Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:07-cv-00623_de346> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-00623_de346 RegisterActionDate "2010-08-27" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-00623_de346 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: The defendant has filed a motion that is styled as a motion to compel supplemental responses to discovery. 36 . The defendant has objected to the motion on the grounds that discovery closed in June 2009 and that this is in effect, a motion to reopen discovery. Of course, titles don't count and it is the substance of the motion that is outcome-determinative. Smith v. Potter, 513 F.3d 781, 783 (7th Cir. 2008). While discovery has closed, the case is still properly here since the referral was not closed and I have concluded that I have authority to deal with the motion. Moreover, after consulting with Judge Lefkow, she has determined that I should hear the motion should that become necessary. However, given the pendency of the summary judgment proceeding, the parties concession today that the outcome of the pending motion will not affect those proceedings, and the parties' disagreement as to whether the outcome of those proceedings will moot the present motion, it seems to me that interests of judicial economy counsel against going forward with the motion at this time. Accordingly, the motion is entered and continued, and the defendant need not respond until further order of court. The parties are instructed upon receipt of Judge Lekow's ruling on the motion for summary judgment to immediately file a motion for status before me and to provide me with a copy of her ruling. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 08/30/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-00623_de346 AdministrativeID "344" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-00623_de346 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:07-cv-00623_de34 @default.