Education: 1974: M.A., Case Western Reserve University; 1972: J.D., New York University School of Law; 1969: B.A., The College of Wooster.

Career in Brief: 1994–present: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, US District Judge (2010–present: Chief Judge); 1982–1994: Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, Professor (1991–1994: Associate Dean); 1976–1982: US Attorney's Office (Northern District of Ohio), Assistant US Attorney (1982: Chief of Appellate Litigation; 1978–1982: Chief of Civil Division); 1975–1976: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Law Clerk to the Honorable William H. Hastie.

What do you enjoy most about your role? I enjoy helping parties, whether individuals, governmental bodies or other entities, resolve disputes, some of which involve the most important matters in their individual or institutional lives. I also appreciate dealing with challenging issues that span across a myriad areas of law, including, for example, corporate, intellectual property, tort, environmental, contract, securities, employment discrimination and civil rights.

What are the greatest challenges of your role? It is sometimes challenging to decide motions or try cases where the performance of the lawyer on one side is far below that of the other side. A similar issue usually arises when one party is a pro se litigant. It takes special effort to balance the judge's duty to see that justice is done with the notion that the court is not, and cannot be, an advocate.

What have been the most significant developments in federal litigation during your time on the bench? One significant development has been the growth of multidistrict litigation (MDL) as a way to resolve cases involving common questions of fact that are pending in different district courts. The MDL statute allows these cases to be transferred to one court for pretrial proceedings and discovery. This serves to preserve the resources of the parties and their counsel, as well as the judiciary, by eliminating duplication of effort. The MDL process has proved to be valuable in resolving a wide range of disputes, including claims for personal injury and wrongful death, securities fraud, violation of intellectual property rights and product liability centered on dangerous drugs or medical devices. I have recently handled an MDL, and most of my colleagues on the court have handled one or more.

Other significant developments include the movement from paper to electronic files, and the ability to serve and file papers electronically. Additionally, the use of alternative dispute resolution as a method for resolving cases has grown astronomically.

What impact do you foresee social media and other technological developments having on discovery and trial practice in general? I think social media has already started to have a significant impact. Information posted on social media sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and LinkedIn, are all potential sources of discoverable information in litigation. One can imagine such information being relevant in a variety of contexts. However, social media evidence can raise difficult issues regarding authentication because it has the potential to be easily manipulated.

Additionally, social media has affected jury instructions. Because there are so many ways for jurors to obtain information other than from television, radio and newspapers, we are now specifically instructing juries in detail that they have an obligation not to obtain or communicate information from social media sources.

What do you wish attorneys explained to their clients about federal litigation? While I respect the obligation of lawyers to be zealous advocates for their clients, I sometimes wish that they would place more emphasis on their ethical duty to exercise independent judgment and render candid advice to their clients. This means spending more time advising the client about the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the various options in federal court for resolution short of trial, and the pros and cons of going to trial versus attempting to resolve the case through an alternative dispute resolution process. Too often, parties come to court without sufficient information about the resolution which counsel views as desirable. This, in turn, makes resolution of the case more difficult.

What is your biggest courtroom pet peeve? I have a few. One pet peeve is that I intensely dislike it when lawyers interrupt witnesses in the middle of a response. Another is my dislike of lawyers arguing with witnesses in front of the jury. I also dislike it when lawyers approach the bench at 3:30, indicating they have no remaining witnesses for the day when I have clearly told them trial would be in session from 9:00 to 5:00. Additionally, I prohibit lawyers from making speaking objections to the admission of exhibits in open court, as opposed to during a sidebar.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you? Counsel should be prepared and should not treat any conference with the court as perfunctory. As long as counsel is prepared, there should be no surprises. Counsel should keep in mind that every conference is an opportunity to inform the court and opposing counsel about the case. Additionally, although counsel should not contact the court frivolously, lawyers should think of the court as a willing resource. If they think the court can potentially resolve a dispute or otherwise advance the litigation, counsel should feel free to contact the court to schedule a conference. Finally, counsel should never discuss the merits of their case with the courtroom deputy or a law clerk.

What steps are you or your court taking to address the constantly evolving field of electronic discovery? Although I expect parties to work cooperatively to reach agreement on how to conduct electronic discovery, our court also has a default standard under the local rules for electronic discovery that applies if the parties have not reached agreement before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. This default standard requires the parties to, among other things, exchange certain information, including a list of the most likely custodians of relevant electronically stored information and each relevant electronically stored system, the name of the individual designated by each party as being most knowledgeable about that party's electronic retention policies and the name of the individual who will serve as each party's electronic discovery coordinator. The default standard also addresses search methodology and the format for document production, and requires the parties to institute a retention policy for purposes of the litigation.

What advice would you give to counsel on preparing for a Rule 26(f) conference? The court takes the conference seriously and counsel should as well. Although the parties should seek to agree on a recommended schedule for conducting discovery and filing dispositive motions, the purpose of the conference is much broader than that. It is an opportunity for counsel to help shape the course of the litigation in a manner that is fair and efficient for their client.

To that end, counsel should use the conference as an opportunity to determine whether there is any possibility of agreeing to an early resolution of the case. Additionally, counsel should seek to agree on a process and timeframe for making disclosures, the nature and extent of discoverable information, and the need for experts (if any) and the subjects on which they will opine. Counsel should also discuss any issues they anticipate will require the court's assistance, including a possible ruling on claims of privilege or matters pertaining to electronic discovery.

If the plan submitted to the court before the scheduling conference reflects all of these considerations, and indicates the matters on which the parties agree and disagree, the court will be in a better position to effectively manage the litigation process and assist the parties in bringing it to a fair and timely resolution.

Which current or former Supreme Court Justice do you most admire, and why? That is hard for me to say, as there are a number that I admire. While I am not sufficiently knowledgeable regarding all of his jurisprudence, I have always been impressed with Justice John Marshall Harlan, a dissenter from the Supreme Court's separate but equal decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. It must have taken some courage to render that dissent and others involving civil rights in an era when the Supreme Court was dismantling the gains African Americans made under the Reconstruction Amendments.