December 19, 2013
SHONNE SMITH, Plaintiff,
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
Although plaintiff Shonne Smith's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on November 21, 2013, her counsel ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of every court filing for the assigned judge's use within one business day after filing. To underscore the importance of that requirement to the case management procedures followed by this Court, the first paragraph in its website repeats the requirement, adding that a delivery to this Court's chambers on the date of filing, if possible, would be appreciated (although such earlier delivery is not essential).
Despite the literal one-business-day requirement of LR 5.2(f), this Court has customarily allowed a grace period - at least a few working days, sometimes longer - before the issuance of this type of memorandum order. In this instance, however, this Court's awareness of the violation by plaintiff's counsel has been triggered by defendant's recent motion for an extension of time to respond to the TAC (much like Johnny Carson's "Carnack the Magnificent" routine: "Here's the answer. What's the question?"). In any event, this Court hereby orders:
1. that the missing copy of the TAC be delivered to this Court's chambers forthwith and
2. that such delivery be accompanied by a check for $100 payable to the "Clerk of the District Court" by reason of the LR 5.2(f) violation, a requirement foreshadowed by the opening provision in this Court's website.