Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States ex rel Tucker v. Nayak

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


February 27, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. PAM TUCKER, PLAINTIFF(S),
v.
P.D.L. NAYAK, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is defendant Nayak's "Emergency Motion to Strike, Petition for Rule to Show Cause and Motion to Strike." (Doc. 63). Defendant requests that: (1) relator Tucker's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment be stricken because exhibits include the complete names of patients, in violation for the Court's limited protective order entered on January 9, 2009; (2) relator Tucker be ordered to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of Court for knowingly violating the limited protective order; and (3) the Court strike relator Tucker's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, as it was filed one day after the prescribed response deadline.

Although the response period has not passed, in view of the fact that non-party patients' names have been published in the record, the Court will immediately strike relator Tucker's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 62). The Court will direct Tucker to show cause in writing why she, by and through her attorney, should not be held in contempt of Court for violating the Court's January 9, 2009, limited protective order.

Relator Tucker's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 62) was filed one day late. Nevertheless, after consultation with Judge Gilbert, in the interest of judicial economy, and because the Court prefers to have cases decided on the merits rather than by minor procedural errors, the Court will allow relator to re-file her response to defendant's motion for summary judgment.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Nayak's "Emergency Motion to Strike, Petition for Rule to Show Cause and Motion to Strike" (Doc. 63) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:

1. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE AND SEAL relator Tucker's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 62);

2. On or before March 10, 2009, relator Tucker shall file her response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, making all necessary redactions required pursuant to the limited protective order (Doc. 58); and

3. On or before March 10, 2009, relator Tucker shall show cause in writing why she should not be held in contempt of Court for violating the Court's limited protective order (Doc. 58).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20090227

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.