Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge

chevron_right

Judge Gilbert welcomes the parties' consent to his jurisdiction so that he may preside over the entire case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), including ruling on dispositive motions and presiding over any trial whether bench or jury. Because Judge Gilbert does not try felony criminal cases, he generally is able to accommodate requests for firm trial dates in civil cases. Counsel are encouraged to discuss this option with their clients and opposing counsel in any case for which Judge Gilbert is the assigned Magistrate Judge. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b)(1), Judge Gilbert is informed only if all parties agree to proceed before him on consent.

If all parties agree, they should execute a written Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. The Court's Executive Committee then will reassign the case to Judge Gilbert for all purposes. All named parties or their legal representatives must execute the consent form.

Magistrate Judge Consent Form Judge Gilbert welcomes the parties' consent to his jurisdiction so that he may preside over the entire case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), including ruling on dispositive motions and presiding over any trial whether bench or jury. Because Judge Gilbert does not try felony criminal cases, he generally is able to accommodate requests for firm trial dates in civil cases. Counsel are encouraged to discuss this option with their clients and opposing counsel in any case for which Judge Gilbert is the assigned Magistrate Judge. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b)(1), Judge Gilbert is informed only if all parties agree to proceed before him on consent.

If all parties agree, they should execute a written Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. The Court's Executive Committee then will reassign the case to Judge Gilbert for all purposes. All named parties or their legal representatives must execute the consent form.

Magistrate Judge Consent Form

Standing Order for Initial Status Hearing

chevron_right

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Magistrate Judge Gilbert, an initial status hearing will be set by minute order. See the Court’s Standing Order for Initial Status Report for the information to be included in the parties’ written joint initial status report, not to exceed five (5) pages. The initial status report must be filed three (3) business days before the initial status hearing.

The Court will set discovery schedules, briefing schedules, and other deadlines and timetables at the initial status hearing as appropriate for each case. Accordingly, the lead trial counsel for each party, or an attorney with substantial familiarity and responsibility for the case, shall appear at the initial status hearing and be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case.

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Magistrate Judge Gilbert, an initial status hearing will be set by minute order. See the Court’s Standing Order for Initial Status Report for the information to be included in the parties’ written joint initial status report, not to exceed five (5) pages. The initial status report must be filed three (3) business days before the initial status hearing.

The Court will set discovery schedules, briefing schedules, and other deadlines and timetables at the initial status hearing as appropriate for each case. Accordingly, the lead trial counsel for each party, or an attorney with substantial familiarity and responsibility for the case, shall appear at the initial status hearing and be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case.

Standing Order for Settlement Conference

chevron_right

Judge Gilbert has adopted a Standing Order setting forth his settlement conference procedures. See Order Setting Settlement Conference. That Standing Order may be obtained from this website or from the courtroom deputy. Counsel and their clients must read and follow the procedures in that Standing Order prior to any settlement conference with the Court.

Standing Order for Settlement Conference

In preparation for the settlement conference, the parties should consider the Settlement Checklist/Term Sheet that Judge Gilbert may require the parties to complete at the conclusion of the settlement conference. This document covers the most common issues raised in finalizing a settlement agreement.

Judge Gilbert has adopted a Standing Order setting forth his settlement conference procedures. See Order Setting Settlement Conference. That Standing Order may be obtained from this website or from the courtroom deputy. Counsel and their clients must read and follow the procedures in that Standing Order prior to any settlement conference with the Court.

Standing Order for Settlement Conference

In preparation for the settlement conference, the parties should consider the Settlement Checklist/Term Sheet that Judge Gilbert may require the parties to complete at the conclusion of the settlement conference. This document covers the most common issues raised in finalizing a settlement agreement.

Submitting a Proposed Order, Agreed or Otherwise, for Electronic Entry by the Court

chevron_right

Proposed Orders generally should not to be "filed" unless a dispute exists concerning entry of the order. Rather, they are to be "submitted" to Judge Gilbert's Proposed Order electronic folder for signature and docketing as an attachment to the e-mail that is generated when the Proposed Order link is selected from this web page, Proposed_Order_Gilbert@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The subject line of the e-mail must include the case number and name, the docket number of the corresponding motion, if any, and the title of the order that is proposed. All such documents must be submitted either in Word or WordPerfect formats. Such proposed orders must also be served on all other parties to the case such as by copying the e-mail submission to all parties of record.

Discovery Motions

chevron_right

The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motions unless the parties have complied with the meet and confer requirement under Local Rule 37.2. Any discovery motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2.

Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes and, other than in exceptional circumstances, requires communication that takes place face to face or by telephone. The Court prefers a face to face meeting, and the mere exchange of correspondence normally will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. The Court considers failure to seriously engage in the meet and confer process to be grounds for denial of the motion.

All parties must be fully prepared to argue any discovery motion on the date it is noticed for presentment. The Court often will decide discovery motions after oral argument and without briefing. If the Court wants briefing on the motion, it normally will set a briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly. If an opposing party wants to file a written response to a discovery motion, counsel should communicate that request to the courtroom deputy. If Judge Gilbert thinks a response is necessary, the presentment date may be stricken and another hearing date will be set as appropriate or the Court will rule on the papers submitted via the CM/ECF system.

Magistrate Judge Gilbert has had some success with an alternative procedure if a discovery dispute must be briefed. The parties file a joint motion to resolve discovery dispute. The joint motion must set out each issue in a separate section and include in that section each party’s position (with appropriate legal authority) and proposed compromise. This process allows a side-by-side analysis of each disputed issue. If the disagreement concerns specific discovery that a party has propounded, such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or answers or objections to such discovery, the parties must reproduce the question/request and the response in its entirety in that section. The entire disputed discovery responses should be attached as an exhibit to the motion. Although it may take a little more time on the front end to prepare a joint motion, it streamlines the process and tends to expedite resolution of the dispute overall. Neither party waives the ability to seek fees or costs with the joint motion process.

The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motions unless the parties have complied with the meet and confer requirement under Local Rule 37.2. Any discovery motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2.

Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes and, other than in exceptional circumstances, requires communication that takes place face to face or by telephone. The Court prefers a face to face meeting, and the mere exchange of correspondence normally will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. The Court considers failure to seriously engage in the meet and confer process to be grounds for denial of the motion.

All parties must be fully prepared to argue any discovery motion on the date it is noticed for presentment. The Court often will decide discovery motions after oral argument and without briefing. If the Court wants briefing on the motion, it normally will set a briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly. If an opposing party wants to file a written response to a discovery motion, counsel should communicate that request to the courtroom deputy. If Judge Gilbert thinks a response is necessary, the presentment date may be stricken and another hearing date will be set as appropriate or the Court will rule on the papers submitted via the CM/ECF system.

Magistrate Judge Gilbert has had some success with an alternative procedure if a discovery dispute must be briefed. The parties file a joint motion to resolve discovery dispute. The joint motion must set out each issue in a separate section and include in that section each party’s position (with appropriate legal authority) and proposed compromise. This process allows a side-by-side analysis of each disputed issue. If the disagreement concerns specific discovery that a party has propounded, such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or answers or objections to such discovery, the parties must reproduce the question/request and the response in its entirety in that section. The entire disputed discovery responses should be attached as an exhibit to the motion. Although it may take a little more time on the front end to prepare a joint motion, it streamlines the process and tends to expedite resolution of the dispute overall. Neither party waives the ability to seek fees or costs with the joint motion process.

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information

chevron_right

Click here to view the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information document. Click here to view the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information document.

Emergency Motions

chevron_right

The Court will dispense with its three-day notice requirement only in connection with emergency motions. To qualify as an "emergency," a motion must arise from an unforeseen circumstance that arises suddenly and unexpectedly and requires immediate action in order to avoid serious or irreparable harm to one or more of the parties. Motions for extension of time for filing, or for continuances of deadlines or other dates previously set by the Court, are highly unlikely to qualify as "emergencies." In the event a party seeks to present an emergency motion, that party must inform the courtroom deputy prior to filing the motion of the general nature of the motion and the reason that it requires emergency treatment, so that it can be determined if emergency treatment is appropriate. A party seeking to present an emergency motion must make all reasonable efforts to provide the opposing party with actual notice of the motion. The Court will dispense with its three-day notice requirement only in connection with emergency motions. To qualify as an "emergency," a motion must arise from an unforeseen circumstance that arises suddenly and unexpectedly and requires immediate action in order to avoid serious or irreparable harm to one or more of the parties. Motions for extension of time for filing, or for continuances of deadlines or other dates previously set by the Court, are highly unlikely to qualify as "emergencies." In the event a party seeks to present an emergency motion, that party must inform the courtroom deputy prior to filing the motion of the general nature of the motion and the reason that it requires emergency treatment, so that it can be determined if emergency treatment is appropriate. A party seeking to present an emergency motion must make all reasonable efforts to provide the opposing party with actual notice of the motion.

Confidentiality Orders

chevron_right

Confidentiality Orders

A. Confidentiality Agreements Among the Parties (No Court Order Required)

The parties properly may agree among themselves to limit disclosure of unfiled discovery information to certain specified persons during the litigation and not to voluntarily disseminate such information to other persons. A confidentiality agreement among the parties regarding the categories of information they seek to protect from dissemination to persons not involved in the lawsuit likely will address most of the parties’ confidentiality concerns because only a small subset of all discovery is ever filed in the public court record or used during a court proceeding. There is no need for court approval or intervention if the parties enter into such an agreement. See Frupac Intern. Corp. v. M/V "CHUCABUCO", 1994 WL 269271 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 1994).

B. Confidentiality Order Entered by the Court

To the extent that the parties request that the Court sign and enter a protective order, they are encouraged to use the model confidentiality order adopted in this District as Form LR 26.2. To the extent the parties submit a confidentiality order that differs from the Court’s Model Confidentiality Order, they shall submit an original and red-lined version to Magistrate Judge Gilbert’s Proposed Order electronic filing box (see submitting a Proposed Order). Any protective order submitted to the Court for approval must, at a minimum, contain the following:

a carefully-drafted definition of materials to be protected, that is consistent with the Seventh Circuit's description of what is protectable (e.g., "trade secrets," "medical information," "personal identity information");

a statement that the designation of material as confidential reflects a good faith determination by counsel (not by the client) that the material falls within the definition of confidential materials under the protective order;

an explicit statement of the right of a party or interested member of the public to challenge the confidential designation of particular documents that have been filed under seal, with the party asserting confidentiality having the burden of demonstrating the propriety of that designation;

a listing of the persons who may have access to materials designated as confidential;

a procedure for the use of confidential documents at depositions;

a statement that the protective order does not, by itself, authorize the filing of any document under seal. Any party wishing to file a document under seal must file a motion seeking leave of court to do so.

a statement providing that the order shall not be construed to govern or affect the admissibility or use of any confidential material at trial or hearing in open court, with any requests for confidentiality or sealing of any hearing or trial to be made to the judge presiding over that proceeding.

The Court will review proposed orders carefully before signing them. The Court’s issuance of the protective order will constitute the determination, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), that good cause exists for the issuance of the order. However, issuance of any protective order will not be given preclusive effect as a determination of good cause for Rule 26(c) purposes if, at a future time, a party or an interested member of the public moves for relief from the limitations of the protective order. In the event of such a motion, the Court will engage in an appropriate assessment of the interest between privacy and public access to make a determination of good cause as to the challenged document(s) in light of the facts then before the Court. See Jepsen, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 859 (7th Cir. 1994).

C. Filing Material Under Seal

Under Local Rule 26.2, no documents may be filed under seal without a prior order of the Court specifying the particular document to be filed. As an alternative to filing under seal, LR 26.2 allows individual judges, at their discretion, to order parties to retain copies of confidential documents in lieu of filing them with the Clerk of Court, to file a redacted copy with the Clerk of Court, and to provide the judge with a complete copy for in camera use. In referral cases, Judge Gilbert will enforce the practice of the referring district judge. In consent cases, Judge Gilbert will consider using the alternative option permitted by LR 26.2 in appropriate cases.

If documents are to be filed under seal, the Motion to File Under Seal must demonstrate good cause by including a specific description of each document or categories of documents that the party seeks to file under seal and explaining why confidentiality is necessary, including citations to supporting authority. The motion shall also discuss the relevance of the information to the litigation. Information important to the litigation is less likely to be subject to confidentiality restrictions. See Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating "very few categories of documents are kept confidential once their bearing on the merits of a suit has been revealed."); Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that an executive’s salary would not be entitled to confidential treatment "if a dispute erupted about payment (or termination).")

The Court generally will not approve the filing of entire pleadings or briefs under seal. See Pepsico, Inc.v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995) and In the Matter of Grand Jury, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992). Parties must file public pleadings and briefs but may file sealed supplements if necessary to discuss in detail confidential materials, if the Court approves the filing of a sealed supplement.

D. Use of Medical Records in Litigation

The Court reminds counsel that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and its regulations create a procedure for obtaining authority to use medical records in litigation, including requesting a qualified protective order. 45 C.F. R. § 164.512(e). A "qualified protective order" means an order that: (1) prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation for which such information was requested and (2) requires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v).

Example of a HIPAA Protective Order

Confidentiality Orders

A. Confidentiality Agreements Among the Parties (No Court Order Required)

The parties properly may agree among themselves to limit disclosure of unfiled discovery information to certain specified persons during the litigation and not to voluntarily disseminate such information to other persons. A confidentiality agreement among the parties regarding the categories of information they seek to protect from dissemination to persons not involved in the lawsuit likely will address most of the parties’ confidentiality concerns because only a small subset of all discovery is ever filed in the public court record or used during a court proceeding. There is no need for court approval or intervention if the parties enter into such an agreement. See Frupac Intern. Corp. v. M/V "CHUCABUCO", 1994 WL 269271 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 1994).

B. Confidentiality Order Entered by the Court

To the extent that the parties request that the Court sign and enter a protective order, they are encouraged to use the model confidentiality order adopted in this District as Form LR 26.2. To the extent the parties submit a confidentiality order that differs from the Court’s Model Confidentiality Order, they shall submit an original and red-lined version to Magistrate Judge Gilbert’s Proposed Order electronic filing box (see submitting a Proposed Order). Any protective order submitted to the Court for approval must, at a minimum, contain the following:

a carefully-drafted definition of materials to be protected, that is consistent with the Seventh Circuit's description of what is protectable (e.g., "trade secrets," "medical information," "personal identity information");

a statement that the designation of material as confidential reflects a good faith determination by counsel (not by the client) that the material falls within the definition of confidential materials under the protective order;

an explicit statement of the right of a party or interested member of the public to challenge the confidential designation of particular documents that have been filed under seal, with the party asserting confidentiality having the burden of demonstrating the propriety of that designation;

a listing of the persons who may have access to materials designated as confidential;

a procedure for the use of confidential documents at depositions;

a statement that the protective order does not, by itself, authorize the filing of any document under seal. Any party wishing to file a document under seal must file a motion seeking leave of court to do so.

a statement providing that the order shall not be construed to govern or affect the admissibility or use of any confidential material at trial or hearing in open court, with any requests for confidentiality or sealing of any hearing or trial to be made to the judge presiding over that proceeding.

The Court will review proposed orders carefully before signing them. The Court’s issuance of the protective order will constitute the determination, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), that good cause exists for the issuance of the order. However, issuance of any protective order will not be given preclusive effect as a determination of good cause for Rule 26(c) purposes if, at a future time, a party or an interested member of the public moves for relief from the limitations of the protective order. In the event of such a motion, the Court will engage in an appropriate assessment of the interest between privacy and public access to make a determination of good cause as to the challenged document(s) in light of the facts then before the Court. See Jepsen, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 859 (7th Cir. 1994).

C. Filing Material Under Seal

Under Local Rule 26.2, no documents may be filed under seal without a prior order of the Court specifying the particular document to be filed. As an alternative to filing under seal, LR 26.2 allows individual judges, at their discretion, to order parties to retain copies of confidential documents in lieu of filing them with the Clerk of Court, to file a redacted copy with the Clerk of Court, and to provide the judge with a complete copy for in camera use. In referral cases, Judge Gilbert will enforce the practice of the referring district judge. In consent cases, Judge Gilbert will consider using the alternative option permitted by LR 26.2 in appropriate cases.

If documents are to be filed under seal, the Motion to File Under Seal must demonstrate good cause by including a specific description of each document or categories of documents that the party seeks to file under seal and explaining why confidentiality is necessary, including citations to supporting authority. The motion shall also discuss the relevance of the information to the litigation. Information important to the litigation is less likely to be subject to confidentiality restrictions. See Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating "very few categories of documents are kept confidential once their bearing on the merits of a suit has been revealed."); Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that an executive’s salary would not be entitled to confidential treatment "if a dispute erupted about payment (or termination).")

The Court generally will not approve the filing of entire pleadings or briefs under seal. See Pepsico, Inc.v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995) and In the Matter of Grand Jury, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992). Parties must file public pleadings and briefs but may file sealed supplements if necessary to discuss in detail confidential materials, if the Court approves the filing of a sealed supplement.

D. Use of Medical Records in Litigation

The Court reminds counsel that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and its regulations create a procedure for obtaining authority to use medical records in litigation, including requesting a qualified protective order. 45 C.F. R. § 164.512(e). A "qualified protective order" means an order that: (1) prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation for which such information was requested and (2) requires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v).

Example of a HIPAA Protective Order

Privilege Logs

chevron_right

In the event that a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege, the withholding party generally must provide a log of the documents withheld on the ground of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and Advisory Committee Comments to 1993 Amendments. Any privilege log must be detailed enough to enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege asserted and should include: (1) the name and capacity of each individual from whom or to whom a document and any attachments were sent (including which persons are lawyers); (2) the date of the document and any attachments; (3) the type of document; (4) the Bates numbers of the documents, (5) the nature of the privilege asserted; and (6) a description of the subject matter of the information contained in the document in sufficient detail to determine if legal advice was sought or received or if the document constitutes attorney work product. See Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 84, 88 (N.D. Ill. 1992).

The Court reminds the parties that the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 37.2 apply to privilege disputes, just as they do to other discovery disputes.

In the event that a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege, the withholding party generally must provide a log of the documents withheld on the ground of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and Advisory Committee Comments to 1993 Amendments. Any privilege log must be detailed enough to enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege asserted and should include: (1) the name and capacity of each individual from whom or to whom a document and any attachments were sent (including which persons are lawyers); (2) the date of the document and any attachments; (3) the type of document; (4) the Bates numbers of the documents, (5) the nature of the privilege asserted; and (6) a description of the subject matter of the information contained in the document in sufficient detail to determine if legal advice was sought or received or if the document constitutes attorney work product. See Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 84, 88 (N.D. Ill. 1992).

The Court reminds the parties that the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 37.2 apply to privilege disputes, just as they do to other discovery disputes.

Motions for Summary Judgment

chevron_right

The Court requires strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1 in the briefing of all summary judgment motions. In addition, to assist the Court in reviewing the factual record submitted in connection with summary judgment motions, the Court requires that courtesy copies of the motion and memorandum of law, depositions and other materials relied upon in support of the motion as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(1)-(3) or in opposition to the motion as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)-(3) must be delivered to chambers by noon the day after filing on CM/ECF. The courtesy copy of the compendium must be securely bound, must separately tab each document, and must contain an index identifying what document is contained under each tab. All statements of undisputed material facts offered by the moving party under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3), or statements of additional facts offered by the responding party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3), must list the facts in short, numbered paragraphs that refrain from argument. Argument must be reserved for the moving party’s memorandum of law. Each numbered fact statement must contain a specific citation to affidavits, depositions or other materials that support the fact statement, as well as to the tab(s) in the compendium where those materials may be found. Failure to provide support for a statement of fact may result in that alleged "fact" being disregarded.

All responses to statements of undisputed material facts offered by the responding party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3), or responses to statements of additional facts offered by the moving party under Local Rule 56.1(a), shall be in a format similar to that used in answering a complaint. That is, the response must repeat each numbered paragraph of the fact statement, and then immediately following each numbered statement must state whether the alleged fact is "undisputed" or "disputed." As with the fact statements submitted under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and 56.1(b)(3), the responses to those fact statements must refrain from argument. The significance or lack of significance of a disputed or undisputed fact may be argued in the respondent’s legal memorandum. If a particular fact is "undisputed," nothing more should be said in the response. If a particular fact assertion is "disputed" in whole or in part, the response must state what part of the assertion is disputed and must contain a specific citation to the supporting affidavits, depositions or other materials as well as to the tab(s) in the compendium where those materials may be found. Failure to provide support for an alleged fact dispute may result in that fact being deemed admitted.

In accord with Local Rule 56.1, absent prior leave of Court, a movant shall not file more than 80 separately numbered statements of undisputed material fact, and a party responding to a summary judgment motion shall not file more than 40 separately numbered statements of additional facts under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B). The Court reminds parties that the fact statements under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) “shall consist of short numbered paragraphs.” The Court requires strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1 in the briefing of all summary judgment motions. In addition, to assist the Court in reviewing the factual record submitted in connection with summary judgment motions, the Court requires that courtesy copies of the motion and memorandum of law, depositions and other materials relied upon in support of the motion as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(1)-(3) or in opposition to the motion as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)-(3) must be delivered to chambers by noon the day after filing on CM/ECF. The courtesy copy of the compendium must be securely bound, must separately tab each document, and must contain an index identifying what document is contained under each tab. All statements of undisputed material facts offered by the moving party under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3), or statements of additional facts offered by the responding party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3), must list the facts in short, numbered paragraphs that refrain from argument. Argument must be reserved for the moving party’s memorandum of law. Each numbered fact statement must contain a specific citation to affidavits, depositions or other materials that support the fact statement, as well as to the tab(s) in the compendium where those materials may be found. Failure to provide support for a statement of fact may result in that alleged "fact" being disregarded.

All responses to statements of undisputed material facts offered by the responding party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3), or responses to statements of additional facts offered by the moving party under Local Rule 56.1(a), shall be in a format similar to that used in answering a complaint. That is, the response must repeat each numbered paragraph of the fact statement, and then immediately following each numbered statement must state whether the alleged fact is "undisputed" or "disputed." As with the fact statements submitted under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and 56.1(b)(3), the responses to those fact statements must refrain from argument. The significance or lack of significance of a disputed or undisputed fact may be argued in the respondent’s legal memorandum. If a particular fact is "undisputed," nothing more should be said in the response. If a particular fact assertion is "disputed" in whole or in part, the response must state what part of the assertion is disputed and must contain a specific citation to the supporting affidavits, depositions or other materials as well as to the tab(s) in the compendium where those materials may be found. Failure to provide support for an alleged fact dispute may result in that fact being deemed admitted.

In accord with Local Rule 56.1, absent prior leave of Court, a movant shall not file more than 80 separately numbered statements of undisputed material fact, and a party responding to a summary judgment motion shall not file more than 40 separately numbered statements of additional facts under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B). The Court reminds parties that the fact statements under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) “shall consist of short numbered paragraphs.”

Trials

chevron_right

Case No.	Name	Time	Type
1:23-cv-15220	Aguilar Villa v. Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling Co	09:30AM	Telephone Conference
1:20-cv-05321	Campbell v. Marshall International, LLC	09:45AM	Telephone Conference
1:23-cv-02362	Kuljanin v. Transportation One LLC	10:00AM	Telephone Conference
1:18-cv-07143	Dorsey v. Okezie et al	10:15AM	Telephone Conference
1:24-cv-00219	Zelus Material Handling, Inc. v. Whiting Corporation	10:30AM	In Court Hearing
1:23-cv-15221	Doe v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, The	10:45AM	Telephone Conference
1:24-cv-01170	Morales v. Classic Moldings Co.	10:45AM	Telephone Conference
1:18-cv-03780	Copeland v. Johnson	11:00AM	Telephone Conference
1:24-cr-00220	USA v. Young	02:15PM	Arraignment
1:23-cv-14294	Ramirez v. Balif Remodeling, LLC	02:45PM	Telephone Conference

Case No.	Name	Time	Type
1:23-cv-03510	Zhang v. Bank of China (Chicago Branch)	09:30AM	Telephone Conference
1:23-cv-16180	Simpson v. Nestle USA, Inc.	09:45AM	Telephone Conference
1:23-cv-16925	Trustees of the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Co v. Zarifian Enterprises, LLC	10:00AM	Status Hearing
1:10-cv-08321	Southport Bank v. Miles	10:15AM	In Court Hearing
1:18-cv-06068	Vargas v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.	10:30AM	Telephone Conference
1:24-cv-00749	IFS North America, Inc. v. EMCOR Facilities Services, Inc.	10:30AM	Telephone Conference
1:24-cr-00110	USA v. Mendoza	01:30PM	Arraignment
1:24-cr-00110	USA v. Zamora-Carachuri	01:30PM	Arraignment
1:24-cr-00110	USA v. Zamora-Mosso	01:30PM	Arraignment
1:19-cv-07190	Craigville Telephone Co. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.	02:15PM	Motion Hearing

Motion Type	Day	Time
Civ. & Crim.	Tu, Thu	9:15 a.m.
Status Hearing	Tu, Th	10:00 a.m.
Arraignments	Tu, Th	1:30 p.m.