IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN PEREZ and BOBBY MILTON, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) 12 CV 4340

v. )

) Judge DOW

CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., )

) Magistrate Judge FINNEGAN

Defendants. )

JOINT RULE 26(f)(1) REPORT

Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through counsel of record, jointly present their Rule 26(f) 

Report to the Court as follows:

1. Meeting. Pursuant to Federal Rule 26(f) a planning meeting was held via telephone on 

September 14, 2012. The conference was productive in establishing a discovery schedule 

and outlining various issues and positions, but did not result in settlement. 

2. Attorneys of Record.

Plaintiffs Attorneys: Defendants Attorneys:

Torreya L. Hamilton (lead) Lindsay Wilson Gowin

Elizabeth R. Uribe, of counsel Jonathan Clark Green

HAMILTON LAW OFFICE Andrea E. Cook

11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1000 City of Chicago, Dept. of Law

Chicago, IL 60603 Federal Civil Rights Litigation

312.726.3173 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 900

Chicago, IL 60602

Thomas P. Needham

Law Offices of Thomas P. Needham

11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1000

Chicago, IL 60603

312.726.3171

3. Nature of the Case. 

a. Basis for Federal Jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, as well as Illinois state law claims. This Court has jurisdiction over these 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343, and 1367.

b. Nature of the Claims. Plaintiffs have brought federal and state claims alleging unlawful 

search and seizure, false arrest, excessive force, conspiracy to violate civil rights, false 

imprisonment, battery, and malicious prosecution against Chicago Police Officers 

Kevin Navarro, Alejandro Cabral, Gia Czubak, Del Pearson, Michael Malecki, 
2

Steven Carroll, Jeffrey Collado, Robert Hernandez, and Jeffrey Frahm. The City of 

Chicago is named for indemnification purposes.

c. Service. All parties have been served and appeared. Defendants filed their joint answer 

on July 30, 2012.

d. Jury Demand. All parties have requested trial by jury.

4. Discovery Plan. The parties jointly propose to the Court the following discovery plan:

a. Discovery will be needed on the following subjects: liability and damages for each of 

Plaintiffs’ claims. 

b. Initial disclosures pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1) shall be exchanged by all parties 

on or before September 17, 2012. All discovery should be completed by February 15, 

2013. 

c. The parties have discussed discovery of electronically stored information [“ESI”]. 

The parties acknowledge their obligation to take reasonable and proportionate steps

for preserving relevant and discoverable ESI within their possession, custody, or

control. The parties do not believe this case involves ESI, but have agreed to favor 

electronic disclosure and service during the litigation of this matter whenever possible.

d. The parties do not expect the number of depositions to exceed the number allowed by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If additional depositions are required, the parties 

will seek leave of court as provided in Rule 30 if the parties are unable to come to an 

agreement.

e. The parties have not yet determined whether they will hire expert witnesses. 

f. All potentially dispositive motions should be filed by March 15, 2013. 

4. Trial Schedule1

a. Plaintiff proposes the following schedule for the final pretrial order: Plaintiff to prepare 

and produce to Defense counsel a proposed draft of the PTO and proposed jury 

instructions by March 15, 2013, Defendants are to provide their PTO submissions and 

proposed jury instructions by March 22, 2013, and the parties are to file the joint 

proposed PTO and proposed jury instructions by March 29, 2013. 

b. Plaintiff believes the case should be ready for trial by April 15, 2013, and at this time is 

expected to take approximately 4-5 days. 

5. Settlement. The parties have discussed the possibility of settlement and have agreed to 

continue discussions after some discovery has been exchanged. Plaintiff is amenable to 

 1 If the parties file dispositive motions in this case, the pre-trial order and trial dates will have to be postponed 

until this Court has issued a ruling on any such motions.
3

participating in a settlement conference with this Court or the Magistrate Judge.

6. Consent. The parties do not consent unanimously to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

s/ Elizabeth R. Uribe

Counsel for Plaintiff

HAMILTON LAW OFFICE, of counsel

11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1000

Chicago, IL 60603

312.726.3173 

s/ Lindsay Wilson Gowin

Counsel for Defendants 

Assistant Corporation Counsel for City of Chicago

30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900

Chicago, IL 60602

312.742.6423