during the jury trial only in that respect (and not as to other
elements of claimed economic damage) it is granted.

Motion Nos. 9 and 10 are denied for the reasons stated in

Plaintiff's Response.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 4, 2002


Defendants' Motions

Motion No. 1 is denied for the reasons well-stated in
Plaintiff's Response.

Motion No. 2 is granted without objection.

Motion No. 3 is denied for the reasons stated in Plaintiff's
Response.

That applies as well to Motion Nos. 4 and 5, although those
matters may be revisited if what plaintiff has stated in his
Response proves to be inaccurate at trial.

Motion No. 6 is denied, for the matter at issue there is
totally different from the typical situation in which opinions of
fellow workers are viewed as inadmissible in employment
discrimination cases. In this instance the employer itself
elected to credit evaluations that provided input for “employee
of the month” and “MVP of the year” awards, and those
evaluations--thus effectively adopted by the employer--may well
bear on the credibility of the decisionmakers' contrary opinions,
in either pretext or other terms.

Motion No. 7 is denied, with the evidence at issue to be a
subject for jury consideration.

Motion No. 8 is puzzling--under Seventh Circuit caselaw,
this Court has consistently treated front pay as an equitable
issue (and hence one for the Court and not for the jury), so if

the motion is limited to barring Dr. Ramenofsky's testimony


Mio. eens 786/97)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge i Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 01 C 702 DATE 6/4/2002

\ CASE Chris Schultz vs. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp.
TITLE

1 Lin the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MI OTION: of the motion being presented ]
if
\
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) oa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due, . Reply to answer brief due
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) ima} Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at_
(op) im} Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) im [Bench/Jury trial} [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) OGeneralRule21 CFRCP41(a)(1) Cl FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Order. Plaintiff’s motions is limine #1, 2,5,6,7 are
granted and 3,4 and 8 are denied. Defendants’ motions in limine #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are denied and
2and 8 are granted. (AS -| thoy 10)

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

No notices required.

Y | Notices mailed by judge’s staff,

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form,

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

' SN deputy’s

initials

No notices required, advised in open court.

courtroom

Document
Number

umber of notices

fas ee r
\ ety deputy nas
AN 5 Ne
ERT OL eresbscdpous
4S s Wd 4 wn
Date/timeyee qarasts
panna ‘mailing deputy initials

ab


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

CHRIS SCHULTZ,

Vv.

ADVOCATE HEALTH AND
CORPORATION, et al.,

EASTERN DIVISION
Plaintiff,
HOSPITALS

)
)
)
)
) No. 01 C 702
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

As this Court ordered in conjunction with the April 26, 2002

conference with counsel during which it considered and approved

the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order in this action, each side

has timely presented its motions in limine, and each has timely

responded to the other side's motions. This memorandum order

will address those motions sequentially--and because both sides

are of course familiar with the subject matter, and because this

order is being written simply to reflect this Court's rulings

rather than as a memorandum opinion, no repetition of the subject

matter of the respective motions is needed. Instead, the motions

will simply be referred to by number.

Plaintiff's Motions

Motion No. 1 is granted because we have long since departed

from the old “sporting” or “fox-hunt” approach to the litigation

process in favor of

a disclosure policy exemplified by the

discovery rules that are included in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (“Rules”).

If plaintiff's interrogatories in fact


asked defendants (among other things) to identify everyone having
knowledge of the case (as there is every reason to believe, for
every litigator's computer includes that as one of the stock
questions), any unlisted persons should be barred from
testifying. And of course the 1993 amendments to Rule 26(e)
created an obligation on every party to update responses in that
respect, so that any omission from the original response of any
person who may have been unknown at the outset of the case
becomes irrelevant.

That same analysis calls for the granting of Motion No. 2.

As for Motion No. 3, defendants' response is somewhat
nonresponsive in part. Because the issue is really one of
whether enough support exists for such evidence to go to the
jury, Motion No. 3 is denied as an in limine motion, and the
matter will ultimately be ruled on at trial in the context of the
then-existing state of the record.

Motion No. 4 is denied if plaintiff elects to put his past
employment record in issue in such manner as to make such
testimony relevant. Otherwise it is granted.

Motion Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are granted without objection.

Motion No. 8 is denied as moot, there being no evidence of

any such proceedings.