Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Ancel Glink
-
Order | Filed: May 09, 2024 | Entered: May 09, 2024 Mathus v. Village of University Park et al
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Confidenitality Order
CONFIDENITALITY ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel on 5/9/2024. Mailed notice(vcf, ) (Entered: 05/09/2024)
-
Filed: May 09, 2024 | Entered: May 09, 2024 Mathus v. Village of University Park et al
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: Sonia Coffee's motion to reassign case no. 23-cv-17111 33 is granted. None of the parties involved in either case oppose the motion. Both cases involve the same incident, which occurred December 16, 2021, and involve the same defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds the cases related under Local Rule 40.4(a)(3). Both cases are pending in the Northern District of Illinois, neither case has advanced beyond initial pleadings, reassigning the cases will result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort, and the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding. Therefore, the Court finds that the conditions for reassignment have been met under Local Rule 40.4(b). The parties shall confer and file a status report on or before May 16, 2024. The status report should address the status of service of process, propose a date to respond to the complaint, and propose a date to make initial disclosures. Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 05/09/2024)
-
Filed: May 09, 2024 | Entered: May 09, 2024 Mathus v. Village of University Park et al
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: Motion hearing held. The plaintiff's motion for default as to defendant Wilson 42 is denied. The defendant has been served and must respond to the complaint on or before May 23, 2024. Because of the delays to date, the Court will not extend this deadline. All parties must make their initial disclosures on or before May 30, 2024. Defendant University Park's motion for a confidentiality order 45 is granted over the plaintiff's objection. The plaintiff objects to the proposed restriction that limits parties' ability to share videotaped deposition testimony. Considering this objection, the Court will modify the restriction to allow parties to seek leave of Court to share videotaped deposition. But the Court reminds the parties that discovery is not a public process. Materials obtained in discovery are for purposes of litigating this case. They generally do not become public until filed with the Court. See, e.g., Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 (7th Cir. 2009) ("The rights of the public kick in when material produced during discovery is filed with the court."). Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 05/09/2024)
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