IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 11 C 9147

v. )

) Jeffrey T. Gilbert

ROSEBUD FARMSTAND, ROCKY ) Magistrate Judge

MENDOZA, CARLOS CASTANEDA, )

)

Defendants. )

Docket Entry: 

Motion hearing [70][74][75][76][78][81] held on 11/14/13. As a threshold matter, for the 

reasons stated on the record, counsel are directed not to telephone chambers, either individually 

or together, with questions, comments or concerns about this case, any pending motions or 

motions a party wishes to notice before the Court. Any communication with the Court is to be 

done in writing with a public filing whether by motion, stipulation, status report or notice. 

Secondly, the motions set for ruling or noticed for hearing on 11/14/13 are granted and denied in 

part for the reasons stated on the record. See Statement below for further details concerning the 

Court's rulings on the motions heard on 11/14/13. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff 

[74] is entered and continued to 11/19/13 at 11:00 a.m. Prior to that hearing, counsel are to 

discuss what discovery remains to be done, and schedule whatever depositions can be scheduled 

before the current discovery cutoff date of 11/29/13. 

Statement: 

Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification [70] is granted. If Defendant wants copies of Plaintiff's tax 

returns, then Defendant shall pay the fee charged by the IRS for those returns as stated on IRS 

Form 4506.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Plaintiff's Discovery Relating to Whether 

Defendant's Employees are Undocumented Employees [76] is denied. Plaintiff has not shown 

that the immigration status of Defendant's employees is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the main issues in this single plaintiff 

employment discrimination case. Plaintiff's bare speculation that "[u]ndocumented workers, 

here illegally, may feel that they are not subject to the laws to which US citizens are subject"

[DE#76 at p 3] is an insufficient basis to open up discovery into the immigration status of 
Defendant's current or former employees. So is Plaintiff's speculation that "[t]he 

defendant/employer may directly or indirectly pressure undocumented employees to testify in a 

certain way." Id. "While credibility is always at issue, that 'does not warrant unlimited inquiry 

into the subject of immigration status'." See Mintel International Group, Ltd., v Neergheen, 2008 

U.S. Dist LEXIS 122591 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 2008) and cases cited therein. 

Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [78] concerning the issue of immigration status and 

specific avenues of inquiry during the depositions of Defendant's current and former employees, 

including the individual Defendants, is granted though Defendant's request for attorneys' fees is 

denied. 

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Financial Information [75] is denied without 

prejudice as premature. Defendants represent they intend to file a motion for summary judgment 

at the conclusion of discovery in this case. If that motion is denied in whole or in part, and this 

case is going to proceed to trial on some or all of Plaintiff's claims, and those claims could 

support an award of punitive damages against some or all Defendants, then nothing in this 

Court's ruling on Plaintiff's request for financial information is intended to preclude Plaintiff 

from obtaining the information he needs at that time to fairly present the issue of punitive 

damages to the court or jury. 

Defendants' Motion to Issue Subpoena to CityWide Janitorial for Employment Application [81] 

is granted. As stated on the record, this request by Defendants for a single document from 

Plaintiff's current employer is much narrower than the prior subpoena served by Defendants and 

quashed by the Court on Plaintiff's motion. Given the employer's willingness to provide 

compensation information in response to Defendant's request [See DE#81 at Exhibit D], the 

potential that Plaintiff may be prejudiced by Defendant's service of a subpoena on his current 

employer is outweighed by Defendant's legitimate need to obtain Plaintiff's employment 

application directly from his employer under the circumstances of this case. 

Defendants' Motion to Depose Plaintiff to Authenticate Documents from Third Parties [81] is 

denied without prejudice for the reasons stated on the record. Defendant has not established to 

the Court's satisfaction that it seeks to reopen Plaintiff's deposition to authenticate documents 

that Plaintiff actually can authenticate versus to ask Plaintiff substantive questions about 

documents (or subjects contained in those documents) that Defendant obtained after it took 

Plaintiff's deposition. If the reason Defendant seeks to reopen Plaintiff's deposition is for the 

latter purpose, then that is not a road the Court is willing to allow Defendant to go down at this 

point in time. The parties are directed to meet and confer in good faith to eliminate the need to 

reopen Plaintiff's deposition for the sole purpose of obtaining testimony to authenticate 

documents if the parties can stipulate to the authenticity of such documents for use at trial or in 

connection with summary judgment practice. 
It is so ordered.

____________________________

Jeffrey T. Gilbert

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: November 14, 2013