## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1271 A LL AN S T EV O, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. P AME LA F RA S OR, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:07- cv-06647

— Shei la M . F inn egan, Magistrate Judg e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 13, 2011

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 17, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, S YKES, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. Thi s a pp eali s a r em i nd ero f th e va l ue o fa cry st al

- cl ea r r ec o r d o fthe pa r ti es ’ c o ns en t to have a m agi str ate j ud ge presi de ove r thei r c as e un der 28 U
. S. C . § 63 6( c) , es peci al l y when the m agi str ate j ud ge as s i gn me n t c h a n g e s . S u c h a c h a n g e o c c u r r e d h e r e , a nd the docum entat i on o fthe conse nts t o the ne w m agi str ate j u dge l eave s som ethi ng to be desi re d. W e concl u d e in th e en d, ho wev er, tha t th e r ec o r d o fcons en t, b o the xp re ss ed in w rit in g a n d im p lied from co n d u c t, is su ffi-2 N o. 11

- 1271

c ien tly cle ar th at th e n ew m ag ist ra t e ju d ge co u ld p ro perl y e nterfi nalj ud gm ent. On the m er i ts, the ap p ell an t ch al l en ges t wo di sc r et i o na r y matt er s o fc as e m an age m ent

— deni alo faddit i onalexte nsi on s of t i m e for di s c o v e r y, a nd a de c i s i o n t o o v e r l o o k mi no r f a i l ur es to c o mp l y w i th th e l o c a lr ul e o n s u mma r y j u d g me n t
. We fi n d n o ab u s e o fd i s c r e t i o n, s o w e a ffi r m.

I. Fac t ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d Pl a i nt i ff

- a pp e l l a ntAl l a n S t e v o h a s l i v e d in Blue I s l a nd , I l l i noi s hi s e nti re l i fe. H e has bee n acti ve i n l oca lpol i ti cs, i nc l udi nga n unsu cce ss fulr un fo r mayo r a g ains t o ne o fthe de fen dan t- appe l l ee s here. In 2 00 1, Bl ue I sl an d passed an o rdi nance r equi ring al lhom es to have an outsi de w ater m ete r. Lette rs were sent to al lr esi dents i n N ove m ber20 03, and aga i n to S tev o i n J anuary20 05, re q u es tin g th at th ey sc h ed u le an ap p oin tm en t t o in st all a m ete r. S te vo d id notdo s o. In A pri l20 05, not i ce was p os te d o n h is h om e, an d Ste vo (or s om eo n e e lse ath is add re ss) r efused a ce rt i fi ed l ett erfro m the city w ate r s up erinten d en t. T ha t letter threate ne d to shu t offStevo’s w ate r on Ap ri l27, 20 05 unle ss ste ps w ere ta ke n to re l oca te hi s m ete r. St eps w er e not tak en, and the water wa s s hu to ff, r e mai ningo fff o r ab o uts e v e n we e ks. Dur i ngtha t ti m e, S te vo c ar r i ed wat erfrom a b ui l di ng h e o w ned acr oss the str eetand pursued var i ous a venues ofco m pla i nt with ci ty o ffi ci al s. Final l y, o n J une 12, 20 05 , S te vo a r r an g ed f o r a n o ut si de m et eri ns ta l l at i o n. The m ete r w as i nstal l ed, and hi s waterse rvice was restored tw o da ys later.N o. 11

- 1271 3 St ev o s u ed th e c ity , th e m ay or , an d th e a ld er m en in N ovem ber 2 007 allegi ng that his w ater w as sh utoff w i thout du e pr oce ss ofl aw and that h e w as si ngl ed out as a “ cl ass o fo ne” fori rra tio n al orpol i ti calr easo ns i n vi o l at i o n o f th e equa l pr o te ct i o n cl au se of th e Four tee nth A m endm ent. A ftersur vi vi ng a m otion to dism i ss, the case was ass i gned to M agi str ate J ud ge K eys bas ed on t h e w r itte n con sen t of allpa rties. Discov ery c o n t i n u e d o v e r fi ft e e n mo n th s , a n d d ur i n gth a tt i me the c ourtexte n ded the disc ove rycut- offdate seve n t i mes . S t e v o a l t e r na t e l y p r o c e e de d pro se and w as re presente d by co unsel

. H e was r epres ented byco unselwh en he co nsented t o proce ed bef or e M agi st ra te J ud ge K eys , an d he was r epr es en te d b y hi s cu r r en t co uns elwhenthe ca se was r eassigned to M ag i st r at e J udg e F i nne g ana nd du ringh e r c o ns i de r a t i o n o fde fe nd a nt s ’ s ummar y j ud gm en t m o ti o n. M agi str ate J ud ge K eys cut offd i sco ver y on Februar y 2 4, 2010 , tho ugh h e gave per m i ssi on f orea ch si de to ta ke one m or e co ntem pla ted deposi ti on. Stevo ’ s new counsel soughtbut w as re fused add i ti onaldi sco ver y, and St evo chal l enges thatr uling her e. W h i l e the sum m ar y j ud gm en t m o ti o n was pe ndi ng, the j udg e ex te nde d b r i efi ng deadli nes a nd al l owed S te vo to am end his co m pla i nt to i n c l u d e e q u a lp r o t e c t i o n c l a i ms . R a th e r th a n r e s p o nd to defe n d an ts’ ar gum ents and stat ed f acts , co unself or St evo o pp ose d the s um m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on b y obj ecting to vi ol ati ons ofN or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s Loca l Rule 56. 1 bydefendants. H e a rgued that defendants h ad inc lu d ed th eir lega l ar g u m e n t s in th e m ot ion its elf ra therthan i n a s ep ar at e m em or andu m and had f ai l ed4 N o. 11

- 1271 to num berthe parag ra ph s in thei r sta tem ent o ff acts
. M agi str ate J ud ge Fi nnegan e xerci sed herdi scr etio n not t o p r o l o ngthe l a ws ui ta nd de c i de d n o tt o e nfo r ce strictly the d istri ct cou rt’s l ocal rule. She d en ied Stev o’s obj ecti ons. S he al so gave hi m m or e ti m e t o subm i t a substa nti ve re sp on se to the s um m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on. S tev o did notdo s o, however, and the j ud ge then g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent fordefendants.

II. Jur i s di ct i on of

theM agi s t r at eJudg e A di str i c t j ud ge m ay ass i gn a m agi str ate j ud ge to hear a c ivil c as e a n d r e n d e r fin al jud gm en t, p ro vid ed th at all p ar tie s c on se n t v olu n ta rily. 28 U .S.C . § 63 6(c ). C on se n t is r equi r ed be ca us e m ag i st r at es ar e no t pr o te ct ed bythe fullguar antee s o fj ud i ci ali nd ependenc e i n A rt i cl e I I Io f the Const i tuti on. S ee M a rk I, Inc. v. G ruber, 3 8 F
. 3 d 3 69, 370 ( 7th Cir
. 1994 )
. W e have hel d that conse nt ne ed n ot be i n wr i ti ng , b ut i t m us t be o n the r ec o r d, c l ea r, a nd u n am b igu ou s. Kalan v. C ity of St

. Francis , 274 F
. 3d 1150 , 11 52 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) (p arti es’ co nsent to one nam ed m agistr a t e jud ge d id n ot ext en d to a differen t, lateras sig n ed m ag ist ra te j u d ge ). T h e S u p re m e C ou rth as h eld that c on sent can al so be i m pli ed fro m co nd uct o fpart i es du ring the pro ceed in gs, atl eas t where the par ti es have n ot ice of th eir r igh t t o re fu se . Roel l v. Wi t hrow , 538 U
. S. 5 80, 5 9 0 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ W e thinkthe b e t t e r r ul e i s t o a c c e pt i m pli ed conse nt wh er e, as her e, the l i ti gant orco unsel was made awar e o fthe ne ed f o r c o ns en t an d the r i g ht to refuse i t, a nd s ti l lv o l unt ar i l y a ppea r ed to t r y the case before the M agistrate Jud ge.”).N o. 11

- 1271 5 The parti es l i ti gat ed thi s ca se bef or e tw o m agi str ate ju d g e s . N o p ar ty rais ed th e is su e o f a p os sib le d efe c t in c on se n t u n til St ev o o b je c t ed in h is re p ly b rie f on ap p ea l, ci ti ng Kalan

. A rgum ents ra i sed f or the fi rs t t i m e s o l ate i n the proce edi ngs a re waive d, unle ss ofco urse they que st ion a p pel l at e o r s ubj ec t m at te r j ur i sdi ct i o n. I fthe parti es have not gi ven val i d c onse nt to entr y of j ud gm ent b y a m agi str ate j ud ge, we tr eatthe pu rp or ted j ud gme n ta s n o tfi n a ls o th a twe l a c ka p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i ct i o n. I n Kalan , we hel d that l ack ofco nsent to a m agi str ate j ud ge i s “ a j uri sdic ti onal defe ct that the par ti es cannot w ai ve. ” 2 74 F. 3d at 1 153. Fo l l owing Kalan , i f w e w ere to f i n d a l a c ko fc o n s e n th e r e , we wo u l d b e wi th o ut j uri sdic ti on t o hearthi s a pp ealand w oul d be r equi re d to vac at e an d r emand f o r a ddi ti o na lpr o ce eding s i n the di st r i ctc o ur t. Be ca us e we f ind una m bi g uo us c o ns en t here , bo th i n w ri ti ng and i m pli ed fro m the conduct of th e p ar tie s, w e h av e jur isd ict ion to h ea r th is a p p ea l. (In R oell, the S up r e me Cour t e xp r e s s l y de c l i ne d t o de c i de whe the r the c o ur t o f a pp e a l s wa s c o r r e c t i n t r e a t i ng l ack ofc o ns e nta s a j ur i s di c t i o na lde fe c t
. 5 3 8 U. S
. a t5 9 1 n . 8. W e nee d not recon side r that as p ect of Ka l an i n th is c as e, h ow ev er , sin c e n o s u c h d efe c t is p re se n t.) I n the j oi nt Rul e 2 6( f ) co nfe re nce r epor t fi l ed Octobe r 1, 2008 , the att or neys f orbo th si des expre ssl y c onse n ted i n w ri ti ng to the j uri sdic ti on o fM agi str ate J ud ge K eys . Dkt. N o. 34 at3. The co m pli cati on h er e i s that the cas e w as l a t e r r e a s s i g ne d t o the n ne wl y - a pp o i nt e d Ma g i s t ra te Ju d ge Fin n eg an . Ste vo as se rt ed for th e firs t t im e inh is re plybr i efto thi s co urt th at hi s co nsent w as l i m i ted o n its f ace to M agi str ate J ud ge K eys , and that he neve r6 N o. 11

- 1271

con sen ted i n w riting to the reass ign m en t. T he Ru le 26(f ) re portr efer s t o conse nt to bo th “a ” m agi str ate j ud ge ge n er ally an d “ t h e” m ag ist ra te j u d ge sp ec ifica lly, i d. , pr es en tinga mor e ambi g uo us s ce na r i o tha n w as pr es en t i n Kal an

— wh er e co nsent to one nam ed m agi str ate j ud ge di d n o tp r o v i de c o ns e ntt o a di ffe r e ntma g i s t r ate j udg e assig ne d l at er . S ee 2 74 F
. 3d at1 15 4. S uchfi ne l i ngui sti c par si ng o fthe Rule 26( f ) repor t i s no t nec essar y her e fortwo r eas ons: F i r st, pl aint i ffS te vo a nd de fen dan ts i m pli ed l y c o nsente d t o the r e a s s i g nme ntt o Mag i s t r a t e J ud g e F i nn e gan b y p r o c e e d i ngi n h e r c o u r tth r o u g h d i s c o v e r y a n d s u mm ar y j ud gm ent without obj ecti on. S ee R o ell , 53 8 U.S
. at 59 0- 91
. As in R oell, id

. a t 58 4, the pa r ti es a l so s to o d s i l en t as M agi str ate J ud ge Fi n n eg an m ade cl earherbel i efthat the par ti es had con se nted. S ee M em or andu m Opini on and Order, S
. A
. at10 ( “T h e parti es have conse nted to the j urisd ictio n ofthe U ni ted S tat es M agi str ate J ud ge pur su an t to 2 8 U. S
. C. § 6 36 ( c). ”). M o r e i m po r ta nt, the pa r t i e s a l s o ha d a n e a r l i e r o pp o r t un i t y t o o bj e c twh en the r eas si gn m en t w as fi rs t e nter ed i n the docket

. S ee Dkt. N o. 37at1, 2 (n ot in g the par ti es’ co nsent to re assi gnm ent, as speci fied “o n the att ached f or m ( s) ”)
. A fter R oell, l i ti g an ts who ha ve know ingl y pr o ce ede d wi th o ut o bj e c t i o n thr o ugh l e ng thydi s c o v e r y a nd s ummar y j ud gm ent pr oce edi ngs with one orm or e m agi str ate j ud ges ar e deem ed to have i m pli edl y c onse nted to se cti on 6 36( c) j uri sdic ti on. See 538 U
. S. at59 0. I t would frust ra te j u st ice an d rea s o n t o p er m it s u c h p ar tie s t o w aitu n til they l earn that they have l ostbefor e ci ti ng te chnic al defe cts i n the f or m o fany party ’ s co ns en t to sec ure a do-N o. 11

- 1271 7

ov er . Id. (n ot in g t h e h ar m i n a llow in g p ar tie s t o “ sit b a c k wi th o u ta w o r d ab o u tth e i r f a i l u r e t o fi l e th e f o r m, w i th a ri ght to va c at e a ny j ud gm ent that turned out not to the ir li king”). Se cond, al though her e the si gned s tand ar d fo rm pro vi ding conse nt and noti ce o fthe ri ght t o refu se w as i nexpli cabl y no t a tta ched to the r ea ss ignm ent o rder w hen i t w as fi l ed ( as disc ussed bel ow), the parti es d id conse nt and ther eby ackno w l edged the re quir ed n ot i ce. The R oell Courtst ate d that “ noti fi cati on o fthe ri ght t o r efus e th e m ag i st r at e j udg e i s a pr er equi si te to an y i nferen c e ofco nsent. ” Id. a t5 8 7n . 5
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur thas w i sel y in cl ud ed such a noti ce o n the conse nt f or m that i t pr ovi des f orpart i es to si gn w h en the i r case i s fi rs t ass i gned to a m agi str ate: “Shoul d thi s ca se be r eas si gned to a m agi str ate j ud ge othe r than the m agi str ate j ud ge desi gnate d pu rs uant to L oca lRule 72 , the und er si gned m ay obj ect w i thi n 30 da ys ofsuch r eas si gnm ent. ” Un i ted St ate s D ist ri ct Cour t forthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o f I l l i noi s, Consent to Ex er ci se ofJ uri sdic tio n B y a U ni ted S t a t e s Ma g i s t r a t e J u d g e , ava i l ab l e a th t t p : //www . i lnd

. us cour ts. gov/PUB LIC/ For m s/ conse nt. pd f( l astvi si ted N ove m ber14, 20 11)
. Counself oral lpart i es si gned such a fo rm o n O c to b er 2, 20 08 w h en th ey orig in ally conse nted to M agi str ate J ud ge K eys . N o partyo bj ected w i thi n 30 days a fterthe re ass i gnm ent t o M agi str ate J ud ge Fi nnegan. S tev o, thr ough h i s co unselatthe ti m e, ha d no ti ce o fhi s r i g htt o r efus e co ns en t to the r ea ss i g nm ent a nd neve r exer ci sed thatr i ght. As n o te d, f o r unkno wn r ea so ns the s i g ne d c o ns en t f or m e vid enci ng not i ce doe s no t a pp eari n the dist ri ct8 N o. 11

- 1271

c ou rt ’s e lec tr on ic d oc k e t o r inth e re c or d on ap p ea l, eit h er at ta c h ed to th e re as sig n m en t w h er e itsh ou ld r o ut i ne l y b e, o r o th er wi se . As we no te d i n Kalan , ev i dence ofvo l untaryco nsent shoul d app eari n the re cor d. 274 F. 3d at 1152
. W here th at evi dence i s instea d deri ved fro m p ar ties’ co nd uct duri ng pro ceedi ngs, i t fol l ows that the no ti ce r equi re d as a pre re quis i te to an i nfe re nce o f con sen t un d er R oell s ho ul d a l s o a pp e a r i n the r e c o r d. Aft erthe c o ns en t obj ecti o n was r ai se d b y S te vo , a nd befo re o ra lar gum ent, co unself ordefendants r esponded to a n inqui r y b y the c o ur t an d pr o vi ded co pi es ofthe si gned cons ent for m t o th e paneland to co unself or S te vo . No party has ch al l en g ed th e au th en ti ci tyo fthe signed cons en t form or oth erw ise disp ut ed the form ’s co nt en ts , s uchtha t f ac tu ala uthe nt i ci tyde te r m i na ti o ns by the di str i ct c ourtwould be cal l ed f or . A l though S te vo ’ s co uns elunde r st an dab l y c o m pl aine d a t o r ala r g um ent o fthe l ate di sco ver y o fthe f or m , we note that thi s e ntire i ssue ofco nsent w as onl y r ai sed atthe l ast m in u te by Ste vo h im se lf in h is re p ly b rie f on ap p ea l. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s dock et entr y 37 re fer s to an at tached conse nt f or m . The f or m co uld on ly h ave bee n “o m i tte d fr om . . . the r ec o r d b y e r r o r o r a cc i den t, ” as c o ntem p lated i n Fed eral Ru le of A p p ell ate Proced ure 10(e)( 2). W e h av e, and exerc i se here , the author i ty und erthat rul e t o c or re ct that e rr orand or der that the r eco rd be supp l em ented with the s i gned cons ent for m thatwas subm i tte d to thi s co urt at the t i m e o fo ra largu m ent. S ee Fe d . R. A p p . P. 10 (e)(2 )(C ). W h e r e w e h av e p re vio u sly dec l i ne d t o e xe r ci se oura utho r i tyt o s uppl ementthe r ec o r d, o urpur po se ha s often be ent o a vo i d r ewa r di ngN o. 11

- 1271 9 parti es f orf ai l i ng to co rr ect k now n defi ci enci es. S ee, e . g. , LaF ol l e t t ev. Sa vage, 63 F. 3d 540, 54 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95)
. H er e, an ac c id en ta l om i s sio n w en t u n d isc ov er ed u n til th e l as t m i nut e o n a ppea l, a nd c o r r ec tingthe r ecord ser ves to avo id p unis hi ng i nnocent parti es f oran un not iced om issi on. Sup p lem en ting th e record here cor re c ts a har m l ess bure aucra ti c sl i p that shoul d not defe at our j uri sdic ti on a nd gran t S tev o an unj usti fi ed doo ve r o f h i s e n t i r e l a ws u i t
. We h a v e d o c k e t e d wi th t he cl er k o ft h i s co urt the s i gned cons ent for m thatpro vi ded noti ce o fthe ri ght t o re fuse r eas si gnm ent t o a new m agi str ate j ud ge. A l lpart i es voluntar i l y c onse nted to pro ceedi ngs b ef or e M agi str ate J ud ge Fi nnega n, wh o ther ef or e had j uri sdict i on under § 63 6( c) to hearthe cas e and render fi na l j ud g men t
. Th a t v a l i d fi na l j ud g men t ha v i ngbee n en tered, we have j uri sdic ti on under 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 291 to consi der thi s a pp eal

. W e tu rn ne xt to the m er i ts of St ev o’s ap p ea l.

III
. Ru ling s by the D istrict C o urt O r d i n a r i l y, w e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mm ar y jud gm en t d e n ov o. O m nicare, Inc. v. U nite dH ealth G roup, Inc. , 629 F.3 d 69 7, 70 5 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ). In th is a p p ea l, how eve r, Stevo has not prese nted any ar gum ents on appeal di re cted t o the su b stance o fM agi str ate J ud ge Fi nnegan’ s thoughtful sum m ar y j ud gm ent o pini on. S tev o c h alle n ge s on ly th e d ist ric t cou rt ’s refu sa ls to g r a n t a d d itio n al d isc ov er y an d to en for c e L oc al Ru le 56.1 s t r ict ly bef or e rul i ng on the sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on. Both o f10 N o. 11

- 1271 the c hal l enged ac ti ons by the di str i ct c ourtar e di scr et i o na r y r ul i ng s tha t we r e v i e w o nly f o r ab us e o fthat disc re ti on. S ee Woods v. City of C hicago , 23 4 F
. 3d 979, 99 0 (7t h C ir. 20 00 ) (d isc ov er y m at te rs ); Borcky v
. M ayt ag Corp. , 248 F.3d 691, 697 (7th Cir. 2001) (ap p li cation of local rules). St evo a ss er ts that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on w hen, afterexte nd i ng di sco ver y s eve n ti m es ove r fi ftee n m onths, i t fi nal l y b ro ught the di sco ver y per i od to a cl ose . W e di sag re e. Dis cove rym ust hav e a n end poi nt, and “ the de c i s i o n t o c ut o ff di s c o v e r y i s c o mm i t t e d t o the m anage m ent s ki l l s of the dist ri ct c ourt
. ” K. F. P. v. D ane C ounty, 11 0 F
. 3d 516, 52 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. W e w il lnot re ver se base d on a disc ove ryl i m i t w i thout a cl ear sh ow in g of a c t u al a n d su b st an tia l p rej u d ice
. E.g
. , Searl s v. G la sser, 64 F. 3d 1061 , 10 68 (7th Cir

. 19 95)
. W here a p ar ty h as h ad an “a d eq u at e o p p or tu n ity to inv es tig at e,” prej ud i ce in thi s co ntext r equi re s s om ethi ng m or e than th e ab se nc e o fthe s m o k i ngg un the pa r tyw as l o o k i ng for

. Id. Ste vo ’s c h an ge s in co u n se l an d lat e fo c u s o n h is eq u alpro tect i on theor y m ay have been re aso ns f or w anti ng an ei ghth di sco ver y e xten sion, but the di str i ct cour t di d not abuse i ts disc re ti on in con c luding that St evo had bee n al l owed adequate ti m e. Feder alRule o fCi vi lPro cedu re 56 ( d) pr ovi des an op p or tuni ty f ora partyr espondi ng to a sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on t o al er t th e d ist ri ct c ourtthathe l acks “f acts e ss enti alto j usti fy [ hi s] o pp osi ti on” and to re quest ad d iti ona l tim e or discove ry. From the record i t ap p ears th at Ste vo d id n otse ek R u l e 56 (d ) relie f or re n ew h is ea r l i er o bj ec ti o ns to th e cl o se o f di sc o ve r y w hile theN o. 11

- 1271 11

sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on w as p ending. S tev o confi ned h is op p os itio n br iefin g e n tir ely to th e L oc al R u l e 5 6.1 i ssue disc usse d bel ow. H e di d not m enti on the nee d fo r add i ti onal disc ove ry i n hi s ear l i er ( gr anted) m oti on for a d d i ti onalti m e t o re spond to the m oti on. S ee Dkt. N os. 7 9, 82, and 75. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts di sc r et i o n b y r uli ng o n de fen dan ts ’ s um m ar y j udg m en t m oti on wh en i t di d. Se e Wa lla ce v. Tilley, 41 F. 3d 296, 303 (7th Cir. 1994). Fi nal l y, S tev o argues that the di str i ct c ourter re d byc o ns i der i ngthe de fen dan ts ’ sum m ar y j udg m en t m ot ion alt h ou gh itd id n otco m p ly st ric tly w ith all f o r m alr equi r ement s o fLo ca lRul e 5 6. 1. Thi s ar g um en t r efl ec ts a pr o f o und mi su nde r st an di ng of the r el ev an t l aw a nd the pur po se s o fthe f o r m alr equi r ement s in the dist ri ct cour t’ s Local Rule 56. 1. Because of the hi gh vol ume o fs ummar y j ud g men tmo t i o ns a nd the b e ne fi ts o fcl ea r p r e s e n t a t i o n o fr e l e v a n te v i d e n c e a n d l a w, we have re peatedl y hel d th at d i str i ct j ud ges ar e e nti tl ed to i nsi st on s tr i ct com p liance w i th l oca lr ule s desi gned to prom ote the cl ar i ty ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent fi l i ngs. E.g
. , A m m ons v. Aram ark U nifor m Se rvic es, Inc. , 3 6 8 F
. 3d 809, 817- 18 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. W e ha ve no t en do r se d the ver y di ffer ent pr oposi ti on that l i ti gants are e nti tl ed to e x p e c t s tr ict en for c em en t b y d ist ric t jud ge s. R at h er , “it is c lea r th at th e d ec isio n w h e t h e r to ap p ly th e ru le st r i ct ly or to o ve r l o o ka ny t r an sg r es si o n i s o ne l eft to the dist ric t co urt’ s di scr eti on. ” Litt lev. Co x’s Superm arkets , 71 F.3d 63 7, 641 (7th Cir. 1995). I n a c a s e s qu a r e l y o n p o i n th e r e , f o r e x a mpl e , we f ound no er ro r i n a di str i ct jud ge’s deci si on t o ove rl oo k12 N o. 11

- 1271 si m i l arte chnic alf ai l ures i n a m otion for s um m ar y j ud gm en t where th e m o ti o n pr o vi ded ampl e no ti ce o fthe re lev an t fac ts a n d la w . Ha r mo n v . OKIS y s t e ms , 11 5 F
. 3d 477, 481 (7th C ir. 1997). W e acc o rd “con side rable de ference” to dist ri ct c ourt s’ i nter preta ti ons oftheir rul es. Litt le, 7 1 F
. 3d at 641. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not e nfo rce ( orr el ax) the rul es unequall y a s be tw een the par ti es h e r e . An y p r ej udi ce to S t e v o a r o s e e i th e r fr o m h i s o wn re l i ance o n hi s m i sgui ded expecta tion o r fro m hi s l ack o fs uc c e s s i n di s c o v e r i nge v i de nc e tha t m i gh th a v e s up port ed hi s unusual cl ai m s. A s the di str i ct c ourtn ote d, St evo co uld have p r e s e r v e d h i s Lo c a lR u l e 5 6
. 1 o bj e c t i o n s w h i l e a l s o c o mply i n g w i th the r ule hi m sel fand fi l i ng a substa nti ve re sp on se to d efe n d an ts ’ fac tu al s ta te m en t. S.A . 1 7 . In f act, the cour t a l l owed S tev o extr a t im e t o do so after announci ng i ts rul i ng on the Rule 56. 1 issu e. Id. at9. T h is r ec i pr o ca ll en i en cyfr o m M ag i st r at e J udg e F i nne g an, desi gned to p ro m ot e the r eso l uti on o fthe case o n th e m er i ts a nd wi th o utundu e del ayor ex p en se , b ut ap p lied with c ar e s o as not to prej ud i ce e i thersi de, was v e r y mu c h i n k e e p i n g wi th th e s p i r i t o f th e r ul e s t he msel ves. Localr ule s, l i ke the F edera lRule s o fCi vi lPro

cedure that they supp l em ent, sho uld be c onst rued to p rovide f or the “j us t, sp eed y, an d i ne xp en sive d e t e rm i nati on o fev er y a cti on” on i ts m er i ts. Fe d . R. Ci v. P. 1. These r ule s were not i ntended to provi de a m aze of te ch ni ca l tr aps to co m pl i ca te an d del ay l i ti g ation w i th

ou ta dv a nc i ngthe me r i t s . T he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d n ot ab u se its d isc re tio n in its ap p lica tio n of L oc al R u le 5 6.1 here

.N o. 11

- 1271 13 A c c or d in gly , th e jud gm en t o f t h e d ist ric t c ou rtin f avo r ofdefendants i s AFFI RMED .

11- 17- 11