The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge
Plaintiffs Joseph Mata and Leonard Sakoda have filed complaints
against the Illinois State Police defendants, alleging national
origin discrimination and/or retaliation for, among other things,
Defendants' failure to promote them. Although these cases have
not been formally consolidated, the parties have been conducting
discovery simultaneously. To avoid duplicity of effort and
expense and to prevent the possibility of inconsistent rulings, I
have agreed, for now, to consolidate these cases for the purposes
of this motion only. My ruling is as follows:
A. Documents Requested by Sergeant Mata
1. Documents Regarding Shift Selections/Changes
Plaintiff has requested all policies and contracts pertaining
to shift selection and involuntary shift changes. Defendants
claim that all relevant documents have either been produced or
have been adequately represented in the ISP Defendants'
depositions. To the extent that Defendants have in their
possession documents containing non-duplicative information, I
order that it be produced.
2. Documents Regarding Plaintiff's MCS Contracts/Inspections
and CVEO Duties
Plaintiff requests the MCS contracts/inspections for District
15 from 1993 through 1998. Defendants claim that information from
the years prior to 1998 are irrelevant because Mata did not
receive a CVEO position until after 1998. To allow for
comparison, I order the production of information from 1996-1998.
Plaintiff also seeks information regarding CVEO pay, duties,
and selection criteria. Defendant asserts that it has produced
all relevant documents in its possession except for a CVEO
handbook, which Mata should have already had in his possession.
For this reason, I see no need to order any further production.
3. Personnel Documents Regarding All Troopers Promoted to
Sergeant or "By Passed" For Promotion to Sergeant in 1998
Plaintiff requests the annual job performance evaluations and
promotional evaluations for all Troopers in District 15 who were
either promoted or "by-passed" for promotion in 1998. Defendant
has produced selected evaluations. Since these evaluations may be
relevant to the establishment of Plaintiff's prima facie case, I
order them produced in their entirety absent claims of a
4. Defendants' Personnel Files
Plaintiff requests the personnel files of the named Defendants.
Defendants claim that since none of the named Defendants have
been parties to race or national origin discrimination suits, the
files are irrelevant. I tend to agree with the Defendants. I
will, however, order an in camera inspection of any documents
which pertain to allegations of race or national origin
discrimination. This order also applies to the personnel files
sought by Plaintiff Sakoda.
5. Evidence of Other Acts of Discrimination
Plaintiff is seeking evidence or testimony pertaining to all
claims of harassment and discrimination. Defendants object on the
grounds that claims of harassment not involving race or national
origin are irrelevant to this case. Because I agree with
Defendants arguments, I will not order production of documents
outside those pertaining to race and national origin
6. Records After June 1999
Plaintiff also requests records that post-date his departure
from District 15. Defendant objects to the documents as
irrelevant since Plaintiff has not alleged wrongdoing against his
subsequent District, District 16. I think personnel ratings
received by Mata after the move may be relevant for comparison
purposes and order that they be produced.
B. Documents Requested by ...