Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-06876_de41> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-06876_de41 RegisterActionDate "2009-11-30" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-06876_de41 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Status hearing held. Despite repeated written and oral warnings regarding the defendants discovery obligations, discovery continues to be incomplete. Mr. Liszka assures the court that hes doing the best he can but that his efforts are limited by his clients apparent lack of cooperation. On 9/29/09 I warned Mr. Liszka that the kind of intransigence manifested by his clients could result in a recommendation to Judge Andersen for entry of a default judgment (31). Nonetheless, counsel for the plaintiff stated today that the plaintiffs still do not have the required discovery. The conduct of the defendants appears indefensible, and it is mystifying that the plaintiff has not sought fees under Rule 37, which provides a regime of loser pays. Rickels v. City of South Bend, Indiana, 33 F.3d 785, 786-87 (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 legal processes to heap detriments on adversaries (or third parties) without regard to the merits of the claims.") (Parenthesis in original). The case is set for a further status hearing on 12/4/09 at 8:30 a.m. to report on the outstanding discovery. The defendants and their counsel are ordered to appear in person at the 12/4/09 status. Failure to do so can result in additional sanctions Mailed notice (lcw, ) (Entered: 11/30/2009)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-06876_de41 AdministrativeID "43" @default.