The way things are going, I might as well re-name the blog “All About E-Discovery Rules.” Based on the latest feedback about the 7th Circuit’s pilot e-discovery program, I would be willing to bet that the pilot program is going to take full flight soon. Have a look at Lawyers USA’s Correy Stephenson’s column about the survey results from the 7th Circuit program. Apparently, everyone loved it (or at least didn’t hate it), which is pretty incredible coming from a bunch of lawyers.
Read what Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP’s Steve Puiszis writes about the Seventh Circuit’s new electronic discovery pilot program. As everyone’s aware, electronic discovery necessitated changes to procedural rules in courts across the country. The Seventh Circuit’s program is road-testing approaches to the issue. If you or someone you know is involved in a case that’s been selected to take part, have a look at Puiszis’s post. It’ll be worth your time.
September 2nd, 2009
admin
Judge Terence Evans, in July, announced a move to senior status, which opens up a vacancy on the Seventh Circuit. The Wisconsin senators activated the nominating commission in early August.
Application materials were made available beginning Tuesday, September 1, 2009, and must be returned no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, September 28, 2009: here are the Commission’s application (see link halfway down the page) and instructions.
Recently, Dave Ziemer of the Wisconsin Law Journal wrote about a June 29, 2009 7th Circuit decision that replaces the time-honored moniker of “de novo” review with the phrase “independent decision,” at least for district court review of administrative decisions.
All in all, it would be best for judges and lawyers to stop thinking about ‘de novo review’ — with the implication that the judge is ‘reviewing’ someone else’s action — and start thinking about independent decision, which is what Firestone [a leading case on ERISA procedure] requires.
While the case considered ERISA, which is a specialized field, and is limited to the consideration of an administrative decision, Ziemer opines that it’s likely we’ll see the same change apply to typical litigation. The opinion itself (only seven pages long) contains good shorthand of the differences between simple review and independent decisions:
In a contract suit the judge does not “review” either party’s decision. Instead the court takes evidence (if there is a dispute about a material fact) and makes an independent decision about how the language of the contract applies to those facts.
