WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the Court deny Plaintiffs motion and for any relief that

the Court deems just.

JAMES E. RYAN, By:

Attorney General of Illinois

Respectfully submitted,

RUSS NE “A
—
an “4

: >
Edward C. Seward, III

Assistant Attorney General
General Law Bureau

100 W. Randolph St., 13th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-5159



2. Plaintiff failed to hold a discovery consultation required by Local Rule 37.2 to resolve
discovery differences regarding Plaintiff's request to admit.’ Plaintiff's motion should be denied on
that basis alone. In the spirit of Local Rule 37.2, Defendant contacted Plaintiff upon receiving the

motion to discuss the motion and the answers to the request to admit.

3. Defendants agreed to withdraw their objection to request 20 subject to the
understanding that the time period of the request is the same time period stated in request 21. In
such a case, request 20 is duplicative of request 21 where Defendants have already admitted the
request. Defendants objection was proper in that it cannot be disputed that Plaintiff has been

incarcerated at more than one facility at different times.

4. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s motion as to requests 18, 26 and 27 is improper.
Under the advisory committee notes to the 1970 Amendment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
36(a), the sanction for failure of a party to inform himself before he answers lies in the award of
costs after trial as provided for un Rule 37(c). [Emphasis added.] Defendants through their
attorney did conduct an inquiry prior to answering the requests. Defendants’ answers are proper
under Rule 36(a). If it is determined at trial that the inquiry was unreasonable, then Plaintiff can

raise Defendants’ answers at that time.

' During a telephone conversation regarding matters unrelated to the request to admit,
Plaintiff's attorney mentioned that she intended to file a motion to determine the sufficiency of
the answers to the request to admit. Plaintiff's attorney did not refer to any specific answer to the
request to admit and, other than stating that she intended to file such a motion, never again
discussed the request to admit during the conversation.

2


D : ad
DEC 4 ~ 2001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F |
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS L E

EASTERN DIVISION :
DEC - 3 200q\
FREDERICK HOUSE, ) \
) MECHABL W. DOBD)
Plaintiff, ) CLERK, UL. bisTRIcT count
v. ) No. 00 C 7924
)
RUSS NELSON, Investigator for Illinois) The Honorable James B. Moran
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), ) Presiding Judge
DENNIS PEPEL, Parole Officer for IDOC, )
and JOHN DOE, ) The Honorable Morton Denlow
) Magistrate Judge
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF FILING

TO: Gregory E. Kulis and Associates, 30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2140, Chicago, IL 60602,
FACSIMILE NO.: (312) 580-1839

PLEASE BE ADVISED that on December 3, 2001, the undersigned filed a copy of the
attached DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DETERMINE THE
SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST TO ADMIT with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL.

RUSS Me ISON and DE! 6 PEPEL
BE, LE ;

JAMES E. RYAN, By: Edward C. Seward, UI

Attorney General of Illinois Assistant Attorney General
100 W. Randolph St., 13th Floor ‘
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-5159

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned deposes and states that the foregoing was served upon the above named via
U.S. mail and facsimile on December 3, 2001. yy

Lb AME

JY


SOOO OOOO OU OOO OO UO 0 KOI UO OG OOOO I OC I RR

x ” .
ACTION REPORT x
i ——ere DEC-03-2001 MON 01:34 PM
i DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE Mit bP
x
x - DEC-03 01:32 PM 95801839 17" 4 SEND OK 181 i"
x
x
i TOTAL ! 1M 17S PAGES: 4
* OOOO ROORINOR EEO GOCE OG UO AOE IORI FOIE ARRR I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICE OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
FREDERICK HOUSE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No. 00 C 7924
)
RUSS NELSON, Investigator for Illinois) The Honorable James B. Moran
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), ) Presiding Judge
DENNIS PEPEL, Parole Officer for IDOC, )
and JOHN DOE, ) The Honorable Morton Deulow
) Magistrate Judge
Defendants. )

NOTICE, OF FILING

TO; Gregory E. Kulis and Associates, 30 N. LaSalic St., Suite 2140, Chicago, IT. 60602,
FACSIMILE NO,: (312) 580-1839

PLEASE BE ADVISED that on December 3, 2001, the undersigned filed a copy of the
atlached DEL/ENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DETERMINE THE
SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PI.ATNTIFI?S


DEC 4 2901

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COO | L E D
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOL
EASTERN DIVISION
DEC - 8 2001
FREDERICK HOUSE, )
) MICHAEL WY, DODBIS
Plaintiff, ) CLERK, U.S.
v. ) No. 00 C 7924
)
RUSS NELSON, Investigator for Illinois _) The Honorable James B. Moran
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), ) Presiding Judge
DENNIS PEPEL, Parole Officer for IDOC, )
and JOHN DOE, ) The Honorable Morton Denlow
) Magistrate Judge
Defendants. )

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANTS’
ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO ADMIT

NOW COME Defendants, RUSS NELSONS and DENNIS PEPEL, by and through their

attorney, JAMES E. RYAN, Attorney General of Illinois, and in response to Plaintiff’s motion to
determine the sufficiency of certain of Defendants’ answers to Plaintiff’ s request to admit facts state

as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed a motion to determine the sufficiency of four of Defendants’ answers
to Plaintiff's request to admit facts. Plaintiff contests Defendants’s answers to Plaintiff's requests
numbered 18, 20, 27 and 28. Defendants objected to request number 20 because the request was
ambiguous as to time. Defendants answered that they could neither admit nor deny requests 18, 27

and 28 after conducting a reasonable inquiry.