STILLWATER PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. XUAN HONG, 16 C 9613. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20170210d66
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 09, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . Although defense counsel filed an Answer in this action on January 17, 2017, counsel ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of any such filing to the assigned judge within one business day after filing. 1 To underscore the importance of that requirement to the case management procedures followed by this Court, the first paragraph in its website repeats that req
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . Although defense counsel filed an Answer in this action on January 17, 2017, counsel ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of any such filing to the assigned judge within one business day after filing. 1 To underscore the importance of that requirement to the case management procedures followed by this Court, the first paragraph in its website repeats that requ..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
Although defense counsel filed an Answer in this action on January 17, 2017, counsel ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of any such filing to the assigned judge within one business day after filing.1 To 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 its 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 — typically at least a week2 — before the issuance of this type of memorandum order. In this instance a good deal more than that added time has elapsed without compliance by defendants' 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 judicial assistant 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 about nondelivery is in error, the sanction called for by this memorandum order will of course be rescinded.
2. That grace period varies somewhat from case to case, the result of this Court's obtaining the Clerk's Office printouts reflecting new case filings only sporadically rather than on a regular (say weekly) basis.
Source: Leagle
