Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-04464_de73> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04464_de73 RegisterActionDate "2010-04-13" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04464_de73 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole:On March 22, 2010, I entered a lengthy minute order in connection with the Defendant's Motion to Compel 65 which made clear that strict compliance with Local Rule 37.2 would be required and that non-compliance would result in denial of the motion. It does not appear that Local Rule 37.2 has been complied with, notwithstanding the March 22nd order. All that is attached to the motion is a letter to plaintiff's counsel, and under Local Rule 37.2, letters are not sufficient. The reason for the Rule is "[t]o curtail undue delay and expense in the administration of justice." The Rule ultimately rests on what Holmes called the shortness of life and the reality that there is a never ending procession of cases that compete for judicial attention. If the parties can resolve the issue, the court's time is saved and available to be directed to those cases that present issues that cannot be amicably resolved. Each hour needlessly spent on a dispute is an hour squandered. See Chicago Observer, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 929 F.2d 325, 329 (7th Cir.1991) ("Litigation is costly not only for the litigants but also for parties in other cases waiting in the queue for judicial attention."). This is a problem that the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly adverted to. See, e.g., Otto v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 134 F.3d 841, 854 (7th Cir.1998); Channell v. Citicorp Nat. Services, Inc., 89 F.3d 379, 386 (7th Cir.1996); Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir.1987). Further, the motion states that the plaintiff's responses "are littered with improper objections to the discovery requests" and "plaintiff did not complete respond to the discovery requests." There is no amplification or discussion beyond this. Instead, the court is apparently to review the interrogatories and objections and ascertain for itself which are objectionable and which are not. That is not a a judge's function. As the Seventh Circuit has stressed time and again, it is not the job of trial judges to research and construct legal arguments available to a party. Tyler v. Runyon, 70 F.3d 458, 466 (7th Cir.1995); Luddington v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., 966 F.2d 225, 230 (7th Cir. 1992). Similarly, skeletal and undeveloped arguments will be deemed waived. See e.g., White Eagle Co-opinion Assn v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 476 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2009); Fabriko Acquisition Corporation v. Prokos, 536 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2008); de la Rama v. Illinois Dept. of Human Services, 541 F.3d 681, 688 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Alden, 527 F.3d 653, 664 (7th Cir. 2008). R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Cigarettes Cheaper!, 462 F.3d 690, 701 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir.2006)( Hartmann v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 9 F.3d 1207, 1214 (7th Cir. 1993). So important are these principles to the adversary system and to basic institutional considerations that they apply even where constitutional issues are involved. United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991). Finally, the Seventh Circuit has stressed that judges are not archaeologists. They need not excavate lengthy exhibits 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). The unamplified claims in the defendant's motion are violative of the above stated principles and for the foregoing reasons, the motion of the defendant is denied. The status set for April 14, 2010 is stricken. If the defendant has not resolved the dispute that underlay the motion, it can file within 7 days from today a new motion that is compliant with the Local Rules, and with the rules that require comprehensive briefing supported by argument and meaningful authority. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 04/13/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04464_de73 AdministrativeID "73" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04464_de73 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-04464_de65 @default.