DigitalDoors Keeps Ignoring Local Rule Disclosure Requirements

DigitalDoors, Inc. keeps filing new cases—and keeps ignoring local disclosure rules as it does. Among an April 2025 wave, so far also hitting Arbor Bancorp (Bank of Ann Arbor) (2:25-cv-11030), Flushing Financial (Flushing Bank) (2:25-cv-01895), Metropolitan Bank Holding (Metropolitan Commercial Bank) (1:25-cv-02891), and Peapack Private Bank and Trust (1:25-cv-02349), is a case that this plaintiff filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Byline Bank (1:25-cv-03843). Local Rule 3.2 there requires a litigant to file a Notification of Affiliates that identifies “any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party”. Instead, Samuel L. Blatnick of Lucosky Brookman, LLP of Overland Park, Kansas, signed a disclosure, purportedly pursuant to this rule, that merely indicates that DigitalDoors has no parent and that no publicly traded company owns 10% or more of its stock. While untethered from the local rule cited, this disclosure is more fulsome than the one that DigitalDoors made in a recent round of cases filed before Northern District of Georgia Judge Victoria M. Calvert. There represented by M. Scott Fuller of Garteiser Honea PLLC, the plaintiff appears to have just ignored Local Rule 3.3.