Cengage Learning, Inc. et al v. Lindsey Bache

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/20/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
LINDSEY BACHE,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No.

13 C 4113

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Lindsey Bache (“Bache”), having been sued in this action
charging him with copyright infringement, trademark infringement,
counterfeiting and trafficking in counterfeit documentation, has
filed what purports to be an Answer to the Complaint coupled with
a motion for the Complaint’s dismissal.

Individual defendants

such as Bache have the right to represent themselves--indeed,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(per curiam) has
long since taught that their pleadings are to be looked at
through a less demanding lens--but if they do they must at a
minimum familiarize themselves with, and comply with, some basic
rules.

Because Bache has not done so, this Court strikes his

filing sua sponte without prejudice to his replacing it promptly
with a proper pleading.
For one thing, the form of his pleading violates this
District Court’s LR 5.2(c), which reads in part:
Where the document is typed, line spacing will be at
least 2.0 lines. Where it is typed or printed,
(1)

the size of the type in the body of the text

shall be 12 points and that in footnotes, no less
than 11 points, and
(2) the margins, left-hand, right-hand, top and
bottom, shall each be a minimum of 1 inch.
And because Bache is not an electronic filer, he will be required
to deliver both the original and a Judge’s courtesy copy of his
Amended Complaint to the Clerk’s Office, in addition of course to
his delivering copies to opposing counsel.
Next, Bache must comply with LR 10.1:
Responsive pleadings shall be made in numbered
paragraphs each corresponding to and stating a concise
summary of the paragraph to which it is directed.1
That LR has the obvious purpose of permitting the reader--whether
the assigned judge, opposing counsel or anyone else--to see
exactly what is and what is not placed in dispute without the
reader having to flip back and forth constantly between a
separate complaint and separate answer for that purpose.
Next, Bache’s extended narrative responses do violence to
the fundamental federal principle of notice pleading.

Here is

the Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b) formulation that governs
responsive pleadings and that Bache must comply with:

1

[Footnote by this Court] For Bache’s information when he
goes back to the drawing board, litigants’ most frequent
compliance with LR 10.1 takes the form of simply copying each
paragraph of a complaint and then following it with the
litigant’s answer to that paragraph.
2

(b) DEFENSES; ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS.
(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party
must:
(A) state in short and plain terms its defenses
to each claim asserted against it; and
(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted
against it by an opposing party.
(2) Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial
must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.
(3) General and Specific Denials. A party that
intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a
pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so
by a general denial. A party that does not intend to
deny all the allegations must either specifically deny
designated allegations or generally deny all
except those specifically admitted.
(4) Denying Part of an Allegation. A party that
intends in good faith to deny only part of an
allegation must admit the part that is true and deny
the rest.
(5) Lacking Knowledge or Information. A party that
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of an allegation must so state,
and the statement has the effect of a denial.
(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other
than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted
if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation
is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not
required, an allegation is considered denied or
avoided.
As stated at the outset, Bache will be given another chance
to live by the rules.

That calls for a self-contained Amended

Answer to be filed on or before August 30, 2013, failing which he

3

may become vulnerable to the entry of a default judgment.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

August 20, 2013

4