Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:17-cv-01561_de39> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-01561_de39 RegisterActionDate "2017-11-22" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-01561_de39 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole:Motion hearing held. Third party subpoena respondents fail to appear or call the court in response to the plaintiff's motion for rule to show cause 33 . Nor before this morning did plaintiff's counsel inform the court of current developments and that there was a substantial amount that was unresolved. Nonetheless, despite my prior order that the defendant could not speak for the subpoened parties and despite my order that they appear, the subpoenaed parties neither appeared nor called nor asked to be excused from today's hearing. The plaintiff's lawyer denied that he had told the subpoenaed parties that they need not appear. Counsel is reminded that having initiated the court's involvement in the matter and the court having ordered the subpoenaed parties to appear in response to the plaintiff's petition for rule to show cause, only the court can excuse the subpoenaed parties. NAACP, Inc.Boston Firefighters Union Local 718 v. Boston Chapter, 468 U.S. 1206, 1211(1984); In the Matter of Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992)(Easterbrook, J.)(in chambers); Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78, 106 (2nd Cir. 2010) (Cabranes, J., concurring). Moreover, there are phones and there are a host of lawyers in Chicago eager to be hired to represent out-of-town clients. As things now stand, the plaintiff has, without any forewarning to the court, dealt with the subpoenaed parties and apparently has made some but far from complete progress with them on the subpoenas. In light of all that has occurred, the plaintiff's petition for rule to show cause 33 is denied without prejudice. At our last court hearing on October 24, I was told that the plaintiff's lawyer would be promptly submitting documents for my review in camera. As to those documents, apparently privilege was being claimed and they had not been turned over to the plaintiff. Nonetheless no documents were forthcoming. Today the defendant's lawyer handed me an envelope with what she claimed were some of the withheld documents although even the turnover to me was admittedly incomplete. She sought more time to produce more documents for in camera review I granted that request. No further requests for extension will be entertained. I was also told that the privilege log was now finally complete in that the names of recipients and authors of questioned documents had finally been made. Defendant is given to 3:00 pm on 11/29/2017 to submit all documents for in camera review. Defendant is advised that any documents not submitted by 3:00 pm on 11/29/2017 will not be considered and will be deemed waived. Finally, the parties could not agree on order memorializing what had been ruled on on October 24, 2017 despite their participation in the argument and in the rulings. Accordingly, I ordered them today to file an order setting forth those things on which they agreed and I would enter a 2nd order ruling again on those things about which they could not agree to include in an order The parties are directed to submit an agreed order as outlined in open court by 12/1/2017. Finally, it seems to me that this is a remarkably simple and straightforward insurance coverage case. Either there was a hailstorm on a particular date or dates or there wasn't. Either the building was damaged or it wasn't or at least it wasn't damaged to the extent that is being claimed. In sum and substance the case is no more than this and yet the lawyers are at odds over infinitely more than they should be. It's quite unfortunate. To quote Judge Webber in a different setting, "is this what the practice of law has become?... We do not wish to be unduly harsh with counsel in the present case, but prior similar experiences compel us to record our observation that this type of legal practice harks back to the time when lawyers were scriveners of legal documents and paid at the rate of a penny a word. This practice did not advance the development of the law but it did produce a wonderful efflorescence of English vocabulary. Lacking the gift of prophecy I cannot imagine what collateral benefit will ensue from the present proliferation of paper. One thing will result for sure, we will be much more careful in the future in asking for [and allowing] briefs." Morris v. City of Pittsburg, 445 F.Supp. 981, 982-83 (W.D. Pa. 1978).Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 11/22/2017)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-01561_de39 AdministrativeID "38" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-01561_de39 hasJudgeReference SJ000265 @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-01561_de39 hasJudgeReference SJ002208 @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-01561_de39 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:17-cv-01561_de34 @default.