Evansville Chambers: Room 328 Courtroom: 335 Phone: (812) 434-6420 Email: Wildeman_CRD@insd.uscourts.gov
Crystal S. Wildeman was appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge on September 1, 2023. She filled the vacancy created by the recent elevation of the Honorable Matthew P. Brookman from Magistrate Judge to District Judge of the Southern District of Indiana.
Judge Wildeman is a 2003 graduate of Indiana University – Bloomington, where she received Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts degrees after double majoring in psychology and criminal justice with a minor in biology. In May 2006, Judge Wildeman earned her law degree from DePaul College of Law in Chicago, Illinois. While in law school, she earned the Best Brief Award in DePaul’s Moot Court Competition and then was elected to serve as the Chief Justice of the Moot Court Society. She also served as the Case Notes Editor for the DePaul College of Law Health Care Law Journal and worked as a Summer Associate/711 Licensed Student-Attorney with the Chicago Transit Authority.
Prior to becoming a Magistrate Judge, Judge Wildeman worked as an associate at Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn, LLP, from 2006 through 2014. From 2014 through 2022, Judge Wildeman held a partner position with Wooden McLaughlin LLP (merged into Dinsmore & Shohl LLP). In 2022, Judge Wildeman joined Barber & Bauer, LLP, as partner, where she worked as a general civil practitioner representing businesses and individuals in litigation in a variety of areas including employment, contract, personal injury, and insurance. Judge Wildeman also has extensive mediation experience and is a certified, trained mediator.
An active participant in the legal profession and wider community, Judge Wildeman is a member of the Indiana and Kentucky State Bar Associations and the Evansville Bar Association, where she has volunteered as the Women's Section Committee Chair, Commercial Law Section Co-Chair, Employment Law Section Member, and Young Lawyers Section Member. She is a board member and former Secretary of the Rotary Club of Evansville, from which she received the 20 Under 40 Award in 2021. She is also an advisory board member of Youth First, Inc., where she has served as the chair of the organization and on many committees.
Counsel has sought guidance on the Court’s procedures for issuing protective orders and seeking to file documents under seal. On January 15, 2015, a Uniform Protective Order was approved by the Court.
Uniform Protective Order(Updated 4/18/2022)
Other Sample Protective Order(s), and related documents, approved prior to the issuance of the above Uniform Protective Order, are provided for counsel's reference and consideration.
Order -- Joint Agreed Protective Order, Approved by the Court
Order -- Agreed Protective Order, Approved by the Court
Order -- Denying Motion to Seal
Order -- Granting in Part/Denying in Part Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal
Order -- Stipulated Protective Order, Approved by the Court
NOTE: These electronic documents are not the official documents of record and certain nonsubstantive modifications may have been made before posting on this web page. The official records are available at the Clerk's Office or via Pacer.
Judge Wildeman recognizes the growing nationwide trend in which there are fewer oral argument opportunities for counsel in civil cases. This is especially true for relatively inexperienced attorneys who have been practicing for less than seven (7) years ("Less Experienced Attorney(s)"). Judge Wildeman encourages the participation of Less Experienced Attorneys in proceedings before her, particularly at oral arguments on motions that the Less Experienced Attorney drafted or significantly contributed. To support the continued development of future generations of practitioners through oral argument experience, Judge Wildeman has adopted the following procedures with regard to all motions in full-consent cases and motions referred to her in non-consent cases:
(1) While a motion is being briefed or promptly thereafter, a party may file a Request for Oral Argument for Less Experienced Attorney ("Request") and alert the Court that, if oral argument is granted, it intends to have a Less Experienced Attorney argue the motion or a significant portion of the motion. (2) If such a Request is made, the Court will:
(A) Grant the Request and hold oral argument on the motion if it is at all practicable to do so, although the decision whether to hold oral argument is ultimately still within the Court's discretion; and
(B) Permit more experienced co-counsel of record to provide some assistance to the Less Experienced Attorney who is arguing the motion, but only as appropriate during oral argument.
(3) Expectations:
(A) All attorneys, including Less Experienced Attorneys, will be held to the highest professional standards. Specifically, all attorneys appearing in court are expected to be adequately prepared and thoroughly familiar with the factual record and the applicable law.
(B) The Court recognizes that there may be circumstances in which it is not appropriate for a Less Experienced Attorney to argue a motion. The Court draws no inference from a Party's decision not to have a Less Experienced Attorney argue any particular motion before the Court.
(C) The Court will draw no inference about the importance of a particular motion, the merits of a party's argument regarding the motion, or from a party's decision to have or not have a Less Experienced Attorney argue the motion.
