Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de100> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de100 RegisterActionDate "2015-10-30" @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de100 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Motion and status hearing held on 10/30/15 and continued to 11/12/15 at 10:30 a.m. The three attorneys that appeared for today's motion and status hearing were standing in for other counsel of record and none of them were sufficiently knowledgeable about the case to be able to address the issues that needed to be addressed. The Court does not intend this to be a criticism of how this case is being or has been handled to date by any counsel of record including particularly Ms. Jeanne Brown whose absence from todays hearings because she gave birth to twins is completely understandable. It is just a statement of fact; the lawyers that appeared today, by their own admission, were standing in for others and they were not prepared to address the issues the Court wanted to address before ruling on the pending motions to extend the discovery cut-off date and to re-set dates for filing motions for summary judgment. At the next status hearing, counsel should be prepared to address the following matters: (a) whether Andrea Bacot and Wendy Olson have been deposed and, if not, the dates those depositions are set to be taken; (2) whether the parties have resolved any remaining issues concerning the production of documents by Warden Williams and/or the Illinois Department of Corrections pursuant to Plaintiff's Subpoena and, if not, a date by which the parties will submit a joint motion to resolve any continuing dispute(s) in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Discovery Motions link on Magistrate Judge Gilbert's webpage at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges; (3) the status of any discussions between Plaintiff's counsel and the Attorney General concerning providing Plaintiff's counsel access to the class action complaint referenced in the Joint Motion for an Enlargement of Time for Discovery 112 or the aspects of that complaint that interest Plaintiff's counsel; (4) whether any Defendant intends to file a motion for summary judgment and whether Plaintiff and that Defendant agree it is necessary for that Defendant to wait until the close of expert discovery to do so; and (5) either (i) proposed dates for the exchange of Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures and expert depositions, or (ii) whether the parties wish to defer expert disclosures and/or depositions until after the conclusion of dispositive motion practice. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for an Enlargement of Time for Discovery 112 and Defendants' Motion to Reset Dispositive Motion Deadline 114 are entered and continued to 11/12/15 at 10:30 a.m. Mailed notice (ber, ) (Entered: 10/30/2015)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de100 AdministrativeID "118" @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de100 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de100 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de95 @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de100 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-08024_de97 @default.