remains convinced that the ruling should stand. Mr. Kalven’s
motion for reconsideration, like the defendants’ motion for
reconsideration, is denied.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Court denies the
defendants’ motion to reconsider [#160], and denies Mr. Kalven’s

motion for partial reconsideration [#162].
Dated: August 23, 2006

ENTER:

Oh Qouide— boys

ARLANDER KEYS /
United States Magistrate Judge



line be drawn, with the plaintiff on one side, and everyone else
on the other. Quite simply, by deciding to sue, and by deciding
to confide in Mr. Kalven and to enlist his services to help her
pursue that suit, Ms. Bond waived any right she may have had to
expect her interactions with Mr. Kalven to remain confidential.
And, similarly, by using his position as an “embedded” journalist
to investigate Ms. Bond’s plight, to help her find an attorney,
and to work closely with that attorney to further her case, Mr.
Kalven has forfeited any right he may have had to expect that his
“journalistic interests” would be preserved as to Ms. Bond. The
Court is mindful that compelling Mr. Kalven to turn over notes
and tapes - even if limited to those of Ms. Bond - imposes a
burden on him; those items will reveal, to some extent, his
journalistic activities and his journalistic work product. But
his work product is not automatically protected from disclosure.
And, having immersed himself so deeply into Ms. Bond’s case, Mr.
Kalven cannot expect that his interests may emerge entirely
unscathed. Indeed, the Court’s concerns about Mr. Kalven’s
“street cred” are alleviated by the fact that Ms. Bond shared her
story with a clear mind that Mr. Kalven would take it to a lawyer
(with an eye toward pursuing litigation) and to the people (via
Kicking the Pigeon).

In short, with its initial ruling, the Court struck a

balance among the competing interests at play here, and it



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

DIANE BOND,
Plaintiff, No. 04 C 2617
v. Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow

CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER EDWIN
UTRERAS, et al.,

Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys

Defendants.

(9) INION AND ORDER

On June 27, 2006, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order denying the defendants’ motions to compel certain discovery
from Jamie Kalven, a journalist who is involved in, but not a
party to, this case. The Court ordered Mr. Kalven to produce any
notes or tapes he may have documenting his conversation with the
plaintiff, Diane Bond, but otherwise declined to compel Mr.
Kalven to produce any documents or answer any deposition
questions. In ruling as it did, the Court did not rely on any
sort of privilege; rather, as per the Seventh Circuit’s
instructions in McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 533 (7th Cir.
2003), the Court based its decision on what it determined was
reasonable in the circumstances.

The case is now before the Court on Mr. Kalven’s motion for

partial reconsideration and on the defendants’ motion for



reconsideration. Mr. Kalven asks the Court to reconsider its
ruling with regard to Ms. Bond, and the defendants ask the Court
to reconsider its ruling with regard to everyone and everything
else.

Motions for reconsideration are intended to address errors
of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence; they are
not a means to rehash arguments already made - and rejected.
E.g., Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). Neither side seems
particularly troubled by the limited nature of such motions.
Both pretty much dredge up the same arguments the Court has
already considered; the defendants argue, as they did earlier,
that they should be entitled to obtain discovery from Mr. Kalven
because of the unique nature of his relationship to the case, and
Mr. Kalven argues, as he did earlier, that requiring him to turn
over his work product would compromise his “journalistic
interests.” The Court has already considered these arguments.
Accordingly, and for the reasons more specifically addressed
below, both sides’ motions will be denied.

The Court turns first to the defendants’ motion, which
challenges the Court’s conclusion that the subpoena, as written,
was overbroad. In response to the Court’s concern that the
subpoena would require discovery from an “unknown universe of

people,” the defendants argue that Ms. Bond and Mr. Kalven put



that “universe” at issue by alleging that the CPD’s officers have
been running amuck at Stateway Gardens. But, as the Court said
before, relevance is not the only concern here. The question is
not whether the defendants should be entitled to obtain discovery
about these witnesses; the question is whether they should be
entitled to invade Mr. Kalven’s privacy and journalistic
integrity, such as it is, to get that discovery. The Court
determined in its initial ruling that, under the circumstances,
they should not. And nothing in the defendants’ motion to
reconsider persuades the Court that the initial ruling should be
overturned. The defendants’ current round of briefs, like the
last, fails to establish that the evidence they seek is highly
probative of issues relevant to the case or that the subpoenaed
materials include information that is otherwise unavailable to
them. As the Court has already noted, the defendants are free to
explore inconsistencies in witnesses’ statements through cross-
examination. The defendants’ motion for reconsideration is
denied.

Turning to Mr. Kalven’s motion, it is true that, with regard
to the witnesses other than Ms. Bond, the Court saw the appeal in
Mr. Kalven’s argument that compelling him to turn over his notes,
would, in his words, “damage [his] journalistic interests.” But,
as explained, this Circuit doesn’t recognize a reporter’s

privilege. And the concept of reasonableness here demands that a