Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 20-cv-01666 (N.D. Ill.)
Plaintiff sought an emergency order to bring to a halt alleged infringement on unicorn and elf designs, which if granted would involve third parties domestically and internationally. The federal court, strapped for resources in light of declared national and state emergencies, brooked plaintiff no mercy when, having been advised that the court would not schedule the hearing as plaintiff requested, plaintiff renewed its demand.
The court’s pointed opinion serves not only as a shot across the bow to litigants demonstrating extraordinary, yet imprudent, zeal in extraordinary times, but offers homespun 19th century legal wisdom: “About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” 1 Jessup, Elihu Root 133 (1938). Hill v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1987).
Sure to be quoted to litigants and clients alike in coming days.
Just Lawful Chortles, But Frets: The trial court was well within reason to put counsel on notice that repeatedly pressing its cause would not work, and particularly not in times of emergencies of the court’s and the nation’s own. Through the quote from Root the court did, in fact, offer counsel a way to soften the blow to the client, albeit sardonically.
Yet the reliance on ‘national emergency’ may itself soon wear thin. At the heart of this case, and the court’s order, is the issue of enforceability, not pestiness. Courts do not like to issue orders that cannot be effectuated, and rightly so. This is particularly true of orders that would affect entities not before the court, which would occur if the relief requested by Art Ask Agency were granted. It would not have consumed a great deal of judicial resources to mention this in the order denying reconsideration of the scheduling order.
Although counsel everywhere will no doubt make use of this opinion to illustrate to clients what approach not to take at present, no one, and we may hope the courts included, looks forward to expansion of the “national emergency” rationale to cause even further limitations on the process of the courts.