For case-related questions, please contact the Courtroom Deputy. Communication with the Court about a specific case should be with the Courtroom Deputy only, unless the Court specifically orders that parties may communicate with a law clerk.

There is a presumption that the public will have access to all court filings. Parties requesting entry of an order to preserve the confidentiality of materials disclosed in discovery must base the proposed order on the Model Confidentiality Order contained in the Local Rules (Form LR26.2), found here . The Model Confidentiality Order provides that parties should include or delete language in brackets as necessary to the specific case. Any other proposed changes to this model order must be shown in redlined format that reflects both deletions and additions to the model text. For proposed substantive changes, counsel and parties are encouraged to include comments explaining why the changes are sought. Counsel shall file a motion for entry of the proposed confidentiality order and attach as an exhibit both a redlined proposed order and a clean proposed order. Counsel shall separately email both exhibits to ( Proposed_Order_Jenkins@ilnd.uscourts.gov ) in Microsoft Word. The subject line of the email must include (1) the case name; (2) the case number; (3) the docket number of the corresponding motion; and (4) the title of the order that is proposed as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Counsel must serve a copy of a proposed order on all other parties by copying them on the email to the Court. The Court will not enter a proposed confidentiality order suggesting that material a party has designated as “confidential” may, for that reason alone, be filed under seal. Any confidentiality order that contemplates under-seal filing must provide that no documents may be filed under seal absent a motion showing good cause for sealing a portion of the record. A party’s mere designation of information as “confidential” is insufficient to permit filing under seal. A party seeking to file material under seal must instead set forth in its motion the reasons why the record should be sealed. When a party wishes to file a document on the public docket that another party has marked confidential, the parties must meet and confer to determine who is the appropriate party to file any motion to seal. If the Court permits a portion of a document to be filed under seal, the party filing the document must also file a redacted public-record version that includes the entire document except for the portions filed under seal. The issuance of a protective order in light of this Standing Order will constitute the Court’s determination, as required by Rule 26(c), that good cause existed for the issuance of a protective order.

Discovery and Discovery Motions Motions The Court believes that parties can and should work out most discovery disputes without Court intervention. The Court expects the parties to make a genuine, good-faith effort to resolve disagreements before filing a discovery motion. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion or non-dispositive dispute unless the movant has complied with the “meet and confer” requirement of Local Rule 37.2. The motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2. Compliance with the Local Rules requires a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes, including communications that take place in person, by video conference, or by phone. The exchange of emails or letters will not normally be sufficient to comply with the Local Rules. Motions that do not comply with the Local Rules may be stricken. If a party requests a meet-and-confer, the other party must respond promptly and participate in a meet-and-confer in a reasonable time. All parties must be fully prepared to orally argue any discovery motion on the date that it is presented. The Court most often will decide discovery motions after oral argument at the motion call and without additional briefing. If after argument the Court believes that the motion requires further briefing, the Court normally will set an expedited briefing schedule so that the matter can be resolved promptly. If an impasse arises about the recovery of electronically stored information and/or the discovery of voluminous records from a database, server, computer, service provider or similar electronic storage facility, no discovery motion may be filed unless the parties first meet and confer to determine whether the requested material can be retrieved and, if so, the most effective way of doing so. Such a conference must take place in person, by videoconference, or by phone and must be attended by an IT representative of the party (or, for a putative class, an IT representative of plaintiffs’ counsel) that served the request, an IT representative of the facility to be searched, and an IT representative of the party that received the request. All participants should be prepared to discuss specifically the parameters of both the search and the facility. Parties must immediately notify the Court if they are withdrawing (or narrowing) any previously filed discovery motions. Motions to Dismiss The pendency of a motion, such as a motion to dismiss, does not automatically cause discovery to be stayed. Discovery is not stayed unless the Court orders it to be stayed. The Court will often stay discovery when a motion raises a colorable jurisdictional, statute of limitations, or other issue that may result in the case being resolved not on the merits; it rarely stays discovery for motions that will not result in resolution of the entire case; and it exercises discretion on a case-by-case basis in other cases. A motion to stay discovery must explain why a stay is appropriate for the specific case. Sequence of Discovery Parties are reminded that there is no “order” in which discovery must occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3). One party’s failure or inability to respond to discovery will not excuse any other party’s non-compliance. Boilerplate Objections Objections to written discovery must state with specificity the grounds for objecting. See, e.g. , Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must … state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.”). That is, the objecting party must offer a particularized reason tailored to each request. Boilerplate objections are inadequate and are to be disregarded. For example, a generic assertion that a discovery request is “overbroad” or “unduly burdensome”—without an accompanying explanation—is the same as not objecting at all. For instance, the Court will not sustain an objection that a particular request is “burdensome” without specific information from knowledgeable sources regarding the amount and nature of the effort required to comply with the request, and the number of documents likely to be generated by compliance. Limit on the Number of Requests for Admission The Court sets a limit of 25 requests for admission under Rules 26(b)(2) and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Per “side” means parties represented by the same counsel. Any party may seek relief from this order by way of motion.