FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1 Eastern Division Rhonda Roe, et al.

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Sunday, September 1, 2024: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their unredacted motion to compel and Exhibit 10 thereto under seal [465] and motion to compel [466] are entered and continued.

SCA Defendants are to submit a response to the motion for leave [465] by September 10, 2024, and explain why Exhibit 10 (R. 467−1) must remain under seal.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1 Eastern Division Rhonda Roe, et al.

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, August 28, 2024: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: SCA and USPI Defendants are to file a joint statement by September 11, 2024, explaining why Document Nos. 419 (Plaintiffs' motion), 419−1 (Declaration of William Castillo Guardado), 419−2 and 419−3 (documents numbered "USPI_CIV_000016100" and "USPI_CIV_000021155"), 434 (SCA Defendants' response to the motion), and 434−1 (discovery emails between the Parties) should remain under seal.

How can these communications between two individuals who work for two different companies be considered &quo;t;confidential"?

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1 Eastern Division Rhonda Roe, et al.

Parties confirmed for the court that they completed all depositions scheduled to take place since the last status hearing in June 2024.

The court will amend the fact discovery deadline based on this confirmed schedule.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, August 21, 2024: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Defendants' motion for protective order [420] is granted in part and denied in part and their motion for leave to file a reply [450] is granted.

In support, Defendants say that the scope of the current subpoenas is overly broad and disproportional to the needs of this case and impinges upon the privacy interests of the subscribers.

Also, Plaintiffs fail to explain why they require the subscribers' location information for each call or text−−−if the Respondents even maintain such data.

Defendants argue in their reply that the court should dismiss Plaintiffs' argument about the added burden on the Respondents if it narrows the scope of the subpoena to communications between and among the subject 82 phone numbers.

For these reasons, the motion is granted in part to the extent that Plaintiffs are to amend their subpoenas and tailor the "Relevant Time Period" to be the start of employment through January 1, 2019, and remove the need to disclose location information.

Nonetheless, if the Court discusses confidential information, it has done so because it is necessary to explain the path of its reasoning.

... and [Enterprise Risk Visibility] process cannot support the conclusion that the Board established any committee or process charged with direct responsibility to monitor airplane safety.” Id. Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that none ...

Moreover, the Public Policy Committee’s meetings lasted for no more than an hour and between 2017 and 2022, none of the “Quality and Regulatory Update” presentations reflected consideration of safety, Cronobacter, or the Sturgis ...