View Single Post
Old November 15, 2012, 11:04 AM   #167
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,550
The latest docket entries:

11/02/2012 188 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to strike interrogatory responses and bar plaintiffs from introducing new claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-H)(Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

11/02/2012 189 NOTICE of Motion by Rebecca Alfert Hirsch for presentment of motion to strike 188[RECAP] before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 11/8/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

11/08/2012 190 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion to strike 188[RECAP] is entered and briefed as follows: Responses due by 11/29/2012. Replies due by 12/13/2012. Ruling set for 1/29/2012 at 9:00 a.m. The Court suspends the expert discovery cut off until a ruling on the pending motion has been made. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
At the link (within the quoted docket) we see that Chicago is complaining that the Plaintiffs are not playing fair. Document 190 is Judge Kendall ordering briefs on the motion.

I can hardly wait to see Alan Gura's response.

When we talk about delays, how can Chicago, with a straight face, complain about the plaintiffs! They (Chicago) have done everything they can to string this out.

When we talk about the nature of the interrogatories, Chicago asked questions that were not even close to being on point, and the Magistrate allowed it, despite the plaintiffs objections.

I expect this Judge to bow to Chicago's demands, even as the court has done in the past.

Gura is building another set of circumstances with which to appeal.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03196 seconds with 7 queries