W.d. Wisconsin Local Rules
Chloe Sarnoff
Wisconsin is divided into the Eastern and Western federal court districts. The district courts are the trial courts of the United States court system. The federal bankruptcy courts in Wisconsin are also divided into Eastern and Western districts. These federal court districts have their own local rules. In addition, Wisconsin, along with Illinois and Indiana, comprise the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which handles appellate court matters.
Federal local rules are available on free websites, in print and in commercial databases such as Lexis and Westlaw. Access is restricted to members of the Marquette University Law School community. See also the Federal Court Rules section of this research guide.
Many United States District Courts now require compliance with special local rules, forms or guidelines addressing the discovery of electronically stored information. Below is a collection of those local rules, forms and guidelines, with links to the relevant materials. Please note also that many individual judges and magistrate judges have created their own forms or have crafted their own preferred protocols for e-discovery. These are generally available on the website of the individual judge or magistrate judge and care should be taken to ensure you are aware of any such forms or guidelines in any court you may appear in.
Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa
Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan
Instructions and Worksheet for Preparation of Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan and Order Requiring Submission of Same
Local Rule 16.1 Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan (requiring use of form)
Local Rule 26.1 Pretrial Discovery and Disclosures (requirement to submit discovery plan satisfied by submission of form Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan)
Local Rules
Rule 802 Scheduling Conference
Stipulated Order Regarding Confidentiality of Discovery Material and Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Material
Appendix A: Discovery Guidelines of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Michigan
Rule 7026-4 Discovery of Electronically Stored Information
Model Order Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information
Other:
Recommendations for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Discovery Production in Federal Criminal Cases (developed by the Department of Justice/Administrative Office Joint Working Group of Electronic Technology JETWG])
K&L Gates practices fully integrated offices located in the United States, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East and South America and represents leading global corporations, growth and middle-market companies, capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations, practices and registrations, , visit www.klgates.com.
This blog/Web site is made available by the contributing lawyers or law firm publisher solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general legal principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. By using this blog/Web site, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship intended or formed between you and the blog/Web site publisher or any contributing lawyer. The blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.
The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for determining prevailing wages, issuing regulations and standards to be observed by federal agencies that award or fund projects subject to Davis-Bacon labor standards, and overseeing consistent enforcement of the Davis-Bacon labor standards.
The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts apply to contractors and subcontractors performing on federally funded or assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair (including painting and decorating) of public buildings or public works. Davis-Bacon Act and Related Act contractors and subcontractors must pay their laborers and mechanics employed under the contract no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits for corresponding work on similar projects in the area.
For prime contracts in excess of $100,000, contractors and subcontractors must also, under the provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, as amended, pay laborers and mechanics, including guards and watchmen, at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act may also apply to DBA-covered contracts.
Online training is available to assist all federal, state and local contracting agencies with information on federal rules concerning prevailing wages and other labor law requirements. The training modules, presented by WHD staff and its federal agency partners, provide contracting officials with information on the process of obtaining wage determinations; adding classifications to wage determinations (conformances); compliance principles, and enforcement process under both the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and the McNamara Service Contract Act (SCA).
This is an action to recover on an insurance policy. The second amended complaint herein alleges that plaintiff Kisting is an Iowa citizen; that plaintiff Anchor Sales Co. (hereinafter Anchor) is an Illinois citizen; that defendant Westchester Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter Westchester) is a New York citizen; and that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $10,000.
Plaintiffs allege that on March 7, 1966, defendant insured plaintiffs against loss or damage by fire and lightning to the amount of $37,600 on a farm house and farm buildings near Dickeyville, Wisconsin; that the insured property was destroyed and damaged by fire on May 30, 1966, to the extent of $16,067.50; that plaintiffs were the owners of the damaged property at the time of the fire; that plaintiffs have complied with all of the policy provisions; and that defendant refuses to pay.
The defendant's answer admits that the policy was in force on May 30, 1966; denies that the damage was as plaintiffs allege; denies that plaintiffs were owners of the property at the time of the fire and alleges that plaintiff Anchor was "the contract purchaser of the property"; denies that plaintiffs have complied with the policy; and admits that it has not paid out on the policy.
(4) that on September 7, 1966, plaintiff Kisting was examined under oath, in the presence of his attorney, and refused to answer a series of questions concerning a document which apparently contained figures relating to the damage claimed to have been caused by the fire and that this refusal was contrary to a provision in the policy (paragraph 13);
(5) that during the September 7, 1966, examination under oath, plaintiff Kisting refused to answer a series of questions concerning his income tax return for 1965, whether he had drawn salary from Anchor Box Company, the amount of his bank deposits on May 30, 1966, *144 the amount of his payments under an agreement with the government compromising an earlier tax dispute, and whether he had ever had other income tax problems with the government, and that these refusals were contrary to a provision in the policy (paragraph 14);
(6) that during the September 7, 1966, examination under oath, plaintiff Kisting refused to answer whether he considered himself or Anchor Sales, Incorporated to be the party to a certain purchase agreement and that this refusal was contrary to a provision in the policy (paragraph 15).
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has observed that these traditional rules dependent on place of making, place of performance and presumed intention of the parties, have fallen into disfavor, yielding to the "grouping of contacts" or "center of gravity" theory. Estate of Knippel, supra at 563. See also Chemtec Midwest Services, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 279 F. Supp. 539, 544 (W.D.Wis.1968). The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has not yet found it necessary to declare whether it will adopt the "grouping of contacts" theory in the field of contract law, although it has recently adopted that rule in the area of tort law. Wilcox v. Wilcox, 26 Wis.2d 617, 133 N.W.2d 408 (1965). However, for the reasons to be stated immediately hereafter, I conclude that both the traditional rules and the "grouping of contacts" theory require the application of Wisconsin law in the present case.
The record discloses no indication of any conscious intention of the parties as to what state's local law should govern the determination of rights under the insurance policy herein. Under the traditional rules, presumptions must be resorted to. The contract was to be performed in Wisconsin. Under the traditional rules, therefore, there is a rebuttable presumption that the law of Wisconsin applies. 203.07(1), Wis. Stats., provides: "All insurance against loss or damage to property * * * in this state shall be held to be made within this state." Under this provision the place of making is also Wisconsin. I conclude that under the traditional rules, Wisconsin law applies.
*145 The location of the insured risk during the term of the policy was clearly Wisconsin. The fact that the parties to the contract were citizens of Illinois, Iowa and New York respectively does not provide contact sufficient to establish a more significant relationship between the contract and any of these states. Accordingly, I conclude that under the "grouping of contacts" theory the local law of Wisconsin governs the determination of rights under the insurance contract in question.
64591212e2