Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de268> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de268 RegisterActionDate "2011-06-01" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de268 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Motion hearing held. The plaintiff has submitted a "Fourth Motion for Sanctions and to Compel," which exceeds the 15 page limit and which he requests permission to file. The Motion is based on "discovery abuses [that] include" four specified court orders. The motion seeks, in its phrasing, "the ultimate remedy -- a judgment on the issue of liability." (Motion at 18). By the Motion's terms, the defendants' claimed discovery abuses are not only those specified. In fact, counsel for the plaintiff have bitterly and repeatedly complained how they and their client had been victimized by the conduct of defendants in discovery, and, on at least one occasion, have said that the claimed discovery abuses "are the worst [counsel] has seen in 25 years of practice." It is not for a court to make the case for a party who is represented by counsel, Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 704 (7th Cir. 2010); Sonnleitner v. York, 304 F.3d 704, 717 (7th Cir. 2002). "If we assume the lawyers' responsibilities, we unbalance the market for legal services and take time away from our consideration and decision of other cases." Luddington v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., 966 F.2d 225, 230 (7th Cir. 1992). See also United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 655 (1984); Dal Pozzo v. Basic Machinery Co., Inc., 2006 WL 2548250 at *4 (7th Cir. 2006); Bretford Mfg., Inc. v. Smith System Mfg. Corp., 419 F.3d 576, 581 (7th Cir.2005). And, were a court to do so, it would be patently unfair to the party's opponent since it would not have a chance to be heard on the issue before a decision was announced. Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 2011 WL 121698, 10 (3rd Cir. 2011). If there is more that the plaintiff seeks to rely on than what is in the instant motion, it must be included in an opening brief and not in a reply brief, for that too would leave the defendants unable to respond. Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 629 F.3d 612, 625 (7th Cir. 2010); Hussein v. Oshkosh Motor Truck Company, 816 F.2d 348, 360 (7th Cir. 1987) (Posner, J., concurring). Given the phrasing of the Fourth Motion for Sanctions, there exists the potential for that occurring, which would require either ignoring the newly advanced arguments or permitting the filing of a sur-reply. Johnny Blastoff, Inc. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co., 188 F.3d 427, 439 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 528 U.S. 1188 (2000); Commonwealth Edison v. NRC, 830 F.2d 610, 621 (7th Cir. 1987). Of course, Mr. F78CC34 may rely on the Motion he has submitted along with the multiple exhibits that are attached. In that event, the decision will be based solely on the events discussed in the Motion. If he intends to rely on other incidents, he shall file an appropriate Motion for Entry of Default Judgment that includes those additional incidents (as well as those relied on in the instant Motion) on or before 6/15/2011. That Motion will supersede the present motion, not merely supplement it. In other words, Mr. F78CC34 may not file a supplemental brief. If Mr. F78CC34 chooses to file such a new motion, the defendants shall have until 7/15/2011 to respond, and Mr. F78CC34 reply brief shall be due on 7/29/2011. In that event, Mr. F78CC34 is given leave to withdraw the current Fourth Motion for Sanctions that is attached as Exhibit A to the Motion for Leave to file an oversized brief # 256 . If he opts not to file a new motion in accordance with the above schedule, Mr. F78CC34 is given leave to file the oversized Fourth Motion for Sanctions # 256 . The defendants shall respond to the Fourth Motion for Sanctions in its present form by 7/15/11 and Mr. F78CC34 shall reply by 7/29/11. The defendants have filed their 29-page response (with Exhibits A-BBB) to the Motions for Preliminary Injunction and for Temporary Receiver as a unified document even though the motions were filed separately and they have done so without leave of court. In consequence, plaintiff also filed a combined Reply brief without leave of court. The defendants' combined Response brief is non-compliant with Local Rule 7.1, which requires that briefs that exceed the 15 page limit must have a table of contents with the pages noted and a table of cases. The brief also contains no index describing the voluminous exhibits that are attached. Under the Local Rule, the brief is subject to being stricken. The defendants shall have until Wednesday 6/8/2011 to file a separate and comprehensive table of contents and descriptive index of exhibits, with a courtesy copy to the court. If that does not occur, the brief will be stricken. The oral argument that is scheduled on the motions for preliminary injunction and for temporary receiver, presently scheduled to be heard on Monday June 6, 2011 is rescheduled to Monday, June 13, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. Each side will have no more than one hour and fifteen minutes. Defendants' Motion to File Certain Documents Under Seal # 247 is denied. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 06/03/2011)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de268 AdministrativeID "259" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de268 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de268 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de256 @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de268 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:09-cv-06010_de265 @default.