Opinion
No. 01 C 1040
April 5, 2002
A. Denison Weaver, Chicago, IL., Attorney for Plaintiff
Gregory E. Rogus, Chicago, IL., Attorney for Defendant
MEMORANDUM ORDER
During the pretrial conference held on April 3, 2002, the parties' jointly-submitted final pretrial order ("FPTO") was approved and the case was added to the trial call (although the trial has not yet been scheduled, as explained hereafter). These schedules were established, with all filings provided for here to be made in this Court's chambers:
1. On each of the motions for summary judgment just filed by defendants, plaintiff's LR 56.1 response shall be filed on or before May 1 and defendants' replies shall be filed on or before May 15.
2. All motions in limine (other than those encompassed within defendants' summary judgment motions) shall be filed by each side on or before April 24, 2002, and the responses shall be filed on or before May 15, 2002. Unless requested by this Court, no reply memoranda are to be filed.
As to all objections that are reflected in the FPTO (including objections to exhibits) and that are not made the subject of motions in limine, such nonfiling shall be deemed to constitute a representation by the objecting party that the matters raised by those objections may most appropriately be dealt with at the time of trial.
When this Court has dealt with the motions for summary judgment, it will include in its order or orders of disposition a requirement that counsel for the parties are to transmit letters to this Court, with copies to opposing counsel, identifying their respective unavailabilities for trial during a specified time frame. This Court will thereafter set the case for trial, and the following items will be due seven days before the date thus set for trial:
1. proposed voir dire questions and
2. proposed jury instructions.
Trial briefs are waived in any event.
ROBINSON v. GERRITSON, (N.D.Ill. 2002)
TALANGEA ROBINSON, Plaintiff v. ROBERT GERRITSON, JEFFREY DeVRIES, KIM REDA, SHARON HARRIS, and the VILLAGE OF CALUMET PARK, ILLINOIS, Defendants. No. 01C 1040 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division April 3, 2002
A. Denison Weaver, Chicago, IL., Attorney for Plaintiff
Gregory E. Rogus, Chicago, IL., Attorney for DefendantS
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, U.S. District Judge
FINAL PRE-TRIAL ORDER
This matter having come before the Court at a pretrial Conference held pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and A. Denison Weaver of A. Denison Weaver, Ltd., 180 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1900, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-899-1440) having appeared as counsel for plaintiff and Gregory E. Rogus of Segal McCambridge Singer Mahoney, Ltd., Suite 200, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL 60611 (312-645-7800) having appeared as counsel for defendants, the following actions were taken:
1. This is a civil rights action and jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343, and 1367. Jurisdiction is not disputed.
2. The following stipulations and statements were submitted and are attached to and made a part of this Order:
a) The following is a statement of all uncontested facts: (see attachment identified as Schedule 2(a).
b) The following is an agreed statement of contested issues of fact and law and a statement of contested issues of fact or law not agreed to: (see attachment identified as Schedule 2(b).
c) Attached as Schedule 2(c) is a schedule of exhibits submitted by the parties;
d) The names and addresses of potential witnesses to be called by the parties is attached as Schedule 2(d);
e) Defendant's statement of expert witness qualifications relating to Dr. Marc Oster, together with a copy of his C.V. is attached as Schedule 2(e);
f) List of all depositions or portions to be read into evidence and statements of any objections thereto:
i) Any witness listed by the parties who is unable to appear at trial in person;
g) An Itemized statement of special damages is as follows:
Susan Yacobellis $90.00
Nancy Carlson $3,500.00
h) Waivers of any claims or defenses: none;
i) There has been no offer or demand in this case as of yet;
j) The discovery status: the parties have completed discovery;
3. Trial of this case is expected to last four to five days. It will be placed on the trial calendar for____________, to be tried when reached.
4. A jury demand has been med in this case.
5. The parties recommend that 8 jurors be selected at the commencement of the trial.
6. The parties agree that the issue of liability and damages should not be bifurcated for trial.
7. The parties to not consent to this case being reassigned to a Magistrate Judge for trial.
8. This Order will control the course of the trial and may not be amended except by consent of the parties and the Court or by order of the Court to prevent manifest injustice.
9. The possibility of settlement of this case was considered by the parties.