Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:06-cv-01245_de103> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:06-cv-01245_de103 RegisterActionDate "2010-02-26" @default.
- ilnd;;1:06-cv-01245_de103 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Telephonic settlement conference held. The settlement conference will reconvene by phone on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. A face-to-face settlement conference with the parties and counsel is scheduled for March 12, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. The parties need not comply with the standing order re: settlement conferences except that parties will full authority must attend the 3/12/10 conference and the parties have agreed to send me a joint letter outlining their positions with supporting authority on the issues relating to an email that the plaintiff contends granted him authority or permission to utilize his invention as he desired and any subsequent document which the defendant contends affected or bore upon the earlier email. The parties are to submit with their arguments and supporting authority on these issues the actual documents we discussed this morning. There is one further point that deserves mention. Ours is an adversarial system, and the adversary system is deemed fundamental to Anglo-American jurisprudence. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993); United States v. O'Neill, 437 F.3d 654, 660 (7th Cir. 2006). Consistent with the role of an advocate in that system, is a partisan presentation. Philips Medical Systems Intern. B.V. v. Bruetman, 8 F.3d 600, 606 (7th Cir. 1993);. Indeed, "a partisan scrutiny of the record and assessment of potential issues, goes to the irreducible core of the lawyer's obligation to a litigant in an adversary system...." Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 293 (2000) (Souter, J., dissenting). See Sommerfield v. City of Chicago, 254 F.R.D. 317 (N.D.Ill.2008). But, the single-minded devotion to a client's interests-which "follows from the nature of our adversarial system of justice," Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 84 (1988) is not inconsistent with cooperation between lawyers, who manifest civility towards and respect for one another. In fact, years ago, the Report of the Seventh Circuit's Committee on Civility chaired by then-Chief Judge Aspen made clear that lawyers on opposite sides of the case could and should function cooperatively and civilly, and that in the end, justice was best served when they did so. The conference that I had this morning with counsel for the plaintiff and defendant demonstrated that the goals and standards enunciated in the Aspen Committee's Report were capable of achievement without counsel abdicating in the slightest degree fidelity to their respective clients' best interests. Counsel are to be complimented on the degree of professionalism they exhibited during the conference today.Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 02/26/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:06-cv-01245_de103 AdministrativeID "106" @default.
- ilnd;;1:06-cv-01245_de103 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.