Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-00905_de22> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00905_de22 RegisterActionDate "2019-05-08" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00905_de22 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: The Courtroom Deputy has forwarded to the Court several emails between counsel that have either been sent or forwarded to her in regard to certain motions [16, 19] which the Court this morning took under advisement. The most recent of these email communications--which was sent at 11:16 a.m by Plaintiff, who has been licensed to law in Illinois since 1988--looks more like a discovery request than a request for routine case management and scheduling information. While there appears to be a good deal of turbulent water under the bridge, leading to cross-motions for sanctions that are beyond the scope of this quick minute entry, the Court observes that one of the matters generating controversy is the date on which Defendant's motion for sanctions was noticed for presentment. Both the notice of motion 17 and the re-notice of motion 18 on their face indicate that the motion was to be presented on May 8, 2019 at 9:15 a.m. The docket entry for the original motion, however, states that the motion will be presented on May 8, 2020 at 9:15 a.m. Plaintiff "strenuously protests the noticing of the motion, which allegedly was set for 2020 by the court and not the filer, and then was amended on 5.6.19 for 5.5.19, allegedly at the Ex Parte direction of "chambers," apparently in violation of the 3 day notice rule with no input from Pro Se undersigned." On account of the foregoing, Plaintiff protests that "proper notice did not occur here as a matter of record, and undersigned is forced into Court on a facially invalid notice." This strikes the Court as making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill. Common sense would dictate that nobody--party or court--would notice a motion for presentment more than a year in advance. Any attempt to do so would flagrantly violate our local rules. Common sense would further dictate that a typographical error was present in the docket entry, since as of April 29 Plaintiff had notice on the actual motion of a May 8, 2019 date of presentment. The normal thing to do in those circumstances would be to pick up the phone or send an e-mail to opposing counsel pointing out the inconsistency and confirming the common sense inference that counsel intended to present the motion the following week, not the following calendar year. Failing that, there should be no surprise that counsel might call the Courtroom Deputy (or, if she did not pick up, chambers) to seek instruction on how to remedy any confusion. Nor should Plaintiff have been surprised to see a corrected notice of motion clarifying the common sense reading of the record as a whole--namely, that Defendant was going to present a motion on May 8, 2019 at 9:15 a.m. This happens all the time, without incident or recrimination. Nobody is perfect and mistakes regarding the notice rules--either typographical or early/late filings--are not at all uncommon. What is uncommon is that this type of simple misunderstanding leads to umbrage and further motion practice. Since Defendant's 5/8/2019 email to the Courtroom Deputy goes far beyond a routine question about case management deadlines or other scheduling issues, the relief sought must be requested in a formal motion. Before Plaintiff files such a motion, he should carefully reread the sentences above. If such a motion is filed, it will be taken under advisement with the same briefing schedule as the other pending motions and thus there will be no need to file a notice of motion. Finally, given the tenor of the email correspondence thus far, all further communications with the Court in this case, including the Courtroom Deputy, must be done by formal motion, not by e-mail or telephone. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 05/08/2019)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00905_de22 AdministrativeID "21" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00905_de22 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-00905_de18 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00905_de22 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-00905_de19 @default.