Opinion
No. 01 C 399
September 30, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks to vacate the prior judgment on the pleadings because, he says, defendant Assam-Metzler has failed to comply with discovery. He also has moved to compel. Both motions are denied.
The discovery dispute is not a dispute but, apparently, a miscommunication. According to defendant Assam-Metzler's counsel, and we have no reason to doubt him, he sent all requested documents to plaintiff's New York address — plaintiff did not pick them up and they were returned to counsel. If plaintiff still desires to review them he can retrieve them from counsel's office.
The motion to vacate judgment is less, though, a discovery dispute than another attempt to overturn the court's prior ruling. In a 31-page brief (which violates the local rule restricting briefs to 15 pages), plaintiff seeks to disavow his prior contention, advanced by his then attorney, that he was the trustee of a resulting trust (which the beneficiary can terminate by manifesting her intent to do so, and she most assuredly has done so). For the reasons previously stated, we decline to permit plaintiff to try again, with a different theory (which seems to be a return to his original claim that he has a personal ownership interest).