View Single Post
Old April 28, 2012, 09:28 PM   #158
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
Here are the filings in this game of tit-for-tat. Please read them carefully.

Quote:
2012-04-03 139 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's motion for protective order 134 and to quash depositions is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses 136 is entered and briefed as follows: Response by 4/17/2012. Plaintiff to reply by 4/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Fact Discovery is extended and ordered closed by 6/29/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 9/21/2012. Responses due by 10/19/2012. Replies due by 11/9/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Expert discovery cut off set for 8/31/2012. Status hearing stricken for 4/23/2012 and reset for 7/9/2012 at 09:00 AM. The Court allows two (2) hours more for each deposition. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
2012-04-05 140 MOTION by Plaintiff Rhonda Ezell to quash Subpoenas (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Muchoney, Andrew) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
2012-04-05 141 NOTICE of Motion by Andrew Athis Muchoney for presentment of motion to quash 140 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/12/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Muchoney, Andrew) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
2012-04-12 142 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: MOTION by Plaintiff Rhonda Ezell to quash Subpoenas 140 is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Alternative motion for protective order is granted. The subpoena is narrowed to July.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
2012-04-17 143 RESPONSE by City Of Chicagoin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to compel discovery responses 136 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
2012-04-16 144 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to the Honorable Morton Denlow pursuant to Local Rule 72.1 to perform such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States: Motion to compel 136 . Signed by Executive Committee on 4/16/12.(smm) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
2012-04-18 145 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:This matter has been referred to Judge Denlow for ruling on a pending motion. If no briefing schedule has been set or if no briefing is desired, the parties are to notice the motion up on Mondays or Wednesdays at 9:15 a.m. Judge Denlow does not desire briefs on discovery disputes. Otherwise, the parties are to appear for status or argument at 10:00 a.m. on 5/10/2012. Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
2012-04-23 146 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery responses 136 is set for 5/2/2012 at 09:15 AM.Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
2012-04-23 147 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery responses 136 set for 5/2/2012 is stricken. Status hearing set for 5/10/2012 at 10:00 A.M. to stand.Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
2012-04-24 148 REPLY by Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to compel discovery responses 136 (Sigale, David) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
Normally, disputes at discovery are handled by a magistrate judge. This is something that Judge Kendall should have ordered, right out of the gate. She didn't. Instead, she has personally handled this discovery dispute and sided almost exclusively with the City.

So notice that 3-26 entry (Doc #138)? The transmittal of a supplemental record? That was not Gura, as I had previously supposed. This action was taken by the Chief Clerk of the District Court. He does not act on his own. I strongly suspect that someone at the 7th ordered this, because of the nature of what was sent: The transcript of the open court proceedings of Oct. 26th. The result of that hearing, was the denial of the injunction mandated by the Circuit.

Then on Apr. 16th, we have Doc #144, an EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER, assigning the discovery dispute to a magistrate.

This suggests to me that someone in a much higher pay grade, has just slapped the hands of Judge Kendall. Her bias is evident, at least to me. It will be telling if this case does not go back to her.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05088 seconds with 7 queries