Judge April Perry of the Northern District of Illinois issued remarks today in the case Doe v. Thomas. Here is some background:
The plaintiff’s motion for a protective order (Docket 51) is denied because a protective-order request is already pending before the Magistrate Judge, and duplicative filings are inappropriate. The plaintiff should have sought an extension to file her confidential materials or requested a ruling from the Magistrate Judge, rather than submitting sealed materials and then withholding them from the defense.
Nevertheless, the court’s briefing schedule was not intended to compel disclosure of confidential materials in the absence of a protective order. Accordingly, the exhibits will be labeled “attorneys’ eyes only” and promptly produced to defense counsel, who must treat them as confidential until the Magistrate Judge rules on the protective-order motion. Once that ruling is issued, it will govern the materials.
The defendant’s so-called “emergency” motion to strike and for sanctions (Docket 56) is denied. A dispute over document confidentiality and a four-day delay in obtaining exhibits does not constitute an emergency. The defendant could have requested an extension to reply to account for the time lost waiting for the documents rather than engaging in further motion practice. This is not a crisis, and no “serious harm” has been caused to anyone. The only avoidable cost increases stem from the parties’ and their counsel’s choices to pursue the most burdensome path.
The defendant’s reply deadline is advanced to 6/24/2026 to account for the days the exhibits were not in his possession. No depositions will be permitted on this motion. Counsel may present arguments regarding the unreliability of the expert without resorting to discovery practice.
