Resicom Custom Painting and Maintenance, Inc. v. Professional Retail Services, Inc.

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, 1. Resicom is not required to produce the "Requested Documents" referred to in PRS' "Motion To Compel the Production of Requested Documents" (Dkt. No. 72). 2. This Court's discovery deadline is extended beyond August 1, 2017 to a date, to be determined later, to allow the depositions sought by Resicom to be taken (if indeed those depositions are to be required at all). Accordingly this Court orders those two steps to be taken pending further notice. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/19/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RESICOM CUSTOM PAINTING AND
MAINTENANCE, INC., an Illinois corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROFESSIONAL RETAIL SERVICES, INC.,
a New York corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 9190

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court, regrettably away from its chambers because of the rehabilitation process
following wholly unanticipated surgery, has had printed out for its review "Plaintiff's Response
in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel the Production of Requested Documents"
(Dkt. No. 77) filed by Resicom Custom Painting and Maintenance, Inc. ("Resicom"). Although
this Court is not issuing a final ruling on those matters pending a response from defendant
Professional Retail Services, Inc. ("PRS"), the Resicom portrayal of events -- particularly but not
solely its recital of the arbitrary conduct and high-handed position advanced by PRS' attorney
John Ray ("Ray") to bring this lawsuit to a halt while he took an extended vacation in Sweden
(what he has described as his "customary trip to Sweden from late June to late July") 1 -- clearly
calls for the action that is ordered here pending the final ruling:

_________________________
1
For attorney Ray's information, the operative principle in this judicial district (and in
every other federal district to this Court's knowledge) is for the assigned judge, and not a lawyer
advocate, to prescribe the ground rules (including timetables) for the conduct of litigation on the
judge's calendar.

1.

Resicom is not required to produce the "Requested Documents" referred to
in PRS' "Motion To Compel the Production of Requested Documents"
(Dkt. No. 72).

2.

This Court's discovery deadline is extended beyond August 1, 2017 to a
date, to be determined later, to allow the depositions sought by Resicom to
be taken (if indeed those depositions are to be required at all).

Accordingly this Court orders those two steps to be taken pending further notice. And
because Resicom's submissions have posed what appear to be some quite reasonable alternatives
to resolve the parties' differences without the need for judicial involvement in procedural
wrangles that will further prolong this nearly three-year-old lawsuit, the parties are urged to meet
and confer in an effort to resolve those differences.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: July 19, 2017

-2-