IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL SILVER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 4289

)

SIGNATURE BUSINESS CONSULTING )

GROUP, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

For some reason the filing of this action and its random

assignment to this Court’s calendar were not accompanied by the

delivery of the Judge’s Copy of the Complaint to this Court’s

chambers--an omission that should never take place. Nor, for an

equally unexplainable reason, did this Court’s secretary or its

minute clerk (each of whom is meticulous in keeping records of

in-chambers deliveries) receive the required chambers copy of

defendant’s Answer when it was filed. Thus this Court’s first

knowledge that the action was on its calendar came when one of

the parties’ counsel inquired of this Court’s minute clerk

whether some status hearing date had been set.

That of course triggered the minute clerk’s immediate

printing of copies of the previously unknown pleadings and this

Court’s prompt setting of an initial status hearing to be held on

October 29. Meanwhile, this Court’s consequent review of the

papers has occasioned the issuance of this sua sponte memorandum

order to call for the correction of some problematic aspects of
the Answer.

To begin with, defense counsel has coupled a misstatement of

the plain terms of the disclaimer required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

(“Rule”) 8(b)(5) with this non sequitur: “and therefore, denies

the allegations” (Answer ¶¶1 and 3). That is of course

oxymoronic--how can a party that must assert (presumably in good

faith) that it lacks even enough information to form a belief as

to the truth of an allegation then proceed to deny it in

accordance with Rule 11(b)? Accordingly the quoted phrase is

stricken from each of those paragraphs of the Answer.

Next, instead of being directly responsive to some

allegations of the Complaint as Rule 8(b)(1)(B) requires, Answer

¶¶6 through 8, 10 and 11 say that a document “speaks for itself.” 

That is unacceptable--see App’x ¶3 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Moreover,

each of those paragraphs goes on to say “Defendant admits only

those duties imposed by law,” an assertion that is really

meaningless in terms of the notice pleading obligation that

applies to defendants as well as plaintiffs.

Finally, Answer ¶¶13, 15 and 18 purport to disclaim the need

to answer corresponding allegations in the Complaint because they

assertedly “seek[ ] a legal conclusion.” That too is an

impermissible violation of Rule 8(b)(1)(B)--and this time see

App’x ¶2 to State Farm.

2
To spare opposing counsel and this Court the need to flip

back and forth between two responsive pleadings to see just what

is and what is not at issue, this Court strikes the entire

Answer--but with leave granted, of course, to file a proper

Answer on or before October 29. No charge is to be made to

defendant by its counsel for the added work and expense incurred

in correcting counsel’s errors. Defense counsel are ordered to

apprise their client to that effect by letter, with a copy to be

transmitted to this Court’s chambers as an informational matter

(not for filing).

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: October 18, 2012

3