Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc.
-
Motion | Filed: May 09, 2024 | Entered: May 09, 2024 Gurnee Truck Stop v. Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC
230(Rent Lease & Ejectment) | Illinois Northern
Motion
MOTION by Defendant Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC for extension of time for initial case management conference and to respond to Plaintiff's complaint
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brenson, Kirstie) (Entered: 05/09/2024) -
Filed: May 09, 2024 | Entered: May 09, 2024 Gurnee Truck Stop v. Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC
230(Rent Lease & Ejectment) | Illinois Northern
Notice
NOTICE of Motion by Kirstie Ann Brenson for presentment of extension of time 12 before Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 5/16/2024 at 10:30 AM. (Brenson, Kirstie) (Entered: 05/09/2024)
-
Order | Filed: May 09, 2024 | Entered: May 09, 2024 Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. City of New Rochelle et al
Condemnation | New York Southern
Order
ORDER: It has recently come to the Court's attention that an order prepared by the Court addressing Plaintiff's request for discovery sanctions in connection with Defendants' privilege log, and Defendant's request for sanctions against Plaintiff for having filed that application, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 81, 84, 149, 150, was never docketed. Both parties' requests for sanctions are DENIED. The parties submitted multiple rounds of letter briefing, had multiple substantive arguments before the Court, made submissions for in camera review, and engaged in further substantive meet-and-confer negotiations regarding the withholdings on Defendants' privilege log. The result of all of this effort was that Defendants provided more detailed information in their privilege log and ultimately withdrew privilege designations for a significant number of documents that were withheld initially. Even if Plaintiff's frustration with the time and expense associated with this iterative process may be understandable, the Court declines to find that Defendant's conduct is worthy of sanctions. In the Court's view, Defendants did not act in bad faith and did not attempt to obstruct or improperly delay the resolution of the issues identified by Plaintiff. The fact that so many privilege designations were changed is noteworthy, but the Court is reluctant to identify that as a determining factor warranting sanctions, lest parties be dissuaded in the future from accepting that their adversaries have offered convincing arguments as to privilege disputes, or from agreeing to withdraw designations in the interest of efficiency and minimizing further litigation. Sanctions on Plaintiff are also not warranted here; though the Court has denied Plaintiff's request for sanctions, Plaintiff's application certainly was not frivolous or made in bad faith. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause) (Text Only Order) (Krause, Andrew)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login