January 4, 2013 

Anne K. Preston 

Annmarie Dow 

Melanie Patrick Neely 

Assistants Corporation Counsel 

30 N. LaSalle Street Suite 1020 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

 

Via email to: 

Annmarie.Dow@cityofchicago.org 

Melanie_Patrick.Neely@cityofchicago.org 

Anne.Preston@cityofchicago.org 

Re: Wiley Earls v. Chicago Fire Department, Case No. 12cv 00113 

Dear Counsel: 

Plaintiff has reviewed Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for the 

Production of Documents (“Defendant’s Responses”) and Defendant’s Answer to 

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories (“Defendant’s Answers”) to Defendant. We note 

that in Defendant’s Responses and Defendant’s Answers, Defendant asserts several 

objections and fails to answer and/or does not produce the requested documents. 

Specifically, Defendant objects to and does not provide information and or produce 

documents pursuant to Plaintiff’s requests for information and documents pertaining to 

CFD employees who Plaintiff considers to be comparables to her for the purposes of the 

litigation in that they held the position of Lieutenant, acting Commander or were 

appointed as Commander within any of the 5 bureaus of the Chicago Fire Department. 

The Interrogatories which remain unanswered are Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 11. The 

production requests which remain unanswered are Request Nos. 7, 8, 13 through 19, 24, 

26, 27, 31 and 35. 

Interrogatories

1 of 5 

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:242
2 of 5 

Interrogatory No 5: 

Interrogatory No. 5 asks Defendant to identify all current or former members of the 

Chicago Fire Department who during the time period January 1, 2006 to present, held 

the position of Acting Commander or were appointed as Commander in any one of the 

five bureaus of the Chicago Fire Department. 

Defendant objects to this interrogatory claiming it is overly broad in scope, unduly 

burdensome, and the phrase "individual was posted" and the terms "appointed" and 

"Acting Commander" are vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to the 

interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Respectfully, Defendant’s arguments and objections in this regard have no merit. The 

lack of merit is evidenced by the fact that with respect to Interrogatory No. 4 Defendant 

has answered it is willing to produce similarly requested information pertaining to all 

current or former members of the Chicago Fire Department who during the time period 

January 1, 2006 to present, were ranked as Lieutenant and were appointed as Acting 

Commander or appointed as Commander in any one of the five bureaus of the Chicago 

Fire Department. . 

Defendant’s objection that the requested information is not reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is likewise without merit. As you are 

aware, the scope of the federal discovery rules is very broad. Despite Defendant’s 

statement to the contrary, the requests are relevant and are calculated to lead to the 

discovery of relevant information. The requests speak directly to a group of employees 

within Defendant’s organization who comprise a “control group” for the purposes of 

this litigation—individuals who were ranked “Commander” or Acting Commander” 

within the Chicago Fire Department, as was Plaintiff. Information pertaining to 

comparable employees is discoverable and Plaintiff has a right to the requested 

documents and information. Defendant should disclose this information to Plaintiff 

without further delay, upon the entry of an agreed protective order by the court. 

Interrogatory No. 11:

Interrogatory No. 11 asks Defendant to identify all current or former members of the 

Department who during the time period January 1, 2006 to present, held the position of 

Acting Commander or were appointed as Commander in any one of the five bureaus of 

the Chicago Fire Department, and state: 

 a. the name of said individual; 

 b. the specific bureau within which the individual was posted; 

 c. the race of said individual; 

 d. the gender of said individual; 

 e. the pay rate of said individual to present; 

 f. all discipline [as the term "discipline" is defined herein] received by said 

 individual; 

 g. all performance reviews and evaluations whether formal or informal; 

 h. if individual was removed from assignment or appointment; and 

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:243
3 of 5 

 i. identify and produce all documents relating to your answer hereto. 

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad in scope, 

unduly burdensome, the terms "individual was posted," "appointed" and "Acting 

Commander" are vague and ambiguous. The City also objects to the interrogatory on 

the grounds that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. 

Respectfully, Defendant’s arguments and objections in this regard have no merit given 

Defendant’s answers to Interrogatory No. 4 in which Defendant asserts a willingness to 

produce similarly requested information pertaining to all current or former members of 

the Chicago Fire Department who during the time period January 1, 2006 to present, 

were ranked as Lieutenant and were appointed as Acting Commander or appointed as 

Commander in any one of the five bureaus of the Chicago Fire Department. 

There can be no arguable objection that such a request is unduly burdensome. 

Modern organizations such as the Chicago Fire Department have data bases containing 

the requested information, which is easily accessed. Further, as set forth above, the 

requested information is relevant in that it pertains to a class of employees who held a 

similar rank as Plaintiff, certainly rendering them “comparables” for the purpose of this 

litigation, which is reasonable under the scope of FRCP Rule 26(b)(1). 

Requests to Produce 

Request Nos. 7 and 8

Defendant objects and does not produce documents requested by Plaintiff in Request 

Nos. 7 and 8 on the basis that the requests are overly broad in scope, unduly 

burdensome, and vague and ambiguous. Defendant additionally objects to Request No. 

8 on the basis that it is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

It is clear that the information and documents requested in Request Nos. 7 and 8 is 

relevant and within the scope of discovery under the federal rules and further is likely to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Request No. 7 seeks all documents which 

refer to or relate to the wages and or rates of pay of Commanders within the Chicago 

Fire Department or members of the Chicago Fire Department appointed as "Acting 

Commanders" during the Relevant Time Period. Request No. 8 seeks similar 

information, but limited to all documents which refer to or relate to the wages and or 

rates of pay of members of the Chicago Fire Department with the rank of Lieutenant 

acting as or appointed as Commanders within the Chicago Fire Department during the 

Relevant Time Period. 

Both of the foregoing Requests are well within the scope of discovery under the federal 

rules. As you know, Plaintiff is claiming among other claims, a violation of the Equal 

Pay Act. The rates of pay of other Chicago fire department Commanders or acting 

Commanders within the Chicago Fire Department is relevant. 

Requests 13 through 17: 

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:244
4 of 5 

These Requests seek information pertaining to the gender and racial make up of various 

groups of individuals within the Chicago Fire Department. Plaintiff is willing to 

withdraw Request No. 13. However, Plaintiff has claims of gender and racial 

discrimination, and therefore the information sought is relevant, discoverable, and not 

overly burdensome or vague. Defendant must provide information responsive to 

Requests 14 through 17 without further delay. 

Requests 18 and 19:

These Requests seek documents which identify members of the Chicago Fire 

Department who held similar ranks or positions as Plaintiff, such as Lieutenant and 

acting Commander, or Commander. 

Defendant objects to these requests as burdensome, vague, ambiguous and not relevant 

in that they are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, the 

Requests are relevant and within the scope of discoverable information under FRCP 

Rule 26(b)(1), as they seek information pertaining to individuals who held the same 

positions as Plaintiff. Defendant is wrong in asserting the objection that the Requests 

are overly burdensome, vague and ambiguous is meritless, and Plaintiff is entitled to 

this information. 

Request No. 24: 

Request No. 24 seeks all documents which refer to or relate to any formal or informal 

statement(s) regarding any of the facts contained in Plaintiffs Complaint. If Defendant 

has in its possession any statements made by any individuals or third parties relating to 

or pertaining to the complaint or allegations contained therein, Defendant must produce 

these documents. If Defendant is not in possession of any such statements at this time, 

it should state as such. 

Request Nos. 26 and 27: 

These Requests seek discoverable information pertaining to discipline including oral 

warnings, written warnings, suspensions, removal from the assigned position or 

otherwise for present or former employees of the Chicago Fire Department who held 

positions that Plaintiff held such as Lieutenant, and “acting Commander” and 

“Commander.” 

Defendant objects to both of these Requests on the basis that they are overly broad in 

scope and time, unduly burdensome and vague and ambiguous. Defendant additionally 

objects to Request No. 27 on the basis that it is not calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. 

The information sought pertains to a class of individuals within the Chicago Fire 

Department who are considered comparable for the purposes of discovery. They, like 

Plaintiff, held the position of Lieutenant and were named as Commander or acting 

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:245
Commander, and are therefore relevant. These Requests are proper under the scope of 

FRCP rule 26(b)(l) and should be answered. 

Request No. 31: 

Request No. 31 seeks all correspondence or communications relating to the allegations 

ofthe complaint or EEOC charge. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in 

scope and time, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous and seeking documents that 

may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney-work product 

doctrine. 

Request No. 31 is limited in scope and time, as it relates to a discrete period of time 

pertaining to the allegations that are in Plaintiffs complaint and EEOC charge, and is 

therefore not overly burdensome. Defendant should produce documents responsive to 

this request, despite its objections and should provide a list of documents withheld on 

the basis of privilege or confidentiality if necessary and as requested in Request No. 35. 

Request No. 35: 

Plaintiff is entitled to a log of documents withheld on the basis of privilege or 

confidentiality as requested in Request No. 35. Such a request is not unduly 

burdensome and within the scope of discovery. The log must be produced as requested. 

Finally, Plaintiff reminds Defendant of its duty to supplement its responses. Several of 

Plaintiffs answers were inconclusive, or were noted that "investigation continues." 

These answers should be supplemented in the event that additional information is 

available. Specifically, Defendant's answers to Interrogatory No. 6 and 7, 8 and I 0 

should be supplemented, where necessary, as should Defendant's response to Requests 

to Admit 23 and 24. 

In ~n effort to avoid the need for Court involvement in this discovery matter, Plaintiff 

asks that Defendant review its responses to the Interrogatory and Document Production 

Requests in light of the information set forth above and provide Plaintiff with its 

supplemental answers and production responses to the interrogatories and document 

requests cited herein. I am free to engage in a teleconference pertaining to the above 

issues to reach an accord on these issues. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL LEE J'INAGLIA, L ~ 

IV t \}Ju.4 \J / 

olly Wretzky 

JMW/no 5

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32-6 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:246