IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER VAZQUEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 3004

)

KENNETH RYDZ, et al., etc., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Christopher Vazquez (“Vazquez”) has filed a multicount

Complaint against the Village of Round Lake Beach (“Village”) and

various individuals (all but one oe whom are law enforcement

personnel employed by Village), asserting some contentions under

42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) and other contentions under

state law. Now the same law firm, representing Village and all

of its personnel, have filed four separate Answers to the

Complaint, one on behalf of Village and the two individuals who

have successively served as its Chief of Police and one on behalf

of each of the other three Village police officers.

This District Court’s move to electronic filing has carried

with it the litigant’s obligation to deliver a paper copy of each

filing to the chambers of the District Judge assigned to the

case--a hard copy that has come to be known as a “courtesy calls

for some thought as to the handling of certain special pleading

situations--and the present situation certainly fits that

description. But defense counsel here seem to forget that there

Case: 1:12-cv-03004 Document #: 39 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:172
are other circumstances in which true courtesy copies are called

for--and the present situation is certainly one of those.

Some modest amount of thought on the part of defense counsel

would have brought the realization that it is an imposition on

the District Judge assigned to a case (as well as to the opposing

party) for the same counsel to require four separate pleadings of

15 to 20 pages each to be read and compared with each other in

the effort to determine to what extent the various defendants are

on the same page and where they may have some differences. After

all, with no more than a little added effort (if that) the

pleader could just have easily have filed a single consolidated

Answer on behalf of all the clients.1

That said, this Court did take the occasion to look at the

set of affirmative defenses (“ADs”) that accompanied one of the

Answers (and most likely was included with the others as well). 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(c) and the caselaw construing

it, any AD must accept plaintiff’s allegations as gospel, while

explaining that a defendant is still not liable (or may be liable

for less than plaintiff claims).

In this instance AD 1 advances the equivalent of a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which may be viable against some

defendant or defendants (but certainly not all). If that AD is

 Before electronic filing, the unnecessary multiplication 1

of pleadings would have cluttered up the court files with excess

bulk, but that is no longer a relevant consideration.

2

Case: 1:12-cv-03004 Document #: 39 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:173
advanced in the new pleading that defense counsel must file, it

has to be fleshed out by an appropriate motion rather than just

sitting there like a potential time bomb.

ADs 2 or 3 may or may not have traction as to one or more

defendants. Again neither of them may be included in the revised

pleading unless it is appropriately fleshed out so that Vazquez’

counsel and this Court can determine the propriety of the

defense.

To return to this memorandum order’s principal subject, this

Court accordingly strikes all four current Answers from the court

file, but leave is of course granted to file a single Amended

Answer on behalf of all of the Round-Lake-related defendants on

or before July 30, 2012. In fairness, defendants should not have

to pay for that added work, and defense counsel are ordered

(1) to make no charge for the time and expense involved and

(2) to send a letter to the clients advising them to that effect,

with a copy of the letter to be transmitted to this Court’s

chambers (purely for information and not for filing).

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 18, 2012

3

Case: 1:12-cv-03004 Document #: 39 Filed: 07/18/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:174