Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de131> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de131 RegisterActionDate "2010-10-14" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de131 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to set discovery deadlines 127 is granted. Fact discovery ordered closed on 1/31/2011. No further extensions will be considered. Parties to provide by close of business on 10/18/10, a schedule for entry of the remaining 404(b) witnesses. Plaintiff's motion to compel 128 is granted. The identity of the hearing officer/administrative law judge overseeing the disciplinary hearing in which Officer Haleas was accused of wrongdoing and the proceeding, so far as can be ascertained, was open to the public. Under these circumstances, there obviously can be no good cause for nondisclosure of the hearing officer's name. As explained in detail today and at our last status conference, the transcript of the disciplinary hearing involving Officer Haleas at which he had an encounter with the presiding judge should not be a matter requiring any discovery. There appears to be no reason why the parties cannot stipulate the authenticity of the transcript of what occurred. See Rule 901, Federal Rules of Evidence. In that event, no deposition of anyone will be necessary. The question will then become one of admissibility at trial and that is a question solely for Judge St. Eve. In order to determine the authenticity of the transcript, absent stipulation, the plaintiff will have to prove that the transcript was either prepared by someone probably a court reporter in the regular course of the court reporter's business (and thus qualifies as a record of a regularly conducted activity under Rule 803(6), Federal Rules of Evidence) or that the transcription is an accurate transcription of the tape recording of the hearing to which the defendants alluded. In that event, the tape, itself, must be authenticated under Rule 901, or else the accuracy of the transcription will be meaningless. Perhaps Rule 902 may come into play although that is not obvious. In short, stipulating to what appears to be obvious is not only good lawyering, but best comports with the obligation of counsel to be cooperative in discovery, with a consequent saving of everyone's time, effort and resources. Stingley v. City of Chicago, 2009 WL 3681984, 2 (N.D.Ill. 2009). Since the defendants have expressed some concern on the matter, stipulating to accuracy of the transcript is not a stipulation to its admissibility. The one has nothing to do with the other. Further hearing set for 10/19/2010 at 8:30 a.m. to report on the question of stipulating to the accuracy of the transcript. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 10/15/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de131 AdministrativeID "135" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de131 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de131 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de125 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de131 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-01014_de126 @default.