Judge McNally encourages parties to consent to her jurisdiction so that she may preside over the entirety of the case, including ruling on dispositive motions and presiding over any trial. Because Judge McNally does not handle felony criminal cases, she generally is able to accommodate the requests of counsel for particular (and firm) trial dates. Parties are encouraged to read 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 regarding trial by consent and discuss this option with their clients and opposing counsel.

Judge McNally encourages parties to consent to her jurisdiction so that she may preside over the entirety of the case, including ruling on dispositive motions and presiding over any trial. Because Judge McNally does not handle felony criminal cases, she generally is able to accommodate the requests of counsel for particular (and firm) trial dates. Parties are encouraged to read 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 regarding trial by consent and discuss this option with their clients and opposing counsel.

To assist counsel in discovery, the Court has prepared a sample ESI order that can govern non-complex ESI discovery. For complex ESI discovery, including discovery that uses technology assisted review, the Court will consider entering a more detailed proposed order submitted by the parties, with an accompanying motion.

Sample ESI Order

To assist counsel in discovery, the Court has prepared a sample ESI order that can govern non-complex ESI discovery. For complex ESI discovery, including discovery that uses technology assisted review, the Court will consider entering a more detailed proposed order submitted by the parties, with an accompanying motion.

Sample ESI Order

If you are a pro se litigant (meaning you do not have a lawyer) in this district, the District Court Free Self-Help Assistance Program may be able to provide you with assistance regarding your case. The program operates by appointment and in-person only.  Please click here to sign up for an appointment.  If you have any issues signing up for an appointment, please contact the help desk at (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. 

• Free or low-cost legal services
• Referral Services

Additional resources and information are available in the following links:

• Filing a Civil Case Without an Attorney: A Guide for the Pro Se Litigant
• Title VII and Section 1981: A Guide for Appointed Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois 
• The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: A Guide for Appointed Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois
• 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 Free Self-Help Assistance Program may be able to provide you with assistance regarding your case. The program operates by appointment and in-person only.  Please click here to sign up for an appointment.  If you have any issues signing up for an appointment, please contact the help desk at (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. 

• Free or low-cost legal services
• Referral Services

Additional resources and information are available in the following links:

• Filing a Civil Case Without an Attorney: A Guide for the Pro Se Litigant
• Title VII and Section 1981: A Guide for Appointed Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois 
• The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: A Guide for Appointed Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois
• Local Rule 56.2 - Notice to Pro Se Litigants Opposing Summary Judgment

In many instances, after the filing of a motion or after some other development in the litigation, the Court may request that the Parties submit a proposed order. When the proposed order is ready to be entered by the Court, the Parties should not file them with the Clerk's Office or with the CM/ECF system. Instead, the proposed orders should be "submitted" by e-mail sent to Proposed_Order_McNally@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. The proposed order must be in a format compatible with Word, and all parties must be copied on the submission.

Submitting a proposed order electronically is not a substitute for filing a motion. A proposed order may only be submitted upon request or leave from the Court. The proposed order email address may not be used for any other purpose or communication with the Court.

In many instances, after the filing of a motion or after some other development in the litigation, the Court may request that the Parties submit a proposed order. When the proposed order is ready to be entered by the Court, the Parties should not file them with the Clerk's Office or with the CM/ECF system. Instead, the proposed orders should be "submitted" by e-mail sent to Proposed_Order_McNally@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. The proposed order must be in a format compatible with Word, and all parties must be copied on the submission.

Submitting a proposed order electronically is not a substitute for filing a motion. A proposed order may only be submitted upon request or leave from the Court. The proposed order email address may not be used for any other purpose or communication with the Court.

In all non-Social Security cases assigned by consent or referral to Judge McNally, the court will issue a minute order instructing the parties on next steps, which may include submitting a joint initial status report and/or appearing for an initial status conference. In addition, parties in cases referred specifically for settlement conference will be ordered to follow the procedures set forth in Judge McNally's  Standing Order for Settlement Conferences.

Standing Order for Joint Initial Status Reports

Standing Order for Initial Status Conference

In all non-Social Security cases assigned by consent or referral to Judge McNally, the court will issue a minute order instructing the parties on next steps, which may include submitting a joint initial status report and/or appearing for an initial status conference. In addition, parties in cases referred specifically for settlement conference will be ordered to follow the procedures set forth in Judge McNally's  Standing Order for Settlement Conferences.

Standing Order for Joint Initial Status Reports

Standing Order for Initial Status Conference

Judge McNally believes the parties should fully explore and consider settlement at the earliest opportunity. Early consideration of settlement can prevent unnecessary litigation, allowing the parties to avoid the substantial cost, distraction, and stress inherent in the litigation process. Even for those cases that cannot be resolved through settlement, early consideration of settlement can allow the parties to better understand the factual and legal nature of their dispute and streamline the issues to be litigated.

Consideration of settlement is a serious matter that requires thorough preparation before the settlement conference. Click on the link below for the procedures that Judge McNally will require the parties to follow and the procedures that she will employ in conducting the conference.

Settlement Conference Standing Order

Judge McNally believes the parties should fully explore and consider settlement at the earliest opportunity. Early consideration of settlement can prevent unnecessary litigation, allowing the parties to avoid the substantial cost, distraction, and stress inherent in the litigation process. Even for those cases that cannot be resolved through settlement, early consideration of settlement can allow the parties to better understand the factual and legal nature of their dispute and streamline the issues to be litigated.

Consideration of settlement is a serious matter that requires thorough preparation before the settlement conference. Click on the link below for the procedures that Judge McNally will require the parties to follow and the procedures that she will employ in conducting the conference.

Settlement Conference Standing Order

Meet and Confer Obligations for All Motions

The meet and confer requirement can have the same effect on other disputes that it has in connection with discovery disputes. A candid discussion between the parties prior to filing motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and motions in limine, among others, can limit the scope of such motions or eliminate the need for them to be filed at all. (Summary judgment motions are separately addressed on the Court’s webpage.)

Accordingly, the Court therefore incorporates the requirements of Local Rule 37.2 to all motions that are not joint motions, agreed motions, or unopposed motions. Each 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 disputes through communications and negotiations that take place in person or over the telephone. The Court believes face to face communications are the most effective way to resolve disputes and requires counsel for parties to meet in person or video conference unless it is impracticable to do so. The Rule 37.2 Certificate must state with particularity that this requirement has been met or why it cannot be met. 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 forewarned that if the parties’ inability to be reasonable and compromise results in the filing of excessive motions, the Court may impose additional meet-and-confer requirements on the parties, such as the presence of a court reporter at all meet-and-confer sessions, with the parties to equally share the cost of the court reporter.

Joint/Agreed/Unopposed Motions

Joint, unopposed, and agreed motions should be so identified in both the title and the body of the motion. If there is an objection, the movant must note that fact in the body of the motion.

Motions for Extension of Time

A motion for extension of time shall prominently identify the current deadline. In addition, the motion must indicate (i) the reason for the extension request, and (ii) the number of previous extensions.

Courtesy Copies

Courtesy copies are required if the electronic filing (including exhibits) exceeds 40 pages. The courtesy copy should always be printed from ECF after electronic filing so that the copies include the ECF header.

Parties citing a deposition transcript in a brief should submit only the cited excerpts in hard copy in the condensed format; the Court does not want hard copies of entire deposition transcripts. The Court prefers all documents to be printed on 3-hole punched paper and binder-clipped if more than 5 pages.

If Motions Become Moot

Counsel should call Judge McNally’s chambers as soon as possible if the parties resolve an issue that is scheduled for argument or is under consideration by the judge. After normal business hours counsel may leave a message on the chambers' voicemail system (312-435-5858).

Format for Motions and Briefing

Discovery-related Motions

Disputes Arising During Depositions

Meet and Confer Obligations for All Motions

The meet and confer requirement can have the same effect on other disputes that it has in connection with discovery disputes. A candid discussion between the parties prior to filing motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and motions in limine, among others, can limit the scope of such motions or eliminate the need for them to be filed at all. (Summary judgment motions are separately addressed on the Court’s webpage.)

Accordingly, the Court therefore incorporates the requirements of Local Rule 37.2 to all motions that are not joint motions, agreed motions, or unopposed motions. Each 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 disputes through communications and negotiations that take place in person or over the telephone. The Court believes face to face communications are the most effective way to resolve disputes and requires counsel for parties to meet in person or video conference unless it is impracticable to do so. The Rule 37.2 Certificate must state with particularity that this requirement has been met or why it cannot be met. 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 forewarned that if the parties’ inability to be reasonable and compromise results in the filing of excessive motions, the Court may impose additional meet-and-confer requirements on the parties, such as the presence of a court reporter at all meet-and-confer sessions, with the parties to equally share the cost of the court reporter.

Joint/Agreed/Unopposed Motions

Joint, unopposed, and agreed motions should be so identified in both the title and the body of the motion. If there is an objection, the movant must note that fact in the body of the motion.

Motions for Extension of Time

A motion for extension of time shall prominently identify the current deadline. In addition, the motion must indicate (i) the reason for the extension request, and (ii) the number of previous extensions.

Courtesy Copies

Courtesy copies are required if the electronic filing (including exhibits) exceeds 40 pages. The courtesy copy should always be printed from ECF after electronic filing so that the copies include the ECF header.

Parties citing a deposition transcript in a brief should submit only the cited excerpts in hard copy in the condensed format; the Court does not want hard copies of entire deposition transcripts. The Court prefers all documents to be printed on 3-hole punched paper and binder-clipped if more than 5 pages.

If Motions Become Moot

Counsel should call Judge McNally’s chambers as soon as possible if the parties resolve an issue that is scheduled for argument or is under consideration by the judge. After normal business hours counsel may leave a message on the chambers' voicemail system (312-435-5858).

Format for Motions and Briefing

Discovery-related Motions

Disputes Arising During Depositions

A.  Confidentiality Agreement Among the Parties (No Court Order Necessary): The parties 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. Court approval of such an agreement or a court order is not necessary. Such an agreement may well address most of the parties’ confidentiality concerns.

B.  Confidentiality/Protective Orders: If the parties require that a confidentiality order be entered by the Court, they must file a motion seeking such approval. The proposed agreed order should not be filed with the motion. Instead, the proposed order should be submitted to the Court’s Proposed Order email address: Proposed_Order_McNally@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The parties are directed to use the model confidentiality order approved by the full Court and set forth in the Local Rules: Form LR 26.2 Model Confidentiality Order. If the parties wish to deviate from the model order, they must accompany their proposed order along with a red-line document that shows deviations from the model 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 and that leave of Court must be obtained before any materials are filed under seal;

• 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.

Because of the serious potential impact on counsel’s ability to satisfy his or her ethical duties as set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct, protective orders that include Attorney’s Eyes Only or Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only will come under particularly close scrutiny. A motion seeking approval of a protective order containing such terms must set forth the good faith basis for including these restrictions. In addition, the motion must be accompanied by a certification signed by all parties that they understand and consent to the proposed restriction on the scope of their counsel’s ability to discuss with them certain materials produced in the case.

The Court will review all proposed orders carefully before signing them. The Court’s issuance of a confidentiality order will constitute the determination, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), that then-existing good cause exists for the issuance of the order. This good cause determination may be subject to reconsideration if a party or interested member of the public moves for relief from the limitations of the confidentiality order.

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 McNally will enforce the practice of the referring district judge. In consent cases, Judge McNally will consider using the alternative option permitted by LR 26.2 in appropriate cases.

Leave to File Under Seal will only be granted if the moving party demonstrates good cause. The motion must include a specific description of each document or categories of documents that the party seeks to file under seal and an explanation of why confidentiality is necessary, including citations to supporting authority. The motion must also discuss the relevance of the information to the litigation.

The Court generally will not approve the filing of entire pleadings or briefs under seal. Instead, with rare exception, parties granted leave to seal will be expected to file public versions that simply redact the confidential information, along with a sealed version that does not include redactions.

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).

Sample HIPAA Qualified Protective Order

A.  Confidentiality Agreement Among the Parties (No Court Order Necessary): The parties 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. Court approval of such an agreement or a court order is not necessary. Such an agreement may well address most of the parties’ confidentiality concerns.

B.  Confidentiality/Protective Orders: If the parties require that a confidentiality order be entered by the Court, they must file a motion seeking such approval. The proposed agreed order should not be filed with the motion. Instead, the proposed order should be submitted to the Court’s Proposed Order email address: Proposed_Order_McNally@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The parties are directed to use the model confidentiality order approved by the full Court and set forth in the Local Rules: Form LR 26.2 Model Confidentiality Order. If the parties wish to deviate from the model order, they must accompany their proposed order along with a red-line document that shows deviations from the model 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 and that leave of Court must be obtained before any materials are filed under seal;

• 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.

Because of the serious potential impact on counsel’s ability to satisfy his or her ethical duties as set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct, protective orders that include Attorney’s Eyes Only or Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only will come under particularly close scrutiny. A motion seeking approval of a protective order containing such terms must set forth the good faith basis for including these restrictions. In addition, the motion must be accompanied by a certification signed by all parties that they understand and consent to the proposed restriction on the scope of their counsel’s ability to discuss with them certain materials produced in the case.

The Court will review all proposed orders carefully before signing them. The Court’s issuance of a confidentiality order will constitute the determination, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), that then-existing good cause exists for the issuance of the order. This good cause determination may be subject to reconsideration if a party or interested member of the public moves for relief from the limitations of the confidentiality order.

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 McNally will enforce the practice of the referring district judge. In consent cases, Judge McNally will consider using the alternative option permitted by LR 26.2 in appropriate cases.

Leave to File Under Seal will only be granted if the moving party demonstrates good cause. The motion must include a specific description of each document or categories of documents that the party seeks to file under seal and an explanation of why confidentiality is necessary, including citations to supporting authority. The motion must also discuss the relevance of the information to the litigation.

The Court generally will not approve the filing of entire pleadings or briefs under seal. Instead, with rare exception, parties granted leave to seal will be expected to file public versions that simply redact the confidential information, along with a sealed version that does not include redactions.

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).

Sample HIPAA Qualified Protective Order

Absent agreement among the parties or court order, if a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege, the withholding party 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. This obligation pertains to materials withheld on the basis of any privilege, not only the attorney-client privilege. 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, if relevant to the claimed privilege, which persons are lawyers/doctors/clergy members/spouses); (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 the applicability of the privilege.

The Court encourages counsel to discuss privilege log issues at the outset of the discovery process and to consider sensible guidelines for the types of materials that may be omitted from the privilege log process by agreement.

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.

Absent agreement among the parties or court order, if a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege, the withholding party 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. This obligation pertains to materials withheld on the basis of any privilege, not only the attorney-client privilege. 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, if relevant to the claimed privilege, which persons are lawyers/doctors/clergy members/spouses); (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 the applicability of the privilege.

The Court encourages counsel to discuss privilege log issues at the outset of the discovery process and to consider sensible guidelines for the types of materials that may be omitted from the privilege log process by agreement.

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.

The Court will generally enter an order setting dates for a briefing schedule, typically providing that: (a) Plaintiff's brief in support of reversing or remanding the decision subject to review shall be filed within  30 days of the filing of the administrative record (no motion required); (b) The Social Security Administration’s motion to affirm the decision subject to review and its brief in support shall be filed within 30 days after plaintiff’s brief is filed. (c) Plaintiff’s reply brief, if any, shall be filed 14 days after defendant’s brief is filed. Judge McNally will only grant extensions on the briefing schedule for good cause shown.

The word count limit on briefs in Social Security Cases is 5000 words (excluding caption, title, tables of contents/authority, and signature blocks). Each brief shall include a word-count certification Typewritten and handwritten briefs may not exceed 20 pages. The page limit applies only if the petition is handwritten or typewritten. If the petition is produced using a computer, the word limit applies. The Court encourages counsel to follow the Seventh Circuit’s advice regarding typography, which is included in its Practitioner’s Handbook, starting at page 170. The relevant excerpt can be found here: https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/forms/type.pdf

Briefs exceeding the word/page limit are discouraged and may be filed only with leave of Court. With those page restrictions in mind, counsel need not devote multiple pages to the well-recognized standards for the five-part test. A short summary of the standard and citations to authority will likely suffice.

Similarly, all counsel are encouraged to focus the Court’s attention by including only those parts of the medical history that are pertinent to the issues at hand. Be sure to cite to specific record evidence in support of each argument. General statements regarding the sufficiency of the evidence (whether the statement is from the plaintiff or from the Commissioner) will be given no weight absent reference to specific evidence in the record.

The parties are encouraged to draft their briefs with the Seventh Circuit’s opinions in Warnell v. O’Malley, 97 F.4th 1050 (7th Cir. 2024) and Morales v. O’Malley, 103 F.4th 469 (7th Cir. 2024) in mind.

The Court will generally enter an order setting dates for a briefing schedule, typically providing that: (a) Plaintiff's brief in support of reversing or remanding the decision subject to review shall be filed within  30 days of the filing of the administrative record (no motion required); (b) The Social Security Administration’s motion to affirm the decision subject to review and its brief in support shall be filed within 30 days after plaintiff’s brief is filed. (c) Plaintiff’s reply brief, if any, shall be filed 14 days after defendant’s brief is filed. Judge McNally will only grant extensions on the briefing schedule for good cause shown.

The word count limit on briefs in Social Security Cases is 5000 words (excluding caption, title, tables of contents/authority, and signature blocks). Each brief shall include a word-count certification Typewritten and handwritten briefs may not exceed 20 pages. The page limit applies only if the petition is handwritten or typewritten. If the petition is produced using a computer, the word limit applies. The Court encourages counsel to follow the Seventh Circuit’s advice regarding typography, which is included in its Practitioner’s Handbook, starting at page 170. The relevant excerpt can be found here: https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/forms/type.pdf

Briefs exceeding the word/page limit are discouraged and may be filed only with leave of Court. With those page restrictions in mind, counsel need not devote multiple pages to the well-recognized standards for the five-part test. A short summary of the standard and citations to authority will likely suffice.

Similarly, all counsel are encouraged to focus the Court’s attention by including only those parts of the medical history that are pertinent to the issues at hand. Be sure to cite to specific record evidence in support of each argument. General statements regarding the sufficiency of the evidence (whether the statement is from the plaintiff or from the Commissioner) will be given no weight absent reference to specific evidence in the record.

The parties are encouraged to draft their briefs with the Seventh Circuit’s opinions in Warnell v. O’Malley, 97 F.4th 1050 (7th Cir. 2024) and Morales v. O’Malley, 103 F.4th 469 (7th Cir. 2024) in mind.

In-Chambers Conference

Properly prepared motions for summary judgment require considerable Court and attorney time and client expense. Sometimes such motions are unnecessarily filed. A careful examination of the record prior to filing may reveal contested factual issues making the granting of the motion impossible.

For this reason, the Court will require an informal, off-the-record discussion in chambers with the lead attorneys of the parties to discuss whether the filing of a summary judgment motion is advisable given the state of the record. No written submissions should be made prior to the conference. The party who wishes to seek summary judgment should be prepared to point out the uncontested facts that support the relief being sought, and the opposing party should be prepared to speak to whether in fact those facts are contested. After the parties have satisfied their meeting and confer obligations, the moving party should schedule the informal conference with the Courtroom Deputy. No party will ever be prevented from filing a dispositive motion, but the goal of the in-chambers conference is to have a careful, informed discussion of the issues before significant time and expense have been incurred.

In some cases, the Court may determine that an in-chambers conference would not be helpful. Parties, however, should always inquire with the Court prior to filing a summary judgment motion.

Summary Judgment Motion Practice

The Court requires strict compliance with Local Rules 56.1(a) and 56.1(b) 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 the following:

A courtesy copy of the 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 within 24 hours of when it is filed on the CM/ECF system. 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. It must also have the CM/ECF header.

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 opposing party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C), 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. Friend v. Valley View Community Unit School Dist. 365U, 789 F.3d 707, 710-11 (7th Cir. 2015).

All responses to statements of undisputed material facts offered by the opposing party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B), 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 Rules 56.1(a)(3) and 56.1(b)(3)(C), 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. Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 218-19 (7th Cir. 2015).

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 opposing a summary judgment motion shall not file more than 40 separately numbered statements of additional facts under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C). The Court reminds parties that the fact statements under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) “shall consist of short numbered paragraphs.”

Motions to strike or deemed admitted Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts will not be accepted by the Court. These concerns should be raised in the parties’ briefs.

In-Chambers Conference

Properly prepared motions for summary judgment require considerable Court and attorney time and client expense. Sometimes such motions are unnecessarily filed. A careful examination of the record prior to filing may reveal contested factual issues making the granting of the motion impossible.

For this reason, the Court will require an informal, off-the-record discussion in chambers with the lead attorneys of the parties to discuss whether the filing of a summary judgment motion is advisable given the state of the record. No written submissions should be made prior to the conference. The party who wishes to seek summary judgment should be prepared to point out the uncontested facts that support the relief being sought, and the opposing party should be prepared to speak to whether in fact those facts are contested. After the parties have satisfied their meeting and confer obligations, the moving party should schedule the informal conference with the Courtroom Deputy. No party will ever be prevented from filing a dispositive motion, but the goal of the in-chambers conference is to have a careful, informed discussion of the issues before significant time and expense have been incurred.

In some cases, the Court may determine that an in-chambers conference would not be helpful. Parties, however, should always inquire with the Court prior to filing a summary judgment motion.

Summary Judgment Motion Practice

The Court requires strict compliance with Local Rules 56.1(a) and 56.1(b) 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 the following:

A courtesy copy of the 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 within 24 hours of when it is filed on the CM/ECF system. 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. It must also have the CM/ECF header.

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 opposing party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C), 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. Friend v. Valley View Community Unit School Dist. 365U, 789 F.3d 707, 710-11 (7th Cir. 2015).

All responses to statements of undisputed material facts offered by the opposing party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B), 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 Rules 56.1(a)(3) and 56.1(b)(3)(C), 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. Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 218-19 (7th Cir. 2015).

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 opposing a summary judgment motion shall not file more than 40 separately numbered statements of additional facts under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C). The Court reminds parties that the fact statements under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) “shall consist of short numbered paragraphs.”

Motions to strike or deemed admitted Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts will not be accepted by the Court. These concerns should be raised in the parties’ briefs.

A final pretrial conference will be held approximately one to two weeks before trial. The purpose of this conference will be to avoid surprises and to simplify the trial. At the conference, Judge McNally will address pending motions in limine, objections to witnesses and exhibits, and contested jury instructions, and will discuss trial procedures and scheduling. Lead trial counsel with authority to discuss all aspects of the case must attend.

Prior to the final pretrial conference, the parties shall jointly prepare and submit a Proposed Pretrial Order for the Court’s consideration that contains the sections and information described below. The Proposed Pretrial Order must be emailed to Proposed_Order_McNally@ilnd.uscourts.gov in Word format, with two courtesy copies delivered to chambers and all counsel included as cc: recipients. The subject line of the email must include the case number, case name, and title of the submission. The Proposed Pretrial Order must also be filed on the docket by selecting “Other Filings” and then “Other Documents,” and choosing the Proposed Pretrial Order event in CM/ECF. The Court will set a date for filing the proposed pretrial order.

Motions in Limine and Daubert Proceedings

The Court will set a separate schedule for the filing of motions in limine when it sets dates for the filing of the Pretrial Order. The Court discourages the filing of “boilerplate” motions in limine or motions that address matters not in dispute. The parties must confer on all motions in limine before filing them. If there is no objection to a motion, but the movant wishes to file a motion memorializing the non-objection, then the motion must state that there is no objection.

Absent prior leave of Court, motions in limine (not including exhibits) are limited to a total of 3500 words per party (not per motion), and responses (not including exhibits) are likewise limited to a total of 3500 words per party. Typewritten and handwritten motions and response briefs may not exceed 15 pages. The page limit applies only if the petition is handwritten or typewritten. If the petition is produced using a computer, the word limit applies. These limitations do not apply to motions challenging the admissibility of Rule 702 expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Such Daubert motions should be filed separately and as soon as reasonably possible, preferably well in advance of the final pretrial conference and the deadline for motions in limine.

Contents of Final Pretrial Order

A final pretrial conference will be held approximately one to two weeks before trial. The purpose of this conference will be to avoid surprises and to simplify the trial. At the conference, Judge McNally will address pending motions in limine, objections to witnesses and exhibits, and contested jury instructions, and will discuss trial procedures and scheduling. Lead trial counsel with authority to discuss all aspects of the case must attend.

Prior to the final pretrial conference, the parties shall jointly prepare and submit a Proposed Pretrial Order for the Court’s consideration that contains the sections and information described below. The Proposed Pretrial Order must be emailed to Proposed_Order_McNally@ilnd.uscourts.gov in Word format, with two courtesy copies delivered to chambers and all counsel included as cc: recipients. The subject line of the email must include the case number, case name, and title of the submission. The Proposed Pretrial Order must also be filed on the docket by selecting “Other Filings” and then “Other Documents,” and choosing the Proposed Pretrial Order event in CM/ECF. The Court will set a date for filing the proposed pretrial order.

Motions in Limine and Daubert Proceedings

The Court will set a separate schedule for the filing of motions in limine when it sets dates for the filing of the Pretrial Order. The Court discourages the filing of “boilerplate” motions in limine or motions that address matters not in dispute. The parties must confer on all motions in limine before filing them. If there is no objection to a motion, but the movant wishes to file a motion memorializing the non-objection, then the motion must state that there is no objection.

Absent prior leave of Court, motions in limine (not including exhibits) are limited to a total of 3500 words per party (not per motion), and responses (not including exhibits) are likewise limited to a total of 3500 words per party. Typewritten and handwritten motions and response briefs may not exceed 15 pages. The page limit applies only if the petition is handwritten or typewritten. If the petition is produced using a computer, the word limit applies. These limitations do not apply to motions challenging the admissibility of Rule 702 expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Such Daubert motions should be filed separately and as soon as reasonably possible, preferably well in advance of the final pretrial conference and the deadline for motions in limine.

Contents of Final Pretrial Order