IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

I

UL GEANDERSEN
CML ACTION NO.

" ,
.;_~/~, ~ :~, :

BOB WATSON CHEVROLET, Defendant.

) COMPL~
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

~ ~~

-.II/Le, GI$I’BATE JUB;E NOLAN

_NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Petrina Benford ("Benford"), Jane Donovan ("Donovan"), and Daniette Price ("Price"), former employees of Bob Watson Chevrolet. ("Defendant") and a class of women who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), contends that Defendant discriminated against Price, Donovan, and a class of women because of their sex by retaliating against them for asserting their Title VII rights all in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), also contends that Defendant discriminated against Benford and a class ofwomen because of their sex by subjecting them to a pattern or practice of sexual harassment and by retaliating against them for asserting their Title VII fights

all in violation of Title VII. JURISDICTION A-ND. VENUE
Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42U.S.C. § 2000e-5(0(1) and (3) and §2000e-6(e), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(0(l) and (3) and Section 707(e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and § 2000e-6(e). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Illinois and the City of Harvey and has continuously had at least fit~een (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and 0a) of Title VIL 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Benford, Donovan,
2

and Price filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Dcfendaat. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
7. Since at least 2001 Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Harvey, Illinois in violation of Sections 703(a)(1)and 704(a) of Title VIL 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and § 2000e-3(a). These practices include, but arc not limited to, engaging in intentional discrimination against Bcnford and a.class of women by subjecting them to sexual harassment, rctaliatin~ against Benford and a class of women for opposing the harassment, and retaliating against Donovan, Price, and a class of women for opposing the harassment and participating in a proceeding brought under Title VII all in continuing violation of Sections 703(a)(1) and 704(a) of Title VIL 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)and § 2000e-3(a).
8. The ffect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above has been to dcpdvc Benford, Donovan, Price, and a class of women of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as crnployees because of their sex and/or in rc’taliation for opposing discrimination and/or participating in a proccedi.ng brought under Title VII,
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) wcro and are intentional.
10,. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were and arc done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected fights of Bcnford, Donovan, Price, and a class of women.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A, Grant a.permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its ofiiccrs, successors,
3

assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex;
B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from retaliating against any employee for opposing discrimination or participating in protected activity;
C. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
D. Order Defendant to make whole Ben_ford, Donovan, Price, and a class of women by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
E. Order Defendant to make whole Benford, Donovan, Price, and a class of women by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including, but not limited to, job search expenses;
F. Order Defendant to make whole Benford, Donovan, Price, and a class of women by providing compensation for past and future non-pectmiary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
G. Order Defendant to pay Benford, Donovan, Price, and a class of women punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described, in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Order Defendant and its successors to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
4

Grant such further relief as the Court dcvms necessary and proper in the public interest; and
J. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL. DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

Trial

Mdzek

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 886-9078

6

C~..vil Cover Sheet

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Civil Cover Sheet

Ooc E , !;

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in, September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The
information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use on_aly_l in the Northern Dislrict of Illinois.

Plaintiff(s): U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Defendant(s):BOB WATSON CHEVROLET

County of Residence:

County of Residence:

Plaintiffs Atty: Richard J. Mrizek

Defendant’s Atty:

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

500 W. Madison, Suite 2800

Chicago, IL 60661

312-886-9078

Martin LaPointe Burke Warren MacKay &
Serritella, P.C. 330 N. Wabash, 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: - ~SG.ov’t Plaintiff

~II. Ci~zensh~ o-~PG~cip_al ’

Parfie~ (Diversity Cases Only)

Plaintiff:- N/A
Defendant:- N/A
i

iv. Or e. ¯

1. Original Proceeding

04C 530 1
JUDGE ANDERSEN

V. Nature of Suit:

(~~mployment

VI.Cause of Action:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of

1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices

on the basis of sex and retaliation.

VII. Requested in Com_olaint

Class Action:

Dollar Demand:

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case I_S_aN_OT_ a refiling of a previously dismissed case.

S~gna Date: ~

http ://www.i Ind. us courts~ go v/PUB LI C/Forms/au to_j s ’44. cfra

. . , "

i’

,

i~ i

..

¯

8111L

Civil Cover Sheet

Page 2 of 2

If any Once

ocfotrhriescitn,fporrimnatttihonisisfoinrmco,rrseicgtn, palenad~d8eolebai~l keato’ltdhesuCbimvilitCiotvweritShhyeeotuIrnpnuetwfo~rmiviulsaine8titohme BNao~tke:bYutotonnminayyonuerebdrtoowasdej~uastndthcehfaonngtesiitz.e

in your browser display to make the form print properly,

aevt~d: o~s~ee

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/PUBLIC/Forms/auto_j s44.efm

8/11/2004

oOCKE E

In the Matter of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

jUDGE A ERSEN

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V.
Bob Watson Chevrolet

530 1

APPEAI~CES ,APE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTOR~}’~,I~ JUDGE NOLABI
U.$. EQUAL EIVIPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Equal Employmem Opportunity Commission

500 West Madison, Suite 2800

~ADD,~ 500 West Madison, Suite 2800

CrI~tSTATKr/.IP Chicago, IL 60661

Chicago, IL 60661

TEL EPHON~. NU~E,II.
312-886-9078
E-MAIL ADDRESS

I 312-353-8555

I 1T~LF~HONE NEI~4I}ER
I 312-886-9124

FAX NtI~BEIt
312-353-8555

Equa Employment Opporttttnty Comnusston
~00 West STreET ADDRESS Madison,oState 2o 800

Chicago, IL 60661

"rF~F..PHONE ~ER
312-353-8551

I FA.X~ER
I 312-353-8555

,~nnc^’non ~M~a (s~ rr~, os AILDC No. O1187589

~DI~TI~CATION NUMIr~R (Sl~ ~ 4 MEblBEK OF TRIAL BPA~.?

TI~

[]

/40 []

DESIGNATED ~ IX3CAL COUNSEL?

~

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

BOB WATSON CHEVROLET

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 04 C 5301

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff EEOC's Submission in Support of Plaintiffs Proposed Protective Order and Defendant's Agreed Protective Order and Brief in Support. The parties dispute two areas with respect to a proposed protective order governing the pretrial use and disclosure of certain discovery materials. The Court addresses the disputed areas below.
BACKGROUND The EEOC brings this case on behalf of a class of female employees against Bob Watson Chevrolet ("Watson Chevrolet"), alleging that Watson Chevrolet violated Title VII by retaliating against a class of female employees by closing the dealership's phone room after women in that department were involved in a class action sexual harassment suit against Watson Chevrolet. The EEOC also alleges that Watson Chevrolet discriminated against a class of female employees by crcating a sexually hostile work environment. Watson Chevrolet maintains that tbe phone room was not a profitable portion of its business and was closed for business reasons. Watson Chevrolet states that only four individuals were cmployed in the phone room when it closed and all four employees were olTered higher paying sales

positions and only one employee accepted the sales position otTer. Watson Chevrolet further states that the EEOC has only identitied three purported class members and that one ofthe class members, Petrina Benford, was terminated in October 2001 atter receiving at least three written reprimands.
DISCUSSION Although pretrial discovery is usually conducted in private, "the public at large pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what goes on at all stages ofajudicial proceeding." Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944-45 (7th Cir. 1999). In order to protect the legitimate privacy interests of litigants and non-parties, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. The Seventh Circuit has made clear that a trialjudge must make an independent determination ofgood cause prior to issuing a protective order, even if the parties submit an agreed protective order. "The judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process" and has an independent duty to balance the public's interest against the "property and privacy interests ofthe litigants." [d. at 945. An independent determination of good cause prevents the parties trom having "carte blanche to decide what portions ofthe record shall be kept secret." Citizens, 178 F.3d at 945. Only genuine trade secrets or "some other properly demarcated category oflegitimately confidential information," such as information covered by a recognized privilege, "matters occurring before the grand jury," or information required by statute to be maintained in confidence (i.e. the name of a minor victim of a sexual assault) arc entitled to be kept secret and out of the public record. Baxter, 297 F.3d at 546; Citizens, 178 F.3d at 946. A court need not determine good cause on a document-by-document basis. Citizens, 178 F.3d at 946. Rather, a court may authorize the parties to restrict public access to properly demarcated
-2-

categories of legitimately confidential information if the judge (I) satisfies herself that the parties know what the legitimate categories of protectable information are and are acting in good faith in deciding which parts ofthe record qualify for protection and (2) makes explicit that either party and any interested member of the public can challenge the designation of particular documents. Id. A. Information Pertaining to Current and Former Officers, Directors, and Employees
The parties have agreed to keep certain discovery information exchanged amongst themselves private and not to voluntarily disseminate such information to persons not involved in the litigation. This type of agreement is entirely proper. The Seventh Circuit has stated that "[s]ecrecy is fine at the discovery stage, before the material enters the judicial record." Baxter International, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002). "Absent a protective order, parties to a law suit may disseminate materials obtained during discovery as they see fit." Jepson. Inc. v. Makita Electric Works, Limited, 30 F.3d 854,858 (7th Cir. 1994). "In other words, if they do not see fit to disseminate discovery information, the parties need not do so." In re Bridgestone/Firestone. Inc., 198 F.R.D. 654, 657 (S.D. Ind. 2001).
Access to discovery materials presented to the court is another issue. The parties here dispute whether the following categories of documents pertaining to Watson Chevrolet and its current and former officers, directors, and employees, including class members, should be filed under seal when pertinent to a court filing or pleading: 1) wage, financial, or tax information; 2) unlisted home addresses and telephone numbers; 3) performance evaluations and records of discipline; 4) criminal history; 5) credit information; 6) marital status; and 7) complaints ofsexual harassment or retaliation. The EEOC opposes a protective order allowing the filing of this information under seal because it contends that many of these documents are "central to the dispositive issues in this case." EEOC's
-3-

Submission at 3. Watson Chevrolet states that the EEOC's assertion of relevance is "incorrect" but I~lils to elaborate.
The Seventh Circuit has recognized that when the information for which confidential protection is sought is important to the claims in the litigation, it is difficult to justify confidentiality restrictions. See Baxter, 297 F.3d at 546 (stating "very few categories of documents are kept confidential once their bearing on the merits of a suit has been revealed."). The Seventh Circuit has explained: "[M]any litigants would like to keep confidential the salary they make, the injuries they suffered, or the price they agreed to pay under a contract, but when these things are vital to claims made in litigation they must be revealed." rd. at 547; see also Union Oil v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that an executive's salary would not be entitled to confidential treatment "if a dispute erupted about payment (or termination).").
Rule 26(c) provides that "for good cause shown, the court ... may make any order which justice requires to protect a party ... from annoyance [and] embarrassment ...." See also Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (recognizing that although Rule 26(c) does not contain a specific reference to privacy, it is "implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule. "). Current and former officers, directors, and employees of Watson Chevrolet, including class members, have a legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of their wage, financial, or tax infonnation, unlisted home addresses and telephone numbers, criminal history, credit information, and marital status assuming this information is unrelated to the EEOC's claims. Knoll v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 176 F.3d 359, 365 (6th Cir. 1999) (affirming protective order providing lor disclosure of personnel files on an attorneys' eyes only basis because personnel files might contain "highly personal information such as an individual's unlisted address and telephone number,
-4-

marital status, wage infonnation, medical background, credit history (such as requests for garnishment of wages) and other work-related problems unrelated to plaintiffs claims). The EEOC has not explained how wage, financial, or tax infonnation, unlisted home addresses and telephone numbers, criminal history, credit infonnation, and marital status of current and former officers, directors, and employees, including class members, "may be central to the dispositive issues in this case." Public disclosure of this "highly personal" and irrelevant infonnation may cause these persons unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment and would unfairly and gratuitously invade their privacy. For these reasons, the Court finds good cause for protecting these categories of infonnation from public inspection in court filings and judicial decisions. Saket v. American Airlines, 2003 WL 685385, at * 3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2003); Davis v. Precoat Metals, 2002 WL 1759828, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2002) (finding employer may redact or remove unlisted addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers, martial status, medical and health insurance infonnation, criminal history, and credit infonnation from personnel files prior to production).
Whether performance evaluations, records ofdiscipline, and complaints ofsexual harassment or retaliation of non-class members may be filed under seal is a closer question given the greater likelihood of relevance to the subject matter. Non-parties have valid privacy concerns regarding public disclosure oftheir personnel infonnation. Knoll, 176 F.3d at 365 (stating that "it is clear that
[the employer1defendants had a valid interest in the privacy of nonparty personnel files .... ");
Gehring v. Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 342 (7th Cir. 1994) (stating disclosure of non-party employees' personnel files "would invade the privacy of other employees."). On the other hand, it is also clear that what happens in the federal courts "is presumptively open to public scrutiny." Krvnicki v. Lopachich, 983 F.2d 74, 75 (7'h Cir.1992). "Judges deliberate in private but issue public decisions
-5-

ailcr public arguments based on public records .... Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuring decision look more like fiat; this requires rigorous justification." rd. The public's right of access to court proceedings and documents applies with equal force to discovery materials used in pretrial, nondispositive motions. Citizens, 178 F.3d at 'J45 (stating that the public has "an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceedings.").
In an effort to balance the privacy interests of non-parties with the public right of access to court proceedings and documents, the Court orders the following regarding public disclosure ofnonclass members' personnel information in discovery motions.' If non-class members' performance evaluations, discipline records, and complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation form the basis of any discovery motion, the substance of these documents are subject to public disclosure in court filings and pleadings. See Plair v. EJ. Brach & Sons, Inc., 1996 WL 67975, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, I'J'J6). If information relating to these categories of documents forms the basis of any discovery decisions, the substance of the documents will similarly be publicly available. rd. If the actual documents need to be filed with the court, non-class members' names and identifying factors shall be redacted. The identities ofother employees can be protected by referencing them by code number rather than name in any court filing or pleading. Id. A coded list of other employees by name may bc ti led under seal. Id.
, This case has been referred only for discovery supervision and resolution of discovery motions. If dispositive motions are filed and/or this case proceeds to trial, the district court will dctermine at that time whether any of the confidential information identified by the parties should become a part of the public record.
-6-

B. Watson Chevrolet's Tax Returns Watson Chevrolet also argues that its tax returns should be discoverable only on an attorney's
eyes only basis because the three identified class members as well as several of fifteen former employees of Watson Chevrolet identified by the EEOC as witnesses are believed to be employed by Watson Chevrolet's direct competitors. Watson Chevrolet is a privately held company. It states that the motor vehicles sales market is highly competitive, employee turnover its high, and it is common for sales people and managers to work for competing dealerships. Watson Chevrolet claims that disclosure of its tax returns to its competitors "would likely subject Watson Chevrolet to great and irreparable harm." The "likely" "great and irreparable harnl" has not been specified.
The EEOC maintains that restricting tax returns to attorney's eyes only"effectivelyprohibits the EEOC from using Defendant's tax returns for any rcason before trial, by prohibiting their use at depositions, barring their disclosure to any experts, and keeping them from use on pretrial motions." EEOC's Submission at 2. The EEOC explains the Watson Chevrolet's tax returns are relevant to testing its assertion that the purported non-discriminatory reason for closing the phone room was to increase Watson Chevrolet's profits.
Watson Chevrolet has a valid interest in protecting the privacy of its tax returns. Methodist Hospitals. Inc. v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1026, 1031 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that public disclosure of tax returns is "highly restricted."). In Methodist Hospitals, the Seventh Circuit allowed personal income information to be redacted from a party's brief because the information was completely irrelevant to the dispute and "[i]ts inclusion in the state's memorandum [was] gratuitous." Id. at 1031. In contrast, Watson Chevrolet's tax returns are potentially relevant to rebutting its asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for closing the phone room. The Court is thus unwilling to direct that the
-7-

tax returns are discoverable on an attorneys' eyes only basis or find good cause for filing them under seal ifthcy form the basis of a pleading orjudicial decision. However, the Court concludes that good cause exists to: (I) prohibit disclosure of irrelevant portions of Watson Chevrolet's tax returns and the substance of those portions to any person other than the EEOC's attorneys and (2) prohibit disclosure of relevant portions of Watson Chevrolet's tax returns to class members and witnesses unless they have a need to know such information for purposes of this litigation.'
Counsel are directed to submit to chambers a protective order complying with this Order and the limitations on protective orders established by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The proposed protective order should indicate that the parties must file public pleadings and briefs but may fi Ie sealed supplements ifnecessaryto discuss in dctai 1materials subject to the protective order. See Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995) and In the Matter of Grand Jury, 983 F.2d 74 (7th Cir. 1992) (discussing the impropriety of filing entire pleadings or briefs under seal). The protective order shall also state that either party or an interested member of the public can challenge the secreting of particular documents pursuant to the protective order. Citizens, 178 F.3d at 946. Finally, the proposed protective shall provide that Local Rule 26.2(e) governs the disposition of sealed documents maintained by the clerk following conclusion of the case.
2 Watson Chevrolet contends that certain portions of the tax returns such as income to shareholders and officers; shareholder social security numbers; other company assets; interest income; value of other investments; revenue from other sources, such as bad debt collection and linance and insurance; accounts receivable; other liabilities; and deductions for memberships, office supplies and equipment rental are not relevant or necessary to the EEOC's rebuttal of Watson Chevrolet's non-discriminatory reason for closing the phone room.
-8-

Dated: April 18, 2005

ENT E R:
fl~(l'h~
Nan R. Nolan United States Magistrate Jndge

-9-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

BOB WATSON CHEVROLET,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

No. 04 C 5301 Judge Anderson Magistrate Judge Cole

PROTECTIVE ORDER In order to preserve and maintain the confidentiality of certain documents and information to be produced in this litigation, Bob Watson Chevrolet ("Watson Chevrolet") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC), pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, have hereby agreed and stipulated as follows:

Definitions 1) The term "Confidential Information" is defined as any of the following types of
information produced by, or pertaining to Bob Watson Chevrolet and its current or former officers, directors, and employees, including class members:
a) wage, financial or tax information, b) social security numbers, c) unlisted home address and telephone numbers,
1

d) physical and mental health information, e) trade secret as defined by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, f) performance evaluations and records of discipline, g) criminal history, h) credit information, i) marital status, j) complaints of sexual harassment or retaliation. 2) The term "Confidential Document" refers to a document that contains any of the above types of information defined as "Confidential Information." 3) As used herein, "disclosure" or " to disclose" shall mean to divulge, reveal, describe, summarize, paraphrase, quote, transmit, or otherwise communicate Confidential Information. Restriction on Use of Confidential Information 4) Confidential Information shall be utilized only for the purpose of this litigation. During the pendency of this litigation, Confidential Information, including all copies thereof, shall be retained solely in the custody of the parties' attorneys and shall not be placed in the possession of or disclosed to any other person, except as set forth in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 below, as otherwise agreed upon by the parties, or upon leave of Court. If, pursuant to paragraph 5, 6, 7 and 8, Confidential Information is shown to or provided to any person, other than to the parties' attorneys, clerks, paralegals, secretaries, other support staff in the employ of the attorneys, the Court, its staff, the jury, or the specific party that produced or otherwise had previous access to the Confidential Information (including current or former managers of Defendant if Defendant produced such information) that person must be advised of this Order, given a copy of this Order,
2

and shall agree in writing to be bound by its tenns and submit to the jurisdiction of this Court.
5) Confidential Infonnation protected by this Order shall not be disclosed in any
manner, directly or indirectly, to any persons except as follows:
a. Confidential Infonnation may be used by the parties' attorneys, clerks, paralegals, secretaries, and other support staff in the employ of the attorneys for the purpose of this litigation;
b. Individuals may review their own records;
c. Individuals may review Confidential Infonnation which they prepared or received or viewed in the nonnal course of business;
d. Confidential Infonnation may be used in all pretrial discovery proceedings, such as depositions, and may be filed in Court, such as in support of or in opposition to summary judgment, or other motions without limitations other than those set forth in this order or by order of Court;
e. Confidential Infonnation may be reviewed by an expert witness or consultant expressly employed or retained by counselor a party to this litigation for the purposes of this litigation without limitations other than those set forth in this order or by order of Court; and
f. Confidential Infonnation may be used at trial and on appeal of this case, without limitations other than those set forth in this order, by the procedures set forth by the trial or appellate court, or by other order of Court.
g. EEOC class members may review any Confidential Infonnation that Defendant uses or refers to in a deposition or motion, proposes to use as an exhibit at trial, or introduces at a settlement conference.
h. Confidential infonnation may be disclosed to a court reporter during the course of a deposition.
6) Documents containing the following types of Confidential Infonnation when filed
with the Court, shall be filed under seal: personal wage, financial or tax infonnation; social
security numbers; unlisted home address and telephone numbers; physical and mental health
infonnation; trade secret as defined by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act; criminal history; credit
3

infonnation; and marital status. The parties must file public pleadings and briefs, but may file sealed supplements if necessary to discuss in detail materials set forth in this paragraph of this protective order. However, such documents can be filed under nonnal Court procedures if the Confidential Infonnation listed in this paragraph has been redacted or otherwise removed from the document.
7) If non-class members' perfonnance evaluations, discipline records, and complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation fonn the basis of any discovery motion, the substance of these documents are subject to public disclosure in court filings. If the actual documents need to be filed with the court, non-class members' names and identifYing factors shall be redacted. The parties may protect the identities by filing a coded list of employees under seal and referring to the identities of those individuals by their code number in any court filing.
8) This order prohibits disclosure of irrelevant portions of Watson Chevrolet's tax returns and the substance of those portions to any person other than the EEOC's attorneys. This order limits the disclosure of relevant portions of Watson Chevrolet's tax returns to class members and witnesses who have a need to know such infonnation for purposes of this litigation. Designation
9) A document or portion of a document that a party detennines in good faith to contain Confidential Infonnation as defined in paragraph I may be designated as Confidential by (I) stamping the word "CONFIDENTIAL" on the document, (2) otherwise indicating that it contains Confidential Infonnation (3) employing other means provided by this order, or (4) using any other reasonable method agreed upon by the parties.
10) A party, may on the record ofa deposition or by written notice to opposing counsel
4

not later than fourteen(14) days after receipt of the deposition transcript, designate any portiones) of the deposition as confidential if the party determines in good faith that the designated portiones) contain(s) Confidential Information as defined in paragraph 1. Until expiration of the above fourteen (14) day period, all deposition transcripts will be deemed "Confidential Documents" under this Protective Order and information therein will be deemed "Confidential Information" under this Protective Order unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties.
11) Confidential Information may be disclosed beyond the terms of this Order only if all parties consent to such disclosure, or if the Court, after notice to all affected parties, permits such disclosure. If any party wishes to disclose any Confidential Information beyond the terms of paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 of this Order, that party shall provide all other parties with reasonable notice in writing of its request to disclose the materials. If the parties cannot resolve their disagreement with respect to the disclosure of any Confidential Information or Confidential Documents, then a party may petition the Court for a determination of these issues. Such Confidential Information or Confidential Documents shall remain confidential as stipulated by this order until the Court rules on the party's specific petition. Miscellaneous
12) This Order does not limit the right of any party to object to the scope of discovery in this case.
13) This Order does not constitute a determination of the admissibility or evidentiary foundation for the documents or a waiver of any party's objections thereto.
14) Upon the final completion of the litigation (including any appeals) the parties shall return to each other or destroy all copies of Confidential Documents. If the documents are
5

destroyed, Plaintiffs' counsel and/or Defense counsel shall certify in writing that the destruction has taken place. Counsel of record for the Parties, at the termination of the lawsuit shall ensure that any person who has received copies of Confidential Information from or through counsel of record destroys or returns to the producing party such Confidential Information. The obligations to keep information copied from documents confidential shall continue after the completion of this case. Local Rule 26.2(e) governs the disposition of sealed documents maintained by the Clerk of the Court following the conclusion of this case.
IS) The production of Confidential Information pursuant to this Order is not intended to constitute a waiver of a privilege or right to claim the trade secret or confidential status of documents, material, or information produced.
16) Either party or an interested member of the public may challenge the sealed filing ofparticular documents pursuant to this protective order. AGREED:
Attorney for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison # 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (3\2) 353-7525
~I////d@v
Martin K. LaPointV Christina Y. Nelson Attorneys for Defendant Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C. 330 N. Wabash, 22nd Floor
6

-

Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 840-7000

ENTERED: Date:

7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

BOB WATSON CHEVROLET,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

No. 04 C 5301 Jwg A IIdeFS~ Magistrate Judge Cole

CONSENT DECREE

THE LITIGATION

I. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed this action

alleging that Defendant Bob Watson Chevrolet, Inc. ("Watson Chevrolet") violated Title VB of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VB"). 42 U.S.C. ~ 2000e, el seq., by discriminating against

Jane Donovan ("Donovan"), Daniette Price ("Price"), and a class of women by retaliating against

them for participating in a proceeding under Title VII and by discriminating against Petrina

Benford ("Benford") and a elass of women because of their sex by subjecting them to sexual

harassment.

2. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in

comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally

resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). Neither party admits to any of

the claims or defenses raised or asserted by the other in this case and the parties are resolving this

matter to avoid further litigation.

3. This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by the EEOC and the underlying charges brought by Donovan, Price, and Benford (hereafter "the Charging Parties").
FINDINGS 4. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties. b. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of the EEOC, Watson Chevrolet, the Charging Parties and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree. c. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of the Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties, the Charging Parties, and the public. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
INJUNCTION AGAINST SEX DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATON 5. Watson Chevrolet and its owners, officers, agents, management (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them are hereby enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of sex. 6. Watson Chevrolet and its owners, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it are hereby enjoined from engaging in any form of retaliation against any person because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII,
2

filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VlI, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VlI, or asserted any rights under this Decree.
MONETARY RELIEF 7. Subject to the tenns and conditions of this Decree, Watson Chevrolet shall pay the aggregate sum of $28,500 to the Charging Parties, with appropriate deductions made to the portion designated as backpay. Watson Chevrolet shall pay $9,500 each to Donovan, Price, and Benford, less any applicable withholding, as follows: a) with respect to the payments to Donovan and Price, $5,000 each shall be designated as backpay, which will be subject to the employee's share of required tax withholdings and deductions and for which Watson Chevrolet will issue an IRS Form W-2 to each; and $4,500 each shall be designated as compensatory damages, for which Watson Chevrolet will issue an IRS Form 1099; and b) with respect to the payment to Benford, the entire amount of $9,500 shall be designated as compensatory damages, for which Watson Chevrolet will issue an IRS Fonn 1099. 8. Within five (5) business days after the approval and entry of this Decree, the EEOC will mail to the Charging Parties a copy of the Release Agreement attached as Exhibit A (hereafter, "Release Agreement."). Within five (5) business days after receipt by the EEOC ofa copy of the Release Agreement signed by the Charging Party, the EEOC shall mail said Release Agreement to Watson Chevrolet and provide Watson Chevrolet with the current address for each Charging Party. Within five (5) business days of the receipt by Watson Chevrolet of the Release Agreement signed by a Charging Party, Watson Chevrolet shall issue and mail by certified mail to that Charging Party a check reflecting the amounts and withholding, if applicable, specified in paragraph 7 above. Watson Chevrolet will also send a copy of the checks to the EEOC.
3

POSTING OF NOTICE

9

Within ten (10) business days after approval and entry of this Decree, Watson Chevrolet

shall post copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit B to this Decree on the bulletin boards usually

used by Watson Chevrolet for posting governmental notices directed to employees. The Notice

shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Watson Chcvrolet

shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any

other material. Watson Chevrolet shall certify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) business

days after entry of the Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. Watson Chevrolet shall

permit a representative of the EEOC to enter Watson Chevrolet's premises for purposes of

verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours.

RECORD KEEPING

10. During the period in which this Decree is effective, Watson Chevrolet shall maintain and

make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC records (including names, social

security numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers) of each employee who complains of sex

discrimination or retaliation.

II. Watson Chevrolet shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 10 above,

available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after the EEOC so requests.

In addition, Watson Chevrolet shall require personnel within its employ whom the EEOC

requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree to cooperate with the EEOC and

to be interviewed.

TRAINING

12. Within ninety (90) days following the approval and entry by this Decree, all of Watson

Chevrolet's owners, supervisory, managerial, and human resources employees shall participate

4

in a training session regarding retaliation presented by Watson Chevrolet's counsel, Martin LaPointe, paid for by Watson Chevrolet and approved by the EEOC. A registry of attendance shall be maintained. Also within ninety (90) days, all Watson Chevrolet's owners, supervisory, managerial, and human resources employees shall participate in an internet based training program for managers proposed by Watson's counsel and approved by the EEOC. Any new owners, supervisory, managerial, and human resources employees beginning employment with Watson Chevrolet during the course of the decree must complete the internet based training within thirty (30) days of beginning employment. Within six months of the approval and entry of this Decree, Bob Watson will require all employecs to receive anti-harassment training as set forth in the Settlement Order and Modification of Final Consent Decree in Isom-McDaniel. ct. al v. Bob Watson Chevrolet. Inc., 0 I C 4542. A registry of training received shall be maintained. 13. With respect to anti-retaliation training, Watson Chevrolet shall obtain the EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer prior to the commencement of the training session. Watson Chevrolet shall submit the name, address, telephone number, resume and training proposal of the proposed trainer to the EEOC at least fifteen (15) business days prior to the proposed commencement date of the training. The EEOC shall have ten (10) business days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer. In the event the EEOC does not approve Watson Chevrolet's designated trainer, Watson Chevrolet shall have ten (10) business days to identify an alternate trainer. The EEOC shall have ten (10) business days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the alternate trainer. !fthe parties cannot through this process agree on a trainer, then they may seek the Court's assistance under Paragraph 17.
5

14. Watson Chevrolet shall certify to the EEOC in writing within five (5) business days after the ninetieth (90th) day following the entry of this Decree and again prior to the tennination of this Decree that group training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification(s) shall include: (i) the date, location and duration of the training; and (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance. Prior to each anniversary date following the entry of this Consent Decree, Watson Chevrolet shall certify in writing to the EEOC that training of all new supervisory, managerial, and human resources employees has taken place; the date, location, and duration of such training; and the name and position of each such person trained. IS. Upon the EEOC's request, Watson Chevrolet agrees to provide the EEOC with copies of any and all pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written materials provided to the participants of the training sessions.
REPORTING 16. Watson Chevrolet shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for a period of two (2) years following the approval and entry of this Consent Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry of the Consent Decree. The final report shall be due two (2) years after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain (as applicable): (a) A summary all complaints of sex discrimination and retaliation received for the six (6) month period preceding the report, including the date the complaint was made, who made it, what was alleged, and what actions Watson Chcvrolet took to resolve the matter. (b) A certification by Watson Chevrolet that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 9, above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month period preccding the report.
6

DISPUTE RESOLUTION 17. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged noncomplying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 18. All provisions of this Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following the approval and entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2) year period, any disputes under Paragraph 17, above, remain unresolved, the teml of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 19. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, attorney's fees, and costs. 20. Nothing in this Decree shall abrogate or alter any of the terms or conditions set forth in the Settlement Order or Modification of Final Consent Decree in [\"OIIl-McDal/iel. ct. al v. Boh Watsoll Chevrolet. fIlC., 01 C 4542. 21. The teffils of this Decree are and shall be binding on the present and future directors, officers, managers, agents, successors, and assigns of Watson Chevrolet. Watson Chevrolet will
7

provide a copy of this Decree to any person(s) or organization(s) which proposes to acquire or merge with Watson Chevrolet, prior to the effectiveness of any such acquisition or merger. 22. When this Decree requires the submission by Watson Chevrolet of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to: Watson Chevrolet Consent Decree Compliance, Richard 1. Mrizek, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, minois, 60661. When this Decree requires submission by EEOC of materials to Watson Chevrolet, they shall be mailed to: Martin LaPointe, Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.c., 330 N. Wabash, 22nd Floor, Chicago, minois, 60611.
8

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT GROUP, INC. OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

For BOB WATSON CHEVROLET, INC.
~x,~~ ARTIN K. LAPOINTE Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.c. 330 N. Wabash, 22nd Floor Chicago, lllinois 60611 3128407000

Trial Attorney
9

--------- ----"--

EXHIBIT A
RELEASE AGREEMENT
I, [name of Charging Party], for and in consideration of the sum of$ 9,500, less any required withholding and deductions, payable to me pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Watson Chevrolet Group, fnc, No" 04 C 5301 (N"D" IlL), hereby waive my right to recover for any claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U5"C § 2000e et seq" ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 lLS"C § 1981 a, that I had against Watson Chevrolet prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in EEOC's complaint in EEOC v Watsoll Chevrolet Group, ""'", No" 04 C 5301 (N"D" IlL)"

Date

Signature

10

EXHIBIT B NOTICE TO WATSON CHEVROLET EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in the Northern District of Illinois in EEOC v. Watson Chevrolet Group, Inc., No. 04 C 5554, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Watson Chevrolet.

In its suit, the EEOC alleged that Watson Chevrolet retaliated against employees for exercising their rights under Title VII and fostered a sexually hostile work environment. Neither party admitted to any of the claims or defenses raised or asserted in this case and the parties resolved this matter to avoid further litigation.

To resolve the case, Watson Chevrolet and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree whieh provides for a monetary payment to the former employees who filed charges with the EEOC and provides, among other things, that:

I) Watson Chevrolet will not discriminate against any employee on the basis of sex.

2) Watson Chevrolet will not retaliate against any person because (s)he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree;

3) Watson Chevrolet will train all its managers and human resource personnel regarding sex discrimination and retaliation.

The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may follow the complaint procedure in Watson Chevrolet's nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy and you may contact the EEOC at (312) 353-8195. The EEOC charges no fees and has a TTD number.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be

altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about s Notice or

compliance with its tenns may be directed t'r"Xatson Chevrolet Settl eni EEOC, 500

West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, I 6 61.

/;

3(30/()~

Date

II

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 1 of 5

CLOSED, PROTO
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-05301

EEOC v. Bob Watson Chevrolet Assigned to: Honorable Jeffrey Cole Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 08/12/2004 Date Terminated: 03/30/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Richard John Mrizek U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886-9078 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: richard.mrizek@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886-9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?558131491032246-L_353_0-1

7/5/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 2 of 5

Defendant Bob Watson Chevrolet

represented by Martin K. LaPointe Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C. 330 North Wabash Avenue 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607 (312) 840-7000 Email: mlapointe@burkelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Y. Nelson Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C. 330 North Wabash Avenue 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607 (312) 840-7000 Fax: (312) 840-7900 Email: cnelson@burkelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/12/2004
09/07/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 12/21/2004 12/21/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of John C. Hendrickson, Gregory M. Gochanour, Richard John Mrizek as attorney(s) for plaintiff (no summons(es) issued.) (Documents: (1-1 through 1-3)). (jmm) (Entered: 08/13/2004)

2 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant Bob Watson Chevrolet sent on 8/12/04. (jmm) (Entered: 09/08/2004)

3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Bob Watson Chevrolet by Martin K. LaPointe and Christina M Yeager. (jmm) (Entered: 10/19/2004)

4 ANSWER by defendant and affirmative defenses to plaintiff's complaint [1-1]. (jmm) (Entered: 10/19/2004)

5 REFERRAL ORDER: Case referred to Hon. Nan R. Nolan for discovery supervision , discovery motions Mailed notice. (tsa) (Entered: 12/21/2004)

6 MINUTE ORDER of 12/21/04 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan: Initial status hearing set for 1/13/05 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858. Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, room 1870, at least three business days before the initial status hearing. For further details see attached standing order. Mailed notices by judge's staff. (jmm) (Entered: 12/22/2004)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?558131491032246-L_353_0-1

7/5/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 3 of 5

01/10/2005 01/13/2005 03/22/2005 03/24/2005 03/25/2005 04/18/2005
04/18/2005 05/06/2005 06/01/2005 06/08/2005 06/08/2005 06/08/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005

7 PARTIES' JOINT STATUS REPORT by plaintiff and defendant. (jmm) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
SCHEDULE set on 1/13/05 by Hon. Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 3/22/05 . Discovery ordered closed on 8/30/05 . Mailed notice (hmb) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
8 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 6/8/2005 at 09:00 AM. Judicial staff mailed notice (hmb, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
10 SUBMISSION by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in support of plaintiff's proposed protective order. (jmm, ) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
9 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by Bob Watson Chevrolet. (jmm, ) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
11 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Enter memorandum opinion and order regarding submission in support of plaintiff's proposed protective order and defendant's agreed protective order and brief in support. Counsel are directed to submit to chambers a protective order complying with this order and the limitations on protective orders established by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judicial staff mailed notice (jmm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
12 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Nan R. Nolan on 4/18/2005.Mailed notice(jmm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER:Case referred to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole. Signed by Judge Executive Committee on 5/6/05. Mailed notices(amb, ) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
13 EXHIBIT A - Agreement to be bound by confidentiality agreement and protective order. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by plaintiff. (jmm, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
14 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing set before Magistrate Judge Nolan is stricken. No notice. (hmb, ) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
15 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole : Enter protective order. Mailed notice (jmm, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
16 PROTECTIVE Order Signed by Judge Jeffrey Cole on 6/8/2005.(jmm, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
17 JOINT MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Bob Watson Chevrolet to extend discovery (jmp, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
18 NOTICE of Motion by Richard John Mrizek for presentment of motion for extension of discovery 17 before Honorable Jeffrey Cole on 7/20/2005 at 09:00 AM. (jmp, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?558131491032246-L_353_0-1

7/5/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 4 of 5

07/19/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005 08/04/2005
10/31/2005 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/23/2006
02/07/2006

19 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole : The parties joint motion to extend discovery 17 is granted. Fact discovery is extended to 10/31/2005. Status hearing set for 10/31/2005 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (jmm, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
20 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel production documents. (jmm, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
21 NOTICE of Motion by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for presentment of motion to compel20 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 8/2/2005 at 09:00 AM. (jmm, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
22 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole: Motion hearing held on 8/4/2005. Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents 20 is granted in part and denied in part. Request #10 is granted with the agreement of the defendant. Request #17 is granted with the agreement of the defendant. Request #20, 25 and 26 are denied without prejudice. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
23 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole : Status hearing held and continued to 01/03/06 at 8:30 AM. Joint oral motion to extend discovery is granted. Discovery ordered to close on 12/31/05. Mailed notice (ar, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
24 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole: Status hearing held on 1/3/2006. Settlement Conference set for 1/3/2006 at 3:30 P.M. No notice. (srb, ) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
25 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole: Settlement conference held and continued to 1/17/2006 at 1:00 P.M. (srb,) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
26 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole: Settlement conference held on 1/17/2006. The parties consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Cole. A further satus hearing is set for 2/7/2006 at 8:30 A.M. for report on settlement. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
27 CONSENT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (ar, ) Modified on 1/25/2006 (ar, ). (Entered: 01/25/2006)
28 CONSENT by Defendant Bob Watson Chevrolet to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (ar, ) Modified on 1/25/2006 (ar, ). (Entered: 01/25/2006)
29 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole from Judge Wayne R. Andersen, pursuant to Local Rule 73.1, signed by Judge Wayne R. Andersen on 01/20/06, signed by Chief Judge Charles P. Kocoras on 01/23/06. (For further detail see order). (ar, ) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
30 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole : Status hearing held and continued to 3/7/2006 at 8:30 A.M. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,) (Entered: 02/07/2006)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?558131491032246-L_353_0-1

7/5/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 5 of 5

03/07/2006 03/30/2006
03/30/2006

31 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole: Status hearing held on 3/7/2006. Parties to submit dismissal documents as soon as possible. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
32 MINUTE entry before Judge Jeffrey Cole : Pursuant to the parties agreed consent decree, this case is hereby dismissed, each party shall bear its own expenses, attorney's fees and costs. Enter Consent Decree. All pending motions are moot. Terminating case. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
33 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Judge Jeffrey Cole on 3/30/2006:(gcy, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

07/05/2007 12:54:52

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

3

Cost:

clearinghouse 1:04-cv-05301 0.24

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?558131491032246-L_353_0-1

7/5/2007