LILLIAN v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, 14 C 2605. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20140811910
Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, District Judge. Although a review of recent ECF activity reveals that Defendant's Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("Answer") was filed on August 1, 2014, defense counsel has ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of all electronic filings for the assigned judge's use within one business day after filing. 1 To underscore the importance of that requirement to the case ma
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, District Judge. Although a review of recent ECF activity reveals that Defendant's Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("Answer") was filed on August 1, 2014, defense counsel has ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of all electronic filings for the assigned judge's use within one business day after filing. 1 To underscore the importance of that requirement to the case man..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, District Judge.
Although a review of recent ECF activity reveals that Defendant's Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("Answer") was filed on August 1, 2014, defense counsel has ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of all electronic filings for the assigned judge's use within one business day after filing.1To underscore the importance of that requirement to the case management procedures followed by this Court, the first paragraph in its website repeats that requirement, adding that a delivery to this Court's chambers on the date of filing, if possible, would be appreciated (although such earlier delivery is not essential).
Despite the literal one-business-day requirement of LR 5.2(f), this Court has customarily allowed a grace period — at least a few working days and usually longer — before the issuance of this type of memorandum order. In this instance fully a week has elapsed without compliance by defendant's counsel, and this Court hereby orders:
1. that the missing copy of the Answer be delivered to this Court's chambers forthwith and
2. that such delivery be accompanied by a check for $100 payable to the "Clerk of the District Court" by reason of the LR 5.2(f) violation, a requirement foreshadowed by the opening provision in this Court's website.
FootNotes
1. In an effort to monitor compliance with that requirement (which has regrettably not always been adhered to by lawyers), both this Court's secretary and its courtroom deputy maintain lists of all deliveries by counsel to this Court's chambers. Although that recordkeeping is intended to be error-free, if counsel here were to establish that what is said in this memorandum order is in error, the sanction called for by this memorandum order will of course be rescinded.
Source: Leagle
