Judge Weisman welcomes the parties’ consent to his jurisdiction so that he may handle the entire case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), including ruling on dispositive motions and presiding over any trial.  As Judge Weisman does not manage a felony criminal trial docket, he generally is able to accommodate requests for firm trial dates.  Parties are encouraged to discuss this option with their clients and opposing counsel.  In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(b)(1), Judge Weisman should be informed only if all parties agree to proceed before him on consent.  Additionally, parties are encouraged to consider Local Rule 73.1(d), which allows the parties to consent to the transfer “of part of a proceeding to a magistrate judge to act pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).”  Such consents allow portions of a case to be handled by the assigned magistrate judge with the consent of the assigned district court judge.

Magistrate Judge Consent Form

Judge Weisman will generally set an initial status conference upon assignment of cases by consent or referral. The parties need not file a written status report unless requested by the Court.

The Court will attempt to set discovery schedules, briefing schedules, and other deadlines and timetables at the initial status conference, as appropriate.  Accordingly, the lead trial counsel for each party, or an attorney with substantial familiarity with and responsibility for the case, should appear at the initial status conference and be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case.  To the extent consistent with the scope of the consent or referral, the parties should be prepared to discuss the following subjects:

1. Whether all necessary parties have been named and served;
2. The basis for federal jurisdiction, including, without limitation, the determination of membership and citizenship for business entities where diversity forms the basis of jurisdiction;
3. The general nature of the claims and any counterclaims, and the major contested legal and factual issues;
4. The nature of any responsive pleadings or motions that have been filed or are anticipated;
5. The relief sought by plaintiff, the amount in controversy, elements of damages, and whether there is insurance coverage;
6. The possibility of settlement;
7. The nature, scope and scheduling of discovery, particularly discovery that is necessary to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations and so should be given priority; and
8. The probable length of any trial.

 Judge Weisman encourages the parties to prepare a more detailed presentation of issues when complexity so requires. 

The Court normally hears motions and holds status hearings on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at 9:15 a.m.  In the interest of the efficient expenditure of resources, the Court will attempt to avoid unnecessary appearances and accommodate telephonic appearances when appropriate.

All motions must be filed no later than three business days before the day the motion is to be heard (e.g., for a motion to be heard on Thursday, it must be filed no later than Monday of that week).  The Court requests that the body of any motion state whether the motion is joint or if the other parties have authorized the movant to state that the parties either agree to the motion or have no objection to it.  Absent leave of Court, memoranda of law must comply with the fifteen (15) page limitation set forth in Local Rule 7.1.

The Court reminds the parties that they should follow Local Rule 5.2, which provides that “[a] judge’s paper copy shall be bound on the left side and shall include protruding tabs for exhibits. A list of exhibits must be provided for each document that contains more than one exhibit.” While the Court will exercise its discretion to the extent parties are unable to fully comply with the formalities of Local Rule 5.2, the Court appreciates paper copies that are compiled in an orderly and organized fashion.

Moving counsel may call chambers (312) 435-5656 or the courtroom deputy (312) 408-5058 after 4:00 p.m. on the day immediately before the motion is scheduled to be heard to find out if an appearance will be required.  If counsel seeks information regarding the need to appear on a more prompt timeframe, counsel may call chambers with such a request.  The Court will make every effort to provide a sufficiently timely response.  Unless the Court has told a party it need not appear, counsel for all parties are expected to be present even if the motion is agreed.   If no appearance is required, moving counsel must notify other counsel in the case.

 Please note that Judge Weisman ordinarily will hear argument and rule on discovery motions on the date they are noticed for presentment.  (See Discovery Motions, infra.)  If Judge Weisman thinks a response is necessary, the presentment date may be stricken and another hearing date will be set as appropriate or the Court will rule on the papers submitted via the CM/ECF system.

The Court prefers that the parties jointly email the courtroom deputy to reschedule any hearing date.

Any motion seeking an extension of time to file pleadings or comply with other time requirements must include a statement that: (1) the movant has sought the other side’s agreement to the extension; and (2) specifies the result of that request.

In non-consent cases, counsel should consider the nature of the referral to the magistrate judge.  In some cases, the district court will affirmatively note that the magistrate judge may (or may not) extend dates set by the district court.  If the district court has affirmatively stated that Judge Weisman does not have the authority to extend discovery dates, counsel should file motions for extensions of time with the district court.  Conversely, if the dates at issue were set by Judge Weisman, filing a motion for an extension of time with this Court is appropriate.

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 that requires immediate action to avoid serious or irreparable harm to one or more of the parties.   Motions for extension of time for filing or for continuances of deadlines or other dates previously set by the Court are highly unlikely to qualify as “emergencies.”  However, the Court recognizes that “life happens” and, under the appropriate circumstances, will entertain such motions as emergency motions.

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 that 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.

A. Confidentiality Agreement Among the Parties (No Court Order Necessary)

The parties may agree among themselves to limit disclosure of unfiled discovery information to certain specified persons during the litigation.  Court approval of such an agreement or a court order is not necessary.  Such an agreement may well address most of the parties’ confidentiality concerns since only a small subset of discovery is typically ever filed in the public court record or used during a court proceeding.

B. Confidentiality Order Entered by the Court

If the parties require a protective order entered by the Court, they are encouraged to use the model protective order approved by the full Court and set forth in the Local Rules:  Form LR 26.2 Model Confidentiality Order.  While the parties may deviate from the model order, the Court requests that they redline additions and deletions.  The Court recommends that, at a minimum, any protective order submitted for approval contain the following:

• a carefully-drafted definition of materials to be protected that is consistent with the Seventh Circuit’s description of what is protectable (e.g., “trade secrets,” “medical information,” “personal identity information”);

• a statement that the designation of material as confidential reflects a good faith determination by counsel (not by the client) that the material falls within the definition of confidential materials under the protective order;

• an explicit statement of the right of a party or interested member of the public to challenge the confidential designation of particular documents that have been filed under seal, with the party asserting confidentiality having the burden of demonstrating the propriety of that designation; 

• a listing of the persons who may have access to materials designated as confidential (including Court personnel);

• a procedure for the use of confidential documents at depositions;

• a statement that the protective order does not, by itself, authorize the filing of any document under seal.  Any party wishing to file a document under seal must file a motion seeking leave of court to do so.  See Local Rule 26.2.

• a statement providing that the order shall not be construed to govern or affect the admissibility or use of any confidential material at trial or hearing in open court, with any requests for confidentiality or sealing of any hearing or trial to be made to the judge presiding over that proceeding.

The Court’s issuance of the protective order will constitute the determination, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), that good cause exists for the issuance of the order.  However, issuance of any protective order will not be given preclusive effect as a determination of good cause for Rule 26(c) purposes if, at a future time, a party or an interested member of the public moves for relief from the limitations of the protective order.  In the event of such a motion, the Court will engage in an appropriate assessment of the interest between privacy and public access to make a determination of good cause as to the challenged document(s) in light of the facts then before the Court.  See Jepsen, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 859 (7th Cir. 1994).

C. Filing Material Under Seal

Please note that under Local Rule 26.2, no documents may be filed under seal without a prior order of the Court specifying the particular document to be filed.  As an alternative to filing under seal, Local Rule 26.2 allows individual judges, at their discretion, to order parties to retain copies of confidential documents in lieu of filing them with the Clerk of Court, to file a redacted copy with the Clerk of Court, and to provide the judge with a complete copy for in camera use.  In referral cases, Judge Weisman will enforce the practice of the referring district judge.  In consent cases, Judge Weisman will consider using the alternative option permitted by LR 26.2 in appropriate cases.

The Court generally will not approve the filing of entire pleadings or briefs under seal.  See Pepsico, Inc.v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995); In the Matter of Grand Jury, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992).  If material is to be filed under seal, the motion to seal must demonstrate good cause by including a specific description of each document or category of information to be sealed and explaining why confidentiality is necessary.

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.  See 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).  See Sample HIPAA Order

The Court has prepared a Standing Order setting forth its settlement conference procedures.  That Standing Order may be obtained from this website, Standing Order for Settlement Conferences, or from the courtroom deputy.  Counsel and their clients must read and follow the procedures in that Standing Order prior to any settlement conference with the Court. 

In cases where the district court has not set a briefing schedule, the following schedule applies.  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 forty-five (45) days thereafter, the Commissioner shall file his motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support and in response to the plaintiff’s motion.  The plaintiff’s reply brief is due fourteen (14) days thereafter.  Briefs exceeding fifteen (15) pages are discouraged and may be filed only with leave of Court.

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 the plaintiff’s entire medical history if it is not relevant to the issues raised.   It is also not necessary to devote multiple pages to the well-recognized standards for the five-part test.   Please cite a case that you believe accurately states the legal principles you wish the Court to apply and make the Court aware of relevant contrary authority.

B. 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, but it should not repeat facts included in the plaintiff’s brief if they are not in dispute.   Be sure to cite to specific record evidence in support of each argument.

The Court believes that parties can and should resolve most discovery disputes.  The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motions 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 and, other than in exceptional circumstances, requires communication that takes place face-to-face or by telephone.  The Court prefers a face-to-face meeting; the mere exchange of correspondence, including e-mail, normally will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2.  The Court considers failure to seriously engage in the meet-and-confer process to be grounds for denial of the motion.

All parties must be fully prepared to argue any discovery motion on the date it is noticed for presentment.  The Court ordinarily will decide discovery motions after oral argument and without briefing.  If Judge Weisman thinks a response to a motion is necessary, the presentment date may be stricken and another hearing date will be set as appropriate or the Court will rule on the papers submitted via the CM/ECF system.

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.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and Advisory Committee Comments to 1993 Amendments.   Any 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; and (6) a description of the subject matter of the information contained in the document in sufficient detail to determine if legal advice was sought or received or if the document constitutes attorney work product.  See Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., 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, just as they do to other discovery disputes.

If you are a pro se litigant (meaning you do not have a lawyer), the District Court Self-Help Assistance Program may be able to provide you with assistance regarding your case. The Help Desk 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 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:

• 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

Parties should not file proposed orders.  Rather, they should email the proposed order to Judge Weisman (Proposed_Order_Weisman@ilnd.uscourts.gov) for his consideration and modification, if appropriate.  Please include in the subject line of the e-mail the case number and name, the docket number of the corresponding motion, if any, and the title of the order that is proposed.  All such documents must be submitted in a format compatible with Word.  Any proposed order must also be served on all other parties to the case by copying the e-mail submission to all parties of record.

The Court requires strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1 in the briefing of all summary judgment motions.  In addition, to assist the Court in reviewing the factual record submitted in connection with summary judgment motions, the Court requires that courtesy copies of the motion and memorandum of law, depositions and other materials relied upon in support of the motion as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(1)-(3) or in opposition to the motion as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)-(3) be delivered to chambers within one business day of filing.   The courtesy copy of the appendix must be securely bound, must separately tab each document, and must contain an index identifying what document is contained under each tab.  All statements of undisputed material facts offered by the moving party under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3), or statements of additional facts offered by the responding party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3), must list the facts in short, numbered paragraphs that refrain from argument.  Argument must be reserved for the moving party’s memorandum of law.   Each numbered fact statement must contain a specific citation to affidavits, depositions or other materials that support the fact statement, as well as to the tab(s) in the appendix where those materials may be found.  Failure to provide support for a statement of fact may result in that alleged “fact” being disregarded. 

All responses to statements of undisputed material fact offered by the responding party under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3), or responses to statements of additional fact offered by the moving party under Local Rule 56.1(a), shall be in a format similar to that used in answering a complaint.  That is, the response must repeat each numbered paragraph of the fact statement, and then immediately following each numbered statement must state whether the alleged fact is “undisputed” or “disputed.”  As with the fact statements submitted under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and 56.1(b)(3), the responses to those fact statements must refrain from argument.  The significance or lack of significance of a disputed or undisputed fact may be argued in the respondent’s legal memorandum.  If a particular fact is “undisputed,” nothing more should be said in the response.  If a particular fact assertion is “disputed” in whole or in part, the response must state what part of the assertion is disputed and must contain a specific citation to the supporting affidavits, depositions or other materials as well as to the tab(s) in the appendix where those materials may be found.  Failure to provide support for an alleged fact dispute may result in that fact being deemed admitted. 

In accordance with Local Rule 56.1, absent prior leave of Court, a movant shall not file more than eighty (80) separately numbered statements of undisputed material fact, and a party responding to a summary judgment motion shall not file more than forty (40) separately numbered statements of additional fact under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B).  The Court reminds parties that the fact statements under Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) “shall consist of short numbered paragraphs.”

In appropriate cases, the Court may direct the parties to provide courtesy copies of their filings in searchable PDF format, as opposed to hard copies.  Highly involved cases with substantial exhibits are likely candidates for this approach.  Counsel are encouraged to raise this option for courtesy copy production if counsel believes it would be more efficient or helpful to the parties and/or the Court.

Judge Weisman's Final Pretrial Order