‘Minute ~ dot Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois

Name of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Ott
or Magistrate Judge James B, Moran than Assigned sadge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 9421 DATE 8/25/2004
CASE AMERICAN HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS vs. REED ELSEVIER, INC.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indivate the parly filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the mation being presented.)

MOTION:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
(60) o Filed motion of [ usc listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) ag Bricf in support of motion due
g a Answer brief to motion due,___. Reply to answer briefdue__.
4 oO Ruling/Hearingon set for__— at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-sct for}on__——ssetfor_—_aat
(6) Q 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) oO [Bencl/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continucd to____at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).
ao [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Defendants’ joint motion for a
protective order for a partial stay of discovery pending ruling on motions to dismiss is granted to the
extent indicated herein.
al) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

‘No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's stuff.

Notified counsel by telephone,

wv | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. docketing deputy initia

“gn

y

Copy to judye/magistrute judge.

date mailed notice

courtroom ez yoy hale

GZ. wad
UG deputy’s wove
initiuls ————r
Datc/time reocived in

contrat Clerk's OFice uailing depuly aitiais



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCKETEL
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AUG 2 ‘7 2004

EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS )
ASSOCIATION, a Delaware not-for-profit corporation,)

)
Plaintiff,

)
)
vs. )
)

REED ELSEVIER, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, )
and REED EXHIBITIONS, a division of Reed Elsevier, )
Inc, and ASSOCIATION EXPOSITION & SERVICES, )
a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc., and FREEMAN )
DECORATING CO. (a/k/a The Freeman Companies), )
an Towa corporation, and FREEMAN DECORATING )
SERVICES, INC. (a/k/a The Freeman Companies), a —_)
Texas corporation, )

)

)

Defendants.

No. 03 C 9421

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Freeman Decorating Co. and Freeman Decorating Services, Inc, move for a protective

order for a partial stay of discovery pending ruling on motions to dismiss. That motion is

granted to the extent indicated herein.

The motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint have a briefing schedule, and we

would expect to rule shortly after October 13, 2004. Whatever the ruling, claims relating to

events after February 26, 2003, arc likely to survive. We see no reason to prohibit discovery

relating to those claims or the fraudulent inducement claim, but we think that pre-release

claims discovery should wait until the claims going forward haye been clarified. In the

interim, document discovery relating to the post-release and fraudulent inducement claims

should precede oral depositions, and the oral depositions should be confined to those claims



“No. 03 C9421 Page 2

and be of witnesses who would not have to be redeposed if the motions to dismiss are denied.
Nor do we mean to suggest that the fraudulent inducement claim can be a springboard for
exploring various possible pre-release claims. For now, that exploration should be confined

to who communicated what to whom during the negotiation of the settlement.

Arnal Meo

Ss JAMES B. MORAN
Schior Judge, U. S. District Court

Oe ~2Y 2004,