Northern District Logo
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge | Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court
close
Home > Judges >
Judge Information
Magistrate Judge Jeannice W. Appenteng
meeting_room Courtroom: 1350 gavel Chambers: 1356 phone Telephone: (312) 435-5667 fax Fax: (312) 554-8241
error
No Notice of Presentment Required
Parties are not to notice motions for presentment. The Court will notify parties of the need, if any, for a hearing.
error
Courtesy Copies Policy
Judge Appenteng does not require courtesy copies of court filings. If a courtesy copy is required, the Court will request it from the parties.
error
Important Information

Communications with Chambers for case-related mattersParties should not contact Chambers by telephone. All case-related communication shall be by email, copying opposing counsel, to the Court’s Courtroom Deputy at Kym_Lozano@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

 

Communications with Chambers for non case related matters: Please send an email to Chambers_Appenteng@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

 

Proposed Orders: All proposed orders should be sent to: Proposed_Order_Appenteng@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

  

Settlement Correspondence: All settlement position statements, letters, and correspondence should be sent to: Settlement_Correspondence_Appenteng@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Procedures to be followed in cases assigned to Judge Jeannice W. Appenteng

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_Appenteng@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.

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_Appenteng@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.

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

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

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 OrderParties 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 OrderParties 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 Motions

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

Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes and, other than in exceptional circumstances, communication that takes place face to face or by telephone. The mere exchange of correspondence will not normally be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. Parties who fail to indicate that they have met in person or by telephone 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.

Other 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.

Thus, the Court will apply the meet and confer requirement not just to discovery motions, but to all motions that a party wishes to file. The comments above concerning what must be done to comply with the meet and confer requirement will be applied with equal force, and in the same way, with respect to all other motions.

Discovery Motions

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

Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes and, other than in exceptional circumstances, communication that takes place face to face or by telephone. The mere exchange of correspondence will not normally be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. Parties who fail to indicate that they have met in person or by telephone 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.

Other 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.

Thus, the Court will apply the meet and confer requirement not just to discovery motions, but to all motions that a party wishes to file. The comments above concerning what must be done to comply with the meet and confer requirement will be applied with equal force, and in the same way, with respect to all other motions.

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

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Judge Appenteng, the Court will enter a minute order requiring the parties to file a joint status report. See Judge Appenteng’s Standing Order for Initial Status Report for the information to be included in the parties’ joint initial status report. Judge Appenteng's Standing Order for Initial Status Report.

Consistent with the scope of the consent or referral and after reviewing the joint initial status report, the Court will either set an initial status hearing or by minute order set discovery schedules, briefing schedules, and other deadlines and timetables. If the Court sets a status hearing, the lead trial counsel for each party, or an attorney with substantial familiarity with and responsibility for the case, shall appear and be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case.

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 Appenteng’s Standing Order for Settlement Conference

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Judge Appenteng, the Court will enter a minute order requiring the parties to file a joint status report. See Judge Appenteng’s Standing Order for Initial Status Report for the information to be included in the parties’ joint initial status report. Judge Appenteng's Standing Order for Initial Status Report.

Consistent with the scope of the consent or referral and after reviewing the joint initial status report, the Court will either set an initial status hearing or by minute order set discovery schedules, briefing schedules, and other deadlines and timetables. If the Court sets a status hearing, the lead trial counsel for each party, or an attorney with substantial familiarity with and responsibility for the case, shall appear and be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case.

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 Appenteng’s Standing Order for Settlement Conference

Select a date below to view all schedules.
Monday, July 8, 2024
8 cases
expand_more
Tuesday, July 9, 2024
5 cases
expand_more
Number of days notice: As set by Court order.

Motion Type Day Time
All Motions N/A N/A
Courtroom Deputy
Kym Lozano
(312) 818-6551
Room 1358
Law Clerks
Nathaniel Goodman
Matthew Jimenez