IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Kathy Travis,
Plaintiff, No. llev7911
v. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo

Triton College, Sean Sullivan, Kevin
Kennedy, Sum Lau, Marianne Mayer,
Donna Stadermann, Danielle Stephens,

Magistrate Sheila M. Finnegan

we SS SS SS SH SY

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO
COMPEL A DISCOVERY RESPONSE AND TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

On December 20, 2012, the plaintiff filed her “motion for an order to compel a discovery
response and to extend discovery.” The defendants submit their response as follows:

1. In the prefatory paragraph to her motion, the plaintiff alleges a “failure to cooperate in
discovery.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

2. This is the second baseless motion the plaintiff has filed related to discovery. On May 4,
2012, the plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination of
Deposition” (document 23), which was denied by Magistrate Judge Finnegan on May 16,
2012 (document 27).

3. At the hearing on January 26, 2012, the court inquired whether the defendants would
voluntarily produce employee records to the plaintiff and the undersigned counsel
answered in the affirmative. This was reflected in the order entered on that date

(document 21) which also ordered discovery closed by May 25, 2012.


Discovery was not closed on May 25, 2012 due to the motion described in paragraph 2
above.

After the order entered on May 16, 2012, the parties agreed to a settlement conference,
and the defendants agreed to defer plaintiff's deposition. The conference was held on
September 6, 2012 without success. The case was returned to the court and an order was
entered on September 20, 2012 directing the plaintiffs deposition to be taken and
continuing the case to November 14, 2012 (document 38). The plaintiffs deposition was
taken on October 25, 2012.

On March 21, 2012, the plaintiff served her “first set of interrogatories and request to
produce,” which were answered on April 20, 2012. On June 4, 2012, the plaintiff served
her “second set of interrogatories and request to produce,” which were answered on
October 17, 2012, and on October 25, 2012, the plaintiff served her “third set of
interrogatories and request to produce,” which were answered on November 26, 2012.

On December 3, 2012, the undersigned received a telephone call from the plaintiff. The
purpose of the call was related to certain answers supplied by the defendants to the
plaintiff's second and third discovery requests. The undersigned could not follow the
conversation completely, so asked the plaintiff to put her requests in writing.

The plaintiff made her requests in writing in a letter dated December 5, 2012, a copy of
which is attached as Exhibit A.

Exhibit A makes no reference to the subject of the instant motion, which is Document
Request No. 4 from the second set of discovery, a copy of which is attached to the instant
motion and states “Copy of Federal Reporting Requirements for Human Resource

Department for Applicant Records.”


10.

ll.

12.

13.

The defendants did in fact on December 14, 2012, supply the supplemental discovery
answers requested by the plaintiff in her December 5, 2012 letter. See Exhibit B
(submitted without attachments).

Between December 5 and December 14, 2012, the undersigned sent correspondence to
the plaintiff in accordance with the obligations for cooperation in discovery imposed by
the Federal Rules. See Exhibit C.

Thus, the plaintiff has never requested a “supplemental answer” to Document Request
No. 4 from her second set of discovery and, accordingly, this motion is premature at best,
and a violation of the spirit of the federal discovery rules at worst.

It must be noted that the defendants did answer Document Request No. 4 from the second
document request on October 17, 2012 (See Exhibit D), and have never been asked by
the plaintiff, prior to the instant motion, to reconsider their answer.

WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the motion to compel and to

extend discovery be denied and for such other and further order as the court deems just and

appropriate under the rules.

Respectfully submitted,

Illinois Community College District 504, County of
Cook, State of Illinois a/k/a Triton College, Sean
Sullivan, Kevin Kennedy, Sum Lau, Marianne
Mayer, Donna Stadermann, and Danielle Stephens

By: s/Daniel E. Cannon
Daniel E. Cannon

Daniel E. Cannon

Kusper & Raucci Chartered

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 332-5000

ARDC No. 6180109

Attorney for Defendants