Creditor-plaintiffs who intend to offer only portions of a deposition transcript at trial are required under Rule 32(a)(6) to offer additional portions of the deposition transcript that in fairness should be considered together with the initially designated portions.  Opposing party-defendant, who did not attend the depositions and did not pay for a copy of the deposition transcripts would be given an opportunity to review the transcript to designate additional portions of the transcript that offering party would be required to introduce to comply with Rule 32(a)(6). However, the opposing party-defendant could not obtain a complete copy of the transcript through the pre-trial exchange of exhibits process.  The opposing party-defendant must pay for the deposition transcript per Rule 30(f)(3) if he wishes to introduce other portions of the transcript at trial, or wants to obtain a complete copy of the transcript.  Creditor-plaintiffs may file a motion in limine if they disagree that the counter-designated portions of the deposition testimony need not be included to comply with Rule 32(a)(6).

The Court granted the Trustee’s amended motion to sell real property free and clear of liens, claims and interests to a relative of the debtor, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b), (f), and (h) with such liens, claims and interests, if any, to attach to the proceeds of the sale with the same validity and priority and to the same extent that they attached to the asset sold.  The Court applied the sound business judgment test which requires the Trustee to establish sound business reasons for the sale.  A non-debtor party who objected to the sale had a ½ interest in the property, which was located in a rural area.  The property had significant access, water, and septic issues.   The purchaser, a relative of the debtor and the objecting party, agreed to purchase the property “as is,” and provided independent estimates for the needed repairs and upgrades to the property to justify the low sales price. 

Debtor sought to voluntarily dismiss this case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a).  The Court balanced the interests of the Debtor and the creditors, and closely scrutinized the Debtor's motivations for dismissal and any prejudice to creditors.  The Court concluded that Debtor carried his burden to show cause for dismissal. 

Plaintiff sought to alter or amend the judgment denying defendant’s discharge pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and the Court’s §105 equitable powers to increase the amount of a monetary judgment relating to plaintiff’s non-dischargeability claims. Plaintiff’s non-dischargeability claims were based on the same conduct that resulted in a state court judgment.  Claim preclusion principles barred the Court from changing the amount of the non-dischargeable debt represented by the state court judgment in a subsequent non-dischargeability proceeding.    The Court was required to give full faith and credit to the state court judgment, and, under Illinois law, the state court judgment was entitled to preclusive effect.