1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 12 CR 87

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Chicago, Illinois 

 ) April 27, 2017 

RONALD WATTS and ) 8:50 a.m. 

KALLAT MOHAMMED, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) Motion 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN 

APPEARANCES: 

For the Government: HON. JOEL R. LEVIN 

 Acting United States Attorney, by 

 MS. MEGAN CUNNIFF CHURCH, 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 219 South Dearborn Street 

 Suite 500 

 Chicago, Illinois 60604 

For Defendant Mohammed: LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. GRAHAM 

 53 West Jackson Boulevard 

 Suite 703 

 Chicago, Illinois 60604 

BY: MR. JAMES A. GRAHAM 

For the Plaintiffs: LOEVY & LOEVY 

(16 C 8940) 311 North Aberdeen 

 3rd Floor 

 Chicago, Illinois 60607 

 BY: MR. JOSHUA A. TEPFER 

TRACEY DANA McCULLOUGH, CSR, RPR 

Official Court Reporter 

219 South Dearborn Street 

Room 1426 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

(312) 435-5570 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:662
 2

APPEARANCES CONTINUED: 

For Kallatt Mohammed: RAVITZ & PALLES 

(16 C 8940) 203 North LaSalle Street 

Suite 2100 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

BY: MR. GARY J. RAVITZ 

 MR. ERIC S. PALLES 

 

For Ronald Watts: JOHNSON & BELL, LTD. 

(16 C 8940) 33 West Monroe Street 

Suite 2700 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

BY: MR. BRIAN P. GAINER 

For the City of DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 

Chicago, et al.: 10 South Wacker Drive 

(16 C 8940) Suite 2300 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

BY: MR. DANIEL M. NOLAND 

For the Individual NATHAN & KAMIONSKI LLP 

Officers: 125 South Clark Street 

(16 C 8940) 17th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

BY: MR. AVI T. KAMIONSKI 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:662
 3

THE CLERK: 12 CR 87, USA versus Kallatt Mohammed and

Ronald Watts.

THE COURT: Go ahead and start. Just get started.

MS. CHURCH: Good morning, Your Honor. Megan Church

for the United States.

MR. TEPFER: Good morning, Your Honor. Joshua Tepfer

for -- 

THE COURT: I can hear everybody. Don't worry about

it.

MR. TEPFER: Joshua Tepfer for plaintiff intervenors

Ben Baker and Clarissa Glenn.

MR. PALLES: Eric Palles and Gary Ravitz -- 

MR. RAVITZ: Good morning.

MR. PALLES: Civil lawyers for Kallatt Mohammed.

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. GRAHAM: Judge, I'm Jim Graham. I represented

Kallatt Mohammed in the criminal case, as you may recall.

THE COURT: Yes, you did. 

MR. GAINER: Your Honor, I'm Brian Gainer,

G-A-I-N-E-R. I represent Ronald Watts in the civil case that

we're here to talk about today.

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. NOLAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Daniel Nolan

on behalf of the City of Chicago in the civil case.

MR. KAMIONSKI: Good morning, Your Honor. 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:662
 4

Avi Kamionski. I represent several individual officers in the

civil case.

THE COURT: All right. Who -- other than?

MR. KAMIONSKI: Other than the ones named here so

far.

THE COURT: All right. So there's a motion. 

MR. TEPFER: Yes, Your Honor. I guess I'm -- we

filed a motion. Just for a little background, of course.

Plaintiff Ben Baker and Clarissa Glenn filed a 1983 lawsuit and

various state law claims against these -- the officers who are

the subject of this criminal case. Baker and Glenn have each

been found -- their convictions were overturned and found

factually innocent. The case is in front of Judge Wood, and

discovery is ongoing. 

As part of the discovery process, we first subpoenaed

the criminal defense lawyers for part of it, simultaneously the

criminal defense lawyers for Watts and Mohammed just as part of

standard discovery. We were then alerted of the protective

order, so we withdrew the subpoena. We then, of course, filed

Rule 34 requests for discovery. Mr. Palles alerted us that he

had documents -- well, through correspondence that he had

documents responsive to the -- to our Rule 34 request, but said

that he viewed that the documents had to be turned over to the,

the government in light of the protective order.

We asked for a log of the documents or a general

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:662
 5

overview of what the documents are. His position as stated to

us was that because of the protective order, he couldn't feel

comfortable even doing that. So that's essentially where we

are. We're seeking -- we have documents that are responsive to

our discovery requests. We don't really know what they are.

We -- so we're here seeking modification of the protective

order. Clearly the protective order in place, which is Exhibit

F to our proceeding, contemplates this very idea.

In paragraph 1, paragraph 2, and paragraph 6 there's

allusions to the idea of subject to further court order. So we

think it's appropriate remedy for us to see those documents.

Obviously it's standard. They are in possession of

Mr. Mohammed for four years since, since this proceeding.

Obviously the defense counsel have documents as well, which are

needless to say in the possession of the defendants there as

well in this case. So we think that properly we should get

them.

Obviously we would comply with the protective order

in this, that's in place. Any other protective order that this

Court or the parties want us to enter into, we will. And short

of that, and obviously in the alternative we, we do feel like

we're entitled to a log of the materials. If we -- for

whatever reason the Court rules we can't have them, even if it

seems to be they're objecting to even this log, in fact, we

would even subject that log to a protective order if we need.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:662
 6

But at this point we want to see -- we, we feel like we're

entitled to the documents.

THE COURT: Miss Church.

MS. CHURCH: We have the documents, Your Honor.

Defendants' counsel provided them to us, so they are currently

in my office. There is no legal basis for a plaintiff in a

civil case to intervene in a closed criminal case to try and

obtain these documents in that method. The protective order is

in place. It was agreed to by the government and defense

counsel. It includes all sorts of grand jury material, which,

as Your Honor is aware, has certain protections and remains

confidential and secret.

And so the method for the plaintiffs to obtain

records or documents from the underlying criminal case is to

subpoena the government for them. And they can do so in their

civil case. So there is no basis for this Court to have to try

and come up with some sort of remedy in a criminal -- a closed

criminal case for a nonparty.

THE COURT: Counsel, have you discussed that? You

were ready to subpoena before. Withdrew the subpoena,

understanding there was a protective order. 

MR. TEPFER: Of course, Your Honor. And we do intend

to pursue a subpoena against the FBI, and we will be doing

that. The reality is, of course, there's the Touhy regulations

for the FBI subpoena. We believe it's appropriate. What we've

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:662
 7

been doing is so we can target our request to the FBI, you

know, very straightforward, very narrowly, we want to see what

the parties have in this case through Rule 34. Obviously the

parties did have certain things. They've now been returned to

the government.

But the other thing is, is the City is still -- the

discovery is still very much ongoing. The City has not fully

responded, and they have time. I'm not saying they have had

to, but have not fully responded to our Rule 34 request. The

City was involved in a joint investigation with the FBI.

THE COURT: Counsel, I'm going to stop you one

second. You talk about the City. You've got a judge, don't

you? 

MR. TEPFER: We do, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Judge Wood. 

MR. TEPFER: So my point is we will be seeking

documents ultimately, but we want to see what we receive from

this. And this is part of why we're here. We're seeking --

these are documents that were in possession of the defendants

in the civil case. And we think that clearly the protective

order contemplates modifying it for situations just like we

think this is. We would comply with the protective order. We

believe that they're appropriately given to us at this point.

THE COURT: You have a fairly -- you may not see it

as simple, but there's a straightforward way right now of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:662
 8

getting at least some of the documents that you are seeking to

get or attempt to, and that is by subpoenaing the government

agency that says we have the documents now. That's what I'm

hearing. Miss Church says they have all the documents you are

seeking. Is that correct, Miss Church?

MS. CHURCH: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And as to what the City is or

isn't doing, the City -- this Court -- the City isn't in this

as far as the Court is concerned. I had the criminal case,

which is closed. Although I understand -- and I'm certain that

based on what the charges were that they were convicted of in

this case, you know, I don't think there are -- there's anybody

who's putting up any unnecessary roadblocks in your way to get

information you want and to pursue the case that you may be

pursuing, but I had the criminal case. The criminal case is

closed. 

You now have been told there's a way to get the --

attempt to get the documents you want to get, and I don't

think -- at this point, I'm not saying I wouldn't later if

there's an issue, but at this point fashioning some new

protective order or some exception and going through all of

that motion practice and argument isn't necessary at this

point.

MR. TEPFER: Okay, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right. I don't think I need to with

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:662
 9

that ruling hear from anybody else here. No?

MR. RAVITZ: Okay, Judge. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. GAINER: Thank you. 

THE COURT: Thank you. 

MR. GRAHAM: Thanks a lot, Judge.

CERTIFICATE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true,

correct and complete transcript of the proceedings had at the

hearing of the aforementioned cause on the day and date hereof.

/s/TRACEY D. McCULLOUGH June 13, 2017

Official Court Reporter Date 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Illinois 

Eastern Division 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 100 Filed: 06/28/17 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:662