Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586 RegisterActionDate "2021-06-30" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 6/30/2021. This cause is before the Court for consideration of the IDOC Defendants' Motion for Clarification and Motion to Supplement the Motion for Clarification 456 , 464 . Due to disputes during a deposition, Defense Counsel asks the Court to clarify its January 29, 2021, Case Management Order. In particular, Defendants seek clarification of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Order Modifying Order of November 28, 2016, Which Dismissed Warden BC15478 From This Action Or, In the Alternative, Because of His Deception, Barring Warden A9E1957 from Disputing his Sworn Testimony That he Arrived at Illinois River Correctional Center in 2011 and Was Warden in 2011 (Plain. Mot., 369 ). Plaintiff notes Defendants' Motion for Clarification does not include the noted deposition transcript. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Supplement provides a copy of the transcript 464 . However, Defendants do not request a supplemental deposition or any relief concerning the deposition. The only relief requested is clarification of the January 29, 2021, Order. Therefore, the Motion to Supplement is denied as moot 464 and the Court will not consider any arguments concerning the deposition. The Motion for Clarification is granted 456 . The Court previously denied Plaintiff's "frivolous motion" in its entirety. See January 29, 2021, Case Management Order, p. 8. Plaintiff concedes this finding, but now maintains "the Court made no factual findings as to the dates when A9E1957 was Warden at Illinois River." (Plain. Resp., 457 p. 3). However, Plaintiff never asked the Court to make this factual finding, nor was evidence presented which would allow the Court to make this finding. See January 29, 2021, Case Management Order, p. 6. Instead, Plaintiff's motion specifically asked the Court to bar Defendant A9E1957 from presenting testimony regarding dates which conflicted with his deposition testimony. That motion was denied. See January 29, 2021, Case Management Order, p. 8. (SAG) (Entered: 06/30/2021)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586 hasJudgeReference SJ001502 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de464 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de565 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de566 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de586 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01077_de575 @default.