IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 12 CR 87

)

v. )

) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

RONALD WATTS, and )

KALLATT MOHAMMED, )

) 

Defendants. )

MOTION TO INTERVENE TO SEEK

MODIFICATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Now come proposed intervenors, Ben Baker and Clarissa Glenn, by and through their 

counsel, and petition this court for leave to intervene in order to seek modification of the protective 

order in this case. In support, Baker and Glenn state as follows:

Relevant Background

Baker and Glenn are plaintiffs in a Section 1983 lawsuit against the defendants in this 

criminal matter, Ronald Watts and Kallatt Mohammed, and other Chicago police officers. A copy of 

their complaint in Baker v. City of Chicago, No. 16 cv 8940, is attached here as Exhibit A.

Baker and Glenn allege in their civil suit that Watts, Mohammed, and other Chicago police 

officers framed them for crimes they did not commit when Baker refused to pay Watts a bribe and 

then complained to authorities about the officers’ misconduct. Id. ¶¶ 17-96. As a result of the 

officers’ misconduct, Baker and Glenn were both wrongfully convicted of drug crimes, with Baker 

spending nearly a decade in prison and Glenn receiving a sentence of one-year probation. Id. ¶¶ 97-

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 96 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:567
99. Both convictions have since been reversed.1

 

Baker and Glenn allege in their civil suit that Watts, Mohammed, and other CPD officers 

engaged in a pattern of similar misconduct for a period of years, and the that misconduct was 

consistent with the acts for which they were prosecuted in this criminal case. Id. at ¶¶ 100-115. 

Likewise, Baker and Glenn allege that the federal government investigated potential criminal activity 

of Watts’ CPD tactical team for a period of several years preceding the indictment in this criminal 

case. Id. at ¶¶ 100-15, 122, 23, 138. 

Consistent with those allegations, the public record in this case indicates that the government 

amassed information about a pattern of misconduct by the defendants, spanning a period of years, 

and also that Mohammed likely made statements to federal authorities during the investigation. See

Doc. No. 84 (Gov’t sentencing memorandum) at 1 (“For years . . . [Watts] used his badge and his 

position as a sergeant with the Chicago Police Department at to shield his own criminal activity from 

law enforcement scrutiny”); Exhibit B (Watts’s sentencing transcript) at 10-11 (Government urging 

the Court to consider “the other criminal conduct that the defendant has engaged in in the course of 

his career as a police officer” and noting that Watts and Mohammed worked together over the 2007-

2008 period to extort protection payments); id. at 14 (referencing Mohammed’s statements to law 

enforcement); Doc. 40 (Mohammed’s sentencing memorandum) at 5 (the presentence investigation 

report noted Mohammed’s “repeated” participation in this conduct).

Documents Currently in Mohammed’s Possession

 1 After Baker and Glenn were exonerated, the Cook County Criminal Court vacated the conviction of 

Lionel White, another man who alleges that members of Watts’s team framed him. The Cook County 

State’s Attorney’s Office Conviction Integrity Unit is currently conducting a systemic review of 

Watts-related convictions. See Exhibit D (Jason Meisner, Search on for More Tainted Convictions, 

Chicago Tribune, Feb. 27, 2017).

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 96 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:567
In their civil suit, Baker and Glenn served Rule 34 requests on Watts, Mohammed, and other 

CPD officers. Exhibit C (Plaintiffs’ January 23, 2017 Requests for Production). In the course of 

responding to discovery, Mohammed’s counsel in the civil matter (a different attorney than the one 

who represented him in this criminal case) reported that Defendant Mohammed had documents in his 

personal possession he obtained in discovery in this criminal case, but that those documents were 

under a protective order. Mohammed’s counsel notified the AUSA from this criminal matter that 

Mohammed had those documents, and made arrangements to return those materials to the 

government on April 26, 2017. Exhibit E (April 18, 2017 letter to AUSA Schneider). 

When counsel for Baker and Glenn learned that Defendant Mohammed had these documents

in his possession, they asked counsel for Defendant Mohammed to disclose the general nature of 

those documents. Baker and Glenn also asked if the documents contained any statements made by 

Mohammed. Mohammed’s counsel indicated that in light of the protective order that had been 

entered in the criminal case, he did not feel he could disclose even the general nature of the 

documents. Exhibit F (United States v. Watts et al., protective order). Mohammed’s counsel also 

indicated he felt that he had no choice under the protective order other than to give the documents to 

the government. 

Relief Sought

Mohammed is currently in possession of documents that are relevant to Baker and Glenn’s 

claims in Baker v. City of Chicago and responsive to Baker and Glenn’s Rule 34 Requests in that 

case. Baker and Glenn understand that Mohammed is bound by the terms of the protective order in 

this case, but that order puts him in a position where he cannot comply with discovery obligations as 

a party in the Baker v. City of Chicago civil case. 

Baker and Glenn have served a Rule 34 Request on Mohammed, and Mohammed has 

responsive documents. Baker and Glenn are at minimum entitled to know what those documents are. 

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 96 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:567
And fairness dictates that Mohammed should not transfer custody of those documents to a non-party 

in the Baker litigation before he can even provide a log of those documents to Baker and Glenn. See 

e.g., Bryant v. Gardner, 587 F. Supp. 2d 951, 967-68 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (discussing generally the duty 

to preserve evidence relevant to legal claims).

For these reasons, Baker and Glenn ask this Court to modify the protective order in this case 

so that Mohammed can disclose in Baker v. City of Chicago the materials he currently possesses, to 

the extent that they are relevant to the claims in that case and responsive to Baker and Glenn’s Rule 

34 Requests. To the extent that there is a need to keep these documents non-public, Baker and Glenn 

would agree to keep those documents confidential under the terms of the protective order in that 

case, or any other protective order that the parties to this criminal case may seek. 

Alternatively, Baker and Glenn ask this Court to modify the protective order in this case so 

that Mohammed can at minimum provide a log of the documents he currently possesses. Mohammed 

would not be expected to produce any document until an assessment could be made on the basis of 

the log as to whether they are relevant to Baker v. City of Chicago and whether there is some reason 

that Baker and Glenn should not have access to them. After conferring, Baker and Glenn could 

petition this Court for further modification of the protective order to allow production of materials on 

an item-by-item basis.

WHEREFORE, Ben Baker and Clarissa Glenn request that this Court allow them to intervene 

and modify the protective order in this case so that Defendant Mohammed may comply with 

discovery in Baker v. City of Chicago. 

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 96 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:567
Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Elizabeth Mazur

Jon Loevy

Russell Ainsworth 

Joshua Tepfer

Elizabeth Mazur

Loevy & Loevy

311 N. Aberdeen Street, Third Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Phone: (312) 243-5900

Elizabeth Wang

Loevy & Loevy

2060 Broadway, Suite 460

Boulder, CO 80302

Phone: (720) 328-5642

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Elizabeth Mazur, an attorney, certify that on April 24, 2017, I served a copy of this Motion 

to Intervene to Seek Modification of the Protective Order on all counsel of record via the ECF 

system.

/s/Elizabeth Mazur

Case: 1:12-cr-00087 Document #: 96 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:567