| 1. Civil
& Criminal Case Calls |
CIVIL CASES:
Status Calls Tuesday & Thursday, 10:00 A.M
Motion Calls* Monday & Wednesday, 9:15 A.M.
*All motions shall be filed electronically. All motions also require a paper courtesy copy to Judge Denlow’s chambers (Room 1356) no later than two business days before the motion is to be heard.
"Federal Pretrial Motion
Practice: Talk Before Filing," prepared in 2007.
CRIMINAL CASES:
Motions Monday & Wednesday, 9:15 A.M.
Arraignments Monday & Wednesday, 10:00 A.M.
Parties should contact Judge Denlow's courtroom
deputy to determine whether an agreed motion has been granted without
the necessity for an appearance by counsel.
|
| 2. Initial
Status Conference |
Upon assignment of cases to Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow, a status
date will be set by means of a minute order. In order to make the
status as productive as possible, including the setting of settlement
conferences, trial or ruling dates, the court directs the parties to
file, at least three business days before the status hearing, an
original and one copy of a joint status report (if parties cannot
agree, separate status reports may be filed), not to exceed three
pages, with the Clerk's Office and deliver a courtesy copy to my
chambers. See, Order Setting Initial Status
Report For Cases Assigned to Judge Denlow.
|
| 3. Discovery
Motions |
Rule
26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires parties
to make initial disclosures, without awaiting a discovery request,
within 14 days of the Rule 26(f) conference. Parties are encouraged to
conduct their Rule 26(f) conference within 21 days after defendant has
filed an appearance.
The court encourages the parties to work out discovery disputes and
discourages the filing of discovery motions. Discovery disputes are
normally resolved on the motion call without briefing. If the matter
is not resolved, then the court will set a briefing schedule.
With regard to the filing of motions for discovery and production
of documents under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26-37, the court will not hear or consider any discovery
motions unless the parties have complied with Local
Rule 37.2
In any motion for discovery or production of documents, the movant
shall state when and how the movant complied with Local
Rule 37.2. Failure to comply with these rules will result in the
imposition of sanctions. Most often the court will rule on these
motions after oral argument at the motion call and without briefing.
The court will also consider these motions at a status call.
Privilege Disputes. Parties who have disputes concerning matters of
privilege shall prepare privilege logs which comply with the
requirements of Allendale v. Bull Data Systems, 145 F.R.D. 84, 88
(N.D. Ill. 1992) (J. Bobrick). 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; 2) description of the subject matter in sufficient detail to
determine if legal advice was sought or revealed, or if the document
was made for the primary purpose of litigation; 3) the date of the
document and any attachments; 4) the type of document; 5) the
privilege asserted; and 6) Bates numbers.
|
| 4. Protective
Orders |
Before requesting that Judge Delow enter a protective order to
preserve the confidentiality of materials disclosed in discovery,
counsel shall carefully review the following:
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c);
- 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
- In a case that is before Judge Denlow on referral for discovery
supervision, any standing order or instructions from the District
Judge regarding protective orders.
Judge Denlow will not enter a protective order, even if agreed,
that does not comply with the requirements set out by the Seventh
Circuit and 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 protective order must
include, at a minimum, the following: a carefully-drafted definition
of the materials to be protected, with an explanation of why these
documents are entitled to protection, consistent with the Seventh
Circuit's descriptions of what is protectable; and 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. Any designation of materials as
"confidential" must be made in good faith by counsel, not by
the client, and each page of confidential material must be marked
"confidential." The order should set out a procedure for the
use of confidential documents at the depositions of witnesses, and
identify the persons who may be given access to confidential
materials. The order must further provide 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. All protective orders must contain the following language: The parties are ordered to retain copies of all documents containing confidential information which are provided in discovery under the protective order. Documents containing confidential information shall
NOT be filed with the Clerk of Court. 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 shall maintain the original documents intact for any further review. A redacted copy of the pleading shall be filed with the Clerk of Court for the record.
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.
|
| 5. Preliminary
Injunction Motions |
Judge Denlow encourages parties to consider proceeding directly to
a trial on the merits rather than having a trial on a motion for a
preliminary injunction. Please read Judge Denlow’s article entitled:
"Preliminary Injunctions: Look Before You
Leap," which appeared in the Summer 2002 issue of
Litigation, published by the Section of Litigation, American Bar
Association to determine whether this is appropriate in your case.
In addition, Judge Denlow has written an article entitled "The Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction: Time for a Uniform Federal Standard" published in
the Summer 2003 issue of the Review of Litigation, 22 REV. LITIG. 495, a
University of Texas Publication.
|
| 6. Summary
Judgment Motions |
Judge Denlow discourages summary judgment motions because they are
expensive and time consuming. Prior to filing a motion for summary
judgment, counsel are required to consult in person or by telephone to
discuss the issues to be raised in the motion. The purpose of the
conference is to encourage parties to:1) avoid filing motions for
summary judgment where a fact question exists; 2) determine whether
the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole or in part;
3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of
briefing; 4) narrow the issues for review by the court; and 5) explore
the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the expense of
briefing a summary judgment motion.
As an alternative to cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge
Denlow suggests that parties consider a trial on the papers. This
procedure requires parties to: 1) waive their jury demand, if any; 2)
stipulate to a trial on the papers; 3) submit proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law with citations to the supporting factual
record; and 4) participate in oral argument. The Court will enter
findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 52(a).
To learn more about Judge Denlow's views see: "Summary
Judgment: Boon or Burden" published in the Judges'
Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, Summer 1998, a publication of the
Judicial Division of the American Bar Association and "Trial
on the Papers: An Alternative to Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment" published in The Federal Lawyer, Vol.
46, No. 7, p. 30, a publication of the Federal Bar Association
|
| 7. Settlement
Process |
Judge Denlow has adopted a standing order regarding
settlement conference. See, Order Setting
Settlement Conference. For information on Judge Denlow's views
on the settlement process, see the following articles:
"Steps to an
Effective Settlement Conference: Before You Come to the Table";
"Steps to an Effective Settlement
Conference: At the Table" (PDF format)
In preparation for the settlement conference, the parties should consider the
Settlement Checklist/Term Sheet that Judge Denlow will require the parties to complete at the conclusion of the settlement conference. This document covers the most common issues raised in finalizing a settlement agreement.
Parties contemplating a settlement that provides for enforcement of the settlement terms in federal court are encouraged to review Judge Denlow's recent article,
"What's an Attorney to Do? Ensuring Federal Jurisdiction Over Settlement Agreements in Light of Recent Seventh Circuit Cases" and the sample dismissal orders contained in the article's appendix.
See, also "Ten Top
Ways to Prevent Settlement"
|
| 8. Consent
to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge |
Too often litigants are unaware of the efficiencies to be gained by
having their cases tried before United States Magistrate Judges. Judge
Denlow encourages parties to consent to his jurisdiction in order that
he will have complete jurisdiction to resolve the entire case. Parties
should read 28 U.S.C. 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73
regarding trial by consent. The court strongly encourages counsel to
inform their clients of this option, and to discuss it with opposing
counsel. See, Magistrate
Judge Consent Form. See, also Top Ten
Reasons to Consent to Trial Before Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
|
| 9. Bench
& Jury Trials |
Judge Denlow has adopted a simple form of final
pretrial order for both bench and jury trials.
For information on Bench & Jury Trials, see:
|
| 10. Social Security Cases |
Judge Denlow has adopted a Standing Order in Social Security Cases for the briefing of social security cases. In addition, Judge Denlow has written an article entitled Substantial Evidence Review In Social Security Cases as an Issue of Fact, published in the Fall 2007 issue of the Federal Courts Law Review, volume 2 at page 99.
|
| 11. Submitting a Proposed Order, Agreed or Otherwise, for Electronic Entry by the Judge |
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_Denlow@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. |
