=?

motion orally to the court on June 9, 2003, cven after repeated questions as to whether there was
anything further they wished to be heard on. ‘Therefore, the court will rule on Plaintiff's’ motion for
preservation of documents expeditiously. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of a special master
has yet to be fully briefed. Once the motion is fully briefed, the court will rule on the motion
expeditiously.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER: fC eva —

CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, he vistrier Judge

DATED: 4 wi, —O 7



with subsidized dispute resolution by public (and publicly accountable) officials.
Judicial proceedings are public rather than private property, U.S. Bancorp Mortgage
Co, v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 27-29, 115 S.Ct, 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233
(1994); In re Memorial Hospital of Iowa County, Inc., 862 F.2d 1299, 1302-03 (7th
Cir.1988), and the third-party effects that justify the subsidy of the judicial system
also justify making records and decisions as open as possible. What happens in the
halls of government js presumptively public business. Judges deliberate in private but
issue public decisions after public arguments based on public records. The political
branches of government claim legitimacy by election, judges by reason. Any step that
withdraws an clement of the judicial process from public vicw makes the ensuing
decision look more like fiat, which requires compelling justification.

Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-568 (7th Cir, 2000).

Plaintiffs have failed to show a sufficient basis for the filing of the affidavit under seal.
Therefore, Plaintif{s’ motion to file an affidavit under seal is denied.

Third, Plaintiffs request that they be allowed to take the evidentiary deposition of the
unnamed individual as soon as possible. The unnamed individual is said to be approximately 104
years old and in poor health. Plaintiffs assert that the unnamed individual has personal knowledge
of the offenses that they are attempting to allege, and that several aspects of their complaint rest on
this individual, i.e, standing and the statute of limitations. The court will defer ruling on the taking
of an evidentiary deposition until the court has secn Plainti{fs’ consolidated amended complaint.

Finally, Plaintiffs request that oral argument be set regarding Plaintiffs’ motion for a
protective order, and their motion for appointment of a special master. On March 13, 2003,
Plaintiffs’ filed their motion for document preservation. On April 4, 2003, Defendants’ filed
their response, On April 25, 2003, Plaintiffs’ filed their reply. On May 7, 2003, Plaintiff's counsel
requested oral argument for their fully briefed motion. The court entered an order allowing the
parties to submit additional briefing on the matter within 14 days, with 7 days thereafter for reply.

Neither party filed any additional information pertaining to the motion. Neither party presented the



Minute Onder Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

ignes c 7 ; Sitting Judge if Oth
vam Magis Judge Charles R. Norgle than signed Suge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 7764 DATE 6/09/2003
CASE In Re: African-American Slave Descendants’ Litigation
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

Tin the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.z., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

Attached Order for Ruling).

dal) Wf

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

MOTION:
MDL 1491
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) q Brief in support of motion due __.
QB) oO Answer bricfto motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__-
(4) im) Ruling/Hearing on setfor_ at.
(3) Qo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on eset for = at.
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__ set for at
(7) im Trialfset for/re-set for]on_ at.
(8) Bo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreemcnt/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) © Local Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
_| [Other docket entry} Before the court on June 9, 2003 is Plaintiffs’ emergency motion. (See

Meath Aoog &/

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required.

Nolices mailed by judge's staff,

Notified counsel by teleptionc,

Docketing to mail notices

Mail AQ 440 form.

Copy to judge/nagistrate judge.

LYN0D Lo SIO ‘sp

WUaTD
DOL date mailed notice
se IS:S Rd Tl Mur eu
OT ORR tls cine te

Document



=a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT :
FOR THE OO AVION OF ILLINOIS DOCKETED
JUN i 2 2003
IN RE AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE ) MDL No. 1491
DESCENDANTS’ LITIGATION ) Lead Case No. 02 C 7764
) Honorable Charles R. Norgle
OPINION AND ORDER

Charles R. Norgle Sr., District Judge

Before the court on Junc 9, 2003 is Plaintiffs’ emergency motion. Plaintiff’s motion
requests: 1) an additional extension of sixty days to file their consolidated complaint; 2) permission
to file an affidavit under seal; 3) permission to take the deposition of an unnamed, elderly individual,
who is said to have been a former slave until the 1960's; and 4) oral arguments on Plaintiff's motions
to issue a protective order, and to appoint a special master. The court will address each request in
tum.

First, Plaintiffs request an additional sixty days to file their consolidated amended complaint.
During the first initial status hearing held on February 26, 2003, the court set June 3, 2003 as the
deadline for Plaintiffs’ filing of a consolidated amended complaint. On May 7, 2003, Plaintiffs filed
a motion to extend the date for filing the consolidated amended complaint. The court granted
Plaintiffs an additional seven days to file the consolidated complaint. On Junc 9, 2003, the day
before the consolidated amended complaint is due, Plaintiffs have again asked the court for an
extension of time to file the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs have been provided with

approximately four months to file a consolidated amended complaint. After hearing the parties

argument, the court grants Plaintiffs’ second motion for an extension of time in part. “District court

judges, because of the very nature of the duties and responsibilities accompanying their position,



possess great authority to manage their caseload.” United States v. Reed, 2 F.3d 1441 (7th Cir.
1993). “We live in a world of deadlines. If we’re late for the start of the game or the movie, or late
for the departure of the plane or the train, things go forward without us. The practice of law is no
exception. A good judge sets deadlines, and the judge has a right to assume that deadlines will be
honored. The flow of cases through a busy district court is aided, not hindered, by adherence to
deadlines.” Spears y. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153, 157 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff is given an
additional seven days, until June 17, 2003, to file the consolidated complaint.

Second, Plaintiffs request permission to file the affidavit of an individual under seal.
Plaintiffs are attempting to file the affidavit of an alleged former slave. Plaintiffs allege that the
individual holds pertinent information to claims that they have and will assert. Plaintiffs further
assert, that the individual’s identity should remain under seal, for a yel to be determined amount of
time, lo avoid any undue notoriety and outside influcnce that he might attain. Plaintiffs have failed
to offer any information from which the court can infer that the individual’s allegations are made
against any of the named Defendants. The courts often encounter requests to seal procecdings in
order to implement the parties’ preference for seclusion. ‘These requests have been uniformly

rejected, See, e.g., United States v. Ladd, 218 F.3d 701 (7th Cir.2000); Citizens First National Bank

y. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir.1999); Pepsico, Inc, v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th

Cir.1995); Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc, y. Everfresh Juice Co. 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.1994); In re

Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir.1992).

[The tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing.
See Nixon v. Warner Communications. Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99, 98 S.Ct. 1306,

55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); In re Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 773
F.2d 1325, 1331-33 (D.C.Cir,1985) (Scalia, J.). People who want secrecy should opt

for arbitration. When they call on the courts, they must accept the openness that goes