ie Coy
}
Minnie Form (2)

United States District Court, Northern District of IHinois

Name of Assigned Jud; i ; Sitting Judge if Other
ae Magiserate judas Milton I. Shadur than Aarigned Sadge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3595 DATE 7/3/2002
CASE John Marozas vs. City of Burbank, et al
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) oO 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) Oo Ruling/Hearingon___setfor__at

(5) o Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on ss setfor__— sat.
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on ss setfor_ at
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) CiGeneral Rule21 CHFRCP41(a)\(1) C1 FRCP41(a)(2).

do) =x {Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Court sua sponte strikes the
existing answers from the file physically (thus eliminating wholly needless bulk) and grants leave to
defendants to file a single collective Answer on or before July 17, 2002.

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

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. number of notices

JUL 98 2002

date docketed

Y | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form. docketing depuity initials,

Copy to judge/magistrate judge,
nao

dato mailed notice
courtroom

SN deputy’s
initials

SN

Dachine wpesigg-Oa U4 tng days

central Clerk"



‘CITY OF BURBANK, et al.,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN MAROZAS,
Plaintiff,

No. 02 C 3595

DOCKETED
JUL 0°8 2002

v.

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Even though all five defendants in this Title VII case--City
of Burbank and four of its Police Department's high level
officers--are represented by the same law firm, counsel has
needlessly filed a separate Answer for each defendant. Quite
apart from the inattention to the environment evidenced by
killing so many more trees than is reasonably required (why spend
more than 70 pages in reproducing each set of the multiple
answers, when about a fifth of that would do the job?), that
places an inordinate burden on the reader in ascertaining the
respects in which the defendants share common cause, as
contrasted with the areas (if any) in which they part company.

It is not at all difficult--and, as already indicated, it
would be a courtesy to opposing counsel and to the Court--for
defense counsel to prepare and file a single answer on behalf of
all five defendants, collectivizing their responses where
appropriate and distinguishing among their individual answers

where necessary. Accordingly this Court sua sponte strikes the


existing answers from the file physically (thus eliminating
wholly needless bulk) and grants leave to defendants to file a

single collective Answer on or before July 17, 2002.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 3, 2002