Opinion
Case No. 13 C 5867
04-14-2014
DAVID SHINER, Plaintiff, v. BERNARD I. TURNOY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has not wasted the time and effort needed to research the identity of the author of the base canard that it's always the woman who wants to have the last word. For present purposes it suffices to say that the coiner of that misogynism was unaquainted with defendant Bernard Turnoy ("Turnoy") or his lawyers.
More seriously, there is no warrant whatever for the effort to file a surreply in connection with the already-fully-briefed cross motions for summary judgment. Although nothing said here should be misunderstood as an expression regarding the ultimate merits on those cross motions:
1. Turnoy's motion for leave to file a surreply is denied.
2. Turnoy and his counsel are jointly and severally ordered to pay the reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of counsel for plaintiff David Shiner for his having to prepare a response (Docket No. 44) to that motion.
3. Judicial officers of course are not permitted to charge for their time in considering such bootless motions or in generating memorandum orders such as this one, even though they incur the same opportunity costs in doing so. Because Turnoy's motion imposes an undue cost on the system, however, Turnoy and his counsel are jointly and severally ordered to pay $100 fine to the Clerk of Court.
This aspect of this memorandum order is obviously attributable to the inability of this Court to know whether it was the lawyers or client or both who was or were responsible for the conduct dealt with here.
__________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge