to the relevancy of the files at all since Cataldo is not currently on limited or
convalescent duty status.

We will not decide the City’s relevancy argument at this time since doing so
would require us to examine the merits of the motion to dismiss. However, we do
believe a stay is appropriate. Requiring the City to locate, copy and redact the
documents when there is a legitimate possibility that the case could be dismissed would
not be an efficient use of its resources, especially given the current procedural posture
of the case. Since Cataldo has admitted that he is not currently able to work, even in a
limited duty position, he will not be harmed by any delay caused by receiving the
documents until after the motion to dismiss is decided. Cataldo’s placement in a limited
duty position is not dependant on the District Court deciding in his favor on the merits of
the lawsuit since he is currently not capable of holding such a job even if he wins his
case. Thus, the delay in producing the files that would ensue if the plaintiff both
survives the motion to dismiss and demonstrates to the Court the relevance of the
medical files will not prejudice his ability to get ultimate relief. If the District Court
should decide in favor of Cataldo on the motion to dismiss and hold that the records it
seeks are relevant, we are confident that the parties will be able to work together to set
a schedule for production of the files. We therefore grant the City's motion to stay

discovery until after the District Court decides the motion to dismiss. It is so ordered.

Whsd FA,

: TMichael T. Mason
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 23, 2002


Minute Order Forma (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Oth i
nor Magistrate Sudge Wayne R. Andersen chan Assigned Suage Michael T. Mason
CASE NUMBER 01 C 6665 DATE 1/23/2002
CASE Cataldo vs. City of Chicago
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented,}

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due
(4) Qa Ruling/Hearingon____—_ssetfor_—at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on____setfor___—_att
(6) ia Pretrial conference[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on___—_—setfor_ sat.
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__—_aat
(8) oO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to____at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OOFRCP4(m) {J General Rule21 [I FRCP41(a)(1) [1 FRCP41(a)(2).
ao i [Other docket entry] _ For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order,

defendant’s motion to stay discovery [32-1] until after the District Court decides the motion to dismiss
is granted, Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.

ie

a) {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

——
i
Ss
No

AS

V | Notices maited by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

da)
i]
OH. |

1723/2002

oY | Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

LYUNGI LOLS sn
EM)

coutoom Sh slINY £2 NYP 20 fom
KF deputy's ie
initials: @ Ta id NE 7
cs central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH P. CATALDO, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 01 C 6665
v. )
)
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, )
)
Defendant. ) DOCKETED
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAN 2 4 2002

Michael T. Mason, United States Magistrate Judge:

This case was brought by Officer Joseph Cataldo, a police officer for defendant
City of Chicago (“City”), alleging that the City violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et. seq. and § 12101 and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by refusing to place him in a convalescent or limited duty
position because he uses a wheelchair. The City states that a written police
department policy precludes any officer who uses a visible supporting device such as a
wheelchair or cane from serving in a limited duty position. Cataldo contends that this
entire policy violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act because, inter alia, it precludes
individuals who are able to perform all requirements of a limited duty position from
continuing to work as police officers. After filing an amended complaint, Cataldo sought
administrative leave from the City because he was unable to work even in a limited duty
position. The City has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the District
Court, arguing that Cataldo is not a qualified individual with a disability entitled to

protection under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act because he cannot work at all.


The City has brought a motion to stay all discovery in this case until after the
District Court decides the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has agreed to stay all
depositions until after such a ruling, but argues that defendant should be ordered to
produce portions of the medical files for all police officers currently on convalescent or
limited duty, approximately 536 individuals.’ Plaintiff has agreed to receive these
documents with all personally identifying information redacted. Defendant protests that
producing the requested documents would require locating them within each file,
copying them for review by City attorneys, and then making a second copy to be
redacted by a City paralegal, time-consuming and costly steps that will be unnecessary
if the City succeeds on its motion to dismiss.

In addition to arguing for a stay because of the pending motion to dismiss, the
City also argues that the requested documents are not relevant at all, or at least that
their relevancy cannot be determined until after the motion to dismiss is decided.
When Cataldo first filed this action, he sought a preliminary injunction requiring the City
to retain him on limited duty status. The parties immediately entered into an expedited
discovery schedule in preparation for a preliminary injunction hearing, during which the
City segregated some 200 limited duty files for production after the parties agreed to a
protective order. Before a protective order could be entered, Cataldo withdrew his
motion for preliminary injunction in light of the fact that he was seeking administrative
leave, and also informed the City that they could produce the requested medical files in

redacted form, making a protective order unnecessary. However, the City now objects

‘ Plaintiff seeks copies of the most recent limited/convalescent duty status form
(‘LCD form”) in each file as well as the accompanying physicians’ letters and reports.

2