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 60 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 45 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 Holleb Hotaling will only grant extensions on the briefing schedule for good cause shown.

The page limit on briefs in Social Security Cases is twenty (20) pages. Briefs exceeding twenty (20) pages are discouraged and may be filed only with leave of Court.

A. Plaintiff’s Memorandum

The plaintiff shall identify the specific grounds for reversal or remand. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The plaintiff shall include only those facts that relate to the issues presented. It is not necessary to include plaintiff’s entire medical history if it is not relevant to the issues raised. It is also not necessary to devote multiple pages to the well-recognized standards for the five-part test. Please cite a case that you believe accurately states the legal principles you wish the Court to apply and make the Court aware of relevant contrary authority.

B. The Commissioner’s Memorandum

The Commissioner is strongly encouraged where it makes sense to respond to the plaintiff’s assertions and arguments raised in plaintiff’s brief in the same order raised by Plaintiff. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The Commissioner’s brief may supplement the plaintiff’s facts where needed. Do not feel compelled to repeat facts included in the plaintiff’s brief. Be sure to cite to specific record evidence in support of each argument.

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 60 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 45 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 Holleb Hotaling will only grant extensions on the briefing schedule for good cause shown.

The page limit on briefs in Social Security Cases is twenty (20) pages. Briefs exceeding twenty (20) pages are discouraged and may be filed only with leave of Court.

A. Plaintiff’s Memorandum

The plaintiff shall identify the specific grounds for reversal or remand. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The plaintiff shall include only those facts that relate to the issues presented. It is not necessary to include plaintiff’s entire medical history if it is not relevant to the issues raised. It is also not necessary to devote multiple pages to the well-recognized standards for the five-part test. Please cite a case that you believe accurately states the legal principles you wish the Court to apply and make the Court aware of relevant contrary authority.

B. The Commissioner’s Memorandum

The Commissioner is strongly encouraged where it makes sense to respond to the plaintiff’s assertions and arguments raised in plaintiff’s brief in the same order raised by Plaintiff. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The Commissioner’s brief may supplement the plaintiff’s facts where needed. Do not feel compelled to repeat facts included in the plaintiff’s brief. Be sure to cite to specific record evidence in support of each argument.

The Court believes that parties can and should resolve most discovery disputes. 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, requires communication that takes place face-to-face or by telephone. The Court prefers a face-to-face meeting; the mere exchange of correspondence, including e-mail, normally will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2.  The Court considers failure to seriously engage in the meet-and-confer process to be grounds for denial of the motion.

Joint, uncontested, and agreed motions must be so identified in the title and body of the motion. On contested motions, the Court will typically set a date for the responsive brief to be filed. Typically, no reply will be necessary. The Court will then rule on the papers via the CM/ECF system or set a hearing date if one is necessary. All parties must be fully prepared to argue any discovery motion on the date it is noticed for presentment.

The Court believes that parties can and should resolve most discovery disputes. 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, requires communication that takes place face-to-face or by telephone. The Court prefers a face-to-face meeting; the mere exchange of correspondence, including e-mail, normally will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2.  The Court considers failure to seriously engage in the meet-and-confer process to be grounds for denial of the motion.

Joint, uncontested, and agreed motions must be so identified in the title and body of the motion. On contested motions, the Court will typically set a date for the responsive brief to be filed. Typically, no reply will be necessary. The Court will then rule on the papers via the CM/ECF system or set a hearing date if one is necessary. All parties must be fully prepared to argue any discovery motion on the date it is noticed for presentment.

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 (TAR), the Court will consider entering a more detailed proposed order submitted by the parties, with an accompanying motion.

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 (TAR), the Court will consider entering a more detailed proposed order submitted by the parties, with an accompanying motion.

A.  Confidentiality Agreement Amongst the Parties (No Court Order Necessary): The parties may properly 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 since only a small subset of discovery is typically ever filed in the public court record or used during a court proceeding.

B.  Confidentiality/Protective Orders: If the parties require a confidentiality order be entered by the Court, they 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. While the parties may deviate from the model order, any additions and deletions are to be red-lined. A request for entry of an agreed confidentiality order should be submitted after a corresponding motion has been filed unless the Court has given prior leave to submit an agreed confidentiality order without a motion. An agreed confidentiality order should be sent to the Court's Proposed Order Box at Proposed_Order_HollebHotaling@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The parties are to submit BOTH a red-lined version and a clean version.

The Court’s issuance of a confidentiality order will constitute the determination, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), that good cause exists for the issuance of the order. However, issuance of any confidentiality 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 confidentiality 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 as to the confidentiality of the challenged document(s) in light of the facts then before the Court.

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

If documents are to be filed under seal, the Motion to File Under Seal must demonstrate good cause by including a specific description of each document or categories of documents that the party seeks to file under seal and explaining why confidentiality is necessary, including citations to supporting authority. The motion shall also discuss the relevance of the information to the litigation. Information important to the litigation is less likely to be subject to confidentiality restrictions. See Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating “very few categories of documents are kept confidential once their bearing on the merits of a suit has been revealed.”); Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that an executive’s salary would not be entitled to confidential treatment “if a dispute erupted about payment (or termination).”)

The Court generally will not approve the filing of entire pleadings or briefs under seal. See Pepsico, Inc.v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995) and In the Matter of Grand Jury, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992). Parties must file public pleadings and briefs but may file sealed supplements, if approved by the Court and if necessary to discuss in detail confidential materials.

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).

 HIPPA Sample Qualified Protective Order

A.  Confidentiality Agreement Amongst the Parties (No Court Order Necessary): The parties may properly 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 since only a small subset of discovery is typically ever filed in the public court record or used during a court proceeding.

B.  Confidentiality/Protective Orders: If the parties require a confidentiality order be entered by the Court, they 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. While the parties may deviate from the model order, any additions and deletions are to be red-lined. A request for entry of an agreed confidentiality order should be submitted after a corresponding motion has been filed unless the Court has given prior leave to submit an agreed confidentiality order without a motion. An agreed confidentiality order should be sent to the Court's Proposed Order Box at Proposed_Order_HollebHotaling@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The parties are to submit BOTH a red-lined version and a clean version.

The Court’s issuance of a confidentiality order will constitute the determination, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), that good cause exists for the issuance of the order. However, issuance of any confidentiality 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 confidentiality 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 as to the confidentiality of the challenged document(s) in light of the facts then before the Court.

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

If documents are to be filed under seal, the Motion to File Under Seal must demonstrate good cause by including a specific description of each document or categories of documents that the party seeks to file under seal and explaining why confidentiality is necessary, including citations to supporting authority. The motion shall also discuss the relevance of the information to the litigation. Information important to the litigation is less likely to be subject to confidentiality restrictions. See Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating “very few categories of documents are kept confidential once their bearing on the merits of a suit has been revealed.”); Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that an executive’s salary would not be entitled to confidential treatment “if a dispute erupted about payment (or termination).”)

The Court generally will not approve the filing of entire pleadings or briefs under seal. See Pepsico, Inc.v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995) and In the Matter of Grand Jury, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992). Parties must file public pleadings and briefs but may file sealed supplements, if approved by the Court and if necessary to discuss in detail confidential materials.

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).

 HIPPA Sample Qualified Protective Order

The Court requires strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1 in the briefing of all summary judgment motions (except Social Security cases) in consent cases before Judge Holleb Hotaling.

Judge Holleb Hotaling disfavors motions to strike all or portions of an opposing party’s Rule 56.1 submission. Under all but the most extraordinary circumstances, if a party contends that its opponent has included inadmissible evidence, improper argument, or other objectionable material in a Rule 56.1 submission, the party’s argument that the offending material should not be considered should be included in its response or reply brief, not in a separate motion to strike.  The matter will then be considered by the Court when it renders a decision on the matter.

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).

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).

A complete courtesy copy of all summary judgment filing and supporting materials, including the compendium of exhibits – as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(1)-(3) – or in opposition to the motion, including exhibits – as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)-(3) – must be delivered to Judge Holleb Hotaling’s Chambers the next business day following the CM/ECF filing. The parties should not submit a cover letter with their courtesy copy.

The Court requires strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1 in the briefing of all summary judgment motions (except Social Security cases) in consent cases before Judge Holleb Hotaling.

Judge Holleb Hotaling disfavors motions to strike all or portions of an opposing party’s Rule 56.1 submission. Under all but the most extraordinary circumstances, if a party contends that its opponent has included inadmissible evidence, improper argument, or other objectionable material in a Rule 56.1 submission, the party’s argument that the offending material should not be considered should be included in its response or reply brief, not in a separate motion to strike.  The matter will then be considered by the Court when it renders a decision on the matter.

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).

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).

A complete courtesy copy of all summary judgment filing and supporting materials, including the compendium of exhibits – as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(1)-(3) – or in opposition to the motion, including exhibits – as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)-(3) – must be delivered to Judge Holleb Hotaling’s Chambers the next business day following the CM/ECF filing. The parties should not submit a cover letter with their courtesy copy.

Parties who desire a settlement conference with this Court may request one in any joint status report or by contacting the Courtroom Deputy at 312-435-7558.

The Court has prepared a Standing Order setting forth its settlement conference procedures. Counsel and their clients shall read and follow the procedures in that Standing Order prior to any settlement conference with the Court.

• Standing Order on Settlement Conferences

Parties who desire a settlement conference with this Court may request one in any joint status report or by contacting the Courtroom Deputy at 312-435-7558.

The Court has prepared a Standing Order setting forth its settlement conference procedures. Counsel and their clients shall read and follow the procedures in that Standing Order prior to any settlement conference with the Court.

• Standing Order on Settlement Conferences