Foy v. John Doe #1 et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM Order: This Court has received and reviewed the Answer filed by defendant Dennis Lazinek ("Lazinek") to the Amended Complaint ("AC") brought by Rickie Foy ("Foy") against Lazinek and a substantial number of ot her defendants. With a single limited exception, Lazinek's responsive pleading reflects thoughtful and meticulous attention by Lazinek's counsel to federal pleading principles.1 That single exception is found in Answer Paragraph 29's motion to strike the corresponding paragraph in the AC, but neither criticism of AC Paragraph 29 set out in that motion is well-taken, so that the motion is denied. That being the case, only the following portion of Answer Paragraph 29 remains:Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/29/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RICKIE FOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BLUE ISLAND, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 3071

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has received and reviewed the Answer filed by defendant Dennis Lazinek
("Lazinek") to the Amended Complaint ("AC") brought by Rickie Foy ("Foy") against Lazinek
and a substantial number of other defendants. With a single limited exception, Lazinek's
responsive pleading reflects thoughtful and meticulous attention by Lazinek's counsel to federal
pleading principles. 1 That single exception is found in Answer ¶ 29's motion to strike the
corresponding paragraph in the AC, but neither criticism of AC ¶ 29 set out in that motion is
well-taken, so that the motion is denied. That being the case, only the following portion of
Answer ¶ 29 remains:
Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: July 29, 2015
1

That particularly appears to be the case as to counsel's repeated invocation of the
disclaimer made available by Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5) for use when a defendant cannot in
good conscience comply with the dictate of Rule 8(b)(1)(B) as to an allegation in the plaintiff's
complaint. In large part that extensive employment of Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimers has been
occasioned by the constant use of the undifferentiated term "defendants" in the AC by Foy's
counsel, rather than alleging which defendant did what.