Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-08758_de151> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-08758_de151 RegisterActionDate "2013-04-01" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-08758_de151 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to compel 138 is granted in part and denied in part as discussed in court.Interrogatory #2 is denied; document production requests #10 and 25, are granted except for privileged information supported by a promptly filed privilege log. request #8 is granted to the extent that the additional opt ins must be included.request #15 is deniedrequests to admit #1,2,4,8,19,20,21, and 23 are denied and request to admit #3, 5 are granted as discussed in court. The defendant participated at the hearing today over objection because of its concern that the plaintiff might argue that it constituted a waiver of its pending motion to disqualify plaintiff. I denied that objection and ordered that the hearing proceed. Obviously, the defendants' participation shall not constitute a waiver of the motion to disqualify. With commendable candor, plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that they will make no contention that that participation has any effect on the pending motion to disqualify. The Plaintiff's motion on page 5 alludes to the defendants' claimed failure to "produce electronic discovery" and to schedule depositions. Beyond this generalized assertion, which it is alleged is pursuant to a "self-imposed stay on discovery" designed "to delay this case in hopes that the potential class will dissipate," (Motion at 5-6), there is no amplification of the argument and none of the 11 exhibits supports the claim. Consequently, the argument will not be considered under the familiar principle that skeletal and unsupported arguments are waived. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012); Kyles v. J.K. Guardian Sec. Services, 236 F.R.D. 400, 401 (N.D.Ill. 2006)(collecting cases). Any further requests for a judicial ruling on these issues must be preceded by a comprehensive L.R. 37.2 conference. All matters relating to the referral of this case having been resolved, the case is returned to the district judge. Nothing in this order shall, be constituted as expressing any opinion on pre-class certification discovery. Judge Honorable Jeffrey Cole no longer referred to the case.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 04/02/2013)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-08758_de151 AdministrativeID "148" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-08758_de151 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-08758_de151 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-08758_de141 @default.