Case Activity (309)

1. Filed: August 14, 2026 | Entered: August 14, 2026 Reusch, Jr v. The Hertz Corporation

   790 Labor: Other | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Telephone status hearing held on 8/14/2026. The trial schedule stands. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

2. Filed: August 12, 2026 | Entered: August 12, 2026 Yohannan v. Cermak Health Services of Cook County

   445 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Daniel P. McLaughlin: Defendant's Motion for Protective Order to Quash Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice, and in the Alternative to Strike or Limit Number of Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 117 is granted in part and denied in part. With respect to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice issued by Plaintiff on 6/24/26, Plaintiff repeatedly states in her response brief 126 that she is "willing to revise" various of the deposition topics contained in the notice. This is a tacit admission that the referenced deposition topics are improper. Moreover, and in any event, a response brief is not an appropriate vehicle for revising Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics. The Court therefore strikes the entirety of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. By 8/18/26, Plaintiff shall serve a revised Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice that may contain not more than 15 deposition topics, including subparts. When revising the deposition notice, Plaintiff should keep in mind that her Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics must be proportional to the needs of this single-plaintiff, single-defendant lawsuit. See Schyvincht v. Menard, Inc., No. 18 CV 50286, 2019 WL 3002961, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 10, 2019). Plaintiff should also keep in mind Defendant's instant objections and that the Court's preliminary review reveals that Deposition Topic Nos. 1, 6, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 26 are patently overbroad in their current form. The Court cautions Plaintiff that reissuing patently overbroad deposition topics will subject the topics to being stricken in their entirety with prejudice, as the Court will not later rewrite overbroad deposition topics. Along those lines, the Court will not later glean some subset of the deposition topics that could be salvaged if narrowed, reworded, or otherwise made to comply with Rule 30(b)(6)'s particularity requirement. See Davis v. Mitchell, No. 19 C 3212, 2022 WL 2073010, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2022) ("[I]t is not the court's job to redefine and redraft overbroad discovery requests. When lawyers draft manifestly overbroad requests, they are just wasting time and ensuring that they will lose the discovery controversy if and when presented to a court.") (citations omitted). Turning to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order to Quash Plaintiff's Disclosure of Deposition Witnesses 119 , that motion is denied as moot. Plaintiff has revised her witness list and Defendant concedes that the revised witness list conforms with Rule 30(a)(2). The parties are to file a joint status report with the Magistrate Judge by 12:00 p.m. on 8/20/26. Mailed notice(maf) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

3. 307 additional result(s)