The Court will set all newly-filed and reassigned cases for an initial status hearing approximately 60 days after the filing of the complaint. The initial status hearing will be the scheduling conference as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(b). See also Local Rule 16.1. The parties must meet and conduct a planning conference as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). If the defendant(s) have not been served by the initial status date, counsel for plaintiff is to contact the Courtroom Deputy to reschedule the status hearing and the date for filing an initial status report. If plaintiff is seeking a default, no status report is required.

The parties must file a Joint Initial Status Report, not to exceed seven single-spaced pages, at least seven days before the initial status hearing. If defense counsel has not yet filed an appearance, plaintiff's counsel should prepare the status report. The Joint Initial Status Report shall follow the format in this link.

The purpose of the initial status report is to inform the Court of the main issues in the case in order to have a productive discussion at the initial status conference regarding deadlines to be set for the parties.

Every case has an assigned Magistrate Judge, and in civil cases the parties may consent to have the assigned Magistrate Judge try the case. In many cases, consent to refer the entire case to the Magistrate Judge may offer significant efficiencies and greater certainty in scheduling the trial. All counsel in civil cases should inform their clients of this option and discuss it with opposing counsel. The Court strongly encourages counsel to inform their clients of this option, and to discuss it with opposing counsel. Click here for the Form.

The Court will set all newly-filed and reassigned cases for an initial status hearing approximately 60 days after the filing of the complaint. The initial status hearing will be the scheduling conference as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(b). See also Local Rule 16.1. The parties must meet and conduct a planning conference as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). If the defendant(s) have not been served by the initial status date, counsel for plaintiff is to contact the Courtroom Deputy to reschedule the status hearing and the date for filing an initial status report. If plaintiff is seeking a default, no status report is required.

The parties must file a Joint Initial Status Report, not to exceed seven single-spaced pages, at least seven days before the initial status hearing. If defense counsel has not yet filed an appearance, plaintiff's counsel should prepare the status report. The Joint Initial Status Report shall follow the format in this link.

The purpose of the initial status report is to inform the Court of the main issues in the case in order to have a productive discussion at the initial status conference regarding deadlines to be set for the parties.

Every case has an assigned Magistrate Judge, and in civil cases the parties may consent to have the assigned Magistrate Judge try the case. In many cases, consent to refer the entire case to the Magistrate Judge may offer significant efficiencies and greater certainty in scheduling the trial. All counsel in civil cases should inform their clients of this option and discuss it with opposing counsel. The Court strongly encourages counsel to inform their clients of this option, and to discuss it with opposing counsel. Click here for the Form.

The Initial Status Report for Reassigned Cases shall follow the format in this link.

The Initial Status Report for Reassigned Cases shall follow the format in this link.

When filing an amended complaint, a plaintiff must file a redline as an attachment, so that all changes are readily apparent to the parties and the Court. This rule does not apply to pro se litigants.

When filing an amended complaint, a plaintiff must file a redline as an attachment, so that all changes are readily apparent to the parties and the Court. This rule does not apply to pro se litigants.

Generally, the Court does not accept courtesy copies. Please do not prepare them and do not try to deliver them. If a courtesy copy is needed, the Court will contact counsel to request one. If the Court requests courtesy copies, please deliver those copies to the drop-box outside the Courtroom Deputy’s office. Please do not bring courtesy copies to Chambers. A delivery signature will not be available. Courtesy copies need not be delivered in an envelope unless the pleading contains under seal material.

If the Court requests courtesy copies, those copies should (a) always be printed from ECF after electronic filing so that the copies include the ECF header; (b) always be printed double sided (on both sides of the paper) whenever possible; and (c) if in excess of 50 pages, should be spiral bound on the side, and any exhibits should be tabbed.

Generally, the Court does not accept courtesy copies. Please do not prepare them and do not try to deliver them. If a courtesy copy is needed, the Court will contact counsel to request one. If the Court requests courtesy copies, please deliver those copies to the drop-box outside the Courtroom Deputy’s office. Please do not bring courtesy copies to Chambers. A delivery signature will not be available. Courtesy copies need not be delivered in an envelope unless the pleading contains under seal material.

If the Court requests courtesy copies, those copies should (a) always be printed from ECF after electronic filing so that the copies include the ECF header; (b) always be printed double sided (on both sides of the paper) whenever possible; and (c) if in excess of 50 pages, should be spiral bound on the side, and any exhibits should be tabbed.

There is a presumption that the public will have access to all court filings.

Parties requesting entry of an order to preserve the confidentiality of materials disclosed in discovery must base the proposed order on the Model Confidentiality Order contained in the Local Rules (Form LR26.2), found here. The Model Confidentiality Order provides that parties should include or delete language in brackets as necessary to the specific case. Any other proposed changes to this model order must be shown in redlined format that reflects both deletions and additions to the model text. For proposed substantive changes, counsel and parties are encouraged to include comments explaining why the changes are sought.

Counsel shall file a motion for entry of the proposed confidentiality order and attach as an exhibit both a redlined proposed order and a clean proposed order. Counsel shall separately email both exhibits to (Proposed_Order_Jenkins@ilnd.uscourts.gov) in Microsoft Word. The subject line of the email must include (1) the case name; (2) the case number; (3) the docket number of the corresponding motion; and (4) the title of the order that is proposed as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Counsel must serve a copy of a proposed order on all other parties by copying them on the email to the Court.

The Court will not enter a proposed confidentiality order suggesting that material a party has designated as “confidential” may, for that reason alone, be filed under seal. Any confidentiality order that contemplates under-seal filing must provide that no documents may be filed under seal absent a motion showing good cause for sealing a portion of the record. A party’s mere designation of information as “confidential” is insufficient to permit filing under seal. A party seeking to file material under seal must instead set forth in its motion the reasons why the record should be sealed. When a party wishes to file a document on the public docket that another party has marked confidential, the parties must meet and confer to determine who is the appropriate party to file any motion to seal.

If the Court permits a portion of a document to be filed under seal, the party filing the document must also file a redacted public-record version that includes the entire document except for the portions filed under seal.

The issuance of a protective order in light of this Standing Order will constitute the Court’s determination, as required by Rule 26(c), that good cause existed for the issuance of a protective order.

There is a presumption that the public will have access to all court filings.

Parties requesting entry of an order to preserve the confidentiality of materials disclosed in discovery must base the proposed order on the Model Confidentiality Order contained in the Local Rules (Form LR26.2), found here. The Model Confidentiality Order provides that parties should include or delete language in brackets as necessary to the specific case. Any other proposed changes to this model order must be shown in redlined format that reflects both deletions and additions to the model text. For proposed substantive changes, counsel and parties are encouraged to include comments explaining why the changes are sought.

Counsel shall file a motion for entry of the proposed confidentiality order and attach as an exhibit both a redlined proposed order and a clean proposed order. Counsel shall separately email both exhibits to (Proposed_Order_Jenkins@ilnd.uscourts.gov) in Microsoft Word. The subject line of the email must include (1) the case name; (2) the case number; (3) the docket number of the corresponding motion; and (4) the title of the order that is proposed as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Counsel must serve a copy of a proposed order on all other parties by copying them on the email to the Court.

The Court will not enter a proposed confidentiality order suggesting that material a party has designated as “confidential” may, for that reason alone, be filed under seal. Any confidentiality order that contemplates under-seal filing must provide that no documents may be filed under seal absent a motion showing good cause for sealing a portion of the record. A party’s mere designation of information as “confidential” is insufficient to permit filing under seal. A party seeking to file material under seal must instead set forth in its motion the reasons why the record should be sealed. When a party wishes to file a document on the public docket that another party has marked confidential, the parties must meet and confer to determine who is the appropriate party to file any motion to seal.

If the Court permits a portion of a document to be filed under seal, the party filing the document must also file a redacted public-record version that includes the entire document except for the portions filed under seal.

The issuance of a protective order in light of this Standing Order will constitute the Court’s determination, as required by Rule 26(c), that good cause existed for the issuance of a protective order.

All audio and video exhibits should be filed electronically in accordance with the Clerk’s Office’s process for Digital Media Exhibit Submission, which can be found here. No CDs or USB drives should be sent to chambers unless expressly requested by the Court.

All audio and video exhibits should be filed electronically in accordance with the Clerk’s Office’s process for Digital Media Exhibit Submission, which can be found here. No CDs or USB drives should be sent to chambers unless expressly requested by the Court.

Emergency matters must be of such a nature that a delay in hearing them would cause serious harm to one or more of the parties. Requests to set a hearing on an emergency motion shall be made to the courtroom deputy with as much advance notice as possible. All reasonable efforts must be made to give actual notice to opposing counsel.

Emergency matters must be of such a nature that a delay in hearing them would cause serious harm to one or more of the parties. Requests to set a hearing on an emergency motion shall be made to the courtroom deputy with as much advance notice as possible. All reasonable efforts must be made to give actual notice to opposing counsel.

Motions should not be noticed for presentment in accordance with Local Rule 5.3(b). Instead, counsel must confer prior to the filing of all motions and include an agreed briefing schedule with the motion if at all possible. If agreement cannot be reached, the parties should indicate their positions on scheduling in a joint submission filed with the motion. The Court will review the motion and any joint submission to determine the appropriate briefing schedule and whether a hearing is necessary. If the Court determines a hearing is necessary, it will be scheduled by chambers. The Court will adopt reasonable briefing schedules agreed to by the parties; Court-imposed briefing schedules may be more accelerated than the parties would have proposed.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, briefs in support of or opposition to a motion should be no more than 15 pages, and reply briefs should be no more than 10. For dispositive motions, response and reply briefs are always permitted. For other types of motions, the Court will set dates for response or reply briefs if necessary. Parties may move for leave to file briefs that the Court has not requested, but motions will typically be granted only if there is an unforeseen point raised in an opposing brief.

Requirements

Before filing a motion, the movant’s counsel must ask opposing counsel whether there is an objection to the motion. If there is an objection, movant must note that fact in the body of the motion. Joint, uncontested, and agreed motions should be so identified in both the title and the body of the motion. Many of those motions will be granted without appearance. Motions for extension of time shall indicate: (i) the reason for the request, and (ii) the number of previous extensions. Discovery cutoff dates generally will not be reset except by written motion. Trial dates are firm and will not be reset except in exceptional circumstances that were unforeseeable at the time the trial date was set.

Citations

If counsel cites to an unpublished opinion, the Court strongly prefers citations to Westlaw. It is not necessary to attach copies of unpublished opinions if they are available on Westlaw. Please attach copies of any cited authorities that are not available on Westlaw. To the extent possible, briefs and other filings (such as Local Rule 56.1 statements of fact) should cite exhibits by the ECF docket number and page, not exhibit number.

Searchable Text

All electronically filed documents shall be made word searchable before being filed on ECF. For any filing of any kind (including exhibits in support of a motion or any Local Rule 56.1 Statement), counsel must run an OCR conversion on it before uploading it onto CM/ECF. To do this in Adobe, go to Tools, Text Recognition, In This File, and select All Pages. If you see the message, “Acrobat could not perform recognition (OCR) on this page because this page contains renderable text,” click “Ignore future errors in this document,” and click OK. Counsel must convert any word-processed document into a .pdf document by printing or publishing to .pdf, rather than manually scanning a paper copy into .pdf.

Document Format

The parties are reminded that the Local Rules concerning page limits, font size, line spacing, and margins for filed documents are not mere suggestions. See Local Rule 5.2. Footnotes are to be used sparingly and only when necessary; footnotes may never be employed as an artifice designed to squeeze more words under the page limit. The Court may strike any filing that does not comply with these requirements.

Supplemental Authority

Parties wishing to file supplemental authority should file a motion seeking leave to do so.

Motions should not be noticed for presentment in accordance with Local Rule 5.3(b). Instead, counsel must confer prior to the filing of all motions and include an agreed briefing schedule with the motion if at all possible. If agreement cannot be reached, the parties should indicate their positions on scheduling in a joint submission filed with the motion. The Court will review the motion and any joint submission to determine the appropriate briefing schedule and whether a hearing is necessary. If the Court determines a hearing is necessary, it will be scheduled by chambers. The Court will adopt reasonable briefing schedules agreed to by the parties; Court-imposed briefing schedules may be more accelerated than the parties would have proposed.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, briefs in support of or opposition to a motion should be no more than 15 pages, and reply briefs should be no more than 10. For dispositive motions, response and reply briefs are always permitted. For other types of motions, the Court will set dates for response or reply briefs if necessary. Parties may move for leave to file briefs that the Court has not requested, but motions will typically be granted only if there is an unforeseen point raised in an opposing brief.

Requirements

Before filing a motion, the movant’s counsel must ask opposing counsel whether there is an objection to the motion. If there is an objection, movant must note that fact in the body of the motion. Joint, uncontested, and agreed motions should be so identified in both the title and the body of the motion. Many of those motions will be granted without appearance. Motions for extension of time shall indicate: (i) the reason for the request, and (ii) the number of previous extensions. Discovery cutoff dates generally will not be reset except by written motion. Trial dates are firm and will not be reset except in exceptional circumstances that were unforeseeable at the time the trial date was set.

Citations

If counsel cites to an unpublished opinion, the Court strongly prefers citations to Westlaw. It is not necessary to attach copies of unpublished opinions if they are available on Westlaw. Please attach copies of any cited authorities that are not available on Westlaw. To the extent possible, briefs and other filings (such as Local Rule 56.1 statements of fact) should cite exhibits by the ECF docket number and page, not exhibit number.

Searchable Text

All electronically filed documents shall be made word searchable before being filed on ECF. For any filing of any kind (including exhibits in support of a motion or any Local Rule 56.1 Statement), counsel must run an OCR conversion on it before uploading it onto CM/ECF. To do this in Adobe, go to Tools, Text Recognition, In This File, and select All Pages. If you see the message, “Acrobat could not perform recognition (OCR) on this page because this page contains renderable text,” click “Ignore future errors in this document,” and click OK. Counsel must convert any word-processed document into a .pdf document by printing or publishing to .pdf, rather than manually scanning a paper copy into .pdf.

Document Format

The parties are reminded that the Local Rules concerning page limits, font size, line spacing, and margins for filed documents are not mere suggestions. See Local Rule 5.2. Footnotes are to be used sparingly and only when necessary; footnotes may never be employed as an artifice designed to squeeze more words under the page limit. The Court may strike any filing that does not comply with these requirements.

Supplemental Authority

Parties wishing to file supplemental authority should file a motion seeking leave to do so.

This Court advises the parties that when a motion to dismiss is filed, the nonmoving party has a right to amend its pleading once within 21 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Consistent with the purpose of the Federal Rules “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the nonmoving party is directed to review the motion to dismiss and to consider exercising, as appropriate, its right to amend under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). If the nonmoving party elects to amend its pleading in response to the motion to dismiss, then the moving party (unless otherwise ordered) must, within 21 days of the amended pleading, file either an answer or a renewed motion to dismiss.

If the nonmoving party elects not to amend but instead chooses to litigate the motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party (unless agreed or ordered otherwise) must file its response within 21 days of the filing of the motion, and the moving party must file its reply within 10 days of the filing of the response. In its response, the nonmoving party must also address whether any deficiencies identified by the motion to dismiss are curable by amendment.

Following these steps, the Court will take the motion under advisement and will rule in due course following any oral argument that the Court may in its discretion require. If the parties litigate the motion to dismiss and the moving party prevails, the nonmoving party is advised that the Court may dismiss the case with prejudice under the appropriate legal standards.

This Court advises the parties that when a motion to dismiss is filed, the nonmoving party has a right to amend its pleading once within 21 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Consistent with the purpose of the Federal Rules “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the nonmoving party is directed to review the motion to dismiss and to consider exercising, as appropriate, its right to amend under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). If the nonmoving party elects to amend its pleading in response to the motion to dismiss, then the moving party (unless otherwise ordered) must, within 21 days of the amended pleading, file either an answer or a renewed motion to dismiss.

If the nonmoving party elects not to amend but instead chooses to litigate the motion to dismiss, the nonmoving party (unless agreed or ordered otherwise) must file its response within 21 days of the filing of the motion, and the moving party must file its reply within 10 days of the filing of the response. In its response, the nonmoving party must also address whether any deficiencies identified by the motion to dismiss are curable by amendment.

Following these steps, the Court will take the motion under advisement and will rule in due course following any oral argument that the Court may in its discretion require. If the parties litigate the motion to dismiss and the moving party prevails, the nonmoving party is advised that the Court may dismiss the case with prejudice under the appropriate legal standards.

Motions to strike filings are disfavored. See generally Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. Forest River, Inc. , 464 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2006). Such motions most often serve primarily as vehicles for parties to expand the page limits for memoranda in support of their motions. Motions to strike filings almost always require the Court to decide significant issues (and, indeed, the underlying motion) on the merits and multiply the briefs (because the other side should be allowed to respond). Id. at 727.

The Court is capable of discerning if a reply brief raises a new argument, or if a litigant has failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 56.1 (governing summary judgment). Such errors do not require supplemental motion practice.

If a party believes that the other side's brief contains inaccurate facts or that the other side’s Local Rule 56.1 statement contains an unsupported assertion, then the complaining party should make that argument in the response or reply brief, or in the responsive 56.1 statement.

Motions to strike that are not within the limited boundaries established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) may be summarily denied.

Motions to strike filings are disfavored. See generally Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. Forest River, Inc. , 464 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2006). Such motions most often serve primarily as vehicles for parties to expand the page limits for memoranda in support of their motions. Motions to strike filings almost always require the Court to decide significant issues (and, indeed, the underlying motion) on the merits and multiply the briefs (because the other side should be allowed to respond). Id. at 727.

The Court is capable of discerning if a reply brief raises a new argument, or if a litigant has failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 56.1 (governing summary judgment). Such errors do not require supplemental motion practice.

If a party believes that the other side's brief contains inaccurate facts or that the other side’s Local Rule 56.1 statement contains an unsupported assertion, then the complaining party should make that argument in the response or reply brief, or in the responsive 56.1 statement.

Motions to strike that are not within the limited boundaries established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) may be summarily denied.

Motions

The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes without Court intervention. The Court expects the parties to make a genuine, good-faith effort to resolve disagreements before filing a discovery motion.

The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion or non-dispositive dispute unless the movant has complied with the “meet and confer” requirement of Local Rule 37.2. The motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2. Compliance with the Local Rules requires a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes, including communications that take place in person, by video conference, or by phone. The exchange of emails or letters will not normally be sufficient to comply with the Local Rules. Motions that do not comply with the Local Rules may be stricken.

If a party requests a meet-and-confer, the other party must respond promptly and participate in a meet-and-confer in a reasonable time.

All parties must be fully prepared to orally argue any discovery motion on the date that it is presented. The Court most often will decide discovery motions after oral argument at the motion call and without additional briefing. If after argument the Court believes that the motion requires further briefing, the Court normally will set an expedited briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly.

If an impasse arises about the recovery of electronically stored information and/or the discovery of voluminous records from a database, server, computer, service provider or similar electronic storage facility, no discovery motion may be filed unless the parties first meet and confer to determine whether the requested material can be retrieved and, if so, the most effective way of doing so. Such a conference must take place in person, by videoconference, or by phone and must be attended by an IT representative of the party (or, for a putative class, an IT representative of plaintiffs’ counsel) that served the request, an IT representative of the facility to be searched, and an IT representative of the party that received the request. All participants should be prepared to discuss specifically the parameters of both the search and the facility.

Parties must immediately notify the Court if they are withdrawing (or narrowing) any previously filed discovery motions.

Motions to Dismiss

The pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not automatically cause discovery to be stayed. Discovery is not stayed unless the Court orders it to be stayed. The Court will often stay discovery when a motion raises a colorable jurisdictional, statute of limitations, or other issue that may result in the case being resolved not on the merits; it rarely stays discovery for motions that will not result in resolution of the entire case; and it exercises discretion on a case-by-case basis in other cases. A motion to stay discovery must explain why a stay is appropriate for the specific case.

Sequence of Discovery

Parties are reminded that there is no “order” in which discovery must occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3). One party’s failure or inability to respond to discovery will not excuse any other party’s non-compliance.

Boilerplate Objections

Objections to written discovery must state with specificity the grounds for objecting. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must … state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.”). That is, the objecting party must offer a particularized reason tailored to each request.

Boilerplate objections are inadequate and are to be disregarded. For example, a generic assertion that a discovery request is “overbroad” or “unduly burdensome”—without an accompanying explanation—is the same as not objecting at all. For instance, the Court will not sustain an objection that a particular request is “burdensome” without specific information from knowledgeable sources regarding the amount and nature of the effort required to comply with the request, and the number of documents likely to be generated by compliance.

Limit on the Number of Requests for Admission

The Court sets a limit of 25 requests for admission under Rules 26(b)(2) and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Per “side” means parties represented by the same counsel. Any party may seek relief from this order by way of motion.

Motions

The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes without Court intervention. The Court expects the parties to make a genuine, good-faith effort to resolve disagreements before filing a discovery motion.

The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion or non-dispositive dispute unless the movant has complied with the “meet and confer” requirement of Local Rule 37.2. The motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2. Compliance with the Local Rules requires a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes, including communications that take place in person, by video conference, or by phone. The exchange of emails or letters will not normally be sufficient to comply with the Local Rules. Motions that do not comply with the Local Rules may be stricken.

If a party requests a meet-and-confer, the other party must respond promptly and participate in a meet-and-confer in a reasonable time.

All parties must be fully prepared to orally argue any discovery motion on the date that it is presented. The Court most often will decide discovery motions after oral argument at the motion call and without additional briefing. If after argument the Court believes that the motion requires further briefing, the Court normally will set an expedited briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly.

If an impasse arises about the recovery of electronically stored information and/or the discovery of voluminous records from a database, server, computer, service provider or similar electronic storage facility, no discovery motion may be filed unless the parties first meet and confer to determine whether the requested material can be retrieved and, if so, the most effective way of doing so. Such a conference must take place in person, by videoconference, or by phone and must be attended by an IT representative of the party (or, for a putative class, an IT representative of plaintiffs’ counsel) that served the request, an IT representative of the facility to be searched, and an IT representative of the party that received the request. All participants should be prepared to discuss specifically the parameters of both the search and the facility.

Parties must immediately notify the Court if they are withdrawing (or narrowing) any previously filed discovery motions.

Motions to Dismiss

The pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not automatically cause discovery to be stayed. Discovery is not stayed unless the Court orders it to be stayed. The Court will often stay discovery when a motion raises a colorable jurisdictional, statute of limitations, or other issue that may result in the case being resolved not on the merits; it rarely stays discovery for motions that will not result in resolution of the entire case; and it exercises discretion on a case-by-case basis in other cases. A motion to stay discovery must explain why a stay is appropriate for the specific case.

Sequence of Discovery

Parties are reminded that there is no “order” in which discovery must occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3). One party’s failure or inability to respond to discovery will not excuse any other party’s non-compliance.

Boilerplate Objections

Objections to written discovery must state with specificity the grounds for objecting. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must … state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.”). That is, the objecting party must offer a particularized reason tailored to each request.

Boilerplate objections are inadequate and are to be disregarded. For example, a generic assertion that a discovery request is “overbroad” or “unduly burdensome”—without an accompanying explanation—is the same as not objecting at all. For instance, the Court will not sustain an objection that a particular request is “burdensome” without specific information from knowledgeable sources regarding the amount and nature of the effort required to comply with the request, and the number of documents likely to be generated by compliance.

Limit on the Number of Requests for Admission

The Court sets a limit of 25 requests for admission under Rules 26(b)(2) and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Per “side” means parties represented by the same counsel. Any party may seek relief from this order by way of motion.

After the conclusion of any civil or criminal trial, no party, agent or attorney shall communicate with any members of the petit jury before which the case was tried without first receiving permission of the Court.

After the conclusion of any civil or criminal trial, no party, agent or attorney shall communicate with any members of the petit jury before which the case was tried without first receiving permission of the Court.

Proposed orders should not be filed on the docket, even if the parties agree on the draft order.  Instead, counsel must submit proposed orders to the Court by emailing a Microsoft Word version of the draft to the Proposed Order Mailbox (Proposed_Order_Jenkins@ilnd.uscourts.gov). A pdf file does not count.

The subject line of the email must include (1) the case name; (2) the case number; (3) the docket number of the corresponding motion; and (4) the title of the order that is proposed as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Counsel must serve a copy of a proposed order on all other parties by copying them on the email to the Court.

Unless the Court directs otherwise, a party must file a motion asking the Court to enter the proposed order.  Submitting a draft to the Court’s proposed order inbox is not a substitute for a motion. Emailing a draft is necessary, but not sufficient.

The Court will consider proposed orders when ruling on motions, but will modify (or disregard altogether) such proposed orders as it deems appropriate, even if all parties agree on the proposed order. Proposed orders (such as stipulated protective orders) require Court approval before they are in effect.

Proposed orders on routine motions – such as motions for extensions of time, or dispositive motions – are unnecessary

Proposed orders should not be filed on the docket, even if the parties agree on the draft order.  Instead, counsel must submit proposed orders to the Court by emailing a Microsoft Word version of the draft to the Proposed Order Mailbox (Proposed_Order_Jenkins@ilnd.uscourts.gov). A pdf file does not count.

The subject line of the email must include (1) the case name; (2) the case number; (3) the docket number of the corresponding motion; and (4) the title of the order that is proposed as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Counsel must serve a copy of a proposed order on all other parties by copying them on the email to the Court.

Unless the Court directs otherwise, a party must file a motion asking the Court to enter the proposed order.  Submitting a draft to the Court’s proposed order inbox is not a substitute for a motion. Emailing a draft is necessary, but not sufficient.

The Court will consider proposed orders when ruling on motions, but will modify (or disregard altogether) such proposed orders as it deems appropriate, even if all parties agree on the proposed order. Proposed orders (such as stipulated protective orders) require Court approval before they are in effect.

Proposed orders on routine motions – such as motions for extensions of time, or dispositive motions – are unnecessary

(a) Plaintiff shall first provide the court with proposed findings and conclusions, which shall have been served on each defendant. Each defendant shall then provide the Court with answering proposals, which shall have been served on each plaintiff.

(b) Plaintiff’s proposals shall include (a) a narrative statement of all facts proposed to be proved and (b) a concise statement of plaintiff’s legal contentions and the authorities supporting them: (1) Plaintiff’s narrative statement of facts shall set forth in simple declarative sentences all the facts relied upon in support of plaintiff’s claim for relief. It shall be complete in itself and shall contain no recitation of any witness’ testimony or what any defendant stated or admitted in these or other proceedings, and no references to the pleadings or other documents or schedules as such. It may contain references in parentheses to the names of witnesses, depositions, pleadings, exhibits or other documents, but no party shall be required to admit or deny the accuracy of such references. It shall, so far as possible, contain no pejoratives, labels or legal conclusions. It shall be so constructed, in consecutively numbered paragraphs (though where appropriate a paragraph may contain more than one sentence), that each of the opposing parties will be able to admit or deny each separate sentence of the statement. (2) Plaintiff’s statement of legal contentions shall set forth all such plaintiff’s contentions necessary to demonstrate the liability of each defendant to such plaintiff. Such contentions shall be separately, clearly and concisely stated in separately numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph shall be followed by citations of authorities in support thereof.

(c) Each defendant’s answering proposals shall correspond to plaintiff’s proposals: (1) Each defendant’s factual statement shall admit or deny each separate sentence contained in the narrative statement of fact of each plaintiff, except in instances where a portion of a sentence can be admitted and a portion denied. In those instances, each defendant shall state clearly the portion admitted and the portion denied. Each separate sentence of each defendant’s response shall bear the same number as the corresponding sentence in the plaintiff’s narrative statement of fact. In a separate portion of each defendant’s narrative statement of facts, such defendant shall set forth all affirmative matter of a factual nature relied upon by such defendant, constructed in the same manner as the plaintiff’s narrative statement of facts. (2) Each defendant’s separate statement of proposed conclusions of law shall respond directly to plaintiff’s separate legal contentions and shall contain such additional contentions of the defendant as may be necessary to demonstrate the non-liability or limited liability of the defendant. Each defendant’s statement of legal contentions shall be constructed in the same manner as is provided for the similar statement of each plaintiff.

(a) Plaintiff shall first provide the court with proposed findings and conclusions, which shall have been served on each defendant. Each defendant shall then provide the Court with answering proposals, which shall have been served on each plaintiff.

(b) Plaintiff’s proposals shall include (a) a narrative statement of all facts proposed to be proved and (b) a concise statement of plaintiff’s legal contentions and the authorities supporting them: (1) Plaintiff’s narrative statement of facts shall set forth in simple declarative sentences all the facts relied upon in support of plaintiff’s claim for relief. It shall be complete in itself and shall contain no recitation of any witness’ testimony or what any defendant stated or admitted in these or other proceedings, and no references to the pleadings or other documents or schedules as such. It may contain references in parentheses to the names of witnesses, depositions, pleadings, exhibits or other documents, but no party shall be required to admit or deny the accuracy of such references. It shall, so far as possible, contain no pejoratives, labels or legal conclusions. It shall be so constructed, in consecutively numbered paragraphs (though where appropriate a paragraph may contain more than one sentence), that each of the opposing parties will be able to admit or deny each separate sentence of the statement. (2) Plaintiff’s statement of legal contentions shall set forth all such plaintiff’s contentions necessary to demonstrate the liability of each defendant to such plaintiff. Such contentions shall be separately, clearly and concisely stated in separately numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph shall be followed by citations of authorities in support thereof.

(c) Each defendant’s answering proposals shall correspond to plaintiff’s proposals: (1) Each defendant’s factual statement shall admit or deny each separate sentence contained in the narrative statement of fact of each plaintiff, except in instances where a portion of a sentence can be admitted and a portion denied. In those instances, each defendant shall state clearly the portion admitted and the portion denied. Each separate sentence of each defendant’s response shall bear the same number as the corresponding sentence in the plaintiff’s narrative statement of fact. In a separate portion of each defendant’s narrative statement of facts, such defendant shall set forth all affirmative matter of a factual nature relied upon by such defendant, constructed in the same manner as the plaintiff’s narrative statement of facts. (2) Each defendant’s separate statement of proposed conclusions of law shall respond directly to plaintiff’s separate legal contentions and shall contain such additional contentions of the defendant as may be necessary to demonstrate the non-liability or limited liability of the defendant. Each defendant’s statement of legal contentions shall be constructed in the same manner as is provided for the similar statement of each plaintiff.

The Court's final pretrial order guidelines differ from those in Local Rule 16.1. The parties shall follow the format and guidelines linked below and use the Court’s form for exhibit lists available on the Court’s webpage:

Pretrial Order Requirements

The parties should carefully review the pretrial order requirements in time to address any issues of exhibits and availability prior to the submission of the pretrial order and the final pretrial conference. This includes ensuring that witnesses are available or making arrangements for them to testify by other means. By default, all witnesses must appear to testify in person. Live video testimony is strongly disfavored and may be disallowed even if the parties favor it. Testimony by video or written deposition is acceptable by party agreement or for good cause, but these arrangements to take and prepare the deposition testimony must be made no later than in the final pretrial order. After that point, except in exceptional, unforeseen circumstances, the Court is unlikely to grant an opposed request to accommodate an unavailable witness.

• Civil Jury Instructions Template
• Deposition Designations Template
• Joint Exhibit List Template

The Court's final pretrial order guidelines differ from those in Local Rule 16.1. The parties shall follow the format and guidelines linked below and use the Court’s form for exhibit lists available on the Court’s webpage:

Pretrial Order Requirements

The parties should carefully review the pretrial order requirements in time to address any issues of exhibits and availability prior to the submission of the pretrial order and the final pretrial conference. This includes ensuring that witnesses are available or making arrangements for them to testify by other means. By default, all witnesses must appear to testify in person. Live video testimony is strongly disfavored and may be disallowed even if the parties favor it. Testimony by video or written deposition is acceptable by party agreement or for good cause, but these arrangements to take and prepare the deposition testimony must be made no later than in the final pretrial order. After that point, except in exceptional, unforeseen circumstances, the Court is unlikely to grant an opposed request to accommodate an unavailable witness.

• Civil Jury Instructions Template
• Deposition Designations Template
• Joint Exhibit List Template

In the interest of efficiency, the Court strongly encourages the parties to engage in a settlement conference with the assigned Magistrate Judge. At any time, the parties may request a referral by contacting Courtroom Deputy Jackie Deanes at (312) 435-5635 or Jackie_Deanes@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

In the interest of efficiency, the Court strongly encourages the parties to engage in a settlement conference with the assigned Magistrate Judge. At any time, the parties may request a referral by contacting Courtroom Deputy Jackie Deanes at (312) 435-5635 or Jackie_Deanes@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Before submitting a proposed order of dismissal, counsel should review Seventh Circuit case law regarding the retention of federal jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement. In general, Seventh Circuit decisions hold that dismissals "with prejudice" leave the Court without jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement. Accordingly, in most cases, the parties would be well advised to submit a proposed order that either (a) provides for dismissal with prejudice if the settlement terms have already been fulfilled (e.g., payment has been made), but make no reference to retention of jurisdiction; or (b) provides for the case to be "dismissed without prejudice with leave to reinstate on or before [date far enough in the future to fulfill all settlement terms]. Thereafter, the case shall be deemed, without further order of the Court, to be dismissed with prejudice."

Before submitting a proposed order of dismissal, counsel should review Seventh Circuit case law regarding the retention of federal jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement. In general, Seventh Circuit decisions hold that dismissals "with prejudice" leave the Court without jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement. Accordingly, in most cases, the parties would be well advised to submit a proposed order that either (a) provides for dismissal with prejudice if the settlement terms have already been fulfilled (e.g., payment has been made), but make no reference to retention of jurisdiction; or (b) provides for the case to be "dismissed without prejudice with leave to reinstate on or before [date far enough in the future to fulfill all settlement terms]. Thereafter, the case shall be deemed, without further order of the Court, to be dismissed with prejudice."

Motions for summary judgment and responses must comply with Local Rule 56.1, as well as the procedures outlined here. A summary judgment briefing schedule must include three agreed trial dates. See Standing Order on Briefing Schedules.

The statements of undisputed material facts and responses shall be filed separately from the memoranda of law and shall include the line, paragraph, or page number where the supporting material may be found in the record. Parties must make the supporting evidence easy to find.

Courtesy copies of exhibits to summary judgment motions and responses, if requested (see the "Courtesy Copies" section in the links on this Court's webpage), should be tabbed for easy access.

The Local Rules are not mere technicalities. The Court expects strict compliance with the Local Rules regarding summary judgment. Failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in the Court striking briefs, disregarding statements of fact, deeming statements of fact admitted, and denying summary judgment.

The movant shall not file more than 80 statements of undisputed material facts without prior leave of Court. The respondent shall be limited to 40 statements of undisputed material facts absent prior leave of Court. In complex cases, the Court may request that the parties submit a timeline of events in addition to statements of undisputed material facts.

Parties submitting deposition testimony in support of or in opposition to summary judgment motions are to provide a cover sheet to the deposition stating (a) the name of the witness, (b) the date of the deposition, and (c) the deponent's title and/or role in, or relationship to, the pending litigation (e.g., "John Doe, plaintiff's human resources manager" or "Jane Doe, plaintiff's union representative"). Also, parties are to provide the Court with the entire transcript of the deposition testimony submitted in support of their respective positions, preferably in the condensed transcript format where multiple deposition transcript pages are reduced to one page.

Motions to strike are disfavored. (See the Court's separate standing order on Motions to Strike.) If a party contends that another party has included inadmissible evidence, improper argument, or other objectionable material in a Local Rule 56.1 submission, the party typically should raise its argument that the Court should not consider such material in the party's response or reply brief, not in a separate motion to strike.

Parties must include a table of contents for any exhibits.

Parties must use a user-friendly citation format, so that it is easy for the Court to locate any exhibits cited in the briefs. Text-based exhibits must be searchable. (See instructions in the "Motions and Memoranda of Law" link on this Court's webpage.)

Motions for summary judgment and responses must comply with Local Rule 56.1, as well as the procedures outlined here. A summary judgment briefing schedule must include three agreed trial dates. See Standing Order on Briefing Schedules.

The statements of undisputed material facts and responses shall be filed separately from the memoranda of law and shall include the line, paragraph, or page number where the supporting material may be found in the record. Parties must make the supporting evidence easy to find.

Courtesy copies of exhibits to summary judgment motions and responses, if requested (see the "Courtesy Copies" section in the links on this Court's webpage), should be tabbed for easy access.

The Local Rules are not mere technicalities. The Court expects strict compliance with the Local Rules regarding summary judgment. Failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in the Court striking briefs, disregarding statements of fact, deeming statements of fact admitted, and denying summary judgment.

The movant shall not file more than 80 statements of undisputed material facts without prior leave of Court. The respondent shall be limited to 40 statements of undisputed material facts absent prior leave of Court. In complex cases, the Court may request that the parties submit a timeline of events in addition to statements of undisputed material facts.

Parties submitting deposition testimony in support of or in opposition to summary judgment motions are to provide a cover sheet to the deposition stating (a) the name of the witness, (b) the date of the deposition, and (c) the deponent's title and/or role in, or relationship to, the pending litigation (e.g., "John Doe, plaintiff's human resources manager" or "Jane Doe, plaintiff's union representative"). Also, parties are to provide the Court with the entire transcript of the deposition testimony submitted in support of their respective positions, preferably in the condensed transcript format where multiple deposition transcript pages are reduced to one page.

Motions to strike are disfavored. (See the Court's separate standing order on Motions to Strike.) If a party contends that another party has included inadmissible evidence, improper argument, or other objectionable material in a Local Rule 56.1 submission, the party typically should raise its argument that the Court should not consider such material in the party's response or reply brief, not in a separate motion to strike.

Parties must include a table of contents for any exhibits.

Parties must use a user-friendly citation format, so that it is easy for the Court to locate any exhibits cited in the briefs. Text-based exhibits must be searchable. (See instructions in the "Motions and Memoranda of Law" link on this Court's webpage.)

Please contact the Court’s court reporter at least 5 business days before the start of any proceeding for which you anticipate needing daily or hourly transcript and/or a real-time feed or rough-draft transcript so that these services can be scheduled. A deposit may be required. 

All other transcript requests should be placed using the Court's online transcript order form, which can be found here.

Please contact the Court’s court reporter at least 5 business days before the start of any proceeding for which you anticipate needing daily or hourly transcript and/or a real-time feed or rough-draft transcript so that these services can be scheduled. A deposit may be required. 

All other transcript requests should be placed using the Court's online transcript order form, which can be found here.

The parties should use the Seventh Circuit’s Pattern Jury Instructions when possible, bearing in mind that statutory and binding case law govern over the pattern instructions. See the Proposed Pretrial Orders (Civil Cases) section for the requirements that parties must follow in drafting and presenting proposed jury instructions, using the form uploaded to the Court’s webpage.

The parties should use the Seventh Circuit’s Pattern Jury Instructions when possible, bearing in mind that statutory and binding case law govern over the pattern instructions. See the Proposed Pretrial Orders (Civil Cases) section for the requirements that parties must follow in drafting and presenting proposed jury instructions, using the form uploaded to the Court’s webpage.

On the morning of jury selection, the parties will be given a copy of the list of potential jurors that is generated by the Clerk’s Office in random order. The entire venire will then enter the courtroom in that order, which is also the order in which they will be seated, with the first fourteen jurors seated in the jury box, and the remaining prospective jurors seated in the gallery. The venire will be sworn after some introductory remarks by the Court. The prospective jurors in the jury box will then answer the questions contained in the juror questionnaire and any additional questions governing the case. Questioning will be conducted by the judge. Jurors will be given the opportunity to answer sensitive questions at sidebar if they wish. Once all questions have been asked of the first fourteen jurors, the Court will consult with the parties at sidebar as to additional follow-up questions, and will complete questioning of that group. The remaining jurors, after the first fourteen, will be questioned in the same manner. Depending on the size of the venire, subsequent groups of prospective jurors may be questioned from their seats in the gallery or may replace the first group of fourteen in the jury box.

After the entire venire has been questioned, the prospective jurors will be excused from the courtroom. Challenges for cause will be resolved, and then the parties will submit peremptory challenges in writing simultaneously. Each side will have three peremptory challenges, and multiple defendants or plaintiffs will be considered a single side for purposes of making challenges. If the parties challenge the same juror, both sides will be charged for that challenge. Once peremptory challenges have been submitted, the Court will inform prospective jurors who will be seated and who will be excused without disclosing which jurors were challenged. Excluding those excused for cause or subject to peremptory challenges, prospective jurors will be seated in the order that they entered the courtroom.

By default, the jury will consist of eight jurors, but the parties may agree to or request a larger number, up to twelve. There are no alternate jurors. All jurors seated will be allowed to deliberate. Because jurors are seated in the order that they enter the courtroom, after challenges for cause, only the first fourteen (for an eight-person jury) remaining prospective jurors may be seated after peremptory challenges. 

A typical juror questionnaire is linked below: Sample Questionnaire.

On the morning of jury selection, the parties will be given a copy of the list of potential jurors that is generated by the Clerk’s Office in random order. The entire venire will then enter the courtroom in that order, which is also the order in which they will be seated, with the first fourteen jurors seated in the jury box, and the remaining prospective jurors seated in the gallery. The venire will be sworn after some introductory remarks by the Court. The prospective jurors in the jury box will then answer the questions contained in the juror questionnaire and any additional questions governing the case. Questioning will be conducted by the judge. Jurors will be given the opportunity to answer sensitive questions at sidebar if they wish. Once all questions have been asked of the first fourteen jurors, the Court will consult with the parties at sidebar as to additional follow-up questions, and will complete questioning of that group. The remaining jurors, after the first fourteen, will be questioned in the same manner. Depending on the size of the venire, subsequent groups of prospective jurors may be questioned from their seats in the gallery or may replace the first group of fourteen in the jury box.

After the entire venire has been questioned, the prospective jurors will be excused from the courtroom. Challenges for cause will be resolved, and then the parties will submit peremptory challenges in writing simultaneously. Each side will have three peremptory challenges, and multiple defendants or plaintiffs will be considered a single side for purposes of making challenges. If the parties challenge the same juror, both sides will be charged for that challenge. Once peremptory challenges have been submitted, the Court will inform prospective jurors who will be seated and who will be excused without disclosing which jurors were challenged. Excluding those excused for cause or subject to peremptory challenges, prospective jurors will be seated in the order that they entered the courtroom.

By default, the jury will consist of eight jurors, but the parties may agree to or request a larger number, up to twelve. There are no alternate jurors. All jurors seated will be allowed to deliberate. Because jurors are seated in the order that they enter the courtroom, after challenges for cause, only the first fourteen (for an eight-person jury) remaining prospective jurors may be seated after peremptory challenges. 

A typical juror questionnaire is linked below: Sample Questionnaire.

Please click here for instructions on the Jury Evidence Recording System (JERS).

JERS

Please click here for instructions on the Jury Evidence Recording System (JERS).

JERS

As explained in the Court’s standing order on Motions and Memoranda of Law, all motions must be accompanied by an agreed briefing schedule or competing proposals. If the parties do not propose a briefing schedule, the Court will set one, which may be more accelerated than the parties would prefer. In a case of ordinary complexity, the briefing schedules should be approximately the following:

• Motion to dismiss: three weeks to respond, 10 days to reply
• Motions related to preliminary injunctive relief: seven days to respond or reply (if allowed)
• Discovery motions: seven days to respond, replies usually not allowed
• Motions in limine and Daubert motions: usually set by the Court
• Motion for summary judgment: motion due six weeks after the close of the relevant discovery period; four weeks to respond, two weeks to reply

Complex cases may require longer briefing schedules, and the Court realizes that counsel have other demands on their time, so within reason, the Court will usually defer to parties' proposed briefing schedules. However, parties must examine their calendars and consult with their opponents to ensure that briefing schedules they propose are realistic and account for the time needed to brief the motion, obligations in other cases, and personal matters. The Court is reluctant to grant significant extensions to accommodate conflicts that counsel could have foreseen at the outset.

As explained in the Court’s standing order on Motions and Memoranda of Law, all motions must be accompanied by an agreed briefing schedule or competing proposals. If the parties do not propose a briefing schedule, the Court will set one, which may be more accelerated than the parties would prefer. In a case of ordinary complexity, the briefing schedules should be approximately the following:

• Motion to dismiss: three weeks to respond, 10 days to reply
• Motions related to preliminary injunctive relief: seven days to respond or reply (if allowed)
• Discovery motions: seven days to respond, replies usually not allowed
• Motions in limine and Daubert motions: usually set by the Court
• Motion for summary judgment: motion due six weeks after the close of the relevant discovery period; four weeks to respond, two weeks to reply

Complex cases may require longer briefing schedules, and the Court realizes that counsel have other demands on their time, so within reason, the Court will usually defer to parties' proposed briefing schedules. However, parties must examine their calendars and consult with their opponents to ensure that briefing schedules they propose are realistic and account for the time needed to brief the motion, obligations in other cases, and personal matters. The Court is reluctant to grant significant extensions to accommodate conflicts that counsel could have foreseen at the outset.

In cases in which Plaintiff seeks ex parte injunctive relief against a number of Defendants whose identities are initially filed under seal, commonly called “Schedule A” cases, Plaintiff must provide the information requested in the Court’s Schedule A Template, which can be found here. The Court will not rule on a motion for a temporary restraining order until Plaintiff completes the template and files it on the docket. Plaintiff must complete and file the template on the docket within 14 days of the case being assigned or reassigned to Judge Jenkins, or the case may be dismissed for want of prosecution.

In cases in which Plaintiff seeks ex parte injunctive relief against a number of Defendants whose identities are initially filed under seal, commonly called “Schedule A” cases, Plaintiff must provide the information requested in the Court’s Schedule A Template, which can be found here. The Court will not rule on a motion for a temporary restraining order until Plaintiff completes the template and files it on the docket. Plaintiff must complete and file the template on the docket within 14 days of the case being assigned or reassigned to Judge Jenkins, or the case may be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) has a statute of limitations period of two years or three years for willful violations. Smith v. Pro. Transp., Inc., 5 F.4th 700, 701 (7th Cir. 2021). Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a plaintiff in an FLSA case may seek to certify the case as a collective action on behalf of similarly situated individuals who later opt in, but unlike a putative class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the filing of a FLSA collective action does not automatically toll the limitations period with respect to plaintiffs who later opt in. Compare Hunter v. WirelessPCS Chi. LLC, 2022 WL 864533, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2022) (“Under the FLSA, the statute of limitations continues to run for each potential plaintiff until he or she opts in to the lawsuit.”), with China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800, 1806 (2018) (“The commencement of the original class suit tolls the running of the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.”). Although some circuit judges have suggested the same rule should apply to FLSA collective actions, see Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023) (separate opinions of Bush, J., and White, J.), the Seventh Circuit has not decided this issue, and courts in this district have not adopted a uniform practice, see, e.g., Hunter, 2022 WL 864533, at *11–13; Calloway v. AT & T Corp., 419 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1034–38 (N.D. Ill. 2019); Pfefferkorn v. PrimeSource Health Grp., LLC (2019 WL 354968, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2019); Nick v. Koch Meat Co., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 3d 841, 858–59 (N.D. Ill. 2017); Davis v. Vanguard Home Care, LLC, 2016 WL 7049069, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2016); Soto v. Wings ’R Us Romeoville, Inc., 2016 WL 4701444, at *9–12 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2016); Sylvester v. Wintrust Fin. Corp., 2014 WL 10416989, at *1–4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2014); Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 860-61 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2013).

Given the uncertain legal basis for the Court to toll the statute of limitations as to future opt-in plaintiffs, the Court’s typical practice is to expedite FLSA collective action cases to ensure that the question of conditional certification is timely decided. See Clark, 68 F.4th at 1016-17 (6th Cir. 2023) (separate opinion of White, J.) (“It is essential that courts move quickly under the FLSA because the statute of limitations is not automatically tolled at filing for similarly situated plaintiffs who have yet to opt in.”). Under an expedited schedule, unless the parties agree otherwise, motions are briefed on shorter timelines than in a typical case, and the Court will not stay other proceedings during settlement negotiations or entertain motions not essential to resolve before the issue of conditional certification. The parties’ joint initial status report in an FLSA collective action case must include: (1) whether the plaintiff wishes to proceed on an expedited basis, and (2) the parties’ positions on whether the statute of limitations should be tolled with respect to any future opt-in plaintiffs. In particular, each defendant should indicate whether it agrees to toll the statute of limitations for individuals who opt in to this case from the date on which this case was filed until the date the Court rules on the issue of conditional certification. If the defendant believes a shorter tolling period is appropriate, it may agree to such a period with the plaintiff or propose such a period to the Court. If the plaintiff wishes to proceed on an expedited basis and there is no tolling agreement, the parties should indicate any discovery needed to be taken and motions anticipated to be filed before conditional certification, and why such discovery or motion must precede conditional certification. The parties should indicate any questions or points of disagreement regarding tolling in the joint status report and come to the initial status conference prepared to discuss those issues.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) has a statute of limitations period of two years or three years for willful violations. Smith v. Pro. Transp., Inc., 5 F.4th 700, 701 (7th Cir. 2021). Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), a plaintiff in an FLSA case may seek to certify the case as a collective action on behalf of similarly situated individuals who later opt in, but unlike a putative class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the filing of a FLSA collective action does not automatically toll the limitations period with respect to plaintiffs who later opt in. Compare Hunter v. WirelessPCS Chi. LLC, 2022 WL 864533, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2022) (“Under the FLSA, the statute of limitations continues to run for each potential plaintiff until he or she opts in to the lawsuit.”), with China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800, 1806 (2018) (“The commencement of the original class suit tolls the running of the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.”). Although some circuit judges have suggested the same rule should apply to FLSA collective actions, see Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023) (separate opinions of Bush, J., and White, J.), the Seventh Circuit has not decided this issue, and courts in this district have not adopted a uniform practice, see, e.g., Hunter, 2022 WL 864533, at *11–13; Calloway v. AT & T Corp., 419 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1034–38 (N.D. Ill. 2019); Pfefferkorn v. PrimeSource Health Grp., LLC (2019 WL 354968, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2019); Nick v. Koch Meat Co., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 3d 841, 858–59 (N.D. Ill. 2017); Davis v. Vanguard Home Care, LLC, 2016 WL 7049069, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2016); Soto v. Wings ’R Us Romeoville, Inc., 2016 WL 4701444, at *9–12 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2016); Sylvester v. Wintrust Fin. Corp., 2014 WL 10416989, at *1–4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2014); Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 860-61 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2013).

Given the uncertain legal basis for the Court to toll the statute of limitations as to future opt-in plaintiffs, the Court’s typical practice is to expedite FLSA collective action cases to ensure that the question of conditional certification is timely decided. See Clark, 68 F.4th at 1016-17 (6th Cir. 2023) (separate opinion of White, J.) (“It is essential that courts move quickly under the FLSA because the statute of limitations is not automatically tolled at filing for similarly situated plaintiffs who have yet to opt in.”). Under an expedited schedule, unless the parties agree otherwise, motions are briefed on shorter timelines than in a typical case, and the Court will not stay other proceedings during settlement negotiations or entertain motions not essential to resolve before the issue of conditional certification. The parties’ joint initial status report in an FLSA collective action case must include: (1) whether the plaintiff wishes to proceed on an expedited basis, and (2) the parties’ positions on whether the statute of limitations should be tolled with respect to any future opt-in plaintiffs. In particular, each defendant should indicate whether it agrees to toll the statute of limitations for individuals who opt in to this case from the date on which this case was filed until the date the Court rules on the issue of conditional certification. If the defendant believes a shorter tolling period is appropriate, it may agree to such a period with the plaintiff or propose such a period to the Court. If the plaintiff wishes to proceed on an expedited basis and there is no tolling agreement, the parties should indicate any discovery needed to be taken and motions anticipated to be filed before conditional certification, and why such discovery or motion must precede conditional certification. The parties should indicate any questions or points of disagreement regarding tolling in the joint status report and come to the initial status conference prepared to discuss those issues.