DOE 2 v. Test
| JOHN DOE 2 |
| Training Test |
| 1:2022cv99999 |
| February 23, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Unassigned:Defendants' motion to amend and nitpick Judge Cole's minute order dated March 24, 2021 (Dckt. No. #2 ) is hereby denied as moot, and as unnecessary. Judge Cole presided over a status hearing on March 24, 2021. Defense counsel participated, but Plaintiff's counsel did not. Judge Cole later took the time to craft a minute order that summarized the gist of the hearing. (Dckt. No. #1 ) That minute order, in defense counsel's view, wasn't quite right, so they filed the motion at Mailed notice (rp, ) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Unassigned:Defendants' motion to amend and nitpick Judge Cole's minute order dated March 24, 2021 (Dckt. No. #1 ) is hereby denied as moot, and as unnecessary. Judge Cole presided over a status hearing on March 24, 2021. Defense counsel participated, but Plaintiff's counsel did not. Judge Cole later took the time to craft a minute order that summarized the gist of the hearing. (Dckt. No. #1 ) That minute order, in defense counsel's view, wasn't quite right, so they filed the motion at hand to obtain a correction. They seek a correction on two grounds. First, they want the minute order changed when it refers to Plaintiff's expert, Lee Williams. The order says that expert discovery was extended for Williams, but they want it to say that expert discovery was extended "only for limited supplementation of the report for Mr. Lee Williams, Plaintiff's Damages Expert and for Defendants' rebuttal damages expert report(s) and deposition(s) of the rebuttal damages expert(s)." Second, they want the order changed when it refers to the then-forthcoming motion for summary judgment. The order said that defense counsel would file a motion for summary judgment after expert discovery, but in reality, defense counsel planned to file the motion for summary judgment right away. The Court is underwhelmed with the proposed changes. As a general matter, this Court is not wild about nitpicking minute orders, unless it is genuinely important to do so. The bar has no perspective on how many orders a judge in this district issues each day. Given the enormous volume, parties should not poke at minute orders and prod judges for corrections unless there is a good reason to do so. This Court is unsure whether the alleged mistakes here were important enough to prompt a correction when the motion was filed in March 2021. But the Court is quite certain that they are not important enough to correct now. Motion denied. Mailed notice.Mailed notice (rp, ) |
| Filing 3 MINUTE entry before the Unassigned:Defendants' motion to amend and nitpick Judge Cole's minute order dated March 24, 2021 (Dckt. No. #1 ) is hereby denied as moot, and as unnecessary. Judge Cole presided over a status hearing on March 24, 2021. Defense counsel participated, but Plaintiff's counsel did not. Judge Cole later took the time to craft a minute order that summarized the gist of the hearing. (Dckt. No. 272 ) That minute order, in defense counsel's view, wasn't quite right, so they filed the motion at hand to obtain a correction. They seek a correction on two grounds. First, they want the minute order changed when it refers to Plaintiff's expert, Lee Williams. The order says that expert discovery was extended for Williams, but they want it to say that expert discovery was extended "only for limited supplementation of the report for Mr. Lee Williams, Plaintiff's Damages Expert and for Defendants' rebuttal damages expert report(s) and deposition(s) of the rebuttal damages expert(s)." Second, they want the order changed when it refers to the then-forthcoming motion for summary judgment. The order said that defense counsel would file a motion for summary judgment after expert discovery, but in reality, defense counsel planned to file the motion for summary judgment right away. The Court is underwhelmed with the proposed changes. As a general matter, this Court is not wild about nitpicking minute orders, unless it is genuinely important to do so. The bar has no perspective on how many orders a judge in this district issues each day. Given the enormous volume, parties should not poke at minute orders and prod judges for corrections unless there is a good reason to do so. This Court is unsure whether the alleged mistakes here were important enough to prompt a correction when the motion was filed in March 2021. But the Court is quite certain that they are not important enough to correct now. Motion denied. Mailed notice.Mailed notice (rp, ) |
| Filing 2 MINUTE entry before the Unassigned:Defendants' motion to amend and nitpick Judge Cole's minute order dated March 24, 2021 (Dckt. No. 277 ) is hereby denied as moot, and as unnecessary. Judge Cole presided over a status hearing on March 24, 2021. Defense counsel participated, but Plaintiff's counsel did not. Judge Cole later took the time to craft a minute order that summarized the gist of the hearing. (Dckt. No. 272 ) That minute order, in defense counsel's view, wasn't quite right, so they filed the motion at hand to obtain a correction. They seek a correction on two grounds. First, they want the minute order changed when it refers to Plaintiff's expert, Lee Williams. The order says that expert discovery was extended for Williams, but they want it to say that expert discovery was extended "only for limited supplementation of the report for Mr. Lee Williams, Plaintiff's Damages Expert and for Defendants' rebuttal damages expert report(s) and deposition(s) of the rebuttal damages expert(s)." Second, they want the order changed when it refers to the then-forthcoming motion for summary judgment. The order said that defense counsel would file a motion for summary judgment after expert discovery, but in reality, defense counsel planned to file the motion for summary judgment right away. The Court is underwhelmed with the proposed changes. As a general matter, this Court is not wild about nitpicking minute orders, unless it is genuinely important to do so. The bar has no perspective on how many orders a judge in this district issues each day. Given the enormous volume, parties should not poke at minute orders and prod judges for corrections unless there is a good reason to do so. This Court is unsure whether the alleged mistakes here were important enough to prompt a correction when the motion was filed in March 2021. But the Court is quite certain that they are not important enough to correct now. Motion denied. Mailed notice.Mailed notice (rp, ) |
| Filing 1 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James H. Alesia:This is a test: I'll test itDefendants' motion to amend and nitpick Judge Cole's minute order dated March 24, 2021 (Dckt. No. 277 ) is hereby denied as moot, and as unnecessary. Judge Cole presided over a status hearing on March 24, 2021. Defense counsel participated, but Plaintiff's counsel did not. Judge Cole later took the time to craft a minute order that summarized the gist of the hearing. (Dckt. No. 272 ) That minute order, in defense counsel's view, wasn't quite right, so they filed the motion at hand to obtain a correction. They seek a correction on two grounds. First, they want the minute order changed when it refers to Plaintiff's expert, Lee Williams. The order says that expert discovery was extended for Williams, but they want it to say that expert discovery was extended "only for limited supplementation of the report for Mr. Lee Williams, Plaintiff's Damages Expert and for Defendants' rebuttal damages expert report(s) and deposition(s) of the rebuttal damages expert(s)." Second, they want the order changed when it refers to the then-forthcoming motion for summary judgment. The order said that defense counsel would file a motion for summary judgment after expert discovery, but in reality, defense counsel planned to file the motion for summary judgment right away. The Court is underwhelmed with the proposed changes. As a general matter, this Court is not wild about nitpicking minute orders, unless it is genuinely important to do so. The bar has no perspective on how many orders a judge in this district issues each day. Given the enormous volume, parties should not poke at minute orders and prod judges for corrections unless there is a good reason to do so. This Court is unsure whether the alleged mistakes here were important enough to prompt a correction when the motion was filed in March 2021. But the Court is quite certain that they are not important enough to correct now. Motion denied. Mailed notice.Mailed notice (rp, ) |
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: DOE 2 v. Test | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: JOHN DOE 2 | |
| 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: Training Test | |
| Represented By: | Attorney tester |
| 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.
