Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hughes v. City of Chicago

September 16, 2010

HUGHES, ET AL.
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL.



Name of Assigned Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Before the Court is Defendants' joint motion to bifurcate and enter a certification on Plaintiffs' remaining Monell claim [130]. For the reasons stated below, the motion [130] is respectfully denied without prejudice.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

*Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

STATEMENT

I. Background

Because the circumstances leading to the filing of Defendants' joint motion to bifurcate and enter a certification on Plaintiffs' remaining Monell claim [130] are somewhat complex, the Court will summarize them briefly.

In a September 2009 minute order [100], the Court set a February 2010 trial date in this matter. After setting that date, the Court discovered in the process of working through Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment [77] an issue relating to Plaintiffs' Monell claim that, in the Court's view, raised the prospect of additional discovery and a second round of summary judgment briefing. Specifically, in their response in opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiffs relied on deposition testimony elicited in another case involving Defendant City of Chicago, Daniels v. City of Chicago, No. 08-cv-6832 (N.D. Ill.), that Plaintiffs contend contradicted the City's written discovery responses in this case and raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the City's policies concerning field test kits. In their reply brief on summary judgment, Defendants objected to the consideration of the deposition testimony from the Danielscase.

In its November 25, 2009 memorandum opinion and order [103, at 15-18], the Court noted the dearth of legal authority in support of a Monell claim for inadequately training police officers on conducting narcotic field tests. But before addressing the viability of Plaintiffs' legal theory, the Court addressed Defendants' contention that Plaintiffs lacked any admissible evidence. As the Court explained, under the pertinent case law, Plaintiffs bore the burden of showing that the deposition testimony from the Daniels case was admissible at summary judgment. The Court requested supplemental briefing on that issue, as well as on Defendants' contentions that the deposition testimony should be excluded as untimely and unfairly prejudicial.

In a minute order dated December 21, 2009 [113], the Court overruled the City's blanket objection to consideration of the deposition testimony in view of the similarity of the parties and issues and the potential discrepancy between the testimony of the officers in the two cases. However, to avoid any prejudice to Defendants from the consideration of that evidence -- which was discovered after the close of fact discovery and after Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment -- the Court ruled that the City should be entitled (1) to take additional discovery on the issue of narcotics field tests and (2) to file a renewed motion for summary judgment if, at the end of the additional period of discovery, it felt that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 56. At the same time, given the then-impending trial date, the Court bifurcated the Monell claim and reopened its referral of discovery supervision to Magistrate Judge Cox so that the parties could efficiently tie up any loose ends in regard to the Monell discovery.

In early January, Judge Cox held a status hearing and extended the deadline for Monell discovery to March 9, 2010. The following day, Plaintiffs filed a motion [120] requesting that this Court move the trial date so that all claims could be tried together. In an oral ruling on January 12, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion [125] in part. The Court began by expressing the view that it makes sense to decide whether to bifurcate Monell claims either at the very beginning of a case (where efficiency concerns may counsel in favor of bifurcation both for discovery and trial) or toward the end of the case, just prior to trial, at which time everyone has a reasonably clear picture of the issues to be tried and any prejudicial effects of trying all of the claims, including those under Monell, at the same time. See 1/12/10 Tr. at 2. The Court also indicated that although it was inclined on the then-current state of the record to have a single trial, it also was "inclined to put off the bifurcation issue until the very end" to allow the further discovery and potential renewed summary judgment motion to run their course. Id. at 3. As the Court concluded, "I'm not going to resolve the bifurcation issue until I see the whole picture again" in order to make an informed judgment as to (1) whether there would be a triable Monell claim and (2) if so, whether that claim should be part of a single trial or bifurcated. Id. at 6.

The parties then appeared before Judge Cox again on March 9, at which time the parties advised that they needed additional time to agree on a discovery plan for the Monell claims. On March 18 and March 24, the parties appeared before Judge Cox and this Court, respectively, at which time Defendants advised both judges that they planned to file a motion for a stipulation that, if entered, might obviate the need to move forward on the Monell claim at this time. In view of Defendants' representation, Judge Cox indicated that she would await this Court's ruling on Defendants' motion asking for entry of a stipulation on the Monell issues before "tak[ing] up the issue of what discovery, if any, is appropriate" on the remaining Monell matters. 3/18/10 Tr. at 4. Although Defendants suggested at the March 24 status hearing that the motion would be filed later that day (3/24/10 Tr. at 3), it actually was not filed until almost a month later, on April 22. The Court took full briefing on the motion, which now is ready for decision.

II. Analysis

In the motion, Defendants contend that the Court's ruling -- that the parties proceed with discovery and any further motion practice on the Monell issue -- would unduly complicate this case and unduly prejudice the defendants in the Daniels case. Plaintiffs counter that keeping the Monell issues on track for further development is the more efficient ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.