind irrespective of whether it of a kind\n+enumerated in section 101(9)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n+Comment\n+Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1, effective December 1, 2003, requires a\n+Corporate Ownership Statement to be filed for any corporation that is a\n+party to an adversary proceeding other than the debtor or a governmental\n+entity. “Corporation” is broadly defined under section 101(9) of the\n+Bankruptcy Code (and includes, for instance, limited liability companies\n+and other unincorporated companies or associations), but it does not cover\n+general or limited partnerships. The reasons for which this rule was\n+enacted – to give the Judges of this Court information by which they can\n+determine whether or not they need to recuse themselves – apply equally\n+without regard to the legal form of a business entity. This local rule\n+requires a similar disclosure with respect to business organizations of that\n+character. Local Bankruptcy Rule 7007-1.1 was therefore amended in\n+2024 to mandate that the Corporate Ownership Statement referenced in\n+Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1 be filed by a business entity of any kind.\n+The heading of this rule was amended in 2009 to more accurately\n+reflect the substance of the rule.\n+This rule was also amended in 2024 to track a 2021 amendment to\n+Bankruptcy Rule 7007.1 regarding the filing of Corporate Ownership\n+Statements by intervenors.\n+Rule 7016-2 INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE\n+The Court shall schedule an initial pretrial conference in all adversary proceedings. The\n+date and time of the initial pretrial conference shall be set forth in the summons. Subsequent\n+pretrial conferences may be scheduled in open court or by the Clerk as provided above. If a\n+subsequent pretrial conference is scheduled in open court, the plaintiff shall file a notice of the\n+date and time of such pretrial conference no later than forty-eight (48) hours after it was\n+scheduled in open court. In advance of the initial pretrial conference the parties should confer\n+63\n+about the terms of a scheduling order as specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), made applicable by\n+Bankruptcy Rule 7016, and should be prepared to discuss the scheduling order at the conference.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 to require a pretrial conference in\n+every adversary proceeding and to specify the procedures for giving\n+parties notice of the initial conference and any subsequent conferences.\n+The rule was amended in 2024 to make clear that the initial pretrial\n+conference is intended to be a scheduling conference for purposes of Fed.\n+R. Civ. P. 16(b).\n+Rule 7026-1 UNIFORM DEFINITIONS IN DISCOVERY REQUESTS\n+Civil Rule 26.3 of the Local District Rules shall apply to discovery requests made in\n+cases and proceedings commenced under the Bankruptcy Code.\n+Comment\n+This rule contains a technical change to reflect a renumbering of\n+the applicable Local District Rule.\n+Rule 7027-1 DEPOSITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ADVERSARY\n+PROCEEDING OR PENDING APPEAL WHEN DEPOSITION IS MORE\n+THAN 100 MILES FROM COURTHOUSE\n+If, prior to the commencement of an adversary proceeding or pending appeal, a proposed\n+deposition pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7027 is sought to be taken at a location more than one\n+hundred (100) miles from the courthouse, the Court may provide in the order therefor that, prior\n+to the examination, the party seeking to take the deposition shall pay the expense of the\n+attendance of one attorney for each adverse party, or expected adverse party, including\n+reasonable attorney’s fees. Unless the Court orders otherwise, any amounts paid pursuant to this\n+subdivision shall be a taxable cost in the event the party taking the deposition is awarded costs of\n+the adversary proceeding.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 24 and is\n+an adaptation of Civil Rule 30.1 of the Local District Rules.\n+Rule 7030-1 DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION MORE THAN 100 MILES\n+FROM COURTHOUSE\n+If a proposed deposition upon oral examination is sought to be taken at a location more\n+than one hundred (100) miles from the courthouse, the Court may provide in any order entered\n+pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7030 that, prior to the examination, the party seeking to take the\n+64\n+deposition shall pay the expense of the attendance of one attorney for each adverse party, or\n+expected adverse party, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Unless the Court orders otherwise,\n+any amounts paid pursuant to this subdivision shall be a taxable cost in the event that the party\n+taking the deposition is awarded costs of the adversary proceeding.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 24 and is\n+an adaptation of Civil Rule 30.1 of the Local District Rules.\n+This title of this rule was stylistically amended in 2016 to conform\n+to the language used in Local Bankruptcy Rule 7027-1. No substantive\n+change was intended.\n+Rule 7033-1 INTERROGATORIES\n+(a) Restrictions. At the commencement of discovery, interrogatories will be restricted to\n+those questions seeking names of witnesses with knowledge or information relevant to\n+the subject matter of the action, the computation of each category of damage alleged, and\n+the existence, custodian, location, and general description of relevant documents,\n+including pertinent insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, and information\n+of a similar nature.\n+(b) Method of Obtaining Information. During discovery, interrogatories, other than those\n+seeking information described in subdivision (a) of this rule, may be served only if (i)\n+they are a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a request for\n+production or a deposition or (ii) ordered by the Court.\n+(c) What May Be Served. Unless the Court orders otherwise, at the conclusion of each party’s\n+discovery, and at least thirty (30) days prior to the discovery cut-off date, interrogatories\n+seeking the claims and contentions of the opposing party may be served. Questions\n+seeking the names of expert witnesses and the substance of their opinions also may be\n+served if such information has not yet been supplied.\n+(d) No Interrogatories to Be Unanswered. No part of an interrogatory may be left\n+unanswered merely because an objection is interposed to another part of the\n+interrogatory.\n+(e) Objections or Requests for Relief.\n+(1) In connection with any objection or request for relief with respect to\n+interrogatories or answers to interrogatories, the party making the objection or\n+request for relief shall (i) simultaneously with the filing of a request or moving\n+papers, file a copy of the interrogatories or answers to interrogatories and (ii)\n+specify and quote verbatim in the request or moving papers each relevant\n+interrogatory or answer and, immediately following each specification, set forth\n+the basis of the objection or relief requested.\n+65\n+(2) If an objection or request for relief is made with respect to any interrogatory or\n+portion thereof, the objection shall state all grounds with specificity. Any ground\n+not stated in the objection or request for relief within the time provided by the\n+Bankruptcy Rules, or any extensions thereof, shall be deemed waived.\n+(3) If a claim of privilege is asserted in an objection or request for relief with respect\n+to any interrogatory or portion thereof, and an answer is not provided on the basis\n+of the assertion, the objection or request for relief shall identify:\n+(A) the nature of the privilege being claimed and, if the privilege is being\n+asserted in connection with a claim or defense governed by state law, the\n+state’s privilege rule being invoked; and\n+(B) unless divulgence of such information would cause disclosure of the\n+allegedly privileged information:\n+1. for documents: (i) the type of document; (ii) the general subject\n+matter of the document; (iii) the date of the document; and (iv)\n+such other information as is sufficient to identify the document for\n+a subpoena duces tecum, including, where appropriate, the author\n+of the document, the addressee of the document, and, where not\n+apparent, the relationship of the author to the addressee and the\n+names of all entities that received a copy of the document.\n+2. for oral communications: (i) the name of the person making the\n+communication, the names of any persons present while the\n+communication was made, and, where not apparent, the\n+relationship of the persons present to the person making the\n+communication; (ii) the date and place of the communication; and\n+(iii) the general subject matter of the communication.\n+(f) Reference to Records. If a party answers an interrogatory by reference to records from\n+which the answer may be derived or ascertained, as permitted by Bankruptcy Rule 7033:\n+(1) the specification of documents to be produced shall be in sufficient detail to\n+permit the interrogating party to locate and identify the records and ascertain the\n+answer as readily as could the party from whom discovery is sought;\n+(2) the producing party shall also make available any computerized information or\n+summaries thereof that it has, or can adduce by a relatively simple procedure,\n+unless these materials are privileged or otherwise immune from discovery;\n+(3) the producing party shall also provide any relevant compilations, abstracts, or\n+summaries in its custody or readily obtainable by it, unless these materials are\n+privileged or otherwise immune from discovery; and\n+(4) unless the Court orders otherwise, the documents shall be made available for\n+inspection and copying within fourteen (14) days after service of the answers to\n+interrogatories or on a date agreed upon by the parties.\n+66\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 14 and is\n+an adaptation of Civil Rules 5.1, 33.3, and 37.1 of the Local District Rules\n+as well as former Civil Rule 33.1 of the Local District Rules, with the\n+exception of subdivision (e)(1) of this rule, which is derived from Former\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 13.\n+Subdivision (f)(4) of this rule was amended in 2009 to change the\n+time period from ten (10) to fourteen (14) days. The purpose of the\n+amendment was to conform the time period in this rule to the 2009 time-\n+related amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules. Throughout the Bankruptcy\n+Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules, most time periods that are\n+shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so that the number of days is in\n+multiples of seven (7), thereby reducing the likelihood that time periods\n+will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+Subsection (e)(2) was stylistically amended in 2016. No\n+substantive change was intended.\n+Subparagraphs (a) and (c) were amended in 2017 to conform to\n+Civil Rule 33.3(a) and (c) of the Local District Rules. Subparagraph (a)\n+was amended by deleting the reference to initial disclosures under Rule\n+26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No substantive change was\n+intended. Subparagraph (c) was amended by adding a thirty (30) day\n+deadline prior to the discovery cut-off to serve interrogatories seeking the\n+claims and contentions of the opposing party.\n+Subparagraph (e)(1) was amended in 2017 to make clear that upon\n+a discovery motion, relevant discovery material should be filed with the\n+Court in accordance with the corresponding exception in Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 7005-1(a).\n+Rule 7034-1 OBJECTIONS TO, AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO,\n+PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS\n+(a) In connection with any objection or request for relief with respect to document requests\n+or answers thereto, the party making the objection or request for relief shall (i)\n+simultaneously with the filing of a request or moving papers, file a copy of the document\n+request or answer and (ii) specify and quote verbatim in the request or moving papers\n+each relevant document request or answer and, immediately following each specification,\n+set forth the basis of the objection or relief requested.\n+(b) If an objection or request for relief is made with respect to any document request or\n+portion thereof, the objection or request for relief shall state all grounds with specificity.\n+Any ground not stated in the objection or request for relief within the time provided by\n+the Bankruptcy Rules, or any extensions thereof, shall be deemed waived.\n+67\n+(c) If a claim of privilege is asserted in an objection or request for relief with respect to any\n+document request or portion thereof, and an answer is not provided on the basis of the\n+assertion, the objection or request for relief shall identify:\n+(1) the nature of the privilege being claimed and, if the privilege is being asserted in\n+connection with a claim or defense governed by state law, the state’s privilege\n+rule being invoked; and\n+(2) unless divulgence of such information would cause disclosure of the allegedly\n+privileged information: (i) the type of document; (ii) the general subject matter of\n+the document; (iii) the date of the document; and (iv) such other information as is\n+sufficient to identify the document for a subpoena duces tecum, including, where\n+appropriate, the author of the document, the addressee of the document, and,\n+where not apparent, the relationship of the author to the addressee, and the names\n+of all entities that received a copy of the document.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 14(e).\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is new and has been added to conform to\n+subdivision (e)(1) of Local Bankruptcy Rule 7033-1. Subdivision (c)(2) of\n+this Rule has been modified to conform to subdivision (e)(3)(B)(1) of\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 7033-1.\n+Subparagraph (a) of this rule was amended in 2017 to conform to\n+similar amendments made to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7033-1(e)(1). The\n+language is intended to maintain the force and effect of Local Bankruptcy\n+Rule 7005-1(a)’s general prohibition on filing discovery documents, while\n+allowing the moving party to append any relevant discovery material to a\n+discovery conference request or motion dealing with an objection to a\n+document request.\n+Rule 7036-1 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION\n+In connection with any objection to a request for admission, the objecting party shall,\n+with the filing of a request or moving papers, (i) file a copy of the request for admission\n+simultaneously with the filing of the objection, (ii) specify and quote verbatim in the objection\n+each request to which the objection is made, and (iii) immediately following each specification,\n+set forth the basis of the objection.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 13(f) and\n+is an adaptation of Civil Rule 37.1 of the Local District Rules.\n+This rule was amended in 2017 to conform to similar amendments\n+made to Local Bankruptcy Rules 7033-1(e)(1) and 7034- 1(a). The\n+language is intended to maintain the force and effect of Local Bankruptcy\n+68\n+Rule 7005-1(a)’s general prohibition on filing discovery documents, while\n+allowing the moving party to append any relevant discovery material to a\n+discovery conference request or motion dealing with an objection to a\n+request for admission.\n+Rule 7037-1 DISCOVERY-RELATED MOTION PRACTICE\n+(a) Attorney’s Affirmation. No discovery-related motion under Bankruptcy Rules 7026\n+through 7037 may be heard unless counsel for the moving party files with the Court, at or\n+prior to the hearing, an affirmation certifying that such counsel has conferred with\n+counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues\n+raised by the motion without the intervention of the Court and that counsel have been\n+unable to reach an agreement. If any of the issues raised by motion have been resolved by\n+agreement, the affirmation shall specify the issues so resolved and the issues remaining\n+unresolved.\n+(b) Request for Informal Conference. No discovery-related motion under Bankruptcy Rules\n+7026 through 7037 shall be heard unless counsel for the moving party first requests an\n+informal conference with the Court and either the request has been denied or the\n+discovery dispute has not been resolved as a consequence of the conference.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 13.\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is an adaptation of Civil Rule 3(f) of the\n+Former District Rules. Subdivision (b) of this rule is an adaptation of Civil\n+Rule 37.2 of the Local District Rules.\n+Subparagraph (a) of this rule was amended in 2017 to change the\n+requirement that counsel submit an affidavit certifying counsel has\n+conferred with opposing counsel in good faith. Instead, counsel may now\n+submit an affirmation. Given New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct,\n+Rule 3.3(a)(1), which prohibits an attorney from making a false statement\n+of fact or law to a tribunal, an attorney affidavit does not provide any\n+greater assurances that counsel conferred in good faith than an affirmation\n+does. This breaks with Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 13.\n+This rule was renumbered in 2024 (changing it from 7007-1 to\n+7037-1) because discovery-related motion practice is more closely\n+associated with Bankruptcy Rule 7037.\n+Rule 7052-1 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\n+Before or after the announcement of its decision, the Court, on notice to all parties, may\n+require one or more parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Any\n+69\n+party submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall serve them on all other\n+parties within the time fixed by the Court. The Court may also grant any party’s request to\n+submit counter-findings and conclusions, which shall be served on all other parties within the\n+time fixed by the Court.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 18 and is\n+an adaptation of Civil Rule 23 of the Former District Rules.\n+This rule was amended in 2016 to give the Court the power to\n+affirmatively authorize the submission of counter-findings and\n+conclusions. The previous version of this rule allowed the parties to\n+submit counter-findings and conclusion by right, unless the Court ordered\n+simultaneous submissions. The content of the record on appeal is no\n+longer limited by this rule.\n+Rule 7055-1 CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT\n+A party applying for a certificate of default from the Clerk pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule\n+7055 shall submit an affidavit showing that (i) the party against whom a default is sought is not\n+an infant, in the military, or an incompetent person, (ii) the party has failed to plead or otherwise\n+defend the action, and (iii) the pleading to which no response has been made was properly\n+served.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Civil Rule 55.1 of the Local District\n+Rules.\n+This rule was amended in 2017 to remove the requirement for\n+proof of service.\n+Rule 7055-2 DEFAULT JUDGMENT\n+(a) By the Clerk. Upon issuance by the Clerk of a certificate of default, if the claim to which\n+no response has been made only seeks payment of a sum certain and does not include a\n+request for attorney’s fees or other substantive relief, and if a default judgment is sought\n+against all remaining parties to the action, the moving party may request that the Clerk\n+enter a default judgment by submitting an affidavit, together with proof of service,\n+showing the principal amount due and owing, not exceeding the amount sought in the\n+claim to which no response has been made, plus interest, if any, computed by the party,\n+with credit for all payments received to date clearly set forth, and costs, if any, pursuant\n+to 28 U.S.C. § 1920.\n+(b) By the Court. In all other cases, the party seeking a judgment by default shall apply to the\n+Court as described in Bankruptcy Rule 7055 and shall append to the application (i) the\n+70\n+Clerk’s certificate of default, (ii) a copy of the claim or complaint to which no response\n+has been made, (iii) a proposed form of default judgment, and (iv) proof of service of the\n+application.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Civil Rule 55.2 of the Local District\n+Rules.\n+Subparagraph (b) was amended in 2017 to clarify what must be\n+submitted along with the application for default judgment.\n+Rule 7056-1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n+(a) Unless the Court orders otherwise, no party shall file a motion for summary judgment\n+without first seeking a pre-motion conference. The request for a pre-motion conference\n+shall be made by letter, filed with the Court, on the docket of the case, and served on all\n+other parties setting forth the issues to be presented in the motion and the grounds for\n+relief. Unless the Court otherwise directs, the letter shall not exceed two pages in length.\n+(b) Upon any motion for summary judgment pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7056, there shall\n+be annexed to the motion a separate, short, and concise statement, in numbered\n+paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no\n+genuine issue to be tried. Failure to submit the statement shall constitute grounds for\n+denial of the motion.\n+(c) Papers opposing a motion for summary judgment shall include a correspondingly\n+numbered paragraph responding to each numbered paragraph in the statement of the\n+moving party, and if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short, and\n+concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there is a\n+genuine issue to be tried.\n+(d) Each numbered paragraph in the statement of material facts required to be served by the\n+moving party shall be deemed admitted for purposes of the motion unless specifically\n+controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in the statement required to be\n+served by the opposing party.\n+(e) Each statement by the movant or opponent pursuant to subdivisions (b) or (c) of this rule,\n+including each statement controverting any statement of material fact by a movant or\n+opponent, shall be followed by citation to evidence which would be admissible.\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was added in 2004 because motions for\n+summary judgment are frequently burdensome, in time and expense, for\n+the Court and the parties. Parties frequently file motions for summary\n+judgment when an objective examination would reveal triable issues of\n+fact or when the Court might conclude that it would be more cost-effective\n+71\n+to resolve all issues at trial, given that most trials in bankruptcy court are\n+bench trials.\n+Subdivision (a) provides the Court with an opportunity to notify\n+the parties of its observations at a pre-motion conference. The rule does\n+not limit a party’s right to file a motion for summary judgment after the\n+pre-motion conference.\n+Subdivisions (b) through (e) of this rule are derived from Former\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 13(h) and are an adaptation of Civil Rule 56.1 of\n+the Local District Rules. The statement of material facts shall be\n+sufficiently complete to permit the Court to render judgment on the claim\n+or defense. These subdivisions were amended in 2004 to conform with\n+the 2004 amendments to Local District Rule 56.1. Compare Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 7052-1 (Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of\n+Law).\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to impose a page limit on any letter\n+requesting a pre-motion conference as a prerequisite for filing a motion for\n+summary judgment. This limit will produce greater efficiency and will\n+prevent parties from extensive briefing of issues in the letter requesting a\n+pre-motion conference.\n+72\n+PART VIII: APPEALS\n+Rule 8003-1 COPIES OF NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR PRO SE PARTIES\n+Upon the filing of a notice of appeal, the appellant shall provide the Clerk with sufficient\n+copies of the notice and address labels for all pro se parties to be served to permit the Clerk to\n+comply with Bankruptcy Rule 8003(c).\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 8004-1\n+and was renumbered to conform to the 2014 amendments to Part VIII of\n+the Bankruptcy Rules and amended to require copies of the notice of\n+appeal and address labels only for parties appearing pro se, which is\n+consistent with the 2014 amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 8003(c). For all\n+other parties, service of the notice of appeal is by electronic means\n+pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8001(c).\n+Although the appellant is required to provide address labels,\n+envelopes should not be provided.\n+Rule 8007-1 SUPERSEDEAS BOND\n+(a) A supersedeas bond, where the judgment is for a sum of money only, shall be in the\n+amount of the judgment, plus interest at a rate consistent with 28 U.S.C.§ 1961, and $250\n+to cover costs and such damages for delay as may be awarded. The parties may waive the\n+supersedeas bond by stipulation.\n+(b) When the stay may be effected as of right solely by the giving of the supersedeas bond,\n+but the judgment or order is not solely for a sum of money, the Court, on notice, shall fix\n+the amount of the bond. In all other cases, the Court may, on notice, grant a stay on such\n+terms as to security and otherwise as it may deem proper.\n+(c) On approval, a supersedeas bond shall be filed with the Clerk, and a copy thereof, with\n+notice of filing, promptly served on all parties affected thereby. If the appellee raises\n+objections to the form of the bond or to the sufficiency of the surety, the Court shall hold\n+a hearing on notice to all parties.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 8005-1\n+and was renumbered in 2014 to conform to the 2014 amendments to Part\n+VIII of the Bankruptcy Rules.\n+In 2017, this rule was amended to clarify conformance with 28\n+U.S.C. § 1961.\n+73\n+Rule 8009-1 RECORD ON APPEAL\n+(a) Furnishing and Transmitting Record on Appeal. Except as provided in subdivision (b) of\n+this rule, a party filing a designation of items to be included in a record on appeal must\n+attach to the designation a copy of each designated item that does not appear on the Court\n+docket and file it on the CM/ECF system.\n+(b) Documents of Unusual Bulk or Weight and Physical Exhibits. Documents of unusual bulk\n+or weight and physical exhibits shall remain in the custody of the attorney producing\n+them, who shall permit their inspection by any party for the purpose of preparing the\n+record on appeal and who shall be charged with the responsibility for their safekeeping\n+and transportation to the appellate court.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 8007-1\n+and was renumbered to conform to the 2014 amendments to Part VIII of\n+the Bankruptcy Rules.\n+In 2016, this comment was edited to clarify that any disputes\n+relating to the content of the record on appeal shall be decided in\n+accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 8009(e).\n+In 2017, this rule was amended to clarify the procedure for\n+furnishing and transmitting a record on appeal. No substantive change is\n+intended.\n+Rule 8010-1 NOTICE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THE FILING OF A\n+PRELIMINARY MOTION WITH AN APPELLATE COURT\n+Upon the filing of a preliminary motion, as defined in Bankruptcy Rule 8010(c), in the\n+district court or court of appeals, that arises out of an order issued by this Court, the moving\n+party shall also file the preliminary motion and notice thereof on this Court’s CM/ECF system.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2016. It is intended to provide notice to the\n+Court and all parties to the bankruptcy case of appellate motion practice\n+relating to a decision or order entered in the bankruptcy case.\n+Rule 8024-1 ORDER, JUDGMENT, OR REMAND BY APPELLATE COURT\n+When an order or judgment of an appellate court is filed in the office of the Clerk, such\n+order or judgment will automatically become the order or judgment of the Court and be entered\n+on the docket of the main bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding without further order. If the\n+order or judgment of the appellate court remands for further proceedings, a motion for such\n+74\n+further proceedings shall be referred to the Judge who heard the proceeding below unless the\n+appellate court orders otherwise.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 8016-1\n+and was renumbered to conform to the 2014 amendments to Part VIII of\n+the Bankruptcy Rules.\n+In 2017, this rule was amended to better clarify the procedure to\n+follow when an order or judgment of appellate court is filed. No\n+substantive change is intended.\n+75\n+PART IX: GENERAL PROVISIONS\n+Rule 9001-1 DEFINITIONS – Amended August 1, 2013\n+(a) Definitions. Unless inconsistent with the context, in these Local Bankruptcy Rules –\n+(1) “Bankruptcy Code” means title 11 of the United States Code, as amended from\n+time to time;\n+(2) “Bankruptcy Rules” means the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and\n+Official Bankruptcy Forms promulgated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2075, as\n+amended from time to time;\n+(3) “Chief Judge” means the Chief Judge of the Court;\n+(4) “Clerk” means the clerk or deputy clerk of the Court;\n+(5) “CM/ECF” means the Case Management/Electronic Case File System\n+implemented in this Court, sometimes referred to herein as “ECF”;\n+(6) “Court” means the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of\n+New York;\n+(7) “District Clerk” means the clerk or deputy clerk of the District Court;\n+(8) “District Court” means the United States District Court for the Southern District\n+of New York;\n+(9) “District Judge” means a United States District Judge appointed to, or sitting by\n+designation in, the District Court;\n+(10) “Former District Rules” means the Rules for General, Civil, Criminal, Admiralty\n+and Magistrate Judge Proceedings for the United States District Court for the\n+Southern District of New York, effective from October 26, 1983 through April\n+15, 1997;\n+(11) “Former Local Bankruptcy Rules” means the United States Bankruptcy Court\n+Southern District of New York Local Bankruptcy Rules, effective from April 21,\n+1986 through April 10, 1996;\n+(12) “Judge” means a bankruptcy judge appointed to or sitting by designation in the\n+Court (or, with respect to a proceeding that has not been referred or which has\n+been withdrawn, the District Judge);\n+(13) “Local District Rules” means the Local Rules for the United States District Court\n+for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, as amended from time to\n+time;\n+(14) “Return Date” means the date set for a hearing on a motion or application, and\n+76\n+(15) “United States Trustee” means the United States trustee or an assistant United\n+States Trustee for the Southern District of New York.\n+(b) Rules of Construction.\n+(1) Unless inconsistent with the context, the meanings of other words and phrases\n+used in these Local Bankruptcy Rules shall be construed in accordance with the\n+Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules.\n+(2) Local Bankruptcy Rules containing references and URL links to guidelines,\n+procedures, or forms on the Court’s website shall be construed to mean such\n+guidelines, procedures, and forms as amended from time to time.\n+(c) Use of Terms “Documents” and “Papers.” The terms “documents” and “papers” as used\n+in these Local Bankruptcy Rules include those filed or transmitted by electronic means.\n+Comment\n+Subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule are derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 2. Subdivision (c) of this rule was added in 1996.\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was amended in 2013 to add the\n+definition of “return date.” This defined term was added to clarify that all\n+references in the Local Bankruptcy Rules to return date mean the date set\n+for a hearing on a motion or application, not the date on which objections\n+or replies are due. Although an actual hearing may not be required in the\n+absence of an objection or request for a hearing, the date set for a hearing\n+in the event that a hearing is or becomes necessary is the “return date.”\n+The return date is often used in the Local Bankruptcy Rules as a reference\n+point for determining certain deadlines. See Local Bankruptcy Rule 9006-\n+1.\n+Subdivision (a) was amended in 2024 to omit “Bankruptcy Act” as\n+a defined term. The term, used to describe the Bankruptcy Act of 1898\n+(repealed 1978), no longer appears in these Local Bankruptcy Rules.\n+Subdivision (b) of this rule was amended in 2013 to add paragraph\n+(2), which provides that a reference to URL links and guidelines in these\n+Local Bankruptcy Rules is to be construed as a reference to such\n+guidelines, procedures, and forms as they may be amended by the Court\n+from time to time.\n+Rule 9004-1 FORM OF PAPERS\n+(a) Papers Submitted for Filing. Papers submitted for filing shall:\n+(1) be plainly typed or printed;\n+(2) not be bound or stapled;\n+77\n+(3) have no erasures or interlineations which materially deface them; and\n+(4) state on the face of the document:\n+(A) the name of the attorney for the filing party;\n+(B) the attorney’s office and post office addresses; and\n+(C) the attorney’s telephone number.\n+(b) Chambers copies and copies for the United States Trustee shall be bound or stapled and\n+submitted in accordance with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9070-1.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 9(b) and\n+is an adaptation of Civil Rule 11.1 of the Local District Rules.\n+The general rules for form of papers are set forth in Bankruptcy\n+Rule 9004 and Official Bankruptcy Forms B416A, B416B and B416D.\n+This rule was amended in 2004 to conform to Civil Rule 11.1(b) of\n+the Local District Rules to allow attorneys to use an identification number\n+issued by the District Court instead of the last four digits of the attorney’s\n+social security number.\n+This rule was also amended in 2004 to clarify that pleadings no\n+longer require litigation backs or covers.\n+This rule was amended in 2008 to conform to the repeal of Civil\n+Rule 11.1(b) of the Local District Rules, which previously required that\n+every pleading, written motion and other paper signed by an attorney\n+include the attorney’s initials and the last four digits of the attorney’s\n+social security number or any other four digit number registered by the\n+attorney with the clerk of the court.\n+Rule 9004-2 CAPTION\n+(a) Papers submitted for filing shall bear the title of the case, the initials of the Judge to\n+whom the case has been assigned, the docket number assigned to the case, and, if\n+applicable, the adversary proceeding number.\n+(b) The return date and time of a motion, and time for serving any responsive papers, shall be\n+included in the upper right-hand corner of the caption of the motion and all related\n+pleadings. In addition, the CM/ECF docket number to which the filing relates shall be\n+included in the upper right-hand corner of the caption of all responsive papers.\n+78\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9. Subdivision (b) of this rule is derived from former\n+Standing Order M-99. The return date for a motion is obtained pursuant to\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 5070-1.\n+This rule was amended in 2013 to require that all motions and\n+related pleadings include the deadline for filing objections or other\n+responsive papers in the caption. In addition, for all objections or other\n+responsive papers, the CM/ECF docket number for the proceeding must be\n+included in the caption.\n+Rule 9006-1 TIME FOR SERVICE AND FILING OF MOTIONS AND ANSWERING\n+PAPERS\n+(a) Discovery-Related Motions. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all motion papers under\n+Bankruptcy Rules 7026 through 7037 shall be served at least seven (7) days before the\n+return date. Where such service is made, any answering papers shall be served so as to\n+ensure actual receipt not later than three (3) days before the return date. Discovery-\n+related motions need only be served on the parties to the adversary proceeding or\n+contested matter to which the discovery relates.\n+(b) Motions Governed by Bankruptcy Rule 2002. Motions governed by Bankruptcy Rule\n+2002 (including, without limitation, motions seeking approvals of compromises or\n+settlements or motions regarding the proposed use, sale or lease of property), or for which\n+specific time frames are prescribed in other Bankruptcy Rules, must be served and filed\n+in accordance with the time limits set forth in those Bankruptcy Rules, subject to such\n+modifications of those time limits as are permitted in those Rules.\n+(c) All Other Motions. Except as otherwise ordered by the Court, all motion papers not\n+covered by subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall be served at least fourteen (14) days before\n+the return date. Where service is made at least fourteen (14) days before the return date,\n+any answering papers shall be served so as to ensure actual receipt not later than seven\n+(7) days before the return date, and reply papers shall be served so as to ensure actual\n+receipt not later than 4:00 p.m. three (3) days before the return date or on the date any\n+agenda is required to be filled in accordance with any case management order entered in\n+the case, unless the Court orders otherwise. Untimely papers may be rejected.\n+(d) Time for Filing with Court. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all motions and answering\n+papers shall be filed with the Clerk not later than one day following the date of service.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 13(c) and\n+is an adaptation of Civil Rule 6.1 of the Local District Rules. Subdivision\n+(b) of this rule is an exercise of the Court’s authority contained in\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9006(d) to enlarge the time for service of motion papers.\n+79\n+In 2009, subdivision (a) of this rule was amended to change the\n+time period from five (5) to seven (7) days, and subdivision (b) of this rule\n+was amended to change the time period from ten (10) to fourteen (14)\n+days. The purpose of these amendments was to conform the time periods\n+in this rule to the 2009 time-related amendments to the Federal Rules of\n+Bankruptcy Procedure. Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the\n+Local Bankruptcy Rules, most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30)\n+days were changed so that the number of days is in multiples of seven (7),\n+thereby reducing the likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or\n+Sunday.\n+The one (1)-day deadline in subdivision (a) was changed to three\n+(3) days, and the three (3) day deadline in subdivision (b) was changed to\n+seven (7) days, to give the Court and the parties more time to consider the\n+answering papers before the hearing.\n+The one business day deadline in subdivision (c) of this rule was\n+also amended in 2009 to delete the reference to “business” so that the time\n+period will be consistent with the 2009 amendments to Bankruptcy Rule\n+9006(a).\n+The Bankruptcy Rules require minimum notice periods longer than\n+fourteen (14) days with respect to certain proposed actions. Although\n+subdivision (b) is intended to enlarge the time for service of motions under\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9006(d), it is not intended to shorten minimum time\n+periods specified in the Bankruptcy Rules. For example, Bankruptcy Rule\n+2002(a)(3) requires at least twenty-one (21) days’ notice of the hearing on\n+approval of a compromise and settlement. Therefore, if a trustee moves\n+for approval of a compromise and settlement under Bankruptcy Rule\n+9019(a), the motion papers must be served at least 21 days before the\n+hearing. Similarly, Rule 2002(a)(2) requires at least 21 days’ notice of a\n+proposed use, sale or lease of property, unless the Court shortens the time.\n+The first sentence of subdivision (b) of this local rule was amended in\n+2013 to recognize such time periods required by the Bankruptcy Rules.\n+The second sentence of subdivision (b) was amended in 2013 to\n+clarify that the seven-day requirement for service of answering papers\n+applies when motion papers are served at least 14 days before the return\n+date, even if the motion is served more than 14 days before the return date\n+to comply with an applicable Bankruptcy Rule. For example, if a motion\n+for approval of a compromise and settlement is served 21 days before\n+return date to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(3), the answering\n+papers must be served so as to ensure actual receipt at least seven days\n+before the return date, unless the Court orders otherwise.\n+This rule was amended in 2016 to provide that replies, while\n+permissible, must be received by the court no later than 4:00 p.m. three (3)\n+days before the hearing date. Days should be counted in accordance with\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a).\n+80\n+In 2017, subdivision (b) of this rule was amended to clarify that the\n+date of filing of an agenda may be modified by court order and that\n+untimely filed papers may be rejected.\n+Subsection (a) of this rule was amended in 2024 to clarify the\n+parties who are entitled to notice and service of discovery-related motions.\n+Rule 9006-2 AUTOMATIC EXTENSION OF TIME WHEN TIMELY MOTION TO\n+EXTEND TIME IS FILED\n+Unless otherwise provided in the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local\n+Bankruptcy Rules, or order of the Court, when a motion to extend the time to take any action is\n+filed before the expiration of the period prescribed by the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules,\n+Local Bankruptcy Rules, or order of the Court, with a return date that is no later than fourteen\n+(14) days after the date of such filing or, if the Court is unable to schedule a return date within\n+such period, as soon thereafter as the return date may be scheduled by the Court, the time shall\n+automatically be extended until the Court resolves the motion to extend the time. An automatic\n+extension under this rule shall not require the issuance or entry of an order extending the time.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 as an exercise of the Court’s\n+discretion to extend time under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) and to obviate\n+the need for a “bridge order” in certain circumstances.\n+This local rule does not apply if an automatic bridge order would\n+be inconsistent with a provision of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy\n+Rules, Local Bankruptcy Rules, or order of the Court. For example, Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9006-2 would not apply to motions to extend the time to\n+file a plan or to confirm a plan in a small business case because, pursuant\n+to section 1121(e)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, such extensions require that\n+the Court sign an extension order before the existing deadline expires. In\n+addition, extensions of time for a lessee to assume or reject an unexpired\n+lease of nonresidential real property are governed by Local Bankruptcy\n+Rule 6006-1(c), which contains certain limitations, instead of Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9006-2.\n+Rule 9011-1 SIGNING OF PAPERS\n+(a) All pleadings, motions, and other papers that are submitted for filing, except a list,\n+schedule, or statement, or amendments thereto, shall be signed by an attorney of record in\n+the attorney’s own name or, if there is no attorney, all papers submitted for filing shall be\n+signed by the party. The name of the attorney or party shall be clearly printed or typed\n+below the signature, together with the attorney’s or party’s address and telephone\n+number.\n+81\n+(b) The signing of documents filed electronically shall be governed by the Procedures for the\n+Filing, Signing, and Verification of Documents by Electronic Means issued by the Court,\n+which shall be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/5005-2-procedures.pdf). An original\n+signed copy of the filing shall be maintained in the attorney’s files.\n+(c) Any password required for electronic filing shall be used only by the attorney to whom\n+the password is assigned and authorized members and employees of such attorney’s firm.\n+(d) Litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced\n+with the assistance of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing AI Chat, or\n+generative artificial intelligence services). Litigants are cautioned that certain\n+technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content. If a litigant chooses to\n+employ technology, the litigation continues to be bound by the requirements of Fed. R.\n+Bankr. P. 9011 and must review and verify any computer-generated content to ensure it\n+complies with all such standards.\n+Comment\n+This rule is an adaptation of Civil Rule 11.1 of the Local District\n+Rules. This rule was amended in 2004 to conform to Civil Rule 11.1(b) of\n+the Local District Rules to allow attorneys to use an identification number\n+issued by the District Court instead of the last four digits of the attorney’s\n+social security number.\n+This rule was amended in 2008 to conform to the repeal of Civil\n+Rule 11.1(b) of the Local District Rules, which previously required that\n+every pleading, written motion and other paper signed by an attorney\n+include the attorney’s initials and the last four digits of the attorney’s\n+social security number or any other four digit number registered by the\n+attorney with the clerk of the court.\n+Subdivision (a) was also amended in 2008 to conform to Rule\n+9011(a), which does not require an attorney’s signature on lists, schedules,\n+and statements.\n+Subdivision (b) was also amended in 2008 to provide that signing\n+electronically filed documents is governed by the Court’s standing order\n+on electronically filed cases. This rule was amended in 2013 to specify the\n+title to the procedures promulgated by General Order M-399 relating to\n+electronic filing, signing and verification of documents, and to state the\n+link to the Court’s website where practitioners may access them. It is\n+anticipated that these procedures, which also may be obtained from the\n+Clerk, will be amended from time to time to account for changes in\n+technology or the law.\n+Subdivision (d) was added in 2024 in light of the increases use of\n+artificial intelligence in performing legal research and sometimes in\n+82\n+drafting papers. It is based on a rule adopted by the United States District\n+Court for the Eastern District of Texas.\n+Rule 9013-1 MOTION PRACTICE\n+(a) Rule or Statutory Basis. Each motion shall specify the rules and statutory provisions upon\n+which it is predicated and the legal authorities that support the requested relief, either in\n+the motion or in a separate memorandum of law. If such specification has not been made,\n+the Court may strike the motion from the calendar.\n+(b) Service in Mega Chapter 11 Cases. Unless the Court orders otherwise, any motion or\n+application in a mega chapter 11 case for which the Bankruptcy Rules and/or these Local\n+Rules require notice, but do not specify the entities to be served, shall be served upon the\n+persons included on the Master Service List that is prepared and filed pursuant to Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 2002-5.\n+(c) Entities to Receive Notice. In addition to all entities otherwise entitled to receive notice,\n+notice of a motion shall be given to any entity believed to have or be claiming an interest\n+in the subject matter of the proposed order or who, it is believed, otherwise would be\n+affected by the proposed order.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 13. Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 7037-1 provides additional requirements for discovery-\n+related motion practice.\n+This rule was amended in 2008 to delete the requirement that a\n+separate memorandum of law be filed with every motion. A discussion of\n+the law must be included in the motion or responsive pleading if a separate\n+memorandum of law is not filed.\n+The rule was further amended in 2024 to add subparagraph (b),\n+which makes clear that the Master Service List should be used in mega\n+chapter 11 cases in instances in which the applicable Rules do not specify\n+the persons to whom notice of a particular motion should be provided.\n+Former subparagraph (b) was then redesignated as subparagraph (c).\n+Rule 9013-2 NOTICES OF PRESENTMENT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN\n+APPLICATIONS\n+(a) Notice of Motion upon Presentment and Opportunity for Hearing with Respect to Certain\n+Motions, Applications, and Objections\n+(1) Use. Unless the Court orders otherwise, where it is anticipated that a motion,\n+application, or objection of a type set forth below will be uncontested, the motion,\n+application, or objection may be made upon notice of presentment conforming\n+83\n+substantially to the appropriate form available on the Court’s website at\n+https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/9013-2_form_notice.docx:\n+(A) Application to confirm a sale pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 6004-1;\n+(B) Application to avoid a judicial lien that impairs an exemption pursuant to\n+section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n+(C) Application for an examination pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 to the\n+extent that the application is not granted ex parte;\n+(D) Application to approve a loan modification under Local Bankruptcy Rule\n+9019-2;\n+(E) Request for a post-confirmation order pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule\n+3021-1;\n+(F) Application in a chapter 7 case or a chapter 13 case to employ a\n+professional person pursuant to section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n+(G) Application for professional compensation for fees and costs not exceeding\n+$1,000.00;\n+(H) Application for professional compensation for any remainder of an unpaid\n+flat fee where the flat fee initially charged is less than $2,500.00; and\n+(I) Such other matters as the Court may specify in an individual case;\n+provided, that this procedure may not be used with respect to applications\n+or motions as to which the applicable Bankruptcy Rules and/or these Local\n+Bankruptcy Rules require a hearing notwithstanding the absence of an\n+objection.\n+(b) Notice. Unless the Court orders otherwise, notice of the presentment of an order pursuant\n+to this subdivision must be filed with the Clerk and a copy must be delivered to the\n+Judge’s chambers and served upon the debtor, the trustee, each committee, the United\n+States Trustee, all parties who have filed a notice of appearance and request for service of\n+documents, and all other parties in interest. The notice must comport with the notice\n+requirements under the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules,\n+and Local Bankruptcy Rules that relate to the type of relief being sought.\n+(c) Objection; Opportunity for a Hearing. A written objection, if any, to the proposed order,\n+together with proof of service, must be filed with the Clerk and a courtesy copy must be\n+delivered to the Judge’s chambers at least three (3) days before the date of presentment.\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, no hearing will be held absent the timely filing of an\n+objection. If an objection has been timely filed, the Court will notify the moving and\n+objecting parties of the date and time of any hearing.\n+(d) Submission of Proposed Order. The Court shall consider an application made by notice\n+of presentment under this Local Bankruptcy Rule on or after the date of presentment.\n+Any application made by notice of presentment under this Local Bankruptcy Rule must\n+84\n+include a copy of the proposed order. If there has been no objection or hearing date\n+scheduled, and the presentment date has otherwise passed, the moving party must\n+promptly submit a copy of the proposed order to chambers.\n+(e) Hearings. The Court may schedule a hearing on any matter submitted for presentment to\n+address any question or issue that the Court wishes to raise.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2024 and incorporates a portion of former\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1. It applies only to motions or applications\n+of the types listed, and notice of such motions and applications must be\n+made in accordance with the Bankruptcy Rules, Local Bankruptcy Rules,\n+or any order of the Court.\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-3 adopts a “Certificate of No\n+Objection” procedure that is intended to cover most of the situations in\n+which “Notices of Presentment” were used under former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1. The Court nevertheless has discretion under\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-2(a) to permit the presentment procedure to\n+be used with respect to additional types of motions or applications in an\n+individual case. However, the presentment procedure is not available if\n+any applicable provision of the Bankruptcy Code or the Bankruptcy Rules\n+requires the Court to hold a hearing notwithstanding the absence of an\n+objection, responsive pleading, or request for a hearing, such as a hearing\n+on confirmation of a plan in a chapter 11 or chapter 13 case or a hearing\n+on reaffirmation of a debt requested.\n+Rule 9013-3 CERTIFICATE OF NO OBJECTION\n+(a) Filing a Certificate of No Objection. If a motion or application has been filed and\n+appropriate notice thereof has been served, and no objection, responsive pleading, or\n+request for a hearing with respect to the motion or application has been filed or served\n+before forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the time to file an objection, counsel\n+for the moving party may file a certificate of no objection (“CNO”), with a copy to\n+chambers, stating that no objection, responsive pleading, or request for a hearing has been\n+filed or served on the moving party. The CNO must include the date of the filing and\n+service of the motion or application, the deadline for filing an objection thereto, and a\n+statement that counsel is filing the CNO not less than forty-eight (48) hours after the\n+expiration of such deadline.\n+(b) Representations to the Court. By filing the CNO, counsel for the moving party represents\n+to the Court that the moving party is unaware of any objection, responsive pleading, or\n+request for a hearing with respect to the motion or application, that counsel has reviewed\n+the Court’s docket not less than forty-eight (48) hours after expiration of the time to file\n+an objection, and that no objection, responsive pleading, or request for a hearing with\n+respect to the motion or application appears thereon.\n+85\n+(c) Entry of Order and Cancellation of Scheduled Hearing. Unless an individual debtor not\n+represented by an attorney is a party in the proceeding, or a hearing is required under the\n+Bankruptcy Code or Bankruptcy Rules notwithstanding the absence of an objection,\n+responsive pleading, or request for a hearing, upon receipt of the CNO, the Court may\n+enter the order accompanying the motion or application without further pleading or\n+hearing. If the Court enters the requested order following the filing of a CNO, but before\n+the scheduled hearing date, then the hearing scheduled on the motion or application shall\n+be cancelled. However, a hearing will proceed as scheduled following the filing of a\n+Certificate of No Objection unless the Court has entered the requested order or the Court\n+informs the parties that a hearing is not necessary.\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2013 and renumbered and revised in 2024\n+to provide a procedure for counsel to inform the Court that no timely\n+objection, responsive pleading, or request for a hearing has been filed or\n+served and to request that the Court enter the proposed order without a\n+hearing. It applies only in situations where appropriate notice of a motion\n+has been given in accordance with the Bankruptcy Rules, Local\n+Bankruptcy Rules, or order of the Court. This procedure is not available if\n+the Court is required to hold a hearing notwithstanding the absence of an\n+objection, responsive pleading, or request for a hearing, such as a hearing\n+on confirmation of a plan in a chapter 11 or chapter 13 case or a hearing\n+on reaffirmation of a debt requested by an individual debtor not\n+represented by counsel.\n+The rule is intended to replace most of former Local Bankruptcy\n+Rule 9074-1, which provided for the use of notices of presentment in\n+certain cases where a hearing was not required, or where notice was\n+required but a motion was not mandatory. There has been widespread\n+confusion as to the circumstances under which those portions of Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1 were applicable and the amounts of notice\n+required for particular motions. Instead of modifying the way that motions\n+and applications are made, Rule 9013-2 just provides that a hearing may\n+be cancelled if the applicable rules do not require a hearing, there is no\n+objection and the Court has no questions or issues to raise with the parties.\n+Rule 9014-1 CONTESTED MATTERS\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, Rules 7(b) and 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure, as incorporated in Bankruptcy Rules 7007 and 7024, respectively, and Local\n+Bankruptcy Rules 7005-1, 7037-1, 7016-1, 7024-1, 7026-1, 7027-1, 7030-1, 7033-1, 7034-1,\n+7036-1, 7052-1, 7055-1, 7055-2, and 7056-1, shall apply in contested matters.\n+86\n+Comment\n+This rule is an exercise of the Court's discretion under Bankruptcy\n+Rule 9014 to make any rule in Part VII of the Bankruptcy Rules applicable\n+to contested matters.\n+Rule 9014-2 FIRST SCHEDULED HEARING\n+The first scheduled hearing in a contested matter will not be an evidentiary hearing at\n+which witnesses may testify, unless:\n+(a) the Court gives prior notice to the parties that such hearing will be an evidentiary hearing;\n+(b) the motion requests emergency relief and is made at the commencement of the case;\n+(c) the motion requests interim or final relief under sections 363(b), 363(c)(2)(B) or 364 of\n+the Bankruptcy Code;\n+(d) the motion requests the Court’s approval of rejection of an unexpired lease of real\n+property under section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and a timely objection thereto is\n+filed; or\n+(e) the hearing is on confirmation of a plan in a case under chapter 9, chapter 11, chapter 12,\n+or chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n+Comment\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9014(e), added in 2002, requires that the Court\n+provide procedures that enable parties to ascertain at a reasonable time\n+before any scheduled hearing whether the hearing will be an evidentiary\n+hearing at which witnesses may testify. Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-2\n+was added in 2004 to provide such a procedure. Nothing in Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9014-2 precludes a party from requesting an evidentiary\n+hearing at the first scheduled hearing and asking the Court to provide for\n+notice thereof under paragraph (a).\n+Subdivision (f) of this rule was abrogated in 2013. Since this rule\n+was adopted in 2004, there had been no general orders issued under\n+subdivision (f), which could have made this paragraph misleading to\n+practitioners. If the Court wants to specify another kind of contested\n+matter in which an evidentiary hearing will be held at the first scheduled\n+hearing, the Court may do so by amending this rule. Therefore,\n+subdivision (f) is not necessary to give the Court flexibility to expand the\n+list set forth in subdivisions (a) through (e).\n+87\n+Rule 9015-1 JURY TRIALS\n+A statement of consent to have a jury trial conducted by a Bankruptcy Judge under 28\n+U.S.C. § 157(e) must be filed not later than fourteen (14) days after the service of the last\n+pleading directed to the issue for which the demand was made.\n+Comment\n+Section 157(e) of title 28 provides that a Bankruptcy Judge may\n+conduct a jury trial on proper demand with the consent of the parties to the\n+proceeding if the District Court has specifically designated the Bankruptcy\n+Court to exercise such jurisdiction. The District Court, by order dated\n+December 7, 1994, has specifically designated the Bankruptcy Court to\n+conduct jury trials pursuant to section 157(e). Bankruptcy Rule 9015(b)\n+provides that the time for filing a statement of consent to a jury trial shall\n+be specified by local rule.\n+This rule provides a fourteen (14) day period for filing the\n+statement of consent, which runs from the service of the last pleading, as\n+specified in Bankruptcy Rule 7007.\n+This rule was amended in 2009 to change the time period from ten\n+(10) to fourteen (14) days. The purpose of the amendment was to conform\n+the time period in this rule to the 2009 time-related amendments to the\n+Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Throughout the Bankruptcy\n+Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules, most time periods that are\n+shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so that the number of days is in\n+multiples of seven (7), thereby reducing the likelihood that time periods\n+will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+Rule 9018-1 MOTIONS TO PUBLICLY FILE REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND TO\n+FILE UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL\n+(a) Unless otherwise required by these Local Bankruptcy Rules, the Bankruptcy Rules, the\n+Bankruptcy Code, General Order M-558, or order of this Court, requests to file under seal\n+must consist of two parts: (i) a motion to seal and (ii) the documents to be sealed.\n+(b) The motion to seal must include:\n+(1) the grounds for sealing;\n+(2) the identity of any parties other than the moving party who will have access to the\n+documents to be sealed;\n+(3) the duration of the seal;\n+(4) the time when the movant will either unseal the documents or retrieve the\n+documents at the conclusion of the matter;\n+88\n+(5) a redacted copy of the documents sought to be sealed with only those redactions\n+necessary to preserve confidentiality, made in good faith; and\n+(6) a proposed order that contains language indicating the order is without prejudice\n+to the rights of any party in interest, or the United States Trustee, to seek to unseal\n+the documents, or any part thereof.\n+(c) Upon filing the motion to seal, the moving party must hand deliver a hard copy of the\n+motion to seal and the unredacted documents sought to be sealed to the Clerk’s Office as\n+well as a USB flash drive containing an electronic copy of the unredacted documents.\n+The documents must be conspicuously marked “FILED UNDER PENDING MOTION\n+TO SEAL.”\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2016 to provide a uniform standard\n+procedure for how to file motions under seal. The rule distinguishes\n+between the motion, which should be filed publicly on the docket, and the\n+documents to be sealed. The motion should include a redacted copy of the\n+documents to be sealed. The time to file and serve the underlying motion\n+for which purpose the motion to seal is being made should be in\n+accordance with all applicable rules pertaining to service of the underlying\n+motion.\n+Section (c) was amended in 2024 to add that the moving party\n+must provide the Clerk’s Office with an electronic copy of the unredacted\n+documents in a USB flash drive. In addition to providing the Clerk’s\n+Office with a copy of the documents pursuant subsection (c), the moving\n+party should refer to the individual Judge’s chambers rules to provide a\n+separate chambers copy of the sealing materials to the assigned Judge.\n+Rule 9019-1 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION\n+Alternative dispute resolution shall be conducted in the manner required by the\n+Procedures Governing Mediation of Matters and the Use of Early Neutral Evaluation and\n+Mediation/Voluntary Arbitration in Bankruptcy Cases and Adversary Proceedings, which shall\n+be available on the Court’s website (http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/content/mediation-\n+procedures).\n+Comment\n+Procedures governing mediation programs in bankruptcy cases and\n+adversary proceedings were promulgated by General Order M-390. This\n+rule was amended in 2013 to specify the title of the procedures\n+promulgated by General Order M-390 amended by General Order M-452\n+and to state in the rule the link to the Court’s website where practitioners\n+may access the governing procedures. The Procedures Governing\n+Mediation of Matters and the Use of Early Neutral Evaluation and\n+89\n+Mediation/Voluntary Arbitration in Bankruptcy Cases and Adversary\n+Proceedings, which also may be obtained from the Clerk, may be amended\n+by the Court after giving notice and opportunity for comment as is\n+appropriate.\n+Rule 9019-2 LOSS MITIGATION FOR INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS WITH\n+RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY AT RISK OF FORECLOSURE OR\n+IMMINENT DEFAULT\n+Loss mitigation procedures for the facilitation of consensual resolutions for individual\n+debtors whose residential real property is at risk of loss to foreclosure or imminent default shall\n+be governed by the Loss Mitigation Program Procedures promulgated by the Court, which shall\n+be available on the Court’s website\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/LossMitigationProcedures.pdf).\n+Comment\n+This rule was promulgated in 2013 to include in the Local\n+Bankruptcy Rules a reference to the Loss Mitigation Program Procedures\n+established by General Order M-413 and modified by General Order M-\n+451. These procedures, which also may be obtained from the Clerk, may\n+be amended by the Court from time to time.\n+This rule was amended in 2017 to clarify that loss mitigation\n+procedures may also apply to those at risk of imminent default.\n+Rule 9019-3 MEDIATION FOR DEBTORS WITH STUDENT LOAN DEBT\n+Mediation procedures for the facilitation of consensual resolution between debtor-\n+borrowers with student loan debt and their lenders shall be governed by the Student Loan\n+Mediation Before Litigation Program Procedures, which shall be available on the Court’s\n+website (https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/SLM_Procedures.pdf).\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2024 to provide that mediation of disputes\n+relating to student loan debt shall be governed by the Court’s student loan\n+mediation program which was established on January 27, 2020 and to\n+provide a link to the corresponding procedures on the website.\n+Rule 9020-1 DEFAULT SANCTIONS; IMPOSITION OF COSTS\n+(a) Default Sanctions. Failure of a party or counsel for a party to appear before the Court at a\n+conference, complete the necessary preparations, or be prepared to proceed at the time set\n+for trial or hearing may be considered an abandonment of the adversary proceeding or\n+contested matter or a failure to prosecute or defend diligently, and an appropriate order of\n+90\n+the Court may be entered against the defaulting party with respect to either a specific\n+issue or the entire adversary proceeding or contested matter.\n+(b) Imposition of Costs. If the Judge finds that the sanctions in subdivision (a) of this rule are\n+either inadequate or unjust to the parties, the Judge may assess reasonable costs directly\n+against the party or counsel whose action has obstructed the effective administration of\n+the Court's business.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 21 and is\n+an adaptation of General Rule 5(b) and (c) of the Former District Rules.\n+Rule 9021-1 ENTRY OF ORDERS, JUDGMENTS, AND DECREES\n+The Clerk shall enter all orders, decrees, and judgments of the Court in the electronic\n+filing system, which shall constitute docketing of the order, decree, or judgment for all purposes.\n+The Clerk's notation on the appropriate docket of an order, judgment, or decree shall constitute\n+the entry of the order, judgment, or decree.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 19(a) and\n+is an adaptation of Civil Rule 6.2 of the Local District Rules.\n+This rule supplements Bankruptcy Rule 9021, which provides that\n+a judgment or order is effective when entered under Bankruptcy Rule\n+5003.\n+Rule 9023-1 MOTIONS FOR REARGUMENT\n+(a) A motion for reargument of a court order determining a motion must be served within\n+fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Court's order determining the original motion, or\n+in the case of a court order resulting in a judgment, within fourteen (14) days after the\n+entry of the judgment, and, unless the Court orders otherwise, shall be made returnable\n+within the same amount of time as required for the original motion. The motion must set\n+forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has\n+not considered. No oral argument shall be heard unless the Court grants the motion and\n+specifically orders that the matter be re- argued orally.\n+(b) The expense of any party in obtaining all or any part of a transcript for purposes of a new\n+trial or for amended findings may be a cost taxable against the losing party.\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 13(j) and is an adaptation of Civil Rule 6.3 of the Local\n+91\n+District Rules. Subdivision (b) of this rule is derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 33 and is an adaptation of Civil Rule 12 of the Former\n+District Rules.\n+This rule does not apply to motions made under Bankruptcy Rule\n+3008 or 9024.\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was amended in 2004 to conform with\n+the 2004 amendments to Local District Rule 6.3.\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule was amended in 2009 to change the\n+time periods from ten (10) to fourteen (14) days. The purpose of the\n+amendment was to conform the time periods in this rule to the 2009 time-\n+related amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.\n+Throughout the Bankruptcy Rules, as well as the Local Bankruptcy Rules,\n+most time periods that are shorter than thirty (30) days were changed so\n+that the number of days is in multiples of seven (7), thereby reducing the\n+likelihood that time periods will end on a Saturday or Sunday.\n+Rule 9025-1 SURETIES\n+(a) Execution by Surety Only. If a bond, undertaking, or stipulation is required, an instrument\n+executed only by the surety shall be sufficient.\n+(b) Security for Bond. Except as otherwise provided by law, every bond, undertaking, or\n+stipulation shall be secured by (i) the deposit of cash or government bonds in the amount\n+of the bond, undertaking, or stipulation, (ii) the undertaking or guaranty of a corporate\n+surety holding a certificate of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury, or (iii) the\n+undertaking or guaranty of two individual residents of the Southern District or Eastern\n+District of New York, each of whom owns real or personal property within such district\n+with a value of twice the amount of the bond in excess of the surety's debts, liabilities,\n+legal exemptions, and obligations on other bonds, guaranties, undertakings, or\n+stipulations.\n+(c) Affidavit by Individual Surety. In the case of a bond, undertaking, or stipulation executed\n+by individual sureties, each surety must attach an affidavit of justification, giving the\n+surety's full name, occupation, and residence and business addresses, and showing that\n+the surety is not disqualified from acting as an individual surety under subdivision (d) of\n+this rule.\n+(d) Persons Who May Not Act as Sureties. Members of the bar, administrative officers and\n+employees of the Court, the marshal, and the marshal's deputies and assistants may not\n+act as sureties in any pending case, adversary proceeding, or contested matter.\n+(e) Approval of Bonds of Corporate Sureties. Except as otherwise provided by sections 303\n+and 322(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 2010, and Local Bankruptcy Rule\n+8007-1, all bonds, undertakings, and stipulations of corporate sureties holding certificates\n+of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury, where the amount of such bonds or\n+92\n+undertakings has been fixed by a Judge, an order of the Court, a statute, or Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 8007-1, may be approved by the Clerk.\n+Comment\n+Subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this rule are derived from\n+Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 28 and are an adaptation of Civil Rule\n+65.1.1(a), (b), (d), and (e) of the Local District Rules. Subdivision (b) of\n+this rule has been modified to conform to Civil Rule 65.1.1(b) of the Local\n+District Rules. Subdivision (e) of this rule is derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 29 and is an adaptation of Civil Rule 65.1.1(f) of the\n+Local District Rules.\n+Subdivision (e) was amended in 2014 to change the reference to\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 8005-1 to Local Bankruptcy Rule 8007-1 to\n+conform to the 2014 amendments to Part VIII of the Bankruptcy Rules.\n+Rule 9028-1 ACTION IN ABSENCE OF ASSIGNED JUDGE\n+In the absence of an assigned Judge, any other Judge who is available may act\n+temporarily in the absent Judge's place. To obtain the assistance of an available Judge, the parties\n+must communicate first with the chambers staff of the assigned Judge and, if chambers staff is\n+unavailable, then with the Clerk.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 6.\n+This rule is intended to assure that the business of the Court will\n+not be impeded by the absence of an assigned Judge.\n+Rule 9033-1 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN CERTAIN CORE\n+PROCEEDINGS\n+If the Court determines that it cannot enter a final order or judgment consistent with\n+Article III of the United States Constitution in a particular proceeding referred to the Court and\n+designated as core under section 157(b) of title 28, and the Court hears the proceeding, Rule\n+9033(a), (b), and (c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure shall apply.\n+Comment\n+This rule was amended in 2016 to provide greater clarity. The\n+final portion of the rule previously read that if “the Court hears the\n+proceeding, Rule 9033(a), (b), and (c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\n+Procedure shall apply as if it is a non-core proceeding.” The amendment\n+deletes the final phrase “as it if is a non-core proceeding.”\n+93\n+Rule 9037-1 REDACTION OF PERSONAL DATA IDENTIFIERS\n+(a) Compliance with Bankruptcy Rule 9037. All documents filed with the Court shall comply\n+with Bankruptcy Rule 9037.\n+(b) Responsibility for Redaction. The responsibility for redacting personal data identifiers (as\n+defined in Bankruptcy Rule 9037) rests solely with counsel, parties in interest and non-\n+parties. The Clerk, or claims agent if one has been appointed, will not review each\n+document for compliance with this Rule. In the event the Clerk, or claims agent if one has\n+been appointed, discovers that personal identifier data or information concerning a minor\n+individual has been included in a pleading, the Clerk, or claims agent if one has been\n+appointed, is authorized, in its sole discretion, to restrict public access to the document in\n+issue and inform the filer of the requirement to file a motion to redact.\n+(c) Motion to Redact Personal Identifiers. Notwithstanding the requirements of Bankruptcy\n+Rule 9037, a party seeking to redact personal identifiers from a document or a proof of\n+claim, already filed with the court, must file a motion to redact the personal identifiers, in\n+accordance with CM/ECF procedures, that identifies the proposed document for\n+redaction by docket number or if applicable, by claim number. If a party seeks to redact\n+documents filed in multiple cases, such as proofs of claim, the party must open a\n+miscellaneous proceeding by filing a motion to redact with a list of all affected cases\n+and/or documents, subject to fees in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court\n+Miscellaneous Fee Schedule. Prior to filing the motion to redact, the party must contact\n+the Clerk’s Office to request that the Clerk’s Office restrict the original image containing\n+the personal data identifiers from public view on the docket.\n+(d) Notice. The filer must include a certificate of service at the time the motion to redact is\n+filed, showing service to the following recipients: the debtor, anyone whose personal\n+information has been disclosed, the case trustee (if any) and the United States Trustee.\n+(e) Filing of Correctly Redacted Document or Claim. Unless otherwise ordered by the court,\n+the party seeking redaction must file a correctly redacted document or proof of claim\n+within twenty-one days of the granting of the motion.\n+(f) Filing Motions to Redact in Closed Cases. The granting of a motion to redact in a closed\n+case is ministerial in nature and does not impact the administration of the case. For that\n+reason, a party seeking redaction in a closed case does not need to file a motion to reopen\n+the case, and no fee for reopening shall be collected by the Clerk. A party seeking\n+redaction may instead just file a motion to redact, with the proposed redaction included in\n+the motion, and the case will remain closed.\n+(g) Redaction Fee. In accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Court Miscellaneous\n+Fee Schedule, the party filing a motion to redact personal identifiers from a document or\n+proof of claim must pay a fee for filing such motion to redact in each case.\n+94\n+Comment\n+This rule was added in 2016 to make clear that redactions are the\n+responsibility of the filing party. The rule also addresses situations\n+involving the need to redact the same information filed in multiple cases.\n+The fee for filing a motion to redact does not apply to transcripts.\n+Pursuant to the Judicial Conference Policy, attorneys or any other entity\n+requesting the redaction of personal identifiers on a transcript must file a\n+Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. The procedures for redacting\n+transcripts are available on the court’s website.\n+(http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/TranscriptRestriction\n+sRedactionGuidelines.pdf)\n+This rule was amended in 2017 to clarify the process for filing a\n+motion to redact in closed cases.\n+Rule 9070-1 CHAMBERS COPIES OF FILED PAPERS\n+Unless the Court directs otherwise, a copy of all complaints, answers, motions,\n+applications, objections, and responses to any of the foregoing filed with the Court, other than\n+proofs of claim, must be marked “Chambers Copy” and delivered or mailed to the Clerk’s office\n+located in the division in which the assigned Judge sits on the same day as the papers are filed\n+with the Clerk or, if filed electronically, not later than the next day.\n+Comment\n+The rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 9(d) and\n+(e). The next business day deadline in subdivision (b) of this rule was\n+amended in 2009 to delete the reference to “business” so that the time\n+period will be consistent with the 2009 amendments to Bankruptcy Rule\n+9006(a).\n+Former subdivision (a) of Rule 9070-1 (which provided that copies\n+of papers would be submitted to the Clerk for transmittal to the United\n+States Trustee) has been deleted as being inconsistent with current\n+practice. Parties should serve papers directly upon the Office of the\n+United States Trustee.\n+The portion of this Rule that remains was formerly subdivision (b).\n+It was amended in 2013 to reduce the amount of paper submitted as\n+chambers copies. Unless the Court directs otherwise, only certain papers\n+specified in the rule, rather than all papers, must be delivered to chambers\n+under this rule. The rule was also amended to permit the mailing of\n+chambers copies to the Court and to eliminate the requirement that papers\n+must be delivered in unsealed envelopes.\n+95\n+The chambers rules of the individual judges should be consulted to\n+determine whether the judge assigned to a particular case wishes to\n+receive chambers copies pursuant to this rule.\n+Rule 9072-1 CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS\n+(a) Retention by Attorney. Unless the Court orders otherwise, exhibits must not be filed with\n+the Clerk, but must be retained in the custody of the attorney who produced them in\n+Court.\n+(b) Removal of Exhibits from Court. Exhibits that have been filed with the Clerk shall be\n+removed by the party responsible for the exhibits (i) if no appeal has been taken, at the\n+expiration of the time for taking an appeal, or (ii) if an appeal has been taken, within\n+thirty (30) days after the record on appeal has been returned to the Clerk. Parties failing\n+to comply with this rule shall be notified by the Clerk to remove their exhibits, and, upon\n+their failure to do so within thirty (30) days of such notification, the Clerk may dispose of\n+the exhibits.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 27 and is\n+an adaptation of Civil Rule 39.1 of the Local District Rules. Former\n+subdivision (c) of this rule has been included, as modified, in Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 8009-1(b).\n+As used in this rule, \"exhibits\" includes trial exhibits admitted into\n+evidence, in a case, adversary proceeding, or contested matter.\n+Rule 9074-1 SUBMISSION OR SETTLEMENT OF AN ORDER, JUDGMENT, OR\n+DECREE\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, if, following a hearing or decision, the Court directs a\n+party to submit or settle an order, judgment, or decree, the party, within fourteen (14) days of the\n+issuance of the Court’s ruling, must deliver the proposed order, judgment, or decree directly to\n+the Judge's chambers upon not less than two (2) days’ notice to all parties to the adversary\n+proceeding or contested matter, except that such notice period shall not apply if all parties to the\n+adversary proceeding or contested matter have consented in writing to the proposed order,\n+judgment, or decree. Failure to submit or settle an order, judgment, or decree within the fourteen\n+(14) day period may result in the imposition of sanctions, including, without limitation, (i)\n+dismissal for failure to prosecute or (ii) an award of attorney's fees. One (1) day’s notice is\n+required of all counterproposals. Unless the Court orders otherwise, no proposed or counter-\n+proposed order, judgment, or decree submitted or settled pursuant to this rule shall form a part of\n+the record of the case, adversary proceeding, or contested matter.\n+96\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from former Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1(a)\n+and is an adaptation of Civil Rule 77.1 of the Local District Rules. It\n+applies to the settlement of orders, judgments, and decrees following a\n+hearing or decision.\n+Other provisions of former Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1\n+regarding the use of notices of presentment in situations in which “notice\n+and a hearing” are not required, or in situations in which “notice” is\n+required but a motion is not requires, have been eliminated and have been\n+replaced by the provisions of new Local Bankruptcy Rules 9013-2 and\n+9013-3. There was widespread confusion as to the circumstances under\n+which Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1 was applicable and whether it\n+modified the notice requirements set forth in other Bankruptcy Rules.\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-2 lists the types of applications or motions\n+for which a “presentment” procedures is permissible, and new Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 9013-3 prescribes a “certificate of no objection”\n+procedure for most motions or applications that are unopposed.\n+Rule 9075-1 REQUEST FOR HEARING\n+An objection to a proposed action or order shall constitute a request for a hearing.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rules 13(i) and\n+45.\n+Rule 9076-1 STATUS CONFERENCES\n+(a) In General. Subject to the notice provisions of subdivision (c) of this rule, the Court, on\n+its own motion or on request of a party in interest, may hold a conference, with or\n+without a court reporter present, at any time during a case or proceeding, for any purpose\n+consistent with the Bankruptcy Code, including:\n+(1) to address the posture and efficient administration of the case or proceeding; and\n+(2) to establish a case management or scheduling order.\n+(b) Request for Conference. A request for a conference may be made either in writing or\n+orally at a hearing. Any request, whether written or oral, must (i) specify the matters\n+proposed to be addressed at the conference, (ii) identify the parties who have a direct\n+interest in such matters, and (iii) include such further information as may assist the Court\n+in evaluating whether a conference should be held and in conducting the conference. If a\n+conference is requested for a date prior to the appointment of a creditors' committee and\n+97\n+the retention of its counsel, the requesting party must state why the conference should not\n+be delayed until after the appointment and retention. If made in writing, the request must\n+be directed to the chambers of the Judge presiding over the case or proceeding and\n+served, together with a copy of any papers submitted with the request, upon the following\n+parties:\n+(1) in an adversary proceeding, to the parties to the adversary proceeding; or\n+(2) in a case or proceeding other than an adversary proceeding, to the debtor, the\n+trustee, the United States Trustee, each official committee appointed to serve in\n+the case (or, if no official committee has been appointed, the holders of the ten\n+(10) largest unsecured claims), the holders of the five (5) largest secured claims,\n+and each unofficial committee which previously has requested the opportunity to\n+participate in conferences.\n+(c) Notice of Conference. If all necessary parties are present before the Court, the Judge may\n+direct that a conference be held immediately without further notice. In the event that a\n+conference is called under any other circumstances, unless the Court orders otherwise, as\n+soon as practicable, the requesting party (or, if the conference is to be held on the Court's\n+own motion, the debtor, the trustee, or such other party as the Court may direct) must\n+provide notice of the time, date, place, and purpose of the conference, to the parties\n+required to be served under subdivision (b) of this rule.\n+(d) Submission of Proposed Case Management and Scheduling Orders. If one of the\n+purposes of the conference is to establish a case management or scheduling order, unless\n+the Court orders otherwise, the party requesting the conference (or, if the conference is to\n+be held on the Court's own motion, the debtor, the trustee, or such other party as the\n+Court may direct) must submit to the Court prior to the conference, on notice to all\n+necessary parties (as identified in subdivision (b) of this rule), a proposed case\n+management or scheduling order. The submitting party in good faith must attempt to\n+obtain the consent of all necessary parties (as identified in subdivision (b) of this rule)\n+with respect to the form of the order and indicate to the Court whether such consent has\n+been obtained.\n+Comment\n+This rule is an exercise of the Court's authority under section\n+105(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n+Rule 9077-1 ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE; EX PARTE ORDERS\n+(a) Orders to Show Cause. No order to show cause shall be granted except upon a clear and\n+specific showing by affidavit of good and sufficient reasons why proceeding other than\n+by notice of motion is necessary. The affidavit also must state whether a previous\n+application for similar relief has been made.\n+(b) Ex Parte Orders. No ex parte order in an adversary proceeding or contested matter shall\n+be granted unless it is based upon an affidavit or motion showing cause for ex parte\n+98\n+action as well as cause for the relief requested, and states whether a previous application\n+for similar relief has been made.\n+Comment\n+Subdivision (a) of this rule is derived from Former Local\n+Bankruptcy Rule 13(d) and is an adaptation of Civil Rule 6.1(d) of the\n+Local District Rules. Subdivision (b) of this rule is derived from Former\n+Local Bankruptcy Rule 19(b).\n+Rule 9078-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, any party serving a pleading or other document must\n+file proof of service by the earlier of (i) three (3) days following the date of service, and (ii) the\n+hearing date.\n+Comment\n+This rule is derived from Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 45(d).\n+Although Former Local Bankruptcy Rule 45(d) applied only to\n+proofs of service of notices, this rule applies to proofs of service of all\n+pleadings and documents. The general requirements for service of notices\n+are contained in Local Bankruptcy Rule 2002-1.","id":"6b1389d12482d4492e836e5ba5db48f5e9a7d3fb9f4c8529ddff48a8ae940781","newHash":"29abbed50c3a6b28cb447e57c9c0b96fa77c898a58dd08a2d2268e1d52f6c355","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09-30_Amended_LBRs_Final.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/29abbed50c3a6b28cb447e57c9c0b96fa77c898a58dd08a2d2268e1d52f6c355.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09-30_Amended_LBRs_Final.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:11.539224+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,572 @@\n+1\n+Revised: May 11, 2026\n+INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES\n+Arun Subramanian, United States District Judge\n+Chambers\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of New York\n+500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A\n+New York, NY 10007\n+SubramanianNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Individual Practices apply to all civil matters\n+before Judge Subramanian except for civil pro se cases (see Individual Practices in Civil Pro\n+Se Cases).\n+1. Civility in All Proceedings\n+Parties must act with the highest degree of professionalism and courtesy in their\n+dealings with other parties, the Court and Court staff, and any one else involved in\n+the litigation. Abusive conduct of any kind will not be tolerated and should\n+promptly be brought to the Court’s attention. For the avoidance of doubt, t his\n+provision applies to discovery communications and conduct in depositions.\n+2. Guidelines for All Submissions\n+A. Designation of Lead Trial Counsel . At the outset of each case, or upon\n+reassignment of a matter to this Court, each party must identify to the Court one\n+individual who shall serve as Lead Trial Counsel for that party. This designation\n+must be provided to the Court in the party’s first submission (including in\n+reassigned cases). The designation of Lead Trial Counsel cannot be changed absent\n+prior approval by the Court. As specified below, Lead Trial Counsel is required to\n+personally attend all conferences before the Court and to be personally involved in\n+discovery disputes before they are brought to the Court.\n+B. Amended or Corrected Filings. Any amended or corrected filing (including but\n+not limited to amended pleadings) shall be filed with a redline showing all\n+differences between the original and revised filing. Any motion to amend a pleading\n+shall similarly be filed with a redline showing all differences between the operative\n+pleading and the proposed amended pleading.\n+C. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, parties should not submit\n+courtesy copies of any submissions.\n+2\n+3. Communications with Chambers\n+A. Letters. Except as otherwise provided below, communications with the Court\n+should be by letter, filed electronically on ECF. Letters seeking relief should be\n+filed on ECF as letter -motions in accordance with Paragraph 8(A) below, not as\n+ordinary letters. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, letters may not exceed three\n+pages in length.\n+B. Telephone Calls. Telephone calls to Chambers are permitted solely in emergency\n+situations where a letter or letter-motion is not feasible, or as specifically authorized\n+in Paragraph 6(B) (Conduct in Depositions) . In such situations, counsel for all\n+parties must join the call. Technical questions pertaining to ECF filings should be\n+directed to the ECF Help Desk at helpdesk@nysd.uscourts.gov or (212) 805-0800.\n+C. Faxes. Faxes are not permitted except with prior approval of Chambers.\n+D. Hand Deliveries. Hand -delivered mail should be left with the Court Security\n+Officers at the Worth Street entrance of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States\n+District Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, and may not be\n+brought directly to Chambers. If the hand-delivered letter is urgent and requires the\n+Court’s immediate attention, ask the Court Security Officers to notify C hambers\n+that an urgent package has arrived that needs to be retrieved by C hambers staff\n+immediately.\n+E. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. All requests for\n+adjournments or extensions of time must be made in writing and filed on ECF as\n+letter-motions, not as ordinary letters, proposed stipulations, or proposed orders.\n+The letter-motion must state: (1) the original date(s); (2) the number of previous\n+requests for adjournment or extension; (3) whether these previous requests were\n+granted or denied; (4) the re asons for the requested extension; (5) whether the\n+adversary consents and, if not, the reas ons given by the adversary for refusing to\n+consent; and (6) the date of the parties’ next scheduled appearance before the Court\n+as well as any other existing deadlines. If the extension will affect any other\n+deadlines in the case, the party seeking the ext ension should propose amendments\n+to those deadlines as well. Requests for extensions of deadlines regarding a matter\n+that has been referred to a Magistrate Judge shall be addressed to that assigned\n+Magistrate Judge.\n+Any request for extension or adjournment shall be made at least two business days\n+prior to the deadline or scheduled appearance. Requests for extensions will\n+ordinarily be denied if made after this deadline.\n+F. Related and Consolidated Cases. After an action has been accepted as related to\n+a prior filing, all future court papers and correspondence must contain the docket\n+number of the new filing as well as the docket number of the case to which it is\n+related (e.g., 12-CV-1234 [rel. 11-CV-4321]). After two or more actions have been\n+consolidated for all purposes under a single docket number pursuant to Rule\n+3\n+42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all future court papers and\n+correspondence should be filed only in the docket under which the cases have been\n+consolidated and should reference only that docket number.\n+G. ECF. In accordance with the Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions, counsel\n+are required to register promptly as ECF filers and to enter an appearance in the\n+case. Counsel are responsible for updating their contact information on ECF, should\n+it change, and they are responsible for checking the docket sheet regularly,\n+regardless of whether they receive an ECF notification of case activity. For\n+assistance with updating contact information, please contact the ECF Help Desk at\n+helpdesk@nysd.uscourts.gov or (212) 805- 0800; do not file a letter -motion\n+advising the Court of the change.\n+4. Conferences\n+A. In-Person Conferences . Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all in- person\n+conferences will be held in Courtroom 15A , 500 Pearl Street , New York , NY\n+10007.\n+B. Teleconferences. The following procedures shall apply to all teleconferences with\n+the Court:\n+i. At least 24 hours before a scheduled teleconference, the parties must jointly\n+email to the Court a list of counsel who may speak during the\n+teleconference. No more than one individual should be designated to speak\n+on behalf of each party. The email should also provide the telephone\n+numbers from which counsel expect to join the call.\n+ii. Counsel should use a landline whenever possible, should not use a\n+speakerphone, and must mute themselves whenever they are not speaking\n+to eliminate background noise.\n+iii. To facilitate orderly teleconferences and the creation of an accurate\n+transcript where a teleconference is held on the record, counsel are required\n+to identify themselves every time they speak. Counsel should spell any\n+proper names for the court reporter and take special care not to interrupt or\n+speak over one another.\n+iv. Broadcasting or recording of any court conference is prohibited by law.\n+C. Attendance by Lead Trial Counsel and Principal Decision-Makers. Lead Trial\n+Counsel must appear at all conferences with the Court, must have authority to bind\n+the party they represent consistent with the proceeding (for example, by agreeing\n+to a discovery or briefing schedule), and should be prepared to address any matters\n+likely to arise at the proceeding. Any attorney appearing before the Court must enter\n+a notice of appearance on ECF . Principal decision-makers must attend the final\n+pretrial conference and the trial.\n+4\n+D. Initial Case Management Conference. In most cases, the Court wil l schedule a\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c) conference to occur no more than three\n+months after the filing of the complaint or notice of removal. Plaintiff’s counsel (or,\n+in a matter removed from state court, defense counsel) is directed to promptly notify\n+all counsel of the Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference. In most cases, the Notice\n+will direct the parties to submit on ECF a joint letter as well as a proposed Civil\n+Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order attached as an exhibit to the joint\n+letter, no later than Thursday of the week prior to the conference date. This must be\n+filed on ECF as a letter motion- not a standard letter. The parties shall use the form\n+Proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order available at the Court’s\n+website.\n+The Court will set a schedule for the case at the initial case management conference.\n+In most cases, the Court will give the parties four months (from the date of the\n+conference) to complete all discovery, set a deadline for the filing of any motions\n+for summary judgment, and set a date on which trial will commence.\n+E. Rule 26(f) Obligations. The parties should fulfill their obligations to confer as\n+required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) as soon as practicable after\n+service of the complaint. Any party’s failure to promptly confer should be brought\n+to the Court’s attention pursuant to the procedures in Paragraph 5 of these\n+Individual Practices.\n+5. Discovery Disputes\n+A. Parties must follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following modifications. Special\n+rules regarding disputes raised during depositions are addressed in Paragraph 6.\n+B. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first confer in\n+good faith with the opposing party—in person, by videoconference , or by\n+telephone—to resolve the dispute. This process must include at least one\n+conference among Lead Trial Counsel for the parties involved in the dispute.\n+C. Where a party raises a discovery dispute with the opposing party, the opposing\n+party must make itself available to confer in good faith to resolve the dispute within\n+two business days of a request for a conference. If a party requests a Lead Trial\n+Counsel conference, Lead Trial Counsel for the opposing party must make\n+themselves available within two business days.\n+D. If the meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute within 10 business days\n+of the dispute first being raised (or sooner, if an impasse has been reached) , the\n+party seeking discovery may file on ECF a letter -motion, no longer than three\n+pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and, if applicable, why the party is\n+entitled to relief and requesting an informal conference. Any letter-motion seeking\n+relief must state: (1) the dates and times of each conference conducted pursuant to\n+Paragraph 5(B)–(C); (2) the duration of these conference s; (3) the names of the\n+attorneys who participated; and (4) that the moving party informed the adversary\n+5\n+during the last conference that the moving party believed the parties to be at an\n+impasse and that the moving party would be requesting a conference with the Court.\n+The letter -motion must specifically state that the required Lead Trial Counsel\n+conference occurred.\n+E. Any opposition to a letter -motion seeking relief shall be filed as a letter, not to\n+exceed three pages, within two business days. Counsel should be prepared to\n+discuss with the Court the matters raised by such letters, as the Court will seek to\n+resolve discovery disputes quickly, by order (based on the letters alone) or in a\n+conference.\n+F. Counsel should seek relief in accordance with these procedures in a timely fashion.\n+If a party waits until near the close of discovery to raise an issue that could have\n+been raised earlier, the party is unlikely to be granted the relief that it seeks or more\n+time for discovery.\n+G. Privilege Logs and Privilege Log Disputes. Privilege logs should be sufficiently\n+detailed to enable the receiving party to evaluate a claim of privilege, including\n+identification of attorneys involved in the relevant documents or communications.\n+Privilege logs must be promptly produced and updated on a rolling basis as\n+documents are produced. Each log and update must include a certification from\n+counsel that counsel has reviewed the withheld or redacted documents, and that\n+there is a good-faith basis to assert privilege over those documents. Disputes related\n+to privilege logs are subject to the rules governing discovery disputes specified in\n+Paragraph 5. The Court may on its own initiative order in camera production to the\n+Court of unredacted documents from the producing party’s log where a dispute is\n+raised.\n+6. Conduct in Depositions\n+A. All objections during a deposition must be “stated concisely in a nonargumentative\n+and nonsuggestive manner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Witness coaching or\n+disruptive commentary of any kind during questioning is prohibited. Objections to\n+the form of a question (e.g., argumentative, asked and answered, calls for a narrative\n+response, calls for a legal conclusion, compound, vague, ambiguous, calls for\n+speculation) should be limited to “objection form.” If the examining attorney is\n+unclear as to the nature of the form objection, they may seek further clarification\n+from the objecting attorney.\n+B. If a dispute arises during a deposition, and the letter -motion procedures in\n+Paragraph 5 are not feasible to address it, the parties may email Chambers to raise\n+the dispute with the Court during the deposition. If a party wishes to engage the\n+Court in this manner, all parties in attendance at the deposition must make\n+themselves available and email the Court jointly.\n+6\n+7. Participation by Junior Attorneys\n+A. The Court encourages the participation of less -experienced attorneys in all\n+proceedings—including pretrial conferences, hearings on discovery disputes, oral\n+arguments, and examinations of witnesses at trial—particularly where that attorney\n+played a substantial role in drafting the underlying filing or in preparing the relevant\n+witness. The Court may be inclined to grant a request for oral argument, or a request\n+for more than one attorney to speak on behalf of a party in a conference, where\n+doing so would afford the opportunity for a junior attorney to gain experience.\n+8. Motions\n+A. Letter-Motions. When permitted by the S.D.N.Y. Local Rules and the S.D.N.Y.\n+Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions, letters seeking relief should be filed\n+on ECF as letter-motions, not as ordinary letters.\n+B. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion conferences are not required,\n+except for disputes concerning discovery, which are governed by Paragraph 5\n+above.\n+C. Memoranda of Law. Please reference Local Civil Rule 7.1(c) for all requirements.\n+Sur-reply memoranda will not be accepted without prior permission of the Court.\n+All appendices to memoranda of law must be indexed. The Court will rarely grant\n+requests, even on consent of all parties, to expand these page limits.\n+D. Unpublished Cases. If a party cites to a case not available in an official reporter, it\n+need not provide copies of the case to Chambers if the case is available on Westlaw\n+or Lexis. For cases only available on Westlaw or Lexis, the Westlaw citation should\n+be used whenever possible.\n+E. Oral Argument on Motions. A party may request oral argument by indicating\n+“ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED” on the cover page of its memorandum of\n+law. A party should advise the Court by letter if oral argument would be handled\n+by a less-experienced attorney because, as discussed in Paragraph 7 above, that may\n+make the Court more inclined to hold oral argument. If oral argument is requested,\n+the Court will determine whether argument will be heard and, if so, advise counsel\n+of the argument date.\n+F. Use of ChatGPT and Other Tools. Counsel is responsible for providing the Court\n+with complete and accurate representations of the record, the procedural history of\n+the case, and any cited legal authorities. Use of ChatGPT or other such tools is not\n+prohibited, but counsel must at all times personally confirm for themselves the\n+accuracy of any research conducted by these means. At all times, counsel —and\n+specifically designated Lead Trial Counsel—bears responsibility for any filings\n+made by the party that counsel represents.\n+7\n+G. Motions to Dismiss\n+i. In any motion to dismiss arguing that a pleading fails to plausibly allege a\n+claim, the supporting papers must clearly indicate the specific claim\n+elements that the moving party believes have not been plausibly pleaded.\n+In response, the non-moving party must identify the specific paragraphs in\n+the pleading that the non- moving party believes plausibly allege those\n+specific elements. The moving party must attach a non-argumentative chart\n+as an exhibit to its moving papers identifying the elements not plausibly\n+alleged, and the non -moving party must attach a responsive, non-\n+argumentative exhibit to its responsive papers identifying the paragraphs\n+of the complaint that plausibly allege those elements.\n+ii. When a motion to dismiss is filed and the non-moving party elects to amend\n+its pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), the non-\n+moving party must, within 10 days of receipt of the motion, notify the Court\n+and its adversary if it intends to file an amended pleading pursuant to Rule\n+15(a)(1), and the date by which it will do so. This provision does not alter\n+the time for a non-moving party to file a response to the motion to dismiss\n+as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules. Non-\n+moving parties are on notice that declining to amend their pleadings to\n+timely respond to a n argument in the motion to dismiss may constitute a\n+waiver of their right to later use the amendment process to cure defects that\n+have been made apparent by the briefing.\n+a. If the party amends, the opposing party may then: (i) file an\n+answer; (ii) file a new motion to dismiss; or (iii ) submit a\n+letter stating that it relies on the initially filed motion to\n+dismiss.\n+b. If the moving party files an answer or a new motion to\n+dismiss, the Court will deny the original motion to dismiss\n+as moot without notice to the parties.\n+H. Motions for Leave to Amend a Pleading. When moving to amend any pleading,\n+the moving party shall —in accordance with Paragraph 2( B) above—file with the\n+motion a redline showing all differences between the operative pleading and the\n+proposed amended pleading.\n+I. Summary Judgment Motions\n+i. Absent good cause, the Court will not ordinarily have summary judgment\n+practice in a non-jury case.\n+ii. Parties may not file more than one motion for summary judgment absent\n+prior Court approval.\n+8\n+iii. Any party moving for summary judgment shall provide all other parties\n+with an electronic copy, in Microsoft Word format, of the moving party’s\n+Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1. Opposing\n+parties must reproduce each entry in the moving party’s Rule 56.1\n+Statement and set out the opposing party’s response directly beneath it.\n+iv. With respect to any deposition that is supplied, the index to the deposition\n+should be included if it is available.\n+v. The parties should provide the Court with a complete electronic, text -\n+searchable copy of any hearing or deposition transcript on which the parties\n+rely, if such a copy is available, unless doing so would be unduly\n+burdensome.\n+vi. Memoranda of law should include sections discussing the relevant\n+background and facts. Parties should not merely incorporate by reference\n+their Local Rule 56.1 Statements or Counterstatements.\n+J. Motions to Exclude Testimony of Experts. Unless the Court orders otherwise,\n+motions to exclude testimony of experts, pursuant to Rules 702–705 of the Federal\n+Rules of Evidence and the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.\n+579 (1993), line of cases, must be made by the deadline for dispositive motions and\n+should not be treated as motions in limine.\n+K. Preliminary Injunction Motions. The Court generally follows the procedure for\n+the conduct of non-jury trials described in Paragraph 10(E) below.\n+L. Default Judgment Motions. If a party fails to respond to a claim, the party\n+asserting the claim should promptly move for entry of default judgment if\n+appropriate. A party seeking a default judgment must proceed by filing a motion\n+for default judgment on ECF pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2)\n+and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). A party seeking a default judgment should not\n+proceed by order to show cause. The motion must be supported by the following\n+papers:\n+i. if failure to answer is the basis for the default, a Certificate from the Clerk\n+of Court stating that no answer has been filed;\n+ii. an attorney’s affidavit or declaration setting forth:\n+1. the basis for entering a default judgment, including a description\n+of the method and date of service of the summons and\n+complaint;\n+2. the procedural history beyond service of the summons and\n+complaint, if any;\n+9\n+3. legal authority for why such service was proper;\n+4. whether, if the default is applicable to fewer than all\n+counterparties, the Court may appropriately order a default\n+judgment on the issue of damages prior to resolution of the entire\n+action;\n+5. the proposed damages and the basis for each element of\n+damages, including interest, attorney’s fees, and costs; and\n+6. legal authority for why an inquest into damages would be\n+unnecessary;\n+iii. if the proposed damages are supported by calculations, native versions of\n+the files with calculations (i.e., versions of the files in their original format,\n+such as in “.xlsx”), which shall be emailed to Chambers;\n+iv. a proposed default judgment;\n+v. copies of all the operative pleadings; and\n+vi. a copy of the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint.\n+M. Proposed Stipulations and Orders. In accordance with the S.D.N.Y. Local Rules\n+and the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions, parties should file\n+on ECF all proposed stipulations and orders that they wish the Court to sign, using\n+the appropriate ECF filing event. See SDNY ECF Rules & Instructions §§ 13.17–\n+19 & App’x A. As noted above, requests for extensions and adjournments must be\n+made by letter-motion, not by proposed stipulation or proposed order.\n+9. Other Pretrial Guidance\n+A. Applications for Temporary Restraining Orders. A party should confer with its\n+adversary before making an application for a temporary restraining order unless the\n+party seeking relief is able to satisfy the requirements for obtaining temporary relief\n+without notice to the adverse party set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+65(b)(1). If the party seeking relief believes that Rule 65(b)(1)’s requirements can\n+be met and a temporary restraining order should issue without notice to the adverse\n+party, the party should file its papers on ECF under seal (or, if ECF is not a viable\n+option, by email to Chambers) and then email Chambers providing notice . If the\n+party is prepared to seek relief on notice to the adverse party, the party seeking\n+relief should simultaneously file its papers on ECF, serve them on all other parties,\n+and then email Chambers.\n+B. Settlement Agreements. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not\n+retain jurisdiction to enforce confidential settlement agreements. If the parties wish\n+that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, the parties must\n+place the terms of their agr eement on the public record. The parties may either\n+10\n+provide a copy of the settlement agreement for the Court to endorse or include the\n+terms of their settlement agreement in their stipulation of settlement and dismissal.\n+C. Bankruptcy Appeals. The parties must comply with the briefing schedule and the\n+format and length specifications set forth in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\n+Procedure (8014–8018) unless otherwise ordered by the Court.\n+10. Trial Submissions and Procedures\n+A. Joint Pretrial Order. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, at least 14 days prior\n+to the scheduled final pretrial conference , the parties shall both file on ECF, as a\n+“Joint Pretrial Statement,” and submit by email to the Court a proposed joint pretrial\n+order, which shall include the following:\n+i. the full caption of the action;\n+ii. the names, law firms, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses\n+of trial counsel if not already listed on the docket;\n+iii. a brief statement by plaintiff (or, in a removed case, by defendant) as to\n+the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and a brief statement by each other\n+party as to the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Such\n+statements shall include citations to all statutes relied on and relevant facts\n+as to citizenship and jurisdictional amount;\n+iv. a brief summary by each party of the claims and defenses that the party\n+asserts remain to be tried, including citations to any statutes on which the\n+party relies. Such summaries shall also identify all claims and defenses\n+previously asserted that are not t o be tried. The summaries should not\n+recite any evidentiary matter;\n+v. a statement as to the number of trial days needed and whether the case is\n+to be tried with or without a jury;\n+vi. a joint statement summarizing the nature of the case, to be read to potential\n+jurors during jury selection;\n+vii. a list of people, places, and institutions that are likely to be mentioned\n+during the trial, to be read to potential jurors during jury selection;\n+viii. a statement as to whether all parties have consented to trial by a Magistrate\n+Judge, without identifying which parties do or do not consent;\n+ix. any stipulations or agreed statements of fact or law to which all parties\n+consent. In a jury case, the parties should memorialize any such\n+stipulations or agreed statements of fact or law in a standalone document\n+that can be marked and admitted at trial;\n+11\n+x. a list of all trial witnesses, indicating whether such witnesses will testify\n+in person or by deposition, whether such witnesses will require an\n+interpreter (and, if so, which party will pay the costs for the interpreter),\n+and a brief summary of the substance of each witness’s testimony. Absent\n+leave of Court, a witness listed by both sides shall testify only once (with\n+the defendant permitted to go beyond the scope of the direct on cross -\n+examination), and counsel should confer with respect to scheduling;\n+xi. a designation by each party of deposition testimony to be offered in its\n+case-in-chief and any counter -designations and objections by any other\n+party. The parties need not designate deposition testimony to be used for\n+impeachment purposes only;\n+xii. a list by each party of all exhibits to be offered in its case-in-chief, with a\n+single asterisk indicating exhibits to which no party objects on any ground.\n+If a party objects to an exhibit, the objection should be noted by indicating\n+the Federal Rule of Evidence that is the basis for the objection. If any party\n+believes that the Court should rule on such an objection in advance of trial,\n+that party should include a notation to that effect (e.g., “Advance Ruling\n+Requested”) as well. In general, the Court wi ll rule on relevance and\n+authenticity objections at the time of trial;\n+xiii. a statement of the damages claimed and any other relief sought, including\n+the manner and method used to calculate any claimed damages and a\n+breakdown of the elements of such claimed damages; and\n+xiv. a statement of whether the parties consent to less than a unanimous verdict.\n+B. Required Pretrial Filings. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, each party shall\n+file and serve with the joint pretrial order:\n+i. in all cases, motions addressing any evidentiary issues or other matters that\n+should be resolved in limine . Absent leave of the Court, each party must\n+file a single memorandum of law, consistent with Paragraph 8(C) above,\n+in support of all motions in limine filed by that party;\n+ii. in all jury cases, joint requests to charge, joint proposed verdict forms, and\n+joint proposed voir dire questions as specified by Paragraph 10(D) below;\n+and\n+iii. in all non-jury cases, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The\n+proposed findings of fact should be detailed and should include citations to\n+the proffered trial testimony and exhibits, as there may be no opportunity\n+for post-trial submissions. At the time of filing, parties should also submit\n+copies of these documents to the Court by email, both in PDF format and\n+as a Microsoft Word document.\n+12\n+C. Electronic Copies of Exhibits and Exhibit Lists. Unless otherwise ordered by the\n+Court, the parties shall also submit with the joint pretrial order (but not file on ECF):\n+i. an electronic copy of each exhibit sought to be admitted (with each\n+filename corresponding to the relevant exhibit number —e.g., “PX -1,”\n+“DX-1,” etc.). If submission of electronic copies would be an undue burden\n+on a party, the party may seek leave of Court (by letter-motion filed on\n+ECF) to submit prospective documentary exhibits in hard copy. Each hard\n+copy shall be pre -marked (that is, with an exhibit sticker) and assembled\n+sequentially in a loose-leaf binder (not to exceed 2-1/2 inches in thickness)\n+or in separate manila folders labeled with the exhibit numbers and placed\n+in redweld folders labeled with the case name and docket number; and\n+ii. a Microsoft Word document listing all exhibits sought to be admitted,\n+emailed to the court. The list shall contain four columns labeled as follows:\n+(1) “Exhibit Number”; (2) “Description” (of the exhibit); (3) “Date\n+Identified”; and (4) “Date Admitted.” The parties shall complete the first\n+two columns, but leave the third and fourth columns bla nk, to be filled in\n+by the Court during trial.\n+D. Requests to Charge and Proposed Voir Dire. Unless otherwise ordered by the\n+Court, in all jury trials, joint requests to charge, joint proposed verdict forms, and\n+joint proposed voir dire questions shall be submitted as attachments to the proposed\n+joint pretrial order, with any differing proposals displayed in track- change format\n+and supported by authority or other justification. At the time of filing, parties should\n+also submit copies of these documents to the Court by email, as Microsoft Word\n+documents. For any request to charge or proposed voir dire question on which the\n+parties cannot agree, each party should clearly set forth its proposed charge or\n+question, and briefly state why the Court should use its proposed charge or question,\n+with citations to supporting authority.\n+E. Additional Submissions in Non -Jury Cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the\n+Court, at the time the joint pretrial order is filed, each party in a non- jury trial shall\n+submit to the Court by email and serve on opposing counsel, but not file on ECF, the\n+following:\n+i. copies of affidavits constituting the direct testimony of each trial witness,\n+except for the direct testimony of an adverse party, a person whose\n+attendance is compelled by subpoena, or a person for whom the Court has\n+agreed to hear direct testimony live at the trial. The affidavit should be\n+treated as a direct substitute for the witness’s live testimony; that is, counsel\n+should be attentive to the Rules of Evidence (e.g., hearsay and the like) and\n+authenticate any exhibits that will be offered through that witness’s\n+testimony. Three business days after submission of such affidavits, counsel\n+for each party shall submit a list of all affiants whom they intend to cross-\n+examine at the trial. Only those witnesses who will be cross-examined need\n+to appear at trial. The original signed affidavits should be brought to trial\n+13\n+to be marked as exhibits, at which time any objections to particular\n+paragraphs of an affidavit can be made; and\n+ii. all deposition excerpts that will be offered as substantive evidence, as well\n+as a one-page synopsis of those excerpts for each deposition. Each synopsis\n+shall include page citations to the pertinent pages of the deposition\n+transcripts.\n+F. Filings in Opposition. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any party may file\n+the following documents within one week after the filing of the pretrial order:\n+i. opposition to any motion in limine; and\n+ii. opposition to any legal argument in a pretrial memorandum.\n+11. Redactions and Sealed Filings\n+A. Redactions Not Requiring Court Approval. The parties are referred to Rule 5.2\n+of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the S.D.N.Y. ECF Privacy Policy\n+(“Privacy Policy”). There are two categories of information that may be redacted\n+from public court filings without prior permission from the Court: “sensitive\n+information” and information requiring “caution.” Parties should not include in\n+their public filings, unless necessary, the five categories of “sensitive information”\n+(i.e., social security numbers [use the last four digits only], names of minor children\n+[use the initials only], dates of birth [use the year only], financial account numbers\n+[use the last four digits only], and home addresses [use only the City and State]).\n+Parties may also, without prior Court approval, redact from their public filings the\n+six categories of information requiring caution described in the Privacy Policy (i.e.,\n+any personal identifying number, medical records [including information regarding\n+treatment and diagnosis], employment history, individual financial information,\n+proprietary or trade secret information, and information regarding an individual’s\n+cooperation with the government).\n+B. Redactions and Sealed Filings Requiring Court Approval. Except for redactions\n+permitted by Paragraph 11(A) or as provided by the protective order approved in\n+the case, all redactions or sealing of public court filings require Court approval. To\n+be approved, any redaction or sealing of a court filing must be narrowly tailored to\n+serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or sealing and must be otherwise\n+consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. In\n+general, the parties’ consent or the fact that information is subject to a\n+confidentiality agreement between litigants is not, by itself, a valid basis to\n+overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents.\n+C. Procedures for Filing Sealed or Redacted Documents. Any party seeking leave\n+to file a document under seal or in redacted form shall proceed as follows:\n+i. Meet and Confer. The party should meet and confer with any opposing\n+party (or any third party seeking confidential treatment of the information)\n+14\n+in advance to narrow the scope of the request. When a party seeks leave to\n+file a document under seal or in redacted form on the ground that an\n+opposing party or third party has requested it, the filing party shall notify\n+the opposing party or third party that it must file, within three business days,\n+a letter explaining the need to seal or redact the document.\n+ii. Sealed Document(s). The party shall file a letter -motion seeking leave to\n+file a document under seal on ECF in accordance with Standing Order 19 -\n+MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules and\n+Instructions. The letter -motion itself shall be filed in public view, should\n+explain the reasons for seeking to file the document under seal, and should\n+not include confidential information. The proposed sealed document shall\n+be contemporaneously filed under seal on ECF (with the appropriate level\n+of restriction) and electronically related to the motion (or to the relevant\n+Court order if the Court previously granted leave to file the document under\n+seal). Note that the summary docket text, but not the document itself, will\n+be open to public inspection and should not include confidential\n+information sought to be filed under seal.\n+iii. Redacted Document(s). Where a party seeks leave to file a document in\n+redacted form, the party shall file a letter -motion seeking leave to file a\n+document in redacted form on ECF in accordance with Standing Order 19-\n+MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules and\n+Instructions. The letter -motion itself shall be filed in public view, should\n+explain the reasons for seeking to file the document in redacted form, and\n+should not include confidential information. At the same time, the party\n+shall: (1) publicly file on ECF and electronically relate to the letter-motion\n+a copy of the document with the proposed redactions; and (2) file under\n+seal on ECF (with the appropriate level of restriction) and electronically\n+relate to the motion an unredacted copy of the document with the proposed\n+redactions highlighted.\n+iv. Submission by Email. Any party unable to comply with the requirements\n+for electronic filing under seal through the ECF system, or who believes\n+that a particular document should not be electronically filed at all, shall file\n+a letter-motion seeking leave of the Court to file in a different manner. If\n+the party is unable to file such a letter -motion on ECF or believes there is\n+good cause not to file such a letter-motion on ECF, the party may submit it\n+by email as a text-searchable PDF attachment with a copy simultaneously\n+delivered to all counsel. Any such email shall state clearly in the subject\n+line: (1) the caption of the case, including the lead party names and docket\n+number; and (2) a brief description of the contents of the letter. Parties may\n+not include substantive communi cations in the body of the email; such\n+communications may be included only in the body of the letter.\n+D. Protective Order. The parties should conform any proposed protective order as\n+closely as possible to the Court’s Model Protective Order , which is available on\n+15\n+Judge Subramanian’s webpage . If the parties alter the Court’s Model Protective\n+Order in any way other than conforming the caption and signatures, they must\n+provide a redline indicating all such modifications by email to Chambers. The Court\n+disfavors modifications to the Court’s Model Protective Order.\n+12. Use of Electronic Devices and WiFi Access for Hearings and Trials\n+A. Use of Electronic Devices. Electronic devices (including mobile telephones,\n+personal electronic devices, and computers) may not be used in Judge\n+Subramanian’s Courtroom without his permission. More broadly, the use of any\n+such devices within the Courthouse and its environs is governed by the Court’s\n+Standing Order M10-468. If required by the Standing Order, counsel seeking to\n+bring a device into the Courthouse shall submit an Electronic Device and Wi -Fi\n+Access Request Form, available on the Court’s website, to the Court by e -mail as\n+early as possible—and certainly no later than three business days before the start of\n+the trial or hearing. Requests submitted later than three business days prior to the\n+relevant trial or hearing may be denied on that basis alone. If permitted by the\n+Standing Order, mobile telephones are permitted inside the Courtroom, but they\n+MUST be kept turned off at all times. Non-compliance with this rule may result in\n+forfeiture of the device for the remainder of the proceedings.\n+Wi-Fi Access for Hearings and Trials. Attorneys may obtain authorization to use\n+the Court’s Wi-Fi system in Judge Subramanian’s Courtroom during a hearing or\n+trial. For further information, see Judge Subramanian’s Individual Practices for\n+Hearings and Trials, available on Judge Subramanian’s webpage.","id":"0dff20fd7fde57dc14af35d1324dc9513cdf1c632b2e1f7c9689f2b21fd36ed8","newHash":"1900a268384cf0498559c1e93925f0cfda33860fd6893f72b223ee85a328c627","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/1900a268384cf0498559c1e93925f0cfda33860fd6893f72b223ee85a328c627.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AS%20Subramanian%20Civil%20Individual%20Practices.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:06.886415+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,534 @@\n+Revised: November 5, 2025\n+INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES\n+ANALISA TORRES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n+500 PEARL STREET\n+NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007\n+Unless otherwise ordered by Judge Torres, these Individual Practices apply to all civil\n+matters except for civil pro se cases (see Individual Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases, at\n+https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-analisa-torres).\n+I. C ommunications with Chambers\n+A. C ontact with Chambers . Communications with the Court shall occur by letter,\n+except as otherwise provided below. Telephone calls to chambers are permitted\n+only in emergencies requiring immediate attention. Prior to calling chambers\n+with questions about the Court’s rules and practices, parties should review the\n+Court’s Individual Practices. The chambers phone number is (212) 805-0292.\n+Faxes to chambers are permitted only with prior authorization. Faxed\n+submissions shall identify the individual in chambers who authorized the fax.\n+Copies shall be simultaneously faxed, emailed, or hand-delivered to all counsel.\n+B. L\n+etters and Letter Motions. Unless there is a request to file a letter under seal,\n+letters and letter motions shall be filed electronically on ECF and must comply\n+with the S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rules and Electronic Case Filing Rules and\n+Instructions. The email address for chambers is\n+Torres_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov.\n+Letters to be filed under seal shall be emailed to the Court in accordance with\n+Rule IV(A) below. Letters solely between parties or their counsel or otherwise\n+not addressed to the Court shall not be filed on ECF or sent to the Court (except\n+as exhibits to an otherwise properly filed document).\n+Except as provided in Rule V(G), no papers, including courtesy hard copies of\n+any filing or document, may be submitted to chambers. All documents must be\n+filed on ECF or, if permitted or required under these rules, emailed to the Court.\n+In the event that a party or counsel is unable to submit a document\n+electronically—either by ECF or email—the document may be mailed to the\n+Court. To the maximum extent possible, however, this means of delivery should\n+be avoided, as delivery of mail to the Court may be delayed.\n+C. R\n+equests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. All requests for\n+adjournments or extensions of time shall be made in writing and filed on ECF as\n+letter motions in accordance with Rule I(B) above. The letter motion shall state:\n+(1) the original date(s); (2) the reason for the request; (3) the number of previous\n+2\n+requests for adjournment or extension; (4) whether these previous requests were\n+gr\n+anted or denied; and (5) whether the adversary consents and, if not, the reasons\n+given by the adversary for refusing to consent. If the requested adjournment or\n+extension affects any other scheduled dates, a proposed schedule shall be included\n+in the letter. Absent an emergency, any request for adjournments or extensions\n+must be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled appearance or deadline.\n+Requests for extensions will ordinarily be denied if made after the expiration of\n+the original deadline.\n+D. R\n+elated Cases. After an action has been accepted as related to a prior filing, all\n+future court papers and correspondence shall contain the docket number of both\n+the new action and the docket number of the case to which it is related (e.g., 13\n+Civ. 1234 [rel. 12 Civ. 4321]).\n+E. ECF and Attorney Appearances. In accordance with the Electronic Case Filing\n+Rules & Instructions, counsel are required to register as ECF filers and enter an\n+appearance in the case before the deadline for submitting the proposed Case\n+Management Plan and Scheduling Order. Instructions are available on the Court\n+website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing.\n+II. Co nferences and Case Management Plan\n+A. Attendance by Principal Trial Counsel. The attorney who will serve as\n+principal trial counsel shall appear at all conferences.\n+B. Scheduling Order. The Court shall generally request a jointly proposed Case\n+Management Plan and Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 16(b) within two months after the filing of the complaint or notice of\n+removal. The Rule 16(b) Order will be docketed on ECF, and plaintiff’s counsel\n+(or, in a matter removed from state court, defense counsel) is directed to promptly\n+distribute copies to all parties. The Rule 16(b) Order will also direct the parties to\n+submit a joint letter with their jointly proposed Case Management Plan and\n+Scheduling Order.\n+If defense counsel has not appeared at least one week prior to the deadline for\n+these submissions, plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a letter requesting an\n+adjournment and informing the Court of the status of defense counsel’s\n+appearance and whether plaintiff intends to seek a default judgment.\n+If a deadline for submitting the proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling\n+Order has not been set within two months after the filing of the complaint or\n+notice of removal, counsel shall send a letter to alert the Court.\n+C. Filings Required in Diversity Cases. In any action in which subject-matter\n+jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,\n+all parties must file a disclosure statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n+3\n+Procedure 7.1(a)(2) with the party’s first appearance. Additionally, the party\n+asserting the existence of such jurisdiction shall, prior to the deadline for\n+submitting the proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, file with\n+the Court a letter no longer than two pages explaining the basis for that party’s\n+assertion that diversity of citizenship exists. Where any party is a corporation, the\n+letter shall state both the place of incorporation and the principal place of\n+business. In cases where any party is a partnership, limited partnership, limited\n+liability company, or trust, the letter shall state the citizenship of each of the\n+entity’s members, shareholders, partners, and/or trustees.\n+D. Discovery Disputes. All parties shall follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the\n+following modifications: A party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the\n+Court shall first confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person or by\n+telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute. If this meet-and-confer process does\n+not succeed, the parties shall describe the dispute in a single joint letter to the\n+Court, normally not exceeding six pages. The joint letter shall include a\n+representation that the meet-and-confer process occurred, identifying the time,\n+place, and duration and naming the counsel involved in the discussion.\n+III. Motions\n+A. Pre-Motion Letters in Civil Cases.\n+i. A pre-motion letter is required prior to the filing of any motion, except\n+motions with a jurisdictional time limit as provided by the Federal Rules\n+of Appellate Procedure, post-judgment motions, motions brought on by a\n+court order to show cause, motions for reargument or reconsideration,\n+motions by incarcerated pro se litigants, motions for admission pro hac\n+vice, motions for attorneys’ fees, motions for remand, motions to appoint\n+lead plaintiff and lead defense counsel in securities class actions,\n+objections to magistrate judges’ rulings, motions for sanctions, motions to\n+withdraw as counsel, motions for reduction of sentence, in forma pauperis\n+motions, petitions to confirm or compel arbitration, or where a delay in\n+filing might result in the loss of a right.\n+ii. The movant shall file a letter with the Court, normally not exceeding four\n+pages, setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion. Opposition\n+letters, normally not exceeding four pages, shall be submitted within five\n+business days after receipt of the movant’s letter. The parties must also\n+comply with the special rules set forth below for motions to dismiss or for\n+summary judgment. Thereafter, the Court shall notify the parties of the\n+briefing schedule for the motion.\n+4\n+B. Special Rules for Motions to Dismiss.\n+i. In the case of a motion to dismiss, the parties shall exchange two sets of\n+pre-motion letters.\n+ii. First: Before the time to file a responsive pleading has expired, the\n+defendant shall send plaintiff a letter not exceeding three single-spaced\n+pages, seeking a more definite statement or setting forth the specific\n+pleading deficiencies in the complaint and other reasons or controlling\n+authorities that defendant contends would warrant dismissal. The plaintiff\n+shall respond by similar letter within five business days indicating the\n+extent, if any, to which plaintiff concurs with defendant’s objections and\n+the amendments, if any, to be made to the complaint to address them, or\n+the reasons and controlling authority that support the pleadings as filed.\n+The parties shall not submit copies of these letters to the Court. If the time\n+to amend the complaint has expired, the plaintiff may seek leave to amend\n+to address deficiencies identified in this first exchange of letters. Such\n+leave to amend should be sought before the second exchange of letters\n+described in Rule III(B)(iii) below. Under these circumstances, the Court\n+shall liberally grant the plaintiff leave to amend and will grant the\n+defendant an extension of time to answer the complaint as appropriate.\n+(This practice may be especially effective as to certain types of motions\n+frequently made that may be avoidable by pre-motion communication\n+between the parties, with or without the Court’s involvement, including\n+but not limited to the following: naming a wrong defendant, misnaming a\n+defendant, failing to name a necessary or indispensable party, failing to\n+exhaust available remedies, absolute immunity, expiration of the statute of\n+limitations as to some or all of the claims asserted, failure to satisfy a\n+prerequisite to litigation such as a Right to Sue Letter, and failure to plead\n+the particulars of a fraud claim under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of\n+Civil Procedure.)\n+iii. Second: If, after the first exchange of letters, the defendant still wishes to\n+file a motion to dismiss, the parties shall follow the steps set forth in Rule\n+III(A) above for pre-motion letters, and this second set of letters shall be\n+filed with the Court before the time to file a responsive pleading has\n+expired. Transmittal of a pre-motion letter for a proposed motion under\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) stays the time to answer or move to\n+dismiss until further order of the Court.\n+iv. If a motion to dismiss is filed, the non-moving party must, within ten days\n+of receipt of the motion, notify the Court and its adversary in writing\n+whether (1) it intends to file an amended pleading and when it will do so,\n+or (2) it will rely on the pleading being attacked. Non-moving parties are\n+on notice that declining to amend their pleadings to timely respond to a\n+fully briefed argument in the motion to dismiss may well constitute a\n+5\n+waiver of their right to use the amendment process to cure any defects that\n+have been made apparent by the briefing. See Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3\n+Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015) (leaving\n+“unaltered the grounds on which denial of leave to amend has long been\n+held proper, such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, and futility.”).\n+This provision does not alter the time to file a response in the Federal\n+Rules or the Local Rules. If the party amends, the opposing party may\n+then (1) file an answer; (2) file a new motion to dismiss; or (3) submit a\n+letter stating that it relies on the previously filed motion to dismiss. If the\n+moving party files an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the Court shall\n+deny the original motion to dismiss as moot without notice to the parties.\n+C. Special Rules for Summary Judgment Motions.\n+i. Absent good cause, the Court shall not ordinarily have summary judgment\n+practice in a non-jury case.\n+ii. Any party wishing to move for summary judgment shall provide all other\n+parties with an electronic copy, in Microsoft Word format, of its Statement\n+of Material Facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1. The movant must\n+simultaneously provide the other parties any admissible evidence cited in its\n+56.1 statement that has not previously been produced during discovery.\n+Opposing parties shall reproduce each entry in the movant’s Rule 56.1\n+Statement and set out the opposing party’s response directly beneath it.\n+iii. Pursuant to Rule III(A) above, the prospective movant shall file with the\n+Court a pre-motion letter informing the Court of the basis for its\n+anticipated motion for summary judgment and attaching the opposing\n+party’s response to the Rule 56.1 Statement. Opposition letters shall be\n+filed with the Court within five business days after receipt of the\n+prospective movant’s letter. The Court shall inform the parties whether a\n+motion for summary judgment is warranted and, if so, set a briefing\n+schedule.\n+iv. With respect to any deposition or hearing transcript that is supplied in\n+connection with a summary judgment motion, the transcript of a witness’\n+testimony shall be submitted in its entirety and in a one-page-per-sheet\n+format with an index.\n+D. Memoranda of Law. A memorandum of law shall accompany motion and\n+opposition papers. The typeface, margins, and spacing of motion papers shall\n+conform to the S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rules and as further set forth below. See L.\n+Civ. R. 6.3, 7.1. Memoranda of more than ten pages shall contain a table of\n+contents and a table of authorities. A memorandum of law shall not incorporate\n+by reference any accompanying declarations or affidavits. Instead, the\n+6\n+memorandum shall contain a fact section that sets forth all facts relevant to the\n+motion and, for each factual statement, provides one or more citations to\n+declarations, affidavits, or other evidence in the records. In the case of summary\n+judgment motions, factual statements must be supported by citations to both the\n+record evidence and the Rule 56.1 statement, if contained therein. Factual\n+statements in other sections of a memorandum shall also be followed by such\n+citations.\n+The following limits apply unless otherwise stated by the Court. Memoranda of law\n+in support of and in opposition to motions are limited to 8,750 words, and reply\n+memoranda are limited to 3,500 words. Briefs concerning objections to\n+magistrate judges’ rulings (including responses to such briefs) shall not exceed\n+7,000 words. Briefs in support of and in opposition to motions for\n+reconsideration are limited to 3,500 words, and reply briefs are limited to 1,750\n+words. These limits do not include the caption, any index, table of contents, table of\n+authorities, signature blocks, or any required certificates, but they do include material\n+contained in footnotes or endnotes. If a brief is prepared with a computer, it must\n+include a certificate by the attorney or the party who is not represented by an attorney\n+that the document complies with the word-count limits set forth above. The person\n+preparing the certificate may rely on the word count of the word-processing program\n+used to prepare the document. The certificate must state the number of words in the\n+document.\n+E. Exhibits. All exhibits shall be tabbed and indexed.\n+F. Format. Motion papers shall be single-sided, double-spaced, shall use 12-point\n+font or larger (including footnotes), and shall have one-inch margins on all sides.\n+Footnotes are discouraged.\n+G. Text Searchable. All pleadings, letters, motion papers, affidavits, or any other\n+document containing text shall be text searchable.\n+H. Amended or Corrected Filings. Any amended or corrected filing (including but\n+not limited to amended pleadings) shall be filed with a redline showing all\n+differences between the original and revised filing. Any motion to amend a\n+pleading shall similarly be filed with a redline showing all differences between\n+the operative pleading and the proposed amended pleading.\n+I. Filing Motion Papers. Motion papers shall be filed promptly after service.\n+J. Oral Argument of Motions. Parties may request oral argument by letter filed\n+with the Court at the time their moving, opposing, or reply papers are filed. The\n+Court typically does not hold oral argument on motions, but it will notify counsel\n+if oral argument is required.\n+K. Participation of Junior Attorneys. Given the decline in cases going to trial,\n+opportunities for courtroom advocacy are increasingly rare. To assist in the\n+7\n+training of the next generation of attorneys, the Court strongly encourages\n+relatively inexperienced attorneys to participate in all courtroom proceedings.\n+Further, the Court is amenable to having multiple attorneys speak for one party if\n+it creates an opportunity for a lawyer who is relatively inexperienced. However,\n+all attorneys appearing should have the degree of authority consistent with the\n+proceeding. For example, an attorney attending a pre-motion conference should\n+have the authority to commit his or her party to a motion schedule, and should be\n+prepared to address other matters likely to arise, including the party’s willingness\n+to participate in a settlement conference with the assigned Magistrate Judge.\n+L. Motions to Exclude Testimony of Experts. Pursuant to Rules 702–705 of the\n+Federal Rules of Evidence and the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,\n+Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), line of cases, motions to exclude testimony of experts\n+shall be made by the deadline for dispositive motions and shall not be treated as\n+motions in limine.\n+M. Default Judgments. A plaintiff seeking a default judgment shall proceed by way\n+of order to show cause, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Attachment A, infra.\n+IV. Other Pretrial Guidance\n+A. Electronic Filing Under Seal in Civil and Miscellaneous Cases.\n+i. Sealing/Redactions Not Requiring Court Approval. Federal Rule of\n+Civil Procedure 5.2 describes sensitive information that must be redacted\n+from public court filings without seeking prior permission from the Court.\n+Such sensitive information includes: Social Security numbers; names of\n+minor children; dates of birth; and financial account numbers.\n+Other information that should be treated with caution and may warrant a\n+motion for approval of sealed or redacted filing includes: personal\n+identifying numbers (PIN numbers); medical records, treatment and\n+diagnosis; employment history; individual financial information;\n+proprietary or trade secret information; home addresses; and information\n+regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government.\n+Sensitive information and information requiring caution must not be\n+included in any document filed with the Court unless such inclusion is\n+necessary and relevant to the case. If such information must be included,\n+personal identifiers must be partially redacted in accordance with the\n+above-cited rules and policies in order to protect any privacy interest.\n+ii. Sealing/Redaction Requiring Court Approval. Motions or Letter\n+Motions for approval of sealed or redacted filings in civil and\n+miscellaneous cases and the subject documents, including the proposed\n+sealed document(s), must be filed electronically through the court’s ECF\n+8\n+system in conformity with the court’s standing order, 19 Misc. 583, and\n+ECF Rules & Instructions, section 6.\n+The motion must be filed in public view, must explain the particular\n+reasons for seeking to file that information under seal and should not\n+include confidential information sought to be filed under seal. Supporting\n+papers must be separately filed electronically and may be filed under seal\n+or redacted only to the extent necessary to safeguard information sought to\n+be filed under seal.\n+The proposed sealed document must be contemporaneously filed under\n+seal in the ECF system and electronically related to the motion. The\n+summary docket text, but not the sealed document, will be open to public\n+inspection and should not include confidential information sought to be\n+filed under seal.\n+Where the motion seeks approval to redact information from a document\n+that is to be publicly filed, the filing party shall: (a) publicly file the\n+document with the proposed redactions, and (b) electronically file under\n+seal a copy of the unredacted document with the redactions highlighted.\n+Both documents must be electronically filed through the ECF system and\n+related to the motion.\n+To be approved, any redaction or sealing of a court filing must be\n+narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or\n+sealing and must be otherwise consistent with the presumption in favor of\n+public access to judicial documents. See, e.g., Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of\n+Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006). In general, the parties’\n+consent or the fact that information is subject to a confidentiality\n+agreement between litigants is not, by itself, a valid basis to overcome the\n+presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See, e.g., In\n+re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14 MD 2543, 2015 WL\n+4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015).\n+The party seeking leave to file sealed or redacted materials should meet\n+and confer with any opposing parties (or third parties seeking confidential\n+treatment of the information, if any) in advance to narrow the scope of the\n+request. When a party seeks leave to file sealed or redacted materials on\n+the ground that an opposing party or third party has requested it, that party\n+shall notify the opposing party or third party that it must file, within three\n+days, a letter explaining the need to seal or redact the materials.\n+Any party unable to comply with the requirement for electronic filing\n+under seal through the ECF system, or who has reason to believe that a\n+particular document should not be electronically filed, must move for\n+leave of the Court to file in the traditional manner, on paper.\n+9\n+B. Applications for a Temporary Restraining Order. A party shall confer with its\n+adversary before making an application for a temporary restraining order, unless\n+the requirements of Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met.\n+As soon as a party decides to seek a temporary restraining order, he or she shall\n+call or email chambers and state whether: (1) he or she has notified the adversary\n+and if the adversary consents to temporary injunctive relief or (2) the\n+requirements of Rule 65(b) are satisfied and no notice is necessary. If a party’s\n+adversary has been notified but does not consent to temporary injunctive relief,\n+the party seeking a restraining order shall call or email chambers in order to\n+determine a time mutually agreeable to the Court, the party, and its adversary, so\n+that the Court may have the benefit of advocacy from both sides in deciding\n+whether to grant temporary injunctive relief.\n+C. Settlement Agreements. The Court shall not retain jurisdiction to enforce\n+confidential settlement agreements. If the parties want the Court to retain\n+jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, the parties shall place the terms of their\n+settlement agreement on the public record. The parties may either provide a copy\n+of the agreement for the Court to endorse or include the terms of their agreement\n+in their stipulation of settlement and dismissal.\n+D. Bankruptcy Appeals. Briefs shall be submitted in accordance with Federal\n+Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8015 through 8018 unless otherwise ordered by\n+the Court. Counsel may extend the default deadlines by stipulation submitted to\n+the Court no later than two business days before the brief is due.\n+V. Trial Procedures\n+A. Pretrial Disclosure. The parties are reminded of their obligation to make certain\n+disclosures regarding expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 26(a)(2) and to make disclosure regarding evidence that may be\n+presented at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). Failure to\n+comply with these requirements may result in preclusion or other sanctions.\n+B. Joint Pretrial Order. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, within thirty days\n+after the date for the completion of discovery, or within thirty days after the\n+Court’s decision on a dispositive motion, if any, the parties shall file with the\n+Court, in both PDF format and as a Microsoft Word document, a proposed joint\n+pretrial order, which shall include the following:\n+i. The full caption of the action.\n+ii. The names; law firms; addresses; and work, cellular, and fax numbers of\n+trial counsel.\n+iii. A statement as to whether or not all parties have consented to trial by a\n+magistrate judge, without identifying which parties do or do not consent.\n+10\n+iv. A brief statement by plaintiff as to the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction\n+and a brief statement by each other party as to the presence or absence of\n+subject-matter jurisdiction. Such statements shall include citations to all\n+statutes relied on and relevant facts as to citizenship and jurisdictional\n+amount.\n+v. A brief summary by each party of the claims and defenses that the party\n+asserts remain to be tried, including citations to any statutes on which the\n+party relies. Such summaries shall also identify all claims and defenses\n+previously asserted which are not to be tried. The summaries shall not\n+recite any evidentiary matters.\n+vi. A statement as to the number of trial days needed and whether the case is\n+to be tried with or without a jury.\n+vii. Any stipulations or agreed statements of fact or law to which all parties\n+consent.\n+viii. A list of all trial witnesses, indicating whether such witnesses will testify\n+in person or by affidavit and a brief summary of the substance of each\n+witness’ testimony.\n+ix. A designation by each party of deposition testimony to be offered in its\n+case-in-chief and any counter-designations and objections by any other\n+party.\n+x. A list by each party of exhibits to be offered in its case-in-chief. Each\n+exhibit shall be pre-marked (plaintiff to use numbers, defendant to use\n+letters). For any exhibit as to which there is an objection, the objecting\n+party shall briefly specify, next to the listing of that exhibit, the nature of\n+the party’s objection. Where a party objects to an exhibit on any ground\n+other than authenticity, the objection shall cite the Federal Rule of\n+Evidence that is the basis for the objection. Any objection not listed shall\n+be deemed waived.\n+xi. A statement of the damages claimed and any other relief sought, including\n+the manner and method used to calculate any claimed damages and a\n+breakdown of the elements of such claimed damages.\n+xii. A statement of whether the parties consent to a less-than-unanimous\n+verdict.\n+C. Required Pretrial Filings. Each party shall file and serve with the proposed\n+joint pretrial order:\n+11\n+i. In all cases, motions addressing any evidentiary issues or other matters\n+which shall be resolved in limine.\n+ii. In all cases, a pretrial memorandum of law, if a party believes it would be\n+useful to the Court.\n+iii. In jury cases, requests to charge (including citation to authority) and\n+proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with the requirements of Rule\n+V(D) below.\n+iv. In non-jury cases, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in\n+accordance with the requirements of Rule V(E)(i) below.\n+v. In all cases, one copy of each documentary exhibit sought to be admitted,\n+pre-marked and assembled sequentially in a loose leaf binder or in\n+separate manila folders labeled with the exhibit numbers and placed in a\n+suitable container for ready reference.\n+v. In all cases, all deposition or hearing transcripts which will be offered as\n+substantive evidence, as well as a one-page synopsis of those excerpts for\n+each deposition. Each synopsis shall include page citations to the\n+pertinent pages of the deposition transcripts. The parties shall submit the\n+entire transcript of a witness’ testimony in one-page-per-sheet format with\n+an index.\n+D. Requests to Charge and Proposed Voir Dires. In all jury cases, joint requests to\n+charge, joint proposed verdict forms, and joint proposed voir dire questions shall\n+be submitted as attachments to the proposed joint pretrial order. At the time of\n+filing, parties shall also submit copies of these documents to the Court by email,\n+as Microsoft Word documents. For any request to charge or proposed voir dire\n+question on which the parties cannot agree, each party shall clearly set forth its\n+proposed charge or question and briefly state why the Court should use its\n+proposed charge or question, with citations to supporting authority.\n+E. Additional Submissions in Non-Jury Cases. At the time the proposed joint\n+pretrial order is filed, each party shall:\n+i. File on ECF their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The\n+proposed findings of fact shall be detailed and shall include citations to the\n+proffered trial testimony and exhibits, as there may be no opportunity for\n+post-trial submissions. At the time of filing, parties shall also submit\n+copies of these documents to the Court by email, both in PDF format and\n+as a Microsoft Word document.\n+ii. Mail or hand-deliver to the Court and serve on opposing counsel, but not\n+file on ECF, the following:\n+12\n+a. Copies of affidavits constituting the direct testimony of each trial\n+witness, except for the direct testimony of an adverse party, a\n+person whose attendance is compelled by a subpoena, or a person\n+from whom the Court has otherwise agreed to hear direct\n+testimony live at the trial.\n+b. Three business days after submission of such affidavits, counsel\n+for each party shall submit a list of all affiants whom he or she\n+intends to cross-examine at the trial. Only those witnesses who\n+will testify in live direct examination or who will be cross-\n+examined need to appear at trial.\n+c. The original signed affidavits shall be brought to trial to be marked\n+as exhibits.\n+F. Filings in Opposition. Any party may file the following documents within one\n+week after the filing of the proposed joint pretrial order, but in no event fewer\n+than three days before the scheduled trial date:\n+i. Objections to another party’s requests to charge or proposed voir dire\n+questions;\n+ii. Opposition to any motion in limine; and\n+iii. Opposition to any legal argument in a pretrial memorandum.\n+G. Trial Schedule. Court shall be in session Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m.\n+to 5:00 p.m. with a break from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.\n+VI. Policy on the Use of Electronic Devices\n+A. Mobile Phones and Personal Electronic Devices. Attorneys’ use of mobile\n+phones and other personal electronic devices within the Courthouse and its\n+environs is governed by Standing Order M10-468. Any attorney wishing to bring\n+a telephone or other personal electronic device into the Courthouse shall be a\n+member of this Court’s Bar, shall obtain the necessary service pass from the\n+District Executive’s Office, and shall show the service pass upon entering the\n+Courthouse. Mobile phones are permitted inside the Courtroom, but they shall be\n+kept off at all times. Non-compliance with this rule shall result in forfeiture of the\n+device for the remainder of the proceedings.\n+B. Computers, Printers, or Other Electronic Equipment. In order for an attorney\n+to bring into the Courthouse any computer, printer, or other electronic equipment\n+not qualifying as a “personal electronic device,” specific authorization is required\n+by prior court order. Any party seeking to bring such equipment into the\n+Courthouse shall email a letter to the Court at least ten business days in advance\n+of the relevant trial or hearing requesting permission to use such equipment. The\n+13\n+letter shall identify the type(s) of equipment to be used and the name(s) of the\n+attorney(s) who will be using the equipment. Chambers will coordinate with the\n+District Executive’s Office to issue the order and forward a copy to counsel. The\n+order shall be shown upon bringing the equipment into the Courthouse.\n+VII. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule\n+11, all parties and counsel are reminded of their obligation to provide the Court with\n+accurate and complete representations in any pleading, written motion, or other paper\n+submitted to the Court. If a submission is prepared using generative artificial intelligence\n+(for example, ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard), the submitting party and\n+counsel must confirm for themselves that the submission, and all source material within,\n+is accurate and in compliance with the obligations of Rule 11. At all times, the\n+submitting party and their counsel bear responsibility to ensure the accuracy of any\n+submission made to the Court. Failure to uphold this responsibility may result in\n+sanctions or other corrective or disciplinary action.\n+14\n+ATTACHMENT A\n+DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE\n+Before moving for default judgment, a party must first acquire a Certificate of Default from the\n+Clerk of Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), Local Civil Rule 55.1, and\n+Rule 16.1 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions. Once the certificate has been filed\n+on the CM/ECF system, the party should take the following steps to seek default judgment:\n+1. In accordance with Rule 16.3 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, file the\n+following documents:\n+a. A proposed order to show cause for default judgment;\n+i. Leave blank the date and time of the conference. Judge Torres will set the\n+date and time when she signs the order.\n+b. An affidavit or declaration signed by a party with personal knowledge (i.e., not\n+the attorney in the action except in limited circumstances), which sets forth a\n+statement of proposed damages and the basis for each element of damages,\n+including a step-by-step explanation of each calculation; and\n+c. An affidavit or declaration in support of the order.\n+i. The affidavit or declaration shall set forth:\n+1. The basis for entering a default judgment, including a description\n+of the method and date of service of the summons and complaint;\n+2. The procedural history beyond service of the summons and\n+complaint, if any;\n+3. The legal basis, including citations to appropriate authorities, for a\n+finding of liability based on the allegations in the complaint;\n+4. Whether, if the default is applicable to fewer than all of the\n+defendants, the Court may appropriately order a default judgment\n+on the issue of damages prior to resolution of the entire action;\n+5. The proposed damages and the basis for each element of damages,\n+including interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs; and\n+6. Legal authority for why an inquest into damages would be\n+unnecessary, if applicable.\n+ii. The affidavit or declaration shall include as attachments:\n+1. A proposed default judgment;\n+2. A Certificate of Default from the Clerk of Court;\n+3. Copies of all of the pleadings; and\n+15\n+4. A copy of the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint.\n+2. The Orders and Judgments Clerk will review the papers after they are filed on the\n+CM/ECF System and indicate whether there are any deficiencies. After the Orders and\n+Judgments Clerk approves the papers, Judge Torres will review them.\n+3. After Judge Torres sets the date and time of the conference and signs the order, the order\n+will be docketed on the CM/ECF system. Within five business days, serve a conforming\n+copy of the signed order and supporting papers on the defendant.\n+4. Within two business days of serving the order, file through the CM/ECF system: (1) the\n+supporting papers and (2) an affidavit of service, reflecting that the defendant was served\n+with a conforming copy of the order and supporting papers.","id":"ee14dff01501a499ed4851cccb15bae72064d7571a29ca48ad91f1bd8dccc6ce","newHash":"8b6f63d0a1e414cb0b90adf000fc3642e456c681ab476c146f44f9562b46e5a9","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AT%20Torres%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202025.11.5%20%28ADOPTED%29.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/8b6f63d0a1e414cb0b90adf000fc3642e456c681ab476c146f44f9562b46e5a9.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AT%20Torres%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202025.11.5%20%28ADOPTED%29.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:06.749260+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,526 @@\n+1\n+REVISED: JANUARY 8, 2026\n+INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES\n+Dale E. Ho, United States District Judge\n+Chambers\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of New York\n+40 Foley Square\n+New York, NY 10007\n+HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov\n+Courtroom\n+Thurgood Marshall Courthouse\n+40 Foley Square, Courtroom 905\n+Courtroom Deputy\n+Nicole Morales\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Individual Rules apply to all civil matters\n+before Judge Ho except for civil pro se cases. The Individual Rules applicable to civil pro se\n+cases are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho.\n+1. Guidelines for All Submissions\n+a. Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”). In accordance with the S.D.N.Y. Electronic\n+Case Filing Rules and Instructions, except as otherwise expressly provided, all\n+documents filed with the Court must be filed electronically.\n+b. Text-Searchable Submissions. All written submissions and supporting materials\n+must be text-searchable to the extent practicable.\n+c. Submission of Large Electronic Files. The Court has a file transfer protocol for\n+the safe electronic transmission of large files. If a party needs to submit large\n+files by email (as opposed to ECF), the party should email the Court\n+(at HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov) requesting a link to be used for such\n+transfer. The email should include the name and docket number of the case as\n+well as the nature and size of the materials to be submitted electronically. The\n+Government may use USAfx.\n+d. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, parties should not\n+submit courtesy copies of any submissions.\n+e. Amended or Corrected Filings. Any amended or corrected filing shall be filed\n+with a redline showing all differences between the original and revised filing.\n+f. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Any party who uses generative artificial\n+intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any\n+portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate\n+declaration disclosing the use of artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has\n+2\n+reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated content is accurate\n+and complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations.\n+2. Communications with Chambers\n+a. Letters and Letter-Motions.\n+i. Unless otherwise provided below, communications with Chambers shall\n+be by letter filed on ECF. Letters seeking relief (consistent with S.D.N.Y.\n+Local Rules and the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules and\n+Instructions) should be filed as letter-m otions on ECF, not ordinary letters.\n+ii. Letters may not exceed three pages in length (exclusive of exhibits or\n+attachments) without prior permission from the Court.\n+iii. Copies of correspondence between counsel shall not be sent to the Court\n+or filed on ECF except as exhibits to an otherwise properly filed\n+document.\n+iv. Any request for relief shall be accompanied by a statement as to whether\n+the opposing party consents to the requested relief and, if not, the reasons\n+given by the adversary for refusing to consent.\n+b. Telephone Calls. Chambers is not accepting telephone calls at this time.\n+Technical questions pertaining to ECF filings should be directed to the ECF Help\n+Desk at helpdesk@nysd.uscourts.gov or (212) 805-0800.\n+c. Faxes. Faxes to Chambers are not permitted without express prior permission.\n+d. Hand Deliveries. Hand-delivered mail should be left with the Court Security\n+Officers at the Worth Street entrance (200 Worth Street, New York, NY 10007) of\n+the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States District Courthouse. If the hand-\n+delivered letter is urgent and requires the Court’s immediate attention, ask the\n+Court Security Officers to notify Chambers that an urgent package has arrived\n+that needs to be retrieved by Chambers staff immediately.\n+e. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time.\n+i. All requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be made in\n+writing and filed on ECF as letter-motions per Section 2(a) of these Rules,\n+not as ordinary letters.\n+ii. Absent an emergency, any request for extension or adjournment shall be\n+made as early as possible, and at least two business days before the\n+deadline or scheduled appearance. Extension requests will ordinarily be\n+denied if made after the expiration of the original deadline.\n+The letter-motion must state: (1) the original date and the new date\n+requested; (2) the number of previous requests for adjournment or\n+extension; (3) whether these previous requests were granted or denied; (4)\n+the reason for the extension or adjournment; (5) whether the adversary\n+3\n+consents and, if not, the reasons given by the adversary for refusal to\n+consent; and (6) the date of the parties’ next scheduled appearance before the\n+Court.\n+iii. If the requested adjournment or extension affects any other scheduled\n+dates, a proposed Revised Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling\n+Order must be attached, specifying all of the proposed changes (e.g., with\n+a redline showing the differences between the operative Scheduling\n+Order—see Section 3(c) below—and the proposed Revised Scheduling\n+Order).\n+iv. A request for an adjournment of a conference must also include three\n+alternative conference dates that are mutually agreeable to the parties.\n+v. A request to extend the deadline to complete all discovery is unlikely to be\n+granted. But any such request shall include a statement as to what\n+discovery requests have been propounded, who propounded each request,\n+and on what date; what responses were made, who made each response,\n+and on what date; and the volume of documents produced, who produced\n+the documents, and on what date. The letter shall further include a\n+statement as to any depositions that have been taken and on what date.\n+f. Related and Consolidated Cases.\n+i. After an action has been accepted as related to a prior filing, all future\n+court papers and correspondence must contain the docket number of the\n+new filing as well as the docket number of the case to which it is related\n+(e.g., 22-CV-1234 [rel. 21-CV-4321]).\n+ii. After two or more actions have been consolidated for all purposes under\n+a single docket number pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of\n+Civil Procedure, all future court papers and correspondence should be\n+filed only in the docket under which the cases have been consolidated.\n+3. Conferences\n+a. In-Person Conferences. In-person conferences will be held in Courtroom 905 of\n+the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY.\n+b. Remote Conferences.\n+i. Absent permission of the Court, no more than one attorney shall speak on\n+behalf of any party.\n+ii. To facilitate orderly teleconferences and the creation of an accurate\n+transcript where a teleconference is held on the record, counsel are\n+required to identify themselves every time they speak. Counsel should\n+spell any proper names for the court reporter and take special care not to\n+interrupt or speak over one another.\n+4\n+c. Initial Case Management Conference. In most cases, the Court will schedule a\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c) conference, by Order, to occur no more\n+than three months after the filing of the complaint or notice of removal.\n+Plaintiff’s counsel (or, in a matter removed from state court, defense counsel) is\n+directed to promptly notify all counsel of the Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference.\n+In most cases, the Notice will direct the parties, among other things, to submit on\n+ECF a joint letter and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling\n+Order attached as an exhibit to the joint letter no later than Thursday of the week\n+prior to the conference date. The parties shall use the Proposed Case\n+Management Plan and Scheduling Order form available at the Court’s website\n+(https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho).\n+d. Authority Consistent with Proceeding. All attorneys appearing before the\n+Court must have the authority to bind the party they represent consistent with the\n+proceedings (e.g., by agreeing to a discovery resolution or briefing schedule).\n+e. Participation of Attorneys. The Court invites the participation of less\n+experienced attorneys (i.e., those with six or fewer years of experience), including\n+attorneys from all backgrounds, where the attorney(s) played a substantial role in\n+drafting the underlying filing or preparing the relevant witness. Notwithstanding\n+Section 3(b)(i), the Court may permit more than one attorney to argue for one\n+party. The ultimate decision of who speaks on behalf of the client is for the\n+lawyer in charge of the case, not for the Court.\n+f. Pronouns and Honorifics. The parties and counsel are invited to advise the\n+Court of their honorifics and/or pronouns—such as Ms., Mx., or Mr.—so that the\n+Court may address them respectfully. People appearing before this Court may do\n+so in writing and/or when appearing for conferences, hearings, or trials, by\n+speaking to the Courtroom Deputy.\n+4. Motions\n+a. Pre-Motion Letters and Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion letters and\n+conferences are not required, except for: (i) discovery disputes under Section 4(k)\n+of these Rules; and (ii) summary judgment motions in non-jury cases under\n+Section 4(g) of these Rules.\n+b. Timeline for Filing of Motion Papers. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the\n+parties and ordered by the Court, the parties shall assume that the submission\n+deadlines outlined by Local Civil Rule 6.1 shall apply.\n+c. Memoranda of Law.\n+i. Motion papers must conform to Local Civil Rule 11.1 of the S.D.N.Y.\n+Local Rules.\n+5\n+ii. Memoranda of law in support of and in opposition to motions are limited\n+to 25 pages and reply memoranda are limited to 10 pages.\n+iii. All memoranda of law shall be in twelve-point font or larger and double-\n+spaced. All footnotes shall be in twelve-point font or larger and may be\n+single-spaced.\n+iv. Memoranda of 10 pages or more shall contain a table of contents and a\n+table of authorities, neither of which shall count against the page limit.\n+v. Sur-reply memoranda are not allowed (unless specifically permitted in\n+extraordinary situations for good cause).\n+vi. All appendices to memoranda of law must be indexed.\n+d. Unpublished Cases. The parties need not provide copies of unpublished cases if\n+the case is available on Westlaw or LexisNexis. For cases only available on\n+Westlaw or Lexis, the Westlaw citation should be used whenever possible.\n+e. Oral Arguments on Motions.\n+i. Rarely Held. The Court rarely holds oral argument. But a party may\n+request oral argument on a motion by indicating “ORAL ARGUMENT\n+REQUESTED” on the cover page of its memorandum of law. If a party\n+believes that the Court would benefit from oral argument for a particular\n+reason not obvious from the parties’ briefing, the party may file a letter\n+explaining the reason—not a letter-motion—on ECF. The Court will\n+determine whether argument will be heard and, if so, advise counsel of the\n+argument date.\n+ii. Participation by Less Experienced Attorneys Encouraged. If oral\n+argument would be handled in whole or in part by a less -experienced\n+attorney, a party may so advise the Court consistent with Section 3(e)\n+above.\n+f. Motions for Leave to Amend a Pleading. When moving to amend any\n+pleading, the moving party shall file as an attachment to the motion a redline\n+showing all differences between the operative pleading and the proposed amended\n+pleading.\n+g. Summary Judgment Procedures.\n+i. Discouraged in Non-Jury Cases. Summary judgment motions are\n+strongly discouraged in non-jury cases. Notwithstanding Section 4(a) of\n+these Rules, a party seeking to file a motion for summary judgment in a\n+non-jury case shall file a letter on ECF seeking leave to move for\n+summary judgment prior to filing any motion.\n+ii. Successive Motions Prohibited. Parties may not file more than one\n+motion for summary judgment absent prior Court approval.\n+6\n+iii. Rule 56.1 Statements. Any party moving for summary judgment shall\n+provide all other parties with an electronic copy, in Microsoft Word\n+format, of the moving party’s Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to\n+Local Rule 56.1 (“Rule 56.1 Statement”), limited to 20 pages. Opposing\n+parties must reproduce each entry in the moving party’s Rule 56.1\n+Statement and set out the opposing party’s response directly beneath it. If\n+the opposing party wishes to file their own, additional statements of\n+material fact, it shall begin numbering each entry where the moving party\n+left off. Such additional statements are limited to 20 pages. A Rule 56.1\n+Statement may contain only factual statements – any non-factual\n+statements (e.g., legal argument) will not be considered by the Court.\n+iv. Deposition Transcripts. Deposition transcripts that are supplied in\n+connection with a summary judgment motion, whether in whole or in part,\n+should be text-searchable and include an index.\n+h. Default Judgment. A party seeking a default judgment must proceed by filing a\n+motion for default judgment on ECF pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b). A party seeking a default judgment should\n+not proceed by order to show cause. The motion must be supported by the\n+following papers:\n+i. If failure to answer is the basis for the default, a Certificate from the Clerk\n+of Court stating that no answer has been filed;\n+ii. an attorney’s affidavit or declaration setting forth:\n+1. the basis for entering a default judgment, including a description of\n+the method and date of service of the summons and complaint;\n+2. the procedural history beyond service of the summons and\n+complaint, if any;\n+3. legal authority for why such service was proper;\n+4. whether, if the default is applicable to fewer than all of the\n+defendants, the Court may appropriately order a default judgment\n+on the issue of damages prior to resolution of the entire action;\n+5. the proposed damages and the basis for each element of damages,\n+including interest, attorney’s fees and costs; and\n+6. legal authority for why an inquest into damages would be\n+unnecessary;\n+iii. a proposed default judgment;\n+iv. copies of all the operative pleadings; and\n+v. a copy of the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint.\n+7\n+i. Applications for a Temporary Restraining Order. A party must confer with\n+their adversary before making an application for a temporary restraining order\n+unless the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) are met. As soon\n+as a party decides to seek a temporary restraining order, that party must file a letter\n+on ECF (under seal if proceeding ex parte) and state clearly whether: (1) it has\n+notified its adversary and whether the adversary consents to temporary injunctive\n+relief; or (2) the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+65(b)(1) are satisfied and no notice is necessary.\n+The moving party must email HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov giving\n+notice of the filing and the time frame requested for Court action. The moving\n+party should then file a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, supporting\n+documents, and a proposed order on ECF in accordance with ECF procedures.\n+Where the motion is made on notice to the other parties, the moving party should\n+simultaneously serve the documents on any party that will not receive electronic\n+service via ECF.\n+If a party’s adversary has been notified but does not consent to temporary\n+injunctive relief, the party seeking a restraining order must file the application at a\n+time mutually agreeable to it and the adversary, so that the Court may have the\n+benefit of advocacy from both sides in deciding whether to grant temporary\n+injunctive relief.\n+j. Proposed Orders and Stipulations. Proposed orders to show cause, temporary\n+restraining orders, stipulations, consent orders, and proposed judgments are to be\n+filed electronically on ECF, as explained in the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing\n+Rules and Instructions. Counsel should also email an electronic courtesy copy of\n+any proposed order to Chambers, in both Microsoft Word and PDF formats.\n+k. Discovery Disputes. Parties must follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following\n+modifications.\n+i. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first\n+confer in good faith with the opposing party—in person, by\n+videoconference, or by telephone—to resolve the dispute. Where a party\n+raises a discovery dispute with the opposing party, the opposing party must\n+make itself available to confer in good faith to resolve the dispute within\n+two business days of a request for a conference.\n+ii. If the meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute, the party\n+seeking discovery may file on ECF a letter-motion, no longer than three\n+pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and, if applicable, why the party\n+is entitled to relief and requesting a conference before the Court.\n+iii. Any letter-motion seeking relief must state: (1) the date and time of each\n+conference conducted pursuant to Section 4(k)(i) above; (2) the\n+8\n+adversary’s position as to each issue being raised; and (3) that the moving\n+party informed the adversary during the last conference that the moving\n+party believed the parties to be at an impasse and that the moving party\n+would be requesting a conference with the Court.\n+iv. Any opposition to a letter-motion seeking relief shall be filed as a letter,\n+not to exceed three pages, within three business days.\n+v. Counsel should seek relief in accordance with these procedures in a timely\n+fashion. If a party waits until near the close of discovery to raise an issue\n+that could have been raised earlier, the party is unlikely to be granted the\n+relief that it seeks or more time for discovery.\n+vi. Privilege Logs and Privilege Log Disputes. Privilege logs should be\n+sufficiently detailed to enable the receiving party to evaluate a claim of\n+privilege, including identification of attorneys involved in the relevant\n+documents or communications. Privilege logs must be promptly produced\n+and updated on a rolling basis as documents are produced. Each log and\n+update must include a certification from counsel that counsel has reviewed\n+the withheld or redacted documents, and that there is a good-faith basis to\n+assert privilege over those documents. Disputes related to privilege logs\n+are subject to the Rules governing discovery disputes specified in Section\n+4(k). On its own initiative, the Court may order in camera production to\n+the Court of unredacted documents from the producing party’s log where a\n+dispute is raised.\n+5. Pretrial Submissions and Procedures\n+a. Joint Pretrial Order. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, at least 30 days\n+prior to the scheduled final pretrial conference, the parties shall both file on ECF,\n+as a “Joint Pretrial Statement,” and submit by email to\n+HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov a proposed joint pretrial order, which\n+shall include the following:\n+i. the full caption of the action;\n+ii. the names, law firms, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses\n+of trial counsel if not already listed on the docket;\n+iii. a brief statement by plaintiff (or, in a removed case, by defendant) as to\n+the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and a brief statement by each other\n+party as to the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Such\n+statements shall include citations to all statutes relied on and relevant facts\n+as to citizenship and jurisdictional amount;\n+iv. a brief summary by each party of the claims and defenses that the party\n+asserts remain to be tried, including citations to any statutes on which the\n+party relies. Such summaries shall also identify all claims and defenses\n+previously asserted that are not to be tried. The summaries should not\n+recite any evidentiary matter;\n+9\n+v. a statement as to the number of trial days needed and whether the case is\n+to be tried with or without a jury;\n+vi. a joint statement summarizing the nature of the case, to be read to\n+potential jurors during jury selection;\n+vii. a list of people, places, and institutions that are likely to be mentioned\n+during the trial, to be read to potential jurors during jury selection;\n+viii. a statement as to whether all parties have consented to trial by a\n+Magistrate Judge, without identifying which parties do or do not consent;\n+ix. any stipulations or agreed statements of fact or law to which all parties\n+consent. In a jury case, the parties should memorialize any such\n+stipulations or agreed upon statements of fact or law in a standalone\n+document that can be marked and admitted at trial;\n+x. a list of all trial witnesses, indicating whether such witnesses will testify in\n+person or by deposition, whether such witnesses will require an interpreter\n+(and, if so, which party will pay the costs for the interpreter), and a brief\n+summary of the substance of each witness’s testimony. Absent leave of\n+Court, a witness listed by both sides shall testify only once (with the\n+defendant permitted to go beyond the scope of the direct on cross-\n+examination), and counsel should confer with respect to scheduling;\n+xi. a designation by each party of deposition testimony to be offered in its\n+case-in-chief and any counter-designations and objections by any other\n+party. The parties need not designate deposition testimony to be used for\n+impeachment purposes only;\n+xii. a list by each party of all exhibits to be offered in its case-in-chief, with a\n+single asterisk indicating exhibits to which no party objects on any ground.\n+If a party objects to an exhibit, the objection should be noted by indicating\n+the Federal Rule of Evidence that is the basis for the objection. If any\n+party believes that the Court should rule on such an objection in advance\n+of trial, that party should include a notation to that effect (e.g., “Advance\n+Ruling Requested”) as well.\n+xiii. a statement of the damages claimed, and any other relief sought, including\n+the manner and method used to calculate any claimed damages and a\n+breakdown of the elements of such claimed damages; and\n+xiv. a statement of whether the parties consent to less than a unanimous\n+verdict.\n+b. Required Pretrial Filings. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, each party\n+shall file and serve with the joint pretrial order:\n+i. in all cases, motions addressing any evidentiary issues or other matters\n+that should be resolved in limine. Absent leave of the Court, each party\n+must file a single memorandum of law, consistent with Section 4(c) above,\n+in support of all motions in limine filed by that party;\n+10\n+ii. in all jury cases, joint requests to charge, joint proposed verdict forms, and\n+joint proposed voir dire questions as specified by Section 5(d) below; and\n+iii. in all non-jury cases, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.\n+The proposed findings of fact should be detailed and should include\n+citations to the proffered trial testimony and exhibits, as there may be no\n+opportunity for post-trial submissions. At the time of filing, parties should\n+also submit copies of these documents to the Court by email, both in PDF\n+format and as a Microsoft Word document.\n+c. Electronic Copies of Exhibits and Exhibit Lists. Unless otherwise ordered by\n+the Court, the parties shall also submit with the joint pretrial order (but not file on\n+ECF):\n+i. an electronic copy of each exhibit sought to be admitted (with each\n+filename corresponding to the relevant exhibit number, e.g., “PX-1,” “DX-\n+1,” etc.). If submission of electronic copies would be an undue burden on\n+a party, the party may seek leave of Court (by letter-motion filed on ECF)\n+to submit prospective documentary exhibits in hard copy. Each hard copy\n+shall be pre-marked (i.e., with an exhibit sticker) and assembled\n+sequentially; and\n+ii. a Microsoft Excel document listing all exhibits sought to be admitted,\n+emailed to the court. The list shall contain four columns labeled as\n+follows: (1) “Exhibit Number”; (2) “Description” (of the exhibit); (3)\n+“Date Identified”; and (4) “Date Admitted.” The parties shall complete the\n+first two columns, but leave the third and fourth columns blank, to be\n+filled in by the Court during trial.\n+d. Requests to Charge and Proposed Voir Dire. Unless otherwise ordered by the\n+Court, in all jury trials, joint requests to charge, joint proposed verdict forms, and\n+joint proposed voir dire questions shall be submitted as attachments to the\n+proposed joint pretrial order, with any differing proposals displayed side-by-side\n+or sequentially and supported by authority or other justification. At the time of\n+filing, parties should also submit copies of these documents to the Court by email\n+as Microsoft Word documents. For any request to charge or proposed voir dire\n+question on which the parties cannot agree, each party should clearly set forth its\n+proposed charge or question, and briefly state why the Court should use its\n+proposed charge or question, with citations to supporting authority.\n+e. Additional Submissions in Non-Jury Cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the\n+Court, at the time the joint pretrial order is filed, each party in a non-jury trial\n+shall submit to the Court by email and serve on opposing counsel, but not file on\n+ECF, the following:\n+i. copies of affidavits constituting the direct testimony of each trial witness,\n+except for the direct testimony of an adverse party, a person whose\n+attendance is compelled by subpoena, or a person for whom the Court has\n+agreed to hear direct testimony live at the trial. The affidavit should be\n+treated as a direct substitute for the witness’s live testimony; that is,\n+counsel should be attentive to the Rules of Evidence (e.g., hearsay and the\n+11\n+like) and authenticate any exhibits that will be offered through that\n+witness’s testimony. Three business days after submission of such\n+affidavits, counsel for each party shall submit: (1) a list of any objections\n+to particular paragraphs of an affidavit; and (2) a list of all affiants whom\n+they intend to cross-examine at the trial. Only those witnesses who will be\n+cross-examined need to appear at trial. The original signed affidavits\n+should be brought to trial to be marked as exhibits;\n+ii. all deposition excerpts that will be offered as substantive evidence, as well\n+as a one-page synopsis of those excerpts for each deposition. Each\n+synopsis shall include page citations to the pertinent pages of the\n+deposition transcripts; and\n+iii. proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed findings\n+of fact must be detailed and include citations to the proffered trial\n+testimony and exhibits. The version of these documents submitted to the\n+Court must be in Word format.\n+f. Filings in Opposition. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any party may file\n+the following documents within one week after the filing of the pretrial order:\n+i. opposition to any motion in limine; and\n+ii. opposition to any legal argument in a pretrial memorandum.\n+6. Redactions and Filing Under Seal\n+a. Privacy Policy. The parties are referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2\n+and the S.D.N.Y. ECF Privacy Policy (“Privacy Policy”).\n+b. Redactions Not Requiring Court Approval. There are two categories of\n+information that may be redacted from public court filings without prior\n+permission from the Court: “sensitive information” and information requiring\n+“caution.”\n+Parties should not include in their public filings, unless necessary, the five\n+categories of “sensitive information,” i.e.,\n+• social security numbers (use the last four digits only),\n+• names of minor children (use the initials only),\n+• dates of birth (use the year only),\n+• financial account numbers (use the last four digits only), and\n+• home addresses (use only the City and State).\n+Parties may also, without prior Court approval, redact from their public filings the\n+six categories of information requiring “caution” described in the Privacy Policy,\n+i.e.,\n+12\n+• any personal identifying number,\n+• medical records (including any information regarding medical treatment,\n+including for substance abuse, and diagnosis),\n+• employment history,\n+• individual financial information,\n+• proprietary or trade secret information, and\n+• information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government.\n+c. Redactions and Sealed Filings Requiring Court Approval. Except for\n+redactions permitted by the eleven categories of information identified in the\n+Privacy Policy, all redactions or sealing of public court filings require Court\n+approval. To be approved, any redaction or sealing of a court filing must be\n+narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or sealing and\n+must otherwise be consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to\n+judicial documents. In general, the parties’ consent or the fact that information is\n+subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants is not, by itself, a valid\n+basis to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial\n+documents.\n+d. Procedures for Filing Sealed or Redacted Documents. Any party seeking\n+leave to file a document under seal or in redacted form shall proceed as follows:\n+i. Meet and Confer. The party should meet and confer with any opposing\n+party (or any third party seeking confidential treatment of the information)\n+in advance to narrow the scope of the request. When a party seeks leave\n+to file a document under seal or in redacted form on the ground that an\n+opposing party or third party has requested it, the filing party shall notify\n+the opposing party or third party that it must file, within three business\n+days, a letter explaining the need to seal or redact the document.\n+ii. Sealed Document(s). The party shall file a letter-motion seeking leave to\n+file a document wholly under seal on ECF in accordance with Standing\n+Order 19-MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing\n+Rules and Instructions. The letter-mo tion itself shall be filed in public\n+view, should explain the reasons for seeking to file the document under\n+seal, and should not include confidential information. The proposed\n+sealed document shall be contemporaneously filed under seal on ECF\n+(with the appropriate level of restriction) and electronically related to the\n+motion (or to the relevant Court order if the Court previously granted\n+leave to file the document under seal). Note that the summary docket text,\n+but not the document itself, will be open to public inspection and should\n+not include confidential information sought to be filed under seal.\n+iii. Redacted Document(s). Where a party seeks leave to file a document in\n+redacted form, the party shall file a letter-motion seeking leave to file a\n+13\n+document in redacted form on ECF in accordance with Standing Order 19-\n+MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules and\n+Instructions. The letter-motion itself shall be filed in public view, should\n+explain the reasons for seeking to file the document in redacted form, and\n+should not include confidential information. At the same time, the party\n+shall: (1) publicly file on ECF and electronically relate to the letter-motion\n+a copy of the document with the proposed redactions; and (2) file under\n+seal on ECF (with the appropriate level of restriction) and electronically\n+relate to the motion an unredacted copy of the document with the proposed\n+redactions highlighted.\n+iv. Submission by Email. Any party unable to comply with the requirement\n+for electronic filing under seal on ECF, or who believes that a particular\n+document should not be electronically filed at all, shall file a letter-motion\n+by email, seeking leave of the Court to file in a different manner. Such\n+letter-motions may be emailed to HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov\n+as text-searchable PDF attachments, with copies simultaneously delivered\n+to all counsel. In the subject line, the cover email should state clearly: (1)\n+the caption of the case, including the lead party names and docket number;\n+and (2) a brief description of the nature of the request. Parties shall not\n+include substantive communications in the body of the email.\n+7. Settlement Agreements. As soon as the parties reach an agreement to settle in principle,\n+the parties must email HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov to alert the Court and file\n+a joint letter promptly. The Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce confidential\n+settlement agreements. If the parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce\n+an agreement, the parties must place the terms of their settlement agreement on the public\n+record. The parties may request that the Court endorse the settlement agreement or\n+include the terms of their settlement agreement in their stipulation of settlement and\n+dismissal.\n+8. Policy on Use of Electronic Devices\n+a. Personal Electronic Devices. Attorneys’ use of personal electronic devices\n+(including mobile phones) and general purpose computing devices (such as\n+laptops and tablets) within the Courthouse and its environs is governed by\n+Standing Order M10-468. When Court permission is required under the Standing\n+Order, attorneys seeking to bring electronic devices to the Court should email a\n+completed Model Court Order to HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov no later\n+than five business days before the relevant trial or hearing. Upon the Court’s\n+approval, Chambers will coordinate with the District Executive’s Office to issue\n+the order and forward a copy to counsel. The order must be presented upon\n+bringing the electronic device(s) into the Courthouse. If permitted by the\n+14\n+Standing Order, mobile telephones are permitted inside the Courtroom, but they\n+MUST be kept turned off at all times.\n+b. Wi-Fi Access for Hearings and Trials. Attorneys may obtain authorization to\n+use the Court’s Wi-Fi system in Judge Ho’s Courtroom during a hearing or trial.\n+For further information, see Judge Ho’s Individual Practices for Hearings and\n+Trials, available on the Court’s website (https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho).","id":"9459d601e985bb8e337a2d86028025b306ffb9d9565cb6a3c00f7a783bd9407f","newHash":"146f6e46236228a0d7184df4560374d178f7a98fae5f4e94ce644dca8572acc7","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202026.01.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/146f6e46236228a0d7184df4560374d178f7a98fae5f4e94ce644dca8572acc7.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%20-%202026.01.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:06.809889+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@\n+1\n+JANUARY 8, 2026\n+INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CIVIL PRO SE CASES\n+Dale E. Ho, United States District Judge\n+Pro Se Office\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of New York\n+Thurgood Marshall Courthouse\n+40 Foley Square / 40 Centre Street\n+Room 105\n+New York, NY 10007\n+(212) 805-0175\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Individual Practices apply to all civil cases\n+involving pro se litigants (that is, litigants without counsel) before Judge Ho.\n+1. Resources for Pro Se Parties\n+a. Court Website. Pro se parties are directed to the Court’s website\n+(https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose/role-of-the-prose-intake-unit/contact) for\n+other important information concerning proceeding pro se in this Court.\n+b. Pro Se Law Clinic. There is a Pro Se Law Clinic in this District to assist non-\n+incarcerated people who are parties in civil cases and do not have lawyers. The\n+Clinic may be able to provide a non-incarcerated pro se litigant with advice in\n+connection with his or her case. The Pro Se Law Clinic is run by a private\n+organization called the City Bar Justice Center; it is not part of, or run by, the\n+Court (and, among other things, therefore cannot accept filings on behalf of the\n+Court, which must still be made by any unrepresented party through the Pro Se\n+Office).\n+An unrepresented party in need of legal assistance should complete the City Bar\n+Justice Center’s intake form (https://www.citybarjusticecenter.org/projects/federal-\n+pro-se-legal-assistance-project) to make an appointment. If an unrepresented party\n+has questions about the intake form or needs to highlight an urgent deadline\n+already disclosed in the form, the clinic can be contacted by phone (212-382-4794)\n+or email (fedprosdny@nycbar.org). In-person appointments in the Thurgood\n+Marshall Courthouse in Manhattan and the Charles L. Brieant Jr. Federal Building\n+and Courthouse in White Plains are available Monday through Thursday, 10 a.m.\n+to 4 p.m. Appointments are also available remotely Monday through Friday, 10\n+a.m. to 4 p.m.\n+2\n+2. Communications with Chambers\n+a. No Communications to Chambers. All communications with the Court by a pro\n+se party should be in writing and filed on ECF or sent to the Pro Se Office by\n+email as a PDF, delivered in person, or physically mailed as described in Section\n+3(b) below. No documents or court filings may be sent directly to Chambers.\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, all communications with the Court will be\n+docketed upon receipt; such docketing shall constitute service on any user of the\n+ECF system. If any other party is not a user of the ECF system (e.g., if there is\n+another pro se party in the case), a pro se party must send copies of any filing to\n+that party and include an Affidavit of Service or other statement affirming that it\n+has done so. Copies of correspondence between a pro se party and opposing\n+parties shall not be sent to the Court. Any questions should be directed to the Pro\n+Se Office at (212) 805-0175.\n+b. Contact Information. Pro se parties are required to maintain their current\n+mailing address on the docket at all times and must notify the Court of any change\n+of address by filing a change of address form with the Pro Se Office.\n+c. Communications by Parties Represented by Counsel. Except as otherwise\n+provided below, communications with the Court by a represented party shall be\n+governed by Judge Ho’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available at\n+https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho.\n+d. Requests for Rescheduling a Conference or Extensions of Time. All requests\n+to reschedule a conference or extend a deadline must be made in writing and must\n+state: (1) the original date(s) of the conference or deadline; (2) the reasons for the\n+requested extension; (3) whether the other party or parties consent and, if not, the\n+reasons given for refusing to consent; and (4) the date of the next scheduled\n+appearance before the Court as well as any other existing deadlines. Requests for\n+extensions of deadlines regarding a matter that has been referred to a Magistrate\n+Judge shall be addressed to that assigned Magistrate Judge.\n+Absent an emergency, any request for an extension or to reschedule a conference\n+must be made at least two business days prior to the deadline or scheduled\n+appearance.\n+3. Filing of Papers and Service\n+a. Consent to Receive Electronic Service. To ensure timely service of documents,\n+including Court Orders, non-incarcerated pro se parties are encouraged to consent\n+to receive electronic service through the ECF System. To do so, a pro se party\n+should review the instructions available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/\n+default/files/2021-03/Consent_Pro-Se_Eservice-Instructions.pdf, and then submit\n+a Consent to Electronic Service (available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/\n+default/files/2021-03/Consent_Pro-Se_Eservice-form.pdf).\n+3\n+b. Papers Filed by a Pro Se Party. A pro se party may file papers with the Court\n+by:\n+i. delivering them in person to the Pro Se Office, Thurgood Marshall\n+Courthouse, 40 Centre Street (40 Foley Square), Room 105, New York,\n+NY 10007;\n+ii. mailing them to Pro Se Office at: United States District Court, Southern\n+District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, ATTN: Pro\n+Se Intake;\n+iii. emailing them as an attachment in PDF format to Pro_Se_\n+Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov, in which case the pro se party should follow\n+the instructions contained in Appendix C of the Court’s ECF Rules &\n+Instructions, available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-\n+filing; or\n+iv. filing them on the ECF System if the pro se party has filed a motion to\n+participate in ECF (available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files\n+/2019-04/2012-prosemotionecffiling-final.pdf and in the Pro Se Office)\n+and been granted such permission by the Court.\n+c. Service on a Pro Se Party. Absent a pro se party consenting to receipt of\n+electronic service, counsel in pro se cases must serve a pro se party with a paper\n+copy of any document that is filed electronically and must file with the Court a\n+separate Affidavit of Service. Submissions filed without proof of service that the\n+pro se party was served will not be considered.\n+4. Discovery\n+a. Discovery Requests Should Not be Sent to the Court. All requests for\n+discovery by a pro se party should be sent to counsel for the party from whom\n+discovery is sought.\n+b. Discovery Disputes. If there are any discovery disputes, the parties are required\n+to confer with one another to try to resolve the dispute without the need for Court\n+intervention. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, either party may file\n+a letter-motion, no longer than three pages and in accordance with Section 2\n+above, explaining the nature of the dispute and requesting an informal conference.\n+If the opposing party wishes to respond to the letter, it must promptly file a\n+responsive letter, not to exceed three pages.\n+4\n+5. Motions\n+a. Filing and Service. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, papers filed in\n+opposition to a motion must be served and filed within 30 days of service of the\n+motion papers, and reply papers, if any, must be served and filed within two\n+weeks of receipt of opposition papers.\n+b. Pro Se Notices. Parties who file a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on\n+the pleadings, or a motion for summary judgment must provide the pro se party\n+with a copy of the notices required under Local Civil Rules 12.1 or 56.2.\n+c. Special Rule for Summary Judgment Motions. With respect to any deposition\n+that is supplied in connection with a summary judgment motion, the index to the\n+deposition should be included if it is available.\n+d. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, parties should not\n+submit courtesy hard copies of any submissions in pro se cases.\n+6. Conferences\n+a. Notice and Scheduling. Notices scheduling a court conference will be docketed\n+on ECF and mailed to the pro se party or parties. Conferences may be held\n+remotely or in person. In-person conferences will be held in Courtroom 905 of\n+the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street / 40 Foley\n+Square, New York NY. Absent a motion to dismiss, the Court will generally\n+schedule an initial case-management conference within four months of the filing\n+of the complaint. The Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference will be docketed on\n+ECF and mailed to the pro se party or parties.\n+b. Incarcerated Parties. An incarcerated party may not be able to attend scheduled\n+in-person conferences but may be able to participate by telephone. If an\n+incarcerated party is unable to participate by telephone, a family member or a\n+representative may attend or otherwise participate in the conference. In such\n+instances, the incarcerated party may write to the Court in advance of the\n+conference regarding any issue the pro se party wishes to have addressed at the\n+conference. If a representative is designated, he or she should contact Chambers\n+at (212) 805-0190 to determine the location of the conference. The Court will\n+also have a transcript of the conference sent to the incarcerated party. If an\n+incarcerated party does not have counsel and a representative cannot attend a\n+conference, the pro se party should write to the Judge regarding any issue the pro\n+se party wishes to have addressed at the conference.\n+5\n+7. Trial Documents\n+a. Pretrial Statement. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, within 30 days of\n+the completion of all discovery or, if a summary judgment motion is filed, within\n+30 days of the Court’s ruling on summary judgment, the plaintiff in a pro se case\n+shall file a concise, written Pretrial Statement. This Statement must contain the\n+following:\n+i. a statement of the facts the plaintiff hopes to prove at trial;\n+ii. a list of all documents or other physical objects that the plaintiff plans to\n+put into evidence at trial; and\n+iii. a list of the names and addresses of all witnesses the plaintiff intends to\n+have testify at trial.\n+The Statement must be sworn by the plaintiff to be true and accurate based on the\n+facts known by the plaintiff. If pro se, the plaintiff shall file an original of this\n+Statement with the Pro Se Office. Two weeks after service of the plaintiff’s\n+Statement, the defendant must file and serve a similar Statement of its case\n+containing the same information.\n+b. Other Pretrial Filings.\n+i. If the case is to be tried before only a judge without a jury, any parties\n+represented by counsel must also file proposed findings of fact and\n+conclusions of law at the time of filing the Pretrial Statement.\n+ii. If the case is to be tried before a jury, any parties represented by counsel must\n+also file proposed voir dire questions, a proposed jury charge, and a proposed\n+verdict form at the time of filing the Pretrial Statement.\n+8. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Any party who uses generative artificial\n+intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to generate any\n+portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the filing a separate\n+declaration disclosing the use of artificial intelligence and certifying that the filer has\n+reviewed the source material and verified that the artificially generated content is accurate.","id":"8d443fbfc76b092bc72ab441e4186b17905f34709dcfcafc6086a1833d0513e8","newHash":"9c4d9d5912f88081321e6ad21e1231bc59b19d26abcebb7b5e9ce63588208431","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Pro%20Se%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/9c4d9d5912f88081321e6ad21e1231bc59b19d26abcebb7b5e9ce63588208431.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Pro%20Se%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:07.430210+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@\n+1\n+REVISED JANUARY 8, 2026\n+INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES\n+Dale E. Ho, United States District Judge\n+Chambers\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of New York\n+40 Foley Square\n+New York, NY 10007\n+(212) 805-0190\n+HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov\n+Courtroom\n+Thurgood Marshall Courthouse\n+40 Foley Square, Courtroom 905\n+Courtroom Deputy\n+Nicole Morales\n+(212) 805-6110\n+1. Guidelines for All Submissions\n+a. Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”). In accordance with the S.D.N.Y . Electronic\n+Case Filing Rules and Instructions, except for as otherwise expressly provided, all\n+documents filed with the Court must be filed electronically.\n+b. Text Searchable Submissions. All written submissions and supporting materials\n+must be text-searchable to the extent practicable.\n+c. Submission of Large Electronic Files. The Court has a file transfer protocol for\n+the safe electronic transmission of large files. If a party needs to submit large\n+files by email (as opposed to ECF), the party should email the Court (at\n+HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov) requesting a link to be used for such\n+transfer. The email should include the name and docket number of the case as\n+well as the nature and size of the materials to be submitted electronically. The\n+Government may use USAfx.\n+d. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, parties should not\n+submit courtesy copies of any submissions, including sentencing submissions.\n+e. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Any party who uses generative\n+artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Google Bard) to\n+generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing must attach to the\n+filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of artificial intelligence and\n+certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified that the\n+artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11\n+obligations.\n+2\n+2. Communications with Chambers\n+a. Initial Pretrial Conference.\n+i. Scheduling. Upon assignment of a criminal case to Judge Ho, the\n+Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) shall immediately contact\n+Chambers (at HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov) to arrange for a\n+conference/arraignment. The AUSA shall provide a courtesy copy of the\n+Indictment and the criminal Complaint, if one exists, to the Court as soon\n+as practicable via email. The email shall include: (1) the defendant’s\n+name; (2) defense counsel’s name and contact information; (3) whether\n+the defendant(s) is/are detained (and if so, the relevant defendant’s Reg.\n+No.) or bailed; (4) whether any defendant requires an interpreter (and if so,\n+the relevant language); (5) the criminal wheel from which it was drawn\n+and (6) any other pertinent information.\n+ii. Brady Materials. At the initial pretrial conference and all conferences\n+thereafter, the Government shall be prepared to address its ongoing duty to\n+comply with its obligations to timely disclose exculpatory evidence under\n+Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, including as set\n+forth in the standing order pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n+5(f). Defense counsel may facilitate the Government’s compliance with\n+its Brady obligations by making specific requests that the Government\n+seek out, review, and/or produce certain evidence or information that\n+defense counsel reasonably believes may contain, or is reasonably likely\n+to lead to the discovery of, Brady material.\n+b. Letters and Letter-Motions.\n+i. Except as otherwise provided below, communications with Chambers\n+shall be by letter filed on ECF. Letters seeking relief, including requests\n+for extensions, adjournments, or bail modification, should be filed on ECF\n+as letter-motions in accordance with Section 4 below, not ordinary letters.\n+ii. For any emails to Chambers permitted under these Rules, parties shall not\n+include substantive communications in the body of the email, only in an\n+attached letter. Copies of correspondence between counsel shall not be\n+sent to the Court or filed on ECF except as exhibits to an otherwise\n+properly filed document.\n+iii. Whether filed electronically or not, letters (together with any related\n+exhibits) may not exceed ten pages in length. Letters solely between\n+parties or their counsel or otherwise not addressed to the Court may not be\n+filed on ECF or otherwise sent to the Court (except as exhibits to an\n+otherwise properly filed document).\n+3\n+c. Telephone Calls. Any other communications with Chambers, including requests\n+for extensions or adjournments, shall be by letter or letter-motion filed on ECF in\n+accordance with Section 4. For questions that cannot be answered by reference to\n+these Rules or for urgent matters requiring immediate attention, call Nicole\n+Morales, Courtroom Deputy, at (212) 805-6110.\n+d. Faxes. Faxes to Chambers are not permitted without express prior permission.\n+e. Hand Deliveries. Hand-delivered mail should be left with the Court Security\n+Officers at the Worth Street entrance (200 Worth Street, New York, NY 10007) of\n+the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States District Courthouse. If the hand-\n+delivered letter is urgent and requires the Court’s immediate attention, ask the\n+Court Security Officers to notify Chambers that an urgent package has arrived\n+that needs to be retrieved by Chambers staff immediately.\n+f. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time.\n+i. All requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be made in\n+writing and filed on ECF as letter-motions in accordance with Section 4 of\n+these Rules, not as ordinary letters. (Requests filed under seal or\n+containing sensitive or confidential information shall be filed in\n+accordance with the requirements described in Section 9.)\n+ii. The letter-motion must state: (1) the original date and the new date\n+requested; (2) the number of previous requests for adjournment or\n+extension; (3) whether these previous requests were granted or denied; (4)\n+the reason for the extension or adjournment; (5) whether the adversary\n+consents and, if not, the reasons given by the adversary for refusal to\n+consent; and (6) the date of the parties’ next scheduled appearance before\n+the Court. If a party seeks an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial\n+Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, the party must submit to the Court by email\n+(HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov) a proposed order (in Microsoft\n+Word format) along with its request for adjournment or extension.\n+iii. Absent an emergency, any request for extension or adjournment shall be\n+made as early as possible, and at least two business days prior to the\n+deadline or scheduled appearance and any request for adjournment of\n+sentencing shall be made at least three business days prior to the\n+scheduled proceedings. Requests for extensions will ordinarily be denied\n+if made after the expiration of the original deadlines.\n+4\n+3. Defense Counsel\n+a. Benefactor Payments. Whenever defense counsel has received, or is receiving, a\n+benefactor payment that subjects counsel to a conflict of interest, said counsel\n+must inform the Court and request a Curcio hearing at the first conference.\n+b. Other Conflicts. Counsel have an obligation to promptly inform the Court upon\n+learning of any other conflict of interest, whether a potential or an actual conflict,\n+and to request a Curcio hearing if appropriate.\n+c. Substitution of Counsel. When there is a substitution of defense counsel,\n+counsel of record must file a letter-motion on ECF to request a conference be\n+scheduled as soon as possible. At the conference, the Court will address the\n+application by defense counsel to be relieved. Counsel of record (i.e., current\n+counsel), the defendant, proposed replacement counsel and the AUSA must also\n+attend the conference.\n+4. Motions\n+a. Letter-Motions. Letter-motions may be filed via ECF if they comply with the\n+S.D.N.Y . Local Rules and the S.D.N.Y . Electronic Case Filing Rules and\n+Instructions. In particular, in accordance with Section 2(b) above, all requests for\n+adjournments and extensions should be filed as letter-motions. All letter-motions\n+should be text searchable.\n+b. Memoranda of Law. Unless prior permission has been granted, memoranda of\n+law in support of and in opposition to motions are limited to twenty-five pages,\n+and reply memoranda are limited to ten pages. All memoranda of law shall be in\n+twelve-point font or larger, double spaced, and text-searchable. Memoranda of\n+ten pages or more shall contain a table of contents and a table of authorities,\n+neither of which shall count against the page limit. Sur-reply memoranda will not\n+be accepted without prior permission of the Court. All appendices to memoranda\n+of law must be indexed.\n+c. Discovery Motions. In making discovery motions, counsel must comply with\n+Southern District Local Criminal Rule 16.1. Any discovery motion must contain\n+the Rule 16.1 affidavit.\n+5. Bail Modification or Appeal\n+a. Modification. Any request for a bail modification by a defendant shall be filed\n+on ECF as a letter-motion and shall indicate whether the Government and\n+Pretrial Services Officer consent to the request.\n+b. Appeal. A party who wishes to appeal an adverse bail determination by the\n+5\n+Magistrate Judge should contact Chambers to arrange a conference for that\n+purpose.\n+i. The party that brings the appeal is directed to provide the Court no less\n+than two business days before the conference with the transcript of\n+argument on bail before the Magistrate Judge, any written submissions\n+below as to bail and Pretrial Services’ report as to the defendant, and a\n+written submission in support of the appeal, which shall also be filed on\n+ECF.\n+ii. The responding party shall file on ECF a written submission no less than\n+one business day before the conference.\n+6. Guilty Pleas\n+a. Plea Agreements and Pimentel Letters. The Government shall provide a copy\n+of the plea agreement, cooperation agreement, or Pimentel letter to the Court.\n+These documents should be emailed to Chambers as soon as practicable and no\n+later than three business days before the scheduled plea.\n+b. Preparation for Allocution. Prior to the date set for the plea, defense counsel\n+is expected to have reviewed with the defendant – if necessary, with the\n+assistance of an interpreter – any Pimentel letter or plea, cooperation or other\n+agreement. Defense counsel and the defendant shall execute any plea or\n+cooperation agreement prior to the time set for the plea. The defendant should\n+also be prepared in advance of a guilty plea to give a narrative allocution that\n+incorporates all of the elements of that offense(s) to which the defendant is\n+pleading guilty.\n+The Court further expects that defense counsel will have determined whether\n+detention of the defendant is required under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) upon the\n+entry of a guilty plea, subject to the limited exception provided in 18 U.S.C.\n+§ 3145(c) for cases in which it is clearly shown that there are exceptional\n+reasons why detention would not be appropriate, and to prepare the defendant\n+for the possibility of detention commencing at the end of the plea proceeding.\n+7. Trials\n+The parties should carefully review Judge Ho’s Individual Trial Rules and Procedures\n+(available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho).\n+6\n+8. Sentencing\n+a. Sentencing Adjournments. Any request for an adjournment of a sentencing\n+should be made as early as possible, and no later than three business days\n+before the sentencing proceeding, in accordance with Section 2(f) above.\n+b. Sentencing Submissions. Unless prior permission has been granted, sentencing\n+memoranda are limited to twenty-five pages. Unless otherwise ordered by the\n+Court, a defendant’s sentencing submission shall be served two weeks in advance\n+of the date set for sentencing. The Government’s sentencing submission shall be\n+served one week in advance of the date set for sentencing. If a party does not\n+intend to file a substantive sentencing submission, the party shall file and serve a\n+letter to that effect.\n+c. ECF Filing. Except for submissions to be filed under seal or in redacted form,\n+every document in a sentencing submission, including letters, must be filed on\n+ECF. Letters should be grouped and filed together as attachments to a single\n+document marked SENTENCING SUBMISSION with the caption and docket\n+number clearly indicated. The defendant is responsible for filing all letters\n+submitted on behalf of the defendant, including those from friends and relatives.\n+The Government is responsible for filing all letters from victims.\n+9. Redactions and Filing Under Seal\n+a. Privacy Policy. The parties are referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2\n+and the S.D.N.Y. ECF Privacy Policy (“Privacy Policy”). There are two\n+categories of information that may be redacted from public court filings without\n+prior permission from the Court: “sensitive information” and information\n+requiring “caution.”\n+i. Parties should not include in their public filings, unless necessary, the five\n+categories of “sensitive information,” i.e.,\n+• social security numbers (use the last four digits only);\n+• names of minor children (use the initials only);\n+• dates of birth (use the year only);\n+• financial account numbers (use the last four digits only); and\n+• home addresses (use only the City and State).\n+ii. Parties may also redact from their public filings, without prior Court\n+approval, the six categories of information requiring “caution” described\n+in the Privacy Policy, i.e.,\n+• any personal identifying number, such as a driver’s license number;\n+7\n+• medical records (including information regarding treatment and\n+diagnosis);\n+• employment history;\n+• individual financial information;\n+• proprietary or trade secret information; and\n+• information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the\n+government.\n+b. Redactions and Sealed Filings Requiring Court Approval. Except for\n+redactions permitted by the eleven categories of information identified in the\n+Privacy Policy, all redactions or sealing of public court filings require Court\n+approval. To be approved, any redaction or sealing of a court filing must be\n+narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or sealing and\n+must otherwise be consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to\n+judicial documents. In general, the parties’ consent or the fact that information is\n+subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants is not, by itself, a valid\n+basis to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial\n+documents.\n+c. Procedures for Filing Documents with Redactions. Any party seeking to file a\n+document with partial redactions should follow the following three steps:\n+i. ECF Filing of the Redacted Document(s). The party should file the\n+redacted version of the document on ECF.\n+ii. Filing a Letter-Motion Seeking Leave to File with Redactions. If the\n+party is seeking leave of the Court to redact the document (i.e., if the\n+redactions are not among the categories of redactions that can be made\n+without Court approval), the party should simultaneously file on ECF a\n+letter-motion seeking leave to file the document with those redactions.\n+The letter-motion must explain the purpose of the redactions, and why the\n+redactions are consistent with the standards set forth in Section 9(b) above.\n+iii. Emailing of Documents to Chambers. At the same time, the party\n+should email to HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov: (1) a clean (i.e.,\n+unredacted) copy of the document; (2) a copy of the document\n+highlighting the information that has been redacted in the ECF filing; and\n+(3) an unredacted copy of the letter-motion described in Section 9(c)(ii),\n+should the party also be seeking leave to file that letter-motion with\n+redactions or under seal.\n+8\n+e. Procedure for Filing Sealed Documents.\n+i. Sealing Exhibits. Any party seeking leave to file an unsealed or redacted\n+document with a fully sealed exhibit attached thereto should file the main\n+document (in accordance with the procedures above, if the party seeks to\n+do so with redactions) on ECF, accompanied by a single page marked\n+“SEALED” in place of any exhibit that the party seeks leave to file under\n+seal, regardless of the actual length of such exhibit. The party should\n+simultaneously file a letter-motion seeking leave to file in that manner.\n+ii. Sealing Entire Documents. Any party seeking leave to file under seal an\n+entire submission (with or without exhibits) should not file anything on\n+ECF in the first instance. Instead, the party should email an unredacted\n+copy of the submission to HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov and\n+should include as an attachment to the email a letter-motion seeking leave\n+to file the document under seal. The letter-motion must explain why\n+sealing is justified in light of the standards discussed in Section 9(b)\n+above. If the party believes that the letter-motion itself should be sealed or\n+redacted, the letter-motion should so state and should provide the\n+justification therefor. The Court will include instructions for filing sealed\n+or redacted versions of the document and accompanying letter-motion, if\n+necessary, in any order disposing of the motion to seal.\n+10. Policy on Use of Electronic Devices\n+a. Personal Electronic Devices. Attorneys’ use of personal electronic devices\n+(including mobile phones) and general purpose computing devices (such as\n+laptops and tablets) within the Courthouse and its environs is governed by\n+Standing Order M10-468. When Court permission is required under the Standing\n+Order, attorneys seeking to bring electronic devices to the Court should email a\n+completed Model Court Order to HoNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov no later\n+than five business days before the relevant trial or hearing. Upon the Court’s\n+approval, Chambers will coordinate with the District Executive’s Office to issue\n+the order and forward a copy to counsel. The order must be presented upon\n+bringing the electronic device(s) into the Courthouse. If permitted by the\n+Standing Order, mobile telephones are permitted inside the Courtroom, but they\n+MUST be kept turned off at all times.\n+b. Wi-Fi Access for Hearings and Trials. Attorneys may obtain authorization to\n+use the Court’s Wi-Fi system in Judge Ho’s Courtroom during a hearing or trial.\n+For further information, see Judge Ho’s Individual Practices for Hearings and\n+Trials, available on the Court’s website (https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho).","id":"5580041c950131b5b3f61796f8a70d98c9eca24d413efa625a397c8fe49e9be7","newHash":"7e50b9f0b4217a6555c26ab89a68d634b1d24ae2247586767426a568d9240f15","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Criminal%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/7e50b9f0b4217a6555c26ab89a68d634b1d24ae2247586767426a568d9240f15.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/DEH%20Ho%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Criminal%20Cases%20-%20January%202026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:07.674097+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,422 @@\n+1\n+JANUARY 2026\n+INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES\n+Jessica G. L. Clarke, United States District Judge\n+Chambers\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of New York\n+Charles L. Brieant Jr. Courthouse\n+300 Quarropas Street\n+White Plains, NY 10601\n+ClarkeNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov\n+Courtroom\n+300 Quarropas Street, Courtroom 320\n+Courtroom Deputy\n+Sophia Tran\n+(212) 805-0246\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Individual Rules apply to all civil matters\n+before Judge Clarke.\n+1. Guidelines for All Submissions\n+a. Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”). In accordance with the S.D.N.Y . Electronic\n+Case Filing Rules and Instructions, except as otherwise expressly provided, all\n+documents filed with the Court must be filed electronically.\n+b. Text-Searchable Submissions. All written submissions and supporting materials\n+must be text-searchable to the extent practicable.\n+c. Submission of Large Electronic Files. The Court has a file transfer protocol for\n+the safe electronic transmission of large files. If a party needs to submit large files\n+by email (as opposed to ECF), the party should email the Court (at\n+ClarkeNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov) requesting a link to be used for such\n+transfer. The email should include the name and docket number of the case as well\n+as the nature and size of the materials to be submitted electronically. The\n+Government may use USAfx.\n+d. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, parties should not\n+submit courtesy copies of any submissions.\n+e. Amended or Corrected Filings. Any amended or corrected filing, including\n+amendments as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+15(a)(1), shall be filed with a redline showing all differences between the original\n+and revised filing. Any motion to amend a pleading shall similarly be filed with a\n+redline showing all differences between the operative pleading and the proposed\n+amended pleading.\n+f. Artificial Intelligence. Any attorney using Generative Artificial Intelligence\n+(“GAI”) in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this Court\n+or the serving/delivering of a request, response, or objection to discovery must\n+2\n+comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,\n+and any other relevant rule, including all applicable ethical rules.\n+2. Communications with Chambers\n+a. Letters and Letter-Motions. Except as otherwise provided below,\n+communications with Chambers shall be by letter filed on ECF. Letters seeking\n+relief (if consistent with Local Civil Rule 7.1) should be filed as letter-motions on\n+ECF, not ordinary letters. Any opposition shall be filed on ECF within three\n+business days of the filing party’s letter-motion. This provision does not alter the\n+joint letter requirement for discovery disputes set forth in Individual Rule 4(k).\n+Letters may not exceed 1,050 words in length (exclusive of exhibits or\n+attachments) without prior permission from the Court.\n+For any emails to Chambers permitted under these Rules, counsel should include\n+in the subject line: (1) the case caption, (2) docket number and (3) a brief\n+description of the party’s request. Parties shall not include substantive\n+communications in the body of the email, only in the attached letter.\n+Copies of correspondence between counsel shall not be sent to the Court or filed\n+on ECF except as exhibits to an otherwise properly filed document.\n+b. Telephone Calls. Telephone calls to Chambers should be reserved for urgent\n+matters. In such situations, call the Clerk’s Office at (212) 805-0136. You may\n+request to be transferred to Chambers from there.\n+c. Faxes. Faxes to Chambers are not permitted without express prior permission,\n+and only in cases of unforeseeable emergencies.\n+d. Hand Deliveries. Hand-delivered mail should be left with the Court Security\n+Officers at the Charles L. Brieant Jr. Courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White\n+Plains, New York, NY 10601. If the hand-delivered letter is urgent and requires\n+the Court’s immediate attention, ask the Court Security Officers to notify\n+Chambers that an urgent package has arrived that needs to be retrieved by\n+Chambers staff immediately.\n+e. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. All requests for\n+adjournments or extensions of time must be made in writing and filed on ECF as\n+letter-motions in accordance with Section 2(a) of these Rules, not as ordinary\n+letters. The letter-motion must state: (1) the original date and the new date\n+requested; (2) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extension; (3)\n+whether these previous requests were granted or denied; (4) the reason for the\n+extension or adjournment; (5) whether the adversary consents and, if not, the\n+reasons given by the adversary for refusal to consent; and (6) the date of the\n+parties’ next scheduled appearance before the Court.\n+3\n+If the parties are requesting an adjournment of a conference, they must also\n+provide three mutually agreeable alternative conference dates. If the requested\n+adjournment or extension affects any other scheduled dates, a proposed Amended\n+Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order must be attached.\n+Absent an emergency, any request for extension or adjournment shall be made as\n+early as possible, and at least 48 hours prior to the deadline or scheduled\n+appearance. Requests for extensions will ordinarily be denied if made after the\n+expiration of the original deadline.\n+f. Related Cases. After an action has been accepted as related to a prior filing, all\n+future court papers and correspondence must contain the docket number of the\n+new filing as well as the docket number of the case to which it is related.\n+3. Conferences\n+a. In Person Conferences. Conferences may be held remotely or in person. Unless\n+ordered otherwise, in person conferences will be held in Courtroom 320 of the\n+Charles L. Brieant Jr. Courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, NY. This\n+general rule also applies to cases designated to the Manhattan courthouse (cases\n+with case numbers that start with “1:”).\n+b. Remote Conferences. Absent permission of the Court, no more than one attorney\n+shall speak on behalf of either party except as otherwise provided by Individual\n+Rule 3(f).\n+c. Initial Pretrial Conference. The Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference, scheduling\n+a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 conference, will be filed on ECF. The Notice\n+will direct the parties to file on ECF, approximately one week prior to the\n+conference, a joint letter as well as a joint proposed Civil Case Management Plan\n+and Scheduling Order attached as an exhibit to the joint letter. The parties shall\n+use the form Proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order available at\n+the Court’s website.\n+i. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases. In any action in which subject matter\n+jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n+§ 1332, the party asserting the existence of such jurisdiction shall, prior to\n+the Initial Pretrial Conference, file a letter to the Court on ECF no longer\n+than 700 words explaining the basis for that party’s belief that diversity of\n+citizenship exists. Where any party is a corporation, the letter shall state\n+both the place of incorporation and the principal place of business. In\n+cases where any party is a partnership, limited partnership, limited liability\n+company or trust, the letter shall identify and state the citizenship of each\n+of the entity’s members, shareholders, partners and/or trustees.\n+4\n+d. Post-Fact Discovery Joint Status Letter. No later than one week after the close\n+of fact discovery, counsel for all parties must meet for at least one hour to discuss\n+settlement and file a joint letter updating the Court on the status of the case,\n+including but not limited to, confirming that the one-hour settlement discussion\n+occurred and stating whether all parties consent to mediation or a settlement\n+conference to be held before the designated Magistrate Judge. The letter should\n+not identify, explicitly or implicitly, any party that has declined to consent.\n+In a case without expert discovery, the letter shall also set forth a proposed\n+briefing schedule for any dispositive motions.\n+e. Post-Expert Discovery Joint Status Letter. No later than one week after the\n+close of expert discovery, counsel for all parties must file a joint letter setting\n+forth a proposed briefing schedule for any dispositive motions and motions to\n+exclude testimony of experts pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702–705 and\n+the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) line of\n+cases.\n+f. Participation by Junior or Less Experienced Attorneys. The Court encourages\n+the participation of junior attorneys and attorneys seeking additional experience in\n+federal court, particularly where the attorneys played a substantial role in drafting\n+the underlying filing or in preparing the relevant witness. To facilitate this\n+provision, the Court is amenable to permitting more than one attorney to argue or\n+present for one party.\n+g. Authority Consistent with Proceeding. All attorneys appearing before the Court\n+must have authority to bind the party they represent consistent with the\n+proceedings (for example, by agreeing to a discovery resolution or briefing\n+schedule).\n+h. Pronouns and Honorifics. The parties and counsel are encouraged to advise the\n+Court if they would like to be addressed with a particular pronoun and/or\n+honorific – such as Ms., Mx. or Mr. – so that the Court may address them\n+respectfully. People appearing before this Court may do so when appearing for\n+conferences, hearings or trials by speaking to the courtroom deputy. All parties\n+and counsel shall address each other in all written documents and court\n+proceedings by pronouns and/or honorifics previously identified.\n+4. Motions\n+a. Pre-Motion Letters and Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion letters and\n+conferences are not required, except for disputes concerning discovery, which are\n+governed by Section 4(k) of these Rules.\n+b. Memoranda of Law. Motion papers must conform to Local Civil Rule 11.1.\n+Memoranda of law in support of and in opposition to motions are limited to 8,750\n+5\n+words and reply memoranda are limited to 3,500 words. Memoranda of 3,500\n+words or more shall contain a table of contents and table of authorities, neither of\n+which shall count against the word limit. Surreply memoranda are not allowed\n+(unless specifically permitted in extraordinary situations for good cause). This\n+provision does not alter the word count limits for motions for reconsideration set\n+forth in Local Civil Rule 6.3.\n+c. Unpublished Cases. The parties need not provide copies of unpublished cases if\n+the case is available on Westlaw or LexisNexis.\n+d. Oral Arguments on Motions. The Court rarely holds oral argument. But a party\n+may request oral argument on a motion by indicating “ORAL ARGUMENT\n+REQUESTED” on the cover page of its memorandum of law. If a party believes\n+that the Court would benefit from oral argument for a particular reason not\n+obvious from the parties’ briefing, the party may file a letter explaining the reason\n+– not a letter-motion – on ECF. The Court will determine whether argument will\n+be heard and, if so, advise counsel of the argument date.\n+e. Motion to Dismiss and Amended Complaints. If a motion to dismiss is filed,\n+the non-moving party shall, within 10 days of receipt of the motion, notify the\n+Court and its adversary by a letter filed on ECF whether (1) it intends to file an\n+amended pleading and when it will do so; or (2) it will rely on the pleading being\n+attacked. Non-moving parties are on notice that declining to amend their\n+pleadings to respond to a fully briefed argument in the motion to dismiss may\n+well constitute a waiver of their right to use the amendment process to cure any\n+defects that have been made apparent by the briefing. This provision does not\n+alter the time to file a response in the Federal Rules or the Local Civil Rules.\n+If the non-moving party amends, the opposing party must, within 21 days of such\n+amendment: (1) file an answer; (2) file a new motion to dismiss; or (3) file a letter\n+stating that it relies on the initially filed motion to dismiss. If the moving party\n+files an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the original\n+motion to dismiss as moot.\n+This provision does not alter the requirement to seek leave of the Court to file\n+amended pleadings not as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.\n+f. Summary Judgment Procedures\n+i. Discouraged in Non-Jury Cases. Summary judgment motions are\n+discouraged in non-jury cases.\n+ii. Rule 56.1 Statements. Any party represented by counsel that moves for\n+summary judgment shall provide all other parties with an electronic copy,\n+in a standard word processing format, of the moving party’s Statement of\n+Material Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 (“Rule 56.1 Statement”).\n+6\n+Opposing parties must reproduce each entry in the moving party’s Rule\n+56.1 Statement and set out the opposing party’s response directly beneath\n+it. If the opposing party wishes to file their own, additional statements of\n+material fact, it shall begin numbering each entry where the moving party\n+left off.\n+To streamline the summary judgment briefing process, the Court requires\n+the parties to also negotiate and submit, prior to or along with the\n+movant’s Rule 56.1 Statement, a joint Rule 56.1 Statement setting out all\n+facts on which the parties agree.\n+Each factual assertion in Rule 56.1 Statements must be followed by a\n+citation to the portion(s) of the evidentiary record relied upon. Each\n+memorandum of law must include a statement of facts and may not simply\n+incorporate by reference the entirety of a party’s Rule 56.1 Statement.\n+iii. Deposition Transcripts. Deposition transcripts that are supplied in\n+connection with a summary judgment motion, whether in whole or in part,\n+should be text-searchable and include an index.\n+g. Motions to Exclude Testimony of Experts. Unless the Court orders otherwise,\n+motions to exclude testimony of experts, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence\n+702–705 and the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579\n+(1993) line of cases, must be made by the deadline for dispositive motions and\n+should not be treated as motions in limine.\n+h. Default Judgment. A party seeking a default judgment must proceed by filing a\n+motion for default judgment on ECF pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n+55(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(a)(2). A party seeking a default judgment\n+should not proceed by order to show cause. The motion must be supported by the\n+following papers:\n+1. A Certificate from the Clerk of Court stating that no answer has been filed (if\n+failure to answer is the basis for the default);\n+2. a memorandum of law setting forth the basis and legal authority for:\n+a. why each element of the causes of action has been satisfied and why\n+default judgment should be entered;\n+b. why service was proper;\n+c. why an inquest into damages would be unnecessary;\n+7\n+d. whether, if the default is applicable to fewer than all of the defendants,\n+the Court may appropriately order a default judgment on the issue of\n+damages prior to resolution of the entire action; and\n+e. the proposed damages and the basis for each element of damages,\n+including interest, attorney’s fees and costs.\n+3. an affidavit or declaration setting forth:\n+a. the items specified in Local Civil Rule 55.2(a)(1);\n+b. a description of the method and date of service of the summons and\n+complaint; and\n+c. the procedural history beyond service of the summons and complaint,\n+if any.\n+4. a proposed default judgment.\n+The plaintiff must serve the motion for default judgment and supporting\n+paperwork on the party against whom the default judgment is sought and file an\n+affidavit of service on ECF within 14 days of filing the motion for default\n+judgment. If more than 14 days are required to complete service of the motion for\n+default judgment and supporting papers, the plaintiff should file a letter on ECF\n+explaining why additional time is necessary and when the plaintiff anticipates\n+service will be completed.\n+i. Applications for a Temporary Restraining Order. A party must confer with\n+their adversary before making an application for a temporary restraining order\n+unless the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) are met. As soon\n+as a party decides to seek a temporary restraining order, that party must file a\n+letter on ECF (under seal if proceeding ex parte) and state clearly whether: (1) it\n+has notified its adversary and whether the adversary consents to temporary\n+injunctive relief; or (2) the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)\n+are satisfied and no notice is necessary.\n+The moving party must email ClarkeNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov giving\n+notice of the filing and the time frame requested for Court action. The moving\n+party should then file a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, supporting\n+documents and a proposed order on ECF in accordance with ECF procedures.\n+Where the motion is made on notice to the other parties, the moving party should\n+simultaneously serve the documents on any party that will not receive electronic\n+service via ECF. If the matter is time sensitive and Chambers does not respond\n+within two hours, the movant may call the Clerk’s Office before the end of the\n+business day at (212) 805-0136. You may request to be transferred to Chambers\n+from there.\n+8\n+If a party’s adversary has been notified but does not consent to temporary\n+injunctive relief, the party seeking a restraining order must file the application at a\n+time mutually agreeable to it and the adversary, so that the Court may have the\n+benefit of advocacy from both sides in deciding whether to grant temporary\n+injunctive relief.\n+j. Proposed Orders and Stipulations. Proposed orders to show cause, temporary\n+restraining orders, stipulations, consent orders and proposed judgments are to be\n+filed electronically on ECF as explained in the SDNY Electronic Case Filing\n+Rules and Instructions. Counsel should also email an electronic courtesy copy of\n+any proposed order to Chambers, in both Microsoft Word and PDF formats.\n+k. Discovery Disputes. Parties must follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following\n+modifications. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must\n+first confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person, virtually or by\n+telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute. If this meet-and-confer process does\n+not resolve the dispute, counsel shall promptly file on ECF a single letter-motion,\n+jointly composed, no longer than 1,750 words, explaining the nature of the\n+dispute and, if applicable, requesting an informal conference. Separate and\n+successive letters will not be read. The letter must state (1) the position the parties\n+started with at the beginning of the meet and confer; (2) each party’s final\n+proposed compromise; and (3) why the opposing side finds the compromise\n+position insufficient. Any letter-motion that fails to include this information\n+will be denied.\n+Strict adherence to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), the “meet and\n+confer” rule, is required, and should be described in the joint submission as to\n+time, place and duration, naming the counsel involved in the discussion. The joint\n+letter shall set forth, with specificity, the requested discovery that each dispute\n+involves and the respective position of each party, citing the applicable authority\n+that the respective parties claim for support. If an opposing party refuses to\n+participate in writing a joint letter or does not provide its portion of a joint letter\n+within 72 hours of a party’s request, a party may submit a letter without the\n+opposing party’s contribution and shall attach a copy of the correspondence\n+seeking the opposing party’s contribution.\n+The Court will seek to resolve discovery disputes quickly, by order (based on the\n+letter alone) or in a conference. Counsel should seek relief in accordance with\n+these procedures in a timely fashion; if a party waits until near the close of\n+discovery to raise an issue that could have been raised earlier, the party is unlikely\n+to be granted the relief that it seeks or more time for discovery.\n+5. Redactions and Filing Under Seal.\n+9\n+a. Privacy Policy. The parties are referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2\n+and the S.D.N.Y. ECF Privacy Policy (“Privacy Policy”). The parties should not\n+include, unless necessary, the five categories of “sensitive information” in their\n+submissions (i.e., social security numbers, names of minor children [use the\n+initials only], dates of birth [use the year only], financial account numbers and\n+home addresses [use only the City and State]).\n+b. Redactions Not Requiring Court Approval. Without Court approval, parties\n+may redact the five categories of “sensitive information” and the six categories of\n+information requiring caution (i.e., personal identifying number, medical records,\n+treatment and diagnosis, employment history, individual financial information,\n+proprietary or trade secret information and information regarding an individual’s\n+cooperation with the government), as described in the Privacy Policy.\n+c. Redactions and Sealed Filings Requiring Court Approval. Except for\n+redactions permitted by the eleven categories of information identified in the\n+Privacy Policy, all redactions or sealing of public court filings require Court\n+approval. To be approved, any redaction or sealing of a court filing must be\n+narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or sealing and\n+must otherwise be consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to\n+judicial documents.\n+d. Procedure for Filing Documents with Redactions. Any party seeking to file a\n+document with partial redactions must follow the following three steps:\n+i. Meet and Confer. The party seeking leave to file redacted materials should\n+meet and confer with any opposing party (or any third party seeking\n+confidential treatment of the information) in advance to narrow the scope of\n+the request. When a party seeks leave to file a document in redacted form on\n+the ground that an opposing party or third party has requested it, the filing\n+party shall notify the opposing party or third party that it must file on ECF,\n+within three business days of the filing party’s letter-motion seeking leave to\n+file in redacted form, a letter explaining the need to redact the document.\n+ii. Filing a Letter-Motion Seeking Leave to File with Redactions. If the party\n+is seeking leave of the Court to redact the document (i.e., if the redactions are\n+not among the categories of redactions that can be made without Court\n+approval), the party should simultaneously file on ECF a letter-motion\n+seeking leave to file the document with those redactions in accordance with\n+Standing Order 19-MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case\n+Filing Rules and Instructions. The letter-mo tion itself shall be filed in public\n+view and should not include confidential information. The letter-motion must\n+explain the purpose of the redactions, and why the redactions are consistent\n+with the standards set forth in Section 5(c) above.\n+10\n+iii. ECF Filing of Redacted Document(s). At the same time, the party shall: (1)\n+publicly file on ECF and electronically relate to the letter-motion a copy of\n+the document with the proposed redactions; and (2) file under seal on ECF\n+(with the appropriate level of restriction) and electronically relate to the\n+motion an unredacted copy of the document with the proposed redactions\n+highlighted.\n+e. Procedure for Filing Sealed Documents. Any party seeking to file a document\n+under seal must follow the following three steps:\n+i. Meet and Confer. The party seeking leave to file sealed materials should meet\n+and confer with any opposing party (or any third party seeking confidential\n+treatment of the information) in advance to narrow the scope of the request.\n+When a party seeks leave to file a document under seal on the ground that an\n+opposing party or third party has requested it, the filing party shall notify the\n+opposing party or third party that it must file on ECF, within three business\n+days of the filing party’s letter-motion seeking leave to file under seal, a letter\n+explaining the need to seal the document.\n+ii. Filing a Letter-Motion Seeking Leave to File Under Seal. The party shall\n+electronically file a letter-motion seeking leave to file a document under seal on\n+ECF in accordance with Standing Order 19-MC-583 and Section 6 of the\n+S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions. The letter-motion itself\n+shall be filed in public view, should explain the reasons for seeking to file the\n+document under seal and should not include confidential information.\n+iii. ECF Filing of Sealed Document(s). The proposed sealed document(s) shall be\n+separately and contemporaneously filed under seal on ECF (with the appropriate\n+level of restriction) and electronically related to the motion (or to the relevant\n+Court order, if the Court previously granted leave to file the document under\n+seal). Note that the summary docket text, but not the document itself, will be\n+open to public inspection and, thus, should not include confidential information\n+sought to be filed under seal.\n+f. Submission by Email. Any party unable to comply with the requirement for\n+electronic filing under seal on ECF, or who believes that a particular document should\n+not be electronically filed at all, shall file a letter-motion by email, seeking leave of the\n+Court to file in a different manner. Such letter-motions may be emailed to\n+ClarkeNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov as text-searchable PDF attachments, with\n+copies simultaneously delivered to all counsel. In the subject line, the cover email\n+should state clearly: (1) the caption of the case, including the lead party names and\n+docket number; and (2) a brief description of the nature of the request. Parties shall not\n+include substantive communications in the body of the email. The letter-motion must\n+explain why sealing or redaction is justified in light of the standards discussed in\n+Section 5(c) above. If the party believes that the letter-motion itself should be sealed or\n+redacted, the letter-motion should so state and should provide the justification therefor.\n+11\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, letter-motions seeking leave to file in a\n+different manner shall not exceed 1,050 words. The Court will include instructions for\n+filing sealed or redacted versions of the document and accompanying letter-motion, if\n+necessary, in any order disposing of the motion to seal.\n+If the Court grants leave to submit by email, the party should email to\n+ClarkeNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov: (1) a clean (i.e., unredacted) copy of the\n+document; (2) a copy of the document highlighting the information that has been\n+redacted in the ECF filing; and (3) an unredacted copy of the letter-motion described\n+in Rules 5(e)(iii)-(iv), should the party also be seeking leave to file that letter-motion\n+with redactions or under seal.\n+g. Opposition to Requests to Seal or Redact. Any opposition shall be filed on ECF\n+within three business days of the filing party’s letter-motion seeking leave to file\n+under seal or with redactions.\n+6. Other Pretrial Guidance\n+a. Settlement Agreements. As soon as the parties reach an agreement to settle, the\n+parties must alert the Court by promptly filing a joint letter. The Court will not retain\n+jurisdiction to enforce confidential settlement agreements. If the parties request that\n+the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, the parties must place the terms\n+of their settlement agreement on the public record. The parties may request that the\n+Court endorse the settlement agreement or include the terms of their settlement\n+agreement in their stipulation of settlement and dismissal.\n+b. Policy on Use of Electronic Devices. Attorneys’ use of personal electronic devices\n+(including mobile phones) and general purpose computing devices (such as laptops\n+and tablets) within the Courthouse and its environs is governed by Standing Order\n+M10-468. W hen Court permission is required under the Standing Order, attorneys\n+seeking to bring electronic devices to the Court should email a completed Model Court\n+Order to ClarkeNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov no later than five business days\n+before the relevant trial or hearing. Upon the Court’s approval, Chambers will\n+coordinate with the District Executive’s Office to issue the order and forward a copy to\n+counsel. The order must be presented upon bringing the electronic device(s) into the\n+Courthouse. If permitted by the Standing Order, mobile telephones are permitted inside\n+the Courtroom, but they MUST be kept turned off at all times.","id":"721b05b4ffa58e066f0ed6a6cad2c88cd9a29871ced54b39ebd5fd848a08c7a1","newHash":"87d8764b767c9c78f1ce92607ad719b4d7540badf94d50e8297612f41dabc101","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JGLC%20Clarke%20%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%201.9.26%20FINAL.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/87d8764b767c9c78f1ce92607ad719b4d7540badf94d50e8297612f41dabc101.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JGLC%20Clarke%20%20Individual%20Rules%20and%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases%201.9.26%20FINAL.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:07.909761+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,441 @@\n+Revised: October 23, 2025\n+INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES\n+JOHN P. CRONAN\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n+Chambers Courtroom\n+United States District Court Courtroom 12D\n+Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street\n+500 Pearl Street, Room 1320 Meghan Henrich, Courtroom Deputy\n+New York, NY 10007\n+CronanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Individual Rules and Practices shall apply to\n+all civil matters before Judge Cronan, except for civil cases involving pro se litigants.\n+1. Communications with Chambers\n+A . Letters. Except as otherwise provided below, communications with Chambers shall\n+be by letter, with copies simultaneously delivered to all counsel. Letters to the Court on behalf of\n+parties represented by counsel must be both docketed on ECF and e -mailed as a .pdf attachment\n+to the following address: CronanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov. Counsel shall not provide\n+a hard copy of correspondence e-mailed to Chambers. Letters seeking relief should (if consistent\n+with the S.D.N.Y. Local Rules and the S.D.N.Y. ECF Rules and Instructions) be filed on ECF as\n+letter-motions, not as ordinary letters. Any response to a letter or letter-motion shall be filed within\n+two business days of the filing of the letter or letter-motion.\n+Counsel shall include the case caption and docket number in the subject line of every e -\n+mail sent to Chambers. All letters should be text-searchable where practicable. Unless otherwise\n+ordered by the Court, letters may not exceed three pages in length (single-spaced, 12-point font).\n+Letters to be filed under seal or containing sensitive or confidential information must be filed in\n+accordance with 4.A-B below. Copies of correspondence between counsel shall not be sent to the\n+Court or docketed on ECF, except if the correspondence is a relevant attachment to a filing.\n+B. Telephone Calls. For questions that cannot be answered by reference to these Rules\n+or the S.D.N.Y. Local Rules, or for docketing, scheduling, and calendar matters, counsel may\n+contact the Courtroom Deputy, Meghan Henrich. For situations requiring immediate attention\n+from the Court, counsel should call Chambers directly; in such situations, parties should email the\n+Chambers inbox requesting the Court’s contact information.\n+C. Faxes. Faxes to Chambers are not permitted.\n+2\n+D. Hand Deliveries. Hand-delivered mail should be left with the Court Security Officers\n+at the Worth Street entrance of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States District Courthouse at\n+500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 and may not be brought directly to Chambers. If the hand-\n+delivered letter is urgent and requires the Court’s immediate attention, the party should ask the\n+Court Security Officers to notify Chambers that an urgent package has arrived that needs to be\n+retrieved by Chambers staff immediately.\n+2. Rules for All Filings\n+A. Electronic Case Filing ( “ECF”). In accordance with the S.D.N.Y. ECF Rules and\n+Instructions, all counsel must register promptly as ECF filers after being retained or assigned and\n+to enter an appearance in the case. Counsel can obtain instructions on how to register at\n+http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. Counsel are responsible for updating their contact\n+information on ECF, should it change, and they are responsible for checking the docket sheet\n+regularly, regardless of whether they receive an ECF notification of case activity.\n+If an ECF submission requires immediate attention from the Court, counsel should notify\n+Chambers by telephone after filing the submission via ECF.\n+All electronic submissions should be in the form of text-searchable .pdf documents, where\n+practicable.\n+B. Memoranda of Law. The typeface, margins, and spacing of motion papers must\n+conform to Local Civil Rule 7.1(b). Unless prior permission has been granted, memoranda of law\n+in support of and in opposition to motions are limited to 8,750 words, and reply memoranda are\n+limited to 3,500 words. These limits do not include the caption, any index, table of contents, table\n+of authorities, signature blocks, or any required certificates, but do include material contained in\n+footnotes or endnotes. Memoranda of 10 pages or more shall contain a table of contents and a\n+table of authorities, and all memoranda must include a certificate by the attorney, or party who is\n+not represented by an attorney, that the document complies with the word-count limitations. These\n+limits do not apply to motions for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3; parties should refer\n+to that provision for applicable word or page limits and other information. Sur- reply memoranda\n+will not be accepted without prior permission of the Court. Motion papers shall be filed promptly\n+after service.\n+C. Unpublished Cases. Westlaw or Lexis citations shall be provided, if available, to cases\n+not available in an official reporter. Parties must provide copies of cases that are not available on\n+Westlaw or Lexis.\n+D. Courtesy Copies. Regarding all pleadings, correspondence, and motion papers,\n+including exhibits submitted in connection with a motion, a party shall submit an electronic\n+courtesy copy via e- mail to Chambers at the time the papers are served. Paper courtesy copies\n+3\n+may be submitted only upon request from the Court. Courtesy copies should be marked as such\n+and shall be submitted to Chambers for both ECF and non-ECF designated cases.\n+Electronic courtesy copies of proposals for the Court to enter, including proposed orders\n+to show cause, temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, stipulations, consent orders,\n+and default judgments, should be sent in both Microsoft Word and PDF formats.\n+E. Use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Tools. Counsel is responsible for providing the\n+Court with complete and accurate representations of the record, the procedural history of the case,\n+and any cited legal authorities. All litigants are responsible for verifying the accuracy of any\n+output produced in whole or in part by an AI tool. Any attorney who signs a filing for which an\n+AI tool was used to prepar e (including by appearing on the signature block of the filing) must\n+attach to the filing a signed certification (i) stating whether the litigant personally reviewed the\n+filing for accuracy of cited legal authorities and factual assertions and (ii) if so, describing in detail\n+the steps taken to verify the accuracy of all legal authorities and factual ass ertions generated by\n+the AI tool. An attorney who signs an AI-assisted filing, yet fails to review that filing for accuracy\n+or to provide the required certification, violates this Rule. The Court may impose sanctions on\n+counsel and/or strike the filing for failing to comply with this Rule. A model certification may be\n+found on the Court’s website (https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-john-p-cronan).\n+3. Rules for Specific Types of Filings\n+A. Complaints. Plaintiffs shall ensure that a copy of the operative complaint is posted\n+electronically to the docket on the ECF system. This requirement applies to all cases, including\n+removed cases. There is no need to submit courtesy copies of pleadings, unless immediate relief\n+is sought (e.g., a temporary restraining order).\n+If a party files an amended pleading, a courtesy copy of the pleading, in redline form to the\n+most recent operative pleading, shall be provided to the Court via email.\n+B. Requests for Adjournments or Extension s of Time . Requests for adjournments,\n+extensions of time, and extensions of word lengths in memoranda shall be made by letter, and not\n+by stipulation sent through the Orders and Judgments Clerk. R equests for adjournments or\n+extensions of time shall be filed on ECF as letter-motions, not as ordinary letters. All requests for\n+adjournments or extensions of time must state (1) the original date (s) set for the appearance or\n+deadline(s) and the new date(s) requested; (2) t he reason(s) for the request ; (3) the number of\n+previous requests for adjournment or extension; (4) whether these previous requests were granted\n+or denied; and (5) whether opposing counsel consents, and, if not, any reasons given by opposing\n+counsel for refusing to consent. If the requested adjournment or extension affects any other\n+scheduled dates or deadlines, a proposed Revised Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order\n+(reflecting only business days) must be attached.\n+4\n+Absent compelling circumstances, a request for an extension or adjournment must be made\n+at least 48 hours (i.e., two business days) prior to the scheduled appearance or deadline. Requests\n+for extensions will ordinarily be denied if made after the expiration of the original deadline.\n+Requests for extensions of deadlines regarding a matter that has been referred to a Magistrate\n+Judge shall be directed to that assigned Magistrate Judge.\n+If a party seeks to extend the discovery deadlines for a case, the request must include (1) a\n+description of what discovery has already been completed; (2) a description of what discovery\n+remains to be taken; (3) why discovery was not completed by the time provided in the Case\n+Management Plan; and (4) why “good cause” exists to modify the scheduling order under Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The Court requires a showing of good cause to modify a\n+previously set discovery deadline and failure to comply with this requirement will result in denial\n+of the request. Parties should not assume that such requests will be granted as a matter of course.\n+C. Related and Consolidated Cases. After an action has been accepted as related to a\n+prior case, all future court papers and correspondence must contain the docket number of the new\n+filing as well as the docket number of the case to which it is related ( e.g., 21-cv-1234 [rel. 20-cv-\n+4321]). After two or more actions have been consolidated for all purposes under a single docket\n+number pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil P rocedure, all future court papers\n+and correspondence should be fil ed only in the docket under which the cases have been\n+consolidated and should reference only that docket number.\n+D. Certificates of Default. A party that intends to seek a certificate of default pursuant\n+to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 55.1 must notify the\n+Court of its intent to do so by filing a letter pursuant to 1.A above at least two business days before\n+filing for such a request with the Clerk of Court.\n+E. Default Judgments. A party seeking a default judgment must proceed by filing a\n+motion for default judgment on ECF pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure and Local Civil Rule 55.2(a)(2). A party seeking a default judgment must also file the\n+following materials, in addition to those specified in Local Civil Rule 55.2:\n+i. The required affidavit under Local Civil Rule 55.2(a)(1) with the following,\n+additional information:\n+a. the basis for entering a default judgment, including if appropriate a\n+description of the method and date of service of the summons and\n+complaint;\n+b. the procedural history beyond service of the summons and\n+complaint, if any;\n+5\n+c. whether, if the default is applicable to fewer than all of the\n+defendants, the Court may appropriately order a default judgment\n+on the issue of damages prior to resolution of the entire action; and\n+d. if the party believes an inquest into damages is unnecessary, the\n+legal authority for that position;\n+ii. Copies of all the operative pleadings; and\n+iii. A copy of the Affidavit of Service of the summons and complaint.\n+The party must file the Affidavit of Service specified in Local Civil Rule 55.2(a)(3) on\n+ECF within two business days of filing the motion for default judgment. The Court will not\n+consider the motion for default judgment unless and until such Affidavit of Service is filed. If\n+more than two business days are required to complete service of the motion for default judgment\n+and supporting papers, the party should file a letter on ECF explaining why additional time is\n+necessary and when the party anticipates service will be completed. The Court will set deadlines\n+for opposition papers to default judgment and for any reply, and will schedule a hearing on the\n+default judgment motion.\n+F. Voluntary Dismissals . A plaintiff seeking to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule\n+41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must file a notice of dismissal with the\n+Court. Parties seeking to dismiss an action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) must file a stipulation of\n+dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action, regardless of whether those parties\n+have been dismissed from the case. A stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) (A)(ii) must\n+contain handwritten signatures, not electronic signatures, of the parties. Neither a dismissal under\n+Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) nor Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires an order from the Court. If the parties are\n+requesting dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), however, the submission should contain a date and\n+signature line for the Court to “So Order.”\n+G. Settlement Agreements. The Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce confidential\n+settlement agreements. If the parties wish the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement\n+agreement, the parties must place the terms of their settlement agreement on the public reco rd.\n+The parties may do this by providing a copy of the settlement agreement for the Court to endorse,\n+attaching the settlement agreement to their stipulation of settlement and dismissal, or including the\n+terms of their settlement agreement in their stipulation of settlement and dismissal.\n+H. Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA ”) Settlement Agreements. Parties that seek to\n+settle FLSA claims through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) must submit the settlement agreement and all other necessary\n+information for Court approval in accordance with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796\n+F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The Court will not approve a settlement agreement that contains an overly\n+broad release clause or for which the parties fai l to submit all necessary information, including,\n+6\n+inter alia, the parties’ estimations for the plaintiff’s number of hours worked, applicable wages,\n+and a detailed breakdown of the justification for any requested attorneys’ fees. See, e.g.,\n+Fernandez v. 219 Dominican Valle Corp., No. 19 Civ. 9513 (JPC), 2021 WL 240721, at *2- 4\n+(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021). Parties that settle FLSA claims through a Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 68(a) offer of judgment should not seek Court approval of the disposition. See Mei Xing\n+Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc., 944 F.3d 395, 411 (2d Cir. 2019).\n+I. Bankruptcy Appeals. Briefs must be submitted in accordance with Rules 8014-8018\n+of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. If the parties wish to extend these dates, they must\n+submit a joint request to the Court no later than 48 hours (i.e., two business days) before the brief\n+is due.\n+J. Deposition Transcripts . If the parties cite to deposition transcripts in their motion\n+papers, the parties, upon completion of briefing, must confer and submit a single consolidated copy\n+of each cited deposition transcript to the Court that includes all relevant portions of the cited\n+transcripts.\n+4. Redactions and Sealed Filings\n+A. Redactions Not Requiring Court Approval. Nothing herein is intended to alter or\n+modify the applicability of Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The redactions\n+expressly authorized by Rule 5.2 may be made without application to the Court.\n+B. Procedures for Filing Sealed or Redacted Documents . Except for redactions\n+referenced in 4.A above, all redactions or sealing of public court filings require Court approval .\n+Any party seeking to file a document under seal or in redacted form shall proceed as follows:\n+i. Meet and Confer. The party seeking leave to file a document under seal\n+or in redacted form shall meet and confer with all other parties in the case\n+(as well as any third party seeking confidential treatment of the information)\n+in advance to narrow the scope of the request. In general, however, the\n+parties’ consent or the fact that information is subject to a confidentiality\n+agreement or protective order between litigants is not, by itself, a valid basis\n+to overcome the presumption in favor of public acces s to judicial\n+documents. See, e.g., In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-\n+MD-2543 (JMF), 2015 WL 4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015).\n+ii. Filing Sealed or Redacted Documents. Where a party seeks leave to file\n+a document under seal or in redacted form , t he party shall file a letter -\n+motion seeking leave to do so on ECF in accordance with Standing Order\n+19-MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. ECF Rules and Instructions. The\n+letter-motion itself shall be filed in public view, should explain the reasons\n+for seeking to file the document under seal or in redacted form, and should\n+7\n+not include confidential information. Any application to file a document\n+under seal or in redacted form must demonstrate that the standards for\n+sealing have been met and specifically address Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of\n+Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and any other controlling authority.\n+The movant also may file a memorandum of law and an affidavit or\n+affidavits in support of the request for sealing or redacting. If approval for\n+redactions is sought, the application shall also include a proposed redac ted\n+version of the document in question for public docketing.\n+When a party seeks leave to file a document under seal or in redacted form\n+on the ground that an opposing party or third party has requested it, the\n+opposing party or third party must file publicly on ECF, within three\n+business days, a letter explaining the need to seal or redact the document.\n+In the event there are grounds for sealing or redacting that cannot be\n+publicly disclosed, a party may file under seal on ECF (with appropriate\n+level of restriction) additional briefing further explaining those grounds,\n+along with a justification for the sealing of that briefing.\n+The subject document, in unredacted form, shall be contemporaneously\n+filed under seal on ECF (with the appropriate level of restriction) and\n+electronically related to the motion (or to the relevant Court order if the\n+Court previously granted leave to file the document under seal). Note that\n+the summary docket text, but not the document itself, will be open to public\n+inspection and therefore should not include confidential information sought\n+to be filed under seal.\n+When a party seeks to file a document in redacted form, the party also shall\n+e-mail to Chambers ( CronanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov) and to\n+the Courtroom Deputy, Meghan Henrich (Meghan_Henrich@nysd.uscourt\n+s.gov) a n unredacted copy of the document highlighting the proposed\n+redactions.\n+iii. Submission by Alternative Method. Any party unable to comply with the\n+requirements for electronic filing under seal through the ECF system, or\n+who believes that a particular document should not be electronically filed\n+at all, may submit a letter-motion by e-mail seeking leave of the Court to\n+file in a different manner.\n+8\n+5. Conferences\n+A. Attendance by Principal Trial Counsel. Absent leave of the Court, the attorney who\n+will serve as principal trial counsel must appear at all conferences with the Court. Any attorney\n+appearing before the Court must enter a notice of appearance on ECF.\n+B. Initial Case Management Conference. The Court will generally schedule a\n+conference pursuant to Rule 16(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within three months of\n+the filing of the complaint or notice of removal . The Notice of Initial Case Management\n+Conference will be filed on ECF.\n+Plaintiff’s counsel is responsible for ensuring that all parties have received copies of the\n+Notice of Initial Case Management Conference. The Notice will direct the parties, inter alia , to\n+submit on ECF a joint letter as well as a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling\n+Order attached as an exhibit to the joint letter. The parties shall use the form Proposed Case\n+Management Plan and Scheduling Order available at the Court’s website.\n+C. Discovery Disputes. Parties must f ollow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following\n+modifications. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first confer in\n+good faith with the opposing party, in person or by telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute.\n+If this meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute, a party may raise the dispute with the\n+Court by filing a letter -motion on ECF, no longer than three pages, explaining the nature of the\n+dispute. Such a letter must include a representation that the meet-and-confer process occurred and\n+was unsuccessful. A party opposing the relief sought must file a response, not to exceed three\n+pages, within three business days. T he Court will seek to resolve discovery disputes quickly, by\n+order or at an in -person or telephonic conference. Counsel are strongly urged to seek relief in\n+accordance with these procedures in a ti mely fashion. If a party waits until near the close of\n+discovery to raise an issue that could have been raised earlier, the Court is unlikely to grant\n+additional time for discovery.\n+6. Motions\n+A. Pre-Motion Letters in Civil Cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a party\n+seeking to file a motion must submit a pre -motion letter in accordance with 1.A above, not to\n+exceed three pages in length absent leave of the Court, notifying the Court of its anticipated motion,\n+summarizing the basis for the anticipated motion, and proposing a briefing schedule. All parties\n+served with the pre-motion letter must submit a letter response, also not to exceed three pages\n+absent leave of the Court, within three business days from the submission of the pre-motion letter.\n+Response letters may address arguments raised in the pre-motion letter, propose an alternative\n+briefing schedule, and indicate whether the party intends to oppose the contemplated motion or\n+intends to correct any possible deficiencies in lieu of motion practice, such as by filing, or seeking\n+leave to file, an amended complaint. A party’s submission of a pre -motion letter in connection\n+9\n+with a pre-answer motion to dismiss will stay that party’s obligation to answer or move against the\n+complaint through the deadline to move to dismiss.\n+The above requirements shall not apply to motions previously authorized by the Court,\n+discovery motions or disputes (for which parties shall follow 5.C above), motions brought by order\n+to show cause, motions by incarcerated pro se litigants, motions for admission pro hac vice ,\n+motions for reargument or reconsideration, motions for appointment of lead plaintiffs and counsel\n+in class actions, motions for remand, motions for a preliminary injunction, motions brought\n+pursuant to Local Rule 6.3, and motions desc ribed in Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure and Rule 4(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.\n+In the event a plaintiff files an amended complaint as of right pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) of\n+the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, that defendant\n+must file a letter with the Court within one week of the amendment, describing whether the\n+defendant seeks to refile the motion as to the amended complaint.\n+B. Filing of Motion Papers. Motion papers shall be filed promptly after service.\n+C. Oral Argument on Motions. Parties may request oral argument by letter at the time\n+their moving, opposing, or reply papers are filed. Oral argument will be held at the Court’s\n+discretion. If the Court determines that argument will be heard, the Court will advise counsel of\n+the argument date and time. Where junior lawyers are familiar with the matter under consideration,\n+but are not experienced in arguing before a court, they should be encouraged to actively participate.\n+If oral argument is granted, the Court is amendable to permitting more than one lawyer to argue\n+for a party, especially where it creates an opportunity for a junior lawyer to argue.\n+7. Pretrial Procedures in Civil Cases\n+A. Courtesy Copies. One courtesy copy of each submission described in 7.B –G below\n+should be provided to Chambers on the date that the submission is filed or served.\n+B. Joint Proposed Pretrial Orders. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, within 30\n+days after the close of discovery or if any dispositive motion is filed, within 30 days from the\n+Court’s decision on such motion, the parties shall file on ECF a proposed joint pretrial order that\n+includes the information required by Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the\n+following:\n+i. The full caption of the action;\n+ii. The names, addresses (including firm names), telephone numbers, e -mail\n+addresses, and any fax numbers of trial counsel;\n+10\n+iii. A brief statement by the plaintiff (or, in a removed case, by the defendant)\n+as to the basis of subject matter jurisdiction and a brief statement by each\n+other party as to the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction, each\n+of which shall include citations to all authority relied on and relevant fa cts\n+as to citizenship and jurisdictional amount;\n+iv. A brief summary by each party of the claims and defenses that the party has\n+asserted that remain to be tried —without recital of evidentiary matters but\n+with citations to all statutes on which the party has relied —and of any\n+claims and defenses that the party has previously asserted that are not to be\n+tried;\n+v. A statement by each party as to whether the case is to be tried with or\n+without a jury, and the number of trial days needed;\n+vi. A joint statement summarizing the nature of the case, to be read to potential\n+jurors during jury selection;\n+vii. A list of people, places, and institutions that are likely to be mentioned\n+during the course of the trial, to be read to potential jurors during jury\n+selection;\n+viii. A statement as to whether all parties have consented to a trial of the case by\n+a magistrate judge, without identifying which party or parties have or have\n+not so consented;\n+ix. Any stipulations of fact or law that have been agreed upon by the parties .\n+In a jury case, the parties should memorialize any such stipulations or\n+agreed statements of fact or law in a standalone document that can be\n+marked and admitted at trial;\n+x. A list of all trial witnesses, indicating whether such witnesses will testify in\n+person or by deposition, whether such witnesses will require an interpreter\n+(and, if so, which party will pay the costs for the interpreter), and a brief\n+summary of the substance of each witness’s testimony. Absent leave of the\n+Court, a witness listed by both sides shall testify only once , with any\n+defendant permitted to go beyond the scope of the direct examination on\n+cross examination, and counsel should confer with respect to scheduling;\n+xi. A designation by each party of deposition testimony to be offered in the\n+party’s case- in-chief, with any cross -designations and objections by any\n+other party. For any deposition with objections, the parties shall also\n+11\n+provide the full transcript of that deposition, unless otherwise ordered by\n+the Court;\n+xii. A list by each party of exhibits to be offered in the party’s case-in-chief. If\n+a party objects to an exhibit, the objection should be noted by indicating the\n+Federal Rule of Evidence that is the basis for the objection. If any party\n+believes that the Court should rule on such an objection in advance of trial,\n+that party should include a notation to that effect ( e.g., “Advance Ruling\n+Requested”) as well;\n+xiii. A statement of the damages claimed and any other relief sought, including\n+the manner and method used to calculate any claimed damages and a\n+breakdown of the elements of such claimed damages; and\n+xiv. A statement of whether the parties consent to less than a unanimous verdict.\n+C. Required Pretrial Filings in Jury Cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, in\n+jury cases, the parties shall jointly file the following submissions at the same time as the Joint\n+Proposed Pretrial Order. The parties must meet and confer in an effort to reach agreement with\n+respect to these submissions:\n+i. Joint proposed voir dire questions—a copy of which shall be e -mailed to\n+Chambers in Word and .pdf versions—which shall include the text of any\n+requested questions and should consist of a single document that notes any\n+areas of disagreement between the parties;\n+ii. A joint proposed verdict form —a copy of which shall be e -mailed to\n+Chambers in Word and .pdf versions—and which should consist of a single\n+document that notes any areas of disagreement between the parties;\n+iii. Joint proposed jury instructions —a copy of which shall be e -mailed to\n+Chambers in Word and .pdf versions—and which shall include the text of\n+any requested instructions and citations, if relevant, to the authority from\n+which such instruction derives, and should consist of a single document that\n+notes any areas of disagreement between the parties;\n+iv. Motions addressing any evidentiary or other issues that should be resolved\n+in limine , with oppositions to such motions due one week after the lead\n+motions and no replies allowed absent leave of the Court; and\n+v. In cases in which a party believes it would be useful to the Court, a pretrial\n+memorandum of law, not to exceed 3,500 words (excluding the caption, any\n+index, table of contents, table of authorities, signature blocks, or any\n+12\n+required certificates, but including material contained in footnotes or\n+endnotes) absent leave of the Court, addressing any issues of law that are\n+expected to arise at or before trial, with any responses or oppositions to\n+those legal issues due one week later.\n+D. Required Pretrial Filings in Non-Jury Cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court,\n+in non-jury cases, the parties shall file the following submissions at the same time as the Joint\n+Proposed Pretrial Order:\n+i. Joint proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law —a copy of which\n+shall be e- mailed to Chambers in .pdf version—which should be detailed\n+and note any areas of disagreement between the parties and, for each\n+proposed factual finding, shall include citations to the record;\n+ii. Motions addressing any evidentiary or other issues that should be resolved\n+in limine , with oppositions to such motions due one week after the lead\n+motions and no replies allowed absent leave of the Court; and\n+iii. In cases in which a party believes it would be useful to the Court, a pretrial\n+memorandum of law, not to exceed 3,500 words (excluding the caption, any\n+index, table of contents, table of authorities, signature blocks, or any\n+required certificates, but including material contained in footnotes or\n+endnotes) absent leave of the Court, addressing any issues of law that are\n+expected to arise at or before trial, with any responses or oppositions to\n+those legal issues due one week later.\n+E. Additional Submissions in Non-Jury Cases. In addition, at the time the Joint Pretrial\n+Order is filed, each party shall serve the following submissions, one courtesy copy of which the\n+party shall also submit to Chambers:\n+i. Affidavits—the originals of which shall be marked as exhibits at trial—\n+constituting the direct testimony of each trial witness, except for testimony\n+of an adverse party, a person whose attendance must be compelled by\n+subpoena, or a person for whom a par ty has requested and from whom the\n+Court has agreed to hear direct testimony during the trial; and\n+ii. All deposition excerpts that will be offered as substantive evidence, as well\n+as a one-page synopsis of those excerpts for each deposition (with citations\n+to the pertinent pages of the deposition transcript).\n+F. Courtesy Copies of Documentary Evidence. All exhibits must be pre -marked in\n+advance of trial. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, in both jury and non- jury trials, three\n+days prior to trial, each party shall submit to Chambers a flash drive containing electronic copies\n+13\n+of all documentary exhibits organized by exhibit number and a document listing all exhibits sought\n+to be admitted. The list of all exhibits sought to be admitted shall be separated into four columns\n+labeled: (1) Exhibit Number; (2) Description (of the exhibit); (3) Date Identifie d; and (4) Date\n+Admitted. If the number of exhibits is so voluminous as to make compliance with this rule\n+impractical, the parties shall contact the Court for guidance.\n+8. Policy on the Use of Electronic Devices\n+A. Standing Order M10 -468. Attorneys’ use of mobile phones, personal electronic\n+devices, and general-purpose computing devices such as laptops and tablets within the Courthouse\n+and its environs is governed by Standing Order M10-468.\n+B. Mobile Phones. Attorneys in compliance with the Standing Order may bring mobile\n+phones into the courtroom, but the phones must be turned off at all times. Non- compliance with\n+this rule will result in forfeiture of the device for the remainder of the proceedings.\n+* * *\n+If you have any questions after reading these Individual Rules and Practices, please contact\n+Meghan Henrich, Courtroom Deputy.","id":"5e34d6191b0f23f08fc10ebfe61c44a063eb14a6c3db250b92420e09cdf0b24d","newHash":"3d312b576a74d4ebb351ad9e77991e7620c7aa9e0ed3d86b8d9d6836986c0e1e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JPC%20Cronan%20Individual%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Updated%202025.10.23.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/3d312b576a74d4ebb351ad9e77991e7620c7aa9e0ed3d86b8d9d6836986c0e1e.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/JPC%20Cronan%20Individual%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20Updated%202025.10.23.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:08.644570+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,479 @@\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+1\n+October 29, 2025\n+INDIVIDUAL RULES & PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES\n+VERNON S. BRODERICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+Chambers\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of New York\n+Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse\n+40 Foley Square, Room 415\n+New York, NY 10007\n+Email:\n+BroderickNYSDChambers\n+@nysd.uscourts.gov\n+Courtroom\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of New York\n+Thurgood Marshall United States\n+Courthouse\n+40 Foley Square, Courtroom 518\n+New York, NY 10007\n+Unless otherwise ordered by Judge Broderick, these Individual Rules & Practices apply to\n+all parties in all civil matters.\n+1. Communications with Chambers\n+A. Pro Se Litigants. Civil pro se litigants must send all communications with the Court to\n+the Pro Se Intake Unit by mail to 500 Pearl Street, Room 205, New York, NY 10007 or\n+by email to ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov.\n+B. Letters. Except as otherwise provided below, communications with the Court shall be by\n+letter, no longer than three pages, filed on the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System\n+(“ECF”). Letters solely between parties or their counsel or otherwise not addressed to the\n+Court may not be filed on ECF or otherwise sent to the Court (except as exhibits to an\n+otherwise properly-filed document).\n+C. Telephone Calls. For questions that cannot be answered by reference to these Rules\n+or the S.D.N.Y. Local Rules, or for docketing, scheduling, and calendar matters,\n+counsel may contact the Courtroom Deputy. For situations requiring immediate\n+attention from the Court, counse l should call Chambers directly , or if needed, the\n+parties should email the Chambers inbox requesting the Court’s contact information.\n+D. Faxes. Faxes to Chambers are not permitted.\n+E. Emails. Except as otherwise noted in these Rules (e.g., Rules 1.C, 5.B.iii.d, and 6.B),\n+parties and counsel may not send emails to Chambers without prior permission.\n+F. Courtesy Copies. Except as otherwise noted in these Rules (e.g., Rules 4.D and 6.E),\n+parties should not send courtesy copies to Chambers.\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+2\n+G. Hand Deliveries. Hand-delivered mail should be left with the Court Security Officers at\n+the Worth Street entrance to 500 Pearl Street; it may not be brought directly to Chambers.\n+Hand deliveries are continuously retrieved from the Worth Street entrance and then taken\n+to Chambers. If the hand-delivered letter is urgent and requires the Court’s immediate\n+attention, however, ask the Court Security Officers to notify Chambers that an urgent\n+package has arrived that needs to be retrieved by Chambers staff immediately.\n+H. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. All requests for adjournments or\n+extensions of time must be made in writing and filed on ECF as letter-motions. The\n+letter-motion must state the following: (1) the original due date; (2) the number of\n+previous requests for adjournments or extensions of time; (3) whether these previous\n+requests were granted or denied; (4) whether the adversary consents and, if not, the\n+reasons given by the adversary for refusing to consent; and (5) the specific reasons for the\n+adjournment or extension of time.\n+If the requested adjournment or extension affects any other scheduled dates, including\n+discovery deadlines, a proposed revised Scheduling Order, the template for which is\n+available on the Court’s website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-vernon-s-broderick,\n+must be included.\n+Absent an emergency, the request must be made at least 48 hours prior to the original due\n+date or the date of the previously scheduled court appearance.\n+The Court will independently review all requests for extensions and adjournments and\n+will not automatically grant stipulated agreements as to scheduling. Requests for an\n+extension or adjournment that are not based upon good cause will be denied. Non-urgent\n+proceedings in other matters, scheduled vacations, and other commitments known well in\n+advance generally do not constitute good cause. Repeated requests for adjournments or\n+extensions of time may require demonstration of extraordinary circumstances.\n+2. Conferences\n+A. Attendance by Principal Trial Counsel. Absent prior authorization, the attorney who\n+will serve as principal trial counsel must appear at all conferences with the Court.\n+B. Attendance by Telephone. If the parties are ordered to appear in person, requests to\n+appear at the conference by telephone instead must be made at least 48 hours prior to the\n+scheduled appearance via letter filed on ECF explaining why counsel cannot appear in\n+person. The dial-in for telephonic conferences is 1-855-244-8681, and the access code is\n+2309 3085 835. There is no attendee ID.\n+C. Initial Case Management Conference. Within three months of the filing of the\n+Complaint, the Court will generally file a Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference, either\n+scheduling a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c) conference or ordering the parties to submit certain\n+pretrial materials in lieu of a conference. The Notice will be made available on ECF, and\n+plaintiff’s counsel will be responsible for distributing copies to all parties. This Notice\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+3\n+will direct the parties to file on ECF (i) a joint letter to the Court containing the\n+information set forth in the Notice, and (ii) a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and\n+Scheduling Order, the template for which is available on the Court’s website at\n+https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-vernon-s-broderick. If a Magistrate Judge has been\n+referred for general pretrial purposes, the parties should follow the Magistrate Judge’s\n+Individual Rules and related orders regarding an initial case management conference.\n+In a\n+ccordance with the S.D.N.Y. ECF Rules and Instructions (“ECF Rules &\n+Instructions”), counsel are required to register as ECF filers and enter an appearance in\n+the case before the initial pretrial conference. The pertinent instructions are available at\n+https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions. Counsel must ensure that any\n+contact information on ECF is up to date.\n+3. Discovery Disputes. Unless otherwise directed, counsel should describe their discovery\n+disputes in a single letter, jointly composed, not to exceed five pages. Separate and\n+successive letters will not be read. Strict adherence to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), the “meet and\n+confer” rule, is required, and should be described in the joint submission as to time, place,\n+and duration, naming the counsel involved in the discussion. The joint letter shall set forth,\n+with specificity, the requested discovery that each dispute involves and the respective\n+position of each party, citing the applicable authority that the respective parties claim for\n+support. As a general matter, affidavits or exhibits are not permitted in connection with\n+discovery dispute letters without prior written request and permission. However, when the\n+dispute concerns the refusal to respond to a specific written request, the parties shall attach\n+that request. If an opposing party refuses to participate in writing a joint letter or does not\n+provide its portion of a joint letter within 72 hours of a party’s request, a party may submit a\n+letter without the opposing party’s contribution and shall attach a copy of the correspondence\n+seeking the opposing party’s contribution.\n+4. Motions\n+A. Pre-Motion Conferences. Pre-motion conferences are not required, except for motions\n+concerning discovery, which are governed by Section 3 above.\n+B. Memoranda of Law. As a general matter, citations to cases should be in the body, rather\n+than footnotes, of memoranda of law. Unless prior permission has been granted,\n+memoranda of law in support of and in opposition to motions are limited to 8,750 words,\n+and reply memoranda are limited to 3,500 words. See also Local Civil Rule 7.1 of the\n+Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of\n+New York (“Local Rules”). Objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and\n+Recommendation and responses to objections should not exceed 3,500 words. These\n+limits do not include the caption, any index, table of contents, table of authorities,\n+signature blocks, or any required certifications, but do include material contained in\n+footnotes or endnotes. Requests for additional pages will not be granted absent\n+demonstration of good cause. All memoranda shall be text-searchable, if possible. Sur-\n+reply memoranda will not be accepted without prior permission of the Court.\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+4\n+C. Unpublished Cases. Westlaw citations shall be provided, if available, to cases not\n+available in an official reporter. Copies of any unpublished cases that are not available on\n+Westlaw should be attached as an exhibit to an otherwise properly-filed document. In pro\n+se cases, parties represented by counsel shall provide a copy of all unpublished opinions\n+to the pro se litigant.\n+D. Affidavits and Exhibits. Parties are limited to a total of five affidavits each in support of\n+or in opposition to a motion. Affidavits may not exceed ten double-spaced pages. Parties\n+may request leave, for good cause, to file additional or over-length affidavits. All\n+exhibits shall be clearly labeled, tabbed, and indexed. For any hearing or deposition\n+transcript submitted, the parties shall provide the Court with an electronic, text-\n+searchable courtesy copy of the entire proceeding by email, if such copy is available,\n+unless doing so would be unduly burdensome.\n+E. Motions for Summary Judgment. Except in pro se cases, the moving party shall\n+provide all other parties with an electronic copy of the moving party’s Statement of\n+Material Facts Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules. The opposing\n+party must reproduce each entry in the moving party’s Rule 56.1 Statement and set\n+out its response directly beneath it.\n+F. Letter Motions. Letter-motions filed via ECF must comply with the Local Rules\n+and the ECF Rules & Instructions.\n+G. Proposed Stipulations and Orders. In accordance with the Local Rules and the ECF\n+Rules & Instructions, parties should file on ECF all proposed stipulations and orders that\n+they wish the Court to sign, except for the following four categories of documents: (1)\n+Consent to Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate Judge; (2) Preliminary Injunction with\n+Temporary Restraining Order; (3) Judgment (Jury Trial); and (4) Clerk’s Judgment. If\n+parties wish the Court to sign any of those four categories of documents, parties should\n+first e-mail the proposed stipulation or order to the Orders and Judgments Clerk at\n+judgments@nysd.uscourts.gov in accordance with the ECF Rules & Instructions.\n+Courtesy copies need not be sent to Chambers for any proposed stipulation or order.\n+H. Default Judgments. A plaintiff seeking a default judgment must proceed by way of an\n+order to show cause pursuant to the procedure set forth in Attachment A.\n+I. Oral Argument on Motions. Parties seeking oral argument on a motion may request\n+oral argument as part of moving papers for the substantive motion at the time their\n+moving or opposing or reply papers are filed and should not move separately for oral\n+argument. The Court will determine whether argument will be heard and, if so, will\n+advise counsel of the argument date.\n+J. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal\n+Rules of Civil Procedure, and the certifications required thereunder, any party,\n+whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative artificial\n+intelligence (AI) tool in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court must\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+5\n+disclose that AI has been used. If generative AI is utilized in the drafting of any\n+documents filed with the Court, the party must further certify in the document that it\n+has independently reviewed and verified the accuracy of any portion of the document\n+drafted by generative AI, including all citations, quotations, and legal authority, and\n+that the document complies with the filer’s Rule 11 obligations. This rule does not\n+apply to information gathered using AI embedded in legal search engines, such as\n+Westlaw, LexisNexis, etc. Failure to comply with this rule may result in sanctions,\n+the document being stricken, or other remedies that the Court deems appropriate. A\n+model certification may be found on the Court’s website\n+(https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-vernon-s-broderick).\n+5. Other Pretrial Guidance\n+A. Cases Removed from State Court. Counsel for the party or parties that removed the\n+case must, in addition to providing a copy of all process, pleadings, and papers served\n+upon the defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), file on ECF a copy of any pleading\n+filed or served while the case remained in State court. Counsel for all parties must file a\n+notice of appearance in this Court promptly upon removal.\n+B. Redactions and Filing Under Seal.\n+i. Redactions Not Requiring Court Approval. The parties are referred to Rule 5.2\n+of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Southern District’s ECF Privacy Policy\n+(“Privacy Policy”), and the Southern District’s September 24, 2025 Notice to the Bar\n+announcing changes to electronic access to and service of sealed documents.0F\n+1 There\n+are two categories of information that may be redacted from public court filings\n+without prior permission from the Court: “sensitive information” and information\n+requiring “caution.” Parties should not include in their public filings, unless\n+necessary, the five categories of “sensitive information” (i.e., social security\n+numbers [use the last four digits only], names of minor children [use the initials\n+only], dates of birth [use the year only], financial account numbers [use the last four\n+digits only], and home addresses [use only the City and State]). Parties may also,\n+without prior Court approval, redact from their public filings the six categories of\n+information requiring caution described in the Privacy Policy (i.e., any personal\n+identifying number, medical records [including information regarding treatment and\n+diagnosis], employment history, individual financial information, proprietary or\n+trade secret information, and information regarding an individual’s cooperation with\n+the government).\n+ii. Redactions and Sealed Filings Requiring Court Approval. Except for redactions\n+permitted by the previous Paragraph, all redactions or sealing of public court filings\n+require Court approval. To be approved, any redaction or sealing of a court filing\n+must be narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies the redaction or\n+1 https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/Not ice%20to%20Bar%20with%20Standing%20Order%20-\n+%20Sealed%20Document%20Access.pdf.\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+6\n+sealing and must be otherwise consistent with the presumption in favor of public\n+access to judicial documents. See, e.g., Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435\n+F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006). In general, the parties’ consent or the fact that\n+information is subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants is not, by\n+itself, a valid basis to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial\n+documents. See, e.g., In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-\n+2543, 2015 WL 4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015).\n+iii. Procedures for Filing Sealed or Redacted Documents. Any party seeking to file\n+a document under seal or in redacted form shall proceed as follows:\n+Meet and Confer. The party seeking leave to file sealed or redacted\n+materials should meet and confer with any opposing party (or any third\n+party seeking confidential treatment of the information) in advance to\n+narrow the scope of the request. When a party seeks leave to file a\n+document under seal or in redacted form on the ground that an opposing\n+party or third party has requested it, the filing party shall notify the\n+opposing party or third party that it must file, within three days, a letter\n+explaining the need to seal or redact the document. Sealed documents\n+can no longer be served through electronic filing in the ECF system.\n+Accordingly, any method of service of sealed documents, other than\n+those provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (such as by\n+email), must be discussed and agreed upon by the parties.\n+Sealed Document(s). The party shall electronically file a letter motion\n+seeking leave to file a document under seal on ECF in accordance with\n+Standing Order 19-MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case\n+Filing Rules and Instructions. The letter motion itself shall be filed in\n+public view, should explain the reasons for seeking to file the document\n+under seal, and should not include confidential information. The proposed\n+sealed document shall be separately and contemporaneously filed under\n+seal on ECF (with the appropriate level of restriction) and electronically\n+related to the motion (or to the relevant Court order if the Court previously\n+granted leave to file the document under seal). Note that the summary\n+docket text, but not the document itself, will be open to public inspection\n+and, thus, the summary docket text should not include confidential\n+information sought to be filed under seal. Also note that the filed\n+document will only be accessible by the Court; it will not be available to\n+the parties.\n+Redacted Document(s). Where a party seeks leave to file a document in\n+redacted form, the party shall electronically file a letter motion seeking\n+leave to file a document in redacted form on ECF in accordance with\n+Standing Order 19-MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case\n+Filing Rules and Instructions. The letter motion itself shall be filed in\n+public view, should explain the reasons for seeking to file the document in\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+7\n+redacted form, and should not include confidential information. At the\n+same time, the party shall (1) publicly file on ECF and electronically relate\n+to the letter motion a copy of the document with the proposed redactions;\n+and (2) file under seal on ECF (with the appropriate level of restriction)\n+and electronically relate to the motion an unredacted copy of the document\n+with the proposed redactions highlighted.\n+Submission by E-Mail. Any party unable to utilize the process for\n+electronically filing under seal through the ECF system, or who believes\n+that a particular document should not be electronically filed at all, shall\n+file a letter motion by e-mail seeking leave of the Court to file in a\n+different manner. All counsel must be copied on the email. The email shall\n+state clearly in the subject line the following: (1) the caption of the case,\n+including the docket number and lead party names; and (2) a brief\n+description of the contents of the letter (e.g., “14-cv-9999 – Jones v. Smith\n+– Request to File Under Seal”). Parties shall not include substantive\n+communications in the body of the email; substantive communications\n+shall appear only in the body of the attached letter.\n+C. Bankruptcy Appeals. Unless otherwise ordered, briefs must be submitted in accordance\n+with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8015–8018. The appeal may be dismissed if\n+the opening brief is not timely filed. Counsel may apply for an extension of the dates\n+specified in Bankruptcy Rule 8018 by joint request but must do so at least two business\n+days before the brief is due. The page limits in Bankruptcy Rule 8015 must be observed.\n+D. Applications for Temporary Restraining Orders. A party seeking a temporary\n+restraining order should file a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, supporting\n+documents, and a proposed order on ECF in accordance with the procedures found in\n+ECF Rule 18.2 and Standing Order 21-MC-16. Information on filing an application ex\n+parte may be found in section 6, Sealed Filing, of the S.D.N.Y. ECF Rules &\n+Instructions, available online at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-\n+instructions. Where the motion is made on notice to the other parties, the moving\n+party should simultaneously serve the documents on any party that will not receive\n+electronic service via the ECF system. The moving party shall email chambers at\n+BroderickNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov, and provide notice of the filing and\n+the time frame requested for Court action.\n+E. Social Security. Parties are directed to refer to the Local Social Security Rules, which\n+take effect on January 1, 2025 and govern actions filed on or after that date.\n+F. Settlement. The Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce confidential settlement\n+agreements. If the parties wish that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement,\n+the parties must place the terms of their settlement agreement on the public record. The\n+parties may either provide a copy of the settlement agreement for the Court to endorse or\n+include the terms of their settlement agreement in their stipulation of settlement and\n+dismissal.\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+8\n+6. Trial Submissions\n+A. Joint Pretrial Order. Unless otherwise specified by the Court, within thirty days after\n+the close of discovery or, if any dispositive motion is filed, within thirty days from the\n+Court’s decision on such motion, the parties shall file on ECF a proposed joint pretrial\n+order, which shall include the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and the\n+following:\n+i. The full caption of the action.\n+ii. The names, law firms, business addresses, and telephone and fax numbers of trial\n+counsel.\n+iii. A brief statement by the plaintiff as to the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and a\n+brief statement by each other party as to the presence or absence of subject matter\n+jurisdiction. Such statements shall include citations to all statutes relied on and\n+relevant facts as to citizenship and jurisdictional amount.\n+iv. A brief summary by each party of the claims and defenses that the party asserts\n+remain to be tried, including citations to any statutes on which the party relies. The\n+summaries shall also identify all claims and defenses previously asserted which are\n+not to be tried. The summaries should not recite any evidentiary matter.\n+v. A statement as to the number of trial days needed and as to whether the case is to be\n+tried with or without a jury.\n+vi. A statement as to whether all parties have consented to trial by a magistrate judge,\n+without identifying which parties do or do not consent.\n+vii. Any stipulations or agreed statements of fact or law to which all parties consent.\n+viii. A list of all trial witnesses, in the order in which the parties anticipate they will be\n+called, indicating whether such witnesses will testify in person or by deposition,\n+and a brief summary of the substance of each witness’s testimony.\n+ix. A designation by each party of deposition testimony to be offered in its case in\n+chief, and any counter-designations and objections by any other party.\n+x. A list by each party of exhibits to be offered in its case in chief, with an indication\n+by exhibit number as to whether any party objects to the exhibit. The party\n+objecting must include a brief statement that makes clear the basis for its objection\n+and must provide any necessary supporting authority.\n+xi. A statement of the damages claimed, and any other relief sought, including the\n+manner and method used to calculate any claimed damages and a breakdown of the\n+elements of such claimed damages.\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+9\n+xii. A statement as to whether the parties consent to less than a unanimous verdict.\n+B. Required Pretrial Filings. Each party shall file on ECF and serve with the joint pretrial\n+order:\n+i. In all cases—motions addressing any evidentiary issues or other matters which\n+should be resolved in limine. Any document that is the subject of an in limine\n+motion should be submitted to the Court by email to\n+BroderickNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov and served on opposing counsel but\n+not filed on ECF.\n+ii. In all cases—a pretrial memorandum of law where a party believes it would be\n+helpful to the Court.\n+iii. In jury cases—joint proposed voir dire questions, a verdict form, and jury\n+instructions. These joint submissions shall consist of single documents, jointly\n+composed, noting any areas of disagreement between the parties. The voir dire\n+questions and jury instructions shall include both the text of any requested question\n+or instruction as well as a citation, if relevant, to the authority from which it\n+derives. These documents must also be submitted by email to\n+BroderickNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov in Word format.\n+iv. In non-jury cases—proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed\n+findings of fact should be detailed and should include citations to the proffered trial\n+testimony and exhibits, as there may be no opportunity for post- trial submissions.\n+These documents must also be submitted by email to\n+BroderickNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov in Word format.\n+C. Additional Submissions in Non-Jury Cases. At the time the joint pretrial order is filed in\n+a non-jury case, each party shall send to the Court by mail or hand delivery and serve on\n+opposing counsel, but not file on ECF, the following:\n+i. All deposition excerpts which will be offered as substantive evidence.\n+ii. All documentary exhibits.\n+D. Filings in Opposition. Any party may file the following documents in opposition. These\n+documents shall be filed no later than one week after the filing of the pretrial order or\n+three days before the scheduled trial date, whichever comes first:\n+i. Objections to another party’s requests to charge or proposed voir dire questions.\n+ii. Opposition to any motion in limine.\n+iii. Opposition to any legal argument in a pretrial memorandum.\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+10\n+E. Courtesy Copies. Two courtesy copies of all documents identified in Rules 6.A, B, C.i,\n+and D above shall be submitted to Chambers on the date on which they are to be served\n+or filed. Only one set of documentary exhibits is required. Voluminous material may be\n+organized either in binders or manila file folders, but in any event, the courtesy copies\n+shall be separately arranged into two independent sets (except for documentary exhibits).\n+F. Exhibits. All exhibits must be pre-marked in advance of trial and two bound copies\n+provided to the Court not later than the first day of trial. If counsel intend to distribute\n+copies of documentary exhibits to the jury, they are to make a separate copy for each\n+juror. Counsel shall make certain that they have custody of all original exhibits. The\n+Court does not retain them, and the Courtroom Deputy is not responsible for them.\n+Counsel should communicate with Courtroom Technology/AV Services, available at\n+(212) 805-0134, if any technological support is required.\n+G. Trial Schedule. Trials will generally be conducted Monday through Thursday from\n+10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with lunch from 12:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. However, any trial\n+scheduled to last for approximately one week will be conducted Monday through Friday.\n+Upon request, the Court will be available to meet with counsel between 9:00 a.m. and\n+10:00 a.m. Such requests must be made by 9:30 p.m. the evening before the requested\n+meeting through (i) an email to Chambers, and (ii) an email to the Law Clerk\n+responsible for the case.\n+7. Post-Trial Procedures. Counsel are responsible for promptly raising any issue concerning\n+the accuracy of transcripts certified by the court reporter to be used for purposes of appeal.\n+Counsel perceiving an error that is material shall stipulate to the appropriate correction or, if\n+agreement cannot be reached, shall proceed by motion on notice. Non-material defects in\n+syntax, grammar, spelling, or punctuation should be ignored.\n+8. Policy on the Use of Personal Electronic Devices and Other Electronic Equipment.\n+Attorneys’ use of personal electronic devices within the Courthouse and its environs is\n+governed by Standing Order M10-468 (Electronic Devices and General Purposes Computing\n+Devices), available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules. Any attorney wishing to bring a\n+personal electronic device into the Courthouse, can obtain a Valid Service Pass issued by the\n+District Executive’s Office to an attorney who has been admitted to the Bar of this Court and\n+presents a valid State Unified Court System Attorney Service Pass. A Valid Service Pass\n+allows an attorney to bring in one personal electronic device into the courthouse and their\n+environs for that attorney’s own use. A Valid Service Pass by itself does not authorize an\n+attorney to bring a General Purpose Computing Device into the Courthouse and their\n+environs.\n+An attorney with a Valid Service Pass or any member of the Bar of any court may bring one\n+or more Personal Electronic Devices or General Purpose Computing Devices into the\n+Courthouse and their Environs for use in a particular trial or proceedings with prior written\n+permission. Any party seeking to bring such equipment shall submit a letter with the standard\n+Electronic Device Order (attached as Exhibit A to the Electronic Devices and General\n+Judge Broderick\n+Civil Rules & Practices\n+11\n+Purposes Computing Devices Standing Order) attached to Chambers at least ten business\n+days in advance of the relevant trial or hearing requesting permission to use such equipment.\n+The letter and order shall identify the type(s) of equipment to be used and the name(s) of the\n+attorney(s) who will be using the equipment. Chambers will coordinate with the District\n+Executive’s Office to issue the Order and forward a copy to counsel. The Order must be\n+shown upon bringing the equipment into the Courthouse.\n+Mobile phones are permitted inside the Courtroom, but must always be kept turned off. Non-\n+compliance with this rule will result in forfeiture of the device for the remainder of the\n+proceedings.\n+ATTACHMENT A\n+DEFAULT JUDGMENT\n+PROCEDURE\n+1. Obtain a Certificate of Default for each defaulting defendant from the Clerk’s Office\n+pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 55(a) and Local Civil Rule 55.1 of\n+the Local Rules.\n+2. Prepare an Order to Show Cause for default judgment and make the Order returnable before\n+Judge Broderick in Courtroom 518. Leave blank the date and time of the conference. Judge\n+Broderick will set the date and time when he signs the Order.\n+3. Provide the following supporting papers with the Order to Show Cause:\n+A. An attorney’s affidavit setting forth:\n+i. The basis for entering a default judgment, including a description of the method and\n+date of service of the summons and complaint.\n+ii. The procedural history beyond service of the summons and complaint, if any.\n+iii. Whether, if the default is applicable to fewer than all of the defendants, the Court\n+may appropriately order a default judgment on the issue of damages prior to\n+resolution of the entire action.\n+iv. The proposed damages and the basis for each element of damages, including\n+interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.\n+v. Legal authority for why an inquest into damages would be unnecessary.\n+vi. If service of the Order to Show Cause on a defendant is anticipated as being\n+accomplished by any method other than (1) those described in Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 4(e)(2), or (2) an alternative method previously approved by the Court in\n+this case, an explanation of why these methods cannot be followed and why the\n+alternative method is proper under the circumstances of the case.\n+B. A proposed default judgment.\n+C. Copies of all the pleadings.\n+D. A copy of the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint.\n+E. A Certificate of Default from the Clerk of Court.\n+4. Electronically file the proposed Order to Show Cause and supporting papers via ECF, in\n+accordance with the ECF Rules & Instructions, available at\n+https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions.\n+5. After the Orders and Judgments Clerk approves the Order to Show Cause on ECF, the\n+Court will review the motion for default judgment and, if appropriate, issue the Order\n+to Show Cause setting a date and time for a default judgment hearing.\n+6. After the Judge signs the Order to Show Cause, serve a conforming copy of the Order and the\n+supporting papers on the defendant by the following methods of service:\n+A. one of the methods described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2),\n+B. any alternative method previously approved by the Court in this case, or\n+C. other alternative method explained in the attorney affidavit.\n+7. Prior to the return date, file through on ECF: (1) an Affidavit of Service, reflecting that the\n+defendant was served with a conforming copy of the Order to Show Cause and supporting\n+papers; and (2) the supporting papers.\n+8. Prior to the return date, file the proposed judgment on ECF for the Clerk’s approval. The\n+proposed judgment shall be approved by the Clerk prior to the conference and then brought\n+to the conference for the Judge’s signature. If a default judgment as to liability is granted, it is\n+the Court’s practice to then refer the case to the assigned magistrate judge for an inquest on\n+damages.","id":"947c7182bcf49786783500b183b0f04e90bbbeefb6fc68e9967c319f43f1cd70","newHash":"fcb2ca637eebc4be7781c99a63579a75d933e69c39b72027ca854db4152a509f","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/VSB%20Broderick%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20rev%202025.10.29.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/fcb2ca637eebc4be7781c99a63579a75d933e69c39b72027ca854db4152a509f.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/VSB%20Broderick%20Civil%20Rules%20-%20rev%202025.10.29.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:08.782674+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"c994e43b3e95a9db9be0faeb84f335b78ae14ad60427cf0df9fca48cb113e649","newHash":"6fdc8eaa27eb8e194013d70cc0d9ea86a2d20259029f75185630fff0d055c22c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file=civil/knillprocedures.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file=civil/knillprocedures.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:08.807618+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@\n+1\n+COURT’S STANDING ORDER ON THE USE OF GENERATIVE AI\n+Pursuant to the Court’s inherent aut hority and the authority of Rule 11 of\n+the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may\n+use Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any filing submitted to the\n+Court. Parties and their counsel who vi olate this AI ban may face sanctions\n+including, inter alia, striking the plead ing from the record, the imposition of\n+economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit. The Court does not\n+intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such\n+as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing. All\n+parties and their counsel ha ve a duty to immediately inform the Court if they\n+discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+/s Christopher A. Boyko\n+CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO\n+United States District Judge","id":"82d6160a963ee6b78caa96c3b70890eccfce2d03d8a51bb802427699beb46dd6","newHash":"20399c50c58be794904760729406925f8127f2fbd8070d621d4e214006825528","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/20399c50c58be794904760729406925f8127f2fbd8070d621d4e214006825528.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/Boyko.StandingOrder.GenerativeAI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:09.114229+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,760 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO\n+WESTERN DIVISION, AT DAYTON\n+STANDING ORDER GOVERNING CIVIL CASES\n+Effective as of December 18, 2023\n+Notice to counsel: New Requirement for Joint Proposed Final Pretrial\n+Conference Orders Effective as of December 18, 2023\n+Notice to counsel: New AI Provision Effective as of August 27, 2025\n+Hon. Michael J. Newman\n+United States District Judge\n+Walter H. Rice Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse\n+200 West Second Street, Room 505\n+Dayton, Ohio 45402\n+newman_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov\n+Courtroom Deputy/Judicial Assistant:\n+Claire McDowell\n+(937) 512-1640\n+claire_mcdowell@ohsd.uscourts.gov\n+Court Reporter:\n+Julie Hohenstein\n+(937) 512-1639\n+julie_hohenstein@ohsd.uscourts.gov\n+i\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ...................................................................................................... 3\n+a. Local Rules ............................................................................................................ 3\n+b. Conflicting General Orders ................................................................................. 3\n+II. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES ................................................................................................... 3\n+a. Preliminary Pretrial Conference ......................................................................... 3\n+b. Rule 26(f) Conference and Report....................................................................... 4\n+c. Scheduling Order .................................................................................................. 6\n+III. MAGISTRATE JUDGE PRACTICE .................................................................................... 6\n+a. Assignment............................................................................................................. 6\n+b. Reference ............................................................................................................... 6\n+c. Consent................................................................................................................... 7\n+IV. DISCOVERY ............................................................................................................................ 7\n+a. The Discovery Deadline ........................................................................................ 7\n+b. Discovery Disputes and Associated Motion Practice ......................................... 8\n+c. Depositions in Lieu of Trial Testimony ............................................................... 8\n+d. Protective Orders Governing Confidential Information in Discovery ............ 8\n+e. Inadvertent Disclosure.......................................................................................... 9\n+V. MOTION PRACTICE ............................................................................................................. 9\n+a. Memoranda in Support ........................................................................................ 9\n+b. Motion Filing Deadlines ....................................................................................... 9\n+c. Evidence in Support ............................................................................................ 10\n+d. Page Limitations and Formatting...................................................................... 12\n+e. Impact on Court Discovery ................................................................................ 12\n+f. Hearings and Oral Argument ............................................................................ 13\n+g. Courtesy Copies .................................................................................................. 13\n+VI. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) PROVISION....................................................... 13\n+VII. MEDIATION .......................................................................................................................... 14\n+VIII. TRIAL, ASSOCIATED CONFERENCES AND DEADLINES ........................................ 14\n+a. Final Pretrial Conference ................................................................................... 14\n+ii\n+b. Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order ................................................................. 14\n+c. Exhibits ................................................................................................................ 16\n+d. Jury Instructions ................................................................................................. 17\n+e. Motions in Limine ............................................................................................... 18\n+f. Daubert Motions .................................................................................................. 19\n+g. Depositions ........................................................................................................... 19\n+h. Trial Briefs ........................................................................................................... 20\n+i. Courtroom Practice ............................................................................................ 20\n+IX. APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 23\n+3\n+I. GENERAL PROVISIONS\n+a. Local Rules\n+The Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern\n+District of Ohio, including the Introductory Statement on Civility, shall be strictly\n+adhered to by all parties and counsel appearing before the undersigned and will be\n+strictly enforced by the Court. The Court reserves the right to sanction counsel who\n+violate the Local Rules or Civility Statement.\n+b. Conflicting General Orders\n+This Standing Order replaces Dayton General Order No. 12 -01 for all civil cases\n+assigned to the undersigned. On or after the effective date of this Standing Order,\n+all counsel of record are charged with knowledge of the procedures and\n+requirements contained herein.\n+II. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES\n+a. Preliminary Pretrial Conference\n+The assigned magistrate judge will generally set a pretrial scheduling conference to\n+occur by telephone within 45 days after all parties have appeared in an action.\n+i. Participation\n+All pro se parties must participate in the preliminary pretrial conference.\n+Parties represented by counsel need only appear at the preliminary pretrial\n+conference through their “trial attorney” (defined in S.D. Ohio Civ. R.\n+4\n+83.4(a)).1 Co-counsel for any party may also participate in the preliminary\n+pretrial conference, but a party’s “trial attorney” is required to participate.\n+ii. Subject Matter\n+During the preliminary pretrial conference, the assigned magistrate judge\n+will discuss the contents of the Rule 26(f) report , including the dates and\n+deadlines proposed by the parties; the parties’ discovery plan; the need for\n+issuance of a protective order governing the exchange of confidential\n+information; the status of settlement negotiations ; and whether the parties\n+seek to engage in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”)\n+mechanism.\n+b. Rule 26(f) Conference and Report\n+Prior to the preliminary pretrial conference, the parties shall confer as required by\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and jointly prepare a Rule 26(f) report for filing.\n+i. Trial Date\n+Trial in a civil case will generally not be set to commence any sooner than\n+5 months after the dispositive motion deadline.\n+1 “Unless otherwise ordered, in all actions filed in, transferred to, or removed to this Court, all parties other\n+than pro se parties must be represented at all times by a ‘trial attorney’ who is a permanent member in good\n+standing of the bar of this Court. Each filing made on behalf of such parties shall identify and be signed by\n+the trial attorney. The trial attorney shall attend all hearings, conferences, and the trial itself unless excused\n+by the Court from doing so. Admission pro hac vice does not entitle an attorney to appear as a party’s trial\n+attorney, but the Court may, in its discretion and upon motion that shows good cause, permit an attorney\n+who has been so admitted to act as a trial attorney.” S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4(a).\n+5\n+ii. Discovery Plan\n+In formulating a discovery plan, the parties shall c onsider the need for a\n+protective order governing the exchange and use of confidential information\n+during the discovery phase of the case.\n+iii. Filing\n+The Rule 26(f) report of the parties shall be filed at least 7 days prior to the\n+date of the pretrial scheduling conference.\n+iv. Binding Nature of the Rule 26(f) report\n+In the absence of objection by any party, the Court will generally adopt in a\n+Scheduling Order the following deadlines jointly proposed by the parties in\n+the Rule 26(f) report : a mending the pleadings ; adding/joining additional\n+parties; filing motions directed to the pleadings (i.e., motions to dismiss or\n+for judgment on the pleadings) ; disclosing lay and expert witnesses;\n+completing discovery; and filing dispositive motions. Unless otherwise\n+stated in the Court’s Scheduling Order, the dates jointly proposed by the\n+parties in the Rule 26(f) report shall govern the action and the parties are\n+bound by the discovery plan and other agreements set forth in the Rule 26(f)\n+report.\n+v. Form\n+A form Rule 26(f) report is attached in Appendix A to this Standing Order.\n+6\n+c. Scheduling Order\n+A Scheduling Order will promptly issue after the preliminary pretrial\n+conference and shall, upon issuance, govern the case. No d eadline set in\n+the Scheduling Order shall be extended, amended, or continued in the\n+absence of a Court Order issued upon good cause shown. In other words,\n+even if all parties agree, a Court Order is nevertheless required to extend,\n+amend, or continue any deadline set in the Scheduling Order. To seek\n+amendment of deadlines, counsel or pro se litigants must file a motion to\n+amend and comply with all provisions of the Local Rules. See S.D. Ohio\n+Civ. R. 7.2 and 7.3.\n+III. MAGISTRATE JUDGE PRACTICE\n+a. Assignment\n+All civil cases, upon filing, are assigned by the Clerk to a district judge and a\n+magistrate judge.\n+b. Reference\n+All civil cases assigned to the undersigned, upon filing, are hereby referred by this\n+Standing Order to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B),\n+and (C) and § 636(b)(3). Unless otherwise ordered ,2 the magistrate judge is\n+authorized to perform any and all functions authorized for full -time United States\n+2 Certain categories of cases are referred to the United States magistrate judge to perform any and all\n+functions authorized for full -time magistrate judges by statute. See Dayton General Order, No. 22- 01\n+(S.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2022). These cases include, inter alia, IRS summonses, government loans, Miller Act\n+cases, pro se cases, post-conviction relief matters, Social Security disability appeals, and all post-judgment\n+proceedings in aid of execution. Id. In addition, other cases may be referred for full disposition upon the\n+unanimous consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C.§ 636(c); see also infra § III(c).\n+7\n+magistrate judges by statute except that, unless specifically ordered, the following\n+motions are not referred, regardless of when they may be filed: (1) motions for\n+temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction; (2) motions to dismiss, for\n+judgment on the pleadings, or for summary judgment ; (3) m otions for class\n+certification; (4) motions in limine; and (5) motions for default judgment.\n+c. Consent\n+A United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all\n+proceedings in a civil action (including a jury or nonjury trial) and to order the entry\n+of a final judgment (a judgment that may then be appealed directly to the United\n+States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit). A magistrate judge may exercise\n+this authority only if all parties voluntarily consent. You may consent to have your\n+case referred to a magistrate judge, or you may withhold your consent without\n+adverse substantive consequences. Pro se litigants and counsel may consent at any\n+time during the litigation so long as trial has not yet begun.\n+If all parties consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, they shall so advise\n+the Clerk of Court by signing and jointly submitting to the Clerk Form AO 85 ,\n+which is attached to this Standing Order at Appendix B.\n+IV. DISCOVERY\n+a. The Discovery Deadline\n+No discovery from any source shall be requested or received, or any depositions\n+occur, after the discovery deadline. All discovery must be completed, not just\n+requested, by the discovery deadline. For such discovery to occur, the requesting\n+8\n+party must seek leave of court to amend the discovery deadline for that limited\n+purpose. The Court may disregard -- on summary judgment, at trial, or otherwise\n+-- any information or documents obtained, received, or produced after the discovery\n+deadline.\n+b. Discovery Disputes and Associated Motion Practice\n+The parties may jointly request an informal discovery dispute conference with the\n+assigned magistrate judge only after exhausting all extrajudicial means3 to resolve\n+the dispute. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.1. In the absence of extraordinary\n+circumstances, no discovery motion -- such as a motion to compel or a motion for\n+a protective order (except for a joint motion for entry of a proposed protective\n+order) -- shall be filed in a case assigned to the undersigne d until the parties have\n+participated in an informal discovery dispute conference as set forth in S.D. Ohio\n+Civ. R. 37.1.\n+c. Depositions in Lieu of Trial Testimony\n+After the discovery deadline, a party may take a deposition for use at trial in lieu of\n+live testimony only if leave of court is granted.\n+d. Protective Orders Governing Confidential Information in Discovery\n+Where the parties believe that a protective order is needed to govern the exchange\n+and use of confidential information during the discovery phase of the case , the\n+parties shall confer to negotiate the terms of such an order for the Court’s approval.\n+3 The undersigned interprets the phrase “all extrajudicial means” to require both telephonic and written\n+communication between the parties.\n+9\n+To obtain Court approval, the parties shall jointly file a motion for the entry a joint\n+protective order and attach the joint proposed protective order thereto. In addition,\n+the parties shall email the joint proposed protective order to the undersigned’s\n+chambers and the chambers of the assigned magistrate judge. In negotiating the\n+terms of the protective order, the parties shall be familiar with Sixth Circuit case\n+law, including Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299\n+(6th Cir. 2016). Form protective orders are available on the Court’s website.\n+e. Inadvertent Disclosure\n+Pursuant to Evidence Rule 502(d), an inadvertent disclosure of a communication or\n+information covered by the attorney- client privilege or work- product protection\n+made in connection with this litigation shall not constitute a waiver of that privilege\n+or protection in this or any other federal or state proceeding.\n+V. MOTION PRACTICE\n+a. Memoranda in Support\n+Memoranda in support of a motion shall be appended directly to the motion and\n+shall not be filed separately on the Court’s CM/ECF docketing system.\n+b. Motion Filing Deadlines\n+Motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and 56 before the undersigned shall be\n+briefed in the following manner: Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition is due\n+within 21 days of the filing of the motion to dismiss; the movant’s reply\n+memorandum is due within 14 days of the filing of the opposition memorandum.\n+All other motion, unless otherwise ordered, shall follow the same timeline.\n+10\n+c. Evidence in Support\n+The Court prefers that, to the extent practicable, all evidence used in support of a\n+motion shall be filed on the Court’s CM /ECF system before the motion is filed.\n+Citations to evidence shall reference the case -specific document number and\n+PageID number ( e.g., Doc. No. 50 at PageID 123) where th e evidence cited is\n+located within the record.\n+i. Depositions\n+Deposition transcripts referred to or relied upon in support of or in\n+opposition to a motion shall be filed with the Court. When filing deposition\n+transcripts, the parties shall file the full transcript in a condensed format.\n+All deposition transcripts filed with the Clerk must include a signature page\n+and statement of changes in form or substance made by the witness pursuant\n+to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e) and the certificate described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f).\n+ii. Confidential Information as Evidence\n+Except where impractical to do so, a party seeking to support a motion with\n+information deemed “confidential” or otherwise protected by the terms of a\n+protective order must, sufficiently in advance of date upon which the party\n+seeks to file such information with the Court, confer with the party or parties\n+designating the information confidential or otherwise protected by the terms\n+of a protective order to determine whether it is appropriate to file a motion\n+for leave to file that information under seal.\n+11\n+iii. Filing Evidence Under Seal\n+Leave of court is required before a party may file evidence on the Court’s\n+docket under seal. This includes information deemed “confidential” or\n+otherwise protected by the terms of a protective order. When moving for\n+leave to file information under seal, the moving party shall be familiar with\n+the standards set by the Sixth Circuit, including Shane Group. The Court\n+anticipates that motions for leave to file documents under seal will be\n+accompanied by: (1) a memorandum explaining, with legal citations, why\n+the proposed seal is no broader than necessary; and (2) an affidavit\n+demonstrating compliance with Shane Group and its progeny.\n+Any Order d enying a m otion to s eal or denying a m otion for c ontinued\n+sealing will be stayed for a period of 14 days after entry of the Order during\n+which an appropriate appeal from the Order may be filed or during which\n+all or part of the material filed under seal may be withdrawn before it\n+becomes a part of the public record. If an appeal is filed, the subject Order\n+will remain stayed until the appeal is determined and, if the Order is\n+affirmed, in whole or in part, the Order will remain stayed for an additional\n+14 days after the entry of the appellate ruling during which all or part of the\n+material filed under seal may be withdrawn before it becomes a part of the\n+public record.\n+iv. The Same Evidence Should be Filed Once\n+To the extent practicable, the parties sh ould refrain from filing the same\n+evidence multiple times on the Court’s docket. For example , if the\n+12\n+transcript of a deposition is filed as Document #20 on the docket in support\n+of a motion to compel, that same deposition should not be separately filed\n+again to support a later -filed motion for summary judgment; instead, the\n+party should simply cite Doc. 20 and the appropriate PageID in the motion\n+for summary judgment. Similarly, if defendant cites a contract governing\n+the relationship between the parties and files such contract as an exhibit in\n+support of a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff should not again file\n+the same contract as an exhibit to the memorandum in opposition; instead,\n+plaintiff should simply cite to the contract filed by defendant.\n+d. Page Limitations and Formatting\n+While the Court prefers that memoranda not exceed the 20-page limitation set forth\n+in S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(4), leave of court is not required to file a memorandum\n+exceeding that page limitation. However, parties filing memoranda exceeding 20\n+pages in length shall comply with all other requirements of S.D. Ohio Civ. R.\n+7.2(a)(4).\n+All briefs and memoranda shall comport with the following specifications: (1) one-\n+inch margins on all sides; (2) main body of the text in 12-point, Times New Roman\n+font; (3) footnote text in at least10-point font in the same typeface as the main body\n+of the text; and (4) citations in the main body of the text, not footnotes.\n+e. Impact on Court Discovery\n+Unless otherwise expressly ordered by the Court, discovery is not stayed, extended,\n+continued, or tolled by the filing of a ny motion or while any dispositive motion\n+13\n+remains pending on the docket awaiting decision . For example: the filing of a\n+motion for judgment on the pleadings or the pendency of a motion to dismiss does\n+not stay or toll the discovery deadline pending a decision on the motion.\n+f. Hearings and Oral Argument\n+Unless required by law or otherwise ordered by the Court, all motions will be\n+decided on the parties’ written submissions filed in accordance with S.D. Ohio Civ.\n+R. 7.2. The parties may request oral argument or a hearing on any motion by\n+following the procedure set forth in S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.1(b).\n+g. Courtesy Copies\n+Unless requested by the Court, the parties need not provide the Court with courtesy\n+copies of any motion or memorandum.\n+VI. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) PROVISION\n+No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in\n+the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who\n+violate this AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia , striking the pleading\n+from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal\n+of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information\n+gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, Internet search\n+engines, such as Google or Bing, or Microsoft Suite products or the equivalent,\n+such as Word. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the\n+Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case or an\n+opponent’s case. The purpose of this provision is not to prevent parties from using\n+14\n+AI tools, such as legal search engines or Microsoft Suite products but, rather, to\n+prevent counsel and pro se parties from citing false, misleading and/or hallucinated\n+cases and law.\n+VII. MEDIATION\n+Mediations are conducted by the Dayton m agistrate judge not otherwise assigned\n+to the case. To schedule a mediation, counsel should contact Judge Newman’s\n+Courtroom Deputy directly, not the magistrate judge’s chambers.\n+VIII. TRIAL, ASSOCIATED CONFERENCES AND DEADLINES\n+a. Final Pretrial Conference\n+The date for the final pretrial conference will generally be set forth in the\n+Scheduling Order issued at the outset of the case and will typically occur\n+approximately 14 days or more prior to trial. The trial attorney and all co-counsel\n+who intend to participate at trial shall attend the final pretrial conference. The Court\n+reserves the right to bar from trial all counsel who fail to attend the final pretrial\n+conference in person.\n+b. Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order\n+No later than 7 days before the final pretrial conference, the parties shall file a joint\n+proposed final pretrial order using the form attached hereto in Appendix C. A copy\n+of the joint proposed final pretrial order shall also be emailed to the undersigned’s\n+chambers.\n+i. Procedures for Preparing the Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order\n+15\n+During the parties’ preparation of the j oint proposed final pretrial order,\n+counsel shall discuss and agree to the maximum number of trial days it will\n+take to submit the case to the jury or, in bench trials, to the Court . In the\n+event the Court has bifurcated any claims or issues, counsel shall discuss\n+and agree to the maximum number of trial days it will take to submit each\n+bifurcated stage of the case to the jury or, in bench trials, to the Court .\n+Absent extraordinary circumstances or a showing of substantial prejudice,\n+trial will not last longer than the maximum number of days agreed to by the\n+parties in the Joint Final Pretrial Order.\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or agreed to by the parties, the\n+following procedure applies to the parties’ preparation of the joint proposed\n+final pretrial order:\n+1. Plaintiff shall prepare and deliver to each defendant a first draft\n+of the joint proposed final pretrial order no later than 14 days prior\n+to the filing deadline (without the information which is within the\n+knowledge of defendants, such as lists of witnesses, exhibits, etc.);\n+2. Defendant must add all information necessary to complete a\n+second draft of the joint proposed final pretrial order, clearly\n+delineating the text which has been changed or added, and deliver\n+the second draft to plaintiff(s) no later than 7 days prior to the filing\n+deadline;\n+3. Following delivery of the second draft of the joint proposed final\n+pretrial order, the parties shall confer and, thereafter, file and submit\n+the joint proposed final pretrial order to the Court as set forth above.\n+ii. Sanctions\n+Failure to timely file the joint proposed final pretrial order as required may\n+result in the continuance of the final pretrial conference and trial. Further,\n+16\n+the failure to timely file the joint proposed final pretrial order may result in\n+the issuance of sanctions, including the dismissal of a case for failure to\n+prosecute.\n+iii. Entry of the Final Pretrial Order\n+Following the final pretrial conference, the Court will promptly enter the\n+final pretrial order with any changes thereto on the Court’s docket.\n+c. Exhibits\n+Exhibits shall be marked with sequential numerals as follows: joint exhibits shall\n+be designated by its sequential number, e.g., JX1, JX2. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be\n+designated PX followed by its sequential number, e.g., PX 1, PX2. D efendant’s\n+exhibits shall be designated DX followed by its alphabetically sequential letter e.g.,\n+DXA, DXB. In cases involving multiple plaintiffs and/or defendants, questions\n+regarding how to properly mark exhibits will be discussed during the final pretrial\n+conference\n+i. Exchange Between the Parties\n+Unless otherwise ordered, all exhibits shall be marked and copies of such\n+delivered to all other parties no later than 3 business days before the final\n+pretrial conference.\n+ii. Court Copies\n+A hard copy of all exhibits shall be provided to the undersigned’s\n+Courtroom Deputy at least 3 business days prior to trial. To the extent\n+17\n+possible, an electronic copy of all exhibits shall also be provided to the\n+Court. If the parties are unable to provide the Court with electronic copies,\n+2 additional hard copies must be given to the undersigned’s Courtroom\n+Deputy at the time set forth above.\n+iii. Demonstratives\n+Sketches, models, diagrams, videos, PowerPoints, or any other\n+demonstrative exhibit that will be used at trial for any purpose must be\n+exhibited to all other parties no later than the final pretrial conference.\n+iv. Display of Exhibits at Trial\n+Unless admitted into evidence, no exhibit can be displayed to the jury\n+without Court approval.\n+v. Admission into Evidence\n+The admissibility of all exhibits referred to during trial and offered by the\n+parties, other than those examined by the jury, will be ruled upon by the\n+Court, at the latest, prior to that party's resting. Either side may offer any\n+marked exhibit, regardless of which party marked it. There is no\n+requirement that counsel object to any exhibit at the final pretrial\n+conference.\n+d. Jury Instructions\n+Proposed jury instructions and verdict forms must be filed 7 days or more before\n+the final pretrial conference. In addition, a Word version of each parties’ proposed\n+jury instructions shall be emailed to chambers at\n+18\n+newman_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov. As filed, they shall be formatted so that\n+each instruction can be printed on a separate 8.5\" x 11\" sheet of paper identified as\n+“Plaintiff(s) (Defendant(s)) Requested Instruction No. __.” Each instruction must\n+contain a citation of authority upon which counsel relies.\n+i. Citation to Authority\n+The Court uses as sources for its instructions O’Malley, Grenig, and Lee’s\n+FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE AND INSTRUCTIONS; OHIO JURY INSTRUCTIONS;\n+the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions; Pattern Instructions from other\n+circuit courts; and instructions given in prior cases of a similar nature.\n+ii. Agreed Statement of the Case\n+The parties are required to confer and submit an agreed statement of the\n+case to the undersigned’s c hambers via email\n+(newman_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov) 7 days or more before trial.\n+e. Motions in Limine\n+Unless otherwise ordered, all motions in limine, directed to the presentation\n+of evidence at trial, must be filed not later than 14 days prior to the final\n+pretrial conference. Memoranda in opposition to motions in limine shall be\n+filed no later than 7 days prior to the final pretrial conference. The failure\n+to file a motion in limine does not waive any argument regarding the\n+admissibility of evidence at trial.\n+19\n+f. Daubert Motions\n+The parties are encouraged to file Daubert motions simultaneously to their\n+motions for summary judgment. If so filed, the opposing party will have 21\n+days to respond. No replies are permitted without leave of Court.\n+Any motion in limine addressed to the admissibility of expert testimony\n+under Daubert, if not included in a previously filed motion for summary\n+judgment, must be filed at least 30 days before the Final Pretrial\n+Conference. Responses to such motions must be filed no later than 23 days\n+before the Final Pretrial Conference. No replies are permitted without leave\n+of Court.\n+g. Depositions\n+Counsel will specify in the joint proposed final pretrial order those portions of any\n+deposition which will be read or played at trial in lieu of live testimony. The\n+deposition itself must be filed with the Clerk not later than the date of the final\n+pretrial conference. Opposing counsel will note objections to any portion of the\n+deposition in advance of the trial, and the Court will rule on the objections either\n+prior to the commencement of the trial or, at the latest, prior to the reading or\n+playing of the deposition in open court.\n+Video presentations must include a method for cutting off either sound or the entire\n+picture from the jury in situations where the Court must rule on objections to\n+testimony. In addition to the video record itself, a typewritten transcript must be\n+20\n+provided to the Court and opposing counsel as an aid in following the videotape\n+presentation and in ruling upon any objections.\n+Any deposition to be used solely for impeachment must be filed with the Clerk\n+prior to the final pretrial conference.\n+h. Trial Briefs\n+Trial briefs, if desired by counsel or ordered by the Court, must be filed and served\n+7 days or more before trial. All briefs shall comply with S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.1,\n+with citations and references conforming to S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(b) and the style\n+requirements for memoranda set forth in this General Order. Counsel should use\n+their trial briefs to instruct the Court in advance of trial in any area of law upon\n+which counsel will rely at trial. Therefore, the briefs should contain arguments,\n+with citations to legal authority, in support of any evidentiary or other legal\n+questions which may reasonably be anticipated to arise at trial.\n+i. Courtroom Practice\n+Conduct of counsel during the trial of cases will be governed by the following:\n+i. Counsel Tables\n+The plaintiff in all civil cases, and the United States Government in criminal\n+cases, will occupy the counsel table nearest the jury. Defendants in both\n+civil and criminal cases will occupy the counsel table furthest from the jury.\n+ii. Court Sessions\n+Trials will usually start at 9:00 a.m. The morning session will continue until\n+approximately noon. There will be a morning recess of approximately 15\n+21\n+minutes at an approximately 10:30 a.m. The afternoon session will start\n+one hour after the end of the morning session unless otherwise announced.\n+The afternoon session will usually end at approximately 4:30 p.m. A recess\n+of 15 minutes will occur at approximately 3 p.m. It is expected that the\n+parties and all counsel will be available at least 15 -20 minutes prior to the\n+beginning of the morning and afternoon sessions.\n+iii. Voir Dire\n+For voir dire , the Court will generally ask initial questions of the entire\n+panel first and will then allow counsel for the parties to ask follow -up\n+questions.4 Following questioning, the Court will entertain “ for cause”\n+challenges and peremptory challenges. The parties shall each have 3\n+peremptory challenges and may request additional peremptory challenges\n+during the final pretrial conference.\n+iv. Size of the Jury\n+The Court will seat a jury of 8 in civil cases with a requirement of unanimity,\n+unless otherwise ordered in the final pretrial order.\n+v. Courtroom Demeanor\n+Counsel should consult with Judge Newman at the final pretrial conference\n+regarding the judge’s preference as to requesting permission to approach a\n+witness.\n+4 For a list of sample questions, see infra Appendix D.\n+22\n+Presenting Exhibits to Witnesses . Since all evidence will have\n+been previously deposited with the Courtroom Deputy, counsel\n+should request the Courtroom Deputy to hand specific documents to\n+the witness. Documents intended for impeachment purposes which\n+are not admitted into evidence will be handed to the Courtroom\n+Deputy for suitable marking and then handed to the witness.\n+Comments by Counsel. Counsel should address any comments to\n+the Court and not to opposing counsel.\n+Objections. Counsel shall not make speaking objections and are\n+not to argue objections in the hearing of the jury.\n+vi. Jury Charge Conference\n+The Court will hold a conference with counsel, in c hambers and on the\n+record, prior to the final argument in jury cases for the following purposes\n+(1) counsel may be heard on proposed jury charges presented by either side\n+and/or on the tentative charges submitted by the Court (counsels’ attention\n+is directed to Fed. R. Civ. P. 51); and (2) the Court will determine the length\n+of the summations to the jury.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+December 14, 2023 s/Michael J. Newman\n+Hon. Michael J. Newman\n+United States District Judge\n+23\n+IX. APPENDICES\n+The following forms are available for the parties to use throughout the course of litigation:\n+1. Appendix A: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Order\n+2. Appendix B: Form AO85 for Unanimous Consent to Magistrate Judge\n+Jurisdiction\n+3. Appendix C: Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order\n+4. Appendix D: Sample Voir Dire Questions\n+24\n+Appendix A\n+25\n+26\n+Appendix B\n+27\n+District of\n+AO 85 (Rev. 02/17) Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+for the\n+)\n+Plaintiff\n+v.\n+)\n+) Civil Action No.\n+)\n+Defendant )\n+NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n+Notice of a magistrate judge’s availability . A United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all\n+proceedings in this civil action (including a jury or nonjury trial) and to order the entry of a final judgment. The judgment may\n+then be appealed directly to the United States court of appeals like any other judgment of this court. A magistrate judge may\n+exercise this authority only if all parties voluntarily consent.\n+You may consent to have your case referred to a magistrate judge, or you may withhold your consent without adverse substantive\n+consequences. The name of any party withholding consent will not be revealed to any judge who may otherwise be involved\n+with your case.\n+Consent to a magistrate judge’s authority. The following parties consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct\n+all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings.\n+Printed names of parties and attorneys Signatures of parties or attorneys Dates\n+Reference Order\n+IT IS ORDERED: This case is referred to a United States magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings and order the\n+entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.\n+Date:\n+District Judge’s signature\n+Printed name and title\n+Note: Return this form to the clerk of court only if you are consenting to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States\n+Reset\n+28\n+magistrate judge. Do not return this form to a judge.\n+Print\n+Save As...\n+29\n+Appendix C\n+30\n+j. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT\n+COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT\n+OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT\n+DAYTON\n+Plaintiff(s)\n+vs. Case Number:\n+District Judge Michael J. Newman\n+Defendant(s).\n+k. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER\n+(A proposed final pretrial order following this form must be jointly prepared and filed not later than the\n+date set forth in the Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order.)\n+This action came before the Court at a final pretrial conference held on\n+at a.m./p.m., pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n+I. APPEARANCES:\n+For Plaintiff(s):\n+For Defendant(s):\n+II. NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION:\n+A. This is an action for\n+B. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under Title United States Code,\n+Section .\n+C. The subject matter jurisdiction of the Court (is) (is not) disputed. [If disputed,\n+state by which party and on what basis.]\n+III. TRIAL INFORMATION:\n+A. The parties’ agree that the maximum number trial days is .\n+B. Trial to has been set for .\n+31\n+IV. AGREED STATEMENTS AND LISTS:\n+A. General Nature of the Claims of the Parties:\n+(1) PLAINTIFF CLAIMS: (suggested type of simple language)\n+“Plaintiff asserts in Count 1 a right of recovery for defendants’ negligence as follows:\n+“Plaintiff asserts in Count 2 a right of recovery for defendants’ wanton and willful misconduct as follows:\n+“Plaintiff asserts in Count 3 a right to punitive damages and attorney fees for the following reasons:\n+(2) DEFENDANT CLAIMS: (suggested type of simple language)\n+Defendant denies liability as asserted in Counts for the following reasons:\n+Defendant as an affirmative defense asserts:\n+(3) ALL OTHER PARTIES’ CLAIMS:\n+B. Uncontroverted Facts\n+Suggested Language:\n+“The following facts are established by admissions in the pleadings or by stipulations of counsel (set\n+forth and number uncontroverted or uncontested facts.)\n+C. Issues of Fact and Law\n+Suggested Language:\n+(1) “CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT: The contested issues of fact remaining for decision are:\n+(list)”\n+(2) “CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW: The contested issues of law in addition to those implicit in\n+the foregoing issues of fact, are: (set forth)\n+OR: There are no special issues of law reserved other than those implicit in the foregoing issues of fact.”\n+If the parties are unable to agree on what the contes ted issues of fact or law are, their respective contentions as\n+to what the issues are shall be set forth separately and clearly labeled.\n+D. Witnesses\n+Suggested Language:\n+(1) “Plaintiff will call or will have available for testimony at trial those witnesses listed in\n+Appendix A hereof.”\n+(2) “Defendant will call or will have available for testimony at trial those Witnesses listed on\n+Appendix B hereof.”\n+32\n+(3) will call or will have available for testimony at trial those witnessed listed on\n+Appendix C hereof.”\n+(4) “The parties reserve the right to call rebuttal witnesses whose testimony could not reasonably\n+be anticipated without prior notice to opposing counsel.”\n+l. INSTRUCTIONS:\n+(1) A brief one or two sentence synopsis of the witnesses’ testimony must be given -- i.e., “Will\n+testify to pain and suffering,” “Will testify to lost profits, etc.”\n+(2) Leave to call additional witnesses may be granted by the Court in unusual situations on motion\n+with names, addresses, and an offer of proof of such witness’ testimony within twenty-four hours\n+after the need to call such witness becomes known.\n+(3) The witnesses need not be called in the order listed, but the witnesses to be called on the\n+succeeding day shall be disclosed to opposing counsel not later than the end of trial each day,\n+unless otherwise ordered.\n+E. Expert Witnesses\n+Suggested Language:\n+“Parties are limited to the following number of expert witnesses, including treating physicians,\n+whose names have been disclosed and reports furnished to the other side: Plaintiff (a)\n+Defendant(s)\n+F. Exhibits\n+The parties will offer as exhibits those items listed herein and numbered with Arabic numerals as\n+follows:\n+(1) Joint Exhibits -- Appendix D (marked “JX ”)\n+(2) Plaintiff Exhibits Appendix E (marked “PX ”)\n+(3) Defendant Exhibits Appendix F (marked “DX ”)\n+(4) Third-Party Exhibits -- appendix G (use Arabic numerals prefixed by initial\n+of party.\n+m. INSTRUCTIONS:\n+The above exhibits will be deposited with the Court’s Deputy Clerk not later than 4:00 p.m. on the\n+third working day prior to trial.\n+G. Depositions\n+Suggested Language:\n+“Testimony of the following witnesses will be offered by deposition (read or videorecorded)”; OR “No\n+testimony will be offered by deposition”\n+33\n+H. Discovery\n+Suggested Language:\n+“Discovery has been completed” OR\n+“The following provisions have been made for discovery.”\n+I. Pending Motions\n+Suggested Language:\n+“The following motions are pending at this time” OR “There are no\n+pending motions at this time.”\n+J. Miscellaneous orders\n+INSTRUCTIONS: Set forth any orders not properly includable elsewhere.\n+V. MODIFICATION\n+Suggested Language:\n+“This final pretrial order may be modified at the trial of this action, or prior thereto, to prevent manifest\n+injustice. Such modification may be made by application of counsel, or on motion of the Court.”\n+VI. SETTLEMENT EFFORTS\n+Suggested Language:\n+“The parties have made a good faith effort to negotiate a settlement,” or otherwise describe the status\n+of settlement negotiations.\n+VII. TRIAL TO A JURY\n+PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS ---\n+Suggested Language:\n+“The parties have submitted proposed jury instructions as required by Judge Michael J. Newman’s Standing Order\n+Governing Civil Cases.”\n+Counsel for Plaintiff(s):\n+Counsel for Defendant(s):\n+Approved following Final Pretrial Conference:\n+Hon. Michael J. Newman United\n+States District Judge\n+34\n+Appendix D\n+35\n+VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS BY THE COURT\n+The Court will first conduct a preliminary examination, typically using questions such as the following. After the\n+Court has finished its examination of the jury panel, counsel may elect to supplement the Court’s examination with\n+questions that do not repeat, in substance, any question the Court already has put to the panel.\n+1. I am now going to read the names of the parties and the witnesses that you may be hearing\n+fromin this case. Please listen to the list carefully as I will be asking you whether you know any\n+of these people.\n+First, as I just told you, the Plaintiff is represented by . Seated at the counsel table with\n+is .\n+At the next table is the Defendant in this case . He [or she] is represented by\n+of .\n+The Plaintiff may call the following persons as witnesses:\n+The Defendant in this case may call the following persons as witnesses:\n+Is any panel member related by blood or marriage to any of the individuals that I have just named?\n+Are you personally acquainted with these persons, or do you have any knowledge of them, directly or indirectly,\n+through your social, business, or professional lives?\n+2. Has any panel member ever heard of or been involved with any of the following entities or\n+persons: [List any businesses or non-witness entities that will be important in this case.] Are any\n+of these names familiar to any panel member?\n+3. OUTLINE THE COUNTS IN THE COMPLAINT\n+Does any panel member have prior knowledge or information about the allegation(s) made against the Defendant(s),\n+which I have just explained to you? This includes knowledge gained from personal contacts or from the media.\n+Follow-up Questions for Any Affirmative Responses:\n+i. From what source did you hear about this case (newspaper, TV, radio, conversation\n+with others)?\n+ii. How many times did you hear or read about it?\n+iii. Do you remember specifically what you heard or read?\n+iv. Did what you heard or read cause you to have any feeling concerning the merits of\n+the parties’ claims?\n+v. Did what you heard or read cause you to have a favorable or an unfavorable\n+impression concerning the parties?\n+vi. Do you today have any impression or even tentative opinion as to the probable outcome\n+of this case?\n+4. Does any panel member have any personal interest of any kind in this case, or in the Defendant(s)?\n+1\n+5. If any panel member has served as a juror in the federal or state court -- either\n+in a civil orcriminal case -- and regardless of the outcome of such case(s),\n+would your prior experience have any effect or influence on your ability to\n+serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\n+6. Does any panel member have any feeling -- thought -- inclination -- premonition -- prejudice\n+-- religious belief or persuasion -- or bias -- which might influence or interfere with your\n+full and impartial consideration and which might influence you either in favor of or against\n+either the Plaintiff or Defendant?\n+7. Is there any reason in your mind why you cannot hear and consider the\n+evidence and render a fair and impartial verdict?\n+8. Can you take the law as the Court instructs you, without any reservation\n+whatsoever, and apply the facts to the Court’s instructions on the law? If\n+you cannot do this, please hold up your hand.\n+9. Do you recognize and accept the proposition that jurors are the sole judge\n+of the facts and the Court is the sole judge of the law? If you cannot do\n+this, please hold up your hand.\n+10. Has any panel member formed or expressed any opinion as\n+to the liability of the Defendant(s)?\n+11. Does any panel member have:\n+a. Any transportation problem? For example, does anyone have\n+difficulty getting to or from the courthouse?\n+b. Any medical or disability problems, such as difficulty hearing,\n+walking or seeing? Does any other medical problem exist which\n+could affect your service on the jury?\n+12. The Court and counsel estimate this trial will last days. Does any\n+panel member have any immediate family or personal reason or situation\n+which persuades you that you cannot serve asa juror during this period\n+and give your undivided attention to this case?\n+Finally, can any of you think of any matter that you should call to the Court’s attention that may have\n+some bearing on your qualifications as a juror, or that -- even to the slightest degree -- may prevent\n+your rendering a fair and impartial verdict based solely upon the evidence and my instructions as to the\n+law?","id":"0a319e363abc9099b87492b8278bf07a2dc9a0777a13e424f8c7751a967f8bdb","newHash":"da31649eb4022109fef4fccd51ed97a15c85154d8bd8648c4a5c8085c2e824ed","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/da31649eb4022109fef4fccd51ed97a15c85154d8bd8648c4a5c8085c2e824ed.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Civil%20Order%208.27.25.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:10.308071+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,449 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO\n+WESTERN DIVISION, AT DAYTON\n+STANDING ORDER GOVERNING CRIMINAL CASES\n+Effective as of November 22, 2024\n+Notice to Counsel: New Requirements for Motions, Including Motions to\n+Suppress\n+Notice to counsel: New AI Provision Effective as of August 27, 2025\n+Hon. Michael J. Newman\n+United States District Judge\n+Walter H. Rice Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse\n+200 West Second Street, Room 505\n+Dayton, Ohio 45402\n+newman_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov\n+Courtroom Deputy/Judicial Assistant:\n+Claire McDowell\n+(937) 512-1640\n+claire_mcdowell@ohsd.uscourts.gov\n+Court Reporter:\n+Julie Hohenstein\n+(937) 512-1639\n+julie_hohenstein@ohsd.uscourts.gov\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................................ 1\n+II. TRIAL DATE ..................................................................................................................... 1\n+III. INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER .................................................................................. 2\n+IV. DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION .................................................................................. 2\n+V. MAGISTRATE JUDGE PRACTICE .............................................................................. 3\n+VI. MOTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 3\n+VII. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) PROVISION .................................................. 5\n+VIII. PLEA NEGOTIATIONS AND PLEA AGREEMENTS ................................................ 6\n+IX. EXHIBITS .......................................................................................................................... 6\n+X. STIPULATIONS ................................................................................................................ 7\n+XI. WITNESSES AT TRIAL .................................................................................................. 8\n+XII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................................... 8\n+XIII. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION .......................................................................................... 9\n+XIV. CHALLENGES .................................................................................................................. 9\n+XV. PREEMPTORY CHALLENGES .................................................................................... 9\n+XVI. JURY INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................................. 10\n+XVII. PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT ........................................................... 10\n+XVIII. SENTENCING ................................................................................................................ 11\n+XIX. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) PROVISION ................................................ 12\n+XX. PAGE LIMITATIONS AND FORMATTING ............................................................. 12\n+XXI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 13\n+XXII. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 14\n+VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS BY THE COURT .......................................................................... 16\n+I. GENERAL PROVISIONS\n+The Local Criminal Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of\n+Ohio, including the Introductory Statement on Civility , which applies in criminal cases,\n+shall be strictly adhered to by all parties and counsel appearing before the undersigned and\n+will be strictly enforced by the Court.\n+This Standing Order replaces Dayton General Order No. 12 -01 for all c riminal cases\n+assigned to the undersigned. On or after the effective date of this Standing Order, all\n+counsel of record are charged with knowledge of the procedures and requirements\n+contained herein. The Court reserves the right to impose sanctions for violations of the\n+Local Rules or Civility Statement.\n+II. TRIAL DATE\n+Each criminal case will be set for trial on the Monday prior to the expiration of the Speedy\n+Trial Act deadline, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, at 9:30 A.M. The final pretrial conference will be\n+scheduled on a date and time approximately two weeks before trial. All trial counsel and\n+the defendant must appear in person at the final pretrial conference. However, the Court\n+retains the ability to schedule a final pretrial conference by telephonic or virtual means\n+when warranted.\n+The Court appreciates the scheduling challenges confronting attorneys, especially when\n+they represent many clients and have trials and other matters pending in both federal and\n+state courts. As experienced attorneys well know, the Speedy Trial Act imposes a 70-day\n+deadline, with limited exceptions, by which trial of federal criminal defendants must\n+commence. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(c)-(h). In order to comply with the demands of the Speedy\n+Trial Act, the fact that a defendant’s attorney has or may have a trial scheduled to begin in\n+2\n+state court will not constitute a sufficient basis for requesting a continuance of a trial date\n+set by this Court, absent extraordinary circumstances. If a defendant’s trial counsel is\n+unavailable for trial in this Court on the date it is scheduled to com mence, he or she must\n+ensure that substitute trial counsel will be present and fully prepared to represent the\n+defendant on the first day of trial and thereafter, if necessary.\n+III. INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER\n+In lieu of holding a preliminary pretrial telephone conference, the Court will issue an initial\n+scheduling order after the arraignment, assigning: (1) a discovery deadline pursuant to Fed.\n+R. Crim. P. 16.1; (2) a pretrial motion deadline; (3) a status report deadline (approximately\n+2 weeks before the trial date); (4) a trial date; and (5) the Speedy Trial Act deadline.1 The\n+parties should file a proposed scheduling order listing these five dates, which the Court\n+remains free to adopt. As mentioned further below, the Court is amenable to moving these\n+deadlines upon the parties’ motion, rather than conducting a telephone conference to\n+discuss a continuance. The initial scheduling order shall also include a joint motion, as an\n+appendix, for the Court to permit the defendant to change his or her plea, should defendant\n+elect to plead guilty. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the Court shall not participate in plea\n+negotiations and takes no position on whether a defendant changes his or her plea. See\n+Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1).\n+IV. DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION\n+Defense counsel are directed to contact the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of\n+the prosecution of a case to arrange a meeting for the purpose of resolving all discovery\n+1 Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16.1, the parties shall meet and confer no later than 14 days after the arraignment.\n+The Court’s scheduling order will correspond with that deadline.\n+3\n+requests provided for under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, including Rule 16.\n+Pursuant to the discovery deadline as imposed in the scheduling order , the government\n+shall make the required disclosure of discoverable evidence under the terms and conditions\n+of Rule 16.\n+The discovery meeting shall be held as promptly as possible. If, at any time during the\n+course of these proceedings, any party fails to comply with Rule 16, such failure shall be\n+brought to the Court’s attention by a motion to compel discovery. Motions to compel shall\n+be filed no later than seven days from the date of a party’s denial of the initial discovery\n+request.\n+V. MAGISTRATE JUDGE PRACTICE\n+All criminal cases assigned to the undersigned, upon filing, are hereby referred by this\n+Standing Order to the assigned M agistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A),\n+(B), and (C) and § 636(b)(3). The Magistrate Judge is authorized to perform any\n+preliminary functions up and until the filing of the information or indictment. The Court\n+reserves the right to delegate disposition of pretrial matters to the Magistrate Judge subject\n+to any limitations imposed by the Constitution or laws of the United States.\n+VI. MOTIONS\n+All motions of any kind, by the defendant or by the government, shall be filed no later than\n+the deadline set forth in the Court’s initial scheduling order . Each memoranda in\n+opposition -- other than a response to a motion to suppress evidence -- shall be filed no\n+later than 21 days after the filing of said motion. A reply memoranda shall be filed no later\n+than 14 days after the filing of a memorandum in opposition. Upon the filing of any\n+4\n+motion, the movant shall state whether , and for what reasons , an evidentiary hearing is\n+required. If the Court agrees, an evidentiary hearing will be scheduled.\n+With the exception of motions to suppress, counsel shall file motions in compliance with\n+S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2 and 7.3. See S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 1.2 (Local Civil Rules shall apply\n+to criminal actions with exceptions established in Rule 1.3). Counsel for the movant shall\n+state whether opposing counsel consents to, or will oppose , the pending motion. If\n+opposing counsel does not respond to the request, the motion shall state that such an attempt\n+occurred.\n+a. Motions to Suppress Evidence\n+Each motion to suppress shall be accompanied by a memorandum in support containing a\n+statement of each constitutional claim supported by a detailed analysis with citation of\n+authorities relied on .2 Each motion to suppress shall state whether the defendants seeks\n+oral argument on the motion or an evidentiary hearing. If the defendant seeks an\n+evidentiary hearing for the purpose of challenging an affidavit presented in support of a\n+search warrant, defense counsel’s memorandum shall address the “substantial preliminary\n+showing” required by Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 155- 56 (1978). E.g., United\n+States v. Young, 847 F.3d 328, 348 ( 6th Cir. 2017) . The Court reminds counsel for the\n+parties, “issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at\n+developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853,\n+886 (6th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up).\n+2 Both the defendant and the Government’s counsel are reminded, “issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,\n+unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” United States v. Robinson, 390\n+F.3d 853, 886 (6th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up).\n+5\n+The Government shall file a memorandum in opposition within 21 days after the date the\n+motion to suppress is docketed. No further briefing will be permitted absent leave of court.\n+b. Motions in limine\n+Motions in limine shall be filed before the date of the Final Pretrial Conference. Usually,\n+the Court will assign a motion in limine deadline in a scheduling order setting the Trial and\n+Final Pretrial Conference Dates. The Court will consider exceptions to this deadline for\n+impeachment evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 609.\n+c. Motions for continuance\n+Any motion for a change of the trial date shall be in writing and should be made at least\n+seven days prior to the scheduled trial date. Motions for continuances shall set forth\n+those Speedy Trial Act factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B) that the movant\n+contends support the motion. The Court prefers all requests for continuances be made by\n+motion, rather than scheduling phone conferences. The Court remains amenable to\n+continuances made by written motion, provided that the parties adhere to the mandates of\n+the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act.\n+VII. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) PROVISION\n+No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the\n+preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who violate this\n+AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia , striking the pleading from the record, the\n+imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit . The Court\n+does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines,\n+such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or Internet search engines, such as Google or Bing. All\n+parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Cour t if they discover the\n+6\n+use of AI in any document filed in their case. The purpose of this provision is not to prevent\n+parties from using AI tools, such as legal search engines or Microsoft Suite products but,\n+rather, to prevent counsel and pro se parties from citing false, misleading and/or\n+hallucinated cases and law.\n+VIII. PLEA NEGOTIATIONS AND PLEA AGREEMENTS\n+Plea agreement discussions between the government and defense counsel pursuant to Rule\n+11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure shall commence as soon as practicable. If\n+a plea agreement is reached, counsel shall notify the Court by filing a joint motion to\n+change plea, asking the Court to permit the defendant to change his or her plea. A sample\n+joint motion is attached to this Standing Order as Appendix B . A change of plea hearing\n+with the duty United States Magistrate Judge will be scheduled soon thereafter.\n+The Court will consider plea agreements reached under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). For\n+Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas, the Court prefers a specific sentence instead of a sentencing range.\n+IX. EXHIBITS\n+Exhibit lists\n+Unless otherwise ordered, counsel shall submit to the Court’s chambers three typed copies\n+of a list of proposed exhibits no later than seven days before the trial date . Exhibit lists\n+shall be three-hole punched.\n+The exhibit list shall include the proposed exhibit number or letter a nd a substantial\n+description of each exhibit. Joint exhibit shall be identified with the designat ion JX\n+followed by its sequential number, e.g., JX1, JX2. The government shall identify its\n+exhibits with the designation G (for government) followed by its sequential number, e.g.,\n+7\n+GX1, GX2. Defendant shall identify his or her exhibits with the designation of “D” (for\n+Defendant) and its alphabetically sequential letter, e.g., DXA, DXB. In cases involving\n+multiple defendants, questions regarding how to properly mark exhibits will be discussed\n+during the final pretrial conference.\n+Trial exhibits\n+Each party intending to offer exhibits will mark the exhibits before trial begins. Seven\n+days before trial begins, counsel shall provide the original and two copies of the exhibits\n+to the Court and one copy to opposing counsel. The exhibits provided to the Court should\n+be three-hole-punched and placed in binders. A copy of the exhibit list should precede the\n+exhibits in the binders prepared for the Court.3\n+At trial, counsel may not approach a witness to tender an exhibit. Rather, the Courtroom\n+Deputy will place each exhibit before each witness. In formulating a question to a witness,\n+counsel shall specify the exhibit number or designation involved to ensure a clear record.\n+Exhibits introduced for the first time during trial, i.e., exhibits used for impeachment, must\n+be distributed to opposing counsel and the Court in the same quantity and format as exhibits\n+produced before trial.\n+Counsel is responsible for any exhibits expected to be used during trial. At the end of each\n+trial session, counsel shall return all original exhibits to the Courtroom Deputy.\n+X. STIPULATIONS\n+Three copies of any and all stipulations shall be submitted to the Court at least seven days\n+before the scheduled trial date.\n+3 Counsel, by motion, may request a different method of handling exhibits.\n+8\n+XI. WITNESSES AT TRIAL\n+Witness lists\n+The government shall submit to the Court’s chambers two copies of its witness list within\n+three business days before the scheduled trial date. The defendant may, and is strongly\n+encouraged to, submit his or her two copies of his or her witness list three business days\n+before the scheduled trial date. One copy shall be in physical format and the other copy\n+shall be emailed in a Microsoft Word document to\n+Newman_Chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov.\n+Sequestration of witnesses\n+If the parties opt to sequester witnesses, then said witnesses shall not be allowed to view in\n+the courtroom gallery during trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 615. This is subject to the\n+exceptions listed in Fed. R. Evid. 615(a)–(d).\n+Remote witnesses\n+The Court prefers live, in- person testimony from witnesses, so it will not allow parties to\n+opt to have witnesses testify via videoconferencing software absent extraordinary\n+circumstances.\n+XII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE\n+An Agreed Joint Statement of the Case shall be submitted to Court approximately seven\n+days before trial. The Statement of the Case shall be read to potential jurors by the Court\n+prior to voir dire.\n+9\n+XIII. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION\n+Prospective jurors will be seated in numerical order in the courtroom. The entire panel of\n+prospective jurors -- persons seated in the jury box and persons seated in the courtroom\n+benches -- will be examined in one continuous examination.\n+Each prospective juror will be assigned a “juror number” by the Clerk’s O ffice. Counsel\n+will receive a list of the jurors’ names and numbers prior to jury selection. When\n+interrogating a juror, counsel shall refer to the juror by number only.\n+The Court will conduct a preliminary voir dire examination tailored to the issues in the\n+case.4 Defense counsel and the government will then be permitted to ask additional\n+questions. During voir dire , counsel shall address their questions to the entire panel.\n+Counsel may not question an individual juror unless the answer of a specific juror justifies\n+further inquiry.\n+XIV. CHALLENGES\n+The juror challenge process will occur after questioning and in the Court’s chambers. The\n+entire panel, not just prospective jurors seated in the jury box, shall be accepted, challenged\n+for cause, or peremptorily challenged in a continuous sequence with reseating prospective\n+jurors.\n+XV. PREEMPTORY CHALLENGES\n+Peremptory challenges in single-defendant cases will be exercised as follows:\n+a. United States exercises its first challenge\n+b. Defendant exercises his or her first challenge\n+4 For a list of preliminary voir dire questions, see infra Appendix A.\n+10\n+c. United States exercises its second challenge\n+d. Defendant exercises his or her second and third challenges\n+e. United States exercises its third challenge\n+f. Defendant exercises his or her fourth and fifth challenges\n+g. United States exercises its fourth challenge\n+h. Defendant exercises his or her sixth and seventh challenges\n+i. United States exercises its fifth challenge\n+j. Defendant exercises his or her eighth and ninth challenges\n+k. United States exercises its sixth challenge\n+l. Defendant exercises his or her tenth challenge\n+Any party that “passes” (i.e., forgoes to exercise a challenge in the order prescribed) has\n+thereby “used” their challenge but does not waive any remaining challenges.\n+After twelve jurors have been fully qualified, and counsel state that they are satisfied with\n+the jury, peremptory challenges as to the alternate juror(s) will then be exercised in the\n+same manner.\n+XVI. JURY INSTRUCTIONS\n+At least seven days before the scheduled trial date, counsel shall file proposed, substantive\n+jury instructions that state the governing law with appropriate case citations. The Court\n+encourages counsel to use the United States Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions where\n+practical.\n+XVII. PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT\n+The Court will order the Probation Department to conduct and complete a presentence\n+investigation report, i.e. , PSI/PSR, consistent with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1 following a\n+11\n+defendant’s conviction or entry of a guilty plea. Parties shall submit their objections to\n+PSI/PSR to the Probation Department within twenty-one (21) days of receipt. Untimely\n+objections will be denied absent a showing of good cause for untimely filing.\n+A party must offer more than a bare objection to the initial presentence investigation report.\n+The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing on the objections upon a showing of a genuine\n+dispute with the facts set forth in the PSI/PSR and will hold oral argument on legal\n+objections prior to sentencing. Factual objections must be substantiated by evidence, such\n+as an affidavit, capable of calling into question the correctness or reliability of the facts\n+alleged in the PSI/ PSR by the Probation Department. Legal objections must identify\n+specific alleged errors with the Probation Department’s application of the U.S. Sentencing\n+Guidelines to the facts stated in the PSI/PSR.\n+Preferably, all information and materials relating to requests for upward departures and\n+upward variances (and, likewise, for downward departures , and downward variances )\n+should be presented, whenever possible, to the Probation Department during the Pre -\n+Sentence Investigation Report (PSR) drafting process so those matters can be made part of\n+the PSR. If, for some reason, that is not feasible or possible, such matters shall be presented\n+to the Court in a Court filing (under seal, if necessary) no later than TEN DAYS PRIOR\n+to the sentencing hearing. If such materials are not presented to the C ourt in a timely\n+manner, the Court reserves the right to not consider them. The Court remains willing, in\n+most cases, to meet with counsel for both sides prior to the sentencing hearing.\n+XVIII. SENTENCING\n+Unless ordered otherwise, parties shall submit sentencing memoranda no later than\n+SEVEN DAYS PRIOR to the sentencing hearing. Objections to the PSI/ PSR raised for\n+12\n+the first time in sentencing memoranda , or at the sentencing hearing, shall not be\n+considered absent good cause.\n+XIX. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) PROVISION\n+No attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in\n+the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who\n+violate this AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia , striking the pleading\n+from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal\n+of the lawsuit. The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information\n+gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, Internet search\n+engines, such as Google or Bing, or Microsoft Suite products or the equivalent,\n+such as Word. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the\n+Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case or an\n+opponent’s case. The purpose of this provision is not to prevent parties from using\n+AI tools, such as legal search engines or Microsoft Suite products but, rather, to\n+prevent counsel and pro se parties from citing false, misleading and/or hallucinated\n+cases and law.\n+XX. PAGE LIMITATIONS AND FORMATTING\n+While the Court prefers that memoranda not exceed the 20-page limitation set forth in S.D.\n+Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(3), leave of court is not required to file a memorandum exceeding that\n+page limitation. However, parties filing memoranda longer than 20 pages in length shall\n+comply with all other requirements of S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(3).\n+All documents, briefs, and memoranda shall comport with the following specifications: (1)\n+one-inch margins on all sides; (2) main body of the text in 12- point, Times New Roman\n+13\n+font; (3) footnote text in at least 10-point font in the same typeface as the main body of the\n+text; and (4) citations in the main body of the text, not in footnotes.\n+XXI. CONCLUSION\n+Unless a motion to continue has been filed or some other events under 18 U.S.C.\n+§ 3161(h)(1) through (8) has occurred that would exclude time from the Speedy Trial Act\n+deadline, the parties are required to fully comply with the requirements and deadlines\n+contained in this Order.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+December 14, 2023 s/Michael J. Newman\n+Hon. Michael J. Newman\n+United States District Judge\n+14\n+XXII. APPENDICES\n+The following forms are available for the parties to use throughout the course of litigation:\n+1. Appendix A: Sample Voir Dire Questions\n+2. Appendix B: Sample Joint Motion to Permit Defendant to Change Plea\n+15\n+Appendix A\n+16\n+VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS BY THE COURT\n+The Court will first conduct a preliminary examination, typically using the questions listed below.\n+After the Court has finished its examination of the jury panel, counsel may elect to supplement the Court’s\n+examination with questions that do not repeat, in substance, any question the Court already has put to the\n+panel.\n+1. I am now going to read the names of the parties and the witnesses that you may be hearing from\n+in this case. Please listen to the list carefully as I will be asking you whether you know any of\n+these people.\n+First, as I just mentioned, the government is represented by . Seated at the counsel table with\n+is .\n+At the next table is the Defendant in this case . He [or she] is represented by\n+of .\n+The United States may call the following persons as witnesses:\n+The Defendant may call the following persons as witnesses:\n+Is any panel member related by blood or marriage to any of the individuals that I have just named?\n+Are you personally acquainted with these persons, or do you have any knowledge of them, directly\n+or indirectly, through your social, business, or professional lives?\n+2. Has any panel member ever heard of or been involved with any of the following entities or\n+persons: [List any businesses or non-witness entities that will be important in this case]? Are any\n+of these names familiar to any panel member?\n+3. OUTLINE THE OFFENSE PER INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION\n+Does any panel member have prior knowledge or information about the crime(s) the defendant(s)\n+is/are charged with, which I have just explained to you? This includes knowledge gained from\n+personal contacts or from the media.\n+Follow-up Questions for Any Affirmative Responses:\n+i. From what source did you hear about this case (newspaper, TV, radio, conversation\n+with others)?\n+ii. How many times did you hear or read about it?\n+iii. Do you remember specifically what you heard or read?\n+iv. Did what you heard or read cause you to have any feeling concerning the merits of\n+the parties’ claims?\n+v. Did what you heard or read cause you to have a favorable or an unfavorable\n+impression concerning the parties?\n+vi. Do you today have any impression or even a tentative opinion about the probable\n+17\n+outcome of this case?\n+4. Does any panel member have any personal interest of any kind in this case, or in the defendant(s)?\n+5. If any panel member has served as a juror in the federal or state court -- either in a civil or criminal\n+case -- and regardless of the outcome of such case(s), would your prior experience have any effect\n+or influence on your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\n+6. Does any panel member have any feeling -- thought -- inclination -- premonition -- prejudice --\n+religious belief or persuasion -- or bias -- which might influence or interfere with your full and\n+impartial consideration and which might influence you either in favor of or against either the\n+defendant(s) or the government?\n+7. Is there any reason in your mind why you cannot hear and consider the evidence and render a\n+fair and impartial verdict?\n+8. Can you take the law as the Court instructs, without any reservation whatsoever, and apply the\n+Court’s instructions on the law to the facts in this case? If you cannot do this, please hold up your\n+hand.\n+9. Do you recognize and accept the proposition that jurors are the sole judge of the facts and the\n+Court is the sole judge of the law? If you cannot do this, please hold up your hand.\n+10. If you are selected as a juror in this case can you extend the presumption of innocence to this\n+defendant(s); that is, can you presume the defendant(s) is/are innocent of the charge(s) unless and\n+until guilt is established by proof which convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt? If you cannot\n+do this, please hold up your hand.\n+11. Are you -- or is any member of your immediate family -- a member of a law enforcement agency,\n+i.e., municipal police, county sheriff, state highway patrol, or any federal law enforcement agency,\n+either at the present time or in the past?\n+12. Does any panel member feel bias -- or prejudice -- because the defendant(s) has (have) been charged\n+by indictment (information) with a criminal offense(s) against the United States?\n+13. Has any panel member formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the\n+defendant(s)?\n+14. Does any panel member have:\n+a. Any transportation problem? For example, does anyone have difficulty getting to or from\n+the courthouse?\n+b. Any medical or disability problems, such as difficulty hearing, walking , or seeing? Does\n+any other medical problem exist which could affect your service on the jury?\n+15. The Court and counsel estimate this trial will last days. Does any panel member have any\n+immediate family or personal reason or situation that prevents you from serving as a juror during\n+this period and giving your undivided attention to this case?\n+16. Finally, can any of you think of any matter that you should call to the Court’s attention that may\n+have some bearing on your qualifications as a juror, or that -- even to the slightest degree -- may\n+prevent your rendering a fair and impartial verdict based solely upon the evidence and my\n+instructions as to the law?\n+18\n+Appendix B\n+19\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO\n+WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n+Plaintiff, Case No. 3:\n+vs.\n+[DEFENDANT], District Judge Michael J. Newman\n+Defendant.\n+______________________________________________________________________________\n+JOINT MOTION FOR DEFENDANT TO CHANGE PLEA\n+______________________________________________________________________________\n+The parties hereby jointly move this Court to permit the Defendant to change his or her\n+plea in the above-captioned case.\n+/s/ [Government Attorney Name] /s/ [Defendant Attorney Name]\n+[Attorney Name] ([Bar Number])\n+Assistant United States Attorney\n+[Attorney Name] ([Bar Number])\n+[Insert Firm Name]\n+200 West Second Street [Insert Address]\n+Dayton, OH 45402\n+Telephone: [insert phone number]\n+Email: [insert email address]\n+[Insert City, State Zip Code]\n+Telephone: [insert phone number]\n+Email: [insert email address]\n+Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant","id":"f897b39253a1665a81bc84904fefbaf4c3034de7fae96e0dfa0d6341fb56b86d","newHash":"8543ac3dd100fb22efc8b759da823dbc18bf37c0e11d712b94375450c74a828b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%208.27.2025.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/8543ac3dd100fb22efc8b759da823dbc18bf37c0e11d712b94375450c74a828b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//MJN%20Standing%20Criminal%20Order%208.27.2025.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:10.108572+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO\n+EASTERN DIVISION\n+STANDING ORDER ON THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE\n+The use of generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) by attorneys and pro se litigants to\n+prepare pleadings, motions, briefs, and other documents has raised concerns over the reliability,\n+accuracy, and volume of filings in this Court.\n+Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that by submitting a pleading,\n+motion, brief, or other paper to the Court, an atto rney or pro se litigant certifies that their claims,\n+defenses, and other legal contentions are warr anted by existing law and that their factual\n+contentions have evidentiary support.\n+It is hereby ORDERED that any party, including a pro se litigant, who uses generative AI\n+to help generate the content of any portion of a pleading, motion, brief, or other document must\n+submit a declaration disclosing the use of generative AI. The declaration shall be captioned\n+“Disclosure of the Use of Generative AI.” The declaration must identify the content (by page,\n+section, or paragraph number) which was prepared with the assistance of generative AI and state\n+the platform used (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.). In the declaration, the attorney or pro se litigant must\n+CERTIFY that they have reviewed the relevant so urce material and have verified that all\n+submissions to the Court are accurate, and that they have complied with their obligations under\n+Rule 11(b).\n+An attorney or pro se litigant who signs a pleading, motion, brief, or other document\n+submitted to the Court is responsible for the conten ts of that filing under Ru le 11, regardless of\n+whether they used generative AI to generate any portion of that filing. The failure to comply with\n+Rule 11(b) may result in sanctions under Rule 11(c).\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+October 21, 2025 s/ James L. Graham\n+James L. Graham\n+United States District Judge\n+OCT 21 2025 11:52A\n+OCT 21 2025 11:52A","id":"02fcc491654ec96cfe237a8473a5e0422526465d29bd3bb0c4f20c71369d0bce","newHash":"191b198c14afa8cf9559bdeef6f4fc5dc63f0dfb26dbfdc9afcb881ff46c645d","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/191b198c14afa8cf9559bdeef6f4fc5dc63f0dfb26dbfdc9afcb881ff46c645d.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files/10-21-25%20JLG%20Standing%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:10.028384+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"4dbdb09cc9a023e1d41f75fe9d5d0ca0d10db4a21ad497038e1836d453a59b37","newHash":"b50eda5ba9a5f55e73290b65f9198e220f7c761700abc3c1366dd21ce2f16c24","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:10.453401+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"c28247c2b271f24ca93c0d2c9578b677089bbc35a00bf9a9ffaab81fb71b8995","newHash":"10d474ff2333e7f768653fe00a7690243ede28a6b5de5c66ae431634aa996f86","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.okcca.net/rules/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.okcca.net/rules/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:10.461857+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@\n+DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS\n+FOR GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Chambers of United States Magistrate Judge Jason A. Robertson\n+1. Consistent with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the\n+certifications required thereunder, the Court directs that any party, whether appearing pro\n+se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool in the\n+preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court, must disclose in the document that\n+AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used. The unrepresented party or attorney\n+must further certify in the document that the person has checked the accuracy of any portion\n+of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations and legal authority.\n+2. If generative AI is utilized in the preparation of any documents filed with the Court,\n+the unrepresented party or attorney will be held responsi ble for the contents thereof, in\n+accordance with Rule 11 and applicable rules of professional conduct and/or attorney\n+discipline.\n+3. The failure to make the disclosure and certification described in paragraph 1 may\n+result in the imposition of sanctions.","id":"b6aded4859970df8d251bd2187c4525e7d1c72bd404c567d8185c970b5186b97","newHash":"c3cc6cdca5f212a52cec3a9b34ec30f82df00a920c86087d93766cc0c7aab68d","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/c3cc6cdca5f212a52cec3a9b34ec30f82df00a920c86087d93766cc0c7aab68d.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.oked.uscourts.gov/sites/oked/files/AI%20Guidelines%20JAR%209.27.23.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:10.735250+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@\n+UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT ~\n+WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA\n+INRE:\n+PLEADINGS USING GENERATIVE\n+ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+)\n+2013 JUL 25 P 12: 2b\n+DOI K\n+General~\n+D\n+Effective September 1, 2023, any document filed with the Court that has been drafted\n+utilizing a generative artificial intelligence program, including but not limited to ChatGPT,\n+Harvey.AI, or Google Bard, must be accompanied by an attestation: (1) identifying the program\n+used and the specific portions of text for which a generative artificial intelligence program was\n+utilized; (2) certifying the document was checked for accuracy using print reporters, traditional\n+legal databases, or other reliable means; and (3) certifying the use of such program has not resulted\n+in the disclosure of any confidential information to any unauthorized party. The Court finds such\n+attestation necessary because as noted by Hon. Brantley Starr: \"While attorneys swear an oath to\n+set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent\n+their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans\n+who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client,\n+the rule oflaw, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or ... the truth).\" Hon. Brantley\n+Starr, Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence ,\n+www.txnd .uscourts.gov/judge/judge-brantley-starr (last visited June 22, 2023).\n+Additionally, Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure continues to apply\n+to all documents filed with the Court, and the Court construes all filings as a certification by the\n+person signing the filed document of compliance with Rule 9011 (b ).\n+SO ORDERED tbis.Z\"n-,--day of July, 20~\n+Sarah A. Hall, Chief\n+United States Bankruptcy Judge\n+0.\n+J . yd,\n+States Bankruptcy","id":"6ff95316befce863924608572be79b5219d81d4279dc66e419fc0ef564fa22ff","newHash":"86382a7e36b2c45ca565b8a4c26971c35e1db46feb218ef528ab4830eb381e02","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/86382a7e36b2c45ca565b8a4c26971c35e1db46feb218ef528ab4830eb381e02.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:11.119241+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@\n+DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS –\n+GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Chambers of Chief United States District Judge Scott L. Palk\n+1. Consistent with Rule 11 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the\n+certifications required thereunder, the Court directs that any party, whether appearing pro\n+se or through counsel, who utiliz es any generative artificial in telligence (AI) tool in the\n+preparation of any documents to be filed with the Court, must disclose in the document that\n+AI was used and the specific AI tool that wa s used. The unrepresented party or attorney\n+must further certify in the document that the person has checked the accuracy of any portion\n+of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations and legal authority.\n+2. If generative AI is utilized in the prepara tion of any documents filed with the Court,\n+the unrepresented party or attorney will be he ld responsible for the contents thereof, in\n+accordance with Rule 11 and applicable rules of professi onal conduct and/ or attorney\n+discipline.\n+3. The failure to make the disclosure a nd certification described in paragraph 1 may\n+result in the imposition of sanctions.","id":"8d3d620c7667f37adc9adc8d712c0adea199ca97b3e6b84df60d50dc9c5cb697","newHash":"d4dfd10ec508b134b01260f30d152881bac7e99e1b66e9217971d8088c812197","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/d4dfd10ec508b134b01260f30d152881bac7e99e1b66e9217971d8088c812197.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:10.912041+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"1b15bca26817e4ee66b37526205c281cedb522e13efd1dfa1896cefe8311941d","newHash":"94bbbd0341e3e64f2b26ed7cce366b6c56f8d3cd9a86d79e5335db72be75d036","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%20-%20106502825326188944.pdf?cb=1","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:11.670833+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@\n+Michael M. Baylson | Eastern District of Pennsylvania | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+United States District Court\n+Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n+Honorable Wendy Beetlestone, Chief Judge | George V. Wylesol, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+Court Info\n+Court Locations\n+Court Proceeding Schedule\n+Departments\n+After-Hours and Emergency Matters\n+Court Holidays\n+Fees\n+Local Rules, Standing and Administrative Orders\n+Vacancy Announcements\n+Clerk's Office Procedures\n+Notices\n+Contact Information\n+Emergency Contact Information\n+Judicial Conduct & Disability\n+Office of Workplace Relations\n+Employment Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan\n+Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Contact Information\n+Judges' Info\n+Our Judges\n+Documents\n+MDL\n+Forms\n+Three Judge Court Cases\n+Opinions\n+Federal Rules\n+Notices\n+Programs & Services\n+NextGen CM/ECF\n+PACER\n+Volunteer Attorney Panels\n+Electronic Courtrooms\n+Accessibility Information\n+STRIDES Program\n+Reentry Court\n+Relapse Prevention Court\n+Ordering Transcripts\n+Arbitration Trials\n+Mediation\n+Jury Info\n+For Attorneys\n+Pro Se - Self Representation\n+Overview of the Federal Courts\n+Filing Your Complaint\n+Pro Se Forms\n+Immigration Habeas Cases\n+Electronic Document Submission (EDS)\n+Legal Terms and Rules\n+Legal Resources\n+Criminal Justice Act\n+FAQs\n+General FAQs\n+Jury FAQs\n+Case Processing FAQs\n+Human Resources FAQs\n+History of the Court\n+Judges of the Court\n+Judicial Succession Charts\n+Authorized Judgeships\n+Clerks of the Court\n+Court Locations\n+Legislative History of the Court\n+Judicial District Organization\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Michael M. Baylson\n+There is currently no content classified with this term.\n+Our Judges\n+District Court Judges\n+Senior Judges\n+Magistrate Judges\n+Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | FAQs\n+Privacy Policy\n+.","id":"32486868a20cfacffe78d59285fe30b7d2ac775a6d0c609826aa773185ae6d60","newHash":"f531e050a0bd95118fd031573a3d0f08cf59e7bbec3639693a00c25b2545dae5","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges/michael-m-baylson","snapshot":"snapshots/f531e050a0bd95118fd031573a3d0f08cf59e7bbec3639693a00c25b2545dae5.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges/michael-m-baylson","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:11.483339+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@\n+1\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n+STANDING ORDER RE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) IN CASES\n+ASSIGNED TO JUDGE BAYLSON\n+If any attorney for a party, or a pro se party, has used Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the\n+preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper, filed with the Court, and\n+assigned to Judge Michael M. Baylson, MUST, in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose\n+that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing, and CERTIFY, that each and\n+every citation to the law or the record in the paper, has been verified as accurate.\n+DATED: 6/6/2023 BY THE COURT:\n+/s/ MICHAEL M. BAYLSON\n+_______________________________\n+MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, U.S.D.J.","id":"4a36c664f477dbaad03e61c65be9f54ce414c6de8d6960c29f2cb4832b55d4d9","newHash":"3202a1855c6ec8471d5dfbebf81288c2dbe60272e30b3ce1fa0f6b885e65c6b6","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/3202a1855c6ec8471d5dfbebf81288c2dbe60272e30b3ce1fa0f6b885e65c6b6.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:11.802969+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,663 @@\n+HONORABLE CAROLINE GOLDNER CINQUANTO\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+3006 U.S. Courthouse\n+601 Market Street\n+Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106\n+(267) 299-7750\n+Deputy Clerk: Jeffrey Lucini\n+Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts.gov\n+MAGISTRATE JUDGE ASSIGNMENT\n+Senior Judge John R. Padova\n+Senior Judge Michael M. Baylson\n+District Judge Gerald J. Pappert\n+JUDGE GOLDNER CINQUANTO’S\n+POLICIES AND PROCEDURES1\n+I. GENERAL MATTERS\n+A. Correspondence with the Court\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto permits correspondence from counsel on any matters, so\n+long as all other counsel or unrepresented parties are sent copies of such correspondence.\n+B. Communications With Law Clerks\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto permits communications from counsel, both written and\n+oral, with her law clerks on procedural matters only. Parties who are pro se (do not have\n+counsel) may only communicate by mail or email to the chambers address above, unless\n+otherwise directed.\n+C. Extensions or Continuances\n+Parties are expected to adhere to all deadlines that the Court has implemented by\n+scheduling order or that are otherwise established by rule or statute absent a compelling\n+reason to justify a change.\n+1 Counsel shall also familiarize themselves with and comply with the Eastern District\n+of Pennsylvania’s Local Rules and Standing and Administrative Orders, which are available\n+on the Court’s website (https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/).\n+If a party believes a compelling reason exists for an extension or a continuance, Counsel\n+shall request a new deadline or date in advance of the originally scheduled date via email\n+(to Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_ Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts.gov). The request\n+shall describe the basis for the request in detail, state whether all other parties agree or\n+disagree with the request, and identify a suggested new deadline(s) or date(s).\n+II. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES\n+When a case is referred to Judge Goldner Cinquanto for settlement purposes, counsel\n+shall contact chambers to schedule a settlement conference in compliance with the district\n+judge’s referral order.\n+Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_ Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts.gov\n+Before the Conference—\n+Plaintiff(s) must make an updated, precise, and specific written settlement demand,\n+inclusive of all attorney’s fees, costs, and damages, at least three weeks before a scheduled\n+settlement conference.\n+Defendant(s) must make an updated, precise, and specific written settlement offer at\n+least two weeks before the conference.\n+If settlement is not a real possibility ( e.g., if the defendant wi ll not make an offer or\n+will offer only nuisance value), counsel shall notify the Court (jointly or individually) by a\n+call or email to request a brief video conference regarding the lack of settlement possibility\n+at least one week before the scheduled settlement conference.\n+If requested by counsel , with no opposition , Judge Goldner Cinquanto is available\n+for ex parte video conferences before the settlement conference. Please contact chambers to\n+arrange any pre-conference video call.\n+Counsel for all parties must submit a confidential settlement summary and case\n+synopsis via email (to Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts\n+.gov) two weeks before the conference. The case synopsis should be no more than five -\n+pages in length. An example settlement summary is attached.\n+The synopsis s hould attach key summary expert reports, policy language excerpts,\n+photographs, sketche s, diagrams, charts, etc., to the conference memos. Judge Goldner\n+Cinquanto will review them. Please attach only those excerpts which are most relevant to\n+the claims at issue. Relevant portions must be delineated. Attachments should be no more\n+than 30 pages and should be separated with labeled divider pages . Judge Goldner\n+Cinquanto may require parties to provide hard copies of lengthy materials.\n+In addition, the synopsis should address whether there are any outstan ding lien\n+holders or other third parties who should be invited to participate in the settlement\n+conference.\n+Counsel for all parties should prepare their clients for the conference. Judge Goldner\n+Cinquanto will speak to them directly.\n+At the Conference—\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto requires a principal for each party with an interest in the\n+case who has full and complete settlement authority (i.e., authority consistent with the most\n+recent demand) to be present (either on the Zoom, or in person, as applicable) for the entire\n+duration of the conference . If a party requires approval by an insurer to settle, a\n+representative of the insurer with full and complete settlement authority consistent with the\n+most recent demand must be present in addition to the relevant party principal.2\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto expects counsel to:\n+• Be prepared to discuss the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of their case.\n+• Be prepared to discuss factual and legal points of agreement and\n+disagreement.\n+• Be prepared to discuss any impediments to settlement, whether legal,\n+financial, or emotional.\n+• Be prepared to be present for the entire day (with their client(s)) for as long as\n+needed to make substantial progress towards a mutually agreeable resolution.\n+• Organize and bring critical evidence (policy language, photographs, sketches,\n+diagrams, charts, etc.) to the conference. Judge Goldner Cinquanto may want\n+to see them.\n+• Be patient. Settlement is a process. It takes time.\n+• Be flexible. Avoid bottom lines or top numbers.\n+• Be creative.\n+2 Having a client with settlement authority available by telephone is not an acceptable\n+alternative unless compelling circumstances exist and there is prior approval from Judge\n+Goldner Cinquanto (e.g., client is located in another state at the time of the conference). If a\n+conference must be adjourned or continued to allow a party to obtain additional authority\n+up to the most recent demand, that party may incur sanctions, including, but not limited to,\n+payment of the opposing party’s attorney’s fees resulting from a need to reconvene.\n+• Manage their client’s expectations.\n+• Manage their own expectations.\n+III. CIVIL CONSENT CASES\n+A. Scheduling Conferences\n+After the consent of the parties and a referral of a case for trial, Judge Goldner\n+Cinquanto will hold a scheduling conference. At that time, deadlines will be set and the case\n+listed for trial. An example of a scheduling order is attached.\n+If a Rule 26(f) report is not already on the docket when a case is assigned to Judge\n+Goldner Cinquanto, the parties sha ll submit a copy of their Rule 26(f) report via email (to\n+Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts.gov) at least five days\n+before the scheduled conference.\n+B. Discovery Conferences and Dispute Resolution\n+Discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case . Counsel for all parties are\n+strongly encouraged to resolve any discovery disputes on their own. Judge Goldner\n+Cinquanto will not entertain a request for judicial intervention if parties or their counsel\n+have exchanged emails or other correspondence but have not made a good faith eff ort to\n+speak to each other by telephone or video conference regarding a discovery dispute.\n+If a party still requires Court intervention in a discovery dispute after making good\n+faith effort s to communicate with an opposing party , the requesting party sh all email\n+Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts.gov to request a\n+telephone conference before filing any discovery motion on the docket. The request shall: (1)\n+describe the parties’ prior efforts to resolve their dispute in detail; (2) summarize the matters\n+in dispute; and (3) attach any information relevant to Judge Goldner Cinquanto ’s\n+consideration of the dispute.\n+Parties are reminded that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 requires parties who file\n+discovery motions to certify “that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to\n+confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain\n+it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Rule 26.1(f) of the Eastern District of\n+Pennsylvania Local Rules of Civil Procedure also requires discovery motions to include “a\n+certification of counsel that the parties, after reasonable effort, are unable to resolve the\n+dispute.” E.D. Pa. Local R. Civ. P. 26.1(f).\n+C. Confidentiality Agreements and Protective Orders\n+Public policy favors transparency in judicial proceedings. See Pansy v. Borough of\n+Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 784 (3d Cir. 1994).\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires parties to confer and attempt to reach\n+an agreement regarding the confidentiality of discovery materials before seeking Court\n+intervention. Parties have “the option of agreeing privately to keep information concerning\n+settlement confidential and may enforce such an agreement in a separ ate contract action.”\n+Id. at 788–89. If parties who form a mutually acceptable confidentiality agreement want a\n+Court order to memorialize their agreement, they must make a formal motion . Judge\n+Goldner Cinquanto will not accept stipulated proposed orders in lieu of a motion.\n+As Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires, a motion seeking a protective order\n+must explain why there is good cause for the Court to issue the order. Id. at 786; see In re\n+Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 671 (3d Cir. 2019) (setting forth\n+factors courts may consider in determining whether good cause exists); Glenmede Trust Co.\n+v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (cautioning that “[b]road allegations of harm,\n+unsubstantiated by specific exam ples, . . . will not suffice”). A proposed order attached to\n+the motion must itself also state the reasons good cause exists and state that the private\n+interests in nondisclosure outweigh the public interests in disclosure.\n+In cases involving large scale discovery, Judge Goldner Cinquanto will consider\n+motions to approve protective orders that protect discovery materials on a categorical basis\n+so long as each protected category is reasonably well defined. If a party later challenges such\n+an order, the party seeking to maintain protection over the materials will bear the burden of\n+justifying those materials’ continued protection on an item -by-item basis. See Avandia , 924\n+F.3d at 671 n.5.\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto will not approve any protective order unless it contains\n+language providing that “the Court reserves its inherent power to modify the terms of this\n+agreement and permit the disclosure of information where the interest of justice so\n+requires.” Also, Judge Goldner Cinquanto will not approve a protective order containing\n+language that giv es the parties discretion to file materials under seal without the Court’s\n+prior and specific approval.\n+D. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence\n+Any attorney for a party or any pro se party who uses generative artificial intelligence\n+(“A.I.”) to prepare any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court\n+in a matter assigned to Judge Goldner Cinquanto shall: (1) disclose that generative artificial\n+intelligence was used to prepare the filing; (2) identify precisely what portion or portions of\n+the document contain the generated content; (3) identify the specific tool used and how it\n+was used; and (4) certify that each and every citation to the law or the record in the filing\n+was verified as accurate in accordance with the obligations set forth in Rule 11 of the Federal\n+Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to comply with this policy may result in consequences\n+such as referral to the appropriate state bar, monetary sanctions, or any other sanction the\n+Court deems appropriate.\n+E. Motion Practice\n+Motion practice is governed by Eastern District of Pennsylvania Local Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 7.1 except as described elsewhere in these Practices and Procedures, the Local\n+Rules and applicable Standing Orders , or, as relevant, the Supplem ental Rules for Social\n+Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), or the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the\n+United States District Courts.\n+1. Every assertion of fact in a memorandum must be supported by a citation to\n+the record where that fact may be found. Both legal citations and citations to\n+the record must include pinpoint cites.\n+2. Memoranda must not exceed 30 pages in length (excluding table of contents\n+and appendices), must be double spaced, and must use 12 -point font.\n+Memoranda over 15 pages in length must include a table of contents and table\n+of authorities.\n+3. Rule 56 Motions: Summary judgment practice must comply with Local Rule\n+7.1 and the following requirements:\n+a. Joint Appendix: A party who plans to file a motion for summary\n+judgment must me et and confer with all other parties and develop a\n+single, joint appendix of all exhibits that may be referenced in their\n+respective memoranda. All pages of the joint appendix must be\n+consecutively numbered with an appendix page number. Page\n+references in the memoranda must be to the appendix page number,\n+not internal document page numbers. The joint appendix must include\n+a table of contents. The joint appendix must be filed by the movant no\n+later than the date the initial motion for summary judgment is\n+docketed.\n+If unusual circumstances make it necessary for a party to supplement\n+the joint appendix, the party must move for permission to file a\n+supplemental joint appendix. The supplemental joint appendix must\n+contain the original appendix, add the suppleme ntal materials at the\n+end, continue the appendix page numbering, and provide an updated\n+table of contents. Judge Goldner Cinquanto will not consider evidence\n+not included in the joint appendix.\n+b. Statements of Fact: At the same time as its motion for summar y\n+judgment, the moving party must also file a separate Statement of Facts\n+(the “Statement”) containing a numbered, paragraph -by-paragraph\n+recitation of the facts that the moving party contends are undisputed,\n+with specific page references to the joint appendix in support of each\n+paragraph. Each paragraph shall deal with one fact.\n+At the same time a response to the motion for summary judgment is\n+filed, the responding party must file a separate Counterstatement of\n+Facts that responds to each paragraph of the Statement by accepting or\n+rejecting the contention in the paragraph. If a contention is rejected, the\n+responding party must supply facts supporting the rejection by specific\n+page reference(s) from the joint appendix.\n+F. Documents Filed Under Seal\n+Except in emergency situations, documents should not be filed under seal without\n+first obtaining leave of court.\n+Any motion for leave to file under seal, including any motion for a proposed\n+confidentiality/protective order that would permit a party to file any material under seal,\n+must articulate, clearly and specifically, why the moving party’s “interest in secrecy”\n+outweighs the “presumptive right of public access.” Avandia, 924 F.3d at 672. The motion—\n+and the proposed order attached to the motion—must identify “clearly defined and serious\n+injur[ies]” the movant will suffer if the materials are not kept under seal. Id. Judge Goldner\n+Cinquanto will not grant a motion for leave to file under seal that fails to identify the\n+movant’s interests in nondisclosure with specificity.\n+Even when Judge Goldner Cinquanto grants a motion for leave to file under seal, she\n+will generally still expect the parties to file redacted versions of the sealed documents on the\n+public docket unless the redactions would be so extensiv e as to render the document\n+unreadable. Proposed orders attached to motions for leave to file under seal must include\n+language requiring the parties to file redacted versions of the sealed documents to the public\n+docket. If a movant omits this language from its proposed order, the movant must explain\n+in its motion why redaction would render the documents unreadable.\n+All motions for leave to file documents under seal should be filed on the public\n+docket. If a motion contains or refers to information that the movant seeks to file under seal,\n+the movant may redact the relevant information in the copy of the motion filed on the\n+docket. When a movant files a motion with redacted information, the movant must provide\n+the Court and all parties with an unredacted copy of the motion. The movant must also\n+provide the Court and all parties with unredacted copies of all documents that the party\n+proposes to file under seal.\n+Parties should also otherwise conform to the Clerk’s general procedures for filing\n+documents under seal.\n+G. Pretrial Procedure\n+The parties should ordinarily expect to file a joint pretrial stipulation, in the form\n+attached, in lieu of complying with Eastern District of Pennsylvania Local Rule 16.1, which\n+otherwise governs pretrial procedure.\n+Whether proceeding by Joint Pretrial Stipulation or complying with Local Rule 16.1,\n+the parties jointly must:\n+1. File one document titled “Proposed Joint Voir Dire Questions ”\n+containing three sections: (1) agreed voir dire questions; (2) additional\n+questions proposed by Plaintiff(s); and (3) additional questions\n+proposed by Defendant(s).\n+2. File one document titled “Proposed Joint Jury Instructions, ”\n+containing three sections: (1) agreed jury instructions; (2) additional\n+instructions proposed by Plaintiff(s); and (3) additional questions\n+proposed by Defendant(s). Third Circuit standard instructions should\n+be used, if available. Parties must cite the underlying authority for each\n+instruction they propose, even if using the Third Circuit model.\n+3. File one document titled “Proposed Joint Jury Verdict Form, ”\n+containing: (1) an agreed verdict form; and, if necessary, (2) any\n+alternative verdict form Plaintiff(s) propose; and (3) any alternative\n+verdict form Defendant(s) propose.\n+The three jointly fi led documents must be filed on ECF at the same time as Pretrial\n+Memoranda [or Pretrial Stipulation]. At the time of filing the parties must submit to\n+chambers an electronic version of the three documents, in Word format.\n+H. Trial Procedure\n+1. Scheduling. In most cases, Judge Goldner Cinquanto will set a date\n+certain for trial. Civil trials will take place in the James A. Byrne U.S.\n+Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Courtroom 3-D, Philadelphia,\n+Pennsylvania 19106. Judge Goldner Cinquanto ordinarily sits from 9:00\n+a.m. until 5:00 p.m., with an hour break for lunch and a brief recess in\n+the morning and in the afternoon.\n+2. Using the Lectern. Judge Goldner Cinquanto prefers that counsel use\n+the lectern during trial. Counsel need not ask permission to approach a\n+witness each time they do so; once is enough.\n+3. Voir Dire . Judge Goldner Cinquanto conducts voir dire questioning.\n+Counsel may ask additional questions after t he judge has questioned\n+the panel.\n+4. Sidebars. Sidebars are disfavored but will be granted if necessary . If\n+issues need to be addressed outside the presence of the jury, c ounsel\n+should ordinarily do so before and after court sessions, or during\n+breaks.\n+5. Examination of Witnesses. The same lawyer for a party must examine\n+and handle objections to the examination of a witness. Only one lawyer\n+per party per witness. Judge Goldner Cinquanto will generally restrict\n+counsel from examining witnesses beyon d re -direct and re -cross. If\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto asks questions of the witnesses, she may\n+permit additional questions from counsel that may be prompted by the\n+witnesses’ answers to the judge’s questions.\n+6. Videotaped Testimony. Judge Goldner Cinquanto requires counsel to\n+review all videotaped depositions and have them edited, after\n+consultation with each other, such as to fairly present only the essential\n+evidence of the witness involved. Counsel are expected to resolve all\n+matters pertaining to objections before offering the videotape into\n+evidence.\n+7. Objections. When objecting, counsel may indicate briefly the nature of\n+the objection, e.g., “irrelevant,” “unduly prejudicial, ” “hearsay,” but\n+should not launch into argument. If Judge Goldner Cinquanto desires\n+argument, she will ask for it.\n+8. Exhibits. Counsel should confer and stipulate to the admission of\n+exhibits, whenever possible. When stipulated exhibits are introduced,\n+counsel should note the exhibit is admitted by stipulation. Non -\n+stipulated exhibits should be moved into evidence as soon as a\n+foundation for admission is established. Exhibits not moved and\n+admitted into evidence may not be displayed to the jury. Any objections\n+or proposed limitations on the use of an exhibit must be aired at the\n+time the exhibit is introduced. Objections or proposed limitations not\n+voiced at the time the exhibit is moved into evidence are waived.\n+9. Jury Deliberations.\n+a. Exhibits in the Jury Room. Exhibits that have been admitted\n+into evidence are made available to the jury during\n+deliberations, together with a copy of the Court’s jury\n+instructions.\n+b. Availability of Counsel During Jury Deliberations. Judge\n+Goldner Cinquanto will not require counsel to remain in the\n+courthouse during deliberations , but will require counsel to be\n+available on short telephone notice. Counsel should provide the\n+deputy clerk with their cellphone number.\n+c. Interviewing the Jury. After the verdict has been recorded, and\n+the jury has been discharged, counsel must seek permission\n+from Judge Goldner Cinquanto before speaking with jurors . If\n+granted by the C ourt, counsel must advise the juror(s) in clear\n+terms that they have no obligation to speak with counsel.\n+III. CRIMINAL CASES\n+A. Sentencing Memoranda\n+When a pretrial sentence report is utilized, Judge Goldner Cinquanto encourages\n+counsel to submit sentencing memoranda.\n+B. Additional Matters\n+At all “criminal duty week” proceedings, counsel once appointed or retained, must\n+be present to permit the proceeding to go forward. Once the Court has ordered that a\n+defendant be detained or has set conditions of release, any proposed changes thereto must\n+be submitted to the Court by written motion.\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto does not favor the dual representation of defendants by a\n+single attorney at any criminal proceeding, apart, perhaps, from the initial appearance.\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto requires that all relevant documents be delivered to\n+Chambers in advance of court. Counsel may contact Deputy Jeffrey Lucini at (267.299.7750)\n+if there are any questions regarding the matters before the Court.\n+Judge Goldner Cinquanto expects counsel to be prompt in all appearances, to be\n+professional and courteous to each other, both in the presence of the Court and otherwise,\n+and to have discussions with each other about any matter in dispute before it is brought to\n+the Court’s attention.\n+IV. FORMS\n+MODEL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n+PARTY NAME :\n+Plaintiff, :\n+: CIVIL ACTION\n+v. : NO. ##-####\n+:\n+PARTY NAME :\n+Defendant. :\n+SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER\n+A settlement conference will be held on [day], [month], 202[ ], at 10:00 A.M. before\n+the Honorable Caroline Goldner Cinquanto , United States Magistrate Judge, United States\n+Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in Courtroom 3-D.\n+BEFORE THE CONFERENCE:\n+• Plaintiff(s) must make a precise and specific written settlement\n+demand, inclusive of all attorney’s fees, costs, and damages, on or\n+before [three weeks before the conference].\n+• Defendant(s) must make a precise and specific written settlement offer\n+on or before [two weeks before the conference].\n+• Counsel for all parties must submit the attached summary and their\n+confidential case synopsis to Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_\n+Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts.gov on or before [two weeks\n+before the conference]. The synopsis should be no more than five (5)\n+pages in length, single spaced.\n+• T he synopsis should attach key summary expert reports, policy\n+language excerpts, photographs, sketches, diagrams, charts, etc. Only\n+attach excerpts which are most relevant to the claims at issue.\n+Relevant portions must be delineated. Attachments should be no\n+more than thirty (30) pages and should be separated with labeled\n+divider pages. Judge Goldner Cinquanto may require hard copies of\n+lengthy materials.\n+• If settlement is not a real possibility (e.g., if defendant will not make\n+an offer or will offer only nuisance value), counsel shall notify the\n+Court (jointly or individually) to request a brief video conference\n+regarding their status on or before [one week before the conference].\n+• If requested by counsel, with no opposition, Judge Goldner Cinquanto\n+is available for ex parte Zoom conferences before the settlement\n+conference. Please contact chambers to arrange a pre-conference video\n+call.\n+AT THE CONFERENCE:\n+• Judge Goldner Cinquanto requires a principal for each party with an\n+interest in the case who has full and complete settlement authority\n+(i.e., authority consistent with the most recent demand) to be present\n+(either on the Zoom, or in person, as applicable) for the entire\n+duration of the conference. If a party requires approval by an insurer\n+to settle, a representative of the insurer with full and complete\n+settlement authority consistent with the most recent demand must be\n+present in addition to the relevant party principal.1\n+BY THE COURT:\n+__________________________________________\n+HON. CAROLINE GOLDNER CINQUANTO\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n+Date: ______________, 202[ ]\n+1 Having a client with settlement authority available by telephone is not an acceptable\n+alternative unless compelling circumstances exist and there is prior approval from Judge\n+Goldner Cinquant o. If a conference must be adjourned or continued to allow a party to\n+obtain additional authority up to the most recent demand, that party may incur sanctions,\n+including, but not limited to, payment of the opposing party’s attorney’s fees resulting from\n+a need to reconvene.\n+MODEL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SUMMARY\n+SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SUMMARY1\n+CAPTION: ___________________________________________________________\n+DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: ____________________________________________\n+TRIAL POOL DATE: __________________________ JURY / NONJURY (Circle One)\n+COUNSEL ATTENDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE:\n+Name: ___________________________________________________________\n+Address: ___________________________________________________________\n+Cell Phone: ___________________________________________________________\n+Client: ___________________________________________________________\n+CLIENT ATTENDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Individual with full and complete\n+settlement authority who will be present for the entire duration of the settlement conference (include\n+company and position where applicable):\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+CURRENT DEMAND/OFFER:\n+PLAINTIFF(S): ____________________________________________________\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+DEFENDANT(S): __________________________________________________\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+IDENTIFY PENDING MOTIONS:\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS (include details regarding any outstanding liens):\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+__________________________________________________________________\n+ATTACH CASE SYNOPSIS ( The synopsis will include a candid discussion of the submitting\n+party’s factual and legal strengths and weaknesses in the case as well as an offer/demand settlement\n+proposal and IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN FIVE (5) PAGES SINGLE SPACED.)\n+The synopsis should attach key summary expert reports, policy language excerpts,\n+photographs, sketches, diagrams, charts, etc. Only attach excerpts which are most relevant to the\n+claims at issue. Relevant portions must be delineated. Attachments should be no more than thirty\n+(30) pages and should be separated with labeled divider pages Judge Goldner Cinquanto may\n+require hard copies of lengthy materials.\n+1 Counsel shall familiarize themselves with Judge Goldner Cinquanto ’s policies and\n+procedures at\n+https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/artpol.pdf.\n+MODEL SCHEDULING ORDER (JURY TRIAL)\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n+Plaintiff,\n+v.\n+Defendant.\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+CIVIL ACTION\n+NO.\n+SCHEDULING ORDER\n+AND NOW, this day of 202_, following a conference with counsel\n+for the parties, it is ORDERED that:\n+1. Counsel shall advise the Court of the status of any settlement discussions\n+and if a settlement conference would be productive on or before [2 weeks before\n+dispositive motion deadline], 202_.\n+2. Any motions for leave to join other parties or for leave to amend the\n+pleadings shall be filed on or before [fact discovery deadline or earlier]\n+3. All fact discovery shall be completed on or before [+90 days].\n+4. Plaintiff shall produce any and all expert reports on or before [fact discovery\n+deadline]. Defendant shall produce its expert reports on or before [+2 weeks]. All expert\n+discovery, including rebuttal reports and depositions shall be completed on or before [+2\n+weeks].\n+5. Counsel for all parties are strongly encouraged to resolve discovery disputes\n+on their own. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); E.D. Pa. Local R. Civ. P. 26.1(f). If Court\n+intervention is required, the parties shall request a conference before filing any discovery\n+motion.1\n+6. Any and all dispositive motions and motions to exclude expert witness\n+evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be filed on or before [+4 weeks].\n+Responses to any such motions shall be filed by [+2 weeks] and replies, if any, shall be\n+filed on or before [+1 week].2\n+7. All other motions in limine shall be filed on or before [fourteen days prior to\n+Pretrial Stipulation]. Responses shall be filed on or before [+1 week].\n+8. The parties shall file their joint Pretrial Stipulation3, along with proposed voir\n+dire, jury instructions with citations to relevant authority, and verdict forms, on or before\n+1 All requests for Court action shall be by motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b), except for\n+routine requests, which may be by email to the Court with copies to all parties. Any\n+requests shall state whether it is made with the other party’s consent. Responses to all\n+motions are due within the period prescribed by Local Rule 7.1(c).\n+2 Briefs accompanying motions and responses to motions are limited to thirty pages\n+absent leave of Court. Any reply brief is limited to the issues raised in the response, may\n+not raise theories or issues not discussed in the original motion, and shall not exceed\n+fifteen pages absent leave of Court. Any exhibits should be docketed in compliance with\n+Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1.2(5)(b).\n+3 The Joint Pretrial Stipulation shall be signed by trial counsel for each party and\n+shall set forth: (1) a realistic, good faith estimate of the total time for trial; (2) the parties’\n+agreed-upon facts and their disputed facts; (3) their respective claims and defenses; (4) the\n+relief sought; (5) a list of lay and expert witnesses that identifies the subject(s) of their\n+expected testimony and any expected objections to admissibility; (6) a list of exhibits to be\n+used or introduced into evidence and any objections to their authenticity; (7) a summary of\n+applicable law, including, in diversity cases, the basis for choosing the applicable law; and\n+(8) any other disclosures required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). Any\n+[fourteen days prior to date certain].4 All objections to the authenticity of exhibits are\n+waived unless noted in the Pretrial Stipulation. Counsel should work together to narrow\n+any areas of dispute before trial.\n+9. A final pretrial conference and oral argument on motions in limine (if\n+necessary) will be held on [seven days before date certain] at __ a.m./p.m. in Courtroom\n+3D. Counsel shall confer in advance and shall be prepared to discuss all aspects of their\n+Pretrial Stipulation, proposed jury instructions, and verdict form, including any disputed\n+issues. A principal with full settlement authority shall be in attendance for each party.\n+10. Jury Selection will take place on [date certain] at __ a.m./p.m. in Courtroom\n+3H.\n+11. Trial will commence on [date certain] at __ a.m./p.m. in Courtroom 3D.\n+Counsel and all parties shall be prepared to commence trial on that date.\n+objections to anticipated testimony or exhibits shall describe with particularity the ground\n+and the authority for the objection.\n+The Joint Pretrial Stipulation should also alert the Court of any unusual legal issues\n+which would serve as the basis for a motion for a judgment as a matter of law under\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or any other dispositive motions with citations to\n+relevant legal authority.\n+4 Counsel should prepare one agreed-upon set of proposed jury instructions and\n+verdict form. If counsel cannot agree on a particular instruction, they must submit their\n+competing versions along with their explanations about why their proposed instruction\n+should be given with citation to relevant authority.\n+In addition to filing the proposed jury instructions and verdict form on the Court’s\n+docket, the parties must e-mail Word versions of the documents to\n+Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts.gov.\n+12. Counsel shall familiarize themselves with and comply with the Local Rules\n+of Civil Procedure for this District and this Court’s Policies and Procedures. Both are\n+available through the website for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n+(https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/).\n+13. Plaintiff’s counsel shall promptly advise the Court of any settlement.\n+BY THE COURT:\n+__________________________________________\n+HON. CAROLINE GOLDNER CINQUANTO\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n+MODEL SCHEDULING ORDER (BENCH TRIAL)\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n+Plaintiff,\n+v.\n+Defendant.\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+CIVIL ACTION\n+NO.\n+SCHEDULING ORDER\n+AND NOW, this day of 202_, following a conference with counsel\n+for the parties, it is ORDERED that:\n+1. Counsel shall advise the Court of the status of any settlement discussions\n+and if a settlement conference with another magistrate judge would be productive on or\n+before [2 weeks before dispositive motion deadline], 202_.\n+2. Any motions for leave to join other parties or for leave to amend the\n+pleadings shall be filed on or before [fact discovery deadline or earlier]\n+3. All fact discovery shall be completed on or before [+90 days].\n+4. Plaintiff shall produce any and all expert reports on or before [fact discovery\n+deadline]. Defendant shall produce its expert reports on or before [+2 weeks]. All expert\n+discovery, including rebuttal reports and depositions shall be completed on or before [+2\n+weeks].\n+5. Counsel for all parties are strongly encouraged to resolve discovery disputes\n+on their own. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); E.D. Pa. Local R. Civ. P. 26.1(f). If Court\n+intervention is required, the parties shall request a Zoom conference before by email\n+(chambers_of_magistrate_judge_goldner_cinquanto@paed.uscourts.gov) before filing any\n+discovery motion.5 Any request shall state whether it is made with the opposing party’s\n+consent.\n+6. Routine requests for Court action may be made first by email with copies to\n+all parties. If a motion is required, it shall comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n+7(b) and 11. Responses to all motions are due within the period prescribed by Local Rule\n+7.1(c).\n+7. Any and all dispositive motions and motions to exclude expert witness\n+evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be filed on or before [+4 weeks].\n+Responses to any such motions shall be filed by [+2 weeks] and replies, if any, shall be\n+filed on or before [+1 week].6\n+5Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 requires any motions to compel to “include a\n+certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the\n+person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without\n+court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Rule 26.1(f) of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n+Local Rules of Civil Procedure also requires discovery motions to include “a certification\n+of counsel that the parties, after reasonable effort, are unable to resolve the dispute.” E.D.\n+Pa. Local R. Civ. P. 26.1(f).\n+6 Briefs accompanying motions and responses to motions are limited to thirty pages\n+absent leave of Court. Any reply brief is limited to the issues raised in the response, may\n+not raise theories or issues not discussed in the original motion, and shall not exceed\n+fifteen pages absent leave of Court. Any exhibits should be docketed in compliance with\n+Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1.2(5)(b).\n+8. The parties shall file their joint Pretrial Stipulation7, along with proposed\n+findings of fact and conclusions of law, with citations to relevant authority, on or before\n+[fourteen days prior to date certain]. Counsel shall also provide binders containing two\n+copies of their exhibits, marked for trial.8 All objections to the authenticity of exhibits are\n+waived unless noted in the Pretrial Stipulation. Counsel should work together to narrow\n+any areas of dispute before trial.\n+9. A final pretrial conference will be held on [seven days before date certain] at\n+__ a.m./p.m. in Courtroom 3D. Counsel shall confer in advance and shall be prepared to\n+discuss all aspects of their Pretrial Stipulation, including any disputed issues. A principal\n+with full settlement authority shall be in attendance for each party.\n+10. Trial will commence on [date certain] at __ a.m./p.m. in Courtroom 3D.\n+7 The Joint Pretrial Stipulation shall be signed by trial counsel for each party and\n+shall set forth: (1) a realistic, good faith estimate of the total time for trial; (2) the parties’\n+agreed-upon facts and their disputed facts; (3) their respective claims and defenses; (4) the\n+relief sought; (5) a list of lay and expert witnesses that identifies the subject(s) of their\n+expected testimony and any expected objections to admissibility; (6) a list of exhibits to be\n+used or introduced into evidence and any objections to their authenticity; (7) a summary of\n+applicable law, including, in diversity cases, the basis for choosing the applicable law; and\n+(8) any other disclosures required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). Any\n+objections to anticipated testimony or exhibits shall describe with particularity the ground\n+and the authority for the objection.\n+The Joint Pretrial Stipulation should also alert the Court of any unusual legal issues\n+which would serve as the basis for a motion for a judgment as a matter of law under\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or any other dispositive motions with citations to\n+relevant legal authority.\n+8Counsel are expected to confer about exhibits and provide Joint Exhibits (marked J-\n+1, etc.) and additional exhibits (marked as P-1 or D-1, etc.).\n+11. Counsel shall familiarize themselves with and comply with the Local Rules\n+of Civil Procedure for this District and this Court’s Policies and Procedures. Both are\n+available through the website for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n+(https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/).\n+12. Plaintiff’s counsel shall promptly advise the Court of any settlement.\n+BY THE COURT:\n+__________________________________________\n+HON. CAROLINE GOLDNER CINQUANTO\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n+MODEL JOINT PRETRIAL STIPULATION\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n+Plaintiff,\n+v.\n+Defendant.\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+:\n+CIVIL ACTION\n+NO.\n+JOINT PRETRIAL STIPULATION\n+1. Estimate of total time for trial. [A realistic good faith estimate.]\n+2. Agreed facts. [Make a conscientious effort to narrow the areas of dispute.]\n+3. Disputed facts. [Outline the fact disputes that must be decided.]\n+4. Parties’ respective claims and defenses. [Explain undisputed and disputed\n+legal issues remaining for trial and supply authority for the parties’ respective positions.]\n+5. Relief sought. [I dentify the relief sought.]\n+6. List of lay and expert witnesses and the subject of their testimony.\n+[Counsel must list all witnesses (except rebuttal witnesses) and supply a short explanation\n+of their expected testimony. Any objections to anticipated testimony shall describe with\n+particularity the ground and the authority for the objection. Parties who intend to use\n+video equipment to present the testimony of a witness should either supply that\n+equipment or request, at least two weeks before trial, that the Court reserve equipment for\n+them by email to Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_Goldner_Cinquanto@paed.uscourts\n+.gov.]\n+7. Exhibits, marked for trial. [All objections to authenticity should be noted or\n+will be considered waived. Any objections to exhibits shall describe with particularity the\n+ground and the authority for the objection. Exhibits are to be provided to the Court in the\n+form of two jointly prepared loose leaf exhibit books—one for the judge and one for her\n+law clerk—each book containing tabbed Joint Exhibits, Plaintiffs Exhibits, and Defendant’s\n+Exhibits.]\n+9. Any other Required Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) disclosure.\n+10. (In jury trial) Proposed voir dire questions, jury instructions, and jury\n+verdict form.\n+[Counsel shall comply with the format prescribed in my Practices and Procedures].\n+Stipulated on the dates listed below:\n+[signatures of trial counsel for each party and dates]","id":"3bc22b3fdb854cf0e0b6e40cfbbd004fab9c016704d95dda14a54bc8243b9526","newHash":"945868734e4e82e427dd18b5dddedf377dfca37e4216f30c6be6fae1d322f61a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/cgcpol.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/945868734e4e82e427dd18b5dddedf377dfca37e4216f30c6be6fae1d322f61a.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/cgcpol.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:12.820574+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,312 @@\n+Rev. 6/18/2026\n+JUDICIAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES\n+Judge Kelley B. Hodge\n+United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n+James A. Byrne United States Courthouse\n+601 Market Street, Room 15614\n+Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106\n+Telephone: 267-299-7550\n+Email: Judge_Hodge_Chambers@paed.uscourts.gov\n+I. GENERAL INFORMATION\n+A. Communication with Chambers\n+Judge Hodge permits communications with Chambers by telephone, or letter sent via email\n+regarding scheduling and other non-substantive matters. An email request without a letter will\n+not be considered. All other issues must be addressed by an appropriate motion or other\n+document filed on the docket. Under no circumstances may any party or counsel communicate ex\n+parte with any Chambers personnel concerning substantive matters. Law clerks may not render\n+advice to counsel and have no authority to grant continuances or any other relief. For civil and\n+criminal scheduling, case management and general inquiries contact:\n+Leesa Ciamiachelo, Deputy and Courtroom Services Clerk\n+Telephone: 267-299-7550 (Chambers) or 267-299-7559 (Direct Dial)\n+Email: Leesa_ciamaichelo@paed.uscourts.gov and\n+Judge Hodge Chambers@paed.uscourts.gov\n+Judge Hodge prohibits any communications to her personal email.\n+B. Telephone/Video Conferences\n+Counsel may request a telephone or video conference with Judge Hodge to resolve\n+straightforward discovery disputes and other issues, but complicated matters should be resolved\n+by formal motion and briefing. Counsel must make a substantive effort to address all discovery\n+disputes with opposing counsel before requesting Judge Hodge’s assistance and submit a\n+certification to that end along with any discovery motions. Counsel should submit a letter by\n+email to Chambers summarizing the reason for the requested telephone conference. An email\n+request without a letter attached will not be considered.\n+Counsel must comply with the Court’s Protocols for Remote Proceedings, found in the\n+“News & Announcements” section of the Court’s website – www.paed.uscourts.gov.\n+2\n+C. Stipulations\n+Any stipulations requiring Court approval or the Judge’s signature MUST be submitted by\n+email to Chambers. Counsel MUST provide the basis for any relief sought by stipulation. A\n+stipulation absent any basis for the requested relief will be rejected by the Court.\n+D. Electronic Case Filing\n+Judge Hodge requires all counseled parties to use Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”). Proposed\n+orders should be attached to corresponding motions or memoranda of law. Submission of\n+pleadings, motions, or other filings to Chambers by any method other than ECF is not\n+permitted. Except as expressly provided in Section I.C. Stipulations (above), the Court will not\n+act on any submission that has not been docketed.\n+E. Courtesy Copies\n+Parties must provide one (1) courtesy copy to the Court of any document submitted which is\n+twenty-five (25) pages or more, including exhibits. The exhibits in the Court’s courtesy copy\n+shall be printed double-sided and clearly marked, tabbed, and bound in a 3-ring binder. Courtesy\n+copies should be delivered by first-class mail or other delivery service. Courtesy copies will not\n+be accepted via email.\n+F. Document formatting\n+All documents shall be filed in 12-point Times New Roman font with one-inch margins.\n+All PDF documents filed must be text searchable.\n+G. Standing Orders\n+Judge Hodge requires compliance with the following standing orders:\n+1. Meet and Confer Certification with Motions:1 Counsel contemplating filing any\n+motion, including a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, 28 U.S.C. §1441, or 28\n+U.S.C. §1404, shall contact opposing counsel prior to filing to discuss the substance of\n+the contemplated motion and to provide an opportunity to cure any alleged pleading\n+deficiencies or strike certain matter to see if the filing of the contemplated motion is then\n+necessary. This conference shall take place at least seven (7) days before the filing of the\n+motion. The parties shall conduct substantive verbal communications. Exchanges of\n+letters or emails are insufficient. A report that opposing counsel was not available or that\n+the parties made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to meet and confer is likewise\n+insufficient. If the parties cannot reach a resolution that eliminates the need for any of the\n+above-mentioned motions, counsel for the moving party shall include, along with the\n+1 This directive shall not apply to cases in which either side is pro se, or to bankruptcy or Social Security\n+appeals.\n+3\n+motion, a Certification indicating the date(s) of discussion(s) and shall inform the court of\n+the parties’ inability to reach a resolution. The Court will deny any motion that fails to\n+conform to these requirements.\n+2. Pronouns and Honorifics: Counsel and unrepresented parties are invited to provide the\n+names, pronouns, and honorifics they would like used by the Court in hearings,\n+conferences, and opinions via an email to Chambers.\n+3. Artificial Intelligence: Anyone—counsel or pro se litigant—using Generative Artificial\n+Intelligence (“GAI”) in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this\n+Court or the serving/delivering of a request, response, or objection to discovery must\n+comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any\n+other relevant rule, including all applicable ethical rules.\n+H. Conflicts of Interest\n+In compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, counsel are expected to inform the\n+Court of any change of ownership to avoid potential conflicts of interest.\n+I. General Expectations\n+Judge Hodge expects all counsel to be prompt, prepared and professional adhering to the\n+ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct at all times, both in the presence of the Court and\n+otherwise. Decorum is of paramount importance and arguments should be presented zealously,\n+thoughtfully, and thoroughly to the Court not to one another. Judge Hodge expects counsel to be\n+punctual for all conferences, hearings, and trials.\n+The Court believes in the opportunity for growth and development of all attorneys. Thus,\n+Judge Hodge encourages all counsel, regardless of years in the profession, who have skilled\n+knowledge on the matter to be given the opportunity to appear and make argument before the\n+Court.\n+II. CIVIL CASES – PRETRIAL\n+A. Rule 16 Conference\n+Judge Hodge will schedule a Rule 16 conference once an answer is filed or, in some\n+instances, while a motion to dismiss or other preliminary motion is pending. Judge Hodge will\n+issue an Order for a Rule 16 scheduling conference to be held by videoconferencing or in person\n+(or, in the case of pro se parties, on the record).\n+The parties must file on ECF (unless leave of Court is requested) and email to Chambers a\n+Rule 26(f) report using the template provided on Judge Hodge’s website at least seven (7) days\n+before the Rule 16 conference. The report should include a statement as to whether and when the\n+parties will be prepared to discuss settlement. The report should also include specific dates for all\n+pretrial deadlines. Lead trial counsel must participate in the Rule 16 conference and must enter\n+an appearance before the conference unless Judge Hodge approves a substitution. All\n+4\n+applications to appear pro hac vice must be approved before the conference. After the\n+conference, Judge Hodge will issue a Scheduling Order to govern further proceedings in the\n+case.\n+B. Rule 26(f) Meeting\n+Judge Hodge relies on good-faith compliance in all respects with Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 26(f). The Rule 26(f) meeting shall take place as soon as possible and no later than\n+fourteen (14) days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. The meeting should not be viewed\n+as perfunctory, but rather as a meaningful and substantive discussion to formulate the discovery\n+plan required by the Rule. Compliance is mandatory. Parties who do not comply will have no\n+voice at the scheduling conference and may be subject to sanctions. Outstanding motions will not\n+excuse the parties from holding the Rule 26(f) meeting and submitting a report in a timely\n+manner.\n+Before the Rule 16 conference, counsel will have discussed the nature and basis of the\n+parties’ claims and defenses, the possibility of a prompt settlement, and a discovery plan\n+pursuant to Rule 26(f). Counsel must be prepared to present argument at the conference on any\n+pending motions. At the conference, counsel should be prepared to discuss the strengths and\n+weaknesses of the case and should therefore be conversant in the essential facts and issues\n+involved. Counsel must have full authority to negotiate a settlement of the case or be\n+accompanied by a client or client representative who has such authority or arrange for the client\n+to be available by telephone for the duration of the conference.\n+C. Settlement Conferences\n+Judge Hodge addresses the possibility of settlement at all stages in the proceedings. In\n+addition, consistent with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 53.3, Judge Hodge directs all parties to\n+consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process at an appropriate stage in the\n+litigation. Judge Hodge also encourages early referral to a Magistrate Judge for settlement\n+discussions. Upon reaching a settlement, counsel must notify Judge Hodge’s Chambers\n+immediately and request dismissal of the action pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41.1.\n+D. Requests for Extension of Time and Continuances\n+Where compelling circumstances exist, counsel may request an extension of a filing or other\n+deadline. Extension requests should be made by letter sent via email and counsel requesting the\n+extension shall include the basis for the request and state the position of opposing counsel. Any\n+counsel opposing the extension shall submit a responsive letter via email setting forth the reasons\n+for opposition. All requests for extension MUST include a proposed order. Counsel may not\n+extend any deadlines without Court approval. An email request without a letter attached will\n+not be considered. For unopposed extension requests, counsel must submit a stipulation signed\n+by counsel for all parties sent via email with a signature line for Judge Hodge. Unopposed\n+extension requests are not automatically granted. Counsel should make every effort to file such\n+stipulations and requests as early as the need for an extension is known. If the stipulation or\n+5\n+motion is filed less than two business days before the deadline, the Court does not\n+guarantee a decision will be made before the deadline.\n+Since trial and hearing dates are set in advance, Judge Hodge is extremely reluctant to grant\n+continuances especially if the attorneys have not been diligent in moving the case forward.\n+However, the Court will consider such continuance requests upon a showing of compelling\n+circumstances and good cause.\n+E. Final Pretrial Conference\n+There will be a final pretrial conference scheduled on a date by the Court in advance of the\n+trial date. During this conference, the Court will address factual and legal issues, the\n+admissibility of exhibits, scheduling issues, and settlement. See Section III.F. below for\n+information on pretrial memoranda.\n+III. CIVIL CASES – SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT\n+A. Discovery Matters\n+When a discovery dispute arises, counsel are strongly urged to settle it among themselves.\n+However, if after making a good faith effort, counsel are unable to resolve a disputed issue,\n+counsel for the aggrieved party shall file with the Court a motion in conformity with Local Civil\n+Rule 26.1(b), with a form of order, and short brief not to exceed five (5) pages describing the\n+disputed issue(s). Within seven (7) days of the filing of the motion, any counsel opposing the\n+motion shall file with a Court a response to the motion not to exceed five (5) pages in conformity\n+with Local Rule 26.1(b). The Court will determine the need for a telephone or video conference\n+with counsel to discuss the motion on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, the Court expects to\n+rule promptly on discovery motions and may decide such motions during a video conference. All\n+motions must contain the certification required under Local Civil Rule 26.1(f).\n+B. Oral Argument\n+A party desiring oral argument should request it by letter or in the body of the motion or\n+responsive pleading. If Judge Hodge believes oral argument will be helpful in deciding a matter,\n+she will schedule it, particularly when it involves a dispositive motion. Not all requests for oral\n+argument will be granted but will be determined by the judge on a case-by-case basis.\n+C. Length and Content of Briefs or Legal Memoranda\n+All grounds for relief should be set forth in a single, comprehensive motion. A motion to\n+dismiss, for example, should not be divided into separate motions for each count, but rather the\n+singular motion should include all bases for relief. Any brief or memorandum filed in support of\n+the motion should be limited to twenty-five (25) pages. Any brief or memorandum filed in\n+opposition or in response to a motion is subject to the same page limitation. If a party requires\n+more than twenty-five (25) pages to explain its position to the Court, a motion to exceed the page\n+6\n+limit shall be filed prior to the deadline, setting forth good cause for granting an exception to\n+this rule.\n+D. Reply and Surreply Briefs\n+Reply briefs, addressing only issues raised in the brief in opposition and not repeating\n+arguments in the brief, may be filed within seven (7) days of service of the opponent’s brief in\n+opposition and shall be limited to ten (10) pages. The parties must seek leave of court prior to\n+filing a surreply. If leave is granted, surreplies may not exceed five (5) pages.\n+E. Rule 56 Motions - Motion for Summary Judgment\n+Initial Filing of Moving Party: A party moving under Rule 56 may move without reference\n+to supporting affidavits or other evidence and, in doing so, the party making the motion shall: (1)\n+identify in outline form the issue(s) and/or sub-issue(s) as to which the Motion is directed; (2)\n+affirm, on the basis prescribed in Rule 11, that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for\n+the non-movant to prevail upon the issues so identified; (3) provide a separate, concise Statement\n+of Undisputed Material Facts, as described below; and (4) request judgment.\n+The initial filing by the moving party should not exceed twenty-five (25) double-spaced,\n+typewritten pages, excluding the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. The initial filing of\n+the moving party must include a concise Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, which sets\n+forth, in numbered paragraphs, the material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed\n+and entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. Each factual assertion shall be\n+accompanied by a citation to the specific portion(s) of the record that support the assertion,\n+including the exhibit, page, and line number. The movant shall provide a Word document of the\n+Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to opposing counsel.\n+Parties are encouraged to submit a joint appendix of all exhibits with the moving party’s\n+briefings. If that is not practical, then the parties may file separate appendices, and the\n+responding party must cite to the moving party’s appendix wherever possible. Appendices,\n+whether joint or separate, must include a table of contents.\n+Response of Non-Moving Party: The non-moving party shall file a response within twenty-\n+eight (28) days after the Motion for Summary Judgment is served, unless otherwise ordered by\n+the Court. The response shall be supported with affidavits, depositions, documents or other\n+evidence permitted by Rule 56. Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment shall include a\n+separate filing of a Statement of Material Facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs in the\n+movant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts using the Word version of the Statement of\n+Undisputed Material Facts provided by the moving party. The responding party also shall set\n+forth, in separate numbered paragraphs, any additional facts which the respondent contends\n+preclude summary judgment. Where applicable, references to such evidence must include\n+specific citations to exhibit, page, and line number. The response may not exceed twenty-five\n+(25) pages.\n+7\n+Reply of Moving Party: The movant shall file a reply and the reply must be filed not later\n+than fourteen (14) days after the response from the non-moving party is served, unless\n+otherwise ordered by the Court. The reply must specify the relevant exhibit, page, and line\n+numbers when referring to the record. The reply may not exceed ten (10) pages.\n+Surreply of Non-Moving Party (Optional): The non-moving party may, within seven (7)\n+days after the reply is received, file a surreply. The surreply must specify the relevant exhibit,\n+page, and line numbers when referring to the record and may not exceed ten (10) pages.\n+F. Trial Documents\n+The Court will issue a trial scheduling order outlining parameters and deadlines for all\n+requisite trial documents after dispositive motions are decided or if no dispositive motion is filed.\n+G. Confidentiality Agreements\n+Judge Hodge will only consider entry of stipulated confidentiality or sealing orders if the\n+parties demonstrate that “good cause” exists pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). See Pansy\n+v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994). All such orders must contain the\n+following language (or language substantially similar): “The Court retains the right to allow\n+disclosure of any subject covered by this stipulation or to modify this stipulation at any time in\n+the interest of justice.”\n+H. Experts\n+Parties should identify expert witnesses and provide the experts’ written reports pursuant to\n+the scheduling order entered in the case. Failure to do so will bar the use of the expert’s\n+testimony at trial.\n+I. Injunctions\n+When a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is requested, Judge Hodge will\n+schedule a conference if necessary to decide the TRO or injunction as soon as possible.\n+Generally, Judge Hodge permits expedited discovery for injunctive matters. Judge Hodge may\n+require submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.\n+For any civil litigation issues not addressed above, please consult the Local Rules of\n+Civil Procedure for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at:\n+https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/locrules/civil/cvrules.pdf\n+IV. CRIMINAL CASES\n+A. Motions Practice\n+All pretrial motions—including motions in limine and any motions challenging the\n+indictment, seeking suppression of evidence, or raising any dispositive matters—shall be\n+8\n+controlled by the Scheduling Order. Any responses to a pretrial motion must be filed in\n+accordance with the Scheduling Order. Except in rare circumstances, hearings on any pretrial\n+motions and responses will be heard on a date before the scheduled trial date.\n+In multi-defendant proceedings, all motions will be heard jointly. Defendants may not join\n+in codefendants’ pretrial motions without leave of the Court. If granted leave, supporting\n+memoranda shall be filed as soon as possible and no later than seven (7) days before the\n+hearing. Such supporting memoranda shall not exceed twenty (20) double-spaced pages.\n+All post-trial motions must be filed in accordance with the Federal and Local Rules of\n+Criminal Procedure. Response memoranda shall not exceed twenty (20) double-spaced pages.\n+Reply and surreply memoranda may be filed only with leave of Court and shall not exceed\n+ten (10) double-spaced pages.\n+B. Continuance Request\n+Any request for a continuance must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days in advance of the\n+scheduled trial date. Requests for a continuance must be filed as motions stating the reasons\n+for the request. Any such motion must be accompanied by a proposed form of Order which, if\n+approved by the Court, would grant the relief sought by the motion. The proposed form of Order\n+must be consistent with the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), and\n+include a proposed finding that explains in reasonable detail why the ends of justice served by\n+granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a\n+speedy trial. Requests by letter are not permitted. The defendant must provide a signed waiver of\n+Speedy Trial Act rights or a continuance hearing will be scheduled.\n+C. Pretrial Conference\n+If requested by counsel or needed, Judge Hodge will schedule a pretrial conference with\n+counsel at least three (3) days before the scheduled trial date. The conference will be conducted\n+in person or, in limited circumstances, on a virtual platform. Any issues related to voir dire,\n+motions in limine, jury instructions, and jury verdict forms will be addressed at that time.\n+D. Voir Dire\n+Counsel must submit proposed voir dire questions in Microsoft Word format via email to\n+Chambers and should do so in accordance with the Scheduling Order. Judge Hodge will conduct\n+the voir dire in criminal jury matters. Upon request, counsel may have an opportunity to ask\n+follow-up questions to the venire.\n+E. Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms\n+Each party must submit to the Court and serve on opposing counsel proposed points for\n+charge and any proposed jury interrogatories in accordance with the Scheduling Order.\n+9\n+F. Guilty Plea\n+Before a defendant offers a guilty plea, the guilty plea memorandum, guilty plea agreement\n+(if applicable), and acknowledgment of rights must be completed and reviewed with the\n+defendant and must be provided to the Court via email to Chambers seven (7) days prior to the\n+change of plea hearing, except in extenuating circumstances. The guilty plea memorandum\n+should include: the elements of each offense to which the defendant will plead guilty and legal\n+citations for the elements, the statutory maximum penalties for each offense, the terms of any\n+plea agreement, and the factual basis for the plea.\n+G. Sentencing\n+If the Court accepts a guilty plea or there is a conviction at trial, Judge Hodge will schedule a\n+speedy sentencing for a date selected at the time of the plea or verdict. Judge Hodge discourages\n+continuances of sentencing, and sentencing will be continued for good cause only. Judge Hodge\n+will generally not consider any request for a continuance exceeding 90 days.\n+Sentencing motions and supporting memoranda must be filed at least fourteen (14)\n+days before the scheduled sentencing date, and any response thereto must be filed at least\n+seven (7) days before the scheduled sentencing date. Sentencing memoranda (exclusive of\n+motions) must be filed no later than seven (7) days before the scheduled sentencing date.\n+H. eVoucher\n+Counsel shall submit any vouchers for CJA funds in the eVoucher system. Should there\n+be no response by the Court to any such voucher within ten (10) days of submission, counsel\n+MUST email Chambers to advise that the eVoucher remains pending.\n+For any criminal litigation issues not addressed above, please consult the Local Rules\n+of Criminal Procedure for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at:\n+https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/locrules/criminal/crrules.pdf","id":"e24889be7fbb6b4b0ebc4ff554fb748600ec487a52b104def85dd736241f94f4","newHash":"50c212a93ab8a39b390b8c3864b52b63a484b6f7cc833267e52ce3db649a82f0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/hodpol.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/50c212a93ab8a39b390b8c3864b52b63a484b6f7cc833267e52ce3db649a82f0.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/hodpol.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:12.355410+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,814 @@\n+The Honorable Mark A. Kearney\n+Judge, United States District Court\n+Room 6613, U.S. Courthouse\n+601 Market Street\n+Philadelphia, PA 19106\n+267-299-7680\n+Fax: 267-299-5023\n+Chambers_of_Judge_Kearney@paed.uscourts.gov\n+POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (February 2026)\n+The Policies and Procedures (“Policies”) apply to all matters unless varied by Judge\n+Kearney’s Order as necessary on a case-by-case basis. The Policies are intended to answer a wide\n+variety of questions. To the extent counsel or a party has a question not addressed by these Policies,\n+telephone inquiries should be directed as appropriate to Courtroom Deputy Ulrike Bower at 267-\n+299-7688 or Ulrike_Bower@paed.uscourts.gov with a copy to\n+Chambers_of_Judge_Kearney@paed.uscourts.gov\n+TABLE OF CONTENTS\n+I. Policies applying in all matters. .......................................................................................... 1\n+A. We permit correspondence in limited circumstances. ................................................ 1\n+B. Telephone inquiries and conferences as warranted .................................................... 1\n+C. No telephone communications from pro se parties ..................................................... 1\n+D. No communication with law clerks or interns ............................................................. 2\n+E. Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) under Rule 5.1.2 is required of all counsel ............ 2\n+F. Courtesy copies of ECF filings shall be provided only as directed............................ 2\n+G. Required scrutiny of proposed sealed or redacted documents .................................. 2\n+H. Requirements for website references and artificial intelligence use ......................... 3\n+I. We encourage development of trial lawyers ................................................................ 3\n+J. Pro hac vice motions ...................................................................................................... 4\n+K. Local counsel’s continuing obligations......................................................................... 5\n+II. Initial steps in civil matters. ................................................................................................ 6\n+A. Rule 16 Conference and Rule 26(f) meeting are substantive obligations. ................ 6\n+E. Obligations for threshold motions. ............................................................................... 7\n+F. Prompt resolution of matters through ADR and settlement conferences. ............... 8\n+G. Motions to amend pleadings. ........................................................................................ 8\n+ii\n+H. Amending pleadings as a matter of course. ................................................................. 8\n+I. Continuances, amendments, and extensions of scheduling. ....................................... 8\n+III. Discovery. .............................................................................................................................. 9\n+A. Discovery expectations................................................................................................... 9\n+B. Resolving discovery or scheduling disputes. ................................................................ 9\n+IV. Motion practice for non-discovery or non-scheduling issues in all matters. ................ 11\n+A. Proposed orders and motions. .................................................................................... 11\n+B. Must recite position of all parties absent a stipulation. ............................................ 11\n+C. Briefs/legal memoranda............................................................................................... 11\n+D. Post-trial motion procedure. ....................................................................................... 11\n+VI. Additional protocol for Rule 56 motions. ........................................................................ 12\n+A. Separate statements of material facts. ....................................................................... 12\n+B. Memoranda with a table of contents if warranted. .................................................. 12\n+C. Appendix. ...................................................................................................................... 12\n+D. Courtesy copy provided to Chambers........................................................................ 13\n+VII. Final pretrial proceedings. ................................................................................................ 13\n+A. Pretrial memoranda..................................................................................................... 13\n+B. Motions in limine. ......................................................................................................... 13\n+C. Final pretrial conference. ............................................................................................ 14\n+VIII. Injunctions. ......................................................................................................................... 14\n+IX. Class Action settlement best practices. ............................................................................ 14\n+X. Arbitration. ......................................................................................................................... 14\n+XI. Trial Procedure. ................................................................................................................. 14\n+A. Scheduling. .................................................................................................................... 14\n+B. Courtroom technology. ................................................................................................ 15\n+C. Cases involving out-of-town parties or witnesses. ..................................................... 15\n+D. Jury selection in civil cases. ......................................................................................... 15\n+E. Courtroom protocol. .................................................................................................... 15\n+F. Note-taking by jurors. ................................................................................................. 16\n+G. Trial briefs. ................................................................................................................... 16\n+H. Examining witnesses out of sequence. ........................................................................ 16\n+iii\n+I. Opening statements and summations......................................................................... 16\n+J. Examination of witnesses or argument. ..................................................................... 16\n+K. Videotaped testimony. ................................................................................................. 16\n+L. Preparing, admitting, and delivering admitted trial exhibits to Chambers. .......... 16\n+M. Sidebar or evidentiary conference. ............................................................................. 17\n+N. Directed verdict motions. ............................................................................................ 17\n+O. Proposed jury instructions and verdict forms........................................................... 17\n+P. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-jury cases........................ 17\n+Q. Unavailability of witness.............................................................................................. 18\n+R. Objections. .................................................................................................................... 18\n+XII. Jury deliberations. ............................................................................................................. 18\n+A. Written jury instructions. ........................................................................................... 18\n+B. Exhibits in the jury room. ........................................................................................... 18\n+C. Availability of counsel during deliberation. .............................................................. 18\n+D. Taking the verdict and special verdicts. .................................................................... 18\n+E. Polling the jury. ............................................................................................................ 18\n+F. Interviewing the jury. .................................................................................................. 19\n+XIII. Judge Kearney’s additional procedures in criminal cases. ............................................ 19\n+A. Motions practice in criminal cases. ............................................................................ 19\n+B. Trial continuances. ....................................................................................................... 19\n+C. Pretrial conferences. .................................................................................................... 19\n+D. Voir Dire. ...................................................................................................................... 20\n+E. Guilty pleas. .................................................................................................................. 20\n+F. Sentencing ..................................................................................................................... 21\n+1\n+I. Policies applying in all matters.\n+A. We permit correspondence in limited circumstances.\n+We are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 47(a). Other than as listed\n+below or otherwise directed by Judge Kearney, a request for direction must be made through a\n+pleading, motion, application, or similar filing with service upon all parties. Requests for extension\n+of time to respond to a pleading or motion or a request for the extension of the dates in a scheduling\n+order must be made by motion or stipulation demonstrating good cause which can be reviewed\n+and ruled upon. Judge Kearney will not accept letter requests for extensions of time set by the\n+Federal or Local Rules or our scheduling Orders.\n+Counsel shall not send copies of correspondence among themselves to Judge Kearney.\n+Correspondence, not to exceed two pages, may be emailed, faxed , or mailed to Chambers copied\n+to all counsel and unrepresented parties only in the following instances:\n+1. Counsel are specifically requested by the Court to communicate\n+information by letter;\n+2. An uncontested request for an extension of sentencing;\n+3. A scheduling request based on an unanticipated and irreversible personal\n+matter concerning counsel, a party or counsel’s immediate family not warranting public access ;\n+or,\n+4. A case, or portions of a case, settled.\n+This limited correspondence must include a specific and candid description of the situation\n+requiring Judge Kearney’s attention and the position of the opposing party. Correspondence may\n+be sent by email, fax, or mail to the Chambers’ Philadelphia address above.\n+We will not accept unsolicited communications unless pre-approved by Judge Kearney.\n+B. Telephone inquiries and conferences as warranted.\n+Judge Kearney may hold telephone conferences. Chambers will notify counsel of the date\n+and time for the telephone conference.\n+C. No telephone communications from pro se parties.\n+Telephone and fax communications by a pro se party are prohibited unless approved by\n+Judge Kearney beforehand and an ESR/Court Reporter is present. Pro se parties may not appear\n+for hearings by telephone unless permitted for good cause, such as incarcerated persons in civil\n+cases.\n+2\n+D. No communication with law clerks or interns.\n+Counsel and parties are not permitted to communicate with the Judge’s law clerks or interns\n+on substantive or scheduling matters unless specifically directed by the Judge on a particular issue.\n+E. Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) under Rule 5.1.2 is required of all counsel.\n+Counsel shall file all papers required to be filed under the Federal or Local Rules of Civil\n+and Criminal Procedure electronically through ECF.\n+F. Courtesy copies of ECF filings shall be provided only as directed.\n+Courtesy copies shall only be provided to Chambers for a filing over thirty-five pages and\n+as required under these Policies (e.g. Rule 56 papers) or otherwise requested by Chambers. The\n+courtesy copy shall be the ECF document with the ECF notation at the top of each page, unless\n+otherwise ordered. All courtesy copies are to be delivered to the Clerk’s Office to the attention of\n+Judge Kearney contemporaneous (as best as possible) with filing.\n+G. Required scrutiny of proposed sealed or redacted documents.\n+Confidentiality Orders. Counsel may not shift the burden of ensuring public access of filed\n+documents through a private confidentiality agreement where counsel require all privately\n+designated “confidential” or “highly confidential” documents to be filed under seal. Parties are\n+expected to redact personal identifiers consistent with Local Rules.\n+Judge Kearney will not enter a protective order on confidentiality during discovery unless\n+statutorily required but will enforce private confidentiality agreements as a matter of contract law\n+for good cause shown.\n+Sealed filings . Any party seeking to file documents under seal must comply with the\n+Court’s Standing Order when timely filing the motion to seal (under Section IV below) before\n+filing the substantive motion (unless impossible due to time exigencies) as narrowly as possible,\n+articulate good cause consistent with our Court of Appeals’ precedent, contemporaneously file the\n+sealed records under a “Notice of Sealed Documents in support of [requested relief]” by emailing\n+to ECF_Documents@paed.uscourts.gov, and contemporaneously email the documents sought\n+to be sealed to our Chambers. Counsel must separately analyze the claimed need to preclude public\n+3\n+access on a line -by-line basis under our Court of Appeals’ analysis in In re Avandia Marketing 1\n+and guided by Chief Judge Connolly’s analysis in In re Storag Etzel GmbH.2\n+We may schedule in camera hearings to address motions to seal extensive materials where\n+trial counsel shall appear and show cause as to each line of material counsel deems precluding\n+public access if not done so before requiring a hearing.\n+H. Requirements for website references and artificial intelligence use.\n+Filings referencing a website shall attach a screenshot of the cited website reference as an\n+exhibit.\n+Parties and counsel may be subject to sanction should we find false representations\n+including artificial intelligence hallucinations under the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules\n+of Civil and Criminal Procedure. See, e.g., Harvey v. Jenson, No. 25-6454, ECF 24 (E.D. Pa. Dec.\n+12, 2025); Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot.com Inc. , No. 25-5135, 2026 WL 195644 (E.D. Pa. Jan.\n+26, 2026); Rosario v. Liberty Mut. Pers. Ins. Co., No. 26-276, 2026 WL 413438 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13,\n+2026). Parties and counsel are on notice to double-check their citations and reliance on artificial\n+intelligence in a filing to ensure the arguments and citations to authority say what you represent to\n+the Court.\n+I. We encourage development of trial lawyers.\n+We r ecognize the importance of developing future generations of federal court trial\n+lawyers. We encourage trial counsel to assign court presentations to less experienced attorneys\n+unless we require lead counsel’s presence (e.g., Rule 16 and settlement conferences). We are aware\n+experienced trial counsel may not be directly involved in the day-to-day of the discovery process,\n+issues in dispositive motions, or with a particular witness or issue at trial. If warranted, we\n+encourage the parties and thoughtful trial counsel to allow well -prepared but less experienced\n+attorneys to present their client’s best position where, for example, the less experienced attorney\n+1 In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Prac tices & Prods. Liab. Litig. , 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019). The\n+party seeking to rebut the presumption of public access to a judicial document bears the burden of\n+showing “the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption” and “the material is the kind of\n+information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious\n+injury to the party seeking disclosure.” Id. at 672 (cleaned up). To meet Avandia’s standard, we\n+must be able to articulate “the compelling, countervailing interests to be protected,” make “specific\n+findings on the record concerning the effects of disclosure,” and “provide[ ] an opportunity for\n+interested third parties to be heard.” Id. at 672–73 (citation omitted). We must be specific in the\n+injury to be prevented by sealing, and conduct “careful factfinding and balancing of competing\n+interests” before the “strong presumption” of the public’s right to access can be overcome by the\n+“secrecy interests of private litigants.” Id. at 673 (citation omitted). A party’s private agreement\n+does not govern our obligation of ensuring public access.\n+2 No. 19-mc-209, 2020 WL 2949742 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2020) , adopted except for the First\n+Amendment analysis, 2020 WL 2915781 (D. Del. June 3, 2020).\n+4\n+lived with the facts or drafted or contributed significantly to the briefing. If requested before an\n+argument, we may allow more experienced trial counsel to assist the less experienced attorney\n+arguing the motion, where appropriate during oral argument.\n+There are many different circumstances where it is not appropriate for a less experienced\n+attorney to solely present the client’s position, particularly where we require trial counsel’s\n+presence. Depending on the attorney-client relationship, strategy on court appearances may be the\n+client’s decision and we do not wish to interfere in the client’s decision. We draw no inference\n+from a party’s decision not to have a less experienced attorney present the position. Similarly, we\n+draw no inference about the importance of a particular position, or the merits of a party’s position,\n+from the party’s decision to have (or not to have) a less experienced attorney present the position.\n+We only wish to encourage the experienced members of this Court’s Bar and their clients to\n+develop their next generation of trial lawyers.\n+J. Pro hac vice motions.\n+We welcome attorneys with particular expertise in the issues before the Court in a certain\n+matter or experience with a client’s matters to represent clients strictly consistent with the Rules\n+of Professional Conduct and these Policies. Motions for pro hac vice admission should be made\n+as soon as possible. Thoughtful opposition to a motion for pro hac vice must be filed within one\n+business day of the filing of the motion.\n+The attorney moving for admission of an attorney pro hac vice must:\n+1. Be admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and in good standing before this\n+Court;\n+2. Earlier his/her/their appearance in the matter and confirms his /her/their\n+continuing obligations under Section I.K. of our Policies below;\n+3. Describe the reasons the client requires this lawyer’s special admission, i.e.,\n+what does the applicant offer which cannot be provided by the attorney admitted in our Court;\n+4. Recite the positions of all counsel regarding the motion.\n+5. Attach the affidavit of the attorney seeking admission pro hac vice swearing\n+as to:\n+a. Year and jurisdiction of each Bar admission as well as the lawyer’s\n+status i.e., active or inactive, in good standing, etc.;\n+b. Whether the attorney has ever been suspended from the practice of\n+law in any jurisdiction or received a public reprimand by the highest disciplinary authority of any\n+Bar in which the attorney has been a member;\n+5\n+c. Reading and agreeing to be bound by the most recent edition of the\n+Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct , this Court’s Local Rules, and these Policies as\n+amended; and,\n+d. Good faith assurance of fully advising counsel who moved for the\n+pro hac vice admission of the current status of the case for which pro hac vice status has been\n+granted and of all material developments in the case.\n+K. Local counsel’s continuing obligations.\n+The admission of counsel pro hac vice does not relieve associate local counsel and the\n+attorney moving the admission of responsibility for counsel admitted pro hac vice. Judge Kearney\n+requires local counsel sign all filings. While local counsel shall be available by phone and prepared\n+to substantively address fact and legal issues for every case, we also require local counsel to be\n+present in Court (or on the telephone with leave) for a presentation on patent/ANDA, class,\n+collective, qui tam, derivative, multi-party, criminal matters designated as complex or every case\n+designated on the Special Case Management track or transferred to our docket from the Multi\n+District Litigation Panel. We do not reschedule confirmed and attached trial dates based on\n+specially admitted counsel’s conflicts.\n+L. Remote conferences.\n+We may allow telephonic or video conferences for matters not involving pro se parties who\n+are not in custody. We require conferences involving pro se parties not in custody to be held in\n+the Courtroom unless excused based on extraordinary grounds such as a courthouse closure.\n+Participants in telephonic or video conferences and their agents may not record or\n+otherwise create an artificial intelligence summary of off -the-record proceedings consistent with\n+our practices in the Courtroom and the Court’s published Protocols for Remote Proceedings\n+(https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/Protocols%20for%20Remote%20Pro\n+ceedings.pdf).\n+Counsel may timely request the proceeding be recorded by the Court if available based on\n+the timeliness of the request.\n+M. Pro se proceedings.\n+We require all scheduling conferences and hearings with pro se parties not in custody to\n+be held in the Courtroom unless excused by Judge Kearney for extraordinary reasons based on\n+Judge Kearney’s schedule\n+6\n+II. Initial steps in civil matters.\n+A. Rule 16 Conference and Rule 26(f) meeting are substantive obligations.\n+The initial pretrial conference ( see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Local Rule 16.1) may be\n+scheduled shortly after a defendant has entered an appearance. Counsel should expect a substantive\n+discussion on the merits of claims and plead ed defenses, discussion of settlement, discovery\n+scheduling, and setting a date certain trial.\n+B. Rule 26(f) meeting and joint report.\n+Judge Kearney relies on counsel ’s good faith compliance in all respects with Rule 26(f).\n+Parties should complete the Rule 26(f) meeting as soon as possible. This meeting is a meaningful\n+and substantive discussion to address prompt settlement positions, formulate the proposed\n+discovery plan, and discuss the parties’ factual and legal positions.\n+Pending motions will not excuse the requirements of holding the meeting and submitting\n+the plan. Parties who do not comply will have no input at the initial pretrial conference.\n+Unless waived for good cause, our scheduling Order will begin discovery and require the\n+parties to file a comprehensive joint report of the Rule 26(f) meeting at least one day before the\n+initial pretrial conference fully compliant with the “Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting” form provided\n+on the District’s web page: www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges-info/district-court-judges/mark-\n+kearney.\n+C. Additional disclosures in patent non-ANDA cases.\n+In patent non-ANDA cases, the comprehensive joint report of the Rule 26(f) meeting shall\n+include proposed dates for the exchange, in steps, of required information to plan for a\n+Markman hearing as soon as practicable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 1:\n+1. Plaintiff shall identify the accused product(s), including accused methods\n+and systems, and its damages model, as well as the asserted patent(s) that the accused product(s)\n+allegedly infringe(s). Plaintiff shall also produce the file history for each asserted patent;\n+2. Defendant shall produce core technical documents related to the accused\n+product(s), sufficient to show how the accused product(s) work(s), including but not limited to\n+non-publicly available operation manuals, product literature, schematics, and specifications.\n+Defendant shall also produce sales figures for the accused product(s);\n+3. Plaintiff shall produce an initial claim chart relating each known accused\n+product to the asserted claims each such product allegedly infringes;\n+4. Defendant shall produce its initial invalidity contentions for each asserted\n+claim, as well as the known related invalidating references;\n+7\n+5. The exchange of final infringement contentions;\n+6. Finally supplement, among other items , the identification of all accused\n+products and of all invalidity references; and,\n+7. Date for Markman hearing and scope of Markman hearing.\n+D. Obligations for the Rule 16 conference.\n+The initial pretrial conference is a substantive discussion addressing, at a minimum: items\n+listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Local Rule 16.1(b); completion of self-executing disclosures under\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a); a review of the required stipulated facts; disclosure of insurance coverage\n+and deductibles; requests for a Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) Order; status of pending discovery; the\n+preservation, production and cost allocation of electronically stored information; status of\n+settlement demands and offers and proposed timing of mediation; and, specific facts regarding\n+liability, damages and relief sought. Lead counsel must advise Judge Kearney of any conflict in\n+scheduling a trial beginning in four months after the Rule 16 Conference and thereafter. Judge\n+Kearney will issue a Scheduling Order shortly after the conclusion of the initial pretrial conference.\n+Absent compelling grounds provided in writing before the conference, counsel attending\n+the initial pretrial conference shall be designated as lead trial counsel. If lead counsel is excused\n+in advance of the conference, the attorney appearing must have access to lead counsel’s calendar\n+during the proceeding. Lead trial counsel shall be prepared to discuss settlement at the initial\n+pretrial conference, including having full authority from clients on settlement. Counsel may not\n+claim lack of authority to discuss settlement with opposing counsel and Judge Kearney unless the\n+client or carrier representative with full authority is present at the initial pretrial conference.\n+E. Obligations for threshold motions.\n+Parties seeking to move to dismiss, strike, remand, transfer, substitute parties, and other\n+threshold issues shall:\n+1. Confirm the movant meaningfully conferred in good faith with the\n+represented party (does not apply to pro se parties) subject to the anticipated motion including\n+specifically identifying the communications and shared resolution to resolve the issue particularly\n+on motions to dismiss based on the perceived inadequacy of the pleading or venue issues which\n+can often be readily resolved by an amended pleading or stipulated transfer or remand;\n+a. We interpret “meaningfully conferred” to include sharing the movant’s\n+arguments in summary fashion as well as citations to caselaw addressing each point expected to\n+be included in moving papers;\n+2. Be prepared to address the merits of a pending or anticipated threshold\n+motions at the initial pretrial conference, even if not fully briefed at that time; and,\n+8\n+3. We remind incarcerated persons must provide sworn allegations confirming\n+they exhausted their internal grievance or administrative remedies before filing suit when\n+responding to a challenge for failure to exhaust. See Lauria v. C.O. Lieb, 152 F.3d 549 (3d Cir.\n+2025).\n+F. Prompt resolution of matters through ADR and settlement conferences.\n+To the extent counsel cannot resolve the case before or during the initial pretrial\n+conference, Judge Kearney will direct all parties and client representatives with full settlement\n+authority to meet as soon as possible for a settlement conference with either a United States\n+Magistrate Judge or private mediator. Counsel must comply with all requirements regarding\n+meaningful settlement efforts.\n+Counsel are reminded meaningful participation in an early alternative dispute resolution\n+(“ADR”) effort is strongly encouraged and will be discussed passim, including in the initial pretrial\n+conference. Counsel, familiar with the Court’s mediation program and Local Rule 53.3, will have\n+explored ADR feasibility, including court -annexed mediation, not only between themselves but\n+with their clients as well. As shown, the specific reason for any decision not to participate in a\n+form of early ADR shall be specifically detailed in the Rule 26(f) report.\n+G. Motions to amend pleadings.\n+A motion to amend a pleading shall: identify all parties’ positions on the proposed\n+amendments and attach the proposed amended pleading either blacklined or highlighted solely to\n+show the change in the pleading.\n+H. Amending pleadings as a matter of course.\n+A party filing an amended pleading as a matter of course under Fed . R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)\n+must attach as an exhibit a blackline d or highlighted copy of the pleading solely to show the\n+changes in the pleading.\n+I. Continuances, amendments, and extensions of scheduling.\n+Unless there is demonstrated good cause in writing to justify a change, the parties are\n+expected to adhere to the schedule contained in Orders setting obligations or, absent an Order, the\n+default dates in the Federal or Local Rules . A request for an extension or continuance of the trial\n+date will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.\n+Stipulations. Judge Kearney may approve a timely stipulation for a continuance or\n+extension if the continuance or extension upon a showing of good cause and if it does not affect\n+the trial date.\n+Contested scheduling. If a non-incarcerated party opposes a continuance or extension, the\n+movant may move under Section III.B below identifying the basis for the continuance or extension\n+and detail the positions of other parties with a proposed order.\n+9\n+III. Discovery.\n+The Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure call for voluntary, cooperative discovery\n+in a timely manner. In 2010, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules\n+sponsored a symposium on civil litigation culminating in the 2015 amendment to the Federal Rules\n+of Civil Procedure. In his 2015 Year -End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Robe rts\n+highlighted these amendments and suggested both judges and practitioners “must take to heart”\n+the change to Rule 1: the Civil Rules “should be construed, administered, and employed by the\n+court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and\n+proceeding.”3 The information required to be disclosed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) is required to\n+be exchanged no later than seven days after the date of the Order scheduling the Rule 16\n+conference. The parties and Counsel are expected to act in accordance with both the letter and the\n+spirit of the Rules. The parties should be familiar with Guidelines and Best Practices for\n+Implementing the 2015 Discovery Amendments Concerning Proportionality (Third Edition)\n+published by the Bolch Judicial Institute (formerly the Duke Law Judicial Studies Center)\n+https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/bolch/.\n+A. Discovery expectations.\n+Absent demonstrated good cause in a complex case, the parties should expect discovery to\n+be complete after ninety days from the initial Order beginning discovery. If not done already, the\n+parties are required to commence core party written discovery upon Order and immediately upon\n+receipt of notice of the date of the Rule 16 conference unless stayed by statute or order. Core party\n+written discovery includes, among other efforts: document requests; admissions; and\n+interrogatories. It does not include third-party discovery or depositions before the initial scheduling\n+conference unless specifically ordered for good cause. Counsel will be required to report on the\n+progress of core party written discovery at the initial pretrial conference.\n+It is expected the parties will reach an agreement on conducting electronic discovery.\n+Absent an agreement before the initial pretrial conference, Judge Kearney will apply our Order\n+incorporating default standards which should be reviewed at the District’s web page under Judge\n+Kearney’s information.\n+B. Resolving discovery or scheduling disputes.\n+Counsel will proceed in discovery in a cooperative manner consistent with their\n+professional obligations including full disclosure. If a discovery dispute cannot be resolved, Judge\n+Kearney expects the Local Rule 26.1(f) certification will be substantive, specific, and meaningful\n+including describing the opposing party’s position . For example, it is not sufficient to certify\n+“counsel can’t reach opposing counsel”; “reasonable efforts have been made but were\n+unsuccessful”; “counsel have conferred in good faith”; “counsel repeatedly conferred with\n+opposing counsel” or similar generalities. See, e.g., Naviant Mktg. Sols., Inc. v. Larry Tucker, Inc.,\n+339 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2003); Evans v. Am. Honda Motors Co., Inc., No. 00-2061, 2003 WL\n+3 https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2015year-endreport.pdf (emphasis in\n+original).\n+10\n+22844186 at *1–2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2003). Failure to include a Local Rule 26.1(f) certification\n+or insufficient certification may result in summary denial without substantive consideration.\n+1. Limited discovery and all scheduling disputes resolved by short motion.\n+Judge Kearney will promptly consider a short motion of three pages or less, double-spaced\n+twelve-point font, with an attached proposed order seeking to enforce or excuse timely and full\n+compliance with discovery and scheduling obligations under the Federal Rules and Local Rule\n+26.1(g), these Policies, and our Orders. The parties may not file a memorandum of law absent\n+leave. Judge Kearney may resolve the issue before a response unless opposing counsel advises\n+Chambers, by email to Chambers or letter faxed within twenty-four hours of filing, noticing their\n+intent to file a response of three pages or less within forty -eight hours of the motion filing. A\n+response due on a weekend or federal holiday is due by Noon EST on the next succeeding business\n+day. Counsel seeking to file replies or longer motions or responses must move for relief and obtain\n+leave to do so before filing. No reply may be filed without leave. The motion does not need to be\n+in a numbered paragraph format.\n+2. Discovery motion practice.\n+A discovery motion unable to be presented in three pages o r less may be presented in a\n+motion not exceeding seven pages, double-spaced twelve-point font, along with a proposed order.\n+The parties may not file a memorandum of law absent leave. Absent an Order, a response may be\n+filed within three days, also limited to seven pages, double -spaced twelve-point font. A response\n+due on a weekend or federal holiday is due by Noon EST on the next succeeding business day.\n+Counsel seeking to file replie s or longer motio ns or responses must move for relief and obtain\n+leave to do so before filing. No reply may be filed without leave. The motion does not need to be\n+in a numbered paragraph format.\n+3. Discovery motions involving non-party witnesses.\n+A party seeking an order compelling discovery compliance from a non-party must attach a\n+certificate of service to the discovery motion describing their simultaneous service of the motion\n+by email, hand delivery, or fax upon the non -party possibly subject to the motion and, in a cover\n+letter, direct the non -party to these Policies on the Court’s website and the obligation to timely\n+respond. Non-parties served with motions may respond within three days of service, unless\n+otherwise ordered. A response from a n on-party due on a weekend or federal holiday is due by\n+Noon EST on the next succeeding business day.\n+4. Deposition conduct.\n+As in trial, we do not permit speaking objections or coaching the witness. Where warranted,\n+Judge Kearney will allow telephone conferences to resolve disputes during depositions where the\n+deposition would otherwise have to be adjourned. Stopping or “walking out” of a deposition is\n+strongly disfavored, and counsel should not do so before seeking direction from Judge Kearney,\n+mindful the parties’ time and expense should not be lost due to a discovery dispute experienced\n+counsel in this Court can usually resolve without loss of time or Court direction. Continued issues\n+11\n+in deposition may require appointment of a Rule 53 Master to attend and direct deposition concerns\n+at her normal hourly rates after notice to the parties.\n+IV. Motion practice for non-discovery or non-scheduling issues in all matters.\n+A. Proposed orders and motions.\n+All grounds for relief must be set forth in a single, comprehensive motion, accompanied\n+by a proposed order and an attached memorandum. The proposed order should specifically refer\n+to the motion, docket filing number, and specific basis for requested relief. The motion is limited\n+to five pages of double -spaced twelve-point font and is analogous to a Summary of Argument\n+which also details the requested relief. Parties opposing the motion must attach a proposed order\n+referring to the motion, docket filing number, and specific basis for denying the requested relief.\n+B. Must recite position of all parties absent a stipulation.\n+Counsel seeking relief in all matters other than under Rule of Civil Procedure 56 without a\n+stipulation of all parties , including challenging the admissibility of expert or fact evidence, shall\n+comply with the obligations above in II.B. and provide a meaningful fulsome description of the\n+opposition to the requested relief as part of the motion. Failure to meaningfully confer consistent\n+with II.E. above and then recite all parties’ positions in the motion may result in summary denial\n+of the requested relief.\n+C. Briefs/legal memoranda.\n+Memoranda filed in support of, or in opposition to, a motion is limited to twenty pages of\n+double-spaced twelve-point font. Reply briefs are not required and Judge Kearney may rule before\n+filing of reply briefs if warranted. Reply briefs without a proposed order are permitted without\n+leave if filed and served within seven days of the date a non -moving party files its Opposition,\n+may not exceed ten pages, and must be limited to issues newly raised in the Opposition. Briefs in\n+excess of these page limits and sur -reply briefs are not permitted unless leave is granted upon\n+motion.\n+D. Post-trial motion procedure.\n+A party seeking to challenge trial and pretrial rulings through a timely post -trial motion\n+must strictly comply with Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure 59 and 60 and with Local\n+Rule 7.1(e) requiring ordering and paying a deposit for the trial tr anscript required by the court\n+reporter within fourteen days of filing any post -trial motion unless Judge Kearney excuses this\n+requirement for good cause.\n+Upon showing good cause based on a need for the transcript to brief the post -trial issues,\n+Judge Kearney may allow the movant to file the memorandum not exceeding twenty-five pages in\n+support of post-trial relief within thirty days of the receipt of the transcript.\n+12\n+All memoranda raising more than two legal arguments shall include a Table of Contents\n+(but no table of citations) which is not included in the maximum twenty-five pages of memoranda.\n+VI. Additional protocol for Rule 56 motions.\n+A. Separate statements of material facts.\n+Any motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 shall include a separately filed Statement of\n+Undisputed Material Facts which details, in numbered paragraphs, the material facts the moving\n+party contends are undisputed and entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law. Only those\n+facts which bear on dispositive material issues shall be included in the Statement of Undisputed\n+Facts. Opposition to a motion for summary judgment shall include a separate filing of a statement\n+of material facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs in the movant’s Statement of Undisputed\n+Facts, which the respondent contends present genuine issues for trial. The responding party also\n+shall set forth, in separate numbered paragraphs, any additional facts which the respondent\n+contends preclude summary judgment.\n+Statements of material facts in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary\n+judgment shall include specific and not general references to the parts of the record supporting\n+each of the statements. Each stated fact shall cite the source relied upon, including the page of any\n+document or line and page number of any deposition to which reference is made.\n+B. Memoranda with a table of contents if warranted.\n+Memoranda in support of, or opposing, a Rule 56 motion is limited to twenty-five pages of\n+text, double -spaced, twelve -point font attached to the Motion with a Table of Contents (not\n+included in the maximum twenty-five pages) if the party raises more than two arguments.\n+C. Appendix.\n+Upon filing, the movant(s) shall also file a separate appendix of all exhibits or its affidavits\n+which may relate to the issues raised in the motion. On all cross-motions under Rule 56, the cross-\n+movants must consult before filing to prepare a single joint appendix. All pages of the appendix\n+shall be consecutively “Bates stamped” and referenced in the motions and briefs by the Bates\n+number assigned each page. For example, “1a, 2a, 3a, etc.” The appendix shall include a table of\n+contents. The movant shall ma ke every effort to include all necessary exhibits in the appendix,\n+anticipating the respondent’s necessary citations to the fullest good faith extent possible. Should it\n+become necessary for the non -moving party to submit affidavits or additional exhibits, however,\n+it may do so in a respondent’s appendix filed with its Opposition. Any additions to the movant’s\n+appendix shall also be consecutively Bates -stamped, beginning at the page number where the\n+movant’s appendix ended, and shall include a table of cont ents. Judge Kearney will not consider\n+material not included in the appendix required by this Policy.\n+Failure of the movant to follow this procedure in all respects may result in the denial of the\n+motion without prejudice to be renewed at trial. Respondent’s failure to comply in all respects may\n+result in the Court’s considering the motion as uncontested.\n+13\n+We remind incarcerated persons they must provide sworn allegations confirming they\n+exhausted their internal grievance or administrative remedies before filing suit when responding\n+to a challenge for failure to exhaust. See Lauria v. Lieb, 152 F.4th 549 (3d Cir. 2025).\n+D. Courtesy copy provided to Chambers.\n+The parties shall provide Chambers with one courtesy copy of all Rule 56 submissions by\n+overnight mail or hand delivery to the Clerk’s office to the attention of Judge Kearney within one\n+business day of filing. Counsel shall provide appendices in a searchable format. The parties shall\n+provide copies only of the filed document noted with the ECF document number on each page\n+confirming filing of the entire courtesy copy.\n+VII. Final pretrial proceedings.\n+A. Pretrial memoranda.\n+Unless otherwise ordered by Judge Kearney, the parties shall prepare simultaneous pretrial\n+memoranda meeting the requirements of Local Rule 16.1(c), and also include:\n+1. All stipulations of counsel;\n+2. Attached highlighted deposition testimony (including videotaped\n+deposition testimony) of admissions or unavailable witnesses which the party intends to offer\n+during its case-in-chief. The pretrial statement should include citations to page and line number;\n+3. The substance of the testimony of each witness. Identifying a witness as\n+offering testimony on liability and/or damages without specifics is insufficient; and,\n+4. A schedule with description of all proffered exhibits.\n+B. Motions in limine.\n+Judge Kearney expects counsel attempted to resolve objections to exhibits and testimony\n+before the motions in limine deadlines, leaving only those objections the parties could not resolve.\n+To the extent there are unresolved evidentiary issues, counsel should anticipate the Scheduling\n+Order will require motions in limine be filed after the contemporaneous exchange of pretrial\n+memoranda, with a reply due before the pretrial conference. Counsel seeking to preclude\n+admission of specific exhibits based on evidentiary objections shall provide Chambers two copies\n+of the contested exhibits (by hand delivery to the Clerk of Court if exceeds ten pages or by email\n+if less than ten pages) contemp oraneous with moving in limine on the challenged exhibits.\n+Hearings or arguments challenging expert witness competency or necessity, upon request, will be\n+scheduled at or before the final pretrial conference. Responses to motions in limine do not need to\n+answer each allegation as in state court practice. Oppositions shall be in memoranda form.\n+Absent an Order, parties may file up to five motions in limine grouped by evidentiary review\n+(e.g. hearsay, expert, privilege, competence, etc.)\n+14\n+C. Final pretrial conference.\n+Sidebar conferences and objections to evidence which should have been anticipated will\n+be strongly discouraged at trial. Consequently, one of the goals of the final pretrial conference is\n+to resolve all evidentiary issues to avoid delay at trial and to provide counsel with advance notice\n+of evidentiary requirements. Counsel should expect rulings on outstanding motions before, at, or\n+shortly after, the final pretrial conference. In complex cases, counsel should be prepared to discuss\n+presentation of evidence in terms of hours allocated to their case in chief, defense, and rebuttal.\n+VIII. Injunctions.\n+Judge Kearney attempts to hold a prompt conference with counsel seeking and defending\n+requests for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions following an affidavit of\n+service, unless extraordinary imminent harm. Judge Kearney usually handles filed motions for\n+expedited discovery by conference when scheduling the hearing. Judge Kearney expects a party\n+seeking pretrial injunctive relief is prepared to imminently move to a hearing within a month. If\n+not ready for an imminent hearing, the party may seek expedited discovery and J udge Kearney\n+will then set the pretrial injunction hearing.\n+IX. Class Action settlement best practices.\n+Parties seeking or objecting to an order settling a case on a class basis under Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 23 should fully address their positions on the best practices for implementing the 2018\n+Amendments to Rule 23, including those described at\n+https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/guidance-on-new-rule-23-class-action-settlement-\n+provisions/ with the executive summary: Guidance on New Rule 23 Class Action Settlement\n+Provisions, 102 JUDICATURE, no. 3, Fall/Winter 2018, at 15–21.\n+X. Arbitration.\n+Judge Kearney may issue Scheduling Orders in arbitration track cases. Judge Kearney may\n+retain an arbitration case for trial. The parties are expected to complete all discovery and resolve\n+all dispositive motions before the arbitration hearing. Upon demand for trial de novo from an\n+arbitration award, Judge Kearney will issue a Scheduling Order setting the date for trial to occur\n+within sixty days of the appeal at the earliest date available to the Court. Neither discovery nor\n+dispositive motions will be allowed after the arbitration hearing absent compelling cause.\n+XI. Trial Procedure.\n+A. Scheduling.\n+The date for final pretrial memoranda, trial motions, final pretrial conference, and trial will\n+be set in the Order following the initial pretrial conference. Once a case is listed for trial, counsel,\n+parties, and witnesses are attached to start trial on the date ordered. Counsel must advise Chambers\n+of any irreversible personal conflicts arising after the scheduling Order as soon as possible.\n+15\n+B. Courtroom technology.\n+Judge Kearney holds court in Courtroom 6-B, which is not an electronic courtroom. Parties\n+are responsible for arranging and providing all electronic technology they wish to bring for trial.\n+Any party planning to use such equipment must submit a letter to Chambers, as early as possible\n+and copied to all counsel, but no later than one week before trial, identifying the equipment it will\n+use at trial. Any equipment counsel wishes to have brought in for trial must be set up and tested\n+before jury selection. Parties should contact Courtroom Deputy Ulrike Bower (267-299-7688)\n+before trial to arrange a time to set up and test electronic equipment in Courtroom 6 -B and for\n+permission to bring in the equipment through courthouse security.\n+C. Cases involving out-of-town parties or witnesses.\n+Judge Kearney schedules the trial of cases involving out -of-town counsel, parties, or\n+witnesses in the same manner as all other cases. Counsel is responsible for the timely scheduling\n+of witnesses to maximize the jury’s time.\n+D. Jury selection in civil cases.\n+After Judge Kearney’s brief introduction to the general nature of the case and standard\n+disqualification questions, Judge Kearney will conduct voir dire, with specific approved follow -\n+up questions from counsel. Judge Kearney will then entertain cause and hardship strikes.\n+Counsel will then exercise peremptory challenges by alternate strikes, plaintiff first, until\n+each side has stricken three potential jurors or opts not to use any or all of their strikes.\n+After consultation with counsel based on length of trial, Judge Kearney will typically seat\n+eight jurors in a civil case.\n+E. Courtroom protocol.\n+Parties may examine witnesses from the lectern, from counsel table, or within hearing\n+distance of the ESR operator or court reporter but not within ten feet of the witnesses. Counsel\n+shall seek permission before approaching witnesses, as warranted. In addition, counsel will direct\n+all comments to Judge Kearney or to the witness under examination and not to other counsel or to\n+the jury.\n+Co-counsel and the parties may not talk to each other or distract the presentation of\n+evidence or argument. Trial counsel shall instruct persons from their offices attending trial in the\n+gallery to not speak in the public courtroom while Judge Kearney or the jury is present as trial\n+counsel should be mindful of waiving privileges or of the effect statements overheard by the public\n+including witnesses, jurors, or members of their families regarding the adversary process may\n+affect the fact-finding process.\n+Judge Kearney may require counsel to disclose upcoming witnesses at least one day before\n+the anticipated testimony when warranted to ensure efficient presentation of evidence.\n+16\n+F. Note-taking by jurors.\n+Judge Kearney may permit jurors to take notes.\n+G. Trial briefs.\n+Parties may submit a trial brief only if requested by Judge Kearney.\n+H. Examining witnesses out of sequence.\n+Judge Kearney will permit counsel to examine his/her own witnesses out of turn for the\n+convenience of a witness.\n+I. Opening statements and summations.\n+In trials before a jury, Judge Kearney limits opening statements to no more than thirty\n+minutes and closing jury arguments to no more than one hour per side (including rebuttal for\n+Plaintiff) absent leave upon a showing of good cause in a complex matter.\n+Judge Kearney often waives opening statements and closing arguments in a non-jury trial.\n+J. Examination of witnesses or argument.\n+Only one attorney for each side may examine the same witness or address the jury during\n+the opening statement or summation.\n+Counsel may not confer with a witness once sworn during the balance of their testimony\n+except for logistics as to the courtroom and confirming timing of testimony absent Judge\n+Kearney’s approval upon a showing a good cause.\n+K. Videotaped testimony.\n+Videotaped testimony should begin with the witness being sworn. After Judge Kearney\n+rules on any objections, counsel must edit the testimony before offering the videotaped testimony\n+at trial.\n+L. Preparing, admitting, and delivering admitted trial exhibits to Chambers.\n+The parties will prepare a joint exhibit book with all exhibits counsel may use at trial based\n+on the rulings along with a schedule of exhibits. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the exhibits\n+will be presented in chronological order with the first document representing the oldest dated\n+document. Counsel should provide a copy for the witness which may be provided to the jury during\n+deliberations if requested. Unless all exhibits are shown electronically, Counsel must deliver two\n+copies of the joint exhibit book for Judge Kearney at voir dire. The cost of producing the exhibit\n+book(s) will be equally shared per capita upon all parties, subject to modification if abused.\n+17\n+Motions to admit exhibits will be considered at the close of a party’s case-in-chief and not\n+before. As the evidentiary issues were addressed before or during the final pretrial conference, the\n+parties should expect this short motion to be promptly resolved.\n+Plaintiff’s counsel shall, unless excused for good cause, email an electronic copy of all\n+admitted exhibits to our Chambers email address (or provide on a disc) before the jury returns with\n+a verdict. We will not retain hard copies and binders of exhibits and counsel must provide an\n+electronic version of the admitted exhibits before the verdict to ensure we preserve exhibits for\n+post-trial review.\n+M. Sidebar or evidentiary conference.\n+Counsel must confer privately to resolve any unanticipated evidentiary issues which may\n+arise during trial. If unsuccessful in resolving the issues, counsel should only bring a matter to the\n+Courtroom Deputy’s attention at the beginning of the day or during an appropriate break when the\n+jury is not present. All evidentiary conferences in the courtroom are on the record.\n+N. Directed verdict motions.\n+Motions for judgment as a matter of law in jury trials and motions for an involuntary\n+dismissal in non-jury trials may be filed but may also be presented orally.\n+O. Proposed jury instructions and verdict forms.\n+The Scheduling Order will note the date on which the parties shall file proposed jury\n+instructions on substantive issues unique to your matter, along with proposed verdict forms or\n+special interrogatories to the jury.\n+In submitting proposed points for charge, the parties are directed to the Model Civil Jury\n+Instructions (available at http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/model-jury-instructions).Where\n+applicable, Judge Kearney will use the Model Instructions to instruct the jury. In submitting points\n+for charge based on the Model Instructions, however, the parties should tailor the proposed\n+instructions to the specific facts of the case.\n+Proposed jury instructions, separately numbered, shall include a table of contents and be\n+submitted on a separate sheet of paper, double -spaced, with accurate quotes from, and pinpoint\n+citations to cases and pattern jury instructions where appropriate. The parties shall also provide by\n+email to Chambers the proposed instructions in Microsoft Word format. All objections to jury\n+instructions shall be filed in one written motion.\n+P. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-jury cases.\n+Judge Kearney may require counsel timely file p roposed findings of fact and conclusions\n+of law in non -jury cases. Counsel should prepare and pay for prompt transcripts. A schedule for\n+the submission of findings/conclusions will be addressed at the conclusion of trial.\n+18\n+Q. Unavailability of witness.\n+If a witness is unavailable at the time of trial, Judge Kearney expects an oral or videotaped\n+deposition to be used at trial for that witness, whether the witness is a party, a non -party, or an\n+expert. The unavailability of such witness will not be a ground to delay the commencement or\n+progress of trial.\n+R. Objections.\n+Judge Kearney does not permit speaking objections. Objections must be made by reciting\n+the appropriate rule number or a one-word basis.\n+XII. Jury deliberations.\n+A. Written jury instructions.\n+If requested by the jury, Judge Kearney will give the jury a copy of the complete written\n+jury instructions provided to them in the jury charge.\n+B. Exhibits in the jury room.\n+After the jury has been instructed and taken to the jury room to begin deliberations, Judge\n+Kearney and counsel will confirm the admissible exhibits from the joint exhibit book(s) to be\n+presented to the jury for its consideration during deliberations if the jury requests.\n+Judge Kearney will forward requested admitted exhibits to the jury regardless of whether\n+counsel published the exhibits during trial.\n+C. Availability of counsel during deliberation.\n+Unless excused by Judge Kearney, trial counsel must remain in the courthouse during jury\n+deliberations with their cell phone. Counsel are expected to return to the courtroom within ten\n+minutes after receiving a call from the Courtroom Deputy.\n+D. Taking the verdict and special verdicts.\n+Judge Kearney usually submits interrogatories to the jury after discussion with the parties.\n+The Courtroom Deputy will take the verdict in the presence of the Court, counsel, and the parties.\n+E. Polling the jury.\n+Judge Kearney will poll the jury upon counsel’s request.\n+19\n+F. Interviewing the jury.\n+Judge Kearney will allow counsel to talk to jurors following the verdict but will instruct\n+the jurors they are not required to talk to counsel or any person purporting to represent counsel.\n+XIII. Judge Kearney’s additional procedures in criminal cases.\n+We apply the Policies detailed above to the extent applicable in criminal cases including\n+for pro hac vice and other motions and trial procedures and specifically including the obligations\n+as to Motions and Memoranda and to meaningfully confer with opposing counsel on requested\n+relief before moving for relief in Section IV.B. (incorporating obligations in II.B).\n+Judge Kearney also requires in criminal cases:\n+A. Motions practice in criminal cases.\n+All pretrial motions – including motions in limine and any motions challenging the\n+indictment, seeking suppression of evidence, or raising dispositive matters – must be filed in\n+accord with the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and represent the position of all parties\n+on the requested relief. Upon filing a motion, the parties shall advise Judge Kearney whether they\n+intend to present testimony in support of or in opposition to the motion and the expected duration\n+of any such testimony so Judge Kearney can schedule a hearing, if necessary. Judge Kearney will\n+generally permit oral argument in criminal matters on substantive motions upon request.\n+B. Trial continuances.\n+Any request for a continuance must be filed no later than fourteen days in advance of the\n+scheduled trial date. Requests for a continuance must be filed as a motion stating the reasons for\n+the request , the position of the other side, the amount of time sought, and existing conflicts\n+potentially impacting scheduling of a new trial date . Any such motion must be accompanied by\n+the form of consent to continuance signed by the defendant, as provided by Judge Kearney after\n+receipt of the motion and proposed order which, if approved by Judge Kearney, would grant the\n+relief sought by the motion. The proposed form of order must be consistent with the requirements\n+of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), and must include a proposed finding explaining\n+in reasonable detail why the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh\n+the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.\n+Continuances are strongly discouraged, and, if multiple continuances are sought, counsel\n+may be required to appear in person to argue the matter.\n+C. Pretrial conferences.\n+Judge Kearney does not generally hold telephone conferences with counsel in criminal\n+cases, unless counsel specifically requests one or Judge Kearney finds a conference is appropriate.\n+The Courtroom Deputy handles scheduling of criminal matters. A final pretrial conference may\n+20\n+address pending motions, and is sues arising from the review of filed proposed voir dire , jury\n+instructions, and jury verdict.\n+D. Voir Dire.\n+Judge Kearney will conduct the initial voir dire regarding hardships, the general suitability\n+of the jurors, etc.\n+E. Guilty pleas.\n+1. Before a defendant offers a guilty plea, counsel must complete the guilty\n+plea memorandum, guilty plea statement, and acknowledgement of rights and review those\n+documents with the defendant. Counsel must also provide copies of those documents to Judge\n+Kearney.\n+2. The guilty plea agreement must state whether the plea is a general plea of\n+guilty, a conditional plea, or a plea of nolo contendere . The guilty plea agreement also must\n+disclose to the defendant and Judge Kearney whether the plea is entered under Federal Rule of\n+Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A), (B) or (C), relating to the obligation of the United States\n+regarding other charges under su bsection (A), a non -binding sentencing recommendation under\n+subsection (B), or a binding sentencing recommendation under subsection (C).\n+3. The parties seeking approval of a plea agreement under Federal Rule of\n+Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A), (B) or (C):\n+a. Are strongly encouraged to identify a range of months for\n+incarceration and supervised release rather than a specific term of months to allow for fair\n+application all the section 3553 factors and compliance with federal sentencing policy; and,\n+b. Must be mindful Judge Kearney may accept the plea agreement but\n+will defer accepting the Rule 11(c)(1) recommendation as to a proposed range for sentencing until\n+after study of the presentence investigation report and possibly reviewing evidence at the\n+sentencing hearing absent extraordinary grounds in a straightforward fact presentation and\n+application of the guidelines.\n+4. The United States must submit a guilty plea memorandum at least two days\n+prior to the change of plea hearing. The memorandum shall include the elements of each offense\n+to which the defendant is pleading guilty and legal citations for the elements, the maxi mum\n+statutory penalties for each offense, the terms of any plea agreement and the factual basis for the\n+plea. The change of plea memorandum shall be provided in Microsoft Word Format by email to\n+Chambers_of_Judge_Kearney@paed.uscourts.gov.\n+5. If an agreement has been reached to request Judge Kearney set an expedited\n+sentencing, the United States must notify Chambers and the probation office at least two days prior\n+to the change of plea hearing.\n+21\n+F. Sentencing\n+1. Sentencing will be scheduled on the day Judge Kearney accepts a\n+defendant’s guilty plea or after a defendant is convicted at trial. Sentencing will generally occur\n+approximately one hundred and ten (110) days after a guilty plea or trial. Sentencing will be\n+continued for good cause only.\n+2. To avoid delay in sentencing, all objections to the Presentence Investigation\n+Report must be sent to the probation officer in advance of sentencing. In no event shall counsel\n+raise objections for the first time in a sentencing memorandum.\n+3. Counsel must file sentencing motions and supporting memoranda at least\n+seven days prior to the scheduled sentencing date, and any response thereto must be filed at least\n+three days prior to the scheduled sentencing date. The memorandum must set forth any legal\n+authority relied upon by the party. No replies may be filed without leave.\n+4. Sentencing memoranda (exclusive of motions), by both the United States\n+and the defense must be filed no later than seven days before the scheduled sentencing date, and\n+any response thereto must be filed at least three days prior to the scheduled sentencing date.\n+Counsel shall serve a copy on the United States Probation Office.\n+5. Counsel shall provide all character letters by email at least three days\n+before sentencing to Chambers_of_Judge_Kearney@paed.uscourts.gov.\n+6. If a defendant may be responsible for restitution, the United States must\n+submit sufficient information in its sentencing memorandum to enable Judge Kearney to determine\n+entitlement, the name and the address of each victim, the amount of loss for each victim, and\n+documentary support for each amount. If liability for restitution is joint and several, the United\n+States shall itemize the restitution amount for which each defendant may be responsible.\n+7. Pre-Sentence Investigation Reports and Sentencing Memoranda shall also\n+be promptly delivered to chambers in Microsoft Word Format by email to\n+Chambers_of_Judge_Kearney@paed.uscourts.gov.\n+For any civil or criminal litigation issues not addressed above, please consult the Local Rules\n+of Civil and Criminal Procedure for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, available at\n+http://www.paed.uscourts.gov","id":"ae06861decb75c786c6fe00a364e7cb21f6588b071d424e3a717e8b7b6cee265","newHash":"bec668d7094866829a652a8eda1a057c36bd60bd75eb9f6616124b34788418f2","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/keapol.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/bec668d7094866829a652a8eda1a057c36bd60bd75eb9f6616124b34788418f2.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/keapol.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:13.076038+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n+STANDING ORDER REGARDING USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL\n+INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) IN CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE PRATTER\n+Judge Pratter requires that counsel (or a party representing himself or herself) disclose any\n+use of generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of any complaint, answer,\n+motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court, including in cor respondence with the Court. If\n+counsel (or a party representing himself or herself) has used generative AI, h e or she must , in a\n+clear and plain factual statement, disclose that generative AI has been used in any way in the\n+preparation of the filing or cor respondence and certify that each and every citation to the law or\n+the record in the filing has been verified as authentic and accurate.\n+Dated: May 3, 2024 BY THE COURT:\n+s/ Gene E.K. Pratter\n+GENE E.K. PRATTER\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE","id":"e2bb03e37c1a3ce41f806acbd93bd9064eca8d9a5e849d200060b203a47a9fb4","newHash":"518da48a5c2a16dd20b6d98b4efbde854b326686b0560b711f447e988a40486a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/praso1_0.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/518da48a5c2a16dd20b6d98b4efbde854b326686b0560b711f447e988a40486a.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/praso1_0.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:12.240486+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n+STANDING ORDER RE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN\n+CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE SCOTT\n+If any attorney for a party, or a pro se party, has used generative Artificial Intelligence\n+(“AI”)—including but not limited to ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or any other program that uses\n+machine learning to create new content—in a citation of any legal authority filed with the Court,\n+and assigned to Judge Kai N. Scott, then they MUST, in a clear and plain factual statement,\n+disclose that generative AI has been used to assist with the citation of legal authority, disclose\n+what specific generative AI program was used, and CERTIFY that each and every citation of\n+legal authority has been verified as accurate.\n+DATED: 03/03/2025 BY THE COURT:\n+HON. KAI N. SCOTT,\n+United States District Court Judge","id":"18030540c2693c796c78d1eca5c4cb89b39917ef4425b95f262c359cee9bdc56","newHash":"3665503e1f99151398233a9bfb2a20a0ca99ee2a4072fe7fdbdd5066ed813193","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/scopole.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/3665503e1f99151398233a9bfb2a20a0ca99ee2a4072fe7fdbdd5066ed813193.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/scopole.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:12.750963+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@\n+Judge Mark J. Conway | Middle District of Pennsylvania | United States Bankruptcy Court\n+Skip to main content\n+An official website of the United States government\n+Here’s how you know\n+Here’s how you know\n+Official websites use .gov\n+A\n+.gov website belongs to an official government\n+organization in the United States.\n+Secure .gov websites use HTTPS\n+A\n+lock\n+(\n+Lock\n+Locked padlock icon\n+) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to\n+the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.\n+Home\n+United States Bankruptcy Court\n+Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Honorable Henry W. Van Eck, Chief Judge\n+Seth F. Eisenberg, Clerk of Court\n+Close menu\n+Main Menu\n+Search\n+Search\n+About the Court\n+About\n+the\n+Court\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+About\n+the\n+Court\n+Locations, Hours, Contact Us\n+News & Announcements\n+Case Statistics\n+Office of the US Trustee (UST)\n+Careers\n+Careers\n+Back\n+Careers\n+Your Employee Rights and How to Report Wrongful Conduct\n+Understanding Bankruptcy\n+Understanding Bankruptcy\n+Back\n+Understanding\n+Bankruptcy\n+Bankruptcy Basics\n+Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Frequently Asked Questions\n+Attorney Advisory Committee\n+Reasonable Accommodations for Individuals with Communications Disabilities\n+Case Filings/Info\n+Case\n+Filings/Info\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Case\n+Filings/Info\n+File a Case/Documents\n+Filing Instructions\n+Find a Case\n+File a Proof of Claim (ePOC)\n+Unclaimed Fund Information\n+Transcripts/Audio Recordings\n+Obtain a Copy of Your Discharge\n+Copies/Certification/ Exemplification/Archived Cases\n+Judgements and Orders Pursuant to FRBP 5003(c)\n+Bankruptcy Noticing Information\n+Forms & Fees\n+Forms\n+&\n+Fees\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Forms\n+&\n+Fees\n+Forms\n+Fees/Pay Online\n+Guidance on Chapter 7 Fee Waivers\n+Rules/General Orders\n+Rules/General\n+Orders\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Rules/General\n+Orders\n+U.S. Bankruptcy Code\n+Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedures\n+Local Rules\n+General Orders\n+Judges/Hearings\n+Judges/Hearings\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Judges/Hearings\n+Chief Judge Henry W. Van Eck\n+Judge Mark J. Conway\n+Court Calendar\n+Self-Scheduling Hearings\n+Appear Remotely for a Hearing\n+Opinions/Decisions\n+Certified Mediators\n+Electronic Evidence Presentation System (EEPS)\n+Judicial Conduct and Disability/Seminar Disclosure\n+Filing Without an Attorney\n+Filing bankruptcy is a serious decision and should not be taken without considering the long-term financial and legal consequences\n+Filing\n+Without\n+an\n+Attorney\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Filing bankruptcy is a serious decision and should not be taken without considering the long-term financial and legal consequences\n+Filing\n+Without\n+an\n+Attorney\n+Before You File\n+When You File\n+Upload Documents\n+After You File\n+Credit Counseling & Debtor Education\n+Legal Services\n+Guidance on Tax Information\n+Get Court Notices and Orders by Email (DeBN)\n+Means Testing\n+Select language\n+|\n+Find a location\n+Search\n+Close\n+Search\n+Search\n+Menu\n+Judges/Hearings\n+Chief Judge Henry W. Van Eck\n+Judge Mark J. Conway\n+Court Calendar\n+Self-Scheduling Hearings\n+Appear Remotely for a Hearing\n+Opinions/Decisions\n+Certified Mediators\n+Electronic Evidence Presentation System (EEPS)\n+Judicial Conduct and Disability/Seminar Disclosure\n+Home\n+Judges/Hearings\n+Judge Mark J. Conway\n+Location:\n+Wilkes-Barre\n+Judge Type:\n+U.S. Bankruptcy Judge\n+Appointment Date:\n+July 22, 2021\n+Status:\n+Active\n+Court Calendar\n+2026 Judge Conway's Calendar (removed 7/30 added 8/4)\n+Interactive Court Hearing Calendar and 341 Meetings of Creditors\n+Appearing at a Hearing Remotely\n+Chambers Contact Information\n+Connie Norvilas, Judicial Assistant\n+Sarah Crouch, Law Clerk\n+Phone: 570-831-2536\n+Judge Conway's Chambers Email\n+Trish Ratchford, Courtroom Deputy\n+570-831-2509\n+Appearances\n+Appearances before Judge Mark J. Conway in all cases and adversary proceedings.\n+ALL Trials and Evidentiary Hearings will be conducted in-person at the Max Rosenn U.S. Courthouse in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.\n+In very limited circumstances and only with prior Court approval upon a showing of good cause, Judge Conway will permit witness testimony by remote appearance. Counsel is advised to comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9074-1, which inter alia, requires any request to appear remotely be filed at least 7 days prior to the scheduled hearing and include a Certificate of Concurrence/Nonconcurrence for Remote Testimony (L.B.F. 9074-1).\n+Remote appearances are permitted for most non-evidentiary hearings. All parties are required to follow the procedures for remote appearances.\n+Please note, same day registrations are not permitted.\n+All parties are required to wear appropriate and professional courtroom attire. All parties are reminded that they are appearing in Federal Court. Backgrounds should be neutral and free of distractions. All parties must have a strong internet connection and if using a wireless device make sure you remain in close proximity to the connection source. All parties are responsible for the quality of their audio and video connection. Appearances from vehicles and outdoors are not permitted. Participants must eliminate all background noise and shall silence any devices that may make noise (e.g., telephone, messaging and e-mail alerts).\n+The ability to participate remotely is a privilege and available only at the discretion of the Court. Remote participation may be rescinded if a party fails to comply with Court directives.\n+Questions regarding appearances may be directed to:\n+Patricia Ratchford, Courtroom Deputy\n+Telephone: (570) 831-2509\n+Email: patricia_ratchford@pamb.uscourts.gov\n+Continuances\n+Parties seeking a continuance of a scheduled hearing must comply with the provisions of Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-4 Continuances, including a certification that the party making the request has sought the concurrence of all interested parties and whether concurrence has been granted or denied. If the request is a first request, the parties may request a continuance using Local Bankruptcy Form 9013-4. All other requests must be made via motion. It is strongly urged that requests to continue be made at the earliest possible time.\n+Parties seeking to cancel a hearing due to a settlement of the matter, must comply with the provisions of Local Bankruptcy Rule 9019-1 Settlements and Agreed Orders. The parties may file a Request to Remove (L.B.F. 9019-1) no later than 24 hours prior to the hearing.\n+Questions regarding all scheduling matters may be directed to:\n+Patricia Ratchford, Courtroom Deputy\n+Telephone: (570) 831-2509\n+Email: patricia_ratchford@pamb.uscourts.gov\n+Motions\n+All motions should comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1 and be accompanied by a proposed order. Proposed orders should have one (1) inch margins, utilize Times New Roman 12 point font with at least two (2) inches at the bottom of the order for the insertion of the electronic signature and date. At least one line of text must be included on the page that will bear Judge Conway’s signature and the date of the order. When appropriate, parties are encouraged to utilize the form orders located under the “Form Orders” tab. It is the filer’s responsibility to ensure that the motion and all other papers are properly served and a certification of service is contemporaneously filed.\n+For expedited or emergency motions, counsel should comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9075-1 Emergency Orders, which requires inter alia, that a motion for expedited consideration be filed with the underlying pleading for which emergency relief is being sought attached as an exhibit and email notification be provided to Chambers: Chambers_of_Judge_Mark_Conway@pamb.uscourts.gov. Once the motion for expedited consideration is granted, the movant should immediately file the underlying pleading with the hearing date included\n+Form Orders\n+Attachment\n+Order Approving Motion to Modify Plan (Word)\n+Order Approving Motion to Modify Plan (PDF)\n+Order Approving a Stipulation (Word)\n+Order Approving a Stipulation (PDF)\n+Order on Motion to Extend Stay (Word)\n+Order on Motion to Extend Stay (PDF)\n+Use of Generative AI\n+Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), particularly Generative AI (including, but not limited to, OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Bard), in the practice of law raises a number of practical concerns for the Court, including the risk that the generative AI tool might generate legally or factually incorrect information, or that it might create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations. As such, any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document to be filed in any matter pending before Judge Conway, must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI in which the party must disclose and certify:\n+The specific AI tool that was used;\n+The portions of the filing prepared by the AI program; and\n+That a person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority.\n+Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. Further, all parties and counsel are directed to review the conclusions on pages 15 and 16 of the Joint Formal Opinion of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence and be mindful of their ethical and professional obligations before this Court.\n+Return to top\n+Return to top\n+Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Careers\n+FAQs\n+Home\n+United States Bankruptcy Court\n+Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Privacy and Security\n+Website Feedback\n+(717) 901-2800\n+pambecf_helpdesk@pamb.uscourts.gov\n+Find a location","id":"fd4a03369cb24640f9e0de8c82cd9c763929b9a8c503f2ff134b799201a89f63","newHash":"2fc42051cab127871ab7b46879442445792d6275c7032d042b6a845b97d69fe9","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.pamb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-mark-j-conway","snapshot":"snapshots/2fc42051cab127871ab7b46879442445792d6275c7032d042b6a845b97d69fe9.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-mark-j-conway","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:12.914414+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick | Middle District of Pennsylvania | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+United States District Court\n+Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Honorable Matthew W. Brann, Chief Judge | Peter J. Welsh, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+Text Size:\n+Decrease font size\n+Reset font size\n+Increase font size\n+Court Info\n+Local Rules and Orders\n+Court Holidays\n+Court Locations\n+FAQs\n+Fees\n+Human Resources\n+EMERGENCY ELECTION CASE FILINGS\n+Judges' Info\n+Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann\n+Judge Jennifer P. Wilson\n+Judge Julia K. Munley\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.\n+Judge Keli M. Neary\n+Judge Yvette Kane\n+Judge Robert D. Mariani\n+Judge Malachy E. Mannion\n+Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom\n+Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Recalled)\n+Jury Info\n+Jury Scam Warning\n+eJuror\n+Information for Jurors\n+Hotel Information\n+Jury FAQs\n+Juror Reimbursement\n+Physician's Statement for Medical Excuse\n+Directions/Parking Harrisburg\n+Directions/Parking Scranton\n+Directions/Parking Williamsport\n+Directions/Parking Wilkes-Barre\n+Filing Without an Attorney / Pro Se\n+PACER Info\n+For Attorneys\n+Lawyers' Advisory Committee\n+Pro Bono Attorney\n+Petition for Admission to Practice\n+Forms\n+All Forms\n+National Forms\n+Case Info\n+Opinions\n+CM/ECF Case Info\n+Electronic Case Filing\n+Cases of Note\n+Free Case Information Service\n+Criminal Justice Act\n+Third Circuit Orders on CJA Matters\n+CJA eVoucher Information and Login\n+CJA Information & Forms\n+Programs & Services\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution\n+The POWER Act\n+Pro Bono Attorney Program\n+JERS\n+Courtroom Technology\n+C.A.R.E.\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Judges' Info\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Biographical Information\n+For additional information, please call Chambers at: (570) 207-5740\n+Staff Information\n+Courtroom Deputy: (570) 207-5740\n+Chambers: (570) 207-5740\n+Fax: (570) 207-5749\n+Judge Tabs\n+Communication\n+Written correspondence from counsel to the court.\n+Judge Mehalchick does not accept any written correspondence unless specifically directed by the court, in which case, counsel may correspond with her, provided that all counsel are copied. Counsel should not copy the court on correspondence between one another unless specifically directed by the court.\n+All requests for court action on a pending matter other than discovery disputes shall be presented by motion in compliance with the Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rules. Discovery disputes, which should be raised by written correspondence filed to the docket in the subject case in lieu of a formal motion practice.\n+Preferences for the use of telephone conferences rather than in-person conferences for any category of conferences scheduled in connection with a case.\n+Judge Mehalchick generally conducts case management conferences, status conferences, and discovery conferences by telephone. She conducts settlement conferences and pre-trial conferences in person.\n+Inquiries\n+Any inquiries concerning cases should be directed to Judge Mehalchick’s Courtroom Deputy at (570) 207-5740. Judge Mehalchick does not allow communications between counsel and her law clerks, and all questions regarding scheduling and procedures should be directed to Judge Mehalchick’s Courtroom Deputy.\n+Copies of Papers\n+Courtesy copies of motions, briefs, and other writings for chambers.\n+Courtesy copies are not required and should not be delivered to chambers unless specifically requested.\n+Motions\n+All motions and briefs must be filed in accordance with the Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rules and the court’s case management orders. Failure to comply with the Local Rules and court orders will result in the motions being denied.\n+Discovery Motions\n+Judge Mehalchick expects counsel to make all reasonable efforts to resolve discovery disputes without court involvement. Counsel is to raise any discovery dispute with the court through the filing of a letter on the docket describing the nature of the dispute and requesting a conference with the court. Judge Mehalchick will attempt to resolve the dispute without the necessity of a motion.\n+Proposed Orders\n+When filing a proposed order with a motion, include a heading as “Order” rather than “Proposed Order” or “[Proposed] Order.” The court is advised of the “proposed” status of a party’s order by virtue of CM/ECF functions.\n+Trial\n+Counsel are expected to review and comply with the court’s case-specific practice order and the Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rules. For questions that are not answered by reference to these sources, counsel should speak with Judge Mehalchick’s Courtroom Deputy at (570) 207-5740.\n+Voir Dire\n+Judge Mehalchick conducts initial voir dire in all civil and criminal cases.\n+Multiple Attorneys\n+Judge Mehalchick allows more than one attorney to handle a case for a party, but expects only one attorney for each witness, and for opening and closing statements.\n+Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Forms\n+Jury instructions should be based on the Third Circuit and Pennsylvania model and standard instructions. Judge Mehalchick requires that counsel jointly prepare an agreed-upon special verdict slip.\n+Use of Generative AI\n+Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), particularly Generative AI(including, but not limited to, OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Bard), in the practice of law raises a number of practical concerns for the Court, including the risk that the generative AI tool might generate legally or factually incorrect information, or that it might create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations. As such, any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document to be filed in any matter pending before Judge Mehalchick, must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI in which the party must disclose and certify:\n+The specific AI tool that was used;\n+The portions of the filing prepared by the AI program; and\n+That a person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority.\n+Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. Further, all parties and counsel are directed to review the conclusions on pages 15 and 16 of the Joint Formal Opinion of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence and be mindful of their ethical and professional obligations before this Court.\n+Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann\n+Judge Jennifer P. Wilson\n+Judge Julia K. Munley\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.\n+Judge Keli M. Neary\n+Judge Yvette Kane\n+Judge Robert D. Mariani\n+Judge Malachy E. Mannion\n+Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom\n+Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Recalled)\n+Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | FAQs\n+Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud","id":"83812059e1cd9463f037fa359fd02d302ec1ce586e8b1b2fdd0f0c31fdc6febc","newHash":"f56aed20b01eb9f78f0b70269eec7a8101569dc7271344f90067a91bbaede386","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-karoline-mehalchick","snapshot":"snapshots/f56aed20b01eb9f78f0b70269eec7a8101569dc7271344f90067a91bbaede386.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/judge-karoline-mehalchick","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:13.088090+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella | Middle District of Pennsylvania | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+United States District Court\n+Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Honorable Matthew W. Brann, Chief Judge | Peter J. Welsh, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+Text Size:\n+Decrease font size\n+Reset font size\n+Increase font size\n+Court Info\n+Local Rules and Orders\n+Court Holidays\n+Court Locations\n+FAQs\n+Fees\n+Human Resources\n+EMERGENCY ELECTION CASE FILINGS\n+Judges' Info\n+Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann\n+Judge Jennifer P. Wilson\n+Judge Julia K. Munley\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.\n+Judge Keli M. Neary\n+Judge Yvette Kane\n+Judge Robert D. Mariani\n+Judge Malachy E. Mannion\n+Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom\n+Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Recalled)\n+Jury Info\n+Jury Scam Warning\n+eJuror\n+Information for Jurors\n+Hotel Information\n+Jury FAQs\n+Juror Reimbursement\n+Physician's Statement for Medical Excuse\n+Directions/Parking Harrisburg\n+Directions/Parking Scranton\n+Directions/Parking Williamsport\n+Directions/Parking Wilkes-Barre\n+Filing Without an Attorney / Pro Se\n+PACER Info\n+For Attorneys\n+Lawyers' Advisory Committee\n+Pro Bono Attorney\n+Petition for Admission to Practice\n+Forms\n+All Forms\n+National Forms\n+Case Info\n+Opinions\n+CM/ECF Case Info\n+Electronic Case Filing\n+Cases of Note\n+Free Case Information Service\n+Criminal Justice Act\n+Third Circuit Orders on CJA Matters\n+CJA eVoucher Information and Login\n+CJA Information & Forms\n+Programs & Services\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution\n+The POWER Act\n+Pro Bono Attorney Program\n+JERS\n+Courtroom Technology\n+C.A.R.E.\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Judges' Info\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Biographical Information\n+For additional information, please call Chambers at: (570) 831-2556\n+Staff Information\n+Courtroom Deputy: Dawn M. Wychock (570) 831-2556\n+Chambers: (570) 831-2556\n+Judge Tabs\n+Communication\n+Inquiries\n+Any inquiries concerning cases should be directed to Judge Latella’s Courtroom Deputy at (570) 831-2556. Judge Latella does not allow communications between counsel and his law clerks, and all questions regarding scheduling and procedures should be directed to Judge Latella’s Courtroom Deputy.\n+Written correspondence from counsel to the court.\n+Judge Latella does not accept any written correspondence unless specifically directed by the court, in which case, counsel may correspond with him, provided that all counsel are copied. Counsel should not copy the court on correspondence between one another unless specifically directed by the court. All requests for court action on a pending matter other than discovery disputes shall be presented by motion in compliance with the Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rules. Discovery disputes may be raised by written correspondence filed to the docket in the case in lieu of a formal motion practice. (See Motions tab).\n+Preference for the use of telephone conferences rather than in-person conferences for any category of conferences scheduled in connection with a case.\n+Judge Latella prefers in-person conferences, particularly when discussing settlement. If requested by the parties, he may conduct some conferences by telephone, especially Case Management Conferences, Status and Scheduling conferences and Discovery Dispute Conferences.\n+Copies of Papers\n+Courtesy copies of motions, briefs, and other writings for chambers.\n+Judge Latella does not desire courtesy copies of motions, briefs, or other filings unless specifically requested.\n+Motions\n+Federal Rule 26 and M.D. Pa. Local Rule 26.1 et seq. (Including your approach to initial disclosures, discovery prior to the Rule 16 conference) and preferences as to the matters encompassed within those Rules.\n+For all discovery disputes in civil matters, counsel is directed to confer with one another in an attempt to resolve the dispute without court intervention. In the event such action does not resolve the dispute, counsel is directed to file a letter to the Court (via CM/ECF) explaining the nature of the dispute and stating whether and when counsel conferred to resolve the dispute. Counsel may submit the letter jointly. If the letter is not submitted jointly, then the court will allow three (3) business days for opposing counsel to file a letter either responding to the original letter or requesting additional time to respond.\n+The Court will then respond by either scheduling a telephone conference or taking other appropriate action.\n+Prior to filing a motion to compel or any other type of discovery-oriented motions, the moving party must utilize this procedure.\n+All motions and supporting briefs must be filed in accordance with the Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rules.\n+Trial\n+The extent to which counsel may influence the length of the discovery period, extensions, and trial dates\n+As a general rule, Judge Latella anticipates giving the joint case management plan significant weight in setting discovery and pre-trial litigation schedules. Accordingly, Judge Latella expects that the case management order’s dates and deadlines will not ordinarily be subject to extensions, unless unusual circumstances are presented and a timely motion to extend is filed.\n+The average amount of time allowed for discovery in a standard track case and the extent to which the standard amount of time is varied.\n+Judge Latella anticipates that six months will be the average amount of time allotted for discovery in a standard track case. Judge Latella expects that agreed-upon discovery deadlines by counsel will usually be acceptable, however, these deadlines typically will not be extended, absent unusual circumstances.\n+Procedure for scheduling trials, including whether a date certain for trial is assigned; if so, the amount of time prior to trial that such a date certain is assigned; and the extent to which it may be moved during the month in which it has been scheduled.\n+Whenever possible, Judge Latella will generally set a date for jury selection/trial in the initial case management order. Judge Latella will schedule non-jury trials by setting a date certain, after consulting with counsel.\n+Trial briefs submitted by counsel.\n+Judge Latella’s practice is to call for submission of trial briefs, as required by the local rules, prior to the final pretrial conference in a case.\n+Counsel participation in voir dire.\n+Judge Latella conducts a general voir dire and will usually allow counsel to supplement voir dire with pre-approved questions.\n+Pre-marking of documentary and photographic exhibits and other demonstrative evidence for trial and the date upon which exchange of exhibits is to take place, if any.\n+Judge Latella requires counsel to pre-mark and exchange exhibits, and prepare exhibit lists of pre-marked exhibits, using the format available on the district court’s website, prior to the final pretrial conference, and in accordance with M.D. Pa. Local Rule 16.3. Judge Latella encourages parties, where appropriate, to stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of exhibits prior to the presentation of evidence.\n+Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Forms.\n+Judge Latella requires counsel to submit proposed jury instructions in accordance with the local rules. Judge Latella requires that counsel jointly prepare an agreed-upon special verdict slip. Judge Latella ordinarily will request that parties submit proposed jury instructions and verdict slips to chambers in Microsoft Word format, in addition to filing via ECF.\n+Use of Generative AI\n+Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), particularly Generative AI (including, but not limited to, OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Bard), in the practice of law raises a number of practical concerns for the Court, including the risk that the generative AI tool might generate legally or factually incorrect information, that it might create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations, or that it may disclose confidential information in the public sphere. Accordingly, any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document to be filed in any matter pending before Judge Latella, must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI in which the party must disclose and certify:\n+The specific AI tool that was used;\n+The portions of the filing prepared by the AI program; and\n+That a person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority.\n+Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. Further, all parties and counsel are directed to review the conclusions on pages 15 and 16 of the Joint Formal Opinion of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence and be mindful of their ethical and professional obligations before this Court.\n+Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann\n+Judge Jennifer P. Wilson\n+Judge Julia K. Munley\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.\n+Judge Keli M. Neary\n+Judge Yvette Kane\n+Judge Robert D. Mariani\n+Judge Malachy E. Mannion\n+Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom\n+Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Recalled)\n+Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | FAQs\n+Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud","id":"00d695ca285c313f9b55e6cf34c3ff9234f14ccd292c2f2ebd5270a080f815f8","newHash":"9f313b9b1b633693585f9f623fdbfe598a689235bc441a87a8cbc17f0b7208cf","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-leo-latella","snapshot":"snapshots/9f313b9b1b633693585f9f623fdbfe598a689235bc441a87a8cbc17f0b7208cf.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-leo-latella","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:13.167354+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo | Middle District of Pennsylvania | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+United States District Court\n+Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Honorable Matthew W. Brann, Chief Judge | Peter J. Welsh, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+Text Size:\n+Decrease font size\n+Reset font size\n+Increase font size\n+Court Info\n+Local Rules and Orders\n+Court Holidays\n+Court Locations\n+FAQs\n+Fees\n+Human Resources\n+EMERGENCY ELECTION CASE FILINGS\n+Judges' Info\n+Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann\n+Judge Jennifer P. Wilson\n+Judge Julia K. Munley\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.\n+Judge Keli M. Neary\n+Judge Yvette Kane\n+Judge Robert D. Mariani\n+Judge Malachy E. Mannion\n+Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom\n+Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Recalled)\n+Jury Info\n+Jury Scam Warning\n+eJuror\n+Information for Jurors\n+Hotel Information\n+Jury FAQs\n+Juror Reimbursement\n+Physician's Statement for Medical Excuse\n+Directions/Parking Harrisburg\n+Directions/Parking Scranton\n+Directions/Parking Williamsport\n+Directions/Parking Wilkes-Barre\n+Filing Without an Attorney / Pro Se\n+PACER Info\n+For Attorneys\n+Lawyers' Advisory Committee\n+Pro Bono Attorney\n+Petition for Admission to Practice\n+Forms\n+All Forms\n+National Forms\n+Case Info\n+Opinions\n+CM/ECF Case Info\n+Electronic Case Filing\n+Cases of Note\n+Free Case Information Service\n+Criminal Justice Act\n+Third Circuit Orders on CJA Matters\n+CJA eVoucher Information and Login\n+CJA Information & Forms\n+Programs & Services\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution\n+The POWER Act\n+Pro Bono Attorney Program\n+JERS\n+Courtroom Technology\n+C.A.R.E.\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Judges' Info\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Biographical Information\n+For additional information, please call Chambers at: (570) 207-5710\n+Staff Information\n+Courtroom Deputy: (570) 207-5712\n+Chambers: (570) 207-5710\n+Judge Tabs\n+Communication\n+Written correspondence from counsel to the court.\n+Judge Caraballo accepts letters to communicate procedural information, discovery disputes, and information about settlement efforts. Any application for an order, including an application for an extension of time, must be made by motion. Counsel should not copy the court on correspondence between one another unless specifically directed by the court. All correspondence with the court shall be placed on the docket.\n+All requests for court action on a pending matter, other than discovery disputes, shall be presented by motion in compliance with the Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rules. Discovery disputes should be raised by written correspondence filed to the docket in the subject case, prior to any formal motion practice.\n+Use of telephone, video, and in-person conferences.\n+Judge Caraballo prefers in-person pre-trial and settlement conferences. Discovery, case management, scheduling, and status conferences may be conducted telephonically or via video teleconference, when appropriate.\n+Inquiries\n+Any inquiries concerning cases, including scheduling and procedures, should be directed to Judge Caraballo's Courtroom Deputy, Sheri Slusser.\n+Copies of Papers\n+Courtesy copies of motions, briefs, and other writings for chambers\n+Courtesy copies are unnecessary and should not be delivered to chambers unless specifically requested.\n+Motions\n+Preference regarding pro hac vice admissions.\n+Judge Caraballo prefers use of the special admission form available from the Clerk of Court or on the Court’s website.\n+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Middle District Local Rule 26.1 et seq. (including your approach to initial disclosures, discovery prior to the Rule 16 conference) and preferences as to the matters encompassed within those Rules.\n+Judge Caraballo adheres to both federal and local rules and prefers that discovery commence prior to the Rule 16 conference. Judge Caraballo expects counsel to make all efforts to resolve discovery disputes before any discovery motion is filed, including through convening an actual and meaningful meet and confer session in person or, at the very least, by video or telephone; not simply in the exchange of written missives. If counsel is unable to resolve the dispute, counsel shall place a letter on the docket requesting a telephonic discovery conference and a brief description of the nature of the dispute. Judge Caraballo will attempt to resolve the dispute at the conference.\n+The average amount of time allowed for discovery in a standard track case and the extent to which the standard amount of time is varied.\n+Judge Caraballo adheres to the six-month discovery period for standard cases set forth in Middle District Local Rule 26.4, unless an extraordinary circumstance arises and a timely motion is filed.\n+Handling of confidentiality agreement, particularly in light of the Third Circuit’s recent opinions on the prerequisites for imposing confidentiality agreements.\n+Judge Caraballo does not encourage the use of confidentiality agreements unless the matter involves unusually sensitive material. Judge Caraballo prefers that counsel submit confidentiality agreements by stipulation for approval.\n+Preferences regarding requests for additional pages in excess of the page limitations set forth in Middle District Local Rule 7.8.\n+Judge Caraballo requires a motion in order to exceed page limitations.\n+Trial\n+The extent to which counsel may influence the length of the discovery period, extensions, and trial dates.\n+Generally, Judge Caraballo anticipates giving counsels’ joint case management plan significant weight in setting discovery and pre-trial litigation schedules. Accordingly, Judge Caraballo expects that the case management order’s dates and deadlines will not ordinarily be subject to extensions, unless an unusual circumstance is presented and a timely motion is filed.\n+The average amount of time allowed for discovery in a standard track case and the extent to which the standard amount of time is varied.\n+Judge Caraballo anticipates that six months will be the average amount of time allotted for discovery in a standard track case. Judge Caraballo expects that counsels’ agreed-upon discovery deadlines will usually be acceptable. These deadlines typically will not be extended, absent an unusual circumstance.\n+Procedure for scheduling trials.\n+Judge Caraballo will set a date certain for trial at the final pretrial conference.\n+Trial briefs submitted by counsel.\n+Judge Caraballo requires that trial briefs be submitted at least seven days prior to the final pre-trial conference, as required by Middle District Local Rule 16.6.\n+Counsel participation in voir dire.\n+Judge Caraballo conducts a general voir dire and will usually allow counsel to supplement voir dire with pre-approved questions.\n+Whether more than one attorney may handle trial for a party.\n+Judge Caraballo permits more than one attorney to handle a trial for a party and encourages practitioners to delegate trial responsibilities to associate attorneys and other less-experienced attorneys.\n+Pre-marking of documentary and photographic exhibits and other demonstrative evidence for trial and the date upon which exchange of exhibits is to take place, if any.\n+Judge Caraballo requires counsel to pre-mark and exchange exhibits and prepare exhibit lists of pre-marked exhibits prior to the final pre-trial conference. Such lists should use the format available on the district court’s website and adhere to Middle District Local Rule 16.3(b). Judge Caraballo encourages parties, where appropriate, to stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of exhibits prior to the presentation of evidence.\n+Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Forms.\n+Judge Caraballo requires counsel to submit proposed jury instructions in accordance with Middle District Local Rule 51.1. Judge Caraballo requires that counsel jointly prepare an agreed-upon special verdict slip. Judge Caraballo ordinarily will request that parties submit proposed jury instructions and verdict slips to chambers in Microsoft Word format, in addition to filing on the docket.\n+General approach to settlement and non-jury cases.\n+Judge Caraballo will pursue settlement thoroughly in jury cases, unless agreed otherwise by counsel, but will refer all non-jury settlement discussions to another judge or mediator.\n+Use of Generative AI\n+Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), particularly Generative AI (including, but not limited to, ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok), in the practice of law raises a number of practical concerns for the Court, including the risk that the generative AI tool might generate legally or factually incorrect information, that it might create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations, or that it may disclose confidential information in the public sphere. All parties and counsel are cautioned to verify any facts or legal citations prepared through generative AI, and to safeguard against the disclosure of confidential information.\n+The failure to comply with those practices may result in sanctions. Further, all parties and counsel that use Generative AI are directed to review the conclusions on pages 15 and 16 of the Joint Formal Opinion of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence and be mindful of their ethical and professional obligations before this Court.\n+Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann\n+Judge Jennifer P. Wilson\n+Judge Julia K. Munley\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.\n+Judge Keli M. Neary\n+Judge Yvette Kane\n+Judge Robert D. Mariani\n+Judge Malachy E. Mannion\n+Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom\n+Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Recalled)\n+Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | FAQs\n+Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud","id":"64052afd977fd9110677cae5c67634f1df6b97cd131129a4b5a0f33fa12b2731","newHash":"275e97c033832f165ffc2e32e0ea200e0803b0b438fc47b4ec48cb9d5693eec3","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-phillip-caraballo","snapshot":"snapshots/275e97c033832f165ffc2e32e0ea200e0803b0b438fc47b4ec48cb9d5693eec3.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-phillip-caraballo","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:13.273465+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni | Middle District of Pennsylvania | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+United States District Court\n+Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Honorable Matthew W. Brann, Chief Judge | Peter J. Welsh, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+Text Size:\n+Decrease font size\n+Reset font size\n+Increase font size\n+Court Info\n+Local Rules and Orders\n+Court Holidays\n+Court Locations\n+FAQs\n+Fees\n+Human Resources\n+EMERGENCY ELECTION CASE FILINGS\n+Judges' Info\n+Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann\n+Judge Jennifer P. Wilson\n+Judge Julia K. Munley\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.\n+Judge Keli M. Neary\n+Judge Yvette Kane\n+Judge Robert D. Mariani\n+Judge Malachy E. Mannion\n+Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom\n+Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Recalled)\n+Jury Info\n+Jury Scam Warning\n+eJuror\n+Information for Jurors\n+Hotel Information\n+Jury FAQs\n+Juror Reimbursement\n+Physician's Statement for Medical Excuse\n+Directions/Parking Harrisburg\n+Directions/Parking Scranton\n+Directions/Parking Williamsport\n+Directions/Parking Wilkes-Barre\n+Filing Without an Attorney / Pro Se\n+PACER Info\n+For Attorneys\n+Lawyers' Advisory Committee\n+Pro Bono Attorney\n+Petition for Admission to Practice\n+Forms\n+All Forms\n+National Forms\n+Case Info\n+Opinions\n+CM/ECF Case Info\n+Electronic Case Filing\n+Cases of Note\n+Free Case Information Service\n+Criminal Justice Act\n+Third Circuit Orders on CJA Matters\n+CJA eVoucher Information and Login\n+CJA Information & Forms\n+Programs & Services\n+Alternative Dispute Resolution\n+The POWER Act\n+Pro Bono Attorney Program\n+JERS\n+Courtroom Technology\n+C.A.R.E.\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Judges' Info\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+United States Magistrate Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania\n+Biographical Information\n+For additional information, please call Chambers at: (570) 323-9881\n+Staff Information\n+Courtroom Deputy: Christine Williamson (570) 601-8503\n+Chambers: (570) 323-9881\n+Judge Tabs\n+Communication\n+Inquiries\n+Any inquiries concerning cases should be directed to Judge Camoni's Courtroom Deputy at (570) 601-8503. Judge Camoni does not allow communications between counsel and his law clerks, and all questions regarding scheduling and procedures should be directed to Judge Camoni's Courtroom Deputy.\n+Written correspondence from counsel to the court.\n+Judge Camoni does not accept any written correspondence unless specifically directed by the court, in which case, counsel may correspond with him, provided that all counsel are copied. Counsel should not copy the court on correspondence between one another unless specifically directed by the court. All requests for court action on a pending matter other than discovery disputes shall be presented by motion in compliance with the Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rules. Discovery disputes may be raised by written correspondence filed to the docket in the case in lieu of a formal motion practice. (See Motions tab).\n+Preference for the use of telephone conferences rather than in-person conferences for any category of conferences scheduled in connection with a case.\n+Judge Camoni prefers in-person conferences, particularly when discussing settlement. If requested by the parties, he may conduct some conferences by telephone, especially Case Management Conferences, Status and Scheduling conferences, and Discovery Dispute Conferences.\n+Copies of Papers\n+Courtesy copies of motions, briefs, and other writings for chambers.\n+Judge Camoni does not desire courtesy copies of motions, briefs, or other filings unless specifically requested.\n+Motions\n+Federal Rule 26 and M.D. Pa. Local Rule 26.1 et seq. (Including your approach to initial disclosures, discovery prior to the Rule 16 conference) and preferences as to the matters encompassed within those Rules.\n+For all discovery disputes in civil matters, counsel is directed to confer with one another in an attempt to resolve the dispute without court intervention. In the event such action does not resolve the dispute, counsel is directed to file a letter to the Court (via CM/ECF) explaining the nature of the dispute and stating whether and when counsel conferred to resolve the dispute. Counsel may submit the letter jointly. If the letter is not submitted jointly, then the court will allow three (3) business days for opposing counsel to file a letter either responding to the original letter or requesting additional time to respond. The Court will then respond by either scheduling a telephone conference or taking other appropriate action.\n+Prior to filing a motion to compel or any other type of discovery-oriented motions, the moving party must utilize this procedure.\n+All motions and supporting briefs must be filed in accordance with the Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rules.\n+Trial\n+The extent to which counsel may influence the length of the discovery period, extensions, and trial dates\n+As a general rule, Judge Camoni anticipates giving the joint case management plan significant weight in setting discovery and pre-trial litigation schedules. Accordingly, Judge Camoni expects that the case management order’s dates and deadlines will not ordinarily be subject to extensions, unless unusual circumstances are presented and a timely motion to extend is filed.\n+The average amount of time allowed for discovery in a standard track case and the extent to which the standard amount of time is varied.\n+Judge Camoni anticipates that six months will be the average amount of time allotted for discovery in a standard track case. Judge Camoni expects that agreed-upon discovery deadlines set by counsel will usually be acceptable; however, these deadlines will typically not be extended absent unusual circumstances.\n+Procedure for scheduling trials, including whether a date certain for trial is assigned; if so, the amount of time prior to trial that such a date certain is assigned; and the extent to which it may be moved during the month in which it has been scheduled.\n+Whenever possible, Judge Camoni will generally set a date for jury selection/trial in the initial case management order. Judge Camoni will schedule non-jury trials by setting a date certain, after consulting with counsel.\n+Trial briefs submitted by counsel.\n+Judge Camoni's practice is to call for submission of trial briefs, as required by the local rules, prior to the final pretrial conference in a case.\n+Counsel participation in voir dire.\n+Judge Camoni conducts a general voir dire and will usually allow counsel to supplement voir dire with pre-approved questions.\n+Pre-marking of documentary and photographic exhibits and other demonstrative evidence for trial and the date upon which exchange of exhibits is to take place, if any.\n+Judge Camoni requires counsel to pre-mark and exchange exhibits, and prepare exhibit lists of pre-marked exhibits, using the format available on the district court’s website, prior to the final pretrial conference, and in accordance with M.D. Pa. Local Rule 16.3. Judge Camoni encourages parties, where appropriate, to stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of exhibits prior to the presentation of evidence.\n+Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Forms.\n+Judge Camoni requires counsel to submit proposed jury instructions in accordance with the local rules. Judge Camoni requires that counsel jointly prepare an agreed-upon special verdict slip. Judge Camoni ordinarily will request that parties submit proposed jury instructions and verdict slips to chambers in Microsoft Word format, in addition to filing via ECF.\n+Use of Generative AI\n+Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), particularly Generative AI (including, but not limited to, OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Bard), in the practice of law raises a number of practical concerns for the Court, including the risk that the generative AI tool might generate legally or factually incorrect information, that it might create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations, or that it may disclose confidential information in the public sphere. Accordingly, any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document to be filed in any matter pending before Judge Camoni, must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI in which the party must disclose and certify:\n+The specific AI tool that was used;\n+The portions of the filing prepared by the AI program; and\n+That a person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority.\n+Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. Further, all parties and counsel are directed to review the conclusions on pages 15 and 16 of the Joint Formal Opinion of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (link is external) and be mindful of their ethical and professional obligations before this Court.\n+Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann\n+Judge Jennifer P. Wilson\n+Judge Julia K. Munley\n+Judge Karoline Mehalchick\n+Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.\n+Judge Keli M. Neary\n+Judge Yvette Kane\n+Judge Robert D. Mariani\n+Judge Malachy E. Mannion\n+Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom\n+Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab\n+Magistrate Judge Phillip Caraballo\n+Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella\n+Magistrate Judge Sean A. Camoni\n+Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Recalled)\n+Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | FAQs\n+Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud","id":"006203a8203fcd881644097a746d25315a864a22b26ec26761acc0a876ab81d1","newHash":"e2840b3d4d76a5b67204dc683325c6d46f61f7d98bbd551164ea4058291b432e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-sean-camoni","snapshot":"snapshots/e2840b3d4d76a5b67204dc683325c6d46f61f7d98bbd551164ea4058291b432e.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/content/magistrate-judge-sean-camoni","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:13.445648+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"a43669b07fd29b28fa96c03c99fecbb6df1b78f456f61189b2a9458f935cb4de","newHash":"dfd85dcc84b282cc38aa7f6cf030b7acf1a3df4ffd4002c5b1019406d80d2f7c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:13.668309+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"18a8639b00f3355e00e864417f1edec8550c02a1f19a8dd7a3bd91e7efc3410d","newHash":"aee98620d4ccfc92442b8d2e5f9f6ea839b65f1975eb9013249de0cf0357bb7a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.sccourts.org/media/5vchofu5/order-re-interim-policy-on-genai.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.sccourts.org/media/5vchofu5/order-re-interim-policy-on-genai.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.016305+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,1181 @@\n+10/20/2025\n+CIVIL\n+LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n+ii\n+10/20/2025\n+Table of Contents\n+District Judges................................................................................................ v\n+Magistrate Judges: ......................................................................................... vi\n+Clerk........... .................................................................................................. vi\n+DIVISIONS OF DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA ................................................ 1\n+LOCAL RULE NUMBERING ............................................................................. 1\n+LR 1.1 SCOPE OF THE RULES ........................................................................ 1\n+A. Citation Form ............................................................................... 1\n+B. Scope and Effective Date .............................................................. 1\n+C. Relationship to Prior Rules; Actions Pending on Effective Date ...... 2\n+LR 5.1 SERVING AND FILING PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS INCLUDING\n+HIGHLY SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS ......................................................... 2\n+A. What constitutes filing/official record. .......................................... 2\n+B. What constitutes an electronic signature. .................................... 2\n+C. Duty to protect login and password. ............................................. 2\n+D. Documents requiring the signature of more than one party .......... 2\n+E. Restricted Hyperlinks. .................................................................. 3\n+F. Filing Documents outside of CM/ECF. ......................................... 3\n+LR 5.2 PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR FILINGS MADE WITH THE COURT .......... 4\n+LR 7.1 MOTIONS............................................................................................. 5\n+A. Motions to Seal ............................................................................ 5\n+B. Required Written Brief .................................................................. 5\n+C. Oral Argument ............................................................................. 6\n+LR 7.1.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................................................... 6\n+LR 7.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ............................................................... 6\n+LR 10.1 IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................... 6\n+A. Caption ........................................................................................ 6\n+B. Signature Block ............................................................................ 6\n+LR 12.1 EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER .................................................... 6\n+OR OTHERWISE RESPOND ................................................................ 6\n+LR 15.1 MOTIONS TO AMEND OR SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS ........................ 7\n+LR 16.1 SCHEDULING CONFERENCES .......................................................... 7\n+LR 26.1 FILING OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS .................................................. 8\n+LR 26.2 MEETING OF PARTIES....................................................................... 8\n+LR 28.1 INDEPENDENCE OF COURT REPORTERS ......................................... 8\n+LR 29.1 STIPULATIONS MADE IN OPEN COURT OR WRITING ........................ 9\n+LR 37.1 CONDITIONS FOR DISCOVERY MOTIONS ......................................... 9\n+LR 39.1 TRIALS............................................................................................... 9\n+A. Opening Statements in Jury Trials ............................................... 9\n+B. Number of Attorneys .................................................................. 10\n+C. Motions During Trial .................................................................. 10\n+LR 39.2 WITNESS LIST ................................................................................. 10\n+iii\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 40.1 CONTINUANCES .............................................................................. 10\n+A. Court Approval Required. ........................................................... 10\n+B. When Witness Is Absent ............................................................. 10\n+LR 43.1 EXHIBITS ........................................................................................ 10\n+A. Marking of Exhibits. ................................................................... 10\n+B. Electronically Filing Documentary Exhibits ................................ 10\n+C. Physical Exhibits.. ..................................................................... 11\n+D. Exhibits Necessary for Appeal. ................................................... 11\n+LR 47.2 RESTRICTION ON PHOTOGRAPHING\n+OR INTERVIEWING JURORS ............................................................ 12\n+A. Photographing Jurors ................................................................. 12\n+B. Interviewing Jurors .................................................................... 12\n+LR 51.1 JURY INSTRUCTIONS ...................................................................... 12\n+A. Pretrial Filing of Instructions ...................................................... 12\n+B. Form of Instructions ................................................................... 12\n+LR 53.1 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................ 12\n+LR 54.1 TAXATION OF COSTS ...................................................................... 12\n+A. Procedure.. ................................................................................. 12\n+B. Default Judgment ...................................................................... 13\n+C. Attorney=s Fees ........................................................................... 13\n+LR 56.1 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .............................................. 13\n+A. Moving Party=s Required Statement of Material Facts .................. 13\n+B. Opposing Party=s Required Statement of Material Facts .............. 13\n+C. Use of Documentary Evidence .................................................... 13\n+D. Effect of Omission: Sanction ....................................................... 14\n+LR 58.1 APPELLATE JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND MANDATES .................... 14\n+LR 65.1 MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION........ 14\n+LR 67.1 REGISTRY FUND ............................................................................. 14\n+LR 68.1 SETTLEMENT .................................................................................. 14\n+LR 72.1 MAGISTRATE JUDGE DUTIES ......................................................... 14\n+A. General Designation.................................................................14\n+B. Specific Designation.................................................................15\n+C. Consent Jurisdiction................................................................15\n+LR 83.1 RECORDING AND CELLULAR DEVICES .......................................... 15\n+LR 83.2 ATTORNEYS .................................................................................... 16\n+A. Bar of the Court ......................................................................... 16\n+B. Eligibility .................................................................................... 17\n+C. Procedure for Admission ............................................................. 17\n+D. Oath of Admission ...................................................................... 17\n+E. Appearance of Attorney Pro Hac Vice .......................................... 18\n+F. Attorneys for the United States and Federal Public Defender ...... 18\n+G. Attorney Discipline ..................................................................... 19\n+iv\n+10/20/2025\n+H. Reinstatement of Disbarred and Suspended Attorneys ................ 20\n+I. Law Students ............................................................................. 21\n+LR 83.3 JURY DELIBERATIONS .................................................................... 22\n+A. Availability During Deliberations ................................................ 22\n+B. Notification................................................................................. 23\n+C. Proceedings ................................................................................ 23\n+LR 83.4 FORM OF PAPERS ........................................................................... 23\n+LR 83.5 CLERK=S FEES ................................................................................. 23\n+A. Filing Fees .................................................................................. 23\n+B. Miscellaneous Fees ..................................................................... 24\n+C. Refusal to File by the Clerk......................................................... 24\n+LR 83.6 MARSHALS FEES ............................................................................ 24\n+A. Prepayment of Fees .................................................................... 24\n+B. USM Form 285 ........................................................................... 24\n+LR 83.7 WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL ........................................................... 24\n+A. In General .................................................................................. 24\n+B. Withdrawal with Substitution ..................................................... 24\n+C. Withdrawal Without Substitution ............................................... 25\n+LR 83.8 WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.\n+' 2255 ................................................................................................. 25\n+A. Filing Requirements ................................................................... 25\n+B. In Forma Pauperis Certification .................................................. 25\n+C. Assignment of Judicial Officer .................................................... 25\n+LR 83.9 PROCEDURES IN SOCIAL SECURITY CASES ................................... 25\n+A. Direct Assignment of Cases to Magistrate Judge ......................... 25\n+B. Consent and Reassignment.......................................................25\n+C. Filing an Answer and the Administrative Record. ........................ 26\n+D. Briefing. ..................................................................................... 26\n+LR 83.10 COURT SECURITY OFFICER DUTIES............................................. 26\n+LR 83.11 ASSIGNMENT AND REFERRAL OF CASES ..................................... 26\n+LR 83.12 FORMER LAW CLERKS .................................................................. 27\n+v\n+10/20/2025\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n+District Judges:\n+Roberto A. Lange\n+Chief United States District Judge\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 202\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6670\n+Charles B. Kornmann\n+United States District Judge\n+102 Fourth Avenue, SE, Room 408\n+Aberdeen, SD 57401\n+605-377-2600\n+Lawrence L. Piersol\n+United States District Judge\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 315\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6640\n+Karen E. Schreier\n+United States District Judge\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 233\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6670\n+Eric C. Schulte\n+United States District Judge\n+225 S. Pierre Street, Room 413\n+Pierre, SD 57501\n+605-945-4610\n+Camela C. Theeler\n+United States District Judge\n+Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building\n+and United States Courthouse\n+515 Ninth Street, Room 318\n+Rapid City, SD 57701\n+605-399-6050\n+vi\n+10/20/2025\n+Magistrate Judges:\n+Veronica L. Duffy\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 119\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6650\n+Mark A. Moreno\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+225 S. Pierre Street, Room 419\n+Pierre, SD 57501\n+605-945-4620\n+Daneta Wollmann\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United States Courthouse\n+515 Ninth Street, Room 244\n+Rapid City, SD 57701\n+605-399-6030\n+Clerk:\n+Matthew W. Thelen\n+Clerk of Court\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 128\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6600\n+605-330-6601 (fax)\n+Divisional Office at Rapid City:\n+Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building\n+and United States Courthouse\n+515 Ninth Street, Room 302\n+Rapid City, SD 57701\n+605-399-6000\n+605-399-6001 (fax)\n+Divisional Office at Pierre:\n+225 S. Pierre Street, Room 405\n+Pierre, SD 57501\n+605-945-4600\n+605-945-4601 (fax)\n+1\n+10/20/2025\n+DIVISIONS OF DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n+The State of South Dakota constitutes one judicial district divided into four\n+divisions. (28 U.S.C. ' 122).\n+(1) The NORTHERN DIVISION comprises the counties of Brown, Campbell,\n+Clark, Codington, Corson, Day, Deuel, Edmunds, Grant, Hamlin, McPherson,\n+Marshall, Roberts, Spink, and Walworth.\n+The place of holding court is Aberdeen.\n+(2) The SOUTHERN DIVISION comprises the counties of Aurora, Beadle,\n+Bon Homme, Brookings, Brule, Charles Mix, Clay, Davison, Douglas, Hanson,\n+Hutchinson, Kingsbury, Lake, Lincoln, McCook, Miner, Minnehaha, Moody,\n+Sanborn, Turner, Union, and Yankton.\n+The place of holding court is Sioux Falls.\n+(3) The CENTRAL DIVISION comprises the counties of Buffalo, Dewey,\n+Faulk, Gregory, Haakon, Hand, Hughes, Hyde, Jerauld, Jones, Lyman, Mellette,\n+Potter, Stanley, Sully, Todd, Tripp, and Ziebach.\n+The place of holding court is Pierre.\n+(4) The WESTERN DIVISION comprises the counties of Bennett,\n+Butte, Custer, Fall River, Harding, Jackson, Lawrence, Meade, Oglala Lakota,\n+Pennington and Perkins.\n+The place of holding court is Rapid City.\n+LOCAL RULE NUMBERING\n+These local rules have been numbered consistently with the Federal Rules of\n+Civil Procedure and the conventions of the United States Judicial Conference =s\n+Local Rule Project. Generally, the number of each of the local rules is dictated by\n+the number of the corresponding rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n+LR 1.1 SCOPE OF THE RULES\n+A. Citation Form. The local civil rules are to be cited as AD.S.D. Civ. LR . @\n+B. Scope and Effective Date. The local civil rules govern all civil proceedings in\n+the District of South Dakota to the extent they are not inconsistent with any\n+statute or law of the United States or any rule or order of the Supreme Court\n+of the United States. These local civil rules become effective after the comment\n+period expires and upon the placement on court’s official website.\n+2\n+10/20/2025\n+C. Relationship to Prior Rules; Actions Pending on Effective Date. These\n+rules supersede all previous rules promulgated by this court or any judge of\n+this court, other than standing orders. They govern all applicable civil\n+proceedings brought in this court after they take effect. They also apply to all\n+proceedings pending at the time they take effect, except to the extent that, in\n+the opinion of the court, the application thereof would not be feasible or would\n+work injustice, in which event the former rules will govern. Any judge may\n+establish and enforce standard operating procedures not in conflict with these\n+local rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n+LR 5.1 SERVING AND FILING PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS\n+INCLUDING HIGHLY SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS\n+A. What constitutes filing/official record. Electronic transmission of a\n+document to the Electronic Filing System together with the transmission of a\n+Notice of Electronic Filing from the court constitutes filing of the document\n+for all purposes of the local rules of this court and the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure and constitutes entry of the document on the docket kept by the\n+clerk of court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79. When a document has been\n+filed electronically, the official record is the electronic document as stored by\n+the court and is deemed filed at the date and time stated on the Notice of\n+Electronic Filing from the court. The party filing the document is bound by\n+the document as filed.\n+B. What constitutes an electronic signature. In addition to the requirements\n+contained in Rule 5(d)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the name\n+of the filing user under whose login and password the documents are\n+submitted must be preceded by a “/s/” and typed in the space where the\n+signature would otherwise appear unless a facsimile of the filing user’s\n+signature appears in the signature block.\n+C. Duty to protect login and password. No filing user or other person may\n+knowingly permit a filing user’s login and password to be used by someone\n+other than an authorized agent of the filing user. If they learn that their\n+password has been compromised, they must immediately notify the clerk.\n+Attorneys may be subject to sanctions for failure to comply with this\n+provision.\n+D. Documents requiring the signature of more than one party. Documents\n+requiring signatures of more than one party may be electronically filed either\n+by (a) submitting a scanned document containing all necessary signatures;\n+or (b) in any other manner approved by the court. When filing documents that\n+require signatures from other parties, it is not permissible to insert a “/s/”\n+for another person’s signature.\n+3\n+10/20/2025\n+E. Restricted Hyperlinks. Because a website address within a court filing\n+becomes a hyperlink to the internet location upon filing in the CM/ECF\n+system, counsel must redact from any filed documents any website address\n+that directs the court to a website that contains pornography or personal\n+identifiers. After filing the redacted document, counsel must provide an\n+unredacted version to the clerk of court for filing under seal.\n+F. Filing Documents outside of CM/ECF. Highly sensitive documents may be\n+filed outside of the court’s Electronic Filing System.\n+Highly Sensitive Documents\n+1. A highly Sensitive Document (HSD) is a document or other material that\n+contains sensitive, but unclassified, information that warrants\n+exceptional handling and storage procedures to prevent significant\n+consequences that could result if such information were obtained or\n+disclosed in an unauthorized way. Although frequently related to law\n+enforcement materials, especially sensitive information in a civil case\n+could also qualify for HSD treatment.\n+a. Examples of HSDs: Examples include ex parte sealed filings\n+related to: national security investigations, cyber investigations,\n+and especially sensitive public corruption investigations; and\n+documents containing a highly exploitable trade secret, financial\n+information, or computer source code belonging to a private entity,\n+the disclosure of which could have significant national or\n+international repercussions.\n+b. Exclusions: Most materials currently filed under seal do not meet\n+the definition of HSD and do not merit the heightened protections\n+afforded to HSDs. The form or nature of the document, by itself,\n+does not determine whether HSD treatment is warranted. Instead,\n+the focus is on the severity of the consequences for the parties or\n+the public should the document be accessed without\n+authorization. Most presentence reports, pretrial release reports,\n+pleadings related to cooperation in criminal cases, social security\n+records, administrative immigration records, applications for\n+search warrants, interception of wire, oral, or electronic\n+communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2518, and applications for pen\n+registers, trap, and trace devices would not meet the HSD\n+definition.\n+Any dispute as to whether a document is an HSD will be resolved by the\n+presiding judge or, when no presiding judge is assigned, the Chief Judge.\n+2. Motion Required. A represented or pro se party must file a motion to\n+treat a document as an HSD and a proposed order in the same manner\n+4\n+10/20/2025\n+as a motion to file under seal pursuant to D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1 A and Crim.\n+LR 47.1 B. The motion and proposed order must state the duration of the\n+HSD designation or whether the HSD designation should be permanent.\n+The motion must explain why the proposed document constitutes an HSD\n+under paragraph F.1 or why it should otherwise be filed without revealing\n+the highly sensitive information contained within the HSD.\n+a. The filing party must deliver to the clerk’s office where the\n+presiding judge is chambered two paper copies of the motion and\n+HSD sought to be filed along with a certificate of service. These\n+documents must be submitted in a sealed envelope marked\n+“HIGHLY SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” and marked with the\n+applicable case number, attorney’s name, street address,\n+telephone number, and email address. Upon receipt, the clerk’s\n+office will make an informational docket entry that a motion to\n+treat a document as HSD has been filed.\n+b. Unless being submitted as an ex parte filing, the filing party must\n+serve the proposed HSD on the other parties by any manner\n+specified in Civil Rule 5(b)(2), except for service via the court’s\n+Electronic Filing System.\n+c. If the court grants the motion, an informational entry will be made\n+on the case docket indicating that the HSD has been filed with the\n+Court. The clerk’s office will maintain the HSD in a secure paper\n+filing system or a secure standalone computer system that is not\n+connected to any network.\n+3. Service of HSD Orders. The clerk’s office will serve paper copies of the\n+order on the parties via mail.\n+LR 5.2 PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR FILINGS MADE WITH THE COURT\n+A. Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, parties must refrain from\n+including, or must partially redact where inclusion is necessary, the following\n+personal data identifiers from all pleadings and papers filed, including\n+exhibits thereto, unless otherwise ordered by the court:\n+1. Social Security numbers and Taxpayer Identification numbers. Only\n+the last four digits of these numbers may be used.\n+2. Name of an individual known to be a minor. Only the initials of the\n+minor may be used.\n+3. Dates of birth. Only the year may be used.\n+5\n+10/20/2025\n+4. Financial account numbers. Only the last four digits of these numbers\n+may be used.\n+B. After filing a redacted document consistent with Fed R. Civ. P. 5.2, a party\n+may submit for filing under seal an unredacted copy of the document. Any\n+such filings must contain a cover sheet stating the following, ADocument filed\n+under seal pursuant to the E-Government Act.@\n+C. The responsibility for redacting personal identifiers rests solely with counsel\n+and the parties. The clerk of court will not review each filing for compliance\n+with this rule.\n+LR 7.1 MOTIONS\n+A. Motions to Seal. Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions,\n+exhibits, or other documents to be filed in the court record must include (a)\n+proposed reasons supported by specific factual representations to justify the\n+sealing and (b) an explanation why alternatives to sealing would not provide\n+sufficient protection. A motion to seal and the documents to which the motion\n+refers must be filed consistent with the CM/ECF User Manual and\n+Administrative Procedures found at www.sdd.uscourts.gov.\n+B. Required Written Brief. With every opposed motion raising a question of law,\n+except oral motions made during a hearing or trial, the movant must serve\n+and file a brief containing the movant =s legal arguments, the authorities in\n+support thereof, and the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on which the movant\n+relies. Motions in limine and supporting arguments and authorities may be\n+filed as one document. On or before 21 calendar days after service of a motion\n+and brief, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the court, all opposing\n+parties must serve and file a responsive brief containing opposing legal\n+arguments and authorities in support thereof. The movant may file a reply\n+brief within 14 calendar days after service of the responsive brief.\n+1. Page Limitation on Briefs. Briefs must not exceed 30 pages excluding\n+table of contents and/or authorities, certificate of service, if applicable,\n+and attachments unless prior approval has been obtained from the court.\n+2. Attachments. A party will submit as exhibits or attachments only those\n+excerpts of the referenced document that are directly germane to the\n+matter under consideration by the court. Excerpted material should be\n+clearly and prominently identified as such. Highlighting or underlining\n+relevant portions is encouraged. Parties who file excerpts of documents\n+as exhibits or attachments under this rule do so without prejudice to their\n+right to timely file additional excerpts. Responding parties may file\n+additional excerpts that they believe are directly germane. The court may\n+require parties to file additional excerpts or the complete document.\n+6\n+10/20/2025\n+C. Oral Argument. Oral argument may be had only upon order of the court.\n+Requests for oral argument must be made by separate statement at the\n+conclusion of the motion or responsive brief, or by any party by a separate\n+document filed within 14 calendar days after the filing of the motion or\n+responsive brief.\n+LR 7.1.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT\n+Every non-government organizational party or intervenor in a civil case must file\n+either a Corporate Disclosure Statement (disclosure statement) or a Certificate\n+that Fed. R. Civ. P 7.1 is not applicable (certificate of non-applicability).\n+Information provided under this local rule may be used by the judge assigned to\n+a case to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate and to confirm\n+jurisdiction is proper.\n+LR 7.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Attorneys and pro se parties are responsible for personally reviewing and\n+confirming the accuracy of their legal filings – including quotations, citations,\n+paraphrased assertions, legal analysis, and drafting– regardless of whether\n+artificial intelligence assisted in the creation of any portion of that filing. Failure\n+to comply with this requirement may trigger sanctions in the discretion of the\n+presiding judge.\n+LR 10.1 IDENTIFICATION\n+A. Caption. A pleading or other paper presented for filing must begin with the\n+caption of the case, the title of the document, and the name of the party filing\n+the document. All papers presented after the initial pleading must bear the\n+file number assigned to the case.\n+B. Signature Block. All papers must be signed and include the typed or printed\n+name, address, telephone number, and email address of the signer beneath\n+the signature. This information must not appear as a header or footer on each\n+page of the document, or as part of the caption of the case.\n+LR 12.1 EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER\n+OR OTHERWISE RESPOND\n+Without the need for a motion, the parties may agree to an extension of time\n+to answer or otherwise respond to a complaint, counterclaim, or crossclaim, of\n+no more than 21 days from the initial deadline, by the requesting party filing a\n+notice of unopposed extension of time to answer or otherwise respond. The stated\n+extension of time to answer or otherwise respond will thereupon become effective,\n+unless otherwise ordered by the court.\n+7\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 15.1 MOTIONS TO AMEND OR SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS\n+In addition to other requirements of these local civil rules, any party moving\n+to amend or supplement a pleading must attach a copy of the proposed amended\n+pleading to its motion to amend with the proposed changes highlighted or\n+underlined so that they may be easily identified. If the court grants the motion,\n+the moving party must file a clean original of the amended or supplemental\n+pleading within 7 days.\n+LR 16.1 SCHEDULING CONFERENCES\n+Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b), this court has determined that pretrial\n+conference procedures are inappropriate for certain types of cases and hereby\n+exempts the following:\n+1. Actions for review on an administrative record including bankruptcy\n+appeals and social security reviews;\n+2. Condemnation Actions;\n+3. Foreclosures;\n+4. Deportation Actions;\n+5. Equal Access to Justice/Fee Award Appeals;\n+6. Forfeiture and Statutory Penalty Actions;\n+7. Freedom of Information Actions;\n+8. Government Collection Actions including actions to recover benefit\n+payments and actions to collect on a student loan guaranteed by the\n+United States;\n+9. Judgments/Actions to Enforce or Register;\n+10. Petitions for habeas corpus or any other proceeding to challenge a\n+criminal conviction or sentence;\n+11. Actions brought without an attorney by a person in the custody of the\n+United States, a state, or a state subdivision;\n+12. Selective Service Actions;\n+13. Proceedings ancillary to a proceeding in another court;\n+14. Actions to enforce or quash a summons or subpoena of any kind;\n+8\n+10/20/2025\n+15. Actions to enforce an arbitration award.\n+The court may choose to exempt any case from the Fed. R. Civ. P.16 pretrial\n+conference procedure.\n+LR 26.1 FILING OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS\n+A. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d), depositions, interrogatories, requests for\n+documents, requests for admissions, and answers and responses thereto\n+must not be filed.\n+B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and (2) materials must not be filed unless otherwise\n+ordered by the court.\n+C. Any portions of discovery materials necessary for the disposition of any\n+motion filed (with relevant portions highlighted or underlined) must either be\n+attached as an exhibit to the party =s brief in support of such motion or\n+attached to the party=s affidavit filed with the brief.\n+D. If a party designates any or all of any deposition as evidence to be offered in\n+the trial of any case, such deposition must be filed at the same time as that\n+party=s designation consistent with D.S.D. Civ. LR 5.2.\n+E. Depositions used by a party only for the purpose of contradicting or\n+impeaching the testimony of a deponent as a witness, pursuant to Fed. R.\n+Civ. P. 32(a)(1), will not be filed unless otherwise ordered by the court.\n+LR 26.2 MEETING OF PARTIES\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular case, the provisions of\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), requiring a meeting of and report from the parties, apply to\n+all civil actions in this court except cases exempted under D.S.D. Civ. LR 16.1.\n+LR 28.1 INDEPENDENCE OF COURT REPORTERS\n+The officer taking the deposition, or any other person with whom such officer\n+has a principal and agency relationship, will not enter into an agreement for\n+reporting service which does any of the following:\n+1. Requires or allows the court reporter reporting the deposition to\n+relinquish control of an original deposition transcript and copies of the\n+transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney;\n+2. Requires the court reporter to provide special financial terms or other\n+services that are not offered at the same time and on the same terms to\n+all other parties in the litigation, or in any way offers any incentives or\n+9\n+10/20/2025\n+rewards to the attorneys, parties to the litigation or to anyone else who\n+has an interest in the litigation;\n+3. Gives an exclusive monetary or other advantage to any party;\n+4. Compromises the authenticity of the record or the impartiality of the\n+court reporter or results in the appearance that the authenticity of the\n+record or the impartiality of the court reporter has been compromised;\n+5. Allows a person, other than the court reporter or reporting firm, to\n+establish the rates charged by the court reporting firm.\n+Contracts for court reporting services for federal, state, or local governments and\n+subdivisions thereof are excluded. Negotiating or bidding reasonable fees, equal\n+to all parties, with the court reporter on a case-by-case basis is not prohibited.\n+These provisions may not be waived by disclosure, agreement, stipulation, or by\n+any other means unless a request for waiver is contained in the notice of\n+deposition.\n+Any deposition taken in violation of these provisions will result in the court\n+imposing an appropriate sanction.\n+LR 29.1 STIPULATIONS MADE IN OPEN COURT OR WRITING\n+To be binding in a proceeding in this court, every stipulation, agreement, or\n+consent between or among parties or their attorneys must be made in open court\n+or reduced to writing and subscribed by the parties or their attorneys.\n+Stipulations or agreements relating to changing the place of trial, continuing\n+cases to a later date, extending time to answer or otherwise plead (except as\n+provided in D.S.D. Civ. LR 12.1), or setting any matter for hearing are not binding\n+unless so ordered by the court.\n+LR 37.1 CONDITIONS FOR DISCOVERY MOTIONS\n+A party filing a motion concerning a discovery dispute must file a separate\n+certification describing the good faith efforts of the parties to resolve the dispute.\n+If the court schedules a hearing on the motion, at least 7 calendar days prior to\n+the hearing, or sooner as the court may require, the parties must file a statement\n+setting forth the matters upon which they have been unable to agree.\n+LR 39.1 TRIALS\n+A. Opening Statements in Jury Trials. After a jury has been sworn, the party\n+with the burden of proof may briefly, and without argument, make an opening\n+statement to the jury. Thereafter, the adverse party may briefly, and without\n+argument, make an opening statement to the jury.\n+10\n+10/20/2025\n+B. Number of Attorneys. On the trial of any action only one attorney per party\n+will be permitted to examine or cross- examine each witness, and not more\n+than two attorneys per party may sum up the case to the jury, unless the\n+court otherwise orders.\n+C. Motions During Trial. The moving party will be heard first, followed by the\n+adverse party. The movant may reply. Thereafter, argument on the motion\n+will end unless the court allows further argument.\n+LR 39.2 WITNESS LIST\n+Unless otherwise ordered by the court, each party must file a sealed witness\n+list by noon on the last business day before a scheduled trial. It must include\n+the town/city and state of each witness.\n+LR 40.1 CONTINUANCES\n+A. Court Approval Required. A case will not be continued without an order of\n+the court. The parties may file a joint motion for a continuance explaining the\n+reasons for the requested continuance. If the parties disagree over whether\n+there should be a continuance, the party seeking a continuance must file a\n+motion and detail the factual basis on which a continuance is being sought.\n+If the continuance is sought because of the absence of a material witness, the\n+movant must file an affidavit showing that the party applying for the\n+continuance has exercised due diligence to secure the testimony of the\n+witness, the name and city of residence of the witness, and the substance and\n+relevance of the anticipated testimony of the witness. A party opposing a\n+continuance must file a response no later than 7 days after the motion is\n+served. The moving party may file a reply no later than 3 days after the\n+response.\n+B. When Witness Is Absent. Unless, in the opinion of the court, justice requires,\n+a trial or evidentiary hearing will not be continued or postponed on account\n+of the absence of a witness.\n+LR 43.1 EXHIBITS\n+A. Marking of Exhibits. Exhibits in civil trials and hearings must be marked in\n+accordance with instructions from the court.\n+B. Electronically Filing Documentary Exhibits.\n+11\n+10/20/2025\n+1. By the Clerk. At the conclusion of a trial or other court proceeding, the\n+Clerk of Court will electronically file all documentary exhibits offered\n+and/or received in CM/ECF. The exhibits electronically filed by the\n+Clerk will be restricted to court users and case participants. After filing,\n+the Clerk will return documentary exhibits to the offering party.\n+2. By the Parties. The parties will have twenty-one (21) days to review\n+their returned documentary exhibits to determine whether redactions\n+are required pursuant to D.S.D. Civ. LR 5.2.\n+a. Redactions required. If redactions are required, the offering party\n+must electronically file all of its documentary exhibits,\n+including redacted exhibits and exhibits that do not require\n+redaction in CM/ECF. This requirement does not apply to exhibits\n+that were sealed when offered and/or received.\n+b. Redactions not required. If no redactions are required, the Clerk\n+will remove the restrictions and enter a Notice of Unrestricting\n+Trial/Hearing Exhibits in CM/ECF.\n+c. Sealing. If a party moves to seal documentary exhibits after a\n+hearing or trial has concluded and the motion is granted, the\n+movant is responsible for refiling public exhibits.\n+C. Physical Exhibits. Physical exhibits, including recordings, will be returned\n+to the offering party at the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding for\n+retention and preservation. This includes all physical exhibits submitted to\n+the clerk even those not used at trial or in a hearing.\n+1. Duty to Retain . When physical exhibits are returned, they must be\n+retained by the offering party, who will maintain and document the\n+chain of custody, and make the exhibits available to the court, if\n+necessary, and to other parties for use in preparing an appeal.\n+2. Duty to Preserve. Returned physical exhibits must be preserved in an\n+unaltered condition until at least 120 calendar days after the resolution\n+of any appeal to allow for the filing of a writ of certiorari under Rule 13\n+of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Before such\n+exhibits may be destroyed, the custodial party must seek and obtain a\n+court order authorizing destruction.\n+D. Exhibits Necessary for Appeal. Consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s local\n+rule on exhibits, the offering party is responsible for ensuring any non-public\n+exhibits or physical exhibits necessary for an appeal are submitted to the\n+appellate court.\n+12\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 47.2 RESTRICTION ON PHOTOGRAPHING\n+OR INTERVIEWING JURORS\n+A. Photographing Jurors. In order to protect the integrity and independence of\n+jurors, no person may photograph or attempt to photograph any juror,\n+grand or petit, without the express approval of the individual juror or the\n+express approval of the presiding judge. No one other than a juror may\n+photograph or otherwise record his or her motor vehicle or motor vehicle\n+license. Leaflets or other juror information pamphlets may not be given to a\n+juror or placed in any place where a juror might reasonably be expected to\n+obtain the printed matter. Such action may constitute an unlawful attempt\n+to influence, intimidate, or impede a juror or witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C.\n+§ 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1510.\n+B. Interviewing Jurors. No one may contact any juror before or during the\n+juror’s service on a case. The parties, their lawyers and anybody acting on\n+their behalf must seek and obtain permission from the district judge who tried\n+the case before contacting a juror after the juror served on the case.\n+LR 51.1 JURY INSTRUCTIONS\n+A. Pretrial Filing of Instructions. Each party must file and serve all proposed\n+substantive jury instructions, including a Astatement of the case@ instruction\n+and Atheory of defense.@\n+B. Form of Instructions. All proposed jury instructions must identify the party\n+submitting the instruction and specifically cite the authority or authorities\n+upon which it is based.\n+LR 53.1 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION\n+Parties are encouraged to use alternative dispute resolution procedures to\n+try to settle their cases without a trial. Magistrate judges are available as\n+mediators to facilitate alternative dispute resolution procedures.\n+LR 54.1 TAXATION OF COSTS\n+A. Procedure. Before costs may be taxed, the prevailing party entitled to recover\n+costs must file and serve a verified bill of costs within 28 calendar days after\n+entry of judgment or an order of dismissal. The party liable for costs may\n+within 14 calendar days thereafter file exceptions to the costs or any specific\n+item therein.\n+The clerk of court may then tax costs and, upon allowance, the costs will be\n+included in the judgment or decree. Upon motion of either party within 7\n+13\n+10/20/2025\n+calendar days after the clerk taxes costs, the action of the clerk may be\n+reviewed by the court.\n+B. Default Judgment. In a default judgment case, the clerk of court may tax\n+costs as a matter of course without notice.\n+C. Attorney =s Fees. A party moving for attorney =s fees must file and serve a\n+motion and an affidavit setting out the time reasonably spent in the litigation\n+and any factual matters pertinent to the motion for attorney =s fees. The\n+motion must be filed no later than 28 calendar days after the entry of\n+judgment absent a showing of good cause. The respondent may file and serve\n+a response and counter affidavit controverting or asserting any factual\n+matters bearing on the award of attorney=s fees.\n+Objections to an allowance of attorney=s fees must be filed within 21 calendar\n+days after service on the party against whom the award of attorney =s fees is\n+sought. The movant may file a reply brief within 14 calendar days after service\n+of the responsive brief. The court will then determine the appropriate\n+attorney=s fees, if any, without further hearing, unless in the court’s opinion\n+a hearing is needed to resolve serious factual disputes between the parties.\n+On its own motion, the court may grant an allowance of reasonable attorney=s\n+fees to a prevailing party in appropriate cases.\n+The failure to move for an award of attorney=s fees within the prescribed time\n+may be considered by the court to be a waiver of any claim for attorney=s fees.\n+LR 56.1 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n+A. Moving Party =s Required Statement of Material Facts. All motions for\n+summary judgment must be accompanied by a separate, short, and concise\n+statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there\n+is no genuine issue to be tried. Each material fact must be presented in a\n+separate numbered statement with an appropriate citation to the record in\n+the case.\n+B. Opposing Party =s Required Statement of Material Facts. A party opposing\n+a motion for summary judgment must respond to each numbered paragraph\n+in the moving party=s statement of material facts with a separately numbered\n+response and appropriate citations to the record. A party opposing a motion\n+for summary judgment must identify any material facts on which there exists\n+a genuine material issue to be tried.\n+C. Use of Documentary Evidence. A party must attach to an affidavit all\n+relevant documentary evidence in support of or in opposition to a motion for\n+summary judgment. The evidence should be submitted with proper\n+highlighting or underlining as encouraged by D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1B2.\n+14\n+10/20/2025\n+D. Effect of Omission: Sanction. All material facts set forth in the movant =s\n+statement of material facts will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted\n+by the opposing party=s response to the moving party=s statement of material\n+facts.\n+LR 58.1 APPELLATE JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND MANDATES\n+Upon receipt from an appellate court of a judgment or order affecting the\n+decision of the district court or a mandate, the clerk of court must forthwith file\n+and enter the same of record. In the event that the mandate provides for costs\n+or directs a disposition other than an affirmance, the prevailing party will timely\n+submit an order to this court in conformity with the appellate court’s ruling.\n+LR 65.1 MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION\n+In all cases wherein a party seeks both a preliminary and permanent\n+injunction, the matters will be deemed consolidated for trial unless otherwise\n+specifically ordered by the court.\n+LR 67.1 REGISTRY FUND\n+Any party seeking an order of the court for the deposit of funds pursuant to\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 67 must file a motion and a draft order and must serve the same\n+upon the clerk of court.\n+LR 68.1 SETTLEMENT\n+The deadline for settling civil cases is 14 calendar days prior to the date set\n+for trial, unless otherwise ordered by the court. In any case settled after the\n+deadline, the court may impose sanctions including, but not limited to, the costs\n+of assembling and empaneling the jurors, on any or all of the parties or their\n+attorneys for violation of this rule.\n+LR 72.1 MAGISTRATE JUDGE DUTIES\n+A. General Designation. In every civil case, the court designates the magistrate\n+judge assigned to the case to perform the following duties authorized by 28\n+U.S.C. § 636:\n+1. Hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,\n+except a motion: for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings,\n+for summary judgment, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a\n+class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief\n+can be granted, or to involuntarily dismiss an action.\n+15\n+10/20/2025\n+2. Conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit to the\n+district judge proposed findings and recommendation for the\n+disposition of:\n+(a) dispositive pretrial matters such as motions for injunctive\n+relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment,\n+to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to\n+dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be\n+granted, or to involuntarily dismiss an action;\n+(b) applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted\n+of criminal offenses;\n+(c) prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement; and\n+(d) resolution of social security disability appeals.\n+3. Serve as a special master upon consent of the parties in civil cases.\n+B. Specific Designation. The district judge assigned to a case may specifically\n+designate a magistrate judge to perform any of the duties authorized by 28\n+U.S.C. § 636(b). In performing the designated duties, the magistrate judge\n+must conform to the Local Rules and the instructions of the district judge.\n+C. Consent Jurisdiction.\n+1. In every case, upon consent of the parties, the court specifically\n+designates the assigned full-time magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.\n+§ 636(c) to conduct the proceedings in a civil matter and to order the\n+entry of judgment.\n+2. To consent in all cases except social security cases, a party must\n+complete and mail the consent form found on the court’s website under\n+Forms AO Forms 85 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to\n+a Magistrate Judge to the clerk. The clerk will only file the form and\n+reassign the case if all parties have consented to the referral.\n+LR 83.1 RECORDING AND CELLULAR DEVICES\n+Except by permission of the presiding judge, no person will photograph,\n+videotape, televise, broadcast, or record, or cause to be photographed, videotaped,\n+televised, broadcast, or recorded any courtroom proceeding, including\n+proceedings of the grand jury. No person will take any photographic, videotape,\n+television, or sound recording equipment into (1) any courtroom except upon the\n+express permission of the presiding judge, or (2) any jury room, or (3) any corridor\n+16\n+10/20/2025\n+on the floor on which a courtroom or jury room is located. This paragraph does\n+not apply to (1) the official court reporter who may use a voice-recording device\n+in connection with his or her official duties, or (2) the use of electronic means for\n+the presentation of evidence or the perpetuation of the record as authorized by\n+the court.\n+Cellular phones and electronic devices may be brought into courthouses in\n+the United States District Court for South Dakota unless the presiding judge\n+places restrictions on these devices. All cellular and electronic devices must be\n+turned off in the courtroom and any corridor on the floor on which a courtroom\n+or jury room is located unless specifically authorized by order of the court.\n+Cellular and electronic devices are devices capable of communicating,\n+transmitting, receiving, or recording messages, images, sounds, data, or other\n+information by any means, including but not limited to, a computer tablet, cell\n+phone, or Bluetooth device. Individuals who bring such devices into courtrooms\n+may be asked by court security personnel to demonstrate that the device is turned\n+off. Members of the Bar and employees of members of the Bar are exempt from\n+this provision.\n+Use of any camera or sound recording devices in a courtroom or any corridor\n+on the floor on which a courtroom or jury room is located is prohibited unless\n+specifically authorized by order of the court.\n+However, an electronic device that is essential to a person’s health or welfare\n+(such as an insulin pump) may remain on in the courtroom.\n+News media personnel who possess recording devices will be allowed entry\n+into a court facility, provided the news media personnel are escorted through the\n+building by a representative of the tenant agency being visited. If no tenant\n+representative is available, entry with the recording devices will be denied. In\n+courthouses where jury and grand jury facilities are located contiguous to public\n+access corridors, news media personnel will not be allowed to possess recording\n+devices on the floors housing the jury and grand jury facilities during jury\n+deliberations or grand jury sessions.\n+Photographic, videotape, television, and sound recording devices are\n+permitted in courtrooms and in adjacent corridors for naturalization ceremonies,\n+investitures, attorney admissions, and other ceremonial functions unless\n+specifically prohibited by the court.\n+LR 83.2 ATTORNEYS\n+A. Bar of the Court. The bar of this court consists of those attorneys admitted\n+to practice before this court.\n+17\n+10/20/2025\n+B. Eligibility. Any person of good moral character who is an active member of\n+the State Bar of South Dakota is eligible for admission to the bar of this court\n+as hereinafter provided.\n+C. Procedure for Admission. An attorney who is eligible to practice law as\n+provided in section B of this rule may apply for admission to the bar of this\n+court. The application sequence is as follows:\n+1. The applicant must complete an application for admission.\n+2. The applicant must consent to an inquiry concerning the applicant =s\n+fitness and qualifications for admission. Submission of a completed\n+application is consent and waiver of privacy regarding inquiry into the\n+applicant’s fitness and qualifications.\n+3. The clerk of court will make any inquiry that may be deemed necessary\n+to obtain information concerning the applicant =s fitness and\n+qualifications to practice law.\n+4. At least two active judges in this district must approve the application\n+before an applicant may be admitted. In the absence of two active\n+district judges, a senior judge may be the second approving judge.\n+5. The clerk of court will report to a district judge in the division in which\n+an application for admission is pending the approval or disapproval of\n+the active judges.\n+6. When an application is approved or disapproved, the applicant will be\n+notified.\n+7. An applicant approved for admission will be contacted by the court to\n+schedule the applicant=s admission ceremony.\n+8. Within six months of being approved for admission, an applicant must\n+appear for an admission ceremony with a member of this bar who will\n+vouch for applicant =s legal qualifications, integrity, and good moral\n+character. Upon oral motion of a member of the bar, taking the\n+prescribed oath of admission, signing an oath of admission form, and\n+paying the required fee, the applicant will be admitted to the bar of this\n+court. Upon admission, the clerk of court will issue a certificate of\n+admission to the new bar member.\n+D. Oath of Admission. The following oath/affirmation will be administered to\n+an applicant for admission to the bar of this court:\n+I solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the\n+United States, that I will represent my clients conscientiously and\n+18\n+10/20/2025\n+ethically, and that I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law in\n+all cases before this court.\n+E. Appearance of Attorney Pro Hac Vice. An attorney who is not a member of\n+the bar of this court, but who is a member in good standing of the bar of\n+another United States district court, may, upon motion and approval by this\n+court, participate in the conduct of a particular case. Such motion may be\n+allowed only if the applicant associates with a member in good standing of\n+the bar of this court as local counsel. Any prior or pending disciplinary actions\n+or actions resulting in sanctions against the attorney seeking admission pro\n+hac vice must be disclosed in the motion.\n+Local counsel must sign and file all documents and must continue in the case\n+unless another attorney admitted to practice before this court is substituted.\n+Local counsel must be present during all court proceedings (which include\n+telephone or video conference hearings) in connection with the case, unless\n+otherwise ordered, and must have full au thority to act for and on behalf of\n+the client in all matters, including pretrial conferences, trial and any other\n+hearings.\n+F. Attorneys for the United States and Federal Public Defender.\n+1. Resident Attorneys.\n+a. Regular Admission. Except as provided elsewhere by this rule, an\n+attorney who resides within this district and represents the United\n+States government or any agency or instrumentality thereof or the\n+Federal Public Defender =s Office must be admitted to the State Bar\n+of South Dakota before the attorney is permitted to practice\n+before this court.\n+b. Provisional Admission. An attorney who is a member of the bar\n+of another United States district court and has not yet been\n+admitted to the State Bar of South Dakota, but either is a:\n+(1) resident assistant United States attorney;\n+(2) resident attorney representing agencies or instrumentalities of\n+the United States government; or\n+(3) resident assistant federal public defender.\n+If an attorney is on a term fellowship with the United States or the Federal\n+Public Defender, that attorney may be admitted provisionally to practice\n+before this court for the period of that fellowship. During this period, the\n+attorney may be admitted provisionally to practice before this court.\n+19\n+10/20/2025\n+The procedure for provisional admission follows the procedure for admission\n+outlined in Section C of this rule, except that resident attorneys provisionally\n+admitted will not pay the required fee until they are admitted to the State\n+Bar South Dakota, at which time the clerk of court will issue a certificate of\n+admission to the attorney.\n+2. Nonresident Attorneys.\n+The following nonresident attorneys may be admitted on the attorney’s\n+motion, without payment of fees, to practice in this court during the\n+pendency of the attorney’s employment, appointment, or designation if\n+the attorney is a member in good standing of the highest bar of any state\n+or the District of Columbia. An application for admission is not required.\n+a. An attorney designated as ASpecial Assistant United States\n+Attorney @ by the United States Attorney for the District of South\n+Dakota;\n+b. An attorney appointed by the Attorney General of the United States\n+or employed by a federal agency with independent litigation\n+authority to represent the interests of the United States\n+government.\n+c. An attorney hired by the Federal Public Defender=s Office for the\n+District of South Dakota; or\n+d. An attorney employed by the Federal Public Defender =s Office for\n+the District of North Dakota.\n+A judge advocate of the armed forces of the United States representing\n+the United States government proceedings supervised by judges of this\n+court is not subject to this rule.\n+G. Attorney Discipline.\n+1. Automatic Suspension. Any member of the bar of this court who has\n+been suspended or disbarred from the Supreme Court of the State of\n+South Dakota or who has been convicted of any criminal offense in any\n+United States District Court will, upon appropriate notice from the clerk\n+of court, be suspended from practice before this court.\n+20\n+10/20/2025\n+2. Discipline by this Court.\n+a. This court, independent of action taken by the Supreme Court of the\n+State of South Dakota, may disbar or suspend a member of the bar\n+of this court from practice for a definite time, or reprimand for good\n+cause shown, after opportunity has been afforded such member to\n+be heard.\n+b. An application for the disbarment or discipline of a member of the\n+bar of this court will be made to or before the chief judge of this court\n+unless otherwise ordered by the chief judge. At least two district\n+judges of this court will sit at the hearing of such application unless\n+the attorney against whom the disbarment or disciplinary proceeding\n+is brought states in writing or in open court the member =s willingness\n+to proceed before one district judge.\n+c. If an investigation is necessary, the chief judge, with the approval of\n+a majority of the district judges, will appoint a member of the bar\n+(hereinafter referred to as Ainvestigator@) to investigate charges\n+against any member of this bar. If, as a result of the investigation,\n+the investigator will be of the opinion that there has been a breach of\n+professional ethics by a member of this bar, the investigator, as an\n+officer of the court having special responsibilities for the\n+administration of justice, will file and prosecute a petition requesting\n+that the alleged offender be subjected to appropriate discipline,\n+including disbarment, suspension, or reprimand. The investigator\n+will be paid from the pro hac vice fund.\n+3. Disciplinary Record. The clerk of court keeps a separate attorney\n+discipline docket. Orders of disbarment, suspension and public\n+reprimand are a matter of public record. All other documents, hearings\n+and records required under the provisions of this Rule will not be publicly\n+disclosed or made available for use in any other proceeding, except upon\n+order of this court.\n+H. Reinstatement of Disbarred and Suspended Attorneys.\n+1. An attorney who has been disbarred or suspended in this court may\n+petition for reinstatement at any time. Upon the filing of such petition\n+with the clerk of court, the chief judge may appoint an investigator and\n+may enter an order setting a date for the hearing on said petition on\n+providing at least 21 calendar days’ notice. An attorney may be reinstated\n+without a hearing upon a unanimous vote of all district judges who desire\n+to participate in such determinations.\n+Any investigator appointed will investigate the facts alleged in the petition\n+for reinstatement and will present to the court, in affidavit form or\n+21\n+10/20/2025\n+otherwise, any facts in support of or against the granting of said petition.\n+Two district judges of this court will sit at the hearing on said petition,\n+and the order denying or granting reinstatement will be made in writing\n+by said judges.\n+2. An attorney who has been disbarred or suspended by the Supreme Court\n+of the State of South Dakota and thereafter reinstated by that court to\n+practice in the state courts will not be permitted to practice in this court,\n+notwithstanding such reinstatement, until a petition for reinstatement\n+as prescribed in section 1 above, incorporating a certified copy of the\n+order of reinstatement by the Supreme Court of the State of South\n+Dakota, has been filed in this court and reinstatement ordered after a\n+hearing as above provided. The hearing may be waived by the attorney\n+with the consent of the court.\n+I. Law Students.\n+1. Student Practice. Any law student acting under a supervising attorney\n+will be allowed to make an appearance and participate in proceedings in\n+this court pursuant to these rules.\n+2. Eligibility. To be eligible to appear and participate, a law student must:\n+a. Be a student in good standing in a law school approved by the\n+American Bar Association.\n+b. Have completed legal studies amounting to four semesters or the\n+equivalent if the law school is on some basis other than a semester\n+basis.\n+c. File with the clerk of court:\n+(1) A certificate by the dean of the law school that he or she is of\n+good moral character and meets the requirements of rule 83.I.2\n+and is qualified to serve as a legal intern. The certificate should\n+be in a form prescribed by the court.\n+(2) A certificate by the law student stating that he or she has read\n+and agrees to abide by the rules of the court, and all applicable\n+codes of professional responsibility and other relevant federal\n+practice rules. The certificate should be in a form prescribed by\n+the court.\n+(3) A notice of appearance must be filed in each case in which he or\n+she is participating or appearing as a law student. The notice\n+must be signed by a supervising attorney who is a member of the\n+bar of this court.\n+22\n+10/20/2025\n+d. Be introduced to the court in which he or she is appearing by\n+an attorney who is a member of the bar of this court.\n+3. Certificate of Admission. Upon the completion and filing of the\n+certificates required by these rules, the clerk of court will issue a\n+certificate of admission to the law student in a form prescribed by the\n+court. This certificate expires contemporaneously with the expiration\n+date of the dean =s certificate unless it is sooner withdrawn. Any law\n+student=s certificate of admission may be terminated at any time by the\n+court without notice or hearing and without any showing of cause.\n+4. Restrictions. No law student admitted under these rules will:\n+a. Request or receive any compensation or remuneration of any kind\n+from the client. This will not prevent the supervising attorney, law\n+school, public defender, or the government from paying\n+compensation to the law student, nor will it prevent any agency from\n+making such charges for its services as it may otherwise properly\n+require.\n+b. Appear in court without the presence of the supervising attorney.\n+c. File any documents or papers with the court that he or she has\n+prepared which have not been read, approved, and signed by the\n+supervising attorney.\n+5. Supervising Attorneys. Any person acting as a supervising attorney\n+under this rule must be a member of the bar of this court and must:\n+a. Assume personal professional responsibility for the conduct of the\n+law student being supervised.\n+b. Sign all pleadings and other papers prepared by the law student.\n+c. Advise the court of the law student =s participation, always be present\n+with the student in court and be prepared to supplement oral or\n+written work of the student as requested by the court or as necessary\n+to ensure proper representation of the client.\n+d. Be available for consultation with the client.\n+LR 83.3 JURY DELIBERATIONS\n+A. Availability During Deliberations . Until a verdict is reached, and the jury\n+is discharged, the lawyers and the parties must be readily available to the\n+23\n+10/20/2025\n+court. When the jury begins to deliberate, the lawyers must advise the court\n+of where they can be located in the courthouse, or if they intend to leave the\n+courthouse, of a telephone number where they can be reached without delay.\n+A pro se party will be treated as counsel for purposes of this rule.\n+B. Notification . If the jury has a question, or if some other issue arises during\n+jury deliberations, and the court determines the issue merits a conference\n+with the parties, the court will attempt to notify the lawyers. Counsel is\n+responsible for communicating any such notification to the parties.\n+C. Proceedings . The nature of the proceedings concerning an issue arising dur-\n+ing jury deliberations will be determined by the judge. Where the jury has a\n+substantive question, the judge will do the following:\n+1. Advise the lawyers of the jury =s question;\n+2. Ask the lawyers for suggestions on how to respond to the question;\n+3. Formulate a response, as warranted;\n+4. Allow the parties to make a record on the proposed response; and\n+5. Communicate the response to the jury in an appropriate manner.\n+LR 83.4 FORM OF PAPERS\n+A. In General. All documents must be on 82 x 11-inch paper. The text must be\n+double-spaced, but quotations more than two lines long must be indented\n+and single-spaced. Headings and footnotes must be single-spaced. Margins\n+must be at least one inch on all four sides. Fonts must be at least 12-point.\n+Papers not in the required form may not be filed without leave of the court.\n+Exhibits attached to documents must, if feasible, be similarly typewritten,\n+printed, or otherwise reproduced in clear, legible, and permanent form.\n+B. Redactions. If it is necessary to redact documents produced pursuant to\n+discovery and/or filed with the court, redactions must be made in black,\n+making it clear that information was removed.\n+LR 83.5 CLERK=S FEES\n+A. Filing Fees.\n+1. Actions. Except in seaman =s suits, any party commencing any civil\n+action, suit, or proceedings, whether by original process, removal, or\n+24\n+10/20/2025\n+otherwise, must pay to the clerk of court the statutory filing fee before\n+the case will be filed and process issued thereon. (28 U.S.C. ' 1914).\n+2. Appeals. The appellant must pay the statutory fee for an appeal to the\n+clerk of the district court. (28 U.S.C. ' 1917).\n+3. Habeas Corpus. The petitioner or applicant for a writ of habeas corpus,\n+must pay the statutory filing fee to the clerk of court. (28 U.S.C. ' 1914).\n+B. Miscellaneous Fees. The clerk of court will collect from parties such\n+additional fees only as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United\n+States. Payment of such fees may be required by the clerk of court before\n+furnishing the service therefor.\n+C. Refusal to File by the Clerk . The clerk of court may refuse to docket or file\n+any suit or proceeding, writ, or other process, pleading or other paper in any\n+suit or proceeding until the required filing fees are paid, except as otherwise\n+ordered by the court in proceedings in forma pauperis. (28 U.S.C. '' 1914(c)\n+and 1915).\n+LR 83.6 MARSHALS FEES\n+A. Prepayment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided by statute or by order of\n+court, the United States Marshal may require a deposit to cover all fees and\n+expenses prescribed by law for performing the services requested by any\n+party. (28 U.S.C. ' 1921).\n+B. USM Form 285. Every party requesting the United States Marshal to serve\n+any process, including an original summons, must furnish with every process\n+delivered to the United States Marshal a completed USM Form 285. Said\n+forms are available through the United States Marshals Service or the clerk\n+of court’s office.\n+LR 83.7 WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL\n+A. In General. An attorney of record in a case may be permitted to withdraw\n+from representation as counsel of record only by order of the court, or as\n+otherwise provided herein. This does not apply to situations where withdrawal\n+results in continued representation.\n+B. Withdrawal with Substitution. Leave of court is not required where a notice\n+of withdrawal is accompanied by a substitution of counsel, provided that said\n+substitution takes place 90 or more days in advance of trial, the substitution\n+contains a certificate by substituted counsel, and the substitution will not\n+delay the trial or other progress of the case. The notice of withdrawal and\n+substitution must set forth the name and address of the substituted and\n+withdrawing counsel. Withdrawal under this section will be effective upon\n+25\n+10/20/2025\n+filing a notice of withdrawal and substitution. Notice of withdrawal must be\n+provided to the client by the withdrawing attorney.\n+C. Withdrawal Without Substitution. Withdrawal without substitution may be\n+granted only upon motion, for good cause shown. Notice of the motion must\n+be provided to the client by the withdrawing attorney.\n+LR 83.8 WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTIONS\n+PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. ' 2255\n+A. Filing Requirements. Petitions for writs of habeas corpus pursuant to 28\n+U.S.C. ' 2254 and 28 U.S.C. ' 2241, motions to vacate sentence pursuant to\n+28 U.S.C. ' 2255, and applications to proceed in forma pauperis must be\n+signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms prescribed by the court and\n+in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms unless the court\n+finds, in its discretion, that the petition, motion, or application is\n+understandable and that it substantially conforms with federal and local\n+requirements for such actions. Copies of the relevant forms and instructions\n+will be provided by the clerk of court upon request The court may strike or\n+dismiss petitions, motions, or applications that do not conform substantively\n+or procedurally with federal and local requirements for such actions.\n+B. In Forma Pauperis Certification. If a habeas corpus petitioner desires to\n+prosecute a petition in forma pauperis, the petitioner must file an application\n+to proceed in forma pauperis on a form prescribed by the court (Motion to\n+Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Declaration), accompanied by a\n+certification of the warden or other appropriate officer of the institution in\n+which the petitioner is confined as to the amount of money or securities on\n+deposit for the petitioner. If the petitioner has in excess of $25 on deposit, the\n+petitioner must pay the filing fee to proceed with a 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 or a 28\n+U.S.C. ' 2254 case.\n+C. Assignment of Judicial Officer. Once a petition for a writ of habeas corpus\n+is assigned to a district judge, any future pleadings filed by the prisoner will\n+be automatically assigned to the same district judge to whom the earlier case\n+was assigned, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Motions pursuant to 28\n+U.S.C. ' 2255 will be assigned as provided for in Rule 4(a) of the Rules\n+Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.\n+LR 83.9 PROCEDURES IN SOCIAL SECURITY CASES\n+A. Direct Assignment of Cases to Magistrate Judge. Every case filed under\n+42 U.S.C. § 405(g) will be direct assigned to a magistrate judge by division.\n+B. Consent and Reassignment. On or before the date on which the answer\n+must be filed, each party must submit a completed Social Security Case\n+Assignment Form, through which the party either:\n+26\n+10/20/2025\n+1. consents to disposition of the case by the magistrate judge under\n+28 U.S.C. § 636(c); or\n+2. asks to have a district judge assigned to the case.\n+The Social Security Case Assignment Form must be submitted to the clerk\n+in paper and not filed on the CM/ECF system.\n+If any party asks to have a district judge assigned to the case, it will be\n+randomly assigned. The magistrate judge assigned to the case will remain\n+assigned to the case to conduct such proceedings as the district judge\n+directs.\n+C. Filing an Answer and the Administrative Record. Within 60 days after\n+notice of an action is given, the Commissioner of Social Security must\n+electronically file and serve an answer and/or certified copy of the\n+administrative record consistent with Rule 4 of the Supplemental Rules for\n+Social Security (Supplemental Rules).\n+D. Briefing. The briefing deadlines in the Supplemental Rules apply to all\n+actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). As of the adoption of this Local\n+Rule, unless the Court orders otherwise, the deadlines are: The plaintiff’s brief\n+is due 30 days after the answer or certified record is filed or 30 days after\n+entry of an order disposing of the last remaining motion to dismiss. The\n+commissioner’s brief is due 30 days after service of the plaintiff’s brief. The\n+plaintiff may file a reply brief within 14 days after service of the\n+commissioner’s brief.\n+LR 83.10 COURT SECURITY OFFICER DUTIES\n+When a petit jury has been selected but before deliberations begin, court\n+security officers shall, upon request, escort jurors outside the building provided\n+they remain on courthouse property.\n+When a petit jury is sequestered to begin deliberations, court security officers\n+shall collect and secure all cellphones and other electronic devices belonging to\n+jurors until such time as the jury has reached a verdict, at which time such\n+devices shall be returned to their owners.\n+LR 83.11 ASSIGNMENT AND REFERRAL OF CASES\n+Assignment of Cases. To the extent possible, civil cases are randomly assigned\n+to judges on a District-wide basis. The Chief Judge may direct the Clerk to\n+reassign cases as necessary.\n+27\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 83.12 FORMER LAW CLERKS\n+An attorney who is a former law clerk to a judge of this Court is prohibited\n+from acting as counsel of record in a case assigned to that judge or otherwise\n+appearing before that judge (a) at any time in any case that was assigned to that\n+judge during the former clerk’s tenure with the judge, and (b) in any case for a\n+period of one year following the termination of the law clerk’s service.","id":"6e5a89556843258e6cddcc4c76da7b7a8b58e0083a2977e8e824cbc9af0912c2","newHash":"1d6adf73f6aec6bf6d09e6128b27fed8314ce9f503192dd0fedeab5fec1db447","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Civil%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20EDITS%2C%20Clean.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/1d6adf73f6aec6bf6d09e6128b27fed8314ce9f503192dd0fedeab5fec1db447.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Civil%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20EDITS%2C%20Clean.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.135871+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,1196 @@\n+CRIMINAL\n+LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n+i\n+10/20/2025\n+Table of Contents\n+District Judges ................................................................................................ iv\n+Magistrate Judges ............................................................................................ v\n+Clerk ................................................................................................................ v\n+DIVISIONS OF DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA ................................................. 1\n+LOCAL RULE NUMBERING .............................................................................. 1\n+LR 1.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................................ 2\n+A. Citation Form ..................................................................................... 2\n+B. Scope ................................................................................................. 2\n+C. Modification of Local Rules by Presiding Judge. .................................. 2\n+D. Speedy Trials ..................................................................................... 2\n+E. Assignment of Related Cases .............................................................. 2\n+LR 3.1 COMPLAINTS ........................................................................................ 2\n+A. Presentation ....................................................................................... 2\n+B. Emergencies ...................................................................................... 3\n+LR 5.1 DETENTION ORDERS ........................................................................... 3\n+A. Review ............................................................................................... 3\n+B. Appeals .............................................................................................. 3\n+LR 6.1 CONTACT WITH GRAND JURORS ......................................................... 3\n+A. Contact by Defendants or Witnesses .................................................. 3\n+B. Contact by Lawyers for the Government ............................................. 3\n+LR 10.1 ARRAIGNMENT AND WAIVER OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE ............... 3\n+LR 11.1 PLEAS ................................................................................................. 4\n+A. Plea Agreement .................................................................................. 4\n+B. Petition to Plead ................................................................................. 4\n+LR 12.1 PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND REQUESTS ................................................ 4\n+LR 12.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ................................................................ 4\n+LR 12.4 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................................................................. 4\n+LR 16.1 DISCOVERY ........................................................................................ 5\n+A. Stipulation for Entry of Discovery Order ............................................. 5\n+B. Certification Required. ....................................................................... 5\n+C. Expert Witness Disclosure Deadline..................................................5\n+LR 17.1 SUBPOENAS AND WRITS .................................................................... 5\n+A. Subpoenas to be served by the United States Marshals Service .......... 5\n+B. Private Service of Process Not Authorized by CJA ............................... 6\n+C. Deadline for Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum 6\n+D. Confidentiality ................................................................................... 6\n+LR 24.1 JURY SELECTION IN MULTI-DEFENDANT CASES .............................. 6\n+LR 24.2 RESTRICTIONS ON PHOTOGRAPHING OR INTERVIEWING JURORS .. 6\n+A. Photographing Jurors ........................................................................ 6\n+B. Interviewing Jurors. ........................................................................... 7\n+LR 26.1 WITNESS LIST .................................................................................7\n+ii\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 28.1 INTERPRETERS .................................................................................. 7\n+A. Responsibility for Obtaining ............................................................... 7\n+B. Certified Telephone Interpreters ......................................................... 7\n+LR 30.1 JURY DELIBERATIONS ....................................................................... 8\n+A. Availability During Deliberations ........................................................ 8\n+B. Notification ........................................................................................ 8\n+C. Proceedings ........................................................................................ 8\n+LR 32.1 SENTENCING ...................................................................................... 8\n+A. Sentencing Motions ............................................................................ 8\n+B. Confidential Sentencing Documents ................................................... 8\n+C. Procedure. ......................................................................................... 9\n+LR 41.1 SEARCH AND SEIZURE .................................................................... 10\n+A. Presentation ..................................................................................... 10\n+B. Lawyer for Government .................................................................... 10\n+C. Emergencies .................................................................................... 10\n+D. Initial Sealing of Search Warrant Documents ................................... 10\n+LR 44.1 ATTORNEYS ...................................................................................... 10\n+A. Bar of the Court ............................................................................... 10\n+B. Eligibility ......................................................................................... 11\n+C. Procedure for Admission .................................................................. 11\n+D. Oath of Admission ............................................................................ 12\n+E. Appearance of Attorney Pro Hac Vice ................................................ 12\n+F. Attorneys for the United States and Federal Public Defende.............. 12\n+G. Attorney Discipline ........................................................................... 14\n+H. Reinstatement of Disbarred and Suspended Attorneys ..................... 15\n+I. Law Students ................................................................................... 15\n+LR 47.1 MOTIONS .......................................................................................... 17\n+A. Discovery Motion.............................................................................. 17\n+B. Motions to Seal ................................................................................ 17\n+C. Required Written Brief...................................................................... 17\n+LR 49.1 SERVING AND FILING DOCUMENTS INCLUDING HIGHLY SENSITIVE\n+DOCUMENTS .................................................................................... 18\n+A. What constitutes filing/official record................................................ 18\n+B. What constitutes an electronic signature. ......................................... 18\n+C. Duty to protect login and password. .................................................. 18\n+D. Documents requiring the signature of more than one party. .............. 19\n+E. Restricted Hyperlinks. ....................................................................... 19\n+F. Filing Documents outside of CM/ECF. .............................................. 19\n+LR 49.1.1 PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR FILINGS MADE WITH THE COURT .... 21\n+LR 57.1 RELEASE OF INFORMATION BY COURTHOUSE PERSONNEL IN\n+CRIMINAL CASES ............................................................................. 22\n+LR 57.2 AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS ................................. 22\n+LR 57.3 EXHIBITS.......................................................................................... 22\n+iii\n+10/20/2025\n+A. Marking of Exhibits .......................................................................... 22\n+B. Electronically Filing Documentary Exhibits ...................................... 22\n+C. Physical Exhibits.............................................................................. 23\n+D. Exhibits Necessary for Appeal .......................................................... 23\n+LR 57.4 WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL ........................... 24\n+A. In General ........................................................................................ 24\n+B. Withdrawal With Substitution .......................................................... 24\n+C. Withdrawal Without Substitution ..................................................... 24\n+LR 57.5 RECORDING AND CELLULAR DEVICES ........................................... 24\n+LR 57.6 IDENTIFICATION............................................................................... 25\n+A. Caption ............................................................................................ 25\n+B. Signature Block ............................................................................... 25\n+LR 57.7 TRIAL APPEARANCE ......................................................................... 26\n+LR 57.8 PAYMENTS PRIOR TO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT .................................. 26\n+LR 57.9 FORM OF PAPERS ............................................................................ 26\n+LR 57.10 ACCESS TO CRIMINAL DOCUMENTS ............................................. 26\n+A. Purpose. .......................................................................................... 26\n+B. Sealed or Restricted Documents. ...................................................... 26\n+C. Access to Sealed or Restricted Documents. ....................................... 27\n+D. Serving Restricted or Sealed Documents........................................... 28\n+LR 57.11 MAGISTRATE JUDGE DUTIES ........................................................ 28\n+A. General Designation. ........................................................................ 28\n+B. Specific Designation. ........................................................................ 29\n+LR 57.12 COURT SECURITY OFFICER DUTIES .............................................. 29\n+LR 57.13 FORMER LAW CLERKS ................................................................... 29\n+LR 58.1 SCHEDULE OF FINES .................................................................... 29\n+iv\n+10/20/2025\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n+District Judges:\n+Roberto A. Lange\n+Chief Judge\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 202\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6670\n+Charles B. Kornmann\n+United States District Judge\n+102 Fourth Avenue, SE, Room 408\n+Aberdeen, SD 57401\n+605-377-2600\n+Lawrence L. Piersol\n+United States District Judge\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 315\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6640\n+Karen E. Schreier\n+United States District Judge\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 233\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6670\n+Eric C. Schulte\n+United States District Judge\n+225 S. Pierre Street, Room 413\n+Pierre, SD 57501\n+605-945-4610\n+Camela C. Theeler\n+United States District Judge\n+Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United States Courthouse\n+515 Ninth Street, Room 318\n+Rapid City, SD 57701\n+605-399-6050\n+v\n+10/20/2025\n+Magistrate Judges:\n+Veronica L. Duffy\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 119\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6650\n+Mark A. Moreno\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+225 S. Pierre Street, Room 419\n+Pierre, SD 57501\n+605-945-4620\n+Daneta Wollmann\n+United States Magistrate Judge\n+Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United States Courthouse\n+515 Ninth Street, Room 244\n+Rapid City, SD 57701\n+605-399-6030\n+Clerk:\n+Matthew w. Thelen\n+Clerk of Court\n+400 South Phillips Avenue, Room 128\n+Sioux Falls, SD 57104\n+605-330-6600\n+605-330-6601 (fax)\n+Divisional Office at Rapid City:\n+Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United States Courthouse\n+515 Ninth Street, Room 302\n+Rapid City, SD 57701\n+605-399-6000\n+605-399-6001 (fax)\n+Divisional Office at Pierre:\n+225 S. Pierre Street, Room 405\n+Pierre, SD 57501\n+605-945-4600\n+605-945-4601 (fax)\n+1\n+10/20/2025\n+DIVISIONS OF DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA\n+The State of South Dakota constitutes one judicial district divided into four\n+divisions for purposes of case assignment (28 U.S.C. ' 122).\n+(1) The NORTHERN DIVISION comprises the counties of Brown, Campbell,\n+Clark, Codington, Corson, Day, Deuel, Edmunds, Grant, Hamlin, McPherson,\n+Marshall, Roberts, Spink, and Walworth.\n+The place of holding court is Aberdeen.\n+( 2 ) T h e SOUTHERN DIVISION comprises the counties of Aurora, Beadle,\n+Bon Homme, Brookings, Brule, Charles Mix, Clay, Davison, Douglas, Hanson,\n+Hutchinson, Kingsbury, Lake, Lincoln, McCook, Miner, Minnehaha, Moody,\n+Sanborn, Turner, Union, and Yankton.\n+The place of holding court is Sioux Falls.\n+(3) The CENTRAL DIVISION comprises the counties of Buffalo, Dewey,\n+Faulk, Gregory, Haakon, Hand, Hughes, Hyde, Jerauld, Jones, Lyman, Mellette,\n+Potter, Stanley, Sully, Todd, Tripp, and Ziebach.\n+The place of holding court is Pierre.\n+(4) The WESTERN DIVISION comprises the counties of Bennett, Butte,\n+Custer, Fall River, Harding, Jackson, Lawrence, Meade, Oglala Lakota,\n+Pennington, and Perkins.\n+The place of holding court is Rapid City.\n+LOCAL RULE NUMBERING\n+These local rules have been numbered consistently with the Federal Rules of\n+Criminal Procedure and the conventions of the United States Judicial\n+Conference=s Local Rule Project. Generally, the number of each of the local rules\n+is dictated by the number of the corresponding rule in the Federal Rules of\n+Criminal Procedure.\n+2\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 1.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS\n+A. Citation Form. The local criminal rules are to be cited as AD.S.D. Crim.\n+LR ___.@\n+B. Scope. The local criminal rules govern all criminal proceedings in the District\n+of South Dakota to the extent they are not inconsistent with any statute or\n+law of the United States or any rule or order of the Supreme Court of the\n+United States.\n+C. Modification of Local Rules by Presiding Judge. The local rules are subject\n+to modification in any case at the discretion of the presiding judge.\n+D. Speedy Trials . The court’s Speedy Trial Plan governs the scheduling of\n+criminal trials. This plan may be found on the court’s web site at\n+www.sdd.uscourts.gov.\n+E. Assignment of Related Cases.\n+1. When a pending indictment or information is superseded by an\n+indictment or information charging one or more of the defendants\n+charged in the pending indictment or information and charging one or\n+more of the offenses charged in the original indictment or information\n+growing out of one or more occurrences that gave rise to the original\n+charge, the superseding indictment or information will be assigned to the\n+same judge to whom the first case is assigned.\n+2. When two or more indictments or criminal informations are filed against\n+the same person or persons, corporation, or corporations, charging like\n+offenses or violations of the same statute, each of such cases will be\n+assigned to the judge to whom the first of such cases is assigned.\n+3. When an indictment or information is pending against a defendant, all\n+subsequent indictments or informations against the same defendant that\n+may be returned or filed will be assigned to the same judge. This section\n+does not extend beyond defendants with pending cases.\n+LR 3.1 COMPLAINTS\n+A. Presentation. Complaints ordinarily should be presented to a magistrate\n+judge for review and execution, but a complaint may be presented to a district\n+judge if no magistrate judge is available. If no federal judge is reasonably\n+available, a complaint may be presented to a state judicial officer.\n+3\n+10/20/2025\n+Copies of the complaint and supporting affidavits should be delivered to the\n+judge for his or her private review before a request is made for the judge to\n+sign the complaint. In an emergency, the judge may waive this requirement.\n+B. Emergencies . In an emergency, a magistrate judge may be contacted away\n+from the courthouse, including at his or her home, for purposes of\n+considering a proposed complaint. If no magistrate judge is available, a\n+district judge may be contacted away from the courthouse, including at his\n+or her home, for purposes of considering a proposed complaint.\n+LR 5.1 DETENTION ORDERS\n+A. Review . After a detention order is issued, a party may request reconsidera-\n+tion of the order based on new evidence or may appeal the order to a district\n+judge. A party requesting review of a detention order must state in the caption\n+whether the request is one for reconsideration or is an appeal to a district\n+judge.\n+B. Appeals . A party appealing a detention order must file a written motion\n+containing a statement of the grounds for the appeal and a statement that a\n+transcript of the detention hearing has been ordered.\n+LR 6.1 CONTACT WITH GRAND JURORS\n+A. Contact by Defendants or Witnesses . Except upon leave of court, no actual\n+or potential defendant or witness, and no lawyer or other person acting on\n+his or her behalf, may contact, interview, examine, or question any grand\n+juror or potential grand juror concerning the juror=s actual or potential grand\n+jury service.\n+B. Contact by Lawyers for the Government . Except upon leave of court, no\n+lawyer for the government or other person acting on his or her behalf may\n+contact, interview, examine, or question any grand juror or potential grand\n+juror concerning the juror=s actual or potential grand jury service, except that\n+contacts may be made on the record during grand jury proceedings and as\n+necessary in connection with the administration of the grand jury.\n+LR 10.1 ARRAIGNMENT AND WAIVER\n+OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE\n+Defendants are encouraged to file a written waiver of personal appearance in lieu\n+of personally appearing at arraignments on superseding indictments and\n+superseding informations that do not add new counts or different charges.\n+4\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 11.1 PLEAS\n+A. Plea Agreement . If a defendant is pleading guilty pursuant to a plea\n+agreement with the government, a written plea agreement and a factual basis\n+statement must be filed. A plea agreement supplement must also be filed and\n+must identify any agreements that the defendant has with the government\n+regarding cooperation or state that the defendant has no cooperation\n+agreements with the government. The plea agreement supplement will be\n+sealed in all cases to protect the safety of all federal defendants regardless of\n+their cooperation with the government, and the integrity of any ongoing\n+investigations or related prosecutions. The defendant, defendant =s attorney\n+and government attorney must sign the plea agreement, factual basis\n+statement and supplement.\n+B. Petition to Plead . The lawyer for the defendant may file a written petition to\n+plead with a factual basis statement, which must be signed by both the\n+defendant and defendant=s counsel.\n+LR 12.1 PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND REQUESTS\n+Scheduling and Case Management Order will set deadlines for motions, notices,\n+and requests.\n+Requests for discovery or for 404(b) evidence should be filed as requests and not\n+motions.\n+LR 12.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+Attorneys and pro se parties are responsible for personally reviewing and\n+confirming the accuracy of their legal filings – including quotations, citations,\n+paraphrased assertions, legal analysis, and drafting– regardless of whether\n+artificial intelligence assisted in the creation of any portion of that filing. Failure\n+to comply with this requirement may trigger sanctions in the discretion of the\n+presiding judge.\n+LR 12.4 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT\n+Every organizational defendant in a criminal case must file either a Corporate\n+Disclosure Statement (disclosure statement) or a Certificate that Fed. R. Crim.\n+P. 12.4 is not applicable (certificate of non-applicability). Information provided\n+under this local rule may be used by the judge assigned to a case to determine\n+whether recusal is necessary or appropriate.\n+5\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 16.1 DISCOVERY\n+A. Stipulation for Entry of Discovery Order. Within 14 days of an initial\n+appearance, the Government and defense counsel must complete and\n+file a joint stipulation for discovery, which can be found on the court’s\n+website. The Government is responsible for the timely electronic filing of the\n+joint stipulation. The discovery order restricts dissemination of discovery\n+materials and precludes defense counsel from giving discovery materials to\n+the defendant without the court’s express permission.\n+B. Certification Required. A party filing a motion concerning a discovery\n+dispute must file a separate certification describing the good faith efforts of\n+the parties to resolve the dispute.\n+C. Expert Witness Disclosure Deadline.\n+1. The government and the defendant shall disclose to each other no later\n+than twenty-one (21) calendar days before the start of trial the name of\n+any person retained to testify as an expert witness in the case-in-chief\n+and provide a written disclosure containing:\n+a. A complete statement of all opinions that the party will elicit from\n+the expert witness in the case-in-chief;\n+b. The bases and reasons for them;\n+c. The witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications\n+authored in the previous 10 years; and\n+d. A list of all other cases in which during the previous 4 years, the\n+witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.\n+2. Any rebuttal expert to refute testimony from a disclosed expert shall be\n+identified with the same written disclosure provided no later than seven\n+(7) calendar days before trial.\n+LR 17.1 SUBPOENAS AND WRITS\n+A. Subpoenas to be served by the United States Marshals Service . A\n+defendant unable to pay must file an ex parte motion at least 14 calendar\n+days before a hearing or trial for a subpoena to be served within the district\n+by the United States Marshals Service. A defendant unable to pay must file\n+an ex parte motion at least 21 calendar days before a hearing or trial for a\n+subpoena to be served outside the district by the United States Marshals\n+6\n+10/20/2025\n+Service. All ex parte motions must be filed with an attached, prepared AO 89\n+or AO 89B and must include a physical address for service. The form should\n+include the date and time it is reasonably anticipated the witness will be\n+called to testify. Ex parte documents are not part of the public records of the\n+court.\n+B. Private Service of Process Not Authorized by CJA . Unless prior approval\n+is obtained from a judge, a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act\n+may not use private process servers or investigators to serve subpoenas for\n+criminal hearings or trials but must use the United States Marshals Service\n+for such service. If a private process server is used without prior approval,\n+service is valid but reimbursement under the Criminal Justice Act is subject\n+to court approval.\n+C. Deadline for Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum .\n+An application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to be served by\n+the United States Marshals Service within the district must be filed at least\n+14 calendar days before the hearing or trial at which the witness is to testify,\n+and an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to be served\n+by the United States Marshals Service outside of the district must be filed at\n+least 21 calendar days before the hearing or trial at which the witness is to\n+testify. All applications must be filed with an attached proposed writ.\n+D. Confidentiality . All subpoenas and writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum\n+obtained ex parte are confidential. This confidentiality requirement applies to\n+everyone, including court personnel, the United States Marshals Service, and\n+anyone assisting the United States Marshals Service with service of process.\n+LR 24.1 JURY SELECTION IN MULTI-DEFENDANT CASES\n+In multi-defendant cases, a request by a defendant for additional peremptory\n+challenges must be made in writing at least 14 calendar days before jury\n+selection.\n+LR 24.2 RESTRICTIONS ON PHOTOGRAPHING OR\n+INTERVIEWING JURORS\n+A. Photographing Jurors. To protect the integrity and independence of\n+jurors, no person may photograph or attempt to photograph any juror,\n+grand or petit, without the express approval of the individual juror or the\n+express approval of the presiding judge. This restriction also protects grand\n+jury witnesses. No one other than a juror may photograph or otherwise\n+record his or her motor vehicle or motor vehicle license. Leaflets or other\n+7\n+10/20/2025\n+juror information pamphlets may not be given to a juror or placed in any\n+place where a juror might reasonably be expected to obtain the printed\n+matter. Such action may constitute an unlawful attempt to influence,\n+intimidate, or impede a juror or witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and\n+18 U.S.C. § 1510.\n+B. Interviewing Jurors. No one may contact any juror before or during the\n+juror =s service on a case. The parties, their lawyers and anybody acting on\n+their behalf must seek and obtain permission from the district judge who\n+tried the case before contacting a juror after the juror served on the case.\n+LR 26.1 WITNESS LIST\n+Each party must file a sealed witness list by noon on the last business day\n+before a scheduled trial. It must include the town/city and state of each\n+witness.\n+LR 28.1 INTERPRETERS\n+A. Responsibility for Obtaining . When interpreters are required for proceed-\n+ings instituted by the United States, the clerk of court will locate certified or\n+otherwise qualified interpreters for court proceedings. However, the U.S.\n+attorney=s office is responsible for locating, contracting, and paying\n+interpreters for government witnesses. For most other purposes, a party\n+requiring the services of an interpreter must obtain his or her own\n+interpreting services. If the defendant is indigent, prior court approval to hire\n+an interpreter is required as specified in the Guide to Judiciary Policy and 18\n+U.S.C. ' 3006A(e). If counsel for either party believes that interpreter services\n+for court proceedings are needed for more than an hour, counsel must notify\n+the clerk of court as soon as possible.\n+If participants in federal court proceedings are deaf, hearing impaired or have\n+communication disabilities, the court will provide sign language interpreters.\n+B. Certified Telephone Interpreters. In criminal cases, the court may use cer-\n+tified interpreters supplied by the Telephone Interpreting Program sponsored\n+by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for hearings that do\n+not exceed an hour. Any objection to the use of such an interpreter must be\n+made before the commencement of the proceeding being interpreted.\n+8\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 30.1 JURY DELIBERATIONS\n+A. Availability During Deliberations . Until a verdict is reached, and the jury\n+is discharged, the lawyers and the defendant must be readily available to the\n+court. When the jury begins to deliberate, the lawyers must advise the court\n+of where they can be located in the courthouse, or if they intend to leave the\n+courthouse, of a telephone number where they can be reached without delay.\n+A pro se defendant will be treated as counsel for purposes of this rule.\n+B. Notification . If the jury has a question, or if some other issue arises during\n+jury deliberations, and the court determines the issue merits a conference\n+with the parties, the court will attempt to notify the lawyers. Defense counsel\n+is responsible for communicating any such notification to the defendant.\n+C. Proceedings . The nature of the proceedings concerning an issue arising dur-\n+ing jury deliberations will be determined by the judge. Where the jury has a\n+substantive question, the judge will do the following:\n+1. Advise the lawyers of the jury =s question;\n+2. Ask the lawyers for suggestions on how to respond to the question;\n+3. Formulate a response, as warranted;\n+4. Allow the parties to make a record on the proposed response; and\n+5. Communicate the response to the jury in an appropriate manner.\n+LR 32.1 SENTENCING\n+A. Sentencing Motions. Unless otherwise permitted by the court, any request\n+that the court depart or vary from the advisory United States Sentencing\n+Guidelines range, either upward or downward, must be asserted in a written\n+motion stating with particularity the basis for the requested departure or\n+variance. A motion for departure or variance may be joined with a party's\n+sentencing memorandum.\n+B. Confidential Sentencing Documents. Whether filed by the U.S. Probation\n+Office or by the parties, documents relating to the sentencing process are\n+confidential and must not be distributed beyond the court and counsel\n+unless otherwise ordered by the court. Pretrial services reports and related\n+documents are also subject to these restrictions. Counsel or an employee of\n+9\n+10/20/2025\n+counsel must review confidential pretrial services and sentencing documents\n+with their clients but may not provide copies to their clients. Clients may not\n+review these documents unless counsel or an employee of counsel is present\n+to ensure that the documents are not copied, photographed, retained, or\n+removed. These documents include, but are not limited to, presentence,\n+supplemental or predisposition reports; objections to such reports;\n+addendums to such reports; letters of support; victim impact statements;\n+evaluations; written allocution statements; and Rule 35 or U.S.S.G. 5K1.1\n+motions and materials.\n+C. Procedure. After a guilty plea has been accepted or a guilty verdict is\n+received, a sentencing date will be set. Unless otherwise ordered, the\n+following deadlines apply:\n+1. The Probation Office must file the draft presentence report in CM/ECF\n+using the Draft Presentence Report event no later than 35 days before\n+sentencing.\n+2. After the draft presentence report is filed, the parties will have 14 days\n+to file and serve objections. Objections must be filed by counsel in\n+CM/ECF using the Objections to Presentence Report event. If counsel\n+has no objections, counsel must so indicate by using the Notice of No\n+Objections to Presentence Report event.\n+3. The Probation Office must file the final presentencing report in CM/ECF\n+using the Final Presentence Report event no later than 7 days before\n+sentencing using the Final Presentence Report event. An addendum\n+setting forth any unresolved objections, the grounds for those objections,\n+and the probation officer’s response must be filed in CM/ECF on the\n+same date using the Addendum to Final Presentence Report event.\n+4. Counsel must file all letters of support in CM/ECF using the Sealed\n+Letter(s) of Support event no later than 28 days after the Draft\n+Presentence Report is filed.\n+5. All other sentencing documents must be filed no later than 7 days before\n+sentencing as follows.\n+a. Motions for departure or variance or sentencing memoranda must be\n+filed by counsel in CM/ECF using the appropriate events under\n+Other Filings/Sealed Plea & Sentencing Related Documents.\n+10\n+10/20/2025\n+b. The filer must manually serve a copy of sealed sentencing documents\n+on those case participants entitled to notice under the federal and\n+local rules per the CM/ECF User Manual and Administrative\n+Procedures. None of these documents should be submitted directly\n+to the Probation Office or the Court.\n+LR 41.1 SEARCH AND SEIZURE\n+A. Presentation . A search warrant application ordinarily should be presented\n+to a magistrate judge, but it may be presented to a district judge if no\n+magistrate judge is reasonably available. If no federal magistrate or district\n+judge is reasonably available, a search warrant may be presented to a state\n+judicial officer.\n+Copies of the application, the proposed search warrant, and any supporting\n+affidavits must be delivered to the judge for his or her private review before a\n+request is made for the judge to sign the warrant. In an emergency situation,\n+the judge may waive this requirement.\n+B. Lawyer for Government . Ordinarily, a law enforcement officer presenting a\n+search warrant application to a judge should be accompanied by a lawyer for\n+the government. If justified by unusual circumstances, a judge may entertain\n+a search warrant application from an officer who is not accompanied by a\n+lawyer for the government.\n+C. Emergencies . In an emergency situation, a magistrate judge may be contact-\n+ed away from the courthouse, including at his or her home, for purposes of\n+entertaining a search warrant application. If no magistrate judge is\n+reasonably available, a district judge may be contacted away from the\n+courthouse, including at his or her home, for purposes of entertaining a\n+search warrant application.\n+D. Initial Sealing of Search Warrant Documents . When a search warrant is\n+issued, a case is opened. The case is sealed until the warrant is returned; at\n+which time the case is unsealed unless otherwise ordered by the court.\n+LR 44.1 ATTORNEYS\n+A. Bar of the Court. The bar of this court consists of those attorneys admitted\n+to practice before this court.\n+11\n+10/20/2025\n+B. Eligibility. Any person of good moral character who is an active member of\n+the State Bar of South Dakota is eligible for admission to the bar of this court\n+as hereinafter provided.\n+C. Procedure for Admission. An attorney who is eligible to practice law as\n+provided in section B of this rule may apply for admission to the bar of this\n+court. The application sequence is as follows:\n+1. The applicant must complete an application for admission.\n+2. The applicant must consent to an inquiry concerning the applicant =s\n+fitness and qualifications for admission. Submission of a completed\n+application is consent and waiver of privacy regarding inquiry into the\n+applicant’s fitness and qualifications.\n+3. The clerk of court will make any inquiry that may be deemed necessary\n+to obtain information concerning an applicant=s fitness and qualifications\n+to practice law.\n+4. At least two active judges in this district must approve the application\n+before an applicant may be admitted. In the absence of two active district\n+judges, a senior judge may be the second approving judge.\n+5. The clerk of court will report to a district judge in the division in which\n+an application for admission is pending the approval or disapproval of\n+the active judges.\n+6. When an application is approved or disapproved, the applicant will be\n+notified.\n+7. An applicant approved for admission will be contacted by the court to\n+schedule the applicant=s admission ceremony.\n+8. Within six months of being approved for admission, an applicant must\n+appear for an admission ceremony with a member of this bar who will\n+vouch for applicant =s legal qualifications, integrity, and good moral\n+character. Upon oral motion of a member of the bar, taking the prescribed\n+oath of admission, signing an oath of admission, and paying the required\n+fee, the applicant will be admitted to the bar of this court. Upon\n+admission, the clerk of court will issue a certificate of admission to the\n+new bar member.\n+12\n+10/20/2025\n+D. Oath of Admission. The following oath/affirmation will be administered to\n+an applicant for admission to the bar of this court:\n+I solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of\n+the United States, that I will represent my clients conscientiously and\n+ethically, and that I will conduct myself uprightly and according to\n+law in proceedings in this court.\n+E. Appearance of Attorney Pro Hac Vice. An attorney who is not a member of\n+the bar of this court, but who is a member in good standing of the bar of\n+another United States district court, may, upon motion and approval by the\n+court, participate in the conduct of a particular case. Such motion may be\n+allowed only if the applicant associates with a member in good standing of\n+the bar of this court as local counsel. Any prior or pending disciplinary\n+actions or actions resulting in sanctions against the attorney seeking\n+admission pro hac vice must be disclosed in the motion.\n+Local counsel must sign and file all documents and must continue in the\n+case unless another attorney admitted to practice in this court is substituted.\n+Local counsel must be present during all court proceedings (which include\n+telephone or video conference hearings) in connection with the case, unless\n+otherwise ordered, and must have full authority to act for and on behalf of\n+the client in all matters, including pretrial conferences, trial, and any other\n+hearings.\n+F. Attorneys for the United States and Federal Public Defender.\n+1. Resident Attorneys.\n+a. Regular Admission. Except as provided elsewhere by this rule, an\n+attorney who resides within this district and represents the United\n+States government or any agency or instrumentality thereof or the\n+Federal Public Defender=s Office must be admitted to the State Bar of\n+South Dakota before the attorney is permitted to practice before this\n+court.\n+b. Provisional Admission. An attorney who is a member of the bar of\n+another United States district court and has not yet been admitted\n+to the State Bar of South Dakota, but either is a:\n+(1) resident assistant United States attorney;\n+13\n+10/20/2025\n+(2) resident attorney representing agencies of the United States\n+government; or\n+(3) resident assistant federal public defender\n+has 12 months from the date of the attorney’s oath of office for the position\n+in South Dakota to be admitted to the state bar of South Dakota. During this\n+period, the attorney may be admitted provisionally to practice before this\n+court.\n+If an attorney is on a term fellowship with the United States or Federal Public\n+Defender, that attorney may be admitted provisionally to practice before this\n+court for the period of that fellowship.\n+The procedure for provisional admission follows the procedure for admission\n+outlined in Section C of this rule, except that resident attorneys provisionally\n+admitted will not pay the required fee until they are admitted to the State\n+Bar of South Dakota, at which time the clerk of court will issue a certificate\n+of admission to the attorney.\n+2. Nonresident Attorneys.\n+The following nonresident attorneys may be admitted on the attorney’s\n+motion, without payment of fees, to practice in this court during the pendency\n+of the attorney’s employment, appointment, or designation if the attorney is\n+a member in good standing of the high est bar of any state or the District of\n+Columbia. An application for admission is not required.\n+a. An attorney designated as ASpecial Assistant United States\n+Attorney @ by the United States Attorney for the District of South\n+Dakota;\n+b. An attorney appointed by the Attorney General of the United States\n+or employed by a federal agency with independent litigation authority\n+to represent the interest of the United States government;\n+c. An attorney hired by the Federal Public Defender =s Office for the\n+District of South Dakota; or\n+d. An attorney employed by the Federal Public Defender =s Office for the\n+District of North Dakota.\n+14\n+10/20/2025\n+A judge advocate of the armed forces of the United States representing\n+the United States government in proceedings supervised by judges of this\n+court is not subject to this rule.\n+G. Attorney Discipline.\n+1. Automatic Suspension. Any member of the bar of this court who has\n+been suspended or disbarred from the Supreme Court of the State of\n+South Dakota or who has been convicted of any criminal offense in any\n+United States District Court will, upon appropriate notice from the clerk\n+of court, be suspended from practice before this court.\n+2. Discipline by this Court.\n+a. This court, independent of action taken by the Supreme Court of the\n+State of South Dakota, may disbar or suspend a member of the bar\n+of this court from practice for a definite time, or reprimand for good\n+cause shown, after opportunity has been afforded such member to\n+be heard.\n+b. An application for the disbarment or discipline of a member of the\n+bar of this court will be made to or before the chief judge of this\n+court unless otherwise ordered by the chief judge. At least two\n+district judges of this court will sit at the hearing of such application\n+unless the attorney against whom the disbarment or disciplinary\n+proceeding is brought states in writing or in open court the\n+member=s willingness to proceed before one district judge.\n+c. If an investigation is necessary, the chief judge, with the approval of\n+a majority of the district judges, will appoint a member of the bar\n+(hereinafter referred to as Ainvestigator@) to investigate charges\n+against any member of this bar. If, as a result of the investigation,\n+the investigator will be of the opinion that there has been a breach\n+of professional ethics by a member of this bar, the investigator, as\n+an officer of the court having special responsibilities for the\n+administration of justice, will file and prosecute a petition requesting\n+that the alleged offender be subjected to appropriate discipline,\n+including disbarment, suspension, or reprimand. The investigator\n+will be paid from the pro hac vice fund.\n+3. Disciplinary Record. The clerk of court keeps a separate attorney\n+discipline docket. Orders of disbarment, suspension and public\n+15\n+10/20/2025\n+reprimand are a matter of public record. All other documents, hearings\n+and records required under the provisions of this Rule will not be publicly\n+disclosed or made available for use in any other proceeding, except upon\n+order of this court.\n+H. Reinstatement of Disbarred and Suspended Attorneys.\n+1. An attorney who has been disbarred or suspended in this court may\n+petition for reinstatement at any time. Upon the filing of such petition\n+with the clerk of court, the chief judge may appoint an investigator and\n+may enter an order setting a date for the hearing on said petition on\n+providing at least 21 calendar days’ notice. An attorney may be reinstated\n+without a hearing upon a unanimous vote of all district judges who desire\n+to participate in such determinations.\n+Any investigator appointed will investigate the facts alleged in the petition\n+for reinstatement and will present to the court, in affidavit form or\n+otherwise, any facts in support of or against the granting of said petition.\n+Two district judges of this court will sit at the hearing on said petition,\n+and the order denying or granting reinstatement will be made in writing\n+by said judges.\n+2. An attorney who has been disbarred or suspended by the Supreme Court\n+of the State of South Dakota and thereafter reinstated by that court to\n+practice in the state courts will not be permitted to practice in this court,\n+notwithstanding such reinstatement, until a petition for reinstatement\n+as prescribed in section 1 above, incorporating a certified copy of the\n+order of reinstatement by the Supreme Court of the State of South\n+Dakota, has been filed in this court and reinstatement ordered after a\n+hearing as above provided. The hearing may be waived by the attorney\n+with the consent of the court.\n+I. Law Students.\n+1. Student Practice. Any law student acting under a supervising attorney\n+will be allowed to make an appearance and participate in proceedings in\n+this court pursuant to these rules.\n+2. Eligibility. To be eligible to appear and participate, a law student must:\n+a. Be a student in good standing in a law school approved by the\n+American Bar Association.\n+16\n+10/20/2025\n+b. Have completed legal studies amounting to four semesters or the\n+equivalent if the law school is on some basis other than a semester\n+basis.\n+c. File with the Clerk of court:\n+(1) A certificate by the dean of the law school that he or she is of\n+good moral character and meets the requirements of rule 44.1\n+I.2 and is qualified to serve as a legal intern. The certificate\n+should be in a form prescribed by the court.\n+(2) A certificate by the law student stating that he or she has read\n+and agrees to abide by the rules of the court, and all applicable\n+codes of professional responsibility and other relevant federal\n+practice rules. The certificate should be in a form prescribed by\n+the court.\n+(3) A notice of appearance must be filed in each case in which he\n+or she is participating or appearing as a law student. The\n+notice must be signed by a supervising attorney who is a\n+member of the bar or this court.\n+d. Be introduced to the court in which he or she is appearing by an\n+attorney who is a member of the bar of this court.\n+3. Certificate of Admission. Upon the completion and filing of the\n+certificates required by these rules, the clerk of court will issue a\n+certificate of admission to the law student in a form prescribed by the\n+court. This certificate expires contemporaneously with the expiration\n+date of the dean =s certificate unless it is sooner withdrawn. Any law\n+student=s certificate of admission may be terminated at any time by the\n+court without notice or hearing and without any showing of cause.\n+4. Restrictions. No law student admitted under these rules will:\n+a. Request or receive any compensation or remuneration of any kind\n+from the client. This will not prevent the supervising attorney, law\n+school, public defender, or the government from paying\n+compensation to the law student, nor will it prevent any agency from\n+making such charges for its services as it may otherwise properly\n+require.\n+17\n+10/20/2025\n+b. Appear in court without the presence of the supervising attorney.\n+c. File any documents or papers with the court that he or she has\n+prepared which have not been read, approved, and signed by the\n+supervising attorney.\n+5. Supervising Attorneys. Any person acting as a supervising attorney\n+under this rule must be a member of the bar of this court and must:\n+a. Assume personal professional responsibility for the conduct of the\n+law student being supervised.\n+b. Sign all pleadings and other papers prepared by the law student.\n+c. Advise the court of the law student=s participation, always be present\n+with the student in court and be prepared to supplement oral or\n+written work of the student as requested by the court or as\n+necessary to ensure proper representation of the client.\n+d. Be available for consultation with the client.\n+LR 47.1 MOTIONS\n+A. Discovery Motions . Before filing a discovery motion, the certification\n+required under D.S.D. Crim. LR 16.1 must be met.\n+B. Motions to Seal. Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions,\n+exhibits, or other documents to be filed in the court record must include (1)\n+proposed reasons supported by specific factual representations to justify the\n+sealing, and (2) an explanation why alternatives to sealing would not provide\n+sufficient protection. A motion to seal and the documents to which the motion\n+refers must be filed consistent with the CM/ECF User Manual and\n+Administrative Procedures found at www.sdd.uscourts.gov.\n+C. Required Written Brief. With every motion raising a question of law, except\n+oral motions made during a hearing or trial, the movant must serve and file\n+a brief containing the movant =s legal arguments, the authorities in support\n+thereof, and the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure on which the movant\n+relies. Motions in limine and supporting arguments and authorities may be\n+filed as one document. On or before 7 calendar days after service of a motion\n+and brief, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the court, all opposing\n+18\n+10/20/2025\n+parties must serve and file a responsive brief containing opposing legal\n+arguments and authorities in support thereof. The movant may file a reply\n+brief within 4 calendar days after service of the responsive brief.\n+1. Page Limitation on Briefs. Briefs must not exceed 25 pages excluding\n+table of contents and/or authorities, certificate of service, if applicable,\n+and attachments unless prior approval has been obtained from the court.\n+2. Attachments. A party will submit as exhibits or attachments only those\n+excerpts of the referenced document that are directly germane to the\n+matter under consideration by the court. Excerpted material should be\n+clearly and prominently identified as such. Highlighting or underlining\n+relevant portions is encouraged. Parties who file excerpts of documents\n+as exhibits or attachments under this rule do so without prejudice to their\n+right to timely file additional excerpts. Responding parties may file\n+additional excerpts that they believe are directly germane. The court may\n+require parties to file additional excerpts or the complete document.\n+LR 49.1 SERVING AND FILING DOCUMENTS INCLUDING HIGHLY\n+SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS\n+A. What constitutes filing/official record. Electronic transmission of a\n+document to the Electronic Filing System together with the transmission of\n+a Notice of Electronic Filing from the court constitutes filing of the document\n+for all purposes of the local rules of this court and the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure and constitutes entry of the document on the docket kept by the\n+clerk of court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79. When a document has been\n+filed electronically, the official record is the electronic document as stored by\n+the court and is deemed filed at the date and time stated on the Notice of\n+Electronic Filing from the court. The party filing the document is bound by\n+the document as filed.\n+B. What constitutes an electronic signature. In addition to the requirements\n+contained in Rule 49(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the\n+name of the filing user under whose login and password the documents are\n+submitted must be preceded by a “/s/” and typed in the space where the\n+signature would otherwise appear unless a facsimile of the filing user’s\n+signature appears in the signature block.\n+C. Duty to protect login and password. No filing user or other person may\n+knowingly permit a filing user’s login and password to be used by someone\n+other than an authorized agent of the filing user. If they learn that their\n+password has been compromised, they must immediately notify the clerk.\n+19\n+10/20/2025\n+Attorneys may be subject to sanctions for failure to comply with this\n+provision.\n+D. Documents requiring the signature of more than one party. Documents\n+requiring signatures of more than one party may be electronically filed either\n+by (a) submitting a scanned document containing all necessary signatures;\n+or (b) in any other manner approved by the court. When filing documents\n+that require signatures from other parties, it is not permissible to insert a\n+“/s/” for another person s signature.\n+E. Restricted Hyperlinks. Because a website address within a court filing\n+becomes a hyperlink to the internet location upon filing in the CM/ECF\n+system, counsel must redact from any filed documents any website address\n+that directs the court to a website that contains pornography or personal\n+identifiers. After filing the redacted document, counsel must provide an\n+unredacted version to the clerk of court for filing under seal.\n+F. Filing Documents outside of CM/ECF. Highly sensitive documents\n+may be filed outside of the court’s Electronic Filing System.\n+1. Highly Sensitive Documents . A Highly Sensitive Document (HSD) is a\n+document or other material that contains sensitive, but unclassified,\n+information that warrants exceptional handling and storage procedures to\n+prevent significant consequences that could result if such information\n+were obtained or disclosed in an unauthorized way. Although frequently\n+related to law enforcement materials, especially sensitive information in a\n+civil case could also qualify for HSD treatment.\n+a. Examples of HSDs: Examples include ex parte sealed filings\n+relating to: national security investigations, cyber investigations,\n+and especially sensitive public corruption investigations; and\n+documents containing a highly exploitable trade secret, financial\n+information, or computer source code belonging to a private entity,\n+the disclosure of which could have significant national or\n+international repercussions.\n+b. Exclusions: Most materials currently filed under seal do not meet\n+the definition of an HSD and do not merit the heightened\n+protections afforded to HSDs. The form or nature of the document,\n+by itself, does not determine whether HSD treatment is warranted.\n+Instead, the focus is on the severity of the consequences for the\n+parties or the public should the document be accessed without\n+20\n+10/20/2025\n+authorization. Most presentence reports, pretrial release reports,\n+pleadings related to cooperation in criminal cases, social security\n+records, administrative immigration records, applications for\n+search warrants, interception of wire, oral, or electronic\n+communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2518, and applications for pen\n+registers, trap, and trace devices would not meet the HSD\n+definition.\n+Any dispute as to whether a document is an HSD will be resolved\n+by the presiding judge or, when no presiding judge is\n+assigned, the Chief Judge.\n+2. Motion Required. A represented or pro se party must file a motion to treat\n+a document as an HSD and a proposed order in the same manner as a\n+motion to file under seal pursuant to D.S.D. Civ. LR 7.1 A and Crim. LR\n+47.1 B. The motion and proposed order must state the duration of the HSD\n+designation or whether the HSD designation should be permanent. The\n+motion must explain why the proposed document constitutes an HSD\n+under paragraph F.1 or why it should otherwise be filed without revealing\n+the highly sensitive information contained within the HSD.\n+a. The filing party must deliver to the clerk’s office where the\n+presiding judge is chambered two paper copies of the motion and\n+HSD sought be filed along with a certificate of service. These\n+documents must be submitted in a sealed envelope marked\n+“HIGHLY SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” and marked with the\n+applicable case number, attorney’s name, street address,\n+telephone number, and email address. Upon receipt, the clerk’s\n+office will make an informational docket entry that a motion to\n+treat a document as an HSD has been filed.\n+b. Unless being submitted as an ex parte filing, the filing party must\n+serve the proposed HSD on the other parties by any manner\n+specified in Criminal Rule 49(a), except for service via the court’s\n+Electronic Filing System.\n+c. If the court grants the motion, an informational entry will be made\n+on the case docket indicating that the HSD has been filed with the\n+Court. The clerk’s office will maintain the HSD in a secure paper\n+filing system or a secure standalone computer system that is not\n+connected to any network.\n+21\n+10/20/2025\n+3. Service of HSD Orders. The clerk’s office will serve paper copies of\n+the order on the parties via mail.\n+LR 49.1.1 PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR FILINGS MADE WITH THE COURT\n+A. Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, parties must refrain from\n+including, or must partially redact where inclusion is necessary, the following\n+personal data identifiers from all pleadings and documents filed, including\n+exhibits thereto, unless otherwise ordered by the court:\n+1. Social Security numbers. Only the last four digits of that number should\n+be used.\n+2. Name of an individual known to be a minor. Only the initials of the\n+minor should be used.\n+3. Dates of birth. Only the year should be used.\n+4. Financial account numbers. Only the last four digits of these numbers\n+should be used.\n+5. Home addresses. Only the city and state should be used.\n+B. After filing a document redacted consistent with Fed. R. Crim. P.49.1, a party\n+may submit for filing under seal an unredacted copy of the document. Any\n+such filings must contain a cover sheet stating the following: ADocument filed\n+under seal pursuant to the E-Government Act.@\n+C. The responsibility for redacting personal identifiers rests solely with counsel\n+and the parties. The clerk of court will not review each filing for compliance\n+with this rule.\n+D. Personal Data Identifiers in Charging Documents\n+1. The clerk of court will file indictments under seal to prevent public\n+disclosure of the identity of the foreperson of the grand jury. The attorney\n+for the government must provide the clerk=s office with a redacted version\n+of the indictment in which the name of the foreperson is omitted. If the\n+indictment includes personal data identifiers, the attorney for the\n+government must also provide the clerk=s office with a redacted version of\n+the indictment that omits both personal data identifiers and the name of\n+22\n+10/20/2025\n+the foreperson. The clerk =s office will file a redacted version of the\n+indictment in addition to the sealed original.\n+2. Personal data identifiers may be included in informations and complaints\n+if necessary, to comply with the requirements of federal law. If personal\n+data identifiers are included, the attorney for the government must provide\n+the clerk=s office with a redacted version of the information or complaint\n+along with the original. The original will be filed under seal to prevent\n+public disclosure of the personal data identifiers.\n+3. In all other instances charging documents will be filed under seal only\n+upon motion of the government and order of the court.\n+LR 57.1 RELEASE OF INFORMATION BY COURTHOUSE\n+PERSONNEL IN CRIMINAL CASES\n+All courthouse personnel, including marshals, deputy marshals, deputy court\n+clerks, court security officers, interpreters, and court reporters, are prohibited\n+from disclosing to any person, without authorization by the court, information\n+relating to a pending criminal case that is not part of the public records of the\n+court including ex parte documents. Specifically forbidden is the divulgence of\n+information concerning arguments and hearings held in chambers, at side bars\n+or otherwise outside the presence of the public.\n+LR 57.2 AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS\n+If a proceeding has been recorded electronically and the electronic recording\n+constitutes the official record, the clerk of court will arrange, upon the request of\n+any party, to have a transcript prepared from the electronic recording. The\n+requesting party will be responsible for any costs associated with producing a\n+transcript in accordance with the directives of the Administrative Office of the\n+United States Courts. Recordings will not be released to parties or the public.\n+LR 57.3 EXHIBITS\n+A. Marking of Exhibits. Exhibits in criminal trials and hearings must be\n+marked in accordance with instructions from the court.\n+B. Electronically Filing Documentary Exhibits.\n+1. By the Clerk. At the conclusion of a trial or other court proceeding, the\n+Clerk of Court will electronically file all documentary exhibits offered\n+23\n+10/20/2025\n+and/or received in CM/ECF. The exhibits electronically filed by the Clerk\n+will be restricted to court users and case participants. After filing, the\n+Clerk will return documentary exhibits to the offering party.\n+2. By the Parties. The parties will have twenty-one (21) days to review their\n+returned documentary exhibits to determine whether redactions are\n+required pursuant to D.S.D. Crim. LR 49.1.1.\n+a. Redactions required. If redactions are required, the offering party\n+must electronically file all of its documentary exhibits, including\n+redacted exhibits and exhibits that do not require redaction in\n+CM/ECF. This requirement does not apply to exhibits that were\n+sealed when offered and/or received.\n+b. Redactions not required. If no redactions are required, the Clerk\n+will remove the restrictions and enter a Notice of Unrestricting\n+Trial/Hearing Exhibits in CM/ECF.\n+c. Sealing. If a party moves to seal documentary exhibits after a\n+hearing or trial has concluded and the motion is granted, the\n+movant is responsible for refiling public exhibits.\n+C. Physical Exhibits. Physical exhibits, including recordings, will be returned\n+to the offering party at the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding for\n+retention and preservation. This includes all physical exhibits submitted to\n+the clerk even those not used at trial or in a hearing.\n+1. Duty to Retain . When physical exhibits are returned, they must be\n+retained by the offering party, who will maintain and document the chain\n+of custody, and make the exhibits available to the court, if necessary,\n+and to other parties for use in preparing an appeal.\n+2. Duty to Preserve. Returned physical exhibits must be preserved in an\n+unaltered condition until at least 120 calendar days after the resolution of\n+any appeal to allow for the filing of a writ of certiorari under Rule 13 of the\n+Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Before such exhibits may\n+be destroyed, the custodial party must seek and obtain a court order\n+authorizing destruction.\n+D. Exhibits Necessary for Appeal. Consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s local\n+rule on exhibits, the offering party is responsible for ensuring any non-public\n+24\n+10/20/2025\n+exhibits or physical exhibits necessary for an appeal are submitted to the\n+appellate court.\n+LR 57.4 WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL\n+A. In General. An attorney of record in a case may be permitted to withdraw\n+from representation as counsel of record only by order of the court, or as\n+otherwise provided herein. This does not apply to situations where withdrawal\n+results in continued representation by the same firm or organization.\n+B. Withdrawal With Substitution. Leave of court is not required where a notice\n+of withdrawal is accompanied by a substitution of counsel, provided that said\n+substitution takes place 30 or more days in advance of trial, the substitution\n+contains a certificate by substituted counsel, and the substitution will not\n+delay the trial or other progress of the case. The notice of withdrawal and\n+substitution must set forth the name and address of the substituted and\n+withdrawing counsel. Withdrawal under this section will be effective upon\n+filing a notice of withdrawal and substitution. Notice of withdrawal must be\n+provided to the client by the withdrawing attorney.\n+C. Withdrawal Without Substitution. Withdrawal without substitution may be\n+granted only upon motion, for good cause shown. Notice of the motion must\n+be provided to the client by the withdrawing attorney.\n+LR 57.5 RECORDING AND CELLULAR DEVICES\n+Except by permission of the presiding judge, no person will photograph,\n+videotape, televise, broadcast, or record, or cause to be photographed, videotaped,\n+televised, broadcast, or recorded any courtroom proceeding, including\n+proceedings of the grand jury. No person will take any photographic, videotape,\n+television, or sound recording equipment into (1) any courtroom except upon the\n+express permission of the presiding judge, or (2) any jury room, or (3) any corridor\n+on the floor on which a courtroom or jury room is located. This paragraph does\n+not apply to (1) the official court reporter who may use a voice-recording device\n+in connection with his or her official duties, or (2) the use of electronic means for\n+the presentation of evidence or the perpetuation of the record as authorized by\n+the court.\n+Cellular phones and electronic devices may be brought into courthouses in the\n+United States District Court for South Dakota unless the presiding judge places\n+restrictions on these devices. All cellular and electronic devices must be turned\n+off in the courtroom and any corridor on the floor on which a courtroom or jury\n+25\n+10/20/2025\n+room is located unless specifically authorized by order of the court. Cellular and\n+electronic devices are devices capable of communicating, transmitting, receiving,\n+or recording messages, images, sounds, data, or other information by any means,\n+including but not limited to, a computer tablet, cell phone, or Bluetooth device.\n+Individuals who bring such devices into courtrooms may be asked by court\n+security personnel to demonstrate that the device is turned off. Members of the\n+Bar and employees of members of the Bar are exempt from this provision.\n+Use of any camera or sound recording devices in a courtroom or any corridor on\n+the floor on which a courtroom or jury room is located is prohibited unless\n+specifically authorized by order of the court.\n+However, an electronic device that is essential to a person’s health or welfare\n+(such as an insulin pump) may remain on in the courtroom.\n+News media personnel who possess recording devices will be allowed entry into a\n+court facility, provided the news media personnel are escorted through the\n+building by a representative of the tenant agency being visited. If no tenant\n+representative is available, entry with the recording devices will be denied. In\n+courthouses where jury and grand jury facilities are located contiguous to public\n+access corridors, news media personnel will not be allowed to possess recording\n+devices on the floors housing the jury and grand jury facilities during jury\n+deliberations or grand jury sessions.\n+Photographic, videotape, television, and sound recording devices are permitted in\n+courtrooms and in adjacent corridors for naturalization ceremonies, investitures,\n+attorney admissions, and other ceremonial functions unless specifically\n+prohibited by the court.\n+LR 57.6 IDENTIFICATION\n+A. Caption. A pleading or other paper presented for filing must begin with the\n+caption of the case, the title of the document, and the name of the party filing\n+the document. All papers presented after the charging document must bear\n+the file number assigned to the case.\n+B. Signature Block. All papers must be signed and include the typed or printed\n+name, address, telephone number, and email address of the signer beneath\n+the signature. This information must not appear as a header or footer on each\n+page of the document, or as part of the caption of the case.\n+26\n+10/20/2025\n+LR 57.7 TRIAL APPEARANCE\n+Absent extraordinary circumstances, every defendant in a criminal case may wear\n+civilian clothing during a trial. Civilian clothing should be provided to the United\n+States Marshal Service each morning of trial by the defendant’s attorney. The\n+United States Marshal Service will take appropriate measures to ensure jurors do\n+not observe the defendant in shackles in or out of the courtroom.\n+LR 57.8 PAYMENTS PRIOR TO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT\n+The Clerk of Court may accept special penalty assessment, restitution and fine\n+payments prior to entry of a judgment and commitment in criminal cases.\n+Restitution funds should be held in the deposit fund until further order of the\n+court.\n+LR 57.9 FORM OF PAPERS\n+A. In General. All documents must be on 82 x 11-inch paper. The text must be\n+double-spaced, but quotations more than two lines long must be indented\n+and single-spaced. Headings and footnotes must be single-spaced. Margins\n+must be at least one inch on all four sides. Fonts must be at least 12-point.\n+Papers not in the required form may not be filed without leave of the court.\n+Exhibits attached to documents must, if feasible, be similarly typewritten,\n+printed, or otherwise reproduced in clear, legible, and permanent form.\n+B. Redactions. If it is necessary to redact documents produced pursuant to\n+discovery and/or filed with the court, redactions must be made in black,\n+making it clear that information was removed.\n+LR 57.10 ACCESS TO CRIMINAL DOCUMENTS\n+A. Purpose. In order to protect the safety of federal defendants and the integrity\n+of ongoing investigations and related prosecutions, access to certain\n+criminal documents and transcripts is restricted.\n+B. Sealed or Restricted Documents. The court’s intent is to make it impossible\n+to determine from examining the record whether a defendant or other witness\n+did or did not cooperate with the government. To implement this intent, the\n+following documents are sealed or otherwise restricted:\n+27\n+10/20/2025\n+1. Plea Agreement Supplements. Every plea agreement will include a sealed\n+supplement that either identifies any agreements the defendant has with\n+the government regarding cooperation or states that there is no\n+cooperation.\n+2. Sentencing Memorandums and Motions for Departure/Variance.\n+3. Restricted Change of Plea or Sentencing Transcripts. Every transcript\n+of a change of plea or sentencing hearing will contain a confidential\n+section or reference thereto so that cooperation or the lack thereof may\n+be discussed. If a transcript is prepared, the court reporter or\n+transcriptionist will prepare two versions: a restricted transcript and a\n+public transcript.\n+a. The restricted transcript will include the confidential section.\n+Only the Government and counsel for the defendant will have\n+access to restricted transcripts.\n+b. The public transcript will include the following reference:\n+Pursuant to D.S.D. Crim. LR 57.10, portions of all change of\n+plea and sentencing transcripts are restricted.\n+C. Access to Sealed or Restricted Documents.\n+1. Attorneys and others. Federal court officers or employees (including\n+probation officers and federal public defender staff), retained counsel,\n+appointed CJA panel attorneys, and any other person in an attorney-client\n+relationship with a defendant may, consistent with this rule, review any\n+sealed or restricted portions of the file with their client, but may not\n+provide copies.\n+2. Inmates. When an inmate requests copies of sealed or restricted\n+documents from his/her criminal file, copies will be forwarded to the\n+warden of the appropriate institution, along with a copy of this rule.\n+Inmates may review their documents in an area designated by the warden.\n+Sealed or restricted documents may not be retained by the inmate, nor\n+reviewed in the presence of another inmate.\n+3. Post Sentencing Non-Custodial Defendants. Any defendant whose case\n+is concluded and is not in custody must obtain a court order to receive\n+copies of restricted documents.\n+28\n+10/20/2025\n+D. Serving Restricted or Sealed Documents. If the Clerk of Court or a party\n+need to serve sealed or restricted documents on an inmate, they must follow\n+the procedure outlined in Section C.2 of this rule.\n+LR 57.11 MAGISTRATE JUDGE DUTIES\n+A. General Designation. In every criminal case, the court designates the\n+magistrate judge assigned to the case to perform the following duties\n+authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636:\n+1. Hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a\n+motion to dismiss or quash an indictment or information by the defendant,\n+or to suppress evidence in a criminal case;\n+2. Conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit to the\n+district judge proposed findings and recommendation for the disposition\n+of:\n+(a) dispositive pretrial matters such as to dismiss or quash an\n+indictment or information by the defendant, or to suppress\n+evidence in a criminal case;\n+(b) applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted\n+of criminal offenses.\n+3. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3401, with respect to misdemeanors\n+committed within the district:\n+(a) try a defendant accused of, and sentence a defendant convicted\n+of, a petty offense (Infractions, Class C misdemeanors, and\n+Class B misdemeanors); and\n+(b) with the defendant’s consent, try a defendant accused of, and\n+sentence a defendant convicted of non-petty offenses (Class A)\n+misdemeanors.\n+4. Conduct hearings to modify, revoke, or terminate supervised release,\n+including evidentiary hearings, and submit to the district judge proposed\n+findings of fact and recommendations for such modification, revocation,\n+or termination by the district judge.\n+5. Serve as a special master upon consent of the parties in civil cases.\n+29\n+10/20/2025\n+6. Preside over allocution and change of plea proceedings in felony criminal\n+cases upon consent of the parties and submit to the district judge\n+proposed recommendations for de novo review.\n+B. Specific Designation. The district judge assigned to a case may specifically\n+designate a magistrate judge to perform any of the duties authorized by 28\n+U.S.C. § 636(b). In performing the designated duties, the magistrate judge\n+must conform to the Local Rules and the instructions of the district judge.\n+LR 57.12 COURT SECURITY OFFICER DUTIES\n+When a petit jury has been selected but before deliberations begin, court security\n+officers shall, upon request, escort jurors outside the building provided they\n+remain on courthouse property.\n+When a petit jury is sequestered to begin deliberations, court security officers\n+shall collect and secure all cellphones and other electronic devices belonging to\n+jurors until such time as the jury has reached a verdict, at which time such\n+devices shall be returned to their owners.\n+LR 57.13 FORMER LAW CLERKS\n+An attorney who is a former law clerk to a judge of this Court is prohibited from\n+acting as counsel of record in a case assigned to that judge or otherwise\n+appearing before that judge (a) at any time in any case that was assigned to that\n+judge during the former clerk’s tenure with the judge, and (b) in any case for a\n+period of one year following the termination of the law clerk’s services.\n+LR 58.1 SCHEDULE OF FINES\n+Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(d)(1), the court has, by standing order, fixed sums\n+which may be accepted in lieu of appearances in cases of petty offenses, as de-\n+fined in 18 U.S.C. ' 19. All schedules presently in effect are adopted.","id":"bb47316cd4d844b2c6db527be6db4c8cc22bd40dbfe2f7ac2864700d9aa387c0","newHash":"40983b14cdf247f67e48869e8da58074b836e4e537748d22afbad4d56d2d7d9e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Criminal%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20Edits%2C%20clean.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/40983b14cdf247f67e48869e8da58074b836e4e537748d22afbad4d56d2d7d9e.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/sites/sdd/files/Criminal%20Local%20Rules%20-%2010.2025%20Edits%2C%20clean.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.241293+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"be9a2abed763dd5ed23954985138ce821c81ec91833909c62bc521a8fd03974c","newHash":"7abc08f0846ebb3ff5493c4071e7168353021e435057934cfbb97863840846d3","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.451194+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"acb8d6bc9a9907c9cf7773c3cf4b6b2d6885dc4402f557c73c39adff7aba8b26","newHash":"6283fe382e3c6116d5537a90f52b3fc9b403f74ad40f4cd4436c6fb98957e6bb","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library/","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.576034+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@\n+LOCAL RULE CV-11 Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Documents | Eastern District of Texas | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+Contact Us\n+Subscribe\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+Eastern District of Texas\n+Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III, Chief Judge\n+David A. O'Toole, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search\n+Court Information\n+United States Court Sites\n+Judges\n+Rules & Orders\n+Filing\n+Resources\n+FAQs\n+Attorneys\n+Jurors\n+Pro Se\n+Forms\n+LOCAL RULE CV-11 Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Documents\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Civil Rule\n+11\n+(a) Lead Attorney.\n+(1) Designation. On the first appearance through counsel, each party shall designate a lead attorney on the pleadings or otherwise.\n+(2) Responsibility. The lead attorney is responsible in that action for the party. That individual attorney shall attend all court proceedings or send a fully informedattorney with authority to bind the client.\n+(b) Signing the Pleadings. Every document filed must be signed by the lead attorney or by an attorney of record who has the permission of the lead attorney. Requests for postponement of the trial shall also be signed by the party making the request.\n+(1) Required Information. Under the signature, the following information shall appear:\n+(A) attorney’s individual name;\n+(B) state bar number;\n+(C) office address, including zip code;\n+(D) telephone and facsimile numbers; and\n+(E) e-mail address.\n+(c) Withdrawal of Counsel. Attorneys may withdraw from a case only by motion and order under conditions imposed by the court. If the client consents to a motion to withdraw or substitute counsel, the motion should so state. When an Assistant United States Attorney enters an appearance in a case, another Assistant United States Attorney may replace the attorney by filing a notice of substitution that identifies the attorney being replaced. Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, the notice effects the withdrawal of the attorney being replaced. Change of counsel will not be cause for delay.\n+(d) Change of Address. Notices will be sent only to an e-mail and/or mailing address on file. A pro se litigant must provide the court with a physical address (i.e., a post office box is not acceptable) and is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writing of his or her current physical address. Pro se litigants must also advise the court of the case numbers of all pending cases in which they are participants in this district.\n+(e) Request for Termination of Electronic Notice. If an attorney no longer desires to receive electronic notification of filings in a particular case due to settlement or dismissal of his or her client, the attorney may file a request for termination of electronic notice.\n+(f) Sanctions Concerning Vexatious Pro Se Litigants. The court may make orders as are appropriate to control the conduct of a vexatious pro se litigant. See Local Rule CV-65.1(b).\n+(g) Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology. All litigants remain responsible for the accuracy and quality of legal documents produced with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence technology. Litigants are cautioned that certain generative artificial intelligence technologies may produce factually or legally inaccurate content. If a litigant chooses to employ generative artificial intelligence technology, the litigant continues to be bound by the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and must review and verify all content to ensure that it complies with all such standards. See also Local Rule AT-3(m).\n+1.00\n+local_rule_history\n+Amended: GO-25-07 Dec 1, 2025\n+Amended: GO-23-11 Dec 1, 2023\n+Amended: GO-22-08 11/30/22\n+Amended: GO-19-14 11-25-19\n+Home\n+Contact Us\n+Employment\n+ECF\n+Forms\n+Links\n+Sitemap |\n+Privacy","id":"326e0f67cfbb5d6471f0c09107508150ae686ad69f03a2cc7a4185db68c7c92e","newHash":"dda7bef34b6363a2857df2279350bea9db9eee186f1c31a2d65ae61724d0b9a5","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-cv-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-documents","snapshot":"snapshots/dda7bef34b6363a2857df2279350bea9db9eee186f1c31a2d65ae61724d0b9a5.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=local-rule-cv-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-documents","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.481866+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@\n+IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+IN RE: §\n+§\n+PLEADINGS USING GENERATIVE § GENERAL ORDER\n+ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE § 2023-03\n+§\n+______________________________________________________________________________\n+If any portion of a pleading or other paper filed on the Court’s docket has been drafted\n+utilizing generative artificial intelligence, including but not limited to ChatGPT, Ha rvey.AI, or\n+Google Bard, the Court requires that all attorneys and pro se litigants filing such pleadings or other\n+papers verify that any language that was generated was checked for accuracy, using print reporters,\n+traditional legal databases , or other rel iable means. Artificial intelligence systems hold no\n+allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States and are\n+likewise not factually or legally trustworthy sources without human verification. Failure to heed\n+these instructions may subject attorneys or pro se litigants to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of\n+Bankruptcy Procedure 9011.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+###END OF ORDER###\n+Signed June 21, 2023\n+______________________________________________________________________\n+The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.","id":"8428631fe59c87aecf41c1c7614d536a31b47e7f1de42aa15760158f0a089638","newHash":"17ebf77ef198d4ba8df8dd24dc25d24a8b402a9c1a5faa3f7397e7197af26dc4","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/news/General%20Order%202023-03%20Pleadings%20Using%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence-signed.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/17ebf77ef198d4ba8df8dd24dc25d24a8b402a9c1a5faa3f7397e7197af26dc4.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/news/General%20Order%202023-03%20Pleadings%20Using%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence-signed.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.766561+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,483 @@\n+Civil Rules | Northern District of Texas | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+Directory\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+Northern District of Texas\n+Reed O'Connor, Chief Judge\n+Karen Mitchell, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search\n+Court Information\n+Judges\n+Rules & Orders\n+Filing\n+Resources\n+FAQs\n+Attorneys\n+Jurors\n+Pro Se\n+Forms & Records\n+Civil Rules\n+You are here\n+Home » Rules & Orders » Local Rules\n+Effective September 2, 2025\n+1.1 - Definitions\n+Unless the context indicates a contrary intention, the following definitions apply in these rules:\n+Court. The word “court” means the district judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, as a collective body.\n+Presiding Judge. The term “presiding judge” means the judge to whom a case is assigned. The word “judge” includes district judges and magistrate judges.\n+Attorney. The word “attorney” means either:\n+a person licensed to practice law by the highest court of any state or the District of Columbia; or\n+a party proceeding pro se in any civil action.\n+Clerk. The word “clerk” means the clerk of this court.\n+Discovery Materials. The term “discovery materials” means notices of and depositions upon oral examination or written questions, interrogatories, requests for documents and things, requests for inspection or to permit entry upon land, requests for admission, and answers and responses thereto, and disclosures made in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) or (2).\n+ECF. The term “ECF” means electronic case filing and refers to the court’s web- based document filing system that allows a document to be transmitted, signed, or verified by electronic means in a manner that is consistent with technical standards established by the Judicial Conference of the United States.\n+Judge’s Copy. The term “judge’s copy” means a paper copy of an original pleading, motion, or other paper that is submitted for use by the presiding judge.\n+3.1 - Filing Complaint by Electronic Means\n+A plaintiff may file a complaint by electronic means by following the procedures set forth in the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual. The complaint must be accompanied by:\n+a civil cover sheet;\n+the required filing fee or the appropriate application to proceed without prepayment of fees; and\n+a separately signed certificate of interested persons—in a form approved by the clerk—that contains—in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)—a complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are financially interested in the outcome of the case. If a large group of persons or firms can be specified by a generic description, individual listing is not necessary.\n+3.2 - Filing Complaint on Paper\n+To file a complaint on paper, a plaintiff must provide the clerk:\n+an original of the complaint;\n+a copy of the complaint and a completed civil summons form for each defendant to be served;\n+a civil cover sheet;\n+the required filing fee or the appropriate application to proceed without prepayment of fees; and\n+a separately signed certificate of interested persons—in a form approved by the clerk—that contains—in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)—a complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are financially interested in the outcome of the case. If a large group of persons or firms can be specified by a generic description, individual listing is not necessary.\n+3.3 - Filing Complaints in Related Case; Notice of Related Case.\n+Notice Requirement. When a plaintiff files a complaint and there is a related case, as defined by LR 3.3(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3), the complaint must be accompanied by a notice of related case. The notice must state the style and civil action number of the related case, the name of the presiding judge, whether the case is pending, and, if the case has been dismissed or remanded, the date of the final judgment or order remanding the case.\n+Related Case Defined. A “related case” is any civil action\n+that the plaintiff dismissed with the intent or for the purpose of obtaining a different assigned presiding judge and that is being refiled through the complaint;\n+that the plaintiff dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) by notice of dismissal, and that is being refiled through the complaint without changing the parties, or after adding or omitting one or more parties;\n+that—to the best of the plaintiff’s or removing party’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances—arises from a common nucleus of operative fact with the case being filed or removed, regardless whether the related case is a pending case; or\n+that was remanded and, regardless whether one or more parties or one or more claims or defenses have changed, is being removed again.\n+Effect of Failure to File Notice of Related Case. A plaintiff who does not file a notice of related case under LR 3.3(a), and a removing party who does not file a notice of related case under LR 81.1(a)(3), certifies that there is no related case, as defined in LR 3.3(b), to the case being filed or removed.\n+4.1 - Proof of Service or of Waiver of Service.\n+Proof of service or of waiver of service must be made by filing with the clerk the summons and any supporting documentation required or allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, or an executed waiver.\n+4.2 - Marshal's Fees.\n+[REPEALED]\n+5.1 - Filing and Serving Pleadings, Motions, or Other Papers\n+Filing with the Clerk. A pleading, motion, or other paper that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit or require to be filed, or that the court orders to be filed, that is submitted on paper, must be filed with the clerk’s office for the appropriate division. Unless the presiding judge agrees to accept it for filing, the pleading, motion, or other paper must not be sent directly to the presiding judge.\n+Original and Judge's Copy Required. An original and one judge's copy of each pleading, motion, or other paper that is submitted on paper must be filed with the clerk. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is filed by electronic means, the judge's copy must be submitted following procedures set forth in the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual.\n+Document Containing More Than One Pleading, Motion, or Other Paper. Except for a proposed order or judgment, a document may contain more than one pleading, motion, or other paper. Any such document must clearly identify each included pleading, motion, or other paper in its title.\n+Serving by Electronic Means. [REPEALED]\n+Electronic Filing Required. Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, an attorney —other than a prisoner pro se party— must file any pleading (except a complaint), motion, or other paper by electronic means, subject to the restrictions and requirements of the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual. A party may, for cause, move to be excused from the requirement of electronic filing.\n+Registration as an ECF User Required. Unless excused for cause, an attorney—other than a prisoner pro se party— must register as an ECF user within 14 days of the date the attorney appears in a case, following the registration procedures set forth in the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual.\n+5.2 - Filing Discovery Materials.\n+Discovery Materials Not to be Filed [REPEALED]\n+Deposition Notices Not to be Filed [REPEALED]\n+Filing Discovery Materials for Use in Discovery Proceedings. A motion that relates to a discovery proceeding must only contain the portions of the discovery materials in dispute.\n+Filing Discovery Materials for Use in Pretrial Motions. When discovery materials are necessary for consideration of a pretrial motion, a party shall file only the portions of discovery on which that party relies to support or oppose the motion.\n+5.3 - Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaints\n+A prisoner’s complaint alleging violations of civil rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1343 must be filed in accordance with the current miscellaneous order establishing procedures for such actions.\n+5.4 - Post-Conviction Relief.\n+A prisoner application, motion, or petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, § 2254, or § 2255 must be filed in accordance with the current miscellaneous order establishing procedures for such applications, motions, or petitions.\n+6.1 - Time Deemed Filed.\n+A pleading, motion, or other paper that is filed by electronic means before midnight central time of any day will be deemed filed on that day. A pleading, motion, or other paper that is filed on paper before the clerk’s office is scheduled to close on any day will be deemed filed on that day.\n+7.1 - Motion Practice.\n+Unless specifically controlled by another local civil rule or otherwise directed by the presiding judge, motion practice is controlled by subsection (h) of this rule. In addition, the parties must comply with the following:\n+Conference - Before filing a motion, an attorney for the moving party must confer with an attorney for each party affected by the requested relief to determine whether the motion is opposed. Conferences are not required for motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment, motions for new trial, or when a conference is not possible.\n+Certificate of Conference.\n+​Each motion for which a conference is required must include a certificate of conference indicating that the motion is unopposed or opposed.\n+If a motion is opposed, the certificate must state that a conference was held, indicate the date of conference and the identities of the attorneys conferring, and explain why agreement could not be reached.\n+If a conference was not held, the certificate must explain why it was not possible to confer, in which event the motion will be presumed to be opposed.\n+Proposed Order. Except for an opposed motion that is submitted on paper, each motion must be accompanied by a proposed order that is set forth separately. An agreed proposed order must be signed by the attorneys or parties.\n+Brief. An opposed motion must be accompanied by a brief that sets forth the moving party’s contentions of fact and/or law, and argument and authorities, unless a brief is not required by subsection (h) of this rule. A response to an opposed motion must be accompanied by a brief that sets forth the responding party’s contentions of fact and/or law, and argument and authorities. A responding party is not required to file a brief in opposition to a motion for which a brief is not required by subsection (h) of this rule.\n+Time for Response and Brief. A response and brief to an opposed motion must be filed within 21 days from the date the motion is filed.\n+Time for Reply Briefs. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, a party who has filed an opposed motion may file a reply brief within 14 days from the date the response is filed.\n+No Oral Argument. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, oral argument on a motion will not be held.\n+Uniform Requirements on Motion Practice.\n+​B - Brief required (not required with agreed motion)\n+C - Certificate of conference required\n+Motion (to/for)\n+B\n+C\n+AMEND\n+X\n+CHANGE OF VENUE\n+X\n+X\n+COMPEL\n+X\n+X\n+CONSOLIDATION\n+X\n+X\n+CONTINUANCE\n+X\n+DISMISS\n+X\n+EXTEND TIME\n+X\n+INTERVENE\n+X\n+X\n+JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW\n+X\n+JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS\n+X\n+LEAVE TO FILE\n+X\n+X\n+LIMINE\n+X\n+X\n+MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT\n+X\n+X\n+NEW TRIAL\n+X\n+PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION\n+X\n+X\n+PRODUCE DOCUMENTS\n+X\n+X\n+PROTECTIVE ORDER\n+X\n+X\n+QUASH\n+X\n+X\n+REMAND\n+X\n+X\n+SANCTIONS\n+X\n+X\n+STAY\n+X\n+X\n+STRIKE\n+X\n+X\n+SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL\n+X\n+SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n+X\n+NOTE: If a motion is not listed, a brief and certificate of conference are required.\n+Requirement of Appendix; Appendix Requirements.\n+​A party who relies on materials—including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials—to support or oppose a motion must include the materials in an appendix.\n+The appendix must be assembled as a self-contained document, separate from the motion, response, reply, and brief.\n+Each page of the appendix must measure 81⁄2 x 11 inches. Non- documentary materials (e.g., videotapes and other physical materials) and oversized materials (e.g., maps and schematic drawings) that are included in the appendix must be placed in an envelope that measures 9 x 12 inches.\n+Each page of the appendix must be numbered legibly in the lower, right- hand corner. The first page must be numbered as \"1,\" and succeeding pages must be numbered sequentially through the last page of the entire appendix (i.e., the numbering system must not re-start with each succeeding document in the appendix). An envelope that contains non- documentary or oversized materials must be numbered as if it were a single page.\n+7.2 - Briefs.\n+General Form. A brief must be printed, typewritten, or presented in some other legible form. The brief must be on an 81/2-by-11 inch page. The font size must be 12-point or larger. The text must be double-spaced, but quotations more than two lines long may be indented and single-spaced. Headings and footnotes may be single-spaced. Margins must be at least one inch on all four sides. Page numbers may be placed in the margins, but no text may appear there.\n+Amicus Briefs. An amicus brief may not be filed without leave of the presiding judge. The brief must specifically set forth the interest of the amicus curiae in the outcome of the litigation.\n+Length. Unless another local civil rule provides otherwise, a brief must not exceed 25 pages (excluding the table of contents and table of authorities). A reply brief must not exceed 10 pages. Permission to file a brief in excess of these page limitations will be granted by the presiding judge only for extraordinary and compelling reasons.\n+Table of Contents and Authorities. A brief in excess of 10 pages must contain:\n+a table of contents with page references; and\n+an alphabetically arranged table of cases, statutes, and other authorities cited, with page references to the location of all citations.\n+Citations to Appendix. If a party’s motion or response is accompanied by an appendix, the party’s brief must include citations to each page of the appendix that supports each assertion that the party makes concerning any documentary or non- documentary materials on which the party relies to support or oppose the motion.\n+Disclosure of Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.\n+A brief prepared using generative artificial intelligence must disclose this fact on the first page under the heading “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.” If the presiding judge so directs, the party filing the brief must disclose the specific parts prepared using generative artificial intelligence.\n+“Generative Artificial Intelligence” means a computer tool (whether referred to as “Generative Artificial Intelligence” or by another name) that is capable of generating new content (such as images and text) in response to a submitted prompt (such as a query) by learning from a large reference database of examples.\n+A party who files a brief that does not contain the disclosure required by subsection (f)(1) of this rule certifies that no part of the brief was prepared using generative artificial intelligence.\n+7.3 - Confirmation of Informal Leave of Court\n+When a presiding judge informally grants leave, such as an extension of time to file a response, an attorney for the party to whom leave is granted must file a document confirming the leave and must serve the document on all other parties.\n+7.4 - Certificate of Interested Persons\n+The initial responsive pleading or motion filed in lieu of a responsive pleading that a defendant files in a civil action must be accompanied by a separately signed certificate of interested persons that complies with LR3.1(c) or 3.2(e). If the defendant concurs in the accuracy of another party’s previously-filed certificate, the defendant may adopt that certificate.\n+7.5 - Page Limits in Death Penalty Habeas Cases.\n+In any post-conviction proceeding seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence, the following page limits (excluding pages that contain a table of contents and table of authorities) apply:\n+the application, motion, or petition, and any supporting brief memorandum (whether filed contemporaneously with—or after—the application, motion, or petition), must not exceed 100 pages in total;\n+the answer to the application, motion, or petition, and any supporting brief or memorandum (whether filed contemporaneously with, or after, the answer), must not exceed 100 pages in total; and\n+the reply, and any supporting brief or memorandum (whether filed contemporaneously with, or after, the reply), must not exceed 25 pages in total.\n+9.1 - Social Security and Black Lung Cases\n+[REPEALED]\n+10.1 - Required Form.\n+In addition to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each pleading, motion, or other paper must:\n+contain on its face a title clearly identifying each included pleading, motion, or other paper;\n+contain a signature block that sets forth the attorney’s bar number for the jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted to practice, and a facsimile number and e-mail address where information may be sent to the attorney;\n+use a page size of 81⁄2 x 11 inches;\n+be typed, printed, or legibly handwritten on numbered pages; and\n+when submitted on paper, unless otherwise provided by the local civil rules or order of the presiding judge, be two-hole punched at the top and either stapled in the upper, left-hand corner or secured with a durable fastener at the top.\n+11.1 - Electronic Signature.\n+What Constitutes Electronic Signature. [REPEALED]\n+Requirements for Electronic Signature. [REPEALED]\n+Certification of Signature of Another Person. By submitting a document by electronic means and representing the consent of another person on the document, an attorney who submits the document certifies that the document has been properly signed.\n+Requirements for Another Person's Electronic Signature. An attorney who submits a document by electronic means that is signed by another person—including by a moving party under LR 40.1—must:\n+include a scanned image of the other person’s signature, or represent the consent of the other person in a manner permitted or required by the presiding judge; and\n+maintain the signed paper copy of the document for one year after final disposition of the case.\n+12.1 - Motion for More Definite Statement.\n+[REPEALED]\n+15.1 - Motions to Amend.\n+When Filed on Paper. When a party files a motion for leave to file an amended pleading that, if leave is granted, will be filed on paper, the party must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion. The party must also submit with the motion an original and a judge's copy of the proposed pleading. The original and judge's copy must neither be physically attached to the motion nor made exhibits to the motion. The original of the proposed pleading must contain the original signature of the signing attorney. If leave is granted, the clerk will file the original of the amended pleading.\n+When Filed by Electronic Means. When a party files by electronic means a motion for leave to file an amended pleading, the party must attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion as an exhibit. If leave is granted, the amended pleading will be deemed filed as of the date of the order granting leave, or as otherwise specified by the presiding judge, and the clerk will file a copy of the amended pleading.\n+16.1 - Exemptions from Pretrial Scheduling and Management.\n+The following categories of cases are exempt from the scheduling and planning requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b):\n+actions for social security benefits, including appeals from decisions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and black lung cases subject to LR 9.1;\n+prisoner civil rights complaints filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.;\n+forfeiture actions;\n+cases filed by the United States Attorney for collection of promissory notes payable to the United States or any government agency;\n+bankruptcy appeals;\n+cases involving pro se plaintiffs;\n+habeas corpus complaints filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255;\n+petitions for enforcement of an Internal Revenue Service summons;\n+actions for review of the administrative action of any federal agency; and\n+all cases not reported by the clerk for statistical purposes as filed cases.\n+16.2 - Authority of Magistrate Judges as to Scheduling Orders.\n+Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, a magistrate judge shall have the authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) to enter and modify scheduling orders.\n+16.3 - Settlement.\n+Settlement Negotiations. Parties in a civil action must make good-faith efforts to settle. Settlement negotiations must begin at the earliest possible time, well in advance of any pretrial conference.\n+Settlement Conferences. A judge will be available for settlement discussions. In nonjury cases the presiding judge will not discuss settlement figures unless requested to do so by all concerned parties.\n+16.4 - Pretrial Order.\n+Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, a pretrial order must be submitted to the presiding judge at least 14 days before the scheduled date for trial. All attorneys are responsible for preparing the pretrial order, which must contain the following:\n+a summary of the claims and defenses of each party;\n+a statement of stipulated facts;\n+a list of contested issues of fact;\n+a list of contested issues of law;\n+an estimate of the length of trial;\n+a list of any additional matters that might aid in the disposition of the case;\n+the signature of each attorney; and\n+a place for the date and the signature of the presiding judge.\n+23.1 - Complaint.\n+A complaint alleging a class action must bear in its title the designation “COMPLAINT- CLASS ACTION,” and must contain a separate heading entitled “Class Action Allegations.”\n+23.2 - Motion for Certification; Briefs.\n+Within 90 days of filing a class action complaint, or at such other time as the presiding judge by order directs, an attorney for the plaintiff must move for certification. A brief must accompany the motion for certification and must specifically set out the following:\n+the appropriate sections of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 under which the suit is properly maintainable as a class action;\n+specific factual allegations concerning the alleged class, including:\n+the approximate number of class members;\n+the definition of the class and any subclasses;\n+the distinguishing and common characteristics of class members, such as geography, time, and common financial incentives;\n+questions of law and fact that are common to the class; and\n+in actions asserting a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), allegations concerning the findings required by that section;\n+the basis of the named plaintiff’s claim to be an adequate representative of the class, including financial responsibility to fund the action;\n+the basis for determining any required jurisdictional amount;\n+the type and estimated expense of notice to be given to class members, and the source of funds from which notice costs will be paid;\n+the discovery necessary for a class certification hearing and the estimated time necessary for such discovery; and\n+all arrangements for payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees\n+23.3 - Class Notice Responses.\n+Once a case is conditionally certified as a class action and the presiding judge requires that notice be given to potential class members, the following rules apply:\n+if there are fewer than 1,000 potential class members, the presiding judge may require that notification responses be sent directly to the clerk; but\n+if there are 1,000 or more potential class members, the presiding judge may require that notification responses be sent to a United States Postal Service box in the name of the clerk. Plaintiff must pay the fees for the box, but such fees will be taxed as costs.\n+The presiding judge may name an individual to collect, account for, and tabulate notice responses. Plaintiff must pay such individual a reasonable fee for these services, as determined by the presiding judge, but such fee will be taxed as costs.\n+26.1 - Initial Disclosures Not Required.\n+[REPEALED 12-1-00]\n+26.2 - Exchanging Exhibits, Exhibit Lists, and Witness Lists; Designating Deposition Excerpts.\n+Exchanging Exhibits. All exhibits that a party intends to offer at trial, except those offered solely for impeachment, must be marked with gummed labels or tags that identify them by the exhibit number under which they will be offered at trial, and must be exchanged with opposing parties at least 14 days before the scheduled date for trial. When practicable, a copy of such exhibits must be furnished to the presiding judge at a time and in a manner prescribed by the presiding judge.\n+Exchanging Exhibit and Witness Lists. At least 14 days before the scheduled trial date, the parties must file with the clerk and deliver to opposing parties and the court reporter, separate lists of exhibits and witnesses, except those offered solely for impeachment.\n+Designating Deposition Excerpts. The parties must designate, in lists delivered to opposing parties and filed with the clerk at least 14 days before the scheduled trial date, the portions of any depositions to be offered at trial.\n+40.1 - Motions for Continuance.\n+A motion for continuance of a trial setting must be signed by the moving party as well as by the party’s attorney of record. Unless the presiding judge orders otherwise, the granting of a motion for continuance will not extend or revive any deadline that has already expired in a case.\n+41.1 - Order of Dismissal.\n+[REPEALED]\n+42.1 - Motions to Consolidate.\n+Motions to consolidate civil actions, and all briefs and other papers concerning consolidation, must be served on an attorney for each party in each case sought to be consolidated. After consolidation, all pleadings, motions, or other papers must only bear the caption of the first case filed. All post-consolidation filings must also bear the legend “(Consolidated with [giving the docket numbers of all the other cases]).”\n+47.1 - Contact with Jurors.\n+A party, attorney, or representative of a party or attorney, shall not, before or after trial, contact any juror, prospective juror, or the relatives, friends, or associates of a juror or prospective juror, unless explicitly permitted to do so by the presiding judge.\n+51.1 - Requested Jury Charge.\n+[REPEALED 12-01-03]\n+52.1 - Proposed Findings in Nonjury Cases.\n+Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, at least 14 days before trial in all nonjury cases, each party must file with the clerk and serve on opposing parties proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties must submit such amendments to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as the presiding judge directs.\n+53.1 - Briefing Practice for Objections and Motions Concerning Orders, Reports, and Recommendations of Masters.\n+Brief. Objections or a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2) must be accompanied by a brief that sets forth the party’s contentions of fact and/or law, and argument and authorities, and complies with LR 7.2.\n+Response Brief. A response brief to objections or a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2) must comply with LR 7.2 and be filed within 21 days from the date the objections or motion is filed.\n+Reply Brief. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, a party who files objections or a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P 53(f)(2) may file a reply brief within 14 days from the date the response brief is filed. The brief must comply with LR 7.2.\n+Appendix Required. A party who relies on materials—including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials—to support or oppose objections or a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2) must include the materials in an appendix that complies with LR 7.1(i)(2)-(4).\n+Preparing the Record. A party who files objections or a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2) is responsible for preparing the record and—if necessary for disposition of the objections or motion—obtaining a hearing transcript. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, the transcript must be filed contemporaneously with the objections or motion.\n+54.1 - Time for Filing Bill of Costs.\n+A party awarded costs by final judgment or by judgment that a presiding judge directs be entered as final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) must apply to the clerk for taxation of such costs by filing a bill of costs in a form approved by the clerk. Unless otherwise provided by statute or by order of the presiding judge, the bill of costs must be filed with the clerk and served on any party entitled to such service no later than 14 days after the clerk enters the judgment on the docket.\n+55.1 - Failure to Obtain Default Judgment\n+If a defendant has been in default for 90 days, the presiding judge may require the plaintiff to move for entry of a default and a default judgment. If the plaintiff fails to do so within the prescribed time, the presiding judge will dismiss the action, without prejudice, as to that defendant.\n+55.2 - Default Judgments by the United States.\n+[REPEALED 9-1-11]\n+55.3 - Request for Entry of Default by Clerk.\n+Before the clerk is required to enter a default, the party requesting such entry must file with the clerk a written request for entry of default, submit a proposed form of entry of default, and file any other materials required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).\n+56.1 - Motion Practice Not Modified Generally.\n+Except as expressly modified, the motion practice prescribed by LR 7.1-7.3 is not affected by LR 56.2-56.7.\n+56.2 - Limits on Time for Filing and Number of Motions.\n+Time for Filing. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, no motion for summary judgment may be filed within 90 days of the trial setting.\n+Number. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, or permitted by law, a party may file no more than one motion for summary judgment.\n+56.3 - Content of Motion.\n+Except as provided in subsection (b) of this rule, a motion for summary judgment must, in addition to the contents required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a),\n+on the first page, under the heading “summary,” state concisely the elements of each claim or defense as to which summary judgment is sought, and\n+if the motion is accompanied by an appendix and it is necessary to cite support for an assertion about the absence or presence of a genuine dispute of fact, comply with LR 56.5(c).\n+A moving party may satisfy the requirements of subsection (a) of this rule by stating in its motion that each of the required matters will be set forth in the party’s brief.\n+If a moving party seeks summary judgment on fewer than all claims or defenses, the motion must be styled as a motion for partial summary judgment.\n+A motion for summary judgment must not contain argument and authorities.\n+56.4 - Content of Response\n+Except as provided in subsection (b) of this rule, a response to a motion for summary judgment must\n+state in reasonably concise terms why the responding party opposes the motion, and\n+if the response is accompanied by an appendix and it is necessary to cite support for an assertion about the absence or presence of a genuine dispute of fact, comply with LR 56.5(c).\n+A responding party may satisfy the requirements of subsection (a) of this rule by stating in its response that each of the required matters will be set forth in the party’s brief.\n+A response to a motion for summary judgment must not contain argument and authorities.\n+56.5 - Requirement of Brief; Briefing Requirements.\n+Brief Required. A summary judgment motion and a response must be accompanied by a brief that sets forth the argument and authorities on which the party relies in support of or opposition to a motion, and must contain the matters required by LR 56.3(a) or LR 56.4(a) if the party has opted to comply with those rules by including the required matters in its brief. Notwithstanding LR 5.1(c), the brief must be filed as a separate document from the motion or response that it supports.\n+Length of Briefs. The requirements of LR 7.2 apply to briefs filed pursuant to LR 56.5(a), except that, excluding the table of contents and table of authorities, the length of a principal brief must not exceed 50 pages and a reply brief must not exceed 25 pages. The presiding judge, by order or other appropriate notice issued in a civil action, may restrict the length of briefs to fewer pages than are permitted by this rule.\n+Citations to Appendix. When citing materials in the record, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) or (B), a party must support each assertion by citing each relevant page of its own or the opposing party’s appendix.\n+56.6 - Requirement of Appendix; Appendix Requirements.\n+Appendix Required. A party who relies on materials in the record—including, depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials— to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment must include the materials in an appendix.\n+Appendix Requirements.\n+​The appendix must be assembled as a self-contained document, separate from the motion and brief or response and brief.\n+Each page of the appendix must measure 81⁄2 x 11 inches. Non- documentary materials (e.g., videotapes and other physical materials) and oversized materials (e.g., maps and schematic drawings) that are included in the appendix must be placed in an envelope that measures 9 x 12 inches.\n+Each page of the appendix must be numbered legibly in the lower, right- hand corner. The first page must be numbered as “1,” and succeeding pages must be numbered sequentially through the last page of the entire appendix (i.e., the numbering system must not re-start with each succeeding document in the appendix). An envelope that contains non- documentary or oversized materials must be numbered as if it were a single page.\n+56.7 - Limit on Supplemental Materials.\n+Except for the motions, responses, replies, briefs, and appendices required by these rules, a party may not, without the permission of the presiding judge, file supplemental pleadings, briefs, authorities, or evidence.\n+58.1 - Proposed Judgments\n+Each proposed judgment must be set forth on a separate document.\n+62.1 - Supersedeas Bond.\n+[REPEALED]\n+62.2 - Stay of Inter-District Transfer Order.\n+Unless all affected parties consent to the transfer, an order that transfers a case to a district court outside the Fifth Circuit is stayed for 21 days from the date the order is entered on the docket.\n+67.1 - Deposit of Money in Court Registry.\n+[REPEALED 09-02-14]\n+71.1 - Condemnation of Property\n+Where the United States files separate condemnation actions and a single declaration of taking relating to the separate actions, the clerk may establish a master file for the declaration of taking. The single declaration in such master file shall constitute a filing of the declaration in each individual action to which it relates.\n+72.1 - Briefing Practice Concerning Objections to Magistrate Judge Orders in Nondispositive Matters.\n+Brief. Objections filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) must be accompanied by a brief that sets forth the party’s contentions of fact and/or law, and argument and authorities, and complies with LR 7.2.\n+Response Brief. A response brief to objections filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) must comply with LR 7.2 and be filed within 21 days from the date the objections are filed.\n+Reply Brief. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, a party who files objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) may file a reply brief within 14 days from the date the response brief is filed. The brief must comply with LR 7.2.\n+Appendix Required. A party who relies on materials—including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials—to support or oppose objections filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) must include the materials in an appendix that complies with LR 7.1(i)(2)-(4).\n+Preparing the Record. A party who files objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) is responsible for preparing the record and – if necessary for disposition of the objections – obtaining a hearing transcript. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, the transcript must be filed contemporaneously with the objections.\n+72.2 - Briefing Practice Concerning Objections to Magistrate Judge Recommendations on Dispositive Motions and Prisoner Petitions.\n+Brief. Objections filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) must be accompanied by a brief that sets forth the party’s contentions of fact and/or law, and argument and authorities, and complies with LR 7.2.\n+Response Brief. A response brief to objections filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) must comply with LR 7.2.\n+Reply Brief. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, a party who files objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) may file a reply brief within 14 days from the date the response brief is filed. The brief must comply with LR 7.2.\n+Appendix Required. A party who relies on materials—including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials—to support or oppose objections filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) must include the materials in an appendix that complies with LR 7.1(i)(2)-(4).\n+Preparing the Record. A party who files objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) is responsible for preparing the record and – if necessary for disposition of the objections – obtaining a hearing transcript. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, the transcript must be filed contemporaneously with the objections.\n+77.1 - Notice of Orders and Judgments.\n+Furnishing Copies of Orders and Judgments. Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, the clerk shall furnish a copy of each order and judgment to counsel of record by first class mail or by electronic transmission. Where a party is represented by more than one attorney of record, the attorney designated in accordance with LR 77.1(b) or (c) shall receive copies of orders and judgments and distribute them to co- counsel for the same party who have not received a notice of electronic filing from ECF.\n+Designation of Counsel to Receive Orders and Judgments. The clerk shall designate an attorney to receive copies of orders and judgments, in the following manner:\n+the first attorney to sign a plaintiff’s complaint;\n+the first attorney to sign a defendant’s initial responsive pleading;\n+the first attorney to sign a removing party’s notice of removal, and the first attorney listed on the civil cover sheet and/or supplemental civil cover sheet for the remaining parties; and\n+the first attorney listed on the bankruptcy docket sheet for each party in a bankruptcy withdrawal or bankruptcy appeal.\n+Change in Designation of Counsel. If the attorney designated to receive orders and judgments desires that another attorney be substituted for this purpose, the attorney must request substitution in the manner prescribed by the clerk.\n+79.1 - Case Files\n+Official Record. The electronic version of a document maintained on ECF, or the paper version of a document not so maintained, is the official record of the court.\n+Inspection of Files. Except as otherwise limited by rule or by court order, the electronic portion of an original file in a pending or closed case shall be available for public inspection in the clerk’s office. The paper portion of an original file shall be available in the division where the case is filed, unless the file has been removed to a federal records center. The clerk shall not release the paper portion of a file from the clerk’s custody without the permission of the presiding judge, or except as permitted by subsection (d) of this rule.\n+Inspection of Closed Files. [REPEALED 9-1-06]\n+Copies of Files. Upon request, the clerk shall provide copies of the contents of case files, including transcripts of oral depositions and court proceedings. The clerk shall charge the fee established by the court for this service. When large numbers of copies are requested, the clerk is authorized to release the file to a commercial copying service, and to direct that the copy fee be paid directly to the service by the requesting party.\n+79.2 - Disposition of Exhibits.\n+Release While Case Pending. Without an order from the presiding judge, no exhibit in the custody of the court may be removed from the clerk’s office while the case is pending.\n+Removal or Destruction After Final Disposition of Case. All exhibits in the custody of the court must be removed from the clerk’s office within 60 days after final disposition of a case. The attorney who introduced the exhibits shall be responsible for their removal. Any exhibit not removed within the 60-day period may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the clerk.\n+79.3 - Sealed Documents\n+A party may file under seal any document that a statute or rule requires or permits to be so filed. The term \"document,\" as used in this rule, means any pleading, motion, other paper, or physical item that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit or require to be filed.\n+If no statute or rule requires or permits a document to be filed under seal, a party may file a document under seal only on motion and by permission of the presiding judge.\n+When a party files a motion for leave to file a document under seal, the party may file the motion under seal and must attach the proposed sealed document as an exhibit. If leave is granted, the sealed document will be deemed filed as of the date of the order granting leave, or as otherwise specified by the presiding judge, and the clerk will file a copy of the sealed document.\n+79.4 - Disposition of Sealed Documents.\n+Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, all sealed documents maintained on paper will be deemed unsealed 60 days after final disposition of a case. A party that desires that such a document remain sealed must move for this relief before the expiration of the 60-day period. The clerk may store, transfer, or otherwise dispose of unsealed documents according to the procedure that governs publicly available court records.\n+80.1 - Court Reporter’s Fees.\n+[REPEALED 9-1-04]\n+81.1 - Required Form of Documents to be Filed Upon Removal.\n+The party or parties that remove a civil action from state court must provide the following to the clerk for filing:\n+a completed civil cover sheet;\n+a supplemental civil cover sheet; and\n+if there is a “related case,” as defined by LR 3.3(b)(3) or (b)(4), a notice of related case that complies with LR 3.3(a); and\n+a notice of removal with a copy of each of the following attached to both the original and the judge's copy—\n+an index of all documents that clearly identifies each document and indicates the date the document was filed in state court;\n+a copy of the docket sheet in the state court action;\n+each document filed in the state court action, except discovery material (if filed on paper, each document must be individually tabbed and arranged in chronological order according to the state court file date; if filed by electronic means, each document must be filed as a separate attachment); and\n+a separately signed certificate of interested persons that complies with LR 3.1(c) or 3.2(e).\n+If the documents listed in subsection (a) of this rule are filed on paper, they must be two-hole punched at the top, and either stapled in the upper, left-hand corner or secured at the top with durable fasteners if too thick to staple. If these documents are too voluminous to be filed as a single unit, each unit must be secured in the manner required by this subsection (b) and must contain a cover sheet that identifies the case by its caption and by the civil action number assigned by the clerk.\n+81.2 - Certificate of Interested Persons.\n+Within 21 days after the notice of removal is filed, the plaintiff shall file a separately signed certificate of interested persons that complies with LR 3.1(c) or 3.2(e). If the plaintiff concurs in the accuracy of another party’s previously-filed certificate, the plaintiff may adopt that certificate.\n+83.1 - Application of Rules by a Presiding Judge.\n+Notwithstanding the local civil rules, a presiding judge may direct the parties to proceed in any manner that the judge deems just and expeditious.\n+83.2 - Miscellaneous and Special Orders.\n+The clerk shall maintain in each division a copy of all miscellaneous and special orders adopted by the court, and shall make these orders available for inspection and copying.\n+83.3 - Assignment of Cases.\n+The district judges shall determine the method by which all cases are assigned to individual judges.\n+83.4 - Conduct of Attorneys at Trial or Hearing.\n+Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, during a trial or hearing, attorneys must:\n+stand when making objections or otherwise addressing the presiding judge;\n+use the lectern while examining or cross-examining witnesses;\n+when examining a witness, refrain from making statements, comments, or remarks before or after asking a question;\n+limit to one attorney for each party the examination or cross-examination of a witness; and\n+in making an objection, state plainly and briefly the grounds for objecting and not offer argument unless requested by the presiding judge.\n+Rule 83.4.1\n+An attorney appearing in a civil action must comply with the standards of litigation conduct adopted in Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings & Loan Ass’n, 121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (en banc).\n+83.5 - Clerk's Fees.\n+[REPEALED 9-1-04]\n+83.6 - Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.\n+A party desiring to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs must complete the appropriate form and file it with the clerk.\n+83.7 - Admission of Attorneys.\n+Attorneys must fulfill the following requirements to be admitted to practice in this court:\n+Eligibility for Admission. Any attorney licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Texas, or by the highest court of any state or the District of Columbia, may be admitted to the bar of this court if the attorney is of good personal and professional character and is a member in good standing of the bar where the attorney is licensed.\n+Procedure for Admission. Attorneys desiring admission to the bar of this court must complete an application for admission, to be approved by a district judge, and except as provided in subsection (c) of this rule, be introduced by a member in good standing of the bar of this court, and take the required oath or affirmation before a judge of this court. After the oath or affirmation is administered, and the applicant has paid the appropriate fee, the clerk shall issue a certificate stating that the attorney is admitted to practice before this court.\n+Admission Before Judges of Other Districts. Any nonresident attorney who has completed all requirements for admission to the bar of this court may, with the approval of a district judge of the division where the application is pending, have the oath of admission administered by a judge in another district. The nonresident attorney must file the oath with the clerk and pay the appropriate fee before the attorney’s name will be added to the roll of attorneys for this district.\n+Admission is Discretionary. All admissions to practice before this court shall be discretionary with the district judge reviewing the application for admission.\n+83.8 - Loss of Membership and Discipline of Attorneys.\n+Loss of Membership. A member of the bar of this court is subject to suspension or disbarment by the court under the following circumstances:\n+if for any reason other than nonpayment of dues, failure to meet continuing legal education requirements, or voluntary resignation unrelated to a disciplinary proceeding or problem, an attorney loses, either temporarily or permanently, the right to practice law before:\n+the courts of the State of Texas;\n+the highest court of any other state or the District of Columbia; or\n+any federal court; or\n+if an attorney fails to maintain the right to practice law before the highest court of at least one state or the District of Columbia, unless the member’s failure to maintain such right results from nonpayment of dues or failure to meet continuing legal education requirements.\n+Grounds for Disciplinary Action. A presiding judge, after giving opportunity to show cause to the contrary, may take any appropriate disciplinary action against a member of the bar for:\n+conduct unbecoming a member of the bar;\n+failure to comply with any rule or order of this court;\n+unethical behavior;\n+inability to conduct litigation properly;\n+conviction by any court of a felony or crime involving dishonesty or false statement; or\n+having been publicly or privately disciplined by any court, bar, court agency or committee.\n+Appeal of Disciplinary Action [REPEALED 9-1-04]\n+Reporting by Members. Any member of the bar of this court who has:\n+lost or relinquished, temporarily or permanently, the right to practice in any court of record;\n+been disciplined, publicly or privately, by any court, bar, court agency, or committee; or\n+been convicted of a felony or crime involving dishonesty or false statement,\n+shall promptly report such fact in writing to the clerk, supplying full details and copies of all pertinent documents reflecting, or explaining, such action.\n+Unethical Behavior. The term “unethical behavior,” as used in this rule, means conduct undertaken in or related to a civil action in this court that violates the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.\n+Readmission. An attorney applying for readmission to the bar of this court must submit an application for readmission, together with the following materials:\n+a full disclosure concerning the attorney’s loss or relinquishment of membership in the bar of this court; and\n+all information required by subsection (d) of this rule concerning facts that occurred prior to the date of application for readmission.\n+Appointment of Counsel. A presiding judge shall have the right to appoint any member of the court’s bar to assist in the handling of any proceeding contemplated by or resulting from this rule. An attorney appointed under this rule shall perform as requested unless relieved from doing so. An attorney desiring relief from appointment must move for such relief, which will be granted only upon a showing of good cause.\n+Reciprocal Discipline.\n+A member of the bar who is subject to suspension or disbarment under LR 83.8(a) must be given written notice by the chief judge, or by a district judge designated by the chief judge, that the court intends to suspend or disbar the member. The notice must identify the ground for imposing reciprocal discipline and provide the member an opportunity to show cause, within the time prescribed by the notice, why the member should not be suspended or disbarred.\n+If the member does not respond to the notice, or responds but does not oppose reciprocal discipline, the chief judge or a designee district judge may enter an appropriate order after the prescribed time for a response expires or the response is received.\n+If the member responds and, in whole or in part, opposes reciprocal discipline, the chief judge, or a district judge designated by the chief judge, must designate three district judges to hear the matter. The decision of a majority of the three-judge panel concerning the appropriate discipline shall be the final ruling of this court.\n+83.9 - Attorneys Not Admitted to Practice Before this Court.\n+Eligibility to Appear. An attorney who is licensed to practice law by the highest court of any state or the District of Columbia, but who is not admitted to practice before this court, may represent a party in proceedings in this court only by permission of the presiding judge.\n+Application to Appear. Unless exempted by LR 83.11, an attorney who is not admitted to practice in this court, who desires to appear as counsel in a case, and who is eligible pursuant to subsection (a) of this rule to appear, shall apply for admission pro hac vice on a court-approved form and pay the applicable fee to the clerk.\n+Regulation of Attorneys Admitted Pro Hac Vice. By appearing in any case, an attorney becomes subject to the rules of this court.\n+83.10 - Requirement of Local Counsel.\n+Local Counsel Required. Unless exempted under LR 83.10(c) or by LR 83.11, local counsel is required in all cases where an attorney appearing in a case does not reside or maintain the attorney’s principal office in this district. “Local counsel” means a member of the bar of this court who resides or maintains the attorney’s principal office in this district.If the presiding judge so orders, local counsel may be subject to requirements such as residing or maintaining the attorney’s principal office within a specified distance from the courthouse in which the case is pending.\n+Duties of Local Counsel. Local counsel must be able to perform, on behalf of the party represented, any duty required by the presiding judge or the local civil rules of this court.\n+Exemption from Local Counsel Requirement. The presiding judge may exempt a party from the local counsel requirement in a case pending before the judge.\n+83.11 - Exemption from Admission to Practice, and from Requirement of Local Counsel, for Attorneys Appearing on Behalf of the United States Justice Department or the Attorney General of the State of Texas.\n+Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, an attorney appearing on behalf of the United States Justice Department or the Attorney General of the State of Texas, and who is eligible pursuant to LR 83.9(a) to appear in this court, shall be exempt from the requirements of LR 83.9(b) and 83.10, but shall otherwise be subject to all requirements applicable to attorneys who have been granted leave to appear pro hac vice.\n+83.12 - Withdrawal or Substitution of Attorney.\n+Except as provided in subsection (b), (c), or (d) of this rule, an attorney desiring to withdraw in any case must file a motion to withdraw. This motion must, in addition to the matters required by LR 7.1, specify the reasons requiring withdrawal and provide the name and address of the succeeding attorney. If the succeeding attorney is not known, the motion must set forth the name, address, and telephone number of the client and either bear the client’s signature approving withdrawal or state specifically why, after due diligence, the attorney was unable to obtain the client’s signature.\n+When an Assistant United States Attorney enters an appearance in a case, another Assistant United States Attorney may replace the attorney by filing a notice of substitution that identifies the attorney being replaced. Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, the notice effects the withdrawal of the attorney being replaced.\n+When the Federal Public Defender is appointed to represent a party and an Assistant Federal Public Defender enters an appearance in the case, another Assistant Federal Public Defender may replace the attorney who has entered an appearance by filing a notice of substitution that identifies the attorney being replaced. Unless the presiding judge otherwise directs, the notice effects the withdrawal of the attorney being replaced.\n+When an attorney desiring to withdraw is to be replaced simultaneously, the succeeding attorney must file a motion to substitute counsel. If the presiding judge grants the motion, the order effects both the substitution of the succeeding attorney and the withdrawal of the attorney being replaced. This subsection (d) does not supersede subsection (b) or (c) of this rule.\n+83.13 - Change of Contact Information or Name.\n+Attorney Who is Not a Registered User of ECF. When an attorney who is not a registered user of ECF changes the attorney’s business address, e-mail address, telephone number, facsimile number, or name, the attorney must promptly notify the clerk, using the approved method, and the presiding judge, in writing, in each pending case.\n+Attorney Who is a Registered User of ECF. When an attorney who is a registered user of ECF changes the attorney’s business address, e-mail address, telephone number, facsimile number, or name, the attorney must promptly change this information in ECF, following procedures set forth in the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual.\n+83.14 - Parties Proceeding Pro Se.\n+Any party proceeding on the party’s own behalf is considered pro se. Pro se parties must read and follow the local civil rules of this court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n+83.15 - Attorney as a Witness.\n+[REPEALED 9-1-04]\n+83.16 - Dress and Conduct.\n+All persons present in a courtroom where a trial, hearing, or other proceeding is in progress must dress and conduct themselves in a manner demonstrating respect for the court. The presiding judge shall have the discretion to establish appropriate standards of dress and conduct.\n+83.17 - Weapons Forbidden.\n+Firearms and other weapons are prohibited in areas of buildings designated for court use. Such weapons may be carried by the United States Marshal, the marshal’s deputies, courtroom security personnel, and other law enforcement officers to whom a presiding judge has given authority.\n+83.18 - Photographs, Broadcasting, Recording, and Television Forbidden.\n+Except as the presiding judge permits under the authority of a United States statute, a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a policy adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, or an order of The Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit, no person may photograph, electronically record, televise, or broadcast a judicial proceeding. This rule shall not apply to ceremonial proceedings or electronic recordings by an official court reporter or other authorized court personnel.\n+Local Rules\n+Civil Rules\n+Criminal Rules\n+Bankruptcy Rules\n+Federal Rules\n+Appellate Rules\n+Special Orders\n+S.O. No. 2: Orders Adopting Rules\n+S.O. No. 3: Case Assignment\n+S.O. No. 19: Sealed Documents\n+Miscellaneous Orders\n+Federal Pattern Jury Instructions\n+Opinions\n+Local Rules (PDF)\n+Please click the following links to download a pdf copy of Local Rules.\n+Civil Rules (PDF)\n+Criminal Rules (PDF)\n+Bankruptcy Rules (PDF)\n+Appendices (PDF)\n+Home\n+Contact Us\n+Careers\n+ECF\n+Forms\n+Links\n+Judicial Seminar Disclosure\n+Privacy | Sitemap","id":"96e5ef6c211ca570449a054afde6c3246b56bbfd39240a6b2e0d29170df5d568","newHash":"5c258339c55d3a976715a4edd325e5f4e3a198a76fc4b54290c48af156a92f45","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/civil-rules","snapshot":"snapshots/5c258339c55d3a976715a4edd325e5f4e3a198a76fc4b54290c48af156a92f45.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/civil-rules","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.794461+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@\n+Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk | Northern District of Texas | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+Directory\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+Northern District of Texas\n+Reed O'Connor, Chief Judge\n+Karen Mitchell, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search\n+Court Information\n+Judges\n+Rules & Orders\n+Filing\n+Resources\n+FAQs\n+Attorneys\n+Jurors\n+Pro Se\n+Forms & Records\n+Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk\n+You are here\n+Home » Judges » District Judges\n+Chambers: 806-468-3830\n+Court Reporter: 806-468-3800\n+Chambers Online Helpdesk\n+Courtroom Technology\n+205 SE 5th Avenue, Room 123\n+Box F-13248\n+Amarillo, Texas 79101-1559\n+Courtroom: 1st Floor\n+Case Letter Designation: (Z)\n+Judge Tabs\n+Judge Specific Requirements\n+Submission of Sealed Documents\n+The Court \"heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial record\" and discourages such requests. June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 520–21 (5th Cir. 2022). The parties may agree between themselves to designate documents \"confidential\" during discovery. The typical standard there involves the parties asserting whether they want that material in the public domain. But filing that material with the Court under seal is a different matter altogether. See Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Finance Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir. 2021).\n+A party or parties seeking to file a specific document under seal must: (1) move for leave to do so; (2) brief the legal authorities indicating the risks of disclosure outweigh the public’s right to know; and (3) explain that no other viable alternative to sealing exists. See Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Family Planning & Preventative Health Servs., Inc. v. Kaufman, No. 1750535, Doc. 00514098372, at 2 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2017). All facts recited in any such motion must be verified by the oath or declaration of a person or persons with personal knowledge. See United States v. Edwards, 823 F.2d 111, 119 (5th Cir. 1987). Parties should not seek to file under seal publicly available information. June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521. If any party wishes to submit \"confidential\" information to the Court, the submission must be filed only in a motion to file under seal.\n+Submission of Proposed Orders\n+All motions require a proposed order that must be emailed to Kacsmaryk_Orders@txnd.uscourts.gov and must be in a Word format (not PDF). The subject line of the email must include the case number and the document number of the referenced motion.\n+Standard of Dress Pursuant to LR 83.16 and LCrR 53.2\n+The following attire is prohibited in the courtroom: shorts, flip flops, tank tops, halter tops, T-shirts with graphic writing, hats, sunglasses, and tights/athletic wear.\n+Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence\n+All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must, together with their notice of appearance, file on the docket a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being. These platforms are incredibly powerful and have many uses in the law: form divorces, discovery requests, suggested errors in documents, anticipated questions at oral argument. But legal briefing is not one of them. Here’s why. These platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up—even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth). Unbound by any sense of duty, honor, or justice, such programs act according to computer code rather than conviction, based on programming rather than principle. Any party believing a platform has the requisite accuracy and reliability for legal briefing may move for leave and explain why. Accordingly, the Court will strike any filing from a party who fails to file a certificate on the docket attesting that they have read the Court’s judge-specific requirements and understand that they will be held responsible under Rule 11 for the contents of any filing that they sign and submit to the Court, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing. A template Certificate Regarding Judge-Specific Requirements is provided here.\n+Standard Forms\n+Forms for Civil Trial\n+Sample Pre-Trial Order\n+Sample Exhibit List\n+Sample Witness List\n+Biography\n+Birth: 1977\n+Year Service Began: 2019\n+Appointed by: President Donald J. Trump\n+Education: Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, from Abilene Christian University in 1999; Juris Doctor with honors from the University of Texas Law School 2003\n+Legal Practice: Deputy General Counsel, First Liberty Institute 2014 - 2019; Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas 2008 - 2014; Associate, Baker Botts, L.L.P. 2003 - 2008\n+Current Memberships: State Bar of Texas; The Federalist Society; Texas Review of Law & Politics; The Philadelphia Society\n+District Judges\n+Chief Judge Reed O'Connor (O)\n+Judge Sam A. Lindsay (L)\n+Judge Ed Kinkeade (K)\n+Judge Karen Gren Scholer (S)\n+Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (Z)\n+Judge Mark T. Pittman (P)\n+Judge James Wesley Hendrix (H)\n+Judge Brantley Starr (X)\n+Judge Ada Brown (E)\n+Judge Kasdin M. Mitchell (M)\n+Senior Judge A. Joe Fish (G)\n+Senior Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater (D)\n+Senior Judge Sam R. Cummings (C)\n+Senior Judge Terry R. Means (Y)\n+Senior Judge David C. Godbey (N)\n+Senior Judge Jane J. Boyle (B)\n+Magistrate Judges\n+Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton (BJ)\n+Judge Renee H. Toliver (BK)\n+Judge David L. Horan (BN)\n+Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr. (BP)\n+Judge Lee Ann Reno (BR)\n+Judge Rebecca Rutherford (BT)\n+Judge John R. Parker (BU)\n+Judge Amanda 'Amy' R. Burch (BV)\n+Judge Brian McKay (BW)\n+Judge Specific Requirements\n+Oath\n+Complaints\n+Judicial Seminar Disclosure\n+MDL Cases\n+Judge History\n+Opinions\n+Duty Judge Roster\n+Hearing Schedules\n+Home\n+Contact Us\n+Careers\n+ECF\n+Forms\n+Links\n+Judicial Seminar Disclosure\n+Privacy | Sitemap","id":"6914e3f812233702a721fc0b41ed4e60e01ada330487825148f6e910824b4fae","newHash":"ee697ab2a48bb2ce6263cda6a9a5b7f4ba8c8f6216354291727118a6dd45d3b0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk","snapshot":"snapshots/ee697ab2a48bb2ce6263cda6a9a5b7f4ba8c8f6216354291727118a6dd45d3b0.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-matthew-kacsmaryk","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.784161+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@\n+Judge Brantley Starr | Northern District of Texas | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+Directory\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+Northern District of Texas\n+Reed O'Connor, Chief Judge\n+Karen Mitchell, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search\n+Court Information\n+Judges\n+Rules & Orders\n+Filing\n+Resources\n+FAQs\n+Attorneys\n+Jurors\n+Pro Se\n+Forms & Records\n+Judge Brantley Starr\n+You are here\n+Home » Judges » District Judges\n+Chambers: 214-753-2160\n+Courtroom Deputy: Kevin Frye 214-753-2346\n+Court Reporter: Kelli Ann Willis 214-753-2654\n+Courtroom Technology\n+1100 Commerce Street, Room 1528\n+Dallas, Texas 75242\n+Courtroom: 1525\n+Case Letter Designation: (X)\n+Judge Tabs\n+Judge Specific Requirements\n+Copy Requirements for Electronic Filing\n+Effective 3/24/2020 – Judge Starr has temporarily suspended the requirement for a judge’s copy of a document electronically filed. A judge’s copy of a document electronically filed is not required.\n+Submission of Proposed Orders\n+All motions require a proposed order that must be emailed to Starr_Orders@txnd.uscourts.gov and must be in a Word format (not PDF). The subject line of the email must include the case number and the document number of the referenced motion.\n+Certificate regarding Artificial Intelligence\n+Judge Starr no longer requires a certification on the use of artificial intelligence in light of the Court's adoption of Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) and Local Criminal Rule 47.2(e), requiring the disclosure of the use of generative AI in documents that lawyers prepared using generative AI.\n+Attorney/Litigant Conduct\n+All counsel and parties, including self-represented (pro se) parties, must read and comply with the following applicable rules and authorities. By litigating before Judge Starr, attorneys and pro se parties represent that they have read, and will abide by, the following:\n+Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings & Loan Assoc., 121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Tex. 1988);\n+The Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, if a civil case, or the Local Criminal Rules, if a criminal case;\n+The Texas Lawyer’s Creed; and\n+The Texas Rules of Professional Conduct.\n+Any attorney admitted in the Northern District of Texas or admitted pro hac vice, represents that they are willing and able to appear in person for any hearing, conference, or proceeding when so ordered by the Court. The Court will endeavor to provide all parties at least 7 days' notice for in-person hearings. Failure to comply with this requirement—either by failing to make such an affirmation or by failing to appear in person when directed—may result in sanctions the Court deems appropriate, including possible revocation of the attorney’s pro hac vice status. Any lawyer seeking a continuance of a hearing, conference, or proceeding set by the Court must explain, in detail, his or her reason for being unable to appear in-person.\n+Criminal Sentencing\n+Filings within 1 Week of Sentencing: The Court strongly desires to read and carefully consider each filing before sentencing. If either party makes a filing less than 7 days before the date of the sentencing hearing, the Court reserves the right to unilaterally reset the sentencing for a future week.\n+Character letters: Counsel should not read from character letters already submitted to the Court. No lawyer reads their sentencing memo. The Court already read it. Same thing with character letters.\n+Lengthy sentencings: Lengthy sentencings: Sentencings last 30–45 minutes on average. The Court plans its criminal calendar around this average. The Court will allow victim or character witnesses and counsel argument on 3553(a) factors and variance arguments up to 30 minutes of time per sentencing for that side (not including allocution or argument or witnesses on objections). For example, the government gets up to 30 minutes to argue 3553(a) factors and have victim impact statements. And the defense has up to 30 minutes to argue 3553(a) factors and have character witnesses. If you anticipate needing more time than this, file a motion with the Court at least 1 week before sentencing so the Court can allocate the proper amount of time to your sentencing and not set other cases the Court cannot hear that day. If you exceed your allotted time on the day of sentencing, the Court may stop you in order to manage its docket.\n+Revocations: The Court will not proceed with your revocation unless there is an email with all counsel to the courtroom deputy stating the parties’ agreement on what allegations the defendant is pleading true to and what the defendant is pleading not true to.\n+Trial\n+Pre-Trial Filings\n+Deposition Designations: The Court wants parties to submit deposition page/line designations and objections for only witnesses who are unavailable under the Federal Rules or Civil Procedure 32. There is no need for deposition designations for live witnesses. The Court’s scheduling orders require a joint filing with all designations, citing to the Federal Rule of Evidence number for each page/line objection, an explanation of objections and responses, and the full depositions. The purpose of the objections and responses in explanatory form is to enable the Court to rule on them in writing. This means the written explanation and response substitutes for a sidebar discussion of an objection. The Court will rule on the objections in time to edit the deposition video or transcript before trial.\n+Voir dire: The Court asks a round of voir dire questions first, focusing on who prospective jurors know, whether they have served as jurors before, what the burden of proof is, whether they can follow the law, and whether they have valid excuses to not serve. The Court also allows counsel to ask their own questions of the venire panel for 15–30 minutes per side, depending on the case. After voir dire. The Court handles any excuses first, then challenges for cause, and then allows the parties to exercise their preemptory strikes.\n+Proposed voir dire questions: When counsel files proposed voir dire, these questions should include questions counsel would like to ask (not questions counsel wants the Court to ask). The Court will not allow questions of the venire panel it has not preapproved at the pretrial conference (other than reasonable follow up questions). All issues should be resolved at the pre-trial conference.\n+Settlements During Trial:\n+Parties should strive to settle at least two weeks before trial.\n+However, if parties settle during trial, the terms of the settlement agreement must be either filed on the docket in unredacted form or disclosed in open court for the case to be moot and the jury to be discharged. The parties only have a right to confidential settlement agreements before a jury is sworn in.\n+Exhibit Objections at Trial:\n+If time allows, the Court will rule on exhibit objections at the pretrial conference. Time rarely allows. If it doesn’t, the Court handles exhibit objections on the record but outside the hearing of the jury to the extent possible.\n+Counsel presenting testimony must disclose by email to opposing counsel and court staff at 6pm each evening the witnesses and exhibits it plans to introduce the following day. There is no need to list exhibits in the order counsel intends to take them up or group them with witnesses. Instead, counsel should list exhibits in numerical order.\n+By 8pm, opposing counsel must respond with which pretrial written objections it maintains in explanatory form, not shorthand form.\n+The Court will hear argument on those objections to the extent time allows before the jury arrives at 8:45am. These morning sessions on the record but without the jury typically begin at 8:30am.\n+The Court will reserve ruling on foundation or authenticity objections until trial when the witness sets the foundation, unless the foundation is set with a business records affidavit that complies with Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11). Note that with regard to emails, a business records affidavit from an entity like Google authenticating emails in a Gmail account overcomes hearsay and authenticity objections only for the header portion of the email and not the content of the email. United States v. Ayelotan, 917 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 2019). In addition, for the contents of an email to overcome the hearsay objection, the parties must satisfy Rule 803(6)’s five requirements with respect to each email. See In re Oil Spill, No. MDL 2179, 2012 WL 85447, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2012).\n+If the Court overrules all objections to an exhibit at the pretrial conference or in the morning session, it does not mean that exhibit is admitted into evidence. Judge Starr admits exhibits into evidence only in front of the jury and when a witness is on the stand.\n+When an exhibit is offered into evidence in front of the jury and with a witness, opposing counsel can refer to “prior objections,” and the Court can refer to its prior ruling without the need for a sidebar.\n+Exchanging Opening and Closing Demonstratives:\n+Must exchange by email proposed PowerPoints or other demonstratives by 6pm the night before opening and closing and must copy Court personnel.\n+Opposing counsel must object by email by 8pm.\n+The Court will rule on any objections the following morning after hearing argument.\n+Counsel must be prepared to make adjustments to demonstratives if the Court sustains an objection.\n+Demonstratives Marked for Identification v. Charts or Summaries in Evidence:\n+Generally speaking, the Court treats documents created for trial as demonstratives that get marked as exhibits for identification only. Such documents are not evidence and do not go back to the jury, but they may be published to the jury during trial.\n+The exception to this rule is for charts or summaries that are necessary to the jury’s understanding of the evidence. One example is a summary of voluminous evidence. Another example is an excerpt of evidence that is difficult to comprehend, such as a subpoena return from a social media platform that commingles relevant conversations with irrelevant ones.\n+Scope of Cross Examination and Recalling Witnesses:\n+Unless there is an agreement by the parties otherwise, the Court requires the scope of cross examination to not exceed the scope of direct examination (and recross to not exceed redirect).\n+If the defense has designated and subpoenaed a witness also on the plaintiff/government’s witness list, counsel should confer before the pretrial conference on whether they will call that witness once and allow wide-open cross.\n+Objections During Opening and Closing:\n+The Court highly disfavors objections during opening or closing, as attorneys frequently use them to disrupt the rhythm of opposing counsel’s argument.\n+The Court will call for a sidebar following an opening or closing, at which point opposing counsel may seek a curative instruction or new trial at that time.\n+The Court will interrupt any opening, call for a sidebar, and then admonish counsel in the jury’s presence if counsel violates a limine ruling.\n+No Speaking Objections in Front of the Jury:\n+Judge Starr disallows arguing over legal issues in front of the jury.\n+Accordingly, objections should be ideally an evidence rule number (ex: “Objection. 611.”). At worst, objections should be one or two substantive words (ex: “Objection. Leading.”).\n+If counsel cannot object in this fashion, or wishes to explain its basis, counsel should ask for a sidebar.\n+Time Limits:\n+The Court imposes a time limit on civil trials and some criminal trials.\n+The Court will set the allowable time at the pretrial conference or written order and specify the number of hours of trial time per party. The Court sets this time limit after reviewing the parties’ pretrial filings and hearing the parties’ estimate of trial time.\n+Time that counts against a party’s limit is time spent in front of the jury or time spent at a sidebar that the party loses. Some sidebars result in a draw, in which case the Court splits the time amongst the parties. The Court aims to minimize sidebar time with morning sessions to review exhibit objections and other legal matters that should be handled outside the presence of the jury.\n+If a party reaches its time limit, the Court will entertain a request for more time that specifies how much more time is needed and proffers what evidence that additional time will yield. In determining whether to grant more time, the Court will consider whether a requesting party has efficiently used its previous time. Inefficient uses of time can include such things as discussing irrelevant exhibits, asking irrelevant questions, losing sidebars, and losing objections for questions that don’t conform to the rules of evidence (e.g., leading witnesses, calling for speculation).\n+Detention Issues in Criminal Cases:\n+Pre-Trial Detention Review: If a party files for review of a magistrate judge's detention ruling, the Court will conduct a legal review only. Any hearing will be legal argument only and no new evidence will be allowed. If a party wishes to introduce new evidence in the district court, they must brief why the evidence was unavailable for the earlier detention hearing or why good cause otherwise exists. If such a showing is made, the Court typically remands the detention issue to the magistrate judge to consider the new evidence\n+Detention Hearing Following Guilty Verdict: When a criminal defendant is on pretrial release and the jury returns a guilty verdict, the Court takes the defendant into custody. Counsel may file a motion for release, which the Court refers for expedited consideration by the magistrate judge on duty. But this expedited consideration is often not on the day the jury returns its verdict.\n+Motions:\n+Except in a sealed case, any motion or stipulation requesting an extension of time must be filed at least 2 days before the deadline the party seeks to extend. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not consider untimely requests for extensions filed 2 days or less before the applicable deadline and will deem the underlying motion unopposed.\n+In a sealed case, a motion or stipulation requesting an extension of time must be filed at least 5 days before the deadline the party seeks to extend to allow time for the Clerk's office to process the motion and deliver it to Chambers.\n+Standard Forms\n+Meet and Confer Template\n+Biography\n+Birth: 1979\n+Year Service Began: 2019\n+Appointed By: President Donald J. Trump\n+Education: Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, from Abilene Christian University in 2001; Juris Doctor from the University of Texas School of Law in 2004\n+Legal Practice: Deputy First Assistant Attorney General of Texas 2016 - 2019; Assistant Attorney General, Assistant Solicitor General, and Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel for the Attorney General of Texas; Staff Attorney to Justice Eva Guzman of the Supreme Court of Texas; Law Clerk to Justice Don Willett of the Supreme Court of Texas\n+Current Memberships: State Bar of Texas; The Federalist Society; Texas Review of Law & Politics\n+District Judges\n+Chief Judge Reed O'Connor (O)\n+Judge Sam A. Lindsay (L)\n+Judge Ed Kinkeade (K)\n+Judge Karen Gren Scholer (S)\n+Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (Z)\n+Judge Mark T. Pittman (P)\n+Judge James Wesley Hendrix (H)\n+Judge Brantley Starr (X)\n+Judge Ada Brown (E)\n+Judge Kasdin M. Mitchell (M)\n+Senior Judge A. Joe Fish (G)\n+Senior Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater (D)\n+Senior Judge Sam R. Cummings (C)\n+Senior Judge Terry R. Means (Y)\n+Senior Judge David C. Godbey (N)\n+Senior Judge Jane J. Boyle (B)\n+Magistrate Judges\n+Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton (BJ)\n+Judge Renee H. Toliver (BK)\n+Judge David L. Horan (BN)\n+Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr. (BP)\n+Judge Lee Ann Reno (BR)\n+Judge Rebecca Rutherford (BT)\n+Judge John R. Parker (BU)\n+Judge Amanda 'Amy' R. Burch (BV)\n+Judge Brian McKay (BW)\n+Judge Specific Requirements\n+Oath\n+Complaints\n+Judicial Seminar Disclosure\n+MDL Cases\n+Judge History\n+Opinions\n+Duty Judge Roster\n+Hearing Schedules\n+Home\n+Contact Us\n+Careers\n+ECF\n+Forms\n+Links\n+Judicial Seminar Disclosure\n+Privacy | Sitemap","id":"d2606e889433305658087c9993f32540f9886644012f2826d17632d57a4251b9","newHash":"50cefdd15433dfe265676d79f389ba18a456549e3179d400e9456f2535e5e662","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/node/12039","snapshot":"snapshots/50cefdd15433dfe265676d79f389ba18a456549e3179d400e9456f2535e5e662.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/node/12039","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:14.872652+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,774 @@\n+1 Updated: April 2026\n+DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN A. KAZEN\n+United States Courthouse Jessica Rodriguez, Case Manager\n+1300 Victoria St. Ste. 2317 Tel: (956) 726-2332\n+Laredo, TX 78040 Fax: (956) 790-1756\n+Tel: (956) 790-1757 Email: Jessica_Rodriguez@txs.uscourts.gov\n+Fax: (956) 790-1756\n+COURT PROCEDURES IN CIVIL CASES\n+1. Contact with Court Personnel\n+2. Courtesy Copies of Documents\n+3. Emergencies\n+4. Continuances\n+5. Appearances\n+6. Motion Practice\n+7. Memoranda of Law\n+8. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)\n+9. Initial Pretrial Conference and Scheduling Orders\n+10. Required Trial Materials (including Pretrial Orders)\n+11. Trial Settings\n+12. Exhibits\n+13. Equipment\n+14. Courtroom Procedures\n+15. Depositions\n+16. Settlement and Orders of Dismissal\n+17. Attachments\n+THESE PROCEDURES MUST BE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OR REMOVAL\n+PAPERS and are to be used in conjunction with the Local Rules for the Southern District of Texas and not as a\n+substitute for them. The Local Rules of this District can be obtained on the District website at www.txs.uscourts.gov.\n+The Court requires strict compliance with these Local Rules.\n+2 Updated: April 2026\n+1. CONTACT WITH COURT PERSONNEL\n+A. The Court requires parties to file documents through the District Court’s Case\n+Management/Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) System. See Southern District of\n+Texas Local Rule 5.1 (LR 5.1) and the District’s Administrative Procedures for\n+CM/ECF (as amended and available at www.txs.uscourts.gov).\n+B. Case-related telephone and email inquiries are strictly limited to procedural\n+matters and should be made only to the Case Manager. Inquiries should not be made\n+to the Court’s judicial assistant or law clerks. The Court’s caseload does not allow\n+the Case Manager to respond to casual telephone inquiries about the status of motions\n+or cases. All inquiries to the Case Manager should be by letter sent or delivered to\n+Chambers, or by email. See Section 1.D below.\n+C. Information about the status of documents, entry of orders, or docket entries should\n+be obtained from the CM/ECF or Pacer Systems, or if absolutely necessary, from the\n+United States District Clerk’s Office at (956) 723-3542.\n+D. Correspondence with the Court must be delivered or sent to the Court’s Chambers:\n+1) Case-related correspondence should be addressed to:\n+Jessica Rodriguez\n+Case Manager to District Judge John A. Kazen\n+1300 Victoria St., Ste. 2317\n+Laredo, TX 78040\n+Or by email: Jessica_Rodriguez@txs.uscourts.gov\n+2) Do not address substantive issues in letter or email form. P arties must file\n+copies of all letters. Email correspondence with the Court will be docketed at\n+the Court’s discretion.\n+3) Copies of urgent documents (including letters) may be sent by First Class\n+Mail, emailed, or hand-delivered to Chambers via the Court’s Case Manager,\n+with copies to all parties. (See Emergencies, Section 3 below.) Service copies\n+must be transmitted to all counsel of record simultaneously with or prior to\n+transmission to the Court and in the same manner as transmitted to the Court.\n+The documents may not be faxed without express prior permission of the\n+Court.\n+2. COURTESY COPIES OF DOCUMENTS\n+A. Letters to the Court may be hand-delivered, sent by First Class Mail to Chambers, or\n+transmitted by email, with copies to all parties served prior to or at the time of filing.\n+See addresses above. Letters concerning discovery and scheduling matters must be\n+filed in the docket.\n+B. The parties must forward promptly to Chambers courtesy copies of (i) all documents\n+that exceed ten (10) pages in length, including exhibits and attachments, and (ii)\n+3 Updated: April 2026\n+documents pertaining to matters to be heard by the C ourt within seven (7) days after\n+the documents are filed. Unless this rule is followed, the Court will not consider any\n+documents filed within seven (7) days of any Court appearance. Do not fax or email\n+copies of documents to Chambers unless specifically authorized to do so by the Court.\n+3. EMERGENCIES\n+A. Applications for restraining orders or for other immediate relief shall be filed\n+electronically through the CM/ECF system and all related communications with the\n+Court must be through the Case Manager.\n+1) Such applications shall be presented to the Court by the Case Manager\n+following counsel’s affirmation that the opposing party has been contacted and\n+that both parties can be available for a conference before the Court, or an\n+explanation of why such contact is not legally required.\n+2) Ex parte applications for restraining orders will not be entertained by the\n+Court unless the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b) have been satisfied.\n+B. Motions for extension of deadlines or cut -off dates in the Scheduling Order are not\n+emergencies. (See Section 4 below.)\n+4. DEADLINE EXTENSIONS AND CONTINUANCES\n+A. Motions for deadline extensions and continuances of court settings must be filed prior\n+to the date of the controlling deadline and will be granted only at the Court’s\n+discretion. Motions for continuance filed on or after the date of the deadline, absent\n+a showing of good cause, will not be granted.\n+B. Agreements or joint motions among counsel for deadline extensions or continuance s\n+are not binding on the Court. Parties must notify the Court of proposed agreed\n+continuances by submitting an agreed motion and proposed order.\n+C. A trial will not be continued because of the unavailability of a witness. Counsel are\n+expected to anticipate such possibilities and should be prepared to present testimony\n+by written deposition, videotaped deposition, or by stipulation.\n+5. APPEARANCES\n+A. An attorney who appears at a hearing or conference must:\n+1) be familiar with the case,\n+2) have authority to bind the client, and\n+3) be in charge for that appearance.\n+B. All counsel wishing to appear at a video or in -person conference or hearing by\n+telephone must submit a written request by e -mail to the Case Manager as far in\n+advance of the conference as reasonably possible, unless explicitly authorized by the\n+4 Updated: April 2026\n+Court in an order or notice of setting. The Court will attempt to accommodate such\n+requests. It is the obligation of the attorney to insure that they have a clear and\n+consistent phone connection for a telephonic court appearance.\n+C. Failure to appear when notified of a setting may subject the attorney and/or his or her\n+client to sanctions, including dismissal for want of prosecution and/or other\n+appropriate order or judgment.\n+D. All counsel attending a court setting by video must be dressed in appropriate business\n+attire for a court appearance, including a coat and tie for men.\n+E. Motions for admission pro hac vice shall include the attorney applicant’s averment\n+that he or she has familiarized him/herself with the Local Rules of the Southern\n+District of Texas and these Procedures applicable to c ivil cases before Judge Kazen.\n+(See attached form, also available at the Court’s website.)\n+6. MOTION PRACTICE\n+A. General Guidelines. The Court follows the written motion practice described in the\n+Local Rules. In addition, the following procedures apply:\n+1) Counsel must make serious and timely efforts to confer with opposing\n+counsel on all motions to try to reach agreements on the relief to be\n+requested by the movant. Failure to comply may result in the party’s\n+filing being denied or stricken.\n+2) Every non-dispositive motion must contain a certificate of conference. Failure\n+to comply may result in the party’s filing being denied or stricken.\n+3) All motions, except summary judgment motions filed pursuant to FED. R. CIV.\n+P. 56, must be accompanied by a separate proposed order granting or denying\n+the relief requested.\n+4) Opposed motions generally will be considered by the Court after the expiration\n+of 28 days from the motion filing date. Responses by the non-movant must be\n+filed within 21 calendar days of the motion. The movant’s reply must be filed\n+within 7 calendar days after the non-movant’s response.\n+When circumstances dictate, the Court may consider a motion prior to\n+expiration of the 28 day period.\n+Parties may agree to request a modification of the motion submission day or\n+briefing deadlines by written motion to the Court, accompanied by a proposed\n+order granting the modification.\n+5) Because most motions will be ruled on w ithout an oral hearing, focused and\n+clear motion papers are very important. Requests for oral argument on\n+motions are not necessary. The Case Manager will notify counsel should the\n+Court determine that oral argument would be beneficial.\n+5 Updated: April 2026\n+6) All pleadings or other documents filed under seal in a civil case must be\n+identified as “SEALED” in the title of the document. For example, a motion\n+for summary judgment filed under seal must be docketed as “MOTION for\n+Summary Judgment (SEALED).” No plea ding may be filed for docketing\n+simply as “SEALED DOCUMENT” without advance permission of the Court.\n+7) Any pleadings filed with the C ourt, including exhibits thereto, containing\n+personal data identifiers must comply with the S.D. Texas General Order\n+#2004-11 (available at the District’s website) on protecting personal privacy\n+in public case files.\n+8) Counsel shall include in their filings their email addresses.\n+B. Submitted Motions – Need for Expedited Decision.\n+1) If a pending motion requires resolution on an expedited basis, please advise\n+the Court by letter.\n+2) The Court will rule on expedited motions as soon as possible after the\n+submission day or a response is filed. See Section 6.A.4 above. Counsel of\n+record and pro se parties will be furnished with copies of orders.\n+C. Discovery and Scheduling Disputes.\n+1) The C ourt believes that most discovery and schedule -related disputes,\n+especially those dealing with (i) scheduling, (ii) the number, length, and form\n+of oral and written questions, (iii) the responsiveness of answers to oral and\n+written questions, and (iv) the mechanics of document productions, including\n+protective orders and the proper method of raising claims of privilege, can be\n+resolved by counsel w ithout the intervention of the C ourt. Counsel are\n+required to confer in good faith to resolve discovery and scheduling\n+disputes. See Section 6.A.1 above.\n+2) If counsel for the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the motion MUST\n+contain a certificate of conference pursuant to SDTX LR 7.1D and Section\n+6.A.2 above and specify the date, time, and place of the parties’ prior out-of-\n+court discovery or scheduling discussion(s), the names of a ll counsel that\n+participated in the discussion(s), and a brief summary of the results of the\n+discussion(s).\n+7. MEMORANDA OF LAW\n+A. Page Limits and Briefing Requirements. The Court requires concise, pertinent, and\n+well organized memoranda of law. Without leave of Court, all memoranda of law are\n+limited to 25 pages, 12 -point type font, double -spaced, with 1\" margins. Any\n+memorandum that has more than ten (10) pages of argument must contain the\n+following items:\n+1) a table of contents setting forth the page number of each section, including all\n+headings designated in the body of the brief or memorandum;\n+6 Updated: April 2026\n+2) an alphabetically arranged table of all citations to cases, statutes, rules,\n+textbooks, and other authorities that appear in memorandum;\n+3) a short statement of the nature and stage of the proceeding;\n+4) a statement of the issues to be ruled on by the Court and, with respect to each\n+issue, a short statement (supported by authority) of the standard of review;\n+5) a short summary of the argument;\n+6) succinct headings dividing the argument into separate points;\n+7) a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought; and\n+8) proposed orders (except on summary judgment motions).\n+B. Copies of Authorities and Other Materials Cited.\n+1) Do not append copies of cases and the relevant parts of authorities that are\n+cited in a brief, memorandum, or motion unless the authorities are not\n+published or reasonably available through Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis.\n+2) Copies of supporting affidavits, deposition testimony excerpts, and other\n+discovery materials referred to in the briefs should be separately filed in one\n+or more appendices.\n+8. USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)\n+Attorneys and self -represented litigants must ensure that any filing prepared with the\n+assistance of generative artificial intelligence (e.g. ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or similar tools), is\n+thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal accuracy prior to submission. These tools are\n+capable of producing content that may be factually incorrect or legally unsound.\n+All counsel and pro se parties are reminded that, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 11, the person signing any pleading, motion, or other paper remains fully\n+responsible for its content, regardless of whether it was drafted in whole or in par t by\n+generative AI. The Court will not accept the excuse that such content was prepared by AI,\n+staff, or others when assessing potential violations of Rule 11 or applicable ethical\n+obligations.\n+Attorneys are further reminded of their professional obligations under the Texas Disciplinary\n+Rules of Professional Conduct, including the duty of candor to the tribunal and the prohibition\n+against knowingly offering false statements of law. See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l\n+Conduct r. 3.03(a) (Tex. Bar Ass’n 2024). Attorneys must also remain proficient and\n+competent in the practice of law, including recognizing the benefits and risks associated with\n+relevant technology. See id. at 1.01, cmt. 8.\n+The Court adopts and incorporates by reference Chief Judge Randy Crane’s General Order\n+2025-04 on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings.\n+7 Updated: April 2026\n+9. INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCES AND SCHEDULING ORDERS\n+Please refer to L R 16.1 and Section 5 above (“Appearances”) for general procedures for\n+conferences. In addition:\n+A. Shortly after a party files a complaint or removes a case, the Court will issue an Order\n+containing, among other things, a deadline for the parties to file a Joint Case\n+Management Plan and a setting for the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference.\n+B. After the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference, the Court will enter a Scheduling\n+Order that will control various pretrial deadlines.\n+1) In the Joint Case Management Plan, the parties may propose deadlines for the\n+completion of various pretrial matters and the Court will consider those\n+proposed dates at the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference.\n+2) The Scheduling Order will govern throughout the case. The Scheduling Order\n+deadlines shall not be modified except by leave of this Court upon a showing\n+of good cause.\n+3) If a modification to an existing Scheduling Order is requested, the parties shall\n+submit a proposal for adjusting all dates in the Scheduling Order that follow\n+the date the parties seek to modify.\n+C. Added Parties. If new parties are joined after entry of the Scheduling Order, the\n+party causing such joinder shall provide to the new parties copies of: (i) all orders\n+and pleadings previously filed in the case, (ii) the operative Scheduling Order, and\n+(iii) these Court Procedures.\n+10. REQUIRED TRIAL MATERIALS\n+A. Joint Pretrial Order. Joint Pretrial Orders must be signed by all counsel. All parties\n+are responsible for complying with all requirements to prepare the Joint Pretrial Order.\n+1) Plaintiff is primarily responsible for ensuring that a complete Joint Pretrial\n+Order i s timely filed. A form Joint Pretrial Order is attached to these\n+Procedures and is also available o n the Court’s website . The Joint Pretrial\n+Order form should be followed, but may be adapted, within reason, to\n+accommodate for the size and nature of the case. If P laintiff fails to file the\n+Joint Pretrial Orde r, then Defendant is responsible for filing D efendant’s\n+portions of a Proposed Pretrial Order in the Joint Pretrial Order format.\n+2) Failure to timely file the Joint Pretrial Order will subject counsel and the client\n+to sanctions, including dismissal for want of prosecution and/or other\n+appropriate relief. This applies also to parties appearing pro se.\n+B. Other Required Documents . With the filing of the Joint Pretrial Order, or by the\n+date specified in the Court’s applicable Scheduling Order, each party also must file:\n+1) For All Trials and Evidentiary Hearings:\n+8 Updated: April 2026\n+a. Exhibit List (see attached form, also available at the Court’s website).\n+b. Witness List for live witnesses (see attached form, also available at the\n+Court’s website).\n+c. Designation of deposition excerpts for witnesses being called by\n+deposition. A copy of each deposition excerpt must be provided to the\n+Court.\n+d. Objections, if any, to an opponent’s exhibits, witnesses , or deposition\n+excerpts must be filed at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the\n+scheduled trial date, or as specified in the applicable Scheduling Order.\n+This time limit supersedes LR 46.\n+e. Proposed voir dire questions.\n+2) For Jury Trials:\n+a. Voir Dire: Counsel will be generally allowed 15- 30 minutes\n+(depending on the complexity of the case) to conduct an examination\n+of the venire , provided that the proposed voir dire questions are\n+submitted as part of the Joint Pretrial Order.\n+b. Jury Instructions: The parties must file a single, joint proposed jury\n+charge, including all necessary instructions, definitions, and questions.\n+The proposed charges must also be submitted electronically on a CD\n+in Microsoft Word.\n+i) Each requested instruction must be numbered and presented\n+with authority.\n+ii) The parties shall include in the proposed jury charge all\n+necessary instructions or definitions. The instructions shall, at\n+a minimum, include: (1) the prima facie elements of each cause\n+of action and defense asserted, (2) legal definitions required by\n+the jury, (3) items of damages, and (4) methods of calculation\n+of damages. Counsel should use the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury\n+Instructions, as modified by case law or statutory amendments,\n+whenever possible. Any deviations must be identified and\n+accompanied with legal authorities for the proposed deviation.\n+iii) Even if the parties cannot, after a good faith attempt, agree on\n+all proposed instructions, definitions, and questions, the parties\n+should nonetheless submit a single, unified charge . Each\n+disputed instruction, definition, or question should be set out in\n+bold type, underlined, or in italics and identified as disputed.\n+Each disputed item should be labeled to show which party is\n+requesting the disputed language. A ccompanying each\n+instruction shall be all authority or related materials upon\n+which each party relies.\n+9 Updated: April 2026\n+c. The parties shall submit a trial memorandum of law addressing the law\n+governing the case and all contested issues.\n+3) For Non-Jury Trials, each party must file:\n+a. Proposed Findings of Fact (electronically in Microsoft Word ).\n+Counsel are strongly encouraged to include references to testimony\n+and exhibits that support each proposed finding;\n+b. Proposed Conclusions of Law (electronically in Microsoft Word).\n+Each proposed conclusion of law shall contain citation to legal\n+authority supporting the conclusions; and\n+c. Memorandum of Law. The memorandum of law, proposed findings,\n+and proposed conclusions s hould, at a minimum, address the\n+following: (1) the prima facie elements of each cause of action and\n+defense asserted, (2) legal definitions, (3) components of damages, and\n+(4) methods of calculation of damages.\n+11. TRIAL SETTINGS\n+A. The Court usually sets trial dates in a Scheduling Order in civil cases, but the trial date\n+may be set at a final pretrial conference. At the final pretrial conference, Parties\n+should be prepared to answer questions on all pending motions. Pending motions may\n+be ruled on at the final pretrial conference. Trial may be set for any day after the final\n+pretrial conference.\n+B. Unless an attorney has actually commenced trial in court, another trial setting will not\n+cause the Court to pass a trial setting in a case.\n+C. Information on Trial Settings. The Case Manager cannot definitively ascertain when\n+a case will be reached or where a case is on the trial docket. Any predictions given\n+by the Case Manager are only “educated guesses” and are not binding on the Court.\n+12. EXHIBITS\n+A. All exhibits must be pre-marked and exchanged among counsel at the time the Pretrial\n+Order is filed, unless a later date is agreed to by counsel. Generally, in civil cases,\n+exhibits that have not been disclosed to opposing counsel prior to trial will not be\n+received in evidence. The offering party shall mark its name, the case number, and\n+the exhibit number on each exhibit to be offered. Any exhibits containing personal\n+data identifiers must comply with S.D. Texas General Order #2004 -11 (available at\n+the District website).\n+B. Authentication Objections. Unless another deadline is specified in an applicable\n+Scheduling Order, c ounsel requiring authentication of an opponent’s exhibit must\n+notify offering counsel in writing within seven (7) days after the exhibit is identified\n+and made available for examination. Failure to do so is an admission of authenticity.\n+See LR 44.1.\n+10 Updated: April 2026\n+C. Other Objections to Exhibits. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, a party in a\n+civil case may offer in evidence any exhibits listed in the final Joint Pretrial Order\n+unless opposing counsel files specific written objections within the deadline specified\n+in the applicable Scheduling Order . This deadline supersedes LR 46. The Court\n+endeavors to rule on objections to exhibits outside the presence of the jury and will\n+do so prior to opening statements, to the extent possible.\n+D. Copies of Exhibits. The parties must provide the Court with a complete printed set\n+of exhibits for use at trial in a properly tabbed and indexed notebook.\n+E. Trial Procedure as to Exhibits.\n+1) Counsel may not pass exhibits to the jury during trial without obtaining\n+permission in advance from the Court.\n+2) Exhibits must be identified in front of the jury before they will be received in\n+evidence. Only exhibits admitted during trial will go to the jury during its\n+deliberations.\n+F. Disposition of Exhibits . The disposition of exhibits following trial will be in\n+accordance with LR 79.2.\n+13. EQUIPMENT\n+A. Sound and Video Equipment . The Court has projection, document camera, sound\n+and video equipment in the courtroom. Counsel are invited to use that equipment\n+during trial. Counsel seeking to test the equipment prior to trial shall contact the Case\n+Manager by e-mail, letter, or phone to make arrangements. Parties also may provide\n+their own equipment, but special arrangements must be made with the Case Manager\n+prior to the day of trial.\n+B. Other. Easels with writing pads are available for use in the courtroom, upon request\n+to the Case Manager prior to trial.\n+14. COURTROOM PROCEDURES\n+A. Hours. The Court’s hours dur ing trial will vary depending on the type of case and\n+the needs of the parties, counsel, witnesses, and the Court. Court normally will\n+convene at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn by 5:30 p.m., with a 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. lunch recess.\n+B. Access at Other Times.\n+1) Should counsel require access to the courtroom to set up equipment or exhibits\n+before or after normal hours of Court, counsel must contact the Case Manager\n+in advance to make the appropriate arrangements.\n+2) Enter and leave the courtroom only by the front doors; do not use the Court’s\n+entrance or the side entrances without permission.\n+11 Updated: April 2026\n+B. Telephones. Generally, personal telephones and electronic devices are not allowed in\n+the courtroom. However, counsel may request leave to allow such electronic devices\n+in court. See Section E.3, below.\n+The Judge’s staff generally will not take messages for counsel , and counsel shall\n+refrain from requesting use of telephones in Chambers.\n+D. Filing of Documents . Handing documents to the Court or Case Manager does not\n+constitute filing of the documents in the CM/ECF system.\n+1) All original documents must be filed through the CM/ECF system.\n+2) Copies of documents filed within seven ( 3) days prior to and during trial\n+should be submitted to the Case Manager in duplicate.\n+E. Decorum.\n+1) Counsel and parties will comply with LR 83.9 regarding courtroom Behavior.\n+These procedures are strictly enforced.\n+2) Counsel shall stand when addressing the Court. Counsel may use a lectern\n+positioned appropriately to make oral argument. Counsel may question\n+witnesses standing at the lectern or seated at counsel table.\n+3) Counsel will ensure that they, all parties, and all witnesses refrain from\n+drinking (other than water), eating, smoking, or reading newspapers, books,\n+etc. in the courtroom. No cellular telephones, pagers, or iPads are allowed in\n+the courtroom. Attorneys needing to use computers or iPads during trial must\n+seek prior approval from the Court. Recording equipment and photographic\n+mechanisms are strictly prohibited.\n+F. Witnesses.\n+1) Counsel are responsible for summoning witnesses into the c ourtroom and\n+instructing them on c ourtroom decorum and attire . Counsel may question\n+witnesses while standing at the podium or while seated at Counsel table.\n+2) Counsel should bear in mind the Court’s hours and arrange for witnesses\n+accordingly. The Court will not recess to permit counsel to call a missing\n+witness unless he or she has been subpoenaed and has failed to appear.\n+3) Counsel shall make every effort to elicit from the witnesses only information\n+relevant to the issues in the case and to avoid cumulative testimony.\n+G. Seating Assignments. The party with the burden of proof may be seated near the\n+jury box.\n+12 Updated: April 2026\n+H. Jury Matters.\n+1) While the jury is deliberating, counsel are to remain near the courtroom to be\n+immediately available for jury notes or a verdict, unless given permission to\n+leave by the Court.\n+2) After the jury is excused, counsel may not contact jurors unless permitted to\n+do so by the Court. See LR 47.\n+15. DEPOSITIONS\n+A. The Court will accept the parties’ agreement to use a deposition at trial even when the\n+witness is available. Otherwise, parties must follow FED. R. CIV. P. 32.\n+B. Counsel will designate the portion of any deposition to be read by citing page and line\n+numbers in the Joint Pretrial Order. Objections to those portions (citing page and line\n+numbers) with supporting authority must be filed by the deadline specified in the\n+applicable Scheduling Order.\n+C. Use of videotape depositions is permitted if counsel voluntarily edit them to resolve\n+objections and incorporate rulings by the Court.\n+D. In a non-jury trial, counsel shall provide a list of the portions of the depositions offered\n+as an exhibit, citing page and line numbers.\n+16. SETTLEMENTS AND ORDERS OF DISMISSAL\n+A. Motions resolved by the parties. If the parties are able to resolve a pending motion\n+without Court intervention, they should advise the case manager immediately . The\n+Court will then deny the motion as moot.\n+B. Settlements. Counsel and pro se litigants shall notify the Court immediately in\n+writing of the parties’ settlement of any matter by filing a notice of settlement or a\n+joint stipulation of dismissal, as appropriate.\n+1) Upon settlement of a suit involving a minor plaintiff, counsel must jointly\n+move for appointment of a guardian ad litem if there is potential conflict of\n+interest between the parent(s) and the minor.\n+a. If counsel cannot agree on a guardian ad litem, the Court will make the\n+appointment. Counsel may submit the names of qualified attorneys\n+they propose for the appointment.\n+b. Contemporaneously with the motion for appointment, counsel must\n+notify the Case Manager by letter requesting a settlement conference.\n+C. Orders of Dismissal For Want of Prosecution. Any defendant upon whom service\n+has not been perfected within 120 days after the complaint is filed will be dismissed\n+for want of prosecution in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).\n+13 Updated: April 2026\n+17. ATTACHMENTS\n+A. Template Joint Discovery / Case Management Plan\n+B. Template Joint Pretrial Order\n+C. Template Exhibit List\n+D. Template Witness List\n+E. Notice of the Right to Try a Civil Case before a Magistrate Judge\n+F. Consent to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge/Order to Transfer\n+G. Motion and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+14 Updated: April 2026\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+LAREDO DIVISION\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+§\n+Plaintiff, §\n+§\n+vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:__-CV-____\n+§\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+§\n+Defendant. §\n+JOINT REPORT REQUIRED BY FED. R. CIV. P. 26(F)\n+AND JOINT DISCOVERY / CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN\n+Any differences between the parties as to the response(s) to any matter must be set\n+forth in this report.\n+Preliminary Matters\n+1. State when and in what manner the parties conferred as required by Rule 26(f), and identify\n+the counsel and / or parties who participated in the conference.\n+2. List cases pending in this or any other district, along with the cause number and judicial\n+district, that are related to this case.\n+3. If another case is pending in this or any other district, can and should this case be consolidated\n+with that case?\n+4. Briefly describe what this case is about.\n+5. What is Plaintiff’s allegation of federal jurisdiction, or, if this case was removed, what is\n+Defendant’s allegation of federal jurisdiction?\n+6. Does Defendant (or Plaintiff if this case was removed) agree or disagree with this allegation?\n+7. Does either party anticipate the need to add additional parties?\n+8. If so, list any additional parties and when they can be added.\n+9. List any anticipated interventions.\n+10. Are there any issues in this case that may raise class allegations or class action issues?\n+15 Updated: April 2026\n+Discovery\n+11. The conference required by Rule 26(f) was held on _____________________________, at\n+. Counsel / Parties who participated in the conference:\n+for Plaintiff(s) ,\n+for Defendant(s) .\n+12. Describe the proposed discovery plan agreed upon at the Conference. Include the following:\n+A. What changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures\n+under Rule 26(a);\n+B. When and to whom Plaintiff anticipates it may send interrogatories;\n+C. When and to whom Defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories;\n+D. Of whom and by what date Plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions;\n+E. Of whom and by what date Defendant anticipates taking oral depositions;\n+F. When Plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) will be able to\n+designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and when the\n+opposing party will be able to designate responsive experts and provide their reports;\n+G. List expert depositions Plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue)\n+anticipates taking and their anticipated completion date. See Fed. R. Civ. P.\n+26(a)(2)(B).\n+H. List expert depositions the opposing party anticipates taking and their anticipated\n+completion date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B).\n+I. Discuss the timing and method for claiming privilege or protection as trial-preparation\n+materials under Rule 26(b)(5)(A), and if the parties agree on a procedure to assert\n+these claims after production.\n+13. If the parties do not agree on any portion of the discovery plan, describe the separate views\n+and proposals of each party.\n+14. Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date.\n+15. State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed.\n+Settlement and Trial Alternatives\n+16. Describe the possibilities of settlement or alternative dispute resolution that were discussed\n+at the Rule 26(f) meeting.\n+17. Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt resolution.\n+18. From the attorneys’ discussions with their respective clients, state the alternative dispute\n+resolution techniques that are reasonably suitable and state when such a technique may be\n+effectively used in this case.\n+19. The parties may jointly consent to a Magistrate Judge conducting any and all proceedings in\n+any jury or nonjury civil matter, including hearing a jury or nonjury trial, and order the entry\n+16 Updated: April 2026\n+of judgment in the case. Will the parties consent to a Magistrate Judge conducting all\n+proceedings in this case, including trial and disposition of the case?\n+20. State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time.\n+21. In the event of a trial, how many hours will it take to try this case?\n+Additional Conference Items\n+22. Counsel are charged with knowledge of the Local Rules of the United States District Court\n+for the Southern District of Texas, which are available at:\n+https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/LR_March_2026.pdf\n+Have all counsel reviewed those local rules prior to completion of this Report?\n+Counsel are also charged with knowledge of the Honorable John A. Kazen’s Court\n+Procedures in Civil Cases, which are available at:\n+United States District Judge John A. Kazen | Southern District of Texas (uscourts.gov)\n+Have all counsel reviewed those rules prior to completion of this Report?\n+23. If there are any motions pending before the Court at this time, list them.\n+24. Can any of these motions be ruled upon at the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference?\n+25. Are there any other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, that deserve special\n+attention from the Court at the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference?\n+26. List the names, Southern District of Texas bar numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers of\n+all counsel. All counsel appearing for any hearing or identified as counsel of record on a\n+pleading must either be licensed to practice in the Southern District of Texas or must file a\n+motion to appear pro hac vice.\n+27. Proposed Dates for Scheduling Order. Please review and fill out the proposed Scheduling\n+Order to suggest deadlines the parties believe are suited for this lawsuit. The Scheduling\n+Order that will be issued following the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference may contain\n+additional matters and discovery limitations.\n+17 Updated: April 2026\n+PRETRIAL EVENTS\n+PARTIES’ PROPOSED DATES\n+Deadline for Joinder of All Parties\n+Deadline to Serve Initial Written Discovery1\n+Deadlines to Designate Expert Witnesses2\n+Plaintiff(s):\n+Defendant(s):\n+Deadline to Amend the Pleadings (with consent of all\n+parties or leave of Court)\n+Plaintiff(s):\n+Defendant(s):\n+Deadline for Parties to Conduct Mediation\n+Deadline to Complete All Discovery, including\n+depositions of expert witnesses3\n+Deadline to File Motions to Exclude or Limit Expert\n+Testimony\n+Deadline to File Dispositive Motions\n+1 This deadline applies to serving a first set of interrogatories, requests for production, and other written discovery,\n+but does not limit the parties from serving further requests prior to the discovery deadline.\n+2 The parties shall disclose the name, address, and vita of any expert witness, and shall serve the report required by\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by these deadlines. The parties must file their lists of proposed expert witnesses with the Court by the\n+designation deadline but should NOT file reports or other discovery materials.\n+3 A party must serve its written discovery requests sufficiently in advance so that deadline for the responding party to\n+serve its responses falls before this Scheduling Order deadline.\n+18 Updated: April 2026\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+LAREDO DIVISION\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+§\n+Plaintiff, §\n+§\n+vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:__-CV-____\n+§\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+§\n+Defendant. §\n+JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER\n+1. Appearance of Counsel. List each party, its counsel, and counsel’s address and telephone\n+number in separate paragraphs.\n+2. Statement of the Case. Give a brief statement of the case, one that the Judge could read to\n+the jury panel for an introduction of the facts and parties; include names, dates, and places.\n+3. Jurisdiction. Briefly specify the jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. If there is\n+an unresolved jurisdictional question, state it.\n+4. Motions. List pending motions.\n+5. Contention of the Parties. State concisely in separate paragraphs each party’s claims.\n+6. Admission of Fact. List all facts that require no proof.\n+7. Contested Issues of Fact. List all material facts in bona fide controversy.\n+8. Agreed Propositions of Law. List the legal propositions that are not in dispute.\n+9. Contested Propositions of Law . State briefly the unresolved questions of law, with\n+authorities to support each.\n+10. Exhibits.\n+A. Each party will attach two lists of all exhibits expected to be offered and will make\n+the exhibits available for examination by opposing counsel. All documentary exhibits\n+must be exchanged before trial, except for rebuttal exhibits or those whose use cannot\n+be anticipated.\n+B. A party requiring authentication of an exhibit must notify the offering counsel in\n+writing within five days after the exhibit is listed and made available; failure to object\n+in writing in advance of the trial concedes authenticity.\n+19 Updated: April 2026\n+1) Within reason, other objections to admissibility of exhibits must be made at\n+least three business days before trial with copies of the disputed exhibit and\n+authority.\n+2) Parties must mark their exhibits to include the date and case number on each.\n+3) At the trial, the first step will be the offer and receipt in evidence of exhibits.\n+11. Witnesses.\n+A. On a separate form, each party will attach four lists with the names and addresses of\n+witnesses who may be called with a brief statement of the nature of their testimony.\n+B. Include: If other witnesses to be called at the trial become known, their names,\n+addresses, and subject of their testimony will be reported to opposing counsel in\n+writing as soon as they are known; this does not apply to rebuttal or impeachment\n+witnesses.\n+12. Settlements. State that all settlement efforts have been exhausted, and the case will have to\n+be tried.\n+13. Trial. State estimated length of trial and logistical problems, including availability of\n+witnesses, out-of-state people, bulky exhibits, and documentation.\n+14. Attachments. Each party must file as a separate document (captioned, signed by counsel,\n+and with service certified) these required attachments in duplicate.\n+A. For a jury trial:\n+(1) Proposed questions for the voir dire examination.\n+(2) Proposed charge, including instructions, definitions, and special interrogatories,\n+with authority.\n+B. For a non-jury trial:\n+(1) Proposed findings of fact with agreed and contested ones separated.\n+(2) Conclusions of law with authority.\n+____________________________________ Date:________________________\n+United States District Judge\n+20 Updated: April 2026\n+Approved by:\n+____________________________________ Date:________________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Plaintiff\n+____________________________________ Date:___________________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Defendant\n+21 Updated: April 2026\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+VERSUS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n+CIVIL ACTION NO.\n+EXHIBIT LIST\n+JUDGE JOHN A. KAZEN\n+CASE MANAGER: JESSICA RODRIGUEZ\n+LIST OF\n+Q PLAINTIFF Q DEFENDANT\n+PROCEEDING: DATE (S):\n+NO.\n+DESCRIPTION\n+OBJ ADM NOT\n+ADM\n+DATE\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+22 Updated: April 2026\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+VERSUS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n+CIVIL ACTION NO.\n+WITNESS LIST\n+JUDGE JOHN A. KAZEN\n+CASE MANAGER: JESSICA RODRIGUEZ\n+LIST OF\n+Q PLAINTIFF Q DEFENDANT\n+PROCEEDING: DATE (S):\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+23 Updated: April 2026\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+LAREDO DIVISION\n+NOTICE OF THE RIGHT TO PROCEED IN\n+A CIVIL CASE BEFORE A MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n+With the consent of all parties, a United States Magistrate Judge may preside in a civil case,\n+including a jury trial and entry of final judgment.\n+The choice of trial before a Magistrate Judge is entirely yours. Tell only the Clerk. Neither\n+the Judge nor the Magistrate Judge will be told until and unless all the parties agree.\n+The District Judge to whom your case is assigned must approve the referral to a Magistrate\n+Judge.\n+You may get consent forms from the Clerk.\n+David J. Bradley, Clerk\n+United States District Court\n+Southern District of Texas\n+24 Updated: April 2026\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+LAREDO DIVISION\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+§\n+Plaintiff, §\n+§\n+vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:__-CV-____\n+§\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+§\n+Defendant. §\n+CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n+All parties to this case waived their right to proceed before a District Judge and consent to\n+have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings, including the trial and\n+judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).\n+Signatures and Typed Names Party Represented Date\n+______________________________ ________________________ ________\n+______________________________ ________________________ ________\n+______________________________ ________________________ ________\n+______________________________ ________________________ ________\n+______________________________ ________________________ ________\n+ORDER TO TRANSFER\n+This case is transferred to United States Magistrate Judge ______________________ to conduct all\n+further proceedings, including final judgment.\n+_____________ __________________________________\n+Date United States District Judge\n+NOTE: RETURN THIS FORM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED ON THIS FORM\n+TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.\n+25 Updated: April 2026\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+Motion and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+Division Case Number\n+vs.\n+*I understand that the Court requires strict compliance with the Local Rules for the Southern District of Texas and the\n+Court Procedures for District Judge Kazen, which are applicable to cases assigned to Judge Kazen. The rules are available\n+by visiting the Court’s website.\n+The state bar reports that the applicant’s status is:\n+Dated:\n+Clerk’s signature:\n+This lawyer is admitted pro hac vice.\n+Dated:\n+__________________________\n+John Andrew Kazen\n+United States District Judge\n+Lawyer’s Name\n+Firm Street\n+City & Zip Code\n+Telephone & Email\n+Licensed: State & Number\n+Federal Bar & Number\n+Name of party applicant seeks to\n+appear for:\n+Has applicant been sanctioned by any bar association or court? Yes No\n+On a separate sheet for each sanction, please supply the full particulars.\n+Dated:\n+Signed*:\n+Order Granting Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice","id":"ace3587557a0780d33367e500a8d34744ccc4d2126bbd49eb18c8da9e1fc7d12","newHash":"b4e3631e538a98f5a9a997187a0b744e7b296852a9c5211bf2ef1c153bdd9dc3","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ%20Court%20Procedures_JAK_April%202026%20v2%20Final.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/b4e3631e538a98f5a9a997187a0b744e7b296852a9c5211bf2ef1c153bdd9dc3.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ%20Court%20Procedures_JAK_April%202026%20v2%20Final.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:16.455805+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,851 @@\n+1 Updated: May 2025\n+U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE MARINA GARCIA MARMOLEJO\n+United States Courthouse Angie Treviño, Case Manager\n+1300 Victoria St. Ste. 2267 Tel: (956) 790-1364\n+Laredo, TX 78040 Fax: (956) 726-2900\n+Tel: (956) 726-2209 Email: angie_trevino@txs.uscourts.gov\n+Fax: (956) 726-2900\n+COURT PROCEDURES IN CIVIL CASES\n+1. Contact with Court Personnel\n+2. Courtesy Copies of Documents\n+3. Emergencies\n+4. Continuances\n+5. Appearances\n+6. Motion Practice\n+7. Memoranda of Law\n+8. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)\n+9. Initial Pretrial Conference and Scheduling Orders\n+10. Required Trial Materials (including Pretrial Orders)\n+11. Trial Settings\n+12. Exhibits\n+13. Equipment\n+14. Courtroom Procedures\n+15. Depositions\n+16. Settlement and Orders of Dismissal\n+17. Attachments\n+THESE PROCEDURES MUST BE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OR\n+REMOVAL PAPERS and are to be used in conjunction with the Local Rules for the Southern\n+District of Texas and not as a substitute for them. The Local Rules of this District can be\n+obtained on the District website at www.txs.uscourts.gov. The Court requires strict compliance\n+with these Local Rules.\n+2 Updated: May 2025\n+1. CONTACT WITH COURT PERSONNEL\n+A. The Court requires parties to file documents through the District Court’s\n+Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) System. See\n+Southern District of Texas Local Rule 5.1 (LR 5.1) and the District’s\n+Administrative Procedures for CM/ECF (as amended and available at\n+www.txs.uscourts.gov).\n+B. Case-related telephone and email inquiries are strictly limited to\n+procedural matters and should be made only to the Case Manager .\n+Inquiries should not be made to the Court’s judicial assistant or law clerks.\n+The Court’s caseload does not allow the Case Manager to respond to casual\n+telephone inquiries about the status of motions or cases. All inquiries to\n+the Case Manager should be by letter sent or delivered to Chambers, or by\n+email. See Section 1.D below.\n+C. Information about the status of documents, entry of orders, or docket\n+entries should be obtained from the CM/ECF or Pacer Systems, or if\n+absolutely necessary, from the United States District Clerk’s Office at\n+(956) 723-3542.\n+D. Correspondence with the Court must be delivered or sent to the Court’s\n+Chambers:\n+1) Case-related correspondence should be addressed to:\n+Angie Treviño\n+Case Manager to District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo\n+1300 Victoria St., Ste. 2267\n+Laredo, TX 78040\n+Or by email: angie_trevino@txs.uscourts.gov\n+2) Do not address substantive issues in letter or email form. Parties\n+must file copies of all letters. Email correspondence with the Court\n+will be docketed at the Court’s discretion.\n+3) Copies of urgent documents (including letters) may be sent by First\n+Class Mail, emailed, or hand-delivered to Chambers via the Court’s\n+Case Manager, with copies to all parties. (See Emergencies, Section\n+3 below.) Service copies must be transmitted to all counsel of record\n+simultaneously with or prior to transmission to the Court and in the\n+same manner as transmitted to the Court. The documents may not\n+be faxed without express prior permission of the Court.\n+3 Updated: May 2025\n+2. COURTESY COPIES OF DOCUMENTS\n+A. Letters to the Court may be hand- delivered, sent by First Class Mail to\n+Chambers, or transmitted by email, with copies to all parties served prior\n+to or at the time of filing. See addresses above. Letters concerning\n+discovery and scheduling matters must be filed in the docket.\n+B. The parties must forward promptly to Chambers courtesy copies of (i) all\n+documents that exceed ten (10) pages in length, including exhibits and\n+attachments, and (ii) documents pertaining to matters to be heard by the\n+Court within seven (7) days after the documents are filed. Unless this rule\n+is followed, the Court will not consider any documents filed within seven\n+(7) days of any Court appearance. Do not fax or email copies of\n+documents to Chambers unless specifically authorized to do so by the\n+Court.\n+3. EMERGENCIES\n+A. Applications for restraining orders or for other immediate relief shall be\n+filed electronically through the CM/ECF system and all related\n+communications with the Court must be through the Case Manager.\n+1) Such applications shall be presented to the Court by the Case\n+Manager following counsel’s affirmation that the opposing party\n+has been contacted and that both parties can be available for a\n+conference before the Court, or an explanation of why such contact\n+is not legally required.\n+2) Ex parte applications for restraining orders will not be entertained\n+by the Court unless the requirements of F ED. R. CIV. P. 65(b) have\n+been satisfied.\n+B. Motions for extension of deadlines or cut-off dates in the Scheduling Order\n+are not emergencies. (See Continuances, Section 4 below.)\n+4. CONTINUANCES\n+A. Motions for continuance must be filed at least THREE (3) business\n+days prior to the date of the controlling deadline and will be granted\n+only at the Court’s discretion. Motions for continuance filed on the\n+date of the deadline, absent a showing of good cause, will not be\n+granted.\n+B. Agreements or joint motions among counsel for continuance are not\n+binding on the Court. Parties must notify the Court of agreed\n+continuances by submitting an agreed motion and proposed order.\n+4 Updated: May 2025\n+C. A trial will not be continued because of the unavailability of a witness.\n+Counsel are expected to anticipate such possibilities and should be\n+prepared to present testimony by written deposition, videotaped\n+deposition, or by stipulation.\n+5. APPEARANCES\n+A. An attorney who appears at a hearing or conference must:\n+1) be familiar with the case,\n+2) have authority to bind the client, and\n+3) be in charge for that appearance.\n+B. All counsel wishing to appear at a conference or hearing by telephone must\n+submit a written request by e-mail to the Case Manager as far in advance\n+of the conference as reasonably possible, unless explicitly authorized by\n+the Court in an order or notice of setting. The Court will attempt to\n+accommodate such requests.\n+C. Failure to appear when notified of a setting may subject the attorney\n+and/or his or her client to sanctions, including dismissal for want of\n+prosecution and/or other appropriate order or judgment.\n+D. Motions for admission pro hac vice shall include the attorney applicant’s\n+averment that he or she has familiarized him/herself with the Local Rules\n+of the Southern District of Texas and these Procedures applicable to civil\n+cases before Judge Garcia Marmolejo. ( See attached form, also available\n+at the Court’s website.)\n+E. Young Lawyers. The Court strongly encourages litigants to be mindful\n+of opportunities for young lawyers ( i.e., lawyers practicing for less than\n+seven years) to conduct hearings before the Court, particularly for motions\n+where the young lawyer drafted or contributed significantly to the\n+underlying motion or response. The Court believes it is crucial to provide\n+substantive speaking opportunities to young lawyers, and that the\n+benefits of doing so will accrue to young lawyers, to clients, and to the\n+profession generally. Thus, the Court encourages all lawyers practicing\n+before it to keep this goal in mind.\n+5 Updated: May 2025\n+6. MOTION PRACTICE\n+A. General Guidelines. The Court follows the written motion practice\n+described in the Local Rules. In addition, the following procedures apply:\n+1) Counsel must make serious and timely efforts to c onfer with\n+opposing counsel on all motions to try to reach agreements on the\n+relief to be requested by the movant.\n+2) Every non -dispositive motion must contain a certificate of\n+conference. Failure to comply may result in the party’s pleading\n+being denied or stricken.\n+3) All motions, except summary judgment motions filed pursuant to\n+FED. R. CIV. P. 56, must be accompanied by a separate proposed\n+order granting or denying the relief requested.\n+4) Opposed motions generally will be considered by the Court after the\n+expiration of 28 days from the motion filing date. Responses by the\n+non-movant must be filed within 21 calendar days of the motion.\n+The movant’s reply must be filed within 7 calendar day s after the\n+non-movant’s response.\n+When circumstances dictate, the Court may consider a motion prior\n+to expiration of the 28 day period.\n+Parties may, by agreement, extend a motion submission day, but\n+must give the Court prompt written notice of the agreement\n+accompanied by a proposed order granting the extension. Parties’\n+agreed extensions in violation of a Court imposed deadline require\n+Court approval.\n+5) Because most motions will be ruled on without an oral hearing,\n+focused and clear motion papers are very important. Requests for\n+oral argument on motions are not necessary. The Case Manager\n+will notify counsel should the Court determine that oral argument\n+would be beneficial.\n+6) All pleadings or other documents filed under seal in a civil case must\n+be identified as “SEALED” in the title of the document. For\n+example, a motion for summary judgment filed under seal must be\n+docketed as “MOTION for Summary Judgment (SEALED).” No\n+pleading may be filed for docketing simply as “SEALED\n+DOCUMENT” without advance permission of the Court.\n+7) Any pleadings filed with the Court, including exhibits thereto,\n+containing personal data identifiers must comply with the S.D.\n+Texas General Order #2004-11 (available at the District’s website)\n+on protecting personal privacy in public case files.\n+6 Updated: May 2025\n+B. Submitted Motions – Need for Expedited Decision.\n+1) If a pending motion requires resolution on an expedited basis,\n+please advise the Court by letter.\n+2) The Court will rule on expedited motions as soon as possible after\n+the submission day or a response is filed. See Section 6.A.4 above.\n+Counsel of record and pro se parties will be furnished with copies of\n+orders.\n+C. Discovery and Scheduling Disputes.\n+1) The Court believes that most discovery and schedule- related\n+disputes, especially those dealing with (i) scheduling, (ii) the\n+number, length, and form of oral and written questions, (iii) the\n+responsiveness of answers to oral and written questions, and (iv)\n+the mechanics of document productions, including protective orders\n+and the proper method of raising claims of privilege, can be resolved\n+by counsel without the intervention of the Court. Counsel are\n+responsible for conferring in good faith to resolve discovery\n+and scheduling disputes. See Section 6.A.1 above.\n+2) If counsel for the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the\n+motion MUST contain a certificate of conference pursuant to SDTX\n+LR 7.1D and Section 6.A.2 above and specify the date, time, and\n+place of the parties’ prior out- of-court discovery or scheduling\n+discussion(s), the names of all counsel that participated in the\n+discussion(s), and a brief summary of the results of the\n+discussion(s).\n+7. MEMORANDA OF LAW\n+A. Page Limits and Briefing Requirements. The Court requires concise,\n+pertinent, and well organized memoranda of law. Without leave of Court,\n+all memoranda of law are limited to 25 pages, 12 -point type font, double-\n+spaced, with 1\" margins. All memoranda of law must contain items 3, 4,\n+6, and 7 below. Any memorandum that has more than ten (10) pages of\n+argument must contain the following eight (8) items:\n+1) a table of contents setting forth the page number of each section,\n+including all headings designated in the body of the brief or\n+memorandum;\n+2) an alphabetically arranged table of all citations to cases, statutes,\n+rules, textbooks, and other authorities that appear in\n+memorandum;\n+7 Updated: May 2025\n+3) a short statement of the nature and stage of the proceeding;\n+4) a statement of the issues to be ruled on by the Court and, with\n+respect to each issue, a short statement (supported by authority) of\n+the standard of review;\n+5) a short summary of the argument;\n+6) succinct headings dividing the argument into separate points;\n+7) a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought; and\n+8) proposed orders (except on summary judgment motions).\n+B. Copies of Authorities and Other Materials Cited.\n+1) Please append copies of cases and the relevant parts of authorities\n+that are cited in a brief, memorandum, or motion only if the\n+authorities are not published or reasonably available\n+through Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis.\n+2) Copies of supporting affidavits, deposition testimony excerpts, and\n+other discovery referred to in the briefs should be separately filed in\n+one or more appendices of no more than 40 pages each.\n+3) All appendices should contain a table of contents. Conventionally\n+filed ( i.e., not electronically) appendices and all courtesy copies\n+should be tabbed at the right margin to facilitate location of the\n+materials cited.\n+8. USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)\n+Attorneys and self -represented litigants must ensure that any filing prepared\n+with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT,\n+Harvey.AI, or similar tools) is thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal accuracy\n+prior to submission. These tools are capable of producing content that may be\n+factually incorrect or legally unsound.\n+All counsel and pro se parties are reminded that, consistent with Federal Rule of\n+Civil Procedure 11, the person signing any pleading, motion, or other paper\n+remains fully responsible for its content, regardless of whether it was drafted in\n+whole or in part by generative AI. The Court will not accept the excuse that such\n+content was prepared by AI, staff, or others when assessing potential violations\n+of Rule 11 or applicable ethical obligations.\n+Attorneys are further reminded of their professional obligations under the Texas\n+Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, including the duty of candor to the\n+tribunal and the prohibition against knowingly offering false statements of law.\n+8 Updated: May 2025\n+See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct r. 3.03(a) (Tex. Bar Ass’n 2024).\n+Attorneys must also remain proficient and competent in the practice of law,\n+including recognizing the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.\n+See id. at 1.01, cmt. 8.\n+The Court adopts and incorporates by reference Chief Judge Randy Crane’s\n+General Order 2025-04 on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court\n+Filings.\n+9. INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCES AND SCHEDULING ORDERS\n+Please refer to LR 16.1 and Section 5 above (“Appearances”) for general\n+procedures for conferences. In addition:\n+A. Shortly after a party files a complaint or removes a case, the Court will\n+issue an Order containing, among other things, a deadline for the parties\n+to file a Joint Case Management Plan and a setting for the Initial Pretrial\n+and Scheduling Conference.\n+B. After the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference, the Court will enter\n+a Scheduling Order that will control various pretrial deadlines.\n+1) In the Joint Case Management Plan, the parties must propose\n+deadlines for the completion of various pretrial matters and the\n+Court will consider those proposed dates at the Initial Pretrial and\n+Scheduling Conference.\n+2) The Scheduling Order will govern throughout the case. The\n+Scheduling Order deadlines shall not be modified except by leave\n+of this Court upon a showing of good cause.\n+3) If a change to an existing Scheduling Order is requested, the parties\n+shall submit recommendations for adjusting all dates in the\n+Scheduling Order that follow the date the parties seek to modify.\n+4) Counsel shall include in their filings their email addresses.\n+C. Added Parties. If new parties are joined after entry of the Scheduling\n+Order, the party causing such joinder shall provide to the new parties\n+copies of: (i) all orders and pleadings previously filed in the case, (ii) the\n+operative Scheduling Order, and (iii) these Court Procedures.\n+10. REQUIRED TRIAL MATERIALS\n+A. Joint Pretrial Order. Joint Pretrial Orders must be signed by all\n+counsel. All parties are responsible for complying with all requirements\n+to prepare the Joint Pretrial Order.\n+9 Updated: May 2025\n+1) Plaintiff is primarily responsible for ensuring that a complete Joint\n+Pretrial Order is timely filed. A form Joint Pretrial Order is\n+attached to these Procedures and is also available on the Court’s\n+website. The Joint Pretrial Order form should be followed, but may\n+be adapted, within reason, to accommodate for the size and nature\n+of the case. If Plaintiff fails to file the Joint Pretrial Order, then\n+Defendant is responsible for filing Defendant’s portions of a\n+Proposed Pretrial Order in the Joint Pretrial Order format.\n+2) Plaintiff must deliver to Court’s Chambers a courtesy copy of the\n+Joint Pretrial Order with all attachments.\n+3) Failure to timely file the Joint Pretrial Order will subject counsel\n+and the client to sanctions, including dismissal for want of\n+prosecution and/or other appropriate relief. This applies also to\n+parties appearing pro se.\n+B. Other Required Documents. With the filing of the Joint Pretrial Order,\n+each party also must file:\n+1) For All Trials and Evidentiary Hearings:\n+a. Exhibit List (see attached form, also available at the Court’s\n+website).\n+b. Witness List for live witnesses ( see attached form, also\n+available at the Court’s website).\n+c. Designation of deposition excerpts for witnesses being\n+called by deposition. A copy of each deposition excerpt must\n+be provided to the Court.\n+d. Objections, if any, to an opponent’s exhibits, witnesses, or\n+deposition excerpts must be filed within fourteen (14)\n+calendar days prior to the scheduled trial date. This\n+time limit supersedes LR 46.\n+2) For Jury Trials:\n+a. Voir Dire: Counsel will be generally allowed 15 -35 minutes\n+(depending on the complexity of the case) to conduct an\n+examination of the venire, provided that the proposed voir\n+dire questions are submitted as part of the Joint Pretrial\n+Order.\n+b. Jury Instructions: The parties must file a single, joint\n+proposed jury charge, including all necessary instructions,\n+definitions, and questions. The proposed charges must also\n+10 Updated: May 2025\n+be submitted electronically on a CD in Corel WordPerfect, X3\n+or higher, or Microsoft Word.\n+i) Each requested instruction must be numbered and\n+presented with authority.\n+ii) The parties shall include in the proposed jury charge\n+all necessary instructions or definitions. The\n+instructions shall, at a minimum, include: (1) the\n+prima facie elements of each cause of action and\n+defense asserted, (2) legal definitions required by the\n+jury, (3) items of damages, and (4) methods of\n+calculation of damages. Counsel are to use the Fifth\n+Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, as modified by case\n+law or statutory amendments, whenever possible. Any\n+deviations must be identified and accompani ed with\n+legal authorities for the proposed deviation.\n+iii) Even if the parties cannot, after a good faith attempt,\n+agree on all proposed instructions, definitions, and\n+questions, the parties should nonetheless submit a\n+single, unified charge . Each disputed instruction,\n+definition, or question should be set out in bold type,\n+underlined, or in italics and identified as disputed.\n+Each disputed item should be labeled to show which\n+party is requesting the disputed language.\n+Accompanying each instruction shall be all authority\n+or related materials upon which each party relies.\n+c. The parties shall submit a trial memorandum of law\n+addressing the law governing the case and all contested\n+issues.\n+3) For Non-Jury Trials, each party must file:\n+a. Proposed Findings of Fact (electronically in Corel\n+WordPerfect X3 or higher, or Microsoft Word). Counsel are\n+strongly encouraged to include references to testimony and\n+exhibits that support each proposed finding;\n+b. Proposed Conclusions of Law (electronically in Corel\n+WordPerfect, X3 or higher, or Microsoft Word). Each\n+proposed conclusion of law shall contain citation to legal\n+authority supporting the conclusions; and\n+c. Memorandum of Law. The memorandum of law, proposed\n+findings, and proposed conclusions should, at a minimum,\n+address the following: (1) the prima facie elements of each\n+cause of action and defense asserted, (2) legal definitions, (3)\n+11 Updated: May 2025\n+components of damages, and (4) methods of calculation of\n+damages.\n+11. TRIAL SETTINGS\n+A. The Court sets trial dates at Docket Call in civil cases. Docket Call is a\n+final pretrial conference. Parties should be prepared to answer questions\n+on all pending motions. Pending motions may be ruled on at the Docket\n+Call. Trial may be set for any day after the Docket Call.\n+B. Unless an attorney has actually commenced trial in court, another trial\n+setting will not cause the Court to pass a trial setting in a case.\n+C. Information on Trial Settings. The Case Manager cannot definitively\n+ascertain when a case will be reached or where a case is on the trial docket.\n+Any predictions given by the Case Manager are only “educated guesses”\n+and are NOT binding on the Court.\n+12. EXHIBITS\n+A. All exhibits must be pre-marked and exchanged among counsel at the\n+time the Pretrial Order is filed, unless a later date is agreed to by counsel.\n+Generally, in civil cases, exhibits that have not been disclosed to opposing\n+counsel prior to trial will not be received in evidence. The offering party\n+shall mark its name, the case number, and the exhibit number on each\n+exhibit to be offered. Any exhibits containing personal data identifiers\n+must comply with S.D. Texas General Order #2004- 11 (available at the\n+District website).\n+B. Authentication Objections. Counsel requiring authentication of an\n+opponent’s exhibit must notify offering counsel in writing within seven (7)\n+days after the exhibit is identified and made available for examination.\n+Failure to do so is an admission of authenticity. See LR 44.1.\n+C. Other Objections to Exhibits. Unless otherwise directed by the Court,\n+a party in a civil case may offer in evidence any exhibits listed in the final\n+Joint Pretrial Order unless opposing counsel files specific written\n+objections within fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the\n+scheduled trial date. This time limit supersedes LR 46. The Court\n+endeavors to rule on objections to exhibits outside the presence of the jury\n+and will do so prior to opening statements, to the extent possible.\n+D. Copies of Exhibits. The parties must provide the Court with two (2)\n+complete sets of exhibits for use at trial in a properly tabbed and indexed\n+notebook.\n+12 Updated: May 2025\n+E. Trial Procedure as to Exhibits.\n+1) Counsel may not pass exhibits to the jury during trial without\n+obtaining permission in advance from the Court.\n+2) Exhibits must be identified in front of the jury before they will be\n+received in evidence. Only exhibits admitted during trial will go to\n+the jury during its deliberations.\n+F. Disposition of Exhibits. Counsel should become familiar with LR 79.2\n+regarding disposition of exhibits following trial.\n+13. EQUIPMENT\n+A. Sound and Video Equipment . The Court has projection, document\n+camera, sound and video equipment in the courtroom. Counsel are invited\n+to use that equipment during trial. Counsel seeking to test the equipment\n+prior to trial shall contact the Case Manager by e-mail, letter, or phone to\n+make arrangements. Parties also may provide their own equipment, but\n+special arrangements must be made with the Case Manager prior to the\n+day of trial.\n+B. Other. Easels with writing pads are available for use in the courtroom,\n+upon request to the Case Manager prior to trial.\n+14. COURTROOM PROCEDURES\n+A. Hours. The Court’s hours during trial will vary depending on the type of\n+case and the needs of the parties, counsel, witnesses, and the Court. Court\n+normally will convene at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn by 5:30 p.m., with a 12:00\n+to 1:30 p.m. lunch recess.\n+B. Access at Other Times.\n+1) Should counsel require access to the courtroom to set up equipment\n+or exhibits before or after normal hours of Court, counsel must\n+contact the Case Manager in advance to make the appropriate\n+arrangements.\n+2) Enter and leave the courtroom only by the front doors; do not use\n+the Court’s entrance or the side entrances without permission.\n+C. Telephones. Telephone messages for counsel generally will not be taken\n+by the Judge’s staff, and counsel shall refrain from requesting use of\n+telephones in Chambers.\n+D. Filing of Documents. Handing documents to the Court or Case Manager\n+does not constitute filing of the documents in the CM/ECF system.\n+13 Updated: May 2025\n+1) All original documents must be filed through the CM/ECF system.\n+2) Copies of documents filed within seven (7) days prior to and during\n+trial should be submitted to the Case Manager in duplicate.\n+E. Decorum.\n+1) Counsel and parties will comply with LR 83.9 regarding courtroom\n+Behavior. These procedures are strictly enforced.\n+2) Counsel shall stand when addressing the Court. Counsel may use\n+a lectern positioned appropriately to make oral argument. Counsel\n+may question witnesses standing at the lectern or seated at counsel\n+table.\n+3) Counsel will ensure that they, all parties, and all witnesses refrain\n+from drinking (other than water), eating, smoking, or reading\n+newspapers, books, etc. in the courtroom. No cellular telephones,\n+pagers, or iPads are allowed in the courtroom. Attorneys\n+needing to use computers or iPads during trial must seek prior\n+approval from the Court. Recording equipment and photographic\n+mechanisms are strictly prohibited.\n+F. Witnesses.\n+1) Counsel are responsible for summoning witnesses into the\n+courtroom and instructing them on courtroom decorum and attire.\n+Counsel may question witnesses while standing at the podium or\n+while seated at Counsel table.\n+2) Counsel should bear in mind the Court’s hours and arrange for\n+witnesses accordingly. The Court will not recess to permit counsel\n+to call a missing witness unless he or she has been subpoenaed and\n+has failed to appear.\n+3) Counsel shall make every effort to elicit from the witnesses only\n+information relevant to the issues in the case and to avoid\n+cumulative testimony.\n+G. Seating Assignments. The party with the burden of proof may be seated\n+near the jury box.\n+14 Updated: May 2025\n+H. Jury Matters.\n+1) While the jury is deliberating, counsel are to remain near the\n+courtroom to be immediately available for jury notes or a verdict,\n+unless given permission to leave by the Court.\n+2) After the jury is excused, counsel may not contact jurors unless\n+permitted to do so by the Court. See LR 47.\n+15. DEPOSITIONS\n+A. The Court will accept the parties’ agreement to use a deposition at trial\n+even when the witness is available. Otherwise, parties must follow F ED.\n+R. CIV. P. 32.\n+B. Counsel will designate the portion of any deposition to be read by citing\n+page and line numbers in the Joint Pretrial Order. Objections to those\n+portions (citing page and line numbers) with supporting authority must be\n+filed at least three (3) business days before trial.\n+C. Use of videotape depositions is permitted if counsel voluntarily edit them\n+to resolve objections and incorporate rulings by the Court.\n+D. In a non- jury trial, counsel shall provide a list of the portions of the\n+depositions offered as an exhibit, citing page and line numbers.\n+16. SETTLEMENTS AND ORDERS OF DISMISSAL\n+A. Motions resolved by the parties. If the parties are able to resolve a\n+pending motion without Court intervention, they should advise the case\n+manager immediately. The Court will then deny the motion as moot.\n+B. Settlements. Counsel and pro se litigants shall notify the Court\n+immediately in writing of the parties’ settlement of any matter by filing\n+a document in the case, such as an advisory letter, a joint stipulation or\n+dismissal motion, as appropriate.\n+1) Upon receipt of parties’ announcement of settlement, the Court will\n+enter a 45-day order on closing documents, ordering the parties to\n+file closing documents that are in compliance with Federal Rule of\n+Civil Procedure 41 (e.g., a stipulated dismissal signed by counsel for\n+all parties or an agreed Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss).\n+2) Upon settlement of a suit involving a minor plaintiff, counsel must\n+jointly move for appointment of a guardian ad litem if there is\n+potential conflict of interest between the parent(s) and the minor.\n+15 Updated: May 2025\n+a. If counsel cannot agree on a guardian ad litem, the Court will\n+make the appointment. Counsel may submit the names of\n+qualified attorneys they propose for the appointment.\n+b. Contemporaneously with the motion for appointment,\n+counsel must notify the Case Manager by letter requesting a\n+settlement conference.\n+C. Orders of Dismissal For Want of Prosecution. Any defendant upon\n+whom service has not been perfected within 120 days after the complaint\n+is filed will be dismissed for want of prosecution in accordance with F ED.\n+R. CIV. P. 4(m).\n+17. ATTACHMENTS\n+A. Template Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan\n+B. Template Joint Pretrial Order\n+C. Template Exhibit List\n+D. Template Witness List\n+E. Notice of the Right to Try a Civil Case before a Magistrate Judge\n+F. Consent to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge/Order to Transfer\n+G. Motion and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+16 Updated: May 2025\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+LAREDO DIVISION\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+§\n+VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:__-CV-____\n+§\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+JOINT REPORT REQUIRED BY FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)\n+AND JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN\n+Please restate each instruction in bold before furnishing the requested\n+information.\n+Any differences between parties as to the response(s) to any matter must be set\n+forth in this report.\n+Preliminary Matters\n+1. State when and in what manner the parties conferred as required by Rule 26(f), and\n+identify the counsel and / or parties who participated in the conference.\n+2. List cases pending in this or any other district, along with the cause number and\n+judicial district, that are related to this case.\n+3. If another case is pending in this or any other district, can and should this case be\n+consolidated with that case?\n+4. Briefly describe what this case is about.\n+5. What is Plaintiff’s allegation of federal jurisdiction, or, if this case was removed,\n+what is Defendant’s allegation of federal jurisdiction?\n+6. Does Defendant (or Plaintiff if this case was removed) agree or disagree with this\n+allegation?\n+7. Does either party anticipate the need to add additional parties?\n+8. If so, list any additional parties and when they can be added.\n+9. List any anticipated interventions.\n+10. Are there any issues in this case that may raise class allegations or class action\n+issues?\n+17 Updated: May 2025\n+Discovery\n+11. The conference required by Rule 26(f) was held on _____________________________,\n+at . Counsel / Parties who participated in the conference:\n+for Plaintiff(s) ,\n+for Defendant(s) .\n+12. Describe the proposed discovery plan agreed upon at the Conference. Include the\n+following:\n+A. What changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for\n+disclosures under Rule 26(a);\n+B. When and to whom Plaintiff anticipates it may send interrogatories;\n+C. When and to whom Defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories;\n+D. Of whom and by what date Plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions;\n+E. Of whom and by what date Defendant anticipates taking oral depositions;\n+F. When Plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) will be able\n+to designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and\n+when the opposing party will be able to designate responsive experts and\n+provide their reports;\n+G. List expert depositions Plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an\n+issue) anticipates taking and their anticipated completion date. See Fed. R.\n+Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).\n+H. List expert depositions the opposing party anticipates taking and their\n+anticipated completion date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B).\n+13. If the parties do not agree on any portion of the discovery plan, describe the separate\n+views and proposals of each party.\n+14. Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date.\n+15. State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed.\n+Settlement and Trial Alternatives\n+16. Describe the possibilities of settlement or alternative dispute resolution that were\n+discussed at the Rule 26(f) meeting.\n+17. Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt\n+resolution.\n+18. From the attorneys’ discussions with their respective clients, state the alternative\n+dispute resolution techniques that are reasonably suitable and state when such a\n+technique may be effectively used in this case.\n+19. The parties may jointly consent to a Magistrate Judge conducting any and all\n+proceedings in any jury or nonjury civil matter, including hearing a jury or nonjury\n+trial, and ordering the entry of judgment in the case. Will the parties consent to a\n+Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this case, including trial and\n+disposition of the case?\n+18 Updated: May 2025\n+20. State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time.\n+21. In the event of a trial, how many hours will it take to try this case?\n+Additional Conference Items\n+22. Counsel are charged with knowledge of the Local Rules of the United States District\n+Court for the Southern District of Texas, which are available at:\n+http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/2018%20Local%20Rules.pdf.\n+Have all counsel reviewed those local rules prior to completion of this Report?\n+Counsel are also charged with knowledge of the Honorable Marina Garcia\n+Marmolejo’s Court Procedures in Civil Cases, which are available at:\n+https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ_MGM_July2017.pdf\n+Have all counsel reviewed those rules prior to completion of this Report?\n+23. If there are any motions pending before the Court at this time, list them.\n+24. Can any of these motions be ruled upon at the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling\n+Conference?\n+25. Are there any other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, that deserve\n+special attention from the Court at the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference?\n+26. List the names, Southern District of Texas bar numbers, addresses, and telephone\n+numbers of all counsel. All counsel appearing for any hearing or identified as counsel\n+of record on a pleading must either be licensed to practice in the Southern District\n+of Texas or must file a motion to appear pro hac vice.\n+27. Proposed Dates for Scheduling Order. Please review the pretrial schedule listed\n+below for this case. The schedule is intended to give the parties guidance in: (1)\n+formulating answers to the other parts of this Questionnaire and (2) scheduling the\n+events preceding the trial. The Scheduling Order that will be issued following the\n+Scheduling Conference will necessarily be more specific and detailed and will contain\n+additional matters and discovery limitations. The parties must confer with each\n+other and attempt to reach an agreement on proposed dates for the events\n+listed below. The parties shall enter their proposed dates in the template\n+below and include it in their joint report. As indicated below by asterisks, some\n+dates and events are “inflexible” because of limited judicial resources in the Court’s\n+calendar.\n+19 Updated: May 2025\n+PRETRIAL EVENTS\n+PARTIES’ PROPOSED DATES\n+Deadline for Joinder of All\n+Parties\n+Deadline to Serve Initial\n+Written Discovery1\n+Deadlines to Designate\n+Expert Witnesses2\n+Plaintiff(s):\n+Defendant(s):\n+Deadline to Amend the\n+Pleadings (with consent of all\n+parties or leave of Court)\n+Plaintiff(s):\n+Defendant(s):\n+Deadline for Parties to\n+Conduct Mediation3\n+Deadline to Complete All\n+Discovery, including\n+depositions of expert\n+witnesses4 This deadline\n+shall be no more than\n+seven (7) months after the\n+Initial Pretrial and\n+Scheduling Conference.\n+Deadline to File Motions to\n+Exclude or Limit Expert\n+Testimony5\n+1 This deadline applies to serving a first set of interrogatories, requests for production, and other\n+written discovery, but does not limit the parties from serving further requests prior to the discovery deadline.\n+2 The parties shall disclose the name, address, and vita of any expert witness, and shall serve the\n+report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by these deadlines. The parties must file their lists of proposed\n+expert witnesses with the Court by the designation deadline, but should NOT file reports or other discovery\n+materials.\n+3 The parties are ordered to participate in mediation by the specified deadline. If the parties wish to\n+engage in some other form of alternative dispute resolution, they may file a motion with the Court seeking\n+leave to do so.\n+4 A party must serve its written discovery requests in sufficient time for the responding party to serve\n+its responses before this deadline. See Paragraph 7 of the Court’s Order for Conference and Disclosure of\n+Interested Parties.\n+5 Motions must be filed by the later of (1) 30 days from receipt of the written report of the expert’s\n+opinions or (2) 30 days from the expert’s deposition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such motions must be filed\n+no later than the dispositive motions dead line, below. The failure to strictly comply with this deadline will\n+constitute a waiver of any objection that could have been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.\n+20 Updated: May 2025\n+Deadline to File Dispositive\n+Motions. This Deadline\n+shall be no less than 30\n+days after the Deadline to\n+File Motions to Exclude or\n+Limit Expert Testimony\n+TRACK A — If No Dispositive Motions are Filed:\n+Deadline to File Joint Pretrial\n+Order, Motions in Limine, and\n+Proposed Jury Instructions\n+(or proposed findings of fact\n+and conclusions of law). To be\n+set 30 days after the\n+Deadline to File\n+Dispositive Motions.\n+TRACK B — If Dispositive Motions are Filed:\n+Deadline to File Joint Pretrial\n+Order, Motions in Limine, and\n+Proposed Jury Instructions\n+(or proposed findings of fact\n+and conclusions of law). To be\n+set 120 days after the\n+Deadline to File\n+Dispositive Motions.\n+21 Updated: May 2025\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+LAREDO DIVISION\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+§\n+VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:__-CV-____\n+§\n+[PARTY NAME] §\n+JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER\n+1. Appearance of Counsel. List each party, its counsel, and counsel’s address and telephone\n+number in separate paragraphs.\n+2. Statement of the Case. Give a brief statement of the case, one that the Judge could read to\n+the jury panel for an introduction of the facts and parties; include names, dates, and places.\n+3. Jurisdiction. Briefly specify the jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. If there is\n+an unresolved jurisdictional question, state it.\n+4. Motions. List pending motions.\n+5. Contention of the Parties. State concisely in separate paragraphs each party’s claims.\n+6. Admission of Fact. List all facts that require no proof.\n+7. Contested Issues of Fact. List all material facts in bona fide controversy.\n+8. Agreed Propositions of Law. List the legal propositions that are not in dispute.\n+9. Contested Propositions of Law . State briefly the unresolved questions of law, with\n+authorities to support each.\n+10. Exhibits.\n+A. Each party will attach two lists of all exhibits expected to be offered and will make\n+the exhibits available for examination by opposing counsel. All documentary exhibits\n+must be exchanged before trial, except for rebuttal exhibits or those whose use cannot\n+be anticipated.\n+B. A party requiring authentication of an exhibit must notify the offering counsel in\n+writing within five days after the exhibit is listed and made available; failure to object\n+in writing in advance of the trial concedes authenticity.\n+1) Within reason, other objections to admissibility of exhibits must be made at\n+least three business days before trial with copies of the disputed exhibit and\n+authority.\n+2) Parties must mark their exhibits to include the date and case number on each.\n+3) At the trial, the first step will be the offer and receipt in evidence of exhibits.\n+22 Updated: May 2025\n+11. Witnesses.\n+A. On a separate form, each party will attach four lists with the names and addresses of\n+witnesses who may be called with a brief statement of the nature of their testimony.\n+B. Include: If other witnesses to be called at the trial become known, their names,\n+addresses, and subject of their testimony will be reported to opposing counsel in\n+writing as soon as they are known; this does not apply to rebuttal or impeachment\n+witnesses.\n+12. Settlements. State that all settlement efforts have been exhausted, and the case will have to\n+be tried.\n+13. Trial. State estimated length of trial and logistical problems, including availability of\n+witnesses, out-of-state people, bulky exhibits, and documentation.\n+14. Attachments. Each party must file as a separate document (captioned, signed by counsel,\n+and with service certified) these required attachments in duplicate.\n+A. For a jury trial:\n+(1) Proposed questions for the voir dire examination.\n+(2) Proposed charge, including instructions, definitions, and special interrogatories,\n+with authority.\n+B. For a non- jury trial:\n+(1) Proposed findings of fact with agreed and contested ones separated.\n+(2) Conclusions of law with authority.\n+____________________________________ Date: ________________________\n+United States District Judge\n+Approved by:\n+____________________________________ Date:________________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Plaintiff\n+____________________________________ Date:___________________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Defendant\n+23 Updated: May 2025\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+VERSUS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n+CIVIL ACTION NO.\n+EXHIBIT LIST\n+JUDGE MARINA GARCIA MARMOLEJO\n+CASE MANAGER: ANGIE TREVIÑO\n+LIST OF\n+Q PLAINTIFF Q DEFENDANT\n+PROCEEDING: DATE (S):\n+NO.\n+DESCRIPTION\n+OBJ ADM NOT\n+ADM\n+DATE\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+24 Updated: May 2025\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+VERSUS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n+CIVIL ACTION NO.\n+WITNESS LIST\n+JUDGE MARINA GARCIA MARMOLEJO\n+CASE MANAGER: ANGIE TREVIÑO\n+LIST OF\n+Q PLAINTIFF Q DEFENDANT\n+PROCEEDING: DATE (S):\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+25 Updated: May 2025\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+Motion and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+Division Case Number\n+vs.\n+*I understand that the Court requires strict compliance with the Local Rules for the Southern District of Texas and the\n+Court Procedures for District Judge Garcia Marmolejo, which are applicable to cases assigned to Judge Garcia\n+Marmolejo. The rules are available by visiting the Court’s website.\n+The state bar reports that the applicant’s status is:\n+Dated:\n+Clerk’s signature:\n+This lawyer is admitted pro hac vice.\n+Dated:\n+__________________________\n+Marina Garcia Marmolejo\n+United States District Judge\n+Lawyer’s Name\n+Firm Street\n+City & Zip Code\n+Telephone & Email\n+Licensed: State & Number\n+Federal Bar & Number\n+Name of party applicant seeks to\n+appear for:\n+Has applicant been sanctioned by any bar association or court? Yes No\n+On a separate sheet for each sanction, please supply the full particulars.\n+Dated:\n+Signed*:\n+Order Granting Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice","id":"812409270635354116e3c2c3bec1af195516a24abf04a78ae28aa4941b90fd25","newHash":"39e82f282dfeb83b84f13a7d0446dfdc0469c9b3f9e66ffc7a3582c7c18db1bd","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ_MGM_May2025.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/39e82f282dfeb83b84f13a7d0446dfdc0469c9b3f9e66ffc7a3582c7c18db1bd.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Civ_MGM_May2025.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:16.542680+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,565 @@\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+1\n+U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN A. KAZEN\n+United States Courthouse Jessica Rodriguez, Case Manager\n+1300 Victoria St., Ste. 2317 Tel: (956) 726-2332\n+Laredo, TX 78040 Fax: (956) 790-1756\n+Tel: (956) 790-1757 Email: Jessica_Rodriguez@txs.uscourts.gov\n+COURT PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL CASES\n+1. Contact with Court Personnel\n+2. Courtesy Copies of Documents\n+3. Emergencies\n+4. Continuances\n+5. Appearances\n+6. Motion Practice\n+7. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)\n+8. Pretrial Conferences and Docket Calls\n+9. Required Trial Materials\n+10. Procedures for Jury Trials\n+11. Courtroom Procedures\n+12. Sentencing Procedures\n+13. Attachments\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+2\n+The accompanying procedures are to be used in conjunction with the Local Rules for the Southern District\n+of Texas and not as a substitute for them. The Local Rules of this District can be obtained on the District\n+website at www.txs.uscourts.gov. The Court requires strict compliance with these Local Rules.\n+1. CONTACT WITH COURT PERSONNEL\n+A. The Court requires that parties file documents through the District Court ’s Case\n+Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) System. See Southern District of\n+Texas Local Rule 5.1 (LR5.1) and the District =s Administrative Procedures for\n+CM/ECF (as amended and available at www.txs.uscourts.gov).\n+B. Case-related telephone, letter, and email inquiries are strictly limited to procedural\n+matters and should be made only to the Case Manager . See addresses below.\n+Inquiries should not be made to the Court’s secretary or law clerks. The Court’s\n+caseload does not allow the Case Manager to respond to casual telephone inquiries\n+about the status of motions or cases.\n+C. Information about the status of documents, entry of orders, or docket entries should\n+be obtained from the CM/ECF or PACER Systems, or if absolutely necessary, from\n+the United States District Clerk=s Office at (956) 723-3542.\n+D. Correspondence with the Court must be delivered or sent to the Court’s Chambers:\n+1) Case-related correspondence should be addressed to:\n+Jessica Rodriguez\n+Case Manager to U.S. District Judge John A. Kazen\n+1300 Victoria St., Ste. 2317\n+Laredo, TX 78040\n+Or by email: Jessica_Rodriguez@txs.uscourts.gov\n+2) Do not address substantive issues in letter or email form. The parties must\n+file copies of all letters. Email correspondence with the Court should copy\n+all other counsel appearing in the case and will be docketed at the Court’s\n+discretion.\n+3) Copies of urgent documents (including letters) may be sent by First Class\n+Mail, emailed, or hand-delivered to Chambers (see Emergencies, § 3 below)\n+or to the Court’s Case Manager, with copies to all parties. Service copies\n+must be transmitted to all counsel of record simultaneously with (or prior\n+to) and in the same manner as the document is transmitted to the Court.\n+The documents may not be faxed without express prior permission of the\n+Court.\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+3\n+2. COURTESY COPIES OF DOCUMENTS\n+A. Letters to the Court may be hand-delivered, sent by First Class Mail to Chambers,\n+or transmitted by email, with copies to all parties served prior to or at the time of\n+filing. See addresses above. Letters concerning discovery and scheduling\n+matters must be filed in the docket.\n+B. The parties must forward promptly to Chambers courtesy copies of (i) all\n+documents that exceed ten (10) pages in length, including exhibits and attachments,\n+and (ii) documents pertaining to matters to be heard by the Court within seven (7)\n+days after the document is filed. Unless this rule is followed, the Court will not\n+consider any documents filed within seven (7) days of any court appearance. Do\n+not fax or email copies of documents to Chambers unless specifically authorized to\n+do so by the Court.\n+3. EMERGENCIES AND TRAVEL\n+A. Counsel should contact the Case Manager at (956) 726-2332 for matters requiring\n+immediate attention.\n+B. A copy of emergency motions must be sent directly to Chambers after their\n+electronic filing. Counsel should bring the matter to the Court ’s attention\n+promptly.\n+C. Travel requests must be submitted to Chambers a minimum of five (5) business\n+days before the controlling deadline , with exceptions only for verifiable medical\n+emergencies or funerals. Attorneys must also furnish Probation with both the\n+request and documentary proof within the same five (5) business day timeframe,\n+ensuring adequate time for Probation to verify and assess the request's merits.\n+Requests will be granted at the Court’s discretion. Failure to comply with this rule,\n+absent good cause, will result in the request being denied.\n+4. DEADLINE EXTENSIONS AND CONTINUANCES\n+A. Motions for deadline extensions and continuances of court settings must be filed\n+prior to date of the controlling deadline and will be granted only at the Court’s\n+discretion. Motions that fail to comply with this rule , absent a showing of good\n+cause, will not be granted.\n+B. Agreements or joint motions among counsel for deadline extensions or\n+continuances are not binding on the Court. Parties must notify the Court of agreed\n+continuances by submitting an agreed motion and proposed order.\n+C. A trial generally will not be continued because of the unavailability of a witness.\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+4\n+5. APPEARANCES\n+A. An attorney who appears at a hearing or conference must:\n+1) be familiar with the case,\n+2) have authority to bind the client, and\n+3) be in charge for that appearance.\n+B. Motions for admission pro hac vice shall include the attorney-applicant’s averment\n+that he or she has familiarized him/herself with the Local Rules of the Southern\n+District of Texas and these Procedures applicable to criminal cases before Judge\n+Kazen. See attached form, also available at the Court’s website.\n+C. Requirement for Experienced Local Counsel. When an attorney does not\n+maintain a principal office in the Laredo Division, or when an attorney does not\n+have a substantial history of federal criminal practice, or when the ends of justice\n+so require, the Court may require the attorney appear with expe rienced local\n+counsel.\n+“Experienced Local Counsel” Defined. A member of the bar of the Southern\n+District of Texas who maintains a principal office in the Laredo Division may serve\n+as local counsel. Local counsel must have demonstrated experience in, and\n+knowledge of, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of\n+Evidence, the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the Local Rules of the Southern\n+District of Texas, and U.S. District Judge John A. Kazen Court Procedures in\n+Criminal Cases. Local counsel must be autho rized to act as attorney of record for\n+all purposes, and must be authorized to present and argue the client ’s position at\n+any hearing called by the Court and to perform any duty required by the Local Rules\n+of the Southern District of Texas and of this Court.\n+6. MOTION PRACTICE\n+A. General Guidelines. The Court follows the written motion practice described in\n+the Local Rules. In addition, the following procedures apply:\n+1) Counsel must make serious and timely efforts to confer with opposing counsel\n+on all motions to try to reach agreement on the relief requested by the movant.\n+2) Motions must conform with CrLR12.2 and contain a certificate verifying that\n+opposing counsel was consulted but no agreement could be reached. An\n+unopposed motion and its order must be indicated prominently in the caption.\n+3) If the motion presents issues of fact, it shall be supported by affidavit or\n+declaration that sets forth with particularity the material facts at issue.\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+5\n+4) The Court will not grant a motion to adopt another party ’s motion and such a\n+motion should not be filed.\n+5) Any pleadings filed with the C ourt, including exhibits thereto, containing\n+personal data identifiers must comply with the S.D. Texas General Order\n+#2004-11 (available at the District’s website) on protecting personal privacy in\n+public case files.\n+B. Page Limits and Briefing Requirements. The Court requires concise, pertinent,\n+and well-organized memoranda of law. Without leave of Court, all memoranda of\n+law are limited to 25 pages, 12 -point font, double-spaced, with 1” margins. Any\n+memorandum that has more than ten (10) pages of argument must contain the\n+following items.\n+1) A table of contents setting forth the page number of each section, including\n+all headings designated in the body of the brief or memorandum.\n+2) A table of citations of cases, statutes, rules, textbooks, and other authorities,\n+alphabetically arranged.\n+3) A short statement of the nature and stage of the proceeding.\n+4) A statement of the issues to be ruled upon by the Court and, with respect to\n+each issue, a short statement (supported by authority) of the standard of\n+review.\n+5) A short summary of the argument.\n+6) Succinct headings dividing the argument into separate points.\n+7) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.\n+8) Proposed orders.\n+C. If an evidentiary hearing is necessary, the Court will notify the parties in advance.\n+Exhibit and witness lists (the originals and TWO (2 ) copies of each) shall be\n+provided to the Court at the hearing.\n+D. Motions to Suppress must be plead ed with specificity and not filed solely for\n+discovery. They must also be in compliance with the Local Rules. Motions not in\n+conformity therewith will be struck.\n+E. All Motions to Dismiss, Motions to Sever, and Motions for Separate Trial must be\n+specific and brought to the Court ’s attention at least thirty (30) days before jury\n+selection.\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+6\n+F. Dispositive motions in criminal cases will be considered by the United States\n+District Judge or may be referred to the Magistrate Judge as requested by the Court.\n+7. USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)\n+Attorneys and self -represented litigants must ensure that any filing prepared with the\n+assistance of generative artificial intelligence (e.g. ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or similar tools),\n+is thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal accuracy prior to submission. These tools are\n+capable of producing content that may be factually incorrect or legally unsound.\n+The Court will hold attorneys and self-represented litigants fully accountable for all content\n+submitted under their name or signature, regardless of whether it was drafted in part by\n+generative AI. The Court will exercise its inherent authority to sanction conduct that abuses\n+the judicial process, including reliance on inaccurate or frivolous AI-generated content. In\n+re Goode, 821 F.3d 553, 559 (5th Cir. 2016) (courts may sanction local rule violations even\n+absent bad faith showing). The Court will not acc ept the excuse that such content was\n+prepared by AI, staff, or others when assessing potential sanctions.\n+Attorneys are further reminded of their professional obligations under the Texas\n+Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, including the duty of candor to the tribunal\n+and the prohibition against knowingly offering false statements of law. See Tex.\n+Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct r. 3.03(a) (Tex. Bar Ass’n 2024). Attorneys must also\n+remain proficient and competent in the practice of law, including recognizing the benefits\n+and risks associated with relevant technology. See id. at 1.01, cmt. 8.\n+The Court adopts and incorporates by reference Chief Judge Randy Crane’s General Order\n+2025-04 on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings.\n+8. PRETRIAL CONFERENCES AND DOCKET CALLS\n+A. The Court generally holds one trial docket call each month. This docket call is the\n+final pretrial conference (FPTC). At the FPTC, the Court may rule on all pending\n+motions and conduct re -arraignments. The Magistrate Judge may conduct re -\n+arraignments in felony cases as requested by the Court.\n+B. The parties must engage in timely plea negotiations. Defense counsel should\n+confer beforehand with the Government and their clients and review plea\n+agreements prior to the FPTC. The FPTC date is NOT the date to secure a plea\n+agreement and review it with the defendant-client. The parties must be ready to\n+enter a plea of guilty or proceed to trial on announcement.\n+9. REQUIRED TRIAL MATERIALS\n+A. For All Trials and Evidentiary Hearings:\n+1) Exhibit List (see attached form , also available on the Court’s website ).\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+7\n+Original must be filed in accordance with Local Rules; two (2) courtesy\n+copies must be provided to the Court at the trial and/or hearing for\n+distribution to all parties.\n+2) Witness List for live witnesses ( see attached form, also available on the\n+Court’s website). Original must be filed in accordance with Local Rules;\n+two (2) courtesy copies must be provided to the Court at the trial and/or\n+hearing for distribution to all parties.\n+3) Objections to Exhibits, if any, must be filed within seven (7) calendar days\n+after the exhibit is listed and made available and at least seven (7) days\n+before trial. Failure to object in advance of trial in writing concedes\n+authenticity. See CrLR55.2(A) and (B).\n+B. For Jury Trials:\n+1) Voir Dire. The Court will conduct the principal examination of the venire.\n+Counsel will be generally allowed fifteen ( 15) to thirty ( 30) minutes\n+(depending on the complexity of the case) to conduct an examination of the\n+venire, provided that the proposed voir dire questions are submitted in\n+advance to the Court.\n+Each proposed voir dire question must be in question form. Counsel must\n+file an original copy of any proposed voir dire questions according to Local\n+Rules. Counsel must also provide TWO (2 ) courtesy copies of any\n+proposed voir dire questions.\n+2) Jury Instructions . The Court utilizes the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury\n+Instructions, as modified by case law or statutory amendments, when\n+composing its jury instructions . A party should file proposed jury\n+instructions only to request the addition or substitution of unique and/or\n+non-standard instructions. Each requested instruction must be numbered\n+and supported by authority.\n+3) Motions in limine are not required but may be filed when a party seeks\n+the Court’s ruling on a unique or novel evidentiary dispute. The Court\n+strongly discourages and may strike motions in limine that simply seek to\n+have the Court admonish the other party to follow the Federal Rules of\n+Evidence and Criminal Procedure or other well -known rules of jury trial\n+practice, all of which counsel must understand and follow. See Attachment\n+A, which enumerates a non -exhaustive list of basic trial rules and\n+expectations that should not be included in a motion in limine.\n+Additionally, if counsel harbors doubt as to whether his or her anticipated\n+conduct at trial will violate the rules or expectations, counsel must seek\n+permission to take that action in a motion in limine . Failure to ask\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+8\n+permission prior to taking a potentially prohibited action may result in\n+sanctions.\n+C. For Non-Jury Trials, each party must file:\n+1) Proposed Findings of Fact (electronically in Microsoft Word). The Court\n+strongly encourages counsel to reference testimony and exhibits that\n+support each proposed finding of fact;\n+2) Proposed Conclusions of Law (electronically in Microsoft Word). Each\n+proposed conclusion of law will contain citation to legal authority\n+supporting the conclusions.\n+10. PROCEDURES FOR JURY TRIALS\n+A. Unless an attorney has commenced trial in another court, prior trial settings will not\n+cause a case to be continued.\n+B. Voir Dire. The Court will conduct the principal examination of the venire.\n+Counsel will be generally allowed fifteen (15) to thirty (30) minutes (depending on\n+the complexity of the case) to conduct an examination of the venire, provided that\n+the proposed voir dire questions are submitted in advance to the Court. See § 8.B\n+above. The Magistrate Judge may conduct voir dire as requested by the Court with\n+the consent of the parties.\n+C. Exhibits.\n+1) Counsel must be familiar with CrLR55.2 regarding authentication of,\n+objections to, and disposition of exhibits at criminal trials.\n+2) Any exhibits containing personal data identifiers must comply with S.D.\n+Texas General Order #2004-11 (available at the District website).\n+3) All exhibits must be marked and exchanged among counsel prior to trial.\n+The offering party will mark each of his /her own exhibits with the party =s\n+name, case number, and exhibit number.\n+4) The Court will admit all exhibits without objection into evidence as the first\n+order of business. Sensitive exhibits ( e.g., weapons, drugs, and money)\n+will remain in the custody of the government agent throughout the\n+proceedings.\n+5) Counsel will not pass exhibits to the jury during trial without obtaining\n+permission in advance from the Court. All admitted exhibits will go to the\n+jury during its deliberations.\n+6) Counsel for each party is required to provide the Court with two (2) printed\n+copies of that party=s exhibits in a properly tabbed and indexed notebook.\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+9\n+7) Disposition of Exhibits Following Trial.\n+a. Exhibits that are not easily stored in a file folder (e.g., posters, parts,\n+or models) must be withdrawn after the completion of the trial and\n+substituted with reduced reproductions or photographs.\n+b. If there is no appeal, exhibits will be removed by the offering party\n+within thirty (30) days after the time for appeal has elapsed. When\n+there is an appeal, exhibits returned by the Court of Appeals will be\n+removed by the offering party within ten (10) d ays after written\n+notice from the clerk.\n+c. Exhibits not removed will be disposed of by the clerk, and the\n+expenses incurred will be taxed against the offering party.\n+D. Equipment.\n+1) Sound and Video Equipment : The Court has projection, document camera,\n+sound, and video equipment in the courtroom. Counsel are invited to use that\n+equipment during trial. Counsel who wish to test the equipment prior to trial\n+shall contact the Case Manager to make arrangements to test the equipment.\n+Parties also may provide their own equipment, but special arrangements must\n+be made with the Case Manager prior to the day of trial.\n+2) Internet service is available for attorneys.\n+3) The Court will not provide a printer.\n+4) Devices for auditory assistance are available for the hearing impaired.\n+11. COURTROOM PROCEDURES\n+A. Hours. The Court will generally convene for trial at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 5:30\n+p.m., recessing for lunch between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.\n+B. Access at Other Times . Counsel requesting access to the courtroom to set up\n+equipment or exhibits before or after normal hours of Court must make\n+arrangements in advance with the Case Manager.\n+C. Telephones. Telephone messages for counsel will not be taken by the Court ’s\n+staff, and counsel shall refrain from requesting use of telephones in chambers.\n+D. Filing of Documents. Handing documents to the Court or Case Manager does not\n+constitute the filing of the documents in the CM/ECF system.\n+1) All original documents must be filed through the CM/ECF system.\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+10\n+2) Copies of documents filed within two (2) days prior to and during trial\n+should be submitted to the Case Manager in duplicate.\n+C. Decorum.\n+1) Attorneys are required to wear standard business attire. Counsel and\n+parties will comply with CrLR 57.2 and Appendix C regarding courtroom\n+behavior. These procedures will be strictly enforced.\n+3) Counsel will ensure that all parties and witnesses refrain from chewing gum,\n+drinking, eating, smoking, or reading newspapers, books, etc., in the\n+courtroom. No cellular telephones, pagers , iPads, computers or other\n+electronic devices are allowed in the courtroom. Attorneys needing to use\n+computers or iPads during trial must seek prior approval. Recording\n+equipment and photographic mechanisms are strictly prohibited.\n+F. Witnesses.\n+1) Counsel are responsible for summoning witnesses into the courtroom and\n+instructing them on courtroom decorum and attire. Counsel may question\n+witnesses while standing at the podium or seated at Counsel table.\n+2) Counsel must obtain the Court’s permission before approaching a witness.\n+3) Counsel shall make every effort to elicit from the witnesses only\n+information relevant to the issues in the case and to avoid cumulative\n+testimony.\n+4) Counsel should bear in mind the Court ’s hours and arrange for witnesses\n+accordingly. The Court will not recess to permit counsel to call a missing\n+witness unless he or she has been subpoenaed and has failed to appear.\n+5) Mode and Order of Examination: A party will be allowed to conduct a\n+direct examination of its witnesses to be followed by cross-examination by\n+opposing counsel. Interrogation will conclude with a re-direct examination,\n+which is limited by the scope of cross-examination.\n+The Court will not allow any Are-cross@ or Are-re-direct,@ except in\n+extraordinary circumstances and upon request by counsel.\n+G. Deliberations. While the jury is deliberating, Counsel are to remain near the\n+courtroom to be available for jury notes or a verdict.\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+11\n+12. SENTENCING PROCEDURES\n+A. The purpose of these sentencing procedures is to promote thorough research and\n+robust, intelligent discussion about the legal issues raised by the parties. The\n+procedures below are meant to raise the quality of advocacy on behalf of those\n+being sentenced and by the Government in order to assist the Court in reaching\n+decisions based on a fair and impartial application of the law to the facts of each\n+case.\n+B. PSI Report Completion Deadline. The Court will set a deadline for completion\n+of the Presentence Investigation (“PSI”) Report by the U.S. Probation Office. It is\n+the responsibility of counsel to obtain the PSI Report. The U.S. Probation Office\n+is not required to further advise counsel of the completion of the PSI Report.\n+C. Statements of Acceptance of Responsibility . Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, a\n+defendant who truthfully admits the conduct comprising the offense of conviction\n+at the plea colloquy may adopt and submit the factual basis statement to the Court\n+for consideration in determining whether the defendant qualifies for adjustment\n+under subsection (a).\n+D. Responses to PSI Report.\n+1) Objections or Statements of Non -Opposition. The attorney for the\n+Defendant and the attorney for the Government shall submit either written\n+objections or a written statement of non-opposition to the U.S. Probation Office\n+and serve the same on opposing counsel within fourteen (14) days of receiving\n+the PSI Report. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(f); S.D. Tex. CrLR 32.6; U.S.\n+SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 6A1.2 (2013).\n+Legal objections to the PSI Report require citations to supporting and contrary\n+authority. When filing objections , counsel must note if the issue has been\n+decided by binding or non -binding precedent and/or if the objection is being\n+filed merely to preserve the issue for further appellate review.\n+2) Responding to Objections. No later than fourteen (14) calendar days after\n+receiving a party’s objections to the PSI Report, opposing counsel shall file a\n+written response to the objections. Absent a clear demonstration of good\n+cause, a party’s failure to timely respond and dispute the objections filed by\n+opposing counsel concedes the issue so long as the objection is non -frivolous.\n+An objection is frivolous, for example, if it is foreclosed by binding precedent,\n+unless it is merely filed to preserve the is sue for further review. A party is not\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+12\n+required to respond to objections foreclosed by binding precedent and filed to\n+preserve the issue.\n+3) Extensions. If additional time is required, counsel may request up to five (5)\n+business days from the U.S. Probation Office without filing a formal motion\n+with the Court. If more than five (5) business days are needed, a motion to\n+extend time to file objections should be immediately filed. A sample proposed\n+order is attached and is available on the Court’s website.\n+E. Sentencing Memorandum. Counsel shall also file, within fourteen (14) calendar\n+days of receiving the PSI Report, any sentencing memorandum with any pertinent\n+attachments—such as letters and photographs —for consideration of grounds for\n+departures under the Sentencing Guidelines or variances under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).\n+Requests for departures and/or variances must be supported by a factual basis and\n+cite supporting legal authority.\n+F. “Safety Valve” Debriefs in applicable drug offenses pursuant to 18 U.S.C.\n+§ 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, must be completed no later than one week prior to\n+the PSI Report disclosure date. The attorney for the Government shall timely notify\n+the U.S. Probation Office of any recommendations prior to the disclosure deadline.\n+13. ATTACHMENTS\n+A. Non-Exhaustive List of Basic Trial Rules and Expectations\n+B. Template Exhibit List\n+C. Template Witness List\n+D. Motion and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+E. Template Proposed Order Extending Deadline for Objections to the PSI Report and\n+Sentencing Memorandum\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+13\n+ATTACHMENT “A”\n+Non-Exhaustive List of Basic Trial Rules and Expectations\n+1. The Government shall not comment on a defendant’s right to remain silent, see Griffin v.\n+California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965), or attempt to improperly shift its burden of proof to a\n+defendant.\n+2. The Government shall not introduce prior bad acts without giving the Defendant proper notice\n+and obtaining a ruling from the Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3).\n+3. The Defendant shall not elicit improper self -serving hearsay statements made by the\n+Defendant. See Fed. R. Evid. 801.\n+4. The Defendant shall not allude to information that could only come to the jury’s attention\n+through the sworn testimony of the Defendant unless Defendant informs the Court that he or\n+she will testify and does in fact testify.\n+5. The Defendant must provide the Government proper notice of the affirmative defenses he or\n+she wishes to raise. See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.1-12.3.\n+6. Neither party shall elicit an opinion about whether the Defendant had a mental state or\n+condition that constitutes an element of the crime or defense. Fed. R. Evid. 704.\n+7. Neither party shall improperly vouch for the credibility of their witnesses. See Fifth Circuit\n+Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases) § 1.09 (2019).\n+8. Neither party shall make personal attacks against the other. S.D. Tex. L.R., App’x C.\n+9. Neither party shall divulge any plea, plea discussion, or any related statement prohibited by\n+Fed. R. Evid. 410.\n+10. Neither party shall, during opening statements, comment on any exhibit not previously\n+furnished to opposing counsel and admitted as evidence.\n+11. Neither party shall admit or reference extrinsic evidence of specific instances of a witness’s\n+conduct that may be used to attack or bolster the witness’s character for truthfulness, except\n+for a criminal conviction as permitted by Fed. R. Evid. 608(b).\n+12. Neither party shall introduce statements that violate the rule against hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.\n+802.\n+13. Neither party shall comment on punishment or make arguments designed to elicit sympathy\n+or jury nullification. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases) § 1.04\n+(2019).\n+14. All parties must provide proper notice of expert witness testimony. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16.\n+Expert testimony is appropriate when the expert’s specialized knowledge will help the trier\n+of fact understand the evidence or make a factual finding. Fed. R. Evid. 702.\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+14\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n+VERSUS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n+CRIMINAL ACTION NO.\n+EXHIBIT LIST\n+JUDGE JOHN A. KAZEN\n+CASE MANAGER: JESSICA RODRIGUEZ\n+LIST OF\n+Q GOVERNMENT Q DEFENDANT\n+PROCEEDING: DATE (S):\n+NO.\n+DESCRIPTION\n+OBJ\n+ADM\n+NOT\n+ADM\n+DATE\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+15\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n+VERSUS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n+CRIMINAL ACTION NO.\n+WITNESS LIST\n+JUDGE JOHN A. KAZEN\n+CASE MANAGER: JESSICA RODRIGUEZ\n+LIST OF\n+Q GOVERNMENT Q DEFENDANT\n+PROCEEDING: DATE (S):\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+16\n+16\n+Updated: June 23, 2025\n+17\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+Motion and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+Division Case Number\n+vs.\n+*I understand that the Court requires strict compliance with the Local Rules for the Southern District of Texas and the\n+Court Procedures for District Judge Kazen, which are applicable to cases assigned to Judge Kazen. The rules are\n+available by visiting the Court’s website.\n+The state bar reports that the applicant’s status is:\n+Dated:\n+Clerk’s signature\n+This lawyer is admitted pro hac vice.\n+Dated:\n+John A. Kazen\n+United States District Judge\n+Lawyer’s Name\n+Firm\n+Street\n+City & Zip Code\n+Telephone & Email\n+Licensed: State & Number\n+Federal Bar & Number\n+Name of party applicant seeks to\n+appear for:\n+Has applicant been sanctioned by any bar association or court? Yes No\n+On a separate sheet for each sanction, please supply the full particulars.\n+Dated:\n+Signed*:\n+Order Granting Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+18\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+LAREDO DIVISION\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+VS. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:xx-CR-xxx\n+DEFENDANT\n+ORDER\n+Pending before the Court is Defendant =s Motion to Extend Time to File\n+Objections to the Pres entence Investigation Report , and Sentencing\n+Memorandum. After review, the motion is\n+ DENIED.\n+ GRANTED. The Court hereby Orders the Objections to the Presentence\n+Investigation Report and Sentencing Memorandum be filed by\n+_________________, 202___ at 5:00 p.m.\n+SIGNED this _____ day of ________, 202__.\n+_______________________________\n+John A. Kazen\n+United States District Judge","id":"871d726831ee6ec6c89d2bc60ad5ea68964ea1157c9d79c2d71647d12a19c5aa","newHash":"c128b88666559d4ea24889d0b9d4d0a0b95199e06dbeaadb116793ddaadae0a8","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_Court_Rules_JAK_June_2025.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/c128b88666559d4ea24889d0b9d4d0a0b95199e06dbeaadb116793ddaadae0a8.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_Court_Rules_JAK_June_2025.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:16.402408+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,669 @@\n+Updated August 2026 1\n+U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE MARINA GARCIA MARMOLEJO\n+United States Courthouse Heyda Rios, Judicial Assistant\n+1300 Victoria St., Ste. 2267 Tel: (956) 726-2209\n+Laredo, TX 78040 Fax: (956) 726-2900\n+Tel: (956) 726-2209 Email: heyda_rios@txs.uscourts.gov\n+COURT PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL CASES\n+1. Contact with Court Personnel\n+2. Courtesy Copies of Documents\n+3. Emergencies\n+4. Continuances\n+5. Appearances\n+6. Motion Practice\n+7. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)\n+8. Pretrial Conferences and Docket Calls\n+9. Required Trial Materials\n+10. Procedures for Jury Trials\n+11. Courtroom Procedures\n+12. Sentencing Procedures\n+13. Attachments\n+2\n+The accompanying procedures are to be used in conjunction with the Local Rules for the\n+Southern District of Texas and not as a substitute for them. The Local Rules of this District\n+can be obtained on the District’s website at www.txs.uscourts.gov. The Court requires strict\n+compliance with these Local Rules.\n+1. CONTACT WITH COURT PERSONNEL\n+A. The Court requires that parties file documents through the District\n+Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) System.\n+See Southern District of Texas Local Rule 5.1 (LR 5.1) and the District’s\n+Administrative Procedures for CM/ECF (as amended and available at\n+www.txs.uscourts.gov).\n+B. Case-related telephone, letter, and email inquiries are strictly limited\n+to procedural matters and should be made only to the Judicial\n+Assistant. See addresses below. Inquiries should not be made to the\n+Court’s law clerks. The Court’s caseload does not allow the Judicial\n+Assistant to respond to casual telephone inquiries about the status of\n+motions or cases.\n+C. Information about the status of documents, entry of orders, or docket\n+entries should be obtained from the CM/ECF or PACER Systems, or if\n+absolutely necessary, from the United States District Clerk =s Office at\n+(956) 723-3542.\n+D. Correspondence with the Court must be delivered or sent to the Court’s\n+Chambers:\n+1) Case-related correspondence should be addressed to:\n+Heyda Rios\n+Judicial Assistant to U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia\n+Marmolejo\n+1300 Victoria St., Ste. 3329\n+Laredo, TX 78040\n+Or by email: heyda_rios@txs.uscourts.gov\n+2) Do not address substantive issues in letter or email form. The\n+parties must file copies of all letters. Email correspondence with\n+the Court should copy all other counsel appearing in the case and\n+will be docketed at the Court’s discretion.\n+3) Copies of urgent documents (including letters) may be sent by\n+First Class Mail, emailed, or hand -delivered to Chambers ( see\n+3\n+Emergencies, § 3 below) or to the Court’s Judicial Assistant, with\n+copies to all parties. Service copies must be transmitted to all\n+counsel of record simultaneously with (or prior to) and in the same\n+manner as the document is transmitted to the Court. The\n+documents may not be faxed without express prior permission of\n+the Court.\n+1. COURTESY COPIES OF DOCUMENTS\n+A. Letters to the Court may be hand-delivered, sent by First Class Mail to\n+Chambers, or transmitted by email, with copies to all parties served\n+prior to or at the time of filing. See addresses above. Letters concerning\n+discovery and scheduling matters must be filed in the docket.\n+B. The parties must forward promptly to Chambers courtesy copies of\n+(i) all documents that exceed ten (10) pages in length, including exhibits\n+and attachments, and (ii) documents pertaining to matters to be heard\n+by the Court within seven (7) days after the document is filed. Unless\n+this rule is followed, the Court will not consider any documents filed\n+within seven (7) days of any court appearance. Do not fax or email\n+copies of documents to Chambers unless specifically authorized to do so\n+by the Court.\n+2. EMERGENCIES AND TRAVEL\n+A. Counsel should contact the Judicial Assistant at (956) 790- 2209 for\n+matters requiring immediate attention.\n+B. A copy of emergency motions must be sent directly to Chambers after\n+their electronic filing. Counsel should bring the matter to the Court’s\n+attention promptly.\n+C. Travel requests must be submitted to Chambers a minimum of\n+five (5) business days before the controlling deadline , with\n+exceptions only for verifiable medical emergencies or funerals.\n+Attorneys must also furnish Probation with both the request and\n+documentary proof within the same five (5) business day timeframe,\n+ensuring adequate time for Probation to verify and assess the request's\n+merits. Requests will be granted at the Court’s discretion. Failure to\n+comply with this rule, absent good cause, will result in the request being\n+denied.\n+4\n+3. CONTINUANCES\n+A. Motions for continuance must be filed at least three (3) business\n+days prior to date of the controlling deadline and will be granted\n+only at the Court’s discretion. Motions for continuance that fail to\n+comply with this rule, absent a showing of good cause, will not be\n+granted.\n+B. Agreements or joint motions among counsel for continuance are not\n+binding on the Court. Parties must notify the Court of agreed\n+continuances by submitting an agreed motion and proposed order.\n+C. A trial will not be continued because of the unavailability of a witness.\n+5. APPEARANCES\n+A. An attorney who appears at a hearing or conference must:\n+1) be familiar with the case,\n+2) have authority to bind the client, and\n+3) be in charge for that appearance.\n+B. Motions for admission pro hac vice shall include the attorney-applicant’s\n+averment that he or she has familiarized him/herself with the Local\n+Rules of the Southern District of Texas and these Procedures applicable\n+to criminal cases before Judge Garcia Marmolejo. See attached form,\n+also available at the Court’s website.\n+C. Requirement for Experienced Local Counsel. When an attorney\n+does not maintain a principal office in the Laredo Division, or when an\n+attorney does not have a substantial history of federal criminal practice,\n+or when the ends of justice so require, the Court may require the\n+attorney appear with experienced local counsel.\n+“Experienced Local Counsel” Defined. A member of the bar of the\n+Southern District of Texas who maintains a principal office in the\n+Laredo Division may serve as local counsel. Local counsel must have\n+demonstrated experience in, and knowledge of, the Federal Rules of\n+Criminal Procedure, the F ederal Rules of Evidence, the United States\n+Sentencing Guidelines, the Local Rules of the Southern District of\n+Texas, and U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo Court\n+Procedures in Criminal Cases. Local counsel must be authorized to act\n+as attorney of record for all purposes, and must be authorized to present\n+5\n+and argue the client’s position at any hearing called by the Court and to\n+perform any duty required by the Local Rules of the Southern District\n+of Texas and of this Court.\n+6. MOTION PRACTICE\n+A. General Guidelines. The Court follows the written motion practice\n+described in the Local Rules. In addition, the following procedures apply:\n+1) Counsel must make serious and timely efforts to c onfer with\n+opposing counsel on all motions to try to reach agreement on the\n+relief requested by the movant.\n+2) Motions must conform with CrLR 12.2 and contain a certificate\n+verifying that opposing counsel was consulted but no agreement\n+could be reached. An unopposed motion and its order must be\n+indicated prominently in the caption.\n+3) If the motion presents issues of fact, it shall be supported by affidavit\n+or declaration that sets forth with particularity the material facts at\n+issue.\n+4) The Court will not grant a motion to adopt another party’s motion\n+and such a motion should not be filed.\n+5) Any pleadings filed with the Court, including exhibits thereto,\n+containing personal data identifiers must comply with the S.D. Texas\n+General Order #2004- 11 (available at the District’s website) on\n+protecting personal privacy in public case files.\n+B. Page Limits and Briefing Requirements. The Court requires\n+concise, pertinent, and well- organized memoranda of law. Without\n+leave of Court, all memoranda of law are limited to 25 pages, 12 -point\n+font, double- spaced, with 1” margins. All memoranda of law must\n+contain items 3, 4, 6, and 7 below. Any memorandum that has more\n+than ten (10) pages of argument must contain the following eight (8)\n+items.\n+1) A table of contents setting forth the page number of each section,\n+including all headings designated in the body of the brief or\n+memorandum.\n+2) A table of citations of cases, statutes, rules, textbooks, and other\n+authorities, alphabetically arranged.\n+6\n+3) A short statement of the nature and stage of the proceeding.\n+4) A statement of the issues to be ruled upon by the Court and, with\n+respect to each issue, a short statement (supported by authority)\n+of the standard of review.\n+5) A short summary of the argument.\n+6) Succinct headings dividing the argument into separate points.\n+7) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.\n+8) Proposed orders.\n+C. If an evidentiary hearing is necessary, the Court will notify the parties\n+in advance. Exhibit and witness lists (the originals and THREE (3)\n+copies of each) shall be provided to the Court at the hearing.\n+D. Motions to Suppress must be pleaded with specificity and not filed solely\n+for discovery. They must also be in compliance with the Local Rules.\n+Motions not in conformity therewith will be struck.\n+E. All Motions to Dismiss, Motions to Sever, and Motions for Separate Trial\n+must be specific and brought to the Court’s attention at least thirty (30)\n+days before jury selection.\n+F. Dispositive motions in criminal cases will be considered by the United\n+States District Judge or may be heard by the Magistrate Judge as\n+requested by the Court.\n+G. Response Deadline. Any opposed filing requesting relief from the\n+Court—whether styled as a motion, notice, advisory, or otherwise—\n+triggers a duty for the opposing party to file a response within seven (7)\n+days of filing.\n+1) If additional time is needed, the responding party must timely\n+request an extension consistent with these rules.\n+2) Absent a clear demonstration of good cause, the f ailure to file a\n+timely response will be deemed a concession of the issue\n+presented.\n+H. Motion to Suppress Response Deadline. An exception to the general\n+response deadline is made for motions to suppress evidence. The\n+Government shall have fourteen (14) days to file a response.\n+7\n+1) Upon review of the Government’s response, the Court will\n+determine whether disputed issues require resolution at an\n+evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Alfaro , 638 F. App’x\n+374, 375 (5th Cir. 2016) (evidentiary hearings are not granted as\n+a matter of course).\n+2) If the Court determines that a disputed issue exists, the Court\n+will thereafter issue a scheduling order setting the evidentiary\n+hearing and any other applicable dates.\n+7. USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)\n+Attorneys and self-represented litigants must ensure that any filing prepared\n+with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT,\n+Harvey.AI, or similar tools) is thoroughly reviewed for factual and legal\n+accuracy prior to submission. These tools are capable of producing content that\n+may be factually incorrect or legally unsound.\n+The Court will hold attorneys and self -represented litigants fully accountable\n+for all content submitted under their name or signature, regardless of whether\n+it was drafted in part by generative AI. The Court will exercise its inherent\n+authority to sanctio n conduct that abuses the judicial process, including\n+reliance on inaccurate or frivolous AI-generated content. In re Goode, 821 F.3d\n+553, 559 (5th Cir. 2016) (courts may sanction local rule violations even absent\n+bad faith showing). The Court will not accept the excuse that such content was\n+prepared by AI, staff, or others when assessing potential sanctions.\n+Attorneys are further reminded of their professional obligations under the\n+Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, including the duty of candor\n+to the tribunal and the prohibition against knowingly offering false statements\n+of law. See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct r. 3.03(a) (Tex. Bar Ass’n\n+2024). Attorneys must also remain proficient and competent in the practice of\n+law, including recognizing the benefits and risks associated with relevant\n+technology. See id. at 1.01, cmt. 8.\n+The Court adopts and incorporates by reference Chief Judge Randy Crane’s\n+General Order 2025- 04 on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in\n+Court Filings.\n+8. PRETRIAL CONFERENCES AND DOCKET CALLS\n+A. The Court generally holds one trial docket call each month. This docket\n+call is the final pretrial conference (FPTC). At the FPTC, the Court may\n+rule on all pending motions and conduct re -arraignments. The\n+8\n+Magistrate Judge may conduct re -arraignments in felony cases as\n+requested by the Court.\n+B. The parties must engage in timely plea negotiations. Defense\n+counsel should confer beforehand with the Government and\n+their clients and review plea agreements prior to the FPTC. The\n+FPTC date is NOT the date to secure a plea agreement and\n+review it with the defendant-client. The parties must be ready\n+to enter a plea of guilty or proceed to trial on announcement.\n+9. REQUIRED TRIAL MATERIALS\n+A. For All Trials and Evidentiary Hearings:\n+1) Exhibit List (see attached form, also available on the Court’s\n+website). Original must be filed in accordance with Local Rules;\n+three (3) courtesy copies must be provided to the Court at the\n+trial and/or hearing for distribution to all parties.\n+2) Witness List for live witnesses (see attached form, also available\n+on the Court’s website). Original must be filed in accordance with\n+Local Rules; three (3) courtesy copies must be provided to the\n+Court at the trial and/or hearing for distribution to all parties.\n+3) Objections to Exhibits , if any, must be filed within seven (7)\n+calendar days after the exhibit is listed and made available and\n+at least seven (7) days before trial. Failure to object in advance\n+of trial in writing concedes authenticity. See CrLR55.2(A) and (B).\n+B. For Jury Trials:\n+1) Voir Dire. The Court will conduct the principal examination of\n+the venire. Counsel will be generally allowed fifteen (15) to thirty\n+(30) minutes (depending on the complexity of the case) to conduct\n+an examination of the venire, provided that the proposed voir dire\n+questions are submitted in advance to the Court.\n+Each proposed voir dire question must be in question form.\n+Counsel must file an original copy of any proposed voir dire\n+questions according to Local Rules. Counsel must also provide\n+THREE (3) courtesy copies of any proposed voir dire questions.\n+2) Jury Instructions. The Court utilizes the Fifth Circuit Pattern\n+Jury Instructions, as modified by case law or statutory\n+amendments, when composing its jury instructions. A party\n+9\n+should file proposed jury instructions only to request the addition\n+or substitution of unique and/or non-standard instructions. Each\n+requested instruction must be numbered and supported by\n+authority.\n+3) Motions in limine are not required but may be filed when a\n+party seeks the Court’s ruling on a unique or novel evidentiary\n+dispute. The Court strongly discourages and may strike\n+motions in limine that simply seek to have the Court admonish\n+the other party to follow the Federal Rules of Evidence and\n+Criminal Procedure or other well- known rules of jury trial\n+practice, all of which counsel must understand and follow. See\n+Attachment A, which enumerates a non- exhaustive list of basic\n+trial rules and expectations that should not be included in a\n+motion in limine.\n+Additionally, if counsel harbors doubt as to whether his or her\n+anticipated conduct at trial will violate the rules or expectations,\n+counsel must seek permission to take that action in a motion in\n+limine, Failure to ask permission prior to taking a potentially\n+prohibited action may result in sanctions.\n+C. For Non-Jury Trials, each party must file:\n+1) Proposed Findings of Fact (electronically in Corel\n+WordPerfect X3 or higher, or Microsoft Word). The Court strongly\n+encourages counsel to reference testimony and exhibits that\n+support each proposed finding of fact;\n+2) Proposed Conclusions of Law (electronically in Corel\n+WordPerfect X3 or higher, or Microsoft Word). Each proposed\n+conclusion of law will contain citation to legal authority\n+supporting the conclusions.\n+10. PROCEDURES FOR JURY TRIALS\n+A. Jury selection is generally scheduled to occur during the third week of\n+each month. Unless an attorney has commenced trial in another court,\n+prior trial settings will not cause a case to be continued.\n+B. Voir Dire. The Court will conduct the principal examination of the\n+venire. Counsel will be generally allowed fifteen (15) to thirty (30)\n+minutes (depending on the complexity of the case) to conduct an\n+examination of the venire, provided that the proposed voir dire\n+questions are submitted in advance to the Court. See § 9.B above. The\n+10\n+Magistrate Judge may conduct voir dire as requested by the Court with\n+the consent of the parties.\n+C. Exhibits.\n+1) JERS. The Court will use the Jury Evidence Recording System\n+(JERS) to capture evidence electronically during the trial. This is\n+the only method by which evidence may be submitted, and the\n+parties must submit all files on a single storage device to the\n+Judicial Assistant by noon on the day before trial. For further\n+instructions on the proper use of JERS, including the acceptable\n+storage devices, file formats, and naming conventions, refer to the\n+Court’s JERS information page on the Court’s website.\n+2) Counsel must be familiar with CrLR 55.2 regarding\n+authentication of, objections to, and disposition of exhibits at\n+criminal trials.\n+3) Any exhibits containing personal data identifiers must comply\n+with S.D. Texas General Order #2004-11 (available at the District\n+website).\n+4) All exhibits must be marked and exchanged among counsel prior\n+to trial. The offering party will mark each of his/her own exhibits\n+with the party=s name, case number, and exhibit number.\n+5) The Court will admit all exhibits without objection into evidence\n+as the first order of business. Sensitive exhibits ( e.g., weapons,\n+drugs, and money) will remain in the custody of the government\n+agent throughout the proceedings.\n+6) Counsel will not pass exhibits to the jury during trial without\n+obtaining permission in advance from the Court. All admitted\n+exhibits will go to the jury during its deliberations.\n+7) Counsel for each party is required to provide the Court with two\n+(2) copies of that party =s exhibits in a properly tabbed and\n+indexed notebook.\n+8) Disposition of Exhibits Following Trial.\n+a. Exhibits that are not easily stored in a file folder ( e.g.,\n+posters, parts, or models) must be withdrawn after the\n+completion of the trial and substituted with reduced\n+reproductions or photographs.\n+11\n+b. If there is no appeal, exhibits will be removed by the\n+offering party within thirty (30) days after the time for\n+appeal has elapsed. When there is an appeal, exhibits\n+returned by the Court of Appeals will be removed by the\n+offering party within ten (10) days after written notice from\n+the clerk.\n+c. Exhibits not removed will be disposed of by the clerk, and\n+the expenses incurred will be taxed against the offering\n+party.\n+D. Equipment.\n+1) Sound and Video Equipment : The Court has projection, document\n+camera, sound, and video equipment in the courtroom. Counsel are\n+invited to use that equipment during trial. Counsel who seek to test\n+the equipment prior to trial shall contact the Judicial Assistant to\n+make arrangements to test the equipment. Parties also may provide\n+their own equipment, but special arrangements must be made with\n+the Judicial Assistant prior to the day of trial.\n+2) Internet service is available for attorneys.\n+3) The Court will not provide a printer.\n+4) Devices for auditory assistance are available for the hearing\n+impaired.\n+11. COURTROOM PROCEDURES\n+A. Hours. The Court will generally convene for trial at 8:30 a.m. and\n+adjourn at 5:30 p.m., recessing for lunch between 12:00 p.m. and 1:30\n+p.m.\n+B. Access at Other Times. Counsel requesting access to the courtroom\n+to set up equipment or exhibits before or after normal hours of Court\n+must make arrangements in advance with the Judicial Assistant.\n+C. Telephones. Telephone messages for counsel will not be taken by the\n+Court’s staff, and counsel shall refrain from requesting use of telephones\n+in chambers.\n+12\n+D. Filing of Documents . Handing documents to the Court or Judicial\n+Assistant does not constitute the filing of the documents in the CM/ECF\n+system.\n+1) All original documents must be filed through the CM/ECF\n+system.\n+2) Copies of documents filed within two (2) days prior to and during\n+trial should be submitted to the Judicial Assistant in duplicate.\n+E. Decorum.\n+1) Attorneys are required to wear standard business attire. Counsel\n+and parties will comply with CrLR 57.2 and Appendix C\n+regarding courtroom behavior. These procedures will be strictly\n+enforced.\n+2) Counsel will ensure that all parties and witnesses refrain from\n+chewing gum, drinking, eating, smoking, or reading newspapers,\n+books, etc., in the courtroom. No cellular telephones, pagers, or\n+iPads are allowed in the courtroom. Attorneys needing to use\n+computers or iPads during trial must seek prior approval.\n+Recording equipment and photographic mechanisms are strictly\n+prohibited.\n+F. Witnesses.\n+1) Counsel are responsible for summoning witnesses into the\n+courtroom and instructing them on courtroom decorum and\n+attire. Counsel may question witnesses while standing at the\n+podium or seated at Counsel table.\n+2) Counsel must obtain the Court’s permission before approaching a\n+witness.\n+3) Counsel shall make every effort to elicit from the witnesses only\n+information relevant to the issues in the case and to avoid\n+cumulative testimony.\n+4) Counsel should bear in mind the Court’s hours and arrange for\n+witnesses accordingly. The Court will not recess to permit counsel\n+to call a missing witness unless he or she has been subpoenaed\n+and has failed to appear.\n+13\n+5) Mode and Order of Examination: A party will be allowed to\n+conduct a direct examination of its witnesses to be followed by\n+cross-examination by opposing counsel. Interrogation will\n+conclude with a re -direct examination, which is limited by the\n+scope of cross-examination.\n+Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not\n+allow any “re-cross” or “re-re-direct.”\n+G. Deliberations. While the jury is deliberating, Counsel are to remain\n+near the courtroom to be available for jury notes or a verdict.\n+12. SENTENCING PROCEDURES\n+A. The purpose of these sentencing procedures is to promote thorough\n+research and robust, intelligent discussion about the legal issues raised\n+by the parties. The procedures below are meant to raise the quality of\n+advocacy on behalf of those being sentenced a nd by the Government in\n+order to assist the Court in reaching decisions based on a fair and\n+impartial application of the law to the facts of each case.\n+B. PSI Report Completion Deadline. The Court will set a deadline for\n+completion of the Presentence Investigation (“PSI”) Report by the U.S.\n+Probation Office. It is the responsibility of counsel to obtain the PSI\n+Report. The U.S. Probation Office is not required to further advise\n+counsel of the completion of the PSI Report.\n+C. Statements of Acceptance of Responsibility. Pursuant to\n+U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, a defendant who truthfully admits the conduct\n+comprising the offense of conviction at the plea colloquy may adopt and\n+submit the factual basis statement to the Court for consideration in\n+determining whether the defendant qualifies for adjustment under\n+subsection (a).\n+D. Responses to PSI Report.\n+1) Objections or Statements of Non-Opposition. The attorney for\n+the Defendant and the attorney for the Government shall submit\n+either written objections or a written statement of non-opposition to\n+the U.S. Probation Office and serve the same on opposing counsel\n+within fourteen (14) days of receiving the PSI Report. See FED. R.\n+14\n+CRIM. P. 32(f); S.D. Tex. CrLR 32.6; U.S. S ENTENCING GUIDELINES\n+MANUAL § 6A1.2 (2013).\n+Legal objections to the PSI Report require citations to\n+supporting and contrary authority. When filing objections,\n+counsel must note if the issue has been decided by binding or non -\n+binding precedent and/or if the objection is being filed merely to\n+preserve the issue for further appellate review.\n+2) Responding to Objections. No later than fourteen (14) calendar\n+days after receiving a party’s objections to the PSI Report, opposing\n+counsel shall file a written response to the objections. Absent a\n+clear demonstration of good cause, a party’s failure to timely\n+respond and dispute the objections filed by opposing counsel\n+concedes the issue so long as the objection is non -frivolous.\n+An objection is frivolous, for example, if it is foreclosed by binding\n+precedent, unless it is merely filed to preserve the issue for further\n+review. A party is not required to respond to objections foreclosed by\n+binding precedent and filed to preserve the issue.\n+3) Extensions. If additional time is required, counsel may request up\n+to five (5) business days from the U.S. Probation Office without filing\n+a formal motion with the Court. If more than five (5) business days\n+are needed, a motion to extend time to file objections shou ld be\n+immediately filed. A sample proposed order is attached and is\n+available on the Court’s website.\n+The Court admonishes counsel that the failure to timely file\n+objections will result in a show cause hearing where counsel\n+will be asked to explain why the Court’s deadline could not\n+be met and why a motion to extend time to file objections was\n+not filed. While late-filed objections will not be held against\n+the Defendant(s), the Court may impose monetary sanctions\n+against counsel for not complying with the rules.\n+4) No later than fourteen (14) calendar days after receiving the\n+responses from the parties, the U.S. Probation Office shall complete\n+and submit to the Sentencing Judge the final report, together with\n+an addendum describing any objections that have not been resolved,\n+and the officer’s comments thereon.\n+15\n+E. Sentencing Memorandum. Counsel shall also file, within fourteen\n+(14) calendar days of receiving the PSI Report, any sentencing\n+memorandum with any pertinent attachments —such as letters and\n+photographs—for consideration of variances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).\n+Requests for variances must be supported by a factual basis and cite\n+supporting legal authority.\n+F. “Safety Valve” Debriefs in applicable drug offenses pursuant to 18\n+U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, must be completed no later than\n+one week prior to the PSI Report disclosure date. The attorney for the\n+Government shall timely notify the U.S. Probation Office of any\n+recommendations prior to the disclosure deadline.\n+G. 18 U.S.C. § 2259 Restitution. In child sexual abuse material cases, the\n+Government shall be afforded ninety (90) days from the date of the\n+defendant’s conviction to identify victims seeking restitution using the\n+Child Identification Report (CIR) or the Victim Identification Report\n+(VIR), which are prepared by the National Center for Missing and\n+Exploited Children (NCMEC) , or any other investigative tools at its\n+disposal. If the Government cannot meet this deadline, it must request\n+an extension no later than three (3) business days before the\n+deadline’s expiration. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court\n+will extend this deadline by an additional thirty (30) days only.\n+Upon receipt of the identifiable victims requesting restitution, the\n+Government must file its Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014)\n+memorandum within thirty 30 days . The Government must confer\n+with the defendant’s counsel on restitution requests and clearly denote\n+the amount, if any, the defendant offered for each identifiable victim.\n+The U.S. Probation Office must incorporate the Paroline findings into\n+the defendant’s PSI within fourteen (14) days of the Government’s\n+filing of the memorandum.\n+16\n+13. ATTACHMENTS\n+A. Non-Exhaustive List of Basic Trial Rules and Expectations\n+B. Template Exhibit List\n+C. Template Witness List\n+D. Motion and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+E. Template Proposed Order Extending Deadline for Objections to the PSI\n+Report and Sentencing Memorandum\n+17\n+Non-Exhaustive List of Basic Trial Rules and Expectations\n+1. The Government shall not comment on a defendant’s right to remain silent, see\n+Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965), or attempt to improperly shift its\n+burden of proof to a defendant.\n+2. The Government shall not introduce prior bad acts without giving the Defendant\n+proper notice and obtaining a ruling from the Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3).\n+3. The Defendant shall not elicit improper self-serving hearsay statements made by\n+the Defendant. See Fed. R. Evid. 801.\n+4. The Defendant shall not allude to information that could only come to the jury’s\n+attention through the sworn testimony of the Defendant unless Defendant\n+informs the Court that he or she will testify and does in fact testify.\n+5. The Defendant must provide the Government proper notice of the affirmative\n+defenses he or she wishes to raise. See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.1–12.3.\n+6. Neither party shall elicit an opinion about whether the Defendant had a mental\n+state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime or defense. Fed. R.\n+Evid. 704.\n+7. Neither party shall improperly vouch for the credibility of their witnesses. See\n+Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases) § 1.09 (2019).\n+8. Neither party shall make personal attacks against the other. S.D. Tex. L.R.,\n+App’x C.\n+9. Neither party shall divulge any plea, plea discussion, or any related statement\n+prohibited by Fed. R. Evid. 410.\n+10. Neither party shall, during opening statements, comment on any exhibit not\n+previously furnished to opposing counsel and admitted as evidence.\n+11. Neither party shall admit or reference extrinsic evidence of specific instances of\n+a witness’s conduct that may be used to attack or bolster the witness’s character\n+for truthfulness, except for a criminal conviction as permitted by Fed. R. Evid.\n+608(b).\n+12. Neither party shall introduce statements that violate the rule against hearsay.\n+Fed. R. Evid. 802.\n+13. Neither party shall comment on punishment or make arguments designed to\n+elicit sympathy or jury nullification. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions\n+(Criminal Cases) § 1.04 (2019).\n+14. All parties must provide proper notice of expert witness testimony. See Fed. R.\n+Crim. P. 16. Expert testimony is appropriate when the expert’s specialized\n+knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or make a factual\n+finding. Fed. R. Evid. 702.\n+18\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n+VERSUS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n+CRIMINAL ACTION NO.\n+EXHIBIT LIST\n+JUDGE MARINA GARCIA MARMOLEJO\n+JUDICIAL ASSISTANT: HEYDA RIOS\n+LIST OF\n+Q GOVERNMENT Q DEFENDANT\n+PROCEEDING: DATE (S):\n+NO.\n+DESCRIPTION\n+OBJ\n+ADM\n+NOT\n+ADM\n+DATE\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+19\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n+VERSUS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n+CRIMINAL ACTION NO.\n+WITNESS LIST\n+JUDGE MARINA GARCIA MARMOLEJO\n+JUDICIAL ASSISTANT: HEYDA RIOS\n+LIST OF\n+Q GOVERNMENT Q DEFENDANT\n+PROCEEDING: DATE (S):\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+20\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+Motion and Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+Division Case Number\n+vs.\n+*I understand that the Court requires strict compliance with the Local Rules for the Southern District of\n+Texas and the Court Procedures for District Judge Garcia Marmolejo, which are applicable to cases\n+assigned to Judge Garcia Marmolejo. The rules are available by visiting the Court’s website.\n+The state bar reports that the applicant’s status is:\n+Dated:\n+Clerk’s signature\n+This lawyer is admitted pro hac vice.\n+Dated:\n+Marina Garcia Marmolejo\n+United States District Judge\n+Lawyer’s Name\n+Firm\n+Street\n+City & Zip Code\n+Telephone & Email\n+Licensed: State & Number\n+Federal Bar & Number\n+Name of party applicant seeks to\n+appear for:\n+Has applicant been sanctioned by any bar association or court? Yes No\n+On a separate sheet for each sanction, please supply the full particulars.\n+Dated:\n+Signed*:\n+Order Granting Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice\n+21\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+LAREDO DIVISION\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+VS. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:xx-CR-xxx\n+DEFENDANT\n+ORDER\n+Pending before the Court is Defendant =s Motion to Extend Time to File\n+Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, and Sentencing\n+Memorandum. After review, the motion is\n+ DENIED.\n+ GRANTED. The Court hereby Orders the Objections to the Presentence\n+Investigation Report and Sentencing Memorandum be filed by\n+_________________, 202___ at 5:00 p.m.\n+SIGNED this _____ day of ________, 202__.\n+_______________________________\n+Marina Garcia Marmolejo\n+United States District Judge","id":"3aa3bb371b71f494dc6f8c34c86601fe8bc1043eee9ad54848d329c422dae356","newHash":"3a5553cec0c9f7e2ed75ff5f4dc7c496db6621db96aa05837fb7b26aba437e66","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_MGM_August%202026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/3a5553cec0c9f7e2ed75ff5f4dc7c496db6621db96aa05837fb7b26aba437e66.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Crim_MGM_August%202026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:16.282231+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+'\n+' GENERAL ORDER 2025-04\n+IN RE: USE OF GENERATIVE\n+ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+IN COURT FILINGS '\n+Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an attorney or self -represented\n+litigant certifies their claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law and\n+the factual contentions have evidentiary support. Attorneys and self -r epresented litigants are\n+cautioned against submitting to the Court any pleading, written motion, or other pa per drafted using\n+generative artificial intelligence (e .g., ChatGPT, Harvey.AI , generative AI services) without checking\n+t\n+he submission for accuracy as certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccur at e\n+content and should never replace the lawyer’s independent legal judgment.\n+Any attorney or self-represented litigant who signs a pleading, written motion, or other paper\n+submitted to the Court will be held responsible for the contents of that filing under Rule 11, regardless\n+of whether generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)\n+(providing for imposition of an “appropriate sanction”—inc luding nonmonetary directives, a penalty\n+payable\n+to the court, or payment to the opposing party of attorney's fees and expenses directly\n+resulting from the violation—if, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the\n+C\n+ourt determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated).\n+Signed this 7th day of May 2025.\n+RANDY CRANE\n+CHIEF JUDGE","id":"a7e8fbc3496d17cf3bc2d57fb331209479a0475e45397a98deb13f7e17809b6f","newHash":"3c7f7e80fe35c4987dd849a2352002532b4c0c077eca42372f18fe729a317e11","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/general-orders/General_Order_2025-04_Use_of_Generative_AI_in_Court_Filings.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/3c7f7e80fe35c4987dd849a2352002532b4c0c077eca42372f18fe729a317e11.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/general-orders/General_Order_2025-04_Use_of_Generative_AI_in_Court_Filings.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:16.975684+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@\n+1\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+DEL RIO DIVISION\n+In re: The use of artificial intelligence in\n+the preparation of filings in the Court of\n+U.S. District Judge Ernest Gonzalez\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+STANDING ORDER CONCERNING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL\n+INTELLIGENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF FILINGS\n+BEFORE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ERNEST GONZALEZ\n+In this Court, and in courts across the United States, the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”)\n+in the preparation of filings has grown increasingly frequent . A similar trend has arisen in parties\n+urging unsupported legal contentions, many of which appear to be the result of AI misuse.1 Given\n+the Court’s and other courts’ recent experiences, it is necessary to remind all parties that appear\n+before the Court—represented or appearing pro se, in criminal cases and civil cases —of their\n+obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of\n+Professional Conduct. See Western District of Texas Local Rule AT-7.\n+Rule 11 and the applicable standards of professional conduct require that all legal\n+contentions in documents filed with a court be warranted by existing law. And while the Court\n+recognizes that AI can be a beneficial tool, “[t]o ethically use generative AI in the practice of law\n+. . . a lawyer must ensure that the legal propositions and authority generated are trustworthy.”\n+Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 168 F.4th 231, 235 (5th Cir. 2026).2\n+1 Damien Charlotin, a French lawyer, maintains a database of AI use in the courts of 31 countries. Damien\n+Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases , https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations. As of this order, he\n+reports at least 1,148 cases of hallucinations in the United States Courts since June 2023. Id.\n+2 See also A.B.A STANDING COMM. ON ETHICS & PRO. RESP., FORMAL OPINION 512 (July 29, 2024),\n+https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-\n+opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf.\n+FILED\n+DEPUTY\n+CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT\n+WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+BY: ________________________________\n+June 25, 2026\n+David Cano\n+2\n+Pursuant to the Court’s inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of parties appearing\n+before it, and in light of the Court’s responsibility to uphold the integrity of the judicial process,\n+the Court may impose sanctions for a party’s filing of document s that violate these principles .\n+Sanctions may include fines, non-monetary directives such as completing education programs,\n+reporting to disciplinary boards, and other appropriate measures. The fact that AI is used in or\n+generated the offending document will not excuse or absolve ethical indiscretions.\n+Parties are further reminded of Section 11(a) of the Court’s Standing Order in Criminal\n+Cases, which provides:\n+If counsel utilizes generative artificial intelligence to draft or assist in drafting a\n+pleading, counsel must include with the pleading a “Certificate of Generative\n+Artificial Intelligence Usage,” an example of which is appended to this Standing\n+Order as Appendix C. The certificate must disclose the use of generative artificial\n+intelligence and certify that counsel has independently verified the accuracy of any\n+portion of the document drafted or assisted by the tool. Counsel must further certify\n+that the use of generative artificial intelligence has not resulted in the disclosure of\n+confidential or privileged information to an unauthorized party.\n+The Court hereby extends the certification requirements of Section 11(a) to parties appearing\n+before the Court in all cases, including civil cases. An example of such certificate is appended to\n+this Order as Appendix A.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+SIGNED, this 25 day of June, 2026.\n+__________________________________________\n+ERNEST GONZALEZ\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+3\n+APPENDIX A\n+CERTIFICATE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USAGE\n+This document was generated with the assistance of [ Name of Program ], a generative\n+artificial intelligence tool. I hereby certify that I have independently verified the accuracy of the\n+legal and factual assertions contained in this document. I further certify that the use of generative\n+artificial intelligence has not resulted in the disclosure of any confidential or privileged information\n+to any unauthorized party.","id":"6eef8260cab5eda9af13f1cf976d491f7e08e443c242bcb358f294e4a7dea51d","newHash":"ed6d39a5c5586abf3f720d89930d7b9c3ee597520174321d24124f851ed401bb","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/EG-Standing-Order-on-AI-1st-draft-6-24-2026-1.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/ed6d39a5c5586abf3f720d89930d7b9c3ee597520174321d24124f851ed401bb.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/EG-Standing-Order-on-AI-1st-draft-6-24-2026-1.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:17.272711+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,603 @@\n+Court Operations – Annual Report 2025\n+Skip to main content\n+An official website of the United States government\n+Here’s how you know\n+Here’s how you know\n+Official websites use .gov\n+A\n+.gov website belongs to an official government\n+organization in the United States.\n+Secure .gov websites use HTTPS\n+A\n+lock\n+(\n+Lock\n+Locked padlock icon\n+) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to\n+the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.\n+Home\n+Close menu\n+Main Menu\n+Search USCourts.gov\n+Search\n+About Federal Courts\n+The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly.\n+About\n+Federal\n+Courts\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly.\n+Popular\n+Court Website Links\n+Authorized Judgeships\n+Supreme Court Landmarks\n+About\n+Federal\n+Courts\n+Court Role and Structure\n+The judicial branch is one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government.\n+Court Role and Structure\n+The judicial branch is one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government.\n+Back\n+Court\n+Role\n+and\n+Structure\n+About the U.S. Courts of Appeals\n+About U.S. District Courts\n+About U.S. Bankruptcy Courts\n+Comparing Federal & State Courts\n+Court Website Links\n+FAQs: Court Information\n+Types of Cases\n+U.S. Courts hear cases over which they have jurisdiction granted by the Constitution or Congress.\n+Types of Cases\n+U.S. Courts hear cases over which they have jurisdiction granted by the Constitution or Congress.\n+Back\n+Types\n+of\n+Cases\n+Appeals\n+Bankruptcy Cases\n+Civil Cases\n+Criminal Cases\n+About Federal Judges\n+Federal judges work to ensure equal justice under the law.\n+About Federal Judges\n+Federal judges work to ensure equal justice under the law.\n+Back\n+About\n+Federal\n+Judges\n+Types of Federal Judges\n+Authorized Judgeships\n+Judicial Compensation\n+Judicial Milestones\n+Probation and Pretrial Services\n+U.S. probation and pretrial services officers serve the federal courts and protect communities.\n+Probation and Pretrial Services\n+U.S. probation and pretrial services officers serve the federal courts and protect communities.\n+Back\n+Probation\n+and\n+Pretrial\n+Services\n+Evidence-Based Practices\n+Officers & Officer Assistants\n+Pretrial Services\n+Presentence Investigations\n+Post-Conviction Supervision\n+Data Release Regulations\n+Federal Probation Journal\n+Federal Probation and Pretrial Academy\n+History\n+Defender Services\n+The Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to representation by counsel.\n+Defender Services\n+The Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to representation by counsel.\n+Back\n+Defender\n+Services\n+Defender Services Mission\n+Publications\n+Educational Resources\n+Find realistic simulations and memorable, interactive approaches to court basics.\n+Educational Resources\n+Find realistic simulations and memorable, interactive approaches to court basics.\n+Back\n+Educational\n+Resources\n+Educational Activities\n+Supreme Court Landmarks\n+Annual Observances\n+About Educational Outreach\n+Court Programs\n+Learn about federal court programs and services to help provide fair and impartial justice.\n+Court\n+Programs\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Learn about federal court programs and services to help provide fair and impartial justice.\n+Popular\n+Bankruptcy Basics\n+Filing Without an Attorney\n+Summoned for Federal Jury Service?\n+Court\n+Programs\n+Bankruptcy\n+Bankruptcy helps people who can no longer pay their debts get a fresh start by liquidating assets.\n+Bankruptcy\n+Bankruptcy helps people who can no longer pay their debts get a fresh start by liquidating assets.\n+Back\n+Bankruptcy\n+Bankruptcy Basics\n+Filing Without an Attorney\n+Credit Counseling and Debtor Education\n+Trustees and Administrators\n+Bankruptcy Noticing\n+Bankruptcy Case Records & Credit Reporting\n+Unclaimed Funds in Bankruptcy\n+Fees\n+The U.S. courts publishes a list of fees that are charged for services provided by a specific court.\n+Fees\n+The U.S. courts publishes a list of fees that are charged for services provided by a specific court.\n+Back\n+Fees\n+Court of Appeals Fees\n+District Court Fees\n+Bankruptcy Court Fees\n+Electronic Public Access Fees\n+U.S. Court of Federal Claims Fees\n+Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Fees\n+Post Judgement Interest Rate\n+Jury Service\n+Jury service is an important civic duty to protect right and liberties.\n+Jury Service\n+Jury service is an important civic duty to protect right and liberties.\n+Back\n+Jury\n+Service\n+Summoned for Federal Jury Service?\n+Types of Juries\n+Juror Selection Process\n+Juror Qualifications, Exemptions, and Excuses\n+Juror Pay\n+Juror Scams\n+Federal Court Interpreters\n+Interpreters ensure that justice is carried out fairly for defendants and other stakeholders.\n+Federal Court Interpreters\n+Interpreters ensure that justice is carried out fairly for defendants and other stakeholders.\n+Back\n+Federal\n+Court\n+Interpreters\n+Contracting as a Court Interpreter\n+Interpreter Categories\n+Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination\n+National Court Interpreter Database (NCID) Gateway\n+Federal Court Reporting\n+Federal court reporters record proceedings and produce transcripts of court proceedings.\n+Business Opportunities\n+The U.S. courts provide business opportunities for organizations that follow its policies.\n+Business Opportunities\n+The U.S. courts provide business opportunities for organizations that follow its policies.\n+Back\n+Business\n+Opportunities\n+Pre-Lapse in Appropriations Notice to Contractors\n+Transfer of Excess Judiciary Personal Property\n+Administration & Policies\n+Administration and governance of the Judicial occurs at both a national and regional level.\n+Administration\n+&\n+Policies\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Administration and governance of the Judicial occurs at both a national and regional level.\n+Popular\n+Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges\n+Administration\n+&\n+Policies\n+Governance & the Judicial Conference\n+The Judicial Conference of the U.S. is the national policymaking body for the federal courts.\n+Governance & the Judicial Conference\n+The Judicial Conference of the U.S. is the national policymaking body for the federal courts.\n+Back\n+Governance\n+&\n+the\n+Judicial\n+Conference\n+About the Judicial Conference\n+Reports of the Proceedings - Judicial Conference of the U.S.\n+Congressional Budget Request\n+Real Property Authority\n+Judicial Administration\n+Federal courts individually manage their operations, with support from judicial branch agencies.\n+Administrative Oversight & Accountability\n+Oversight mechanisms work together to hold staff responsible for their conduct as officials.\n+Judicial Conduct & Disability\n+Anyone can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability.\n+Judicial Conduct & Disability\n+Anyone can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability.\n+Back\n+Judicial\n+Conduct\n+&\n+Disability\n+FAQs: Filing a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint Against a Federal Judge\n+Judicial Conduct and Disability Orders\n+Archives of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability\n+Judiciary Financial Disclosure Reports\n+Search for financial disclosure reports for judicial officers.\n+Privately Funded Seminars Disclosure System\n+This policy requires information about privately funded educational programs to be disclosed.\n+Privately Funded Seminars Disclosure System\n+This policy requires information about privately funded educational programs to be disclosed.\n+Back\n+Privately\n+Funded\n+Seminars\n+Disclosure\n+System\n+Log In & Create Account\n+Overview of Privately Funded Seminars Disclosure System\n+Instructions\n+Frequently Asked Questions\n+Workplace Conduct\n+U.S. courts are committed to a workplace free from discrimination, sexual or other discrimination.\n+Workplace Conduct\n+U.S. courts are committed to a workplace free from discrimination, sexual or other discrimination.\n+Back\n+Workplace\n+Conduct\n+Director of Workplace Relations Contracts by Circuit\n+Fact Sheet for Workplace Protections in the Federal Judiciary\n+Background & Resources\n+Judiciary Policies\n+This policy guidance governs the national operations of the federal judiciary.\n+Judiciary Policies\n+This policy guidance governs the national operations of the federal judiciary.\n+Back\n+Judiciary\n+Policies\n+Bankruptcy Case Policies\n+Cameras in the Courtroom Policy\n+Confidentiality Regulations for Pretrial Services Information\n+Court Interpreting Guidance\n+Court Reporting Guidance\n+Ethics Policies\n+Federal Tort Claims Against Federal Judiciary Personnel\n+Fraud, Waste, or Abuse\n+Garnishment Regulations\n+Guidelines for administering the CJA and related statutes\n+Judiciary Staff Travel Regulations\n+Portable Communication Devices in the Courthouse\n+Presentence Investigation and Report Policies\n+Privately Funded Educational Seminars\n+Procurement Policies\n+Post-Conviction Supervision Policies\n+Rules Committee Procedures\n+Subpoena Regulations\n+U.S. Courts Design Guide\n+Workplace Conduct and Protections\n+Data & News\n+This section provides statistical data and news on the business of the federal Judiciary.\n+Data\n+&\n+News\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+This section provides statistical data and news on the business of the federal Judiciary.\n+Popular\n+Federal Court Scams\n+News Media\n+Director's Annual Report\n+Data\n+&\n+News\n+Data Tables\n+Filter for caseload statistical data tables by topic, report, or date.\n+Reports\n+The following materials provide analysis and information related to the work of the U.S. courts.\n+Reports\n+The following materials provide analysis and information related to the work of the U.S. courts.\n+Back\n+Reports\n+Statistical Reports\n+Annual Reports\n+Handbooks & Manuals\n+Strategic Planning\n+Judicial Vacancies\n+Find a summary of current and future judicial vacancies.\n+Judicial Vacancies\n+Find a summary of current and future judicial vacancies.\n+Back\n+Judicial\n+Vacancies\n+Current Judicial Vacancies\n+Future Judicial Vacancies\n+Confirmation Listing\n+Judicial Emergencies\n+Archive of Judicial Vacancies\n+News\n+Learn about the work of the federal Judiciary.\n+News\n+Learn about the work of the federal Judiciary.\n+Back\n+News\n+Email Updates & Sign Up\n+News Media\n+News Issues\n+Federal Court Scams\n+Forms & Rules\n+Link to the national federal rules of practice and procedures, and forms in effect.\n+Forms\n+&\n+Rules\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Link to the national federal rules of practice and procedures, and forms in effect.\n+Popular\n+Bankruptcy: Proof of Claim Form\n+Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committee\n+Forms\n+&\n+Rules\n+Forms\n+Find a national federal court form that can be used in all federal courts.\n+Forms\n+Find a national federal court form that can be used in all federal courts.\n+Back\n+Forms\n+Attorney Forms\n+Bankruptcy Forms\n+Civil Forms\n+Court Reporter Forms\n+Criminal Forms\n+CJA Forms\n+Human Resources Forms\n+Jury Forms\n+Other Forms\n+Current Rules of Practice & Procedure\n+The federal rules of practice and procedure govern litigation in the federal courts.\n+Current Rules of Practice & Procedure\n+The federal rules of practice and procedure govern litigation in the federal courts.\n+Back\n+Current\n+Rules\n+of\n+Practice\n+&\n+Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Evidence\n+Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings\n+Pending Rules and Forms Amendments\n+Find proposed rules and forms amendments organized by the year they are projected to take effect.\n+Pending Rules and Forms Amendments\n+Find proposed rules and forms amendments organized by the year they are projected to take effect.\n+Back\n+Pending\n+Rules\n+and\n+Forms\n+Amendments\n+Pending Changes in the Bankruptcy Forms\n+Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment\n+Reference proposed federal rules and forms amendments published for public comment.\n+About the Rulemaking Process\n+Learn about the procedures, governing laws, and membership and meetings of the rules committees.\n+About the Rulemaking Process\n+Learn about the procedures, governing laws, and membership and meetings of the rules committees.\n+Back\n+About\n+the\n+Rulemaking\n+Process\n+Laws and Procedures Governing the Work of the Rules Committees\n+How the Rulemaking Process Works\n+How to Suggest a Change to Federal Court Rules and Forms\n+How to Submit Input on a Pending Proposal\n+Committee Membership Selection\n+Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committees\n+Permitted Changes to Official Bankruptcy Forms\n+Records of the Rules Committees\n+Reference the records of the rules committees, including agendas, minutes, and rules suggestions.\n+Records of the Rules Committees\n+Reference the records of the rules committees, including agendas, minutes, and rules suggestions.\n+Back\n+Records\n+of\n+the\n+Rules\n+Committees\n+Agenda Books\n+Committee Reports\n+Congressional and Supreme Court Rules Packages\n+FJC Studies and Related Publications\n+Meeting Minutes\n+Past Members of the Rules Committees\n+Preliminary Drafts of Proposed Rule Amendments\n+Rules Comments\n+Rules Suggestions\n+Special Projects of the Rules Committees\n+Style Resources\n+Superseded Rules Pamphlets\n+Transcripts and Testimony\n+Court Records\n+Learn how to file and access case files and court records information.\n+Court\n+Records\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Learn how to file and access case files and court records information.\n+Court\n+Records\n+Find a Case (PACER)\n+Locate a federal court case by using PACER or by visiting the courthouse where the case was filed.\n+File a Case (CM/ECF)\n+Attorneys and other filers can submit files to the court electronically using the CM/ECF system.\n+File a Case (CM/ECF)\n+Attorneys and other filers can submit files to the court electronically using the CM/ECF system.\n+Back\n+File\n+a\n+Case\n+(CM/ECF)\n+FAQs: Case Management / Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)\n+Access to Court Proceedings\n+The public may visit a federal court to watch each step of the federal judicial process.\n+Access to Court Proceedings\n+The public may visit a federal court to watch each step of the federal judicial process.\n+Back\n+Access\n+to\n+Court\n+Proceedings\n+Remote Public Access to Proceedings\n+Court Record Schedules\n+These national record disposition schedules govern most judiciary records, including case files.\n+Electronic Public Access Public User Group\n+The EPA Public User Group provides a forum for PACER users to share and recommend improvement ideas.\n+Select language\n+|\n+Find a Federal Court\n+Search\n+Close\n+Search USCourts.gov\n+Search\n+Menu\n+Data & News\n+Data Tables\n+Reports\n+Statistical Reports\n+Judicial Business of the United States Courts\n+Federal Court Management Statistics\n+Wiretap Reports\n+Bankruptcy Filing Statistics\n+Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act Report\n+Civil Justice Reform Act Report\n+Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics\n+Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary\n+Judicial Facts and Figures\n+Director’s Report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts’ Activities\n+Delayed-Notice Search Warrant Report\n+Crime Victims’ Rights Report\n+Annual Reports\n+Director’s Annual Report\n+Dodd-Frank Act Report\n+Judiciary Conferences That Cost More Than $100,000\n+Handbooks & Manuals\n+A Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts\n+Asset Management Planning Process\n+Civil Litigation Management Manual\n+Courtroom Technology Manual\n+Federal Court System in the U.S.\n+Strategic Planning\n+Long Range Plan for Information Technology\n+Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts\n+Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary\n+Judicial Vacancies\n+Current Judicial Vacancies\n+Future Judicial Vacancies\n+Confirmation Listing\n+Judicial Emergencies\n+Judicial Emergency Definition\n+Archive of Judicial Vacancies\n+News\n+Email Updates & Sign Up\n+News Media\n+Media Inquiry Request\n+News Issues\n+Judicial Conference News Releases\n+1979: The Year Women Changed the Judiciary\n+Covid-19 Related News Articles\n+Courthouse Improvement Projects\n+Centennial of the Judicial Conference of the United States\n+Court Funding and Cost Containment\n+A Lifetime of Service\n+Federal Court Scams\n+Home\n+Data & News\n+Reports\n+Annual Reports\n+Director’s Annual Report\n+Annual Report 2025\n+Court Operations – Annual Report 2025\n+Court Operations – Annual Report 2025\n+On this page\n+The Judiciary is committed to innovative court management and administration that effectively addresses the changing needs of judges, court staff, the bar, and the public.\n+Modernizing and Safeguarding the Electronic Case Management System\n+The Judiciary crossed a tipping point in the protection of its electronic case management system from cyberattacks. After a series of consequential cyberattacks, the Judiciary strategically enhanced its existing cybersecurity measures and accelerated its modernization project. Developed with assistance from the courts, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and outside consultants, this major project is expected to greatly improve the Judiciary’s cybersecurity posture and benefit litigants and the public who need access to court records.\n+The Case Management Modernization (CMM) project aims to replace the Judiciary’s aging Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system with a modern, sustainable, and secure platform for the Judiciary to manage cases and provide public access to case documents.\n+In 2025, the AO conducted the proof-of-concept and prototype phase to determine the technical feasibility of various aspects of the system and to allow testers to visualize how it will be used. During this phase, proposed solutions could be tested and validated before development of a fully functional product. The approach mitigates risk by allowing for testing of complex requirements before any commitment is made to a particular process or technology.\n+The prototypes were developed using modern cloud-based system architecture and security, and operational efficiency considerations were fully integrated into every aspect of the design and development. Development teams included AO staff and court-based user representatives, making it possible to incorporate user representatives' input and feedback into design decisions.\n+The first products to be developed will focus on the highest-risk areas of court operations. In the interim, ongoing risks to the current CM/ECF system are being mitigated, including through system security upgrades.\n+Development of a replacement for the search functionality of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service is included as a key component of CMM.\n+The CMM project is complex on many levels, and its success will depend on the ongoing availability of resources and navigating the many technical, operational, and cultural challenges that accompany the design and implementation of a national case management system.\n+Developing Artificial Intelligence Policies\n+In early 2025, the AO established an advisory Artificial Intelligence (AI) Task Force to enable the Judiciary to thoroughly, effectively, and responsibly confront AI as a transformative force. The advent of AI presents a host of opportunities and potential benefits for the judicial branch, as well as concerns about maintaining high ethical standards, preserving the integrity of judicial opinions, safeguarding sensitive data, and ensuring the security of the Judiciary’s IT systems.\n+Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., the AO Director, created the task force and appointed the members, who include judges, court executives, and IT and chambers staff from all court types across the country. The group is charged with coordinating the issues that AI presents for the judicial branch and recommending new or updated policies to the Judicial Conference.\n+In the course of the year, the task force developed interim guidance for the Judiciary. The guidance aims to allow for the use of and experimentation with AI tools while preserving the integrity and independence of the federal courts and the judicial process. It was intended to provide temporary guideposts while more permanent guidance and policy was being developed. The guidance:\n+Cautions against delegating core judicial functions to AI, including decision making and case adjudication, and recommends extreme caution in using AI to aid in addressing novel legal questions.\n+Recommends that users review and independently verify all AI-generated content or output and reminds judiciary users and those who approve of AI use that they are accountable for all work performed with the assistance of AI.\n+Recommends that AI users consider whether the use of AI should be disclosed; to whom it should be disclosed; and whether transparency policies or practices are consistent with other ethical considerations, local rules, practices, professional obligations, confidentiality, and protecting the integrity of the Judiciary.\n+Encourages courts to consider defining the tasks for which locally approved AI tools may be used.\n+On another front, the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence considered possible rules or amendments on the use of AI to generate evidence in federal trials. Specifically, the committee weighed possible amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence to address two challenges: whether changes to the authenticity rules are necessary to deal with deepfakes and whether a change is needed to give courts authority to regulate opinion evidence that is the product of machine learning when no expert witness is proffered to testify.\n+The committee’s consideration of the second issue resulted in proposed new Rule 707, which was posted for public comment. The committee was scheduled to hold public hearings on proposed Rule 707 in 2026.\n+Bankruptcy Case Assignment\n+In August 2025, the Judicial Conference’s Administration of the Bankruptcy System Committee disseminated to all bankruptcy judges new guidance related to case assignment in the bankruptcy courts.\n+The guidance encourages courts to avoid establishing a panel of judges or designating a group of judges for the purpose of assigning Chapter 11 and Chapter 15 cases. The use of panels can result in the concentration of certain types of cases with a limited number of judges rather than the random assignment of cases among all judges in a district or division. Concerns had been raised that local practices that concentrate Chapter 11 and Chapter 15 cases with a designated group of judges might facilitate judge shopping. Bankruptcy courts remain responsible for setting their own case assignment practices based on federal statute, Judicial Conference policy, and local court characteristics.\n+Since 1995, the Conference has strongly supported the random assignment of cases and the proposition that all district judges should remain generalists. The new guidance applies these long-standing principles to the assignment of bankruptcy cases. It is designed to promote the impartiality of proceedings and bolster public confidence in the federal Judiciary. The Bankruptcy Committee continues to consider potential policy in this area, in collaboration with the Conference’s Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) Committee.\n+In March 2024, the Judicial Conference adopted a policy on district wide random assignment of cases in which parties sought statewide or nationwide relief in district courts. The CACM Committee disseminated related Guidance on Civil Case Assignment in District Courts to all district judges.\n+Access to Interpreters\n+Spanish is the most frequently used language in interpreting proceedings in the courts, comprising 96 percent of all reported interpreting events in fiscal year (FY) 2025. Federal courts used interpreters in 225,773 court proceedings in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025. Overall, 149 languages were used, and American Sign Language was used in 217 cases. The top 10 spoken languages that required interpreting are listed in the chart below.\n+Top 10 Languages Requiring Interpreting in FY 2025\n+LanguageNumber of court proceedings\n+Spanish216,396\n+Mandarin1,915\n+Arabic798\n+Romanian660\n+Russian457\n+Portuguese381\n+Punjabi297\n+Persian275\n+Korean237\n+Vietnamese212\n+Annual Report 2025\n+Annual Report 2025\n+Funding and Budget\n+The Courts and Congress\n+The Federal Bench\n+Accountability and Resource Management\n+Public Outreach and Communications\n+Facilities and Security\n+Court Operations\n+Defender Services\n+Probation and Pretrial Services\n+Human Resources\n+Information Systems and Cybersecurity\n+Recent and Proposed Amendments to Federal Rules\n+In Profile\n+Return to top\n+Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Careers\n+FAQs\n+Contact Us\n+This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary.\n+Privacy & Security Policy\n+Operating Status\n+Download Plug-Ins\n+Subscribe to Updates\n+To receive updates, enter your email address and select the topics that interest you.\n+Email address\n+Submit\n+X\n+YouTube\n+LinkedIn","id":"002a21f22d6fbcaeaca14ed30b7464a9c46ca5b933a8b8de70987ba5d6bbef6e","newHash":"d4e142c432627f3a7d7d1265c6a1cfdf842476ffeb6957d2ff9bd05e0916eee3","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025","snapshot":"snapshots/d4e142c432627f3a7d7d1265c6a1cfdf842476ffeb6957d2ff9bd05e0916eee3.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:17.847221+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,560 @@\n+Reports to the Judicial Conference - September 2026\n+Skip to main content\n+An official website of the United States government\n+Here’s how you know\n+Here’s how you know\n+Official websites use .gov\n+A\n+.gov website belongs to an official government\n+organization in the United States.\n+Secure .gov websites use HTTPS\n+A\n+lock\n+(\n+Lock\n+Locked padlock icon\n+) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to\n+the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.\n+Home\n+Close menu\n+Main Menu\n+Search USCourts.gov\n+Search\n+About Federal Courts\n+The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly.\n+About\n+Federal\n+Courts\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly.\n+Popular\n+Court Website Links\n+Authorized Judgeships\n+Supreme Court Landmarks\n+About\n+Federal\n+Courts\n+Court Role and Structure\n+The judicial branch is one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government.\n+Court Role and Structure\n+The judicial branch is one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government.\n+Back\n+Court\n+Role\n+and\n+Structure\n+About the U.S. Courts of Appeals\n+About U.S. District Courts\n+About U.S. Bankruptcy Courts\n+Comparing Federal & State Courts\n+Court Website Links\n+FAQs: Court Information\n+Types of Cases\n+U.S. Courts hear cases over which they have jurisdiction granted by the Constitution or Congress.\n+Types of Cases\n+U.S. Courts hear cases over which they have jurisdiction granted by the Constitution or Congress.\n+Back\n+Types\n+of\n+Cases\n+Appeals\n+Bankruptcy Cases\n+Civil Cases\n+Criminal Cases\n+About Federal Judges\n+Federal judges work to ensure equal justice under the law.\n+About Federal Judges\n+Federal judges work to ensure equal justice under the law.\n+Back\n+About\n+Federal\n+Judges\n+Types of Federal Judges\n+Authorized Judgeships\n+Judicial Compensation\n+Judicial Milestones\n+Probation and Pretrial Services\n+U.S. probation and pretrial services officers serve the federal courts and protect communities.\n+Probation and Pretrial Services\n+U.S. probation and pretrial services officers serve the federal courts and protect communities.\n+Back\n+Probation\n+and\n+Pretrial\n+Services\n+Evidence-Based Practices\n+Officers & Officer Assistants\n+Pretrial Services\n+Presentence Investigations\n+Post-Conviction Supervision\n+Data Release Regulations\n+Federal Probation Journal\n+Federal Probation and Pretrial Academy\n+History\n+Defender Services\n+The Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to representation by counsel.\n+Defender Services\n+The Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to representation by counsel.\n+Back\n+Defender\n+Services\n+Defender Services Mission\n+Publications\n+Educational Resources\n+Find realistic simulations and memorable, interactive approaches to court basics.\n+Educational Resources\n+Find realistic simulations and memorable, interactive approaches to court basics.\n+Back\n+Educational\n+Resources\n+Educational Activities\n+Supreme Court Landmarks\n+Annual Observances\n+About Educational Outreach\n+Court Programs\n+Learn about federal court programs and services to help provide fair and impartial justice.\n+Court\n+Programs\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Learn about federal court programs and services to help provide fair and impartial justice.\n+Popular\n+Bankruptcy Basics\n+Filing Without an Attorney\n+Summoned for Federal Jury Service?\n+Court\n+Programs\n+Bankruptcy\n+Bankruptcy helps people who can no longer pay their debts get a fresh start by liquidating assets.\n+Bankruptcy\n+Bankruptcy helps people who can no longer pay their debts get a fresh start by liquidating assets.\n+Back\n+Bankruptcy\n+Bankruptcy Basics\n+Filing Without an Attorney\n+Credit Counseling and Debtor Education\n+Trustees and Administrators\n+Bankruptcy Noticing\n+Bankruptcy Case Records & Credit Reporting\n+Unclaimed Funds in Bankruptcy\n+Fees\n+The U.S. courts publishes a list of fees that are charged for services provided by a specific court.\n+Fees\n+The U.S. courts publishes a list of fees that are charged for services provided by a specific court.\n+Back\n+Fees\n+Court of Appeals Fees\n+District Court Fees\n+Bankruptcy Court Fees\n+Electronic Public Access Fees\n+U.S. Court of Federal Claims Fees\n+Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Fees\n+Post Judgement Interest Rate\n+Jury Service\n+Jury service is an important civic duty to protect right and liberties.\n+Jury Service\n+Jury service is an important civic duty to protect right and liberties.\n+Back\n+Jury\n+Service\n+Summoned for Federal Jury Service?\n+Types of Juries\n+Juror Selection Process\n+Juror Qualifications, Exemptions, and Excuses\n+Juror Pay\n+Juror Scams\n+Federal Court Interpreters\n+Interpreters ensure that justice is carried out fairly for defendants and other stakeholders.\n+Federal Court Interpreters\n+Interpreters ensure that justice is carried out fairly for defendants and other stakeholders.\n+Back\n+Federal\n+Court\n+Interpreters\n+Contracting as a Court Interpreter\n+Interpreter Categories\n+Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination\n+National Court Interpreter Database (NCID) Gateway\n+Federal Court Reporting\n+Federal court reporters record proceedings and produce transcripts of court proceedings.\n+Business Opportunities\n+The U.S. courts provide business opportunities for organizations that follow its policies.\n+Business Opportunities\n+The U.S. courts provide business opportunities for organizations that follow its policies.\n+Back\n+Business\n+Opportunities\n+Pre-Lapse in Appropriations Notice to Contractors\n+Transfer of Excess Judiciary Personal Property\n+Administration & Policies\n+Administration and governance of the Judicial occurs at both a national and regional level.\n+Administration\n+&\n+Policies\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Administration and governance of the Judicial occurs at both a national and regional level.\n+Popular\n+Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges\n+Administration\n+&\n+Policies\n+Governance & the Judicial Conference\n+The Judicial Conference of the U.S. is the national policymaking body for the federal courts.\n+Governance & the Judicial Conference\n+The Judicial Conference of the U.S. is the national policymaking body for the federal courts.\n+Back\n+Governance\n+&\n+the\n+Judicial\n+Conference\n+About the Judicial Conference\n+Reports of the Proceedings - Judicial Conference of the U.S.\n+Congressional Budget Request\n+Real Property Authority\n+Judicial Administration\n+Federal courts individually manage their operations, with support from judicial branch agencies.\n+Administrative Oversight & Accountability\n+Oversight mechanisms work together to hold staff responsible for their conduct as officials.\n+Judicial Conduct & Disability\n+Anyone can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability.\n+Judicial Conduct & Disability\n+Anyone can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has committed misconduct or has a disability.\n+Back\n+Judicial\n+Conduct\n+&\n+Disability\n+FAQs: Filing a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint Against a Federal Judge\n+Judicial Conduct and Disability Orders\n+Archives of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability\n+Judiciary Financial Disclosure Reports\n+Search for financial disclosure reports for judicial officers.\n+Privately Funded Seminars Disclosure System\n+This policy requires information about privately funded educational programs to be disclosed.\n+Privately Funded Seminars Disclosure System\n+This policy requires information about privately funded educational programs to be disclosed.\n+Back\n+Privately\n+Funded\n+Seminars\n+Disclosure\n+System\n+Log In & Create Account\n+Overview of Privately Funded Seminars Disclosure System\n+Instructions\n+Frequently Asked Questions\n+Workplace Conduct\n+U.S. courts are committed to a workplace free from discrimination, sexual or other discrimination.\n+Workplace Conduct\n+U.S. courts are committed to a workplace free from discrimination, sexual or other discrimination.\n+Back\n+Workplace\n+Conduct\n+Director of Workplace Relations Contracts by Circuit\n+Fact Sheet for Workplace Protections in the Federal Judiciary\n+Background & Resources\n+Judiciary Policies\n+This policy guidance governs the national operations of the federal judiciary.\n+Judiciary Policies\n+This policy guidance governs the national operations of the federal judiciary.\n+Back\n+Judiciary\n+Policies\n+Bankruptcy Case Policies\n+Cameras in the Courtroom Policy\n+Confidentiality Regulations for Pretrial Services Information\n+Court Interpreting Guidance\n+Court Reporting Guidance\n+Ethics Policies\n+Federal Tort Claims Against Federal Judiciary Personnel\n+Fraud, Waste, or Abuse\n+Garnishment Regulations\n+Guidelines for administering the CJA and related statutes\n+Judiciary Staff Travel Regulations\n+Portable Communication Devices in the Courthouse\n+Presentence Investigation and Report Policies\n+Privately Funded Educational Seminars\n+Procurement Policies\n+Post-Conviction Supervision Policies\n+Rules Committee Procedures\n+Subpoena Regulations\n+U.S. Courts Design Guide\n+Workplace Conduct and Protections\n+Data & News\n+This section provides statistical data and news on the business of the federal Judiciary.\n+Data\n+&\n+News\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+This section provides statistical data and news on the business of the federal Judiciary.\n+Popular\n+Federal Court Scams\n+News Media\n+Director's Annual Report\n+Data\n+&\n+News\n+Data Tables\n+Filter for caseload statistical data tables by topic, report, or date.\n+Reports\n+The following materials provide analysis and information related to the work of the U.S. courts.\n+Reports\n+The following materials provide analysis and information related to the work of the U.S. courts.\n+Back\n+Reports\n+Statistical Reports\n+Annual Reports\n+Handbooks & Manuals\n+Strategic Planning\n+Judicial Vacancies\n+Find a summary of current and future judicial vacancies.\n+Judicial Vacancies\n+Find a summary of current and future judicial vacancies.\n+Back\n+Judicial\n+Vacancies\n+Current Judicial Vacancies\n+Future Judicial Vacancies\n+Confirmation Listing\n+Judicial Emergencies\n+Archive of Judicial Vacancies\n+News\n+Learn about the work of the federal Judiciary.\n+News\n+Learn about the work of the federal Judiciary.\n+Back\n+News\n+Email Updates & Sign Up\n+News Media\n+News Issues\n+Federal Court Scams\n+Forms & Rules\n+Link to the national federal rules of practice and procedures, and forms in effect.\n+Forms\n+&\n+Rules\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Link to the national federal rules of practice and procedures, and forms in effect.\n+Popular\n+Bankruptcy: Proof of Claim Form\n+Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committee\n+Forms\n+&\n+Rules\n+Forms\n+Find a national federal court form that can be used in all federal courts.\n+Forms\n+Find a national federal court form that can be used in all federal courts.\n+Back\n+Forms\n+Attorney Forms\n+Bankruptcy Forms\n+Civil Forms\n+Court Reporter Forms\n+Criminal Forms\n+CJA Forms\n+Human Resources Forms\n+Jury Forms\n+Other Forms\n+Current Rules of Practice & Procedure\n+The federal rules of practice and procedure govern litigation in the federal courts.\n+Current Rules of Practice & Procedure\n+The federal rules of practice and procedure govern litigation in the federal courts.\n+Back\n+Current\n+Rules\n+of\n+Practice\n+&\n+Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Evidence\n+Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings\n+Pending Rules and Forms Amendments\n+Find proposed rules and forms amendments organized by the year they are projected to take effect.\n+Pending Rules and Forms Amendments\n+Find proposed rules and forms amendments organized by the year they are projected to take effect.\n+Back\n+Pending\n+Rules\n+and\n+Forms\n+Amendments\n+Pending Changes in the Bankruptcy Forms\n+Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment\n+Reference proposed federal rules and forms amendments published for public comment.\n+About the Rulemaking Process\n+Learn about the procedures, governing laws, and membership and meetings of the rules committees.\n+About the Rulemaking Process\n+Learn about the procedures, governing laws, and membership and meetings of the rules committees.\n+Back\n+About\n+the\n+Rulemaking\n+Process\n+Laws and Procedures Governing the Work of the Rules Committees\n+How the Rulemaking Process Works\n+How to Suggest a Change to Federal Court Rules and Forms\n+How to Submit Input on a Pending Proposal\n+Committee Membership Selection\n+Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committees\n+Permitted Changes to Official Bankruptcy Forms\n+Records of the Rules Committees\n+Reference the records of the rules committees, including agendas, minutes, and rules suggestions.\n+Records of the Rules Committees\n+Reference the records of the rules committees, including agendas, minutes, and rules suggestions.\n+Back\n+Records\n+of\n+the\n+Rules\n+Committees\n+Agenda Books\n+Committee Reports\n+Congressional and Supreme Court Rules Packages\n+FJC Studies and Related Publications\n+Meeting Minutes\n+Past Members of the Rules Committees\n+Preliminary Drafts of Proposed Rule Amendments\n+Rules Comments\n+Rules Suggestions\n+Special Projects of the Rules Committees\n+Style Resources\n+Superseded Rules Pamphlets\n+Transcripts and Testimony\n+Court Records\n+Learn how to file and access case files and court records information.\n+Court\n+Records\n+Back to\n+Main Menu\n+Learn how to file and access case files and court records information.\n+Court\n+Records\n+Find a Case (PACER)\n+Locate a federal court case by using PACER or by visiting the courthouse where the case was filed.\n+File a Case (CM/ECF)\n+Attorneys and other filers can submit files to the court electronically using the CM/ECF system.\n+File a Case (CM/ECF)\n+Attorneys and other filers can submit files to the court electronically using the CM/ECF system.\n+Back\n+File\n+a\n+Case\n+(CM/ECF)\n+FAQs: Case Management / Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)\n+Access to Court Proceedings\n+The public may visit a federal court to watch each step of the federal judicial process.\n+Access to Court Proceedings\n+The public may visit a federal court to watch each step of the federal judicial process.\n+Back\n+Access\n+to\n+Court\n+Proceedings\n+Remote Public Access to Proceedings\n+Court Record Schedules\n+These national record disposition schedules govern most judiciary records, including case files.\n+Electronic Public Access Public User Group\n+The EPA Public User Group provides a forum for PACER users to share and recommend improvement ideas.\n+Select language\n+|\n+Find a Federal Court\n+Search\n+Close\n+Search USCourts.gov\n+Search\n+Menu\n+Forms & Rules\n+Forms\n+Attorney Forms\n+Bankruptcy Forms\n+Superseded Bankruptcy Forms\n+Civil Forms\n+Court Reporter Forms\n+Criminal Forms\n+CJA Forms\n+Human Resources Forms\n+Jury Forms\n+Other Forms\n+Current Rules of Practice & Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure\n+Federal Rules of Evidence\n+Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings\n+Pending Rules and Forms Amendments\n+Pending Changes in the Bankruptcy Forms\n+Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment\n+About the Rulemaking Process\n+Laws and Procedures Governing the Work of the Rules Committees\n+Procedures Governing the Rulemaking Process\n+How the Rulemaking Process Works\n+Overview for the Bench, Bar, and Public\n+How to Suggest a Change to Federal Court Rules and Forms\n+Essentials for Drafting Clear Legal Rules\n+How to Submit Input on a Pending Proposal\n+Committee Membership Selection\n+Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committees\n+Permitted Changes to Official Bankruptcy Forms\n+Records of the Rules Committees\n+Agenda Books\n+Committee Reports\n+Reports to the Judicial Conference - September 2026\n+Congressional and Supreme Court Rules Packages\n+FJC Studies and Related Publications\n+Meeting Minutes\n+Past Members of the Rules Committees\n+Preliminary Drafts of Proposed Rule Amendments\n+Rules Comments\n+Archive of Proposed Rule and Form Amendments on Regulations.gov\n+Rules Suggestions\n+Special Projects of the Rules Committees\n+2010 Civil Litigation Conference\n+Civil Rule 23 Mini-Conference\n+Dallas Conference on Preservation/Sanctions (9/9/11)\n+Invitation for Comment on Emergency Rulemaking\n+Invitation for Comment on Privilege Log Practice\n+Mini-Conference on Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Doctrine\n+Style Resources\n+Superseded Rules Pamphlets\n+Transcripts and Testimony\n+Home\n+Forms & Rules\n+Records of the Rules Committees\n+Committee Reports\n+Reports to the Judicial Conference - September 2026\n+Reports to the Judicial Conference - September 2026\n+Download\n+pdf, 4.35 MB\n+Released on:\n+September 1, 2026\n+Category:\n+Committee Reports\n+Committee:\n+Standing\n+Return to top\n+Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Careers\n+FAQs\n+Contact Us\n+This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary.\n+Privacy & Security Policy\n+Operating Status\n+Download Plug-Ins\n+Subscribe to Updates\n+To receive updates, enter your email address and select the topics that interest you.\n+Email address\n+Submit\n+X\n+YouTube\n+LinkedIn","id":"5730d7f97abd18bb04397ba07afbc29cb54fc4c468b0a7cdc070043ebea34cb8","newHash":"76be05c216f95d2b860b2463820d1af63d28c79f14abfe8de5df3a1d4fc58865","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees/committee-reports/reports-judicial-conference-september-2026","snapshot":"snapshots/76be05c216f95d2b860b2463820d1af63d28c79f14abfe8de5df3a1d4fc58865.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees/committee-reports/reports-judicial-conference-september-2026","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:17.053169+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@\n+A Uniform Federal Rule Would Curb Gen AI Missteps In Court\n+By Mark Behrens and Jacob Bennett (December 16, 2025)\n+Editor's note: Law360 welcomes opinionated commentary and debate\n+in our Expert Analysis section. To submit op-eds or rebuttals, or to\n+speak to an editor about submissions, please\n+email expertanalysis@law360.com.\n+In his 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice\n+John Roberts expressed optimism that artificial intelligence has the\n+\"welcome potential to smooth out any mismatch between available\n+resources and urgent needs in our court system.\"[1]\n+AI can help lawyers practice more efficiently, such as by gathering\n+and summarizing information or creating initial drafts of documents.\n+And AI tools are already being used in self-represented litigations,\n+and have allowed pro se litigants — some of the most disadvantaged\n+users of the civil justice system — to win cases.[2]\n+Justice Roberts noted, however, that the \"use of [generative] AI\n+requires caution,\"[3] because the emerging technology is prone to\n+making mistakes — one of generative AI's \"shortcoming[s] [is]\n+known as hallucination.\"[4]\n+As an IBM article explains, \"AI hallucination is a phenomenon where\n+... a large language model\" — a computer program that generates new information based\n+upon texts or other media it has analyzed — \"perceives patterns that are nonexistent, ...\n+creating outputs that are nonsensical or altogether inaccurate.\"[5]\n+For instance, AI can generate fictitious cases and attribute fictitious language to real\n+cases.[6] Programs such as ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini are all\n+powered by large language models and thus capable of hallucinating.[7]\n+French lawyer and researcher Damien Charlotin has identified over 670 cases where\n+generative AI produced hallucinated content, mostly in the U.S.[8] The New York\n+Times reported in November that Charlotin used to find \"three or four examples in a month.\n+Now he often receives that many in a day.\"[9]\n+The same article said that Los Angeles-based lawyer Robert Freund, who also tracks legal AI\n+misuse globally, \"has publicly flagged more than four dozen examples this year.\"[10]\n+Courts are beginning to take notice. In September, Chief U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman\n+of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee wrote in Mid-America\n+Apartment Communities Inc. v. Philipson that \"[t]he increased use by lawyers and non -\n+lawyers of artificial intelligence to draft legal documents has resulted in a scourge of\n+fictitious case citations in court documents in recent years.\"[11]\n+Similarly, in an October ruling in U.S. v. McGee, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Moorer Jr. of\n+the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama described the problem of fake\n+AI-generated case citations as an \"epidemic [that] continues unabated.\"[12]\n+Mark Behrens\n+Jacob Bennett\n+Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S\n+The Guardian reported in November that courts as far away as Australia have complained\n+that judges must now serve as \"human filters\" for an \"unsustainable\" surge in AI-generated\n+content.[13]\n+Thus far, the burden of policing AI hallucination has mostly fallen on individual courts, which\n+have adopted a patchwork of rules and standing orders.[14] These provisions fall into five\n+broad categories:\n+• At one end of the spectrum, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth\n+Circuit has declined to adopt AI-specific rules, concluding that general prohibitions on\n+filing frivolous appeals suffice to deter attorneys' use of hallucinated authorities.[15]\n+• Many federal trial courts take a similar hands-off approach, but warn litigants about\n+the possibility of hallucination.[16] These warnings put litigants on notice of the risks\n+of using generative AI, making it easier for a court to sanction attorneys who rely on\n+hallucinated authority.\n+• Some courts allow litigants to use generative AI, but require counsel to disclose\n+whether generative AI — sometimes referred to as just \"AI\" — was used in a filing,\n+and to certify that any citations have been checked for accuracy.[17] Other courts\n+require litigants to identify the specific portions of documents that AI was used to\n+generate.[18]\n+• Some courts permit the use of AI, but limit the programs litigants may use.[19]\n+• Finally, some courts prohibit the use of generative AI.[20]\n+Laissez-faire approaches allow missteps to flourish and waste party and court resources\n+trying to locate false citations, identify other AI-based errors, and conduct sanctions\n+proceedings.[21]\n+Conversely, blanket bans on the use of generative AI throw the baby out with the\n+bathwater, eliminating the risk of hallucination but depriving litigants of the technology's\n+potential benefits. Pro se parties who may depend on AI tools may be disproportion ately\n+harmed.\n+As New York University School of Law professor Stephen Gillers told Bloomberg Law in\n+October, \"The judge who bars use of AI under any circumstance is misguided.\"[22] Instead,\n+Gillers said, \"[w]hat the judge should say is learn how to use AI, [and] use it carefully.\"[23]\n+There are also problems with approaches taken by courts that have tried to strike a balance\n+between innovation and deterrence by adopting certain disclosure requirements and rules\n+limiting the applications litigants may use.\n+First, requiring a litigant to disclose whether AI was used does not actually prevent\n+hallucinations.\n+Further, requiring disclosure of the use of AI risks stigmatizing practitioners who make\n+responsible use of AI and may chill the use of tools that can be beneficial. That risk is hi gher\n+when the disclosure requirement applies to practitioners who use any sort of AI as opposed\n+to generative AI specifically.[24]\n+Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S\n+For these reasons, none of the strategies adopted by courts so far has achieved universal\n+acceptance. We propose a rule requiring litigants to certify that they have checked all AI -\n+generated citations and other content for accuracy.\n+As U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of\n+New York said in a 2023 ruling in Mata v. Avianca Inc., \"there is nothing inherently improper\n+about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance,\" but lawyers retain \"a\n+gatekeeping role ... to ensure the accuracy of their filings.\"[25]\n+The American Bar Association has likewise held that a lawyer's \"duty to provide competent\n+representation\" may require \"an appropriate degree of independent verification or review\"\n+of an AI tool's output.[26]\n+We propose an amendment to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require\n+the following certification in any document containing citations that is filed with a court:\n+I certify that I or an individual under my supervision has reviewed all content in this\n+filing created with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence to ensure that\n+the authorities cited therein exist, have been accurately cited, and support the\n+propositions for which they have been cited. I further acknowledge that the court\n+may take corrective action, including imposition of sanctions, if hallucinated content\n+is submitted to the court.\n+This language would put attorneys on notice as to their obligations and deter blind reliance\n+on generative AI, without deterring the use of potentially beneficial tools. The proposed rule\n+would also remind judges of the pitfalls of AI and encourage best practices, potentially\n+allowing members of the judiciary to avoid embarrassing missteps too.\n+The proposed rule fits neatly in the framework of Rule 11(a).[27] Under that rule, lawyers\n+are required to sign papers they submit to a court and include several pieces of information\n+in their signature blocks. Adding a certification below the attorney's signature line would not\n+be burdensome, and it would remind attorneys of their obligation to use AI responsibly\n+when submitting a motion or brief.\n+Moreover, Rule 11(a) offers a built-in remedy for failure to include the information it\n+demands in the form of a requirement that courts strike the offending filing with leave to\n+refile. This mandatory — but light and easily resolvable — sanction complements and\n+effectuates the proposed rule's purpose of ensuring that attorneys pause to consider\n+whether they have used AI responsibly.\n+As reported in Bloomberg Law on Dec. 1, U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard of the U.S.\n+District Court for the Southern District of California counsels, \"The best approach is to run\n+toward technology, not away from it,\" and that goes for generative AI, as well.[28]\n+But running toward technology does not mean running blindly. A rule would help address\n+the recent and growing number of missteps by lawyers as a result of the use of generative\n+AI in court filings.\n+We encourage the federal judiciary's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to consider the\n+proposed rule or a similar federal court rule to replace the current patchwork of orders.\n+As U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern\n+District of Texas said in a November article in Ars Technica, courts have \"scant resources to\n+Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S\n+spare ferreting out erroneous AI citations in the first place, let alone surveying the\n+burgeoning caselaw on this subject.\"[29]\n+A uniform federal rule would also provide a model for the states. Our proposed rule would\n+provide clarity to the bar, curb AI abuses and relieve judges from time spent policing fake\n+AI-generated citations.\n+Mark A. Behrens is a partner and co-chair of the public policy practice group at Shook Hardy\n+& Bacon LLP.\n+Jacob A. Bennett is an associate at the firm.\n+The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views\n+of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective\n+affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and\n+should not be taken as legal advice.\n+[1] Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Supreme Court of the United States, 2023 Year End\n+Report on the Federal Judiciary, at 5, https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-\n+end/2023year-endreport.pdf.\n+[2] Jared Perlo & Angela Yang, These People Ditched Lawyers for ChatGPT in Court, NBC\n+News.com (Oct.8, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/ai-chatgpt-court-law-\n+legal-lawyer-self-represent-pro-se-attorney-rcna230401.\n+[3] 2023 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, supra, at 5.\n+[4] Id. See also, Daniel E. Ho, Hallucinating Law: Legal Mistakes With Large Language\n+Models are Pervasive, Stan. Human-Centered A.I. (Jan.11,\n+2024), https://hai.stanford.edu/news/hallucinating-law-legal-mistakes-large-language-\n+models-are-pervasive (recording hallucination rates between 69% and 88% for law-related\n+queries).\n+[5] IBM.com, What Are AI Hallucinations?, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-\n+hallucinations; see also Cloudflare.com, What is a Large Language Model\n+(LLM)?, https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ai/what-is-large-language-model/.\n+[6] See Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (sanctioning attorney\n+for submitting brief containing nonexistent cases); Coomer v. Lindell, 2025 WL 1865282\n+(D.Colo. July 7, 2025) (sanctioning attorneys in connection with brief containing AI -\n+generated misattributions of case law).\n+[7] Open AI, https://chatgpt.com/; Anthropic, https://www.anthropic.com/claude;\n+Google, https://gemini.google.com/app.\n+[8] Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination\n+Cases, https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/?q=&sort_by=-date&period_idx=0.\n+[9] Evan Gorelick, Vigilante Lawyers Expose the Rising Tide of A.I. Slop in Court Filings, N.Y.\n+Times (Nov. 7, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/business/lawyers-ai-\n+vigilantes.html.\n+Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S\n+[10] Id.\n+[11] Mid-America Apartment Cmties., Inc. v. Philipson, 2025 WL 2625359, at *2 (W.D.\n+Tenn. Sept. 11, 2025).\n+[12] United States v. McGee, 2025 WL 2888065, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 10, 2025).\n+[13] Tom McIlroy. Judges Have Become Human Filters as AI in Australian Courts Reaches\n+Unsustainable Phase, Chief Justice Says, The Guardian (Nov.20,\n+2025), https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/nov/21/judges-have-become-human-\n+filters-as-ai-in-australian-courts-reaches-unsustainable-phase-chief-justice-says.\n+[14] LexisNexis tracks federal and state court rules on generative AI and collects these\n+orders in one location.\n+[15] Nate Raymond, Fifth Circuit Scraps Plan to Adopt AI Rule After Lawyers Object, Reuters\n+(June 11, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/5th-circuit-scraps-plans-\n+adopt-ai-rule-after-lawyers-object-2024-06-10/; see also Garces v. Hernandez, 2025 WL\n+2401001, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025) (per curiam) (\"litigant-users of AI ... must verify\n+the accuracy of AI-generated information, mindful that citing authorities that are generated\n+by AI may violate appellate rules 32 and 38\"), cert. denied, 2025 WL 3131905 (U.S. Nov.\n+10, 2025).\n+[16] See, e.g., In Re: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings, Gen. Order\n+No.2025-04 (S.D.Tex. May 7, 2025), https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/general-\n+orders/General_Order_2025-04_Use_of_Generative_AI_in_Court_Filings.pdf; Haikala\n+Chambers Initial Order, Hon. Madeline H. Haikala\n+(N.D.Ala.), https://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/sites/alnd/files/MHH%20Initial%20Order%20as\n+%20of%207-8-24.pdf; Case Procedures, Hon. Iain D. Johnson\n+(N.D.Ill.), https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Johnston.\n+[17] See, e.g., Guidelines to Parties and Counsel in Civil Cases Proceeding Before the Hon.\n+Tiffany Johnson, Hon. Tiffany Johnson\n+(N.D.Ga.), https://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/gand/files/TRJ_CVStandingOrder.pdf;\n+Standing Order Re Artificial Intelligence (\"AI\") in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson, Hon.\n+Michael M. Baylson\n+(E.D.Pa.), https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/Standing\n+%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf.\n+[18] See, e.g., Judge Evelyn Padin's General Pretrial and Trial Procedures, Hon. Evelyn\n+Padin (D.N.J.), https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/EPProcedures.pdf; Judge\n+Arteaga's Policies and Procedures, Hon. Jose Raul Arteaga\n+(E.D.Pa.), https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/sites/paed/files/documents/procedures/artpol.pdf\n+.\n+[19] In re Use of Artificial Intelligence, No.3:24-mc-101 (W.D.N.C. June 18, 2024).\n+[20] Case Procedures, Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman\n+(N.D.Ill.), https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge_display.php?LastName=Coleman.\n+[21] See generally Jessica R. Gunder, Rule 11 is No Match for Generative AI, 27 Stan. Tech.\n+L. Rev. 308 (2024) (arguing against Rule 11-only approach to AI hallucination).\n+Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S\n+[22] Justin Henry, Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out, Bloomberg\n+L. (Oct. 23, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/judges-called-\n+out-for-nonfactual-rulings-admit-to-use-of-ai.\n+[23] Id.\n+[24] Compare Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (\"AI\") in Cases Assigned to Judge\n+Baylson, Hon. Michael M. Baylson (E.D.Pa.) (requiring disclosure when AI \"has been used in\n+any way\") with Judge Evelyn Padin's General Pretrial and Trial Procedures, Hon. Evelyn\n+Padin (D.N.J.) (requiring disclosure when a litigant uses \"generative artificial intelligence\").\n+[25] Mata, 678 F.Supp.3d at 448; see also Dan Mangan, Judge Sanctions Lawyers for Brief\n+Written by A.I. With Fake Citations, CNBC.com (June 22,\n+2023), https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/22/judge-sanctions-lawyers-whose-ai-written-filing-\n+contained-fake-citations.html.\n+[26] Am. Bar Ass'n Standing Comm. on Ethics & Prof. Responsibility, Formal Opinion 512,\n+Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, at3-4 (July 29,\n+2024), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_respons\n+ibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf.\n+[27] Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) reads:\n+Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one\n+attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is\n+unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone\n+number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be\n+verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the\n+omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.\n+[28] Alex Ebert, Judges' AI Blunders Spark Debate on Technology Use in Courts,\n+BloombergL. (Dec. 1, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-\n+practice/judges-ai-blunders-spark-debate-on-technology-use-in-courts.\n+[29] Ashley Belanger, You Won't Believe The Excuses Lawyers Have After Getting Busted for\n+Using AI, Ars Technica (Nov. 11, 2025), https://arstechnica.com/tech-\n+policy/2025/11/lawyers-keep-giving-weak-sauce-excuses-for-fake-ai-citations-in-court-\n+docs/.\n+Rules Suggestion 25-CV-S","id":"3d2d39556b9c0dc8a91722de60d57e49a0df6cd547a3bde8a5ffb387d8856d38","newHash":"b31aa5eba12ee6b6f78965a0ade9733ee1e14fe4eaba6721badde8437b71e3bc","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/25-cv-s_suggestion_from_mark_behrens_and_jacob_bennett_-_rule_11a.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/b31aa5eba12ee6b6f78965a0ade9733ee1e14fe4eaba6721badde8437b71e3bc.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/25-cv-s_suggestion_from_mark_behrens_and_jacob_bennett_-_rule_11a.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:17.836855+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,2345 @@\n+COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE\n+OF THE\n+JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES\n+WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544\n+JAMES C. DEVER III\n+CHAIR\n+C\n+AROLYN A. DUBAY\n+SECRETARY\n+CHAIRS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES\n+ALLISON H. EID\n+APPELLATE RULES\n+R\n+EBECCA B. CONNELLY\n+BANKRUPTCY RULES\n+S\n+ARAH S. VANCE\n+CIVIL RULES\n+MI\n+CHAEL W. MOSMAN\n+CRIMINAL RULES\n+J\n+ESSE M. FURMAN\n+EVIDENCE RULES\n+M\n+EMORANDUM\n+T\n+O: Hon. James C. Dever III, Chair\n+Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure\n+F\n+ROM: Hon. Jesse M. Furman, Chair\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+RE\n+: Report of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+DAT\n+E: May 17, 2026\n+_____________________________________________________________________________\n+I. Introduction\n+T\n+he Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules (the “Committee”) met on May 7, 2026, in\n+Washington, D.C. The Committee reviewed proposed amendments to Rule 609 and a proposed\n+new Rule 707, which were approved for publication by the Standing Committee at its June 2025\n+meeting. It also considered four other proposed amendments to the Evidence Rules.\n+T\n+he Committee now recommends (1) final approval of the proposed amendments to Rule\n+609 and (2) proposed amendments to Rule 902(1) and Rule 104(a) and (b) for public comment .\n+The Committee does not recommend action on the proposed Rule 707 at this time. Instead, it has\n+revised the proposed Rule and plans to conduct further study on it and another issue relating to\n+artificial intelligence — the problems posed by “deepfakes” — at its next meeting.\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 525 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 2\n+A full description of the Committee’s discussion can be found in the draft minutes of the\n+Committee meeting, which are attached to this Report.\n+II. Action Items\n+A. Proposed Amendments to Rule 609 — for Final Approval\n+The Committee recommends that proposed amendments to Rule 609 be forwarded to the\n+Judicial Conference for final approval. In June 2025, the Standing Committee approved for public\n+comment a modest proposed amendment to Rule 609(a)(1)(B), which currently allows for\n+impeachment of criminal defendant witnesses with convictions not involving dishonesty or false\n+statement if the probative value of the conviction in proving the witness’s character for truthfulness\n+outweighs the prejudicial effect. The proposed amendment would result in the provision becoming\n+somewhat more exclusionary. To be admitted, the probative value of the conviction would have\n+to substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. The amendment is narrower than other suggestions\n+for changes made to, and rejected by, the Committee in the last three years, including a proposal\n+to eliminate Rule 609 entirely and a proposal to delete Rule 609(a)(1), which would have meant\n+that all convictions not involving falsity would be inadmissible to impeach a witness.\n+After extensively reviewing the case law, t he Committee concluded that the amendment\n+was warranted because a large number of courts have misappl ied the existing test to admit\n+convictions that are either similar to the crime charged or otherwise inflammatory . This is\n+especially problematic because appellate review of decisions to admit prior convictions for\n+impeachment is rare. That is because, in Luce v. United States , 469 U.S. 38 (1984), the Supreme\n+Court held that a defendant may appeal an adverse Rule 609 ruling only if he or she takes the stand\n+at trial, so appeals by defendants of adverse Rule 609 rulings are rare.\n+Through its slightly more protective balancing test, the amendment would promote\n+Congress’s intent to provide more protection to criminal defendants so that they would not be\n+unduly deterred from exercising their rights to testify. The Committee believes that the tweak to\n+the applicable balancing test would encourage courts to more carefully assess the probative value\n+and prejudicial effect of convictions that are similar or identical to the crime charged, or that are\n+otherwise infla mmatory or less probative because they involve acts of violence. The proposal\n+leaves intact Rule 609(a)(2), which governs admissibility of convictions involving dishonesty or\n+false statements.\n+In addition, the propos al released for public comment contain ed a slight change to Rule\n+609(b), which covers older convictions. Subdivision (b) is triggered when a conviction is over ten\n+years old. That ten- year period begins running from the date of conviction or release from\n+confinement, whichever is later. But the current Rule does not specify the end date of the ten-year\n+period. The absence of any guidance in the Rule has led courts to apply varying dates, including\n+the date of indictment, the date that trial begins, and the date that the witness to be impeached\n+actually testifies. The proposal released for public comment provides that the ten- year period\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 526 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 3\n+would end on the date that the trial begins. The Committee determined that the date of trial is the\n+date that is most easily administered, the least amenable to manipulation, and that it is a proper\n+date for determining the credibility of a witness who is going to testify at the trial.\n+The Committee received fifteen public comment s on the amendments to Rule 609. Save\n+one, all commenters — including the Federal Magistrate Judges Association, the American\n+College of Trial Lawyers, the New York City Bar Association, the National Association of\n+Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the New York Council of Defense Lawyers — strongly supported\n+the amendment. The one critical comment suggested a different endpoint for the Rule 609(b) time\n+period; the Committee considered that suggestion and rejected it.\n+At its May 7 th meeting, the Committee voted, by a margin of 7-2, in favor of\n+recommending final approval of the proposed amendment s to Rule 609. The Department of\n+Justice voted in favor of the proposal. Accordingly, t he Committee recommends that the\n+proposed amendments, and the accompanying Committee Note — which are attached to this\n+Report — be sent to the Judicial Conference for final approval.\n+B. Proposed Amendment to Rule 902(1) – for Publication\n+Before its Fall 2024 meeting, Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the Northern District of\n+Oklahoma suggested that the Committee consider adding federally recognized Indian tribes to\n+Rule 902(1)(A), which provides that domestic public records that are sealed and signed are self -\n+authenticating. Because Rule 902(1) (A) does not list Indian tribes, the government must use\n+another route to authenticate proof of a defendant’s (or a victim’s) Indian status in federal\n+prosecutions brought for crimes occurring in Indian country. There have been some recent cases\n+in which the prosecution failed to prove Indian status by attempting, unsuccessfully, to meet the\n+requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule, with authentication by\n+certificate under Rule 902(11). The issue has arguably taken on more importance in light of the\n+increase in relevant federal cases following the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma,\n+591 U.S. 894 (2020).\n+The Committee sought and received input from Indian Tribes and Nations, as well as from\n+the Federal Defenders. The Tribes and Nations that did weigh in strongly supported the change,\n+on the ground that it would recognize the dignity and sovereignty of Indian tribes and Nations and\n+would avoid the burden and expense of tribal officials traveling long distances to qualify tribal\n+records. The Federal Defender’s position is that it is relatively simple to qualify a tribal record\n+through a certification under Rule 902(11) (meaning that the failures of proof in the recent cases\n+were attributable to the Department of Justice, not to the rules), that recordkeeping among Indian\n+tribes may not be uniform, and that generally Indian Tribes do not allow open access to their\n+records to non-members of the Tribe.\n+After discussion, the Committee determined that it would be appropriate to add Indian\n+Tribes and Nations to the list of entities in Rule 902(1)(A) whose public records are self -\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 527 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 4\n+authenticating. The Committee ultimately saw no reason to differentiate the Tribes and Nations\n+from the many other government entities whose records are currently self-authenticating.\n+At its meeting, the Committee voted, by a margin of 8-1, to recommend approval of the\n+proposal to amend Rule 902(1) for publication. The sole dissent was the Federal Defender\n+representative on the Committee. The Committee therefore recommends that the proposed\n+amendment to Rule 902(1)(A) and the accompanying Committee Note — which are attached to\n+this Report — be released for public comment.\n+C. Proposed Amendments to Rule 104 — for Publication\n+Rule 104(a) makes the important point that, in deciding preliminary issues of fact, the trial\n+judge is ordinarily not bound by the rules of admissibility. But one failing of Rule 104(a) is that it\n+does not specify the standard of proof required for the court to find that evidence is admissible.\n+In Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the\n+standard of proof for determinations of preliminary fact under Rule 104(a) is a preponderance of\n+the evidence. But not having that standard in text has raised problems, some of which led to the\n+amendment of Rule 702 in 2023 to set forth the preponderance standard in text (because many\n+courts and litigants had been treating the admissibility requirements of the R ule as questions of\n+weight rather than admissibility under Rule 104(a)). After the Rule 2023 amendment to Rule 702,\n+some have argued that every subsequent amendment to the Evidence Rules will have to set forth\n+the preponderance standard in text to avoid ambiguity.\n+By contrast, Rule 104(b) does set forth a standard of proof, one less stringent than Rule\n+104(a): evidence sufficient to support a finding. Per the Rule, t hat standard purportedly applies\n+only to questions of “conditional relevance” — i.e., when the probative value of one piece of\n+proffered evidence depends on the existence of another. (For example, when a statement is offered\n+to prove someone’s state of mind, it is conditioned on that person having heard it.) In Huddleston\n+v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 687 (1988), t he Supreme Court held that Rule 104(b) requires a\n+court to find only whether the finder of fact could reasonably find a fact by a preponderance of the\n+evidence. But the problem with Rule 104(b) is that the standard covers only so-called “conditional”\n+relevance, as distinct from all other questions of relevance (which some have called “logical”\n+relevance). This leaves the standard of proof for other relevance questions undetermined. What’s\n+more, “conditional” relevance is a confusing concept, because it fails to recognize that all questions\n+of relevance involve some condition. See, e.g., Ron Allen. The Myth of Conditional Relevance, 25\n+Loyola L. Rev. 871, 879 (1992).\n+The Committee reviewed the case law on Rule 104(b) and found that there is some\n+confusion about its application. Some courts have mistaken admissibility requirements (supposed\n+to be covered by Rule 104(a)) as “conditions” and thus covered by the less demanding\n+requirements of Rule 104(b). Some litigants have argued that the court must make a finding of\n+“conditional” relevance when the proffered evidence is clearly relevant. Some courts have applied\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 528 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 5\n+Rule 104(a) to issues that are really questions of trial sequencing rather than conditional relevance.\n+Moreover, even where cases get it right , there is often a substantial waste of resources litigating\n+“conditions” that are virtually pointless to litigate. Relevancy questions should be quite\n+straightforward determinations of reasonableness that do not require briefing and hearings.\n+After discussion, the Committee unanimously approved amendments to both Rule 104(a)\n+and (b) for release for public comment. The amendment to Rule 104(a) is straightforward. It simply\n+adds a sentence to the Rule:\n+(a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a\n+witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding,\n+the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege. Unless\n+otherwise provided in these rules, the proponent must establish the existence of a\n+preliminary fact by a preponderance of the evidence.\n+The proposed amendment to Rule 104(b) would eliminate the unhelpful concept of\n+“conditional” relevance and provide that the standard of proof for all questions of relevance is\n+whether a jury could reasonably find that the evidence has a tendency to make a fact of\n+consequence more or less probable than without the evidence:\n+(b) R elevance That Depends on a Fact. When the relevance of evidence depends on\n+whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that\n+the fact does exist. To establish that evidence is relevant, the proponent must\n+demonstrate to the court that the trier of fact could reasonably find that the\n+requirements of Rule 401 have been met. In making its relevance determination,\n+the court may consider the evidence itself, other evidence, and common knowledge\n+and experience. The court may admit proposed evidence on the condition that the\n+further proof be introduced later.\n+Beyond eliminating the confusing concept of “conditional” relevance, the proposed\n+amendment to Rule 104(b) makes two further improvements:\n+• It sets forth a standard of proof for all relevant evidence, which was a question not\n+specifically covered in the original R ule, meaning technically the question of “logical”\n+relevance was covered by Rule 104(a) — thus creating the anomaly that questions of\n+“conditional” relevance were subject to a lesser standard of proof than questions of\n+“logical” relevance.\n+• It eliminates the confusing and problematic phrase “proof sufficient to support a finding.”\n+The fact is that questions of relevance may be determined without “proof” as they might\n+be simple questions of logic and experience.\n+At its meeting, the Committee unanimously voted to recommend the proposal to amend\n+Rule 104(a) and (b) for publication. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the proposed\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 529 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 6\n+amendments to Rule 104, and the accompanying Committee Note — which are attached to this\n+Report — be released for public comment.\n+III. Information Items\n+A. Artificial Intelligence\n+For the past three years, the Committee has been researching and investigating whether the\n+existing Evidence Rules are sufficient to assure that evidence created by a rtificial intelligence\n+(“AI”) will be properly regulated for reliability and authenticity. The Committee has determined\n+that there are two evidentiary challenges raised by AI: ( 1) evidence that is an acknowledged\n+product of AI, such as machine learning, which would be subject to Rule 702 if propounded by an\n+expert witness; and (2) evidence that is not authentic because it is a difficult-to-detect deepfake.\n+1. Output of Artificial Intelligence\n+As to acknowledged AI (such as a machine-learning program that compares two works of\n+art to determine similarity), the concern is that it might be unreliable, and yet the unreliability will\n+be buried in the program and difficult to detect. The hearsay rule is likely to be inapplicable\n+because the solution to hearsay is cross-examination, and an AI process cannot be cross-examined.\n+The Committee’s view is that the reliability issues attend ant to AI are akin to those raised by\n+experts under Rule 702. Indeed, Rule 702 is applicable to AI if it is used by a testifying expert to\n+reach her conclusion. But Rule 702 is not cle arly applicable if the AI output is admitted without\n+any expert testimony — either directly (for example, under Rule 902(13)) or by way of a lay\n+witness (such as where facial recognition testimony is proffered by a person who merely “pressed\n+the button” and has no idea how the system works).\n+After extensive study and discussion, the Committee concluded that a new rule of evidence\n+might be appropriate to regulate the admissibility of a product of AI that is introduced without the\n+testimony of any expert. The Committee concluded that amending Rule 702 itself would not be\n+workable, for two reasons: ( 1) that Rule was just amended in 2023; (2) it is a rule of general\n+applicability, and a separate subdivision dealing with machine evidence would be inappropriately\n+specific and difficult to draft . The Committee’s solution was to draft a new Rule 707 providing\n+that if “ machine-generated” evidence is introduced without an expert witness, and it would be\n+considered expert testimony if presented by a witness, then the standards of Rule 702(a) -(d) are\n+applicable to that output.\n+That proposed Rule 707 was released for public comment last August. The Committee was\n+of the view that the issuance for public comment did not mean that there was a presumption that\n+the Rule would go forward. The Committee believed that, in this difficult and fast-developing area,\n+public comment would be useful in sharpening the Rule and, indeed, in determining whether any\n+Rule is even necessary.\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 530 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 7\n+The public comment on the proposed Rule 707 was mixed, but helpful . A few\n+commentators were of the view that the time is not ripe for an amendment requiring that AI -\n+generated evidence offered without an expert must be reliable because, at this point , there is no\n+problem to address, and the Committee should wait to see how AI develops . (By contrast, many\n+commentators, such as the ACLU and the New York City Bar Association, s tated that the time is\n+ripe and that the problem of AI being presented without expert testimony is occurring today,\n+especially in criminal cases.) Most commentators thought that the term “machine-generated” was\n+overbroad. Others contended that any rule should contain notice provisions, either in the rule text\n+itself or as part of a joint project with the Civil and Criminal Rules Committee s. Others thought\n+that any rule should have its own independent requirements and should not tie into Rule 702 (even\n+though this would lead to AI evidence being covered by one set of rules when an expert testifies\n+and a different set when the expert does not).\n+Another important issue of dispute raised by public commentary was whether AI-produced\n+evidence should ever be admissible without an expert foundation. Some argued that an expert\n+foundation should always be required. Others argued that an “expert -only” foundation was\n+unnecessarily strict and that AI could be shown to be reliable through evidence such as unbiased\n+validation tests — or perhaps that, in the future, AI could be “self-validating,” in which event an\n+“expert-only” requirement would be outmoded.\n+The Committee reviewed all the public comments and considered several alternative\n+redrafts of Rule 707 prepared by the Reporter. Committee members preferred the draft that\n+provided a presumption that an expert foundation was required but also allowed for the possibility\n+that other evidence might show that the AI is reliable. This redraft also includes a notice provision,\n+and focuses on “artificial intelligence” rather than “machine -generated” information. The draft,\n+and proposed Committee Note, provides as follows:\n+Rule 707. Evidence Produced by Artificial Intelligence and Presented at Trial Without 1\n+an Expert 2\n+(a) General Rules. If evidence is a product of artificial intelligence and is 3\n+offered without an expert witness, but would be subject to Rule 702 if 4\n+testified to by a witness, the proponent must establish that the evidence: 5\n+(1) will help the trier of fact; 6\n+(2) is based on sufficient facts or data; 7\n+(3) is the product of reliable principles and methods; and 8\n+(4) reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the 9\n+facts of the case. 10\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 531 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 8\n+(b) Establishing Admissibility. Admissibility under this rule ordinarily 11\n+requires the proponent to provide an expert to explain how the system of 12\n+artificial intelligence reliably produced the evidence; but in exceptional 13\n+circumstances, the court may rely upon other proof to find that the output 14\n+satisfies the requirements of (a)(2)-(4). 15\n+(c) Notice. The evidence is admissible only if the proponent gives an adverse 16\n+party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the evidence — so that the party 17\n+has a fair opportunity to meet it. 18\n+(d) Judicial Notice. This rule does not apply to facts that may be judicially 19\n+noticed under Rule 201. 20\n+(e) Definition. In this rule, “artificial intelligence\" means a machine -based 21\n+system that can, for a given set of human- defined objectives, make 22\n+predictions, recommendations or decisions influencing real or virtual 23\n+environments. 24\n+Committee Note 25\n+The admissibility of evidence generated by artificial intelligence (AI) raises questions 26\n+about reliability. AI involves the use of a computer -based process or system to make predictions 27\n+or draw inferences from existing data. The concerns about the reliability of that process are akin 28\n+to the reliability concerns about expert witnesses. Problems include using the process for purposes 29\n+that were not intended (function creep); analytical error or incompleteness; inaccuracy or bias built 30\n+into the underlying data or formulas; and lack of interpretability of the machine’s process. Where 31\n+a testifying expert relies on AI, the validity of that reliance will be scrutinized under the reliability 32\n+requirements of Rule 702. But if AI is proffered without the accompaniment of a human expert 33\n+(for example through a witness who applied the program but knows little or nothing about its 34\n+reliability), Rule 702 is not obviously applicable. Yet it cannot be that a proponent can evade the 35\n+reliability requirements of Rule 702 by offering AI output directly or through a lay witness, where 36\n+the output would be subject to Rule 702 if rendered as an opinion by a human expert. Therefore, 37\n+new Rule 707 provides that if AI is offered without the accompaniment of an expert, and where 38\n+the output would be treated as expert testimony if coming from a human expert, its admissibility 39\n+is subject to requirements that are the same as imposed by Rule 702. 40\n+The rule applies when AI-generated evidence is entered directly, but also when it is 41\n+accompanied by lay testimony. For example, the technician who enters a question and prints out 42\n+the answer might have no expertise on the validity of the output. Rule 707 would require the 43\n+proponent to make the same kind of showing of reliability as would be required when an expert 44\n+testifies on the basis of AI-generated information. 45\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 532 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 9\n+If the AI output is the equivalent of expert testimony, it is not enough that it is self -46\n+authenticated under Rule 902(13). That rule covers authenticity, but does not assure reliability 47\n+under the preponderance of the evidence standard applicable to expert testimony — and of course 48\n+applicable under Rule 707. See Adv. Comm. Note to Rule 902(13) (noting certification 49\n+authenticating computer output “does not preclude an objection that the information produced is 50\n+unreliable”). 51\n+This rule is not intended to encourage parties to opt for AI evidence over live expert 52\n+witnesses. Indeed the point of this rule is to provide reliability -based protections when a party 53\n+chooses to proffer AI evidence instead of a live expert. These reliability standards will ordinarily 54\n+be impossible to meet without presenting an expert. It is possible, however, that the proponent can 55\n+establish the requirements of the rule through other evidence, such as convincing validation tests 56\n+and objective studies indicating a low rate of error. 57\n+It is anticipated that a Rule 707 analysis will usually involve the following, among other 58\n+things: 59\n+• Considering whether the inputs into the process are sufficient for purposes of ensuring 60\n+the validity of the resulting output. For example, the court should consider whether the 61\n+training data for an AI process is sufficiently representative to render an accurate output 62\n+for the population involved in the case at hand. 63\n+• Considering whether the process has been validated in circumstances sufficiently similar 64\n+to the case at hand. 65\n+• Reviewing information about what records the system keeps, what is deleted, and 66\n+whether the output can be reproduced or audited. 67\n+• Considering whether the process or system has been subject to evaluation by entities 68\n+independent of the developer, and whether the opponent and independent evaluators 69\n+have access to the system, e.g., through meaningfully available research licenses. 70\n+• Considering whether the opponent has received sufficient information about how and 71\n+why the process works, including information analogous to that which would be 72\n+disclosed if the conclusion were that of a human expert. 73\n+An AI process can sometimes develop in such a way that nobody is able to explain how 74\n+the system has reached a result, because the machine has developed the ability to program itself. 75\n+If the process cannot be explained then the court should in most cases find that the proponent has 76\n+not established more likely than not that the methodology is reliable. As with experience -based 77\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 533 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 10\n+testimony, the proponent is required to show how the methodology leads to a reliable conclusion. 78\n+See Committee Note to the 2000 amendment to Rule 702 (“If the witness is relying solely or 79\n+primarily on experience, then the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion 80\n+reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is 81\n+reliably applied to the facts.”). That said, the proponent of AI output may overcome the problem 82\n+of inexplicability by showing through an expert how the machine got trained and establishing, for 83\n+example through validation studies, that the process leads to a low rate of error. 84\n+Rule 901(b)(9)’s requirement that the process or system “produces an accurate result” is 85\n+subsumed by the reliability requirements that must be established by a preponderance of the 86\n+evidence under Rule 702 or 707. Given the fact that the threshold requirement for authenticity is 87\n+significantly lower than that for reliability, it follows that if machine -generated evidence is 88\n+qualified under Rule 70 2 or 707, then it automatically satisfies the lesser requirements of Rule 89\n+901(b)(9). In contrast, satisfying Rule 901(b)(9) does not suffice for admissibility. 90\n+Under this rule, AI-generated output will be regulated pre -trial by the court in essentially 91\n+the same way as expert testimony. But there may well be a difference at trial when AI evidence is 92\n+found by the court to be admissible under this rule, because while an expert is ordinarily required 93\n+to provide the foundation for admissibility, it would be possible for a proponent to offer that 94\n+evidence at trial without an expert . A human expert can be cross -examined, and the jury will be 95\n+able to weigh the expert’s testimony accordingly. But it may be more difficult to attack the weight 96\n+of AI output. The opponent may be able to introduce reports and data, as well as expert testimony, 97\n+to undermine the output. Or the opponent might be able to impeach the conclusion by showing 98\n+prior inconsistencies or specific contradiction, akin to Rule 806. But in the end, the inability to 99\n+cross-examine is a concern. Accordingly, the court should consider providing a limiting instruction 100\n+that machine-generated evidence is subject to error and that evidence should not be assumed to be 101\n+reliable simply because it was produced by a machine. 102\n+The rule provides for pre-trial notice, as it is important that the significant reliability issues 103\n+attendant to AI evidence be handled before the trial. The notice provision is intentionally flexible. 104\n+See the notice provisions in Rules 404(b) and 807. The proponent of AI evidence must also consult 105\n+the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure to determine pretrial obligations. 106\n+Rule 707(d) specifically provides that the rule is not applicable if the reliability of an AI 107\n+process is subject to judicial notice. 108\n+The definition of “artificial intelligence” in Rule 707 is taken from the National Artificial 109\n+Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (116 Pub. L. 283 (2021)) . That Act also notes that “[a] rtificial 110\n+intelligence systems use machine and human -based inputs to—(A) perceive real and virtual 111\n+environments; (B) abstract such perceptions into models through analysis in an automated manner; 112\n+and (C) use model inference to formulate options for information or action.” This further 113\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 534 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 11\n+elaboration by Congress should be considered in determining whether proffered computer -based 114\n+information is subject to this rule. 115\n+* * *\n+At its May 7th meeting, the Committee agreed that the revised version of Rule 707 would\n+require re-publication were it to go forward. But the Committee decided not to propose that the\n+revised Rule 707 be released for a new period of public comment at this time. At the suggestion\n+of Judge Dever, the Committee thought the more prudent course would be to have the proposed\n+Rule vetted at the Committee’s Fall meeting by technology experts and others in the field of AI\n+and law. That input can help to sharpen and refine the proposed R ule and will also help the\n+Committee to determine whether an amendment is necessary.\n+2. Deepfakes\n+As discussed above, one of the problems of AI is that deepfakes are easy to generate and\n+difficult to detect. As a matter of evidence, deepfakes raise a problem of authenticity, which\n+traditionally is governed by a low standard of admissibility under Rule 901(a): evidence sufficient\n+to support a finding that the item is what the proponent says it is.\n+The Committee is of the view that, at least for now, an amendment to Rule 901 to address\n+deepfakes is not warranted . This is because, despite extensive commentary on the subject, few\n+examples exist of courts having to address the possibility of deepfakes. In making the decision to\n+wait, the Committee also took into account a survey of District, Magistrate, and Bankruptcy Judges\n+by the Federal Judicial Center, in which only fifteen respondents reported having dealt with\n+deepfake issues.\n+That said, the Committee is working to develop rule language that could be employed to\n+assist courts in reviewing deepfake claims in the event that the Committee concludes that the\n+existing rules are not adequate. The working rule is based on two agreed-upon principles. The first\n+is that a n opponent should not have the right to an inquiry into whether an item is a deep fake\n+merely by claiming that it is a deepfake. Some initial showing of a reason to think the item is a\n+deepfake should be required. The second principle is that, if the opponent does make an evidentiary\n+showing that the item may be a deepfake, then the opponent must prove authenticity under a higher\n+evidentiary standard than the prima facie standard ordinarily applied under Rule 901. Mindful that\n+technology develops quickly and the rule-making process is slow, the Committee’s objective is to\n+fine tune a possible amendment to hold in abeyance until such time that it concludes an amendment\n+is warranted, at which point the rule would be ready to go without delay.\n+The working draft of a new Rule 901(c), to address deepfakes, is as follows:\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 535 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 12\n+Rule 901(c) Potentially Fabricated Evidence Created by Generative Artificial Intelligence 116\n+(1) Showing Required to Warrant an Inquiry into Fabrication. If a party challenges the 117\n+authenticity of an item of evidence on the ground that it has been fabricated, in whole or in 118\n+part, by generative artificial intelligence, the party must present evidence sufficient to 119\n+support a finding of fabrication to warrant an inquiry by the court. 120\n+(2) Showing Then Required by the Proponent. If the opponent makes that showing, the item 121\n+of evidence is admissible only if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more 122\n+likely than not authentic. 123\n+(3) Applicability. This rule applies to items offered under either Rule 901 or 902. 124\n+(4) Notice. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party claiming that an item is fabricated in 125\n+whole or part by generative artificial intelligence must provide reasonable pretrial notice 126\n+to all opposing parties of the intent to present evidence of fabrication, so that the opposing 127\n+parties have a reasonable opportunity to respond to that evidence before trial. 128\n+(5) Definitions. In this rule, “generative artificial intelligence” means a computer system that 129\n+emulates the structure and characteristics of input data in order to create derived synthetic 130\n+content, including images, video, audio, text, and other digital content. 131\n+Committee Note 132\n+This new subdivision is intended to set forth guidance and standards when an opponent 133\n+alleges that a proffered item of evidence is a “deepfake” — i.e., that it is an inauthentic item 134\n+prepared by software programs using generative artificial intelligence. 135\n+The rule sets out a two-step process for regulating claims of deepfakes. First, the opponent 136\n+must set forth enough information for a reasonable person to find that the item has been fabricated 137\n+in whole or part by the use of generative artificial intelligence. Thus, a broad claim of “deepfake” 138\n+is not enough to put the court and the proponent to the time and expense of showing that the item 139\n+has not been manipulated by generative artificial intelligence. A proponent should not in the first 140\n+instance be required to show that every video or audio it proffers is not a deepfake. Second, if the 141\n+opponent has shown enough to merit the inquiry, the proponent must then show to the court that 142\n+the item is more likely than not authentic. While that Rule 104(a) standard is higher than what is 143\n+ordinarily required for a showing of authenticity, it is justified because any member of the public 144\n+now has the capacity to make a deepfake, with little effort and expense, and deepfakes have 145\n+become more difficult to detect by jurors. It is therefore reasonable for the court to require a 146\n+showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the item is not a deepfake, once the opponent 147\n+has met its burden of going forward. 148\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 536 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 13\n+If the opponent satisfies its burden of going forward, the proponent will not establish 149\n+authenticity simply by satisfying one of the illustrations of authenticity set forth in Rule 901(b). 150\n+Rule 901(b) sets forth illustrations that “establish” the authenticity requirement — but that is in 151\n+the context of the lower standard of proof set forth in Rule 901(a). So for example, testimony of a 152\n+witness with knowledge (Rule 901(b)(1)) will provide evidence sufficient to support a finding that 153\n+the item is authentic under Rule 901(a). But that knowledge will not ordinarily prove more likely 154\n+than not that the item is authentic, especially given the opponent’s submission showing some 155\n+likelihood of a deepfake. Requiring a stronger showing of authenticity is justified for the very 156\n+reason that a person with “knowledge” may well think that the item is genuine when in fact it is a 157\n+deepfake. 158\n+This amendment covers specific proffered items as to which the opponent has presented a 159\n+sufficient foundation of fabrication. It does not directly address another possible consequence — 160\n+that because of the background risk of deepfakes, juries might be led to think that no evidence can 161\n+be trusted. This phenomenon has been called the “liar’s dividend.” But rules are in place to combat 162\n+claims that “you can’t believe anything you see.” To the extent evidence of such a broad point is 163\n+proffered, it is subject to exclusion under Rule 403 for being distracting and confusing in the 164\n+absence of the necessary foundation. See United States v. Peterson , 945 F.3d 144, 157 (4th Cir. 165\n+2019) (finding that a demonstration of how easy it is to fake a text was properly excluded under 166\n+Rule 403; the proposed demonstration “was an attempt to prejudice the jury—an attempt to 167\n+confuse it by throwing the veracity of text message screenshots writ large into doubt, without any 168\n+effort to identify a connection to Peterson's case.”). And to the extent the point is expressed by 169\n+lawyers in argument, it is subject to the court’s inherent authority to regulate lawyer argument that 170\n+is made without foundation in the evidence. See Lee v. City of Troy, 339 F.R.D. 346, 367–68 171\n+(N.D.N.Y. 2021) (reversing the judgment for the defendant after defense counsel argued, without 172\n+any basis, that the plaintiff’s videos were “manufactured” and stating that “attorneys may not make 173\n+comments to the jury that are so inflammatory or so unsupported by the record as to affect the 174\n+integrity of the trial.”). 175\n+The requirements of the rule apply to authentication under either Rule 901 or 902. The risk 176\n+of deepfakes extends to many of the items designated in Rule 902 as self -authenticating — most 177\n+obviously newspapers and publications. 178\n+The rule requires that an opponent pressing a deepfake argument must provide pretrial 179\n+notice of the intent to present evidence of fabrication, so that the proponent of the item has a 180\n+reasonable opportunity to respond. The purpose of the notice requirement is to assure that deepfake 181\n+arguments under Rule 901 are resolved, if possible, before trial. The rule does not set forth specific 182\n+time periods because the deepfake issue is likely to arise in different contexts, and the appropriate 183\n+notice that a party with a deepfake argument must provide may well depend on whether it is a civil 184\n+or criminal case and on whether the item of evidence is offered for impeachment. The rule provides 185\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 537 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 14\n+that a court might excuse the lack of pretrial notice, as there may arise situations in which the 186\n+opponent discovers that an item may be a deepfake after the trial has begun. 187\n+The term “generative artificial intelligence” applied in this rule is derived from Executive 188\n+Order 14110 (Oct. 30, 2023). 189\n+* * *\n+At its May 7th meeting, the Committee concluded that this issue should also be considered\n+with the assistance of technological experts and lawyers in the field at the Committee’s Fall\n+meeting. The Committee is hoping to get input on whether an amendment should cover all AI as\n+opposed to generative AI. In addition, the Committee hopes to get views on whether this\n+amendment is necessary now, in the future, or at all.\n+C. Rules 703 and 606(b) and Constitutional Red Flags\n+In Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), the Supreme Court addressed whether a forensic\n+expert may testify to a positive drug test by relying on and disclosing to the jury the testimonial\n+hearsay of another analyst. The Court held that an expert’s disclosure to the jury of testimonial\n+hearsay violated the defendant’s right to confrontation, even if the purpose of the disclosure was\n+purportedly to illustrate the basis of the testifying expert’s opinion. At its May 7 th meeting, the\n+Committee considered whether the Court’s holding counsels or mandates some amendment to\n+Rule 703, which allows experts to rely on hearsay but strictly limits the disclosure of that hearsay\n+to the jury. The Committee determined that, to the extent that the Court was concerned about\n+disclosure of the report as the basis of the expert’s testimony, there would be little to no impact on\n+federal practice because Rule 703 already limits disclosure of inadmissible hearsay as the basis of\n+the expert’s opinion. But if the Court’s decision is construed to apply also to the expert’s reliance\n+on the lab report, it could have a substantial effect on federal practice because Rule 703 specifically\n+allows the expert to rely on inadmissible hearsay if it is the kind of information on which other\n+experts in the field would reasonably rely.\n+The Academic Consultant to the Committee conducted a survey of lower court cases and\n+presented her research, indicating that courts are split on whether Smith bars reliance on the\n+testimonial report. The majority rule appears to be that Smith does in fact prohibit reliance by the\n+expert on the testimonial hearsay. But the issue is still a live one, and it is an important enough\n+question that it seems likely that the Supreme Court will resolve it in the not- too distant future.\n+Therefore, the Committee voted to table any amendment to Rule 703.\n+The Committee also discussed whether to add a “ red flag” to Rule 606(b), which bars\n+testimony from jurors about jury deliberations when a party is seeking to attack the verdict. In\n+Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017), the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 538 of 587\n+Report to the Standing Committee\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+May 17, 2026 Page 15\n+Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated when Rule 606(b) was applied to exclude\n+racially biased statements of jurors. But after discussion, the Committee decided not to proceed\n+with any amendment on this subject, and the question was taken off the Committee’s agenda. As\n+to Peña-Rodriguez, its holding is clear, and it can reasonably be expected that courts and litigants\n+will know about it and apply it in preparing for any hearing to attack a verdict. Moreover, any\n+attempt to codify the ruling in Pe ña-Rodriguez threatens to impinge on the important policies\n+promoted by Rule 606(b).\n+IV. Minutes of the Spring 2026 Meeting\n+A draft of the minutes of the Committee’s Spring 2026 meeting is attached to this Report.\n+These minutes have not yet been approved by the Committee.\n+Attachments:\n+• Proposed amendment s to Evidence Rule 609, with the recommendation that they be\n+forwarded to the Judicial Conference for final approval.\n+• Proposed amendment to Rule 902(1) , with the recommendation it be released for public\n+comment.\n+• Proposed amendments to Rule 104(a) and (b) , with the recommendation that they be\n+released for public comment.\n+• Draft Minutes of the Spring 2026 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules.\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 539 of 587\n+Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules\n+Minutes of the Meeting of May 7, 2026\n+Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building\n+Washington D.C.\n+The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (the\n+“Committee”) met on May 7, 2026, at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building in\n+Washington, D.C.\n+The following members of the Committee were present:\n+Hon. Jesse M. Furman, Chair\n+Hon. Valerie E. Caproni\n+Hon. Mark S. Massa\n+Hon. Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.\n+Hon. Richard J. Sullivan\n+John S. Siffert, Esq.\n+James P. Cooney III, Esq.\n+Rene L. Valladares, Esq., Federal Public Defender (via Microsoft Teams)\n+Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Esq., Department of Justice\n+Also present were:\n+Hon. James C. Dever III, Chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure\n+Professor Edward Hartnett, Reporter to the Standing Committee\n+Hon. Edward M. Mansfield, Liaison from the Standing Committee\n+Hon. Hannah Lauck, Liaison from the Civil Rules Committee\n+Hon. Thomas Durkin, Liaison from the Criminal Rules Committee\n+Professor Daniel J. Capra, Reporter to the Committee\n+Professor Liesa L. Richter, Academic Consultant to the Committee\n+Professor Joseph Kimble, Style Consultant to the Standing Committee (via Microsoft Teams)\n+Beth Wiggins, J.D., Ph.D., Federal Judicial Center\n+Timothy Lau, J.D., Ph.D., Federal Judicial Center\n+Carolyn Dubay, Esq., Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff\n+Bridget Healy, Esq., Counsel, Rules Committee Staff\n+Shelly Cox, Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff\n+Rakita Johnson, Administrative Analyst, Rules Committee Staff\n+Invited guests included (via Microsoft Teams):\n+Professor Andrea Roth, UC Berkeley School of Law\n+Professor Ronald Allen, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law\n+Nicole Owens, Federal Public Defender (Idaho)\n+Jami Johnson, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Arizona)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 541 of 587\n+2\n+I. Opening Business\n+Judge Furman opened the meeting by welcoming the Committee and other participants and\n+attendees. He noted that it was a pleasure to meet in person again following the virtual fall meeting\n+that occurred during the government shutdown. He also welcomed Committee member Rene\n+Valladares and Professor Cathie Struve, Academic Consultant to the Standing Committee, who\n+both joined remotely. Judge Furman next welcomed two new regular attendees - Chief Judge\n+Thomas Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, who will be serving\n+as the liaison from the Criminal Rules Advisory Committee, and Professor Ed Hartnett, the newly\n+appointed Reporter to the Standing Committee.\n+Next, Judge Furman recognized the invited guests who attended remotely. Professor\n+Andrea Roth of the University of California Berkeley School of Law was present with regard to\n+the Advisory Committee ’s work on new Rule 707 regarding AI . P rofessor Ronald Allen of\n+Northwestern Pritzker School of Law was present to offer remarks on the Rule 104(b) conditional\n+relevance issue. The Chair also welcomed two members from the Federal Defenders’ community,\n+Ms. Jami Johnson, Assistant Federal Public Defender from Arizona to offer feedback on the Indian\n+Tribes issue under Rule 902, and Ms. Nicole Owens , Federal Public Defender from Idaho, who\n+joined to provide insight with respect to potential new Rule 707 on machine-generated evidence.\n+Following general remarks and reminders on meeting logistics, Judge Furman informed\n+the members about three items of interest. First, he advised members that in recognition of the 50th\n+Anniversary of the Rules of Evidence in 2025, a short article was available on the USCourts.gov\n+website to mark the event, and that additional materials will also soon be posted on the website .\n+He also noted that there was a small celebration in New York during the November 2025 virtual\n+meeting to share some cake to celebrate the occasion. Judge Furman thanked Ms. Dubay for her\n+work to organize these events and projects.\n+Second, Judge Furman informed the Committee that a proposal to amend Rule 611, which\n+was not ultimately adopted, did result in additions to the Federal Judicial Center’s Benchbook for\n+United States District Courts to give guidance to trial judges who allow jurors to ask questions of\n+witnesses. An amendment to Rule 611 that would have offered safeguards for trial judges wishing\n+to allow juror questions was not proposed due to concerns expressed by some Standing Committee\n+members that a rule change might encourage the practice of allowing juror questions. At Professor\n+Capra’s suggestion, however, the Committee sent its draft proposal to the FJC for possible\n+inclusion in the new Benchbook. The Benchbook excerpt on Rule 611 is found on page 36 of the\n+agenda book and gives proper attribution to this Committee. Professor Capra commented that\n+including the necessary safeguards for juror questions in the Benchbook was a very good result.\n+Third, Judge Furman offered his appreciation to Judge Richard Sullivan for his service on\n+the Committee , which will end on September 30, 2026. Judge Furman commented that Judge\n+Sullivan has been a stalwart member of the Committee since January 2021, despite extraordinary\n+service also chairing the Judicial Conference Security Committee. He thanked Judge Sullivan for\n+being an incredible member of the Committee during his time as Chair and noted that he would be\n+missed and would leave big shoes to fill. Judge Sullivan thanked Judge Furman for the kind words\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 542 of 587\n+3\n+and said that it was a joy to be on the Committee even while serving on the Security Committee.\n+With respect to security, Judge Sullivan remarked that it has been a difficult time for the security\n+of judges, their families and our courthouses. Judicial security is also closely tethered to judicial\n+independence, which is crucial for justice. Judge Sullivan also remarked on a quote on the state\n+courthouse in New York. The quote from George Washington to Edmund Randolph, the first\n+Attorney General of the United States, states that “the true administration of justice is the firmest\n+pillar of good Government.” Through this quote, Judge Sullivan observed, Washington recognized\n+that the courts were going to play a very important role in our democracy. Judge Sullivan expressed\n+his feeling that it takes more than just judges for the true administration of justice , and that the\n+work and members of the Committee epitomizes that fact by bringing together judges from every\n+level of the federal judiciary, judges from state courts, leading academics in the field, practitioners\n+who are the best at what they do , and staff who ensure the process moves forward. Jury trials are\n+also crucial for liberty, for dignity, and for checking Government overreach, and the Committee is\n+dedicated to ensuring that trials are fair.\n+Next, Judge Furman asked if there was a motion to approve the Minutes of the Committee’s\n+Fall 2025 meeting, which are found a t page 14 of the agenda book. A motion was made and\n+seconded and the minutes were unanimously approved. Judge Furman also directed members to\n+the draft minutes of the January 2026 Standing Committee meeting, found at page 40 of the agenda\n+book. Judge Furman noted that the Committee had only informational items before the Standing\n+Committee at the January 2026 Standing Committee meeting , including feedback on proposed\n+Rules 707 and 609 that had been published for public comment. Judge Furman then asked Ms.\n+Dubay to provide an update on the status of proposed amendments to the rules. Ms. Dubay called\n+the Committee’s attention to page s 91 and 92 of the agenda book, which cover the amendments\n+that will go in to effect December 1, 2026. She noted that Appellate Rules 29 and 32 and the\n+Appendix of Length Limits were withdrawn for further consideration and were not delivered to\n+Congress. Evidence Rule 801 was approved by the Supreme Court and was delivered to Congress\n+on April 8, 2026, and, unless Congress acts, will go into effect on December 1, 2026. Ms. Dubay\n+also provided a brief legislative update, referencing the legislative chart on page 95 of the agenda\n+book, noting that there are no bills pending at this time would directly affect the Rules of Evidence.\n+II. Proposal to Amend Rule 609\n+The Chair next directed the Committee ’s attention to Tab 2 of the agenda book and\n+consideration for final approval of the proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 609.\n+Judge Furman reminded the Committee that two proposed amendments to Rule 609 had been\n+approved for public comment at the Spring 2025 meeting. The first would make the balancing test\n+under 609(a)(1)(B) somewhat more exclusionary by adding the word “substantially.” The second\n+would clarify that the ten -year period under Rule 609(b) ends on the date the trial begins. B oth\n+amendments were approved for publication and public comment by the Standing Committee with\n+a few minor changes that are noted in the Reporter ’s memorandum. The comment period closed\n+in February 2026, and the public comment was almost uniformly positive. A wide range of\n+organizations, including the Federal Magistrate Judges ’ Association, the American College of\n+Trial Lawyers, the New York City Bar Association, NACDL, and others strongly supported the\n+amendment. There was only one slightly negative comment with respect to the 609(b) proposal,\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 543 of 587\n+4\n+which the Committee previously considered and rejected. There were a few comments that made\n+relatively minor suggestions, but for reasons explained in the Reporter’s memorandum, the Chair\n+did not recommend changes in response to those comments. Judge Furman flagged one comment\n+that suggested amending Rule 609 to respond to the Supreme Court’s holding in Luce v. United\n+States, which requires a defendant to testify and suffer impeachment before challenging a Rule\n+609 ruling on appeal. Judge Furman noted that he shared the Reporter’s view that such a significant\n+change to the Rule 609 proposal at this point would require republication. He noted that the\n+Committee had previously considered the issue and had decided not to address it as part of this\n+amendment package.\n+Judge Furman highlighted a couple of minor changes to the proposed committee note that\n+came from the Standing Committee. These included changing “the date of trial” to “the date trial\n+begins” and using “ specific instances of conduct ” instead of “ bad acts, ” and adding “ absent\n+agreement of the parties ” to the end. The Reporter further added that he wa s withdrawing a\n+suggested addition to the end of the draft committee note in the agenda memorandum because it\n+had not been vetted by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Reporter also noted that the Standing\n+Committee had suggested referencing the “existing rule” in the committee note instead of the\n+“original rule.” As explained in a footnote on page 111 of the agenda book, the language “original\n+rule” was retained to make it clear that the note was referring to the previous rule and not the one\n+then in force. Judge Furman added that the Reporter had included an appendix with recent Rule\n+609 rulings that suggested that some courts continue to misapply the rule.\n+Judge Furman then solicited questions and discussion. On hearing none, Judge Furman\n+called the question of whether to recommend that the Standing Committee give final approval to\n+the proposed amendments to Rule 609. Upon a motion and second, and with two members\n+opposed, the Committee voted to recommend final approval of the amendments to Rule 609.\n+III. Deepfakes and Federal Rule 901 Governing Authenticity\n+The Chair next directed the Committee ’s attention to Tab 4 of the agenda book and the\n+issue of amending Rule 901 that governs authenticity to include a new subsection that would\n+regulate claims that proffered evidence is a deepfake generated by Artificial Intelligence (“AI”).\n+The Chair explained that it was appropriate to discuss a proposed deepfake amendment before\n+discussing proposed Rule 707 governing machine-generated evidence because any decision on\n+how to proceed with respect to Rule 901 might impact next steps for Rule 707.\n+Judge Furman summarized the Committee’s work on AI that began in 2023. He noted that\n+one area of focus had been authentication issues relating to deepfakes - audio and video evidence\n+that can be now easily fabricated using generative AI and is increasingly difficult to detect. He\n+noted that the Committee ha d largely coalesced on the substance of proposed Rule 901(c) that\n+appeared on page 224 of the agenda book. Rule 901(c) would impose a burden on an opponent\n+challenging an item as a deepfake to present evidence sufficient to support a finding of fabrication.\n+If the opponent satisfies that burden, then the burden would shift to the proponent of the evidence\n+to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the item is authentic. This Rule 104(a)\n+preponderance standard is higher than the typical prima facie standard that applies to issues of\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 544 of 587\n+5\n+authentication. Judge Furman emphasized that the higher standard is the key innovation in\n+proposed Rule 901(c), because it would establish a standard that would require the court to engage\n+in a more rigorous gatekeeping role. The big question for the Committee is whether a proposed\n+amendment is warranted.\n+Turning to the substance of the proposed rule and note, Judge Furman directed the\n+Committee’s attention to the Reporter’s memorandum on pages 221- 223 of the agenda book and\n+to several changes made to the draft rule originally discussed by the Committee. The first change\n+proposes to cover claims that evidence was fabricated by “generative AI,” as opposed to simply\n+“AI.” The second change adds a notice provision to the text of the rule to ensure that deepfake\n+claims are raised and resolved before trial. The third adds a definition of “ generative artificial\n+intelligence” to the text of the rule. Judge Furman noted that the language in the agenda book in\n+subsection 4 of the draft rule on notice stated that “. . . the party claiming that an item is fabricated\n+in whole or in part by generative artificial intelligence must . . .” Judge Furman suggested that this\n+language could be simplified to refer to “ a party challenging an item of evidence under this\n+subdivision . . .” . The Reporter noted that the original language was drawn from the notice\n+provision in Rule 807 that was amended in 2019, but explained that Judge Furman ’s proposed\n+change would be appropriate as it would be stylistic only. Judge Furman emphasized that the Rule\n+901(c) notice provision should be a flexible one that requires sufficient notice to respond to the\n+evidence at trial, and not a rigid requirement to provide written notice as in Rule 807.\n+Judge Furman then invited discussion of draft Rule 901(c). One Committee member raised\n+a question about limiting the proposal to “generative AI” and queried whether there are other ways\n+of producing a deepfake that should also be covered by the proposed rule. The Reporter explained\n+that the focus on “generative artificial intelligence” was intentional because other fakes are much\n+more easily detectable. He explained that the current draft rule would apply only to items allegedly\n+produced with generative AI and that standard authentication rules would continue to apply to\n+other items of evidence.\n+The Committee member then asked about defining “generative artificial intelligence” to\n+allow courts and litigants to distinguish between generative AI and non -generative AI . He\n+suggested that tracking a legislative definition and having consistency between definitions that\n+would apply to both Rules 707 and 901(c) makes good sense, but he stated that he was unable to\n+discern what was meant to be covered by the draft definition simply by reading it . The Reporter\n+explained that the draft definition would capture synthetic content created by a computer . The\n+Committee member noted that generative AI also can take existing, genuine content and make\n+something else out of it. The Reporter explained that the draft definition was based on language in\n+the Executive Order on AI, and that the draft provides a starting point for discussion utilizing\n+language that is already in the law. He suggested that public comment might offer useful ideas for\n+improving or refining the definition. Judge Furman observed that there are slight differences\n+between the proposed definition of “generative AI” in the draft of Rule 901(c) and the more general\n+definition of artificial intelligence in proposed Rule 707. He agreed with the Reporter that it makes\n+sense to start with a definition already developed by the legislative or executive branches and to\n+refine the definition through input from members of the public and specialists in the area.\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 545 of 587\n+6\n+Another Committee member suggested that the language in the notice provision should\n+refer to “all parties” rather than simply to “opposing parties” to account for situations (such as co-\n+defendants) where parties are not technically opposing each other but may need notice of a\n+deepfake claim. The Chair queried whether the language “all parties” would risk including parties\n+who are no longer in the case. He noted upcoming changes to Civil Rule 41 to address parties who\n+are no longer in the case. Another Committee member suggested that the most natural reading of\n+the language “all parties” in the notice provision would be to reference existing parties only.\n+Alternatively, the rule could refer to “ all existing parties ” or to “parties remaining in the case .”\n+The Chair then suggested shortening the notice provision to require “pretrial notice of the intent to\n+present evidence of fabrication so that all other parties have a reasonable opportunity to respond.”\n+The Reporter and Committee members agreed that this language would best capture the intent of\n+the notice provision.\n+Another Committee member noted that Rule 807 requires “written” pretrial notice and\n+asked whether Rule 901(c) should also require notice to be in writing unless otherwise ordered by\n+the court. Judge Furman opined that requiring “written” notice might be too inflexible for AI\n+objections. He explained that a discussion of deepfakes at a pretrial conference could be sufficient\n+to provide the requisite notice without any writing. The Reporter explained that Rule 807, which\n+governs residual hearsay, raises distinct notice concerns. He agreed that more flexible notice would\n+be appropriate for Rule 901(c) . All agreed that draft Rule 901(c) should not require notice in\n+“writing.” The Reporter then read the updated notice language in subsection 4:\n+Unless the court orders otherwise, a party challenging an item of evidence under\n+this subdivision (c) must provide reasonable pretrial notice of the intent to present\n+evidence of fabrication so that all other parties have a reasonable opportunity to\n+respond to that evidence.\n+The Chair then called upon Ms. Shapiro to weigh in regarding draft Rule 901(c) on behalf\n+of the DOJ. She explained that the DOJ does not believe Rule 901(c) is ready for publication. That\n+position notwithstanding, Ms. Shapiro offered input on the existing draft. She first opined that the\n+notice provision would not function appropriately in criminal cases where it provides that notice\n+is required “unless the court orders otherwise.” She predicted that notice would be routinely\n+excused for criminal defendants because criminal defendants are unwilling to share trial strategy\n+and judges are understandably reluctant to force them to do so. Ms. Shapiro also raised c oncerns\n+about the definition of generative AI as applied to criminal matters, where evidence can be created\n+through a combination of generative AI and other AI functions. She further highlighted situations\n+in which the evidence against a criminal defendant is admittedly created through generative AI,\n+such as in child exploitation cases where the government offers AI-generated images. She\n+suggested that a defendant might seek to use Rule 901(c) to exclude such evidence as inauthentic.\n+The Reporter explained that Rule 901(c) would not cover AI -generated images offered to prove\n+an element of a child exploitation crime when the government concedes that the images are\n+fabricated because this would not involve a deepfake being offered as something that it is not. Ms.\n+Shapiro responded that prosecutors and the courts ha ve been handling photo-shopped and edited\n+evidence for many years. She opined that the existing Federal Rules of Evidence are adequate to\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 546 of 587\n+7\n+address the issue of potential deepfake evidence, and she suggested that the Committee has much\n+more work to do before proposing a deepfake rule.\n+One Committee member suggested removing the requirement that notice be given\n+“pretrial” in favor of a simple provision requiring sufficient notice to give other parties a “fair\n+opportunity to respond.” The judge would then be the arbiter of when that notice has to be given,\n+and “fair” notice might not be given before trial in every instance . Ms. Shapiro reiterated her\n+concern that, in criminal cases at least, a judge would be unlikely to enforce any notice provision\n+against a defendant. The Reporter noted that the notice provision had been added to improve the\n+draft at the DOJ ’s suggestion. Another Committee member suggested that deepfake objections\n+could be easily handled through motions in limine, even in criminal cases.\n+A nother Committee member expressed sympath y for the DOJ ’s concerns. She\n+hypothesized that the government would generally not be the party seeking to admit deepfakes as\n+genuine evidence, but that a criminal defendant might. She hypothesized a scenario involving a\n+defense deepfake video depicting a cooperator in a damning situation. The Committee member\n+opined that the government would not learn of the video until the defense pressed play at trial. The\n+Committee member agreed that Rule 901(c) is premature, and suggested that it seeks to regulate a\n+situation that has yet to arise with any frequency . She emphasized that a litigant would be\n+committing a crime by proffering deepfake evidence, which remains a significant disincentive.\n+She argued that the Committee could address the issue if it ever starts to arise in federal\n+proceedings, armed with real -world examples . The Reporter asked what would happen under\n+existing law if a defendant offered a deepfake video to incriminate a cooperator , suggesting that\n+Rule 901(c) would afford the government more protection than it currently enjoys in such a\n+scenario. The Committee member responded that the defense would be able to present the video\n+under existing evidentiary standards, but that the obligations of the prosecution and defense remain\n+symmetrical under existing law. She suggested that Rule 901(c) would create asymmetry between\n+the prosecution and defense, Another Committee member added that the burden -shifting feature\n+of draft Rule 901(c) i s its principal innovation. He suggested that the government would obtain\n+more information than it would currently under the proposed rule and ultimately would get the\n+benefit of the higher standard of proof.\n+Ms. Shapiro next explained that the Committee note should not utilize the word “deepfake”\n+because it is not definitionally appropriate where a “deepfake” may be created by generative or\n+nongenerative AI. The Reporter responded that the term “deepfake” was used in the note\n+colloquially as a term that everybody understands . Ms. Shapiro and the Reporter then discussed\n+possible ways to define deepfakes created through generative AI as a way to narrow the types of\n+fake evidence covered by the proposed rule. They also discussed the scope of the rule to clarify\n+that it would include any item that can be generated by AI, images, photos, videos, reports, papers,\n+and forgeries.\n+T he Chair turned to the broader issue of whether the issue of deepfakes is ripe for rule -\n+making. The Reporter referred to his agenda memorandum detailing case law indicating that these\n+issues are already arriving in federal and state courts . He noted a New York appellate opinion\n+excluding a video on the grounds that it was a deepfake and was insufficiently authenticated. The\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 547 of 587\n+8\n+dissent in that case objected that the court was shifting the traditional burden of proof regarding\n+authenticity, requiring the proponent of the evidence to prove that it ’s not a deepfake in every\n+instance. He noted a case in the Eastern District of Virgina in which the court held that witness\n+testimony was sufficient to authenticate a video despite a credible deepfake challenge. He noted\n+that draft Rule 901(c) would change both these results. He further referenced the FJC Survey of\n+district, magistrate and bankruptcy judges regarding the incidence of deepfake arguments (page\n+226 of the agenda book).\n+Judge Furman thanked the FJC for conducting the survey and explained that t he FJC\n+surveyed all federal trial court judges (district, magistrate, and bankruptcy) on their experience\n+with deepfake challenges. Mr. Lau, present on behalf of the FJC, thanked his colleague, Ashley\n+Walters, for her work on the survey and noted that she could answer any questions from the\n+Committee. The Chair also summarized the survey, noting that there was a 45 percent response\n+rate. Of the 931 judges who responded, only 15 reported having encountered a deepfake challenge.\n+Of those who had not yet encountered such a challenge, 82 percent said that they would require\n+some initial showing before entertaining a claim of fabrication, as would proposed Rule 901(c). A\n+narrow majority of respondents without prior deepfake experience also said that the rules should\n+be amended to address deepfake issues. Judge Furman also pointed to one noteworthy anecdote in\n+the survey results in which a defendant plead ed guilty to obstruction of justice for fabricating\n+audio/visual evidence that resulted in the indictment of another person. Although the deepfake\n+issue came up only at sentencing and was not adjudicated, the anecdote suggests that these issues\n+are emerging. Judge Furman further added that AI capabilities are advancing very quickly, and\n+while issues may start to appear more in state courts (in family court cases , for example ), the\n+Federal Rules of Evidence are a model for the state courts. Judge Furman also acknowledged the\n+slow pace of rulemaking, and emphasized that Rule 901(c) would not go into effect until December\n+1, 2028 – even if published this summer. This could militate in favor of putting it out for public\n+comment to gather information and feedback with respect to the definition of “generative AI” and\n+an appropriate notice provision. The Reporter added that the public comments to Rule 707\n+provided a number of helpful insights from the Innocence Project and other government groups,\n+and suggested that it is important for the Committee to start addressing deepfakes.\n+One Committee member then pushed back on the premise that th e deepfake issue is\n+unprecedented and cannot be handled using existing rules. He noted that forgeries have long been\n+difficult to detect and that trial judges have ample experience using the existing Federal Rules of\n+Evidence to address such concerns. He opined that the Committee is not political and that there is\n+no need to propose a rule addressing deepfakes in response to some voices clamoring for it. The\n+Committee member emphasized that it is a crime to present deepfake evidence, that there are other\n+laws that regulate in this arena, and that the Committee should wait to see how these issues appear\n+in federal court before proposing a new rule. The Federal Public Defender disagreed, opining that\n+this problem is coming for the federal court system and that the Committee should get ahead of it\n+by publishing Rule 901(c), especially if the Committee decides to republish Rule 707 for additional\n+public comment.\n+A Committee member followed up on whether federal judges could handle deepfake claims\n+under existing rules. He queried whether the same burden- shifting approach embodied in Rule\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 548 of 587\n+9\n+901(c) could be applied to regulate claims of deepfake evidence without an amendment. Another\n+Committee member pointed out that the current authentication rules require only a showing\n+“sufficient for a jury to find” an item authentic – the low prima facie standard of Rule 104(b).\n+Under the proposed Rule 901(c) draft, a trial judge would have to find an item of evidence\n+authentic by a preponderance of the evidence before passing it on to the jury (once a credible\n+deepfake showing is made by the opponent of the evidence). Rule 901(c) would thus make the trial\n+judge the gatekeeper and raise the standard of proof above the existing standard . The Reporter\n+added that, under current law, if there ’s a credible charge of a deepfake video, for example, the\n+proponent could simply respond with a witness who testifies that he “recognizes” the people in the\n+video and that this would be sufficient to authenticate and send the potentially fabricated video to\n+the jury. Under the Rule 901(c) proposal, the judge would determine, using the more likely than\n+not standard, that the item is authentic before sending it to the jury. And a witness who recognizes\n+people in the video would be insufficient to defeat a credible deepfake claim under that standard\n+of proof. Judge Furman agreed, noting that the jury would not be able to discern whether the\n+hypothetical video was a deepfake based on a witness ’s testimony that he recognizes the people\n+depicted in the video.\n+The Chair next turned to Ms. Shapiro to report on efforts by the DOJ to evaluate AI issues.\n+Ms. Shapiro introduced Ms. Kira Antell from the Office of Legal Policy to discuss the issue. Ms.\n+Antell explained that a beta version of a survey had been sent to the administrative law judge (ALJ)\n+community to determine the importance of the type of technology used to create fake evidence.\n+DOJ is working on the survey with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and they are working through\n+the Institutional Review Board. The goal is to receive results back in September. The survey covers\n+a broad array of evidence and surveys ALJs regarding their needs in handling potentially fabricated\n+evidence, whether it be a rule or additional training. A Committee member asked why the DOJ is\n+surveying ALJs, rather than the litigating federal lawyers who deal with the presentation of\n+evidence. Ms. Antell explained that the directive under the American Action Plan was to talk to\n+the ALJ community and potentially to issue guidance to ALJs. The ALJ community deals with\n+many unrepresented individuals and there is a a question as to whether forged documents are\n+coming from these parties or even from represented parties. For example, many people are looking\n+for SSI benefits or veterans’ benefits and may use AI or just traditional Microsoft Word to create\n+fake reports or fake results. The goal of the survey is to better understand what ALJs are\n+experiencing and does the mode of creation of the fake evidence matter to judges . Ms. Antell\n+agreed that a useful follow-up to the ALJ survey would be one directed at litigators.\n+T he Reporter suggested that the surveys and work being done by the DOJ would not help\n+trial judges resolve claims of fabricated evidence. He explained that the unique undetectability of\n+fabrications created by generative AI was the justification for Rule 901(c). He reminded the\n+Committee that even the technology companies that develop AI tools cannot find a reliable\n+discriminator that can detect fabrications created by generative AI. Ms. Antell asked whether the\n+proposed rule would cover only audio/visual evidence or whether it would apply to other types of\n+evidence. She cautioned that the rule as drafted may produce different outcomes depending on the\n+type of evidence allegedly fabricated. For example, she suggested that an allegation about a forged\n+signature created by ChatGPT may not be covered by Rule 901(c) if it is limited to “audio/visual”\n+forgeries only. The Reporter responded that the rule as written applies to any item of evidence\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 549 of 587\n+10\n+created by generative AI and would not be limited to audio/visual evidence . Ms. Shapiro queried\n+how an opponent could ever make the prima facie showing of fabrication required to trigger the\n+higher preponderance standard under Rule 901(c) if deepfakes created by generative AI are\n+completely undetectable. The Reporter acknowledged this difficulty but suggested that there are\n+certain indicia of fakery that could satisfy the prima facie standard – such as the origin of the\n+evidence on a particular device, or its placement among other genuine items. In any event, he\n+explained that lay jurors are not equipped to detect deepfakes and that the draft rule would put trial\n+judges, who are repeat players and who will gain experience, in charge of the authentication\n+determination when a credible deepfake claim is made.\n+Judge Dever suggested that the Committee should consider first whether there is a problem\n+that needs to be addressed by the proposed rule, whether the rule needs to include this burden\n+shifting framework, and if so, why the burden shifting framework should be applicable only to\n+fakes allegedly made with generative AI as opposed to all alleged forgeries . The Reporter\n+answered that deepfakes created by generative AI are becoming much more prevalent and are\n+easier to generate and much harder to detect than traditional forgeries. Another Committee member\n+added that the premise of Rule 901(c) is that deepfakes created by generative AI present a question\n+akin to expert testimony where the trial judge needs to act as the gatekeeper before sending the\n+evidence to the jury. Another Committee member responded that he remained unconvinced that\n+the issues presented by alleged deepfakes in the courtroom are materially different from the issues\n+presented by more traditional forgeries. He suggested that litigants have had to call experts to\n+authenticate signatures after claims of forgery and that such issues were not simply handed off to\n+juries to decide unassisted under current law . A nother Committee member strongly disagreed,\n+arguing that g enerative AI is here now with people creating fabricated content every day. He\n+suggested that publishing a rule on deepfakes would not be a public relations exercise but an\n+important step toward protecting the integrity of the justice system given the inevitability of this\n+content reaching the courtroom. The Committee member opined that it would be a mistake for the\n+Committee not to be vigilant.\n+T he Chair acknowledged the point that courts have capably handled claims of forgery\n+under current law . Still, he suggested that there is something fundamentally different about AI -\n+generated deepfakes because: 1) they are very easy to create; 2) they are very difficult to detect;\n+and 3) they can have an outsized impact on the jury when they are in audio/visual form. For\n+example, if a jury sees or hears a recording of a defendant doing something, this is very impactful\n+evidence that is difficult to disregard . He queried whether it may make sense to broaden the rule\n+to cover all claims of fakery and not just generative AI, which would have the added benefit of\n+eliminating the need for a definition of “generative AI .” The Reporter responded that the\n+Committee could consider broadening Rule 901(c) but expressed reservations. He noted that such\n+a change would alter the law in many settled areas, including authentication of social media\n+evidence. The Reporter also explained that the justification for Rule 901(c) is the special problem\n+presented by generative AI that calls for a change to authentication standards.\n+A Committee member asked whether an opponent of evidence under Rule 901(c) would\n+still be permitted to present evidence of deepfakery to the jury once the trial judge evaluates the\n+allegation and determines under the preponderance standard that the evidence is authentic and\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 550 of 587\n+11\n+admits it. The Reporter responded that this would be permitted and is allowed in connection with\n+authenticity disputes even under current rules. The Chair agreed, noting that it would be similar to\n+the handling of allegedly coerced confessions, where the court plays a gatekeeping role but a\n+defendant may argue coercion before the jury. The Committee member queried whether it would\n+make sense to apply Rule 901(c)’s burden shifting framework more broadly beyond just generative\n+artificial intelligence. The Reporter responded that the distinct question with respect to generative\n+AI is whether you need the trial judge to act as a gatekeeper before the evidence is sent to the jury.\n+Once it gets past the gatekeeper, the opponent would remain free to present evidence on\n+authenticity as can be done with respect to other evidence.\n+Another Committee member pointed to a case identified in the Reporter’s memorandum in\n+which a criminal defendant argued that a video of him committing a sexual assault was simply a\n+deepfake. The Committee member suggested that the government might benefit from the notice\n+provision and the threshold showing required by Rule 901(c) in such circumstances. The Reporter\n+noted that the court in that case held that the defendant ’s deepfake allegation was a question of\n+weight and not admissibility, and that Rule 901(c) would require a finding of authenticity by a\n+preponderance if the defendant made a prima facie showing of deepfakery. Another Committee\n+member pointed out that Criminal Rule 16(b) has a notice provision already that should provide\n+the DOJ with appropriate notice in criminal cases. The Chair responded that, to DOJ’s point, notice\n+is not always enforced as rigorously against criminal defendants as it is against the Government.\n+Ms. Shapiro suggested that a criminal defendant might raise a deepfake allegation at the\n+last minute, forcing the Government to stop trial to come up with an expert. The Reporter countered\n+that the Government would have only the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of authenticity\n+unless the defendant first made the requisite showing of deepfakery – enough evidence for a\n+reasonable person to believe the Government’s evidence is a deepfake. A bare defense allegation\n+of a deepfake would not suffice. Judge Furman suggested that it might be fairly easy for a\n+defendant to make the requisite showing to shift the burden to the Government . For example, the\n+defendant could produce a sworn statement or affidavit that he was not the person depicted in a\n+Government video. The Reporter suggested that the judge would have to find such evidence\n+sufficient under Rule 104(b), but a simple claim deepfake would not shift the burden.\n+Ms. Shapiro added that the FJC survey results show that judges are dealing with deepfake\n+issues in the absence of a bespoke rule . She suggested that R ule 901(c) might also encourage\n+parties to raise deepfake claims, which will delay trials and force the Government to retain experts\n+routinely. She suggested that having the trial judge act as gatekeeper may not improve the situation\n+with respect to generative AI deepfakes given that they are so difficult to detect. She further\n+emphasized that AI might be in a new and presently unforeseeable place in two years’ time given\n+the race between content generators and content detectors and urged the Committee to await more\n+technological development before taking action. The Federal Defender countered that he did not\n+see the harm in going forward with publication for public comment that could a dd a lot of\n+beneficial information for the rulemaking process.\n+T he Chair then asked the Committee to consider the threshold question of whether to\n+proceed with publication and public comment on Rule 901(c). Although the Committee may not\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 551 of 587\n+12\n+be ready to propose an amendment at this time, he suggested that public comment might provide\n+important data on what is happening in the court system and from technological experts that could\n+advance the Committee ’s work on a deepfake rule. One Committee member expressed concern\n+about publication for the purpose of gather ing data. He noted that the Committee ’s practice has\n+traditionally been to publish a proposal when it is ready to propose a rule change. The Committee\n+member opined that a decision to publish to gather data may not match public expectations\n+surrounding publication of an amendment proposal. He suggested that there are other avenues for\n+obtaining information other than the public comment process. Judge Furman noted that, according\n+to Judge Dever, the Criminal Rules Committee had hosted a mini-conference that included subject-\n+matter experts to aid its work on Criminal Rule 17. Judge Furman suggested that such a conference\n+could assist in formulating a deepfake rule. He added that if the decision was to not proceed with\n+publication today, the Committee could devote time at its Fall meeting to such a mini-conference\n+to delve further into these issues. He suggested thinking carefully about whom to bring, to include\n+both litigators and technical experts to discuss the reality on the ground and how a rule could help.\n+Judge Dever explained that the Criminal Rules Committee held a mini-conference after creating a\n+workable draft of Rule 17 because concerns still existed. The Criminal Rules Committee used the\n+mini-conference to explore th e language of the working draft before publication. Judge Dever\n+noted that while this takes a little longer , deliberation is a feature and not a bug of this whole\n+process as we try to get it right.\n+T he Reporter reminded Committee members that they had hosted two symposia on the\n+problems of AI (one in Minneapolis and one in Washington DC), and that legal and technological\n+experts had reported that generative AI is a real problem that needs to be addressed. One\n+Committee member expressed support for the idea of another mini-conference, explaining that the\n+earlier symposia had focused on understanding the world of AI, particularly for those who did not\n+use it , and that a mini- conference in Fall 2026 c ould include input from lawyers to ask if AI\n+presents a problem in the courtroom and how they encounter it. Judge Furman agreed that the\n+earlier symposia were more educational and noted that a Fall 2026 symposia could provide\n+concrete feedback on the Rule 901(c) working draft. He also noted that ChatGPT was introduced\n+in 2023 and that there has been much progress since these earlier symposia. The DOJ expressed\n+support for a mini-conference and Ms. Shapiro said she could assist with finding panelists.\n+Judge Furman suggested that , in light of the amount of disagreement on the Committee ,\n+and notwithstanding the fact that it would mean a delay of another year, the better course would\n+be to have a mini -conference at the F all 2026 meeting. Judge Furman stated that there would be\n+no need for a Committee vote regarding public comment now given that plan, and that the issue\n+of deepfakes would remain on the agenda. A mini-conference will allow for a deeper dive\n+concerning the prevalence of deepfake issues, the need for a rule regulating those issues, and the\n+merits of draft Rule 901(c). The Reporter suggested that the mini- conference would take place\n+during the morning session of the Fall 2026 meeting and would involve two panels. The first panel\n+would include AI experts who can opine as to the evolving operation of AI and the optimal\n+terminology to be used in a rule regulating deepfake evidence. A second panel would include both\n+criminal and civil litigators regarding their experience with deepfake issues in the courtroom. The\n+Committee would then discuss the feedback and data received in the afternoon session. One\n+Committee member expressed support for this plan of action, urging the Committee to include the\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 552 of 587\n+13\n+plaintiff’s bar in civil cases. The Federal Public Defender urged the Committee to keep the issue\n+of deepfakes on the agenda, and emphasized the importance of including practitioners as part of a\n+mini-conference.\n+Judge Furman stated that the issue of deepfakes would be kept on the agenda and that\n+hearing no opposition, the Committee would host a mini- conference focused on this issue at the\n+fall meeting. He then invited suggestions concerning the optimal structure for the mini-conference\n+and regarding participants, including a mix of tech people and litigators in both civil and criminal\n+cases.\n+IV. Artificial Intelligence and Proposed Rule 707\n+The Chair next directed the Committee ’s attention to Tab 3 of the agenda book and a\n+proposal to create new Federal Rule of Evidence 707, which is designed to impose reliability\n+requirements on AI -generated evidence when it is offered with out the testimony of an expert.\n+Judge Furman stated that this proposed new rule would typically be considered for final approval\n+because it had been through the publication and public comment process. But Judge Furman\n+explained that, in contrast to the favorable comments received regarding the proposed amendment\n+to Rule 609, the comments concerning proposed Rule 707 provided some cause to potentially hold\n+off on final approval of R ule 707. He noted that the Committee could choose to revise and\n+republish it now or could choose to combine consideration of Rule 707 with the deepfake draft\n+and reevaluate both together at the Fall 2026 meeting.\n+To briefly recap the Committee ’s work on proposed new Rule 707, Judge Furman\n+recounted that the Committee had approved proposed Rule 707 for public comment at the Spring\n+2025 meeting. The rule would apply the Rule 702 reliability requirements on AI-generated\n+evidence offered without an accompanying expert witness . The Standing Committee approved\n+Rule 707 for public comment in 2025, and the comment period closed on February 16, 2026. There\n+were two public hearings concerning the proposal and t he Committee re ceived 59 written\n+comments by the deadline . The comments were mixed: only 3 comments expressed unqualified\n+support; 27 supported the rule subject to revisions; and 27 opposed it. Themes among the criticisms\n+included the overbreadth of the term “machine-generated evidence ” utilized in the proposed\n+provision, the vagueness of the “simple scientific instruments” exception, and the possibility that\n+the rule would provide a pathway to admi t AI-generated evidence without an expert. There were\n+also some objections to tethering Rule 707 to the Rule 702 requirement, and there were a number\n+of objections that the rule is premature. The Reporter’s memorandum addresses each of the major\n+criticisms and concludes that the criticisms do not warrant abandonment of the rule.\n+Judge Furman then explained potential changes to the published version of Rule 707 based\n+on the public comments . These included the suggestion to use the term “ artificial intelligence”\n+instead of “machine-generated” to describe the coverage of the rule to be more precise and to make\n+clear that the provision does not cover things like faxes, emails, cellphone extractions, and the like.\n+A second change would be to delete the “simple scientific instruments” exception altogether. The\n+third would add a notice requirement to the rule text . The issue of notice had previously been\n+discussed only in the Committee note, based on concerns expressed by the DOJ and others. A\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 553 of 587\n+14\n+revision of proposed Rule 707 completed before the meeting included a flexible notice provision\n+modeled on Rules 404 and 807. Although there were some suggestions that Rule 707 should be\n+untethered from Rule 702 and that distinct standards should be applied to AI evidence, the Reporter\n+recommended no change based upon these suggestions. He explained that applying different\n+standards to expert opinion testimony and to AI -generated conclusions would be problematic\n+because in many instances this evidence would be presented with an expert, making expert\n+testimony based upon AI-generated information subject to two distinct standards . The Reporter\n+acknowledged that it could be helpful to incorporate the relevant language from Rule 702 directly\n+into Rule 707 rather than simply cross-referencing it. He explained that one big question remaining\n+is whether an expert should be required to present this evidence to the jury or, at least, for purposes\n+of demonstrating reliability to the trial judge.\n+Judge Furman then directed the Committee’s attention to the Reporter’s memorandum at\n+page 170 of the agenda book, explaining that it included three different versions of a revised rule\n+707 for the Committee’s consideration. Version One would require an expert to establish reliability\n+and therefore admissibility. Version Two would ordinarily require an expert to establish\n+admissibility, but it would allow for exceptional circumstances in which the court could rely upon\n+another source to show reliability, suc h as convincing validation studies that establish the\n+foundation for the AI opinion. Version Three would require an expert, not only for admissibility,\n+but also a t trial to ensure there is a witness subject to cross -examination. This version would\n+effectively collapse Rule 707 into Rule 702 insofar as it would require an expert in all cases.\n+The Reporter added that the issue of expert foundation was the most important reason for\n+offering the Committee three versions of a revised Rule 707. He explained that there were a\n+number of public comments that advocated for an expert witness requirement, at least for the\n+foundation for AI-produced evidence. The Reporter noted that there might be ways to ensure that\n+AI-generated evidence is reliable without having to produce an expert, such as validation tests,\n+unbiased studies, and the like. As things proceed technologically, it may be more likely that an\n+expert is not necessary to establish the reliability of some AI output. He explained that Version\n+Two, on page 173 of the a genda book, offers a middle ground on this issue by providing that\n+admissibility is ordinarily established through an expert but doesn’ t necessarily need to be . He\n+explained that the notice requirement in the revised draft was taken from Rule 807, and that the\n+draft included a carve-out for AI that can be judicially noticed. He offered the example of evidence\n+of distances through Google Maps that is already judicially noticed by courts under Rule 201.\n+Finally, he explained that the revised drafts include a definition of “artificial intelligence” taken\n+from a statute.\n+The Chair then thanked those who submitted public comments and testified at the hearings\n+and noted that he found it quite helpful. As all agreed that the changes to proposed Rule 707 made\n+after public comment were substantial , Judge Furman explained that the question for the\n+Committee was whether to republish a revised version of Rule 707 for additional public comment,\n+or to table further consideration of Rule 707 for now and make the Fall 2026 meeting focused on\n+both AI rules together. Judge Furman acknowledged that Version Two of the revised Rule 707\n+was likely the leading contender for republication if the Committee chose to take that route.\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 554 of 587\n+15\n+The Chair invited Ms. Shapiro, on behalf of the DOJ, and Ms. Nicole Owens, on behalf of\n+the Federal Defenders, to offer their thoughts. He also sought feedback from Professor Roth, who\n+has been involved in developing Rule 707 from the beginning. Ms. Shapiro explained that some\n+of the DOJ’s concerns detailed in its letter regarding Rule 707 persist despite the revisions. She\n+expressed concern about how Rule 707 would function in practice, as well as concern about the\n+coverage of many machine-generated technologies commonly used in court that may depend upon\n+some combination of AI and other technology. She further noted that t he statutorily derived\n+definition of “artificial intelligence” in the revised rule differs from the definition used by the DOJ.\n+Ms. Shapiro appreciated the carve-out for judicially noticed artificial intelligence in the revised\n+draft but opined that judicial notice is very subjective and not a reliable mechanism for exempting\n+accepted technologies from Rule 707. The Reporter asked whether the DOJ would prefer nothing\n+in the Rule to exempt reliable technologies. Ms. Shapiro stated that the DOJ would rather have no\n+Rule 707 at all and suggested that trial judges currently are capable of regulating the need for\n+experts and other information as a condition to presenting AI evidence under Rule 611. Ms.\n+Shapiro explained that the DOJ believes that the issue of litigants presenting AI evidence in the\n+absence of an expert witness remains an anticipatory problem that has yet to materialize in court.\n+She stated that the DOJ favors consideration of Rule 707 at the Fall 2026 meeting alongside draft\n+Rule 901(c).\n+Ms. Owens offered a different perspective, stating that a rule covering AI-generated\n+evidence offered without an accompanying expert witness is not premature. She explained that\n+federal defenders are already seeing this kind of evidence coming into cases . She cited examples\n+of such evidence described in the Reporter ’s memorandum. Ms. Owens acknowledged that\n+computers can assist in investigations and that certain machine-generated evidence may require no\n+expert foundation. Still, she explained that concerns arise when generative AI is doing the work\n+and analysis that normally an expert would do and that these concerns need to be addressed by a\n+rule. Ms. Owens noted that a Cellebrite extraction that is simply a mirror of a phone or other device\n+may not require an expert foundation. But she explained that, if the extracted information is fed\n+into an AI tool to identify patterns or infer relationships, then this opinion output should be subject\n+to a different analysis. For that reason, Ms. Owens opined that utilizing the Rule 702 reliability\n+requirements, and allowing courts to require expert foundation for such output, is absolutely\n+appropriate.\n+Professor Roth thanked the Committee for its work, stated that the revised versions of Rule\n+707 nicely addressed feedback received during public comment, and shared several observations.\n+She first addressed the use of Cellebrite, and echoed Ms. Owens’ comments that its admissibility\n+depends upon whether it is simply being used to extract data from a phone or is instead being used\n+to analyze information, for example, to determine who’s a key contact and who’ s not. Second,\n+Professor Roth observed that under the status quo, a judge could admit an analytical conclusion by\n+Cellebrite technology through a lay witness without any Rule 702 scrutiny. As to the subjectivity\n+of a judicial notice carve -out in Rule 707, Professor Roth predicted that there would be a period\n+of transition in which courts would coalesce around technologies appropriate for judicial notice.\n+But she opined that the option of admitting analytical AI input without Rule 702 scrutiny i s\n+untenable. Professor Roth also suggested that the notice provision in Rule 707 should include a\n+good cause exception akin to those in Rules 404 and 807 because defendants, either civil or\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 555 of 587\n+16\n+criminal, may not know prior to trial that they are going to need to call an expert. Finally, Professor\n+Roth noted that Version Two of revised Rule 707 talks about “providing” an expert. She explained\n+her assumption that this language was chosen deliberately and would not require that an expert\n+would need to testify in all circumstances . She noted that litigants may offer an expert ’s\n+conclusions through an affidavit in current Daubert hearings.\n+After hearing these perspectives, the Chair invited discussion of next steps. He explained\n+that the Committee could either republish one of the revised versions of Rule 707 for another round\n+of public comment or fold further consideration of Rule 707 into the Fall 2026 meeting. Committee\n+members expressed a preference for Version 2 of revised Rule 707 and agreed that they would\n+appreciate receiving additional feedback on that draft at the Fall meeting . Committee members\n+expressed an interest in feedback from technological experts with respect to an appropriate\n+definition of “artificial intelligence , as well as a desire for additional information about how\n+litigants may demonstrate the reliability of AI -generated conclusions. The Chair of the Standing\n+Committee also supported further study to obtain additional feedback on the revised draft of Rule\n+707 from both AI experts and practicing lawyers. Committee members then unanimously agreed\n+that discussions regarding Rule 707 should continue at the Fall 2026 mini-conference with a focus\n+on Version 2 of revised Rule 707. The Chair concluded the discussion, stating that Rule 707 would\n+be taken up at the Fall 2026 mini-conference. He noted that combining the consideration of Rules\n+707 and 901(c) would create helpful synergy and would allow for potential publication of both\n+proposed AI rules together.\n+V. Rule 902(1) and Indian Tribes and Nations\n+The Chair next directed the Committee ’s attention to Tab 6 of the agenda book and the\n+proposal to amend Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1), the provision that allows self -authentication\n+of the signed and sealed records of enumerated domestic government entities. The proposal would\n+add federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations to the list of entities whose sealed and signed\n+documents are self-authenticating. Judge Furman provided a brief recap of the proposal’s history,\n+noting that it was originally made by Judge Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma and was\n+briefly taken up by the Committee in the Fall of 2024. The Committee deferred consideration of\n+the issue pending input from the DOJ. At the Spring 2025 meeting, the DOJ formally proposed\n+amending Rule 902(1) to add federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations to the list of covered\n+entities. Judge Furman also noted that the Federal Public Defender community has consistently\n+opposed the amendment and that both the DOJ ’s and the Federal Defender ’s memoranda have\n+done an excellent job of squarely presenting the issues for the Committee ’s consideration. After\n+extensive discussion of the proposal at the last two meetings, the Committee solicited input from\n+the Tribes on this issue. Judge Furman sent a letter to all federally recognized Indian Tribes and\n+Nations, as well as to other representative groups and entities, explaining the proposal and seeking\n+input. Judge Furman explained that a summary of the responses received were included in the\n+agenda book. Judge Furman commented that the responses received were relatively small in\n+number but were very supportive of amending the rule to add Indian Tribes and Nations.\n+The Chair then directed Committee members to the Consultant ’s memorandum prepared\n+by Professor Richter at page 253 of the agenda book, which summariz ed the issues for the\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 556 of 587\n+17\n+Committee’s consideration. He then asked Professor Richter to offer remarks. Professor Richter\n+thanked Judge Furman and focused on the feedback received from the Indian Tribe s. She stated,\n+as Judge Furman noted, that while sparse, the feedback was unanimously supportive and identified\n+some additional factors supporting an amendment to Rule 902(1). Professor Richter explained that\n+tribal leaders emphasized the value of self -authentication in civil litiga tion, as well as in the\n+criminal context previously explored by the Committee. She informed the Committee that tribal\n+leaders also emphasized the burdens on tribal governments in supporting and cooperating with\n+criminal prosecutions as a result of the lack of self-authentication. Professor Richter explained that\n+the responding Indian Tribes and Nations also emphasiz ed the importance of tribal sovereignty\n+and dignity and of allowing their records to be self-authenticating along with the records of other\n+government entities.\n+Professor Richter reported that she als o evaluated the impact of the proposed amendment\n+on criminal prosecutions . She concluded that the amendment would allow the Government to\n+present a sealed and signed tribal record to prove the Indian status of either a defendant or a victim\n+without any accompanying witness or certification, so long as the record satisfied a hearsay\n+exception. The Government would not need to provide a live witness to authenticate tribal records.\n+Nor would the Government need to provide a certification under Rule 902(11), the business\n+records certification, if it were to rely on a different hearsay exception such as the public records\n+exception. Thus, Professor Richter explained that an amendment would alter the status quo by\n+allowing a tribal record alone to establish Indian status in a criminal case. Lastly, Professor Richter\n+reviewed the open records statutes and codes of tribal N ations and governments discussed in her\n+agenda memorandum . Professor Richter explained that she was unable to perform a\n+comprehensive review of the open records acts of all 578 federally recognized Indian Tribes and\n+Nations, but that she did locate sophisticated open records acts in several tribal Nations . She\n+described the common features of the open records laws she reviewed, explaining that the Navajo\n+Nation and the Cherokee Nation , for example, do not provide access to any information about\n+individual members without their consent, and provide little access to other tribal records to non-\n+tribal members. Judge Furman also flagged the portion of the memorandum noting that five states\n+have already changed their self -authentication rules or statutes to include Indian T ribes and\n+Nations (Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington). He noted that the proposed\n+amendment to Rule 902(1) appeared on p age 253 of the a genda book, along with a helpful\n+Committee note on page 254.\n+The Chair then asked the DOJ to offer comments on the proposal. Ms. Shapiro thanked\n+Professor Richter for her fantastic memorandum and noted that the DOJ has written extensively\n+on this issue and believes that an amendment is long overdue to respect tribal sovereignty and to\n+treat the records of federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations like the records of other\n+government entities already included in Rule 902(1). She argued that there is no reason to require\n+tribal records to surmount the many hurdles necessary to establish reliability under the business\n+records exception to the hearsay rule. In addition, Ms. Shapiro noted that issues of Indian status\n+are arising much more frequently now that Indian land covers much of the State of Oklahoma. She\n+suggested that the amendment would also help Indian defendants who want to be tried by their\n+Tribes, by making it easier for them to prove Indian blood. Ms. Shapiro further suggested that\n+certifications satisfying Rule 902(11) that are currently utilized to authenticate tribal records may\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 557 of 587\n+18\n+present confrontation clause issues in criminal cases. The Reporter replied that every Circuit has\n+rejected a confrontation clause challenge to Rule 902(11) certifications and that there is no\n+confrontation problem for such certifications that do no more than authenticate an existing record.\n+The Chair then invited Jami Johnson, Assistant Federal Public Defender for the District of\n+Arizona, to offer feedback on the proposed amendment . Ms. Johnson thanked the Committee for\n+the opportunity to speak and informed the Committee that, in addition to being an Assistant Federal\n+Public Defender, she is an enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Ms. Johnson\n+raised a concern about the DOJ’s potential misunderstanding of the relevant statutes and stated\n+that an amendment to Rule 902(1) would in no way help Indian defendants. For example, Ms.\n+Johnson noted that the DOJ’s letter in support of the amendment stated that an Indian defendant\n+potentially would need to prove the status of a victim to have a criminal case moved to tribal court\n+and away from federal court. Ms. Johnson stated that this is incorrect because an Indian defendant\n+may always be tried in tribal court for crimes committed on federal land, regardless of whether the\n+victim is Indian or not Indian. Only where there is a non- Indian victim and the case does not\n+involve a major crime, as defined by the Major Crimes Act, would there be a need for such proof.\n+Ms. Johnson also noted that in her 11 years practicing federal criminal law in Indian country, she\n+had never seen the federal Government attempt to charge a non-major crime committed on federal\n+land, regardless of whether the victim was Indian or non-Indian. Even if this type of case did occur\n+where the victim’s Indian blood was at issue, Ms. Johnson stated that there may be difficulty in\n+accessing the records, whether self -authenticating or not. Based on this experience, Ms. Johnson\n+did not see a benefit to this rule for Indian defendants.\n+On the other hand, Ms. Johnson reported significant downsides with respect to criminal\n+defendants’ ability to identify witnesses who may be called at trial to challenge tribal records that\n+establish an element of the offense. For example, she noted that once the federal Government\n+presents a tribal record with a signature and a seal, that essentially will end the inquiry into Indian\n+status in most instances due to the lack of open records laws and the inapplicability of FOIA to the\n+tribal Nation s. Ms. Johnson emphasized that allowing tribal records alone to establish federal\n+criminal jurisdiction would be particularly significant in Oklahoma, where many individuals with\n+mixed tribal status liv e on reservations . Ms. Johnson also added that the status quo on\n+authentication does not impair the Government’s ability to prove its cases and at the same time\n+maintains important safeguards for the rights of criminal defendants.\n+With regard to the supportive feedback received from some Tribes, Ms. Johnson also\n+expressed concern about the very limited response rate regarding the proposed amendment . She\n+noted that, while every one of the eight responding Tribes is a sovereign nation worthy of dignity\n+and respect, only one of the respondents is a large Tribe: the Navajo Nation. She further noted that\n+the Chickasaw Nation was the only medium-sized Tribe to respond to the Committee’s request for\n+feedback. She explained that all other responding Tribes are small, ha ving fewer than 10,000\n+members with some having fewer than 1,000 members. Given that feedback was solicited from\n+578 Tribes, Ms. Johnson emphasized that the positive response received was very limited in nature.\n+She further suggested that a Tribe may be reluctant to express opposition to a proposal rooted in\n+respect for tribal sovereignty even if it had concerns about its application.\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 558 of 587\n+19\n+Judge Furman thanked Ms. Johnson for her comments and invited Committee members to\n+ask questions. One Committee member asked Ms. Johnson for clarification regarding the\n+significance of mixed occupancy of tribal land for the accuracy of tribal records. Ms. Johnson\n+explained that such mixed occupancy does not affect the accuracy of tribal records but sweeps\n+more criminal defendants and victims into federal court whose status is unclear or ambiguous. She\n+explained that when a party’s identity is an element of an offense, it becomes much more important\n+to adequately investigate and produce evidence of status when that status is unclear or ambiguous.\n+Judge Furman asked whether this status element is more likely to be contested or potentially\n+contested in those circumstances. Ms. Johnson responded that uncertainty may not lead to a contest\n+if there was adequate investigation on the front end. For example, she noted that defendants do not\n+contest status in the large majority of these cases currently, because the defender has access to\n+reliable documents and can interview custodians if necessary. She suggested that allowing these\n+documents to be self -authenticating could increase instances in which a defender has legitimate\n+doubts concerning Indian status but has no avenue to dispel those doubts in advance of trial.\n+Judge Furman then asked about the certification that the Government currently must\n+present under Rule 902(11) to self-authenticate tribal records as business records . He suggested\n+that, in his experience , the Government obtains this certification relatively close to trial. Judge\n+Furman asked when defendants typically receive those certifications, and what kind of\n+investigation is typically conducted in that scenario. Ms. Johnson explained that timing depends\n+on the circumstance, and that in the vast majority of these cases, there’s no dispute regarding Indian\n+status that requires an investigation. She suggested that there is no consistent timing for receiving\n+these certifications but that they are typically received a week before trial, which allows defense\n+counsel to interview the tribal custodian to understand the recordkeeping practices and to subpoena\n+the tribal custodian to testify if there are genuine concerns.\n+A Committee member then asked Ms. Johnson whether she was suggesting that the\n+Committee should infer that tribal Nations are critical of the proposed amendment from the low\n+rate of response to the request for feedback. Ms. Johnson responded that she did not intend to\n+suggest that Tribes are critical of the proposed change based on the lack of widespread response.\n+Still, she suggested that tribal Nations that harbored concerns about the proposal could reasonably\n+conclude that abstaining from comment was superior to offering affirmative criticism of a proposal\n+grounded in tribal sovereignty. She wanted to highlight for the Committee that 98% of tribal\n+Nations offered no response and that the positive feedback received did not reveal a groundswell\n+of support from tribal leaders. Ms. Johnson added that she does not view self-authentication as a\n+matter of dignity or sovereignty, but as a matter of forgery . She suggested that there is nothing\n+respectful or dignified about having inauthentic documents purporting to emanate from your Tribe\n+admitted into evidence.\n+Ms. Shapiro highlighted for the Committee many instances in which self-authenticating\n+documents currently are used to establish an element of a criminal offense and explained that\n+allowing self-authenticating tribal records to establish the necessary status element of a criminal\n+offense would be no different. Moreover, she emphasized that a defendant may always challenge\n+authenticity, even if a tribal record is admitted. Ms. Shapiro reiterated that there is no rational\n+reason for allowing the many entities already listed in Rule 902(1) to present self-authenticating\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 559 of 587\n+20\n+documents while denying the same treatment to sovereign Tribes. One Committee member asked\n+whether it was appropriate for the Committee to determine the status of tribal documents given the\n+treaties that govern relationships with tribal Nations. He asked whether the sovereign Tribes should\n+retain full control over the status of their own records. The Chair noted that only records that a\n+Tribe chose to sign and seal would become self -authenticating under an amended rule . The\n+Committee member agreed that the Tribe s could prevent self-authentication by declining to sign\n+or seal particular records and was satisfied that the Tribes would retain control over the status of\n+their own records even under an amended Rule 902(1).\n+The Chair then called the Committee’s attention to the draft of the proposed amendment\n+and Committee note on pages 253 and 254 of the agenda book. He suggested two separate\n+Committee votes: 1) regarding approval of the rule text and 2) regarding the content of the\n+Committee note. The Committee first voted to approve publication of the text of Rule 902(1) for\n+public comment, with only the Federal Public Defender opposing.\n+The Committee next considered the language of the proposed Committee note. Professor\n+Richter explained two bracketed items in the proposed C ommittee note for the Committee to\n+consider. She directed the Committee’s attention to the first bracketed item appearing on lines 14\n+through 17 on page 253 of the agenda book that contained a reference to Federal Rule of Criminal\n+Procedure 6(e) that the DOJ included in its original Rule 902(1) proposal . Professor Richter\n+reminded the Committee that it had previously discussed whether Rule 6(e) – which addresses the\n+disclosure of grand jury information to tribal officials – offers an apt comparison for Rule 902(1)\n+(which addresses the admissibility of tribal records) . She noted that the draft Committee note\n+utilized a “cf.” cite to indicate that Rule 6(e) offers a distinct but helpful analogy. Professor Richter\n+noted that the second bracket ed section appeared on page 254 of the agenda memo at lines 27\n+through 30. She explained that this bracketed material was added as a result of tribal feedback and\n+emphasizes that the amendment concerns authenticity only, that other evidentiary requirements\n+continue to apply (such as hearsay rules, relevance, and Rule 403), and that parties may still\n+challenge the authenticity of the covered public documents at trial if there is a genuine dispute.\n+The Reporter suggested that the second bracketed section should be its own paragraph and that he\n+favored cutting out the final five words (“where authenticity is generally disputed”). He noted that\n+a defendant can always challenge authenticity, and the Committee note should not appear to add a\n+condition for doing so. With that change, the Reporter stated his support for including the material\n+in the second bracketed section. Judge Furman recognized those suggestions as friendly\n+amendments with respect to the second bracketed section on page 254, making the section a new\n+paragraph, and striking the words “where authenticity is genuinely disputed.”\n+As to the first bracket, the Reporter stated that using a “cf.” signal to indicate the distinction\n+between Criminal Rule 6(e) and Rule 902(1) was helpful . Judge Furman offered that he did not\n+think the reference was necessary but saw no harm in it. Judge Furman suggested that the points\n+made by the second bracketed section should go without saying because Rule 902(1) covers only\n+authentication, but stated that he saw no harm in including the language and some potential benefit\n+in underscoring t he point t hat authenticity can be challenged at trial even if tribal records are\n+admitted. Ms. Shapiro questioned whether the “cf.” suggestion in the first bracket came from the\n+DOJ, and Professor Richter stated that it was included in the draft Committee note accompanying\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 560 of 587\n+21\n+the DOJ’s original proposal in May 2025 to show that tribal sovereignty was otherwise recognized\n+within the Federal Rules . Ms. Shapiro opined that this was intended as a point of argument, and\n+that the citation did not need to be included in the Committee note. The Chair recognized this as a\n+friendly amendment to remove the first bracketed citation, which was accepted by the Committee.\n+Ms. Shapiro confirmed that the DOJ was fine with including the second bracketed section, as\n+modified by the Committee’s discussion.\n+Judge Furman then called for a vote regarding approval of the proposed Committee note\n+for publication, as amended to remove the first bracketed section with the “cf.” citation and with\n+the second bracketed section modified in the two ways proposed by the Reporter. Upon a motion\n+and second, the Committee voted to accept the changes to the Committee note and to publish it for\n+publication, with one objection.\n+VI. Smith v. Arizona and Rule 703/ Peña-Rodriguez and Rule 606(b)\n+The Chair next raised the issue of the Supreme Court ’s decision in Smith v. Arizona and\n+whether amendments to Rule 703 are needed to reflect that decision . He referred members to\n+Professor Richter’s excellent memorandum on this issue, found at Tab 6 of the agenda book, at\n+page 295.\n+Judge Furman provided the Committee with a recap of the issue, stating that in Smith, the\n+Supreme Court held that a prosecution expert’s testimony violated the confrontation clause of the\n+Sixth Amendment when the expert conveyed the testimonial state ments of an absent forensic\n+analyst to support the testifying witness’ opinion. The question for the Committee is whether that\n+decision warrants an amendment of Rule 703, which permits experts to rely on otherwise\n+inadmissible information in forming an opinion, and in certain circumstances, subject to a stringent\n+balancing test, to disclose that information to the jury. Thus far, the Committee has been of the\n+view that an amendment to Rule 703 is not needed in the event that Smith is construed to prohibit\n+only the disclosure of testimonial hearsay by an expert because Rule 703 already prohibits such\n+disclosure absent satisfaction of a stringent balancing test. On the other hand, Judge Furman noted\n+that if Smith is interpreted more broadly to prohibit expert reliance on testimonial hearsay as well,\n+that would pose a bigger problem for Rule 703, which authorizes expert reliance on inadmissible\n+information when other experts would reasonably rely upon the information. Judge Furman\n+observed that there is an emerging and deepening split on the issue of whether Smith regulates\n+expert reliance on testimonial h earsay, and that many courts have construed the ruling to reach\n+expert reliance upon testimonial hearsay, as well as disclosure of that information to the jury.\n+I n light of that developing case law , Judge Furman reminded the Committee that it had\n+requested a Reporter’s memo proposing a “red flag” amendment to Rule 703 that would at least\n+signal that inadmissible basis information may not be relied upon or disclosed under to Rule 703\n+when doing so would violate the Constitution. He acknowledged that the rules can never be applied\n+in a way that violates the Constitution, but noted the concern that an unwary litigant or court might\n+apply Rule 703 in an unconstitutional manner. Judge Furman also emphasized, as set forth in\n+Professor Richter’s memorandum, that there had been 88 decisions citing Smith in the six-month\n+period between the Committee’s last meeting and the completion of the agenda memorandum. He\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 561 of 587\n+22\n+highlighted that the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that its state law counterpart to Rule 703\n+“no longer comports with the right of confrontation.” Judge Furman also noted that in light of the\n+deepening split, it seems very likely that the Supreme Court will return to this issue in the near\n+future and resolve the question of whether Smith applies beyond disclosure to expert reliance on\n+testimonial hearsay . If the Supreme Court were to extend Smith to prohibit all reliance on\n+testimonial hearsay, Judge Furman stated that the argument in favor of amending Rule 703 would\n+be much stronger. Conversely, he noted that there would be a weaker case for an amendment if\n+the Court were to clarify that the holding forecloses only the disclosure of testimonial hearsay.\n+Judge Furman reminded the Committee that it had also decided to reconsider whether to\n+amend Rule 606, which prohibits post-verdict juror testimony regarding jury deliberations, to add\n+a constitutional exception reflecting the Supreme Court ’s 2017 decision in Peña-Rodriguez. In\n+Peña-Rodriguez, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury requires\n+post-verdict juror testimony when a juror makes a clear statement indicating that racial animus\n+was a significant motivating factor in the decision to convict. Judge Furman noted that Rule 606\n+clearly conflicts with Peña-Rodriguez as written because it prohibits post-verdict juror testimony\n+to impeach a verdict and offers no exception for such racially biased statements . Judge Furman\n+also commented that most courts have narrowly construed Peña -Rodriguez to be limited to\n+circumstances where there are clear statements of racial or ethnic animus . He explained that t he\n+argument for amending Rule 606(b) to include a constitutional “red flag” would be similar to the\n+argument for amending Rule 703. On the other hand, Judge Furman emphasized that Rule 606\n+applies to a post-verdict situation in which courts generally are not having to make snap judgments\n+about admissibility. He further noted that courts and litigants appear to be pretty familiar with the\n+law in this area. Judge Furman concluded his introduction by noting that if the Committee is going\n+to amend Rule 703 to provide a constitutional red flag, there ’s an argument for doing the same\n+with respect to Rule 606.\n+Professor Richter added that Rule s 606(b) and 703 stand on slightly different footing\n+because it is clear that Rule 606(b)(1) as drafted is inconsistent with the Constitution as interpreted\n+in Peña-Rodriguez. She noted that the extent to which Rule 703 may be capable of unconstitutional\n+application in a criminal case remains unclear. She echoed Judge Furman, noting that most courts\n+have narrowly construed the Peña-Rodriguez exception to Rule 606(b)’s no impeachment rule.\n+She highlighted one notable exception — a Sixth Circuit opinion that extended the ruling to the\n+civil context. Professor Richter directed the Committee ’s attention to one proposed amendment\n+alternative for the Committee ’s consideration that appeared on pages 309 and 310 of the agenda\n+book that would track the language in Peña-Rodriguez specifically to avoid any potential\n+expansion of the constitutional exception through rulemaking. She noted that concerns about the\n+unintended expansion of the constitutional exception to the no- impeachment rule through\n+rulemaking was a significant factor in the Committee ’s decision to table a Rule 606(b)\n+constitutional amendment in 2018. Given that the case law has not shown any significant\n+expansion of the exception in the nine years since Peña -Rodriguez was decided and given that\n+three states have amended their versions of Rule 606 to include specific language tracking Peña-\n+Rodriguez, Professor Richter explained that the Committee may wish to consider this narrow\n+amendment alternative. She explained that a second , more generic, amendment alternative was\n+also provided on pages 313 and 314 of the agenda book for the Committee’s consideration. She\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 562 of 587\n+23\n+explained that this generic alternative would offer more flexibility in case of future expansion of\n+the constitutional exception to the no impeachment rule.\n+Judge Furman then opened the issue up for discussion. One Committee member supported\n+the Rule 606(b) narrow fix but expressed the view that Rule 703 was not ripe for amendment .\n+Judge Dever added that he believed that the Supreme Court would grant review on the Rule 703\n+issue. Judge Dever noted that the Standing Committee was generally skeptical of red flags in the\n+rules. He offered examples, such as Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that does\n+not address Brady and Giglio and Rule 47 of the Civil Procedure Rules that does not mention\n+Batson challenges. He opined that judges and lawyers are well aware of the constitutional issues\n+underlying these rules despite the lack of red flags in rule text. As to Rule 606, Judge Dever also\n+noted that there is no indication in the case law that judges are misapplying Rule 606 to exclude\n+testimony required by Peña-Rodriguez. He also emphasized the Supreme Court’s lengthy defense\n+of the no- impeachment rule in Peña-Rodriguez and the policy choice that Congress made to\n+prohibit post -verdict juror testimony in most circumstances . Judge Dever also opined that the\n+proposed language in the narrow amendment alternative did not accurately track the holding in\n+Peña-Rodriguez. He cautioned that the broader, more flexible amendment alternative would\n+broadly expand the decision in a way that is inconsistent with the policy choice that Congress\n+made. Judge Dever noted a similar issue that came up with respect to Criminal Rule 23 at the\n+height of COVID regarding the defendant’s ability to ask for a bench trial over the government ’s\n+objection. He stated that he believed that the Committee was wise nine years ago in tabling\n+amendments to Rule 606, and that there had been no problems in applying Rule 606(b) in the\n+intervening nine years that warranted any fix.\n+Professor Richter agreed with Judge Dever that there was no indication in the case law that\n+that judges or lawyers are missing the Peña-Rodriguez issue. She further acknowledged the\n+difficulty in drafting an amendment that track s the decision exactly. For example, she noted that\n+the draft on page 310 of the agenda book would apply in the civil context because it covers\n+“verdicts” and not only “convictions” and that the holding in Peña-Rodriguez applied only in the\n+criminal context.\n+The Reporter then commented that the idea of the red flag i s not that judges are unaware\n+of the law, but that unschooled defense attorneys might not know that there is a constitutional\n+argument out there because the Rule does not address it. He explained that it is also suboptimal to\n+have a rule of evidence that is unconstitutional when applied as written and that this amendment\n+would resolve that problem. But the Reporter also agreed that a line has to be drawn because\n+there’s a potential constitutional argument in every single case, and where to draw that line is\n+difficult. Judge Furman noted that if the Committee were drafting Rule 606 today, it may proceed\n+differently, but the question for the Committee is whether to revisit the issue nine years later.\n+Judge Furman then re turned to consideration of potential amendments to Rule 703 and\n+asked if anyone was aware of any cert petitions on the proper interpretation of Smith. Ms. Shapiro\n+responded that she had not checked but that in all likelihood, one would be filed soon. With that\n+context, Judge Furman then suggested that the Committee hold off on addressing Rule 703 to await\n+a decision by the Supreme Court.\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 563 of 587\n+24\n+After hearing no objection to holding off on amendments to Rule 703 until the Supreme\n+Court weighs in, Judge Furman then asked for the Committee’s thoughts on moving forward with\n+an amendment to Rule 606. On the one hand, he noted that there is an argument for an amendment\n+because the rule on its face is unconstitutional. On the other hand, he acknowledged that an\n+amendment may be a solution in search of a problem. Judge Dever then reiterated the concern that\n+the Standing Committee might wish to see a much stronger argument for revisiting Rule 606,\n+especially because many rules may have case law that calls their application into question and\n+because tracking the language, as Professor Richter noted, would be very difficult to do in the rule.\n+Judge Dever also emphasized that a Rule 606 inquiry comes after trial, and that the Court in Peña-\n+Rodriguez described the many mechanisms in place to prevent juror issues during a trial, such as\n+voir dire, juror misconduct being reported during a trial, and polling.\n+The Reporter also commented that an amendment may sometimes be appropriate after a\n+Supreme Court decision to make a rule operable, such as the amendments to Rule 803(10) that\n+Professor Richter noted in her memorandum. He offered that this change was not a red flag because\n+it was necessary to make the rule operable. Judge Dever agreed that Rule 803(10) was a good\n+example of a needed amendment. Judge Furman also agreed, remarking that if there were an easy\n+way to conform Rule 606(b) to the Constitution, as was done with Rule 803(10), then there would\n+be a stronger argument for an amendment. But he acknowledged that even the narrow approach\n+proposed for Rule 606 could not be completely coextensive with Peña-Rodriguez.\n+Following this discussion, the Chair asked the Committee to vote on whether to keep Rule\n+606 on the agenda , noting that the Committee w ould continue to monitor Rule 703 to see if the\n+Supreme Court weighs in. Judge Furman suggested that , unless there ’s a strong argument for\n+revisiting it, Rule 606 should be removed from the agenda. One Committee member asked if the\n+Standing Committee would oppose an amendment to Rule 606, and Judge Dever responded that\n+he spoke only for himself but rested on the issues he raised. Another Committee member also\n+asked if an amendment with general introductory language such as “unless otherwise provided”\n+would be helpful, and Judge Dever again suggested that the Standing Committee may have the\n+same concerns. With no more comments, and upon a motion and second, and with no opposition,\n+Rule 606 was removed from the agenda.\n+VII. Possible Changes to Rules 104(a) and (b)\n+The Chair next addressed the last issue on the agenda, potential amendments to Rule 104.\n+He directed the Committee’s attention to the Reporter’s memorandum found behind Tab 7, starting\n+at page 333 of the agenda book. Judge Furman explained that Rule 104 governs the court’s role in\n+deciding preliminary questions about the admissibility of evidence. The first provision for the\n+Committee’s consideration is Rule 104(a), which provides that the court must decide preliminary\n+questions about whether evidence is admissible. This rule, however, does not actually specify the\n+standard of proof that the court must apply. Judge Furman explained that the Supreme Court held\n+in the Bourjaily case that the standard for admissibility is preponderance of the evidence, but that\n+standard does not appear in the rule. Judge Furman then explained that the Committee is also\n+considering amendments to Rule 104(b), which governs “conditional relevance,” that is, when the\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 564 of 587\n+25\n+relevance of certain evidence depends on whether a fact exists, then proof must be introduced\n+sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. He explained that some commentators, most\n+notably Professor Allen who was an invited guest at the meeting, have criticized the idea of\n+conditional relevance as distinct from relevance generally . In the Huddleston case, the Supreme\n+Court construed the Rule 104(b) standard to require sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to\n+find that a conditional fact exists.\n+Judge Furman then summarized the two recommended amendments, noting that if the\n+Committee were drafting the rules in the first instance, it could do better than the existing rules .\n+The first recommended change would be to add the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard\n+explicitly to Rule 104(a), thus codifying the Supreme Court ’s holding in Bourjaily. The second\n+recommended change would be to eliminate the concept of conditional relevance in Rule 104(b)\n+and replace it with a uniform standard applicable to all relevance questions.\n+Judge Furman noted that one of the principal questions wa s whether to proceed with any\n+amendment at all, with the case for amending Rule 104(a) fairly straightforward. Judge Furman\n+observed that this issue arose in connection with the amendment of Rule 702 in 2023. In addition,\n+one of the comments in connection with proposed Rule 707 also flagged that that rule contained\n+no reference to the standard of proof . Judge Furman noted that t he absence of an express burden\n+of proof can also cause problems, as the Reporter ’s memo indicated with respect to the standard\n+applicable to party opponent statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(A). Judge Furman added that while\n+widespread evidence of problems may not exist, there are salutary reasons for an amendment to\n+clear up the rule. The Reporter added that part of the reason to amend Rule 104(a) to add the\n+standard of proof is to cut off potential arguments that its absence is significant where other rules\n+address it. Adding the standard of proof would also be helpful to the unschooled lawyer because\n+there is no way to discern the standard without legal research.\n+As to Rule 104(b), Judge Furman stated that he would give Professor Allen an opportunity\n+to speak as one of the leading experts on the issue of conditional relevance, noting that there is an\n+argument that the whole notion of conditional relevance is incoherent , unnecessary, and\n+complicated. He reminded the Committee that it had discussed whether this rule is causing\n+problems at its Fall 2025 meeting , which he explained was certainly something that should be\n+considered in deciding whether to proceed. Judge Furman also pointed out that the Reporter ’s\n+memo catalogued cases showing that courts have been confused by the concept of conditional\n+relevance, most notably a 10th Circuit case from just this last year, which made the observation\n+that conditional relevance is “very blurry and that a savvy lawyer can basically turn any question\n+of relevance into a 104 (b) conditional relevance question.” Having said that, Judge Furman also\n+commented that one question that he would like to address to Professor Allen and the Reporter is\n+whether the confusion is impacting outcomes in cases.\n+Professor Allen then thanked the Committee for inviting him to speak and began his\n+remarks by acknowledging the influence of the Federal Rules of Evidence . That said, Professor\n+Allen opined that some mistakes were made in the original drafting of the Rules and that the\n+understanding of certain issues had changed since the original enactment . Professor Allen then\n+explained that part of the problem with Rule 104(b) is that the Rules as written suggest a difference\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 565 of 587\n+26\n+between relevancy under Rule 401 and conditional relevancy under Rule 104(b). But he noted that\n+there is always a reason why evidence is relevant, whether that reason is found in the record itself,\n+or simply in the mind of the decision- maker. For example, Professor Allen explained that if you\n+try a case in Iowa involving nitrogen fertilizer, you don’ t need to put in evidence that nitrogen\n+fertilizer is a dangerous commodity because jurors in Iowa are well aware of the properties of\n+nitrogen fertilizer. In New York, you do. As another example, Professor Allen referenced a case\n+in his casebook about a prison fight in which the disputed issue was who was the first aggressor .\n+The defendant want ed to introduce evidence that when the guards came to his cell, they were\n+putting on leather gloves. This prison was in a town where the prison was the main employer, and\n+everybody knew that when the guards went to a cell putting on gloves, they intended to have a\n+fight. The evidence of the gloves obviously increases the probability that the defendant was acting\n+in self-defense. But if you try that case in New York or Chicago, people don’ t know that custom\n+or practice in the prison. T he only difference in the se cases is the source of the knowledge\n+necessary to connect this evidence by a chain of logic to the consequence. The evidence connecting\n+the facts may be in the record or may be general knowledge already in the mind of the decision-\n+maker.\n+Professor Allen characterized Rule 104 a s a “mess” for all the reasons the Reporter\n+described in his agenda memo and argued that forcing litigants and courts to distinguish between\n+Rule 401 and Rule 104(b) relevance was a waste of resources. Professor Allen acknowledged that\n+the issue of whether Rule 104(b) is worth changing is up to the Committee, and that the conceptual\n+mess as he described it may not be a sufficient reason to amend the rule. Still, Professor Allen\n+opined that all of the litigation efforts currently required to address Rule 104(b) issues could be\n+avoided if the rule provided a simple, straightforward, reasonableness determination about the\n+relevancy of evidence. Professor Allen also drew from personal experience as a consultant to law\n+firms in complex cases and described a tremendous amount of effort and resources used to evaluate\n+these questions. He explained that a reasonableness inquiry under Rule 104(b) would allow the\n+trial judge to determine if a reasonable factfinder could see the connection between the evidence\n+and the fact of consequence, and, if not, the judge could tell the litigants that they have to produce\n+evidence. Professor Allen concluded his remarks by expressing the hope that the Committee would\n+take this issue further and dig into the real transaction costs created by Rule 104(b) that are hidden\n+by the cases.\n+Judge Furman thanked Professor Allen for his presentation and noted that the Reporter had\n+identified Rule 104(b) as the worst rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the one he would\n+most like to change. Judge Furman then directed Committee members to the proposal to amend\n+Rule 104 on page 353 of the agenda book. Judge Furman explained that when he presented this\n+issue to the Standing Committee at the January 2026 meeting, he had suggested that it would be a\n+question of whether to proceed with both amendments or neither. He reported that there was some\n+sentiment on the Standing Committee that there would be some virtue in continuing to move\n+forward with Rule 104(a) even if the Committee decided not to address Rule 104(b). He explained\n+that adding the preponderance standard to Rule 104(a) would be helpful for lawyers unfamiliar\n+with Bourjaily and, further, that the Committee would likely include a standard of proof if it were\n+writing Rule 104 today. The Reporter supported the idea of seeking Committee feedback and then\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 566 of 587\n+27\n+holding a vote regarding Rule 104(a) first. He also noted that the case law indicates problems\n+applying Rules 104(a) and 104(b) that amendments could address.\n+The members then discussed the proposed amendment to Rule 104(a) to add the\n+preponderance standard of proof. One Committee member commented that he had always found\n+the distinction between Rule 104(a) and (b) and the necessary standards of proof in various\n+circumstance unnecessarily confusing. Ms. Shapiro added that the DOJ supports the change to\n+Rule 104(a) to add the standard of proof.\n+Based on this feedback, and with no other comments, Judge Furman called the question\n+about whether to approve the amendments to Rule 104(a) for publication and public comment.\n+This would involve the proposed language on page 353 of the agenda book and would add a\n+sentence “Unless otherwise provided in these rules, the proponent must establish the existence of\n+a preliminary fact by a preponderance of the evidence.” Upon a motion and a second, and with no\n+objection, the Committee approved the amendment to Rule 104(a) for publication and public\n+comment, along with the draft Committee note.\n+Judge Furman then moved on to consideration of amendments to Rule 104(b), the so-called\n+conditional relevance rule, calling the Committee’s attention to the proposed amendments on page\n+253 of the agenda book. The Reporter explained the benefits of eliminating the concept of\n+dependency created by the concept of “conditional relevance.” He explained that t his concept is\n+problematic and confusing because the relevance of every item of evidence i s dependent upon\n+everything else. Another benefit of the proposed amendment is that it would no longer require\n+“proof” that must be introduced sufficient to support a finding. This is helpful where the relevance\n+question is not only about “proof” of relevance but also about logic and experience — somebody\n+can determine that evidence is relevant without “proof.” Under the new formulation, the Reporter\n+explained that evidence would be relevant if the court determines the trier of fact could reasonably\n+find that the requirements of Rule 401 ha ve been met. In making that determination, the\n+amendment would allow the court to consider “the evidence itself, other evidence, and common\n+knowledge and experience. ” The Reporter opined that this new language would also be helpful\n+because Rule 401 currently contains no standard of proof.\n+Committee members then discussed the proposed amendments to Rule 104(b). One\n+Committee member expressed support for the new language in the first sentence of the proposed\n+amendment, arguing that it tracks the argument that lawyers must make to the judge on relevance\n+issues. He expressed some concern about the “common knowledge and experience ” language in\n+the second sentence — suggesting that jurors are already reminded to rely upon common sense in\n+their instructions and that it would be odd for an Evidence rule to direct a judge to use common\n+sense. Another Committee member did not fully support the changes because judges routinely\n+consider the issue of relevance with no problems . The Reporter explained that the change would\n+address t he standard of proof that the judge must apply in determining a relevance question,\n+language that could also be added to Rule 401. The Committee member responded that this change\n+is not needed in either place. Another Committee member expressed concern that the proposed\n+amendment appears to define relevance in a slightly different manner than Rule 401. In addition,\n+the Committee member observed that the proposed amendment would seem to change the purpose\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 567 of 587\n+28\n+of Rule 104(b), which could lead to more confusion. The Reporter responded that the amendments\n+were not intended to change Rule 401, only to provide guidance for a judge in determining whether\n+the standards of 401 have been met. Judge Furman interjected that the Committee might have\n+added the amended language to Rule 401 if it were drafting from scratch, but that it was important\n+to preserve the architecture of the existing rules in crafting amendments and that placement in Rule\n+104(b) would make more sense at this point in the history of the Rules.\n+Another Committee member asked whether Rule 104(a) would apply to all preliminary\n+questions of admissibility except relevance under the proposed amendments, with Rule 104(b)\n+covering only questions of relevance and deferring to the jury in appropriate circumstances . The\n+Reporter agreed, explaining that the reason for that allocation is the idea that judges are no better\n+at determining relevancy than juries are, but that judges are superior arbiters of other admissibility\n+requirements, such as whether an expert’s testimony is reliable. Another Committee member asked\n+if the problem with the current rule is that it generates confusion between the concepts of\n+“conditional relevancy ” and “ conditional admissibility .” The Reporter agreed, explaining that\n+courts sometimes apply the lower Rule 104(b) standard of proof to questions of conditional\n+admissibility — such as the coconspirator exception — when those questions do not raise\n+relevancy concerns and should be handled by the higher preponderance standard of proof. The\n+Reporter opined that an amendment would alleviate some of this confusion, though it would need\n+to retain language about “connecting up” admissibility requirements with later proof.\n+The Chair then referenced Professor Allen’s remarks that substantial resources are wasted\n+in trying to figure out the concept of conditional relevance and the necessary “conditions.” He\n+asked if trial judges or litigators were seeing resources wasted on litigating some of these issues\n+or experiencing the confusion that we see in some of these cases. One Committee member\n+responded that she had not seen problems with these rules in all the time she has litigated and\n+presided over trials and sees the proposed amendment as a fix in search of a problem. She opined\n+that people understand the idea that A is relevant only if B also can be proven. The Reporter noted\n+that the cases did not reveal problems with judges so much as the parties who misconceive\n+conditional relevance, although some cases did indicate that judges had made mistakes in this\n+regard as well. Another Committee member argued that the amendment would be helpful because\n+it would give the litigator language to explain to the judge why evidence should, or should not, be\n+admitted. And while judges can instinctively make relevance decisions, this language has been\n+missing from the dialogue and arguments in court. Ms. Shapiro added that DOJ practitioners do\n+not seem to have a problem with this although it does come up. She added that the proposed\n+amendments set out two different standards , a preponderance standard for preliminary questions\n+of admissibility, and a lower sufficiency standard for relevance. She suggested that the way in\n+which the amended rule would divide these concepts could be confusing and suggested a general\n+preponderance standard for admissibility determinations with an “exception” for relevance\n+determinations all in Rule 104(a). The Reporter responded that the Committee could not eliminate\n+Rule 104(b) altogether without damaging the architecture of the Rules.\n+Although the Committee had been considering the amendment to Rule 104(b) separately\n+from the previously approved amendment to Rule 104(a), Judge Furman asked whether both Rules\n+104(a) and 104(b) have to be amended together to avoid making Rule 401 questions subject to a\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 568 of 587\n+29\n+preponderance standard under an amended Rule 104(a). The Reporter agreed that an amendment\n+to Rule 104(a) without a corresponding change to Rule 104(b) could be read to impose a\n+preponderance standard for all relevance determinations that are not “conditional.” The Federal\n+Public Defender opined that both provisions should be amended because the concept of conditional\n+relevance is extremely confusing and unnecessary.\n+Based on this discussion, Judge Dever made some suggested changes to the proposed Rule\n+104(b) language. To avoid any conflict with Rule 401, he suggested that Rule 104(b) could be\n+amended to read that: in deciding relevance, “the court determines whether the trier of fact could\n+reasonably find that the requirements of Rule 401 have been met.” The Reporter noted this change\n+as a friendly amendment. Another Committee member offered another friendly amendment to\n+structure Rule 104(b) in exactly the same way as subsection (a). This would add language\n+providing that to establish that evidence is relevant, “the proponent must demonstrate to the court\n+that a trier of fact could reasonably find . . .” The Reporter suggested that Judge Dever’s language\n+was more direct and stated that it was not clear how this change was structured like (a). The\n+Committee member explained that (a) says “the proponent must establish the existence of a\n+preliminary fact by a preponderance of the evidence ” and that (b) could also say that “ the\n+proponent must demonstrate, et cetera ” to establish that evidence is relevant. At this point, the\n+Chair suggested a break to coalesce around proposed changes to the draft amendments to Rule\n+104(b). Committee members then offered f eedback on the changes and the Federal Public\n+Defender member noted that he had to leave the meeting but would vote to move forward to\n+publication and public comment for amendments to both (a) and (b) as a package.\n+Following the break, the Chair reconvened the meeting to share a revise d version of the\n+proposed changes to Rule 104(b) for discussion. This included a change to the first sentence in\n+Rule 104(b) so that it reads: “T o e stablish that evidence is relevant , t he proponent must\n+demonstrate to the court that the trier of fact could reasonably find that the requirements of Rule\n+401 have been met.” Ms. Shapiro confirmed that she had withdrawn an earlier suggested revision\n+to include the word “ information” as foundation for a relevance finding because a jury could\n+consider only “evidence” and not outside information available only to the judge in determining\n+relevance. With these changes to the draft amendment, the Chair asked the Committee to vote on\n+whether to amend Rule 104(a) and (b) together, or do nothing at all. Another Committee member\n+suggested that the language in the second sentence of the proposed amendment to Rule 104(b) that\n+read “In making its determination ” was awkward because the first sentence no longer discussed\n+the court making a determination. The reporter agreed and asked whether modifying the second\n+sentence to read: “In making its relevance determi nation, the court may...” All agreed that this\n+was a good fix. With this change, and upon a motion and a second, and with no opposition, the\n+Committee voted to recommend amendments to Rule 104(a) and (b) to be published for public\n+comment. (The Chair confirmed with the Federal Public Defender member after the meeting that\n+he too supported the proposal as modified.)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 569 of 587\n+30\n+VIII. Closing Matters\n+The Chair closed the meeting by inviting Committee members and liaisons to offer\n+suggestions for panelists to participate in the Fall 2026 mini-conference regarding draft Rules 707\n+and 901(c), which will include a panel of technical experts to help the Committee understand the\n+technology and refine definitions, and a panel of judges and practitioners to address the AI issues\n+they are confronting and to comment on whether the proposed rules would provide a solution.\n+Judge Furman then thanked Judge Sullivan again for his service on the Committee and\n+observed that the work of the Rules Committees shows government at its best. Although the rule-\n+making process can be lengthy, he noted that it is a sign that the Committee is being appropriately\n+cautious and considerate. Judge Furman also thanked the members of the Rules Committee Staff\n+for their assistance and reminded the members that the next meeting will be in Boston,\n+Massachusetts on October 15, 2026. The meeting was then adjourned.\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 570 of 587\n+PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE\n+FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE1\n+Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal 1\n+Conviction 2\n+(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking3\n+a witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of4\n+a criminal conviction:5\n+(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction,6\n+was punishable by death or by imprisonment7\n+for more than one year, the evidence:8\n+(A) must be admitted, subject to9\n+Rule 403, in a civil case or in a10\n+criminal case in which the witness is11\n+not a defendant; and12\n+(B) must be admitted in a criminal case in13\n+which the witness is a defendant, if14\n+the probative value of the evidence15\n+1 New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted is\n+l\n+ined through.\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 572 of 587\n+2 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE\n+substantially outweighs its prejudicial 16\n+effect to that defendant; and 17\n+(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, 18\n+the evidence must be admitted if the court can 19\n+readily determine that establishing the 20\n+elements of the crime required proving—or 21\n+the witness’s admitting—a dishonest act or 22\n+false statement. 23\n+(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This 24\n+subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have 25\n+passed since between the witness’s conviction or 26\n+release from confinement for it , (whichever is later) 27\n+and the date that the trial begins . Evidence of the 28\n+conviction is admissible only if: 29\n+(1) its probative value, supported by specific 30\n+facts and circumstances, substantially 31\n+outweighs its prejudicial effect; and 32\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 573 of 587\n+FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 3\n+(2) the proponent gives an adverse party 33\n+reasonable written notice of the intent to use 34\n+it so that the party has a fair opportunity to 35\n+contest its use. 36\n+* * * * * 37\n+Committee Note 38\n+Rule 609(a)(1)(B) has been amended to provide that 39\n+a non-falsity-based conviction should not be admissible to 40\n+impeach a criminal defendant unless its probative value 41\n+substantially outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice to the 42\n+defendant. Congress allowed such impeachment with non-43\n+falsity-based convictions under Rule 609(a)(1), but imposed 44\n+a reverse balancing test when the witness was the accused. 45\n+That test is more protective so as not to infringe on the 46\n+accused’s constitutional right to testify. The amendment 47\n+underscores the importance of applying a protective balance. 48\n+The amendment also makes the balancing test consistent 49\n+with that in Rule 703. Courts are familiar with the 50\n+formulation “substantially outweighs” as the same phrase is 51\n+used throughout the rules of evidence to describe various 52\n+balancing tests. Cf. Rule 403. 53\n+If a conviction is inadmissible under this rule, it is 54\n+inappropriate to allow a party, under Rule 608(b), to inquire 55\n+into the specific instances of conduct underlying that 56\n+conviction. Rule 608 permits impeachment only by specific 57\n+acts that have not resulted in a criminal conviction. Evidence 58\n+relating to impeachment by way of criminal conviction is 59\n+treated exclusively under Rule 609. 60\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 574 of 587\n+4 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE\n+Nothing in this rule prohibits the use of convictions 61\n+to impeach by way of contradiction. Such impeachment is 62\n+governed by Rule 403. So for example, if the witness 63\n+affirmatively testifies that he has never had anything to do 64\n+with illegal drugs, a prior drug conviction may be admissible 65\n+for purposes of contradiction even if not admissible under 66\n+Rule 609. See United States v. Castillo , 181 F.3d 1129 (9 th 67\n+Cir. 1999) (unequivocal denial of involvement with drugs on 68\n+direct examination warranted admission of the witness’s 69\n+drug activity under Rule 403). 70\n+A number of courts have, in a kind of compromise, 71\n+admitted only the fact of a conviction to impeach a defendant 72\n+in a criminal case. Thus the jury hears only that the 73\n+defendant was convicted of a felony, not what the crime was. 74\n+Absent agreement by the parties, that solution is problematic 75\n+because convictions falling within Rule 609(a)(1) have 76\n+varying probative value, and admitting only the fact of 77\n+conviction deprives the jury of the opportunity to properly 78\n+weigh the conviction’s effect on the witness’s character for 79\n+truthfulness. 80\n+In addition, Rule 609(b) has been amended to set an 81\n+endpoint by which the rule’s 10-year period is to be 82\n+measured. The lack of such an endpoint in the original rule 83\n+has led courts to apply various endpoints, including the date 84\n+of the charged offense, the date of indictment, the date of 85\n+trial, and the date the witness testifies. The rule provides for 86\n+the date that trial begins as the endpoint, as that is a clear and 87\n+objective date and it is the time at which the factfinder begins 88\n+to analyze the truthfulness of witnesses. 89\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 575 of 587\n+FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 5\n+_________________________________\n+Changes Made After Publication and Comment\n+The Committee Note was slightly altered to\n+emphasize the prejudice that may occur if a court allows the\n+jury to hear that the accused committed a felony, but not tell\n+the jury what the felony was.\n+Summary of Public Comment\n+Bobby Levine, Esq., (USC-RULES-EV-2025-\n+0034-0003) objects to the proposed amendment to Rule\n+609(b), contending that the date of indictment is preferable\n+to the date of trial for assessing whether the conviction falls\n+within the rule.\n+Melody Brannon, Esq., (USC-RULES-EV-2025-\n+0034-0004), writing on behalf of the Federal Defender and\n+Community Defender members of Defender Services\n+Advisory Group (“DSAG”) strongly supports the proposed\n+amendment to Rule 609(a)(1)(B). She states that “this\n+Committee must amend the rule to address the judicial\n+misapplication of the test, which is due in part to the\n+appellate courts’ standards of reviewing Rule 609 issues and\n+evidence issues more broadly.” She also states that the\n+prevailing application of the current test “violates\n+defendants’ constitutional rights by chilling the right to\n+testify” and that “social science does not support the\n+proposition that impeachment by prior convictions\n+contributes to the truthseeking goal it seeks to serve.”\n+Aspen Griffing, Esq. (USC-RULES-EV-2025-\n+0034-0005) states that “[a]dding the necessity of evidence\n+under 609(a)(1)(b) to be substantially more probative than\n+prejudicial provides a much needed safeguard on\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 576 of 587\n+6 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE\n+defendants’ rights” but that “the rule should calculate the\n+time frame under 609(b) to extend to the date the defendant\n+offers testimony.”\n+Leah Brown, Esq. (USC-RULES-EV-2025-0034-\n+0008) supports the proposed amendment to Rule\n+609(a)(1)(B) because it “better safeguards a defendant's right\n+to testify.” She notes that the risk of impeachment\n+“discourages defendants from sharing their side of the story,\n+even when their testimony is crucial for a fair trial.” Ms.\n+Brown also agrees with the proposed endpoint in Rule\n+609(b), contending that “lack of clarity regarding the ten\n+years creates unnecessary uncertainty for both defendants\n+and their attorneys.” She concludes that “[t]ogether, these\n+revisions promote consistency, fairness, and transparency.\n+Most importantly, they uphold the broader goals of the\n+criminal justice system by ensuring that defendants feel\n+empowered to testify without being unfairly burdened by\n+convictions that do not accurately reflect their honesty.”\n+Elliot Ashley, Esq., (USC-RULES-EV-2025-0034-\n+0010) approves of the amendment but argues that the term\n+“substantially” must be “better defined for the rule to have\n+its intended effect.”\n+Elizabeth Schultz, Esq., (USC-RULES-EV-0034-\n+0011) approves of both proposed changes to Rule 609. As\n+to the amendment to Rule 609(a)(1)(B), she states that the\n+addition of the word “substantially” is “necessary because it\n+gives more appropriate weight to the stakes involved when a\n+defendant testifies in a criminal case, and it removes existing\n+inconsistency within the Rules.” Ms. Schultz argues that the\n+amendment “will encourage more careful judicial analysis\n+and promote fairer trial outcomes for defendants.” As to the\n+proposed amendment to Rule 609(b), Ms. Schultz states that\n+the “clarification is a welcome improvement” and that “[b]y\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 577 of 587\n+FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 7\n+explicitly defining the relevant time frame and anchoring it\n+to the trial date, which is a clear and unambiguous endpoint,\n+the amendment promotes uniformity and predictability in the\n+measurement application.”\n+The Federal Magistrate Judges Association,\n+(USC-RULES-EV-2025-0034-0017), supports the\n+proposed amendment to Rule 609 providing for more\n+protection of criminal defendants from impeachment with\n+prior convictions. The Association states: “The proposed\n+addition of ‘substantially’ is likely to have the effect of\n+courts considering more carefully the admission of such\n+evidence. The FMJA endorses this change because it\n+minimizes the potential for prejudice to criminal defendants\n+and focuses the jury on the conduct at issue in the trial rather\n+than the individual’s past conduct.”\n+The American College of Trial Lawyers, (USC-\n+RULES-EV-2025-0034-0030), supports the proposed\n+changes to Rule 609. As to Rule 609(a)(1)(B), the College\n+states that the amendment “will help effectuate Congress’\n+intent to provide robust, but fair, protections for criminal\n+defendants.” As to the proposed amendment to Rule 609(b),\n+the College “agrees with the Committee that the date of trial\n+is the date that is most easily administered, the least\n+susceptible to manipulation, and that it is a proper date for\n+determining the credibility of a witness who is going to\n+testify at the trial.”\n+The New York City Bar Association, (USC-\n+RULES-EV-2025-0034-0046), strongly supports the\n+proposed amendment to Rule 609(a)(1)(B). It states that, as\n+currently applied by courts, “Rule 609(a)(1) imposes an\n+unwarranted burden on criminal defendants’ right to testify\n+and, ultimately, to a fair trial.” It concludes that “[t]he\n+proposal to raise the standard that must be satisfied before\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 578 of 587\n+8 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE\n+the admission of a prior conviction for the purpose of\n+impeaching a defendant-witness’s credibility will help\n+reduce this burden, bring the rule in line with its original\n+intent, and promote a fairer adversarial process.” The\n+Association concludes that the amendment “will hopefully\n+restore the intended balance that Congress meant to strike\n+when Rule 609 was enacted.”\n+The National Association of Criminal Defense\n+Lawyers, (USC-RULES-EV-2025-0034-0052), strongly\n+supports the proposed amendment to Rule 609(a)(1)(B). It\n+states that the amendment “marks an important step toward\n+enhancing the fairness and integrity of our judicial system.\n+By strengthening the threshold governing the admissibility\n+of prior convictions for the purpose of impeaching a\n+defendant-witness’s credibility, we move closer to ensuring\n+that every defendant receives a fair trial.”\n+The American Association for Justice, (USC-\n+RULES-EV-2025-0034-0057), supports the proposed\n+amendment to Rule 609 “as a small step toward greater\n+fairness.”\n+The Coalition for Prior Impeachment Reform,\n+(USC-RULES-EV-2025-0034-0059), supports the\n+proposed amendment to Rule 609(a)(1). It states that “[w]e\n+know from our research and efforts that change is hard to\n+achieve in the prior conviction impeachment sphere. We\n+therefore express our appreciation for the fact that after years\n+of work . . . a proposal has reached this stage.” The Coalition\n+concludes that the proposed amendment “has the potential to\n+limit the extent to which Federal Rule of Evidence\n+609(a)(1)(B) detracts from ascertaining the truth.”\n+University of Connecticut Law School Students,\n+(USC-RULES-EV-2025-0034-0066), “write to express our\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 579 of 587\n+FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 9\n+strong support for adding the word ‘substantially’ to Federal\n+Rules of Evidence 609(a)(1)(B)’s balancing test.” The\n+students state that the current rule “derails Congress’\n+intention to offer strong protections for defendants and\n+serves to deter defendants with prior convictions from\n+testifying.” They conclude that “[t]he addition of the word\n+“substantially” will serve as a promising first step in creating\n+a judicial system that protects defendants’ rights and furthers\n+the purpose of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” The students\n+go further and ask the Committee to propose abrogation of\n+Rule 609, and state that “[j]ust as the 2020 amendment to\n+Rule 404(b) became a barrier to meaningful reform of that\n+Rule, we are concerned the 2026 Rule 609 amendment will\n+become a barrier to true reform or elimination of the Rule.”\n+The New York Council of Defense Lawyers,\n+(USC-RULES-EV-2025-0034-0075), strongly supports the\n+proposed amendment to Rule 609(a)(1)(B). The Council\n+states that there is a “wide disparity” in the case law in\n+applying the balancing test of the rule, with some courts\n+applying it carefully “while others almost routinely admit\n+prior convictions as impeachment evidence.” The Council\n+believes that the amendment “will not materially affect\n+courts in the former category; it will signal to the latter courts\n+that the Rule’s balancing test is not to be taken lightly, with\n+the result that fewer convictions that have little to do with a\n+defendant’s character for truthfulness are admitted.”\n+Proposed Amendments for Final Approval (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 580 of 587\n+PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE\n+FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE1\n+Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating 1\n+* * * * * 2\n+(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are 3\n+Sealed and Signed. A document that bears: 4\n+(A) a seal purporting to be that of the 5\n+United States; any state, district, 6\n+commonwealth, territory, or insular 7\n+possession of the United States; a 8\n+federally recognized Indian Tribe or 9\n+Nation; the former Panama Canal 10\n+Zone; the Trust Territory of the 11\n+Pacific Islands; a political subdivision 12\n+of any of these entities; or a 13\n+department, agency, or officer of any 14\n+entity named above; and 15\n+1 New material is underlined in red.\n+Proposed Amendments for Publication (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 582 of 587\n+2 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE\n+(B) a signature purporting to be an 16\n+execution or attestation. 17\n+* * * * * 18\n+Committee Note 19\n+The rule has been amended to provide that a sealed and 20\n+signed document from a federally recognized Indian Tribe 21\n+or Nation is entitled to the same presumption of 22\n+authenticity as a comparable document from the 23\n+government entities currently listed in Rule 902(1)(A). 24\n+The amendment thus recognizes the sovereignty of Indian 25\n+Tribes and Nations. Furthermore, self-authentication of the 26\n+public documents of Indian Tribes and Nations will allow 27\n+for more efficient proof of tribal records in federal court 28\n+and will conserve the valuable resources of tribal officials 29\n+who often had to appear in court to authenticate documents 30\n+prior to the amendment. 31\n+Under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act 32\n+of 1994 (P.L. 103-454), the Secretary of the Interior 33\n+publishes a list of all federally recognized Indian tribes in 34\n+the Federal Register, through which courts may identify 35\n+covered Tribes and Nations. The amendment permits self-36\n+authentication of the qualifying sealed and signed 37\n+documents of any Indian Tribe or Nation that is federally 38\n+recognized as of the date that the document is offered into 39\n+evidence. 40\n+The amendment concerns authenticity only; other 41\n+evidentiary requirements continue to apply. As with other 42\n+902(1) documents, parties may still challenge the 43\n+authenticity of the covered public documents at trial. 44\n+Proposed Amendments for Publication (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 583 of 587\n+PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE\n+FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE1\n+Rule 104. Preliminary Questions1\n+(a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary2\n+question about whether a witness is qualified, a3\n+privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so4\n+deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules,5\n+except those on privilege. Unless otherwise provided6\n+in these rules, the proponent must establish the7\n+existence of a preliminary fact by a preponderance of8\n+the evidence.9\n+(b) Relevance That Depends on a Fact. When the10\n+relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact11\n+exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support12\n+a finding that the fact does exist. To establish that13\n+evidence is relevant, the proponent must demonstrate14\n+1 New material is underlined in red; matter to be omitted is\n+l\n+ined through.\n+Proposed Amendments for Publication (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 584 of 587\n+2 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE\n+to the court that the trier of fact could reasonably find 15\n+that the requirements of Rule 401 have been met. In 16\n+making its relevance determination, the court may 17\n+consider the evidence itself, other evidence, and 18\n+common knowledge and experience. The court may 19\n+admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the 20\n+further proof be introduced later. 21\n+* * * * * 22\n+Committee Note 23\n+Two changes are made to Rule 104. First, the 24\n+amendment codifies the holding in Bourjaily v. United 25\n+States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987), that preliminary questions 26\n+of fact under Rule 104(a) are to be determined by a 27\n+preponderance of the evidence. The Committee has 28\n+determined that codification would be useful because there 29\n+has been some confusion about the applicable standard of 30\n+proof for preliminary questions. See the 2023 amendment to 31\n+Rule 702. 32\n+Some situations call for a lower standard of proof for 33\n+a preliminary question, ordinarily because on those 34\n+questions, the jury is in as good a position as the court to 35\n+determine the contested fact, and there is little to no risk that 36\n+the jury will be misled or subject to unfair prejudice in 37\n+making the determination. See Rules 104(b), 602, 901 and 38\n+1008. 39\n+Proposed Amendments for Publication (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 585 of 587\n+FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 3\n+Second, the amendment to Rule 104(b) eliminates 40\n+the concept of “conditional relevance.” There is no reason 41\n+for special treatment of facts that are conditionally relevant, 42\n+because in almost all cases, the relevance of a particular fact 43\n+is dependent on a showing of other facts and so the relevance 44\n+is “conditional.” Moreover, if the existence of one fact is 45\n+conditionally relevant upon another, the result is that both 46\n+facts are “conditionally relevant.” See Ronald Allen, The 47\n+Myth of Conditional Relevance, 25 Loyola L. Rev. 871-884, 48\n+879 (1992) (“Evidence is relevant only because there is an 49\n+intermediate premise or set of premises that connects the 50\n+evidence to some proposition involved in the litigation. But 51\n+if determining the relevance of evidence always requires 52\n+relying on some intermediate premise, no distinction can be 53\n+drawn between relevancy and conditional relevancy.”). 54\n+Providing a uniform approach to all questions of relevance 55\n+avoids confusion, especially because most courts currently 56\n+use the same permissive approach to all relevant evidence, 57\n+conditional or not. All questions of relevance should be 58\n+governed by the same “a reasonable person could find” 59\n+standard because the jury is in as good a position to 60\n+determine relevance as is the court. 61\n+The rule 104(b) test that “proof must be introduced 62\n+sufficient to support a finding” has been revised, because a 63\n+court’s preliminary determination of relevance is not limited 64\n+to proof submitted to it. A court could find evidence relevant 65\n+under Rule 104(b) by considering the evidence itself, as well 66\n+as common knowledge and experience. For example, if the 67\n+proffered evidence is that the defendant was carrying a gun, 68\n+its relevance to a charge of armed robbery can be determined 69\n+without any further proof. The standard has been changed to 70\n+whether the factfinder “could reasonably find” the evidence 71\n+to be relevant. That standard is the same as “sufficient to 72\n+support a finding.” See Huddleston v. United States, 485 73\n+U.S. 681, 687 (1988) (in determining whether the proponent 74\n+Proposed Amendments for Publication (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 586 of 587\n+4 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE\n+has introduced sufficient evidence to meet Rule 104(b), the 75\n+trial court decides whether “the jury could reasonably find” 76\n+the contested fact). 77\n+In deciding whether evidence is relevant, the judge 78\n+must not only take into account the evidence formally in the 79\n+record, but also the likely background knowledge and 80\n+experience of a reasonable juror from the area where trial is 81\n+being held. For example, suppose a trial concerns the cause 82\n+of a large explosion and fire. The plaintiff claims that the 83\n+defendant mishandled nitrogen fertilizer containing 84\n+ammonium nitrate. A witness is asked whether such a 85\n+fertilizer was stored on the premises and an objection on 86\n+relevancy is made. If the trial is in a rural state with a large 87\n+farming population, the trial judge would overrule the 88\n+objection because a reasonable person from that population 89\n+would likely know the dangerous properties of the material. 90\n+If, by contrast, the trial were held in an urban area, the judge 91\n+would likely conclude that evidence of the dangerous 92\n+properties must be entered into the record to satisfy the 93\n+requirement of relevancy. 94\n+The amendment retains the provision allowing proof 95\n+to be introduced later. It should be noted that allowing proof 96\n+to be introduced later is within the discretion of the court 97\n+under Rule 104(a) as well. 98\n+Proposed Amendments for Publication (Evidence Rules)\n+Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure | June 3-4, 2026\n+Page 587 of 587","id":"3a5a8b2221f5709af6a182319683ac9d0451c3913b7d232d06894938962d7139","newHash":"8c2ed205cb1674eccf1bc4b76361d6cb995a70260eab7cc9fa692f2584529676","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/advisory_committee_on_evidence_rules_may_2026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/8c2ed205cb1674eccf1bc4b76361d6cb995a70260eab7cc9fa692f2584529676.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/advisory_committee_on_evidence_rules_may_2026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:20.126508+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"24aac2ca02e9d171b08b7f6f63a9ca480569bad570a88df70399e8e6d5babff6","newHash":"4ead84c1e1dfebba4b6d267ba20e0e5639b9b7ebc03c776c74adbc596e56296c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.utcourts.gov/content/dam/mediation/docs/Mediation-Best-Practices-Guide.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.utcourts.gov/content/dam/mediation/docs/Mediation-Best-Practices-Guide.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:18.379719+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"876d9641910c82f0221ffa01e9d09cb3416cae09aacf97515738097bad9e8fd0","newHash":"98e4314b85445ab78fc9bb47b43d593607fc783d8f08f95ffc54475464d9cdb9","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:18.458908+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"66e3fba56f187a21eadb99412469e5c024ce90c9ebf70970178037815d8d01d3","newHash":"539b21e6b358aeceb5496aa978a5bfe5a3b0a58400b250584f7c46091e34cd02","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/programs/ai/resources/scv_rules_generative_ai_use.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:18.631407+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA\n+Richmond Division\n+IN RE: LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7(E)AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+STANDING ORDER\n+This Standing Order appliesto allcivilcases thatare assigned to Chief United States\n+DistrictJudge M. Hannah Lauck.\n+I. Local Civil Rule 7(E): Rule 7(E) of the Local CivilRules for the United States\n+DistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginiashallnot apply to thisaction.No motion willbe\n+deemed withdrawn purely based on the absence of a motion requesting a hearing or. in the\n+alternative,a formalwaiverof hearing.In allcases,the Court willschedulea hearingonly ifit\n+determinesone tobe necessaryafterreviewofthebriefs.\n+II. ArtificialIntelligence:Should any partyutilizegenerativeartificialintelligence\n+forthepreparationofany filingsubmittedtotheCourt,theymust identifytheuse of thegenerative\n+artificialintelligenceinthe filingand providea certificationthatthey have reviewed allcitations\n+foraccuracy.\n+Enteredthis1stday of September,2026.\n+M. Hanna|n ailt.\n+ChiefUnitedStatesDistrictJudge","id":"ae69e3b5511bdf9bc25d64bf38b6d7e50ebc16857686323c34696c4ba339491e","newHash":"f995bb54396a3a6fb218216d8a26e9653ad68e1f79889de0b433b908e6d8b58b","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/f995bb54396a3a6fb218216d8a26e9653ad68e1f79889de0b433b908e6d8b58b.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/9.1.26_Local%20Civil%20Civil%20Rule%207%28E%29%20and%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Standing%20Order_MHL.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:19.003043+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@\n+Representing Yourself | Eastern District of Wisconsin | United States District Court\n+Skip to main content\n+United States District Court\n+Eastern District of Wisconsin\n+Pamela Pepper, Chief Judge • Linda M. Klemm, Clerk of Court\n+Search form\n+Search this site\n+Home\n+Our Court\n+Milwaukee\n+Green Bay\n+Visitors\n+Media Information\n+Case Information\n+Local Rules and Guidance\n+Counties Served by Division\n+District Court Fee Schedule\n+Tickets/Citations (CVB)\n+Court Holidays\n+Employment\n+Workplace Relations\n+FAQs\n+Our Judges\n+Judges by Seniority\n+Judges Alphabetically\n+Opinions\n+For Attorneys\n+General Information\n+Criminal Justice Act (CJA)\n+Attorney Admission\n+Local Rules and Guidance\n+Courtroom Technology\n+Posting and Return of Criminal Bond\n+Pro Bono Program\n+Virtual POWER Act Event (Free CLE Credit)\n+Mediation\n+Interpreter Services\n+Post Judgment Interest Rates\n+E-Filing Restricted and Sealed Documents\n+CM/ECF Maintenance/Outage Log\n+Notify Us of an After-Hours Emergency Filing\n+Representing Yourself\n+American Bar Association -- Free Legal Answers\n+General Information\n+Local Rules and Guidance\n+Guides for Pro Se Litigants\n+Forms for Pro Se Litigants\n+Legal Resources\n+Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Mediation\n+FAQs\n+Register to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing by Email\n+For Jurors\n+Juror Instructions\n+eJuror\n+Parking and Travel\n+Juror Hotel Letter\n+General Information\n+FAQs\n+About Jury Service\n+Grand Jury\n+Payment for Jury Service\n+Warning of Juror Fraud\n+Jury Plan Revised January 2017\n+Public Notice for Random Draw\n+E-Filing\n+ECF Login\n+General Information\n+NextGen Information\n+ECF Policies and Procedures\n+ECF User Manual and Guides\n+Attorney Case Opening\n+E-Filing Restricted and Sealed Documents\n+Electronic Transcripts\n+Redaction Requirements - E-Government Act\n+Notify Us of an After-Hours Emergency Filing\n+General Orders\n+All General Orders\n+Assignment of Cases\n+Bankruptcy Matters\n+CJA\n+COVID-19\n+Court Governance\n+ECF Procedural Orders\n+Federal Defender Services\n+Jury\n+Forms\n+All Forms\n+Appeal\n+Attorney Admissions\n+Civil\n+Criminal\n+Criminal Justice Act\n+Pro Se\n+Social Security\n+Transcript Order Form\n+Financial\n+Vendor Information/Requests for Quotes\n+Making Payments\n+Online Criminal Debt Payments\n+Payment for Jury Service\n+Criminal Case Balance Inquiry\n+Victim Restitution Payments\n+Posting and Return of Criminal Bond\n+Procedures for Posting Real Estate\n+Passports Surrendered in Criminal Cases\n+Post Judgment Interest Rates\n+Registry Funds\n+FAQs\n+Transcript Orders\n+Transcript Information\n+Transcript Request Form\n+Programs & Services\n+Reentry Program/Successful Transition and Reentry Together (START)\n+Post Guilty Plea/Presentence Diversion Court Program\n+Extra-Judicial use of Courtrooms\n+Interpreter Services\n+Pro Bono Program\n+Naturalization\n+Community and Educational Outreach\n+You are here\n+Home\n+Representing Yourself\n+Representing Yourself\n+The court has helpful resources for those people who are representing themselves. When you are without an attorney, you are proceeding \"pro se.\" If you represent yourself in court, you are called a \"pro se litigant\" or a \"self-represented litigant.\" A civil case generally refers to all cases other than criminal cases. A civil case is the only type of case you can start without an attorney. In a civil case, you do not have a constitutional right to a lawyer appointed by the court. Therefore, if you start a civil case as a pro se litigant, you should be prepared to complete it on your own. The court recruits lawyers to assist pro se litigants in civil cases only under rare circumstances.\n+The staff of the Clerk of Court’s office can help you by answering questions about procedures, but they are prohibited from giving you legal advice. This means, for example, that the Clerk's staff cannot: recommend a legal course of action or suggest ways to help you win your case; predict how a district or magistrate judge may decide an issue; interpret the meaning of a judicial order; or interpret the local rules of this court, the federal procedural rules, federal statutes, or case law. Those are all situations where a pro se litigant must use his or her own judgment.\n+Please note: Filers are advised that documents created with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools may contain errors, misrepresentations, or fabrications. Filers are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their filings. Filings that contain factual errors, misrepresentations of law, citation to a nonexistent case, or any other misrepresentation may result in sanctions by the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.\n+Helpful Links:\n+Local Rules and Guidance\n+Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Cornell Law School\n+Federal Legal Assistance Program, Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association\n+Google Scholar\n+Eastern District of Wisconsin Law Library\n+Wisconsin Law Library\n+American Bar Association -- Free Legal Answers\n+General Information\n+Local Rules and Guidance\n+Guides for Pro Se Litigants\n+Forms for Pro Se Litigants\n+Legal Resources\n+Glossary of Legal Terms\n+Mediation\n+FAQs\n+Register to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing by Email\n+Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | FAQs\n+BrowseAloud","id":"3d172a442f55223af5c1dcc72106d005465b200a47b42650158e7791482e8edf","newHash":"ed261b69e3f502f8caf0f28005a4c8a4284a7138b06d9e302c9ceb73e5fadd95","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself","snapshot":"snapshots/ed261b69e3f502f8caf0f28005a4c8a4284a7138b06d9e302c9ceb73e5fadd95.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:18.957605+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"a6eb7eaec2917385c002d5691f29add92c7aa482635f0eb69a6382e17aad6844","newHash":"cd62d4a1925c2834a43cae9c096f25337634d617b6cf2f4b1e7b054d6880d9f0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3736/JUVENILE-RULES--Williams-County-20256","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.williamscountyoh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3736/JUVENILE-RULES--Williams-County-20256","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:30.411305+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@\n+1\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA\n+IN RE: USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+TOOLS TO REVIEW CRIMINAL\n+DISCOVERY\n+Miscellaneous No.: 1:26-MC-38\n+STANDING ORDER\n+The use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools, particularly\n+“data-retentive” or “consumer-tier” AI tools that allow publicly\n+accessible AI systems to retain and use submitted data to train\n+models, poses a threat to the integrity and security of data\n+produced in litigation.\n+THE COURT FINDS that the best way to mitigate this threat is\n+to require defense counsel to provide notice to, and receive\n+consent from, the government before entering sensitive materials\n+into any AI tool.\n+Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, effective as of the\n+date of this Standing Order, and until such time as the Court\n+orders otherwise, all criminal actions filed in this Court are\n+subject to the following restrictions as it pertains to the use of\n+AI tools.\n+Restrictions on Use of AI to process Sensitive Materials. No\n+person or entity authorized to have access to Sensitive Materials\n+Case 1:26-mc-00038-TSK Document 1 Filed 06/16/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1\n+2\n+under the terms of this Order, i.e., the legal defense team, shall\n+input, transmit, upload, process, generate output from, or\n+otherwise expose any Sensitive Materials received to any AI tool\n+without prior written consent from the government. “AI tool” means\n+any automated system that uses statistical modeling, machine\n+learning, or similar techniques to process inputs and generate\n+outputs, recommendations, or predictions, including but not\n+limited to large language models, generative AI services, or AI-\n+assisted software tools, whether cloud-based or otherwise. To\n+obtain authorization for the otherwise prohibited use of an AI\n+tool, defense counsel must submit a written request to the\n+government. In any request for written authorization, defense\n+counsel must specifically identify and describe any AI tool to be\n+used and certify that it does not (i) retain or use any Sensitive\n+Materials for model training, nor (ii) expose any Sensitive\n+Materials to third parties not authorized under this Order to\n+receive such materials. In addition, defense counsel must certify\n+that (i) defense counsel has implemented reasonable measures to\n+ensure that any AI tool used will maintain the confidentiality of\n+any Sensitive Materials, and (ii) defense counsel will ensure the\n+deletion of all Sensitive Materials from the tool at the conclusion\n+of the case. Defense counsel will be responsible for destroying\n+such information at that time. Under no circumstances will any\n+member of the defense team submit Sensitive Materials to a publicly\n+Case 1:26-mc-00038-TSK Document 1 Filed 06/16/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2\n+3\n+accessible AI system that retains and uses submitted data to train\n+models. Such AI tools pose unique risks to the security and\n+integrity of Sensitive Materials, given the practical inability to\n+claw back or delete data once it has been incorporated into a\n+model.\n+Sensitive Materials. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the\n+below portions of the discovery will be designated as “Sensitive\n+Materials.”\n+a. Telephone numbers, residential addresses, email\n+addresses, driver’s license numbers, and similar\n+unique identifying information;\n+b. Information that could reasonably be used to identify\n+the government’s confidential sources;\n+c. Identifying information, including true names and\n+photographs, regarding government agents who acted in\n+an undercover capacity with respect to this\n+investigation;\n+d. Information that could reasonably be expected to\n+jeopardize witness security;\n+e. Personal identifying information, including\n+photographs and videos, for individuals that do not\n+appear to be related to the criminal conduct in the\n+case;\n+f. Message content and other private communications –\n+including from confidential sources, co-conspirators,\n+victims, and other individuals – that are unrelated\n+to the criminal conduct in the case;\n+g. Medical or mental health records, other than those of\n+the defendant;\n+h. Sources, locations, and methods law-enforcement\n+officials have used, and will continue to use, to\n+investigate other criminal conduct;\n+i. Information that may jeopardize an ongoing or future\n+investigation;\n+j. Tax returns or tax information; and\n+k. Portions of the footage depicting minors and any\n+personal identifying information of minors, including\n+names.\n+Case 1:26-mc-00038-TSK Document 1 Filed 06/16/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3\n+4\n+Legal Defense Team. The “legal defense team” includes defense\n+counsel (defined as counsel of record in the case, including any\n+post-conviction or appellate counsel) and any attorneys,\n+investigators, paralegals, support staff, interns, consultants and\n+expert witnesses who are advising or assisting defense counsel in\n+connection with the case. The legal defense team shall not include\n+the defendant or the defendant’s family members, friends, or\n+associates.\n+Automatic Exclusion from this Order. This Order does not\n+apply to discovery that:\n+a. are, or later become, part of the public record,\n+including materials that have been received in\n+evidence in this or other public trials, or materials\n+that are publicly released by the U.S. Attorney’s\n+Office or the government of the United States;\n+b. materials that the defense obtains by means other than\n+discovery; or\n+c. pertain solely and directly to the defendant.\n+Disputes. The parties shall make a good faith effort to\n+resolve any dispute regarding the applicability of this Order.\n+The United States may agree to remove a sensitivity designation\n+without further order of this Court. Whenever the redaction of\n+specified information will resolve the basis for which a\n+sensitivity designation was applied, either party may do so and\n+Case 1:26-mc-00038-TSK Document 1 Filed 06/16/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4\n+5\n+any materials so redacted will no longer be deemed Sensitive\n+Material under this Order. Should the parties be unable to resolve\n+the dispute, either party may file a motion specifying the material\n+at issue and why it does or does not qualify as “Sensitive\n+Material” under this Order. The disputed materials shall be\n+treated as subject to this Order pending disposition of such\n+motion.\n+Government’s Discovery Obligations. Nothing in this Order\n+modifies the obligation of the United States at any stage of\n+discovery in the case pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal\n+Procedure 16 and 26.2, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and the government’s\n+general obligation to produce exculpatory and impeachment\n+information in criminal cases.\n+Scope of this Order. This Order does not prevent any party\n+from objecting to the discovery or admission of discovery that it\n+otherwise believes to be inadmissible or not subject to a\n+disclosure obligation. This Order also does not constitute a\n+ruling on: (A) any potential objection to the discoverability or\n+admissibility of discovery; or (B) whether any particular\n+discovery is properly discoverable or admissible. This Order is\n+not intended to limit the use of discovery in any judicial\n+proceeding.\n+The Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Order\n+to the United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Public\n+Case 1:26-mc-00038-TSK Document 1 Filed 06/16/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5\n+6\n+Defender’s Office. The Federal Public Defender shall forward a\n+copy of this Order to all panel counsel.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2026.\n+_________________________\n+Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh\n+Chief Judge\n+United States District Court\n+Case 1:26-mc-00038-TSK Document 1 Filed 06/16/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6","id":"b532452498d88bf0af467ea64c4dd32374445615d8742aaf3c1c7243d88de844","newHash":"e0200805c14d7091d7242490099fb2d9e879f436dbc8aaabe7efeeac3924faa0","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.wvnd.uscourts.gov/sites/wvnd/files/Standing%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20to%20Review%20Criminal%20Discovery%201%2026%20mc%2038%20Filed.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/e0200805c14d7091d7242490099fb2d9e879f436dbc8aaabe7efeeac3924faa0.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.wvnd.uscourts.gov/sites/wvnd/files/Standing%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20to%20Review%20Criminal%20Discovery%201%2026%20mc%2038%20Filed.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:19.567336+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING\n+FILED\n+U.S. DISTnlCT counT\n+OISTlllC r OF W YOMING\n+MAY 1 3 2025\n+Margaret BotKins, Clerk\n+Cheyenne\n+GENERAL ORDER NO. 25-01\n+GENERAL ORDER:\n+REGARDING THE USE OF\n+ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+IN THE PREPARATION OF FILINGS\n+GENERAL ORDER CONCERNING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL\n+INTELLIGENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF FILINGS\n+The Court notes with growing frequency litigants in the United States District\n+Court for the District of Wyoming are using Artificial Intelligence ( .. Al\") to prepare\n+motions and other papers filed in this Court. Given this and other courts' recent\n+experiences, it is necessary to remind all litigants that appear in this court, represented or\n+pro se, of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11\n+requires legal contentions in documents filed with a cou1t be warranted by existing law.\n+The Court recognizes that AI can be beneficial to attorneys and their clients and to\n+unrepresented litigants. Even so, examples of filings have been brought to this Court's\n+attention that appear to include Al-generated arguments and citations not warranted by\n+existing law. In some cases, litigants or their counsel have filed documents that use Al\n+which generate citations to non-existent cases (also known as \"hallucinated\" legal\n+authority). This practice is strictly prohibited and subject to sanction.","id":"95a2663eac647b8405b8ab53fa4252b1aadd45989b6298e30f278113d5b6347b","newHash":"1ecc7edc716dea0cc537c1bbc7de5c22276a06b31ea0580c18e703eff86b547e","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/1ecc7edc716dea0cc537c1bbc7de5c22276a06b31ea0580c18e703eff86b547e.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:19.658082+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"a39706e9172f5e4031c23692b85678a6819a415a02340021be04f9bbc89319fc","newHash":"91c9aebeb035ac1cf5441043b5a42932aea5f9129a060a27416b7b5a4e648519","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T15:51:20.621044+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,829 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n+Plaintiff,\n+v.\n+__________________________,\n+Defendant(s).\n+Case No.\n+STANDING ORDER FOR\n+CRIMINAL CASES ASSIGNED TO\n+JUDGE ANNE HWANG\n+READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THIS CASE AND\n+DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES.\n+This action has been assigned to Judge Anne Hwang. Both the Court and all\n+counsel bear responsibility for the progress of this action. “Counsel,” as used in this\n+Order, includes attorneys and parties who have elected to appear without an attorney\n+and are representing themselves (hereinafter referred to as “pro se defendants”). To\n+ensure the just determination of this action, “to secure simplicity in procedure and\n+fairness in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay,” Fed. R.\n+Crim. P. 2, all parties or their counsel, including pro se defendants, are ordered to be\n+familiar with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Local Criminal Rules of\n+the Central District of California (“Local Criminal Rules”), the applicable Local Civil\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+2\n+Rules of the Central District of California (“Local Civil Rules”),1 and this court’s\n+standing orders, online procedures, and schedules.\n+UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE FOLLOWING\n+RULES SHALL APPLY:\n+A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Formatting of Pleadings\n+The caption title of every pleading shall contain the name of the first-listed\n+defendant if the pleading applies to all defendants. If the document applies only to\n+certain defendants, the caption shall list the name of the first defendant followed by\n+the name(s) and number(s) of the remaining defendants involved (in the order listed\n+on the docket). In an effort to create a docket that is clear and that can be searched\n+easily, the title of every pleading shall include the name of the defendant(s) to which it\n+refers. However, if the pleading applies to all defendants or if there is only a single\n+defendant, the name(s) of the defendant(s) do not need to appear in the title.\n+2. Electronic Filing\n+Counsel shall electronically file (“e-file”) all filings pursuant to the Central\n+District’s Local Rules and General Orders concerning electronic filing, unless\n+superseded by this Order. Items that do not require the Court’s signature shall be e-\n+filed in PDF format. Pro se defendants may submit documents for filing through the\n+Court’s Electronic Document Submission System (“EDSS”) instead of mailing or\n+bringing documents to the Clerk’s Office. Only internet access and an email address\n+are required. Documents are submitted in PDF format through an online portal on the\n+Court’s website. To access EDSS and for additional information, visit the Court’s\n+website at https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/edss.\n+1 “When applicable directly or by analogy, the Local [Civil] Rules of the Central\n+District of California shall govern the conduct of criminal proceedings before the\n+District Court, unless otherwise specified.” Local Criminal Rule 57-1.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+3\n+3. Mandatory Chambers Copies\n+Mandatory chambers copies are to be submitted pursuant to Local Civil Rule\n+5-4.5. The Court requires copies of (i) motion papers (motions, oppositions, replies,\n+non-oppositions, and any related document) and (ii) trial documents (joint statement\n+of the case, proposed voir dire, jury instructions, verdict form, joint exhibit list, joint\n+witness list, and any disputes relating to any of the foregoing).\n+Deliver Chambers Copies promptly to Judge Hwang’s mailbox outside the\n+Clerk’s Office on the fourth floor of the Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez United States\n+Courthouse no later than 12:00 p.m. on the court day following the filing of the\n+document. Applicable documents will not be considered until Chambers Copies are\n+submitted. Delay in submitting such copies will delay consideration of the\n+submission.\n+Chambers Copies, which do not need to be submitted with blue backing, should\n+be copies of the filed document—i.e., they should have the docket information on the\n+top of each page. Filings that include highlighting, color photographs, “redlining,” or\n+the like should be printed in color.\n+4. Proposed Orders\n+Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any\n+matter shall serve and lodge a proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought\n+and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. The\n+Court enforces strict compliance with Local Rule 5-4.4.2, which instructs: “After a\n+document requiring a judge’s signature has been lodged under L.R. 5-4.4.1, a . . .\n+Microsoft Word copy of the proposed document, along with a PDF copy of the\n+electronically filed main document, must be emailed to the assigned judge’s generic\n+chambers email address,” AH_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. The Court will not\n+consider a stipulation, ex parte application, or other request for relief until a compliant\n+proposed order is received by email. If the proposed order is based on a stipulation or\n+an ex parte application, counsel must email both the order and the stipulation or ex\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+4\n+parte application. Otherwise, accompanying documents (such as motions) should not\n+be emailed to Chambers.\n+5. Artificial Intelligence\n+Any party who uses generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT,\n+Harvey, CoCounsel, or Claude) to generate any portion of a brief, pleading, or other\n+filing must attach to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of artificial\n+intelligence and certifying that the filer has reviewed the source material and verified\n+that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11\n+obligations.\n+B. DISCOVERY\n+Counsel shall comply promptly with discovery and notice pursuant to Rules 12,\n+12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 15, and 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The\n+Government shall promptly produce to Defendant(s) any evidence falling within the\n+scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.\n+150 (1972); Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957); and United States v.\n+Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991). Upon the Government’s discovery of any\n+evidence within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), such evidence\n+shall be produced forthwith to Defendant(s). The Government shall also disclose\n+Defendant(s) the existence or non-existence of: (1) evidence obtained by electronic\n+surveillance; and (2) testimony by a government informer.\n+The Government shall produce to Defendant(s) the discovery related to\n+evidence it seeks to introduce at trial no later than two (2) weeks prior to the\n+scheduled trial date. If there is discovery related to trial evidence that is produced\n+after this date, such evidence will not be admitted at trial subject to an ex parte\n+application being filed by the Government seeking such relief that is approved by the\n+Court.\n+Counsel shall meet and confer to resolve discovery disputes informally prior to\n+filing a motion to compel discovery. All discovery motions shall state with\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+5\n+particularity what is requested, the basis for the request, whether the discovery at issue\n+has been requested, and opposing counsel’s response to such request. The Court may\n+decline to hear discovery motions made without prior consultation with opposing\n+counsel.\n+C. BAIL REVIEW\n+Any request for bail review based on changed circumstances or information not\n+previously presented to the Magistrate Judge shall be addressed in the first instance to\n+the Magistrate Judge and shall be served on both opposing counsel and Pretrial\n+Services.\n+D. CONTINUANCES\n+Continuances are granted only on a showing of good cause. Requests for\n+continuances must be made before the date to be continued and by motion or\n+stipulation, along with a proposed order. Motions and stipulations must be\n+accompanied by a detailed declaration setting forth the specific reasons for the\n+requested continuance and the precise deadline(s) the parties propose. A stipulation\n+that fails to list the precise date(s) the parties wish to move, and the new date(s) they\n+propose, will be denied for failure to comply with this Standing Order. For example,\n+if the stipulation improperly proposes that all deadlines be moved by “60 days”\n+without specifying the proposed new dates that would result from that requested\n+continuance, the Court will deny the request. The declaration also should state\n+whether there have been any previous requests for continuances; whether these\n+requests were granted or denied by the Court; what efforts were made to meet the\n+existing deadline; and what, if any, prejudice would result if the request is denied.\n+Stipulations extending dates set by this Court are not effective unless approved by the\n+Court.\n+E. MOTIONS - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions\n+Motions shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+6\n+47 and Local Criminal Rule 49, et seq., unless superseded by this Order. Pretrial\n+motions, including motions in limine, shall be filed no later than four weeks before the\n+Final Pretrial Conference. This Court hears criminal motions on Wednesdays,\n+beginning at 8:30 a.m. The Court hears all motions in limine, which shall be\n+numbered sequentially by each party who presents them, at the time of the Final\n+Pretrial Conference. The last day to hear motions is the date of the Final Pretrial\n+Conference. All motions shall be set in accordance with this Order and the Local\n+Rules.\n+2. “Meet and Confer” Requirement\n+Counsel must meet and confer with opposing counsel “to discuss thoroughly\n+. . . the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution” thereof.\n+Local Criminal Rule 57-1; Local Civil Rule 7-3. Counsel shall discuss the issues to a\n+sufficient degree that if a motion is still necessary, the briefing may be directed to\n+those substantive issues requiring resolution by the court.\n+3. Length and Format of Motion Papers\n+Memoranda of points and authorities in support of or in opposition to motions\n+shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages. Replies shall not exceed twelve (12) pages.\n+Only in rare instances and for good cause shown will the Court grant an application to\n+extend these page limitations. Typeface and spacing shall comply with Local Rule\n+11-3.1.1, except that the parties are required to use only 14-point Times New Roman\n+font. Footnotes shall be in the same font and the same size as the body of the\n+memorandum. Counsel shall adhere to Local Rule 5-4.3 with respect to the\n+conversion of all documents to PDF format so that when a document is electronically\n+filed, it is in proper size and is text searchable. Further, all documents shall be filed in\n+a format so that text can be selected, copied, and pasted directly from the document.\n+See Local Rule 5-4.3.1.\n+a. Documents with Declarations, Exhibits, and Other Attachments\n+If a filed or lodged document has declarations, exhibits, or other attachments,\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+7\n+each of these must be filed as a separately docketed attachment to the main docket\n+entry with a description of the attachment (e.g., Dkt. 29-1 Smith Declaration).\n+b. Citations to Case Law\n+Citations to case law must identify not only the case cited, but the specific page\n+referenced. Citations to cases must be in Bluebook format. Parties should not use\n+string cites without good reason. When using string cites, a party should include a\n+parenthetical explanation for each cited case.\n+c. Citations to Other Sources\n+Statutory references should identify with specificity the sections and\n+subsections referenced. Citations to treatises, manuals, and other materials should\n+include the volume, section, and pages being referenced.\n+4. Ex Parte Applications\n+The Court considers ex parte applications on the papers and does not usually set\n+these matters for a hearing. If a hearing is necessary, the parties will be notified. Ex\n+parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and should be used with\n+discretion. Any party seeking ex parte relief must comply with Local Rule 7-19. The\n+moving party must also serve the opposing party by email, fax, or personal service,\n+and notify that party that opposing papers must be filed not later than forty-eight (48)\n+hours following service or by 3:00 p.m. on the first court day after the service,\n+whichever is later. The moving party must indicate whether an opposition is\n+anticipated and the nature of the dispute. The opposing party should advise the\n+Courtroom Deputy Clerk as soon as possible whether it intends to oppose the ex parte\n+application. The application will not be considered until a Mandatory Chambers Copy\n+has been provided. Reply briefs in support of ex parte applications are not permitted.\n+The Court generally will not rule on any application for such relief for at least forty-\n+eight (48) hours (or two (2) court days) after the party subject to the requested order\n+has been served unless service is excused or unless the interests of justice so require.\n+The parties should not assume that an unopposed ex parte application will be granted,\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+8\n+and a last-minute application (or stipulation) that is denied will not serve to relieve a\n+party of an underlying obligation (e.g., a soon-to-expire deadline).\n+F. HEARINGS\n+All criminal matters are heard on Wednesdays beginning at 8:30 a.m.\n+1. Sentencing Hearings\n+A sentencing hearing will be scheduled at the conclusion of the plea hearing. It\n+will be scheduled for no less than 14 weeks after the plea hearing to permit the\n+preparation of the presentence report. Both parties will be permitted to file a\n+sentencing brief, which is due no later than 14 days before the sentencing hearing. If\n+either party does not intend to file a brief, the Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall be\n+notified no less than 14 prior to the sentencing hearing.\n+Any request for a continuance shall be made no later than seven days prior to\n+the date of the hearing.\n+2. Change of Plea/Entry of Guilty Plea Hearings\n+If the parties believe an immediate change of plea hearing is warranted, they\n+shall advise the Courtroom Deputy Clerk. Counsel shall contact the Courtroom\n+Deputy Clerk to set a date for the hearing. If the parties agree to proceed with an open\n+plea, counsel shall confer and file a stipulation as to the factual basis no later than\n+seven days prior to the hearing. A superseding information or indictment shall not be\n+attached to the end of the plea agreement. It shall be filed pursuant to the Local Rules\n+and have its own docket entry. Counsel will be referred to PIA to be arraigned on the\n+new charges.\n+G. TRIAL REQUIREMENTS\n+No later than 14 days before the Final Pretrial Conference, unless otherwise\n+indicated, counsel shall file the following:\n+1. Trial Memorandum\n+The Government shall file a trial memorandum that shall set forth (1) a factual\n+summary of the Government’s case-in-chief; (2) a statement of the charges and the\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+9\n+elements of each charge; (3) a time estimate of the length of the Government’s case-\n+in-chief, including anticipated cross-examination; and (4) a discussion of relevant\n+legal and evidentiary issues as applied to the facts of the particular case. The\n+Government shall specify, after a meet and confer, whether the parties agree or\n+disagree on matters (1) through (4).\n+2. Statement of the Case\n+Counsel shall meet and confer 21 calendar days prior to the Final Pretrial\n+Conference and seek to reach agreement on a Joint Statement of the Case that will be\n+read to the panel of prospective jurors. Counsel shall file the joint statement of the\n+case no later than 14 calendar days prior to the Final Pretrial Conference. If the\n+parties cannot agree on such a joint statement, they shall file a “Disputed Joint\n+Statement of the Case,” which shall include each party’s respective proposed\n+statement, together with a “redline” comparing the parties’ respective statements. The\n+parties shall deliver a courtesy copy pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5-4.5. A final\n+version of the joint statement shall be provided to the Court on the first day of trial.\n+3. Voir Dire\n+Counsel may submit proposed voir dire questions that are unique to the\n+particular trial. Each party may file their respective questions 14 calendar days prior\n+to the Final Pretrial Conference.\n+4. Witness List\n+The Government shall file a witness list no later than 14 calendar days prior to\n+the Final Pretrial Conference. The list shall include the witnesses in the order that\n+they are expected to testify and, to the extent possible, an accurate estimate of the time\n+needed for each witness for direct testimony. It shall also include a brief summary of\n+each witness’s testimony. If more than one witness is offered on the same subject, the\n+summary should be sufficiently detailed to allow the Court to determine if the\n+testimony is cumulative.\n+Not later than 12:00 pm on the Friday before the commencement of trial, the\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+10\n+Government and the Defendant shall each email their respective witness lists in Word\n+to AH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. If the Defendant does not intend to call any\n+witnesses, the email shall so state.\n+5. Jury Instructions\n+Jury instructions shall be filed no later than 14 calendar days prior to the Final\n+Pretrial Conference. The parties shall make every attempt to agree upon jury\n+instructions before submitting proposals to the Court. The Court prefers Ninth Circuit\n+model instructions. Counsel shall exchange proposed jury instructions (general and\n+special) 28 calendar days prior to the Final Pretrial Conference. Counsel shall\n+exchange any objections to the instructions 21 calendar days prior to the Final Pretrial\n+Conference. Counsel shall meet and confer with the goal of reaching an agreement on\n+one set of joint jury instructions, which shall be filed no later than 14 calendar days\n+before the Final Pretrial Conference. If the parties disagree over any proposed jury\n+instruction(s), the parties shall file: (i) one set of proposed jury instructions to which\n+all parties agree and (ii) one set of disputed jury instructions, which shall include a\n+“redline” of any disputed language and the factual or legal basis for each party’s\n+respective position as to each disputed instruction. Where appropriate, the disputed\n+instructions shall be organized by subject, so that the instructions that address the\n+same or similar issues are presented sequentially. The parties shall deliver a courtesy\n+copy of these documents pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5-4.5. A final “clean” version\n+of the jury instructions, which shall include the text of each instruction (eliminating\n+titles, supporting authority, indication of party proposing, etc.), shall be provided to\n+the Court on the first day of trial and sent via email in Word to\n+AH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+6. Verdict Forms\n+The parties shall make every attempt to agree upon a verdict form before\n+submitting proposals to the Court. Counsel shall file the proposed verdict form(s) no\n+later than 14 calendar days prior to the Final Pretrial Conference. If the parties are\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+11\n+unable to agree on a verdict form, the parties shall file one document titled\n+“Competing Verdict Forms” which shall include: (i) the parties’ respective proposed\n+verdict form; (ii) a “redline” of any disputed language; and (iii) the factual or legal\n+basis for each party’s respective position if the entire form is being disputed. The\n+parties shall deliver a courtesy copy of these documents pursuant to Local Civil Rule\n+5-4.5. A final version of the verdict form shall be provided to the Court on the first\n+day of trial and sent via email in Word to AH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+7. Exhibits\n+a. Exhibit List\n+Counsel shall each prepare an exhibit list in compliance with Local Civil Rule\n+16-6. Counsel shall meet and confer at least 21 calendar days before the Final Pretrial\n+Conference to discuss and seek to agree, to the extent possible, on issues including\n+foundation and admissibility of proposed exhibits by the Government. The exhibit list\n+shall comply with Local Civil Rule 16-6.1. The Government shall file its exhibit list\n+14 calendar days prior to the Final Pretrial Conference. Counsel shall file a “Notice of\n+Disputed Exhibits,” if applicable, which shall set forth the basis for any disputed\n+exhibit(s). Counsel shall confer so that there are no duplicate exhibits.\n+Not later than 12:00 pm on the Friday before the commencement of trial, the\n+Government and the Defendant shall each email their respective exhibit lists in Word\n+to AH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. If the Defendant does not intend to offer any\n+exhibits, then the email shall so state.\n+b. Exhibit Preparation\n+One original (witness copy) and two copies (bench and courtroom deputy\n+copies) shall be presented to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk on the first day of trial.\n+The exhibits shall be presented in a binder. Each binder shall be clearly labeled on the\n+spine to include the case name, party, and volume number. Each party shall use a\n+different number sequence and shall comply with Local Civil Rule 26-3.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+12\n+c. Voluminous/Security Prone Trial Exhibits/Materials\n+Arrangements for bringing voluminous trial materials or exhibits into the\n+Courtroom through the Building Vehicle Loading Dock, if required, may be made\n+through the Space & Facilities Help Desk at (213) 894-1400. Before contacting Space\n+& Facilities for a required security pass, prior approval of delivery time must be\n+coordinated with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk. Once approval from the Clerk is\n+received, logistical delivery information must be provided to Space & Facilities no\n+later than 48 hours prior to the date of arrival to create and issue the required security\n+pass. Counsel and messengers attempting to access the building parking and loading\n+dock without a required pass will be denied entry. Exhibits such as firearms,\n+narcotics, etc., must remain in the custody of a law enforcement agent during the\n+pendency of the trial. It shall be the responsibility of the agent to produce any such\n+items for the Court, secure them at all times that the Court is not in session, and guard\n+them at all times while in the courtroom. The United States Marshals Service shall be\n+advised whenever weapons or contraband are to be brought into the courthouse.\n+d. Video Exhibits\n+Counsel shall seek admission only of the portions of video exhibits played\n+before the jury. The Court will not admit extraneous portions of videos and will\n+strictly control the admission of any wasteful or cumulative video exhibits under Rule\n+403.\n+e. Glossary/Notice\n+At least one week before trial, the parties must confer and file a glossary of\n+terms for the court reporter that includes applicable medical, scientific, or technical\n+terms, gang terms, slang, the names and spellings of names likely to be cited, and any\n+other case-specific terminology.\n+H. ATTORNEY AND PARTY CONDUCT AT TRIAL\n+1. Trial Schedule\n+The Court will adopt a particular time schedule on a case-by-case basis. In\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+13\n+general, the schedule will be either: (i) from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. with two or three\n+20-minute breaks or (ii) from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with a 15-minute break in both\n+the morning and the afternoon, and a one-hour lunch break. This schedule may be\n+changed for each trial and during each trial depending on the scheduling needs of\n+jurors, witnesses, counsel, or the Court. Defense counsel is responsible for making\n+the necessary arrangements with the United States Marshals Service so that any\n+defendant who is in custody is provided clothing and/or snacks.\n+a. Courtesy Copies\n+At the time of trial, counsel shall provide to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk three\n+(3) copies of: (i) the witness list in the order in which the witnesses will be called to\n+testify; (ii) the witness list in alphabetical order; (iii) a final set of jury instructions;\n+(iv) a final version of the verdict form; (v) the exhibit list and exhibits; (vi) proposed\n+voir dire questions; and (vii) a statement of the case. To the extent changes are made\n+to the jury instructions, verdict form, or exhibit list, a Word version shall be emailed\n+immediately to AH_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+2. Trial Conduct\n+a. Opening Statements, Examining Witnesses and Summation\n+At the end of each day, counsel presenting his or her case shall advise opposing\n+counsel of the witnesses expected to testify the following day, with an estimate of the\n+length of direct examination for each witness. Opposing counsel shall provide an\n+estimate of the length of cross-examination for each witness. Cooperation of counsel\n+will ensure an efficient trial process. It is the responsibility of all counsel to arrange\n+the appearance of witnesses in order to avoid delay.\n+Opening statements, examination of witnesses, and summation will be from the\n+lectern only. Counsel should not spend an unreasonable amount of time writing out\n+words or drawing charts or diagrams. Counsel may do so in advance and explain that\n+the item was prepared earlier to save time as ordered by the Court. The Court will\n+honor reasonable time estimates for opening and closing presentations to the jury. In\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+14\n+jury trials, where a party has more than one lawyer, only one may conduct the direct\n+or cross-examination of a given witness.\n+b. Punctuality\n+The Court expects the parties, counsel, and witnesses to be punctual. Once the\n+parties and their counsel are engaged in trial, the trial must be their priority. The\n+Court will not delay progress of the trial or inconvenience jurors. If a witness was on\n+the stand at the time of a recess or adjournment, the party that called the witness shall\n+ensure the witness is back on the stand and ready to proceed as soon as trial resumes.\n+The parties must notify the Courtroom Deputy Clerk in advance if any party,\n+counsel, or witness requires a reasonable accommodation based on a disability or\n+other reason. No presenting party may be without witnesses. If a party’s remaining\n+witnesses are not immediately available, thereby causing an unreasonable delay, the\n+Court may deem that party to have rested. The Court generally will accommodate\n+witnesses by permitting them to be called out of sequence. Counsel should meet and\n+confer in advance and make every effort to resolve the matter.\n+c. Objections and General Decorum\n+When objecting, counsel must stand to state the objection and state only that\n+counsel objects and the legal ground for objection. If counsel wishes to argue an\n+objection further, counsel must ask for permission to do so; the Court may or may not\n+grant a request for conference at sidebar. The Court strongly discourages the\n+excessive use of sidebars because this is inefficient. Instead, evidentiary issues should\n+be anticipated in advance of trial and should be addressed through motions in limine\n+and/or in connection with the rulings on exhibits.\n+Counsel must not approach the Courtroom Deputy Clerk or the witness stand\n+without permission. When permission is given, counsel shall return to the lectern\n+when the task has been completed. Counsel must not engage in questioning a witness\n+at the witness stand absent specific approval by the Court.\n+Counsel must address all remarks to the Court. Counsel are not to address the\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+15\n+Courtroom Deputy Clerk, the Reporter, persons in the audience, or opposing counsel.\n+If counsel wishes to speak with opposing counsel, counsel must ask permission to talk\n+off the record. Any request for the re-reading of questions or answers shall be\n+addressed to the Court, not to the court reporter. Counsel must not make an offer of\n+stipulation unless counsel already has conferred with opposing counsel and has reason\n+to believe the stipulation will be acceptable. On the first day of trial, counsel shall\n+advise the Court of any commitments that may result in counsel’s absence or late\n+arrival on any day of the trial.\n+Dated: September 25, 2026 _______________________________________\n+HON. ANNE HWANG\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE","id":"e93dc4fe760c947a34dfd87bf06299197a08c761e450ad9e146c574a1be9c499","newHash":"ff58ab5b3ee8c12f465ddfc8faf4103fa4038dc94b42c6cd0b1d84b607751316","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/24dcfadd-c113-44e7-98d8-08df1b5f5540","snapshot":"snapshots/ff58ab5b3ee8c12f465ddfc8faf4103fa4038dc94b42c6cd0b1d84b607751316.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/31cc96b2-e7e3-49d2-b095-08def1b8c688","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:32:46.718221+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,994 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+,\n+Plaintiff(s),\n+v.\n+,\n+Defendant(s).\n+Case No.\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL\n+CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE\n+ANNE HWANG\n+READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THIS CASE AND\n+DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES.\n+This action has been assigned to Judge Anne Hwang. Both the Court and all\n+counsel bear responsibility for the progress of this action. “Counsel,” as used in this\n+Order, includes attorneys and parties who have elected to appear without an attorney\n+and are representing themselves in this civil litigation (hereinafter referred to as “pro\n+se litigants”). To “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this\n+action, as called for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, all parties or their counsel are ordered to\n+comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of\n+the Central District of California.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+2\n+Counsel for the plaintiff shall immedi ately serve this Order on all parties,\n+including any new parties to the action. If this case was removed from state court, the\n+defendant that removed the case shall serve this Order on all other parties.\n+UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE FOLLOWING\n+RULES SHALL APPLY:\n+A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Civility. All counsel must immediately review and comply with the\n+Court’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at\n+https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-professionalism-\n+guidelines.\n+2. Pro Se Litigants. Parties appearing as pro se litigants are required to\n+comply with all Local Rules, including Local Rule 16 (“Pretrial Conferences;\n+Scheduling; Management”). Only individuals may represent themselves. A\n+corporation or other entity must be represented by counsel, and if counsel seeks to\n+withdraw, counsel must advise the entity of the dire consequences of failing to obtain\n+substitute counsel before seeking withdrawal—i.e., a plaintiff entity’s case will be\n+dismissed, or a defendant entity will default. See Local Rule 83-2.3.4.\n+3. Presence of Counsel if a Party Has More Than One Attorney. Only\n+one attorney for a party may be designated as lead counsel (and the designation must\n+appear on the docket if a party has more than one attorney). Counsel who is most\n+knowledgeable may address and resolve all matters within the scope of the\n+proceeding. The Court does not require lead counsel to attend all proceedings if other\n+counsel have more knowledge about and are more prepared to address the matters\n+within the scope of the proceeding, so long as counsel has sufficient authority to\n+resolve all matters within the scope of the proceeding. To provide more experience to\n+the next generation of practitioners, the Court encourages lead counsel to permit\n+junior counsel to fully participate in all proceedings, including to argue motions and to\n+examine witnesses at trial.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+3\n+4. Communications with Chambers. Neither counsel nor a party shall\n+initiate contact with the Court or its Chambers’ staff by telephone, or by any other\n+improper ex parte means. Counsel may contact the CRD with appropriate inquiries.\n+Contacting the CRD to inquire about the status of a pending matter or to continue a\n+proceeding is not appropriate. Nor should counsel contact the CRD to inquire about\n+court procedure when the answer is readily available by consulting the Local Rules\n+and the Court’s Standing Orders. The preferred method of communication with the\n+CRD is by email. Counsel must copy all parties on any such email. To facilitate\n+communication with the CRD, counsel should list their email addresses along with\n+their telephone numbers on all papers.\n+5. Duty to Notify of Settlement. Counsel must advise the Court\n+immediately if (1) the case or any pending matter has been resolved or (2) a motion is\n+pending, and the parties are engaged in serious negotiations that appear likely to\n+resolve the case or the pending motion. Failure to provide timely notice of settlement\n+may result in sanctions.\n+B. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Service of the Complaint. The plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the\n+complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant\n+to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). Any defendant(s), including “DOE” or fictitiously-named\n+defendant(s), not served within ninety (90) days after the case is filed shall be\n+dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and by operation of this Order without\n+further notice, unless the plaintiff requests and justifies the need for additional time\n+and the Court grants an extension.\n+2. Removed Actions. Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in\n+this Court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Any pending motions must be\n+re-noticed in accordance with the Local Rules. If an action removed to this Court\n+contains a form pleading (i.e., a pleading in which boxes are checked), the party or\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+4\n+parties utilizing the form pleading must file within thirty (30) days of the filing of the\n+Notice of Removal a revised pleading that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 7.1, 8, 9,\n+10, and 11. An amended complaint filed within thirty (30) days after removal to\n+replace a form complaint pursuant to this instruction shall be deemed an amended\n+complaint with “the court’s leave” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).\n+3. Status of Fictitiously Named Defendants. The plaintiff should identify\n+and serve fictitiously named defendant(s) before the deadline set forth in the Court’s\n+Order Setting Scheduling Conference. Before moving to substitute a defendant for a\n+Doe defendant, the plaintiff must seek the consent of counsel for all defendants,\n+including counsel for a represented Doe defendant. If denied consent, the plaintiff\n+must file a regularly noticed motion. In diversity cases, the plaintiff’s motion must\n+address whether the addition of the newly named party destroys diversity jurisdiction.\n+See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), (e).\n+C. ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE\n+Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the Court will issue an Order Setting\n+Scheduling Conference. The parties are required to strictly comply with Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 16 and 26, as well as this Court’s Orders.\n+D. DISCOVERY\n+1. Magistrate Judge Referr al for All Discovery Matters. All discovery\n+matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. All documents relating to\n+discovery matters must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the caption to\n+ensure proper routing. Counsel must follow the Magistrate Judge’s procedures for\n+scheduling matters for a hearing.\n+2. Limited District Court Review of Discovery Matters. The decision of\n+the Magistrate Judge shall be final, subject to limited review requiring a showing that\n+the decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).\n+Any motion for review of a Magistrate Judge’s decision must be noticed within\n+fourteen (14) days of service of a written ruling or within fourteen (14) days of an oral\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+5\n+ruling that the Magistrate Judge states will not be followed by a written ruling. The\n+motion must specify which portions of the text are clearly erroneous or contrary to\n+law, and the claim must be supported by points and authorities. Counsel shall provide\n+the Magistrate Judge with Chambers Copies of the moving papers and responses\n+consistent with that Magistrate Judge’s procedures.\n+3. Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). The parties must comply fully\n+with the letter and spirit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and engage in discovery promptly.\n+The Court allows discovery to commence as soon as the first answer or motion to\n+dismiss is filed. Discovery shall not be stayed while any motion is pending,\n+including any motion to dismiss, motion for protective order, or motion to stay. At\n+the Scheduling Conference, the Court will impose firm deadlines governing the\n+completion of discovery. The parties are directed to conduct any necessary\n+discovery as soon as possible, as the Court is not inclined to grant any extensions\n+of the discovery or other case-related deadlines absent sufficient good cause.\n+E. FILING REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Electronic Filing. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3), Local Rule 5-4,\n+and General Order 10-07, counsel shall electronically file (“e-file”) all filings. Items\n+that do not require the Court’s signature shall be e-filed in PDF format. Pro se\n+litigants may submit documents for filing through the Court’s Electronic Document\n+Submission System (“EDSS”) instead of mailing or bringing documents to the Clerk’s\n+Office. Only internet access and an email address are required. Documents are\n+submitted in PDF format through an online portal on the Court’s website. To access\n+EDSS and for additional information, visit the Court’s website at\n+https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/edss.\n+2. Documents with Declarations, Exhibits, and Other Attachments. If a\n+filed or lodged document has declarations, exhibits, or other attachments, each\n+attachment must be filed as a separately docketed attachment to the main docket entry\n+with a description of the attachment (e.g., Dkt. 29-1 Smith Declaration, Dkt. 29-2 Ex.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+6\n+1 - License Agreement, Dkt. 29-3 Request for Judicial Notice). The Court may strike\n+or decline to consider motions, stipulations, or other documents with attachments that\n+are not filed in accordance with this Order.\n+3. Proposed Orders.\n+(a) Proposed Orders Must be Lodged and Served. Each party\n+filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall serve and\n+lodge a proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of\n+the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. Any request for action by the\n+Court shall be made by appropriate motion or stipulation and shall be accompanied by\n+a proposed order.\n+(b) Email Proposed Orders to Chambers. The Court enforces strict\n+compliance with Local Rule 5-4.4.2, which instructs: “After a document requiring a\n+judge’s signature has been lodged under L.R. 5-4.4.1, a . . . Microsoft Word copy of\n+the proposed document, along with a PDF copy of the electronically filed main\n+document, must be emailed to the assigned judge’s generic chambers email address,”\n+AH_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. The Court will not consider a stipulation, ex parte\n+application, or other request for relief until a compliant proposed order is received by\n+email. If the proposed order is based on a stipulation or an ex parte application,\n+counsel must email both the order and the stipulation or ex parte application.\n+Otherwise, accompanying documents (such as motions) should not be emailed to\n+Chambers.\n+4. Chambers Copies. Chambers Copies (paper copies that are sent to\n+Chambers upon electronic filing of the document) are required for the following\n+documents only: (1) motion papers (motions, oppositions, replies, and related\n+documents, including motions in limine); (2) ex parte applications and temporary\n+restraining orders; and (3) pretrial documents (memoranda of fact and law, witness\n+and exhibit lists, pretrial conference statement, jury instructions, verdict forms, etc.).\n+Chambers Copies must comply with the rules below.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+7\n+(a) Timeliness and Location. Deliver Chambers Copies promptly to\n+Judge Hwang’s mailbox outside the Clerk’s Office on the fourth floor of the Felicitas\n+and Gonzalo Mendez United States Courthouse. Applicable documents will not be\n+considered until Chambers Copies are submitted. Delay in submitting such copies\n+will delay consideration of the submission.\n+(b) Format. Chambers Copies, which do not need to be submitted\n+with blue backing, should be copies of the filed document—i.e., they should have the\n+docket information on the top of each page. Filings that include highlighting, color\n+photographs, “redlining,” or the like should be printed in color.\n+5. Artificial Intelligence. Any party who uses generative artificial\n+intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, or Claude) to generate any\n+portion of a brief, pleading, or other filing must review the source material and verify\n+that the artificially generated content is accurate and complies with the filer’s Rule 11\n+obligations.\n+F. MOTIONS - GENE RAL REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions. Motions shall be filed in\n+accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. This Court hears civil motions on Wednesdays,\n+beginning at 1:30 p.m. It is not necessary to clear a hearing date with the Courtroom\n+Deputy Clerk prior to the filing of a motion, but the Court may continue a hearing if a\n+particular hearing date is full. The parties shall not set a motion for hearing on a\n+closed hearing date listed on the Court’s website.\n+2. “Meet and Confer” Requirement. Local Rule 7-3 requires counsel to\n+conduct a prefiling conference “to discuss thoroughly . . . the substance of the\n+contemplated motion and any potential resolution.”\n+(a) Scope. This requirement applies in all cases, including those with\n+pro se litigants, and extends to all issues. If the parties are unable to fully resolve the\n+dispute, they shall attempt to narrow the scope of the contested issues. Parties must\n+meet and confer in person or by videoconference or telephone; email correspondence\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+8\n+is insufficient. A motion not supported by the certification below may be stricken or\n+summarily denied.\n+(b) Certification. The moving party shall include a signed\n+certification attached to the end of the filed motion as follows: “I certify that the\n+parties met in person or by videoconference or telephone, thoroughly discussed each\n+and every issue raised in the motion, and attempted in good faith to resolve the motion\n+in whole or in part.”\n+(c) Sanctions. Failure by any party to comply in good faith with the\n+“meet and confer” requirement may result in sanctions—including, as appropriate,\n+striking or denying the motion, deeming the motion unopposed, and/or awarding\n+monetary sanctions.\n+3. Length and Format of Motion Papers. Memoranda of points and\n+authorities in support of or in opposition to motions shall not exceed twenty-five (25)\n+pages. Replies shall not exceed twelve (12) pages. Only in rare instances and for\n+good cause shown will the Court grant an application to extend these page limitations.\n+The Court may disregard portions of a filing that fall outside of the permitted page\n+limits. Typeface and spacing shall comply with Local Rule 11-3.1.1, except that the\n+parties are required to use only 14-point Times New Roman font. Footnotes shall be\n+in the same font and the same size as the body of the memorandum. Counsel shall\n+adhere to Local Rule 5-4.3 with respect to the conversion of all documents to PDF\n+format so that when a document is electronically filed, it is in proper size and is text\n+searchable. Further, all documents shall be filed in a format so that text can be\n+selected, copied, and pasted directly from the document. See Local Rule 5-4.3.1.\n+(a) Documents with Declarations, Exhibits, and Other\n+Attachments. If a filed or lodged document has declarations, exhibits, or other\n+attachments, each of these must be filed as a separately docketed attachment to the\n+main docket entry with a description of the attachment (e.g., Dkt. 29-1 Smith\n+Declaration).\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+9\n+(b) Citations to Case Law. Citations to case law must identify not\n+only the case cited, but the specific page referenced. Citations to cases must be in\n+Bluebook format. Parties should not use string cites without good reason. When\n+using string cites, a party should include a parenthetical explanation for each cited\n+case.\n+(c) Citations to Other Sources. Statutory references should identify\n+with specificity the sections and subsections referenced. Citations to treatises,\n+manuals, and other materials should include the volume, section, and pages being\n+referenced.\n+4. Oral Argument.\n+(a) Time Limits. If oral argument is permitted, the parties will have\n+ten (10) minutes each for oral argument, unless the Court states otherwise. If the\n+Court believes that the matter warrants less or more time, it will advise counsel at the\n+hearing.\n+(b) Submission Without Oral Argument. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the Court may deem a matter appropriate for decision\n+without oral argument.\n+(c) Remote Appearances. Remote appearances are disfavored absent\n+good cause shown.\n+(d) Telephonic Hearings. The Court seldom permits telephonic\n+appearances. The Court strongly prefers counsel to appear in person. If exceptional\n+circumstances exist, counsel may file an application to appear telephonically detailing\n+such circumstance.\n+G. SPECIFIC MOTION REQUIREMENTS\n+1. Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Many\n+motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good faith as\n+required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or\n+counterclaim that can be corrected by amendment. See Polich v. Burlington N., Inc.,\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+10\n+942 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that where a motion to dismiss is granted,\n+a district court should grant leave to amend unless it is clear the complaint cannot be\n+saved by amendment). Moreover, a party has the right to amend the complaint “once\n+as a matter of course no later than: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading\n+is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive\n+pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever\n+is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Even after a complaint has been amended or a\n+responsive pleading has been served, leave to amend shall be “freely give[n] . . . when\n+justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit requires that\n+this policy favoring amendment be applied with “extreme liberality.” Morongo Band\n+of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). Consequently,\n+parties should carefully consider and weigh an opponent’s contentions as to the\n+deficiencies in a pleading to determine if an amendment would cure the defects. The\n+moving party, in turn, should agree to any amendment that would cure the defect.\n+2. Amended Pleadings. In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 15-\n+1, all motions to amend pleadings shall: (1) state the effect of the amendment; (2) be\n+serially numbered to differentiate the amendment from previous amendments; and\n+(3) state the page and line number(s) and wording of any proposed change or addition\n+of material. Counsel shall electronically file a “Notice of Lodging” attaching the\n+proposed amended pleading as a document separate from the motion, as well as a\n+“redlined” version of the proposed amended pleading identifying all additions and\n+deletions of material as an appendix to the moving papers. These requirements also\n+apply to amended pleadings filed as a matter of course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), or\n+filed after the Court has granted a motion to dismiss with leave to amend.\n+3. Motions and Stipulations to Continue. Continuances are granted only\n+on a showing of good cause. Requests for continuances must be made before the date\n+to be continued and by motion or stipulation, along with a proposed order. Motions\n+and stipulations must be accompanied by a detailed declaration setting forth the\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+11\n+specific reasons for the requested continuance and the precise deadline(s) the parties\n+propose. A stipulation that fails to list the precise date(s) the parties wish to move,\n+and the new date(s) they propose, will be denied for failure to comply with this\n+Standing Order. For example, if the stipulation improperly proposes that all deadlines\n+be moved by “60 days” without specifying the proposed new dates that would result\n+from that requested continuance, the Court will deny the request. The declaration also\n+should state whether there have been any previous requests for continuances; whether\n+these requests were granted or denied by the Court; what efforts were made to meet\n+the existing deadline; and what, if any, prejudice would result if the request is denied.\n+Stipulations extending dates set by this Court are not effective unless approved by the\n+Court. Continuances will not be granted routinely.\n+4. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine shall be noticed for hearing on the\n+Final Pretrial Conference Date.\n+5. Daubert Motions. Daubert motions shall be set for a hearing not later\n+than eight (8) weeks before the Final Pretrial Conference Date.\n+6. Motions for Class Certification. If this action is a putative class action,\n+the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion\n+for class certification can be filed expeditiously. The Court’s Civil Pretrial Schedule\n+and Trial Order sets forth the deadline to hear a motion for class certification.\n+7. Motions for Default Judgment. Unless the Court orders otherwise,\n+motions for default judgment shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the later of\n+(1) entry of default against the last remaining defendant or (2) resolution of all claims\n+against all defendants who have not defaulted. The motion must include a showing of\n+both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th\n+Cir. 1999). A plaintiff who moves for default judgment and wishes to seek attorney’s\n+fees and costs must include in the motion a properly supported request for attorney’s\n+fees and costs together with the motion for default judgment. Failure to do so will\n+result in the striking of any subsequent motion for attorney’s fees and costs absent a\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+12\n+showing of good cause. The Court may vacate the hearing on a motion for default\n+judgment if no opposition is timely filed, and the notice of motion should so state.\n+Unless the Court orders otherwise, the movant must appear at the motion hearing\n+prepared to argue the motion and respond to any tentative opinion even in the absence\n+of an opposition.\n+8. Motions for Attorney’s Fees. A motion for attorney’s fees must be\n+supported by documentation of the billed hours for which the movant seeks to recover\n+fees. For any motion requesting more than $50,000 in fees, the movant shall\n+additionally provide by email to the CRD an Excel spreadsheet documenting the hours\n+for which the movant seeks recovery, using the format in the following example:\n+Date Name Position Task Hours Rate Amount\n+3/1/24 John Doe Associate Drafted summary\n+judgment\n+motion\n+0.5 $500 $250\n+3/2/24 Bob Smith Partner Spoke with client about\n+ongoing\n+discovery\n+obligations\n+1 $1,000 $1,000\n+3/5/24 James Doe Paralegal Assembled case files 0.5 $100 $50\n+9. Summary Judgment Motions. When filing or opposing a motion for\n+summary judgment, a party must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Local Rule 56, and\n+the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. Because summary judgment motions are\n+fact-dependent, parties should prepare papers in a fashion that clearly identifies the\n+facts material to the motion for summary judgment (e.g., generous use of tabs, tables\n+of contents, headings, indices, etc.).\n+(a) Multiple Motions are Highly Disfavored. No party may file\n+more than one motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 without leave of court, regardless of\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+13\n+whether such motion is denominated a motion for summary judgment or summary\n+adjudication. In the rare case in which leave of court is sought, the party seeking\n+leave shall file a noticed motion setting forth the existence of good cause for the filing\n+of multiple motions. If multiple motions for summary adjudication are filed by the\n+same party without leave of court, the first filed motion will be considered and the\n+subsequent motion(s) will be stricken.\n+(b) Cross-Motions on the Same Legal Issues are Disfavored. The\n+Court disfavors cross-motions that seek to adjudicate the same legal issues. If a non-\n+moving party has a good faith belief that the undisputed material facts relied on by the\n+moving party actually demonstrate that the opposing party is entitled to summary\n+judgment on the same legal issue, the non-moving party should set forth its argument\n+in its response to the moving party’s argument and request summary judgment.\n+Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), if appropriate based on undisputed facts and\n+controlling principles of law, the Court may grant summary judgment for the non-\n+moving party or sua sponte enter summary judgment in favor of the non-moving\n+party. If each party is seeking to move for summary judgment on different claims or\n+defenses, each party should meet and confer and follow the same procedures set forth\n+in this Order. If multiple parties are moving for summary judgment, the parties\n+should designate only one party as “the moving party” for purposes of the briefing\n+schedule. The Court expects the parties to work together professionally and agree on\n+which party should be designated the moving party. If the parties are unable to agree,\n+the defendant(s) shall be deemed the moving party.\n+(c) Appropriate Timing. Parties need not wait until the motion\n+cutoff to bring motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. As a\n+courtesy to both the Court and the opposing party, a moving party should not wait\n+until the last possible day to initiate the filing of a summary judgment motion. On the\n+other hand, premature summary judgment motions—e.g., motions claiming that the\n+opposing party has insufficient evidence when discovery does not close for another six\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+14\n+months—only waste time and money for the parties and the Court.\n+(d) Briefing Schedule. This Court requires an extended briefing\n+schedule for motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Any motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56\n+must be filed at least five (5) weeks before the noticed hearing date. An opposition\n+must be filed at least three (3) weeks before the hearing date. A reply must be filed at\n+least two (2) weeks before the hearing date. This briefing schedule is the default\n+minimum. The parties may stipulate to an extended schedule. Any briefing schedule\n+must provide at least two (2) weeks between the reply deadline and the hearing date.\n+(e) Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, Statement of Genuine\n+Disputes, and Response to Statement of Genuine Disputes.\n+The Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts required under Local Rule 56-\n+1 shall be prepared in a two-column format and the parties are to strictly comply with\n+Local Rules 56-1 through 56-3. Noncompliant filings may be stricken. The factual\n+statements should be set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph\n+should contain a narrowly focused statement of fact. Each numbered paragraph\n+should address a single subject as concisely as possible.\n+The opposing party’s Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact must be\n+in two columns and track the movant’s separate statement exactly as prepared. The\n+left-hand column must restate the allegedly undisputed fact, and the right hand column\n+must state either that it is undisputed or disputed. The opposing party may dispute all\n+or only a portion of the statement, but if disputing only a portion, it must clearly\n+indicate what part is being disputed, followed by a brief citation to the opposing\n+party’s evidence controverting the fact. To demonstrate that a fact is disputed, the\n+opposing party must briefly state why it disputes the moving party’s asserted fact, cite\n+to the relevant exhibit or other piece of evidence, and describe what it is in that exhibit\n+or evidence that refutes the asserted fact. No legal argument should be set forth in this\n+document.\n+The opposing party may submit additional material facts that bear on or relate\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+15\n+to the issues raised by the movant, which shall follow the format described above for\n+the moving party’s separate statement. These additional facts shall continue in\n+sequentially numbered paragraphs to follow the last numbered fact presented by the\n+moving party.\n+With its Reply, the moving party shall file a Response to the Statement of\n+Genuine Disputes of Material Fact and Additional Material Facts. For each fact, the\n+Response shall restate the allegedly undisputed fact and state whether the fact is\n+disputed or undisputed by the opposing party. If the fact is undisputed, no further\n+response is required. If the fact is disputed, the Response shall restate the opposing\n+party’s evidence and reason for disputing the asserted fact. The moving party may\n+provide a response to the opposing party’s reason for dispute, including any reason\n+why the evidence cited by the opposing party does not create a genuine dispute and/or\n+any additional evidence relevant to the asserted fact. This response may either be\n+presented in three columns, with the response appearing in the right-hand column, or\n+in two columns, with a response provided below each fact.\n+All facts asserted by either party, whether disputed or undisputed, and all\n+supporting evidence cited, shall be included in the Response. DO NOT REPEAT\n+DESCRIPTIONS OF AND CITATIONS TO THE EVIDENCE. If you have already\n+described and cited the evidence once, simply refer to the earlier citation succinctly\n+(e.g., See supra, Fact # 1).\n+(f) Supporting Evidence. No party shall submit evidence other than\n+the specific evidence necessary to support or controvert a proposed statement of\n+undisputed fact. Do not, for example, submit the entire deposition transcripts or an\n+entire set of interrogatory responses when relying on only a portion of such\n+documents. Counsel must use brackets or highlighting to mark the relevant portions\n+of transcripts or documentary evidence, and the Court may disregard unmarked\n+documents. Declarations shall set out admissible facts without any argument, and\n+evidence must be submitted either by stipulation or as exhibits to declarations\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+16\n+sufficient to authenticate the proffered evidence. Documentary evidence for which\n+there is no stipulation regarding authenticity must be accompanied by testimony,\n+either by declaration or deposition transcript, of a witness who can establish\n+authenticity. Physical evidence (e.g., video recordings) shall be lodged separately.\n+The parties shall ensure th at electronically filed copies of evidence in support\n+of, or in opposition to, a motion for summary judgment are in the proper format.\n+Thus, all documents must be text-searchable and have selectable text that may be\n+copied and pasted directly from the filed document.\n+(g) Objections to Evidence. Evidentiary objections, if any, should be\n+stated and argued in a separate document. Blanket or boilerplate objections will be\n+disregarded.\n+10. Ex Parte Applications (Including Temporary Restraining Orders and\n+Applications for Injunctive Relief). The Court considers ex parte applications on\n+the papers and does not usually set these matters for a hearing. If a hearing is\n+necessary, the parties will be notified. Ex parte applications are solely for\n+extraordinary relief and should be used with discretion. See Mission Power Eng’g Co.\n+v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Any party seeking ex\n+parte relief, including temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions under\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, must comply with Local Rule 7-19 (and Local Rule 65 for\n+temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions). The moving party must\n+also serve the opposing party by email, fax, or personal service, and notify that party\n+that opposing papers must be filed not later than forty-eight (48) hours following\n+service or by 3:00 p.m. on the first court day after the service, whichever is later. The\n+moving party must indicate whether an opposition is anticipated and the nature of the\n+dispute. The opposing party should separately advise the CRD as soon as possible\n+whether it intends to oppose the ex parte application. The application will not be\n+considered until a Mandatory Chambers Copy has been provided. Reply briefs in\n+support of ex parte applications are not permitted. The parties must provide\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+17\n+Chambers Copies of TRO-related documents on the same day they are filed. The\n+Court generally will not rule on any application for such relief for at least forty-eight\n+(48) hours (or two (2) court days) after the party subject to the requested order has\n+been served unless service is excused or unless the interests of justice so require. The\n+parties should not assume that an unopposed ex parte application will be granted, and\n+a last-minute application (or stipulation) that is denied will not serve to relieve a party\n+of an underlying obligation (e.g., a soon-to-expire deadline).\n+11. Prison Litigation Reform Ac t (“PLRA”) Exhaustion Motions. The\n+issue of exhaustion under the PLRA should be raised at the beginning of the litigation\n+if feasible. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014). A party seeking to\n+obtain a judicial determination of any material fact dispute precluding summary\n+judgment on the exhaustion issue must file before this Court a request for a hearing\n+within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the order denying summary judgment. The\n+failure to file a timely request may be construed as a waiver of the exhaustion issue.\n+12. Bankruptcy Appeals. Counsel must comply with the Notice Regarding\n+Appeal from Bankruptcy Court issued at the time the appeal is filed in the District\n+Court. The matter is deemed under submission on the filing of the appellant’s reply\n+brief. The Court considers bankruptcy appeals on the papers and usually does not set\n+these matters for hearing.\n+H. SANCTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY\n+If, without satisfactory explanation, counsel fail to file the required Joint Rule\n+26(f) report or the required pretrial documents, fail to appear at any scheduled\n+proceeding, or otherwise fail to comply with the Court’s orders or rules, the Court\n+shall take any action it deems appropriate, including: (i) dismissal of the case for\n+failure to prosecute, if the failure occurs on the part of the plaintiff; (ii) striking the\n+answer resulting in default if such failure occurs on the part of the defendant;\n+(iii) imposing monetary sanctions against the offending party and counsel, and/or\n+(iv) where applicable, revoking the pro hac vice status of attorneys so admitted.\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+18\n+Dated: October 21, 2026\n+_______________________________________\n+HON. ANNE HWANG\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE","id":"955e257aec0628dc08c2917ac737ae9ff0f21ccba69fecf3509265e55d67a2b0","newHash":"899c0fa951d15e9a164828002885ca40cb670ab660f33937996a343eda6cd245","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/b2228e14-89de-44ed-487c-08df2f987860","snapshot":"snapshots/899c0fa951d15e9a164828002885ca40cb670ab660f33937996a343eda6cd245.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/ade560c3-2e60-4139-b094-08def1b8c688","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:32:48.862484+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,1148 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+Petitioner(s),\n+v.\n+Respondent(s).\n+Case No.\n+INITIAL STANDING ORDER\n+FOR CIVIL CASES ASSIGNED\n+TO JUDGE MARK C. SCARSI\n+This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Mark C. Scarsi. Both the\n+Court and the parties bear responsibility for the progress of this litigation in federal\n+court. To \"secure the just, speedy, and ine xpensive determination\" of this case,\n+Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, all counsel and unrepresented litigants must become familiar with\n+the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Central District of\n+California, the Court’s standing orders, and Judge Scarsi’s webpage,\n+https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/Jps/honorable-mark-c-scarsi,\n+1\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+1. Service of the Complaint\n+The plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and file proof of service pursuant to Local Rule 4( l).\n+Rule 4(m) requires the summons and complaint to be served within 90 days. The\n+Court expects service to be completed as s oon as reasonably practicable. The Court\n+will require plaintiff to show good cause to extend the service deadline beyond 90\n+days.\n+2. Presence of Lead Counsel\n+Lead trial counsel shall attend any motion hearing and any scheduling, pretrial,\n+or settlement conference set by the Court. The Court does not permit special\n+appearances; only counsel of record may appear at any proceeding.\n+The Court expects counsel to appear in person at any hearing. The Court does\n+not permit remote appearances. A party whose lead counsel cannot appear at a\n+hearing for good cause may request leave to appear by non-lead counsel, an order\n+advancing the hearing, or an order continuing the hearing no longer than one week.\n+Such a request must be made by the Wednesday before the subject hearing and be\n+supported by a declaration demonstrating good cause.\n+3. Ex Parte Applications\n+Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and are rarely granted.\n+See Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co. , 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal.\n+1995). (“Lawyers must understand that filing an ex parte motion ...i st h ef o r e n s i c\n+equivalent of standing in a crowded theater and shouting, ‘Fire!’ There had better\n+be a fire.”). Such applications must be supported by “evidence... that the moving\n+party’s case will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard\n+according to regularly noticed motion procedures,” and a showing “that the\n+moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or\n+that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Id. at 492. Ex parte\n+applications that fail to conform to Local Rule 7-19, including a statement of\n+2\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+opposing counsel’s position, will not be considered except on a specific showing\n+of good cause.\n+Counsel for the applicant must provide advance notice of the application by\n+telephone and email to all other parties. In addition to the information required\n+by Local Rule 7-19.1, the notice must advise the other parties of the anticipated\n+deadline to oppose the application. The applicant must serve the application by\n+facsimile, email, or personal service, even if electronic service is effected under\n+Local Rule 5-3.2.1.\n+Oppositions to ex parte applications must be filed within 24 hours of the filing\n+of the application, subject to Rule 6(a)(2). If an opposing party does not intend to\n+oppose the ex parte application, counsel must inform the Courtroom Deputy Clerk\n+by telephone or email as soon as possible. No replies in support of ex parte\n+applications are authorized.\n+4. Continuances or Extensions of Time\n+This Court is committed to adhering to all scheduled dates. In general, this\n+makes the judicial process more efficie nt and less costly. Changes in dates are\n+sharply disfavored. The case schedule set by the Court, including the trial date, is\n+firm and will rarely be changed. Therefore, any request, whether by application or\n+stipulation, to continue the date of any matter before this Court must be supported\n+by good cause demonstrating why the change in the date is essential. Without such\n+compelling factual support, requests to continue dates set by this Court will not be\n+approved. Counsel requesting a continuance m ust electronically file any application\n+or stipulation with a proposed order and a d etailed declaration of counsel providing\n+the grounds for the requested continuance or extension of time. The Court will deny\n+any request that fails to comply with the Local Rules and this Order. Stipulations\n+and requests to amend the case schedule become effective only if, and when, this\n+Court approves the stipulation as presented to, or modified by, the Court. The Court\n+acts promptly to resolve requests to modify the case schedule, but processing delays\n+3\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+of up to a week are not unusual; therefore, counsel shall not submit requests for a\n+schedule modification fewer than seven calendar days prior to the earliest date\n+subject to the request. The Court presu mes that there is no good cause to continue\n+any deadline that will pass within a week of a continuance request or has already\n+passed.\n+5. TROs and Injunctions\n+Parties seeking emergency or provisional relief shall comply with Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 65-1. The application shall include a\n+proof of service which complies with the Court’s requirements for ex parte\n+applications or a separate request for service to be excused. The Court will not\n+rule on any application for such relief for at least 24 hours after the party subject\n+to the requested order has been served unless service is excused. Counsel shall call\n+the Courtroom Deputy Clerk no later than 30 minutes after filing the documents.\n+6. Cases Removed from State Court\n+All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to the\n+complaint, answers, and motions, must be re-filed in this Court as a supplement to\n+the notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(a)-(b). If the defendant has not yet\n+answered or filed a motion in response to the complaint, the answer or responsive\n+pleading filed in this Court must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n+and the Local Rules. If, before the case was removed, a motion or demurrer in\n+response to the complaint was pending in state court, it must be re-noticed in this\n+Court in accordance with Local Rule 6-1 and Local Rule 7. Counsel shall file with\n+their first appearance a notice of interested parties in accordance with Local Rule\n+7.1-1.\n+If an action is removed to this Court t hat contains a form pleading, i.e., a\n+pleading in which boxes are checked, the party or parties utilizing the form\n+pleading must file an appropriate pleading with this Court within 30 days of receipt\n+of the Notice of Removal. The appropriate pleading referred to must comply with\n+4\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 7.1, 8, 9, 10, and 11.\n+7. Status of Fictitiously Named Defendants\n+This Court intends to adhere to the following procedures where a matter is\n+removed to this Court on diversity grounds with fictitiously named defendants. See\n+28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1447.\n+Plaintiff is expected to ascertain the identity of, and serve, any fictitiously\n+named defendant, within 90 days of the removal of the action to this Court.\n+If plaintiff believes (by reason of th e necessity for discovery or otherwise)\n+that fictitiously named defendants cannot be identified within the 90-day period,\n+a ne xp a r t ea p p l i c a t i o nr e q u e s t i n gp e r m i s s i o nt oe x t e n dt h a tp e r i o dt oe f f e c t u a t e\n+service may be filed with this Court. Such an application shall state the specific\n+reasons for the requested extension of time, including a description of all efforts\n+made up to that time to identify and serve such defendants. The ex parte\n+application shall be served upon all appearing parties, and shall state that\n+appearing parties may file written com ments within seven days of filings of the\n+ex parte application.\n+If plaintiff wants to substitute a defendant for one of the fictitiously named\n+defendants, plaintiff shall first seek the consent of counsel for all defendants (and\n+counsel for the fictitiously named party , if that party has separate counsel). If\n+consent is withheld or denied, plaintiff should file a motion on regular notice. The\n+motion and opposition should address whether the matter should thereafter be\n+remanded to the Superior Court if complete diversity of citizenship would no\n+longer be present as a result of the addition of the new party. See U.S.C. § 1447(c)\n+and (d).\n+8. Discovery\n+a. Discovery Matters Referred to the Magistrate Judge\n+All discovery matters, including all d iscovery motions, are referred to the\n+assigned United States Magistrate Judge. T he Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the\n+5\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+District Judge’s initials next to the case number on this Order. All discovery-related\n+documents must include the words \"DISCOVERY MATTER\" in the caption to\n+ensure proper routing. Counsel are direct ed to contact the Magistrate Judge’s\n+Courtroom Deputy Clerk to schedule matters for hearing.\n+In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court will not reverse any\n+order of the Magistrate Judge unless it has been shown that the Magistrate Judge’s\n+order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.\n+Any party may file and serve a motion for review and reconsideration before\n+this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The moving party must file and serve the\n+motion within 14 days of service of a wr itten ruling or within 14 days of an oral\n+ruling that the Magistrate Judge states will not be followed by a written ruling.\n+The motion must specify which portions of the ruling are clearly erroneous or\n+contrary to law and support the conten tion with points and authorities.\n+b. Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)\n+Unless there is a likelihood that, upon motion by a party, the Court would\n+order that any or all discovery is premature, counsel should begin to conduct\n+discovery actively before the Scheduling Conference. Discovery is not stayed prior\n+to the Scheduling Conference or after dates have been set unless otherwise ordered\n+by the Court. At the very least, the parties shall comply fully with the letter and\n+spirit of Rule 26(a) and thereby obtain and produce most of what would be\n+produced in the early stage of discovery.\n+9. Motions\n+a. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions\n+Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 6-1 and Local Rule 7.\n+Except for motions set for hearing at a pretrial conference, parties must set motions\n+for hearing on a Monday at 9:00 a.m. The Court does not hear motions on national\n+holidays or closed motion dates, as maintained on the Court’s webpage. It is not\n+necessary to clear a hearing date with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk prior to the\n+6\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+filing of a motion.\n+b. Briefing Motions\n+Please read this section carefully. T his Court’s schedule for briefing\n+motions differs significantly from the briefing schedule set by the Local Rules.\n+Any motion that is filed and set for a hearing to be held fewer than 35 days\n+from the date of the filing of the motion shall be briefed pursuant to Local Rules\n+7-9 and 7-10. Otherwise, motions shall be briefed according to the following\n+schedule:\n+Any motion that is filed and set for a hearing between 35 and 70 days from\n+the date of the filing of the motion: (i) any opposition must be filed no later than\n+14 days after the filing of the motion; and (ii) any reply must be filed no later than\n+21 days after the filing of the motion.\n+Any motion that is filed and set for a hearing more than 70 days from the\n+date of the filing of the motion: (i) any opposition must be filed no later than 21\n+days after the filing of the motion; and (ii) any reply must be filed no later than 35\n+days after the filing of the motion.\n+c. Prefiling Requirement to Meet and Confer\n+Counsel must comply with Local Rule 7-3, which requires counsel to engage\n+in a prefiling conference \"to discuss thor oughly... the substance of the contemplated\n+motion and any potential resolution,\" and to file a declaration confirming\n+compliance. In addition to the requirements stated in Local Rule 7-3, the\n+declaration must state whether the conf erence took place in person, by telephone,\n+or via video conference. Counsel should discuss the issues to a sufficient degree\n+that if a motion is still necessary, the briefing may be directed to those substantive\n+issues requiring resolution by the Court. Counsel should resolve minor procedural\n+or other non-substantive matters during the conference, including the prospective\n+hearing date. The in propria persona status of one or more parties does not alter\n+this requirement. Any motion that fails to comply with Local Rule 7-3 will be\n+7\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+denied.\n+d. Length and Format of Motion Papers\n+All motion papers shall comply with Local Rule 11-3. Only in rare instances\n+and for good cause shown will the Court grant an application for relief from the\n+brief length limitations of Local Rule 11-6. Reply briefs may not exceed 3,000\n+words, excluding indices and exhibits. A handwritten or typewritten reply brief\n+may not exceed 10 pages, excluding indi ces and exhibits. No supplemental brief\n+or surreply shall be filed without prior leave of Court.\n+Counsel shall adhere to Local Rule 5-4.3.1 with respect to the conversion of\n+all documents to a PDF so that when a document is filed, it is in the proper size\n+and format that is text-searchable. Further, all documents shall be filed in a format\n+so that text can be selected, copied, and pasted directly from the document.\n+Electronic nonpaper exhibits lodged under Local Rule 5-4.2(b)(1) (e.g., audio\n+and video files) must be provided on a USB flash drive or by sending a link to an\n+Internet file hosting service (e.g., Dropbox) by email to\n+mcs_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. Exhibits provided on a CD or DVD will not\n+be considered and will be destroyed unless the CD or DVD itself is a nonpaper\n+exhibit subject to Local Rule 11-5.1.\n+e. Chambers Copies\n+Chambers copies are not required. Unless subject to Local Rule 5-4.2, paper\n+copies of any documents delivered to the Court will be refused or destroyed and not\n+considered.\n+f. Citations of Case Law\n+Citations of case law must identify not only the case cited, but also the specific\n+page referenced. For example, if a quotation is presented, the associated page\n+citation shall be provided. Similarly, if a case is cited in support of a proposition\n+based on language in the opinion, the pages on which such language appears shall\n+be provided. Bluebook style is preferred.\n+8\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+g. Citations of Other Sources\n+Statutory references should identif y with specificity the sections and\n+subsections referenced. Citations of treatis es, manuals, and other materials should\n+include the volume, section, and pages that are referenced. Citations of prior filings\n+in the same matter shall include the docket entry number, section, and pages that\n+are referenced. Bluebook style is preferred.\n+h. Oral Argument\n+If the Court deems a matter appropriate for decision without oral argument,\n+the Court will notify the parties in advance. C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Requests to conduct\n+or waive a hearing may not be honored.\n+10. Specific Motions\n+a. Rule 12 Motions\n+Many motions to dismiss or to strike can be avoided if the parties confer in\n+good faith (as required by Local Rule 7-3), e specially where perceived defects in a\n+complaint, answer, or counterclaim could be corrected by amendment. See Chang\n+v. Chen, 80 F. 3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996) (where a motion to dismiss is granted,\n+a district court should provide leave to amend unless it is clear that the complaint\n+could not be saved by any amendment). These principles require that plaintiff’s\n+counsel carefully evaluate defendant’s contentions as to the deficiencies in the\n+complaint. In most instances, the moving party should agree to any amendment\n+that would cure the defect.\n+This Court generally denies any Rule 12(f) motion to strike unless the movant\n+can demonstrate it will suffer prej udice absent the requested relief. In re Honest\n+Co., Inc. Sec. Litig ., 343 F.R.D. 147, 151 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (Scarsi, J.). A\n+plaintiff’s prayer for a remedy precluded as a matter of law is not the proper target\n+of a Rule 12 motion. See Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co ., 618 F.3d 970,\n+974-75 (9th Cir. 2010); Saroya v. Univ. of Pac. , 503 F. Supp. 3d 986, 1000 (N.D.\n+Cal. 2020).\n+9\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+If a motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend, counsel shall attach as\n+an appendix to an amended pleading a \"redline\" version of the amended pleading\n+showing all additions and deletions of material.\n+b. Motions for Leave to Amend\n+All motions for leave to amend pleadings shall: (1) state the effect of the\n+amendment and (2) identify the page and line numbers and wording of any\n+proposed change or addition of material. The proposed amended pleading shall\n+be serially numbered to differentiate it from previously amended pleadings.\n+In addition to the requirements of Local Rule 15, counsel shall attach as an\n+appendix to the moving papers a \"redline\" version of the proposed amended\n+pleading showing all additions and deletions of material.\n+c. Motions for Summary Judgment\n+Parties need not wait until the motion cut-off date to bring a motion for\n+summary judgment or partial summary judgment. A party moving for summary\n+judgment must file the motion at least 35 days before the hearing. The parties\n+should prepare papers in a fashion that will assist the Court in locating the\n+evidence with respect to the facts (e.g., generous use of tabs, tables of contents,\n+headings, indices, etc.).\n+i. Separate Statements\n+The parties are to comply precisely with Local Rules 56-1 through 56-3\n+governing Statements of Uncontroverted F acts and Statements of Genuine Disputes.\n+If the opposing party submits that the C ourt should consider facts that bear on,\n+or relate to, the issues raised by the movant but are not presented in the moving\n+party’s Statement of Uncontroverted Fa cts or the opposing party’s Statement of\n+Genuine Disputes, the opposing party may submit a Statement of Additional\n+Uncontroverted Facts, which must be filed as a document separate from the\n+Statement of Genuine Disputes and must follow the format described in Local Rule\n+56-1 with respect to the moving party’s Sta tement of Uncontroverted Facts. The\n+10\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+nonmoving party’s additional facts must be numbered sequentially to follow the\n+last numbered fact presented by the moving party. With its reply papers, the\n+moving party may submit a Statement of A dditional Genuine Disputes following\n+the format prescribed by Local Rule 56-2 with respect to the nonmoving party’s\n+Statement of Genuine Disputes. Absent a court order, no response to the\n+Statement of Additional Genuine Disputes is authorized.\n+ii. Supporting Evidence\n+No party shall submit evidence other than the specific items of evidence or\n+testimony necessary to support or controve rt a proposed statement of undisputed\n+fact. For example, entire deposition tra nscripts, entire sets of interrogatory\n+responses, and documents that do not specifically support or controvert material in\n+the separate statement shall not be submitted in support of or opposition to a\n+motion for summary judgment.\n+Evidence in support of, or in opposition to, a motion should be submitted\n+either by way of stipulation or as exhibits to declarations sufficient to authenticate\n+the proffered evidence and should not be attached to the memorandum of points\n+and authorities. Documentary evidence as to which there is no stipulation regarding\n+foundation must be accompanied by the testimony, either by declaration or\n+properly authenticated deposition transcript, or a witness who can establish\n+authenticity.\n+The parties shall ensure that electronically filed copies of evidence in support\n+of, or in opposition to, a motion for summary judgment are in the proper format.\n+Thus, all documents must be text-searchable and have selectable text that may be\n+copied and pasted directly from the filed document.\n+Additionally, testimony cited in a st atement of uncontroverted facts,\n+statement of genuine material facts, or st atement of additional material facts shall\n+be highlighted and/or underlined.\n+\\\\\\\n+11\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+iii. Objections to Evidence\n+Evidentiary objections to a declaration submitted in connection with a motion\n+or other matter shall be made in writing and served and filed at the same time as,\n+but separately from, the opposition or reply papers. If a party disputes a fact based\n+in whole or in part of an evidentiary objection, the ground of the objection should\n+be succinctly stated in a separate statement of evidentiary objections in a\n+three-column format ( see Exhibit A):\n+The left column should include the relevant portions of any declaration or\n+deposition, which shall include the highlighted, underlined, and/or bracketed\n+portions that are being objected to (including page and line number, if applicable).\n+Each objection shall be numbered and located within the copy of the declaration.\n+The middle column should set forth a conc ise objection (e.g., hearsay, lacks\n+foundation, etc.) with a citation of the Federal Rules of Evidence or, where\n+applicable, a case citation.\n+The right column should provide space for the Court’s entry of its ruling on\n+the objection.\n+A proposed order shall be filed and attached to the evidentiary objections as\n+a separate document consistent with Loca l Rule 52-4.1 and either uploaded through\n+the CM/ECF system or emailed directly to mcs_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov.\n+Counsel shall adhere to this format for any evidentiary objections that are\n+submitted to the Court for consideration.\n+d. Motions for Attorney’s Fees\n+Motions for attorney’s fees shall be filed and set for hearing according to\n+Local Rule 6-1 and this Order. Any motion or request for attorney’s fees shall\n+attach two summaries, in table form, of the hours worked by and billing rate of\n+each attorney with title (i.e., partner, local counsel, associate, etc.) ( see Exhibit B).\n+The first table shall include a summary of the hours worked by each attorney,\n+organized by task (i.e., discovery, motion to dismiss, motion for summary\n+12\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+judgment). If the hourly rate charged by any individual attorney changed while the\n+case was ongoing, the party shall provide separate calculation for the total number\n+of hours that the attorney spent in connection with each task at each hourly rate.\n+The second table shall include a summary of the hours worked by each\n+attorney, organized by attorney. This table shall list all of the tasks on which the\n+attorney worked, the hours worked on each task, and the hourly rate of each\n+attorney.\n+Any table as set forth above shall be attached to the motion and electronically\n+filed. A copy of the table shall be emailed to mcs_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov\n+in Microsoft Excel format and have all restrictions removed so that the spreadsheet\n+can be edited.\n+e. Motions for Preliminary and Final Approval of Class Action\n+Settlement\n+Parties submitting a motion for preliminary or final approval of a class\n+settlement shall include a spreadsheet supporting any proposed award of attorney’s\n+fees. The spreadsheet shall include an es timate of any future attorney’s fees for\n+which compensation will be sought, the normal hourly rate of all counsel for whom\n+entries appear on the spreadsheet, the support for such hourly rate(s), and an\n+explanation of the basis of any service e nhancement award for lead plaintiff(s),\n+including the hours worked and activities performed by such lead plaintiff(s). A\n+copy of the table shall be emailed to mcs_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov in\n+Microsoft Excel format and have all restrictions removed so that the spreadsheet\n+can be edited.\n+f. Daubert Motions\n+A motion to exclude expert testimony may be filed as a regularly noticed\n+motion or as a motion in limine to be heard at the final pretrial conference. If the\n+expert subject to the motion prepared a report, the movant must file a copy of\n+the report with the motion.\n+13\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+11. Under Seal Documents\n+Counsel shall comply with Local Rule 79-5. All applications must provide\n+the reason(s) why the parties’ interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the\n+document(s) outweighs the public’s right of access to materials submitted in\n+connection with a judicial proceeding. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer in\n+person or by telephone at least seven calendar days prior to the filing of an\n+application in which the basis for the requested sealing is stated to determine if they\n+can agree on the proposed under seal filing. No later than two calendar days after\n+the meet and confer process has concluded, the non-proposing party shall confirm\n+whether it agrees to having such information designated as confidential or whether\n+it opposes an under seal filing. Any application for under seal filing, whether or\n+not opposed, shall contain the dates and method by which the parties met and\n+conferred. If such information is not provided, the application will be denied\n+without prejudice to an amended application being filed that complies with the\n+foregoing terms.\n+The parties’ obligations for submitting sealing applications, as set forth in\n+Local Rule 79-5.2.2, are:\n+1. The application for leave to file under seal shall be filed on the\n+public docket and shall attach a proposed order pursuant to Local\n+Rule 5-4.4.1 and 5-4.4.2. Any declaration that supports the\n+application shall also be attached to the application unless it\n+contains confidential information. The declaration shall be filed\n+under seal as its own docket entry if it contains confidential\n+information.\n+2. The unredacted version of all documents sought to be sealed shall\n+be filed provisionally under seal. The documents may be attached\n+to the declaration that supports the application, if the declaration\n+is sealed and is filed as its own docket entry. Otherwise, the\n+14\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+documents should be filed separa tely under provisional seal. The\n+title shall include \"Unredacted\" or \"Sealed\" as the first word of\n+the title of the document. Any provisionally sealed document\n+must clearly mark the information that is confidential or\n+privileged via highlighting in color and/or using brackets.\n+3. The Court will review the submitted documents and determine\n+whether the documents can be sealed. If the application is\n+granted, counsel shall file:\n+i. The unredacted version of the entire document as its own\n+docket entry. The title shall include \"Unredacted\" or\n+\"Sealed\" as the first word of the title of the document.\n+Any information that has been redacted or omitted from\n+the public filing must be clearly marked via highlighting\n+in color and/or using brackets.\n+ii. The redacted version of the entire document as its own\n+docket entry. Unless otherwise stated in the order\n+granting the application, a redacted version is required\n+of all sealed documents. The title shall include\n+\"Redacted\" as the first word of the title of the document.\n+Any information that is confidential or privileged must\n+be blacked out or a page shall be inserted with the title\n+of the document that indicates that the entire document\n+is sealed.\n+Closely related materials filed at the same time where some are proposed to be\n+filed under seal and others will not be sealed shall be considered as a single\n+document and filed as a single docket entry containing multiple attachments. For\n+example, if certain exhibits to a declaration are to be filed under seal, even if other\n+exhibits or the declaration are not, the en tire document for which permission to seal\n+15\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+should be sought is the declaration and all exhibits. The docket shall therefore\n+include: (1) One unredacted, sealed docke t entry containing the declaration with\n+all exhibits, including sealed exhibits, filed as an attachment to the declaration; and\n+(2) a separate, redacted docket entry containing the declaration with all exhibits,\n+including redacted exhibits, filed as an attachment to the declaration.\n+12. Initial Pleadings\n+Counsel shall comply with Local Rule 3 when filing initial pleadings. All\n+initiating pleadings, including third- party complaints, amended complaints,\n+complaints in intervention, counterclaims, and crossclaims, shall be filed as a\n+separate document. None shall be combined with an answer.\n+13. Amended Pleadings\n+Every amended pleading shall be seri ally numbered to differentiate the\n+pleading from prior pleadings, e.g. First Amended Complaint, Second Amended\n+Counterclaim, Third Amended Crosscl aim, etc. Counsel shall attach as an\n+appendix to all amended pleadings a \"redline\" version of the amended pleading\n+showing all additions and deletions of material from the most recent prior pleading.\n+14. Settlements\n+If the parties reach a settlement in principle, the parties must file a notice of\n+settlement to the docket as soon as possible. So long as a notice of settlement is\n+filed promptly, the parties need not se parately contact the Courtroom Deputy\n+Clerk to report the settlement under Local Rules 16-15.7 and 40-2 unless a hearing\n+or trial is scheduled within the following seven days or the Court has taken a\n+motion under submission. The Court expects the parties to complete the settlement\n+and either voluntarily dismiss the case or stipulate to judgment within 45 days of\n+filing a notice of settlement. A voluntary dis missal that complies with Rule 41(a)(1)\n+does not require a court order. The Court g enerally does not retain jurisdiction\n+over settlement enforcement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511\n+U.S. 375, 382 (1994).\n+16\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+15. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence\n+Any party to this proceeding that uses a generative artificial intelligence\n+platform (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Harvey, Protégé, and\n+CoCounsel) (“Generative AI”) in connection with a filing in this matter must\n+attach to the subject filing a separate decla ration disclosing the use of Generative\n+AI and certifying that the filer, in the exercise of the filer’s independent legal\n+judgment, has reviewed and verified the content of the filing as accurate and in\n+compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The declaration must identify\n+which, if any, portion of the filing incor porates Generative AI outputs. The Court\n+warns that a party who presents to the Court a pleading, written motion, or other\n+paper incorporating inaccurate or undecl ared Generative AI outputs may be subject\n+to sanctions without further warning.\n+16. Pro Se/Self-Represented Parties\n+Pro se/self-represented parties may continue to present all documents to the\n+Clerk for filing in paper format pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.2. However, the Court\n+will also permit self-represented parties to present all documents to the Clerk for\n+filing by email so long as they comply with the following requirements:\n+(a) The document shall be prepared so that it complies with the\n+requirements set forth in Local Rule 11-3, i.e., legibility, font, paper, pagination,\n+spacing, title page, page limits, etc.\n+(b) The document shall be emailed as a PDF document to\n+mcs_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov no later than the date it is due. The Court will\n+deem the date the document is emailed as the filed or lodged date. The subject line\n+of the email shall contain: (i) the case number, (ii) case name, and (iii) \"Pro Se\n+Filing\" to ensure it will be filed/lodged properly.\n+Pro se/self-represented parties may use the chambers email solely to present\n+documents for filing. The chambers email is not to be used in any way to\n+communicate with the Judge or Clerk. All par ties, including pro se/self-represented\n+17\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+parties, shall refrain from writing letters to the Court, sending email messages,\n+making telephone calls to chambers, or otherwise communicating with the Court\n+unless opposing counsel is present. All matters must be called to the Court’s\n+attention by appropriate application or motion C.D. Cal. R. 83-2.5.\n+The Court expects pro se/self-represented parties to comply with the Local\n+Rules and the rules set by this Court. In this and other court orders, references to\n+“attorney” or “counsel” apply to pro se litigants unless the context requires\n+otherwise. Id. R. 1-3. The Court has a Pro Se Clinic available to assist those\n+persons who do not have an attorney to represent them. Clinics are located in\n+Los Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Ana. More information can be obtained by\n+calling (213) 385-2977, ext. 270, or visiting the Court’s website at\n+http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/.\n+17. Notice of This Order/Electronically Filed Documents\n+If this case was initiated in this Court, plaintiff(s) shall immediately serve this\n+Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case was\n+removed from state court, the removing defendant(s) shall serve this Order on all\n+other parties.\n+Any document that is electronically filed shall be served by mail that same\n+day on any party or attorney who is not permitted or has not consented to electronic\n+service, with a proof of service to be filed within 24 hours.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated:\n+HONORABLE MARK C. SCARSI\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n+18\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+EXHIBIT A: FORMAT FOR EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS\n+Declaration/Testimony of _______ Objection Ruling\n+Example 1: Entire Declaration of John\n+Smith\n+Start of Deposition.......................................\n+[1. Language subject to objection]\n+.......................................................................\n+........................................................................\n+.........................................................................\n+[2. Language subject to objection]\n+........................................................................\n+........................................................................\n+........................................................................\n+[3. Language subject to objection]\n+.......................................................................\n+.......................................................................\n+.......................................................................\n+1. E.g., Hearsay, cite.\n+2. E.g., Lacks\n+foundation, cite.\n+3. E.g., Hearsay, cite.\n+1. Sustained /\n+Overruled\n+2. Sustained /\n+Overruled\n+3. Sustained /\n+Overruled\n+19\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+EXHIBIT B: FORMAT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SUMMARY CHARTS\n+Table 1\n+Task 1: Motion to Dismiss\n+Attorney Rate Hours Fee\n+Attorney 1\n+(position)\n+$XXX/hour Total hours spent by\n+Attorney 1 on Task 1\n+$XXX\n+Attorney 1\n+(position)\n+$XXX/hour Total hours spent by\n+Attorney 1 on Task 1\n+$XXX\n+Fee Request for Task 1 Task 1 Sum Task 1 Sum\n+Task 2: Motion for Summary Judgment\n+Attorney 1\n+(position)\n+$XXX/hour Total hours spent by\n+Attorney 1 on Task 1\n+$XXX\n+Attorney 1\n+(position)\n+$XXX/hour Total hours spent by\n+Attorney 1 on Task 1\n+$XXX\n+Fee Request for Task 1 Task 1 Sum Task 1 Sum\n+Table 2\n+Attorney Rate HOURS BY TASK TOTALS\n+Attorney 1\n+(position)\n+Task Total Hours\n+Spent by\n+Attorney on\n+Task\n+Hours:\n+Amount:$\n+i.e., Motion to\n+Dismiss\n+Discovery\n+Deposition\n+Task 4\n+Task 5 (etc.)\n+Attorney 1\n+(position)\n+Task Total Hours\n+Spent by\n+Attorney on\n+Task\n+Hours:\n+Amount:$\n+Total Hours:\n+Amount:$\n+20","id":"fb931ef81f65e884c6f841840cddd076efdfed35527664dc1b19b3b9f3c1fa1c","newHash":"ee43a99e99749527373719553dd189a76f8b7074a1807bf977ceb858dff3ad32","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/45c481b5-8c26-4eba-2fc4-08df3514c597","snapshot":"snapshots/ee43a99e99749527373719553dd189a76f8b7074a1807bf977ceb858dff3ad32.txt","sourceUrl":"https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/e3077185-22c0-4917-0e78-08dee28213c9","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:32:47.872919+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"dc301af76b280eb88dcedb57ec3366650821978838678ec2af245a30117b10b7","newHash":"a2049d5d573ada7a9d41b8f81ada5a42ce6c4063a99f61ed4c5b4a70b2c20694","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/AO2025-001.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/AO2025-001.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:32:47.286055+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"88f1d0bed5656f192a4a80b3b0c6c84db0578994d63251719dca8fcce145a2cf","newHash":"d29bf3cb7faac635bb704dac281216b4a086b202313464a0bbf980c82cf69612","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://humanresources.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2026/07/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-the-Courts.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://humanresources.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/63/2026/07/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-the-Courts.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:32:53.576020+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"53207e005e5c10f312ff3116e7212f84722fd7f7f61c4221dd167278bd911b9a","newHash":"9a591f69c8e5671650c68d22676c59247262832241fa79da56726eb30766ceb6","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://newtools.cira.state.tx.us/upload/page/2590/2026/Updated%20Standing%20Order.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://newtools.cira.state.tx.us/upload/page/2590/2026/Updated%20Standing%20Order.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:32:55.038717+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"395a161dfc1e892e622a00489ecfd7e01868bce3f24099211dbbfbae0a05701a","newHash":"6d67ef9b22dc1a0cce060923d50ce5a7b083d94467e8ffa0f75b65c936998613","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Judge%20Ramos%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2030%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=g6dVsvmsqmjK.QRGq5YLirA6QeNTNigI","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://ocj-web-files.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orders/Law%20-%20Judge%20Ramos%20-%20Standing%20Order%20%28May%2030%2C%202024%29.pdf?VersionId=g6dVsvmsqmjK.QRGq5YLirA6QeNTNigI","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:32:56.811298+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"53e9a9dfd3d7dce5ae4533c5f5c10eb3e84146a059f88a8cecbaa954c7115d09","newHash":"fc1425f913d4dc9eb616bc4021fa32ca3fea905b536b776bcdebfcaac6268b5c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:06.608452+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"b5dd4ac6a8149a64f17f218daaaca8bcfff6ba8201699a1535dce7002cca48fa","newHash":"4ae4167d4356e9204a1eec4409da3480ccdbeb304b49b20fdb319ce9910834f7","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2014","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2014","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:32:59.488193+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"ab6424425c2fbd7ab96b617c0042058d922627426dcfe31746b099c0f5abb596","newHash":"ae61b8c53ff791862ac5346bc6b8897b18bdfb542b03f616f3570bb9115de772","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2030","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2030","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:00.364965+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"cfd6b25e4b0d7bae8e5df5cb8615f1694956affa99dbb92d0a917aa94b7e94af","newHash":"45c67dffdb4e41a0385c8487edcff8c5fd7bda5da848c6f916051479c2403402","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2906","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2906","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:08.024609+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"e78323dc6bf7584bb17d2218c5ab0159950267c664abb08ad10d5593625bcd1a","newHash":"e9ad0a28f5148dd92d1753fc5ab97b1cae7c613007e1369889a0322c4a0738bd","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3057","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/3057","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:06.448916+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"8e29a4428cb9b70e3e39f640dbf48dfd6ddf899ee2aa14455a0c085811cf7c44","newHash":"35587ad0a5ab302f0f195e89682469fc64728cf312e958bf1a299de0d17896bf","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.22ndcircuitil.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Administrative-Order-2024-23-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy-and-Plan.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.22ndcircuitil.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Administrative-Order-2024-23-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy-and-Plan.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:10.937718+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@\n+United States Court of Appeals\n+FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT\n+Court Decision on Proposed Rule\n+“The court, having considered the proposed rule, the accompanying comments, and the use of\n+artificial intelligence in the legal practice, has decided not to adopt a special rule regarding the use\n+of artificial intelligence in drafting briefs at this time. Parties and counsel are reminded of their\n+duties regarding their filings before the court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure\n+46(b)(1)(B). Parties and counsel are responsible for ensuring that their filings with the court,\n+including briefs, shall be carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy as the rules already\n+require. “I used AI” will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.”","id":"39fa72e1617ba6d3101524f4f430bccabaf0fae4216a5844dfc27a9a7a5f31a9","newHash":"ee450e4ffd1ce1ee51c78a7554b281e52a885a680fbc7802d13cac068f2b8f84","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/50decee8-be93-41d3-89f4-6ab796859e84/Court%20Decision%20on%20Proposed%20Rule.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/ee450e4ffd1ce1ee51c78a7554b281e52a885a680fbc7802d13cac068f2b8f84.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:08.876549+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,502 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE JUDGE RITA F. LIN\n+EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS ...................................................................................... 2\n+SCHEDULING AND HEARINGS .................................................................................... 2\n+AMENDED PLEADINGS ................................................................................................. 3\n+CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES ....................................................................... 3\n+DISCOVERY ...................................................................................................................... 4\n+FILING AND COURTESY COPIES ................................................................................. 5\n+PROPOSED ORDERS ....................................................................................................... 6\n+MOTIONS TO SEAL ......................................................................................................... 6\n+BRIEFS ............................................................................................................................... 7\n+USE OF GENERATIVE AI TOOLS ................................................................................. 7\n+SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................................................................................. 7\n+EXPERTS AND THEIR REPORTS .................................................................................. 8\n+CLASS ACTIONS .............................................................................................................. 8\n+ERISA CASES ................................................................................................................. 12\n+PATENT CASES .............................................................................................................. 12\n+SECURITIES CASES ...................................................................................................... 13\n+PARTIES UNREPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY .................................................... 14\n+2\n+The parties shall follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules, and the\n+General Orders of the Northern District of California, except as superseded by this Court’s\n+standing orders.\n+Paper courtesy copies shall not be submitted unless the Court requests them.\n+EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS\n+Counsel should call and email Judge Lin’s Courtroom Deputy to alert the Court of the filing of\n+any application for a temporary restraining order, a stipulation that requires a response from the\n+Court within 24 hours, or any other emergency request. If the party seeking emergency relief\n+does not show that it made every reasonable effort to notify the opposing party, at the earliest\n+possible time, of its intent to seek emergency relief, the relief will not be granted.\n+SCHEDULING AND HEARINGS\n+Parties may consent at any time to proceed before a magistrate judge, which may result in a\n+faster disposition of a case. Parties are free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate\n+judge without adverse substantive consequences.\n+For any request, including stipulations, to continue a hearing, case management conference, or a\n+deadline (other than an extension that the rules allow the parties to arrange between themselves\n+without a court order), the parties must state how many extensions have been requested, whether\n+the Court has granted those extensions, and whether the Court has stated that no further\n+extensions will be granted. The parties must also list all existing deadlines and their proposed\n+extensions. Absent extraordinary circumstances, stipulations seeking to move a deadline must be\n+filed by no later than two court days prior to the deadline.\n+Counsel should not call to reserve hearing dates but should instead check Judge Lin’s calendar\n+and Scheduling Notes on the Court’s website to make sure the desired date is not blocked and\n+notice motions for any available date on the civil law and motions calendar. The parties may not\n+specially set any matter at a time other than the regularly scheduled civil law and motions\n+calendar without leave of the Court. Counsel for the moving party shall confer with opposing\n+counsel about a mutually convenient hearing date before noticing any motion.\n+The Court may notify the parties in advance of the hearing that it will be heard via Zoom rather\n+than in person, but the default rule is that motions are heard in person. Parties may\n+stipulate/request to have a hearing by Zoom video, but they must do so at least one week in\n+advance of the hearing. The Court may deny the request if it believes an in-person hearing\n+would be more beneficial. The Court is disinclined to hold hearings via Zoom for complex or\n+dispositive motions, or if counsel for all parties are based locally.\n+The Court does not generally issue tentative rulings. If the Court determines a hearing is not\n+necessary, it will usually be vacated no later than two court days before the hearing. Often, a\n+3\n+notice of questions will issue two to three court days before the hearing, to alert the parties of the\n+Court’s principal questions.\n+Lengthy PowerPoint presentations will generally not be permitted during argument on motions,\n+as they circumvent the page limits imposed on briefing. However, counsel may use\n+demonstratives in responding to the Court’s questions, as long as they are provided to opposing\n+counsel at least two hours before the hearing. Any such demonstratives will not be part of the\n+record, so counsel should state verbally for the court reporter the relevant portion of the record\n+being highlighted on the demonstrative (e.g., “page 5342 of the administrative record” or “page\n+12, line 5 of the Jones deposition”).\n+The Court strongly encourages parties to permit less experienced attorneys to actively participate\n+in the proceedings by presenting argument at motion hearings or examining witnesses at trial.\n+Co-counsel with more experience may still offer argument for a few minutes at the end of the\n+hearing. Parties may e-mail the Courtroom Deputy in advance of the hearing, with a copy to all\n+other parties, to notify Judge Lin of their intent to utilize this provision.\n+AMENDED PLEADINGS\n+If a party files an amended pleading, they shall concurrently file a redlined or highlighted version\n+comparing the amended pleading to the prior operative pleading.\n+CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES\n+The attorney appearing at a case management conference need not be lead counsel but must have\n+full authority to make decisions about any issue that may come up during the conference.\n+If a defendant files a motion to dismiss that is dispositive of the entire case, the parties may\n+stipulate to vacate the initial case management conference, which will be reset by the Court after\n+the motion to dismiss hearing. If the Court sets an initial case management conference while a\n+motion to dismiss remains pending, the case management statement shall propose a full litigation\n+schedule, including a proposed last day to amend pleadings.\n+Parties are typically expected to propose a schedule at the initial case management conference\n+along the following lines:\n+● The trial date will almost always be 12-16 months after the date of the initial case\n+management conference. The parties are advised that if a criminal trial is set on a\n+date that conflicts with a civil trial, the criminal trial will take priority even if the civil\n+trial was set first. The civil trial may trail or be reset depending on the status of the\n+conflicting criminal trial.\n+● The pretrial conference will be 4 weeks before the trial.\n+● The last day for a hearing on dispositive motions will be roughly two to three months\n+before the pretrial conference, with three months preferred for more complex cases.\n+4\n+● The schedule should also include a last day to file dispositive motions and any related\n+changes to the briefing schedule that differs from the local rules.\n+● The discovery cutoff will be roughly 3 weeks before the dispositive motions filing\n+date, which means it will be at least 8 weeks before the dispositive motions hearing\n+date. (The parties should consider whether to schedule expert discovery before or\n+after the deadline for filing dispositive motions.)\n+● The schedule shall include a last date to notice depositions, which shall be at least 30\n+days before the close of fact discovery.\n+● A further case management statement will be due 60 days before the close of fact\n+discovery and shall include an update on the status of discovery, pending and\n+anticipated discovery disputes, and the anticipated timelines for filing any remaining\n+discovery motions that need to be resolved prior to the discovery cut-off.\n+● In cases involving a large amount of document discovery, the parties shall propose a\n+date for substantial completion of document production.\n+● The last day to amend pleadings will typically be 60 days after the initial case\n+management conference.\n+● The parties should be prepared to present their preferred ADR process at the initial\n+case management conference, and to propose a deadline for the parties to file a joint\n+letter updating the court regarding the scheduling of the ADR proceeding (e.g., the\n+date of the mediation and the name of the mediator).\n+● In putative class actions, the parties should propose a schedule through the class\n+certification hearing. Additional dates will be set at a further case management\n+conference to be scheduled in the order on class certification, but parties should\n+anticipate in most cases that fact discovery will close around 60 days after the class\n+certification order issues.\n+Parties who would like an expedited initial case management conference can request one by\n+emailing Judge Lin’s Courtroom Deputy.\n+DISCOVERY\n+In the vast majority of cases, a magistrate judge will be assigned to preside over all discovery\n+disputes. Once a magistrate judge is assigned, the parties should familiarize themselves with that\n+magistrate judge’s standing orders.\n+Judge Lin sets discovery cut-off dates that are different than the default set by Civil Local Rule\n+37-3. The discovery cut-off set by Judge Lin is the date by which all discovery must be\n+completed. This means that all hearings on discovery motions must occur, all orders resolving\n+those motions must be issued, and all productions must be made by the cut-off date.\n+Accordingly, all discovery requests shall be served and all discovery motions filed sufficiently in\n+advance of the discovery cut-off date to allow enough time for discovery disputes to be presented\n+to, heard by, and resolved by the Court. Any magistrate judge presiding over discovery is\n+authorized to terminate as untimely discovery disputes that are presented to the Court too close\n+to the cut-off date to allow sufficient time for a hearing and resolution before the cut-off date.\n+The initial case schedule will include a date, about 60 days before the cut-off date, by which the\n+5\n+parties must submit a joint case management statement in which they shall expressly discuss any\n+anticipated discovery disputes.\n+In the event that discovery is not referred to a magistrate judge, the following procedures pertain\n+to discovery disputes before Judge Lin: If the parties cannot resolve their discovery dispute after\n+a good faith effort in which a live conversation has occurred between counsel, they shall prepare\n+and file a joint letter of no longer than 5 pages stating the nature and status of their dispute. Both\n+sides must submit proposed orders as well. No exhibits may be submitted with the letter other\n+than an excerpt of the specific discovery request or response that is the subject of the letter. The\n+letter must be filed as soon as possible. The side seeking relief from the Court should prepare its\n+portion of the letter first and then provide that to the opposing side so that the opposing side may\n+prepare its response. The party seeking relief from the Court should file the letter. The Court\n+may resolve the dispute on the papers or schedule a hearing. The joint discovery letter process\n+does not apply to discovery disputes with third parties.\n+Parties requesting a protective order are encouraged to base any proposed order on the model\n+protective orders on the Northern District’s website. When filing a proposed protective order, at\n+the very beginning of their stipulation or motion, parties must indicate whether they have based\n+their proposed order on one of the Northern District’s model protective orders. If they have, they\n+must identify any deviations from the model order by submitting as an exhibit a redline\n+comparison of their proposed order and the model order.\n+FILING AND COURTESY COPIES\n+Paper courtesy copies shall not be submitted unless the Court requests them.\n+All filing deadlines are at 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) unless otherwise ordered.\n+All exhibits to motions should be separately filed on ECF. For example, if the motion is Docket\n+No. 30, and the declaration with 10 exhibits is Docket No. 31, Exhibit A would be filed as\n+Docket No. 31-1, Exhibit B would be Docket No. 31-2, and so on. Electronically filed\n+documents must be text-searchable PDFs whenever possible.\n+When a document filed on ECF is accompanied by more than 10 attachments, the filing party\n+must also send the documents electronically to Judge Lin’s chambers’ Box.com storage.\n+Immediately after the ECF filing is complete, please use this form to upload the documents:\n+https://cand.app.box.com/f/12aea34b708b4e63a1ceada8a6731839. You should follow the\n+instructions carefully, including by completing all fields exactly as on the docket, and uploading\n+sealed documents in a separate submission using the same process. The uploaded documents\n+should be the file-stamped versions with ECF headers. The name of each PDF file should\n+include the type of document, a brief description of the document, and the docket number. For\n+example, a news release (docket number 61-2) filed as the first exhibit to a declaration (docket\n+number 61-1), would be, “[61-2] Decl Doe Ex 1 - News Release.”\n+6\n+If certain attachments have been filed under seal (or provisionally filed under seal with an\n+accompanying motion to seal), only the unredacted versions of the attachments should be\n+uploaded to Box.com. The PDF files should be named first with the docket number associated\n+with the redacted version of the document and second with the document number associated with\n+the unredacted/sealed version of the document. E.g., “[61-2] [62-2] Decl Doe Ex 1 - News\n+Release.” All attachments (sealed or unsealed) should then be organized so that they can be\n+viewed in logical order. If you have concerns about the upload of sensitive documents to\n+Box.com, please reach out to the Courtroom Deputy.\n+PROPOSED ORDERS\n+Proposed orders are not necessary for most substantive motions, such as motions for summary\n+judgment, motions to dismiss, or preliminary injunction motions. The parties should submit\n+proposed orders only in connection with administrative motions, ex parte applications, discovery\n+disputes, and rulings that call upon the court to make factual findings (such as a motion to\n+approve a class settlement or a motion for attorneys’ fees). All proposed orders should be sent in\n+Microsoft Word compatible format to rflpo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+MOTIONS TO SEAL\n+The Court requires strict compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 (with the exception of 79-\n+5(d)(2), as explained below). The Court strongly disfavors motions to seal. Public access to\n+court records is a fundamental aspect of our democracy and justice system. The filing party must\n+make a specific showing as to each statement or document to be sealed. Blanket requests that\n+make generic reference to “competitive harm” are almost always insufficient. If a party files a\n+request that is significantly overbroad or fails to provide a specific reason for sealing, the Court\n+will consider denying the request in its entirety and placing all documents sought to be sealed on\n+the public docket.\n+Each document filed under seal must be highlighted to show the proposed redactions. In the rare\n+situation where a party believes it is appropriate to seal an entire document, the document filed\n+under seal should be labeled to indicate that sealing is sought in full.\n+In addition to complying with Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(3), the proposed order must identify the\n+applicable legal standard and contain a brief explanation of how that standard and the\n+requirements under Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(1) are met.\n+If counsel has a complicated sealing motion, counsel shall file the Motion to Seal Summary\n+Table linked under the Standing Orders tab of Judge Lin’s website. Also, if more than 10\n+documents are sought to be sealed, the filing party must deliver an electronic courtesy copy via\n+Judge Lin’s chambers’ Box.com storage as detailed above.\n+Paper courtesy copies under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(2) shall not be submitted, provided that the\n+document at issue is appropriately filed electronically under seal in an unredacted form.\n+7\n+BRIEFS\n+For summary judgment motions, class certification motions, motions for approval of class\n+settlements, and claim construction, the briefs in support of and in opposition to the motions\n+cannot exceed 25 pages, and reply briefs cannot exceed 15 pages. For all other motions, the\n+briefs in support of and in opposition to the motions may not exceed 15 pages, and reply briefs\n+may not exceed 10 pages. These page limits include summaries of argument and exclude the\n+title page, table of contents, table of authorities, and exhibits. All briefs must use Times New\n+Roman font (size 12), including in footnotes, and must be double spaced.\n+Parties shall not include substantive arguments in footnotes, and footnotes shall not be overly\n+lengthy or used to exceed page limits. The Court may strike any filing that includes footnotes\n+that do not comply with these requirements.\n+Motions to increase page limits will rarely be granted, but any such motion must be filed no later\n+than two court days before the brief is due.\n+The final brief for any motion should be filed at least 14 days prior to the hearing on the motion.\n+When citing exhibits (including deposition testimony), briefs should identify the declaration to\n+which the exhibit is attached, the letter or number of the exhibit, and the relevant page and, if\n+available, line number (for example: “Smith Decl., Ex. 1, at 22:1-5”).\n+USE OF GENERATIVE AI TOOLS\n+Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations of the\n+record, procedural history, and cited legal authorities. Use of generative artificial intelligence\n+tools is not prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any\n+research conducted by these means, and counsel alone bears ethical responsibility for all\n+statements made in filings. These obligations also apply to self-represented litigants.\n+SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n+In the event of cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties must file a total of four briefs\n+sequentially, rather than three pairs of simultaneous briefs. Unless the parties agree to reverse\n+the order (which they are free to do on their own), the opening brief is filed by the plaintiff side,\n+the opening/opposition brief is filed by the defense side, the opposition/reply is filed by the\n+plaintiff side, and the reply is filed by the defense side. The first two briefs are limited to 25\n+pages, the third brief is limited to 20 pages, and the fourth brief is limited to 15 pages. The\n+parties may submit a stipulation and proposed order setting a briefing schedule for the cross-\n+motions in advance of the first brief, which will likely be signed so long as the fourth brief is due\n+no later than 14 days before the hearing date.\n+The parties shall not file joint or separate statements of undisputed facts in connection with\n+summary judgment motions.\n+8\n+At the summary judgment hearing and/or in the briefs, the parties should not hesitate to alert the\n+Court of the need for a prompt ruling in light of their trial preparation schedule.\n+EXPERTS AND THEIR REPORTS\n+All witnesses who will provide expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or\n+705, whether retained or non-retained, must be disclosed and must provide written reports in\n+compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). All expert reports shall number\n+each paragraph to facilitate any motion practice challenging the specifics of any opinions and\n+shall include a table of contents. At the beginning of the report, the expert shall list and number\n+each opinion to be proffered in the report and, if applicable, provide an executive opinion of\n+each.\n+Any percipient witness who may also testify at trial with technical expertise akin to an\n+independent expert shall be identified by name no later than the date of expert disclosures to\n+allow for deposition, if necessary.\n+At the time of disclosure of a written report, the disclosing party must identify all written\n+materials upon which the expert relies in that report and produce those materials if they have not\n+done so previously.\n+CLASS ACTIONS\n+At the initial case management conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether\n+they prefer to litigate cross-motions for summary judgment on liability with respect to the named\n+plaintiffs before litigating the issue of class certification. The Court is of the view that this\n+approach will often save a great deal of time and money and is therefore often in the defendant’s\n+interest, but it requires the defendant’s consent, since a grant of summary judgment in the named\n+plaintiff’s favor could end up giving unnamed class members a chance to opt in to a lawsuit\n+where a legal issue has already been decided against the defendant.\n+In connection with motions for approval of class settlements, the parties shall comply with the\n+requirements set forth in the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action\n+Settlements. In addition, the following shall apply:\n+Preliminary Approval\n+The Court conducts a searching inquiry at the preliminary approval stage to avoid the\n+costs and pitfalls of proceeding to final approval of a settlement that is unlikely to satisfy\n+Rule 23(e).\n+Release language should make clear that the class members are releasing claims based\n+only on the identical factual predicate. Each proposed notice should make that clear as\n+well. Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010).\n+9\n+The Court disfavors injunctions of current or future litigation in other courts based on\n+conduct covered by the release, because the issue is generally better addressed by the\n+assigned judges for such cases. If the parties seek an injunction, the motion for\n+preliminary approval must explain why.\n+If a proposed notice to class members (or prospective class members) requires a written\n+objection as a prerequisite to appearing in court to object to the settlement, the notice\n+must specify that this requirement may be excused upon a showing of good cause. The\n+Court will require only substantial compliance with the requirements for submitting an\n+objection, and this should be made clear in any notice to class members.\n+The proposed settlement administrator must submit a declaration in support of the motion\n+for preliminary approval that describes (a) any money or thing of value the administrator\n+will receive in connection with administering the settlement beyond the fee described in\n+the preliminary approval papers, including interest or float on settlement deposits,\n+payments from depository banks, and any revenue-sharing, ownership percentage, or\n+markups on settlement services from payment, claims processing, social media, or other\n+vendors; (b) any amounts that class members or claimants could be charged by the\n+administrator, its vendors, or its subcontractors in connection with the settlement,\n+including interchange fees, dormancy fees, or retention of residual balances; (c) whether\n+data about visitors to the settlement website or other settlement class data will be shared\n+with third parties not involved in administering the settlement, including via trackers or\n+pixels; (d) whether artificial intelligence will be used to administer the settlement by the\n+administrator, its subcontractors, or its vendors and, if so, what safeguards will ensure\n+accuracy and lack of bias; (e) a detailed fraud prevention plan, of which portions may be\n+submitted under seal if necessary and which shall include a discussion of the availability\n+of real-time fraud reporting, assessments to detect if an unusual number of payments are\n+being sent to linked accounts, and measures taken to avoid unnecessary hurdles for valid\n+claimants; and (f) any situations in which the administrator resigned or was terminated or\n+suspended from its settlement administration duties before they were fully completed,\n+and a description of why. To the extent available, the settlement administrator shall also\n+include, for its five most recent class settlements, the total dollars spent on settlement\n+administration (including class notice costs) per valid claim submitted.\n+Proposed class counsel’s declaration shall describe (a) what due diligence counsel\n+performed regarding the proposed administrator’s approach to each of the above issues;\n+(b) a description of any potential conflict of interest, or potential appearance of conflict of\n+interest, for counsel or their litigation funder(s) in the selection of the administrator,\n+including any financial relationship and any large gifts over $500; (c) class counsel’s\n+assessment of whether settlement funds held in escrow will receive market-rate interest\n+and be held in appropriately risk-free instruments, and the basis for that assessment; and\n+(d) the basis for counsel’s conclusion that the proposed administration arrangements\n+serve the best interests of the settlement class.\n+10\n+Notice and Claims Procedure\n+The proposed notices, claims forms, and other documents associated with preliminary\n+approval should be sent in Microsoft Word compatible format to\n+rflpo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+For large settlements, the parties are encouraged to include an opt-out form and an\n+objection form.\n+Proposed notices must be written in plain language without unnecessary acronyms. The\n+parties should consider using the Notice Project’s model notices, which are available\n+online. Parties should also ensure that the issues in the Federal Judicial Center’s Notice\n+Checklist, are covered.\n+The notice plan should address whether a significant portion of the class does not speak\n+English and if so, whether class notice in other language(s) should be provided.\n+The motion must discuss whether notice by email and/or social media, use of online\n+claims and opt-out forms, and a website for the settlement are appropriate, and if not,\n+explain why not. Any email notice shall include a plan for updating email addresses and\n+making a second attempt at notice if the emails bounce back. Any social media or online\n+publication notice plan shall explain in detail how widespread viewing of the notice by\n+likely class members will be accomplished.\n+In a proposed settlement involving the distribution of money to a class, the motion must\n+discuss whether unclaimed funds should be redistributed to class members who claimed\n+their share, and if not, explain why not.\n+If the settlement requires class members to file claims, as opposed to simply receiving\n+checks, the motion must address why that is appropriate.\n+Final Approval\n+In proposing a schedule for final approval of a class settlement, the parties must ensure\n+that the motion for attorneys’ fees is filed at least 35 days before the deadline for\n+objecting to the settlement. The Court will make parties re-send notices if the motion for\n+attorneys’ fees is filed late, which can be quite expensive. The proposed order granting\n+final approval should list all dates relating to the administration of the settlement,\n+including the dates for when the checks distributing the settlement fund payments will be\n+mailed to class members.\n+The parties should file a proposed judgment separately from their proposed order\n+granting final approval.\n+11\n+The final approval motion shall include an update from the settlement administrator on\n+any notice problems, repeated issues of confusion among claimants, or fraud issues. If\n+the notice plan included social media or online publication notice, the settlement\n+administrator shall also provide information about the number of impressions, settlement\n+website views, claim forms begun, and claim forms completed.\n+To permit an accurate lodestar cross-check, the attorneys’ fees motion should be\n+supported with detailed summaries, including a breakdown of fees by task (e.g., prefiling\n+investigation, preparing complaint, motion to dismiss, document review, depositions,\n+mediation, etc.), the blended hourly rate for each task, and a detailed justification for the\n+work done (e.g., nature of unusually complex work with expert, number of depositions or\n+documents reviewed, etc.). If the lodestar is on the high side in light of the stage of the\n+case, attorneys should support their motion with detailed billing records, which they may\n+seek to file under seal.\n+Post-Distribution Accounting\n+Within 21 days after the settlement funds have been fully distributed to class members\n+(but before distribution to cy pres recipients), class counsel will be required to file a Post-\n+Distribution Accounting, as described in the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for\n+Class Action Settlements.\n+In addition to the information contained in the Guidance, the post-distribution accounting\n+must discuss any significant or recurring concerns communicated by class members to\n+the settlement administrator or counsel since final approval, any fraud or other issues in\n+settlement administration since final approval, and how any concerns or issues were\n+resolved. The Post-Distribution Accounting shall also include the administrator’s\n+calculation of the total dollars spent on settlement administration (including class notice\n+costs) per valid claim submitted.\n+The Court will typically withhold 10% of the attorneys’ fees and 100% of the settlement\n+administration fee granted at final approval until after the Post-Distribution Accounting\n+has been filed. The proposed order granting final approval should incorporate that\n+provision, unless the parties’ approval motion explains why that provision would be\n+particularly burdensome under the circumstances. With the Post-Distribution\n+Accounting, class counsel should submit a proposed order releasing the remainder of the\n+fees.\n+The Court retains jurisdiction to reduce or claw back fees from class counsel or the\n+settlement administrator after final approval if serious problems arise in the\n+administration of the settlement.\n+12\n+ERISA CASES\n+In the event of cross-motions for judgment under Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil\n+Procedure, the parties shall file a total of four briefs sequentially, rather than three pairs of\n+simultaneous briefs, as set forth in the “Summary Judgment” section above. No later than seven\n+days before the Rule 52 hearing, the parties must also file joint proposed undisputed findings of\n+fact and conclusions of law, and separately file disputed findings of fact and conclusions of law.\n+All factual findings must be supported by citations to all pertinent portions of the record.\n+Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be brief, written in plain English, and free\n+of pejorative language. In addition to being filed, the proposed findings and conclusions must be\n+emailed to the Court (rflpo@cand.uscourts.gov) in Word compatible format.\n+PATENT CASES\n+Only one summary judgment motion may be filed per party in each patent case, absent leave of\n+court. Parties that are related entities are considered one party for purposes of this rule.\n+Technology tutorials will occur via Zoom on the Tuesday civil calendar at 1:30 p.m., and should\n+generally be set for at least one week before the claim construction hearing. Visual aids are fine,\n+and should be exchanged at least two hours beforehand. The default time limit will be 90\n+minutes of shared time, or 45 minutes per side. Judge Lin prefers an interactive tutorial that will\n+allow her to ask questions.\n+Claim construction hearings will have a default time limit of 3 hours (90 minutes per side), and\n+will go back and forth term-by-term. Visual aids or demonstrative exhibits are fine, as long as\n+they are based on information contained in the papers already filed and are exchanged at least\n+two hours beforehand. The Court will endeavor to provide the parties with a summary chart of\n+its tentative claim construction order at least two court days prior to the hearing.\n+The Court will generally construe no more than ten terms. If more than ten terms are at issue,\n+the parties must meet and confer before the preparation of the joint claim construction statement\n+to narrow the number of terms to be construed by the Court and shall jointly propose the ten\n+terms requiring construction. If a party genuinely believes that more than ten terms need to be\n+construed, that party may request leave to designate additional terms for construction, pursuant\n+to Civil Local Rule 7-11. The requesting party must demonstrate good cause and explain why\n+other methods of limiting the terms at issue (such as the selection of representative terms or any\n+grouping of terms by issues presented) would be ineffective. The request must be filed no later\n+than two weeks before the deadline for filing the joint claim construction statement. If good\n+cause is shown, the Court will either agree to construe all terms at the originally scheduled\n+hearing or schedule a second claim construction proceeding on the excess terms. If more than\n+ten terms are submitted for construction without leave of court, the Court will construe only the\n+first ten terms listed in the joint claim construction statement.\n+Prehearing claim construction conferences are generally not held, but parties may address\n+prehearing issues at the tutorial or request a case management conference to be held at least two\n+13\n+weeks prior to the hearing. If the parties anticipate witness testimony will be necessary, counsel\n+shall alert the Court via a joint status report and request such a case management conference.\n+When a patent case also includes patent counterclaims, the Court will generally conduct one\n+claim construction hearing covering all patents. In that situation, the claim construction briefing\n+schedule will follow a four-brief sequence, following the page limits outlined above concerning\n+cross-motions for summary judgment, with the plaintiff filing the first brief.\n+SECURITIES CASES\n+Within 14 days of service of the complaint (or consolidated complaint), the plaintiff shall file a\n+chart summarizing the information required by 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1) and (2), specifically\n+identifying the allegations in the operative complaint as follows: (a) each statement alleged to\n+have been false or misleading; (b) the speaker, date, and medium by which the statement was\n+made; (c) the reason(s) the statement was false or misleading when made; and (d) the facts\n+alleged to show that defendant(s) knew the statement false and/or misleading. The chart should\n+clearly identify which statements or omissions are attributable to which defendants and, for each\n+such defendant, the facts alleged which give rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted\n+with the required state of mind at the relevant time. The chart must strictly adhere to the\n+allegations in operative complaint and may not include any new or supplemental\n+information or explanation.\n+If a motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend, a new chart must be filed with the\n+amended complaint. That new chart may not include alleged misstatements that were not\n+included in the prior chart, absent leave of Court or stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal\n+Rule of Civil Procedure 15.\n+The chart should be organized in the following format:\n+Statement\n+No.\n+The Speaker(s),\n+Date(s), and\n+Medium\n+False and\n+Misleading\n+Statements\n+Reasons\n+Statements Were\n+False and\n+Misleading When\n+Made\n+Facts Giving Rise\n+to a Strong\n+Inference of\n+Scienter\n+1 When: [date]\n+Where: [e.g., press\n+release]\n+Speakers: [e.g.,\n+CEO]\n+(Compl. ¶ __ )\n+[Direct quotation\n+of the alleged false\n+and misleading\n+statements.]\n+[Summarize\n+arguments on\n+scienter with\n+specific references\n+to paragraphs in\n+the complaint.]\n+[Summarize\n+arguments on\n+scienter with\n+specific references\n+to paragraphs in\n+the complaint.]\n+14\n+PARTIES UNREPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY\n+Parties representing themselves, without the assistance of a lawyer, should visit the Court’s\n+website, where they can learn more about the Court’s Legal Help Center, which provides free\n+assistance for unrepresented parties over the phone. Parties can make an appointment by calling\n+(415) 782-8982.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: September 4, 2026\n+Rita F. Lin\n+United States District Judge","id":"f78b63c003d09dd038a7b081b917fe3de345f53d67966d22581406df996db95b","newHash":"5fab2a3d20edd03dbd463f920066f6c87aa5175ab2122d2397996dfa1f0f5ce6","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order-(2026-09-04)_0.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/5fab2a3d20edd03dbd463f920066f6c87aa5175ab2122d2397996dfa1f0f5ce6.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/RFL-Civil-Standing-Order-%282026-09-04%29_0.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:09.943623+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@\n+1\n+CIVIL AND DISCOVERY REFERRAL MATTERS STANDING ORDER\n+MAGISTRATE JUDGE SUSAN VAN KEULEN\n+Updated February 2026\n+1. LOCATION\n+The parties must check ECF to confirm whether any hearing will be in-person or by\n+Zoom video link.\n+• All civil discovery and motion hearings will be in person unless otherwise noticed by\n+the Court in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose Federal Courthouse.\n+• Initial case management conferences, status conferences, and order to show cause\n+hearings in re settlement/dismissal will be by Zoom video link. Specific call-in/Zoom\n+instructions will be posted on ECF no later than 48 hours in advance. General\n+information is available in Judge van Keulen’s scheduling notes on the Court website.\n+• Any deviation from the appearance standards above requires prior approval of the\n+Court. The requesting party must file an administrative motion to appear by Zoom\n+video link or telephonic link at least 5 days before the hearing. If the request is\n+granted, specific call-in/Zoom instructions will be posted on ECF no later than 48\n+hours in advance.\n+2. SCHEDULING\n+Civil case management conferences are held on Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m.\n+Civil motions are heard on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m.\n+Civil pretrial conferences are held on Thursdays at 9:30 a.m.\n+Parties are not required to reserve a hearing date but should confirm at cand.uscourts.gov\n+that the Court is not unavailable on the date selected. Hearings and motions may be reset\n+by the Court as its calendar requires. For questions regarding scheduling, please contact\n+the Courtroom Deputy at svkcrd@cand.uscourts.gov or (408) 535-5363.\n+3. COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT\n+Any requests for Court action must be filed on the docket. Parties must refrain from\n+contacting the Courtroom Deputy by email or telephone unless (1) required to do so by\n+one of the Court’s standing orders; (2) instructed to do so by the Court; or (3) necessary\n+to inform the Court about a time-sensitive matter. Contact with the Courtroom Deputy\n+must be limited to purely administrative matters, such as scheduling and general case\n+management. Parties are not to communicate with the Courtroom Deputy regarding\n+substantive or procedural issues, such as requests for legal advice or for interpretation of\n+procedural rules.\n+2\n+4. CASES INITIALLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE VAN KEULEN: CONSENT OR DECLINATION\n+In civil cases initially assigned to Judge van Keulen for all purposes, each party must file\n+written consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge or a written request for\n+reassignment to a district judge as soon as possible but no later than the deadlines\n+specified in Civil Local Rule 73-1(a). If a party files a dispositive motion (such as a\n+motion to dismiss or a motion for remand), the moving party must file the consent or\n+declination simultaneously with the motion.\n+5. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTS\n+In civil cases assigned to Judge van Keulen for all purposes, all joint case management\n+statements are due one week before the case management conference. Joint case\n+management statements must include as the first item the case schedule, if it has been set,\n+as well as all information required under the Standing Order for All Judges of the\n+Northern District of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement.\n+6. MOTIONS AND STIPULATIONS\n+a. PROPOSED ORDERS AND STIPULATIONS\n+All stipulations and proposed orders are to be emailed in Word format to\n+svkcrd@cand.uscourts.gov on the same day as the documents are e-filed.\n+b. MOTIONS TO SEAL\n+• Motions to seal shall be filed in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. When\n+submitting a proposed order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(3), the table\n+format included in the order shall comply with the below format:\n+Document Text to be Sealed Basis for Sealing\n+[redacted portions to be identified by\n+page and line number]\n+• Where a party (“Filing Party”) files a motion to consider whether another party’s\n+(“Designating Party”) materials should be sealed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-\n+5(f), the Designating Party’s statement and/or declaration in support of sealing\n+pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) shall attach as exhibit(s) the proposed,\n+public, redacted version of the document(s) sought to be sealed to the extent the\n+proposed redactions differ from the redactions proposed by the Filing Party.\n+c. POST-ANSWER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS\n+Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, only one Motion for Summary Judgment,\n+Partial Summary Judgment, or Summary Adjudication may be filed by each party.\n+d. MOTIONS TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES\n+Motions to strike affirmative defenses may not be filed without leave of Court. Leave of\n+Court may be sought by a motion for administrative relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule\n+7-11.\n+3\n+e. FORMAT OF MOTIONS:\n+i. USE OF FOOTNOTES\n+Use of footnotes in Court filings is to be limited to providing brief points of\n+clarification or cross-references. Argument in footnotes will not be\n+considered by the Court. The form of footnotes must comply with Civil\n+Local Rule 3-4(c)(2). The Court may strike any filing that includes\n+excessive or improper footnotes.\n+ii. EXHIBITS\n+The cover page of any exhibit submitted in connection with briefing on a\n+motion must include the exhibit number and the title or brief description of\n+the exhibit (e.g., “Ex. 1 – 1/1/2023 email from Joe Smith to Nancy Jones”).\n+f. HEARING MATERIALS\n+Any party who distributes materials at the hearing on any matter must supply the\n+Court with two color copies of those materials at the hearing and all other parties\n+with at least one copy. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all materials are to be\n+filed on ECF promptly following the hearing.\n+7. DISCOVERY\n+a. PROTECTIVE ORDERS\n+All proposed discovery protective orders in cases in which Judge van Keulen is the\n+assigned discovery referral judge and in cases that are assigned to Judge van Keulen for\n+all purposes through consent of the parties shall be submitted for Judge van Keulen’s\n+signature in text- searchable PDF format. If the submitting party or parties have used\n+one of this District’s model protective orders as the basis for their proposed\n+protective order, their submission of the proposed protective order must be\n+accompanied by either: (1) a redline version indicating any changes from the model\n+order or (2) a statement in the caption or a cover pleading that the parties have not\n+made any changes from the model order.\n+b. DISCOVERY DISPUTES\n+Discovery disputes in cases in which Judge van Keulen is the assigned discovery referral\n+judge and in cases that are assigned to Judge van Keulen for all purposes through consent\n+of the parties shall follow the same procedures set forth below:\n+• For all discovery disputes, the parties must meet and confer to attempt to resolve the\n+dispute. The meet and confer must be in person or by videoconference and conducted\n+by counsel with authority to negotiate and compromise. A mere exchange of letters,\n+emails, telephone calls, or voicemail messages does not satisfy the requirement to\n+meet and confer.\n+4\n+• If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, they must file a joint statement not to\n+exceed 10 pages, exclusive of the caption page, double-spaced with 12-point font and\n+in text-searchable PDF format. Footnotes, if any, must comply with section 6(e)(i)\n+above.\n+• In the opening paragraph, the joint statement must: (1) state the dates for the close of\n+fact discovery and, if set, start of trial; (2) briefly describe each unresolved issue\n+without undue argument; and (3) set forth each party’s proposed compromise with\n+respect to each unresolved issue.\n+• In addition, when specific discovery requests are disputed, the parties must include\n+as an exhibit a joint chart, in landscape format, summarizing the basis of the\n+dispute. Specifically, the chart must set forth in columns only the following: the\n+disputed request, the response thereto, the parties’ respective proposed compromises\n+and a blank column for the Court’s use. The chart must not contain argument; the\n+Court considers only arguments set forth in the joint statement. The summary chart\n+should present as follows:\n+Discovery Request(s)\n+(e.g., RFPs,\n+Interrogatories, Etc.)\n+Objecting Party’s\n+Response or\n+Objection\n+Requesting\n+Party’s\n+Proposed\n+Compromise\n+Objecting\n+Party’s\n+Proposed\n+Compromise\n+For the\n+Court’s Use\n+This column should\n+include the text of any\n+disputed request, with\n+no additional\n+argumentation by a\n+party.\n+Where numerous\n+requests are in dispute,\n+the Parties may\n+organize them by\n+category, identified by\n+sub-headings in the\n+chart, to be resolved in\n+a single ruling.\n+This column should\n+include the text of\n+original (and\n+supplemental, if\n+appropriate) response\n+at issue.\n+Only if the response or\n+objection is originally\n+and properly made in\n+the joint statement, a\n+brief summary of the\n+joint-statement\n+response may be\n+included. This chart is\n+not the place to restate\n+arguments or assert\n+additional arguments.\n+• The joint statement must also include each party’s proposed order as an exhibit.\n+5\n+• Absent prior leave of Court, the only additional exhibit(s) permitted to the joint\n+statement are a copy of the specific discovery request(s) at issue and the response(s)\n+to it (e.g., requests for production, interrogatories, privilege log, nonparty subpoena,\n+deposition excerpts, initial disclosures, contentions, etc.)\n+• The joint statement must be filed in ECF under the Civil Events category of Motions\n+and Related Filings > Motions: General > Discovery Letter Brief.\n+• Word versions of the joint chart exhibit and each party’s proposed order must also be\n+emailed to svkcrd@cand.uscourts.gov\n+• Upon review of the joint statement, the Court will advise the parties regarding the\n+need, if any, for more briefing, a hearing, or a telephonic conference.\n+• For all cases, the joint statement must be filed no later than 7 days after the\n+discovery cut-off date(s) pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3.\n+c. PRIVILEGE LOGS\n+If a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request and is otherwise\n+discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by claiming that it is privileged\n+or protected from discovery under the attorney work product doctrine or any other\n+protective doctrine (including, but not limited to, privacy rights), that party shall prepare a\n+privilege log (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)) setting forth the privilege relied upon and\n+specifying separately for each document or for each category of similarly-situated\n+documents:\n+a. The name and job title or capacity of the author;\n+b. The name and job title or capacity of each recipient;\n+c. The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was\n+sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s);\n+d. The title and description of the document;\n+e. The subject matter addressed in the document;\n+f. The purpose(s) for which it was prepared or communicated; and\n+g. The specific basis for the claim that it is privileged.\n+The privilege log will be produced as quickly as possible, but no later than 14 days after\n+the discovery responses are due, unless the parties stipulate or the Court orders otherwise.\n+8. AMENDED PLEADINGS\n+If a party filed an amended complaint or other amended pleading, they must also file as\n+an exhibit to the pleading a redline version showing what changes have been made to the\n+most-recent version. Self-represented parties are not required to comply with this\n+requirement.\n+6\n+9. CHAMBERS COPIES NOT REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS\n+Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(d)(7), no chambers copies are required unless\n+specifically requested by the Court. If chambers copies are requested by the Court,\n+parties are to notify the courtroom deputy at svkcrd@cand.uscourts.gov when they have\n+been delivered.\n+10. USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)\n+Counsel is responsible for providing complete and accurate representations in any\n+submission (including filings, demonstratives, evidence and oral argument) to the Court\n+as required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the California Rules of\n+Professional Conduct, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidance. Use of\n+generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc., in preparing submissions to\n+the Court is not prohibited, but counsel and self-represented parties must at all times\n+personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any content generated by these tools.\n+The signature of counsel or a self-represented party on any submission containing AI-\n+generated content, including citations generated by AI, constitutes a certification that the\n+signing attorney (or self-represented party) has personally verified the content’s accuracy.\n+The Court will impute any errors by such AI tools to the attorney or party whose\n+signature appears on the document containing those errors.\n+Failure to verify the accuracy of submissions, particularly the accuracy of citations to law\n+and evidence, may be grounds for sanctions. Counsel is responsible for maintaining\n+records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools in the event those\n+records become relevant at any point.\n+SO ORDERED.\n+February 2, 2026\n+SUSAN VAN KEULEN\n+United States Magistrate Judge","id":"a0412c8ff9148e46263755a083545d2281e5ed9cefad14b1fa6e01e99539bdcb","newHash":"602ad966115890766535823e415a75bd8db92ee82ab008f316c8dad05029859a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/SvK-Civil_and_DiscoveryReferralMatters_StandingOrder-2-2026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/602ad966115890766535823e415a75bd8db92ee82ab008f316c8dad05029859a.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/SvK-Civil_and_DiscoveryReferralMatters_StandingOrder-2-2026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:10.704732+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,266 @@\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+STANDING ORDER ON CIVILITY AND PROFESSIONALISM\n+To preserve and promote the fair administration of justice, this Court adopts the following\n+Standing Order on Civility and Professionalism. All counsel and parties appearing before this\n+Court must adhere to the standards outlined herein.\n+I. PURPOSE\n+This Standing Order reinforces the Court’s commitment to civility, integrity,\n+professionalism, and respect in all proceedings. The Court expects that all participants in the legal\n+process—judges, lawyers, parties, and witnesses—will conduct themselves with dignity, courtesy,\n+and mutual respect, regardless of the nature of the dispute or the identity of the participants.\n+II. AUTHORITY\n+This Order is issued pursuant to the inherent powers of the Court, Federal Rule of Civil\n+Procedure 83, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, California Rules of Professional\n+Conduct (“CRPC”), California Rules of Court, and Rule 9.7 and Standard of Judicial\n+Administration 10.20, which incorporate the California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and\n+Professionalism.\n+III. APPLICABILITY\n+This Order applies to:\n+1. All attorneys admitted or appearing pro hac vice in the Northern District of California.\n+2\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+2. All parties, including self-represented litigants.\n+3. Law firm personnel, including paralegals and support staff.\n+4. Court-appointed neutrals and experts.\n+IV. GUIDING PRINCIPLES\n+All participants shall:\n+1. Act with Integrity and Respect: Treat all persons involved in the legal process—including\n+opposing counsel, parties, court personnel, and witnesses—with fairness, respect, and\n+courtesy, even when in disagreement. See ABA Model Rule 3.4; CRPC 3.4.\n+2. Avoid Hostility and Derogatory Conduct: Abstain from conduct that demeans the dignity\n+of the Court, the opposing party, or the profession. Personal attacks, inflammatory\n+language, discriminatory statements, or abusive tactics will not be tolerated. See ABA\n+Model Rule 8.4(d); CRPC 8.4(d).\n+3. Communicate Professionally: Be civil and respectful in all communications, written and\n+oral. Written submissions should not contain sarcastic or disrespectful language or\n+unnecessary vitriol. See ABA Model Rule 8.4(d); CRPC 8.4(d). Emails and letters\n+between counsel should be professional and focused on resolving disputes in good faith.\n+See ABA Model Rule 3.1; CRPC 3.1.\n+4. Respect Scheduling and Time: Make reasonable efforts to accommodate the schedules of\n+opposing counsel, parties, witnesses, and the Court. Requests for extensions or\n+continuances should be made only when necessary and never for improper advantage. See\n+ABA Model Rule 3.4; CRPC 3.4.\n+5. Promote Efficient Resolution: Engage in reasonable efforts to resolve disputes informally\n+before filing motions. Meet and confer obligations must be taken seriously and\n+approached with a genuine intention to resolve issues without judicial intervention. See\n+ABA Model Rule 3.1; CRPC 3.1.\n+6. Uphold Professional Responsibilities: Fulfill duties of candor to the Court and abide by\n+applicable ethical rules. See ABA Model Rule 3.3; CRPC 3.3.\n+3\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+7. Educate and Mentor: Encourage and model civility and professionalism, especially with\n+respect to junior lawyers, clerks, and law students. Senior lawyers are expected to lead by\n+example. See ABA Model Rule 5.1; CRPC 5.1.\n+V. INTEGRITY\n+In accordance with the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, California Rules of\n+Professional Conduct, and the ethical obligations to this Court, all parties, counsel, and\n+participants must adhere to the following principles of integrity:\n+1. Truthfulness in Representations: All submissions to the Court—whether oral, written, or\n+evidentiary—must be accurate and made in good faith. See ABA Model Rule 3.3; CRPC\n+3.3, 5-200.\n+2. Professional Decorum: Counsel and litigants shall engage in civil and respectful conduct,\n+refraining from frivolous claims, ad hominem attacks, or obstructive tactics. See ABA\n+Model Rule 3.1, 8.4(d); CRPC 3.1, 8.4(d).\n+3. Duty of Fairness: The Court expects all parties to act without malice or improper\n+advantage, ensuring proceedings remain just and efficient. See ABA Model Rule 3.4;\n+CRPC 3.4.\n+4. Compliance with Orders: Strict adherence to court directives is required; failure to comply\n+may result in sanctions under the Court’s inherent authority or applicable procedural rules.\n+See ABA Model Rule 3.4(c); CRPC 3.4(f).\n+VI. COURTROOM CONDUCT\n+When appearing before the Court, counsel and parties shall:\n+1. Be punctual and prepared for all hearings, conferences, and proceedings.\n+2. Stand when addressing the Court (unless physically unable).\n+3. Refrain from interrupting the Court or opposing counsel.\n+4. Address all arguments to the Court, not to opposing counsel.\n+5. Follow all procedural and evidentiary rules and raise objections respectfully.\n+4\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+VII. USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”)\n+The use of AI tools may result misrepresentation and fabricated caselaw. Counsel is\n+responsible for providing the Court with complete and accurate representations of the record,\n+procedural history, and cited legal authorities. Use of ChatGPT or other such AI tools is not\n+prohibited, but counsel must personally confirm for themselves the accuracy of any research\n+conducted by these means, and counsel alone bears ethical responsibility for all statements made\n+in filings. See ABA Resolution 604 (2024) (encouraging use of AI in a manner consistent with\n+professional responsibility, including maintaining client confidentiality and supervising\n+technology). Failure to exercise due care in reviewing and filing work product created with the\n+assistance of AI tools may result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or expose\n+counsel to disciplinary action.\n+Any billing statements submitted for review of the Court must indicate AI usage when\n+applicable. See ABA Model Rule 1.5; ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024); CRCP 1.5.\n+VIII. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES\n+The Court may impose appropriate sanctions for violations of this Standing Order,\n+including but not limited to:\n+1. Admonishment on the record.\n+2. Monetary sanctions under Rule 11 or the Court’s inherent powers.\n+3. Revocation of pro hac vice status.\n+4. Referral to the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.\n+Persistent incivility, even if not rising to the level of a formal ethics violation, may result in\n+judicial notice and appropriate remedial action.\n+IX. RESOURCES\n+The following are incorporated by reference and may guide interpretation of this Order:\n+1. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct\n+2. California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism\n+5\n+1\n+2\n+3\n+4\n+5\n+6\n+7\n+8\n+9\n+10\n+11\n+12\n+13\n+14\n+15\n+16\n+17\n+18\n+19\n+20\n+21\n+22\n+23\n+24\n+25\n+26\n+27\n+28\n+United States District Court\n+Northern District of California\n+3. California Rules of Court, Rule 9.7\n+4. California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 10.20\n+X. CONCLUSION\n+Civility is not a matter of courtesy alone, but of institutional integrity and public trust. The\n+Court expects all participants to uphold these standards. Zealous advocacy and professionalism\n+are not mutually exclusive. This Standing Order is intended to ensure that both remain central to\n+the practice of law in this District.\n+Dated:\n+__________________________________\n+TRINA L. THOMPSON\n+United States District Judge\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+August 18, 2025","id":"32755f95b5379a3b536fb788d8c2c85c2c8da2106bc2042982e95dae230b1261","newHash":"ecf415a8224f4555c236c34c44ef3af66fdbadc137eca5977e39055fab6e357c","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/TLT-Civility-and-Professionalism-Standing-Order.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/ecf415a8224f4555c236c34c44ef3af66fdbadc137eca5977e39055fab6e357c.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/TLT-Civility-and-Professionalism-Standing-Order.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:13.009815+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,540 @@\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE JUDGE VINCE CHHABRIA\n+TABLE OF KEY DEADLINES ........................................................................................................... 2\n+CONFORMITY WITH RULES ........................................................................................................... 2\n+EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 2\n+SCHEDULING ..................................................................................................................................... 3\n+CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES ......................................................................................... 4\n+DISCOVERY ........................................................................................................................................ 5\n+FILING AND COURTESY COPIES ................................................................................................... 6\n+PROPOSED ORDERS.......................................................................................................................... 8\n+MOTIONS TO SEAL ........................................................................................................................... 8\n+BRIEFS ............................................................................................................................................... 10\n+AMICUS BRIEFS .............................................................................................................................. 10\n+SUMMARY JUDGMENT .................................................................................................................. 11\n+DEFAULT JUDGMENT .................................................................................................................... 12\n+HEARINGS AND TENTATIVE RULINGS ..................................................................................... 12\n+CLASS ACTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 13\n+PATENT CASES ................................................................................................................................ 19\n+SOCIAL SECURITY CASES ............................................................................................................ 20\n+HABEAS CASES ............................................................................................................................... 20\n+ERISA CASES .................................................................................................................................... 21\n+WAGE AND HOUR CASES ............................................................................................................. 21\n+SECTION 1983 CASES...................................................................................................................... 22\n+2\n+TABLE OF KEY DEADLINES\n+DEADLINE DATE\n+Joint discovery letters As soon as practicable, but no later than 7\n+days after applicable discovery deadline\n+Cross-motions for summary judgment Because the Court requires the parties to file\n+4 sequential briefs, typically the parties must\n+file the first brief no later than 7 weeks before\n+the scheduled hearing date. The final brief\n+should be filed no later than 14 days before\n+the scheduled hearing date.\n+Request for extension of any case\n+management deadlines\n+72 hours prior to the deadline party wishes to\n+extend\n+Request to reschedule a case management\n+conference\n+At least 72 hours prior to the case\n+management conference\n+CONFORMITY WITH RULES\n+1. The parties shall follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local\n+Rules, and the General Orders of the Northern District of California, except as superseded by this\n+Court’s standing orders.\n+EMERGENCY APPLICATIONS\n+2. When a party files an application for a temporary restraining order or other\n+emergency relief, the opposing party should not file a response unless instructed to do so by the\n+Court. The Court will almost never grant such an application without requesting a response from\n+the opposing party.\n+3\n+3. If the party seeking emergency relief does not show that it made every reasonable\n+effort to notify the opposing party and the opposing party’s counsel, at the earliest possible time,\n+of its intent to seek emergency relief, the relief will not be granted.\n+4. Emergency applications do not have to comply with Judge Chhabria’s default 15-\n+page limit for briefs.\n+SCHEDULING\n+5. For the latest information on when and where hearings and case management\n+conferences are held, check Judge Chhabria’s webpage.\n+6. Counsel need not reserve hearing dates but should check Judge Chhabria’s\n+calendar on the Court’s website to make sure the desired date is not blocked. The parties may not\n+specially set any matter without leave of the Court.\n+7. Counsel for the moving party should confer with opposing counsel about a\n+mutually convenient hearing date before noticing any motion.\n+8. No changes to the Court’s schedule can be made except by order of the Court.\n+Any motion to continue a hearing or case management conference must be made no later than 72\n+hours prior to the scheduled appearance.\n+9. Any request for an extension of a deadline (other than an extension that the rules\n+allow the parties to arrange between themselves without a court order) must be filed no later than\n+72 hours prior to the deadline.\n+10. When the parties request an extension of time, the parties must submit a proposed\n+order listing all future deadlines and the proposed extensions. The parties must also submit,\n+alongside any stipulation or administrative motion to change deadlines, a chart that includes the\n+currently scheduled deadlines and the parties’ proposed deadlines. If the parties disagree on what\n+4\n+the new deadlines should be, the chart must reflect both parties’ proposals. The parties must also\n+state how many times the parties have requested extensions, whether the Court has granted those\n+extensions, and whether the Court has stated that no further extensions will be granted.\n+11. Once a trial date has been set, the parties should treat it as firm. Absent\n+extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not continue a trial date.\n+12. Stipulations or motions to continue case schedules for mediation or\n+settlement purposes will usually not be granted.\n+CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES\n+13. The attorney appearing at a case management conference need not be lead counsel\n+but must have full authority to make decisions about any issue that may come up during the\n+conference. They must also be sufficiently informed about the case to participate in discussions\n+about what schedule makes sense for that case.\n+14. If a defendant files a motion to dismiss that is dispositive of the entire case, the\n+parties can stipulate to move the initial case management conference to 15 days after the hearing\n+on that motion. If the motion to dismiss is not dispositive, the initial case management\n+conference will typically not be moved. In their case management statement for the initial case\n+management conference, the parties must propose a full litigation schedule, including a proposed\n+last day to amend pleadings, regardless of whether they have received a ruling on any motion to\n+dismiss. The only exception is proposed class actions, in which case the parties can propose a\n+schedule through the first phase of the case, as discussed in the class action section of this standing\n+order.\n+15. Parties should typically be prepared to adopt the following schedule at the initial\n+case management conference:\n+● The trial date will almost always be 12–16 months after the date the original complaint\n+5\n+was filed.\n+● The pretrial conference will be 1 or 2 weeks before the trial. The last day for a hearing on\n+dispositive motions will be roughly 2 to 3 months before the pretrial conference.\n+● The discovery cutoff will be roughly 8 weeks before the dispositive motions hearing.\n+(The parties should consider whether to schedule expert discovery before or after the\n+deadline for hearing motions for summary judgment.)\n+● The last day to amend pleadings will typically be 60 days after the initial case\n+management conference.\n+● A further case management conference will take place roughly 4 weeks before the close\n+of fact discovery.\n+● The parties should be prepared to present their preferred ADR process at the initial case\n+management conference.\n+16. If the parties wish to continue a case management conference, they must file a\n+stipulation or motion—in a separate filing from their joint case management statement—at least\n+72 hours prior to the conference.\n+17. Parties who would like an expedited initial case management conference can\n+request one by emailing Judge Chhabria’s Courtroom Deputy, Bhavna Sharma.\n+DISCOVERY\n+18. Discovery in almost all cases will be referred to a magistrate judge. In those cases,\n+the parties must follow the magistrate judge’s procedures. However, the parties are encouraged\n+to bring discovery disputes to the magistrate judge sooner rather than later. If the parties end up\n+seeking a continuation of the case schedule based on the pendency of discovery disputes, the\n+Court will deny that request if it determines that brewing discovery disputes were not teed up\n+6\n+promptly for the magistrate judge, and the parties will simply need to go to trial without having\n+conducted the desired discovery.\n+19. In the rare cases where Judge Chhabria is overseeing discovery, the following\n+procedures apply. Discovery disputes should be brought to the Court’s attention as early as\n+possible. If the parties cannot resolve their discovery dispute after a good faith effort, they shall\n+prepare and file a joint letter of no longer than 5 pages stating the nature and status of their\n+dispute. Both sides must submit proposed orders as well. No exhibits may be submitted with the\n+letter other than any discovery request or response that is the subject of the letter. The letter must\n+be filed as soon as possible, but under no circumstances may it be filed more than 7 days after\n+the applicable discovery cutoff. See Civil Local Rule 37-3. The side seeking relief from the\n+Court should prepare its portion of the letter first, and then provide that to the opposing side so\n+that the opposing side may prepare its response. The party seeking relief from the Court should\n+file the letter. The Court may resolve the dispute on the papers or schedule a hearing. The joint\n+discovery letter process does not apply to discovery disputes with third parties.\n+20. Parties requesting a protective order or ESI order are encouraged to base any\n+proposed order on the model orders on the Northern District’s website\n+(http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders; https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/e-\n+discovery-esi-guidelines). When filing a proposed order, at the very beginning of their stipulation\n+or motion, parties must indicate whether they have based their proposed order on one of the\n+Northern District’s model orders. If they have, they must identify any deviations from the model\n+order by submitting as an exhibit a redline comparison of their proposed order and the model\n+order.\n+FILING AND COURTESY COPIES\n+21. When filing motions on ECF, each motion, supporting declaration, and\n+7\n+attachment to a declaration (such as an exhibit) should be filed as a separate PDF. That is, a\n+declaration must be filed separately from the motion, and each exhibit to a declaration must be\n+filed separately from the declaration and from the other exhibits. However, when an exhibit to a\n+declaration contains an attachment, that attachment need not be filed separately. A motion, along\n+with any supporting declarations or exhibits, should generally be filed as one docket entry, with\n+the motion submitted as the “Main Document” in ECF, and each declaration and exhibit filed\n+separately as “Attachments.”\n+22. For an example, see the image below:\n+23. When filing motions, exhibits, and declarations, the ECF “Description” of each\n+document should include the name of the document and a brief description of the document. For\n+instance, a news release filed as the first exhibit to a declaration would be, “Decl Doe Ex 1 -\n+News Release.”\n+24. When a document filed on ECF is accompanied by more than 10\n+attachments, the filing party must upload those documents within 3 days onto an online\n+location designed by the Clerk’s Office. The name of each uploaded PDF file should adhere\n+to the naming convention described above and should include the docket number of the\n+8\n+filed document. For example, a news release filed as the first exhibit to a declaration, at\n+docket number 60-2 should be uploaded with the file name “[60-2] Decl Doe Ex 1 - News\n+Release.” On occasion, the parties may be asked by the courtroom deputy to deliver a flash\n+drive with all the attachments to Judge Chhabria’s chambers. The flash drive should be\n+labeled with the name and number of the case. The flash drive should contain the ECF\n+version of each attachment, with its ECF header. The name of each PDF file on the flash\n+drive should include the type of document, a brief description of the document, and the\n+docket number. Each PDF document must be text-searchable. This requirement is waived\n+for people proceeding pro se.\n+25. Briefs, declarations, and other filings need not be on pleading paper with line\n+numbers. The Court prefers blank paper (although pleading paper will be accepted).\n+26. Paper courtesy copies shall not be submitted unless the Court requests them. The\n+Court may at times order the parties to provide digital courtesy copies of motion briefs, including\n+supporting documents, on portable media (for example, a CD or flash drive).\n+PROPOSED ORDERS\n+27. Proposed orders are not necessary for most substantive motions, such as motions\n+for summary judgment, motions to dismiss, or preliminary injunction motions. The parties\n+should submit proposed orders only in connection with administrative motions, stipulations\n+requiring modifications of the case schedule, ex parte applications, discovery disputes, and\n+rulings that call upon the court to make factual findings (such as a motion to approve a class\n+settlement or a motion for attorneys’ fees). All proposed orders should be sent in Microsoft\n+Word format to vcpo@cand.uscourts.gov.an\n+MOTIONS TO SEAL\n+28. The Court requires strict compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 (with the\n+9\n+exception of 79-5(d)(2), as explained below).\n+29. The Court almost always denies motions to seal because they are almost always\n+without merit. Parties that submit frivolous motions to seal or frivolously overbroad motions will\n+be sanctioned. See Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2018 WL 2111164 (N.D. Cal. May 8,\n+2018). Federal courts are paid for by the public, and the public has the right to inspect court\n+records, subject only to narrow exceptions.\n+30. When submitting a motion to seal, the filing party must state whether the\n+compelling reasons or good cause standard applies and explain why. See Center for Auto\n+Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016).\n+31. The filing party must make a specific showing explaining why each document\n+that it seeks to seal may justifiably be sealed and why the proposed redactions are as narrowly\n+tailored as possible, rather than making a blanket statement about the grounds for sealing.\n+Generic and vague references to “competitive harm” are almost always insufficient justification\n+for sealing. If a party files a request to seal that is significantly overbroad and/or does not provide\n+adequate reasons for concealing information from the public, the party bears the risk that the\n+Court will simply deny the request in its entirety and place all documents sought to be sealed on\n+the public docket.\n+32. Each document filed under seal must be highlighted to show the proposed\n+redactions. In the rare situation where a party believes it is appropriate to seal an entire\n+document, the document filed under seal should be labeled to indicate that sealing is sought in\n+full.\n+33. If you have a complicated sealing motion, or set of motions, consider filling out\n+and filing the Motion to Seal Summary Table linked on the Standing Orders page of Judge\n+Chhabria’s website.\n+10\n+34. Courtesy copies under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(2) are not required, provided that\n+the document at issue is appropriately filed electronically under seal in an unredacted form.\n+BRIEFS\n+35. Unless permitted by the Court, briefs in support of and in opposition to all\n+substantive motions (except for preliminary injunction motions, summary judgment motions,\n+class certification motions, motions for approval of class settlements, and summary judgment /\n+claim construction motions in patent cases, as discussed below) may not exceed 15 pages, and\n+reply briefs may not exceed 10 pages. These page limits include summaries of argument and\n+exclude the title page, table of contents, table of authorities, and exhibits. All briefs must use\n+Times New Roman font (size 12) and must be double spaced.\n+36. The final brief for any motion should be filed at least 14 days prior to the hearing\n+on the motion.\n+37. When citing exhibits (including deposition testimony), briefs should identify the\n+declaration to which the exhibit is attached, the letter or number of the exhibit, and the relevant\n+page number (for example: “Smith Decl., Ex. 1, at 22”).\n+38. Motions to increase page limits will almost never be granted, but any such motion\n+must be filed no later than 72 hours before the brief is due.\n+39. Simultaneous briefing is not permitted for any type of motion.\n+40. Briefs in support of and in opposition to a preliminary injunction motion cannot\n+exceed 25 pages, and reply briefs cannot exceed 15 pages.\n+AMICUS BRIEFS\n+41. Permission to file an amicus brief in connection with a motion is not needed.\n+However, any amicus brief in support of the moving party must be filed at least 7 days before\n+11\n+the opposition is due, and any amicus brief in support of the opposing party must be filed at\n+least 7 days before the reply is due. For emergency motions involving a compressed briefing\n+schedule, amicus may, after consulting with the parties, file a request to reduce this number of\n+days.\n+42. Amicus briefs cannot exceed 15 pages, and permission to file an overlength\n+amicus brief will almost never be granted. These page limits include descriptions of the\n+interests of amici and summaries of argument and exclude the title page, table of contents,\n+table of authorities, and exhibits. All briefs must use Times New Roman font (size 12) and\n+must be double spaced.\n+SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n+43. Unless permitted by the Court, briefs in support of and in opposition to summary\n+judgment motions cannot exceed 25 pages, and reply briefs cannot exceed 15 pages. Motions to\n+increase page limits will almost never be granted, but any such motion must be filed no later\n+than 72 hours before the brief is due.\n+44. In the event of cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties must file a total\n+of four briefs sequentially, rather than three pairs of simultaneous briefs. Unless the parties agree\n+to reverse the order (which they are free to do on their own), the opening brief is filed by the\n+plaintiff side, the opening/opposition brief is filed by the defense side, the opposition/reply is\n+filed by the plaintiff side, and the reply is filed by the defense side. The first two briefs are\n+limited to 25 pages, the third brief is limited to 20 pages, and the fourth brief is limited to 15\n+pages. The parties may submit a stipulation and proposed order setting a briefing schedule for the\n+cross-motions in advance of the first brief, which will likely be signed so long as the fourth brief\n+is due no later than 14 days before the hearing date.\n+45. The parties should not file joint or separate statements of undisputed facts\n+12\n+in connection with summary judgment motions.\n+46. At the summary judgment hearing and/or in the briefs, the parties should not\n+hesitate to alert the Court of the need for a prompt ruling in light of their trial preparation\n+schedule.\n+47. Any Daubert motion seeking to preclude a party’s reliance on an expert opinion\n+at the summary judgment stage must be filed in the same brief as the motion for summary\n+judgment or the opposition to that motion. Oppositions and replies relating to the Daubert\n+motion must also be filed in the same briefs as argument on the merits of the summary judgment\n+motion. The only exception is when the party moving to exclude is the party opposing summary\n+judgment, in which case that party may file a reply brief (not to exceed 5 pages and filed no later\n+than 7 days after the other party’s reply in support of summary judgment) in support of the\n+Daubert motion.\n+DEFAULT JUDGMENT\n+48. Judge Chhabria’s rule is to have hearings on motions for default judgment except\n+in highly unusual circumstances. Therefore, after a party seeking default judgment has obtained\n+entry of default from the Clerk’s Office, the party should notice a hearing when filing their\n+motion for default judgment.\n+49. Any such motion should explain why the Eitel factors support the entry of a\n+default judgment and address the basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant(s). See Eitel\n+v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986); Axiom Foods Inc. v. Acerchem\n+International, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2017); see also In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712\n+(9th Cir. 1999).\n+HEARINGS AND TENTATIVE RULINGS\n+50. If the Court determines a hearing is not necessary, it will usually be vacated no\n+13\n+later than three days before the hearing.\n+51. The Court ordinarily will not issue tentative rulings, but it typically announces its\n+tentative thinking at the outset of the hearing.\n+52. If a motion will be argued by an attorney who has 7 years or less of experience,\n+counsel may notify the Courtroom Deputy of that fact within 7 days of the hearing. The Court\n+will take this into account in deciding whether to vacate the hearing and submit the motion on\n+the papers, putting a thumb on the scale in favor of a hearing if arguing counsel has 7 years or\n+less of experience. Co-counsel with more than 7 years of experience may still offer argument for\n+a few minutes at the end of the hearing.\n+53. When using exhibits during evidentiary hearings, the parties must prepare and\n+present exhibits in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Trials.\n+CLASS ACTIONS\n+54. At the initial case management conference, the parties should be prepared to\n+discuss whether they prefer to litigate cross-motions for summary judgment on liability with\n+respect to the named plaintiffs before litigating the issue of class certification. The Court is of the\n+view that this approach will often save a great deal of time and money and is therefore often in\n+the defendant’s interest, but it requires the defendant’s consent, since a grant of summary\n+judgment in the named plaintiff’s favor could end up giving unnamed class members a chance to\n+opt in to a lawsuit where a legal issue has already been decided against the defendant.\n+55. Briefs in support of or opposition to class certification motions cannot exceed 25\n+pages, and reply briefs cannot exceed 15 pages. These limits also apply to motions for\n+preliminary or final approval of class settlements (although, if the parties believe they need more\n+space to adequately explain the basis for a class action settlement, this is the one type of brief for\n+which a request for additional pages is likely to be granted).\n+14\n+56. Any Daubert motion seeking to preclude a party’s reliance on an expert opinion\n+at the class certification stage must be filed in the same brief as the motion for class certification\n+or the opposition to that motion. Oppositions and replies relating to the Daubert motion must\n+also be filed in the same briefs as argument on the merits of the class certification motion. The\n+only exception is when the party moving to exclude is the party opposing class certification, in\n+which case that party may file a reply brief (not to exceed 5 pages and filed no later than 7 days\n+after the other party’s reply in support of class certification) in support of the Daubert motion.\n+57. In any motion for class certification, plaintiffs’ counsel must include a section\n+called “Manageability of the Class Action Trial” in which they explain precisely how the Court\n+should handle any potentially individualized issues to ensure that they don’t render the trial\n+unmanageable. This section should generally include a discussion of jury instructions, especially\n+in cases that involve subclasses, plaintiffs from multiple states, or law from multiple\n+jurisdictions. In addition, to assist the Court in assessing any manageability concerns, plaintiffs’\n+counsel must file a proposed verdict form in connection with the motion for class certification.\n+58. Plaintiffs’ counsel are warned that they may have only one chance to seek class\n+certification. If a plaintiff grossly overreaches on a motion for class certification, thereby forcing\n+a defendant to waste significant time and money respond to a motion that had virtually no chance\n+of being granted in the first place, the Court will be far less likely to allow a renewed motion.\n+59. In connection with motions for approval of class settlements, the parties should\n+keep the following things in mind:\n+▪ The parties should consult the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action\n+Settlements. See https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules-forms-fees/northern-district-\n+guidelines/procedural-guidance-class-action-settlements.\n+15\n+Preliminary Approval\n+▪ The Court’s scrutiny of the proposed settlement will be as rigorous at the preliminary\n+approval stage as at the final approval stage. Any motion for preliminary approval should\n+explain why the settlement survives this level of scrutiny, and any proposed order should\n+recite this standard. See Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1036-37 (N.D. Cal.\n+2016); see also Hunt v. VEP Healthcare, Inc., 2017 WL 3608297 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22,\n+2017); Eddings v. DS Services of America, Inc., 2016 WL 3390477 (N.D. Cal. May 20,\n+2016).\n+▪ The proposed settlement administrator must submit a declaration in support of the\n+motion for preliminary approval that describes (a) any money or thing of value the\n+administrator will receive in connection with the settlement beyond the fee described in\n+the preliminary approval papers, including interest or float on settlement deposits,\n+payments from depository banks, and any revenue-sharing, ownership percentage, or\n+markups on settlement services from payment, claims processing, social media, or other\n+vendors; (b) any fees class members or claimants could be charged by the administrator\n+or its subcontractors in connection with the settlement, including interchange fees,\n+dormancy fees, or retention of residual balances; (c) whether data about visitors to the\n+settlement website or other settlement class data will be shared with third parties not\n+involved in administering the settlement, including via trackers or pixels; (d) whether\n+artificial intelligence will be used to administer the settlement either by the\n+administrator or subcontractors and, if so, what safeguards will ensure accuracy and\n+lack of bias; and (e) a detailed fraud prevention plan, including whether there will be\n+real-time fraud reporting and assessments to detect if an unusual number of payments\n+are being sent to linked accounts. Proposed class counsel’s declaration shall describe\n+16\n+what due diligence counsel performed regarding the proposed administrator’s approach\n+to each of the above issues, any potential conflict of interest or potential appearance of\n+conflict of interest for counsel in the selection of the administrator (including any\n+financial relationship), and the basis for counsel’s conclusion that the proposed\n+administration arrangements serve the best interests of the settlement class.\n+▪ Release language should make clear that the class members are releasing claims based\n+only on the identical factual predicate. Each proposed notice should make that clear as\n+well. Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010).\n+▪ Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not enjoin current or future\n+litigation in other courts based on conduct covered by the release. Whether to stay or\n+dismiss any such cases will be for the assigned judge to decide. Any language\n+regarding an injunction must be removed from the notice, proposed order, and\n+settlement agreement.\n+▪ If a proposed notice to class members (or prospective class members) requires a written\n+objection as a prerequisite to appearing in court to object to the settlement, the notice\n+must specify that this requirement may be excused upon a showing of good cause. The\n+Court will require only substantial compliance with the requirements for submitting an\n+objection, and this should be made clear in any notice to class members.\n+▪ If the parties believe they need more space to adequately explain the basis for a\n+settlement, they should make a request to extend the page limit for the motion. The Court\n+will likely grant such a request for this kind of motion (despite rarely granting such\n+requests for other motions).\n+Notice and Claims Procedure\n+▪ The proposed notices, claims forms, and other documents associated with preliminary\n+17\n+approval should be sent in Microsoft Word format to vcpo@cand.uscourts.gov.\n+▪ For large settlements, the parties are encouraged to include an opt-out form and an\n+objection form.\n+▪ If the proposed notices are not carefully written and in plain English, the Court will reject\n+the motion for preliminary approval. Unnecessary acronyms should be avoided.\n+▪ The parties should consider using the Federal Judicial Center’s model notices, which are\n+available at www.fjc.gov/content/301253/illustrative-forms-class-action-notices-\n+introduction.\n+▪ The parties should consider whether notice by email and/or social media is appropriate.\n+Moreover, the parties should consider whether claims and opt-out forms can be filed online,\n+and whether it is appropriate to have a website for the settlement. If these procedures are not\n+followed, the parties should be prepared to explain why.\n+▪ In a proposed settlement involving the distribution of money to a class, the parties should\n+consider whether unclaimed funds should be redistributed to class members who claimed\n+their share. If a provision of this type is absent, the parties should be prepared to explain\n+why.\n+▪ The parties should consider whether theirs is the type of settlement that requires class\n+members to file claims, as opposed to simply receiving funds. The motion for\n+preliminary approval should address this issue.\n+▪ Although the parties should generally adhere to the Northern District’s Procedural\n+Guidance for Class Action Settlements, they need not discuss “the lead class counsel’s\n+firms’ history of engagements with the settlement administrator over the last two years.”\n+Nor does lead counsel need to discuss “at least one of their past comparable class\n+settlements.”\n+18\n+Final Approval\n+▪ In proposing a schedule for final approval of a class settlement, the parties must ensure\n+that the motion for attorneys’ fees is filed at least 14 days before the deadline for\n+objecting to the settlement. See In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988\n+(9th Cir. 2010). The Court will make parties re-send notices if the motion for attorneys’\n+fees is filed late, which can be quite expensive. The proposed order granting final\n+approval should list all dates relating to the administration of the settlement, including the\n+dates for when the checks distributing the settlement fund payments will be mailed to\n+class members.\n+▪ The parties should file a proposed judgment separately from their proposed order\n+granting final approval.\n+▪ Within 21 days after the settlement funds have been fully distributed to class members\n+(but before distribution to cy pres recipients), class counsel will be required to file a Post-\n+Distribution Accounting, as described in the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for\n+Class Action Settlements. The purpose of this notice is to inform the Court about the\n+administration of the settlement.\n+▪ The Court will typically withhold between 10% and 20% of the attorneys’ fees granted at\n+final approval until after the Post-Distribution Accounting has been filed. The proposed\n+order granting final approval should specify what percentage class counsel believes it is\n+appropriate to withhold.\n+▪ The proposed order granting final approval should also include language describing the\n+Post-Distribution Accounting that class counsel will file, including, as relevant, when\n+payments were made to class members, the number of members who were sent payments,\n+the total amount of money paid out to members, the average and median recovery per\n+19\n+class member, the largest and smallest amount paid to class members, the number and\n+value of cashed and uncashed checks, the number of members who could not be\n+contacted, the number of objections and opt-outs, the amount to be distributed to each cy\n+pres recipient, any significant or recurring concerns communicated by members to the\n+settlement administrator and counsel since final approval, any other issues in settlement\n+administration since final approval, and how any concerns or issues were resolved. See\n+Cotter v. Lyft, No. 13-cv-04065-VC, Dkt. No. 348 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2018); Hunt v. VEP\n+Healthcare, Inc., No. 16-cv-04790-VC, Dkt. No. 68 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018).\n+▪ Where class members are entitled to non-monetary relief, such as discount coupons, debit\n+cards, or similar instruments, the Post-Distribution Accounting should also describe the\n+number of class members availing themselves of such relief and the aggregate value\n+redeemed by the class members and/or by an assignees or transferees of the class\n+members’ interests. Where class members are entitled to injunctive and/or other non-\n+monetary relief, the Post-Distribution Accounting should discuss the progress made on\n+fulfilling the terms of that relief.\n+▪ With the Post-Distribution Accounting, class counsel should submit a proposed order\n+releasing the remainder of the fees.\n+PATENT CASES\n+60. Parties must follow the Patent Local Rules of the Northern District of California,\n+except when those rules conflict with this standing order.\n+61. Absent a compelling reason, the Court will conduct claim construction only in\n+conjunction with a dispositive motion. Parties should still follow Rules 4-1 through 4-4 of the\n+Patent Local Rules. Rules 4-5 and 4-6, on the other hand, will give way to the details provided in\n+the paragraphs below.\n+20\n+62. The opening summary judgment (and claim construction) brief, as well as the\n+opposition brief, cannot exceed 40 pages. The reply brief cannot exceed 20 pages.\n+63. In the event of cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties must file a\n+total of four briefs sequentially, rather than three pairs of simultaneous briefs. Unless the\n+parties agree to reverse the order, the opening brief is filed by the party asserting\n+infringement, the opening/opposition brief is filed by the party defending against the\n+infringement claim, the opposition/reply is filed by the party asserting infringement, and the\n+reply is filed by the party defending against the infringement claim. The first brief is limited\n+to 40 pages, the second brief is limited to 50 pages, the third brief is limited to 30 pages, and\n+the fourth brief is limited to 20 pages.\n+64. If the parties believe it would be helpful for the Court, they should schedule a\n+claim construction tutorial to occur 7 days prior to the claim construction/summary judgment\n+hearing. The parties should contact Judge Chhabria’s Courtroom Deputy, Bhavna Sharma, to\n+schedule the tutorial.\n+SOCIAL SECURITY CASES\n+65. Judge Chhabria’s default rule is to have hearings in Social Security cases. The\n+Court will schedule a hearing for its civil law and motion calendar for approximately 60 days\n+after an opposition brief is filed. Counsel are free to meet and confer on a mutually acceptable\n+hearing date, and contact Bhavna Sharma, Judge Chhabria’s Courtroom Deputy, to schedule a\n+hearing on that date. If, after reviewing the papers and the record, the Court decides a hearing is\n+not necessary, it will typically notify the parties within 2–3 days of the hearing.\n+HABEAS CASES\n+66. Judge Chhabria’s default rule is to have hearings in habeas cases where the\n+petitioner is represented by counsel. The Court will schedule a hearing for its civil law and\n+21\n+motion calendar for approximately 60 days after an answer is filed. Counsel are free to meet and\n+confer on a mutually acceptable hearing date, and contact Bhavna Sharma, Judge Chhabria’s\n+Courtroom Deputy, to schedule a hearing on that date. If, after reviewing the papers and the\n+record, the Court decides a hearing is not necessary, it will typically notify the parties within 2–3\n+days of the hearing.\n+ERISA CASES\n+67. On the issue of discovery in cases that are subject to de novo review, please see\n+Ball v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2016 WL 3211227 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2016).\n+WAGE AND HOUR CASES\n+68. In FLSA cases, the presumptive deadline for filing a motion for conditional\n+certification of a collective is 28 days from the date of the initial case management conference,\n+unless the parties reach a tolling agreement. Motions for conditional certification are almost\n+always granted. The parties therefore are encouraged to stipulate to conditional certification with\n+the understanding that the defendant may later seek to decertify the collective. If the parties\n+stipulate to conditional certification, the parties must still submit the proposed notice to the Court\n+for approval.\n+69. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the contact information for potential\n+collective members in FLSA cases must be produced by the defendant at the Rule 26(f)\n+conference. The court will almost never grant requests to continue the initial case management\n+conference in FLSA cases—even if there is a pending motion to dismiss—unless the parties have\n+reached a tolling agreement.\n+70. Likewise, in a Rule 23 wage and hour class action brought under California law,\n+absent extraordinary circumstances, the contact information for potential class members must be\n+produced early in the case. At the initial case management conference, the parties should expect\n+22\n+to set an early deadline for the production of this information. Typically, the only circumstance\n+in which this production may be delayed is when the schedule calls for cross-motions for\n+summary judgment regarding liability as to the named plaintiffs to be adjudicated prior to class\n+certification, as discussed in the “Class Actions” section of this standing order.\n+71. Should the parties reach a settlement in a FLSA collective action, the parties may\n+not simply file a notice of voluntary dismissal. The parties must file a motion for settlement\n+approval explaining why the proposed settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona\n+fide dispute. See Alder v. County of Yolo, No. 16-1682-VC, Dkt. No. 25 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20,\n+2017).\n+SECTION 1983 CASES\n+72. In cases involving Monell claims, the Court will often stay discovery on\n+municipal liability until the individual constitutional claim has been adjudicated through trial.\n+Therefore, in cases where the defendant believes that the plaintiff has stated an individual\n+constitutional claim but has failed to state a Monell claim, the defendant should consider whether\n+to seek a stay of the Monell claim in lieu of filing a motion to dismiss. A stay of a Monell claim\n+will often preserve resources for the defendant, as compared to litigating multiple motions to\n+dismiss. If the defendant chooses to seek a stay of a Monell claim, the deadline to file a motion to\n+dismiss is tolled by the filing of the stay motion (and by the stay itself, if any). If a defendant\n+chooses instead to file a motion to dismiss a Monell claim, the defendant should be prepared to\n+explain why the claim should not be stayed instead.\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: October 26, 2026\n+Vince Chhabria\n+United States District Judge","id":"943e2055aa6317069957faf650b6f948eb631b9946ed5eb2bded77093cb41239","newHash":"e3874a3b5f27c7e3f6e3dcbe56835430bba2477abb3d6e5ab0022c6ba562e11a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/VC-Civil-Standing-Order-6-26-2026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/e3874a3b5f27c7e3f6e3dcbe56835430bba2477abb3d6e5ab0022c6ba562e11a.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/VC-Civil-Standing-Order-6-26-2026.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:12.084079+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@\n+UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n+In re:\n+FILINGS USING GENERATIVE\n+ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+BANKRUPTCY GENERAL\n+ORDER NO. 210\n+Effective January 1, 2026, any pleading, motion, or paper (whether moving, opposing, or\n+in reply) that the filer prepared in any aspect by using a generative artificial intelligence (“AI”)\n+program must be accompanied by an attestation or certification signed by the filer:\n+. Identifying the AI program used; and\n+° Certifying that the filer checked the document for factual and legal accuracy using print\n+reporters, traditional legal databases, or other reliable means.\n+This General Order applies to all filers — whether attorneys or self-represented litigants.\n+Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure continues to apply to all\n+documents filed with the Court. Furthermore, the Court construes each filing as a certification by\n+the person signing a filed document of compliance with Rule 9011(b).\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+Dated: November 18, 2025\n+CLIN BG.\n+CHRISTOPHER B. LATHAM\n+Chief Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court\n+Rea\n+\\BARRETT MARUM\n+Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court","id":"ad6995109caaeb0d0766652465ba4d4472d36e35698fe3af5d39fd3344fac25c","newHash":"4afa82d6e983c0e8825115666a025328b3e22a685ca1f9eb273e039b319f8638","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/documents/general-orders/General%20Order%20210_2025-11-18.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/4afa82d6e983c0e8825115666a025328b3e22a685ca1f9eb273e039b319f8638.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/documents/general-orders/General%20Order%20210_2025-11-18.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:12.992823+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"a70036d4f24713025ada203295d69aaf6f17074008c7afa53e53cc7d1c3135c4","newHash":"74edf60222586c533d5613f1e2f4e02e1098da0b349a40bf5611c0782ab29c5a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.co.burleson.tx.us/page/open/1460/0/Order%20on%20AI.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.co.burleson.tx.us/page/open/1460/0/Order%20on%20AI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:15.456437+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"1b6e34d50cb3e8212389a109cbfab02c6e3c5f46987b838b208db682e524cb6e","newHash":"89a2a732c5965fe7861f6fa710a19fbb1d568ba4ceb13485cb042f1ae89fff4f","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.co.crane.tx.us/upload/page/0576/StandingOrderArtificialIntelligence.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.co.crane.tx.us/upload/page/0576/StandingOrderArtificialIntelligence.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:16.344681+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"6ec29460d40b957ebbc0878843c69562d7be705ec4f0785b6227638d02d355f8","newHash":"c69cc1dd717a9d3645b788351ef3e2748f5be66c741e6521357729ec1be302a4","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:21.788095+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,898 @@\n+Federal Register\n+::\n+Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office\n+Skip to Content\n+Home\n+Sections\n+Money\n+Environment\n+World\n+Science & Technology\n+Business & Industry\n+Health & Public Welfare\n+Browse\n+Agencies\n+Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)\n+Dates\n+Public Inspection\n+Presidential Documents\n+Search\n+Document Search\n+Advanced Document Search\n+Public Inspection Search\n+FR Index\n+Reader Aids\n+Reader Aids Home\n+Office of the Federal Register Announcements\n+Using FederalRegister.Gov\n+Understanding the Federal Register\n+Recent Site Updates\n+Federal Register & CFR Statistics\n+Videos & Tutorials\n+Developer Resources\n+Government Policy and OFR Procedures\n+My FR\n+My Account\n+My Clipboard\n+My Comments\n+My Subscriptions\n+Sign In / Sign Up\n+Site Feedback\n+Search the Federal Register\n+Legal Status\n+This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily\n+Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal\n+Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official\n+electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.\n+The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal\n+Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the\n+corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the\n+daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial\n+informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal\n+Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status.\n+For complete information about, and access to, our official publications\n+and services, go to\n+About the Federal Register\n+on NARA's archives.gov.\n+The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable\n+regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of\n+establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned\n+publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that\n+the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with\n+the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for\n+legal research should verify their results against an official edition of\n+the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML\n+rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not\n+provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.\n+Legal Status\n+Notice\n+Enter a search term or FR citation e.g.\n+88 FR 382\n+30 FR 7878\n+2024-13208\n+USDA\n+09/05/24\n+RULE\n+0503-AA39\n+SORN\n+Choosing an item from\n+full text search results\n+will bring you to those results. Pressing enter in the search box\n+will also bring you to search results.\n+Choosing an item from\n+suggestions\n+will bring you directly to the content.\n+Background and more details are available in the\n+Search & Navigation\n+guide.\n+Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office\n+A Notice by the Patent and Trademark Office on 04/11/2024\n+Published Document: 2024-07629 (89 FR 25609)\n+This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.\n+Published Document: 2024-07629 (89 FR 25609)\n+Document Details\n+Published Content - Document Details\n+Agencies\n+Department of Commerce\n+Patent and Trademark Office\n+Agency/Docket Number\n+Docket No. PTO-P-2024-0013\n+Document Citation\n+89 FR 25609\n+Document Number\n+2024-07629\n+Document Type\n+Notice\n+Pages\n+25609-25617\n+(9 pages)\n+Publication Date\n+04/11/2024\n+Published Content - Document Details\n+PDF\n+Official Content\n+View printed version (PDF)\n+Official Content\n+Document Details\n+Published Content - Document Details\n+Agencies\n+Department of Commerce\n+Patent and Trademark Office\n+Agency/Docket Number\n+Docket No. PTO-P-2024-0013\n+Document Citation\n+89 FR 25609\n+Document Number\n+2024-07629\n+Document Type\n+Notice\n+Pages\n+25609-25617\n+(9 pages)\n+Publication Date\n+04/11/2024\n+Published Content - Document Details\n+Document Dates\n+Published Content - Document Dates\n+Dates Text\n+This guidance on the use of AI in practicing before the USPTO is applicable as of April 11, 2024.\n+Published Content - Document Dates\n+Table of Contents\n+Enhanced Content - Table of Contents\n+This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the\n+headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents.\n+This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links\n+has no substantive legal effect.\n+AGENCY:\n+ACTION:\n+SUMMARY:\n+DATES:\n+FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\n+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\n+I. Background\n+II. The USPTO's Existing Rules and Policies\n+A. Duty of Candor and Good Faith\n+B. Signature Requirement and Corresponding Certifications\n+C. Confidentiality of Information\n+D. Foreign Filing Licenses and Export Regulations\n+E. USPTO Electronic Systems' Policies\n+F. Duties Owed to Clients\n+III. Application of the Existing Rules as to the Use of AI, Including Generative AI, Before the USPTO\n+A. The Use of Computer Tools for Document Drafting\n+1. All Submissions and Correspondence With the USPTO\n+2. Additional Examples in the Patent Context\n+3. Additional Examples in the Trademark Context\n+B. Filing Documents With the USPTO\n+C. Accessing USPTO IT Systems\n+D. Confidentiality and National Security Considerations\n+E. Fraud and Intentional Misconduct\n+IV. Conclusion\n+Footnotes\n+Enhanced Content - Table of Contents\n+Public Comments\n+Enhanced Content - Public Comments\n+Comments are no longer being accepted.\n+See DATES for details.\n+Enhanced Content - Public Comments\n+Regulations.gov Data\n+Enhanced Content - Regulations.gov Data\n+FederalRegister.gov retrieves relevant information about this document\n+from Regulations.gov to provide users with additional context. This\n+information is not part of the official Federal Register document.\n+Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office\n+Docket ID\n+PTO-P-2024-0013\n+Supporting Documents\n+No supporting documents available\n+Enhanced Content - Regulations.gov Data\n+Sharing\n+Enhanced Content - Sharing\n+Shorter Document URL\n+https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-07629\n+Email\n+Email this document to a friend\n+Enhanced Content - Sharing\n+Print\n+Enhanced Content - Print\n+Print this document\n+Enhanced Content - Print\n+Document Statistics\n+Enhanced Content - Document Statistics\n+Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are\n+cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling,\n+reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.\n+Page views\n+14,125\n+as of\n+11/01/2026 at 12:15 pm EST\n+Enhanced Content - Document Statistics\n+Other Formats\n+Enhanced Content - Other Formats\n+This document is also available in the following formats:\n+JSON\n+Normalized attributes and metadata\n+XML\n+Original full text XML\n+MODS\n+Government Publishing Office metadata\n+More information and documentation can be found in our\n+developer tools pages.\n+Enhanced Content - Other Formats\n+Public Inspection\n+Public Inspection\n+This PDF is FR Doc. 2024-07629 as it appeared on Public Inspection on\n+04/10/2024 at 8:45 am.\n+It was viewed\n+347\n+times while on Public Inspection.\n+If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you\n+should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official\n+edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the\n+Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice\n+to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507.\n+Learn more here.\n+Public Inspection\n+Published Document: 2024-07629 (89 FR 25609)\n+This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.\n+Document Headings\n+Document headings vary by document type but may contain\n+the following:\n+the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document\n+the number of the CFR title and the number of each part\n+the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly\n+related to\n+the agency docket number / agency internal file number\n+the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in\n+the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory\n+Actions\n+See the\n+Document Drafting Handbook\n+for more details.\n+Department of Commerce\n+Patent and Trademark Office\n+[Docket No. PTO-P-2024-0013]\n+AGENCY:\n+United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.\n+ACTION:\n+Notice.\n+SUMMARY:\n+The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues this guidance to inform practitioners and the public of the important issues that patent and trademark professionals, innovators, and entrepreneurs must navigate while using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in matters before the USPTO. The USPTO recognizes the possibility that AI will be used to prepare and prosecute patent and trademark applications, as well as other filings before the Office including filings submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). While the USPTO is committed to maximizing AI's benefits and seeing them distributed broadly across society, the USPTO recognizes the need, through technical mitigations and human governance, to cabin the risks arising from the use of AI in practice before the USPTO. At this time, based on the USPTO's engagement with stakeholders through the USPTO's AI and Emerging Technologies (ET) Partnership (AI/ET Partnership) and a review of existing rules, the USPTO has determined that existing rules protect the USPTO's ecosystem against such potential perils. This guidance reminds individuals involved in proceedings before the USPTO of the pertinent rules and policies, helps inform those same individuals of the risks associated with the use of AI systems, and provides suggestions to mitigate those risks. The USPTO will continue to engage with the public, including through the AI/ET Partnership, as the use of AI advances and evolves.\n+DATES:\n+This guidance on the use of AI in practicing before the USPTO is applicable as of April 11, 2024.\n+FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\n+For patent matters contact Matthew Sked, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7627 or Nalini Mummalaneni, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-270-1647, both with the Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents.\n+For matters regarding the PTAB contact Michael W. Kim, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, or Charles J. Boudreau, Lead Administrative Patent Judge, at 571-272-9797.\n+For trademark matters contact Robert J. Lavache, Senior Trademark Legal Policy Advisor, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, at 571-272-5881.\n+For matters regarding the TTAB contact Cheryl A. Butler, Senior Counsel and Editor of the Trademark Board Manual of Procedure, at 571-272-4259.\n+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\n+I. Background\n+Recognizing that “[r]esponsible AI use has the potential to help solve urgent challenges while making our world more prosperous, productive, innovative, and secure,” while “[a]t the same time, irresponsible use could exacerbate societal harms such as fraud, discrimination, bias, and disinformation; displace and disempower workers; stifle competition; and pose risks to national security,” President Biden issued the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence on October 30, 2023 (“Executive Order”).[1]\n+The Executive Order calls upon the Federal Government to enact and enforce protections as to AI-related harms, including “in critical fields like healthcare, financial services, education, housing,\n+law\n+, and transportation” (emphasis added), while promoting responsible uses of AI.[2]\n+This notice, which recognizes the ways in which the USPTO's existing protections address AI-related harms, is one of the USPTO's numerous efforts, such as the AI/ET Partnership and the Inventorship Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions,[3]\n+to address AI considerations at the intersection of innovation, creativity, and intellectual property (IP).\n+As we see AI being increasingly integrated with and deployed into a variety of sectors including finance, manufacturing, healthcare, and transportation,[4]\n+we also see a growth in the use of AI in the legal field and in practice before the Office. With the advent of large language models and\n+( printed page 25610)\n+generative AI, legal professionals and others who practice before the Office are currently exposed to AI-based solutions that can create content, author legal research memos, perform due diligence analysis, extract legal principles contained in court opinions, and assist in deposition preparation. The ability of AI to analyze massive amounts of data and find patterns that are undetectable to the human eye makes it a valuable asset in the toolkits of examiners, parties, and practitioners. For example, patent examiners are performing AI-enabled prior art searches using features like More Like This Document (MLTD) [5]\n+and Similarity Search [6]\n+in the Office's Patents End-to-End (PE2E) Search tool. Patent practitioners are increasingly relying on AI-based tools to research prior art, automate the patent application review process, and to gain insights into examiner behavior.\n+These tools have the potential to lower the barriers and costs of practicing before the Office as well as helping law practitioners offer services to their clients with improved quality and efficiency. As the use of AI continues to grow in the IP community, however, it is essential to address the legal and ethical considerations that arise with the use of these technologies. Some of these considerations were discussed in a panel on practitioners' use of AI at the AI/ET Partnership event, “AI tools and data,” held at the USPTO on September 27, 2023.[7]\n+Patent practitioners suggested that AI tools have the potential to make prior art searches, claim charting, and document reviews easier while acknowledging that human verification of the outputs of AI tools is necessary. They also discussed confidentiality and ethical issues that may be of concern when using such tools.\n+Incomplete or inaccurate outputs by AI, which, when not thoroughly verified by parties and practitioners, can also result in critical misstatements and omissions. For example, legal briefs and motions, the preparation of which was assisted by AI, have included fictionalized citations and quotations, resulting in sanctions for the attorneys filing these briefs.[8]\n+Other issues arise from seeking AI assistance by sharing sensitive and confidential client information to third-party AI systems, including those potentially located outside of the United States.[9]\n+The legal community has recognized the need to identify and explore AI risks in legal proceedings. For example, in the 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts identified that AI has the potential to “increase access to key information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike” but comes with risks such as “invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law.” [10]\n+The American Bar Association (ABA) created the ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence to provide the legal community with insights for developing and using AI in a trustworthy and responsible manner.[11]\n+Several federal and state court judges have issued standing orders requiring, for example, certifications by filers that any court filings, or citations, assertions, or analysis therein, generated by AI are verified to be accurate.[12]\n+Following the lead of these judges, courts are beginning to propose local rules to address such issues for all judges on those courts.[13]\n+Recognizing the importance of these issues, on February 6, 2024, the USPTO Director issued guidance (“February 2024 Guidance”) to the PTAB and TTAB to remind those business units about the scope and applicability of existing rules.[14]\n+Given the uncertainties faced by practitioners in the use of AI tools, the USPTO publishes this guidance to remind practitioners about existing rules and policies that may be relevant to the use of these tools, and to help educate practitioners on possible risks presented by the use of these tools so that practitioners can mitigate these risks. In the event of any conflict between the February 2024 Guidance and this notice, this notice controls.\n+This guidance is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of possible rules, policies, or issues that may arise with use of AI in matters before the USPTO. As noted above, the USPTO has separately addressed the use of AI before the office when AI is used as part of the inventive process.[15]\n+The USPTO continues to engage with stakeholders through the AI/ET Partnership to seek the public's views on various policy issues that uniquely affect the AI/ET community.[16]\n+The USPTO will continue to study considerations raised by the use of AI within the IP community, including impacts on the integrity and accessibility of the IP system.\n+This notice is organized as follows: Section II provides an overview of the USPTO's existing rules and policies. Section III describes how these existing rules and policies apply in the context of the use of AI tools in matters before the USPTO. Specifically, section III(A) discusses the use of AI systems in drafting documents for submission to the USPTO. Section III(B) addresses the filing of documents at the USPTO with the assistance of AI tools. Section III(C) discusses USPTO information technology (IT) systems and the appropriate use of AI tools in interacting with those systems. Finally, section III(D) raises confidentiality and national security concerns related to the use of AI systems.\n+Disclaimer:\n+This guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of law. The guidance does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the USPTO. This guidance is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with current USPTO policy. However, if any earlier guidance from the USPTO, including any section of the current Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), is inconsistent with the guidance set forth in this notice, USPTO personnel are to follow this\n+( printed page 25611)\n+guidance. This guidance will be incorporated into the MPEP in due course.\n+II. The USPTO's Existing Rules and Policies\n+The USPTO's rules and policies described in this guidance—including those meant to ensure full, fair and accurate disclosure to the USPTO and to protect clients of USPTO practitioners—apply broadly, regardless of any AI assistance in preparing submissions to the USPTO. These broadly applicable rules and policies help mitigate the risks of AI assistance and require practitioners and others to exercise special care when using AI as a tool in connection with USPTO practice.\n+A. Duty of Candor and Good Faith\n+Each individual associated with a proceeding at the USPTO (\n+e.g.,\n+patent and trademark examination, reexamination, appeal or other proceedings before the PTAB or TTAB) has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office. For practitioners, these duties are detailed in 37 CFR 11.303 and apply to practice before the USPTO including any USPTO tribunal. Furthermore, other rules may act cumulatively to § 11.303. In patent examination and reissue proceedings, for example, individuals owe the Office a duty of candor and good faith as detailed in 37 CFR 1.56(a), which states in part: “[e]ach individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.” This duty extends to all dealings these individuals have with the USPTO and is not limited to representations or dealings with a patent examiner.[17]\n+Therefore, the duty of candor and good faith covers other interactions associated with a proceeding at the USPTO such as, without limitation, filing a petition to the USPTO Director or filing a response to a pre-examination notice from the Office of Patent Application Processing.\n+Included within the duty of candor and good faith in patent proceedings is the duty of disclosure. The duty of disclosure requires that each individual identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c) disclose to the USPTO all information known to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b). While § 1.56(a) refers to the duty to disclose material information to the USPTO, the duty of candor and good faith is broader.[18]\n+The rule states “no patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct.” The duty of candor and good faith applies to positions taken by applicants or parties involving the claimed subject matter.[19]\n+It also applies to errors that occur during the course of the proceeding. “If a party to a USPTO proceeding discovers that an earlier position taken in a submission to the USPTO or another Government agency was incorrect or inconsistent with other statements made by the party, the party must promptly correct the record.” [20]\n+Under the duty of candor and good faith, any acts of fraud and intentional misconduct are not permitted.\n+The duty of candor and good faith operates to achieve the important functions of safeguarding the integrity of proceedings before the USPTO and ensuring robust and reliable patents are issued. “The rules serve to remind individuals associated with the preparation and prosecution of patent applications of their duty of candor and good faith in their dealings with the Office, and will aid the Office in receiving, in a timely manner, the information it needs to carry out effective and efficient examination of patent applications.” [21]\n+Further, the duty also provides for the efficient resolution of matters by permitting the USPTO to accept certain applicant statements as true without further investigation.[22]\n+Those individuals subject to the duty of candor and good faith should exercise care to avoid any potential negative consequences.[23]\n+The duty of candor and good faith in patent proceedings extends beyond\n+ex parte\n+patent examination and reissue proceedings. In reexamination proceedings and supplemental examination, 37 CFR 1.555(a) states: “Each individual associated with the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability in a reexamination proceeding.” When parties and individuals are involved in a proceeding before the PTAB, they are also subject to the duty of candor and good faith pursuant to 37 CFR 42.11. The duty of candor and good faith applies in patent term extension proceedings as well.[24]\n+As the duty of candor and good faith applies to all conduct before the USPTO, the duty underlies all the discussions on the use of AI systems in matters before the USPTO throughout Section III. However, the duty is explicitly referenced in Section III(A). For example, this section explains that those involved in patent proceedings have a duty to disclose all information—including on the use of AI tools by inventors, parties, and practitioners—that is material to patentability.\n+B. Signature Requirement and Corresponding Certifications\n+Generally, all patent correspondence filed in the USPTO must bear a person's signature.[25]\n+By including this signature, the individual inserting the signature or submitting the paper is certifying that the person's signature appearing on the document was actually inserted by that person.[26]\n+In other words, a person, including a practitioner, must insert their own signature on the paper. “The requirement does not permit one person (\n+e.g.,\n+a secretary) to type in the signature\n+( printed page 25612)\n+of a second person (\n+e.g.,\n+a practitioner) even if the second person directs the first person to do so.” [27]\n+Except for trademark correspondence that is required to be signed by the applicant, registrant or party to a proceeding, each piece of trademark correspondence filed in the Office by a trademark practitioner must bear a signature, personally signed or inserted by such practitioner.[28]\n+This signature may be: (1) a handwritten signature personally signed in permanent ink by the person named as the signatory, or a true copy thereof, or (2) an electronic signature on correspondence filed on paper or through the USPTO's electronic filing systems that meets the requirements of 37 CFR 2.193(c) and is personally entered by the person named as the signatory.\n+By signing or presenting a piece of correspondence,[29]\n+the party is making a certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b).[30]\n+That section is based upon and includes the same substantive requirements as Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2007).[31]\n+Under 37 CFR 11.18(b)(1), the party presenting the paper certifies that “[a]ll statements made therein of the party's own knowledge are true, all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to be true, and all statements made therein are made with the knowledge that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Office, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or knowingly and willfully makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be subject to the penalties set forth under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and any other applicable criminal statute, and violations of the provisions of this section may jeopardize the probative value of the paper.” In addition to the certification under 37 CFR 11.18(b)(1), 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) imposes a duty of reasonable inquiry.[32]\n+This duty ensures that “the paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, the legal contentions are warranted by law, the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support, and the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence.” [33]\n+The existence and extent of this duty is based on the circumstances known to the party presenting the paper to the USPTO.[34]\n+Failure to inquire when the circumstances warrant it could result in sanctions or other appropriate action.[35]\n+As will be discussed in Section III(B), below, the signature requirement and corresponding certifications ensure that documents drafted with the assistance of AI systems have been reviewed by a person and that person believes everything in the document is true and not submitted for an improper purpose. This issue is more fully discussed in Section III(B).\n+C. Confidentiality of Information\n+Under 37 CFR 11.106(a), “[a] practitioner shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b) of this section, or the disclosure is required by paragraph (c) of this section.” This rule requires practitioners to maintain the confidentiality of client information except in limited circumstances. This rule was amended in 2021 to bring this provision into alignment with the 2012 amendments to the ABA Model Rule 1.6.[36]\n+In particular, 37 CFR 11.106(d) was added, which states: “[a] practitioner shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” Therefore, practitioners must take steps to maintain the confidentiality of their clients' information including reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent and unauthorized disclosure. In addition, the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct concerning conflicts of interest generally prohibit a practitioner from using information relating to the representation of a client (or a former client) to the disadvantage of that client.[37]\n+Use of AI systems to perform prior art searches, application drafting, etc. may result in the inadvertent disclosure of client-sensitive or confidential information to third parties through the owners of these systems, causing harms to the client.\n+In light of these considerations, those using AI systems in practicing before the USPTO, such as drafting applications, should be cognizant of the risks and take steps to ensure confidential information is not divulged as discussed in Section III(D).\n+D. Foreign Filing Licenses and Export Regulations\n+Patent practitioners must comply with foreign filing license requirements prior to filing any patent application in a foreign country or exporting technical data for purposes related to the preparation, filing or possible filing, and prosecution of a foreign application. In particular, under 37 CFR 5.11(a), “[a] license from the Commissioner for Patents under 35 U.S.C. 184 [38]\n+is required before filing any application for patent . . . or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model, in a foreign country or in a foreign or international intellectual property authority, . . . if the invention was made in the United States, and: (1) An application on the invention has been filed in the United States less than six months prior to the date on which\n+( printed page 25613)\n+the application is to be filed; or (2) No application on the invention has been filed in the United States.” Further, 37 CFR 5.11(b) provides that “[t]he license from the Commissioner . . . referred to in paragraph (a) . . . would also authorize the export of technical data abroad for purposes related to . . . [t]he preparation, filing or possible filing, and prosecution of a foreign application.” Under 37 CFR 5.11(c), “[w]here technical data in the form of a patent application, or in any form, are being exported for purposes related to the preparation, filing or possible filing and prosecution of a foreign application, without the license from the Commissioner for Patents referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, or on an invention not made in the United States, the export regulations contained in 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the Department of State), 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (Export Administration Regulations of the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce), and 10 CFR part 810 (Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities Regulations of the Department of Energy) must be complied with unless a license is not required because a United States application was on file at the time of export for at least six months without a secrecy order under § 5.2 being placed thereon.”\n+Practitioners are further reminded, however, that “[a] foreign filing license from the USPTO does not authorize the exporting of subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States.” [39]\n+Rather, “the export of subject matter abroad pursuant to a license from the USPTO, such as a foreign filing license, is limited to purposes related to the filing of foreign patent applications,” and “[a]pplicants who are considering exporting subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States should contact the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) at the Department of Commerce for the appropriate clearances.” [40]\n+“The BIS has promulgated the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) governing exports of dual-use commodities, software, and technology, including technical data, which are codified at 15 CFR parts 730 through 774.” [41]\n+Release of controlled technology to a foreign person may be deemed an export. 15 CFR 734.13(b).[42]\n+Practitioners must be mindful of these concerns and ensure data is not improperly exported when using AI systems as discussed in Section III(D).\n+E. USPTO Electronic Systems' Policies\n+In addition to the requirements set forth above, access to USPTO electronic systems is subject to a number of terms and conditions. Exceeding authorized access or violating those terms and conditions in connection with accessing USPTO electronic systems may result in criminal or civil liability under federal law (including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030) and/or state law. In addition, such conduct may result in penalties or sanctions administered by the USPTO.\n+The USPTO's websites provide access to a rich collection of information and services including online filing for patents and trademarks, fee handling, and search. Some of these services may require the user to create and use a dedicated account. For example, users may use the USPTO patent electronic filing system, Patent Center, to electronically file patent correspondence or view the status of, and documents filed in or associated with, patent applications and proceedings, including appeals to the PTAB with respect to such applications. In order to take advantage of all the capabilities of Patent Center, a user must be a registered user by creating a\n+USPTO.gov\n+account and completing the Patent Electronic System Verification Form PTO-2042a including the Patent Electronic Subscriber agreement.[43]\n+The\n+USPTO.gov\n+account is exclusive to an individual and it is not permitted to be shared with other users. Even support staff individuals who are sponsored by one or more practitioners must create and use their own individual\n+USPTO.gov\n+account. Likewise, users are required to have an active\n+USPTO.gov\n+account in order to access the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for filing documents in connection with interferences [44]\n+and inter partes disputes [45]\n+established under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), including inter partes review (IPR), transitional program for covered business method patents (CBM), post grant review (PGR), and derivation (DER) proceedings.[46]\n+Similarly, trademark applicants and registrants are required to electronically file trademark correspondence through the trademark electronic filing systems. Users can view the status of, and documents filed in or associated with, trademark applications and registrations in the trademark electronic filing systems. In order to take advantage of all trademark electronic systems, a user must be a registered user by creating a\n+USPTO.gov\n+account and completing an online or paper-based verification including the Trademark Verified\n+USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement.[47]\n+The\n+USPTO.gov\n+account is exclusive to an individual and it is not permitted to be shared with other users.[48]\n+Even support staff individuals who are sponsored by one or more practitioners must create and use their own individual\n+USPTO.gov\n+account.[49]\n+Trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the TTAB are required to file submissions and correspondence electronically, currently through Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). 37 CFR 2.126(a).[50]\n+Additionally, the Terms of Use apply to all USPTO websites, applications, software, and services that are intended for public use on the\n+USPTO.gov\n+domain or USPTO-branded mobile applications and social media presences.[51]\n+In other words, the Terms of Use are the policies that all users must abide by when accessing USPTO services. These Terms of Use prohibit the unauthorized access, actions, use, modification, or disclosure of the data contained in the USPTO system or in transit to/from the system.\n+( printed page 25614)\n+Further information on USPTO's electronic system policies and how they relate to the use of AI systems in filing documents and accessing USPTO systems can be found in Sections III(B) and (C).\n+F. Duties Owed to Clients\n+The USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct require that a practitioner provide competent and diligent representation to a client.[52]\n+The USPTO adopted the competence and diligence rules in 2013 to correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.1 and 1.3, respectively, and guided practitioners to refer to the Comments and Annotations to the ABA Model Rules, as amended through August 2012, for useful information on how to interpret the equivalent USPTO Rules.[53]\n+Under 37 CFR 11.101, a practitioner must have “the legal, scientific, and technical knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” [54]\n+Practitioners must keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with any technology used to handle client matters before the USPTO.[55]\n+The diligence requirement, which corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.3, states that the practitioner shall act with reasonable diligence in representing a client.[56]\n+In addition, 37 CFR 11.104 requires a practitioner to “reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished” and “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” A practitioner who supervises the work of other practitioners and non-practitioner assistants in representing a client is responsible for making reasonable efforts to ensure that the practitioners and non-practitioner assistants comply with the professional obligations of the practitioner or the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.[57]\n+When using AI tools, practitioners must ensure they are not violating the duties owed to clients as highlighted in Section III(A). For example, practitioners must have the requisite legal, scientific, and technical knowledge to reasonably represent their client.\n+III. Application of the Existing Rules as to the Use of AI, Including Generative AI, Before the USPTO\n+As set forth above, parties and practitioners appearing or practicing before the USPTO (including the PTAB and TTAB), or accessing USPTO electronic resources, are subject to a number of conditions and obligations. Those conditions and obligations readily apply to situations in which the party or practitioner uses AI as a tool, as set forth in the examples below.\n+A. The Use of Computer Tools for Document Drafting\n+For years, computer tools have been ubiquitous in document drafting. Word processing software with features such as spelling and grammar check are commonplace in most industries. More recently, word processing software and other computer tools have begun adopting generative AI features that can develop a written document with much less human involvement. For example, recent tools directed to the IP industry include the ability to draft technical specifications, generate responses to Office actions, write and respond to briefs, and even draft patent claims.\n+The capabilities of these tools continue to grow, and there is no prohibition against using these computer tools in drafting documents for submission to the USPTO. Nor is there a general obligation to disclose to the USPTO the use of such tools.[58]\n+However, and especially absent such an obligation, applicants, registrants, practitioners, parties to proceedings, and others submitting papers to the USPTO are reminded of the related USPTO policies and duties to the Office and clients (if applicable) when using these computer tools. These policies and duties apply in a variety of exemplary contexts.\n+1. All Submissions and Correspondence With the USPTO\n+As explained above, nearly all forms of correspondence with the USPTO must be signed. This includes documents that were drafted entirely by AI tools or drafted with the assistance of AI tools. By presenting to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) any paper, a party (\n+i.e.,\n+the person signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating for the paper) certifies under 37 CFR 11.18(b) that all statements to the party's own knowledge are true and that the party performed an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. In order to obtain the knowledge necessary to make these certifications, the party presenting the paper must have reviewed and verified the paper and its contents.\n+Accordingly, any paper submitted to the USPTO must be reviewed by the party or parties presenting the paper. Those parties are responsible for the contents therein. Simply relying on the accuracy of an AI tool is not a reasonable inquiry.[59]\n+Therefore, if an AI tool is used in drafting or editing a document, the party must still review its contents and ensure the paper is in accordance with the certifications being made. For example, given the potential for generative AI systems to omit, misstate, or even “hallucinate” [60]\n+or “confabulate” information, the party or parties presenting the paper must ensure that all statements in the paper are true to their own knowledge and made based on information that is believed to be true. Additionally, the party or parties should also perform an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances confirming all facts presented in the paper have or are likely to have evidentiary support and confirming the accuracy of all citations to case law and other references. This review must also ensure that all arguments and legal contentions are warranted by existing law, a nonfrivolous argument for the extension of existing law, or the establishment of new law. For example, if an AI system is used to draft a portion of a response to an examiner Office action, the party should review the response, including checking the accuracy of the citations and ensuring the arguments are legally warranted. Further, practitioners and others involved in a matter before the USPTO may be required to disclose certain known facts to the USPTO under their duty of candor and good faith. For example, in patents and patent applications, all patent claims must have a significant contribution by a human inventor. Thus, if an AI system is used to draft patent claims that are submitted for examination, but an individual listed in 37 CFR 1.56(c) has knowledge that one or more of the claims did not have a significant contribution by a human inventor, that\n+( printed page 25615)\n+information must be disclosed to the USPTO.[61]\n+Upon review of the document drafted with the assistance of an AI tool, any errors or omissions in the document must be corrected. Filing a paper with the USPTO that includes erroneous facts, arguments, or authorities would not be in compliance with 37 CFR 11.18(b). Similarly, filing a paper with known material omissions in not accordance with the duty of candor and good faith. Violations of 37 CFR 11.18 could include striking the offending paper, referring the practitioner's conduct to the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline, or terminating the proceedings in the Office.[62]\n+Additionally, practitioners are prohibited under 37 CFR 11.301 [63]\n+from bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so.[64]\n+While those parties presenting a paper to the USPTO are under a duty to review the information in the paper and correct any errors, there is not presently a general duty to inform the USPTO that an AI tool was used in the drafting of the paper unless specifically requested by the USPTO.[65]\n+However, practitioners must competently represent their clients.[66]\n+That is, they must have the requisite legal, scientific, and technical knowledge to reasonably represent their client.\n+In addition, under 37 CFR 11.104(a)(2), practitioners must reasonably consult with the client about the means by which their clients' objectives are to be accomplished.[67]\n+2. Additional Examples in the Patent Context\n+While there is no per se requirement to notify the USPTO when AI tools are used in the invention creation process or practicing before the USPTO, applicants and practitioners should be mindful of their duty of disclosure. This is, if the use of an AI tool is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b), the use of such AI tool must be disclosed to the USPTO. For example, as discussed in more detail in the Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, material information could include evidence that a named inventor did not significantly contribute to the invention because the person's purported contributions were made by an AI system.[68]\n+This could occur where an AI system assists in the drafting of the patent application and introduces alternative embodiments which the inventor(s) did not conceive and applicant seeks to patent. If there is a question as to whether there was at least one named inventor who significantly contributed to a claimed invention developed with the assistance of AI, information regarding the interaction with the AI system (\n+e.g.,\n+the inputs/outputs of the AI system) could be material and, if so, should be submitted to the USPTO.[69]\n+Practitioners are also under a duty to refrain from filing or prosecuting patent claims that are known to be unpatentable. Therefore, in situations where an AI tool is used to draft patent claims, the practitioner is under a duty to modify those claims as needed to present them in patentable form before submitting them to the USPTO. In situations where the specification and/or drawings of the patent application are drafted using AI tools, practitioners need to take extra care to verify the technical accuracy of the documents and compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112. Also, when AI tools are used to produce or draft prophetic examples, appropriate care should be taken to assist the readers in differentiating these examples from actual working examples.[70]\n+This should be done before initial filing with the USPTO because amending the specification and/or drawings after the initial submission may constitute new matter.[71]\n+Care should be taken to ensure that the disclosures of foreign or international patent applications drafted using AI tools, to which the U.S. patent application claims priority, are technically accurate to avoid loss of priority due to the filing of amendments to correct technical errors in the U.S. application.\n+When AI systems are relied upon to draft or modify claims, such drafts or changes could impact inventorship or patentability (\n+e.g.,35 U.S.C. 112(a)). For example, when AI makes contributions to drafting portions of the specification and/or claims (\n+e.g.,\n+introducing alternate embodiments not contemplated by the inventor(s)), it is appropriate to assess whether the contributions made by natural persons rise to the level of inventorship, in accordance with the law and recent USPTO guidance.[72]\n+In particular, each named inventor must have significantly contributed to a claimed invention of the application as described by the\n+Pannu\n+factors.[73]\n+Therefore, practitioners should carefully reevaluate that the appropriate inventors are listed on the patent application. It is particularly important for a practitioner to review applications prepared with the assistance of AI, before filing, to see that information is not incorrectly or incompletely characterized.\n+AI systems could also be used in the submission of evidence of patentability or unpatentability (\n+e.g.,\n+evidence of secondary considerations). Though AI may be used to identify evidence or even draft affidavits, petitions, responses to Office actions, etc., practitioners are required to verify the accuracy of factual assertions, both technical and legal, and ensure that all documents, including those prepared with the assistance of AI, do not introduce inaccurate statements and evidence into the record, either inadvertently or intentionally, or omit information that is material to patentability.\n+Additionally, AI may be used to automatically populate the USPTO's PTO/SB/08 form (Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form) with citations for submission to the USPTO, and may be used to collect prior art references in the first place.[74]\n+While AI could be attractive to some patent applicants and practitioners, the unchecked use of AI poses the danger of increasing the number and size of IDS submissions to the USPTO, which could\n+( printed page 25616)\n+burden the Office with large numbers of cumulative and irrelevant submissions. First, 37 CFR 1.4(d) requires a natural person to personally sign or insert their signature on the IDS. By signing, that person is certifying that they have performed a reasonable inquiry—including not just reviewing the IDS form but reviewing each piece of prior art listed on the form—and determined the paper is compliant with 37 CFR 11.18(b). Regardless of where prior art is found, submitting an IDS without reviewing the contents may be a violation of 37 CFR 11.18(b). After the contents have been reviewed, clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information to the instant proceeding should be removed to avoid violating 37 CFR 11.18 by overburdening the examiner with a large amount of irrelevant information.[75]\n+Including such information in an IDS could be construed as a paper presented for an improper purpose because it could “cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office.” [76]\n+Similarly, third-party preissuance submissions under 37 CFR 1.290 must also be signed by a natural person and, therefore, implicate the certifications under 37 CFR 11.18(b).\n+The duty of disclosure applies to the individuals identified in 37 CFR 1.56(c). This duty cannot be transferred to another person or a computer system such as an AI tool. Therefore, it is the § 1.56(c) individuals who must ensure that all material information is submitted to the USPTO. Therefore, IDSs should also be reviewed to ensure that all material information is disclosed to prevent material information from being unknowingly omitted.\n+3. Additional Examples in the Trademark Context\n+Trademark and TTAB submissions generated or assisted by AI must be carefully reviewed prior to filing to ensure that the facts and statements provided are true and have appropriate evidentiary support, consistent with the requirements of 37 CFR 11.18(b). This includes any information or evidence provided in trademark applications, registration maintenance filings, and TTAB proceedings, as well as legal arguments and citations made in response to refusals and requirements in Office actions or in briefs before the TTAB, whether in appeals or trial cases. Particular care should be taken to avoid submitting any AI-generated specimens, which do not show actual use of the trademark in commerce, or any other evidence created by AI that does not actually exist in the marketplace. In addition, AI-generated material that misstates facts or law, includes irrelevant material, or includes unnecessarily cumulative material, could be construed as a paper presented for an improper purpose because it could “cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office.” [77]\n+B. Filing Documents With the USPTO\n+Beyond assisting with the preparation of documents, AI tools could be used to assist or automate the mechanical aspects of filing documents with the USPTO. For example, these tools could potentially autocomplete USPTO forms, access information on USPTO websites, and upload documents and other information to USPTO servers. Care should be taken by persons using such tools to ensure USPTO rules and policies are not violated.\n+As previously explained, nearly all forms of correspondence filed with the USPTO must bear a signature.[78]\n+This must be the signature of a “person.” [79]\n+It would not be acceptable for the correspondence to have the signature of an AI tool or other non-natural person.[80]\n+The signer must insert their signature in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(d) and 2.193(c).[81]\n+The signer of the document cannot delegate this act to another person or entity. Thus, it is not compliant with the rules to have the AI tool apply the signature of a person without being personally entered by that person.[82]\n+This requirement ensures that natural persons are overseeing the submissions to the USPTO and ensuring they are compliant with USPTO rules and policies.\n+Another issue practitioners and others should consider when using AI tools to submit papers to the USPTO is the USPTO's policies regarding electronic filing, websites, and other services. For example, in order to submit papers to the USPTO through the Patent Center, Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), P-TACTS, or other USPTO electronic systems, a user should obtain a\n+USPTO.gov\n+account.[83]\n+Because obtaining a\n+USPTO.gov\n+account requires individual agreement to the Terms of Use for USPTO websites, the USPTO Patent Electronic System Subscriber Agreement (as applicable), and the Trademark Verified\n+USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement (as applicable),\n+USPTO.gov\n+accounts are limited to natural persons and cannot be obtained by non-natural persons. Therefore, AI systems may not obtain a\n+USPTO.gov\n+account. Further, practitioners may not sponsor AI tools as a support staff individual to obtain an account.\n+C. Accessing USPTO IT Systems\n+While AI tools have the capabilities to access and interact with USPTO IT systems, attention should be paid to ensure the use of these tools does not run afoul of federal and state law, and USPTO regulations and policies. One important policy to note is the requirement that users must not file documents or access information for which they do not have authorization.[84]\n+In order to be authorized, a user must be the applicant, registrant, party to a proceeding, inventor, third party (who may submit some papers such as third-party submissions via a dedicated interface), a practitioner of record, a practitioner acting in representative capacity pursuant to 37 CFR 1.34, or a sponsored support staff individual.[85]\n+Further, in addition to being authorized, only registered users may file follow-on documents in applications. An AI system or tool is not considered a “user” for filing and/or accessing documents via the USPTO's electronic filing systems, and as such, cannot obtain a\n+USPTO.gov\n+account. If a person is using a computer tool, including an AI system, to assist in submitting documentation to the USPTO, that person is responsible for ensuring that computer tool does not exceed\n+( printed page 25617)\n+authorized access, including submitting or accessing papers in an application that the person does not have authorization to access. Violations of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System, Trademark Verified\n+USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement, Terms of Use for USPTO websites, or other applicable policies may lead to revocation of the user's\n+USPTO.gov\n+account, in addition to criminal, civil, and/or administrative action and penalties as previously described.[86]\n+Users should also be extremely careful when attempting to data mine information from USPTO databases. Using computer tools, including AI systems, in a manner that generates unusually high numbers of database accesses violates the Terms of Use for USPTO websites, and users using tools in this way will be denied access to USPTO servers without notice and could be subject to applicable state criminal and civil laws.[87]\n+Instead, users should consider using the USPTO's bulk data products for permitted and appropriate data mining efforts.[88]\n+D. Confidentiality and National Security Considerations\n+Use of AI in practice before the USPTO can result in the inadvertent disclosure of client-sensitive or confidential information, including highly-sensitive technical information, to third parties. This can happen, for example, when aspects of an invention are input into AI systems to perform prior art searches or generate drafts of specification, claims, or responses to Office actions. AI systems may retain the information that is entered by users. This information can be used in a variety of ways by the owner of the AI system including using the data to further train its AI models or providing the data to third parties in breach of practitioners' confidentiality obligations to their clients under,\n+inter alia,37 CFR 11.106. If confidential information is used to train AI, that confidential information or some parts of it may filter into outputs from the AI system provided to others.\n+When practitioners rely on the services of a third party to develop a proprietary AI tool, store client data on third-party storage, or purchase a commercially available AI tool, practitioners must be especially vigilant to ensure that confidentiality of client data is maintained. Practitioners who supervise the work of other practitioners and non-practitioner assistants must ensure that the practitioners and staff under their supervision comply with the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct when relying on AI tools and/or AI-related third party services.[89]\n+Such disclosures can also implicate national security, export control, and foreign filing license issues.[90]\n+Specifically, practitioners must be mindful of the possibility that AI tools may utilize servers located outside the United States, raising the likelihood that any data entered into such tools may be exported outside of the United States, potentially in violation of existing export administration and national security regulations or secrecy orders. Even if the servers are located within the United States, certain activities related to the use of AI systems hosted by these servers by non-U.S. persons may be deemed an export subject to these regulations.[91]\n+Moreover, AI system developers or maintainers may suffer data breaches, further subjecting user data to disclosure risks. Therefore, before using these AI tools, it is imperative for practitioners to understand an AI tool's terms of use, privacy policies, and cybersecurity practices.\n+E. Fraud and Intentional Misconduct\n+The USPTO does not tolerate fraud or intentional misconduct in any manner in a proceeding before the Office or in connection with accessing USPTO IT systems. As explained above, all individuals associated with a proceeding before the USPTO have a duty of candor and good faith. The duty extends not only to the personal actions of these individuals, but also to the actions these individuals take with any automated tools, including AI tools. Additionally, the use of AI tools on USPTO websites for the “[u]nauthorized access, actions, use, modification, or disclosure of the data contained herein or in transit to/from [USPTO web systems] constitutes a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.” [92]\n+The USPTO monitors network traffic to identify such behaviors. As previously discussed, violators are subject to criminal, civil, and/or administrative action and penalties.\n+IV. Conclusion\n+This guidance on the use of AI Before the Office is not meant to be exhaustive. Those appearing before the USPTO or accessing its systems are reminded to comply with the laws, regulations, precedent, and guidance in force at the time of their dealings with the USPTO.\n+Katherine K. Vidal,\n+Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\n+Footnotes\n+1.\n+Executive Order 14110, 88 FR 75191 (November 1, 2023).\n+Back to Citation\n+2.\n+Id\n+at 75193.\n+Back to Citation\n+3.\n+Events for the Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies Partnership, 87 FR 34669 (June 7, 2022); Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 FR 10043 (February 13, 2024).\n+Back to Citation\n+4.\n+“Inventing AI—Tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with U.S. patents,” (October 2020). Available at\n+www.uspto.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​OCE-DH-AI.pdf.\n+Back to Citation\n+5.\n+See\n+“New PE2E Search Tool Using AI Search Features,” 1494 OG 251 (January 11, 2022).\n+Back to Citation\n+6.\n+See\n+“New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search,” 1504 OG 359 (November 15, 2022).\n+Back to Citation\n+7.\n+“AI tools and data” AI/ET Partnership Series #4, September 2023 (recording available at\n+https://www.uspto.gov/​about-us/​events/​aiet-partnership-series-4-ai-tools-and-data).\n+Back to Citation\n+8.\n+See\n+OPINION AND ORDER ON SANCTIONS at 2,\n+Mata\n+v.\n+Avianca Inc.,\n+Case No. 22-CV-1461 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2023) (lawyers sanctioned for filing a brief that included non-existent citations and quotations that were output by a generative AI system).\n+Back to Citation\n+9.\n+See\n+Panel Discussion on Practitioners' Evaluation and Use of AI, “AI tools and data” AI/ET Partnership Series #4, September 2023 (recording available at\n+https://www.uspto.gov/​about-us/​events/​aiet-partnership-series-4-ai-tools-and-data).\n+Back to Citation\n+10.\n+2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary at 5, available at\n+www.supremecourt.gov/​publicinfo/​year-end/​2023year-endreport.pdf\n+(Dec. 31. 2023).\n+Back to Citation\n+11.\n+See\n+ABA forms task force to study impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession, American Bar Ass'n (Aug. 28, 2023),\n+https://www.americanbar.org/​news/​abanews/​aba-news-archives/​2023/​08/​aba-task-force-impact-of-ai/​.\n+Back to Citation\n+12.\n+See, e.g.,\n+Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2023), available at\n+www.paed.uscourts.gov/​sites/​paed/​files/​documents/​locrules/​standord/​Standing%20Order%20Re%20Artificial%20Intelligence%206.6.pdf).\n+Back to Citation\n+13.\n+Notice of Proposed Amendment to 5th Cir. R. 32.3, available at\n+www.ca5.uscourts.gov/​docs/​default-source/​default-document-library/​public-comment-local-rule-32-3-and-form-6.\n+Back to Citation\n+14.\n+The February 2024 Guidance is available at\n+www.uspto.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​directorguidance-aiuse-legalproceedings.pdf.\n+Back to Citation\n+15.\n+Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 FR 10043.\n+Back to Citation\n+16.\n+www.uspto.gov/​initiatives/​artificial-intelligence/​ai-and-emerging-technology-partnership-engagement-and-events.\n+For more information on the USPTO's work at the intersection of AI and IP, see\n+https://www.uspto.gov/​blog/​director/​entry/​ai-and-inventorship-guidance-incentivizing?​utm_​campaign=​subscriptioncenter&​utm_​content=​&​utm_​medium=​email&​utm_​name=​&​utm_​source=​govdelivery&​utm_​term=​.\n+Back to Citation\n+17.\n+Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (9th Edition, rev. 07.2022, February 2023) (MPEP) 2001.03.\n+Back to Citation\n+18.\n+MPEP 2001.04.\n+Back to Citation\n+19.\n+Id.\n+Back to Citation\n+20.\n+Id\n+(citing\n+In re Tendler,\n+Proceeding No. D2013-17 (USPTO Jan. 1, 2014) (suspending a practitioner for four years for failure to correct the written record after learning of inaccuracies in a declaration the practitioner had filed));\n+see also\n+MPEP 2011 (“When an error is discovered, applicant should take steps to ensure that the error is corrected as soon as possible.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+21.\n+Id.\n+Back to Citation\n+22.\n+See, e.g.,\n+MPEP 711.03(C) (“The Office usually relies upon the applicant's duty of candor and good faith and accepts the statement that `the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 was unintentional' without requiring further information in the vast majority of petitions under 37 CFR 1.137.”); MPEP 717.02(b) (“The applicant(s) or the representative(s) of record have the best knowledge of the ownership of their application(s) and reference(s), and their statement of such is sufficient because of their paramount obligation of candor and good faith to the USPTO.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+23.\n+See\n+MPEP 2016.\n+Back to Citation\n+24.\n+37 CFR 1.765(a) (“A duty of candor and good faith toward the Patent and Trademark Office and the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of Agriculture rests on the patent owner or its agent, on each attorney or agent who represents the patent owner and on every other individual who is substantively involved on behalf of the patent owner in a patent term extension proceeding.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+25.\n+See 37 CFR 11.18(a);\n+see also37 CFR 1.33(b); 37 CFR 42.6(a)(4) (“\n+Signature; identification.\n+Documents must be signed in accordance with §§ 1.33 and 11.18(a) of this title, and should be identified by the trial number (where known).”); 37 CFR 42.11(b) (“Every petition, response, written motion, and other paper filed in a [PTAB AIA Trial] proceeding must comply with the signature requirements set forth in § 11.18(a) of this chapter.”). Certain patent-related correspondence, including a notice of appeal to the PTAB, are not subject to these signature requirements.\n+See, e.g.,37 CFR 41.31(b).\n+Back to Citation\n+26.\n+37 CFR 1.4(d)(5)(ii).\n+Back to Citation\n+27.\n+MPEP 502.02(subsection II).\n+Back to Citation\n+28.\n+37 CFR 11.18(a).\n+Back to Citation\n+29.\n+Presenting a correspondence includes signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating. It is noted that while many of the rules of professional conduct are directed at practitioners, 37 CFR 11.18 applies to anyone presenting a paper, including\n+pro se\n+applicants.\n+Back to Citation\n+30.\n+37 CFR 1.4(d)(5)(i);\n+see also37 CFR 42.11(c) (“By presenting to the Board a petition, response, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney, registered practitioner, or unrepresented party attests to compliance with the certification requirements under § 11.18(b)(2) of this chapter.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+31.\n+MPEP 410.\n+Back to Citation\n+32.\n+37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) (“To the best of the party's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (i) The paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass someone or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office; (ii) The other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (iii) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (iv) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+33.\n+MPEP 2002.02.\n+Back to Citation\n+34.\n+MPEP 2001.06(e).\n+Back to Citation\n+35.\n+See 37 CFR 11.18(c); 37 CFR 42.12.\n+Back to Citation\n+36.\n+See\n+“Changes to Representation of Others Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office,” 86 FR 28442 (May 26, 2021).\n+Back to Citation\n+37.\n+See 37 CFR 11.107-109.\n+Back to Citation\n+38.\n+See 35 U.S.C. 184(a) (“Filing in Foreign Country. Except when authorized by a license obtained from the Commissioner of Patents a person shall not file or cause or authorize to be filed in any foreign country prior to six months after filing in the United States an application for patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of an invention made in this country. A license shall not be granted with respect to an invention subject to an order issued by the Commissioner of Patents pursuant to section 181 without the concurrence of the head of the departments and the chief officers of the agencies who caused the order to be issued. The license may be granted retroactively where an application has been filed abroad through error and the application does not disclose an invention within the scope of section 181.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+39.\n+Scope of Foreign Filing Licenses, 73 FR 42781 (July 23, 2008) (citing MPEP 140 (8th ed., Rev. 5, Aug. 2006));\n+See also\n+MPEP 140 (“Note that the export of subject matter abroad for purposes not related to foreign filing of a patent application or a registration of an industrial design, such as preparing an application in a foreign country for subsequent filing in the USPTO is not covered by any license from the USPTO.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+40.\n+Id.\n+Back to Citation\n+41.\n+Id.\n+Back to Citation\n+42.\n+See, e.g.,\n+“Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System” at 28 (October 23, 2019) (available at\n+www.uspto.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) (“A sponsoring practitioner must take reasonable steps to ensure compliance by each sponsored practitioner support person with . . . the restrictions on the export (including deemed export) of technology and software included in patent applications in section 7. If a sponsored practitioner support person is not a U.S. citizen, their access to the technology and software constitutes an export.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+43.\n+See MPEP 502.05.\n+Back to Citation\n+44.\n+https://ptacts.uspto.gov/​interferences/​ui/​home.\n+Back to Citation\n+45.\n+https://ptacts.uspto.gov/​ptacts/​ui/​home.\n+Back to Citation\n+46.\n+See https://www.uspto.gov/​patents/​ptab/​patent-trial-and-appeal-case-tracking-system-p-tacts.\n+Back to Citation\n+47.\n+“United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Verified\n+USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement” (October 2023) (available at\n+https://www.uspto.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​TM-verified-account-agreement.pdf).\n+Back to Citation\n+48.\n+Id.\n+Back to Citation\n+49.\n+Id.\n+Back to Citation\n+50.\n+See also\n+TTAB Manual of Procedure (TBMP) section 110.01.\n+Back to Citation\n+51.\n+Terms of Use for USPTO websites (available at\n+https://www.uspto.gov/​terms-use-uspto-websites).\n+Back to Citation\n+52.\n+See 37 CFR 11.101, 11.103.\n+Back to Citation\n+53.\n+See\n+Changes to Representation of Others Before The United States Patent and Trademark Office, 78 FR 28445 (2013).\n+Back to Citation\n+54.\n+37 CFR 11.101.\n+Back to Citation\n+55.\n+See\n+Model Code of Prof'l Conduct r. 1.1, cmt. (Am. Bar Ass'n 2012) (“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology . . .”).\n+Back to Citation\n+56.\n+See 37 CFR 11.103.\n+Back to Citation\n+57.\n+See 37 CFR 11.501-503.\n+Back to Citation\n+58.\n+A duty to disclose the use of such tools is implicated when the use rises to the level of materiality under 37 CFR 1.56(b).\n+Back to Citation\n+59.\n+See\n+Opinion and Order on Sanctions at 2,\n+Mata\n+v.\n+Avianca Inc.,\n+Case No. 22-CV-1461 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).\n+Back to Citation\n+60.\n+An AI hallucination, or sometimes referred to as “confabulation,” is a phenomenon where the AI tool outputs inaccurate or nonexistent information.\n+Back to Citation\n+61.\n+37 CFR 1.56(a);\n+See also\n+Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 FR at 10049.\n+Back to Citation\n+62.\n+See 37 CFR 11.18(c).\n+Back to Citation\n+63.\n+“A practitioner shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”\n+Back to Citation\n+64.\n+See also37 CFR 11.303(a).\n+Back to Citation\n+65.\n+See, e.g.,37 CFR 1.105, 11.52.\n+Back to Citation\n+66.\n+See 37 CFR 11.101.\n+Back to Citation\n+67.\n+37 CFR 11.102(a) (“Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, a practitioner shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by § 11.104, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A practitioner may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A practitioner shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+68.\n+Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 FR at 10049.\n+Back to Citation\n+69.\n+MPEP 2004 (citing\n+U.S. Industries\n+v.\n+Norton Co.,\n+210 USPQ 94, 107 (N.D. N.Y. 1980)) (“[i]n short, the question of relevancy\n+in close cases,\n+should be left to the examiner and not the applicant.”). (emphasis added)\n+Back to Citation\n+70.\n+See\n+MPEP 2164.02 (“The claims should be drafted in a manner that assists readers in differentiating between actual working examples and prophetic examples (\n+i.e.,\n+prophetic examples should not be described using the past tense, but rather in future or present tense)”); MPEP 2004 (item 8).\n+Back to Citation\n+71.\n+See\n+MPEP 608.04(a).\n+Back to Citation\n+72.\n+Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 FR 10043.\n+Back to Citation\n+73.\n+Id\n+at 10047.\n+Back to Citation\n+74.\n+See e.g.,\n+Juristat IDS, available at\n+www.resources.juristat.com/​information-disclosure-statement;\n+ClaimMaster, available at\n+www.patentclaimmaster.com/​blog/​filling-out-ids-forms-with-claimmaster.\n+Back to Citation\n+75.\n+See\n+MPEP 2004 (advising parties to “[e]liminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information”).\n+Back to Citation\n+76.\n+37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)(i).\n+Back to Citation\n+77.\n+37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)(i) and (iii).\n+Back to Citation\n+78.\n+37 CFR 1.4(d)(1) and 2.193(a).\n+Back to Citation\n+79.\n+Id.; see also37 CFR 11.18(a) (“For all documents filed in the Office in patent, trademark, and other non-patent matters, and all documents filed with a hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding, except for correspondence that is required to be signed by the applicant or party, each piece of correspondence filed by a practitioner in the Office must bear a signature, personally signed or inserted by such practitioner, in compliance with § 1.4(d) or § 2.193(a) of this chapter.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+80.\n+“Non-natural person” used herein refers to those entities who would not qualify as a natural person under the law (\n+e.g.\n+sovereigns, corporations, or machines).\n+Back to Citation\n+81.\n+See, e.g.,\n+MPEP 502.02; TMEP 611.\n+Back to Citation\n+82.\n+37 CFR 1.4(d)(2)(i).\n+Back to Citation\n+83.\n+Some submissions, such as an initial filed patent application, do not require a\n+USPTO.gov\n+account.\n+Back to Citation\n+84.\n+Legal Framework for Patents Electronic Systems at 6 (“No user, whether registered or unregistered, is permitted to file documents in applications, reexamination proceedings, or supplemental examination proceedings in which they are not authorized.”); Trademark Verified\n+USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement at 2 (“I understand that my use of a trademark verified\n+USPTO.gov\n+account is . . . further limited to use in connection with applications and/or registrations I am authorized to access. I understand that any other use is strictly prohibited.”).\n+Back to Citation\n+85.\n+See, e.g.,\n+Legal Framework for Patents Electronic Systems at 2, 6, and 26.\n+Back to Citation\n+86.\n+Id\n+at 28; Trademark Verified\n+USPTO.gov\n+Account Agreement at 7-8; Terms of Use for USPTO websites.\n+Back to Citation\n+87.\n+Terms of Use for USPTO websites.\n+Back to Citation\n+88.\n+Available at\n+www.uspto.gov/​learning-and-resources/​bulk-data-products.\n+Back to Citation\n+89.\n+See 37 CFR 11.501-503.\n+Back to Citation\n+90.\n+See, e.g.,37 CFR 5.11; Scope of Foreign Filing Licenses, 73 FR 42781 (July 23, 2008); Bureau of Industry and Security Online Training Room (available at\n+www.bis.doc.gov/​index.php/​online-training-room).\n+Back to Citation\n+91.\n+See, e.g.,15 CFR 734.13.\n+Back to Citation\n+92.\n+Terms of Use for USPTO websites.\n+Back to Citation\n+[FR Doc. 2024-07629 Filed 4-10-24; 8:45 am]\n+BILLING CODE 3510-16-P\n+Published Document: 2024-07629 (89 FR 25609)\n+Home\n+Home\n+Sections\n+Money\n+Environment\n+World\n+Science & Technology\n+Business & Industry\n+Health & Public Welfare\n+Browse\n+Agencies\n+Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)\n+Dates\n+Public Inspection\n+Executive Orders\n+Search\n+Document Search\n+Advanced Document Search\n+Public Inspection Search\n+Reader Aids\n+Office of the Federal Register Announcements\n+Using FederalRegister.Gov\n+Understanding the Federal Register\n+Recent Site Updates\n+Federal Register & CFR Statistics\n+Videos & Tutorials\n+Developer Resources\n+Government Policy and OFR Procedures\n+My FR\n+My Clipboard\n+My Subscriptions\n+My Comments\n+Sign In\n+Information\n+About This Site\n+Legal Status\n+Contact Us\n+Privacy\n+Accessibility\n+FOIA\n+No Fear Act\n+Continuity Information\n+Site Feedback","id":"959349e3fd7a06091e651aa3360be091125639d828068eed51565acc82713e53","newHash":"027868c31152b32e642ccece8a0fed83dacbfaaea0593750e4460d1ab5804ab8","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent","snapshot":"snapshots/027868c31152b32e642ccece8a0fed83dacbfaaea0593750e4460d1ab5804ab8.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:15.880891+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"bda9664b9f037bc6aa6a7009dc00aca1b6eb1ef5627f7d62acdb9c7a7ce1c6ae","newHash":"31e0698ece97985a87bf13daeb2ec66ac8e43a40692dd47701598a949afa8d6a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Benton/StandingOrderforAIandCitationCertification_Benton.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/Benton/StandingOrderforAIandCitationCertification_Benton.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:18.098039+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"6431994e93a7bfab21645a0da8c4da9c0b6cad1ecf1fe9312a58488ece1f86ac","newHash":"5ea4814746f2b7976b143d128cadc6301d2143b51a107ac983db8c53a70e074a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/Leftridge_StandingOrderRegardingUseofAI.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/Leftridge_StandingOrderRegardingUseofAI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:19.182956+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"59982e5de49b00d6c9d662761fb18594afcad867327450513ccfdf4a3bee9945","newHash":"d4be4f1fff0de208282e44c1e10d1a10a02b65fe65da1d86f029169c2fe25920","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/whitaker_ex_parte_standing_order%28AI%29.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.fultonsuperiorcourtga.gov/sites/default/files/judges/forms/whitaker_ex_parte_standing_order%28AI%29.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:21.826325+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@\n+ORIGINAL\n+f\n+FILED IN THE\n+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF HAWAII\n+NOV 1 ay\n+FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII 4 2023 fh rt\n+y\n+acto O'clock and) v mind\n+ucy H. Camillo, | Clerk\n+IN RE: USE OF UNVERIFIED SOURCES GENERAL ORDER 23-1\n+Briefs and memoranda generated by artificial intelligence (AI) platforms (for\n+example, ChatGPT or Bard) and online briefs or memoranda drafted by persons\n+compensated to produce materials not tailored to specific cases (collectively,\n+“unverified sources”), have increased the court’s concern about the reliability and\n+accuracy of filings and other court submissions. In particular, the court is\n+concerned about whether factual or legal citations or references in court filings and\n+submissions have been properly vetted by counsel and pro se parties. For example,\n+courts sometimes receive briefs containing fictitious case cites either generated by\n+AI or by human authors.\n+To address these concerns, if any counsel or pro se party submits to the court\n+any filing or submission generated by an unverified source, that attorney or pro se\n+party must submit a declaration concurrently with that material captioned\n+“Reliance on Unverified Source” that: (1) advises the court that counsel or the pro\n+se party has relied on one or more unverified sources; and (2) verifies that the\n+counsel or pro se party has confirmed that any such material is not fictitious. The\n+scope of the required declaration is that required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of\n+Civil Procedure.\n+This order does not affect the use of basic research tools such as Westlaw,\n+Lexis, or Bloomberg, and no declaration is required if all sources can be located on\n+such well-accepted basic research tools.\n+DATED: November /4, 2023 at Honolulu, Hawai’i.\n+1 yo\n+Derrick K. Watson\n+Chief United States District Judge\n+. Michael Seabright\n+United States District Judge\n+Leslie. Kobayashi!\n+United States District Judge\n+=u, fj\n+fils. take\n+ited States District Judge","id":"c6f5f36222ce465801cda72910fee1c215a2e571b3dc61058cd3032adbba1b9a","newHash":"df03f1f6346b4ea0eb9538704a28d927651e5666b844159ac112fbd7e508f465","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/23a3ee72-c96c-42c4-b184-e8a748a00f64/General%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Unverified%20Sources.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/df03f1f6346b4ea0eb9538704a28d927651e5666b844159ac112fbd7e508f465.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.hid.uscourts.gov/cms/assets/23a3ee72-c96c-42c4-b184-e8a748a00f64/General%20Order%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Unverified%20Sources.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:22.735087+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,600 @@\n+MAGISTRATE JUDGE GABRIEL A. FUENTES\n+219 South Dearborn Street\n+Chicago, IL 60604\n+Courtroom 1342 Telephone: (312) 435-7570\n+Chambers 1334\n+Web Site: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov\n+Courtroom Deputy — Jannette Nunez\n+(312) 818-6514\n+jannette_nunez@ilnd.uscourts.gov\n+STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FUENTES\n+Please review this order in its entirety at the outset of a district court referral of your case to U.S.\n+Magistrate Judge Fuentes for discovery supervision or for other civil litigation case management,\n+or at the outset of your consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. A separate standing order\n+is on the Court’s website for settlement conference referrals. This Standing Order will be revised\n+continually, so counsel may want to re-review it from time to time.\n+Introduction\n+Civil matters come before U.S. Magistrate Judge Fuentes in one of two ways. First, the parties\n+may consent to have Judge Fuentes, as the assigned magistrate judge, preside over all aspects of\n+the case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Second, in matters not before Judge Fuentes on consent, the\n+assigned U.S. district judge may refer a matter to Judge Fuentes, also as the assigned magistrate\n+judge, for a specific purpose. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Usually, the scope of these referrals is for\n+supervision of discovery and/or for settlement including conducting a settlement conference.\n+This standing order is meant to give the parties guidance in civil matters before Judge Fuentes. It\n+sets forth the practices the Court expects itself and the parties will follow in these cases, but the\n+practices may vary to suit the peculiarities of any given case. Judge Fuentes is open to a\n+continuing discussion in any case about the best, most efficient way to proceed. In the absence\n+of such a discussion, this standing order should be treated as a set of default rules. This order\n+applies to all matters pending before Judge Fuentes on consent or referral. Litigants should\n+review the federal rules and the procedures of their assigned district judge(s), and in the case of\n+any conflict, the federal rules generally govern. The Court’s goal in this order is not to create a\n+separate overlay of additional rules calling for compliance on pain of being accused of “violating\n+the Court’s standing order.” The Court will not generally entertain such arguments, as the\n+Standing Order is here to help litigants, and not to burden them or to add more grounds for\n+satellite litigation. The Court’s goal for each case is to promote the just, speedy and inexpensive\n+determination of the matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. In pursuit of that goal, the Court will exercise the\n+broad discretion afforded to it under the applicable rules and the common law. See Jones v. City\n+of Elkhart, 737 F.3d 1107, 1115 (7th Cir. 2013).\n+Motion Practice Guidelines\n+e On December 18, 2024, the Court revised its standing order to provide greater clarity\n+about the Court’s practices for setting motion and status hearings after the easing of\n+pandemic conditions.\n+o The Court has continued its practice, adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, of\n+not having parties notice their discovery motions for presentation or for motion\n+hearing at the time of filing of the motion.\n+o The Court has not set aside standing dates and times for the hearing of discovery\n+motions because the Court’s practice is to determine on its own whether a hearing\n+is even necessary, and the Court continually keeps its weekly calendar open for\n+settlement conferences at the parties’ convenience. From time to time, the Court\n+may schedule multiple hearings for a motion or status call on a given weekday.\n+The Court’s current preference is for in-person hearings, which offer more\n+opportunities for the Court and counsel to pick up on non-verbal cues and to know\n+when a party or counsel wants to be heard further. The in-person format also\n+allows the Court to take a brief recess to allow attorneys to confer with each other\n+and reach agreements outside the Court’s presence before the case is recalled.\n+The Court will accommodate requests, made reasonably in advance of a\n+scheduled hearing, for telephonic participation based on substantial expense,\n+medical necessity, or other hardship.\n+o For agreed or unopposed motions, the movant should file the motion and indicate\n+in the title that it is agreed or unopposed. Most of these motions will be granted\n+promptly without a hearing. If the Court has a question, the Court will schedule a\n+hearing at a date and time when the Court is available.\n+o For contested motions, after required conferral, the movant should file the motion\n+without noticing it for a hearing date. The Court will review the motion promptly,\n+and one of the following scenarios will occur:\n+= If the contested motion does not comply strictly with Rule 37.2 (all\n+counsel are advised to review that rule carefully), the motion may be\n+denied without prejudice.\n+= If the Court determines that the contested motion does not state grounds\n+for relief, or that the requested relief is plainly unwarranted under the\n+circumstances of the case at that time and in the Court’s substantial\n+discretion, the Court may deny the motion promptly without a hearing and\n+without any further briefing. This practice conserves the resources of the\n+Court and the parties while ensuring that the losing party, in the case the\n+movant, had a full opportunity to be heard.\n+= Ifthe contested motion states grounds for relief and the Court deems the\n+disputed issue straightforward, the Court may order a prompt hearing with\n+oral argument and no further briefing, so that the parties may present their\n+positions more efficiently and inexpensively simply by appearing for a\n+brief motion hearing. If the motion cannot be heard reasonably promptly,\n+the Court may order prompt additional briefing and decide the motion on\n+the papers. If a hearing is held and the Court is persuaded that additional\n+briefing is necessary before a decision, the Court may order additional\n+briefing. With respect to these less complex motions, the non-movant\n+should consider whether to seek an agreed resolution that avoids a hearing\n+and a judicial resolution; in those cases, counsel need only notify the\n+courtroom deputy, before the hearing, that the motion has been resolved\n+and is either withdrawn or should be denied as moot. Generally, the Court\n+requires strict compliance with Local Rule 37.2, which movants should\n+read carefully. Bare emails to resolve discovery disputes are not enough,\n+and the required certification must state the details of the in-person or\n+remote conference that was had, or state why through no fault of the\n+movant, the conference could not be had.\n+= Ifthe Court’s review of the motion indicates that it raises more complex\n+issues that will not lend themselves to a fair airing at a motion hearing\n+without additional briefing, the Court may order additional briefing and\n+may decide the motion on the papers or set the motion for a hearing after\n+briefing is completed. The Court may or may not order a reply.\n+If counsel communicates to the courtroom deputy a scheduling conflict with a\n+date the Court selects for a hearing, the Court commonly will accommodate\n+the parties by rescheduling the hearing. Counsel should not hesitate to raise\n+scheduling issues arising from health or family commitments, as the Court\n+views those issues as important.\n+New Referral Procedures and Guidelines — Discovery Supervision\n+Upon a district court referral including discovery supervision, the magistrate\n+judge is likely to order a prompt, in-person, initial status hearing on a floating\n+status call date. The purpose of the initial status is to meet counsel and hear\n+briefly from them about the nature of the case. The Court usually will direct\n+the parties to confer in advance of the hearing about discovery scheduling. In\n+that event, or if the parties already have addressed proposed discovery\n+scheduling, the Court will entertain oral motions to enter an agreed or\n+contested discovery schedule or for other relief. In the event that the district\n+court already has entered a schedule, the Court ordinarily will not adjust it\n+initially, except perhaps on oral motion at the initial status hearing and for\n+good cause.\n+At the initial hearing, the parties also should be prepared to address whether\n+they have considered, or will consider, phased discovery aimed at determining\n+whether they mutually might wish to engage in a settlement conference sooner\n+rather than later. Further, counsel are kindly requested to take note of Illinois\n+Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) (‘a lawyer shall abide by a client’s\n+decisions concerning the objective of representation and, as required by Rule\n+1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be\n+pursued”) and 1.4(b) (“A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent\n+reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions\n+regarding the representation”), and the degree to which, together, those rules\n+may require counsel to advise clients of the option of Alternative Dispute\n+Resolution in lieu of litigation.\n+As with motion calls and hearings, the Court will accommodate requests,\n+made reasonably in advance of a scheduled hearing, for telephonic\n+participation based on substantial expense, medical necessity, or other\n+hardship. That said, counsel otherwise and ordinarily are expected to appear\n+at all court hearings. Contacting opposing counsel to relay agreement with a\n+motion or a scheduling issue, with the expectation that opposing counsel will\n+communicate that agreement and that the Court will have no other questions\n+for either counsel, is not how the Court does business.\n+New Referral Procedures and Guidelines -- Settlement\n+Upon a district court referral including settlement before the parties have\n+requested a settlement conference, the parties will be advised that they may\n+seek to schedule a settlement conference with the magistrate judge at any time\n+by contacting the courtroom deputy, and the Court will do its best to\n+accommodate the request as soon as scheduling allows. The Court ordinarily\n+will not seek to schedule a settlement conference unless and until all parties\n+have stated that they wish to participate in a settlement conference, and where\n+the referral also includes discovery supervision, discovery usually will\n+proceed until all parties wish to attempt to negotiate a resolution. The Court\n+will not ordinarily stay discovery pending settlement discussions unless a\n+mediation or settlement is scheduled, or unless the Court otherwise is\n+persuaded of the serious or advanced nature of settlement discussions.\n+Once the parties mutually agree that they wish to engage in a settlement\n+conference and have so advised court staff, or upon a referral for the express\n+purpose of a settlement conference at the parties’ request, the Court promptly\n+will schedule a pre-settlement telephonic conference to confirm mutual\n+interest and readiness for a settlement conference (including whether the\n+parties have enough information to make concrete proposals to each other in\n+writing to resolve the case), to discuss the Court’s settlement practices and\n+procedures, to give counsel information to be shared with clients about the\n+mediation and how to prepare them to be successful at the mediation, and to\n+schedule an in-person or remote mediation. The Court may schedule more\n+impromptu pre-settlement conferences as necessitated by the circumstances.\n+Miscellany\n+e In lieu of in-person hearings on motions and scheduling issues, the Court may resort\n+to written status reports as may be necessary.\n+e The Court expects all counsel to treat each other with courtesy and civility. The\n+Court believes that life is too short to take litigation disputes too personally, and that a\n+measure of patience and detachment in dealing with opposing counsel can add\n+longevity to one’s practice of law. And as the late Jerold S. Solovy liked to say,\n+many of his referrals in his long career at the bar came from former opposing counsel.\n+SO ORDERED.\n+ENTER:\n+\\t 4. Fate.\n+U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes\n+Dated: March 3, 2026\n+APPENDIX\n+The following appendix to the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Magistrate Judge\n+Fuentes is not a part of the Standing Order and is included here to provide attorneys with helpful\n+background information and with the Court’s general requests and preferences.\n+Initial Status Reports and Hearings\n+If a recent status report is on file, the Court will not require an additional report and will rely on\n+the previously filed report. Where the Court orders an initial joint status report upon referral, the\n+report is requested to contain the below information, included here as guidance. Where the Court\n+orders a joint status report to address identified issues during the Court’s ongoing management of\n+a case, the parties may limit their report to those identified issues.\n+1. Description of Claims and Relief Sought.\n+a. Describe the claims and defenses raised by the pleadings, including\n+the basis for federal jurisdiction. Include enough detail to color in\n+the nature of the key factual allegation(s) and dispute(s). In other\n+words, a bare statement to the effect of “this is a Title VII\n+employment discrimination lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleges a\n+hostile work environment and a retaliatory discharge” is not very\n+helpful to the Court.\n+b. State the relief sought, including an itemization of damages.\n+2. Referral Cases.\n+Describe the matter(s) referred to the magistrate judge.\n+3. Discovery Schedule.\n+Identify any existing discovery cut-off dates. If no discovery schedule has\n+yet been set, and the case has been referred for discovery supervision, the parties\n+should confer and submit the following information:\n+a. Initial Disclosures\n+i. The due date for Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) disclosures.\n+ii. A date to issue written discovery requests.\n+iii. (The Court’s Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program\n+expired on June 1, 2020. The program is no longer in\n+effect as to cases filed after June 1, 2020. As to cases filed\n+before June 1, 2020, if an order has been entered requiring\n+MIDP disclosures, parties should abide by that order or\n+seek relief as appropriate by motion.)\n+b. A fact discovery completion date. For claims involving medical\n+conditions, fact discovery ordinarily includes treating physician\n+depositions.\n+c. If there will be expert discovery, proposed dates for Rule 26(a)(2)\n+expert disclosure reports and depositions, with an expert discovery\n+completion date.\n+4. Consideration of Issues Concerning ESI.\n+State whether the parties anticipate or are engaged in discovery of ESI in\n+this case, and, if so, what agreements have been reached regarding ESI and whether\n+there are any areas of disagreements.\n+Please note the Court has adopted the Principles of the Seventh Circuit\n+Electronic Discovery Pilot Program and the parties should be familiar with them.\n+In a patent case, the Court will apply the Local Patent Rules for Electronically\n+Stored Information. In addition, all counsel should have a thorough understanding\n+of their ESI discovery obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and\n+their related ethical obligations including but not limited to the requirements of\n+Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4. See generally DR Distributors,\n+LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 3d 839, 923-49 (N.D. Ill. 2021)\n+(containing detailed outline of the obligations of parties and counsel with respect\n+to ESI discovery).\n+5. Settlement.\n+a. Describe the status of settlement discussions.\n+b. State whether all parties wish to participate in a settlement\n+conference or believe such a conference would be productive.\n+6. Magistrate Judge Consent.\n+State whether all parties will consent to have Judge Fuentes conduct all\n+further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment, in\n+accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73.\n+7. Pending Motions.\n+Indicate the status of any pending motions.\n+8. Trial.\n+In consent cases, state whether a jury trial is requested, the date when the\n+parties expect to be ready for trial, and the probable length of trial.\n+9. Other Matters.\n+State any other matters that should be brought to the Court’s attention for\n+scheduling purposes.\n+10. Standards for Professional Conduct.\n+The Court calls all counsel’s attention to the Seventh Circuit's “Standards\n+for Professional Conduct,” available on the Seventh Circuit's website at\n+http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules-procedures/rules/rules.htm#standards. At the\n+outset of each case assigned to Judge Fuentes, counsel for each of the parties should\n+review the standards and make a good-faith effort to abide by them during the\n+litigation of the case and during any settlement discussions. Counsel should pay\n+particular attention to the statement in the preamble of the Standards, stating that\n+“Ta] lawyer's conduct should be characterized at all times by personal courtesy and\n+professional integrity in the fullest sense of those terms,” and to the first of the listed\n+“Lawyers’ Duties to Other Counsel,” stating that although the lawyers’ role is to\n+advance the legitimate interests of their clients, “[iJn our dealings with others we\n+will not reflect the ill feelings of our clients. We will treat all other counsel, parties,\n+and witnesses in a civil and courteous manner, not only in court, but also in all other\n+written and oral communications.” Lawyers practicing in Illinois are reminded that\n+their conduct is subject to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, including but\n+not limited to Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 8.4. In particular, Rule 3.5(d) broadly\n+prohibits conduct that is “intended to disrupt a tribunal.” As the commentary to\n+Rule 3.5 states, “[a]n advocate can present the cause, protect the record for\n+subsequent review and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less\n+effectively than by belligerence or theatrics,” and “[t]he duty to refrain from\n+disruptive conduct applies to any proceeding of a tribunal, including a deposition.”\n+Depositions\n+Resolving disputes\n+The Court generally prefers that parties resolve their deposition disputes consistent with Local\n+Rule 37.2 and then present the dispute to the Court by motion if the dispute cannot be resolved.\n+On the other hand, the Court recognizes that in some circumstances, a same-day resolution to a\n+dispute during a deposition can save the litigants time and fees, in that a deposition might be\n+completed on that day instead of being reconvened after a judicial ruling. The costs of reconvening\n+the deposition can be substantial, particularly where the witness or the attorneys must travel. If,\n+in the judgment of at least one of the parties at the deposition, the Court’s same-day intervention\n+would further the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the matter, and if the dispute\n+reasonably can be presented briefly and orally, such party is welcome to telephone chambers to\n+request a same-day hearing. Again, the Court expects that this will be the exception and not the\n+rule, but the Court will make every attempt to make itself available on that same day. The Court\n+cannot promise that it will be available. If a hearing is not conducted at the time of the call or later\n+in the day, the parties should continue the deposition and reserve the disputed issue for\n+determination. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). All same-day hearings shall be conducted on the\n+record as transcribed by the retained private court reporter, with the hearing transcript prepared\n+and filed on an expedited basis to ensure public access. In rare cases, the Court may supervise a\n+deposition remotely.\n+Technology and cost management\n+Even before the COVID-19 public health emergency, many litigants were gravitating toward video\n+depositions in the interest of efficiency and cost savings. They are encouraged to continue doing\n+so. The Court directs the parties to Judge Gilbert’s well-reasoned approach to video depositions as\n+set forth in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., No. 16 C 8637, 2020 WL 3469166, at *4-5, 11-\n+12 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2020), and to Judge Gilbert’s protocol for such depositions at Docket Entry\n+3729 of that matter. The Court views the Broiler Chicken protocol as the starting point for a\n+discussion of an applicable protocol, subject to proposed, tailored revisions in individual cases.\n+Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions\n+Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices generate much motion practice that arises from some fundamental\n+misunderstandings of the rule. Rule 30(b)(6) permits a party to bind another party, through the\n+testimony of one or more representative deponents, to testimony given on the topics contained in\n+the notice of deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The rule is intended to streamline the\n+discovery process and to do away with the practice of “bandying,” in which business entities would\n+present individual witnesses who would disclaim knowledge of particular issues and put the other\n+party to a costly and burdensome task of determining which individual witnesses might be\n+competent to testify to a variety of relevant issues. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Giancola, 13 C 3230,\n+2015 WL 5559804, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2015), citing SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex\n+Corp., No 98 C 3952, 2000 WL 116082, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2000).\n+Here are some pointers on the rule:\n+e The rule does not require the noticed party to produce a witness “most knowledgeable”\n+about the topics. The rule provides that the noticed party must designate representative\n+deponents who “must testify about information known or reasonably available to the\n+organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).\n+e By its terms, the rule recognizes that the task of educating and presenting a representative\n+deponent to testify on the topics in the notice can be burdensome, and thus the rule requires\n+the “matters for examination” to be “describe[d] with reasonable particularity.” Jd. Courts\n+have limited or narrowed Rule 30(b)(6) topics that were found not to describe the matters\n+for examination with reasonable particularity. See Ball Corp. v. Air Tech of Mich., Inc.,\n+329 F.R.D. 599, 604-05 (N.D. Ind. 2019). This Court also frowns upon 30(b)(6) notices\n+that describe the topics with the vague term “including but not limited to.” See Winfield v.\n+City of New York, No. 15-cv-05236 (LTS)(KHP), 2018 WL 840085, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.\n+12, 2018) (“The Court must evaluate ‘reasonable particularity’ [of Rule 30(b)(6) topics]\n+based on the nature of the topics listed in the deposition. ‘Reasonable particularity’ requires\n+the topics listed to be specific as to subject area and to have discernible boundaries .... This\n+means that the topics should not be listed as ‘including but not limited to;’ rather, they must\n+be explicitly stated.”).\n+e The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) provide that the scope of permissible discovery is\n+not only relevance to claims or defenses in the action but also proportionality to the needs\n+of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This Court generally agrees with courts that, after the\n+2015 amendments, have applied the proportionality limitation on discovery under Rule\n+26(b)(1) to overbroad Rule 30(b)(6) notices. See Schyvincht v. Menard, Inc., 18 C 50286,\n+2019 WL 3002961, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 10, 2019); Ball, 329 F.R.D. at 602. But\n+proportionality should be considered on an individualized basis with attention to the needs\n+of the particular case. The amended rule dictates that judicial consideration of the needs of\n+a particular case includes consideration of “the importance of the issues at stake in the\n+action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the\n+parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the\n+burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P.\n+26(b)(1). As former U.S. Magistrate Judge Schenkier of this district has stated, “the factual\n+nuances of each case are what guide the courts.” Giancola, 2015 WL 5559804, at *3, citing\n+cases.\n+e Rule 30(b)(6) topics calling for representative deponents to address legal contentions or\n+conclusions are disfavored. See Schyvincht, 2019 WL 3002961, at *3 (holding that legal\n+conclusions, legal opinions, and legal positions in the case are outside the scope of\n+permissible Rule 30(b)(6) discovery). Some courts have exercised their discretion to\n+determine that written interrogatories (directed at a party’s contentions or bases for those\n+contentions) are a more efficient means of obtaining discovery than a 30(b)(6) deposition,\n+while others have viewed the circumstances as making the 30(b)(6) deposition the better\n+vehicle. Compare Clauss Constr. v. UChicago Argonne LLC, 13 C 5479, 2015 WL\n+191138, at *5 (N.D. III. Jan. 1, 2015) (allowing 30(b)(6) testimony where court determined\n+that written interrogatories would not be efficient) with Schyvincht, 2019 WL 3002961, at\n+*3 (concluding that inquiry into the legal bases for certain contentions is better suited to\n+contention interrogatories than to Rule 30(b)(6) testimony). The outcome of such an\n+analysis inevitably will depend on the factual nuances of each case.\n+Counsel's conduct during depositions\n+“Litigation is not a contest to see how much trouble you can cause your opponents. Those who\n+treat it as such do so at their peril.” Hal Commodity Cycles Mgmt. Co. v. Kirsh, 825 F.2d 1136,\n+1139 (7th Cir. 1987). Depositions must be conducted in a manner that avoids wasting time and\n+protects witnesses from harassment and undue embarrassment. Fed. R. Evid. 611(a); Fed. R. Civ.\n+P. 30(d)(3). Borrowing heavily from U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger’s standing order on\n+depositions (available on the Court’s website at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-\n+info.aspx?+q7AroZFqQJxIXbDV5X80Q==), the Court sets forth the following for informational\n+purposes:\n+Counsel should behave professionally at all times during depositions. Depositions should\n+be civil, and attorneys should be respectful to witnesses, to the court reporter, and to other\n+attorneys. Counsel should conduct themselves as if the Court were present, and as if the\n+jury were watching. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(1).\n+Objections should be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive\n+manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2); LM Ins. Corp. v. ACEO, Inc., 275 F.R.D. 490, 491 (N.D.\n+Ill. 2011). Interruptions, by counsel defending a deposition, with words such as “if you\n+know,” or “if you remember,” are considered by some to be improper attempts to coach\n+witnesses or influence their testimony. The same goes for “speaking objections” that go\n+beyond a short and nonsuggestive statement of the basis for the objection. Objections to\n+relevance during a deposition generally are not waived if not made at the deposition. Fed.\n+R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(A).\n+There has been some confusion around when counsel might permissibly confer with the\n+deponent during the course of questioning. In federal deposition practice, courts have\n+cautioned that Rule 30 requires federal depositions to be conducted as examinations at trial,\n+so that counsel has a very limited ability to communicate with a represented deponent once\n+the deposition has begun. See Hunt v. DaVita, Inc., 680 F.3d 775, 780 (7th Cir. 2012).\n+Hunt, though, gives district courts wide discretion about how to address conferences that\n+occur during deposition recesses. This Court’s approach has been the consider whether the\n+conferences were demanded by defending counsel during questioning, whether they\n+occurred during the ordinary course of the deposition, whether they affected the truth-\n+finding process of the deposition, and whether sanctions for such conferences would\n+burden the right to counsel. See Strebel v. Scoular, No. 24 C 968, 2026 WL 579220, at *6-\n+7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2026) (discussing cases). Instead of interrupting the deposition, counsel\n+may make an appropriate, nonspeaking objection and should consider how the testimony\n+might be supplemented during counsel’s further examination later in the deposition.\n+Counsel may also seek a protective order under appropriate circumstances as discussed\n+below.\n+Counsel need not, and should not, state every ground for objection by articulating a string\n+of grounds that turns the objection into an improper speaking objection. In those instances,\n+counsel may pick a ground. Objections to “form” may not be clear enough to preserve\n+anything, and counsel should take care not to use this vague objection incessantly to\n+interrupt the flow of an examination.\n+“Asked and answered” is not an appropriate objection during depositions, absent truly\n+abusive conduct in extraordinary cases. It coaches the witness to say nothing more than “I\n+incorporate what I said earlier,” or “I already answered.” All too often, when an attorney\n+makes an “asked and answered” objection during a deposition, the witness has not actually\n+answered the question, and the witness shuts down instead of answering the question or\n+appropriate follow-up questions. The remedy when examining counsel crosses the line\n+from appropriate follow-up questions into harassment and undue annoyance of the witness\n+is to seek a protective order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Evid. 611.\n+e An objection that “the document speaks for itself” also is disfavored. The Court has yet to\n+hear a document actually speak.\n+e Counsel generally should not instruct a witness not to answer a question except to preserve\n+a privilege, to enforce a limitation necessary to preserve a privilege, or to present a motion\n+under Rule 30(d)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). In the third of those circumstances, the\n+Court of Appeals has held that even when counsel concludes that his or her witness has\n+been asked the most outrageous of deposition questions, counsel may not simply instruct\n+the witness not to answer without bringing a motion for protective order under Rule 26(c).\n+Redwood vy. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462, 468 (7th Cir. 2007). The disputed matter may be\n+reserved for the end of the deposition so that the deposition may otherwise continue, and\n+counsel then may resort to the Court for intervention, but an instruction not to answer does\n+not comply with the third circumstance stated in Rule 30(c)(2) if it not coupled with a\n+motion for a protective order. Our Court of Appeals has spoken harshly of counsel who\n+have not abided by this rule. See id. at 468-69.\n+e Witnesses who turn their testimony into a narrative filibuster, and counsel who encourage\n+or permit this conduct by the witness, do so at the peril of being deemed to have obstructed\n+the deposition, and in that event, the Court may, in its discretion, allow additional\n+deposition time. See Flores v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 508, No. 14 C 7905,\n+2015 WL 7293510, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2015).\n+e On occasion, counsel in a deposition may resort to conduct that is downright insulting, or\n+that conveys some form of insult, including the making of faces, the rolling of the eyes,\n+laughter, editorial comments, or other conduct that is not only unbecoming, but is flat-out\n+improper. See Redwood, 476 F.3d at 491 (citing “the insult-riddled performance . . . that\n+incensed the Supreme Court of Delaware” in Paramount Communications Inc. v. QVC\n+Network Inc., 736 A.2d 34, 52-57 (De. 1994)). Counsel must not engage in the sort of\n+conduct of the sort exhibited in the Addendum to the Paramount Communications opinion.\n+Discovery Motions\n+Generally speaking, the parties are directed to the federal rules and the local rules with respect to\n+the filing of discovery motions. Magistrate Judge Fuentes has expressed that he believes relevance\n+under Rule 26(b)(1) is broad. See Coleman v. Illinois, No. 19 C 3789, 2020 WL 5752149, at *3-\n+4 (N_D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2020). He also has expressed that Rule 26(b)(1)’s proportionality concept\n+may also be broad, so that courts should consider the “burden” associated with a particular\n+discovery issue in contexts beyond the mere cost in effort and expense. See Johnson v. Soo Line\n+RR. Co., No. 17 C 7828, 2019 WL 4037963 at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2019) (applying\n+proportionality concept to assess burdens that compelled production of federal income tax returns\n+in civil discovery could place on system of voluntary tax compliance); Washtenaw County\n+Employees’ Retirement Sys. v. Walgreen Co., et al., No. 15 C 3187, 2019 WL 6108220, at *5-6\n+(N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2019) (applying proportionality concept to assess burden that compelled\n+production of settlement-related materials could place on the social policies underlying Federal\n+Rule of Evidence 408).\n+Local Rule 37.2 Compliance\n+Local Rule 37.2 provides that the Court shall not hear a discovery dispute unless the movant\n+certifies that it has complied with the rule. The plain language of Local Rule 37.2 requires more\n+than an exchange of emails. See BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Capital Premium Fin., Inc., 343\n+F. Supp. 3d 742, 743-44 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (collecting cases). The Court does not consider an\n+unanswered email, where no face-to-face or telephonic conference was requested, to be in\n+compliance with the local rule. Nor does a motion comply with the rule if it does not identify the\n+time, manner and persons who participated in the Local Rule 37.2 conference. Nonetheless, in\n+some cases, the Court may exercise its discretion in favor of deciding a discovery dispute where\n+requiring Local Rule 37.2 compliance may be futile, or where doing so may be inefficient. See In\n+re Fluidmaster, Inc., Water Connector Components Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 14 C 5696, 2018 WL\n+505089, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2018) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Munive v. Town\n+of Cicero, No. 12 C 5481, 2016 WL 8673072, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2016), report and\n+recommendation adopted sub nom. Colon v. Town of Cicero, No. 12 C 5481, 2017 WL 164377\n+(N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2017). But filing a motion not in compliance with Local Rule 37.2 risks having\n+the motion denied without prejudice.\n+Summary Judgment Motions\n+The Court will decide summary judgment motions in matters before the magistrate judge on\n+consent. Parties should be mindful of the legal standards under which federal summary judgment\n+motions are decided per Rule 56. No party should undertake the expense and effort involved in\n+filing a summary judgment, and in complying with the procedural requirements of these motions,\n+without considering carefully whether discovery in the case supports a colorable argument that\n+there is no genuine issue of material fact. For example, in any case turning on the resolution of\n+factual disputes over the statements or conduct of the parties or others, courts will have difficulty\n+granting summary judgment, and a Rule 56 motion may not be a productive use of the Court's time\n+or the parties' resources. Moreover, some attorneys believe that even a losing summary judgment\n+motion may be productive if it “educates the judge” for purposes of a later trial. The Court does\n+not need to review meritless summary judgment motions to become “educated” about a case.\n+In the event a litigant decides that a summary judgment motion is appropriate, the Court prefers\n+strict compliance with Local Rules 56.1(a) and 56.1(b) in the briefing of all summary judgment\n+motions. In addition, to assist the Court in reviewing the factual record submitted in connection\n+with summary judgment motions, the Court prefers the following:\n+e Acourtesy copy of the memorandum of law, depositions and other materials relied upon\n+in support of the motion (as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(1)-(3) or in opposition to the\n+motion (as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)-(3)) may be requested by court staff. If so,\n+the courtesy copy of the compendium must be securely bound, must separately tab each\n+document, and must contain an index identifying what document is contained under each\n+tab. It must also have the CM/ECF header.\n+e All statements of undisputed material facts offered by the moving party under Local Rule\n+56.1(a)(3) or statements of additional facts offered by the opposing party under Local Rule\n+56.1(b)(3)(C), must list the facts in short, numbered paragraphs that refrain from argument.\n+Argument must be reserved for the moving party’s memorandum of law. Each numbered\n+fact statement must contain a specific citation to affidavits, depositions or other materials\n+that support the fact statement, as well as to the tab(s) in the compendium where those\n+materials may be found. Failure to provide support for a statement of fact may result in that\n+alleged fact being disregarded. Friend v. Valley View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 365U, 789\n+F.3d 707, 710-11 (7th Cir. 2015).\n+e All responses to statements of undisputed material facts offered by the opposing party\n+under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B), or responses to statements of additional facts offered by\n+the moving party under Local Rule 56.1(a), shall be in a format similar to that used in\n+answering a complaint: that is, the response must repeat each numbered paragraph of the\n+fact statement, and then immediately following each numbered statement must state\n+whether the alleged fact is undisputed or disputed. As with the fact statements\n+submitted under Local Rules 56.1(a)(3) and 56.1(b)(3)(C), the responses to those fact\n+statements must refrain from argument. The significance or lack of significance of a\n+disputed or undisputed fact may be argued in the respondent’s legal memorandum. If a\n+particular fact is undisputed, nothing more should be said in the response. If a particular\n+fact assertion is disputed in whole or in part, the response must state what part of the\n+assertion is disputed and must contain a specific citation to the supporting affidavits,\n+depositions or other materials as well as to the tab(s) in the compendium where those\n+materials may be found. Failure to provide support for an alleged fact dispute may result\n+in that fact being deemed admitted. Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 218-\n+19 (7th Cir. 2015).\n+e In accord with Local Rule 56.1, absent prior leave of Court, the Court prefers that the\n+movant not file more than 80 separately numbered statements of undisputed material fact,\n+and a party opposing a summary judgment motion should not file more than 40 separately\n+numbered statements of additional facts under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C). The Court\n+reminds parties that the fact statements under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and Local Rule\n+56.1(b)(3)(C) “shall consist of short numbered paragraphs.”\n+e Motions to strike or to have Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts deemed admitted are\n+disfavored. These concerns should be raised in the parties’ briefs.\n+Privilege Logs\n+Ifa party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege, the withholding\n+party generally should provide a log of the documents withheld. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)\n+and Advisory Committee Comments to 1993 Amendments. Any privilege log should be detailed\n+enough to enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege asserted, and should\n+include: (1) the name and capacity of each individual from whom or to whom a document and any\n+attachments were sent (including which persons are lawyers); (2) the date of the document and any\n+attachments; (3) the type of document; (4) the Bates numbers of the documents, (5) the nature of\n+the privilege asserted; and (6) a description of the subject matter in sufficient detail to determine\n+if legal advice was sought or revealed, or if the document constitutes work product. See RBS\n+Citizens, N.A. v. Husain, 291 F.R.D. 209, 218 (N.D. Ill. 2013).\n+The Court reminds the parties that the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 37.2 apply to\n+privilege disputes, just as they do to other discovery disputes. In addition, the Court wishes the\n+parties to be aware that it understands the burdens and high costs associated with preparing detailed\n+privilege logs in very complex cases in which discovery, and privileged materials, may be\n+voluminous. The Court is open to a discussion with the parties about developing creative ways to\n+reduce this burden or to streamline the preparation process. Parties should feel free to address these\n+issues themselves in complex cases, or, if no resolution can be reached, to bring their proposals to\n+the Court.\n+The Court also is aware that attorneys may have different approaches to preparing privilege logs.\n+They may tend to claim privilege whenever a document is to or from an attorney, but without\n+sufficient attention to whether the communication related to the rendering of legal advice or\n+services. They may have varying conceptions of the degree of detail needed in the log's description\n+of the document over which they are asserting a privilege claim. Parties should be mindful that\n+“Tt]oo many lawyers think that they can paint claims of privilege with a broad brush and sweat the\n+details later. But some courts have been troubled with that approach, and counsel may face\n+arguments that genuine privileges have been waived by asserting dubious ones. The Seventh\n+Circuit has made clear that “blanket” waiver of privileges based on the technical inadequacy of a\n+privilege log is generally disfavored, absent bad faith. See Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. vy. Equitable\n+Life Assurance Soc ’y of U.S., 406 F.3d 867, 879 (7th Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, parties are advised\n+to make their privilege log entries specific enough to allow the Court to determine whether the\n+document contains a privileged communication and whether the confidentiality of that\n+communication has been maintained. See David M. Greenwald, Michele L. Slachetka, & Caroline\n+L. Meneau, Testimonial Privileges § 1.69 (Thomson Reuters 2025 ed.) (stating that a party\n+asserting privilege may not meet its burden through “mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions,” and\n+that “sufficient information must be presented to establish that the privilege applies”). For further\n+guidance on the views of Judge Fuentes on privilege log content, see Washtenaw County\n+Employees’ Retirement Sys. v. Walgreen Co., et al., No. 15 C 3187, 2020 WL 3977944 (N.D. Ill.\n+July 14, 2020) and Williams v. City of Chicago, No. 22 C 1084, 2023 WL 3387915, at *6 & n.7\n+(N.D. Ill. May 11, 2023).\n+Finally, the Court wishes to be sensitive to the costs involved in preparing detailed privilege logs\n+in today’s era of electronic discovery, and the Court is open to creative, innovative approaches to\n+reduce the costs and burdens of preparing privilege logs under the concept of Rule 26(b)(1)\n+proportionality. See McDonald's Corp. v. Hiscox Dedicated Corp. Member, Ltd., No. 22 C 2682,\n+2024 WL 6993660, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2024).\n+The Sedona Conference's recent advice on balancing the burden of logging\n+privilege claims against ensuring that requesting parties may evaluate the privilege\n+claims suggests that courts and litigants look at the needs of the individual case in\n+considering how the introduction of proportionality into Rule 26(b)(1)’s discovery\n+scope (as amended in 2015) might counsel in favor of steps to address practical\n+burdens associated with privilege logs.\n+Id., citing The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Privilege Logs, 25 Sedona Conf. J. 221, 233-\n+36 & n.17 (2024), and The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Principles, Third Edition: Best\n+Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production, 19\n+Sedona Conf. J. 1 (2018).\n+Matters Before the Magistrate Judge on Consent\n+Judge Fuentes encourages parties to consent to his jurisdiction so that he may preside over the\n+entirety of the case, including ruling on dispositive motions and presiding over any trial and the\n+entry of a final, appealable judgment. Because Judge Fuentes does not handle felony criminal\n+cases, he generally is able to accommodate the requests of counsel for particular (and firm) trial\n+dates. Parties are encouraged to read 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 regarding trial by\n+consent and discuss this option with their clients and opposing counsel. In addition, some parties\n+who have settled their cases in settlement conferences with the Court have found that consent to\n+the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction at that point might complete settlement finalization more\n+quickly and efficiently.\n+Civility\n+Civility is important to the Court. The Seventh Circuit’s Standards for Professional Conduct are\n+a starting point. All counsel are referred to those standards, and it is the Court’s aspiration that\n+counsel will comply with them. Counsel should take care to treat all persons with courtesy and\n+respect. The Court will do so as well. Further, out-of-town counsel are advised that they will be\n+treated no differently than Illinois- or Chicago-based counsel. Counsel will not be “hometowned.”\n+Professional Development of Attorneys\n+The Court continues its practice of encouraging (but not requiring) the parties to foster the\n+professional development of less experienced attorneys or attorney who may have unique\n+experiences, character traits or qualities such as an ability to overcome adversity, including how\n+race may have affected the person’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,”\n+Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181,\n+143 S. Ct. 2141, 2176 (2023). Parties at their discretion may do so by permitting such attorneys a\n+greater speaking role at motion hearings or settlement conferences, and in that event, the Court\n+will permit more experienced attorneys to supervise to the full extent they wish. The Court’s\n+experience has been that when parties and senior counsel have offered such attorneys these\n+opportunities, the attorneys and their supervising counsel have delivered excellence and have\n+furthered the Court’s goal of arriving at the correct result in every case.\n+Artificial Intelligence\n+The Court refers all counsel to the Illinois Supreme Court’s policy on artificial intelligence use\n+effective January 1, 2025. The Court expects that no counsel will submit hallucinated authorities,\n+and that all counsel will follow Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has\n+gravitated toward the Illinois Supreme Court policy, as it is a product of bench-bar collaboration\n+and should be known to practitioners in the state. The Court will continue to presume that the pre-\n+existing Rule 11 certification is a representation by filers, as living, breathing, thinking human\n+beings, that they themselves have read and analyzed all cited authorities to ensure that such\n+authorities actually exist and that the filings comply with Rule 11(b)(2).","id":"a650814417d2b56d5d0369890e06f73cf367a445cfef57e5763eccdcdd558275","newHash":"a96acb476e7f5ebd5bec1e97627afb84ed227d54484bd98f43a1b4a50c4213d2","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/a96acb476e7f5ebd5bec1e97627afb84ed227d54484bd98f43a1b4a50c4213d2.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/Fuentes/Standing%20order%20for%20civil%20cases%20beofre%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Fuentes%20with%20appendix.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:53.453422+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"a330839e82b72703bf3506c843b4a041f081cf72c2d212e1dcbefac987f53a13","newHash":"7125091fd8b3237a746459db4ef06772115149c4fb930b68aa885e0e8269e53a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:23.578608+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"7a7666b375954c50dc80266a558a77edc895d81aaf3279ffdbeee1d37fc8a683","newHash":"84689d3a3e56ebf0f2b38488d3fcfff1c7c0d7512b52626bc454bfc702ac08cb","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/local-rules-forms/Filed%20AI%20Revised%20Admin%20Order%202025.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:25.192628+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@\n+STANDING ORDER GOVERNING THE USE\n+OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+With increasing frequency, litigants are relying on text-generation software powered\n+by Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to prepare motions and other papers. This has prompted\n+concern regarding the reliability and accuracy of filings in this Court. These generative AI\n+platforms include, but are not limited to, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Harvey.ai.\n+Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that by submitting a\n+motion, brief, pleading or other filing to the Court, an attorney or self-represented litigant\n+certifies that their claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law\n+and that their factual contentions find evidentiary support. Notwithstanding this rule, litigants\n+in this Court have submitted filings that include citations to non-existent cases or arguments\n+and citations not warranted by existing law.\n+Thus, to guard against the use of generative AI in a manner that contravenes Rule 11,\n+it is hereby ORDERED that any party, including any self-represented litigant, who uses\n+generative AI to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading or other filing must attach\n+to the filing a separate declaration disclosing the use of generative AI. In this declaration, the\n+attorney or self-represented litigant must certify that he or she has reviewed therelevant source\n+material and has verified that all submissions to the Court are accurate, and that the individual\n+has otherwise complied with his or her Rule 11 obligations. This declaration should be\n+captioned: “Disclosure and Verification of Use of Generative AI.”\n+Any attomey or self-represented litigant who signs a motion, brief, pleading or other\n+filing submitted to the Court will be held responsible for the contents of that filing under Rule\n+11, regardless of whether that individual used generative AI to generate any portion of that\n+filing. Failure to comply with Rule 11(b) may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).\n+IT IS SO ORDERED.\n+August 20, 2025\n+eff . Hopkins\n+United States District Judge","id":"b35f6bd16365b111db008bf6ba384b987a82c3f580484365a0eba01f45178827","newHash":"160037ac84e58555bbee41bd9ff0be3da31fb866c0207a0ee826d3cad281176a","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Standing%20Order%20Governing%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/160037ac84e58555bbee41bd9ff0be3da31fb866c0207a0ee826d3cad281176a.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Standing%20Order%20Governing%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20AI.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:40.225816+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -0,0 +1,698 @@\n+Judge Rolando Olvera United States Courthouse\n+600 East Harrison, Suite 306\n+Brownsville, Texas 78520-7114\n+(956) 548-2595\n+Sandra Espinoza, Judicial Assistant\n+United States District Clerk\n+600 East Harrison, Suite 306\n+Brownsville, Texas 78520-7114\n+Direct Number: (956) 982-9684\n+sandra_espinoza@txs.uscourts.gov\n+District Clerk’s Office: (956) 548-2500\n+Civil Procedures/LOCAL rULES\n+Contact with Court Personnel 1\n+Restraining Orders and Other Applications for Immediate Relief1\n+Electronic Filings1\n+Continuances 2\n+Appearances 2\n+Motion Practice and Briefs2\n+Submitting Authorities and Other Cited Material5\n+Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conferences5\n+Required Pretrial Materials6\n+Exhibits 7\n+Technology and Other Equipment8\n+Courtroom Procedures 8\n+Voir Dire 9\n+Use of Depositions at Trial10\n+Settlements and Orders of Dismissal 10\n+Appendix11\n+Contact with Court Personnel\n+Case-related inquiries may be addressed to Sandra Espinoza, Judicial Assistant, at (956) 982-9684. Case-related issues should NOT be addressed to the Court’s Law Clerks.\n+Information about the filing of documents, the entry of orders, or docket entries should be obtained from the District Clerk’s Office, (956) 548-2500.\n+At the Court’s discretion, Law Clerks may contact counsel as to miscellaneous issues, but the Law Clerks are under instruction to not discuss any relevant matters pertaining to a case. No one should seek to engage the Law Clerks in any matter about the case.\n+Restraining Orders & Other Applications for Immediate relief\n+Applications for restraining orders and other applications for immediate relief must be filed with the District Clerk’s Office:\n+U.S. District Clerk’s Office\n+600 E. Harrison Street, Suite 101\n+Brownsville, Texas 78520\n+(956) 548-2500\n+Applications will be presented to the Court by the Judicial Assistant following moving counsel’s affirmation that the opposing party has been contacted and that all parties can present themselves for a conference before the Court.\n+Ex parte applications for restraining orders will NOT be considered by the Court unless the specific requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 65(b), have been satisfied.\n+Any other matters requiring immediate attention should be directed to Sandra Espinoza, Judicial Assistant, at (956) 982-9684.\n+Electronic Filings\n+All pleadings are to be electronically filed through the Electronic Case Filing System (“ECF”). Electronic filings must follow the “Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases.” Answers to frequently asked questions about electronic filing may be obtained from the District Clerk’s Office.\n+If a filing, including attachments, contains 50 pages or more, the party must submit the filing electronically and submit a hard copy to the District Clerk’s Office. The hard-copy filing must be submitted to the District Clerk’s Office within seven days after the electronic filing. A party may never submit a hard copy filing to the District Clerk’s Office without an accompanying electronic filing.\n+Continuance\n+Joint, Agreed, or Unopposed motions and proposed orders for continuance will be granted only at the Court’s discretion. Unopposed, Agreed or Joint motions and proposed orders must contain the signatures of all parties.\n+Counsel are reminded that, as required by The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 473(b)(3), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan states that “all requests for extensions of deadlines from completion of discovery or for postponement of the trial [must] be signed by the attorney and the party making the request.”\n+Trial will not be continued because a witness, expert or otherwise, is unavailable. Counsel should anticipate such possibilities and be prepared to present testimony by written deposition, videotaped deposition, or by stipulation.\n+It is the Court’s intention to confer with counsel about trial scheduling at the initial pretrial conference. Once a trial is scheduled, a continuance will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.\n+Appearances\n+An attorney in charge of a case must personally appear at all hearings or conferences. A “Motion to Appear” on behalf of the attorney in charge will be granted upon showing of good cause, and only if the attorney to substitute is familiar with the case and has authority to bind the client. The “Motion to Appear” must be filed before the hearing or conference date. When multiple attorneys represent a single client, a list of designated attorneys must also be submitted.\n+If out-of-town counsel wishes to appear telephonically, said request must be made to Sandra Espinoza, Judicial Assistant, at (956) 982-9684, no later than one day before the hearing. If permission is granted to appear telephonically, counsel will receive an email from Sandra Espinoza, Judicial Assistant, with instructions. Counsel must report at least five minutes before the hearing is scheduled to begin. Counsel appearing telephonically must bear all related expenses.\n+Counsel must immediately notify the Judicial Assistant of the resolution of any matter set for trial or hearing.\n+Motion Practice and Briefs\n+Final Pretrial Conference. All pending motions may be ruled on at the Final Pretrial Conference.\n+Opposed Motions. Opposed motions must:\n+Be in writing.\n+Include briefs or authority and pertinent exhibits; and\n+Come with a separate proposed order granting the relief requested and setting forth information sufficient to communicate the relief granted.\n+Except for motions under FRCP 12(b), (c), (e), or (f), or FRCP 56, opposed motions must contain a statement that:\n+The movant has conferred with the respondent, and\n+Counsel cannot agree about the disposition of the motion.\n+If after conferring with one another, counsel cannot agree about the disposition of a motion, counsel may schedule a telephonic conference with the Court to discuss the motion and the opposing party’s response. If after a telephonic conference is held, the motion is not resolved, the parties are instructed to schedule a hearing with the Court and submit a motion requesting the hearing. The joint motion must contain a list of all pending issues in the opposed motion and a statement that counsel have conferred amongst themselves and believe a hearing is necessary to resolve the motion.\n+The Court’s standard practice is to rule on opposed motions by submission only.\n+Responses to Opposed Motions. Failure to respond to an opposed motion will be deemed as a representation of no opposition. The Court will rule on any motion once it becomes ripe no matter if a response has been filed. Responses to motions must:\n+Be in writing.\n+Be filed within 21 days from the date the motion was filed with the District Clerk’s Office.\n+Include briefs or authority and pertinent exhibits; and\n+Come with a separate proposed order denying the relief sought.\n+Replies and Surreplies. If the movant elects to reply, it must be filed no more than 10 days after the response was filed with the District Clerk’s Office. Surreplies must be filed no more than 10 days after the reply was filed with the District Clerk’s Office.\n+Motion Hearings. All motions will be decided without a hearing, unless the Court determines a hearing would be beneficial.\n+Supporting Briefs and Legal Memoranda. All briefs and memoranda must be limited to 20 pages unless the Court grants leave to file more than 20 pages. All briefs and memoranda must contain these sections:\n+Issues in Dispute: A short statement highlighting the issues before the Court with supporting authority and standard of review for each issue.\n+Argument: A summary of all arguments divided under appropriate subheadings.\n+Conclusion: A short statement stating the precise relief sought.\n+Any brief or memorandum with more than 10 pages of argument must also contain the following:\n+Table of Contents: Noting the page number of each heading and subheading.\n+Table of Authorities: Arranged alphabetically and categorically.\n+The Table of Contents and Table of Authorities do not count against the 20-page limit.\n+Late Filings. Any motion, response, or reply filed after the time limits in these rules must include a “Motion for Leave to File” that specifically explains the basis for the requested late filing of the prospective motion, response, or reply. The Court will only grant a “Motion for Leave to File” with good cause.\n+Unopposed or Joint Motions. Motions without opposition must be accompanied by a proposed order. Unopposed motions and any accompanying orders must have “Unopposed” in the title and contain the signatures of all parties. Said motions and proposed orders will not be considered without the signatures of all parties.\n+Discovery Motions. The Court finds that most discovery disputes, especially those dealing with (1) scheduling, (2) the number, length, and form of oral and written discovery requests, (3) the responsiveness of answers to oral and written questions, and (4) the mechanics of document production, including protective orders and the proper method of raising claims of privilege, can be resolved by counsel without the Court’s intervention. The Court will not hear discovery motions unless moving counsel has advised the Court in the motion that counsel have conferred in a good-faith effort to resolve the matters in dispute but cannot reach an agreement and have further jointly telephonically conferred with the Court as to the pending discovery dispute. If counsel has been unable to confer because of unavailability or unwillingness of opposing counsel to do so, the statement must recite the facts about attempts to confer.\n+Opposed Motions for Extension of Discovery Deadlines. Such motions must be filed more than 21 days before the deadline so that opposing counsel may respond to the motion before the discovery deadline.\n+Motion Hearings. Requests for oral argument are unnecessary. The Judicial Assistant will notify counsel should the Court determine that a motion hearing would be beneficial. All ripe motions will be addressed at the next status conference unless counsel is notified to the contrary. If counsel anticipates the need to offer evidence or testimony at the motion hearing, leave to do so must be obtained from the Court in advance. If motions are decided without a hearing or taken under advisement, the Court will make a timely ruling, and counsel will be furnished with copies of orders.\n+submitting Authorities and Other Cited Material\n+At least 7 days before a contested motion hearing, counsel for both parties must submit a tabbed binder containing:\n+A copy of the motion in dispute.\n+Any brief or memorandum submitted in support or opposition to the motion; and\n+Copies of each authority cited, with relevant sections highlighted in yellow.\n+Binders are to be mailed or personally delivered directly to chambers.\n+Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conferences\n+Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan\n+At least 14 days before the initial pretrial conference, counsel MUST file a Joint Case Management Plan, including the identity and purpose of witnesses, sources, and types of documents, and other requirements for a prompt, efficient and cost-effective preparation of the case. All issues pending in the case, along with any potential discovery difficulties for each issue, are also to be listed and summarized in the Joint Case Management Plan, with a statement that counsel have met and agreed on the summation list of issues. See FRCP 26(f).\n+See APPENDIX, p. 14 for a sample Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan.\n+Scheduling Order\n+Besides submitting a “Joint Case Management Plan,” counsel must submit a joint Proposed Scheduling Order listing deadlines for completion of all pretrial matters. The Proposed Scheduling Order is due at least 5 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference.\n+The Scheduling Order must comply with these rules and the deadlines set forth in the attached sample Scheduling Order. The Court has ultimate discretion in the dates set forth in the final Scheduling Order. Counsel is also advised that the Court will not automatically honor agreements between counsel to alter the dates listed in the Joint Case Management Plan. Moreover, agreements between counsel trying to amend deadlines for dispositive motions, replies, the final pretrial order, final pretrial conference, and jury selection will NOT be honored, and any modification of dates must be granted by the Court.\n+See APPENDIX, p. 18 and 19 for a sample Scheduling Order.\n+C. Mandatory Certificate Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence\n+All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing before the Court must, together with their proposed scheduling order, file a certificate attesting either that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT, Claude, Harvey.AI, or Google Bard) or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a person.\n+The Court will strike any filing from a party who fails to file a certificate on the docket attesting that they have read the Court’s judge-specific requirements and understand that they will be held responsible under Rule 11 for the contents of any filing that they sign and submit to the Court, whether or not generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing. See APPENDIX, p. 17, for a sample Certificate Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence\n+See APPENDIX, p. 17, for a sample Certificate Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence.\n+Required Pretrial Materials\n+Pretrial disclosures. Each party must provide the following information to any opposing parties:\n+The identity of witnesses, specifically identifying each witness the party intends to present at trial, rather than those that may be called on prospective rebuttal or if the need arises.\n+The identity of witnesses whose testimony will be presented by deposition, including a transcript of the pertinent portions of testimony to be presented.\n+Documents and exhibits, with identifying headings, that the party intends to present at trial, and those it may present if the need arises.\n+The name(s) of Plaintiff’s experts, and reports, 180 days before the discovery deadline.\n+The name(s) of Defendant’s experts, and reports, 120 days before the discovery deadline.\n+Unless otherwise directed by the Court, pretrial disclosures must be made in conjunction with the Joint Pretrial Order.\n+Joint Pretrial Order (“JPO”). Counsel must ensure that the JPO is filed by the date listed on the Scheduling Order. Counsel must adapt the “Joint Pretrial Order form” provided by the Court. All counsel must sign the JPO; failure to comply with any aspect of the JPO may result in sanctions available to the Court against the noncompliant party. If a JPO is filed, but the case is later continued or abated, a supplemental JPO must be filed at least 60 days before the revised Final Pretrial Conference.\n+See APPENDIX, p. 23 for a sample Joint Pretrial Order.\n+Exhibit Lists and Witness Lists. Due as attachments to JPO.\n+See APPENDIX, pp. 26–29 for sample exhibit and witness lists.\n+Other Required Documents. No later than the deadline for filing the JPO, each party must file these documents—captioned, signed by counsel, and with service certified:\n+Jury Trials. Proposed voir dire questions and proposed jury instructions.\n+Non-Jury Trials. Proposed Findings of Fact, based on supporting testimony and exhibits, Proposed Conclusions of Law, based on supporting authority, and memorandum of law.\n+Exhibits and witnesses\n+General Rule. All exhibits and witness lists must be marked and exchanged between counsel on the same date as the JPO deadline. The offering party will mark each of his/her own exhibits with the party’s name, case number, and exhibit number. All exhibits and witness lists must be filed electronically by the JPO deadline.\n+Objections to Exhibits or Witnesses. Objections to any exhibits or witnesses must be filed 15 days after the JPO deadline; objections must include copies of the disputed exhibit and legal authority. Responses to objections must be filed 30 days after the objections are filed. Failure to timely respond to an objection will be deemed lack of opposition resulting in the objection being sustained. Failure to timely object to an exhibit or witness constitutes a waiver and considered admission of that exhibit or witness. All rulings will be done by submission.\n+Authentication. If counsel requires authentication of an exhibit, counsel must notify offering counsel in writing 15 days after the JPO deadline. Failure to do so is an admission of authenticity.\n+Admitting Exhibits. The Court will admit all exhibits listed in the JPO into evidence unless opposing counsel files written objections supported by authority by the date listed on the Scheduling Order.\n+Providing Exhibits to the Court. Counsel for each party must provide the Court with a hard copy of its exhibits in a tabbed and indexed binder by the Final Pretrial Conference.\n+Exhibits and the Jury. Counsel must obtain permission from the Court to pass exhibits to the jury during trial. All admitted exhibits will go to the jury during its deliberations.\n+Disposition of Exhibits After Trial. Exhibits that are not easily stored in a file folder (like posters or models) must be withdrawn after trial, and reproductions or photographs must be submitted in their place and filed electronically as soon as possible.\n+If there is no appeal, exhibits must be removed by the offering party within 30 days after disposition of the case.\n+When there is an appeal, exhibits returned to the Court by the Court of Appeals must be removed by the offering party within 10 days after written notice from the District Clerk. Exhibits not timely removed will be disposed of by the District Clerk, and the expenses incurred will be assessed against the offering party.\n+technology and other Equipment\n+Drawing boards and easels with large writing pads are available for use in the courtroom.\n+A DVD is available for audiovisual exhibits.\n+A document reader is available for projecting letter-sized (or smaller) documents and photographs.\n+If counsel wishes to bring other technology/equipment for a hearing or trial, counsel must contact the Judicial Assistant, Sandra Espinoza, at (956) 982-9684, with their equipment request at least 7 days before the hearing or trial.\n+Any requests for daily copy must be timely provided to the Court Reporter, Sheila Perales, at (956) 982-9664, ext. 19664. The Court Reporter reserves the right to refuse to provide a daily copy.\n+Courtroom Procedures\n+Hours. The Court’s hours during trial vary depending on the type of case and the needs of the parties, counsel, witnesses, and the Court. Court normally will convene at 9:00 A.M. and adjourn at 5:00 P.M., recessing for lunch between 12:00 and 1:30 P.M., with morning and afternoon breaks as needed.\n+Access at Other Times. Counsel requesting access to the courtroom to set up or remove equipment or exhibits before or after normal business hours must arrange to do so in advance by contacting the Judicial Assistant, Sandra Espinoza, at (956) 982-9684.\n+Cell Phones. Cell phones are allowed in the courtroom for trial purposes and must be on airplane mode if not in use.\n+Computers, iPads, and Other Portable Technology. Computers, iPads, and other portable technology may be brought only into the courtroom with notice and permission from the Court.\n+Last-minute filings. If counsel files documents just before or during trial, that party must submit 3 hard copies of the filing to the Judicial Assistant.\n+Decorum. Counsel and parties will comply with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, the Texas Lawyers Creed, and the Local Rules adopted by the Southern District of Texas.\n+See also APPENDIX, p. 35 for Courtroom Etiquette.\n+Witnesses. Witnesses are to remain outside the courtroom until called by counsel to testify. To ensure expediency, counsel must furnish the Judicial Assistant, U.S. Marshals, and Court Security Officer (CSO) with a list of witnesses showing the order in which they are likely to be presented. When counsel calls a witness, the CSO will bring the witness into the courtroom, and the Court will direct the witness to take the stand. Counsel should consider the Court’s hours and arrange to call witnesses accordingly. Counsel must stand at the podium to question witnesses but may approach a witness with an exhibit upon permission from the Court.\n+Demonstrations. Counsel must request and obtain the Court’s permission to conduct a demonstration.\n+Jury Deliberations. While the jury is deliberating, counsel is instructed to remain near the courtroom to be available for jury notes or a verdict.\n+Contacting jurors after trial. Once the trial has ended, counsel has a right to contact jurors at their discretion. That said, the Court will instruct the jurors that they may elect not to answer questions or discuss the case.\n+Voir Dire\n+Generally, the Court will conduct examination of the venire.\n+Proposed voir dire questions must be filed with the JPO.\n+Use of Depositions at trial\n+The Court generally will accept counsels’ agreement to read relevant portions of a deposition at trial even though the witness is available; otherwise, follow FRCP 32. But the Court cautions counsel against the overuse of deposition testimony.\n+Counsel will designate the portion of any deposition to be read by citing the page and line number(s) in the JPO. Objections to deposition excerpts must be filed within 15 days after the JPO deadline.\n+In a non-jury trial, counsel must list the deposition excerpts offered as an exhibit, citing page and line number(s). The judge will read all deposition evidence.\n+Settlements and Orders of Dismissal\n+Notice. Counsel must immediately notify the Judicial Assistant, Sandra Espinoza, at (956) 982-9684, upon settlement of any case set for conference, hearing, or trial.\n+Notices of Settlement.\n+Notices of Settlement must be received in writing and must include a separate Agreed Judgment or Stipulation of Dismissal within 30 days of the Notice of Settlement.\n+The Court will enter an Order disposing of the case upon receipt of the Agreed Judgment or Stipulation of Dismissal.\n+Stipulation of Dismissal.\n+Stipulations of Dismissal, under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), must be received in writing and must be signed by all parties who have appeared.\n+The Court will enter an Order of Dismissal upon receipt of the Stipulation of Dismissal.\n+Suits Involving Minor Plaintiffs.\n+If there is a potential conflict of interest between the parent(s)/guardian(s) and the minor, counsel will jointly move for appointment of an attorney ad litem before any mediation or other ADR procedure.\n+If there is no conflict of interest between the parent(s)/guardian(s) and the minor, and the suit is settled, counsel still will jointly move for appointment of an attorney ad litem to represent the minor at the settlement hearing.\n+If counsel cannot agree on the attorney ad litem, each counsel will submit the names of three proposed attorneys, and the Court may appoint one, or one of its own choosing.\n+All parties and attorneys must appear for the settlement hearing, unless excused by the Court.\n+Dismissals. In accordance with FRCP 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the Court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—will dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the Court will extend the time for service for an appropriate period.\n+appendix\n+Order Setting Conference 12\n+Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan 14\n+Certificate Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence......................................17\n+Scheduling Order 18\n+Joint Pretrial Order 23\n+Exhibit List 26\n+Witness List 28\n+Witness Addendum 30\n+Notice to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge 33\n+Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge 34\n+Courtroom Etiquette 35\n+United States District Court Southern District of Texas\n+Brownsville Division\n+§\n+versus\n+§\n+Civil Action B-\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+Order Setting Conference\n+Counsel must appear for an initial pretrial conference:\n+__________ ___, 202___, at __________ ___.m.\n+Before the Honorable Rolando Olvera\n+United States District Judge Third Floor—Courtroom No. 4\n+United States Courthouse\n+600 E. Harrison Street\n+Brownsville, TX 78520\n+Within 15 days of receiving this order, counsel must file a list of all entities that are financially interested, including parent, subsidiary, and affiliated corporations as well as all known attorneys of record. When a group description is effective disclosure, an individual listing is unnecessary. Underline the names of corporations with publicly traded securities. Counsel must promptly amend the list when parties are added, or additional interested parties are identified.\n+The plaintiff must serve defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint. The plaintiff’s failure to file proof of service within that time may result in dismissal by the Court on its own initiative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).\n+At least 14 days before the initial pretrial conference, counsel must file a joint case management plan listing the identities and purposes of witnesses, sources, and types of documents, and other requirements for a prompt and inexpensive preparation of this case for disposition by motion or trial. See Fed R. Civ. P. Rule 26(f).\n+At least 5 days before the initial pretrial conference, counsel must file a joint proposed scheduling order using the Court’s template and the certificate regarding generative artificial intelligence.\n+The parties must agree on other deadlines for completion of pretrial matters including all expert designation dates and discovery deadlines, as well as dates for exchanging of initial disclosures if they have not already been completed.\n+By the initial pretrial conference, counsel will have interviewed their clients and read all relevant documents; readily available documents must be exchanged at the meeting to create and sign the required Case Management Plan at the latest.\n+The court will set a schedule for initial preparation and may rule on motions pending or made at the conference.\n+Counsel in charge of a case must appear at all hearings or conferences. A motion to appear on behalf of the attorney−in−charge will be granted only upon showing of good cause, and only if the attorney to be substituted is familiar with the case and has authority to bind the client. The motion to appear must be ruled on before the hearing or conference date.\n+Counsel who appears at the conference must have authority to bind the client and must know the facts.\n+Counsel must have discussed alternative dispute resolution with their clients and each other; at the conference, the court will consider whether a method of ADR is suited to the case.\n+The court will enter a scheduling order and may rule on any pending motions at the conference.\n+Plaintiff(s), or the party removing a suit from state court, MUST SERVE THE OPPOSING PARTY OR PARTIES with copies of:\n+This ORDER FOR CONFERENCE,\n+The form for the JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AS REQUIRED BY RULE 26(f).\n+The form for the Proposed JOINT Scheduling Order and CERFICIATE REGARDING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+The above documents MUST BE SERVED ALONG WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT.\n+The parties will be bound by the provisions in this ORDER, the documentation mentioned above, and the dates set out in the scheduling order.\n+Failure to comply with this ORDER may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action and assessment of expenses.\n+By the order of the Court\n+united states district court\n+southern district of texas\n+Brownsville division\n+_________________________,\n+§\n+Plaintiff(s),\n+§\n+§\n+v.\n+§\n+Civil Action No.\n+§\n+_________________________,\n+§\n+Defendant(s).\n+§\n+§\n+Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan\n+Under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n+(Please restate the instruction in bold before burnishing the responsive information.)\n+State where and when the conference among the parties required by Rule 26(f) and identify the counsel who attended for each party.\n+List the cases related to this one that are pending in any state or federal court with the case number and court.\n+Specify the allegation of federal jurisdiction.\n+Name the parties who disagree with the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations and state their reasons.\n+List anticipated additional parties when they can be added, if any.\n+List anticipated interventions, if any.\n+Describe class-action issues, if any.\n+State whether each party has completed the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a). If not, describe the arrangements to complete the disclosures.\n+Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan, including:\n+Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f).\n+When and to whom the plaintiff anticipates it may send interrogatories.\n+When and to whom the defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories.\n+Of whom and by when the plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions.\n+Of whom and by when the defendant anticipates taking oral depositions.\n+When the plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) will be able to designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and when the opposing party will be able to designate responsive experts and provide their reports.\n+List expert depositions the plaintiff (or party with the burden of proof on an issue) anticipates taking and their anticipated completion date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B) (expert report).\n+List expert depositions the opposing party anticipates taking and their anticipated complete date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B) (expert report).\n+If the parties cannot agree on a part of the discovery plan, describe the separate views and proposals of each party.\n+Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken.\n+State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed.\n+Describe the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case that were discussed in your Rule 26(f) meeting.\n+Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt resolution.\n+From the attorneys’ discussion with their client(s), state the alternative dispute resolution techniques that are reasonably suitable and state when such a technique may be effectively used here.\n+Magistrate judges may now hear jury and non-jury trials. Indicate the parties’ joint position on a trial before a magistrate judge.\n+State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time.\n+Specify the number of hours it will take to present the evidence.\n+List pending motions that could be ruled on at the initial pretrial and scheduling conference.\n+List other pending motions.\n+Convey other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, that deserve the special attention of the court at the conference.\n+List and summarize all issues pending in the case. Include a statement that counsel have met and agreed on the summation list of issues.\n+List the names, bar numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers of all counsel.\n+Counsel for Plaintiff(s):\n+Name: ___________________________________________________________________\n+Bar Number: ______________________________________________________________\n+Address: _________________________________________________________________\n+Telephone: ____________________________ Date: __________________\n+Counsel for Defendants(s):\n+Name: ___________________________________________________________________\n+Bar Number: ______________________________________________________________\n+Address: _________________________________________________________________\n+Telephone: ____________________________ Date: __________________\n+Approved:\n+___________________________________ ____________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Plaintiff(s) Date\n+___________________________________ ____________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Defendant(s) Date\n+united states district court\n+southern district of texas\n+Brownsville division\n+____________________,\n+§\n+§\n+Plaintiff,\n+§\n+§\n+v.\n+§\n+Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-0___\n+§\n+____________________,\n+§\n+§\n+Defendant.\n+§\n+CERTIFICATE REGARDING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n+i hereby certify that I have read and will comply with all of Judge Rolando Olvera’s local rules related to generative artificial intelligence.\n+I further certify that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative artificial intelligence or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence—including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis—will be checked for accuracy, using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a person before it is submitted to the Court. I understand that any attorney or pro se litigant who signs any filing here will be held responsible for the contents according to applicable rules of attorney or civil discipline, whether or not generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing.\n+___________________________________ ____________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge or Pro Se Litigant Date\n+united states district court\n+southern district of texas\n+Brownsville division\n+____________________,\n+§\n+§\n+Plaintiff,\n+§\n+§\n+v.\n+§\n+Civil Action No. 1:__-cv-0___\n+§\n+____________________,\n+§\n+§\n+Defendant.\n+§\n+Scheduling Order\n+FRCP = Federal Rules of Civil Procedure FPC = Final Pretrial Conference JPO = Joint Pretrial Order\n+1. Trial: Estimated time to try: days. ☐ Bench ☐ Jury\n+If the estimated length of trial is more than five business days, each party must provide specific\n+and itemized time limits for each witness listed in the Joint Pretrial Order (“JPO”).\n+2. Parties must comply with FRCP 15 in amending pleadings.\n+3. New party joinder deadline: 180 days from complaint or,\n+Furnish a copy of this scheduling order to new parties. in a removed case, notice of removal\n+4. The plaintiff’s expert designation and expert report deadline: 180 days before discovery\n+See FRCP 26(a)(2)(D); Local Rule 9(A)(4). deadline\n+5. The defendant’s expert designation and expert report deadline: 120 days before discovery\n+See FRCP 26(a)(2)(D); Local Rule 9(A)(5). deadline\n+6. Discovery completion deadline: 90 days before JPO deadline\n+Every disclosure under FRCP 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's own name — or by the party personally, if unrepresented — and must state the signer's address, email address, and telephone number. See FRCP 26(g).\n+Additionally, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or tried to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery to help obtain it without court action. See FRCP 37(a)(1). Failure to comply with this rule may result in sanctions and the payment of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees under FRCP 37(a)(5).\n+7. The parties’ mediation and status report deadline: 30 days after JPO\n+8. Dispositive motions deadline: 30 days after discovery\n+See FRCP 56(b). deadline\n+9. Non-dispositive motions deadline: 30 days after discovery\n+Responses to dispositive and non-dispositive motions are due 21 days deadline\n+after the motions are filed. See Local Rule 6(C)(2)\n+10. Daubert motions/motions to exclude expert deadline: 60 days before JPO\n+11. Joint pretrial order (“JPO”) (including witness/exhibit lists) 60 days before FPC\n+deadline:\n+All parties must file the joint pretrial order on time.\n+The following applies only to 8 U.S.C. § 1503 cases: Any testifying witness must execute an affidavit; the parties will submit all affidavits as part of the joint pretrial order. See Exhibits A, B. At trial, the parties will be placed on time limits for direct and cross-examination. The Court will initiate questions to every witness before direct examination. See Exhibit C.\n+12. Objections to exhibit or witness lists deadline: 15 days after JPO\n+All objections must include copies of the disputed exhibit and legal authority.\n+13. Responses to objections to exhibit and witness lists deadline: 30 days after JPO\n+14. Motions in limine deadline: 15 days after JPO\n+15. Responses to motions in limine deadline: 30 days after JPO\n+16. Final Pretrial Conference (“FPC”) set for 3:00 P.M.: Please contact Judicial Assistant for FPC date\n+17. Jury Selection is set for 10:30 A.M.: Please contact Judicial Assistant\n+for trial date\n+Approved:\n+___________________________________ ____________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Plaintiff(s) Date\n+___________________________________ ____________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Defendant(s) Date\n+Signed on this the ________ day of ___________________, 202__.\n+_______________________________\n+Rolando Olvera\n+United States District Judge\n+EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT AUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+EXHIBIT A\n+EXHIBIT A\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+BROWNSVILLE DIVISION\n+________________,\n+Plaintiff,\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+v.\n+§\n+Civil Action No.\n+§\n+________________,\n+Defendant.\n+§§\n+AFFIdAVIT of [parent witness]\n+I, ______________________, declare under penalty of perjury the following is true and correct:\n+1. I was born ___[Date]___ in ___ [City, State, Country] ___.\n+2. I am the ___[Mother/Father] ___ of ___[Plaintiff]___.\n+Choose from the following:\n+3a. I know Plaintiff was born in ___ [City, State, Country] ___ because ________________________________.\n+or\n+3b. I was not physically present during ___[Plaintiff’s]___ birth but know ___[Plaintiff]___ was born in ___ [City, State, Country] ___ because ___________________.\n+4. Any exhibit which states Plaintiff was born in Mexico is incorrect because_________.\n+Signed this ___________ day of __________, 20___.\n+____________________________\n+Signature of Affiant\n+____________________________\n+Name of Affiant\n+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared __________________ [name of affiant] and by oath states the facts here stated are true and correct.\n+SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this __________ day of _________, 20___.\n+___________________________________\n+Notary Public\n+My commission expires: _______________\n+EXHIBIT BEXHIBIT BUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+EXHIBIT B\n+EXHIBIT B\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+BROWNSVILLE DIVISION\n+________________,\n+Plaintiff,\n+§\n+§\n+§\n+v.\n+§\n+Civil Action No.\n+§\n+________________,\n+Defendant.\n+§§\n+AFFIDAVIT of [Third party NON-PARENT WITNESS]\n+I, ______________________, declare under penalty of perjury the following is true and correct:\n+1. I was born ___[Date]___ in ___ [City, Country] ___.\n+2. I am related to the Plaintiff as follows: ___ [Relationship to Plaintiff].\n+Choose from the following:\n+3a. I know Plaintiff was born in ___ [City, State, Country] ___ because ________________________________.\n+or\n+3b. I was not physically present during ___[Plaintiff’s]___ birth but know ___[Plaintiff]___ was born in ___ [City, State, Country] ___ because ___________________.\n+Signed this ___________ day of __________, 20___.\n+____________________________\n+Signature of Affiant\n+____________________________\n+Name of Affiant\n+BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared __________________ [name of affiant] and by oath states the facts here stated are true and correct.\n+SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this __________ day of _________, 20___.\n+___________________________________\n+Notary Public\n+My commission expires: _______________\n+EXHIBIT CEXHIBIT C\n+EXHIBIT C\n+EXHIBIT C\n+United States District Court Southern District of Texas\n+Brownsville Division\n+QUESTION TEMPLATE OF WITNESSES IN 8 U.S.C. § 1503 CASES\n+Please state your full correct legal name.\n+What is your relation to Plaintiff and how long have you known him/her?\n+Where was Plaintiff born?\n+Please explain to the Court how you know Plaintiff was born in the United States?\n+One of the exhibits in this case is a birth certificate that states Plaintiff was born in Mexico. Based on your prior testimony, please explain to the Court why this document is incorrect.\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+BROWNSVILLE DIVISION\n+,\n+§\n+§\n+v.\n+§\n+Civil Action B-\n+,\n+§\n+§\n+joint pretrial order\n+(Please restate the instruction in bold before burnishing the responsive information.)\n+Appearance of Counsel. List each party, its counsel, and counsels’ address and telephone number in separate paragraphs.\n+Statement of the Case. Give a brief statement of the case, including relevant names, dates, and places, that can be read to the jury panel as an introduction of the case.\n+Jurisdiction. Briefly specify the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. If there is an unresolved jurisdictional question, state it.\n+Motions. List pending motions.\n+Contentions of the Parties. State concisely, in separate paragraphs, each party’s claims.\n+Admission of Facts. List all facts that require no proof.\n+Contested Issues of Fact. List all facts in bona fide controversy.\n+Agreed Propositions of Law. List the legal propositions that are not in dispute.\n+Contested Propositions of Law. State briefly the unresolved questions of law, with authorities to support each.\n+Exhibits.\n+Attach an Exhibit List and make all listed exhibits available for examination by opposing counsel. Parties must mark each exhibit with the date and case number.\n+All documentary exhibits must be exchanged on the date the Joint Pretrial Order is filed, except for rebuttal exhibits and those whose use cannot be anticipated.\n+A party requiring authentication of an offered exhibit must notify the offering counsel in writing within15 days after the JPO deadline; failure to object in writing before trial concedes authenticity.\n+All objections to admissibility of exhibits must be filed 15 days after the JPO; objections must include copies of the disputed exhibit and legal authority. Responses to objections must be filed 15 days after the objections are filed. Failure to timely respond to an objection will be deemed lack of opposition resulting in the objection being sustained. Failure to timely object to an exhibit or witness constitutes a waiver and considered admission of that exhibit or witness. All rulings will be done by submission.\n+At trial, the first action a party will take during its case-in-chief will be to offer its exhibits into evidence.\n+Witnesses.\n+Attach a Witness List with the names and addresses of witnesses to be called, along with a brief statement of the nature of their testimony.\n+The Court requires any testifying witness to execute an affidavit in all 8 U.S.C. § 1503 cases. The parties will submit all affidavits as part of the joint pretrial order.\n+If other witnesses to be called at the trial become known, their names, addresses, and subject of their testimony will be reported to opposing counsel in writing as soon as they are known; this does not apply to rebuttal or impeachment witnesses.\n+Settlements. State that all settlement efforts have been exhausted, and the case will have to be tried.\n+Trial. State the estimated length of trial and any potential logistical programs, including availability of witnesses, out-of-state people, bulky exhibits, and documentation.\n+Attachments. Each party must file as a separate document (captioned, signed by counsel, and with service certified) the following required attachments in duplicate:\n+For a Jury Trial:\n+Proposed questions for the voir dire examination.\n+Proposed jury charge, including instructions, definitions, and special interrogatories, with authority.\n+For a Non-Jury Trial:\n+Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.\n+Conclusions of law with authority\n+Approved:\n+___________________________________ ____________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Plaintiff(s) Date\n+___________________________________ ____________________\n+Attorney-in-Charge, Defendant(s) Date\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+v.\n+BROWNSVILLE DIVISION\n+Civil Action No. B-\n+exhibit LIST\n+☐ Plaintiff’s List ☐ Defendant’s List\n+Attorney:\n+Judge:\n+Rolando Olvera\n+Clerk:\n+Johanna Cardenas\n+Reporter:\n+Sheila Perales\n+No.\n+Description\n+Ofr\n+Obj\n+Adm\n+Date\n+1.\n+2.\n+3.\n+4.\n+5.\n+6.\n+7.\n+8.\n+9.\n+10.\n+11.\n+12.\n+13.\n+14.\n+15.\n+16.\n+17.\n+18.\n+19.\n+20.\n+21.\n+22.\n+23.\n+24.\n+25.\n+26.\n+27.\n+28.\n+29.\n+30.\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+v.\n+BROWNSVILLE DIVISION\n+Civil Action No. B-\n+WITNESS LIST\n+☐ Plaintiff’s List ☐ Defendant’s List\n+Attorney:\n+Judge:\n+Rolando Olvera\n+Clerk:\n+Johanna Cardenas\n+Reporter:\n+Sheila Perales\n+No.\n+name of Witness\n+1.\n+2.\n+3.\n+4.\n+5.\n+6.\n+7.\n+8.\n+9.\n+10.\n+11.\n+12.\n+13.\n+14.\n+15.\n+16.\n+17.\n+18.\n+19.\n+20.\n+21.\n+22.\n+23.\n+24.\n+25.\n+26.\n+27.\n+28.\n+29.\n+30.\n+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n+v.\n+BROWNSVILLE DIVISION\n+Civil Action No. B-\n+WITNESS addendum\n+☐ Plaintiff’s List ☐ Defendant’s List\n+Attorney:\n+Judge:\n+Rolando Olvera\n+Clerk:\n+Johanna Cardenas\n+Reporter:\n+Sheila Perales\n+No.\n+witness name\n+Witness address\n+1.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+2.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+3.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+4.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+5.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+6.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+7.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+8.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+9.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+10.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+11.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+12.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+13.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+14.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+15.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+16.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+17.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+18.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+19.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+20.\n+Brief description of testimony:\n+United States District Court Southern District of Texas\n+Brownsville Division\n+Notice of the Right to Try\n+a Civil Case Before a Magistrate Judge\n+With the consent of all parties, a United States Magistrate Judge may preside in a civil case, including jury trial and final judgment.\n+The choice of trial before a magistrate judge is at the sole discretion of the parties. Inform only the clerk. Neither the judge nor magistrate judge will be told until all the parties agree.\n+The district judge to whom your case is assigned must approve the referral to a magistrate judge. You may get consent forms from the Clerk of Court.\n+Nathan K. Ochsner, Clerk of Court\n+United States District Court Southern District of Texas\n+Brownsville Division\n+_________________________,\n+§\n+Plaintiff(s),\n+§\n+§\n+v.\n+§\n+Civil Action B-\n+§\n+_________________________,\n+§\n+Defendant(s).\n+§\n+§\n+consent to proceed Before a Magistrate Judge\n+All parties waive their right to proceed before a district judge and consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings, including the trial and judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c).\n+___________________________________\n+___________________________________\n+___________________________________\n+___________________________________\n+Order to Transfer\n+This case is transferred to United States Magistrate Judge _________________________\n+to conduct all further proceedings, including final judgment.\n+____________________ ________________________________________\n+Date Rolando Olvera\n+United States District Judge\n+United States District Court Southern District of Texas\n+Brownsville Division\n+Courtroom Etiquette\n+People who appear before this Court must observe these conventions of courteous, orderly behavior:\n+Be punctual.\n+Remain in attendance until excused. All relevant persons seated before the bar in the courtroom area must remain at counsel table during each session and return after each recess. Parties and counsel must remain in attendance during jury deliberations.\n+Dress with dignity.\n+Address the Court as “your honor” or “Judge” and others only by their titles, if applicable, and surnames, including lawyers, witnesses, and court personnel.\n+Unless instructed otherwise, stand when the Court speaks to you and when you speak to the Court. Stand when the judge or jury enters or leaves the courtroom.\n+Approaching the bench should be limited, and permission to approach must first be granted by the Court.\n+Hand all documents or items tendered for examination by the judge to the Judicial Assistant only.\n+If you expect to be called as a witness, do not participate in a trial without prior permission of the Court.\n+Avoid disparaging remarks and acrimony toward counsel and discourage ill will between the litigants.\n+Counsel must advise their clients, witnesses, and associate counsel about proper courtroom behavior and pertinent rulings of the Court.\n+Last updated October 6, 2026 11","id":"d08273c63bf30c7ed4b80779f32b27ef79355c6328c1948b3f12feffd09b6a06","newHash":"4ef853b168035ab711317f0a818314472f8b80c9880cc905c225b0414cb32ce3","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge%20Olvera%20Local%20Rules%20%28Civil%29%2010-06-26%20.docx","snapshot":"snapshots/4ef853b168035ab711317f0a818314472f8b80c9880cc905c225b0414cb32ce3.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Judge_Olvera_Local_Rules_%28Civil%29_5-22-26.docx","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:39.332496+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"ccc095cd34a4b0b0897aa7ec1d0edd20f26532e917d6139137fc813499ed439b","newHash":"3e64a8bfd50a00c27d25a076574e8cdeb5cbb292c54838238234d83e22b65862","previousHash":null,"resolvedUrl":"https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director_guidance_ai_use_legal_proceedings.pdf","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director_guidance_ai_use_legal_proceedings.pdf","status":"BASELINED","time":"2026-11-01T17:33:39.940015+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"e4cc001dcc83b6f9ebcb67fff3269a836e50d65c6cfa38bfce8d286f0192edfd","newHash":"8eb6e01e5103f56de649ffd4a18fab8b02d8767da3d3891774513bb34d036b15","previousHash":"ffce173c615f683fcd4405903fe04c69f72859d6e114187a8f76a76556acccd2","resolvedUrl":"https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/","status":"CHANGED","time":"2026-11-01T17:34:00.996297+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"143425945e888a2eda1d346701e12404646c163bed490b8f7aa2cb09b777f0b5","newHash":"36cc4607d444bcdb097f32ac321259c6b77ca02424c919701309dbd2583858c6","previousHash":"89a0c20fef2a9f1208a720b82daf16c75b6f7001c5cb39a180835027cfbb1d1c","resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/1866","status":"CHANGED","time":"2026-11-01T17:34:25.788442+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"277e6ee07f3d04d8f5fd31911dcc652be478428aaf11c15d88fec9c44bc0a538","newHash":"c2d9ae9fb57ef64bebd775707e5762a3aa84156e3cc563a5843a3e956e796f5f","previousHash":"44d139ce136026f78fd1f2287eb93b9e1da837d3a6891b75935dbd1673e77ed6","resolvedUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://topics.txcourts.gov/LocalRulesPublic/PreviewAttachment/2791","status":"CHANGED","time":"2026-11-01T17:34:25.243395+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -1,15 +1,14 @@\n-1\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE\n-DISTRICT JUDGE ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN\n+DISTRICT JUDGE ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN\n (Revised August 26, 2026)\n Parties shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, the Northern District of\n California’s Local Rules and General Orders, and this Standing Order, all of which are available at\n http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. A party’s failure to comply with any of the rules or orders may be\n grounds for monetary sanctions, dismissal, entry of judgment, or other appropriate sanctions.\n A. COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT\n-Counsel shall not attempt to contact Judge Martínez-Olguín or her chambers staff by telephone,\n+Counsel shall not attempt to contact Judge Martinez-Olguin or her chambers staff by telephone,\n email, or any other ex parte means, but may contact her Courtroom Deputy, Alexis Solorzano-\n Rodriguez, at amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov, regarding scheduling or other appropriate matters.\n Before contacting the Courtroom Deputy, counsel must ensure that their inquiry is not otherwise\n@@ -19,9 +18,9 @@\n Except in pro se prisoner cases, parties should notice motions (other than discovery motions)\n pursuant to the Civil Local Rules. The Court does not reserve hearing dates for parties, but parties\n should confirm the Court’s availability prior to filing any noticed motion by referring to the Court’s\n-scheduling page. See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/martinez-olguin-araceli-amo/. For\n+scheduling page. See https://www.cand.uscourts. gov/judges/martinez-olguin-araceli-amo/. For\n scheduling questions that are not addressed by the Court’s scheduling page, parties may contact\n-Judge Martínez-Olguín’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis Solorzano-Rodriguez, at\n+Judge Martinez-Olguin’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis Solorzano-Rodriguez, at\n amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov. Noticed days may be reset as the Court’s calendar requires, with order\n of call to be determined by the Court. Absent exceptional circumstances, motions noticed for\n hearing with less than four weeks between the close of briefing and the hearing may be\n@@ -32,7 +31,6 @@\n California on Thursdays at 2:00 p.m.\n Civil case management and status conferences are held in person at the United States Courthouse,\n 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.\n-2\n Pretrial conferences are held in person at the United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,\n California on Thursdays at 11:00 a.m.\n Any changes to these default settings will be communicated by the Court via the case docket, public\n@@ -47,7 +45,7 @@\n C. APPEARANCES AND ORAL ARGUMENT\n 1. In-Person Appearances. The Court may notify the parties in advance of a setting\n that will be conducted via Zoom rather than in person, but the default rule is that all settings are held\n-in person. Each party shall email Judge Martínez-Olguín’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis Solorzano-\n+in person. Each party shall email Judge Martinez-Olguin’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis Solorzano-\n Rodriguez, at amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov, with a list of counsel who will be taking the lead\n speaking role on behalf of a party, along with any other counsel who will be appearing for that party.\n The list shall be emailed at least two (2) court days in advance of the scheduled proceeding. If\n@@ -64,26 +62,25 @@\n declaration must also establish good cause for the remote appearance.\n Requests submitted without a showing of good cause and/or submitted fewer than seven (7)\n days prior to the scheduled setting will likely face denial. If the Court has approved a request to hold\n-a setting by Zoom video, each party shall email Judge Martínez-Olguín’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis\n+a setting by Zoom video, each party shall email Judge Martinez-Olguin’s Courtroom Deputy, Alexis\n Solorzano-Rodriguez, at amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov, with a list of counsel who will be taking the\n lead speaking role on behalf of a party, along with any other counsel who will be appearing for that\n party. The list shall be emailed at least two (2) court days in advance of the scheduled proceeding.\n If they so choose, litigants and lawyers may indicate their pronouns (e.g., she/her, he/him,\n they/them) and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Mx., Dr.) by including the information in the list of\n counsel to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy.\n-3\n 3. Participation by Junior Lawyers. The Court strongly encourages parties to permit\n less experienced attorneys to actively participate in the proceedings by presenting argument at\n motion hearings, examining witnesses at trial, or taking a speaking role at case management\n conferences. The Court permits more than one attorney to present on behalf of a party if this creates\n-an opportunity for less experienced attorneys to participate. If a party files a letter requesting oral\n+an opportunity for less experienced attorneys to participate. Ifa party files a letter requesting oral\n argument stating that a lawyer eight or fewer years out of law school will conduct all or most of the\n oral argument, the Court will entertain in-person oral argument on the principle that less experienced\n lawyers need more opportunities for appearances than they typically receive.\n 4. Format of Argument. During motion hearings, the parties should expect to first\n answer the Court’s questions. Thereafter, unless a case is particularly complex, each side is typically\n allotted five (5) minutes of additional oral argument.\n-5. Demonstratives. The Court does not generally permit the use of demonstratives. If a\n+5. Demonstratives. The Court does not generally permit the use of demonstratives. Ifa\n party would like to use audio-visual demonstratives during a hearing (e.g., PowerPoint presentation),\n it shall file an administrative motion requesting leave to use demonstratives at least 14 court days\n before the hearing, explaining why the demonstratives will aid the Court.\n@@ -109,8 +106,7 @@\n counsel or unrepresented parties shall (1) be prepared to address all matters referred to in the\n Northern District of California’s general standing order on Joint Case Management Statements; and\n (2) have full authority to enter stipulations and make admissions pursuant to that order.\n-4\n-4. Recordings and Transcripts of Court Proceedings. All hearings, case management\n+4, Recordings and Transcripts of Court Proceedings. All hearings, case management\n conferences, status conferences, and pretrial conferences are audio recorded; court reporters are\n usually not provided. Parties may request a copy of the audio recording (on CD), a transcription of\n the audio recording, or the court reporter’s transcript if applicable by following the procedures set\n@@ -144,7 +140,6 @@\n Any percipient witness who may also testify at trial with technical expertise akin to an independent\n expert shall be identified by name no later than the date of expert disclosures to allow for deposition,\n if necessary.\n-5\n At the time of disclosure of a written report, the disclosing party must identify all written materials\n upon which the expert relies in that report and produce those materials if they have not done so\n previously.\n@@ -159,15 +154,15 @@\n party’s opposition to summary judgment as set forth below. A party that anticipates filing a Daubert\n motion must include a suggested briefing schedule in any proposed scheduling order that tracks the\n following sequence:\n-• The initial moving party’s motion for summary judgment.\n-• Plaintiff’s opposition to motion for summary judgment and Daubert motion(s).\n-• Defendant’s reply in support of motion for summary judgment, Daubert motion(s),\n-and opposition(s) to Plaintiff’s Daubert motion(s).\n-• Plaintiff’s reply in support of Daubert motion(s), opposition to Defendant’s Daubert\n+e The initial moving party’s motion for summary judgment.\n+e Plaintiff's opposition to motion for summary judgment and Daubert motion(s).\n+e Defendant’s reply in support of motion for summary judgment, Daubert motion(s),\n+and opposition(s) to Plaintiff's Daubert motion(s).\n+e Plaintiffs reply in support of Daubert motion(s), opposition to Defendant’s Daubert\n motion(s).\n-• Defendant’s reply in support of Daubert motion(s).\n+e Defendant’s reply in support of Daubert motion(s).\n H. PLEADINGS AND DOCKETING\n-1. Amended Pleadings. If a party files an amended pleading, they shall concurrently\n+1. Amended Pleadings. Ifa party files an amended pleading, they shall concurrently\n file a redlined or highlighted version comparing the amended pleading to the prior operative\n pleading. Any amended pleading authorized by the Court must be filed as a stand-alone entry on the\n docket.\n@@ -181,21 +176,20 @@\n clarification. Argument in footnotes will not be considered by the Court. Footnotes must comply\n with the formatting requirements, including font size and spacing, set forth in the Civil Local Rules.\n The Court may strike any filing that includes excessive or improper footnotes.\n-6\n String citations without any analysis or descriptive parentheticals contained in any court\n filing will be disregarded. Pincites to any materials in the record shall be as specific as possible.\n Requests for judicial notice must be contained within the brief to which it pertains. Parties may not\n incorporate by reference prior arguments submitted in the case. This practice creates substantial\n administrative burdens and may be construed as circumventing page limits. The Court may strike\n any filing that improperly incorporates material by reference.\n-4. Artificial Intelligence (AI). Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with\n+4, Artificial Intelligence (AI). Counsel is responsible for providing the Court with\n complete and accurate representations in any submission (including filings, demonstratives,\n evidence, or oral argument), consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the California Rules\n of Professional Conduct, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidance. Use of ChatGPT or\n other such tools is not prohibited, but counsel must at all times personally confirm for themselves the\n accuracy of any content generated by these tools. At all times, counsel—and specifically designated\n lead trial counsel—bears responsibility for any submission made by the party that the attorney\n-represents. Any submission containing AI-generated content must include a certification that lead\n+represents. Any submission containing Al-generated content must include a certification that lead\n trial counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy. Failure to include this certification or\n comply with this verification requirement will be grounds for sanctions. Counsel is responsible for\n maintaining records of all prompts or inquiries submitted to any generative AI tools in the event\n@@ -210,7 +204,7 @@\n All exhibits shall be clearly delineated with labels or tabs along the right side. If the filing includes\n exhibits over two inches thick, the parties shall place the chambers copies in a binder. The chambers\n copies shall be marked “Chambers Copy” and submitted to the Clerk’s Office, in an envelope\n-marked with “Judge Martínez-Olguín,” the case number, and “Chambers Copy.” If the Court\n+marked with “Judge Martinez-Olguin,” the case number, and “Chambers Copy.” If the Court\n requires electronic copies of a filing, it will specifically request it from the parties. Parties should\n not otherwise email amocrd@cand.uscourts.gov with electronic copies of filings.\n 7. Motions to File Under Seal. Parties are reminded that court proceedings are\n@@ -219,17 +213,58 @@\n category of documents for which good cause exists for filing under seal. If a party wishes to file a\n document under seal, that party shall first file an administrative motion to seal in accordance with\n Local Rule 79-5 and include a proposed order which includes a chart in the following format:\n-8\n+Document Dkt. No. | Dkt. No. of | Dkt. No. Party with | Fullor Brief Granted/\n+title or of unredacted | of decl.in | burden to partial statement of Denied\n+description redacted | version support of | substantiate | sealing reason for (leave\n+version sealing need to seal | sought sealing (with blank)\n+citation to\n+corresponding\n+declaration in\n+support of\n+sealing)\n+Example: 34-2 35-2 35 Plaintiff (If Sensitive\n+John Doe partial, portions of\n+Medical specify medical record\n+Records page and | are unrelated to\n+line the claims.\n+numbers.)\n+If parties are asked to provide chambers copies of documents filed under seal, the chambers\n+copies with confidential materials will be handled like all other chambers copies of materials without\n+special restriction, and will typically be recycled, not shredded. If the parties wish to dispose of\n+documents filed under seal in some other way, they must expressly indicate as much in their\n+sealing motion and make arrangements to pick up the documents upon disposition of the\n+motion.\n+I. CIVIL DISCOVERY\n+1. 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Parties should be\n+mindful of the December 1, 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, in\n+particular, the directive in Rule 1 that the Rules “should be construed, administered, and employed\n+by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action\n+and proceeding,” and the proportionality requirements for discovery under Rule 26(b)(1).\n+2. Discovery Disputes Between Parties to the Case. Upon the development of an\n+impasse with respect to discovery in a pending case assigned to Judge Martinez-Olguin, the parties\n+must first meet and confer; that is, counsel for each party shall meet and confer in person or via\n+videoconference to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere exchange of letters, emails,\n+telephone calls, or facsimile transmissions does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement.\n+If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally after a good faith effort, including\n+meet and confer efforts conducted by lead trial counsel, the parties shall prepare a joint statement\n+of not more than five (5) pages (12-point font or greater) stating the nature and status of the dispute\n+and attesting to their good faith meet and confer efforts. Issue-by-issue, the joint statement shall\n+describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with appropriate legal authority,\n+and provide each party’s final proposed compromise before addressing the next issue. It is\n+preferable that the parties file a separate statement for each dispute. Where necessary, the parties\n+may submit supporting declarations and documentation of up to 12 pages. Parties are expected to\n+plan for and cooperate in preparing the joint statement so that each side has adequate time to address\n+the arguments.\n The parties are strongly encouraged to submit a joint statement, but in the rare instances\n when a joint statement is not possible, each side may submit a statement of not more than two (2)\n pages (12-point font or greater).\n The joint statement or individual statements shall be e-filed (unless the case is exempt from\n e-filing requirements). Whether joint or individual, the statement must be filed under the Civil\n-Events category of “Motions and Related Filings > Motions – General > Discovery Letter Brief.”\n+Events category of “Motions and Related Filings > Motions — General > Discovery Letter Brief.”\n Upon review of the parties’ submission(s), the Court will advise the parties of how the Court\n intends to proceed, which may include referring discovery to a magistrate judge. The Court may\n issue a ruling or schedule a videoconference with the parties and, at such conference, may issue\n-rulings, order more formal briefing, or set further hearing dates. The Court may also order the\n+tulings, order more formal briefing, or set further hearing dates. The Court may also order the\n parties to come to the courthouse to meet and confer in good faith.\n 3. Discovery Disputes Between a Party and a Non-Party. For discovery disputes\n involving non-parties (usually Federal Rule 45 disputes), the parties may utilize the procedure\n@@ -255,7 +290,49 @@\n communication; (e) the document’s present location; and (f) the specific privilege and a brief\n summary of any supporting facts. Failure to furnish this information promptly may be deemed a\n waiver of the privilege or protection.\n-10\n+J. SECURITIES CASES\n+Within 14 days of service of the complaint (or consolidated complaint), the plaintiff shall file an\n+appendix summarizing the information required by 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1) and (2), specifically\n+identifying the allegations in the operative complaint as follows: (a) each statement alleged to have\n+been false or misleading; (b) the speaker, date, and medium by which the statement was made;\n+(c) the reason(s) the statement was false or misleading when made; and (d) the facts alleged to show\n+that defendant(s) knew the statement was false and/or misleading. The appendix should clearly\n+identify, by citation to the operative complaint, which statements or omissions are attributable to\n+which defendants, and for each such defendant, the facts alleged which give rise to a strong\n+inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind at the relevant time. The appendix\n+must strictly adhere to the allegations in the operative complaint and may not include any new or\n+supplemental information or explanation.\n+The appendix shall be organized in the following format, with hyperlinks to any material contained\n+in the pleadings:\n+Statement 1 The False and Reasons Facts Giving Rise to a Strong\n+No. Speaker(s), | Misleading | Statements Inference of Scienter\n+Date(s), and | Statements Were False\n+Medium and\n+Misleading\n+When Made\n+1. 410 When: [Direct {Summarize | [Summarize arguments on\n+[date] quotation of | arguments scienter with specific references\n+Where: the alleged | on falsity to paragraphs in the complaint.]\n+[e.g. Press | false and with specific\n+release] misleading | references to\n+Speakers: statements.] | paragraphs\n+[e.g. CEO] in the\n+complaint. ]\n+With its motion to dismiss, the defendant shall include a chart summarizing the bases for challenging\n+each statement, in the following format:\n+Statement | § The False and Not Well- | Safe Harbor | Opinion Puffery\n+No. Speaker(s | Misleading | Pleaded\n+), Date(s), | Statements\n+and\n+Medium\n+1. 410 | When: [Direct v v v v\n+[date] quotation of\n+Where: the alleged\n+[e.g. Press } false and\n+release] misleading\n+Speakers: | statements.]\n+[e.g.\n+CEO]\n K. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS\n Any motion for preliminary or final approval of a class action settlement must address the respective\n guidelines in the Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements,\n@@ -271,7 +348,7 @@\n L. PARTIES UNREPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY\n Parties representing themselves, without the assistance of a lawyer, should visit the webpage entitled\n “Representing Yourself” available on the Court’s website at https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-\n-litigants/. The page discusses the Court’s Legal Help Center which provides free assistance for\n+litigants/, The page discusses the Court’s Legal Help Center which provides free assistance for\n unrepresented parties over the phone. Parties can make an appointment by calling (415) 782-8982 or\n emailing fedpro@sfbar.org.\n M. FAILURE TO OPPOSE\n@@ -279,5 +356,7 @@\n shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n Dated: August 26, 2026\n-ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN\n+(nacel: Welle\n+XRACELI MARTiNEZ-OLGUIN\n United States District Judge\n+10","id":"a836c3311c30e52d51cd987cc04e4d84415af3baf802dbecb16a4be4572d4fc8","newHash":"ed85a1d082cefad383c56c5195a6b09f7e3d34c03f0c9db9bf554d340fe96a57","previousHash":"009d72f011a31716d36795fbbd7c1d51366622ccabde7641b3db0895b9d9f1bf","resolvedUrl":"https://cand.uscourts.gov//sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/ed85a1d082cefad383c56c5195a6b09f7e3d34c03f0c9db9bf554d340fe96a57.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/standing-orders/AMO-CivilStandingOrder-8-26-2026.pdf","status":"CHANGED","time":"2026-11-01T17:34:45.735779+00:00"},{"diff":null,"diffPolicy":"HASH_ONLY_RIGHTS_UNCLEARED","id":"69e172a44f34394632db36a83644dd2338baa17aee5d1bd1f01d2f967ea04095","newHash":"065a66f54a76a451cd4e120ba27692fc5282c6da56ea5552b0969dccd71cd57c","previousHash":"811ff19710d8b267c208e56680134d7c8f9bbab9cc01e90fe222aa54080c415e","resolvedUrl":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25","snapshot":null,"sourceUrl":"https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25","status":"CHANGED","time":"2026-11-01T17:34:52.519936+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@\n Skip to main content\n United States District Court\n Eastern District of Wisconsin\n-Pamela Pepper, Chief Judge • Linda M. Klemm, Clerk of Court\n+Brett H. Ludwig, Chief Judge • Linda M. Klemm, Clerk of Court\n Search form\n Search this site\n Home","id":"5726d242c3330d58203fb32b5d72e90295fa475132dbbd28f36d2b3683cd15f4","newHash":"8a1c228e17fa6f6ceba9bde72429b7c0b4644f1554c9c5e48b7c17f4b0a6fcee","previousHash":"ed261b69e3f502f8caf0f28005a4c8a4284a7138b06d9e302c9ceb73e5fadd95","resolvedUrl":"https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself","snapshot":"snapshots/8a1c228e17fa6f6ceba9bde72429b7c0b4644f1554c9c5e48b7c17f4b0a6fcee.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself","status":"CHANGED","time":"2026-11-01T17:35:16.089693+00:00"},{"diff":"--- previous\n+++ current\n@@ -1,27 +1,40 @@\n+FILED\n+U.S. DISTRICT COURT\n+DISTRICT OF WYOMING\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n-FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING\n-FILED\n-U.S. DISTnlCT counT\n-OISTlllC r OF W YOMING\n-MAY 1 3 2025\n-Margaret BotKins, Clerk\n+MAY 13 2025\n+FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING Margaret Botkins, Clerk\n Cheyenne\n-GENERAL ORDER NO. 25-01\n GENERAL ORDER:\n-REGARDING THE USE OF\n+REGARDING THE USE OF GENERAL ORDER NO. _25-01_\n ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\n IN THE PREPARATION OF FILINGS\n GENERAL ORDER CONCERNING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL\n INTELLIGENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF FILINGS\n The Court notes with growing frequency litigants in the United States District\n-Court for the District of Wyoming are using Artificial Intelligence ( .. Al\") to prepare\n-motions and other papers filed in this Court. Given this and other courts' recent\n+Court for the District of Wyoming are using Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to prepare\n+motions and other papers filed in this Court. Given this and other courts’ recent\n experiences, it is necessary to remind all litigants that appear in this court, represented or\n pro se, of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11\n-requires legal contentions in documents filed with a cou1t be warranted by existing law.\n+requires legal contentions in documents filed with a court be warranted by existing law.\n The Court recognizes that AI can be beneficial to attorneys and their clients and to\n-unrepresented litigants. Even so, examples of filings have been brought to this Court's\n+unrepresented litigants. Even so, examples of filings have been brought to this Court’s\n attention that appear to include Al-generated arguments and citations not warranted by\n existing law. In some cases, litigants or their counsel have filed documents that use Al\n-which generate citations to non-existent cases (also known as \"hallucinated\" legal\n+which generate citations to non-existent cases (also known as “hallucinated” legal\n authority). This practice is strictly prohibited and subject to sanction.\n+The judges of this court have an obligation to maintain and enforce high standards\n+of conduct, to uphold the integrity of the court, and to maintain the public confidence in\n+the judicial process. Toward these ends, the judges also have inherent supervisory\n+authority over the conduct of attorneys and unrepresented litigants appearing in their\n+courtrooms, including the authority to discipline. Sanctions may include fines, non-\n+monetary directives such as completing educational programs, reporting to the\n+disciplinary boards of the bars of which the attorney is a member, and other appropriate\n+and necessary sanctions. Repeated violations may result in disbarment or filing\n+restrictions. The fact that AI was used in or generated the offending document or filing\n+will not and does not excuse or absolve a litigants’ required compliance with Rule 11.\n+Please be mindful of this when utilizing AI tools. (See, e.g., The American Bar\n+Association Formal Opinion 512 — A guide to using AI ethically).\n+IT IS SO ORDERED this 13\" day of May 2025.\n+= ; a RATDAGE 7\n+CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE","id":"c73c31d6ab1d66f20d3aa72f9112de4b42dc18eb4d2517a22fcaa1a29326f791","newHash":"e1c4a0a847fe1e8e144200cf26059f8146c8b0744a672cdcb81f2869f955ed4c","previousHash":"1ecc7edc716dea0cc537c1bbc7de5c22276a06b31ea0580c18e703eff86b547e","resolvedUrl":"https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf","snapshot":"snapshots/e1c4a0a847fe1e8e144200cf26059f8146c8b0744a672cdcb81f2869f955ed4c.txt","sourceUrl":"https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/General%20Order%20re%20Use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Preparation%20of%20Filings.pdf","status":"CHANGED","time":"2026-11-01T17:35:19.006040+00:00"}],"generatedAt":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","runId":"2026-11-01T17:35:50.909232+00:00","schema":"courtscan-source-changelog/1"}