Lewis v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc.

S.D. Illinois

Lewis v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois·Decided December 22, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-01355·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LERON LEWIS, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-01355-RJD ) HIRSCHBACH MOTOR LINES, INC. and ) ERIC JEROME CAMPBELL, SR. ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DALY, Magistrate Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Preservation of Evidence (Doc. 6). This motion was sealed. As explained further, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he was injured in an accident with a semi-truck driven by Defendant Campbell on December 13, 2020 in Franklin County, Illinois. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 21, 2020. On that same date, he filed the instant Motion, asking the Court to Order Defendants and non-parties Vernell’s Interstate Service, Overdrive Risk Retention Group, Marsh Management Services, and the Illinois State Police to preserve an itemized list of evidence in their possession or control. Plaintiff fails to cite to any statute, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or case law that would authorize the Court to make such an Order. An ex parte order can only be issued in limited circumstances. American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984). To the extent that Plaintiff is asking this Court to issue a temporary restraining order ex parte, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to meet (or even mention) the requirements of Page 1 of 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. It is also unclear why this Motion was sealed. Judicial proceedings should be “as open as possible.” Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000). There must be a “compelling justification” for sealing a document. Id. Plaintiff’s Motion provides the Court with no compelling justification for sealing it. On or before December 30, 2020, Plaintiff shall

show cause as to why the Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Preservation of Evidence (Doc. 6) should remain sealed. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with a compelling justification, the Motion (Doc. 6) will be unsealed. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 22, 2020

s/ Reona J. Daly Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LERON LEWIS, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-cv-01355-RJD ) HIRSCHBACH MOTOR LINES, INC. and ) ERIC JEROME CAMPBELL, SR. ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DALY, Magistrate Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Preservation of Evidence (Doc. 6). This motion was sealed. As explained further, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he was injured in an accident with a semi-truck driven by Defendant Campbell on December 13, 2020 in Franklin County, Illinois. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 21, 2020. On that same date, he filed the instant Motion, asking the Court to Order Defendants and non-parties Vernell’s Interstate Service, Overdrive Risk Retention Group, Marsh Management Services, and the Illinois State Police to preserve an itemized list of evidence in their possession or control. Plaintiff fails to cite to any statute, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or case law that would authorize the Court to make such an Order. An ex parte order can only be issued in limited circumstances. American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984). To the extent that Plaintiff is asking this Court to issue a temporary restraining order ex parte, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to meet (or even mention) the requirements of Page 1 of 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. It is also unclear why this Motion was sealed. Judicial proceedings should be “as open as possible.” Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000). There must be a “compelling justification” for sealing a document. Id. Plaintiff’s Motion provides the Court with no compelling justification for sealing it. On or before December 30, 2020, Plaintiff shall

show cause as to why the Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Preservation of Evidence (Doc. 6) should remain sealed. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with a compelling justification, the Motion (Doc. 6) will be unsealed. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 22, 2020

s/ Reona J. Daly Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2

Lewis v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc., (S.D. Ill. 2020).

Pincite

Lewis v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc. (Lewis v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related