No. 01 C 7865 Page 4

more accurate. The measurements of the length and width of Reed’s gown, taken during
Maddieux’s deposition, fell within Medline’s specifications for gowns sold from March 29,
1996 through November 13, 1998. Plaintiff provides evidence that the armhole opening is also
consistent with Medline’s specifications, at least from 1996 until March 24, 1998.

Finally, the record contains evidence that Medline sold gowns that had the same label
as the one found in Reed’s gown. On August 20, 1997, while inspecting isolation gowns
produced by Thai Hospital, Michael Clayton, Medline’s product inspector in Thailand, wrote
on an inspection form that the gowns had tags which read:

Isolation Gown

100% Polypropylene

Made in Thailand
Medline argues that the gowns with these tags were rejected. However, two other records may
provide contrary evidence. On another isolation gown inspection form dated November 10,
1997, Clayton identified the following defect: “Product has no size tag; only material,
description and country of origin ....” According to the form, this defect affected 520 cases
of lot number 4500193717. A deviation report completed the next day identifies the same lot
of isolation gowns and states, “Accept Iso gowns with no Prod. ID tag in them.” Medline
asserts that this shows that only gowns without any tag were accepted by the company.
However, a footnote in Medline’s reply undercuts this argument. The footnote states that the
term “product ID tag” is interchangeable with “size tag.” Thus, the deviation report could be
interpreted as an acceptance of all of the isolation gowns, which had “no size tags”, as Clayton
states, but did identify “material, description and country of origin.”

Medline argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it sold

Reed’s gown because the weight and material composition of his gown does not correspond



No. 01 C 7865 Page 3

November 1998 shipment of isolation gowns, the police department did not receive any more
until May 13, 2000, when 450 gowns arrived from a different company, Edwards Medical
Supply (Edwards). Before Reed’s death, the police department received one other shipment
of isolation gowns from Edwards on October 2, 2000. Siddiqa Khan, the police department’s
procurement officer responsible for ordering isolation gowns, stated that no other supplier
provided gowns during this time.

The gown at issue had a label that stated it was made in Thailand. Medline admits that
some of the gowns it sold in 1996, 1997, and 1998 were made in Thailand by Thai Hospital.
Edwards and its supplier, Cyprus Medical Suppliers, Ltd., state that all of their isolation
gowns were made in China or Taiwan and none was made in Thailand. Thus, of the two
suppliers who sold gowns to the Chicago Police Department during the four years prior to
Reed’s suicide, only Medline sold gowns made in Thailand.

Plaintiff also provides evidence that the length, width, and arm hole openings of Reed’s
isolation gown fell within the specifications for gowns sold by Medline. Richard Maddieux,
president of Medline’s Disposamed Division, inspected Reed’s gown on November 4, 2002, at
the Chicago Police Department’s storage facility, and again at his deposition on December 3,
2003. Discrepancies appeared between Maddieux’s two sets of measurements. While plaintiff
argues that the inconsistent measurements could evidence Maddieux’s fabrication of the
original figures, Medline maintains that the discrepancies resulted from different conditions
during the two inspections. Regardless, Medline concedes that the conditions under which
Maddieux obtained his first set of measurements, which he provided in his affidavit and on
which Medline’s original motion relied, were “sub-optimal.” Medline recognizes that the

measurements taken during Maddieux’s deposition, when he could handle the gown freely, are



No. 01 C 7865 Page 5

to that of Medline gowns. Maddieux stated at his deposition that Reed’s gown was made of
one-ply spunbond polypropylene material weighing approximately 25 to 28 grams per square
meter, while Medline’s gowns are made from two bonded plies of spunbond polypropylene
material, each weighing 15 grams per square meter. Thus, Medline contends that neither the
weight nor the material composition of Reed’s gown support plaintiff's claim that it was sold
by Medline. Medline admits that Maddieux never inspected the gowns shipped from Thailand
from 1996 to 1998. Maddieux asserts that Clayton, Medline’s onsite inspector, ensured that
30 grams per square meter spunbond polypropylene was used by Thai Hospital. Clayton did
not however weigh the gowns as part of his inspection. While Maddieux’s assertions regarding
the gowns’ differences in weight support Medline’s argument that it did not sell the gown, it
does not prove plaintiffs evidence to be mere speculation or conjecture.

Nor does Medline’s assertion that it did not sell gowns made from one-ply spunbond
polypropylene foreclose plaintiff's claim. Medline cites a number of documents from 1996 to
1998, which specify that its isolation gowns are to be made of “30 gram/square meter
spunbond polypropylene.” However, none of these documents states that this material must
be made of two plies of 15 gram per square meter spunbond polypropylene. Maddieux admits
that none of Medline’s specifications mandate whether the company must use one-ply or two-
ply material — they only mandate the material’s weight (plf’s exh. A, Maddieux’s dep., p.132).
Nonetheless, Maddieux states that the manufacturers of Medline gowns were required to buy
30 gram per square meter two-ply spunbond polypropylene material from certain suppliers
when making Medline gowns. Medline does not point to any additional evidence to support
Maddieux’s statement. Nor does Medline provide any evidence that its product inspector

ensured that isolation gowns manufactured in Thailand were only made from two-ply



Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name ssi Jud in} e i er
or Magistrate Judge James B. Moran “than Asigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 € 7865 DATE 2/25/2004
CASE RUBY REED vs. CITY OF CHICAGO
TITLE

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

MOTION:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o 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) Oo Ruling/Hearing on setfor at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___——ssetfor_ at
© Oo Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor__— at
(7) im] Trial{set for/re-set for]on__—_at
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at.
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP4i(a\(1) CI FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) a {Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Medline’s motion for summary
judgment is denied.

al) ff (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
° ‘ number of notices

FEB 26 2004

date docketed

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

v | Docketing to mail notices, Peron panies

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice
courtroom

LG deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in 7
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



No. 01 C 7865 Page 6

spunbond polypropylene, not one-ply spunbond polypropylene. As with the discrepancy in
weight, Maddieux’s testimony regarding the difference between one-ply and two-ply gowns
supports Medline’s argument, but it does not eliminate a question of fact.

Nor does the timing of Reed’s suicide—two years after the Chicago Police Department’s
fina] purchase of Medline gowns — justify summary judgment for Medline. Given that the
police department did not purchase any new isolation gowns for eighteen months after
receiving Medline’s last shipment, and that the gowns went from equipment and supplies to
central detention before distribution to the police stations, it would not be unreasonable to find
that individual police stations still had Medline gowns at the time of Reed’s death.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons Medline’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

JAMES B. MORAN
Senior Judge, U. S. District Court

FQ AT , 2004,



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
RUBY REED, Special Administrator of the )
Estate of J. C. REED, Deceased. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 01 C 7865
)
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
PACKETED
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FEB 26 2004

Plaintiff Ruby Reed brought suit against the City of Chicago, various Chicago police
officers, and several sellers and manufacturers of isolation gowns, including Medline
Industries, Inc. (Medline) and Thai Hospital Products Company, Ltd. (Thai Hospital), for
claims arising out of the suicide of her son, J.C, Reed (Reed). Plaintiff alleges violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983, negligence and willful and wanton conduct against the City and its officers. She
also alleges strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty against the sellers and
manufacturers of the gowns. Medline moves for summary judgment on all three counts
against it. For the following reasons, Medline’s motion is denied.

On the morning of November 12, 2000, Chicago police officers arrested Reed in
connection with a domestic disturbance. While detained at a police station Reed informed
officers that he was going to kill himself. As a result, the officers placed Reed on suicide
watch; they took away his clothes and gave him an isolation gown to wear. Soon after, Reed
used the gown to hang himself in his cell.

The gown given to Reed was yellow and had a tag which read:



No. 01 C 7865 Page 2

Isolation Gown

100% Polypropylene

Made In Thailand
The police station receives its isolation gowns from the Chicago Police Department’s central
detention facility. Central detention receives the gowns from the department’s equipment and
supplies office, which orders them from an outside supplier.

Medline argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because the record fails to

support a finding that it sold the gown which Reed used to kill himself. Plaintiff responds that
the record creates a question of fact regarding the seller of the gown. Our function in ruling

on a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine if there is a genuine issue of

material fact for trial. Anderson y. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Only if the

evidence on file shows that no such issue exists and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law will we grant the motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322-23 (1986); Bennett y. Roberts, 295 F.3d 687, 694 (7" Cir. 2002). A plaintiff need not prove
her case in a response to a motion for summary judgment; however, she must submit facts in
support of her claim. Sutton v. Washington Rubber Parts & Supply Co., 176 Ill.App.3d 85,
88, 530 N.E.2d 1055, 1057 (1* Dist. 1988). Thus, for plaintiff’s claims against Medline, she
must provide evidence that Medline sold the isolation gown used by Reed. Plaintiff can rely
on circumstantial evidence to support her claim, but the circumstances must establish a
probability that Medline was the seller, not just a mere possibility. See id. Plaintiff has
produced evidence such that a reasonable jury could find that Medline sold the gown in
question.

Plaintiff has provided evidence that Medline was the Chicago Police Department’s only

supplier of isolation gowns from March 16, 1996, until November 13, 1998, After receiving its