Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de320> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de320 RegisterActionDate "2015-02-24" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de320 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole: There are presently pending competing motions for sanctions [197, 207], a motion by plaintiff for leave to file its motion for a conference regarding the sanctions motions 318 , and a joint motion to withdraw the pending sanctions motions 320 . The joint motion to withdraw all pending sanctions motions is granted, with the consequence that docket numbers 197, 207 and 318 are moot. The court wishes to express its thanks to Mr. Borcia, counsel for defendant, and Mr. Lubin and Mr. Buehler, counsel for defendants, for their wise and professional judgment in making the decision not to go forward with the sanctions motions. But candor compels a further observation. We have it on the highest authority -- although no authority is needed to support the proposition -- that all judges make mistakes. Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Kapoor, 115 F.3d 1332 (1997)(Posner, J.); Rodriguez v. Chandler, 492 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2007) (Easterbrook, J.). See also Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 346347 (1970). In reviewing the record in this case, it is my belief that I came to certain conclusions about historical events in the case based on faulty recall. Thus, any negative comments I may have made whether during a colloquy with counsel, or in certain minute orders, are withdrawn. This acknowledgement of error is not only compelled by candor, but by the fact that certain comments by the court have been utilized by one or more of the lawyers in this case in other litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County -- apparently under a kind of propensity theory -- the very thing Rule 404(b), Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits. One example of the court's erroneous recall illustrates the point: the minute order of 5/8/14 192 , casts aspersions on Mr. Borcia for attending a third party deposition in Texas even though "it was made perfectly clear at the last status that that deposition ought not to proceed given the circumstances that were discussed at the prior status." In reviewing the record in connection with the plaintiff's motion for sanctions, it became clear that the quoted observation was simply wrong. (An explanation of the surrounding facts is simply too complicated to be included in this order). This observation and others that need not be discussed vividly illustrate the danger of judges relying too easily and quickly on their own memories even in uncomplicated situations -- a point made in Lynch, Inc. v. SamataMason Inc. 279 F.3d 487, 490-491 (7th Cir. 2002). The fact is that memory is fallible, and that people often recall things that are not so. United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009); Jarad v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 867, 870 (7th Cir. 2006).Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 02/24/2015)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de320 AdministrativeID "321" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de320 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de191 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de320 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de317 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de320 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de319 @default.