MiteleOrder Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Hlinois

Namcetawinet ieee | James B.Moran_| stn ue fone

CASE NUMBER 01 C 7865 DATE 5/3/2004
CASE RUBY REED vs. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al
TITLE

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

MOTION:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER,
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) 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 briefdue___.
(4) im Ruling/Hearingon__setfor__—_at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon____—s set for sat_
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on__—_ssetfor_—sat_—
(7) a Trial{set for/re-set for]on___at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued tot
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) wf {Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Defendants joint motion for

summary judgment is, for now, denied. Status hearing is set for 6/9/03 at 9:15 a.m.

(i) 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

Notices mailed by judge’s staff. MAY ft)

Notified counsel by telephone.

date mailed notice

Y | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
LG deputy’s
initials

mailing deputy initials

Datetime teceived j
cena fs Oe |



»

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., . )
) Dneveren
Defendants, ) MAY
4 2004

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

J.C, Reed committed suicide in a City of Chicago police lockup on November 12, 2000,
by hanging himself with an isolation gown. Since the filing of this action considerable effort
has gone into determining who manufactured and who distributed the gown. Plaintiff
contends that Cypress Medical Products, Ltd., or Cypress Medical Products, Inc. (Cypress),
may have manufactured the gowns and Edwards Medical Supply, Inc. (Edwards) was the
Cypress distributor. She has named them as defendants.

Those defendants have now moved for summary judgment. The time frame indicates
that they could have been involved. Cypress gowns were distributed to the City beginning
May 13, 2000. Prior to that date, however, the City relied upon other suppliers. The moving
defendants claim the implicated gown must have come from one of the earlier supplies; it has
a tag indicating it was manufactured in Thailand and their gowns were manufactured only in
China or Taiwan and had no tags.

Plaintiff does not dispute that the implicated gown has the Thailand tag. She relies,

rather, upon an interrogatory answer of the City, which states that the implicated gown was

|


No. 01 C 7865 Page 2

manufactured by Cypress and distributed by Edwards, The answers, however, are not under
oath, although they should have been. They are signed by an assistant corporation counsel,
who we can assume has no personal knowledge about the source of the gown. Apparently the
information was provided by Daniel McKernan ~ another answer so indicates. And if that is
not so, counsel can and should so advise plaintiff’s counsel. We think the best way to clear this
up is to take a short deposition of the person who provided the information in the
interrogatory answer as to the basis for it. While plaintiff may well be pursuing a vain hope,

we think sheis entitled to clarification. The motion for summary judgment is, for now, denied.

Apnea 8. Wore

< | JAMES B. MORAN

lor Judge, U. S. District Court
b * , 2004.