20
1 March 28, 2012 Bar Talk Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association Chapter By-Laws Amended 3 Bankruptcy Court’s Electronic Evi- dence Requirement 4 Second Chair Program 6 Clerk of Court’s Corner 7 Under Seal Filings 8 Pro Se Project Update 14 Calendar of Events 18 Law Student Reception 10 St. Thomas Student Chapter Update 12 The Arc Minnesota Recognition 16 E-Discovery Working Group 5 Inside This Issue The District of Minnesota is currently ranked the 5th busi- est district out of 94 districts throughout the country, based on weighted court filings. The District of Minnesota has been ranked as one of the top five busiest districts in four of the past five years. The District of Minnesota is the busiest district in the Eighth Circuit, based on weighted court filings. The weighted caseload for each judge in the District of Min- nesota is just over 700, accounting for the full caseloads cur- rently carried by Senior Judges Paul A. Magnuson, David S. Doty, and Richard H. Kyle. The average national weighted caseload per judge is 430. The Chief Judge further shared with members of the Minnesota Chapter the following additional statistics on the activity of the Court during the 2011 fiscal year (ending September 30, 2011), all of which illuminate the increasing difficulties presented by contin- ued cuts to the district’s budget: District of Minnesota is Fifth Busiest District in the Country Volume V, Issue III On November 30, 2011, Chief Judge Michael J. Davis delivered the State of the District of Minnesota at the monthly meeting of the Minnesota Chapter of the FBA. The Chief Judge spoke about the state-of-the- art technology that has been implemented throughout the district. Seventeen of the district’s courtrooms are now currently equipped with full evidence presenta- tion systems. The Duluth courthouse is currently un- dergoing renovations, which are expected to be done this spring and will include a new jury box, witness stand, cork flooring and enhanced technology. The Chief Judge also announced that internet access will soon be available in the district’s courtrooms and con- ference rooms. The Chief Judge commended the ongoing commitment to justice and hard work of the district judges, senior judges, and magistrate judges of the District of Min- nesota. The work of the bench is particularly laud- able in light of the following statistics Chief Judge Davis shared: www.fedbar.org/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter.aspx (Continued on page 2) The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge of the United States District Court, District of Minnesota. (Photograph cour- tesy of United States District Court.)

Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar · PDF file1 March 28, 2012 Bar Talk Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association Chapter By-Laws Amended 3 Bankruptcy Court’s Electronic

  • Upload
    vokhue

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

1

March 28, 2012

Bar Talk

Minnesota Chapter of the Federa l Bar Assoc iat ion

Chapter By-Laws Amended 3

Bankruptcy Court’s Electronic Evi-dence Requirement

4

Second Chair Program 6

Clerk of Court’s Corner 7

Under Seal Filings 8

Pro Se Project Update 14

Calendar of Events 18

Law Student Reception 10

St. Thomas Student Chapter Update 12

The Arc Minnesota Recognition 16

E-Discovery Working Group 5

Inside This Issue The District of Minnesota is currently ranked the 5th busi-

est district out of 94 districts throughout the country, basedon weighted court filings.

The District of Minnesota has been ranked as one of the topfive busiest districts in four of the past five years.

The District of Minnesota is the busiest district in theEighth Circuit, based on weighted court filings.

The weighted caseload for each judge in the District of Min-nesota is just over 700, accounting for the full caseloads cur-rently carried by Senior Judges Paul A. Magnuson, David S.Doty, and Richard H. Kyle. The average national weightedcaseload per judge is 430.

The Chief Judge further shared with members of the MinnesotaChapter the following additional statistics on the activity of theCourt during the 2011 fiscal year (ending September 30, 2011), allof which illuminate the increasing difficulties presented by contin-ued cuts to the district’s budget:

District of Minnesota is Fifth Busiest District in the Country

Volume V, Issue III

On November 30, 2011, Chief Judge Michael J. Davisdelivered the State of the District of Minnesota at themonthly meeting of the Minnesota Chapter of theFBA. The Chief Judge spoke about the state-of-the-art technology that has been implemented throughoutthe district. Seventeen of the district’s courtrooms arenow currently equipped with full evidence presenta-tion systems. The Duluth courthouse is currently un-dergoing renovations, which are expected to be donethis spring and will include a new jury box, witnessstand, cork flooring and enhanced technology. TheChief Judge also announced that internet access willsoon be available in the district’s courtrooms and con-ference rooms.

The Chief Judge commended the ongoing commitmentto justice and hard work of the district judges, seniorjudges, and magistrate judges of the District of Min-nesota. The work of the bench is particularly laud-able in light of the following statistics Chief JudgeDavis shared:

www.fedbar.org/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter.aspx

(Continued on page 2)

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge of the UnitedStates District Court, District of Minnesota. (Photograph cour-tesy of United States District Court.)

2

.

Page 2 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

The District of Minnesota currently has twelveMultidistrict Litigation cases.

There were 57 trials in the District of Minnesota(23 civil jury trials, 5 civil bench trials, and 29criminal jury trials).

297 criminal cases were filed (58% of which werehandled by the Office of the United States FederalDefender).

3,930 civil cases were filed in the District of Min-nesota in 2011.

Seventy-two foreclosure cases were filed (up1,100% from 2007, when there were only 6).

333 attorneys were admitted to practice in federalcourt in 2011.

358 individuals were arrested on felony warrantswithin the District of Minnesota by the MarshalsNorth Star Fugitive Task Force.

9,412 people were naturalized as new citizens in2011.

182,000 events were filed in CM/ECF.

These statistics amplify the value that the FBA ProSe Project provides the District of Minnesota. As aresult of the Pro Se Project, more than 162 pro se liti-gants have had an opportunity to consult with and/orreceive legal services of volunteer attorneys. ChiefJudge Davis ended his State of the District Addressby paying tribute to attorneys who have dedicatedtime and effort to provide volunteer consultation andrepresentation to the district’s pro se litigants.

Kirstin Kanski is Co-Chair of the Communications Commit-tee and a partner at Lindquist & Vennum PLLP. Kirstin pre-viously served as a law clerk for the Honorable David S. Doty.(Photographs and charts courtesy of District Court andprinted with permission of the District Court.)

CRIMINAL FILINGS

20.90%

17.80%

17.20%

15.50%

9.10%

5.70% 13.80%

Fraud = 62 cases

non-marijuana drug offenses = 53cases

weapons = 51 cases

immigration = 46 cases

sex offenses =27 cases

violent crimes = 17 cases

other felonies (marijuana offenses,theft, regulatory offenses, forgeryand others) =41 cases

Number of Criminal Cases

297 Criminal Cases

CIVIL CASELOAD STATISTICS

38.20%

9.40%8.80%

7.50%

7.30%

4.60%

4.20%20%

Personal Injury/Product Liability =

1,501 cases

Contracts= 368 cases

Civil Rights=346 cases

Labor Suits=293 cases

Prisoner Petitions=288 cases

Torts=180 cases

Intellectual Property - 19th most

IP Cases in US = 165 cases

Other: Social Security, Forfeitures,tax suits, real property, antitrustand etc.=789 cases

3,930 civil cases filed

The District Court Judges of the United States District Court forthe District of Minnesota: (back row from left) The HonorableDavid S. Doty, Donald D. Alsop, Joan N. Ericksen, Patrick J.Schiltz, Paul A. Magnuson, Richard H. Kyle, (front row from left)Ann D. Montgomery, Susan Richard Nelson, Chief Judge MichaelJ. Davis, John R. Tunheim, and Donovan W. Frank.

The Magistrate Judges of the United States District Court for theDistrict of Minnesota: (back row from left) The Honorable Jeanne J.Graham, Jeffrey J. Keyes, Leo I. Brisbois, Steven E. Rau, Tony N.Leung, Mary Kay Klein, (front row from left) Franklin L. Noel,Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, and Janie S. Mayeron.

3

March 28, 2012 | Bar Talk Page 3

Chapter By-Laws Amended

At the monthly luncheon meeting of the MinnesotaChapter of the Federal Bar Association held Janu-ary 25, 2012, the membership voted to approveamendments to the Chapter By-Laws. The Chap-ter By-Laws provide the foundational frameworkfor the operation of the Chapter. They governsuch things as Chapter objectives, membership,and the selection and duties of officers and direc-tors.

The Chapter By-Laws were last amended in May2010. The January 2012 amendments sought tofurther implement the vision that led to the 2010changes, and to ensure that the current and futureoperational needs of the Chapter are met, whilestaying true to the Chapter’s mission.

Article III of the Chapter By-Laws sets forth theobjectives of the organization. The mission of theMinnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Associationis to:

It is in furtherance of these stated objectives thatour Chapter operates. The Chapter objectivesdrive decisions on Chapter programming and re-source allocation, and give purpose to the organi-zation. The remainder of the Chapter By-Lawsaddress the structure of the organization.

The 2012 amendments implemented certainstructural changes. These changes primarily af-fect how officers and directors are selected andhow long they may serve.

The 2012 amendments changed the number andcomposition of Chapter Directors. In particular,the 2012 amendments increased the maximumnumber of regular Chapter Directors from 30 to36, and clarified that elected Officers also serveas Directors and count toward the maximumnumber. An unlimited number of Honorary Di-rectors may continue to serve. Prior to the 2012amendments, any Judges of the Federal Courts ofthe United States and all past presidents of theMinnesota Chapter were eligible to serve as Hon-orary Directors. The 2012 amendments limitedeligibility to the previous four Chapter presi-dents, though all Federal Judges remain eligible.

The 2012 amendments also altered the member-ship of the Nominations and Elections Commit-tee. Specifically, the 2012 amendments add theChapter’s President-Elect as a seventh member ofthat committee. The rest of the Nominations andElections Committee is comprised of the currentChapter President and the previous four ChapterPresidents. The 2012 amendments authorize theChapter President to appoint a Board Member toserve in place of any previous Chapter Presidentwho does not wish to serve.

The 2012 amendments were the result of the ef-forts of many Chapter members, including theChapter’s Long-Range Planning Committee, Ex-ecutive Committee, Board of Directors, and mem-bership in general, as well as members of the fed-eral judiciary. A copy of the amended By-Lawswill be posted on the Chapter’s website atwww.fedbar.org/Minnesota.

Rachel Zimmerman is Co-Treasurer and serves on theLong-Range Planning Committee of the Minnesota Chapter.Rachel is a partner at the intellectual property law firm ofMerchant & Gould P.C. Rachel previously served as a lawclerk for the Honorable James B. Loken of the Eighth CircuitCourt of Appeals.

Further the objectives of the FederalBar Association as set forth in ArticleIII of the Constitution; to advance thescience of jurisprudence; to promotethe administration of justice; to upholdhigh professional standards for theFederal judiciary, at torneysrepresenting the government of theUnited States and attorneys appearingbefore the courts, departments, andagencies of the United States; toexpand diversity of the membership;and to encourage cordial and friendlyrelations among members of theFederal bench and bar in Minnesota.

4

Page 4 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

Successes and Expansion of the Bankruptcy Court’sElectronic Evidence Requirement

Judge O’Brien’s mandate to use the BankruptcyCourt’s electronic exhibit system in all of his tri-als and evidentiary hearings has found tremen-dous success in its first year. In fact, other mem-bers of the bankruptcy bench anticipate utilizingsimilar requirements for their trials or eviden-tiary hearings in the near future. With this an-ticipated expansion, it is likely that either you oryour firm will encounter these new requirementswhenever you appear in Bankruptcy Court.

Getting StartedThe program initially started out as a pilot pro-ject of Judge O’Brien where the parties optedinto program participation. The success of thepilot project and the feedback from the bar re-sulted in the full expansion of the program. Atthis point, all parties to any bankruptcy case oradversary proceeding assigned to Judge O’Briencan expect that any trial or evidentiary hearingwill require electronic evidence presentation onthe Bankruptcy Court’s system. Notice of thisrequirement goes out to these parties in the formof the trial or scheduling orders for the particu-lar contested matter or adversary proceeding.These orders are highly detailed and outline thekey requirements for training, timing, and sub-mission of evidence.

Counsel can also refer to the Bankruptcy Court’swebsite where a wealth of information on thep r o g r a m c a n b e l o c a t e d( h t t p : / / w w w . m n b . u s c o u r t s . g o v /Newsite/General_Info/electronicevidence.html.)This is where you will find most of the answersto questions about format, submission, and mostimportantly, who to call with questions. Theclerk’s office is also more than willing to help ad-dress questions about the system. Make sure toreach out early and often in your case as you en-counter any issues in complying with the re-quirements so that you can combat them beforeappearing in court. Bethany Imdieke, the Elec-t r o n i c E v i d e n c e C o o r d i n a t o r([email protected]) is the con-tact person for these questions.

The Basic RequirementsOne of the primary requirements in this rela-tively early stage of the program is to make surethat all trial participants obtain the hands-ontraining. This requirement extends to any attor-ney or staff member who will be participating in

any capacity at the trial. This is a one-time re-quirement and applies to everyone regardless ofwhether counsel intends to run the exhibits her-self or to use a staff member to do the handi-work. The clerk’s office maintains the official listof everyone that has completed the training inorder to minimize duplication in future cases.

The content of the training has evolved since theprogram was first implemented. It now runs ap-proximately one-half hour and is designed forpractical hands-on experience with the systemsand equipment that are used in the trial. At thetraining, the participants work with practice ex-hibits that have been loaded into the system togain familiarity with the annotation screen, thedisplays, and the court’s computer. As a result,the length of the training may run shorter orlonger depending on the participants’ comfortwith and questions about the technology.

Beyond the training, there are also precise speci-fications for evidence submission. The trial orderdetails information about timing and logistics ofsubmission. Exhibits must be submitted beforethe hearing to the clerk’s office in pdf format ona CD or flash drive. The primary exception isthat spreadsheets may be submitted in their na-tive Excel format if they are substantial in sizeor data. This exception is intended to facilitatepresentation at trial, as many larger Excel filesdo not always translate into a readable docu-ment when converted into pdf. The other notableexception to the basic format requirement is thatparties may also submit video, pictures, or othermedia for use at the trial. VHS and DVD mayalso be submitted. There may also be issues thatdevelop with unique exhibits that do not fallsquarely into one of these categories or are oth-erwise difficult to convert into the required for-mats. In that case, contact the clerk’s office wellbefore your submission deadline or the hearing.

What to Expect at the HearingThe court has made the process as efficient andreliable as possible to all participants. For exam-ple, parties may use their own laptops to run theexhibits at counsel table instead of crowdingaround the podium. This is a great option for at-torneys who plan to have support staff or co-

(Continued on page 5)

5

March 28, 2012 | Bar Talk Page 5

counsel run the exhibits while they are in themidst of witness examination. Parties interestedin this approach should check the compatibility ofthe laptop with the court’s system and shouldbring the laptop to the hands-on training if at allpossible, or make other arrangements to runthese tests before the hearing. These partiesshould also consider voluntarily exchanging ex-hibits with the other parties in order to load themonto your personal laptop during the trial in lieuof relying on the court’s computer.

Technical support is also present in the court-room throughout the trial to immediately addressany issues or problems that arise during casepresentation. This support is present to help andthe court may, as appropriate, call a recess to al-low these people to address any technical prob-lems that occur. They also serve the importantfunction to help ensure that each side has anequal opportunity to present their case withoutinterference or unnecessary technical difficulties.

The need for rebuttal and other unexpected ex-hibits frequently develops during the course oftestimony. Although the Bankruptcy Court re-quires that all exhibits are loaded into the court’ssystem for electronic presentation, it is not al-ways possible to anticipate potential rebuttal andthere may be times when something must beadded. In that case, make sure to raise the issuewith the court during the trial so that the judgecan consider the request. Each situation is differ-ent, but the judge might be willing to considerrequests for a recess to have the particular itemloaded or, in more unique circumstances, to allowuse of the physical document. Nevertheless, thebest course is always to over-include all potentialexhibits in order to avoid this additional hurdle toan exhibit’s entry into evidence.

Feedback and Expansion PlansThere have been about fifteen trials and eviden-tiary hearings conducted utilizing the electronicevidence presentation system since the programlaunched about a year ago. Countless more havebeen subject to the requirements, but as is com-mon in bankruptcy and in federal court litigation,those cases have settled at some point along theway or on the eve of trial. The bankruptcy courtsurveys the participants after trials conclude toobtain feedback on the program, its require-ments, and suggestions. The feedback has beenoverwhelmingly positive to date. Despite the ini-tial reservations, most participants have notedthat the process was pleasantly efficient and easy

to use. This response gives hope to all of us whowill be encountering the program in the future.

The other bankruptcy judges are in the process ofimplementing the requirements to se the elec-tronic evidence system in their trials and eviden-tiary hearings. The expansion is slated to start inSt. Paul with Chief Judge Kishel because hiscourtroom is already fully equipped as a result ofthe recent renovations of the Federal Courthouse.The program is expected to expand to the bank-ruptcy judges in Minneapolis as their courtroomsare equipped with the necessary features. Withthat in mind, it is likely that even the attorneyoccasionally appearing in bankruptcy court iswell advised to familiarize herself with the re-quirements because she will likely encounter it atsome point in the near future.

L. Kathleen Harrell-Latham is a member of the Communi-cations Committee. She is a bankruptcy practitioner andattorney at Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., and cur-rently serves as Treasurer of the FBA’s National BankruptcySection.

The Minnesota E-Discovery Working Group

is a grassroots e-discovery group, founded by Emily Dukeand Cynthia Moyer of Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., dedicated toexploring the parameters of parties’ and attorneys’ preserva-tion obligations, review methodologies, and production obli-gations throughout the discovery process. One of the Group’smain goals is to create a user-friendly, practical resource ex-ploring the many facets of E-discovery, and assembling adetailed bibliography of helpful resources created by othergroups such as EDRM, the Federal Judicial Conference, andthe Sedona Principles. In conjunction with the MSBA, theGroup kicked off a 6-part CLE series on February 21, 2012with a presentation focused on ethics and the e-discoveryfindings of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Civil Justice Re-form Task Force.

The Group’s work is different from that of other groups inthat it is particularly interested in exploring issues related toproportionality and third party discovery obligations. In ad-dition, the Group seeks to provide best practices related topreservation, review, and production of electronically storedinformation – including tips and questions that practitionersshould ask in order to identify technologies best suited to theneeds of their cases and clients’ sources of electronic informa-tion. Due to the increasing cost of litigation, the Group isalso creating materials that can educate practitioners abouttechnologies currently available to assist in the gatheringand review process.

The Group has over 80 participants who are litigators, in-house counsel, judges, and technology suppliers fromthroughout the State. For more information, or to join theGroup, please contact Cindy Moyer ([email protected]) orEmily Duke ([email protected]).

6

Page 6 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

Federal Defender “Second Chair” Program Begins Its Fifth YearIn 2007, with the support of the District Court,Minnesota Federal Defender Katherian Roe estab-lished a pilot “second chair” mentorship program.The program proposed to admit a small number ofattorneys with state-court trial experience and ademonstrated commitment to serving indigentcriminal defendants to a program in which eachattorney would be mentored by an Assistant Fed-eral Defender or an experienced member of theCriminal Justice Act Panel, under the supervisionof the Federal Defender’s Office.

More than 30 attorneys applied to join the initialclass; of these, five were selected. Each new“second chair” signed on for up to two years.Shannon Elkins, a member of the pilot class andnow an Assistant Federal Defender, recalls the ex-perience. A Hennepin County Public Defendersince 2003, Elkins had tried many criminal caseson her own, but was unfamiliar with federal court.Her first “second chair” case, assigned in May2007, involved an indictment charging a womanwith 42 counts of health care fraud. The case wentto trial for two weeks in December 2008 beforeJudge Joan N. Ericksen. Elkins gave the openingstatement.

Elkins received support from lead attorney TimAnderson, an experienced panel attorney now inprivate practice in New Jersey. Anderson’s rolewas to provide individualized supervision andtraining to Elkins as the needs of the case dic-tated. As lead attorney, he directed Elkins in theeighteen months of preparation that led up to trial,including extensive document review. Andersondescribes Elkins’s assistance as “such a help” tohim, and believes he learned a great deal fromworking with Elkins, observing that participatingas a mentor “was an equally good experience forme.” For her part, Elkins credits Anderson withmaking it possible for her to handle such a lengthyand complicated case, observing, “Federal court isa different ballgame.”

In two subsequent cases, Elkins was assigned towork with defense attorneys Paul Engh and then-Assistant Federal Defender Andrea George (nowExecutive Director of the Federal Defender’s Officein the Eastern District of Washington). Elkins ap-preciated the opportunity to work alongside suc-cessful mentors with different trial styles, and re-mains grateful for her chance to participate in theprogram. Nationwide, it is not unusual for less-experienced attorneys to seek out opportunities to“second chair” criminal trials with CJA panel at-

torneys on a pro bono basis. The District of Min-nesota’s program is unusual in that panel “secondchairs” receive training and one-on-one mentoringas well as compensation for their time. Accordingto Judge Ann D. Montgomery, the bench recog-nized that the district faced a problem—how tobring new attorneys onto the CJA Panel in an eraof “vanishing trials,” when newer attorneys faceddifficulty getting the high level of expertise re-quired to represent criminal defendants in federalcourt. Fortunately, Judge Montgomery observed,the Federal Defenders were “a great group of peo-ple with a tremendous amount of trial experience”who were able to serve as mentors and resourcesto new panel attorneys. The Court worked withthe Federal Defender’s Office to arrange for lim-ited compensation for “second chairs” at a reducedhourly rate—making it possible for attorneys todevote the time needed to prepare eighteenmonths for trial.

Judge Ericksen recalls that Elkins “did an excel-lent job” in her first federal trial. “The mentor pro-gram is a valuable way to broaden the pool ofpanel attorneys,” the Judge observed. “Federalcriminal trials are no place to learn the basics ofpracticing law because the stakes are so high bothfor the public and the defendant. But if it’s doneright, everybody benefits.”

After completing the program, Elkins was admit-ted to the CJA Panel, and handled several addi-tional panel cases before becoming an AssistantFederal Defender. All five members of the pilotclass have “graduated” and have become full-fledged CJA Panel members. The Federal De-fender’s Office elected to continue the program,and a second class was admitted in 2009; a thirdclass is now under consideration.

The program continues to have the full support ofthe Court. “The entire District Court bench heart-ily endorses the Federal Defender’s Second ChairTraining Panel Program,” says Chief Judge Mi-chael J. Davis. “This innovative program providesa rich mentoring experience so that new attorneyscan grow to become proficient in federal criminalpractice. It creates a needed pipeline to provideexcellent, experienced defense attorneys for indi-gent criminal defendants.”

Karin Ciano is a member of the Communications Committeeand owner of Karin Ciano Law PLLC. She previously clerkedfor the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, the Honorable AnnD. Montgomery, and the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan..

7

March 28, 2012 | Bar Talk Page 7

* Change Your Password.

The Court is pleased to announce the availabilityof an automated method to reset your CM/ECFpassword. If it has been a long time and you nolonger remember your password, or if you want tochange your password to something easier to re-member, the automated password reset option ison the CM/ECF tab of the court’s website atwww.mnd.uscourts.gov.

*New Minnesota MDL Case Report.

A new MDL case report is now available throughCM/ECF. This report will list all cases associatedwith a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation(JMPL) action pending in the District of Minne-sota. The user can choose whether to list all MDL-related cases or only pending cases. The report isaccessed through PACER and regular PACER feeswill apply. Step-by-step instructions to run thereport are available under the CM/ECF tab, Refer-ence Guides, MDL Case Report on the court’s web-site.

*PACER fee increase.

The fee for PACER usage is set to increase from$.08 per page to $.10 per page on April 1, 2012.The fee increase was authorized by the JudicialConference of the United States. in September inresponse to the increasing costs for maintainingand enhancing the electronic public access system.

It is the first fee increase for electronic public ac-cess since 2005. At the same time, PACER userswho do not accrue charges of more than $15 in aquarterly billing cycle will not be charged a fee(this is an increase in the exemption from $10 perquarter).

*Internet Access Coming Soon . . .

The District Court is working on several other ex-citing initiatives that you will see soon. Cominglater this spring, free wireless access to the inter-net will be made available in all four courthouses.Access to this private, password-protected, en-crypted network will be available in each court-room, attorney conference room, and the circuitlibrary. Look for a public announcement concern-ing this exciting news soon.

*Electronic Summonses Coming Soon . . .

The Clerk’s Office will announce soon a transitionto electronically issued summonses and updates tothe CM/ECF Procedures Manuals. Later this year,we expect to make available to attorneys the op-tion to file case-initiating documents on their own,through CM/ECF.

Lisa Rosenthal is the Chief Deputy Clerk ofCourt. If you have any questions on any of theseinitiatives, please contact Lisa Rosenthal, ChiefDeputy Clerk of Court, at 612-664-5010.

Clerk of Court’s Corner

The IP Practice Group Committee of the Minnesota Chapter of the FBA is pleased to present:

The Art of Arguing Markman Hearings

Featuring: The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Court; The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz,

United States District Court; Jake M. Holdreith, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP; and Jeffer Ali, Carlson,

Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist.

April 10, 2012, 12:00 p.m. at the Minneapolis Club, Minneapolis, MN

The cost of this event is $40. To RSVP or for further information, contact Patrick M. Arenz, Practice Groups

Committee Chair, at [email protected] or 612-349-8500.

8

It is standard practice for parties to rely on protec-tive orders to effectuate the exchange of informa-tion in a legal action without the fear of unwar-ranted disclosures of sensitive information. Attor-neys, rightfully being creatures of caution, havebeen known to over labe l documen ts as“confidential” or “attorneys’ eyes only,” especiallyin cases involving the production of thousands ofdocuments. As a result, courts within this Districthave seen a dramatic increase in the wholesale fil-ing of materials related to motions and trial mate-rials under seal pursuant to protective orders.However, parties cannot, by their own private ar-rangement (i.e., stipulated protective orders), dic-tate the flow of information in a public proceeding,unless there is good reason to do so. See generally,Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Califor-nia, Riverside County, 464 U.S. 501, 509 (1984)(“‘People in an open society do not demand infalli-bility from their institutions, but it is difficult forthem to accept what they are prohibited from ob-serving.’ Closed proceedings, although not abso-lutely precluded, must be rare and only for causeshown that outweighs the value of openness.”)(quoting Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980)).

Blanket protective orders only postpone, ratherthan alleviate, the need for courts to closely scruti-nize discovery materials to ascertain if a designa-tion is justified. Indeed, just because parties haveseen fit to designate thousands of documents as“confidential” or “attorneys’ eyes only,” without anyapparent challenge by any other party, does notmean that courts will blindly accept these designa-tions when the documents are referenced by theparties in court proceedings. As the Seventh Cir-cuit aptly observed in Union Oil Co. of California v.Leavell:

Many a litigant would prefer that the subjectof the case—how much it agreed to pay forthe construction of a pipeline, how manytons of coal its plant uses per day, and soon—be kept from the curious (including itsbusiness rivals and customers), but the tra-dition that litigation is open to the public isof very long standing. People who want se-crecy should opt for arbitration. When theycall on the courts, they must accept the

openness that goes with subsidized disputeresolution by public (and publicly account-able) officials.

Judicial proceedings are public rather thanprivate property, and the third-party effectsthat justify the subsidy of the judicial systemalso justify making records and decisions asopen as possible. What happens in the hallsof government is presumptively public busi-ness. Judges deliberate in private but issuepublic decisions after public argumentsbased on public records. The politicalbranches of government claim legitimacy byelection, judges by reason. Any step thatwithdraws an element of the judicial processfrom public view makes the ensuing decisionlook more like fiat, which requires compel-ling justification.

220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal cita-tions omitted).

In order to give guidance to attorneys, many Mag-istrate Judges in this District have started to addlanguage to protective orders notifying parties thata protective order cannot be used as the sole basisfor filing materials under seal in connection with amotion, encouraging parties to review the necessityof filing supportive materials under seal, and pro-viding mechanisms to be used by the parties whendisputes arise regarding the sealing of such materi-als. Sample language includes:

The parties understand that designation by aparty, including a third party, of a documentas “Confidential” (including documents desig-nated as “Confidential—Attorneys’ EyesOnly”) pursuant to this Protective Order can-not be used as the sole basis for filing thedocument under seal in connection with anondispositive, dispositive or trial-related mo-tion. Only those documents and portions of aparty’s submission (including those portionsof affidavits, exhibits, and memorandum oflaw) which otherwise meet the requirementsof protection from public filing (e.g., a statute,rule or regulation prohibits their disclosure;they are protected under the attorney-clientprivilege or work product doctrine; or theymeet the standards for protection articulated

Page 8 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

New Language in Protective Orders Seeks to Provide Guidance toAttorneys on Filing Motion Materials Under Seal

9

in F.R.C.P. 26(c)(1)(G)) shall be filed underseal. If the party submitting a documentproduced and designated as “Confidential” or“Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by an-other party in support of or opposition to amotion believes that any such documentshould not be filed under seal, then suffi-ciently in advance of the submission, theparty shall request the party designating thed o c u m e n t a s “ C o n f i d e n t i a l ” o r“Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to per-mit the document to be publicly filed, and thedesignating party shall respond to the re-quest within two business days of the re-quest (a) by indicating whether the designat-ing party agrees or objects to the public filingof the document, and (b) for any objection, byexplaining why the document meets the re-quirements of protection from public filing.If the party designating the document as“Confidential” or “Confidential—Attorneys’Eyes Only” objects to the public filing of anydocument, then the document shall be filedunder seal, and at the same time as it isfiled, the party filing the sealed documentmust notify in writing the party who desig-nated the document as “Confidential” or

March 28, 2012 | Bar Talk Page 9

“Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and theCourt hearing the motion for which the sealeddocument is being submitted, of the disputeregarding the filing of the document underseal. At the hearing these parties shall ad-dress with the Court whether the documentshould or should not remain sealed. Theparty asserting that the document should befiled under seal shall have the burden of prov-ing that the document shall remain underseal.

The language used by Magistrate Judges varies, soit is imperative that parties read their respectiveprotective orders to ensure that they are preparedto explain to a District Judge or Magistrate Judgewhy they have chosen to file motion materials un-der seal. Do not assume that just because an op-posing party has not objected to motion materialsbeing filed under seal that a District Judge or Mag-istrate Judge will not ask for a justification con-cerning the designation of information within suchmaterials as “Confidential” or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

Steve Katras is a member of the Communications Commit-tee and judicial law clerk to the Honorable Janie S.Mayeron.

SAVE THE DATE!Come and join us on Saturday, May19, for a fun-filled evening of great

food, music, and dancing with your fel-low federal court practitioners and dis-

tinguished members of the FederalCourt. Musical entertainment will be

provided by local jazz great ConnieEvingson.

For more information,

contact Anh Le Kremer at

(612) 335-1812 or [email protected].

See you there!

10

Page 10 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

Law Students and Bar Mingle at FBA Law Student Reception

On February 16, 2012, the firm of Maslon, Edel-man, Borman & Brand, LLP hosted the sixthannual FBA law student reception. The eventwas well attended, including Chief Judge Mi-chael J. Davis, Judge Donovan W. Frank, JudgeAnn D. Montgomery, Judge David S. Doty, andmany current and former federal law clerks,FBA Board members, Law School OutreachCommittee members, and Maslon attorneys.The event gave law students an opportunity tomeet members of the bench and bar and to learnmore about the mission of the FBA.

After a welcome by Board member DavidSchultz, FBA President Patrick Martin spoke tothe assembled guests about the Chapter’s initia-tives and opportunities. Law School LiaisonKarin Ciano recognized the leaders of the FBAstudent groups from the University of Minne-sota Law School, William Mitchell College ofLaw, Hamline University School of Law, and theUniversity of St. Thomas School of Law. Shespoke about the energy and diversity that lawstudents add to the Chapter and encouragedstudents interested in federal practice to con-sider joining their school group.

The event closed with remarks by Pro Se ProjectCoordinator Tiffany Sanders, who encouragedstudents to get involved in the FBA to furtherthe Chapter’s commitment to equal access tojustice. She discussed the important role of thePro Se Project in making justice more accessibleto the underserved, and the benefit to the Dis-trict Court. The Pro Se Project is a collaborativeeffort between the Minnesota federal court and

the Minnesota Chapter of the FBA. The Pro Se Pro-ject seeks to reduce challenges posed to the court sys-tem by pro se litigants in federal civil cases with vol-unteer attorneys. Students interested in assistingvolunteer attorneys with these cases may applythrough the Minnesota Justice Foundation.

Karin Ciano is a member of the Communications Committeeand owner of Karin Ciano Law PLLC. She previously clerkedfor the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, the Honorable AnnD. Montgomery, and the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan. LaurenD’Cruz is a member of the William Mitchell College of Lawstudent chapter of the FBA and a member of the FBA LawSchool Outreach Committee. Photos courtesy of LaurenD’Cruz.

David Schultz (above) and FBA Minnesota Chapter President Pat-rick Martin (below) address law students and other guests.

11

March 28, 2012 | Bar Talk Page 11

WHEN: June 28, 2012

WHERE: The Depot, Minneapolis

Walter Echo-Hawk, a Native American attorney, tribal judge, law professorand, most recently, the author of In the Courts of the Conqueror: The 10Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided (2010), will take the podium as the

Mason Memorial Keynote Speaker.

General and breakout sessions will include presentations regarding deci-sions in the Eighth Circuit and Supreme Court, e-discovery, criminal law-yers’ advice to civil litigators, America Invents Act, class actions, and paneldiscussions on bridging the gap on pro bono services and bankruptcy law

implications of Stern v. Marshall. Federal judges will also provide pointerson effective advocacy.

A reception, with a cash bar, will follow the Seminar.

For further information, contact Tammy Schemmel ([email protected]) or Leah Janus([email protected]), Co-Vice Presidents of Legal Education.

The 38th Annual Federal Practice Seminar is Set

2012 Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference

August 8 - 10, 2012

Kansas City, Missouri

Landmark Litigation in the Eighth Circuit Courts:

Views from the Bench, Bar and AcademyThe judges of the Eighth Circuit invite you to join them August 8 - 10, 2012,

at the Kansas City Marriott Downtown for the Judicial Conference.

This is the once-every-two-years conference for all judges and members of the Bar.Come enjoy the exceptional CLE program of speakers and panelists on a broad range of civil, criminal,and bankruptcy topics. Expect nationally known speakers discussing the most significant, cutting-edge

cases of the Eighth Circuit courts.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. will present a first-ever "Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court." Justice Alitohas agreed to a private reception with first-time conference attendees.

Registration is now open. You may register for the conference at https://www.ce8.uscourts.gov/judconf/

12

Page 12 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines have beenaround since 1987. They are familiar to anyonewho practices in the federal system. The goalsof the Guidelines are to reduce injustice by stan-dardizing sentence lengths, streamlining federalcriminal sentencing, increasing efficiency, andallowing citizens to know the punishments forcrimes. Although the goals are commendable, attimes the Guidelines themselves have proven tobe a source of injustice. To engage in a discus-sion on this topic, the University of St. ThomasStudent Chapter of the FBA invited two attor-neys known for taking action and speakingagainst the Guidelines when justice required.

On Thursday, January 19th, the Federal BarAssociation Student Chapter at the University ofSt. Thomas School of Law hosted a discussionwith Andrew Densemo and Mark Osler abouttheir roles in changing the Federal SentencingGuidelines. Mark Osler is currently a professorat the University of St. Thomas School of Lawand a former federal prosecutor in Detroit. Mr.Densemo is a federal defender in Detroit and isan unsung hero in bringing about changes to theGuidelines. This event was the first time Mr.Densemo had been invited to speak about hisrole in changing the Federal Sentencing Guide-lines. The students in attendance found Mr.Densemo’s remarks to be inspirational.

Professor Osler began practice as a federalprosecutor in 1995. As prosecutors often do, hebelieved fervently in the Federal SentencingGuidelines. He believed the Guidelines were anecessary tool to keep society functioningsmoothly and upholding justice. This allchanged during the case of Anthony “Bull” Shep-herd. Mr. Shepherd was a teenager who hadbeen arrested for possession of five grams ofcrack cocaine and a gun. The Guidelines re-quired a mandatory minimum sentence of tenyears in prison without parole; five years for thecrack count and five years for the guncount. Professor Osler appeared in court the dayof sentencing expecting a routine case. TheHonorable Anna Diggs Taylor presided over thecase and asked Professor Osler, “Are you askingfor the mandatory minimums to be ob-served?” Professor Osler just nodded and said,“They're mandatory, your honor.” The judgethen turned to Mr. Densemo, the assistant fed-eral defender representing Mr. Shepherd, andasked “And will you be making your usual futilespeech?” What happened next was somethingfor which Professor Osler was unprepared.

Mr. Densemo gave a twenty minute speechabout the injustices presented by the FederalSentencing Guidelines. Even though Mr. Den-semo knew his actions were “futile,” he made an

FBA in Twin Cities Law Schools:University of St. Thomas Hosts Federal Sentencing Guidelines Event

Professor Mark Osler and Assistant Federal Defender Andrew Densemo discuss the Federal Sentencing Guidelines with stu-dents at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

13

March 28, 2012 | Bar Talk Page 13

impassioned plea about the disparate penaltiesgiven to crack Cocaine versus powder co-caine. One gram of crack cocaine carried thesame mandatory minimum as one hundredgrams of powder cocaine. According to ProfessorOsler, Mr. Densemo ranted about the problemsthis caused the black community. He arguedhow this difference in treatment seemed to bedoing nothing to alleviate the crack problem andhow law enforcement was failing to stop the traf-ficking of crack. He pointed out the unfairness ofsentencing this teenager to a much harsher sen-tence than the bank robber sentenced just beforethe case was heard. And, he argued how ludi-crous it was for crack to be punished so severelycompared to cocaine, even though crack is madefrom cocaine. When Mr. Densemo finished,Judge Taylor turned back to Professor Osler tosee if he had a response. All Professor Oslercould respond with was, “It's mandatory, yourhonor.”

At the event, Professor Osler spoke about how Mr.Densemo's “futile” ideas did not immediatelychange his mind. However, Professor Osler couldnot stop mulling over Mr. Densemo's speech andultimately began to question the validity of theGuidelines himself. Professor Osler finally cameto agree with Mr. Densemo. He thereafter left theprosecutor's office and began teaching at BaylorUniversity. He became involved with the ACLUand went from being a staunch proponent of theGuidelines to one of their fiercest opponents.Eventually, Professor Osler became involved withSpears v. United States and joined as the leadcounsel for the defendant. The defendant wonwhen the Supreme Court held that courts could“categorically reject” the 100 to 1 powder cocaineto crack cocaine ratio in sentencing. Shortly afterthe result was announced, United States DistrictCourt Judge Arthur J. Tarnow from Detroit calledhim. Judge Tarnow was surprised a former prose-cutor played such a huge role in challenging theGuidelines. Professor Osler explained that it wasall due to the speech given by Mr. Densemo.Judge Tarnow asked if Professor Osler had evertold Mr. Densemo the effect that his speech had onhim. Professor Osler had not, and immediatelycalled Mr. Densemo to rectify the situation. Mr.Densemo was ecstatic; he had never even thoughthis pleas had any effect on his former opposingcounsel.

Patrick Evans is a member of the class of 2014 at Univer-sity of St. Thomas School of Law, and the CommunicationsChair of the UST Chapter of the FBA.

United States Magistrate Judge

Arthur J. Boylan

Chief Judge Michael J. Davis has ap-pointed a Merit Selection Panel to ad-vise the Court on the reappointment ofU.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J.Boylan, whose current term expires onOctober 31, 2012. Comments from the

bar and the public are invited byApril 10, 2012.

See the full notice for details at:www.mnd.uscourts.gov or in the office of the

Clerk, U.S. District Court.

Reappointment Comment Period

Students at University of St. Thomas School of Law lis-ten to Sentencing Guidelines discussion sponsored bythe UST Student Chapter of the FBA..

14

Page 14 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

Pro Se Project Plans 2nd Annual Pro Se/Pro BonoBar Summit and Expands Outreach Efforts

The Minnesota Chapter of the FBA and the U.S.District Court will hold the Second Annual ProBono/Pro Se Bar Summit on April 23, 2012. Or-ganized through the Pro Se Project, this year’sSummit will focus on challenges legal serviceproviders experience in addressing the growinglegal aid needs in today’s economic environment.Through panel and round-table discussions, theSummit will solicit speaker and audience partici-pation to engage in meaningful dialogue aboutefforts to provide more services with less staffand funding. With a diverse audience comprisedof law schools, law firms, corporations, non-profitlegal service providers, law librarians, and barassociations, participants will brainstorm newways the legal community can continue improv-ing access to justice in the federal and statecourts, while exploring creative collaborative ef-forts to address the growing legal demands.Thanks to Rachna Sullivan, FBA President-Elect, Fredrikson & Byron has generouslyagreed to host the Second Annual Pro Bono/ProSe Bar Summit, which will include a receptionfor meaningful networking opportunities.

With the support of The Honorable Michael J.Davis and The Honorable Donovan W. Frank,the Pro Se Project has expanded its outreach ef-forts to Duluth, Fergus Falls, and the IronRange. Chief Judge Davis has graciously ac-knowledged select attorneys in Duluth and Fer-gus Falls for their participation in the Pro SeProject, which has generated excitement aboutthe Project in greater Minnesota. Judge Frankand Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator,recently traveled to Duluth to present thosepractitioners with awards at an 11th DistrictBar Association luncheon. Chief Judge Davisand Ms. Sanders will present the Fergus Fallsawards at an upcoming Otter Tail County BarAssociation luncheon. At the invitation of theRange Bar Association President, Hannah CaseyForti, Judge Frank and Ms. Sanders will make apresentation on the Pro Se Project to their mem-bers at a future dinner meeting in Chisholm.These outreach efforts have resulted in increased

interest and participation among attorneys inout-state Minnesota, which has been a tre-mendous help to pro se litigants in greaterMinnesota and to the Judges who preside overcases in the Duluth and Fergus Falls court-houses.

Thanks to Karin Ciano’s invitation, the Pro SeProject participated in the FBA Law StudentReception on February 16th at the Maslon,Edelman, Borman & Brand LLP law firm.Ms. Sanders had the opportunity to connectwith numerous law students who expressedinterest in participating in the Pro Se Project,both now as volunteer law clerks, as well aswhen admitted to the bar upon graduation.

The Honorable Steven E. Rau accompaniedMs. Sanders to the University of MinnesotaLaw School to speak to a packed audience oflaw students on February 23. This engage-ment, organized by the University of Minne-sota FBA Student Chapter President, EricaDavis, and Vice-President, Adam Thorngate-Gottlund, provided Judge Rau and Ms. Sand-ers with an exciting opportunity to connectwith students about the great work of the ProSe Project. The event generated tremendousinterest and additional excitement among thelaw students regarding volunteer opportuni-ties through the Pro Se Project.

2011 in Review

In 2011, the Court referred 83 cases to the ProSe Project. Of those referrals, 58 pro se liti-gants were eligible to request in forma pau-peris (IFP) status and receive a determinationon their request.1 Among them, Pro Se Pro-ject litigants requested IFP status in 55 cases,or 95 percent of the time. The Court grantedIFP status in 45 of those cases, or in 82 per-cent of the requests.

The following table demonstrates the types ofcases the Court referred to the Pro Se Projectin 2011:

15

March 28, 2012 | Bar Talk Page 15

The table below provides a list of law firms thataccepted Pro Se Project referrals in 2011, alongwith the number of cases each firm accepted. Ofthe 83 cases the Court referred to the Project, 17pro se litigants chose not to participate in thePro Se Project. The Pro Se Project successfullyplaced the remaining 66 cases with volunteerattorneys. At the time of the writing of this col-umn, of those 66 referrals where the pro se liti-gant chose to participate in the Pro Se Project, avolunteer attorney entered a notice of appear-ance in 33 cases, or 50 percent of the time.

1. Of the 83 cases the Court referred to the Pro Se Project, 26 pro se liti-gants were not eligible for IFP status either because the defendant removedthe case from state court, the pro se litigant was the defendant in the action,or the Court dismissed the case prior to an IFP determination.

2. The Pro Se Project placed two referrals with more than one volunteerattorney thereby showing 68 placements.

Employment discrimination 37

Civil Rights 13

SSDI 13

Contract 4

Consumer Credit 3

Labor 3

Prisoner Civil Rights 2

ERISA 2

Trademark 2

Habeas Corpus 1

Immigration 1

Personal Injury 1

Real Property 1

TOTAL 83

Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A.* 1

Barry, Slade & Wheaton 3

Bassford Remele 1

Briggs and Morgan* 3

Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist* 2

Chrastil and Steinberg 1

Eric Bond Law Office 1

Everett & VanderWiel 1

Faegre Baker Daniels 1

Fredrikson & Byron* 6

Frey Law Office 1

Fruth, Jamison & Elsass* 2

Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith, & Frederick (Duluth) 1

Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett* 1

Gustafson Gluek* 3

Harvey Law Firm 1

Jardine, Logan & O'Brien 1

Johnson & Condon 1

Karin Ciano Law PLLC* 2

Keogh Law Office* 2

Larson King 1

Laurie & Laurie 1

Law Office of David Shulman* 3

Law Office of Piper L. Kenney 1

Leonard Street and Deinard* 2

Lindquist & Vennum* 1

Lommen, Abdo, Cole, King & Stageberg 1

Naomi Ness, Esq. 1

Miller O'Brien Cummins 2

Nichols Kaster 4

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart* 1

Pemberton, Sorlie, Rufer & Kershner* (Fergus Falls) 3

Peterson & Fishman* 1

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi* 2

Rosenzweig Law Office* 1

Sapientia Law Group 1

Snyder & Brandt 1

The Todd Murray Law Firm, PLLC 1

Thibodeau, Johnson & Feriancek (Duluth) 1

Vincent W. King, P.A. 1

Winthrop & Weinstine* 1

Zimmerman Reed 2

TOTAL 68

Tiffany A. Sanders is the Coordinator of the Pro SeProject. More information about the Pro Se Project is

available at

http://www.fedbar.org/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Chapter-Initiatives.aspx.

FBA members who are interested in volunteering withthe Pro Se Project may contact Tiffany Sanders at

[email protected] or (612) 965-3711.

* Denotes law firms who entered notice(s) of appearance at the time of thewriting of this column.

16

Page 16 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

Edina Attorney Honored for SettlementProtecting People with Disabilities

Shamus O’Meara, a partner with the law firm ofJohnson & Condon, was among those honored atThe Arc Minnesota Public Policy RecognitionEvent on March 7, 2012 at the Midland HillsCountry Club in Roseville, MN. O’Meara waslead counsel in a court settlement that endedabusive practices at the Minnesota ExtendedTreatment Options (METO) facility in Cam-bridge, Minnesota.

O’Meara and three Minnesota families reached alandmark class action settlement with the Stateof Minnesota in June 2011. They had filed a law-suit against the state for widespread restraintand seclusion of several hundred Minnesotanswith developmental disabilities at the METOcampus, located at the former Cambridge StateHospital. On December 1, 2011, the MinnesotaFederal District Court approved the June 2011settlement, with U.S. District Judge DonovanFrank presiding over the settlement hearing.

“The Arc Minnesota is proud to honor ShamusO’Meara and the plaintiff families for their advo-cacy and courage,” said Steve Larson, The ArcMinnesota’s Public Policy Director. “Because ofthem, hundreds of Minnesotans with disabilitieshave received justice, and a dark chapter in ourstate’s history will, we hope, never be repeated.”

The class action settlement stopped the state’suse of handcuffs and other restraints to dealwith behavior challenges, except in emergencies,and it provides for the payment of $3 million tothe parties in the lawsuit. Other parts of thesettlement require Minnesota to spend nearly $1million on additional training for people workingwith individuals with developmental disabilitiesin community-based programs. Also, state offi-cials and plaintiff families will work together tocreate more humane practices for those workingwith people who have disabilities. This includesupdating a state rule regulating aversive proce-dures used on people with developmental dis-abilities, and including positive and social behav-ior techniques when dealing with challengingbehaviors. Finally, the State of Minnesota is re-

quired to develop a plan, consistent with U.S.Supreme Court rulings, to ensure that Minneso-tans with disabilities have opportunities to livein their community consistent with their owndreams and aspirations.

Colleagues at the March 7th event praisedO’Meara’s determination and passion. ColleenWieck, Executive Director of the MinnesotaGovernor’s Council on Developmental Disabili-ties, said O’Meara had to “challenge persistentand pervasive old ways of thinking and deepseated prejudice,” and “fight against a collabo-ration of indifference.” Judge Frank saidO’Meara’s work shows an insistence “that equaljustice be provided to all individuals, includingthose with intellectual and developmental dis-abilities . . . [he has] helped the class membersfind their voice and has been their voice.”

A partner at Johnson & Condon, O’Meara repre-sents school districts, busi-nesses, and local govern-ments. He also advocatesfor increased independ-ence, inclusion, and self-determination for peoplewith developmental dis-abilities and their families.His public service has in-cluded board leadershippositions with DisabilityJustice, the U.S. Civil

Rights Commission state advisory committee,The Minnesota Governor’s Council on Develop-mental Disabilities, Autism Society of Minne-sota, and National Council of School Attorneys,among others. O’Meara has been recognized asan Attorney of the Year by Minnesota Lawyer,and a Super Lawyer by Minnesota Law & Poli-tics.

Mike Gude is the Communications Director for The ArcMinnesota, which promotes and protects the human rightsof people with intellectual and developmental disabilitiesand actively supports their full inclusion and participationin the community throughout their lifetimes. You can learnmore about The Arc Minnesota’s activities and services atwww.arcmn.org.

17

March 28, 2012 | Bar Talk Page 17

18

Page 18 Bar Talk | March 28, 2012

Bar Talk is the official newsletter of the Minnesota

Chapter of the FBA. It is published quarterly by the

Communications Committee. For any inquiries or

article suggestions, please contact:

Kirstin Kanski ([email protected])

or

Molly Thornton ([email protected])

Calendar of Upcoming EventsAshlee BekishOgletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Marc BetinskyLaw Clerk to The Honorable Richard H. Kyle

Karin CianoKarin Ciano Law PLLC

Trish FurlongLaw Clerk to The Honorable Steven E. Rau

Michael GoodwinJardine, Logan & O’Brien P.L.L.P.

Wesley GrahamHenson & Efron, P.A.

L. Kathleen Harrell-LathamLarkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.

Jeff JustmanFaegre Baker Daniels

Steve KatrasLaw Clerk to The Honorable Janie S. Mayeron

Kirstin Kanski (Co-Chair)Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P.

Adine S. MomohLeonard Street and Deinard, P.A.

Kerri NelsonBassford Remele

Erin OglesbayTarget Corporation

Timothy O’SheaFredrikson & Byron, P.A.

Ryan SchultzRobins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Anita L. TerryLaw Clerk to The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson

Vildan TeskeCrowder Teske, P.L.L.P.

Molly Thornton (Co-Chair)Cargill, Incorporated

Todd WinterLaw Clerk to The Honorable David S. Doty

Kathryn UlineHamline University School of Law

A special thank you to Rebecca Baertsch, Judicial Assistant

to The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, for her proofreading

expertise.

Communications Committee

April 10, 2012 | 12:00 p.m.

“The Art of Arguing Markman Hearings”

Minneapolis Club, Minneapolis

April 10, 2012 | 12:15 p.m.

SOPA/PIPA Discussion, featuring Sri Sankaran and Professor

William McGeveran

University of Minnesota Law School

(sponsored by U of M FBA Student Chapter)

April 12, 2012 | 12:00 p.m.

Newer Lawyer Luncheon: Honorable Paul A. Magnuson

“Jury Trial Practice”

St. Paul Courthouse

April 12, 2012 | 5:00 p.m.

Panel Discussion on the Hobbs Act, featuring Chris Wilton,

Manny Atwal, Judge Lyonel Norris, Judge Erica MacDonald and

retired Judge James M. Rosenbaum

University of Minnesota Law School, Auerbach Commons

(sponsored by U of M FBA Student Chapter)

April 23, 2012 |

Pro Bono/Pro Se Summit

Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.

April 25, 2012 | 12:00 p.m.

Monthly Meeting: Honorable Tony N. Leung

“New Magistrate Judge’s Transition to the Bench”

Minneapolis Club, Minneapolis

May 16, 2012 | 12:00 p.m.

Newer Lawyer Luncheon: Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz,

“Summary Judgment”

Minneapolis Courthouse

May 19, 2012 | 6:00 p.m.

Federal Judges’ Dinner-Dance

Minikahda Club, Minneapolis

May 23, 2012 | 12:00 p.m.

Monthly Meeting: Honorable James B. Loken

Minneapolis Club, Minneapolis

June 19, 2012 & June 21, 2012 | 12:00 p.m.

Summer Associate and Law Clerk Luncheon

Chief Judge Michael J. Davis

Minneapolis Courthouse

June 28, 2012 |

Federal Practice Seminar

The Depot, Minneapolis

19

20