Exhibit 1 

Case: 1:12-cv-04428 Document #: 390-1 Filed: 05/14/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:25631
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL A. LA PORTA, as Guardian)

of the estate and person of )

Michael D. LaPorta, a disabled )

person, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 14 CV 09665

)

CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal )

corporation, et al., ) Chicago, Illinois

) October 2, 2017

Defendants. ) 10:00 a.m.

VOLUME 1

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE HARRY D. LEINENWEBER

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC

BY: MR. ANTONIO M. ROMANUCCI

MR. MARTIN D. GOULD

MR. BRUNO R. MARASSO

MS. DEBRA L. THOMAS

MS. NICOLETTE A. WARD

321 North Clark Street, Suite 900

Chicago, Illinois 60654

(312) 458-1000

SALVATO & O'TOOLE

BY: MR. CARL S. SALVATO

53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1750

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Court Reporter: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

219 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1944

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 702-8865

judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov

Case: 1:12-cv-04428 Document #: 390-1 Filed: 05/14/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:25632
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

19

happened on the night in question does not mean that "no one

could reasonably believe the witness could have observed,

remembered, communicated, or told the truth" as is necessary

to justify exclusion under Rule 601. See U.S. versus Gutman.

Competency of a witness to testify as distinguished

from the issue of credibility is a limited threshold decision

as to whether a proffered witness is capable of testifying in

any meaningful fashion whatsoever. See U.S. versus Banks.

LaPorta can provide meaningful testimony about what happened

on the night in question as he did at depositions and about

other relevant issues.

Motion to admit Kelly's deposition and bar reference

to his Fifth Amendment invocation. That's granted in part

because plaintiff has -- had every motivation and opportunity

to cross-examine Officer Kelly at his 2012 deposition. The

City may offer into evidence his original deposition testimony

if indeed he elects to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights when

called to the stand. See Rule 804(b)(1). Plaintiff may

adduce evidence that Kelly invoked the privilege at his 2016

deposition and may impeach Kelly accordingly.

In a civil case, an adverse inference may be drawn

against a witness who pleads the Fifth Amendment even if that

witness is not a party. See Daniels versus Pipefitters Local

597. The evidence will not be excluded on grounds of unfair

prejudice because it is extraordinarily relevant testimony

Case: 1:12-cv-04428 Document #: 390-1 Filed: 05/14/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:25633
 212

Opening Statement - Plaintiff

we have it?

MS. ROSEN: Is that the document production, too?

It's my understanding there were documents produced and you

were provided documents. I'm just asking.

THE COURT: We don't need to do that now, but satisfy

yourself that you've got everything you should have gotten.

MR. ROMANUCCI: Sure. We'll take care of it.

THE COURT: Pardon?

MR. ROMANUCCI: We'll take care of it.

THE COURT: All right. We'll see you at 10:00 o'clock

tomorrow --

MR. ROMANUCCI: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: -- for the City's opening. Thank you.

(Adjourned at 4:08 p.m.)

* * * * * * * * * * 

C E R T I F I C A T E 

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of the 

record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 

/s/ LISA H. BREITER__________________ November 3, 2017 

LISA H. BREITER, CSR, RMR, CRR 

Official Court Reporter 

 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-cv-04428 Document #: 390-1 Filed: 05/14/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:25634