Scott v. Wallace et al

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/9/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
WESLEY SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER
SERGEANT WALLACE, STAR #7343,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

07 C 4287

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court’s uniform pretrial procedure, once litigants have
completed discovery in a case, is to call for their preparation
and submission of a jointly proposed final pretrial order
(“FPTO”).

Then, at the pretrial conference that is ordinarily

held within a few working days after that submission, counsel for
the parties and this Court normally discuss any required
modifications in the draft FPTO (and the date for resubmission if
such modifications are needed), and this Court also typically
sets a timetable for the filing of the parties’ proposed motions
in limine.
In this instance that procedure generated a draft proposed
FPTO that was the subject of an October 6, 2011 pretrial
conference, and that in turn resulted in this Court’s
establishment of this timetable:
1.

October 28 was set as the date for submission of a

jointly proposed revised FPTO.

2.

Motions in limine were required to be filed by

November 18, with each side to respond to the other’s
motions on or before December 9.
In conformity with that order, the revised FPTO was properly
tendered and was entered by this Court, and defense counsel
timely presented fully 15 motions in limine, while counsel for
plaintiff Wesley Scott (“Scott”) filed none.
Nothing has been forthcoming from either side since
defendants’ filing, but this Court is aware that Scott’s counsel
is suffering from a serious illness that has doubtless created
major problems with his ability to conduct his legal practice in
the regular course.

Under the circumstances, this Court will not

of course treat the defense motions as granted in the absence of
a response, though from this Court’s observation a number (though
not all) of the motions would seem unlikely to meet with
opposition (as contrasted with some degree of modification or
refinement in numerous instances).

Accordingly this Court orders

Scott’s counsel to file a response on or before February 21, 2012
as to his plans for going forward with the litigation, including
the matters referred to in this memorandum order and the trial of
the case.
________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

February 9, 2012

2