Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de128> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de128 RegisterActionDate "2010-09-30" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de128 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Status hearing held and continued to 10/8/2010 at 9:00 a.m. Motion hearing held on plaintiff's motion relating to redacted materials and for an award of attorneys' fees. The parties are to submit a proposed order reflecting the rulings made at the hearing, which effectively granted in party the motion insofar as it required the production of documents that actually reflect where information has been redacted. All further discovery disputes will be considered against the backdrop of Judge Easterbrook's panel opinion in Rickles v. City of South Bend, Indiana, 33F.3d 785.786 (7th Cir. 1994): "'The great operative principle of Rule 37(a)(4) is that the loser pays.' Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 8 Federal Practice and Procedure Section 2288 at 787 (1970). Fee shifting, when the judge must rule on discovery disputes, encourages their voluntary resolution and curtails the ability of litigants to use the legal process to heap detriments on adversaries without regard to the merits of the claim." See also United States Freight Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 716 F.2d 954, 955 (2nd Cir.1983)("General deterrence, rather than mere remediation of the particular parties' conduct, is a goal under Rule 37; unconditional impositions of sanctions are necessary to deter 'other parties to other lawsuits' from flouting other discovery orders of other district courts.'"). Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 09/30/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de128 AdministrativeID "127" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de128 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.