Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de75> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de75 RegisterActionDate "2011-03-25" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de75 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Counsel for the defendant filed a motion on 3/22/11 for presentment today seeking a rescheduling of the settlement conference because of an oral argument he has in Elgin on 4/13/11, which is the date of the settlement conference, which was scheduled on 2/22/11, after being twice moved because the defendant represented that he was hospitalized in Malaysia. I asked counsel what would prevent a further application for continuance because his client was out of the country. He assured me that would not occur. Counsel for the plaintiff felt he had no choice but not to object because this was "the Appellate Court." I granted the motion and rescheduled the conference for 4/26/11. About an hour later, the defendant's counsel called and left a voicemail message with my courtroom deputy saying his client could not attend on 4/26/11 because he would be in Taiwan. My courtroom deputy was informed by the clerk's office in the Illinois Appellate Court for the Second District that the oral argument in the case was set on 3/2/11 and notice was sent on that date to counsel. No motion was made regarding rescheduling the settlement conference until 3/22/11 and no application was made to the Illinois Appellate Court to reschedule the oral argument in light of the previously scheduled settlement conference in this court. A second phone call was received from defense counsel giving alternate dates for the settlement conference that were available to him, his client and Mr. Mullen, counsel for the Plaintiff. I placed a conference call to both counsel based upon Mr. Borcia's assurances that his client would be at the settlement conference and would not be out of the country on 5/5/2011. I rescheduled the settlement conference to 5/5/2011 at 1:30 p.m. NO FURTHER CONTINUANCES WILL BE CONSIDERED. This is at least the third rescheduling. If the defendant does not desire to settle the case that is certainly his right. But he should say so and not inconvenience this court, Mr. Mullen, and the long line of other litigants waiting for and requiring judicial attention. Chicago Observer Inc. v. City of Chicago, 929 F.3d 325, 329 (7th Cir. 1991); American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Roth, 2007WL63983, *7 (N.D. Ill. 2007)(collecting cases). The parties are ordered to have face to face settlement conference within 14 days to ascertain whether a settlement conference is even feasible. But given the course of events to date, it is advisable to set the case for trial. After consultation with both counsel the case is set for trial on 7/25/2011 at 9:00 a.m. (5 trial days). The following schedule shall govern expert discovery and the submission of the final pretrial order in accordance with my standing orders: Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) disclosures shall be made by 4/25/2011. Defendant's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) disclosures shall be made by 5/24/2011. Expert discovery is ordered closed on or before 6/24/2011. The parties shall file the proposed final pretrial order on or before 7/8/2011. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/15/2011 at 10:00 a.m., and the parties should be prepared to devote the remainder of the day to the conference, if necessary. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 03/25/2011)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-03908_de75 AdministrativeID "77" @default.