Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de185> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de185 RegisterActionDate "2011-01-27" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de185 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Status hearing held. As stated on the record, given the change in the status of information available to both parties in continued discovery, Plaintiffs Renewed Motion 140 may not comprehensively set forth the plaintiff's position and rather than allowing a supplement to be filed, it is in the interest of efficiency for the pending motion to be withdrawn without prejudice to its refiling in a form that takes account of the changed landscape of the case. Plaintiff is therefore given leave to withdraw the presently pending motion No. 140 and to file a revised motion to appoint receiver by 2/21/2011. Motion hearing set for 2/22/2011 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's oral motion for leave to serve 15 additional interrogatories is granted. Defendants' answers to those additional interrogatories shall be served within one week from the date of service. In light of the repeated representations that have been made regarding the defendants' allegedly flagrant noncompliance with discovery -- Mr. Biederman has said that it is the most flagrant he has seen in his 25 years of practice -- it is perhaps appropriate to underscore the fact that unsupported statements by counsel, whether in briefs, see e.g. Ho v. Donovan, 569 F.3d 677, 682 (7th Cir. 2009); Woolard v. Woolard, 547 F.3d 755 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Stevens, 500 F.3d 625, 628-629 (7th Cir.2007); IFC Credit Corp. v. Aliano Brothers General Contractors, Inc., 437 F.3d 606, 610-611 (7th Cir.2006); United States ex rel. Feingold v. AdminiStar Federal, Inc., 324 F.3d 492, 494 (7th Cir. 2003); Campania Management Co., Inc. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 853 (7th Cir. 2002), or in oral argument, In re: Payne, 431 F.3d 1055, 1066 (7th Cir. 2005), will not suffice. Proof is required. Thus, at this juncture, and without an evidentiary presentation, it is impossible to make any determination about either the adequacy of the defendants' discovery responses thus far or the plaintiff's entitlement to a receiver. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 02/04/2011)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de185 AdministrativeID "180" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de185 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de185 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de143 @default.