~

(9)

“Mist Order Form (06/97)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 8435 DATE 9/9/2003
CASE Terry Xydakis etc. Vs. Target, Inc, etc.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) im) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
4) QO Ruling/Hearing on set for at _
(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) a] [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) Ml [Otherdocket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant’s motion to limit the scope
of discovery is granted in part and denied in part. Status hearing set for October 1, 2003 at 9:45am.

(11) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order,]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required, umber of roies

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

: gep 1.0 2083

Notified counsel by telephone. date ddoketed

ov | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice
courtroom

WAH deputy’s
initials

~Mbhtelime :
central Clerk's Office railing deputy ints



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

TERRY XYDAKIS, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs. No. 02 C 8435 “<a

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TARGET. INC., d/b/a MARSHALL FIELDS, )
)
)

Defendant.

q a 2003

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff alleges that defendant placed a flyer in the Sunday issue of the Chicago
Tribune offering products at Chicagoland Marshall Field’s stores, including an All-Clad grill
pan during an August 4-10, 2002, sales period; that he sought to buy such a pan; but that he
was unable to do so because they were all sold out. That experience has led to a number of
claims on behalf of a class.

But what class? Plaintiff seeks a class, and class discovery, which includes all persons
unable to purchase an advertised product of defendant during the sales period because the
product was not in stock. That presumably means every sales promotion by every Target and
Marshall Field store nationally for an indeterminate period. Defendant seeks to confine the
scope of the case and to redefine the proposed class, so as to limit it to persons unable to
purchase the $130 All-Clad grill pan advertised in the flyer for $39.99 during the sales period.

The issue here is not whether or not a class should be certified. That comes later.
Rather, it is to provide some boundaries on a possible class. The conduct which plaintiff

complains of is the failure to have enough All-Clad grill pans in stock to meet the demand

Q


No. 02 C 8435 Page 2

arising from the August 2002 sales promotion by Marshall Field stores in this area. We think
it unwarranted to use that conduct as the basis for asking some Target store in Wyoming
about an in-store promotion in the year 2000. We think, however, at least for now and until
we know more about how records are kept, that it is feasible and appropriate to keep the scope
at that enunciated on February 7, 2003. The conduct relates to a particular pan, but it also
relates to a particular flyer.

We do so while recognizing that the primary relief sought here is monetary. Plaintiff's

reliance upon Rule 23(b)(2) class concepts is, we believe, misplaced.

So ae 3. Maca

Va JAMES B. MORAN
ior Judge, U. S. District Court

Sa 1) , 2003.