Case Activity (20771)

1. Filed: July 31, 2026 | Entered: July 31, 2026 Linet Americas, Inc. v. Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. et al

   410 Anti-Trust | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Daniel P. McLaughlin: On December 18, 2025, the Court reset the Phase II fact discovery deadline for May 13, 2026. 471 . Nevertheless, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel 572 after the close of fact discovery on May 22, 2026. "[I]n this Circuit[,] motions to compel filed after the close of discovery are generally deemed untimely." Sonrai Sys., LLC v. Romano, 16C3371, 2022 WL 22894476, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2022); Haynes v. Alliant Food Serv., Inc., 93 F. App'x 71, 7374 (7th Cir. 2004) ("And rarely will we find an abuse of discretion when the motion to compel came after the close of discovery."). Moreover, while "[c]ourts might excuse a late motion to compel where the moving party has reasonable and persuasive justification for its untimeliness," the lack of any justification whatsoever "[u]sually results in denials of motions to compel filed after the close of discovery." Friedman v. Wolfspeed, Inc., 22C2253, 2023 WL 4106066, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2023). Such is the case here; Defendants provide no justification for the untimely filing of their Motion. 575 . While the Court understands that Defendants attempted to meet and confer about the disputed deposition topics in advance of filing the Motion, that obligation does not cancel out their additional obligation to perfect their position with the Court before the end of discovery. When it became clear after several weeks of communications in April and May 2026 that the parties would not be able to complete their meet and confer efforts (and therefore the deposition) in advance of the fact discovery close, Defendants could have filed a Motion for Extension of Time with the Court seeking additional time by which to file any Motion to Compel that may arise from unsuccessful meet and confers. See 575 , p. 7-8 (detailing timeline of communications about the March 30, 2026, deposition notice precipitating this Motion). Defendants are aware of this remedy; they have used it before, filing a Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections 355 in order to ensure that they could preserve their opportunity to file a motion after the deadline had passed. That Defendants chose not to use this remedy, and that they chose to file their Motion after the fact discovery deadline without any justification whatsoever, is not without consequences. "Courts have a legitimate interest in ensuring that parties abide by scheduling orders to ensure prompt and orderly litigation." Campania Mgmt. Co. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 851 (7th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, because Defendants have provided no justification for the untimely filing of their Motion after the close of fact discovery, the Motion 572 is denied. Mailed notice (maf) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

2. Order | Filed: July 31, 2026 | Entered: July 31, 2026 Savoie et al v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company et al

   P.I. : Asbestos | Louisiana Eastern

   Order Staying Case

   ORDER STAYING CASE - Considering the Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed by Uniroyal Inc. (Rec. Doc. 840), and the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction and that the case shall be restored to the trial docket upon motion of a party if circumstances change so that it may proceed to final disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation. Signed by Judge Carl J Barbier on 7/31/26.(cg)

3. 20769 additional result(s)