IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

QUENTIN BULLOCK, and JACK REID,

individually and on behalf of a

class,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL SHEAHAN, SHERIFF OF COOK

COUNTY, in his official capacity,

and COOK COUNTY,

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

)

) No. 04 C 1051

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants Michael Sheahan and Cook County (collectively

“defendants”) have moved to strike certain portions of plaintiffs

Quentin Bullock and Jack Reid’s (collectively “plaintiffs”) motion

for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is

granted in part and denied in part.

I.

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges violations of the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution based on the

defendants’ alleged policy and/or practice under which male

inmates, in the custody of the Cook County Department of

Corrections (“CCDC”), are subjected to strip searches upon

returning to the CCDC for out-processing after being ordered

released. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that 

[p]ursuant to the Sheriff’s practice and/or policy, after

returning to the Jail . . . Mr. Bullock was taken into a

hallway with thirty other inmates, and required to remove
2

all his clothing. While naked, Mr. Bullock was ordered

by employees of the Sheriff to extend his arms and legs

apart, to squat three or four times, and then to cough

while squat[t]ing. 

(Compl. at ¶ 10.) The complaint makes substantially similar

allegations with respect to Reid. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Bullock and Reid

had been ordered released after being found not guilty of the

charges against them. The complaint also alleges that female

inmates are not subjected to such searches and, therefore, this

policy and/or practice violates the Equal Protection clause.

Defendants contend plaintiffs improperly seek summary judgment

on unpled theories of liability and move to strike. Plaintiffs’

motion seeks summary judgment on the following four claims:

1. The strip searching of all male court discharges and

not all female court discharges violates the Equal

Protection Clause.

2. The strip searching of all male court discharges in

large non private group settings with up to fifty inmates

while the female court discharges, who opt to return to

the housing divisions, are afforded privacy violates the

Equal Protection Clause.

3. The strip searching of all male court discharges not

based upon reasonable suspicion that they are concealing

contraband violates the Fourth Amendment.

4. Assuming arguendo, the Defendants are entitled to

strip search all male court discharges, the manner in

which the strip search is conducted, in large non private

group settings violates the Fourth Amendment.

(Def. Mot. to Strike Ex. D.) Defendants move to strike the second

and fourth claims.

The factual allegations contained in the complaint satisfy

notice pleading standards with respect to all of the Fourth

Amendment and Equal Protection claims identified in the motion for
3

summary judgment. See E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc.,

496 F.3d 773, 779 (7th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, defendants

contend that these claims come as a surprise because they were

never addressed by plaintiffs during fact or expert discovery.

Defendants also move to strike certain exhibits attached to

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, including deposition

transcripts, affidavits, and other documents submitted by high

ranking officials at CCDC, on the ground that they have not been

previously disclosed and plaintiffs represented they “had no

intention of using testimony from such transcripts in the pending

case.”

The defendants, as movants, have not provided specific

evidence of any misrepresentations or sandbagging other than an

affidavit stating that discovery did not focus on the privacy

issue. Moreover, plaintiffs explained in court that the

purportedly unpled theories did not require any specific expert

discovery from their part, and therefore none was conducted. 

I find defendants had notice of the claims and the motion to

strike the second and fourth claims is denied, but – consistent

with the parties’ representations in court on October 22, 2007 –

defendants are granted time to conduct additional discovery on the

exhibits at issue. Plaintiffs have indicated they do not have an

objection to additional discovery. 
4

II.

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion is granted in

part and denied in part. Defendants have until December 31, 2007

to complete discovery on the exhibits at issue and plaintiffs must

provide complete copies of the deposition transcripts included

among the exhibits at issue.

ENTER ORDER:

___________________________

 Elaine E. Bucklo

 United States District Judge

Dated: November 5, 2007