Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de235> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de235 RegisterActionDate "2011-05-04" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de235 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Motion hearing held on 5/2/2011. Plaintiff's Motion to Grant Without Further Hearing Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of a Temporary Receiver 221 is denied, as discussed on the record. Counsel for the plaintiff informed the court the day after the hearing that she now desires to file a new Memorandum in support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction rather than stand on the Memorandum filed in support of the TRO application. The oral Motion to file a new Memorandum is granted. The Memorandum shall be filed not later than 5/16/11. Defendants' response is due 5/23/11. No extension of time will be allowed. If the defendants do not seasonably file their responsive Memorandum, they will not be allowed to file one at all. This is not designed to be punitive, but is necessitated by the defendants' utter disregard for compliance with various obligations the defendants had under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that has manifested itself in a variety of ways throughout the case. (This is neither the time nor the place to deal with those infractions, however). The most current example of the defendants' insouciance is their failure to have abided by the briefing schedule set on April 1, 2011, which required that their response brief to plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of a temporary receiver be filed on April 18, 2011. [#216]. April 18th came and went with no filing and no request by the defendants, either formal or informal, to extend the time to file the Memorandum. Indeed, as of the hearing on 5/2/11, the Memorandum had still not been filed, and no motion had been made to extend the time. There had not even been an informal request to do so, and no reason was even offered in justification for the omission. This sort of behavior is not only unacceptable, it is dangerous. "'We live in a world of deadlines.... The practice of law is no exception.'" Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2006). "Ignoring deadlines is the surest way to lose a case...Lawyers and litigants who decide that they will play by rules of their own invention will find that the game cannot be won." U.S. v. Golden Elevator, Inc., 27 F.3d 301, 302 (7th Cir. 1994). See also Milam v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., 567 F.3d 830, 831 (7th Cir. 2009); Williams v. Shinseki, 2010 WL 1274233, 4 (7th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff's reply brief shall be due 5/31/11. The plaintiff's motion to bar defendants from filing any response in opposition to plaintiff's Renewed Motion for the Appointment of a Temporary Receiver [#221] is denied. The defendants' response to the renewed Motion for Appointment of a Temporary Receiver shall be due on the same date as the response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. If the response to the renewed Motion is not timely filed this time, no response will be permitted. Oral arguments on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for the appointment of a receiver shall be on 6/6/11 at 9:30 a.m. Within 7 days the parties shall provide witness lists of witnesses to be called in the event that an evidentiary hearing on one or both of the pending motions becomes necessary. Defendants are to produce all documents that refer, reflect or relate to any Small Business Administration application by any of the defendants, and/or which refer, reflect or relate to any action of any kind, whether final or preliminary, by the SBA that refers, reflects or relates to any of the defendants for the period of 2001 - present. It appears that although a request was made for these documents, there has not been appropriate production. The apparent explanation is that documents not produced were not in the possession of the defendants, but of their lawyers. That objection or explanation could scarcely be more frivolous or more pretextual. Documents in the possession of one's agents are within a party's possession, custody or control, as the multiple law firms representing the defendants in the instant case know. This production must be made immediately, and documents that have been previously produced need not be reproduced. Defendants shall file with the clerk of the court as part of the record in this case, an affidavit by each defendant that details the search efforts that have been made in connection with the production. Each document that has been turned over to the IRS that refers, reflects or relates to N'Genuity, IMG, or GFI must also be produced to Plaintiff by the defendants. This production shall be within 7 days. Defendants shall also produce updated financial materials pursuant to an agreed order to be provided by counsel by the close of business on 5/4/2011. Status hearing set for 5/9/2011 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 05/04/2011)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de235 AdministrativeID "226" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de235 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de235 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de231 @default.