• Theresa Hammonds
  (312) 435-5879
  Room: 1238

• Joseph Donado
• Steven Grimes
• Suzanne Strater

• Joseph Rickhoff
  (312) 435-5562
  Room: 1232

The Court will set all newly filed cases for status approximately 50 days from the filing of complaint.  At least three working days before the initial status hearing, the parties shall file a joint written status report, not to exceed five pages in length. The status report shall address the following: 1) the nature of the case, including the legal and factual issues; 2) the status of settlement discussions and the potential for settlement; 3) the status of discovery, including anticipated discovery;  4) all pending motions; and 5) the trial status.

•  Initial Status Report

All electronically filed motions must be filed no later than the third business day preceding the day the motion is to be heard.  Please deliver a courtesy copy to chambers of all motions to dismiss, motions to compel, summary judgment motions, and any other motions with exhibits attached.

Joint, uncontested, and agreed motions should be so identified in the title and body of the motion.

Please check the Court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov (go to website and click on "Courtweb") after 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon prior to the hearing date to determine whether an appearance is necessary.  If an appearance is not necessary, it is the obligation of the movant to notify the respondent(s) accordingly.

Counsel shall not respond to motions by correspondence with the Court.

Trial dates and discovery cutoff dates will not be reset except by written motion.  Motions to extend a discovery cutoff date or to reset a trial date, whether uncontested or contested, will normally require a Court appearance.

Emergency matters must be of such a nature that a delay in hearing them would cause serious harm to one or more the parties.  Requests to set a hearing on an emergency motion shall be made to the courtroom deputy (Room 1238) with as much advance notice as possible.  All reasonable efforts must be made to give actual notice to opposing counsel.

The Court believes that 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 or non-dispositive dispute unless the movant has complied with the "meet and confer" requirement of Local Rule 37.2. The 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 and communication that takes place face to face or by telephone. The exchange of correspondence will not normally be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2.

All parties should be fully prepared to argue any discovery motion on the date that it is presented. The Court most often will rule on discovery motions after hearing argument at the motion call and without briefing.  If after hearing argument, the Court believes that the motion requires briefing, the Court normally will set an expedited briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly.

Parties are reminded to immediately notify the Court if they are withdrawing any previously filed discovery motions.

Parties are reminded that there is no "order" in which discovery must occur, and that one party's failure or inability to respond to discovery will not excuse any other party's prompt compliance. Parties are also reminded that the pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not operate as a stay of discovery.

Motions for summary judgment and responses must comply with Local Rules 56.1(a) and 56.1(b), as well as the procedures outlined herein.  All statements of undisputed material facts and their responses shall be filed separately from the memoranda of law and shall include the line, paragraph, or page number where the supporting material may be found in the record.

The Local Rules are not mere technicalities. Failure to abide by the Local Rules may result in the Court striking briefs, disregarding statements of fact, deeming statements of fact admitted, and denying summary judgment. See Buttron v. Sheehan, No. 00 C 4451, 2003 WL 21801222 (N. D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2003).

The movant shall not file more than 80 statements of undisputed material facts without prior leave of the Court. The respondent shall be limited to 40 statements of undisputed material facts without prior leave of the Court. In complex cases, the Court may request that the parties submit a timeline of events in addition to the statements of undisputed material facts.

The fifteen (15) page limitation on all memoranda contained in Local Rule 7.1 shall be strictly enforced. A motion for leave to exceed that limit shall not be granted unless warranted.

Parties must attach to their memoranda copies of any cited authority that is only published on electronic database, such as Westlaw and Lexis. Parties also should attach any cited authority that is unpublished in the West National Reporter System.

Illinois cases should be cited to both N.E.2d and Illinois Appellate Court Reports.

Briefing schedules are generally set by Court order. A motion for extension of time shall not be granted except on a showing of good cause. The circumstances warranting an extension shall be set forth in specific detail by written motion.

The Court will also consider motions at scheduled status hearings, so long as the notice requirements of Local Rule 5.3 have been met.

Too often litigants are unaware of the efficiencies to be gained by having their cases tried before United States Magistrate Judges.  The court strongly encourages counsel to inform their clients of this opinion, and to discuss it with opposing counsel.   Magistrate Judge Consent Form

Claim Construction Proceedings Before Judge St. Eve

Briefs on appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court must be filed within 15 days of the entry of judgment by the Bankruptcy Court. Any motions to extend time must be filed within the 15-day period. Briefs are limited to 15 pages each.

This Court urges parties to undertake settlement negotiations at the earliest practicable point in the litigation. Parties who desire a settlement conference should request one in open court or by telephone from the courtroom deputy. In bench trials, settlement conferences are usually referred to the magistrate judge.

Instructions to Settlement Conferences for cases before Judge St. Eve

The Court sets firm trial dates. All parties should be prepared to proceed on their trial dates.

The Court's final pre-trial order guidelines differ from those in Local Rule 16.1. Parties should consult Judge St. Eve's requirements.

Final Pretrial Order in Civil Jury Trial cases Pending before Judge St. Eve

The following jury instructions have been approved in cases tried before Judge St. Eve. The Court advises counsel to review these instructions and to adapt them to the particular circumstances of each case. Counsel should also ensure that the instructions reflect the current state of the law.

General Civil Jury Instructions

Pattern Civil Jury Instructions (WordPerfect, WPD format)

Patent Infringement, design patent case (given in National Diamond v. Flanders Diamond USA, 00 C 6402, tried in May 2003)

42 U.S.C. 1983, Excessive Force (given in Thompson v. City of Chicago, 01 C 8883, tried in July 2004)

42 U.S.C. 1983, Excessive Force/False Arrest (given in Paul Oh v. Rochotte, 03 C 120)

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (given in Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, 03 C 1884)

Medical malpractice (given in Petersen v. Cordes, 01 C 214, tried in October/November 2003)

Securities fraud, duty to correct (given in Wafra Leasing Corp. v. KPMG, 01 C 4314, tried in November 2004)

Title VII/Hostile Work Environment by co-workers and supervisors (given in Ciesielski v. Hooters on Higgins, 03 C 1175, tried in November 2004)

42 U.S.C. 1983, Excessive Force, and intentional battery under state law (given in Wawryniuk v. Maluchnik, et al., 03 C 4291, tried in December 2004)

Title VII/Hostile Work Environment (given in Misty Henry v. City of Chicago, 03 C 5122, tried in April 2005)

Age Discrimination (given in Mallet v. Board of Education, 04 C 3296, tried in January 2006)

Insurance Coverage Dispute/Breach of Duty to Defend and Estoppel, (given in Federal Insurance Co. v. Arthur Andersen LLP and Larry Gorrell, 03 C 1174, tried in February 2006)

42 U.S.C. § 1983, First Amendment violation (given in Purtell v. Mason, 04 C 7005, tried in April 2006)

Product Liability, Negligence in Product Design (given in Alcala v. Emhart Industries, Inc., 04 C 205, tried in May 2006)

Patent Infringement (given in Black & Decker v. Robert Bosch Tool Corporation, 04 C 7955, tried in September 2006)

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_St_Eve@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.