1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAWN DAVIS, )

) 12 C 5843

Plaintiff, )

) JUDGE ST. EVE

v. )

)

OFFICER JUNG, UNKNOWN OFFICER, and ) JURY DEMAND

THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO’S LOCAL RULE 56.1(a)

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

Defendant City of Chicago (the “City”) by its attorney, Stephen R. Patton, 

Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago, submits this statement of undisputed 

material facts1pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a) of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division:

1. This court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 

§ 1343(a). Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s Complaint, 

attached hereto as Exhibit A, at ¶ 2.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Exh. A at ¶ 2.

3. On May 19, 2011, Plaintiff Dawn Davis was arrested by Defendant 

Chicago Police Officer Jung. Exh. A at ¶¶ 6, 13, 18.

 

1These facts are only deemed admitted for the purpose of the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The 

City reserves the right to dispute these facts for all other purposes, including trial. Moreover, the City’s 

Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement assumes as true, for the purposes of the City’s motion for summary judgment 

only, plaintiff’s factual allegations concerning the underlying incident. The City’s motion focuses 

primarily on plaintiff’s municipal liability claims under Section 1983 brought against it in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:163
2

4. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Jung arrested her without probable cause. 

Exh. A at ¶¶ 14, 29.

5. Plaintiff also alleges that she was subjected to excessive force during her 

May 19, 2011 arrest by Defendant Officer Jung, and that an unknown officer failed to 

prevent this excessive use of force from occurring. Exh. A at ¶¶ 11-13, 36.

6. Plaintiff brought a Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim alleging 

excessive force and false arrest against Officer Jung; a Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth 

Amendment claim for failure to intervene against an unknown officer; and a Section 

1983 policy claim against the City. Exh. A at ¶¶ 24, 29, 36-37, 40-54.

7. Plaintiff’s policy claim alleges that “certain Supervisory Personnel, agents 

or employees of the City of Chicago Police Department with policy-making authority,” in 

various ways “failed to adequately supervise, train, or set policy to prevent violations of 

the plaintiffs’ [sic] constitutional rights,” and generally failed “to properly discipline or 

investigate officers, including specifically Officer Jung.” Exh. A at ¶¶ 40-44.

8. According to Plaintiff, “[t]he supervisory failures of these individuals and 

unknown supervisory officers were the direct and proximate cause of the constitutional 

violations visited on the plaintiffs [sic].” Exh. A at ¶ 46.

9. Plaintiff also alleges in Count IV that the City of Chicago Police 

Department “developed and maintained policies and customs exhibiting deliberate 

indifference to the constitutional rights of persons in Chicago, which proximately caused 

the violation of Plaintiff’s rights.” Such policies and customs include inadequately and 

improperly investigating complaints of police misconduct, and inadequately supervising 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:164
3

and training police officers in order to prevent constitutional violations. Exh. A at ¶¶

48-52.

10. The City has denied the claim brought against it under Section 1983. 

Defendant City’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit B, at 

¶¶ 40-54.

11. On December 6, 2012, the City served Plaintiff with Defendant City of 

Chicago’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff and Defendant City of Chicago’s First 

Set of Document Production Requests to Plaintiff. See Defendant City of Chicago’s 

First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, attached hereto as Exhibit C; Defendant 

City of Chicago’s First Set of Document Production Requests to Plaintiff, attached 

hereto as Exhibit D.

12. On March 2, 2013, Counsel for Defendant City sent Plaintiff’s initial 

attorney, John Greenlees, a letter requesting that Plaintiff either dismiss her Monell claim 

with prejudice or tender her overdue answers to the City’s written discovery by March 8, 

2013. See March 2, 2013 Letter to Attorney Greenlees, attached hereto as Exhibit E.

13. On May 1, 2013, Counsel for Defendant City sent a letter to Plaintiff’s 

current attorney, Geneva Penson, requesting that Plaintiff voluntarily dismiss her Monell

claim, as Plaintiff’s previous counsel had indicated that he would likely do. In the 

alternative, the City requested that Plaintiff provide answers and responses to the written 

discovery that was served on December 6, 2012 by May 10, 2013. See May 1, 2013 

Letter to Attorney Penson, attached hereto as Exhibit F.

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:165
4

14. On May 2, 2013, this Court ordered Plaintiff to answer all outstanding 

written discovery by May 23, 2013 and to file Plaintiff’s position as to the Monell claim 

by May 31, 2013. See May 2, 2013 Minute Order, attached hereto as Exhibit G.

15. On May 25, 2013, Plaintiff finally mailed her Answers to Defendant City 

of Chicago’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. See Plaintiff’s Responses to 

Defendant City’s First Set of Interrogatories, attached hereto as Exhibit H.

16. A standard response to the City’s Interrogatories is the following: 

“Because Defendant City of Chicago has not yet answered Plaintiff’s written discovery 

and because the parties have not yet conducted other discovery on this issue, Plaintiff 

cannot presently answer this question. In addition, Plaintiff asked for information and 

production of documents regarding prior citizen complaints against Officer Jung and 

prior discipline of Officer Jung, but Defendants declined to provide that information. 

Investigation continues, and Plaintiff intends to rely upon any and all evidence uncovered 

during discovery and at trial to support these allegations.” See Exh. H at No. 6; Exh. H 

generally.

17. In answer to the City’s Interrogatory No. 22, Plaintiff referred the City to 

her Answers to Officer Jung’s First Set of Interrogatories. However, Plaintiff makes no 

mention of her policy claims in answer to Officer Jung’s First Set of Interrogatories. See

Exh. C at No. 22; Exh. H at No. 22; and Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendant Jaeho 

Jung’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, attached hereto as Exhibit I, at Nos. 1 

through 25.

18. On May 31, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Position on Dismissal of the Monell 

Claim, and stated, “Plaintiff does not intend to dismiss the Monell claim at this time, as 

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:166
5

the parties have not yet conducted sufficient discovery relative to this claim. Defendant 

City of Chicago has not yet answered Plaintiff’s interrogatories. In addition, although 

plaintiff asked in written discovery for Defendant Jung’s...record and disposition of 

official complaints... Defendant Jung failed to provide that documentation. Plaintiff 

continues investigation...” See Plaintiff’s Position on Dismissal of the Monell Claim, 

attached hereto as Exhibit J. 

19. The City timely responded to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of 

Documents on February 22, 2013. See Defendant City’s Response to Plaintiff’s First 

Request for Production of Documents, attached hereto as Exhibit K; See also 

January 15, 2013 Letter from Attorney Greenlees, attached hereto as Exhibit L.

20. Plaintiff never served interrogatories on the City. See Exh. L. 

21. On July 3, 2013, the City supplemented its responses to Plaintiff’s 

document production requests by producing Officer Jung’s Five-Year Employee 

Complaint History, among other things. See July 3, 2013 Letter to Penson, attached 

hereto as Exhibit M. 

22. Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and the supplement to those 

disclosures do not name any individuals with policymaking authority, nor do they list any 

documents related to any of Plaintiff’s policy claims. See Plaintiff’s Initial Rule 

26(a)(1) Disclosures, attached hereto as Exhibit N, and Plaintiff’s Supplementary 

26(a)(1) Disclosures, attached hereto as Exhibit O. 

23. Plaintiff never disclosed any expert witnesses, nor did she intend to. See

Exh. N, Exh. O, and Exh. I at No. 13.

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:167
6

24. On May 2, 2013, fact discovery was extended to August 2, 2013. See

Exhibit G. 

25. No amendments or additional responses to the City’s discovery were 

tendered by Plaintiff as of the date of filing, nor did Plaintiff ever request supplemental 

discovery from the City. 

Respectfully submitted,

STEPHEN R. PATTON

Corporation Counsel for the City of 

Chicago

By: /s/ Marion C. Moore

Marion C. Moore

Assistant Corporation Counsel

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 900

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 744-1056

Attorney No. 6302566

Case: 1:12-cv-05843 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/06/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:168