A ~

in an attempt to agree to narrow certain document requests or
interrogatories.

Defendants also suggest that any discovery should be
presently limited to the issue of who is an appropriate
defendant. No such limitation is being placed on discovery.
Even if some defendants are ultimately dismissed out, there is no
contention that two of the defendants should not be in the case
so the discovery is going to occur regardless.

To the extent discovery reveals that certain defendants
should not be named as defendants or other defendants should be
added, plaintiffs should promptly amend the complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion to
dismiss [5-1] is denied and defendants' motion for summary
judgment [5-2] is denied without prejudice. Within two weeks,
defendants shall answer the complaint. All discovery is to be
completed by February 27, 2004. Status hearing set for

January 14, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.

ENTER:

Wpin, 7. bot

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: OCTOBER 25 , 2003



~ ~

complaint. Therefore, those issues may only be considered on
summary judgment. The motion to dismiss will be denied.

The motion for summary judgment will not be addressed on
its merits. First, defendants have not provided a statement of
uncontested facts as required by Local Rule 56.1. Second,
plaintiffs have not yet had an opportunity for discovery.
Plaintiffs' Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(f) affidavit
explains plaintiffs' need for discovery as to issues involving
defendants' transfers and sales. Plaintiffs are entitled to
discovery before responding to this issue. Moreover, since all
defendants are represented by the same counsel, no otherwise
unnecessary expenses are being incurred by having all defendants
remain in the case for the time being.

The parties' pleadings make passing reference to possible
discovery issues. It would, however, be inappropriate to resolve
any discovery issues prior to an appropriate conference between
the parties, see L.R. 37.2, and the filing of any appropriate
motion to compel. It is noted, however, that it appears
unnecessary to serve separate discovery requests on each party
since all are represented by the same counsel. To the extent
some of the questions do not apply to particular defendants or
documents for a particular time period are irrelevant as toa

particular defendant, defendants must first meet with plaintiffs

-3-



ms a)
United S...es District Court, Northern Districe of Iinois

ir Magaratesuaee | WILLIAM T. HART “inuu Auigned Sedge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 3240 DATE OCTOBER Zo » 2003

CASE AUGUSTINA SMITH and SHARON MOORE vy.

TITLE CHEM-PLATE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MoTion: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
q) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) Q Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) a Ruling/Hearingon____—ssetfor__—_—aat
6) a Status hearing set for JANUARY 14, 2004 at 11:00 a.m,
6) Q Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on___setfor__——at__
(O) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_aat.
(8) QO [Bench/Jury trial} [Hearing] held/continued to__at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) OlLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a\1) (FRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] Defendants' motion to dismiss [5-1] is denied and defendants' motion

for summary judgment [5-2] is denied without prejudice. Within two weeks, defendants shall
answer the complaint. All discovery is to be completed by February 27, 2004. Status hearing
set for January 14, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.

Q) 8

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

No notices required, advised in open court. 2 Document:
Number:
No notices required. vember otaines «= nee er: x
wv | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. OT 3 1 2003
Notified counsel by telephone. tan
Docketing to mail notices. 4ynod is I:
Mail AO 450 form. ; docket fhe nats I
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. oB:G id OF 490 £9 10/30/2003 }
courtroom ghigwodlu wea sata se mies notice
ow deputy’s L-U4 age
initials
Date/time received in .
central Clerk's Office soaling ints



~ a

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

AUGUSTINA SMITH and
SHARON MOORE,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 03 C 3240

CHEM-PLATE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
MWFI f£/k/a Midwest Fasteners
Corporation, and STEEL SALE &
PROCESSING, INC. f/k/a
CHICAGO-HEAT TREAT,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

It is alleged that plaintiffs Augustina Smith and Sharon
Moore were employed’ by three defendants identified as Chem-Plate
Industries, Inc.; MWFI f£/k/a Midwest Fasteners Corporation; and
Steel Sale & Processing, Inc. f£/k/a Chicago Heat Treat. Both
plaintiffs bring claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiffs contend they
were sexually harassed by the same supervisor, Robert Sheehan.
Smith alleges she was harassed from February 1997 until June

1999. Moore alleges she was harassed from March 1999 until June

‘The complaint does not specify whether either plaintiff
is still employed by any of the defendants.

a



~ ~
1999. Additionally both plaintiffs allege that they were
retaliated against after filing administrative complaints in June
1999. Smith alleges retaliation in the form of improper
discipline and denial of overtime that occurred between October
and December 1999. Moore alleges similar retaliation occurring
between August and December 1999.7

Defendants, all of whom are represented by the same
counsel, contend that they are actually five separate entities,
that is the alleged formerly known as names are actually distinct
entities. The three principally named defendants (that is Chem-
Plate, MWFI, and Steel Sale) all contend they are inappropriate
defendants. They contend that transfer of assets and sales that
occurred over time did not leave any of these three defendants
liable for any possible liability of the other two defendants.
These defendants move to dismiss or alternatively for summary
judgment.

The complaint alleges that each defendant was an employer
of each plaintiff during the pertinent time period. That is a
sufficient basis for liability for the alleged harassment and
retaliation that occurred. Additional contentions regarding
transfers of assets and changes of ownership are not included in
the allegations of the complaint. Consideration of those issues

would require consideration of documents and facts outside the

?7As to both plaintiffs, it is unclear if the denial of
overtime is alleged to have occurred outside these dates as well.