Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-03379_de319> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03379_de319 RegisterActionDate "2010-06-29" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03379_de319 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole:On 6/22/10, in response to Tellabs' Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses, I entered a very specific minute order which, in part, reminded the parties of their obligations under Local Rule 37.2 and stated that compliance with the Rule would be required. It also called the parties' attention to my earlier order of 7/21/09, which previously had called the parties attention to the need for compliance with that Rule. It was unnecessary to have done so since all parties in all cases are required to comply with all Local Rules. The order of 6/22/10 also informed the parties that discovery motions would have to comply with the requirements set forth in Autotech Techonologies, Ltd. v. AutomationDirect.com, 2007 WL 2736681 (N.D.Ill. 2007). The order of 6/22/10 concluded by saying that if there was not "full compliance" within seven days with Local Rule 37.2, the order of 7/21/09, and the requirements of the 6/22/10 order, the then-pending Motion to Compel would be denied. Nonetheless, Tellabs has filed a Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses in this and in case 09 C 04530, which does not comply with Rule 37.2 or the requirements of Autotech. There is simply an opening paragraph which says: "[a]s required by Local Rule 37.2, the parties consulted by telephone, email, and letter correspondence" in an attempt to resolve their differences. Attached to the motions are a series of letters and emails. But as the plain language of Rule 37.2 provides - as pointed out in the order of 6/22/10 -- letters and emails do not count. Moreover, there is not the certificate of compliance required by Autotech. Merely attaching lengthy and complicated letters requires the judge to play archaeologist with the record, contrary to the Seventh Circuit's repeated admonition that "[d]istrict judges are not archaeologists. They need not excavate masses of papers in search of revealing tidbits-not only because the rules of procedure place the burden on the litigants, but also because their time is scarce. Other parties, who live by the rules, have a priority claim on the judge's attention. Lawyers and litigants who decide that they will play by rules of their own invention will find that the game cannot be won." Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660, 662 -663 (7th Cir.1994). Accord, DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir.1999); Jacobs v. Velasco, 41 Fed.Appx. 882, 883, 2002 W.L. 1732577, 1 (7th Cir.2002). Nor are judges "like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs." United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991). Accord, Casna v. City of Loves Park, 574 F.3d 420, 424 (7th Cir. 2009); Petts v. Rockledge Furniture LLC., 534 F.3d 715, 722 (7th Cir.2008); Alexander v. City of South Bend, 433 F.3d 550, 552 (7th Cir. 2006); Contilli v. Local 705 Intern. Broth. of Teamsters Pension Fund, 559 F.3d 720, 724 (7th Cir.2009). This is the undeviating rule in other Circuits as well. See e.g., United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137, 163 (3d Cir.2008);.Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003); U.S. v. Starnes, 583 F.3d 196, 216 (3d Cir.2009); Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009); Walker v. Prince George's County, MD, 575 F.3d 426, 429 (4th Cir.2009). Any future motion by any party that does not strictly comply with the order of 6/22/10 will be denied with prejudice. Similarly, any counsel for any party who refuses to have the kind of comprehensive Rule 37.2 conference that the Rule mandates will be required to bear the fees and costs associated with the bringing of the motion. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03379_de319 AdministrativeID "318" @default.