Click here for Information For People Without Lawyers (Pro Se).

Click here for Information For People Without Lawyers (Pro Se).

Emergency matters will be heard only in exceptional circumstances and 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 with as much advance notice as possible to Judge Rowland’s Courtroom Deputy. The email should provide the case number in the subject line and contain a detailed message. Parties must “CC” counsel for all parties on the email. All reasonable efforts must be made by the party to give actual notice to opposing counsel.

Emergency matters will be heard only in exceptional circumstances and 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 with as much advance notice as possible to Judge Rowland’s Courtroom Deputy. The email should provide the case number in the subject line and contain a detailed message. Parties must “CC” counsel for all parties on the email. All reasonable efforts must be made by the party to give actual notice to opposing counsel.

All counsel 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 LR 26.2).

Parties who request entry of an agreed confidentiality order should do so via Judge Rowland's proposed order inbox. If the parties do not agree on the proposed order and have complied with LR 37.2, a motion should be filed and noticed for presentment, and the proposed order should be attached as an exhibit.

Any changes to the model order that the parties propose must be shown by redlining that indicates both the deletions and additions to the model text. For the redlined version, counsel should also include brief comments with any proposed changes explaining why the changes are sought. Counsel shall email copies of the redlined version and the clean Word version of the proposed order to the Court’s proposed order inbox (Proposed_Order_Rowland@ilnd.uscourts.gov), with CC to counsel for all parties. The subject line of the e-mail must include the case number and name and the title of the proposed confidentiality/protective order.

The Court will determine the appropriateness of any proposed order on a case by case basis. In addition, parties are reminded to review Local Rules 5.7, 5.8, and 26.2 regarding filing of documents under seal.

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.  See 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 Order

All counsel 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 LR 26.2).

Parties who request entry of an agreed confidentiality order should do so via Judge Rowland's proposed order inbox. If the parties do not agree on the proposed order and have complied with LR 37.2, a motion should be filed and noticed for presentment, and the proposed order should be attached as an exhibit.

Any changes to the model order that the parties propose must be shown by redlining that indicates both the deletions and additions to the model text. For the redlined version, counsel should also include brief comments with any proposed changes explaining why the changes are sought. Counsel shall email copies of the redlined version and the clean Word version of the proposed order to the Court’s proposed order inbox (Proposed_Order_Rowland@ilnd.uscourts.gov), with CC to counsel for all parties. The subject line of the e-mail must include the case number and name and the title of the proposed confidentiality/protective order.

The Court will determine the appropriateness of any proposed order on a case by case basis. In addition, parties are reminded to review Local Rules 5.7, 5.8, and 26.2 regarding filing of documents under seal.

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.  See 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 Order

The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes without the filing of discovery motions. Discovery motions that are filed must comply fully with Local Rule 37.2, which sets forth certain “meet and confer” and certification requirements. An exchange of correspondence -- as opposed to an in-person or telephonic conference -- ordinarily will not suffice. 

All parties must be fully prepared to orally argue any discovery motion on the date that it is presented. The Court will often decide discovery motions after oral argument at the motion call and without briefing. If after argument the Court believes the motion requires briefing, the Court normally will set an expedited briefing schedule. Parties are reminded to immediately notify the Court if they are withdrawing any previously filed discovery motions.

Parties are reminded that one party’s failure or inability to respond to discovery will not excuse any other party’s prompt compliance. In addition, unless provided for under applicable law or by court order, the pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not operate to stay discovery.

E-Discovery:

If the parties have reached an impasse regarding the discovery of voluminous records from a database, server, computer, service provider or similar electronic storage facility (ESF), before filing a motion to compel, the parties are required to meet and confer with an IT representative of the ESF to be searched in order to determine the most effective way to retrieve the requested material. The party seeking the discovery should also bring its IT specialist to this meeting in order to discuss the proper format for the retrieval of the records. This electronic discovery conference must take place in person and both sides should be prepared to discuss specifically the parameters of both the search and the ESF.

The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes without the filing of discovery motions. Discovery motions that are filed must comply fully with Local Rule 37.2, which sets forth certain “meet and confer” and certification requirements. An exchange of correspondence -- as opposed to an in-person or telephonic conference -- ordinarily will not suffice. 

All parties must be fully prepared to orally argue any discovery motion on the date that it is presented. The Court will often decide discovery motions after oral argument at the motion call and without briefing. If after argument the Court believes the motion requires briefing, the Court normally will set an expedited briefing schedule. Parties are reminded to immediately notify the Court if they are withdrawing any previously filed discovery motions.

Parties are reminded that one party’s failure or inability to respond to discovery will not excuse any other party’s prompt compliance. In addition, unless provided for under applicable law or by court order, the pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not operate to stay discovery.

E-Discovery:

If the parties have reached an impasse regarding the discovery of voluminous records from a database, server, computer, service provider or similar electronic storage facility (ESF), before filing a motion to compel, the parties are required to meet and confer with an IT representative of the ESF to be searched in order to determine the most effective way to retrieve the requested material. The party seeking the discovery should also bring its IT specialist to this meeting in order to discuss the proper format for the retrieval of the records. This electronic discovery conference must take place in person and both sides should be prepared to discuss specifically the parameters of both the search and the ESF.

Judge Rowland follows the Local Patent Rules for the Northern District of Illinois in all patent cases, unless ordered otherwise.

Local Patent Rules

LPR Appendix A

LPR Appendix B

Estimated Patent Case Schedule

Judge Rowland follows the Local Patent Rules for the Northern District of Illinois in all patent cases, unless ordered otherwise.

Local Patent Rules

LPR Appendix A

LPR Appendix B

Estimated Patent Case Schedule

The Court will schedule an initial status hearing for newly-filed cases. In most cases, the initial status hearing will be conducted approximately 60 days after the filing of the complaint. Prior to that status hearing, the parties shall review and comply with this Court's standing orders, including the timely filing of an initial joint report.

At least five business days before the initial status, the parties must file a joint Initial Status Report, not to exceed five pages in length. If defense counsel has not yet filed an appearance, the status report should be prepared by plaintiff’s counsel. The report shall contain the information requested in the Initial Status Report found below.

Initial Status Report

The Court will schedule an initial status hearing for newly-filed cases. In most cases, the initial status hearing will be conducted approximately 60 days after the filing of the complaint. Prior to that status hearing, the parties shall review and comply with this Court's standing orders, including the timely filing of an initial joint report.

At least five business days before the initial status, the parties must file a joint Initial Status Report, not to exceed five pages in length. If defense counsel has not yet filed an appearance, the status report should be prepared by plaintiff’s counsel. The report shall contain the information requested in the Initial Status Report found below.

Initial Status Report

For civil cases, the parties shall follow the format and guidelines linked below:

Final Pretrial Order – Civil

For civil cases, the parties shall follow the format and guidelines linked below:

Final Pretrial Order – Civil

Motions for summary judgment and responses must comply with Local Rule 56.1, as well as the procedures outlined here. 

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 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. See Modrowski v. Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1169 (7th Cir. 2013); Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012).

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.

 Motions to strike are disfavored. 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. 

Motions for summary judgment and responses must comply with Local Rule 56.1, as well as the procedures outlined here. 

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 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. See Modrowski v. Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1169 (7th Cir. 2013); Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir. 2012).

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.

 Motions to strike are disfavored. 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. 

Judge Rowland encourages attorneys and their clients to provide substantive speaking opportunities to less experienced attorneys during any of the Court’s proceedings, including motion and status hearings, settlement conferences, claim construction hearings, pretrial conferences, evidentiary hearings, sentencings, and trials. To that end, Judge Rowland allows more than one attorney per side to speak during any proceeding. So lead attorneys may not only confer with the newer attorney to suggest additional argument or examination questions, they also may jump-in as reasonably necessary to deliver additional argument or even to conduct additional witness examination.

Judge Rowland encourages attorneys and their clients to provide substantive speaking opportunities to less experienced attorneys during any of the Court’s proceedings, including motion and status hearings, settlement conferences, claim construction hearings, pretrial conferences, evidentiary hearings, sentencings, and trials. To that end, Judge Rowland allows more than one attorney per side to speak during any proceeding. So lead attorneys may not only confer with the newer attorney to suggest additional argument or examination questions, they also may jump-in as reasonably necessary to deliver additional argument or even to conduct additional witness examination.