Lopez et al v. Kelley et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM Order: Counsel for the parties are ordered to tender forthwith for this Court's signature a paper original and a paper Judge's Copy of the Agreed Confidentiality Order in a form suitable for signature. Those documents should be a ccompanied by a check for $100 payable to the "Clerk of the District Court" because of counsel's noncompliance with LR 5.2(f) that has occasioned the issuance of this memorandum order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/23/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ERNEST LOPEZ, SR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MIKE KELLEY, in his official capacity as
SHERIFF of WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 2405

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On January 25, 2016 counsel for defendants delivered to this Court's chambers, in
acknowledged compliance with this District Court's LR 5.2(f), a copy of a proposed Agreed
Motion for Confidentiality Order together with a notice of its presentment on January 29. At that
latter date this Court drew counsel's attention to a provision in this Court's website that addressed
a subject left uncovered by the District Court's sample form of such orders -- that is, a provision
dealing with the disposition, at the close of a case, of any paper documents that had been filed
under seal during its pendency. Counsel agreed to make the necessary change.
At that point the classic line from Cool Hand Luke ("What we have here is a failure to
communicate") came into play. Just two days later counsel transmitted a revised form of the
proposed order by an e-mail transmittal to "[e-mail]" -- but
despite counsel's earlier-demonstrated knowledge of this Court's express requirement under the
"dealer's choice" option provided by LR 5.2(f), no Judge's Copy of the proposed document was
delivered to this Court's chambers. That oversight left this Court and its staff unaware of the
submission, shifting the burden of following up from the litigants (where it belonged) to this

Court and its staff. It was not until this Court obtained its periodic printout of motions pending
in all cases on its calendar that this Court triggered an inquiry that turned up the filing.
But there is more. In the days before Noah's flood when this Court was engaged in the
active practice of law, it would not have dreamed of submitting for judicial entry a document that
was really a draft rather than a finished version -- one containing strikeouts and underlinings and
such designations as "Alternative A." That format may perhaps be useful to enable a judge to
see whether any deviations from a suggested model form are or are not appropriate, but the final
version for judicial signature simply should not take the form proffered by counsel here.
Accordingly counsel for the parties are ordered to tender forthwith for this Court's
signature a paper original and a paper Judge's Copy of the Agreed Confidentiality Order in a
form suitable for signature. Those documents should be accompanied by a check for $100
payable to the "Clerk of the District Court" because of counsel's noncompliance with LR 5.2(f)
that has occasioned the issuance of this memorandum order.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: February 23, 2016

-2-