Judge Daniel P. McLaughlin

Confidentiality Agreements, Protective Orders, and Filing Material Under Seal

chevron_right

Protective Order Entered by the Court

If the parties require a protective order entered by the Court, they should file a motion (indicating whether it is agreed or opposed) and email a copy of their proposed protective order to the Court in Microsoft Word format, as outlined in the Court’s procedures for Submitting a Proposed Order, Agreed or Otherwise, for Electronic Entry by the Judge. The parties are directed to use the model protective order approved by the full Court and set forth in the Local Rules: Form LR 26.2 Model Confidentiality Order. Parties may deviate from the model order, but when submitting their proposed order to the Court’s e-mail address they must include both a clean version of their order and a redline version showing any changes made from the model order. Before requesting entry of a protective order in referral cases, the parties are directed to review any standing order or instructions from the District Judge regarding protective and confidentiality orders.

All materials sought to be protected from public disclosure must be described in sufficient detail to justify such protection (e.g., “trade secrets,” “personnel files”). Parties cannot and will not be given total discretion to mark whatever material they choose to be protected or Confidential, or to have all discovery treated as confidential. See Baxter Inter., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002); Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999).

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).

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). See Example of a HIPAA Protective Order.

Protective Order Entered by the Court

If the parties require a protective order entered by the Court, they should file a motion (indicating whether it is agreed or opposed) and email a copy of their proposed protective order to the Court in Microsoft Word format, as outlined in the Court’s procedures for Submitting a Proposed Order, Agreed or Otherwise, for Electronic Entry by the Judge. The parties are directed to use the model protective order approved by the full Court and set forth in the Local Rules: Form LR 26.2 Model Confidentiality Order. Parties may deviate from the model order, but when submitting their proposed order to the Court’s e-mail address they must include both a clean version of their order and a redline version showing any changes made from the model order. Before requesting entry of a protective order in referral cases, the parties are directed to review any standing order or instructions from the District Judge regarding protective and confidentiality orders.

All materials sought to be protected from public disclosure must be described in sufficient detail to justify such protection (e.g., “trade secrets,” “personnel files”). Parties cannot and will not be given total discretion to mark whatever material they choose to be protected or Confidential, or to have all discovery treated as confidential. See Baxter Inter., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002); Citizens First National Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999).

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).

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). See Example of a HIPAA Protective Order.

Discovery Motion Requirements

chevron_right

The Court believes that the parties can and should work out most discovery disputes, and thus discourages the filing of discovery motions. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion 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 by separate certificate filed with the motion and attested to by the attorney.

Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes through communications and negotiations that take place in person or over the telephone. The Court believes face to face communications regarding discovery disputes are the most effective way to resolve them and requires counsel for parties to meet in person unless it is impracticable to do so. Videoconferencing satisfies this requirement. The Rule 37.2 Certificate must state that this requirement has been met or why it cannot be met with particularity. The mere exchange of correspondence will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. Parties who fail to indicate that they have met in person to attempt to resolve their dispute risk having their motion stricken.

Parties are not allowed to file a brief in response or reply of a discovery motion without leave of Court.

The Court reminds the parties of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), which requires the Court to award the winning side fees and costs unless the losing party’s position was substantially justified or awarding fees and costs would be unjust.

Parties are forewarned that if the parties’ inability to be reasonable and compromise results in the filing of excessive discovery motions, the Court will impose additional meet-and-confer requirements on the parties, that may include the presence of a court reporter at all meet-and-confer sessions, with the parties to equally share the cost of the court reporter.

The Court believes that the parties can and should work out most discovery disputes, and thus discourages the filing of discovery motions. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion 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 by separate certificate filed with the motion and attested to by the attorney.

Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes through communications and negotiations that take place in person or over the telephone. The Court believes face to face communications regarding discovery disputes are the most effective way to resolve them and requires counsel for parties to meet in person unless it is impracticable to do so. Videoconferencing satisfies this requirement. The Rule 37.2 Certificate must state that this requirement has been met or why it cannot be met with particularity. The mere exchange of correspondence will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. Parties who fail to indicate that they have met in person to attempt to resolve their dispute risk having their motion stricken.

Parties are not allowed to file a brief in response or reply of a discovery motion without leave of Court.

The Court reminds the parties of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), which requires the Court to award the winning side fees and costs unless the losing party’s position was substantially justified or awarding fees and costs would be unjust.

Parties are forewarned that if the parties’ inability to be reasonable and compromise results in the filing of excessive discovery motions, the Court will impose additional meet-and-confer requirements on the parties, that may include the presence of a court reporter at all meet-and-confer sessions, with the parties to equally share the cost of the court reporter.

Information for Litigants Without Attorneys

chevron_right

If you are a pro se litigant(meaning you do not have a lawyer) in this district, the District Court Self-Help Assistance Program may be able to provide you with assistance regarding your case. The help desk attorney operates by appointment only. Appointments are made at the Clerk’s Office Intake Desk on the 20th floor or by calling 312-435-5691.

Use of the help desk attorney is not a substitute for an attorney. You should seriously consider trying to obtain professional legal assistance. Below are lists of organizations that may be able to offer you free or low-cost legal assistance or a referral to an attorney if you can afford to pay for legal services.

Additional Resources/Information:

Local Rule 56.2 - Notice to Pro Se Litigants Opposing Summary Judgment

If you are a pro se litigant(meaning you do not have a lawyer) in this district, the District Court Self-Help Assistance Program may be able to provide you with assistance regarding your case. The help desk attorney operates by appointment only. Appointments are made at the Clerk’s Office Intake Desk on the 20th floor or by calling 312-435-5691.

Use of the help desk attorney is not a substitute for an attorney. You should seriously consider trying to obtain professional legal assistance. Below are lists of organizations that may be able to offer you free or low-cost legal assistance or a referral to an attorney if you can afford to pay for legal services.

Additional Resources/Information:

Local Rule 56.2 - Notice to Pro Se Litigants Opposing Summary Judgment

Motions for Extension of Time

chevron_right

No motion for an extension of time to file pleadings or to comply with other time requirements will be entertained by the Court unless the movant includes in the motion a statement (1) that the movant has sought the other side's agreement to the extension, and (2) specifying the result of that request.

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

chevron_right

Proposed Orders are technically not to be "filed." Rather, they are to be "submitted" to the judge to consider, to modify, if appropriate, and to enter electronically. For example, proposed orders such as stipulated protective orders require court approval before actually being given full effect. To prevent confusion, such proposed orders must be attached to an e-mail sent to the e-mail address of the assigned judge, Proposed_Order_McLaughlin@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 to the court in a format compatible with Microsoft Word. Such proposed orders should also be served on all other parties to the case.

Settlement Conference

chevron_right

The Court has prepared a Standing Order setting forth its settlement conference procedures. That Standing Order may be obtained here. Counsel and their clients must read and follow the procedures in that Standing Order prior to any settlement conference with the Court.

Initial Status Report

chevron_right

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Judge McLaughlin, an initial status report typically will be ordered. See Judge McLaughlin’s Standing Order for Initial Status Report for the information to be included in the parties’ joint initial status report. Judge McLaughlin's Standing Order for Initial Status Report.

Consistent with the scope of the consent or referral, the Court will typically set discovery schedules, briefing schedules, and other deadlines and timetables at an initial status conference. Accordingly, the lead trial counsel for each party, or an attorney with substantial familiarity with and responsibility for the case, shall appear at the initial status conference and be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case. In some cases, the Court will set schedules and deadlines via minute orders.

A joint status report is not required in cases that are referred solely for a settlement conference, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the Court. For cases referred solely for a settlement conference, see Judge McLaughlin's Standing Order for Settlement Conference. A settlement conference date and dates for the exchange of pre-settlement conference letters will be set at a status hearing.

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Judge McLaughlin, an initial status report typically will be ordered. See Judge McLaughlin’s Standing Order for Initial Status Report for the information to be included in the parties’ joint initial status report. Judge McLaughlin's Standing Order for Initial Status Report.

Consistent with the scope of the consent or referral, the Court will typically set discovery schedules, briefing schedules, and other deadlines and timetables at an initial status conference. Accordingly, the lead trial counsel for each party, or an attorney with substantial familiarity with and responsibility for the case, shall appear at the initial status conference and be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case. In some cases, the Court will set schedules and deadlines via minute orders.

A joint status report is not required in cases that are referred solely for a settlement conference, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the Court. For cases referred solely for a settlement conference, see Judge McLaughlin's Standing Order for Settlement Conference. A settlement conference date and dates for the exchange of pre-settlement conference letters will be set at a status hearing.

Standing Order in Social Security Cases

chevron_right

Standing Order in Social Security Cases

Case No.	Name	Time	Type
1:23-cv-11493	Garcia v. Clift	10:00AM	Telephone Conference
1:23-cv-01738	Lugo v. Guevara	10:15AM	In Court Hearing

Courtesy Copies Policy

Proposed Orders: