Case: Williams v. City of Chicago

1:22-cv-03773 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: July 21, 2022

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is a constitutional challenge to investigatory stops performed on the basis of Chicago’s ShotSpotter system used to detect gunshots. Two plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2022. Both plaintiffs had been subject to investigatory stops, arrest, and criminal charges as a result of ShotSpotter data. The first plaintiff was an elderly man who was charged with first degree murder and was jailed for over 11 months before the cha…

This case is a constitutional challenge to investigatory stops performed on the basis of Chicago’s ShotSpotter system used to detect gunshots.

Two plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2022. Both plaintiffs had been subject to investigatory stops, arrest, and criminal charges as a result of ShotSpotter data. The first plaintiff was an elderly man who was charged with first degree murder and was jailed for over 11 months before the charges were dropped. The second plaintiff was a man who was jailed overnight on drug charges. They sought class certification for “all persons who have been or will be subject to an investigatory stop by Chicago Police Department officers where a recent ShotSpotter alert—or a history of ShotSpotter alerts in the area—is part of the basis for the investigatory stop[.]” Defendants included the City of Chicago, the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, and numerous individual officers. The case was assigned to Judge Ronald A. Guzman.

Plaintiffs brought three claims on behalf of the class. First, they alleged violations of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued ShotSpotter data was not sufficiently reliable to be the basis for Fourth Amendment searches. For example, they cited studies indicating that the system is easily triggered by loud sounds other than gunfire. Even if the system worked optimally, the alerts don’t supply enough information to identify a particular individual. They alleged the city was both aware of these deficiencies and failed to train or supervise officers. 

Second, they alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause. They argued that the city systematically employed ShotSpotter in a racially discriminatory manner. The system was deployed in only the twelve police districts that have both the highest proportion of Black and Latinx residents coupled with the lowest proportion of white residents. The reliance on the ShotSpotter data then shifted police resources and attention into these districts. Plaintiffs allege this fueled more unlawful searches on top of drawing resources away from real emergencies elsewhere.

Finally, they alleged violations of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003 which echoed their Equal Protection Clause claims.

The two named plaintiffs also brought individual claims echoing the class claims as well as state law tort claims.

Relief sought included both declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the class.  This relief would  block the usage of ShotSpotter data to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause unless there was an independent factual basis. The named plaintiffs each individually sought compensatory and punitive damages. However, the class itself was purely injunctive and did not seek any damages.

On November 14, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. This added a third plaintiff, additional defendant officers related to the new plaintiff’s allegations, and a subclass. The new plaintiff was a security guard who was arrested and searched allegedly due to ShotSpotter data. This plaintiff was held overnight on charges that were ultimately dropped. The plaintiff ultimately lost his job and has had difficulty securing new employment. The proposed subclass sought to represent all persons from the main class “who are Black or Hispanic."

This case is ongoing as of December 29, 2022.

Summary Authors

Eric Gripp (11/17/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63888183/parties/williams-v-city-of-chicago/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Brunt, Alexa Van (Illinois)

DiCola, Joseph Patrick (Illinois)

Attorney for Defendant

Brody, Ashley (Illinois)

Carter, Matthew James (Illinois)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Crowl, Matthew Charles (Illinois)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:22-cv-03773

Civil Rights Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and for Damages

Williams v. City Of Chicago

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

Complaint
38

1:22-cv-03773

Amended Civil Rights Class Action Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and for Damages

Williams v. City Of Chicago

Nov. 15, 2022

Nov. 15, 2022

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63888183/williams-v-city-of-chicago/

Last updated March 9, 2024, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT filed by Lucy Parsons Labs, Michael Williams, Daniel Ortiz; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19670038.(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/21/2022)

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

Clearinghouse

case assigned

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER
2

CIVIL Cover Sheet (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/21/2022)

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER

clerk's notice

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER
3

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Michael Williams by Jonathan Matthew Manes (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/21/2022)

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER
4

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Michael Williams by Alexa Van Brunt (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 07/21/2022)

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (emc, )

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER

CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (emc, )

July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

PACER

summons issued

July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

PACER

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, David O'Neal Brown, Scott Brownley, City Of Chicago, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Michael Dougherty, Nicholas Evangelides, Mark Flechsig, Arthur Harb, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney (ak, )

July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

PACER
5

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Michael Williams, Daniel Ortiz as to All Defendants. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/03/2022)

Aug. 3, 2022

Aug. 3, 2022

PACER
6

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Lucy Parsons Labs and Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1 (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/03/2022)

Aug. 3, 2022

Aug. 3, 2022

PACER
7

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Michael P. Sheehan (Sheehan, Michael) (Entered: 08/22/2022)

Aug. 22, 2022

Aug. 22, 2022

PACER
8

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Yeoeun Yoon (Yoon, Yeoeun) (Entered: 08/22/2022)

Aug. 22, 2022

Aug. 22, 2022

PACER
9

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Ioana Maria Guset (Guset, Ioana) (Entered: 08/22/2022)

Aug. 22, 2022

Aug. 22, 2022

PACER
10

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Allan T. Slagel (Slagel, Allan) (Entered: 08/22/2022)

Aug. 22, 2022

Aug. 22, 2022

PACER
11

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Barton James O'Brien (O'Brien, Barton) (Entered: 08/22/2022)

Aug. 22, 2022

Aug. 22, 2022

PACER
12

MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for extension of time Defendant City of Chicago's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead (Sheehan, Michael) (Entered: 08/22/2022)

Aug. 22, 2022

Aug. 22, 2022

PACER
13

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Defendant City of Chicago's unopposed motion for extension of time through October 21, 2022 to answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff's complaint is granted. There will be no further extensions of that deadline. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 08/22/2022)

Aug. 22, 2022

Aug. 22, 2022

PACER
14

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Robert Costello, Michael Kociolek by Shneur Z. Nathan (Nathan, Shneur) (Entered: 09/09/2022)

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
15

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Robert Costello, Michael Kociolek by Avi T. Kamionski (Kamionski, Avi) (Entered: 09/09/2022)

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
16

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Robert Costello, Michael Kociolek by Helen Catherine O'Shaughnessy (O'Shaughnessy, Helen) (Entered: 09/09/2022)

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
17

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Robert Costello, Michael Kociolek by Matthew James Mc Carter (Mc Carter, Matthew) (Entered: 09/09/2022)

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
18

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Robert Costello, Michael Kociolek by Neha Sharma Locke (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 09/09/2022)

Sept. 9, 2022

Sept. 9, 2022

PACER
19

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Scott Brownley, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Mark Flechsig, Arthur Harb, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff by Shneur Z. Nathan (Nathan, Shneur) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

Sept. 30, 2022

Sept. 30, 2022

PACER
20

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Scott Brownley, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Mark Flechsig, Arthur Harb, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff by Avi T. Kamionski (Kamionski, Avi) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

Sept. 30, 2022

Sept. 30, 2022

PACER
21

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Scott Brownley, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Mark Flechsig, Arthur Harb, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff by Helen Catherine O'Shaughnessy (O'Shaughnessy, Helen) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

Sept. 30, 2022

Sept. 30, 2022

PACER
22

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Scott Brownley, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Mark Flechsig, Arthur Harb, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff by Matthew James Mc Carter (Mc Carter, Matthew) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

Sept. 30, 2022

Sept. 30, 2022

PACER
23

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Scott Brownley, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Mark Flechsig, Arthur Harb, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff by Neha Sharma Locke (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

Sept. 30, 2022

Sept. 30, 2022

PACER
24

MOTION by Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Scott Brownley, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Mark Flechsig, Arthur Harb, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff for extension of time UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CERTAIN DEFENDANT OFFICERS TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING (Mc Carter, Matthew) (Entered: 09/30/2022)

Sept. 30, 2022

Sept. 30, 2022

PACER
25

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The unopposed motion by Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Scott Brownley, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Mark Flechsig, Arthur Harb, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, and Scott Reiff for an extension of time through October 21, 2022, to file a responsive pleading 24 is granted. Mailed notice (ags, (Entered: 09/30/2022)

Sept. 30, 2022

Sept. 30, 2022

PACER
26

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant David O'Neal Brown by Michael P. Sheehan (Sheehan, Michael) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
27

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant David O'Neal Brown by Allan T. Slagel (Slagel, Allan) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
28

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant David O'Neal Brown by Yeoeun Yoon (Yoon, Yeoeun) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
29

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant David O'Neal Brown by Barton James O'Brien (O'Brien, Barton) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
30

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant David O'Neal Brown by Ioana Maria Guset (Guset, Ioana) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
31

MOTION by Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Michael Williams for extension of time Joint Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Pleading Schedule (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/19/2022)

Oct. 19, 2022

Oct. 19, 2022

PACER
32

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Michael Dougherty by Avi T. Kamionski (Kamionski, Avi) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
33

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Michael Dougherty by Shneur Z. Nathan (Nathan, Shneur) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
34

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Michael Dougherty by Helen Catherine O'Shaughnessy (O'Shaughnessy, Helen) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
35

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Michael Dougherty by Matthew James Mc Carter (Mc Carter, Matthew) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
36

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Michael Dougherty by Neha Sharma Locke (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 10/21/2022)

Oct. 21, 2022

Oct. 21, 2022

PACER
37

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The parties' joint motion for leave to amend complaint and pleading schedule 31 is granted, except that the Court will set a responsive pleading date for all defendants. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by 11/14/2022. Defendant City of Chicago shall respond to the amended complaint by 1/4/2023. The individual officer defendants shall respond to the amended complaint by 1/13/2023. Given the timeline of this case and the generous schedule, there will be no extensions absent extraordinary circumstances. The parties are directed to confer no later than 1/13/2023 to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, and they shall also discuss deadlines for any Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures that have not already been exchanged and a proposed discovery plan. Plaintiff is responsible for initiating such a conference, and all lead counsel for all parties must participate. In lieu of an initial status hearing, the parties shall file a joint written initial status report and proposed discovery plan by 1/20/2023. Failure or refusal to participate in such a conference or to cooperate in the preparation of the written report may constitute a basis for sanctions. After the Court receives the parties' written report, it will issue an order setting a discovery schedule if appropriate. Mailed notice. (kp, ) (Entered: 10/24/2022)

Oct. 24, 2022

Oct. 24, 2022

PACER
38

AMENDED complaint by Lucy Parsons Labs, Michael Williams, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs against Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, David O'Neal Brown, Scott Brownley, City Of Chicago, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Michael Dougherty, Nicholas Evangelides, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney, Fidel Legorreta, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Sarah Keckley, Jane Doe and terminating Mark Flechsig (#1733) and Arthur Harb (#311) (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/14/2022)

Nov. 14, 2022

Nov. 14, 2022

Clearinghouse

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Theodore Andrews, Jr (emc, )

Nov. 15, 2022

Nov. 15, 2022

PACER

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Sarah Keckley (emc, )

Nov. 15, 2022

Nov. 15, 2022

PACER

summons issued

Nov. 15, 2022

Nov. 15, 2022

PACER

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Fidel Legorreta (emc, )

Nov. 15, 2022

Nov. 15, 2022

PACER
39

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lucy Parsons Labs, Michael Williams, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs as to Theodore Andrews, Jr on 11/21/2022, answer due 12/12/2022; Sarah Keckley on 11/21/2022, answer due 12/12/2022; Fidel Legorreta on 11/21/2022, answer due 12/12/2022. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/23/2022)

Nov. 23, 2022

Nov. 23, 2022

PACER
40

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Theodore Andrews, Jr, Fidel Legorreta by Shneur Z. Nathan (Nathan, Shneur) (Entered: 12/06/2022)

Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

PACER
41

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Theodore Andrews, Jr, Fidel Legorreta by Avi T. Kamionski (Kamionski, Avi) (Entered: 12/06/2022)

Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

PACER
42

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Theodore Andrews, Jr, Fidel Legorreta by Helen Catherine O'Shaughnessy (O'Shaughnessy, Helen) (Entered: 12/06/2022)

Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

PACER
43

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Theodore Andrews, Jr, Fidel Legorreta by Matthew James Mc Carter (Mc Carter, Matthew) (Entered: 12/06/2022)

Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

PACER
44

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Theodore Andrews, Jr, Fidel Legorreta by Neha Sharma Locke (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 12/06/2022)

Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

PACER
45

MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for leave to file excess pages Defendants City of Chicago and Superintendent Brown's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Oversized Motion (Sheehan, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2022)

Dec. 22, 2022

Dec. 22, 2022

PACER
46

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/29/2022: Mailed notice. (tg, ) (Entered: 12/29/2022)

Dec. 29, 2022

Dec. 29, 2022

PACER
47

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The unopposed motion for leave to file an oversized brief filed by the City of Chicago and Superintendent Brown 45 is granted. Defendants, however, should consider that the Court values concision and economy, encourages joint briefs and exhibits and adopting parts of a co-defendant's brief, and may strike redundant and uncoordinated briefing. Briefing should contain only such facts as are foundational to the legal analysis. Plaintiff shall respond to the motion by 2/6/2023. Any reply shall be filed by 2/24/2023. (kp, ) (Entered: 12/30/2022)

Dec. 30, 2022

Dec. 30, 2022

PACER
48

MOTION by Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Scott Brownley, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Michael Dougherty, Nicholas Evangelides, Sarah Keckley, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, Fidel Legorreta, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney for leave to file excess pages INDIVIDUAL OFFICER DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 01/03/2023)

Jan. 3, 2023

Jan. 3, 2023

RECAP
49

RESPONSE by Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williamsin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Scott Brownley, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Michael Dougherty, Nicholas Evangelides, Sarah Keckley, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, Fidel Legorreta, David Magana, Caro 48 for leave to file excess pages. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/03/2023)

Jan. 3, 2023

Jan. 3, 2023

RECAP
50

REPLY by Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Scott Brownley, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Michael Dougherty, Nicholas Evangelides, Sarah Keckley, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, Fidel Legorreta, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney to response in opposition to motion, 49 (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 01/03/2023)

Jan. 3, 2023

Jan. 3, 2023

RECAP
51

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants David O'Neal Brown, City Of Chicago (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Sheehan, Michael) (Entered: 01/04/2023)

1

View on RECAP

2

View on RECAP

3

View on RECAP

Jan. 4, 2023

Jan. 4, 2023

PACER
52

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams by Elizabeth N. Mazur (Mazur, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/05/2023)

Jan. 5, 2023

Jan. 5, 2023

PACER
53

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The Individual Officer Defendants' motion for leave to file an oversize motion to dismiss 48, which Plaintiffs oppose 49, is denied. Defendants are, however, given leave, by 1/13/2023, to file a 35-page motion to dismiss, which, in the Court's view, should be sufficient to develop arguments appropriate for resolution at this stage. Defendants should prioritize their arguments accordingly. Plaintiffs' response shall not exceed the page length of the Individual Defendants' motion and shall be filed by 2/13/2023; any Reply shall be filed by 3/6/2023. The briefing schedule 47 on the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Chicago and Superintendent Brown is modified as follows: by 2/6/2023, Plaintiffs shall file a response of no more than 15 pages, addressing only the Rule 12(b)(1) Argument and Section V of the Rule 12(b)(6) Argument. Any reply on those topics shall be filed by 2/24/2023. The Court may direct additional briefing on that motion. The dates the Court previously set 37 for the parties to confer and file a joint initial status report and proposed discovery plan stand. The Court does not typically stay discovery during the pendency of motions to dismiss. Mailed notice. (kp, ) (Entered: 01/06/2023)

Jan. 6, 2023

Jan. 6, 2023

PACER
54

MOTION by Defendants Juan Perez, Eduardo Almanza, Dale Potter, Jr, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Salvatore Aloisio, Harsimran Powar, Robert Costello, Michael Matias, Scott Brownley, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Sarah Keckley, Scott Reiff, Mark LaPadula, Fidel Legorreta, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Joseph Merkel, Michael Kociolek, Brian Roney, Michael Dougherty to dismiss INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 01/13/2023)

Jan. 13, 2023

Jan. 13, 2023

RECAP
55

STATUS Report Joint Initial Status Report and Proposed Discovery Plan by Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/20/2023)

Jan. 20, 2023

Jan. 20, 2023

RECAP
56

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams by Daniel Massoglia (Massoglia, Daniel) (Entered: 01/25/2023)

Jan. 25, 2023

Jan. 25, 2023

PACER
57

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The Court has reviewed the parties joint initial status report and proposed discovery plan and sets the following deadlines. Amendment of pleadings and joinder of parties is to be completed eight weeks before the close of fact discovery. Fact discovery shall close on 7/28/2023, except that discovery as to any Monell claims shall be bifurcated and stayed. Discovery supervision and scheduling and all discovery motions and discovery disputes, including requests for and entry of any protective orders, are referred to the magistrate judge without authority to extend the above fact discovery deadlines. The matter is also referred to the magistrate judge for any settlement proceedings or conferences. Mailed notice. (kp, ) (Entered: 01/26/2023)

Jan. 26, 2023

Jan. 26, 2023

PACER
58

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Young B. Kim for the purpose of holding proceedings related to and all discovery disputes without authority to extend the discovery cutoff date. The referral to the magistrate judge shall also include authority to conduct a settlement conference if deemed appropriate. Mailed notice. (kp, ) (Entered: 01/26/2023)

Jan. 26, 2023

Jan. 26, 2023

PACER
59

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Parties are to proceed with fact discovery (except on Monell claims) despite the pending motions to dismiss. Parties are ordered to adhere to the following written discovery schedule: (1) exchange Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by February 10, 2023; (2) serve written discovery requests by February 17, 2023 (requests to admit may be timely served before the end of fact discovery); (3) serve answers to written discovery requests by March 17, 2023; (4) confer about the adequacy of the discovery responses by March 31, 2023; and (5) file a joint status report identifying each side's written discovery issues (must identify the specific interrogatories and requests to produce), along with the relevant written discovery responses as exhibits, by April 7, 2023. The court will not consider general objections to written discovery requests if the court must address and rule on written discovery disputes. If the parties do not have any disputed written discovery issues, a status report is not required. Pursuant to Rule of Evidence 502(d), this court orders that inadvertent disclosures of attorney-client privileged and attorney work materials will not constitute a waiver of the associated privilege. The court further orders that upon written notification (including emails) from the opposing side that an inadvertent disclosure has occurred, the party shall return and/or destroy the materials at issue or file a motion for a determination on the claimed privilege within seven calendar days of the written notification. Mailed notice (ec) (Entered: 01/26/2023)

Jan. 26, 2023

Jan. 26, 2023

PACER
60

MOTION by Defendants David O'Neal Brown, City Of Chicago to clarify Court's January 26, 2023 Minute Order (Sheehan, Michael) (Entered: 02/02/2023)

Feb. 2, 2023

Feb. 2, 2023

PACER
61

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Scott Brownley, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Michael Dougherty, Nicholas Evangelides, Sarah Keckley, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, Fidel Legorreta, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney by Ashley Brody (Brody, Ashley) (Entered: 02/02/2023)

Feb. 2, 2023

Feb. 2, 2023

PACER
62

MOTION by Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams to clarify the Court's January 26, 2023, Minute Order and Response to the City's Motion to Clarify (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/03/2023)

Feb. 3, 2023

Feb. 3, 2023

PACER
63

RESPONSE by Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williamsin Opposition to MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants David O'Neal Brown, City Of Chicago 51 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/06/2023)

Feb. 6, 2023

Feb. 6, 2023

PACER
64

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The parties' motions to clarify the Court's minute entry of January 26, 2023 60 62 are granted as follows: Plaintiffs' "underst[anding]" that the Court's order staying Monell discovery "appl[ies] only to the individual Monell claims for damages against the City Defendants" is incorrect. The Court clarifies that its order stayed, for the time being, discovery as to all claims under a Monell theory, no matter what relief is sought; all discovery as to Plaintiffs' ICRA claim also shall be stayed. Mailed notice. (kp, ) (Entered: 02/08/2023)

Feb. 8, 2023

Feb. 8, 2023

PACER
65

RESPONSE by Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williamsin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Juan Perez, Eduardo Almanza, Dale Potter, Jr, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Salvatore Aloisio, Harsimran Powar, Robert Costello, Michael Matias, Scott Brownley, Nestor De Jesus, Nicholas Evangelides, Sarah Keckley, Scott Reiff, Mark LaPadul 54 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICER DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/13/2023)

Feb. 13, 2023

Feb. 13, 2023

PACER
66

REPLY by Defendant City Of Chicago to response in opposition to motion, 63, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 51 (Sheehan, Michael) (Entered: 02/24/2023)

Feb. 24, 2023

Feb. 24, 2023

PACER
67

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: GENERAL ORDER 23-0010: Pursuant that to the Executive Committee Order entered on February 23, 2023, the civil cases on the attached list have been selected for reassignment to form the initial calendar of the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins; therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached list of 281 cases be reassigned to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties affected by this Order must review the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins' webpage on the Court's website for the purpose of reviewing instructions regarding scheduling and case management procedures; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any civil case that has been reassigned pursuant to this Order will not be randomly reassigned to create the initial calendar of a new district judge for twelve months from the date of this Order; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to add the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins to the Court's civil case assignment system during the next business day, so that she shall receive a full share of such cases; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to add the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins to the Court's criminal case assignment system ninety (90) days so that Judge Jenkins shall thereafter receive a full share of such cases. Case reassigned to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins for all further proceedings. Honorable Ronald A. Guzman no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 2/27/2023.(tg, ) (Entered: 02/27/2023)

Feb. 27, 2023

Feb. 27, 2023

PACER
68

MOTION by Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Scott Brownley, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Michael Dougherty, Nicholas Evangelides, Sarah Keckley, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, Fidel Legorreta, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney for extension of time to file response/reply INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 7 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 03/03/2023)

March 3, 2023

March 3, 2023

PACER
69

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Motion for extension of time 68 is granted as unopposed. Defendants' reply shall be filed on or before 3/13/2023. Mailed notice. (kl, ) (Entered: 03/06/2023)

March 6, 2023

March 6, 2023

PACER
70

REPLY by Defendants Eduardo Almanza, Salvatore Aloisio, Theodore Andrews, Jr, Scott Brownley, Robert Costello, Nestor De Jesus, Michael Dougherty, Nicholas Evangelides, Sarah Keckley, Michael Kociolek, Mark LaPadula, Fidel Legorreta, David Magana, Carol Maresso, Michael Matias, Joseph Merkel, Juan Perez, Dale Potter, Jr, Harsimran Powar, Scott Reiff, Brian Roney to motion to dismiss, 54 INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS (Locke, Neha) (Entered: 03/13/2023)

March 13, 2023

March 13, 2023

PACER
71

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins:This case has been reassigned to Judge Jenkins. By 8/4/2023, the parties shall file a joint initial status report using the form for reassigned cases on Judge Jenkins's web page on this District's website. The parties must follow all the standing orders for Judge Jenkins and all Local Rules, which can be found at the same web page. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) (Entered: 03/20/2023)

March 20, 2023

March 20, 2023

PACER
72

MOTION by Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams for order FOR ENTRY OF A QUALIFIED HIPAA ORDER, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Mazur, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/24/2023)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

March 24, 2023

March 24, 2023

PACER
73

NOTICE of Motion by Elizabeth N. Mazur for presentment of (Mazur, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/24/2023)

March 24, 2023

March 24, 2023

PACER
74

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for entry of a protective order 72 is granted. Appearance on April 3, 2023, is not required to present this motion. Enter Agreed Qualified HIPAA and MHDDCA Protective Order. Mailed notice. (pk, ) (Entered: 03/27/2023)

March 27, 2023

March 27, 2023

PACER
75

AGREED QUALIFIED HIPAA and MHDDCA PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 3/27/2023. Mailed notice. (pk, ) (Entered: 03/27/2023)

March 27, 2023

March 27, 2023

PACER
76

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: On January 6, 2023, Judge Guzman denied Defendants' motion for an excess page filing. As such, the filing Defendants made at 51 is stricken as moot. The Court has taken the Motion to dismiss filed on January 13, 2023 54, under advisement. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) (Entered: 04/05/2023)

April 5, 2023

April 5, 2023

PACER
77

STATUS Report on status of discovery (joint) by Derick Scruggs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Williams Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Williams RFPs, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Scruggs Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Scruggs RFPs, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Ortiz Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Ortiz RFPs, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Evangelides Williams Responses, # 8 Exhibit 8 - City Williams RFP Responses, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Andrews Scruggs Responses, # 10 Exhibit 10 - City Scruggs RFP Responses, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Powar Ortiz Responses, # 12 Exhibit 12 - City Ortiz RFP Responses, # 13 Exhibit 13 - Williams Interrogatory Responses, # 14 Exhibit 14 - Ortiz Interrogatory Responses, # 15 Exhibit 15 - Scruggs Interrogatory Responses)(Massoglia, Daniel) (Entered: 04/07/2023)

April 7, 2023

April 7, 2023

PACER
78

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion to dismiss 51 was erroneously stricken. The court mistakenly believed that motion was duplicative of the motion filed by the individual defendants 54 . The court takes both motions 51 and 54 under advisement. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) (Entered: 04/12/2023)

April 12, 2023

April 12, 2023

PACER
79

MOTION by Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams for protective order - Model Confidentiality Order with Modifications (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs' Proposed Confidentiality Order, # 2 Exhibit B - Redline Comparison with Model Confidentiality Order)(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/18/2023)

April 18, 2023

April 18, 2023

PACER
80

NOTICE of Motion by Jonathan Matthew Manes for presentment of motion for protective order, 79 before Honorable Young B. Kim on 4/27/2023 at 11:00 AM. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/18/2023)

April 18, 2023

April 18, 2023

PACER
81

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Plaintiff's motion for protective order 79 is entered and continued. Appearance on April 27, 2023, is not required to present this motion. Defendants are to file a response to the motion and attach its proposed protective order and email the same to "proposed_order_kim@ilnd.uscourts.gov" by May 3, 2023. Mailed notice (ec) (Entered: 04/19/2023)

April 19, 2023

April 19, 2023

PACER
82

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: A status hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 1019. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss outstanding discovery issues. Parties are to allow at least 90 minutes for the hearing. Mailed notice (ec) (Entered: 04/24/2023)

April 24, 2023

April 24, 2023

PACER
83

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams by Joseph Patrick DiCola of First Defense Legal Aid. (DiCola, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2023)

April 27, 2023

April 27, 2023

PACER
84

RESPONSE by City Of Chicago to MOTION by Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams for protective order - Model Confidentiality Order with Modifications 79 City of Chicago's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of the Model Confidentiality Order with Modifications (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Sheehan, Michael) (Entered: 05/03/2023)

May 3, 2023

May 3, 2023

PACER
85

MOTION by Plaintiffs Lucy Parsons Labs, Daniel Ortiz, Derick Scruggs, Michael Williams for extension of time to complete discovery (JOINT MOTION) Presented before Presiding Judge (Mazur, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/08/2023)

May 8, 2023

May 8, 2023

PACER
86

ENTERED IN ERROR. Modified on 5/9/2023 (ec ). (Entered: 05/09/2023)

May 9, 2023

May 9, 2023

PACER
87

NOTICE of Correction regarding 86 . (ec, ) (Entered: 05/09/2023)

May 9, 2023

May 9, 2023

PACER
88

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Status hearing held and continued to May 17, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. by in courtroom 1019. The court made several rulings on discovery issues included in the parties' joint status report (R. 77) during today's hearing and will complete the discussion of the issues raised therein at the next status hearing. Plaintiff's motion for entry of the model confidentiality order with modifications 79 is granted, but the court adopts Defendants' version of the order. The court will enter the appropriate version later this week. Parties' joint motion for extension of time to complete discovery 85 is granted. Having conferred with the assigned District Judge, this court will be responsible for setting a new deadline. For now, the July 28, 2023 fact discovery deadline is stricken. This court will set a new deadline once the written discovery issues have been resolved. Plaintiffs are to file their motion for leave to issue additional discovery requests on Defendant City and to compel the City to supplement certain interrogatory answers by May 12, 2023. Parties should be prepared to discuss this motion on May 17, 2023. Mailed notice (ec) (Entered: 05/09/2023)

May 9, 2023

May 9, 2023

PACER
89

CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 5/10/2023. Mailed notice (ec) (Entered: 05/10/2023)

May 10, 2023

May 10, 2023

PACER
90

MOTION by Plaintiff Michael Williams to compel a Response to Certain Interrogatories and for Leave to Serve Supplemental Requests for Production Presented before Magistrate Judge (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiff Williams' Interrogatories to Defendants, # 2 Exhibit B - Plaintiff Scruggs' Interrogatories to Defendants, # 3 Exhibit C - Plaintiff Ortiz's Interrogatories to Defendants, # 4 Exhibit D - Defendant City of Chicago's Answers to Williams Interrogatories, # 5 Exhibit E - Defendant City of Chicago's Answers to Scruggs Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit F - Defendant City of Chicago's Answers to Ortiz Interrogatories, # 7 Exhibit G - Plaintiff Williams Request for Production, # 8 Exhibit H - Plaintiff Scruggs' Requests for Production, # 9 Exhibit I - Plaintiff Ortiz's Requests for Production, # 10 Exhibit J - Defendant City of Chicago's Responses to Williams Requests for Production, # 11 Exhibit K - Defendant City of Chicago's Responses to Scruggs' Requests for Production, # 12 Exhibit L - Defendant City of Chicago's Responses to Ortiz's Requests for Production, # 13 Exhibit M - Plaintiff's Proposed Supplemental Requests for Production)(DiCola, Joseph) (Entered: 05/12/2023)

1 Exhibit A - Plaintiff Williams' Interrogatories to Defendants

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit B - Plaintiff Scruggs' Interrogatories to Defendants

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C - Plaintiff Ortiz's Interrogatories to Defendants

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D - Defendant City of Chicago's Answers to Williams Interrogatories

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E - Defendant City of Chicago's Answers to Scruggs Interrogatories

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F - Defendant City of Chicago's Answers to Ortiz Interrogatories

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G - Plaintiff Williams Request for Production

View on RECAP

8 Exhibit H - Plaintiff Scruggs' Requests for Production

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I - Plaintiff Ortiz's Requests for Production

View on PACER

10 Exhibit J - Defendant City of Chicago's Responses to Williams Requests for

View on PACER

11 Exhibit K - Defendant City of Chicago's Responses to Scruggs' Requests

View on PACER

12 Exhibit L - Defendant City of Chicago's Responses to Ortiz's Requests

View on PACER

13 Exhibit M - Plaintiff's Proposed Supplemental Requests for Production

View on PACER

May 12, 2023

May 12, 2023

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 21, 2022

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Three Chicago residents who faced an investigatory stops, arrest, and charges based in part on data from the city's ShotSpotter system. They are seeking to represent a class of individuals who were subject to investigatory stops that were based in part on ShotSpotter data. They are also seeking to represent a subclass of black and latinix individuals from the main class.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

MacArthur Justice Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

City of Chicago (Chicago, Cook), City

Chicago Police Department (Chicago, Cook), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

State Anti-Discrimination Law

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General:

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Pattern or Practice

Racial profiling

Test or device

Policing:

False arrest

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic