James T. Balog

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois magistrate Deceased · served 1967–2024 15 signed orders read

Judge Balog no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Balog decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He enforced the parties' chosen notice mechanism when the contract made written notice central to the duration of employment.

“There must be exact compliance with the terms of the provision for notice.”

In benefits recoupment, he evaluated the claimant family's finances as an integrated household rather than dividing expenses mechanically among individuals.

“A person’s entire financial position should be considered.”

Procedural preferences

At depositions, he required witnesses to answer subject to an objection unless counsel asserted a privilege or sought timely judicial protection.

“absent a claim of privilege, it is improper for counsel at a deposition to instruct a client not to answer.”

He treated repeated discovery noncompliance as capable of supporting the ultimate sanction after a clear production order and warning.

“if plaintiffs failed to produce the required material within the time specified, he would recommend to this Court that this case be dismissed with prejudice as the ultimate sanction available under Rule 37(b).”

Cautions

He recommended denying a renewed request for relief when the governing statute reserved the injunction remedy to a government official and prior rulings had already addressed the issue.

“Thus it is recommended that the plaintiff’s third application for preliminary injunction filed March 31, 1989 be denied as frivolous.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

McCann v. Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc.
· 1985-04-30
Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Before the court is the Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.”

Gavin v. Heckler
· 1985-10-08
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted

“It is ordered and adjudged that this court having reviewed the report and recommendation of the magistrate, it is hereby adopted. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted and defendant’s motion is denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Edgewater Hospital v. Bowen
· 1986-11-10
Summary judgment (hospital) Granted

“For these reasons, it is recommended that the court GRANT the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and DENY the Secretary’s motion for the same and order the PRRB to consider the claims raised by Edgewater Hospital in its appeal to the Board dated September 26, 1984.”

Summary judgment (Secretary of Health and Human Services) Denied
Ward v. Heckler
· 1985-09-03
Summary judgment (benefits claimant) Denied

“Magistrate Balog, in considering the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, recommended that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and that the decision of the Secretary be affirmed.”

Summary judgment (Secretary of Health and Human Services) Granted

“The Magistrate filed his Report and Recommendation on December 12, 1984. He recommended that the government’s motion for summary judgment be granted and the decision of the Secretary, denying plaintiff’s applications for disability and SSI, be affirmed.”

Moffett v. Heckler
· 1983-12-13
Summary judgment (Secretary of Health and Human Services) Granted

“Magistrate Balog has recommended that we grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment and affirm the ALJ’s decision.”

St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance v. Diversified Athletic Services
· 1989-01-19
Summary judgment (insurer) Denied

“For these reasons, it is recommended that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED.”

Roberts v. United States
· 1990-04-06
Summary judgment (W. Stewart Roberts) Granted

“The court adopts the report and recommendations of Magistrate Balog as its own; and, for the reasons set forth in his report which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, the motion of the defendant for summary judgment is denied and the motions of the plaintiffs for summary judgment are granted.”

Summary judgment (Robert G. Peters) Granted
Summary judgment (Reuben D. Peters) Granted
Summary judgment (United States) Denied
McGinnis v. Local Union No. 710, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
· 1987-07-24
Motion to enforce judgment (union member) Granted

“On May 15, 1987, Magistrate Balog issued a Report and Recommendation directing Local 710 to provide McGinnis access to the relevant financial documents and to allow McGinnis to copy and publish them.”

Motion for sanctions (union member) Granted

“The Magistrate also recommended imposing Rule 11 sanctions against Local 710’s counsel.”

Swanson v. Martwick
· 1989-12-14
Motion for equitable relief (civil-rights plaintiff) Denied

“In a report and recommendation dated November 21, 1989, Magistrate Ba-log concluded that the court should deny Swanson’s motion for equitable relief.”

Motion for attorneys fees (civil-rights plaintiff) Granted in part

“Concluding that ‘plaintiff has achieved limited success in this litigation compared to the scope of relief sought,’ the magistrate reduced Swanson’s fee request by 20%, recommending a $57,957.40 fee award.”

Singh v. Curry
· 1988-09-07
Motion for sanctions (defendants) Granted in part

“we decline to adopt the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation to the extent it assesses sanctions under Rule 11 against Marconi & Morrison for not having read Morgan and Lipin prior to filing Singh’s complaint on November 3, 1986.”

Roberts v. Heckler
· 1986-04-08
Summary judgment (benefits claimant) Granted

“On October 21, 1985, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate James T. Balog that plaintiff Roberts’ motion for summary judgment be granted and that she be awarded ‘Widow’s Benefits’ under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B).”

Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc.
· 1990-03-07
Preliminary injunction (employees) Denied

“Thus it is recommended that the plaintiff’s third application for preliminary injunction filed March 31, 1989 be denied as frivolous.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 556 days (N = 1).

Only one exact-name electronic case shell was located, and it contains no entry timeline. It is not a sufficient sample for describing caseload mix or motion practice.

A historical record

Judge Balog no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.