Opinion
No. 10 C 935.
May 24, 2010
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court's brief May 21 memorandum order ("Order") did not instruct the lawyer who represents both defendants — William Bragg and Underwood Trucks, Inc. and had originally filed a separate Answer on behalf of each of them — to file self-contained Amended Answers on behalf of his clients. Instead it would have been a simple task to file very brief amendments to the original Answers, correcting the few items addressed in the Order. But instead of thinking the matter through, defense counsel shot back — on the same day that the Order was entered — two separate Answers, even though a few moments' thought (as well as courtesy) would have led to counsel's heeding the first point that had been made in the Order.
Defense counsel obviously gave no thought to the fact that his repleading in that fashion compelled this Court to go through a comparative reading of two separate pleadings once again — the very thing that the Order had pointed to as a needless inconvenience the first time around.
This Court will not sanction counsel for that thoughtlessness. But it sees no reason that the clients should bear the expense involved. Accordingly no charge is to be made to defendants by their counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's errors via a total repleading. Defense counsel is ordered to apprise his clients to that effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).