Jeffrey N. Cole
How Judge Cole decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
He requires the parties to genuinely exhaust the meet-and-confer obligation before he will rule on a discovery motion, and will defer ruling (or deny without prejudice) until they do. Do not bring a motion to compel before him until counsel have actually conferred in good faith on each disputed request.
“Only then will any further motions to compel be considered.”
He treats routine discovery disputes as the parties' work to finish, not the court's: he denies a motion to compel without prejudice and orders the parties to keep conferring and report back, expecting them to resolve ordinary requests themselves. Come to him only with genuinely intractable, well-narrowed disputes.
“the parties have more work to do. They are directed to continue meeting to resolve their differences over the two discovery requests and the Confidentiality Order and submit a status report on December 18, 2022.”
Cautions
When a party prevails on a motion to compel before him, he will award the mover its reasonable expenses under Rule 37(a)(5) — here $8,417.50, payable within 15 days. A party that loses a discovery fight it forced should expect to pay fees.
“the plaintiff's Fee Petition in the amount of $8417.50 [Dkt. #300] is granted and shall be paid within 15 days.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to compel N = 5 |
Denied: 5 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for protective order N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The plaintiff's motion to compel [Dkt. #103] is denied without prejudice to refiling in the unlikely event the parties fail to resolve these rather routine discovery matters.”
“Thus, the defendant's motion to compel [Dkt. #299] is denied.”
“The Motion is denied for the reasons set forth below.”
“As such, the plaintiff's Motion [Dkt. #79] is denied, and this referral [Dkt. #80] is closed and the case is returned to Judge Aspen.”
“The plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with the Non-party Subpoena [Dkt. #72] is denied.”
“the plaintiff's Fee Petition in the amount of $8417.50 [Dkt. #300] is granted and shall be paid within 15 days.”
“Accordingly, the plaintiff's Motion is granted but only insofar as it seeks to bar the deposition of Orlando Juarez. [Dkt. #30].”
Order on the parties' cross-motions to compel. Recorded as read but EXCLUDED from motion stats: rather than granting or denying either side's motion, Cole directed the parties to further meet-and-confer before he would rule, so there is no classifiable granted/denied disposition. Grounding quote below illustrates his meet-and-confer-first practice.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No enumerable assigned/consent docket list under his name (search_dockets returned empty for both name forms). His work is referred-discovery and pretrial motion practice across the N.D. Ill. civil docket — motions to compel, protective orders, Rule 37 sanctions/fees — reflected in the GovInfo reasoning layer rather than an assigned-case list. The captured orders span BIPA class actions (Fleury v. Union Pacific), Schedule-A IP enforcement (Hangzhou Aoshuang v. 008Fashion), FLSA collective actions (Rossman v. EN Engineering), FDCPA (Arora v. Midland), patent/expert disputes (Monco v. Zoltek), and federal employment (Sanchez v. HHS).