1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

DIANE BOND, 

Plaintiff 

v. 

CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS EDWIN 

UTRERAS (Star No. 19901), et al. 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 04 C 2617 

Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow 

Magistrate Judge Ashman 

 

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DISCLIPLINARY RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 

 Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, respectfully requests, pursuant to Rule 37 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that this Court order Defendants to produce: (a) Complaint 

Register files 261514, 276011, 293008, 273527, 262498, 255289, and 291990; (b) all 

undisclosed Complaint Register investigations against Defendants Utreras, Schoeff, Seinitz, 

Stegmiller, and Savickas (the “Individual Officer Defendants”), including active Complaint 

Registers; (c) updated Employee Complaint Histories for each Individual Officer Defendant; (d) 

unredacted copies of Complaint Register files 274757, 268656, and 285883 pursuant to the 

Agreed, Qualified Protective Order; and (e) the April 13, 2003 arrest report for Grantly Skeets 

and the March 31, 2004 case reports for Elight Renfro and Michael Nawls. In support of these 

requests, Plaintiff respectfully submits as follows: 

Introduction

 1. This case alleges that the Individual Officer Defendants committed multiple acts of 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:569
2

sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against the Plaintiff, Ms. Bond, on at least five 

occasions between April 2003 and March 2004. Ms. Bond – a 50-year-old African-American 

woman – alleges that the Individual Officer Defendants targeted her for abuse because of her 

race and her gender. Ms. Bond further alleges that even before the Individual Officer 

Defendants targeted her for abuse, these same officers had engaged in a pattern of abuse in 

public housing communities on the South Side of Chicago, unchecked by the Chicago Police 

Department or the City of Chicago. 

2. Ms. Bond asserts that the City of Chicago is liable for the injuries she suffered at 

the hands of the Individual Officer Defendants because the City maintains a policy, practice and 

custom of failing to properly supervise, monitor, discipline, counsel and otherwise control its 

police officers. The Individual Officer Defendants were aware of this policy, and relied on it in 

repeatedly abusing Ms. Bond, confident that they would suffer no adverse consequences, even if 

Ms. Bond were to report the abuse. 

3. The Individual Officer Defendants and the City of Chicago deny these allegations. 

Specifically, the Individual Officer Defendants deny any contact with Ms. Bond, and have 

asserted that they were not at Stateway Gardens (the public housing complex where Ms. Bond 

lives) on the dates in question. The Individual Officer Defendants also deny engaging in a 

pattern of abuse. The City of Chicago has denied that it maintains a policy, practice or custom of 

failing to properly supervise, monitor, discipline, counsel or otherwise control its police officers. 

4. This motion seeks to compel the production of certain disciplinary complaints 

filed against the Individual Officer Defendants, and other police records that document the 

whereabouts of the Individual Officer Defendants on some of the dates of abuse alleged in Ms. 

Bond’s complaint. The disciplinary complaints at issue in this motion are known as “Complaint 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:570
3

Registers,” or “CR’s.” The term “Complaint Register” or “CR” is the name given to files kept 

by the Chicago Police Department in the course of documenting and investigating complaints 

filed against Chicago Police Officers. Ms. Bond has sought production of all CR’s filed against 

the Individual Officer Defendants because these documents will enable Ms. Bond to evaluate 

what prior complaints were brought against the Individual Officer Defendants, and how these 

prior complaints showed a pattern of abuse that should have alerted the City to the ongoing 

misconduct of the Individual Officer Defendants. 

 5. The other police records at issue in this motion are reports documenting the 

whereabouts of the Individual Officer Defendants on some of the dates at issue in this lawsuit. 

Specifically, the April 13, 2003 arrest report for Grantly Skeets, and the March 31, 2004 case 

reports relating to Elight Renfro and Michael Nawls, should place the Individual Officer 

Defendants at or near the Stateway Gardens complex on several of the relevant dates. Ms. Bond 

requested these materials on October 8, 2004. Defendants concede that the documents are 

relevant and discoverable, and in fact have promised on several occasions to produce these 

records. Because Ms. Bond’s request for these documents has remained outstanding for over a 

year, and Ms. Bond has yet to see these reports, Ms. Bond respectfully requests that this Court 

order the immediate production of these documents. 

Procedural History and Compliance with Local Rule 37.2 

 6. On October 8, 2004, Ms. Bond requested production of all CRs instituted against 

the Individual Officer Defendants. See Plaintiff’s Request to Produce Documents to Defendant 

Robert Stegmiller at ¶ 10 (attached as Exhibit A to the instant Motion). Ms. Bond also requested 

production of all documents related to the Individual Officer Defendants’ claims that they were 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:571
4

not at Stateway Gardens on the dates of abuse alleged in Ms. Bond’s complaint. Id. at ¶ 2. Ms. 

Bond served these requests on each Individual Officer Defendant, and requested the same 

documents from the City of Chicago. See Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce Documents to 

Defendant City of Chicago at ¶¶ 19, 46 (attached as Exhibit B to the instant Motion). 

 7. On or about February 2, 2005, all parties entered into an Agreed, Qualified 

Protective Order (the “Protective Order”), covering all parties to the litigation, as well as third 

parties. See Protective Order at ¶ 6 (attached as Exhibit C to the instant Motion). The Protective 

Order expressly covers the production of disciplinary and employment records. Id. 

 8. The City of Chicago responded to Ms. Bond’s requests for production of the CR’s 

on June 17, 2005, providing both an “Employee Complaint History” for each Individual Officer 

Defendant (listing all CR’s filed against that particular officer), and copies of some – although 

not all – of the CR’s listed on the complaint histories. See June 17, 2005 letter from Susan 

Sullivan to Craig Futterman, attached to the instant Motion as Exhibit D. Several of the CR’s 

produced (namely CR’s 274757, 268656 and 285883) had been redacted to exclude the name of 

the complaining witness and all identifying information pertaining to the complaining witness, 

including the address where the incident of misconduct occurred. See July 26, 2005 letter from 

Melanie Miles, on behalf of Plaintiff, to counsel for Defendants, attached to the instant Motion as 

Exhibit E. 

9. In addition, the complaint histories provided for the Individual Officer Defendants 

appeared to be incomplete. One CR that Plaintiff’s counsel happened to be personally aware of, 

filed against Defendant Officer Utreras, did not appear on the complaint history. Id. Another 

CR that has been produced charged both Defendant Officer Stegmiller and Defendant Officer 

Utreras with misconduct, but that CR appeared only on the complaint history provided for 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:572
5

Defendant Officer Stegmiller, not on the complaint history provided for Defendant Officer 

Utreras. Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff’s counsel raised these issues in a letter addressed to counsel for all 

Defendants, dated July 26, 2005, and specifically asked for assurances from Defendants’ counsel 

that complaint histories for the Individual Officer Defendants “will be made complete.” Id. 

10. On August 22, 2005, counsel for Ms. Bond and counsel for the Individual Officer 

Defendants held a Rule 37 conference call, in an attempt to agree on what CR’s Defendant 

would produce, and whether Defendants would provide unredacted copies of CR’s 274757, 

268656 and 285883. See August 24, 2005 letter from Melanie Miles, on behalf of Plaintiff, to 

Susan Sullivan, attached to the instant Motion as Exhibit F. The parties were able to resolve 

certain issues, but, despite reasonable efforts, the parties were unable to agree on CR’s 261514, 

276011, 293008, 273527, and 262498. Id. at p. 2. Counsel for the Defendants also indicated that 

the Defendants would not produce documents related to open or “active” CR’s. 

11. In addition, several issues remained open, subject to additional information being 

provided by counsel for Defendants. Specifically, counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants 

agreed to consult with the Office of Legal Affairs and determine whether to produce unredacted 

copies of CR’s 274757, 268656, and 285883. Id. at p. 1. Counsel for the Individual Officer 

Defendants further agreed to produce the April 13, 2003 arrest report for Grantly Skeets and the 

March 31, 2004 case reports for Elight Renfro and Michael Nawls. Id. at p. 3. 

12. With regard to the errors noted in the complaint histories, counsel for the 

Individual Officer Defendants stated that she did not know how the histories were generated, or 

why a CR would appear in the history for one defendant, but not another. Id. at p. 1. 

 13. At the time that counsel held their joint discovery conference on November 22, 

2005, counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants had yet to notify Plaintiff’s counsel as to the 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:573
6

decision regarding the unredacted production of CR’s 274757, 268656 and 285883, had yet to 

produce the arrest and case reports discussed in the August 22, 2005 conference call, and had yet 

to provide any assurances regarding how the complaint histories were generated, or how counsel 

for Plaintiff could be assured that the histories were complete.1

 See November 29, 2005 letter 

from Melissa Mather to counsel for Defendants, attached to the instant Motion as Exhibit G, at p. 

2. At this joint discovery conference, Plaintiff’s counsel informed counsel for Defendants that 

these issues would be included in a motion to compel, to be noticed for December 1, 2005, 

unless Defendants produced the documents within the next several days. Id.

14. As of the date of filing of the instant motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has not received 

unredacted copies of CR’s 274757, 268656 or 285883, nor has Plaintiff’s counsel received the 

arrest report and case reports promised by counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s counsel also has yet to hear anything further from counsel for Defendants regarding 

the completeness of the complaint histories. 

This Court Should Order Defendants to Produce

CR’s 261514, 276011, 293008, 273527, 262498, 255289, and 291990.

15. Ms. Bond requests that this Court order Defendants to produce the following 

CR’s: 261514, 276011, 293008, 273527, 262498, 255289, and 291990. These CR’s are 

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 

because they are likely to contain information supporting Ms. Bond’s claim that the Individual 

Officer Defendants engaged in a pattern of abuse against Chicago citizens spanning many years, 

supported and encouraged by the City of Chicago’s policy, practice, and custom of failing to 

 1

 Counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants did indicate that the date on which the complaint 

histories were run could be determined by looking in the top, right-hand corner of the document. 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:574
7

properly supervise, monitor, discipline, counsel, and otherwise control its police officers. 

16. In addition, the contents of the requested CR’s will likely prove admissible under 

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), as these complaints demonstrate motive, intent, knowledge, identity, and 

absence of mistake or accident on the part of the Individual Officer Defendants. 

17. Moreover, as the Individual Officer Defendants continue to deny having any 

contact with Ms. Bond, proper or improper, on the dates at issue in this lawsuit, the credibility of 

the Individual Officer Defendants will be a central issue at trial. The content of the CR’s 

requested bears directly on the credibility of the Individual Officer Defendants, initially because 

these CR’s will indicate that the Individual Officer Defendants have lied in the past to cover up 

misconduct. The content of the CR’s requested also demonstrates the Individual Officer 

Defendants’ motive and bias to shade their testimony in that many of the CR’s at issue accuse 

more than one Individual Officer Defendant of misconduct or list other Individual Officer 

Defendants as witnesses to the misconduct. Should any of these Individual Officer Defendants 

break their collective code of silence at this point, in this lawsuit, they each have a great deal to 

lose. The existence of these undisclosed CR’s provides the Individual Officer Defendants with a 

further motive, bias and interest to give false testimony to avoid being disciplined or fired. 

18. In addition to these issues, each of the specific CR’s requested here is relevant 

and discoverable, in light of Ms. Bond’s allegations against both the Individual Officer 

Defendants, and the City of Chicago: 

• CR 261514. Counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants represented that CR 

261514 charged that Defendant Seinitz stole money from a civilian and failed to 

inventory this money. The dishonesty charged in 261514 goes to the Defendant’s 

credibility. Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). 

• CR 276011. Counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants represented that CR 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:575
8

276011 charged that Defendant Seinitz planted drugs on a civilian. This 

allegation is similar to Ms. Bond’s allegations against the Defendants, as Ms. 

Bond alleges that Defendant Seinitz threatened to plant drugs on her. This CR 

also charges false arrest, which is one of Ms. Bond’s claims against the 

Defendants. This CR also goes to Defendant Seinitz’s credibility because it 

alleges that he engaged in an illegal act and then lied to cover it up. 

• CR 293008. Counsel for the Individual Police Defendants represented that CR 

293008 involved an investigation of charges that Defendant Seinitz pointed a gun 

at a civilian and threatened to shoot this person. This CR is relevant because Ms. 

Bond charges that Defendant Seinitz threatened her with a weapon and ordered 

her to remove her clothes under the threat of violence and arrest. The allegation 

in CR 293008 goes to Defendant’s motive and intent to intimidate civilians by 

using excessive force. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). 

• CR 273757. Counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants represented that CR 

273757 charged Defendants Stegmiller and Savickas with illegally searching 

cars. This CR is relevant to Ms. Bond’s charge that the Individual Officer 

Defendants engaged in a series of illegal searches and seizures of Ms. Bond and 

her home.

• CR 262498. Counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants represented that CR 

262498 involved an allegation that Defendant Utreras fired a gunshot in the air 

while chasing someone. This CR is relevant to Ms. Bond’s charge that 

Defendant Utreras used unjustified force against her, and bears on Defendant 

Utreras’ motive and intent. 

• CR 291990 and CR 255289. Counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants 

represented that CR 291990 alleged that one or more of the Individual Officer 

Defendants left narcotics in their police vehicle, but turned it in the next day. 

CR 255289 involved a similar allegation that one or more of the Individual 

Officer Defendants failed to properly search their vehicle. CR 255289 was 

sustained, and Defendant Seinitz was reprimanded. CR’s 291990 and 255289 are 

relevant to Ms. Bond’s claim of dishonesty and relate directly to the credibility of 

the Individual Officer Defendants. F. R. Evid. 608(b). 

19. Because each of the CR’s listed above are relevant and discoverable, Ms. Bond 

respectfully requests that this Court order the Defendants to produce the requested CR’s. 

This Court Should Compel the Production of All Undisclosed

CR’s, Including Active CR’s, against the Individual Officer Defendants.

20. Ms. Bond requests that this Court order Defendants to produce all undisclosed 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:576
9

 

CR’s against the Individual Officer Defendants, whether those CR’s are closed, or remain 

active.2

 The very existence of any active or pending CR’s gives the Individual Officer 

Defendants a powerful incentive to give false testimony here, in order to avoid being fired or 

otherwise disciplined at work. On a more general level, these files relate to the Individual 

Officer Defendants’ bias, motive, or interest to conceal their abuse of Ms. Bond, and also 

provide strong evidence that the Individual Officer Defendants have in fact engaged in a pattern 

of abuse – evidence which may be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to prove individual 

liability. 

21. By obtaining all undisclosed CR’s, including those that remain active, Ms. Bond 

will be able to show that the Individual Officer Defendants have a strong incentive to give 

exculpatory testimony in this case. Because the Chicago Police Department may consider an 

officer’s complaint history, including complaints that are not sustained, in evaluating an officer’s 

credibility, the number and content of previously-filed CR’s is relevant in assessing what 

punishment the Individual Officer Defendants might suffer if they were found to be liable in this 

case. 

22. Because this information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence, Ms. Bond respectfully requests that this Court order Defendants to produce 

all undisclosed CR’s, including those CR’s that remain active. 

2

 Ms. Bond is unable to identify each of these CR’s by number, as the latest complaint history 

provided to Ms. Bond was run over a year ago, on May 13, 2004. Whether or not this Court orders the 

production of additional CR’s, Plaintiff’s counsel will need an updated complaint history for each of the 

Individual Officer Defendants, in order to cross-check whether all relevant CR’s have been produced. 

See Exhibit E at p. 2 (letter from Melanie Miles, on behalf of Ms. Bond, raising issues relating to the 

completeness of the complaint histories, and the failure of these histories to include known CR’s filed 

against the Individual Officer Defendants). 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:577
10

This Court Should Order the Production of

Unredacted Copies of CR’s 274757, 268656, and 285883.

23. On or about June 17, 2005, Defendants produced redacted copies of CR’s 274757, 

268656, and 285883. See Exhibit D. While Defendants do not dispute the relevance of these 

files, id., they have refused to produce unredacted copies of CR’s 274757, 268656, and 285883 

because these CR’s allegedly involve juvenile complainants. The redactions at issue exclude not 

only the names and contact information for the complaining witness, but also information about 

where the incident took place. These redactions seriously impede Ms. Bond’s ability to 

investigate and prepare evidence of relevant misconduct by the Defendants. 

24. Moreover, Defendants’ concerns regarding the confidentiality of information 

relating to juvenile complainants are unnecessary here, as all information disclosed will fall 

under the scope of the Protective Order. See Protective Order, attached as Exhibit C, at ¶ 6 

(encompassing “information that is of a sensitive or non-public nature regarding . . . non-party 

witnesses”). Because the Protective Order adequately protects the privacy interests of third-party 

witnesses, Ms. Bond requests that this Court order Defendants to produce unredacted copies of 

CR’s 274757, 268656, and 285883, pursuant to the Protective Order. 

This Court Should Order Production of the April 13, 2003 Arrest Report for Grantly 

Skeets, and the March 31, 2004 Case Reports for Elight Renfro and Michael Nawls.

 25. Defendants admit that the April 13, 2003 arrest report for Grantly Skeets and the 

March 31, 2004 case reports for Elight Renfro and Michael Nawls are relevant and discoverable. 

In fact, counsel for the Individual Officer Defendants has agreed to produce these reports on at 

least two separate occasions. See Exhibit F at p. 3; Exhibit G at p. 2. 

26. Ms. Bond first requested these documents on October 8, 2004. Defendants’ 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:578
11

continued failure to produce these documents stands as a serious impediment to the completion 

of discovery in this case. Without these reports, Ms. Bond will not have the most basic 

information about where the Individual Defendant Officers were working on the dates in 

question, and will be unable to adequately depose the remaining Individual Officer Defendants. 

Accordingly, Ms. Bond asks this Court to order the immediate production of these reports. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court order Defendants to 

produce: (a) Complaint Register files 261514, 276011, 293008, 273527, 262498, 255289, and 

291990; (b) all undisclosed Complaint Register files brought against the Individual Officer 

Defendants, including active Complaint Registers; (c) updated Employee Complaint Histories 

for each Individual Officer Defendant; (d) unredacted copies of Complaint Register files 274757, 

268656, and 285883 pursuant to the Protective Order; and (e) the April 13, 2003 arrest report for 

Grantly Skeets and the March 31, 2004 case reports for Elight Renfro and Michael Nawls. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ H. Melissa Mather_________________ 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys 

Date: November 29, 2005 

Craig B. Futterman 

H. Melissa Mather 

EDWIN F. MANDEL LEGAL AID CLINIC 

University of Chicago Law School 

6020 S. University 

Chicago, Illinois 60637 

(773) 702-9611 

* Melanie Miles, a second-year student at the University of Chicago Law School, assisted in the 

preparation of this document. 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:579
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that she caused the foregoing document to be 

served on counsel for Defendants, who are “Filing Users” pursuant to ECF, on Tuesday, 

November 29, 2005, in accordance with the rules on electronic filing of documents. 

/s/ H. Melissa Mather__________________ 

H. Melissa Mather 

 

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:580