Hangzhou Aoshuang E-Comm. Co. v. 008Fashion, et al., No. 19 C 4565, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 2019) (Cole, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Cole granted defendants’ (collectively “008Fashion”) motion for an extension to respond to discovery requests and to vacate the Court’s prior order finding that 008Fashion’s responses were late and requiring compliance with Local Rule 37.2.

008Fashion’s motion for extension was filed five minutes before its Court-ordered deadline to respond to the discovery and was noticed for hearing after the deadline, in fact, after 008Fashion’s proposed extended deadline. This was improper. Furthermore, the responses were “extremely late.” The Court would not vacate its order, and noted that by responding late, 008Fashion waived its objections. The Court also reiterated that Local Rule 37.2 compliance was required, and that it must be more than formulaic. The Court, therefore, required that future discovery motions contained a detailed, joint statement of the parties’ efforts to resolve their discovery issue. Without an appropriate Local Rule 37.2 statement, future discovery motions would be denied.