04C2617 Bond vs. Utreras, et al. Page 1 of 2

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 04 C 2617 DATE 1/27/2005

CASE

TITLE

Bond vs. Utreras, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel police photographs [26-1] is granted subject to protective order. See below for

reasons.

STATEMENT

Reasons: 

Diane Bond, plaintiff, has sued the City of Chicago, eight named and five unnamed officers of the

Chicago Police Department for violation of her civil rights on five particular dates spanning the period April

13, 2003 to March 29, 2004. Because no official report of the Department was made of the alleged

encounters, plaintiff seeks production of the photographs of all white, including Hispanic, police officers who

were on duty on the five dates so her counsel may show the photographs to plaintiff and other potential

witnesses in order to identify the unnamed officers and their respective conduct during the encounters. 

Plaintiff agrees to a protective order that (1) limits the use of the photos to this case; (2) limits control and

possession of the photographs to plaintiff’s counsel; (3) limits the persons to whom plaintiff’s counsel may

show the photographs to plaintiff and her witnesses disclosed to the defendants, and only in the presence of

plaintiff’s counsel; and (4) orders that at the defendants’ election, the photos will either be returned or

destroyed following the resolution of this case. Defendants contend that this protective order will negate the

integrity of the identifications and will jeopardize the security as well as privacy of many officers who will

ultimately be determined to have been uninvolved. Defendants seek a protective order akin to that used for

criminal identification and as adopted by Judge Zagel in Davis v. City of Chicago, 219 F. Supp. 2d 593 (N.D.

Ill. 2004). This would include requirements that the examination of the photographic array be conducted

under the supervision of an independent, neutral person trained in the proper methods of eyewitness

identification, that composition of the array and the manner of viewing be determined by that individual, and

that identifications be made at the time including a level of confidence in the identification and recorded. 

Much of the discussion in Davis concerns the credibility of identification procedures which are

informative and undoubtedly sound. Identification procedures in criminal cases have been developed to

ensure as far as possible that a person not be wrongly accused of crime. In a civil case, however, the plaintiff

and the defendant stand equal before the law. At the pleading stage, the court must accept plaintiff’s

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/27/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:188
STATEMENT

04C2617 Bond vs. Utreras, et al. Page 2 of 2

allegations against the unknown officers as true. She is entitled to discovery. 

The court is mindful that officers are placed in dangerous situations, in particular, identification of

undercover officers could jeopardize their safety. Defendants make no specific statements, however, about

undercover activities that were or are being conducted in or around the site of the alleged events. This

concern can be handled through a motion for protective order concerning particular officers who have

particular concerns. In principle, however, a public official necessarily accepts the possibility that

photographs, addresses and other identifying information may be made public, nowadays even posted on

Internet sites. An open society demands it. The assigned judge has personal experience with this unpleasant

reality but finds and concludes that the constraints of the protective order requested by the defendants here

are not justified. 

The motion is granted subject to a protective order as follows: The photographs shall be produced to

plaintiff’s counsel within 14 days. Plaintiff’s counsel shall at all times retain control and possession of the

photographs and shall limit the use of the photographs to this case. Plaintiff’s counsel may display the

photographs only to plaintiff and potential witnesses as necessary to prepare the case, and only in the

presence of plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel will disclose at least five days in advance to defendants’

counsel the identities of the persons to whom they will show the photographs. No copies of the photographs

may be made without leave of court for good cause shown. At the end of the litigation in this court, unless

otherwise ordered, plaintiff’s counsel will return the photographs to the person from whom they were

received. 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/27/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:189