Johnson v. CDW LLC et al
| India Johnson |
| Strategic Labor Solutions, Inc. and CDW LLC |
| 1:2021cv01010 |
| February 23, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Franklin U Valderrama |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 23, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Defendants Strategic Labor Solutions, Inc. and CDW LLC's unopposed motions for an extension of time #12 and #13 are granted. Defendants' responsive pleadings due on or before 5/26/2021. The joint initial status report set for 5/11/2021 is stricken and reset to 6/2/2021. Mailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 13 MOTION by Defendant CDW LLC for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint, #1 Unopposed, initial (Kalas, Becky) |
| Filing 12 MOTION by Defendant Strategic Labor Solutions, Inc. for extension of time STRATEGIC LABOR SOLUTIONS, INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (McFetridge, Jane) |
| Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Verified Emergency Motion for Protective Order #10 . Plaintiff seeks a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) that would prohibit third-party Felix Guerrero (Guerrero) from (1) initiating contact with Plaintiff unless through her counsel, and (2) from coming within 100 feet of Plaintiff. R. 10, Mot. Prot. Order. The Motion #10 is denied without prejudice for two reasons. First, as noted, Guerrero is not a party to this lawsuit. Although district courts have authority to issue orders prohibiting or requiring non-parties to do certain things, they can only do so when they have jurisdiction over the non-party, usually conveyed through the issuance of a subpoena under Rule 45. See, e.g., Costello v. Poisella, 291 F.R.D. 224, 22830 (N.D. Ill. 2013), objections overruled sub nom. Costello as Litig. Tr. under Comdisco Litig. Tr. v. Poisella, 2013 WL 12450787 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2013) (collecting cases and finding court has jurisdiction to rule on non-party's motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c) when defendants had issued a subpoena duces tecum to non-party for certain documents). Plaintiff's motion does not indicate that she served a subpoena on Guerrero and does not provide any other basis for the Court's jurisdiction over Guerrero; as such, the Court lacks jurisdiction to prohibit Guerrero from doing anything. Second, even if this Court had jurisdiction to prohibit Guerrero from any actions, the Court does not believe that Rule 26 gives this Court the authority to prohibit a personmuch less a third partyfrom contacting a party or from coming within a certain distance of a party. As Plaintiff's Motion states, Rule 26(c) allows the Court to "for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression...." Mot. Prot. Order 27 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). Rule 26(c) continues, however, and lists eight bases for the issuance of an order, all of which pertain to "disclosure or discovery," sealing of depositions, revealing of confidential information, or filing sealed documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A)(H). Even if this is not an exhaustive list, the relief sought by Plaintiffpreventing Guerrero from initiating contact with Plaintiff or from coming with 100 feet of heris not within the purview of Rule 26(c), which clearly on its face, governs discovery matters. So, this Court does not have authority to issue what is essentially a no-contact order as to a non-party under Rule 26. Plaintiff indicated that she "is in the process of securing an Order of Protection in Cook County." Mot. Prot. Order 37. That is the more appropriate forum to obtain a no contact order. See Myers v. Bennett, 2017 WL 4429768, at *4 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2017) ("The Stalking No Contact Order Act clearly establishes that circuit courts have the authority to issue stalking no contact orders.") (citing 740 ILCS 21/45 (2015)). Mailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 10 MOTION by Plaintiff India Johnson for protective order (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Mtn Ex A, #2 Exhibit Mtn Ex B, #3 Exhibit Mtn Ex C, #4 Exhibit Mtn Ex D, #5 Exhibit Mtn Ex E, #6 Exhibit Mtn Ex G)(Kreitman, Nicholas) |
| Filing 9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant CDW LLC by Craig R. Thorstenson (Thorstenson, Craig) |
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant CDW LLC by Becky Lynn Kalas (Kalas, Becky) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Strategic Labor Solutions, Inc. by Julia Sarah Wolf (Wolf, Julia) |
| Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Strategic Labor Solutions, Inc. by Jane M. McFetridge (McFetridge, Jane) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff India Johnson by Nicholas Joseph Kreitman (Kreitman, Nicholas) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On or before 5/11/2021, the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Joint Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Valderrama's name and then again on the link entitled 'Joint Initial Status Report.' The court will enter a scheduling order in response. Plaintiff must serve this Minute Entry on all other parties. If the defendant(s) has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at analeah_charles@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the Joint Initial Status Report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties are further ordered to review all of Judge Valderrama's standing orders and the information available on his webpage. Mailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 3 REQUEST for Waiver of Service sent to Strategic Labor Solutions, Inc on 02/25/2021 by Plaintiff India Johnson. Waiver of service due by 4/1/2021. (Gutierrez, Samantha) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST for Waiver of Service sent to CDW LLC on 02/25/2021 by Plaintiff India Johnson. Waiver of service due by 4/1/2021. (Gutierrez, Samantha) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT , Exhibits, and Civil Cover Sheet filed by India Johnson; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-17964345. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Gutierrez, Samantha) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (exr, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
