IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

CARMELITA WILEY-EARLS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) No. 12cv00113 

vs. ) 

) Judge Harry D. Leinenweber 

CITY OF CHICAGO and CHICAGO ) 

FIRE DEPARTMENT, an agency of the ) Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez 

City of Chicago, ) 

 ) Jury Trial Demanded 

Defendant. ) 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, CARMELITA WILEY-EARLS (“Plaintiff” or 

“Wiley-Earls”) and for her Motion to Compel Discovery Responses states as follows: 

1. Plaintiff Carmelita Wiley-Earls filed her five-count Amended Complaint 

against the City of Chicago alleging 1) unlawful discrimination based on gender in 

violation of Title VII; 2) Unlawful discrimination based on race violation of Title VII; 3) 

violations of the Equal Pay Act; 4) retaliation in violation of Title VII, and 5) retaliation 

in violation of the Equal Pay Act. A copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is attached 

hereto as Exhibit A.

2. On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff issued her First Set of Requests for the 

Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatory Requests upon Defendant. A 

copy of Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatory Requests to Defendant is attached hereto as 

Exhibit B. A copy of Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents is 

attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

1

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:161
3. The fact discovery cut off is currently set for April 15, 2013. 

4. When Plaintiff received Defendant’s Answers and Objections to Plaintiff’s 

written discovery requests, Plaintiff noted that Defendant objected to some of the most 

basic requests as premature (such as a request to identify individuals with knowledge 

relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims or any defenses thereto), and stated it would not produce 

other documents until such time as a protective order was entered. A copy of 

Defendant’s Answers and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories is attached 

hereto as Exhibit D. A copy of Defendant’s Answers and Objections to Plaintiff’s First 

Set of Requests for the Production of Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

5. A protective order was entered by the Court on December 13, 2012. 

6. Despite the efforts at resolution specifically set forth below, the parties 

have yet to resolve the outstanding discovery dispute. Plaintiff now seeks the assistance 

of the Court in resolving this matter, as Defendant has failed to answer certain 

interrogatory requests and has failed to respond to certain requests to produce as further 

detailed herein. 

I. EFFORTS AT RESOLUTION WITHOUT COURT ASSISTANCE

7. On January 4, 2013 Plaintiff sent a written correspondence to Defendant 

discussing in detail what Plaintiff perceived to be deficiencies in Defendant’s response to 

Plaintiff’s written discovery. A copy of Plaintiff’s January 4, 2013 correspondence is 

attached hereto as Exhibit F. 

8. The parties conducted a discovery conference in an effort to resolve the 

dispute in accordance with FRCP Rule 37, and Local Rule 12(k). 

9. Specifically, on January 18, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Tinaglia 

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:162
and J. Molly Wretzky consulted with counsel for Defendant, Melanie Patrick Neely and 

Annemarie Poelstra via telephone on the subjects raised in Plaintiff’s January 4, 2013 

correspondence. 

10. Despite the parties’ good faith attempts, they were unable to reach an 

accord on the majority of the discovery matters raised by Plaintiff in her January 4, 2013 

correspondence. Plaintiff thereafter memorialized this conference in a correspondence 

dated January 24, 2013, delineating requests to which Defendant represented it would 

provide supplemental information, and requests to which Defendant stood upon its 

objections . A copy of the January 24, 2013 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 

G.

11. Despite the foregoing, Defendant failed to provide to Plaintiff the majority 

of the supplemental information promised. On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff sent one further 

correspondence to Defendant specifically delineating the issues in dispute pertaining to 

Defendant’s Answers and Objections to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests, and asking 

whether or not Defendant had changed its position with regard to the same. A copy of 

the March 13, 2013 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

12. On March 15, 2013, the parties again consulted. Counsel for Plaintiff, 

Michael Tinaglia and J. Molly Wretzky and counsel for Defendant, Melanie Patrick 

Neely, Ann Preston and Annmarie Poelstra met in person and discussed the matters 

raised by Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s March 13, 2013 correspondence. Despite these good faith 

attempts to resolve the dispute, the parties were unsuccessful, and Plaintiff informed 

Defendant that it would be filing the instant motion, seeking assistance from the Court to 

resolve the dispute. 

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:163
II. GENERAL DISPUTED ISSUES—SCOPE OF REQUESTS 

13. As set forth in the January 4, January 24 and March 13, 2013 

correspondences, there is a dispute between the parties as to the scope of discovery as 

regards similarly situated individuals for the purposes of Plaintiff’s Title VII and Equal 

Pay Act claims. 

14. Defendant objects to and will not provide information responsive to 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 11, nor will it produce information responsive to 

document request nos. 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26 and 27. The foregoing written 

discovery requests seek information pertaining to the identity, employment history, pay 

and disciplinary history of individuals within the Chicago Fire Department who are 

similarly situated to her in that they were appointed as “acting Commander” or 

“Commander” during the relevant time period. 

15. Under the FRCP Rule 26(b)(1), the scope of discovery is quite broad. To 

be clear, parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is 

relevant to any party's claim or defense—relevant information need not be admissible at 

the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. 

16. Because Plaintiff was appointed as Commander but was not paid at the 

same rate as others appointed as Commander, or given the same benefit package as other 

Gold Eagle Commanders and was subsequently “reassigned” (constituting a demotion), 

the scope of discovery should include the employment history, personnel records and pay 

history of all individuals who held the positions of Gold Eagle Commander as an out of 

rank appointment at any time during the Relevant Time Period, regardless of their career 

4

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:164
service rank. 

17. For the purposes of Plaintiff’s Equal Pay Act claim, Plaintiff is 

additionally entitled to seek discovery on the rates of pay, benefits received and other 

relevant information related to her predecessors in the position of Commander, Academy 

Operations. 

18. Additionally, Defendant opened the door with regard to the need for 

discovery on the entire employment history of others appointed as Gold Eagle 

Commanders when it admitted that “employees with the title of Commander in the 

Chicago Fire Department are generally paid at the F6 rate, but this varies depending on 

tenure, specialty, and other qualities.” See Defendant’s Answers and Objections to 

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Answer to Interrogatory No. 9, Exhibit D, p. 6. 

19. The issue of the scope of discovery on what constitutes “similarly 

situated” individuals for the purposes of Plaintiff’s Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims 

pertains to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories 5 and 11, and Plaintiff’s Requests for the production 

of documents Request Nos. 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26 and 27. 

20. Defendant refuses to provide information responsive to these requests on 

the basis that the requests are among other objections, “irrelevant and not reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 

21. As stated above, the parties are in dispute as to the general scope of what 

is discoverable under the rules pertaining to similarly situated individuals. This position 

is incorrect however, as it is clear that the rules are quite broad in what is discoverable, 

and Plaintiff is entitled to discovery on a broad class of matters so long as those matters 

are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

5

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:165
III. SPECIFIC REQUESTS WHICH REMAIN UNANSWERED

22. Although it represented to Plaintiff during the parties’ Rule 37 conference, 

Defendant has yet to supplement its answers to Interrogatory No. 2, which asks 

Defendant to “identify individuals with knowledge or information relating to the factual 

allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint or any of Defendant’s defenses thereto.” See Exhibit 

B, p. 5. In its Answer to this Interrogatory, Defendant objected on the basis that the 

request was premature, but directed Plaintiff to its Rule 26(a) disclosures. See Exhibit D. 

p. 2. 

23. To date, Defendant has not supplemented its answer to this Interrogatory, 

despite the fact that it is clear that there are more individuals with information relevant to 

Plaintiff’s claim, whose identity has been revealed by the production of documents 

produced by Defendant such as Jean Roberts, Derrick Jackson, Leslie Noy, to name but a 

few. 

24. Defendant has failed to fully answer Interrogatory No. 3, and has only 

produced documents related to this interrogatory. Defendant has yet to answer subpart e 

of Interrogatory No. 3, which asks Defendant to “identify by name, department and 

position the final decision maker with regard to the final determination pertaining to 

Plaintiff’s request; (to be paid at the Gold Eagle Commander rate).” 

25. Although Defendant has produced some documents responsive to this 

Interrogatory and Responsive to Request to Produce Nos. 9 and 10, the documents 

produced to date indicate that there exist other documents which Defendant has yet to 

produce. Plaintiff has repeatedly asked that this information be provided to Plaintiff, but 

has not yet received a full response to date or explanation of what happened to the 

6

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:166
requested documents if they are no longer in Defendant’s possession and control as 

requested in its correspondences of January 4, January 24, and March 13, 2013. See 

Exhibits F, G and H. 

26. Interrogatory No 4: With regard to this Interrogatory, Plaintiff notes that 

Defendant has produced documents which are partially responsive to this request, 

documents Bates numbered D001028 through D001036, however, Interrogatory No. 4 

seeks a broader class of information than that which was produced by Defendant. 

Specifically, Interrogatory No. 4 seeks information regarding Lieutenants appointed as 

Acting Commander or appointed as Commander from January 1, 2006 to present. The 

documents recently provided to Plaintiff represent a narrower class of individuals, 

specifically, Lieutenant/EMTs appointed as Commander during the year 2012 only. 

27. The information sought with respect to Interrogatory No. 4 corresponds to 

the information sought with respect to Request for Production 8 and 20, which 

Defendant should also produce. Defendant objects to the request; specifically to the use 

of “refer to or relate to” as vague and ambiguous. See Exhibit E, pp. 4, 9. To be clear, 

Plaintiff seeks documents which set forth and/or show (as those terms are understood in 

their plain meaning) the wages or rates of pay of the individuals requested. Defendant 

additionally objects to the use of “acting as or appointed as Commanders” as vague and 

ambiguous. At this point in the litigation, those terms as they are used should be clear to 

Defendant, and Defendant should produce the documents requested without further delay, 

and as requested--- for the entire Relevant Time Period. 

28. Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 11 remain unanswered by Defendant. These 

interrogatories seek information pertaining to similarly situated individuals within the 

7

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:167
Chicago Fire Department during the time period January 1, 2006 to present, who held the 

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

bureaus of the Chicago Fire Department, (Interrogatory No. 5) and to state: the name of 

said individual; the specific bureau within which the individual was posted; the race of 

said individual; the gender of said individual; the pay rate of said individual to present; 

all discipline [as the term "discipline" is defined herein] received by said individual; all 

performance reviews and evaluations whether formal or informal; if individual was 

removed from assignment or appointment; and identify and produce all documents 

relating to your answer hereto. (Interrogatory No. 11). See Exhibit B. pp. 6-7, and 9-10. 

29. 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. See Exhibit D. pp. 4, 7-8. 

30. 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. See Exhibit 

D, p. 3-4. 

31. 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 

8

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:168
them “comparables” for the purpose of this litigation, which is reasonable under the 

scope of FRCP Rule 26(b)(1). 

32. Finally, there can be no serious objection that the foregoing requests are 

unduly burdensome where modern organizations such as the Chicago Fire Department 

have data bases containing the requested information, which is easily accessed. 

33. Requests to Produce Nos. 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26 and 27: 

34. As discussed above, the foregoing are a group of Requests to Produce 

promulgated by Plaintiff which seek information related to the identity, employment 

history, pay and disciplinary history of individuals within the Chicago Fire Department 

who are similarly situated to her in that they were appointed as “acting Commander” or 

“Commander” during the relevant time period. 

35. As explained above, Defendant should be directed to produce documents 

responsive to the foregoing requests, especially in light of the fact that a protective order 

is in place in the instant litigation, and in light of the broad nature of discovery under the 

federal rules. 

36. Request No 7: 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. 

37. Request Nos 14-17: 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 

9

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:169
relevant, discoverable, and not overly burdensome or vague. 

38. Request Nos. 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. See Exhibit E, p. 8-9. 

39. Request No. 23: After the parties Rule 37 conference, it was Plaintiff’s 

understanding that Defendant agreed to supplement its answer to definitively state 

whether or not it is in possession of documents responsive to Request 23. Request 23 

seeks copies of documents constituting, referring to or relating to any performance 

evaluations of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has yet to receive any supplemental answer from 

Defendant regarding this Request. Pursuant to the Personnel Rules provided to Plaintiff 

by Defendant, Rule XIV, (as contained in the 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2010 versions of the 

Personnel Rules), “the performance of all employees shall be evaluated periodically,” 

(Section 1) and “the evaluation of the performance of individual employees shall be 

maintained as a part of the employee’s personnel record.” (Section 3). However, during 

the recent deposition of Defendant’s witness, First Deputy Fire Commissioner Charles 

Stewart III, Stewart stated that the Chicago Fire Department does not conduct 

performance evaluation upon its uniformed members. If this is indeed the case, 

10

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:170
Defendant should not only supplement its response to this Request to definitively state 

that Defendant is not in possession of the requested documents, but should also produce 

documents which it relies upon in support of the assertion that the Chicago Fire 

Department is not obligated to follow the City of Chicago Personnel Rules in this regard. 

40. 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. See Exhibit E. p. 11. The 

objections are absolutely baseless. 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 Commander, and are therefore relevant. These Requests 

are proper under the scope of FRCP rule 26(b)(1) and should be answered. 

41. Request No. 35: Defendant represented to Plaintiff that it would 

supplement its answer to Request 35 to reflect Defendant’s oral representation that it has 

not withheld any documents on the basis of privilege, and that it would provide a log of 

any documents withheld on the basis of privilege, as necessary. Defendant’s current 

response to Request No. 35 is an objection that the request is overly broad and unduly 

burdensome. Defendant should be directed to supplement its response, as it has no valid 

11

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:171
12

basis for the objections to this Request. 

IV. CONCLUSION

42. As stated herein, Plaintiff has attempted to resolve the above identified 

outstanding discovery requests on more than one occasion, but the parties have been 

unable to resolve the dispute. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Carmelita Wiley-Earls respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter an order compelling Defendant to provide the information and 

documents requested herein, and further that Defendant be assessed the costs of bringing 

the foregoing motion in accord with FRCP Rule 37. 

Date: March 18, 2013. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 CARMELITA WILEY-EARLS, Plaintiff 

 

By: s/Michael Lee Tinaglia 

 One of her attorneys 

MICHAEL LEE TINAGLIA 

Law Offices of Michael Lee Tinaglia, Ltd. 

9700 West Higgins Road - Suite 1015 

Rosemont, Illinois 

60018 

Phone: (847) 692-0421; Fax: (847) 685-8440 

Cook Attorney #22869; ARDC #2835886 

mltinaglia@tinaglialaw.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-00113 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/18/13 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:172