Opinion
No. 13 C 7882
11-22-2013
JOHN DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC. Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Because of the all-too-frequent noncompliance by counsel with the directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of new case filings for the assigned judge's use within one business day after filing, this Court initially amended its website to emphasize that requirement. When that step failed its purpose (a failure that is entirely understandable, because practitioners who consult judicial websites are also the lawyers most likely to be aware of and to comply with court rules), this Court was driven to the next step: It adopted a practice of issuing a standard form of memorandum order that specifically called on counsel to comply with LR 5.2(f) and to accompany the required delivery with a $100 check payable to the "Clerk of the District Court."
For that purpose this Court has worked from periodic printouts of the "Civil Cases Report" issued by the Clerk's Office reflecting cases most recently assigned at random to this Court's calendar, with the short form of memorandum order being issued only in those cases in which no judge's copy of the initial pleading had been delivered to this Court's chambers. And because that Civil Cases Report simply lists the case filings without indicating that a case may have been brought to this District Court via removal rather than as an original filing, the standard form of memorandum order mistakenly called on the plaintiff's counsel rather than defense counsel to comply. Accordingly defendant's counsel is ordered:
1. to deliver a copy of the initial pleading in this case to this Court's chambers forthwith; and
2. to accompany that delivery with a check for $100 payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court" by reason of counsel's rule violation.
_______
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge