COURT SCHEDULE

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Magistrate Judge Nolan, 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 Nolan.

• 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 312-435-5833.

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, Wednesday or Thursday at 9:00 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 Friday for Wednesday’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.

Courtesy copies of all filed documents must be delivered to Judge Nolan’s chambers, Room 1870.

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. 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.

A. Discovery Motions in Employment Discrimination Cases

In employment discrimination cases, the Court requests that counsel refer to its following prior opinions before filing motions regarding similar issues: Saket v. American Airlines, 2003 WL 685385 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2003) (discovery regarding plaintiff’s psychiatric records, alleged similarly situated employees, other employees’ complaints of discrimination, and the personnel files of employees who allegedly discriminated against plaintiff); Sykes v. Target Stores, 2002 WL 554505 (N. D. Ill. Apr. 15, 2002) (discovery of information regarding alleged similarly situated employees and decisionmakers and the employer’s policies); Byers v. Illinois State Police, No. 99 C 8105, 2002 WL 1264004 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 2002) (geographic scope of discovery and discovery of archived emails, personnel files of persons who allegedly discriminated against plaintiffs, and personnel files of persons who were actually promoted); and Davis v. Precoat Metals, 2002 WL 1759828 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2002) (discovery of other employees’ complaints of discrimination and personnel files/disciplinary information of other employees).

B. Discovery Motions in Civil Rights Cases

In civil rights cases, counsel shall review the opinion of this Court in Lepianka v. The Village of Franklin Park, 2004 WL 626830 (N.D. Ill. March 26, 2004), which concerns discovery of defendant police officers’ disciplinary records, before filing a discovery motion regarding the same issue.

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. Filing Material Under Seal

In accordance with Local Rule 26.2(b), the Court will make a good cause determination for filing information under seal if and when the parties seek to file documents or information under seal. If a party intends to file a motion or other paper with the Court which contains information designated as confidential by the other party or a non-party pursuant to a confidentiality agreement between the parties, the filing party shall give reasonable notice of such intention to the designating party. A party seeking to file its own confidential information under seal, or a designating party given notice that a party intends to file the designating party’s confidential information, shall file and notice for hearing a Motion to File Under Seal prior to the due date of the particular filing. The Motion to File Under Seal must demonstrate good cause by including a specific description of each document or categories of documents that the party seeks to file under seal and explaining why confidentiality is necessary, including citations to supporting authority.

Motions to File Under Seal shall also discuss the relevance of the information to the litigation. Information important to the litigation is less likely to be subject to confidentiality restrictions. See Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7^th Cir. 2002) (stating "very few categories of documents are kept confidential once their bearing on the merits of a suit has been revealed."); Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7^th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that an executive’s salary would not be entitled to confidential treatment "if a dispute erupted about payment (or termination).").

The Court will not approve the filing of entire pleadings or briefs under seal. See Pepsico, Inc.v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995) and In the Matter of Grand Jury, 983 F.2d 74 (7^th Cir. 1992). Parties must file public pleadings and briefs but may file sealed supplements if necessary to discuss in detail confidential materials, if the Court approves the filing of a sealed supplement.

C. 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 Nolan disfavors motions to strike all or portions of an opposing party’s Rule 56.1 submission. Under ordinary 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.

In cases where the district court has not set a briefing schedule, the following schedule shall apply. Within ninety (90) 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. No oversized briefs will be allowed without prior court approval obtained at least two weeks prior to the due date, and upon good cause shown.

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 Nolan 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

In consent cases, the Court will set a date in advance of trial on which the parties must file the final pretrial order. Counsel shall use the form final pretrial order appended to this District’s Standing Order Establishing Pretrial Procedure. As a supplement to the form final pretrial order, counsel are required to include the following additional information in the final pretrial order: (1) where there is an objection to the admission of deposition testimony, the party proposing the deposition testimony shall state the reasons for admissibility and (2) where there is an objection to a jury instruction, the party proposing the instruction shall state the reasons supporting the instruction as proposed.

Counsel shall use the Federal Civil Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit where applicable. The pattern instructions shall be modified to the particular circumstances of each case. The parties shall submit a single diskette formatted in a current version of WordPerfect or Word containing the agreed instructions, plaintiff’s instructions, and defendant’s instructions.

Any motions in limine shall be filed on or before the time for filing the final pretrial order. Responses shall be filed seven (7) days later. Replies are due seven (7) days thereafter. Counsel are directed to meet and confer in-person on all motions in limine before filing them. Motions in limine should not be bound with the final pretrial order.

Fourteen (14) days prior to the first day of trial, plaintiff's counsel shall provide the Court with the following materials in addition to the final pretrial order: (1) a joint list of all parties and witnesses who will be called, may be called, or whose testimony will be presented by deposition and (2) a joint list of all counsel who will be participating in the case. The Court will read the lists of parties, witnesses, and counsel to the jury during voir dire.

The Court's trial materials include standard voir dire questions, introductory remarks for the jury, and preliminary jury instructions:

• Standard Voir Dire Questions
• Civil Jury Selection Introduction
• Preliminary Jury Instructions in Civil Case

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_Nolan@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.