<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Wisconsin Business and Commercial Litigation &#187; Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://noahfiedler.com/category/seventh-circuit-court-of-appeals/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://noahfiedler.com</link>
	<description>Badger State Litigation Information for In-House and Private Practice Lawyers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:46:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>More E-Discovery News:   The Seventh Circuit&#8217;s Pilot Program</title>
		<link>http://noahfiedler.com/2010/05/more-e-discovery-news/</link>
		<comments>http://noahfiedler.com/2010/05/more-e-discovery-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 19:26:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electronic Discovery]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noahfiedler.com/?p=415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 7th Circuit's e-discovery pilot program survey results are in.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The way things are going, I might as well re-name the blog &#8220;All About E-Discovery Rules.&#8221;  Based on the latest feedback about the 7th Circuit&#8217;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&#8217;s Correy Stephenson&#8217;s <a href="http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2010/05/31/Seventh-Circuits-ediscovery-program-releases-results-Results-of-test-run-praised" target="_blank">column</a> about the survey results from the 7th Circuit program.  Apparently, everyone loved it (or at least didn&#8217;t hate it), which is pretty incredible coming from a bunch of lawyers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://noahfiedler.com/2010/05/more-e-discovery-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seventh Circuit Implements Electronic Discovery Pilot Program</title>
		<link>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/10/seventh-circuit-implements-electronic-discovery-pilot-program/</link>
		<comments>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/10/seventh-circuit-implements-electronic-discovery-pilot-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:21:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electronic Discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation Management]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noahfiedler.com/?p=227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Seventh Circuit is road-testing some approaches to e-discovery issues.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read what Hinshaw &amp; Culbertson LLP&#8217;s Steve Puiszis <a href="http://is.gd/40XsI" target="_blank">writes about</a> the Seventh Circuit&#8217;s new <a href="http://www.7thcircuitbar.org/associations/1507/files/Statement1.pdf" target="_blank">electronic discovery pilot program</a>.  As everyone&#8217;s aware, electronic discovery necessitated changes to procedural rules in courts across the country.  The Seventh Circuit&#8217;s program is road-testing approaches to the issue.  If you or someone you know is involved in a case that&#8217;s been selected to take part, have a look at Puiszis&#8217;s post.  It&#8217;ll be worth your time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/10/seventh-circuit-implements-electronic-discovery-pilot-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vacancy on the Seventh Circuit</title>
		<link>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/09/vacancy-on-the-seventh-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/09/vacancy-on-the-seventh-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial vacancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nominating commission]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noahfiedler.com/?p=196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeks nominations to replace Judge Evans.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Judge Terence Evans, in July, <a href="http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2009/08/03/Federal-appeal-court-judge-to-take-senior-status" target="_blank">announced</a> a move to senior status, which opens up a vacancy on the Seventh Circuit.  The Wisconsin senators <a href="http://kohl.senate.gov/newsroom/pressrelease.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1464=3020" target="_blank">activated the nominating commission</a> in early August. </p>
<p>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&#8217;s <a href="http://www.wisbar.org/am/template.cfm?section=press_releases&amp;template=/cm/contentdisplay.cfm&amp;contentid=65784" target="_blank">application</a> (see link halfway down the page) and <a href="http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=press_releases&amp;Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&amp;ContentID=85155" target="_blank">instructions</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/09/vacancy-on-the-seventh-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seventh Circuit Abandons De Novo Review of Administrative Decisions</title>
		<link>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/07/de-novo-going-the-way-of-res-judicata/</link>
		<comments>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/07/de-novo-going-the-way-of-res-judicata/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:28:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[de novo review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent decision]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noahfiedler.com/?p=105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The phrase "independent decision" may soon replace the term "de novo review," and not just in cases of administrative review.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recently, Dave Ziemer of the Wisconsin Law Journal <a href="http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2009/07/06/Independent-may-replace-de-novo" target="_blank">wrote about</a> a June 29, 2009 7th Circuit decision that replaces the time-honored moniker of &#8220;<em>de novo&#8221;</em> review with the phrase &#8220;independent decision,&#8221; at least for district court review of administrative decisions.</p>
<blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote>
<p>While the case considered ERISA, which is a specialized field, and is limited to the consideration of an administrative decision, Ziemer opines that it&#8217;s likely we&#8217;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:</p>
<blockquote>
<p align="left">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.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://noahfiedler.com/2009/07/de-novo-going-the-way-of-res-judicata/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

