THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MATTHEW COLYER, et al., )

) No.: 12 C 4855

Plaintiffs, )

) Judge Edmund E. Chang

v. )

CITY OF CHICAGO, OFFICERS )

R. MOSQUEDA, Star No. 13662 and )

G. SIERRA, Star No. 3656, )

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS’ STATUS REPORT1

Plaintiffs respectfully submit this status report regarding the post-trial 

sanctions discovery in this case.

Plaintiffs believe that discovery should proceed in stages, with written 

discovery first, followed by depositions.2

To begin the written discovery phase, Defendants and their counsel should 

respond to the Requests for Production and Interrogatories attached as Exhibit A to 

this status report, within fourteen days, including producing all relevant documents 

 

1 Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a copy of their proposed status report on 

March 9, 2015. Thomas Leinenweber subsequently filed an appearance to represent 

defense counsel in these proceedings. Plaintiffs agreed not to oppose Mr. 

Leinenweber’s request for additional time to review their proposed status report 

and provide the defense position, but because his motion for additional time (Dkt 

350) has not yet been ruled on, Plaintiffs file their proposed status report without 

defense counsel’s input. Plaintiffs also note that no new attorneys have filed 

appearances for the Defendants, and it is unclear who will be representing them 

during these proceedings (Plaintiffs believe that Defendants’ existing counsel have a 

conflict).

2 Plaintiffs believe Defendants should pay the costs and fees associated with the 

sanctions discovery.
2

by then. The response and document production should be overseen by outside 

counsel, or someone appointed by the Court.

All responses, including responses to Requests for Production, should be 

verified under oath, and subject to penalties of perjury. Each Defendant, all three 

trial attorneys for the Defendants, and Tom Platt (the Supervising counsel) shall 

submit their own verifications. In addition, Defendants and their counsel shall 

provide a detailed written description of how they conducted the review for 

responsive documents, including whose documents were searched, and how the 

searches were conducted. Finally, it is Plaintiffs’ position that no objections should 

be permitted when responding to the Requests for Production or Interrogatories, 

and that the crime-fraud exception applies so that none of the relevant documents 

or communications may be withheld as privileged or protected work product.

Following written discovery, Plaintiffs will take depositions of at least the 

following: (1) Defendant Mosqueda; (2) Defendant Sierra; (3) Jordan Marsh; (4) Tom 

Aumann; (5) Dana Pesha; (6) Tom Platt; (7) Sgt. Lamperis; (8) Detective Gallagher; 

(9) Laura Dunaj; (10) Jill Maderak; (11) Darwin Olortegui; (12) any other Law 

Department support staff with relevant information; and (13) to the extent not 

already included in this list, anyone whose name appears on the document that the 

Law Department submitted to OEMC in January 2011 for relevant recordings.

Defendants and/or their counsel shall pay the costs of the depositions.
3

Plaintiffs propose that they file an additional status report when those 

depositions are complete, advising the Court whether they believe additional 

written and/or oral discovery is necessary.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Scott Rauscher

Scott Rauscher

Jon Loevy

Scott Rauscher

Loevy & Loevy

312 N. May Street, Suite 100

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

STEVEN A. GREENBERG

STEVEN A. GREENBERG AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.

53 W. JACKSON BLVD., SUITE 1260

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

(312) 879-9500

Attorneys for Plaintiff Gloria Pinex, Administrator of the Estate of Darius Pinex

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Scott Rauscher, hereby certify that on March 16, 2015, I caused the 

foregoing to be filed and served on all parties by the Court’s CM/ECF electronic 

filing system.

/s/ Scott Rauscher
4

EXHIBIT A – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES 

 

Instructions and Definitions 

1. Each Defendant (including the City of Chicago) and each of Defendants’ 

counsel of record, as well as Tom Platt, shall respond to each Request for Production 

and Interrogatory, in writing and under oath, within fourteen days. This request 

includes and encompasses any support staff, clerks, paralegals, or other counsel 

who assisted

2. Electronic documents shall be produced in native format unless the 

parties mutually agree to production in a different format.

3. The term “documents” means records of any kind, whether paper or 

electronic.3

4. The term “communications” means a statement of any kind and in any 

format. 

5. The terms “case” and "shooting” refer to this case, and the facts of this 

case, including any fact mentioned at trial, the earlier for just recall, the towing of 

the car mentioned in the fourth District call, the investigation regarding the 

incident mentioned in the Fourth District call.

 

3 The definitions of “Documents” and “Communications” come from Docket No. 336, 

the Document Preservation Order entered in this case.
5

Requests for Production 

1. All records relating to any requests by anyone for OEMC records 

relating to this case or the shooting death of Darius Pinex, including but not limited 

to call recordings, regarding any messages from January 6, 2011 or January 7, 2011 

relating to any Oldsmobile Aurora.

2. All documents and communications between corporation counsel and 

anyone at OEMC relating to this case, including but not limited all emails.

3. All documents and communications relating to any OEMC records 

relevant to this case, including but not limited to all internal communications 

within the law department, all notes of any attorneys working on this case, and all 

notes for any OEMC employees who did any work on this case, including any notes 

from Jill Maderak and Laura Dunaj.

4. Call detail records for the cellular telephone, home, and work 

telephones of Jordan Marsh, Tom Aumann, Dana Pesha, Jill Maderak, Laura Dunaj, 

Sgt. Lamperis, and Detective Gallagher, (as well as any paralegal or support staff 

for the corporation counsel who worked on this case) for the period starting thirty 

days before trial and ending one day after trial. In the alternative, call detail 

records showing all calls between Marsh, Auman, or Pesha, (as well as any 

paralegal or support staff for the corporation counsel who worked on this case) on 

the one hand, and Maderak, Dunaj, Lamperis, or Gallagher, on the other hand, for 

the period of thirty-days before trial and continuing until one day after trial.
6

5. All documents showing the dates on which Marsh, Auman, and Pesha 

met with witnesses or potential witnesses to prepare for trial, including identifying 

with whom they met on which date.

6. All documents or communications relating to any calls over police radio

involving an Aurora on January 6, 2011 or January 7, 2011, including and 

recordings of such calls, as well as any metadata associated with any such call.

7. All documents or communications relating to the collection or retrieval 

of any calls over police radio involving an Aurora on January 6, 2011 or January 7, 

2011, or any requests for the collection or retrieval of those calls. This includes all 

internal communications within the Law Department, as well as all attorney notes, 

and any communications with the Defendants.

8. All communications between Defendants’ counsel or anyone else from 

the City of Chicago Law Department’s Civil Rights Division, on the one hand, and 

anyone from OEMC, on the other hand, relating to: (a) Darius Pinex; (b) Matthew 

Colyer; (c) this case; (d) any calls over police radio involving an Aurora on January 6, 

2011 or January 7, 2011.

9. All documents or communications, including all metadata, relating to 

or reflecting any searches done by anyone for any calls over police radio involving

an Aurora on January 6, 2011 or January 7, 2011.

10. All computer aided dispatch event query printouts for this shooting 

and the fourth District call that was produced during discovery.
7

11. All radio transmissions for this shooting and the fourth District call

that was produced during discovery.

12. All event records for the fourth District call by any dispatcher.

13. All police computer aided dispatch (PCAD) records for both the fourth 

District call and this shooting.

14. All information sent to the officers’ “PCAD work station” relating to 

any calls concerning this shooting.

15. Any record of a preliminary wanted message (quick flash) for the 

fourth district incident or a formal wanted message.

16. All records regarding the initial request of OEMC to retrieve the fourth 

district call and all records showing the transmission and/or transfer of any 

retrieved call, as well as any policy that explains how the Department of Law is to 

obtain OEMC recordings.

17. All ERPS records regarding RD #HT-112745, inventory #12238247, 

including a record of any time the inventory was retrieved or any communication 

regarding this inventory.

18. Sergeant Lamperis’s schedule for the weeks of February 23 and March 

2, 2015.

19. Front Office Memos or trial memos, prepared by trial attorneys.

20. Any notes taken during the trial conference held between the trial 

attorneys and any other corporation counsel, including at the meeting with Steven 

Patton the Thursday before trial.
8

21. All communications to or from OLA (Office of Legal Affairs) by

attorneys and/or paralegals relating to any of the following: (a) Darius Pinex; (b) 

Matthew Colyer; (c) this case; or (d) any calls over police radio involving an Aurora 

on January 6, 2011 or January 7, 2011.

22. Initial Paralegal Checklist.

23. Red Flag Checklist.

24. Any and all Investigation Request Forms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
9

Interrogatories 

1. Identify everyone who provided the Defendants with the details of the 

call that they claimed to have heard but did not, and identify when the details were 

provided, including the following details: (a) that the call involved a gun and/or a 

shooting; (b) that the call involved a car with rims; and (c) and that the call 

provided the color of the car.

2. When did Jordan Marsh first request the OEMC call that was 

eventually played at trial as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 108, if ever? If he did request the call, 

explain in what form the request was made (email, voicemail, telephone call, etc.), 

and from whom. If he did not request the call, explain why not.

3. Identify all documents or communications that the Law Department 

received from OEMC relating to this case, Darius Pinex, or Matthew Colyer, and for 

each document or communication, identify: (a) the date or dates it was provided by 

OEMC; (b) who from OEMC provided it; (c) why it was provided; (d) in what form it 

was provided; (e) how it was provided; (f) whether it was shared with anyone 

outside the Law Department; and (g) if it was shared, either through discovery or 

otherwise, who it was shared with, and when.

4. Identify all documents OEMC provided to anyone relating to this case, 

Darius Pinex, or Matthew Colyer, and for each document or communication, 

identify: (a) the date or dates it was provided by OEMC; (b) who from OEMC 

provided it; (c) why it was provided; (d) in what form it was provided; (e) how it was 
10

provided; (f) who it was provided to; and (g) if it was shared, either through 

discovery or otherwise, who it was shared with, and when.

5. Identify all communications that anyone from OEMC had relating to 

this case, Darius Pinex, or Matthew Colyer, and for each communication, provide: 

(a) the date or dates of the communication; (b) everyone involved in the 

communication; (c) a detailed summary of the communication; (d) the purpose of the 

communication; and (e) the form the communication took.

6. Why was the Fourth District call that Defendants did not hear, which 

became the subject of the parties’ stipulation during trial, produced in discovery?

7. What did Sgt. Lamperis do with the three CDs containing what was 

later marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 108 at trial?

8. Identify everyone who received or heard the recording marked as 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 108 before the trial in this case, state when they received or 

heard the recording, and produce all related documents and communications.

9. Provide all reasons why you chose to call Laura Dunaj to testify at trial 

rather than Jill Maderak, provide the date(s) you met with either of them to 

prepare for the trial in this case, and identify everyone who attend any of those trial 

preparation meetings.