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.

Rocha v. Rudd

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

October 21, 2014

CARLOS G. ROCHA, Plaintiff,
v.
J. GORDON RUDD JR., et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

On September 11, 2014 counsel for defendants filed a motion to dismiss, on several grounds, the action brought against them by Carlos Rocha ("Rocha"), with pages 2 through 6 of defendants' amended supporting memorandum (filed on September 12) providing the detailed factual background of the matter. On the motion's September 22 presentment date "this Court directly asked counsel for Rocha whether Plaintiff still has viable claims against FedEx that he could pursue in the underlying action before Judge Castillo" (Mem. at 2), ordered that a response be filed by October 20 and continued the matter to October 27 for consideration of the pending motion. On October 21 Rocha's counsel filed his Response to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss, and that subject will indeed be addressed at the October 27 hearing.

Meanwhile, however, on September 9 counsel for Rocha had served a sweeping and totally-uncalled-for Request To Produce on defendants (this Court has not checked to see whether that preceded or followed the motion to dismiss, though that should not make any difference). Most recently, on October 9 defense counsel filed a Motion for Entry of a Protective Order with a projected October 27 presentment date (a date that coincides with this Court's earlier-entered hearing date). In candor, the earlier characterization of Rocha's Request To Produce as "totally-uncalled-for" is an understatement. Under the circumstances that action on the part of Rocha and his counsel calls for an explanation as to why Rocha ought not to be sanctioned for what appears to be a clear violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 26(c), bringing Rule 37(a)(5) into play, and as to why Rocha's counsel ought not to be found liable under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1927. Rocha's counsel should come prepared to respond to those issues at the October 27 hearing and presentment date.


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.