Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;2:16-cv-02019_de81> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;2:16-cv-02019_de81 RegisterActionDate "2018-02-27" @default.
- ilcd;;2:16-cv-02019_de81 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 2/27/18. Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint alleging that due to Defendants' deliberate indifference, she was forced to give birth to her infant son in the toilet of her cell. This matter is scheduled for final pretrial conference on June 11, 2018 and trial on June 19, 2018. Plaintiff is now represented by counsel who was given leave to enter her appearance on December 12, 2017. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to reopen discovery 56 , asserting that, until now, she did not have the resources to more fully undertake discovery or to take Defendants' depositions. Plaintiff requests a four month extension for additional discovery and the identification of an expert witness. Plaintiff reveals that her mother, as guardian of her child, has filed a civil action on the child's behalf and that Plaintiff should have the opportunity to benefit from the discovery in that case. Defendants have filed an objection asserting that the request is not timely, that there is no excusable neglect warranting the requested extension, and that any delay would cause them prejudice. In deciding whether there is "excusable neglect," the court should consider "the danger of prejudice to non-moving party; the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; reason for the delay, including whether it was within reasonable control of movant; and whether movant acted in good faith." Whitfield v. Howard, 852 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2017). Here, the requested delay is not so excessive as to have a negative impact on judicial proceedings. Furthermore, Plaintiff appears to be acting in good faith as she has only recently obtained counsel after previous, unsuccessful attempts. The Court does not find that a four month extension would cause undue prejudice to Defendants. It does, however, agree that a four month extension would make the scheduled trial date untenable. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to reopen discovery for a four month period 56 , is GRANTED. The final pretrial conference and jury trial dates are VACATED. The dispositive motions deadline is continued to June 22, 2018. A final pre-trial is scheduled for October 22, 2018 at 11:00 in the Urbana Courthouse, with personal appearance by counsel. The parties are to file an agreed, proposed final pretrial order by October 1, 2018. The Court will provide its preliminary jury instructions to the parties at the final pre-trial conference. If the parties which to file proposed jury instructions for the Courts consideration, they are to file them with the proposed final pretrial order. The Court does not favor non-pattern instructions. If any are offered, the proponent is to submit a brief statement as to why the non-pattern instruction is necessary. The matter is set for jury trial on October 30, 2018 at 9:00 AM in the Federal Courthouse in Urbana, Illinois. (Dispositive Motions due by 6/22/2018. Miscellaneous Deadline 10/1/2018 set for proposed final pretrial order) (SKR, ilcd) (Entered: 02/27/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;2:16-cv-02019_de81 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;2:16-cv-02019_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;2:16-cv-02019_de79 @default.