Opinion
No. 01 C 8107
December 11, 2001
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court's November 27, 2001 memorandum order ("Order") spelled out in careful detail a whole series of difficulties with the Answer that had been filed by counsel for Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc. ("Southwestern"), with the opening paragraph of the Order having referred accurately to "the noncompliance by Southwestern's counsel with some basic principles of federal pleading." Now the same lawyer has filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses within the time frame that the Order had granted for that purpose — but the result is frankly appalling, as though English were not counsel's first language.
To begin with, Order at 2 had expressly pointed counsel to the correct way to comply with the requirements of the second sentence of Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 8(b), not only by referring to that sentence's unambiguous language but by citing to App. ¶ 1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Yet counsel, heedless of those explicit references, has simply repeated the self same mistake. This time Answer ¶¶ 1, 2, 5 and 11 are stricken without leave to replead, so that the corresponding allegations of the Complaint are deemed admitted.
In candor, it is hard to know just what kind of sanction ought to be devised for such downright carelessness. If committed by a gradeschooler, it could well occasion something along the lines of having to write "I will not violate Rule 8(b) again" one hundred times on a blackboard. Just what the equivalent might be for an adult escapes the imagination, but in this instance:
1. These provisions of the last paragraph of the Order (as to which Southwestern's counsel has not provided the required proof of compliance) apply this time around as well:
Lastly, no charge is to be made to Southwestern by its counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's own errors. Southwestern's counsel are ordered to apprise their client to that effect by a letter accompanied by a copy of this opinion, with a copy of counsel's letter to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing)
2. Southwestern's counsel is also ordered to explain in open court at the time of the next status hearing (which is, fortuitously, already set to be held at 9 a.m. December 13, 2001) just what accounts for such inattention on counsel's part — and Southwestern is not to be billed for that court appearance either.