McGee v. Edwards
Filing
119
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 09/19/2013. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. The agreed protective order is approved and shall bedocketed. Plaintiff's counsel shall have access to the sealeddocuments (d/e's 74 , 77 , 82 , 88 ). Plai ntiff shall not possess thesealed documents. A final pretrial conference is set for February 18, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Counsel shallappear in person before the Court. In order to keep Plaintiff informed of t he proceedings, counsel are directed to provide Plaintiff with copies of documentsfiled with the Court. The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order andthe agreed protective order to Plaintiff. The clerk is further directed to add Plaintiff as a recipient of notifications of electronic filings. (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 19 September, 2013 11:43:22 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CHARLES MCGEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STIRLING O. EDWARDS,
D. CARLOCK, AND SERGEANT
FELD,
Defendants,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 10-3152
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
A status conference was held on September 17, 2013. Plaintiff
appeared by video conference. Plaintiff's appointed counsel and
Defendants' counsel appeared in person. Counsel indicated that
they had agreed on a protective order to cover the disclosure of the
sealed documents. Discussions were had regarding dates for the
final pretrial and trial and the need for reopening discovery.
Plaintiff's counsel stated his intention to file a motion regarding any
further discovery needed within 30 days.
Page 1 of 4
IT IS ORDERED:
1) The agreed protective order is approved and shall be
docketed.
2) Plaintiff's counsel shall have access to the sealed
documents (d/e's 74, 77, 82, 88). Plaintiff shall not possess the
sealed documents.
3) A final pretrial conference is set for February 18, 2014 at
4:00 p.m. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Counsel shall
appear in person before the Court. Before the final pretrial
conference, the Court will circulate proposed jury instructions, a
proposed statement of the case, and proposed voir dire. By
February 10, 2013, the parties shall file: a) proposed alternate or
additional jury instructions, if any; b) alternate statement of the
case, if any; c) motions in limine; and d) a proposed, agreed final
pretrial order which conforms substantially to the example of the
final pretrial order in the appendix to the Local Rules.
www.ilcd.uscourts.gov, Local Rules.
4) Incarcerated inmates who are appearing as trial witnesses
shall appear by video. Additionally, the Court is contemplating
having the Plaintiff appear at the trial by video in order to save
Page 2 of 4
costs and reduce security risks. By October 25, 2013, the Court
requests Defense counsel to submit affidavits of the
appropriate persons setting forth: a) the burden (cost, staffing,
and time) of transporting Plaintiff to the Court for trial; b)
Plaintiff's disciplinary history in prison; and, c) opinions
regarding the security risk presented by transporting Plaintiff
for the trial.
5) Counsel should bring to the final pretrial conference their
marked exhibits. Objections to motions in limine, witnesses, and
exhibits shall be made at the final pretrial conference. To the
extent possible, the jury instructions will be finalized at the final
pretrial conference.
6) In order to keep Plaintiff informed of the proceedings,
counsel are directed to provide Plaintiff with copies of documents
filed with the Court.
7) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order and
the agreed protective order to Plaintiff. The clerk is further
Page 3 of 4
directed to add Plaintiff as a recipient of notifications of
electronic filings.
ENTER: September 19, 2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?