OpticsPlanet, Inc. v. Opticsale, Inc. et al

Filing 224

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/31/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
OPTICSPLANET, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
OPTICSALE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

09 C 7934

MEMORANDUM ORDER
During last week’s status hearing this Court learned that
plaintiff’s counsel had timely filed its response to the defense
Motion To Recover Lost Sales, but that the reason for this
Court’s unawareness of that filing was the noncompliance by
plaintiff’s counsel with this District Court’s LR 5.2(f)
requirement.

That noncompliance triggered this Court’s

imposition of a moderate $100 fine, as presaged by the opening
boldface paragraph of this Court’s website.
Acting far more swiftly than he had done with the original
filing, plaintiff’s counsel has--on the same day--delivered to
this Court’s chambers a “Motion To Reconsider Order Imposing
Sanction under Local Rule 5.2(f) and This Honorable Court’s
Standing Order,” coupled with a notice of proposed presentment of
that motion on November 3.

But that motion to reconsider fails

to understand that mulcting counsel with a financial sanction is
not punitive but rather educative in nature.
1.

For example:

If counsel thought about the matter, he would

understand that the purpose of setting a filing date to be
followed shortly thereafter by a status hearing is to enable
this Court to have considered the matter in advance of that
status date, either to enable it to rule at that time or to
establish some other appropriate procedure for disposition.
When no advance copy is provided to the assigned judge, that
goal is defeated.
2.

Everyone can offer up some excuse for

noncompliance--“This was my first offense,” “It was my
messenger’s fault, not mine”--and the list goes on.

But as

in all other areas governed by law, equality of treatment is
an essential component of fairness.

This Court is

disinclined to emulate the ancient chancery practice when
justice was said to be administered in accordance with the
length of the Chancellor’s foot--in this instance finding
one violator’s excuse weightier than that of another.
There are other reasons for uniformity of treatment, of
course, but these few examples should suffice.

Plaintiff’s

motion is denied, obviating the need to expend further resources
on the part of either side’s counsel by appearing at the
specified presentment date.
________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

October 31, 2011

2