{"id":4647,"date":"2024-12-13T09:06:17","date_gmt":"2024-12-13T14:06:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/?page_id=4647"},"modified":"2025-01-15T14:16:55","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T19:16:55","slug":"us-district-court","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/us-district-court\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S. District Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over the last 125 years, the role of the Clerk of Court has undergone significant transformation.\u00a0 Early in the Court\u2019s history, the Clerk of Court\u2019s office was typically managed by a single individual whose primary responsibility was to safeguard the integrity of all court records.\u00a0 This included updating paper case dockets, maintaining the case files, scheduling legal proceedings, collecting fees, fines, costs, assessments and forfeitures.\u00a0 Over time, the Court\u2019s caseload expanded, which required additional judges, which led to the growth of the administrative staff referred to as deputy clerks.\u00a0This growth led to the emergence of specialized roles within the Clerk\u2019s Office, such as the maintenance of the court space and facilities, procurement responsibilities, contracting, jury administration, financial recordkeeping and disbursements of restitution.<\/p>\n

By the 1970s, the advent of office automation further changed the Clerk of Court\u2019s responsibilities, prompting the hiring of deputy clerks with information technology skills starting in the 1980s to manage these new systems.\u00a0 Over the last 125 years, the Office of the Clerk has evolved from a single role to a well-structured team, currently comprised of a Clerk of Court and 67 deputy clerks who collectively support the administrative functions of the federal court\u2019s business in both Buffalo and Rochester.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

WDNY US District Clerks of Court<\/h3><\/div>

Mary C. Loewenguth<\/b>, 2016 \u2013 present<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>

Prior to becoming Clerk of the Court, Mary Loewenguth served as Executive Director of the Monroe County Bar Association and the Foundation of Monroe County Bar for 15 years, during which she was instrumental in advancing several key initiatives. Notably, she worked with the Partnership for Equal Justice Campaign to establish the Telesca Center for Justice, a significant project aimed at enhancing access to legal services and promoting justice in the community.<\/p>\n

In 2016 Mary was appointed as Clerk of Court and continues to serve in that position with distinction. Mary has been involved in more than 30 construction projects during her term. She is actively involved in efforts to promote diversity and inclusion within the legal profession, serving on the Jury Diversification Committee, a joint initiative with the New York State Court System. In addition, Mary has been instrumental in the co-location efforts in both courthouses.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/span>

<\/h2>

Mary C. Loewenguth<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Michael J. Roemer<\/strong>, February 2009 \u2013 December 2015<\/em><\/p>\n

Mike Roemer began his legal career with the Western District of New York as a confidential law clerk for Honorable Richard Arcara for 17 years. He was subsequently appointed Clerk of Court for the district. In December 2015, he was appointed as a Magistrate Judge for the Western District of New York, a position he continues to hold today.<\/p>\n

Rodney C. Early<\/strong>, October 1991 \u2013 January 2009<\/em><\/p>\n

Michael J. Kaplan<\/strong>, April 1988 \u2013 October 1991<\/em><\/p>\n

Mike Kaplan began his legal career with the Western District of New York, serving as Clerk of Court for the Bankruptcy Court from 1981 to 1988, before he became the Clerk of Court for the District Court. In 1991, Kaplan’s expertise and dedication to the legal profession led to his appointment as a Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of New York, a position he continues to hold. He served with distinction as Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court from 1993 to 2000.<\/p>\n

Edward P. Gueth, Jr.<\/strong>, January 1986 \u2013 March 1988<\/em><\/p>\n

John K. Adams<\/strong>, September 1970 \u2013 December 1985<\/em><\/p>\n

Roland E. Logel<\/strong>, November 1956 \u2013 August 1970<\/em><\/p>\n

May C. Sickmon<\/strong>, November 1928 \u2013 October 1956<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>

May Sickmon was a distinguished attorney and public servant who dedicated her career to advancing women’s rights. Prior to her appointment as Clerk of Court, she was a tireless advocate for gender equality, utilizing her legal expertise to promote and defend the rights of women. She was appointed Clerk of Court in 1928 \u2013 a rare accomplishment for a woman at that time \u2013 and served in that role for nearly three decades. In recognition of her exemplary service, she earned multiple silver awards from the Zonta Club of Buffalo, a precursor to Zonta International (a global organization of women professionals). In 1955, her contributions were further acknowledged with the prestigious Susan B. Anthony Award, a testament to her enduring commitment to the advancement of women\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n

Even after retiring, she remained deeply engaged in her two lifelong passions: advocating for equal opportunities for women and providing career counseling to young women. Her dedication to these causes had a lasting impact on the professional lives of many women, empowering them to pursue their goals and achieve success in their chosen fields.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Harris S. Williams<\/strong>, 1919 – 1928<\/em><\/p>\n

Sidney W. Petrie<\/strong>, 1904 – 1919<\/em><\/p>\n

George P. Keating<\/strong>, July 1900 – 1904<\/em><\/p>\n

Charles B. Germain<\/strong>, May 1900 \u2013 July 1900<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

A Look Back at Case Assignment<\/h3><\/div>

When a new case is filed in the Western District of New York, one of the Clerk\u2019s duties is to assign a presiding district judge.\u00a0 In most instances, the assignment is made randomly, using a feature of the CM\/ECF (Case Management\/Electronic Case Filing) system that provides random assignments distributed equally among the judges for each city.<\/p>\n

Before the advent of computers, case assignments were done using a marble system.\u00a0 Each judge was assigned a certain color of marble.\u00a0 At the beginning of each year, a set number of marbles for each judge was placed into a small jug.\u00a0 For instance, Judge Curtin would have four blue marbles and Judge Elvin would have four green marbles. The Clerk\u2019s deputy would shake the jug and draw one marble; the color of the marble determined which judge would be assigned to the case.\u00a0 That marble was then set aside, and the next case would be assigned.\u00a0 This repeated until all marbles were used, at which point all marbles would be refilled.<\/p>\n

Case assignments were written into logbooks, noting the sequential case number, assigned judge, case title, and the date the case was filed.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Information Technology Services<\/h3><\/div>

Before personal computers became commonplace in the 1980s, typewriters dominated the operations of the District Court. Given the advancements of technology, the District Court recognized the need for modernization, beginning with the hiring of deputy clerks with information technology skills.<\/p>\n

In the late 1980s, the court implemented its first electronic database, the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS). This marked a significant shift from traditional paper records to electronic management.<\/p>\n

In May 2002, the District Court adopted the Case Management\/Electronic Case Files system (CM\/ECF), enabling the electronic maintenance of case documents and docket sheets for all cases. This initiative was part of a national rollout, which included bankruptcy courts starting in 2001. These technological upgrades were essential for improving efficiency and accessibility within the judicial process, and the District Court is still using CM\/ECF today.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

By October 2011, the Bankruptcy Court introduced Electronic Court Recording (ECR) devices to digitally record court proceedings, facilitating the creation of accurate transcripts. This move marked the beginning of a significant evolution in how court sessions are recorded and reviewed.<\/p>\n

The role of technology in the courthouse has expanded exponentially since then. Today, various audio and visual tools are utilized to enhance courtroom efficiency and juror comprehension. \u00a0Key technologies now in use include:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Microphones<\/strong>: Ensure clear audio capture of proceedings.<\/li>\n
  • Document Cameras<\/strong>: Allow for real-time sharing of evidence and documents.<\/li>\n
  • Hearing Impaired Headsets<\/strong>: Provide accessibility for jurors and participants with hearing difficulties.<\/li>\n
  • Teleconferencing and Video Conferencing<\/strong>: Enable remote participation in hearings, making the process more flexible and inclusive.<\/li>\n
  • Laptop Connections: <\/strong>Allows almost all evidence to be digital, instead of using paper or physical copies. This also allows the evidence to be shown on multiple screens around the courtroom.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>
    \"\"<\/div>

    Jury Monitors<\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/div>
    \"\"<\/div>

    Hearing Impaired Headsets<\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
    <\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

    Court\u2019s Response to the Pandemic<\/h3><\/div>

    On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the COVID-19 virus outbreak as a pandemic. The United States District Court remained open during this period, necessitating significant changes to daily operations. On March 12, 2020, the District Court issued a general order regarding visitor restrictions to the courthouse, which also required that all court employees and visitors wear a mask. In March 2020, then-Chief Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr. issued five General Orders, which allowed attorney admissions to be completed via video conference, mediators to adjourn mediation sessions, and court appearances to be adjourned. On April 17, 2020, Chief Judge Geraci issued another general order allowing both criminal and civil court appearances to be held via video or teleconference, ensuring that these hearings remained open to the public with dial-in instructions posted on the public docket. On July 14, 2021, Judge Elizabeth Wolford assumed the role of Chief Judge, guiding the court through the remainder of the pandemic.<\/p>\n

    Throughout the period of the pandemic, the District Court Clerk\u2019s Office remained open by introducing a flexible telework policy. Staff were able to rotate between in-person and remote work, with half of the team teleworking one week and working in person the next. This approach allowed the court to continue its essential functions while safeguarding the health and safety of its employees.<\/p>\n

    The success of these adjustments was made possible by the court’s swift adoption of new technology. The IT department played a critical role, quickly updating laptops and mobile devices, establishing secure virtual private network (VPN) connections, and implementing additional security protocols to facilitate secure remote access for court employees.<\/p>\n

    The District Court\u2019s swift response to the pandemic enabled it to effectively navigate the challenges posed by Covid-19 while continuing the essential and critical work of the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>

    <\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

    The Court\u2019s Efforts to Assist Non-Represented Litigants: Pro Bono Assistance<\/h3><\/div>

    Each year, approximately twenty-five percent of the civil cases filed in the Western District of New York are filed by non-represented litigants.\u00a0 These cases include employment discrimination, prisoner and non-prisoner civil rights, social security appeals, and many others.\u00a0 To promote the fair administration of justice for all litigants, the Western District of New York, in partnership with the Erie County Bar Association Volunteer Lawyers Project (VLP), Rochester\u2019s JustCause, and the University of Buffalo Law School (UB), has launched several initiatives to assist non-represented litigants with their cases.\u00a0 These efforts would not be possible without the commitment of the attorneys in the Western District of New York.<\/p>\n

    These initiatives include the Court\u2019s Pro Bono Appointment Program (Local Rule 83.8) and the Pro Se Assistance Program (PSAP).\u00a0 In 2020, the Court reinvigorated the Pro Bono Appointment Program to facilitate the appointment of pro bono counsel for non-represented litigants. This program has established a panel of over 180 attorney who assist litigants through various stages of their case\u2014e.g.<\/em>, pleadings, mediation, discovery, and trial.\u00a0 Between 2020 and 2024, the Court has appointed more than 100 attorneys to support these efforts.<\/p>\n

    In 2012, the Court, with the assistance of its partners, launched the Pro Se Assistance Program, enabling low-income non-prisoner litigants to obtain legal advice and guidance from volunteer attorneys.\u00a0 Due to the success of this program, the Court has extended assistance to incarcerated individuals with cases pending in the Western District of New York.\u00a0 Although these incarcerated individuals cannot obtain in-person or remote access to volunteer attorneys, they may seek legal advice and guidance through written communication.<\/p>\n

    The Western District of New York, including the dedicated attorneys who have volunteered their time, are keenly aware of the need for pro<\/em> bono<\/em> representation in this Court and are committed to the goal of ensuring the fair administration of justice to all litigants.<\/p>\n<\/div>

    <\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>
    <\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>
    <\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>
    <\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
    <\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

    Jury Diversification Initiative<\/h3><\/div>

    Jury diversification is a priority for the Western District of New York. Chief Judge Wolford and her counterpart in the New York State Eighth Judicial District, Administrative Judge Kevin M. Carter, have embarked on a one-of-kind initiative in the nation to improve jury diversification in both federal and state jury pools. They have formed an active committee now chaired by Clerk of Court Mary Loewenguth and Erie County Jury Commissioner, Dr. Christine Farrow,\u00a0which has developed a plan based on focus-group research, as well as significant community outreach to racially-diverse communities, to further the goal of listening and improved dialogue to grow greater participation in the jury system. Currently, the committee is exploring outreach initiatives targeting schools, churches, community organization and employers. This commitment to improving the diversity of our jury pool is critical to the WDNY.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

    <\/span>

    <\/h2>

    A Jury Wheel which was used to randomly select jurors before an electronic process was used.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

    <\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

    Alternative Dispute Resolution<\/h3><\/div>

    The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program for the Western District of New York is an innovative and integral court program, which serves as a model for District Courts nationwide.\u00a0 Established on January 1, 2006, the ADR Program was created through extensive collaboration among members of the bench and bar, in consultation with the Federal Judicial Center.\u00a0 Nearly all civil cases are automatically referred to ADR upon filing or transfer into the Western District of New York.\u00a0 Mediation is the primary form of ADR that is utilized, and the Western District Court is proud to offer a panel of over 100 trained mediators to assist the parties.\u00a0 Once the parties select a mediator from the court\u2019s panel or an independent mediator, the mediator facilitates a confidential discussion between the parties with the goal of achieving a mutually agreeable resolution.\u00a0 Since its inception in 2006, the Western District\u2019s ADR program has successfully resolved thousands of civil cases, leading to more efficient case processing, reduced costs, and litigant satisfaction.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

    <\/span>

    <\/h2>

    A conference room in the Buffalo Courthouse that is used for ADR sessions.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

    <\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

    Shared Services between WDNY District Court, Bankruptcy Court, and the Probation Office<\/h3><\/div>

    In recent years, court units throughout the Judiciary have developed and implemented alternative approaches to their operational and administrative functions. These strategies have enabled courts to maintain the level and quality of services while, in many cases, enhancing efficiencies and controlling costs associated with providing services.\u00a0 Although an informal shared services practice has always been a hallmark of the Western District of New York, in which all three units routinely rely on one another\u2019s expertise, formal agreements began to take shape around 2012.\u00a0 The District Court started sharing mail services with Probation and Pretrial Services, with the Bankruptcy Court becoming involved in 2018.\u00a0 The shared administrative program expanded further to include information technology (IT) services in response to the extreme budget measures Congress implemented in 2012.\u00a0 This initiative has not only proven to be a cost-saving measure but has allowed the Western District of New York to enhance its IT capabilities and promote cross-training among staff.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"100-width.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4647","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4647"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4647\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4900,"href":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4647\/revisions\/4900"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/library.ca2.uscourts.gov\/wdny-125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}