Civil Procedure
Judge tells court callers their concerns can be addressed by ‘cracking open Moore’s Federal Practice’
Lawyers who are contacting court staff because of concerns about disclosure of their nonparty clients’ sensitive documents have a better option: “cracking open ‘Moore’s Federal Practice’” and filing a motion to intervene, according to an order by a federal judge. (Image from Shutterstock)
Lawyers who are contacting court staff because of concerns about disclosure of their nonparty clients’ sensitive documents have a better option: “cracking open Moore’s Federal Practice” and filing a motion to intervene, according to an order by a federal judge overseeing an antitrust case against Deere & Co., a farm machinery manufacturer.
U.S. District Judge Iain D. Johnston of the Northern District of Illinois used humor to address the lawyers in his June 30 order, Law360 reports.
The lawyers who are calling the court represent original equipment manufacturers who are interested in how sensitive documents produced to the Federal Trade Commission during an investigation of Deere & Co. will be used or disclosed. The FTC is among the plaintiffs that sued Deere & Co. in January over alleged unfair practices that have increased equipment repair costs.
Johnston said he recognizes that the federal rule governing motions to intervene “isn’t a perfect fit” because the nonparty equipment-makers aren’t asserting a claim or defense.
“But who am I to argue with Moore’s and an out-of-circuit district court case,” Johnston wrote, citing a 1993 “helpful case” discussing the intervention procedure by the Western District of New York.
Johnston began his order with references to District Judge Steven C. Seeger of the Northern District of Illinois and criticism of standing orders relayed by Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale of the Middle District of Florida.
“Unlike some judges—I’m looking at you Steve Seeger—I don’t have a standing order prohibiting counsel from contacting the court,” Johnston wrote. “That type of standing order seems superfluous. (Of course, one could reasonably argue that most standing orders are superfluous.) And I already have 29 standing orders, despite Magistrate Judge Patty Barksdale schooling me that standing orders are allegedly unconstitutional according to some people.”
Johnston said he is confident the motions to intervene will very likely be granted “because the court hasn’t so far found a reason to deny them.”
Earlier in June, Johnston denied Deere & Co.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in which the company was said to be “rebooting” an earlier request.
“Sequels so rarely beat their originals that even the acclaimed Steve Martin couldn’t do it on three tries,” Johnston wrote. “See Cheaper by the Dozen 2, [The] Pink Panther 2, Father of the Bride [Part] II.”
In a footnote, Johnston wrote, “But see Terminator 2[: Judgment Day].”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
