This week, the plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the Motion for Discovery Sanctions. In a July 26, 2006 order, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to bar one University witness, while stating that it lacked sufficient information to evaluate the motion for attorney's fees and costs due to the University's failure to timely produce documents and its destruction of documents. which was denied in part due to insufficient information. The court continues to draft its response to the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's expert report. The court continues to reserve ruling on defendants' petition for duplicate costs arising from the plaintiff's 2nd amended complaint. Also, in accord with the July 26, 2006 ruling granting plaintiff's Motion to Modify July 11, 2006 Order, on July 27, 2006 the court vacated its July 11, 2006 ruling and entered a revised order that properly described the case at issue. Initial presentation of the motion to reopen is scheduled for Sept. 12, at 9:30.
It is still expected that after ruling by mail on the pending motion to strike the plaintiff's expert report, the court will set a dispositive motion schedule, expert cut-off date, set a trial date and, pending its ruling on the motion to strike the expert report, set an expert deposition schedule.
In his suit against the University, nine claims are now at issue. Counts I and II allege, respectively, breach of express and of implied contract, due to violations of University regulations, and his rights to freedom of inquiry, as set forth in the University manual and handbook. Freedom of inquiry, one of the most highly protected freedoms in an academic community, is the freedom to inquire without penalty or retribution. Counts IV and V allege breach of express and implied contracts for financial aid (especially free tutoring). Newly added counts VII and VIII reallege these breaches of contract with refinements based on discovery to date. Count IX for spoliation of evidence was added for breach of duty to preserve evidence by destroying thousands of potentially relevant documents. Count VI alleges detrimental reliance on the promises of the University. Count X is for tortious interference with contract. Vernón claims the University lured him from another program, and uprooted his life. Vernón is represented by Elaine Siegel (ELAINE K.B. SIEGEL & ASSOC., P..C., 39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 617, Chicago, Illinois 60603, (312) 236-8088, EKBSiegel@aol.com).
Vernón, a kukkiwon certified black belt, is one of Chicago's most prominent non-projectile weapons practitioners and most popular beach personalities. He often performs using the nickname "Tony the Tiger". You may have seen him perform July 3rd in the Wilmette Parks District Independence Day Celebration. He was the 1st middleweight collegiate athlete to deadlift 600 lbs. without using steroids. His father, Dr. Carlos Vernón (1937-2003), was the 1957 Athlete of the Year for the Republic of Panama and is the greatest sprinter in Latin American history. He ran a 10.2 when the world record was 10.1.
Donations to his legal fund by check and money order, at Vernón Legal Fund, 1507 E. 53rd. St. - #608, Chicago, IL 60615 are welcomed. Donations by credit card and electronic payment can be made via free paypal accounts (from www.paypal.com) to email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org.