COURT SCHEDULE

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Magistrate Judge Cox, an initial status date will be set by minute order except in social security cases. Please comply with this Court’s Order Setting Initial Status Report for Cases Assigned to Judge Cox.

• Order Setting Initial Status Report

In consent cases and cases referred by the district court for discovery supervision where no discovery deadlines have been set, counsel shall present a completed Agreed Scheduling Order at the initial status hearing.

• Agreed Scheduling Order

Parties who desire a settlement conference with this Court should request one in open court or by contacting the Courtroom Deputy at 312-435-7558.

The Court has prepared a Standing Order setting forth its settlement conference procedures. Counsel and their clients shall read and follow the procedures in that Standing Order prior to any settlement conference with the Court.

• Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference

Prior to a settlement conference, counsel shall also review the following Seventh Circuit cases which discuss the retention of federal jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n v. American Express Co., 467 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) and Shapo v. Engle, 463 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006). 

All motions are to be noticed for Tuesday or Thursday at 9:30 a.m. Chambers will contact the attorneys if an appearance is not necessary. If you do not hear from chambers, assume the motion will be heard even if agreed.

All motions must be filed no later than the third business day preceding the day the motion is to be heard (filed by Thursday for Tuesday’s call; filed by Monday for Thursday’s call). The Court will consider motions at scheduled status hearings as long as the three-day notice requirement is met.

Joint, uncontested, and agreed motions should be so identified in the title and body of the motion. Counsel shall immediately notify the Courtroom Deputy if he/she is withdrawing a previously filed motion.

If you are a pro se litigant with a case in this district, the District Court Self-Help Assistance Program may be able to provide you with assistance regarding your case. The help desk attorney operates by appointment only. Appointments are made at the Clerk’s Office Intake Desk on the 20th floor or by calling 312-435-5691.

Use of the help desk attorney is not a substitute for an attorney. You should seriously consider trying to obtain professional legal assistance. Below are lists of organizations that may be able to offer you free or low-cost legal assistance or a referral to an attorney if you can afford to pay for legal services. 

• Free or low-cost legal services
• Referral Services

Additional Resources/Information:

• Filing a Civil Case Without An Attorney: A Guide For The Pro Se Litigant
• Title VII and Section 1981: A Guide for Appointed Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois
• The Americans With Disabilities Act An Age Discrimination In Employment Act: A Guide for Appointed Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois
• Local Rule 56.2 - Notice to Pro Se Litigants Opposing Summary Judgment

The Court will dispense with its three day notice requirement only in connection with emergency motions. To qualify as an "emergency," a motion must arise from an unforeseen circumstance. In the event a party seeks to present an emergency motion, that party must inform the Courtroom Deputy prior to filing the motion of the general nature of the motion and the reason it requires emergency treatment. A party seeking to present an emergency motion must make all reasonable efforts to provide the opposing party with actual notice of the motion.

The Court believes that the parties can and should work out most discovery disputes, and thus discourages the filing of discovery motions. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion unless the parties have complied with the meet and confer requirement under Local Rule 37.2. Any discovery motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2.

Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes through communications and negotiations that take place in person or over the telephone. Judge Cox believes face to face communications regarding discovery disputes are the most effective way to resolve them and strongly encourages parties to meet in person unless it is impracticable to do so. The mere exchange of correspondence will not normally be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2.

All parties must be fully prepared to orally argue any discovery motion on the date that it is presented. The Court will often decide discovery motions after oral argument at the motion call and without briefing. If after argument the Court believes the motion requires briefing, the Court normally will set a briefing schedule.

Counsel shall not write letters to Jude Cox, nor send any correspondence between the parties to Judge Cox, in connection with a pending action unless the letter or correspondence is sent for purposes of settlement, see Standing Order on Setting Settlement Conferences, or the letter is sent to apprise the Court of any materials being delivered to Chambers.

Absent prior approval of the court, all briefs in support of or in opposition to any motion shall comply with the 15 page limit set forth in Local Rule 7.1.

Counsel shall cite to Westlaw citations for unpublished opinions, if available.

The Court will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.

In the event that a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the ground of privilege, the withholding party generally must provide a log of the documents withheld on the ground of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and Advisory Committee Comments to the 1993 amendments.

The privilege log must be detailed enough to enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege asserted and should include: (1) the name and capacity of each individual from whom or to whom a document and any attachments were sent (including which persons are lawyers); (2) the date of the document and any attachments; (3) the type of document; (4) the Bates numbers of the documents; (5) the nature of the privilege asserted; (6) a description of the subject matter in sufficient detail to determine if legal advice was sought or revealed, or if the document constitutes attorney work product. See Allendale Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Systems Inc., 145 F.R.D. 84, 88 (N.D. Ill. 1992).

The Court reminds the parties that the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 37.2 apply to privilege disputes.

A. Confidentiality Agreement Amongst the Parties

The parties may properly agree amongst themselves to limit disclosure of unfiled discovery information to certain specified persons during the litigation and not to voluntarily disseminate such information to other persons. A confidentiality agreement amongst the parties regarding the categories of the information they seek to protect from dissemination to persons not involved in the lawsuit will likely address most of the parties’ confidentiality concerns because only a small subset of all discovery is ever filed in the public court record or used during a court proceeding. There is no need for court approval or intervention regarding such an agreement. See Taffinger v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 2001 WL 1287625, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2001). A confidentiality agreement amongst the parties is not binding on the Court if, at any future time, a non-party seeks access to and use of unfiled discovery materials. See Wilk v. AMA, 635 F.2d 1295 (7^th Cir. 1981); American Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594 (7^th Cir. 1978). The Court will handle any such requests on a case-by-case basis.

If the parties cannot agree on a confidentiality agreement amongst themselves, the party seeking a non-dissemination provision shall file a motion for protective order and must make a good cause showing for a protective order with a non-dissemination provision. Wauchop v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 539, 545 (N.D. Ind. 1991) (stating "the party seeking the protective order bears the burden of demonstrating good cause for the entry of a protective order with a non-dissemination provision.").

B. Protective Orders

Before requesting that Judge Cox enter a protective order to preserve the confidentiality of materials disclosed in discovery, or file a confidential document under seal, counsel shall carefully review the following:

1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and L.R. 26.2;
2. The decisions of the Seventh Circuit in Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd, 30 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 1994), Citizens First Nat’l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999), and Union Oil Co. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2000); and
3. In a case that is before Judge Cox on referral for discovery supervision, any standing order or instructions from the District Judge regarding protective orders and restricting orders, including whether the District Judge requires that documents designated as confidential be filed under seal with the Clerk’s Office or submitted in chambers with a redacted copy to be filed with the Clerk’s Office.

Judge Cox will not enter a protective order, even if agreed, that does not comply with the requirements set out by the Seventh Circuit (and, for cases on referral, the assigned District Judge). If the protective order anticipates that any documents or confidential materials submitted to the court are to be filed under seal, the proposed protective order must include, at a minimum, the following:

• A carefully-drafted definition of the categories of documents or other materials to be protected (e.g., personnel files, medical information, personal identity information, trade secrets, confidential financial matters, etc.), with an explanation of why confidentiality is necessary as to each category;
• A provision that no document may be filed under seal absent an order by the court granting a motion, filed and noticed for hearing prior to the due date of the particular filing, showing good cause for sealing that particular document or portion of document;
• A procedure for the use of confidential documents at the depositions of witnesses, and a listing of the persons who may be given access to confidential materials;
• A provision that parties are ordered to retain copies of all documents containing confidential information which are provided under the protective order;
• A provision stating that nothing in the order shall be construed to affect the admissibility of any document, material or information at any trial or hearing; any request for confidentiality, closure or sealing of any hearing or trial must be made to the judge then presiding;
• An explicit procedure under which a party or interested member of the public can challenge the confidential designation of particular documents that have been filed under seal; and
• Instructions for the disposition of the documents designated as confidential following the conclusion of the case.

The foregoing are minimum requirements. Counsel should, in addition, anticipate possible areas of future dispute and attempt to set out agreed procedures in advance to deal with them, appropriate to the nature of the case.

C.   Dealing with Confidential Documents in Court Filings

First, pursuant to amended L.R. 26.2(b), no document may be filed under seal without a prior order of the court specifying the particular document or portion of a document to be filed under seal. This amendment changed the rule by making clear that only the particular document that has been previously determined by the court to be deserving of protection may be filed under seal, regardless of the existence of any protective order.

The amended rule now offers Judges two options regarding how to handle documents designated as confidential when those documents are submitted for consideration in connection with a motion, brief or other matter. The two options are as follows:

1. Filing the confidential document with the Clerk’s Office. Under this option, the confidential documents must be filed with the Clerk’s Office, and each confidential document presented for filing must include a copy of a restricting order entered by the Judge for that specific document or portion of document. The attorney or party submitting the confidential document must file it in a sealed enclosure that conspicuously states on the face of the enclosure the attorney’s or party’s name and address, including email address if the attorney is registered as a Filing User of electronic case filing, the caption of the case, and the title of the document. See L.R. 26.2(c). The final paragraph of the restricting order shall provide: (1) the identity of the persons, if any, who are to have access to the confidential materials without further order of court; and (2) instructions for the disposition of the restricted documents following the conclusion of the case. See L.R. 26.2(b).
2. Submitting the confidential document in chambers and filing a redacted copy with the Clerk’s Office. Under this option, documents designated as confidential shall not be filed with the Clerk’s Office. Rather, any such documents requiring the court’s review shall be submitted to chambers in camera in a sealed envelope bearing the caption of the case, case number, the title of the motion or response to which the submitted confidential information pertains, and the name and telephone number of counsel submitting the documents. The producing party must file a redacted copy of all documents containing confidential information with the Clerk’s Office for the record. In addition, the producing party must maintain the original documents intact for any further review. See L.R. 26.2(d).

Judge Cox follows the second procedure in consent cases.

D. Use of Medical Records in Litigation

The Court reminds counsel that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and its regulations create a procedure for obtaining authority to use medical records in litigation, including requesting a qualified protective order. 45 C.F. R. § 164.512(e). A "qualified protective order" means an order that: (1) prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation for which such information was requested and (2) requires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v).

• Example of a Qualified Protective Order

The Court requires strict compliance with Local General Rules 56.1(a) and 56.1(b) in the briefing of all summary judgment motions (except social security cases).

Judge Cox disfavors motions to strike all or portions of an opposing party’s Rule 56.1 submission. Under all but the most extraordinary circumstances, if a party contends that its opponent has included inadmissible evidence, improper argument, or other objectionable material in a Rule 56.1 submission, the party’s argument that the offending material should not be considered should be included in its response or reply brief, not in a separate motion to strike.  The matter will then be considered by the Court when it renders a decision on the matter.

In cases where the district court has not set a briefing schedule, the following schedule shall apply. Within sixty (60) days after the filing of the answer to the complaint and the administrative record, the plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Commissioner shall file her motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support and in response to plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff’s reply brief is due fourteen (14) days thereafter.

A. Plaintiff’s Memorandum

The plaintiff shall identify the specific grounds for reversal or remand. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The plaintiff shall include only those facts that relate to the issues presented. It is not necessary to include plaintiff’s entire medical history if it is not relevant to the issues raised.

B. The Commissioner’s Memorandum

The Commissioner shall specifically respond to the plaintiff’s assertions and arguments. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The Commissioner’s brief may supplement the plaintiff’s facts where needed. Do not feel compelled to repeat facts included in the plaintiff’s brief.

Too often litigants are unaware of the efficiencies to be gained by having their cases tried before United States Magistrate Judges. Judge Cox encourages parties to consent to her jurisdiction which would allow her to resolve the entire case. Parties should read 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 regarding trial by consent. The Court strongly encourages counsel to inform their clients of this option, and to discuss it with opposing counsel.

• Magistrate Judge Consent Form

Judge Cox has adopted a simple form of final pretrial order for both bench and jury trials.

For information on Bench & Jury Trials, see:

• Final Pretrial Order for Consent Cases Before Magistrate Judge Cox (PDF format)
     

• Trial Conduct and Procedures
    

• Jury Selection Procedures
    

• Standard Voir Dire Questions.
    

• Parties should consult the Pattern Civil Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit for the most up to date instructions.
    

• Sample jury instructions for particular case types including Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, Federal Employers Liability Act and Personal Injury.

Proposed Orders are technically not to be "filed." Rather, they are to be "submitted" to the judge to consider, to modify, if appropriate, and to enter electronically. For example, proposed orders such as stipulated protective orders require court approval before actually being given full effect. To prevent confusion, such proposed orders must be attached to an e-mail sent to the e-mail address of the assigned judge, Proposed_Order_Cox@ilnd.uscourts.gov  The subject line of the e-mail must include the case number and name, the docket number of the corresponding motion, if any, and the title of the order that is proposed as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). All such documents must be submitted to the court in a format compatible with WordPerfect, which is a "Save As" option in most word processing software. Such proposed orders should also be served on all parties.