"Needless Cost Increases" from "Both Counsels' Choices to Follow the Path of Most Resistance"

From Judge April Perry (N.D. Ill.) today in Doe v. Thomas. Some context:

Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order [51] is denied, as Plaintiff already has a motion for a protective order pending before the Magistrate Judge and duplicative motions are inappropriate. Plaintiff should have either requested an extension of time to file her confidential materials or requested a ruling from the Magistrate Judge rather than choosing to file materials under seal and then refusing to provide them to the defense.

That said, the Court’s briefing scheduling was obviously not intended to force the disclosure of confidential materials without a protective order. Therefore, the exhibits will be marked as “attorneys’ eyes only” and immediately produced to defense counsel, who will treat them as confidential until such time as the Magistrate Judge has ruled on the motion for protective order. Once the Magistrate Judge has ruled, that ruling will apply to the materials.

Defendant’s “emergency” motion to strike and for sanctions [56] is denied. A dispute about document confidentiality and a four−day delay in getting exhibits is not an emergency. Defendant also could have just asked for an extension of time to reply to account for the time lost waiting for the documents rather than engaging in motion practice. This is not a crisis and no “serious harm,” Doc. 56 at 4, has been caused to anyone. The only needless cost increases have been due to both counsels’ choices to follow the path of most resistance.

Defendant’s reply deadline is advanced to 6/24/2026 to account for the days  defendant did not have the exhibits. No depositions will be allowed on this motion. Counsel can make appropriate arguments about the unreliability of the expert without discovery practice.

The post “Needless Cost Increases” from “Both Counsels’ Choices to Follow the Path of Most Resistance” appeared first on Reason.com.