Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:17-cv-08462_de39> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08462_de39 RegisterActionDate "2018-11-16" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08462_de39 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole: This case is about an altercation between Lemont police officers and plaintiff 8258FBF that occurred when officers responded to a 911 call from plaintiffs wife that he was having a seizure. On the scene, one officer called Chief Marc Maton of the Lemont Police Department immediately after the incident, and two others spoke with him about it thereafter. Significantly, counsel for the defendants indicated that he would provide possible dates for Chief Matons deposition in an email to plaintiffs counsel on September 24, 2018. [Dkt. # 33-1]. On October 3rd, he again assured plaintiffs counsel that he would provide possible dates but explained that his paralegal had been busy. [Dkt. #33-2]. Then, with discovery set to close on November 16th, plaintiffs counsel finally noticed Chief Matons deposition for November 12th. On November 5th, just ten days before the close of discovery, counsel for the defendants reneged on his assurances and indicated he would not be producing Chief Maton for a deposition at all. The plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the deposition of Lemont Police Chief Marc Maton. The time to have informed opposing counsel that the defendants would not be cooperating with discovery was when the deposition of Chief Maton first became a topic. It is, to say the least, unfair and misleading to cause an opponent to think a deposition will be set and then to withdraw the impression, if not the promise, that the assurance would not be honored especially with discovery set to close. Lawyers are expected to honor their promises, and their assurances should mean something. See BankDirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Capital Premium Fin., Inc., 326 F.R.D. 171, 174 (N.D. Ill. 2018)(collecting cases). A busy schedule is no excuse. See Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 548 (7th Cir. 2006). Moreover, if the President of the United States has to cooperate with discovery, Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 70405 (1997), so too does the police chief of the Lemont Police Department, who, it is said, has knowledge of what others with knowledge said to him about the case. See Johnson v. Jung, 242 F.R.D. 481, 483 (N.D.Ill. 2007). For more than three centuries it has now been recognized as a fundamental maxim that the public... has a right to every man's evidence. United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950) (quoting 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2192, p. 64 (3d ed.1940)). This case is not an exception to that basic and compelling principle. Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to compel 33 is granted, and Chief Maton is ordered to appear for deposition at the time and place chosen by the plaintiff or agreed to by the parties. Status hearing date of 11/16/2018 is reset for 11/20/2018 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 11/16/2018)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08462_de39 AdministrativeID "38" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08462_de39 hasJudgeReference SJ000265 @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-08462_de39 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:17-cv-08462_de34 @default.