Opinion
Case No. 14 C 8793
09-23-2016
VINCENT M. GEORGE, JR. (#2013-0708145), Plaintiff, v. THOMAS J. DART, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
This Court has just obtained the "Fourth Report of Attorney Evan M. Smola," filed by attorney Smola earlier this week. That report, like attorney Smola's earlier report addressed in this Court's August 23 memorandum order, reflects a constructive approach to the problem originally raised in the pro se filing by plaintiff Vincent George, Jr. ("George"). This Court finds attorney Smola's course of action outlined in the current report to be entirely satisfactory, and it will treat him as George's ongoing counsel under this District Court's trial bar program. To that end some further comments are in order.
Attorney Smola is reminded that this District Court's LR 5.2(f) has granted a "dealer's choice" option to its District Judges, permitting them to elect whether they are happier to rely on electronic filing or, on the other hand, whether they prefer to maintain paper files in chambers. Because this Court has chosen the latter course, it would be appreciated if in the future attorney Smola would supply a Judge's Copy of each filing to this Court's chambers to match the original document filed in the Clerk's Office. --------
First, as to attorney Smola's contemplated evaluation of George by a medical expert in the treatment of umbilical hernias, this District Court has funds available for reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with designated trial bar services. Attorney Smola should obtain information as to the cost of such evaluation and move for approval by this Court.
Next, attorney Smola will of course be expected to apprise this Court in general terms as to the result of that evaluation, and if it appears that the institution of a new action on plaintiff George's part should be filed, the current report is entirely correct in stating that the new lawsuit should be filed with a new case number. In that respect the Civil Cover Sheet should reflect that the new action is the refiling of a previously-dismissed case, so that it will be assigned directly to this Court's calendar rather than to another judge under the computer-generated random assignment system.
Finally, this Court expresses its appreciation to attorney Smola for the thoughtful approach to plaintiff George's legal (and medical) problems as most recently manifested in the current report. It reconfirms once again the wisdom of making such designated representation an integral part of the trial bar program.
/s/_________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge Date: September 23, 2016