Myles v. Cook County
| Chakeeta Myles |
| Cook County d/b/a Cook County Department of Revenue |
| 1:2021cv03935 |
| July 24, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 451 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the status report, R. 8, the answer deadline of 08/27/2021 has passed, and the extension motion mentioned in the status report, R. 8 at 3, has not been filed. The Defendant shall promptly file the extension motion. The Court sets the following discovery schedule, adopting the start and end deadlines proposed by the parties, but setting different interim deadlines. Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures due 10/27/2021. The first round of written discovery requests must be issued by 11/15/2021. Rule 16(b) deadline to add parties or amend pleadings is 03/07/2022. The deadline to serve subpoenas is 03/14/2022, absent good cause (e.g., genuine surprise despite due diligence). By 04/25/2022, the parties shall file a Deposition Scheduling Report listing the depositions already taken and (more importantly) the remaining deponents, all of whom must have ***confirmed*** deposition dates (not just proposed dates). Any person not on that Report will presumptively not be deposed without good cause (e.g., genuine surprise despite due diligence). If deponents are slow in confirming deposition dates, the parties should use the Report deadline to urge each other and non-parties to provide confirmed dates to avoid a motion to compel in advance of the deadline. Fact discovery, including any treating health care providers (if any), must be completed by 05/27/2022. Rule 26(a)(2)(C) summaries for treating health care providers (if any) must be disclosed 75 days in advance of the fact discovery deadline, and adjusts with any general extension of fact discovery deadline. **No summary judgment motion may be filed before the close of fact discovery without prior authorization of the Court.** The tracking status hearing of 09/24/2021 is reset to 11/08/2021 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the parties shall file a discovery progress report by 11/01/2021, confirming that Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were made and reporting on any other pertinent information. Emailed notice (mw, )
|
|
Filing 8
STATUS Report JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT by Chakeeta Myles (Smith, Michael)
|
|
Filing 7
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by Alexander James Beehler (Beehler, Alexander)
|
|
Filing 6
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cook County by John H. Scheid (Scheid, John)
|
|
Filing 5
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Chakeeta Myles as to Cook County on 8/6/2021, answer due 8/27/2021. (Smith, Michael)
|
|
Filing 4
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Initial tracking status hearing set for 09/24/2021 at 8:30 a.m. to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the Court will set the case schedule after reviewing the written status report. The parties must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report requirements by 09/15/2021. Plaintiff must still file the report even if Defendant has not responded to requests to craft a joint report. If Defendant has not been served, then Plaintiff must complete the part of the report on the progress of service. Also, counsel must carefully review Judge Chang's Case Management Procedures, available online at ilnd.uscourts.gov (navigate to Judges / District Judges / Judge Edmond E. Chang). Because the Procedures are occasionally revised, counsel must read them anew even if the counsel or the party has appeared before Judge Chang in other cases. Emailed notice (Attachments: #1 Status Report Requirements) (mw, )
|
|
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Cook County (jmk, )
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (mxo, )
|
|
Filing 3
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Chakeeta Myles by Michael T. Smith (Smith, Michael)
|
|
Filing 2
CIVIL Cover Sheet (Smith, Michael)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT filed by Chakeeta Myles; Y. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-18494125. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Smith, Michael)
|
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
| Search for this case: Myles v. Cook County | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Chakeeta Myles | |
| Represented By: | Michael T. Smith |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Cook County d/b/a Cook County Department of Revenue | |
| Represented By: | John H. Scheid |
| Represented By: | Alexander James Beehler |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
