The opinion of the court was delivered by: Amy J. St. Eve, District Court Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge:
On September 2, 2010, Plaintiffs Le'Andres Callahan and Tasha Callahan, on behalf of themselves and their minor children N.C., I.C., and L.C, filed the present five-count Fourth Amended Complaint against Defendant Lake County Sheriff Deputies Heather Aldridge and Kyle Macko, the Lake County Sheriff's Office, and the County of Lake, Illinois alleging violations of their constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with the state law claims of assault, trespass, and indemnification. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion in its entirety.
I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1
Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1 assists the Court by "organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence." Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 2000). Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue." Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009). "The opposing party is required to file 'a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." Id. (citing N.D. Ill. R. 56.1(b)(3)(B)). Also, Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) requires the nonmoving party to present a separate statement of additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment. See Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008).
The purpose of Rule 56.1 statements is to identify the relevant admissible evidence supporting the material facts, not to make factual or legal arguments. See Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006) ("statement of material facts did  not comply with Rule 56.1 as it failed to adequately cite the record and was filled with irrelevant information, legal arguments, and conjecture"). Further, the Court may disregard statements and responses that do not properly cite to the record. See Cichon, 401 F.3d at 809-10; see also Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 604 (7th Cir. 2006) ("district courts are entitled to expect strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1"). With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the relevant facts of this case.
Plaintiffs Le'Andres Callahan, Tasha Callahan, and their minor children "N.C.," "I.C.," and "L.C." (the "Callahans") are individuals who at all relevant times resided within the Northern District of Illinois. (R. 47, Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 1.) Defendant Heather Aldridge ("Aldridge") and Defendant Kyle Macko ("Macko") are individuals who at all relevant times were employed as Deputy Sheriffs of Lake County, Illinois. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 3.) Defendant Lake County Sheriff's Office employed Deputy Aldridge and Deputy Macko during the relevant time period. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant County of Lake is a body politic and corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois and is located within the Northern District of Illinois. (Id. ¶ 5.)
On January 14, 2010, Lake County Sheriff's Deputies Aldridge and Macko were assigned to Lake County Sheriff's District 1 and were driving separate squad cars. (Id. ¶ 8.) On that date, a 911 telephone call was made to the Lake County Sheriff's dispatch center stating that burglar alarms were going off at the northeast corner of Grandmore and Frolic Avenues in Waukegan, Illinois. (Id. ¶ 9.) Thereafter, the Lake County Sheriff's dispatcher called on the radio and dispatched Deputies Aldridge and Macko to the Callahans' residence at 12392 Grandmore in Waukegan. (Id. ¶ 10.) It was later discovered that the dispatchers sent Deputies Aldridge and Macko to the wrong address. (R. 52, Pls.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts. ¶ 40.) In fact, Plaintiffs present evidence that when the deputies arrived, they did not hear a burglar alarm and that the adult Callahans repeatedly told them that they did not have a burglar alarm for their home. (Id. ¶¶ 43, 44.)
In any event, after arriving at the Callahans' home, Deputies Aldridge and Macko knocked on the front door. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 11.) The parties dispute what happened after that, although they agree that Tasha Callahan came to the door. (Id. ¶ 14.) Deputies Aldridge and Macko then explained why they were there and asked Tasha Callahan for her identification. (Id. ¶ 15.) After the deputies entered the residence, they also asked Le'Andres Callahan for his identification. (Id. ¶ 22.) The deputies then verified that both Tasha and Le'Andres Callahan were lawful residents of the home. (Id. ¶ 23.) Sometime thereafter, the deputies saw children seated at the kitchen table doing their schoolwork. (Id. ¶ 26.)
According to Tasha Callahan, after the deputies went through the Callahans' living room, kitchen, and backyard, Deputy Aldridge became enraged, pulled her gun, and pointed it at Le'Andres Callahan's head. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 33.) Tasha Callahan also testified that Deputy Aldridge stated she was so angry at Le'Andres Callahan, she could kill him in front of his children. (Id. ¶ 32.) The parties dispute whether Deputy Aldridge pointed the gun at any of the Callahans, although the parties agree that exhibit 2 to Le'Andres Callahan's deposition was a diagram of the kitchen area at the time when Le'Andres Callahan stated that Deputy Aldridge drew her gun on him and that it depicts the children seated at the kitchen table while Deputy Aldridge and Le'Andres Callahan are standing. (Id. ¶¶ 34, 36, 37.)
At his deposition, I.C. replied to the question of whether Deputy Aldridge pointed the gun at him or his siblings by stating: "It went past my face when she pointed it." (Pls.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 54.) I.C. further testified that he was seated between Deputy Aldridge and his father. (Id.) At her deposition, N.C. stated that the gun was not directly pointed at her, but that she was five inches away from her father. (Id. ¶ 55.) L.C. testified that his back was to Deputy Aldridge for most of the time Deputy Aldridge had her gun out, but that he did turn ...