Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de106> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de106 RegisterActionDate "2019-02-02" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de106 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The Court has reviewed the parties' pending motions. Plaintiff has not filed a response to defendants' motion to permit the release of mental health information 102 and is deemed to have conceded the motion. The Court grants the motion. The parties are directed to confer and prepare an appropriate order and are to submit a Word version to Judge Kennelly's proposed order e-mail address by 2/5/2019. Plaintiff's motion to compel concerns defendants' request for various examinations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35. The points of dispute appear to be the location of one of examinations (by a neurologist); whether plaintiff should be permitted to have someone accompanying him during one or more of the examinations; and whether the examinations should be video recorded. On these points, the Court rules as follows. First, plaintiff is not entitled to have someone accompanying him during the examinations, so the Court overrules that request. Second, the examinations are to be video and audio recorded. The contention that this will adversely affect the examinations is specious. Defendants say that they did not get a chance to record examinations by plaintiff's non-treating experts, but among other problems they never asked the Court to order that. Third, the examinations are to take place in the Chicago area. The Court will not require plaintiff to travel to Columbus, Ohio for the neurological examination as defendants seem to insist, irrespective of whether defendants have offered to pay plaintiff's travel expenses. Finally, with regard to plaintiff's request for disclosure of the time, manner, and conditions of each examination, the scope of the examinations, the names of the persons conducting them, and the results, the Court directs defendants to comply with Rule 35. Based on these rulings, plaintiff is directed to appear for the examinations. The parties are to file a joint status report by no later than 2/11/2019 regarding the Rule 35 examinations. The hearing date of 2/5/2019 is vacated. (mk) (Entered: 02/02/2019)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de106 AdministrativeID "106" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de106 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de106 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de102 @default.