Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de47> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de47 RegisterActionDate "2009-08-27" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de47 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole:Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery 41 is set for 9/3/2009 at 8:30 a.m. Strict compliance with Local Rule 37.2 will be required with discovery disputes. The Certificate of Compliance shall comply precisely with the Rule and shall reflect the items discussed, on an item-by-item basis, stating what was discussed and the response from each party, regarding the particular item, including any concessions offered by a party and an explanation of why that concession was rejected. See Autotech Technologies Ltd. Partnership v. Automation Direct.com., 2007 W.L. 2736681 (N.D. Ill 2007). Further, all future discovery disputes will be considered against the backdrop of Judge Easterbrook's panel opinion in Rickles v City of South Bend, Indiana, 33 F.3d 785, 786 (7th Cir. 1994) (""The great operative principle of Rule 37(a)(4) is that the loser pays.' Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 8 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2288 at 787 (1970). Fee shifting, when the judge must rule on discovery disputes, encourages their voluntary resolution and curtails the ability of litigants to use the legal process 'to heap detriments on adversaries without regard to the merits of the claim."). Finally, the parties are reminded of Local Rule 5.2(d), which requires that courtesy copies of all filings must be delivered to chambers, and any attached exhibits must be separated by protruding tabs. Failure to provide Chambers with an appropriate courtesy copy may result in the motion, response or reply being stricken. Rule 5.2(e). Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de47 AdministrativeID "49" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de47 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de39 @default.