United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
August 16, 2004.
Illinois State Police.
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 Plaintiff Sakoda
1. Copies of Promotional Certification Lists
Plaintiff seeks production of evaluations of Masters Sergeants
state-wide. Defendants object on the grounds that sergeant
promotions are based on regional rankings. Since Plaintiff would
not have been ranked with sergeants outside his region, I must
agree with Defendants that the information is irrelevant. Thus, I
will not order the production of certification lists outside
Plaintiff's home region.
2. EEO Reports
Plaintiff seeks production of the ISP EEO Plans for 1995
through the present. Defendants object to production of EEO Plans
outside the relevant time period for this litigation, which is,
in Defendants' opinion, 1998-2002. Since Plaintiff's complaints
of poor evaluations begin as early as 1996 and continue through
2003, I order production of the EEO reports for those years.
3. Documents Regarding the Study, Development, and
Implementation of the Promotional System
Plaintiff seeks production of all documents regarding the
study, development, and implementation of the ISP's promotional
evaluation process that was established in 1996. Defendants claim
to have produced over one thousand pages of information
concerning its evaluation system. To the extent that more
information remains, I order it be produced.
4. Documents Withheld Pursuant to Privilege
Plaintiff has requested that Defendants provide a log of any
documents withheld as privileged. I order Plaintiffs and
Defendants to exchange privilege logs.
5. Documents Concerning Events Prior to 1999
Plaintiff requests documents concerning events that took place
prior to 1999 and are, as Defendant points out, related to
activities which are, in a litigation sense, time-barred. Since
these documents correspond to acts that are not applicable to
this or any other litigation, I will not order their production.
C. Plaintiffs' Requests That All Subsequent Depositions Be
Taken in Wheaton
Plaintiff has requested that all subsequent depositions take
place in Wheaton. Since Plaintiff did not object to this request
in their response to Plaintiff's motion, I will order depositions
be held in Wheaton absent objection by a deponent not employed by
Plaintiffs or Defendants.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.