United States of America v. Barringer et al
Filing
37
OPINION AND ORDER entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Defendants' Motion to Reconsider 36 is DENIED. Defendants Jerold W. Barringer and Linda M. Barringer are given until 6/24/2015 to make disclosures and comply with the d iscovery previously propounded by Plaintiff. The in person hearing scheduled for Thursday, 6/25/2015, at 10:30 a.m. is CANCELLED and converted to a telephone status conference on the same date and at the same time (Court will place the call). Part ies are to be available and ensure that the Court has telephone numbers where the parties can be reached. See written order. (LB, ilcd) (Copy of Opinion sent this date via U.S. Mail to Defendants Jerold Barringer and Linda Barringer at their listed address.)
E-FILED
Thursday, 11 June, 2015 11:24:33 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JEROLD W. BARRINGER,
)
Individually and as trustee of
)
the KELBAR ASSOCIATES
)
TRUST, LINDA M.
)
BARRINGER, JANET E.
)
CHOTT-BEASELY, MERLE
)
WERNLE, STATE OF ILLINOIS )
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, )
and RON JENKINS as
)
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
)
ILLINOIS, TREASURER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 14-cv-3132
OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS P. SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (d/e 36) of pro se Defendants
Jerold W. Barringer and Linda M. Barringer.
Background
On May 2, 2014, the United States filed a Complaint seeking to reduce to
judgment the outstanding liability for Internal Revenue taxes of Jerold W.
Barringer and Linda M. Barringer, and to enforce the associated tax liens against
Page 1 of 5
specific real estate located in Nokomis, Illinois. (Complaint, d/e 1) The Court
entered a Scheduling Order (d/e 26) on November 20, 2014. Under the
Scheduling Order, initial disclosures under Rule 26 were to be made by January
9, 2015.
On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff United States (United States) filed a Motion
to Compel Discovery and Disclosures (d/e 33). The Motion to Compel had
attached the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel who indicated that no initial
disclosures on behalf of the Barringers had been received and the United States
on January 30, 2015 sent a set of requests for production and a set of
interrogatories to Jerold W. Barringer via U.S. Mail. Counsel indicated that he
had not received responses to the requests for production or the interrogatories.
Counsel related that on March 18, 2015, Jerold Barringer had informed counsel
he should have discovery completed by April 1, 2015. Plaintiff’s counsel
indicated he had made numerous attempts to contact Jerold W. Barringer by
both e-mail and telephone and had not received return correspondence. (d/e 32,
pg. 2) The Certificate of Service attached to the Motion indicated that the Motion
to Compel was served on Jerold W. Barringer and Linda M. Barringer by
depositing a copy in the U.S. Mail sent to 200 West Front Street, P.O. Box 213,
Nokomis, IL 62075.
No response was made to the Motion to Compel Discovery and
Disclosures (d/e 33) and the Court granted the Motion in part. The Barringers
Page 2 of 5
were ordered to make disclosures to the Plaintiff by June 12, 2015. The Court
reserved ruling on the request made by United States for attorney’s fees. The
Court set the fee request for hearing on June 25, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. in
Courtroom III in Springfield, Illinois.
On June 4, 2015, the United States withdrew its request for attorney’s fees
with regard to the Motion to Compel Discovery and Disclosures. (d/e 35) On the
same date, pro se Defendants Barringer filed a Motion to Reconsider (d/e 36).
The Motion to Reconsider indicated the Motion to Compel Discovery and
Disclosures was not received by the Barringers, although the United States had
indicated to the Barringers that it would be filed. The Barringers stated that the
mail is not always reliable for delivery of letters and the Motion was not sent
certified mail. Defendant Jerold W. Barringer indicated he had been sick and
was in the hospital, which prevented filing a response to the Motion. Defendant
Barringers requested that the Court deny the request for attorney’s fees and
allow discovery to proceed at the normal pace.
Order
Defendants Barringer indicated that they did not receive the Motion to
Compel Discovery and Disclosures (d/e 33) filed by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, as
required by law, mailed the Motion to Compel Discovery and Disclosures to
Defendants. The address of the Defendants on their Motion to Reconsider
Page 3 of 5
(d/e 36) is identical to the address on the Certificate of Service on the Motion to
Compel Discovery and Disclosures. There is no requirement that the notice of
the motion be sent via certified mail. It is the responsibility of the Defendants to
check their mail and ensure that the parties are provided with proper mailing
addresses. In any event, Defendant Jerold W. Barringer indicates he had talked
with counsel for Plaintiff and knew the motion was to be filed. Counsel for
Plaintiff has attempted to contact Barringers, but received no response. Jerold
W. Barringer had assured counsel for Plaintiff that the discovery would be
responded to on or before April 1, 2015. That was not done.
The Court denies the Motion to Reconsider (d/e 36).
Based upon the representation of the Defendants regarding Defendant
Jerold W. Barringer’s medical problems, the date Defendants Barringer are
ordered to make disclosures is extended from June 12, 2015 to June 24, 2015.
In its Opinion (d/e 34) entered on May 22, 2015, the Court indicated it
cancelled the telephonic status conference regarding settlement / mediation set
in the Scheduling Order (d/e 26) for June 22, 2015 and would address that issue
at the June 25, 2015 hearing. Since the United States has withdrawn its request
for attorney’s fees, the in person hearing on June 25, 2015 is cancelled and
substituted in lieu thereof is a telephone conference between the remaining
parties to discuss whether a settlement conference or mediation would help
resolve this matter and to determine discovery compliance by the Defendants.
Page 4 of 5
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1)
Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (d/e 36) is denied.
2)
Defendants Jerold W. Barringer and Linda M. Barringer are given
until and including June 24, 2015 to make disclosures and comply with the
discovery previously propounded by Plaintiff.
3)
The in person hearing before the Court scheduled for June 25, 2015
at 10:30 a.m. is cancelled and converted to a telephone status conference on the
same date and at the same time. The Court will place the call. The parties are
to be available and ensure that the Court has telephone numbers where the
parties can be reached if the number is different from the telephone number
previously provided to the Court.
ENTER: June 11, 2015
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
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?