Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Matthew F. Kennelly Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 9421 DATE 1/25/2011

CASE

TITLE

AHMA vs. Reed Elsevier

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, the Court reduces by 5 hours (to 55 hours per side) the amount of time allocated

to each side for the trial of this case.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

On 9/10/10, the Court entered an order setting aside 24 trial days, “without prejudice to a later order setting

the amount of time that each side will have to present its case.” At that time, the case involved claims by the

plaintiff against both Reed Elsevier and the Freeman defendants, and counterclaims by both groups of

defendants. The Court believed, based on its relatively detailed understanding of the case and the parties’

submissions, that this amount of time was adequate to permit both sides to present their claims fairly and

completely. The claims against and by Freeman were dismissed pursuant to settlement on 11/18/10.

On 12/29/10, the Court entered a follow-up order giving 60 hours per side (AHMA/Farrell and Reed). Dkt.

Entry 1218. Although Freeman had settled in the interim, the Court expressly premised the 12/29/10 time

allocation order on the earlier 24-day allocation, which the Court had made prior to the Freeman settlement. 

A couple of hours later the same day, the Court entered a follow-up order that amended the earlier order “to

note that the Court reserves the right to adjust those time limits and the set-asides for interim statements

either downward or upward. In particular, the Court notes that it set the limits based on information provided

by the parties before the claims against and by Freeman were settled, so it is conceivable that less time should

be required at this point to try the case.” See Dkt. Entry 1219.

The Court asked the parties to make submissions regarding what, if any, adjustments it should make to the 60

hour allocation based on two factors: the Freeman settlement, and Reed’s voluntary dismissal, on 1/18/11, of

several counts of its counterclaim brought under various Illinois and federal statutes. AHMA proposes a

reduction of 10 hours per side. Reed argues that the dismissal of Freeman and the dropped claims change

nothing in terms of the amount of trial time needed. The Court will address these contentions in a moment.

Reed also argues that it relied on the Court’s earlier allocation. This argument is a non-starter. As the

history referenced above makes clear, the Court expressly premised its initial allocation of 60 hours on the

03C9421 AHMA vs. Reed Elsevier Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

pre-Freeman-settlement state of affairs, and it expressly noted that it reserved the right to shorten the time

based on that settlement and for other reasons. Thus Reed could not reasonably rely on the allocation as

immutable or as representing the post-settlement state of affairs.

It is clear that the dismissal of Freeman and the dropping of certain of Reed’s claims will make a difference

in the amount of time each side reasonably needs to present its case. First, Freeman is not participating and

thus is not giving an opening statement or a closing argument. Reed’s opening statement was over 70

minutes long, and it is reasonable to believe its closing argument will be longer; it is reasonable to believe

that Freeman, which was represented by separate counsel, would use a similar amount of time. Second, a

significant amount of allocable time will be saved because the parties will not need to present motions or

arguments under Rule 50 regarding the dismissed claims (which otherwise would almost certainly be

presented); the Court will not need to hear arguments concerning jury instructions on those claims; and the

remaining parties will have no need to address them in closing argument (which they otherwise doubtless

would do). Third, AHMA persuasively argues in its submission that there are three Freeman-related

witnesses whom it does not intend to call in its case as a result of the Freeman dismissal. 

All of that said, a 10 hour per side reduction appears to overstate the time saving involved from the Freeman

settlement and the dropping of certain of Reed’s claims. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and

considering the arguments, the Court reduces by 5 hours (to 55 hours per side) the amount of time allocated

to each side.

03C9421 AHMA vs. Reed Elsevier Page 2 of 2