Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 11 of
11
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 RegisterActionDate "2020-08-24" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Heather K. McShain: Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents 80 . Defendant filed its response 86 . Plaintiff was granted leave to file a reply 85 but has not done so. By way of background, Plaintiff filed her initial motion to compel discovery of all documents 58 on January 27, 2020; that motion was denied without prejudice and Defendant was granted leave to review its privilege log to comply with the Court's standing order 59 . Defendant produced a revised privilege log to Plaintiff on 02/20/2020 86 2. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery 80 is denied. Defendant complied with the Court's Order 59 and served a revised privilege log upon Plaintiff. This privilege log complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Defendant asserts both the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine as its reasoning for withholding or redacting certain documents, including that some documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. In the instant motion, Plaintiff asserts in blanket form that essentially every entry on the privilege log is improper, without providing any specificity or detail in her motion to support her allegations. While the burden rests upon the objecting party to show why the information is not discoverable, in this case defendant has met its burden with respect to both its revised privilege log and the additional information provided in its response 86 , and Plaintiff has failed to specify why defendant's log is inadequate. See Belcastro v. United Airlines, Inc., 17-cv-1682, 2019 WL 1651709, *8 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2019) ("The party opposing discovery does not carry the sole burden in a motion to compel. When some response has been made, '[t]he burden in a motion to compel resets with the party seeking discovery to explain why the opposing party's responses are inadequate.'") (citing MSTG, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 08-cv-7411, 2011 WL 221771, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2011)). For these reasons, the Court denies the motion 80 . The Court reminds the parties that the dates in its 08/11/2020 Minute Order 89 stand. Mailed notice. (pk, ) (Entered: 08/24/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 AdministrativeID "90" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 OntologyLabel dismiss_without_prejudice @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de55 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de60 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de80 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de85 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de86 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de90 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-03912_de89 @default.