Office Hours: 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Motion Call: Tuesday through Thursday @
Status Call: Monday through Thursday @
9:00 & 9:30 a.m.
Please note that Judge
Kennelly requires three days notice for the presentation of all
As required by Local Rule 5.2(e), a "judge’s
copy" must be provided of all documents filed with the court,
including documents filed electronically. This copy should be
delivered either to Judge Kennelly’s chambers or to
the lobby drop-box.
Initial Status Conference
Judge Kennelly will set all newly-filed
cases for an initial conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b) approximately 60 days of the filing of the complaint. Order
Setting Initial Status Hearing. At the initial conference,
the parties should be prepared to discuss the nature of the case,
report on the possibility of settlement, and discuss the nature and
length of discovery necessary to prepare the case for trial. Written
status reports should not be filed. A discovery cut-off date may
be set at the initial conference.
In some cases, the scheduled status
conference may take place before a defendant has responded to the
plaintiff’s complaint. Judge Kennelly expects all defendants who
have been served with process to participate in this conference even
if they have not yet responded to the complaint.
without exception, must be noticed for presentment as required by
Local Rule 5.3(b). Motions that are not noticed for presentment will
All motions, civil and criminal, are to
be noticed for Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday at 9:30 a.m. Judge
Kennelly requires all motions to be served electronically at least
three business days before the date the motion is to be heard.
Joint, uncontested, and agreed motions
should be so identified in the title and body of the motion.
A paper copy of all motions, including
those filed electronically, must be submitted in accordance with Local
Rule 5.3(e), either by submission to chambers (Room 2188) or by
leaving it in the lobby drop box.
Rulings on routine or uncontested
motions will be posted to CourtWeb
by Judge Kennelly’s staff by approximately 3:00 p.m. the day
prior to the scheduled hearing. Click on the following link for the
specific instructions for using Court Web online rulings:
USING COURT WEB ONLINE RULINGS
If an appearance is unnecessary, it is
the obligation of the movant to notify the respondent(s) accordingly.
Motions to extend a discovery cutoff
date or to reset a trial date, even if agreed, ordinarily will require
a court appearance.
Motions to extend a discovery cutoff
date must be noticed for hearing before the existing cutoff date.
Judge Kennelly will consider motions at
scheduled status hearings, so long as the notice requirements of Local
Rule 5.3 have been met.
Judge Kennelly believes that parties
can and should work out most discovery disputes and thus discourages
the filing of discovery motions. Judge Kennelly will not hear or
consider any discovery motion unless the movant has complied with the
"meet and confer" requirement of Local
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 ordinarily will not 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. Judge
Kennelly ordinarily will rule on discovery motions after hearing
argument at the motion call and without briefing. If he believes
that the motion requires briefing, an expedited briefing schedule will
be set so that the matter can be resolved promptly.
Parties are reminded that there is no
"sequence" 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.
Submitting a Proposed Order for
Judge Kennelly is participating in a
pilot program regarding electronic signature of orders, other than
minute orders, which are submitted by parties.
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
To prevent confusion, such proposed
orders must be attached to an e-mail sent to the following e-mail
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 in a word processing format
compatible with WordPerfect, which is a "Save As" option in
most word processing software (if that option is not available, the
document should be sent as a Word document). Such proposed orders must
also be served on all other parties to the case.
Orders submitted for electronic
signature in accordance with these instructions should not be e-mailed
until after the underlying motion or request is heard in open court. In
many cases, a minute order entered by the Clerk will suffice, and
there will be no need for an electronically-signed order. Judge
Kennelly will advise counsel whether an order should be submitted for
Protective Orders; Filing of Documents
Any party moving for entry of a
protective order by Judge Kennelly pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) must abide by the following guidelines.
Judge Kennelly will not sign a
protective order that allows counsel, in their discretion, to decide
which matters are to be deemed confidential. The proposed order must
specify the categories of documents or other matters which may be
subject to the order (e.g., personnel files, medical information,
confidential financial matters, etc.). The motion for protective order
must set forth why confidentiality is necessary as to each such
Judge Kennelly will not sign a
protective order that provides that items designated as confidential
may, for that reason, be filed with the court under seal.
Rather, any protective order that contemplates under-seal filing
must provide that no documents may be filed under seal absent a
motion, filed and noticed for hearing prior to the due date of the
particular filing, showing good cause for sealing a portion of the
record in the case. The mere fact that information has been designated
as confidential by a party is insufficient to permit under-seal
filing. A party seeking to file material under seal must set forth in
its motion the reasons why the record should be sealed.
In any case in which Judge Kennelly
permits a portion of a document to be filed under seal, the party
filing the document must also file a public-record version that
includes the entire filing except for the portions that are being
filed under seal.
Issuance of a protective order will not
be given binding effect as a determination of good cause for Rule
26(c) purposes if, at any future time, a party moves for
relief from the protective order's limitations. If such a motion is
made, the court will engage in an appropriate balancing of the
interests between privacy and public access to make a new
determination of good cause in light of the facts then before the
Summary Judgment Motions
Judge Kennelly disfavors motions to
strike all or portions of an opposing party's Local
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.
for settlement conferences for cases assigned to Judge
Final Pretrial Order
Judge Kennelly’s requirements for the
filing of final pretrial orders differ somewhat from those imposed by Local
Parties should consult Judge
Kennelly’s Final Pretrial Order requirements.
Judge Kennelly typically selects twelve
jurors in civil cases.
Kennelly's Jury Selection Procedure
The Seventh Circuit Model Jury
Instructions are to be used to the extent they apply. If Illinois law
provides the applicable standards, the Illinois pattern instructions
should be used for the substantive elements of the particular cause of
The following links provide examples of
jury instructions for cases with claims not covered by the Seventh
Circuit Model Jury Instructions. Counsel are advised to adapt these
instructions to the circumstances of their case and to ensure that
they reflect the current state of the law.
Injury / Negligence & Contributory Negligence & third party
claim (given in Kirkland v. Amtrak, 98 C 3699, trial held
Law / Secondary Boycott (given in Metropolitan Chicago,
Inc. v. Teamsters Local 705, 99 C 2886, trial held February 2001)
of Contract / Insurance Coverage / Exclusion for "Flood"
(given in Industrial Enclosure Corp. v. Northern Insurance Co.,
97 C 6850, trial held June 2001)
of Joint Venture Agreement / Breach of Fiduciary Duty (given
in Howington v. Ghourdjian, 00 C 7394, trial held November 2001)
/ Fraudulent Conveyance (given in Synergy Assocs., Inc. v.
Cusimano, 02 C 3320, trial held October 2004)
(Monopolization) / Breach of Contract / Intentional Interference with
Contract and Prospective Relations, with special verdict forms (given
in JamSports and Entertainment, LLC v. Paradama Productions, Inc., 02
C 2298, trial held February-March 2005)
Process (Concealment of Exculpatory Evidence) / RICO, with special
verdict forms (given in Manning v. Miller, 02 C 372, trial
held December 2004 - January 2005)
Amendment / Body Cavity Search / Unwanted Medical Procedure (Thompson
v. Cook County, 03 C 7172, trial held February 2006)
Employers’ Liability Act / Negligence (Pierce v. Chicago
Rail Link, LLC, 03 C 7524, trial held July 2006)
/ Interference with Prospective Advantage (Installation
Svcs., Inc. v. Electronics Research, Inc., 04 C 6906, trial held July
of Contract / Holder in Due Course / Fraud (IFC Credit
Corp. v. United Bus. & Indust. Federal Credit Union, 04 C 5905,
trial held August 2006)