on this Court’s trial schedule through March 11, 2005, counsel
are again asked to send letters to this Court’s chambers during
the next two weeks reflecting their availabilities from March 14

through the end of April 2005. This Court will then set the

Callas Mehr

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

trial date.

Dated: December 20, 2004

C: \WPTEXT\houskins1.wpd


Minute Order Fore (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ulinois

Name of Assigned Judge j Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 6553 DATE 12/20/2004
CASE Virgean Houskins vs. Michael F. Sheahan, et al
TITLE
{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) im Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due. .

(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to) [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(ep) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on at.

(8) im} [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing} held/continued to at

(9) q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CUFRCP4(m) Ch Local Rule 41.1 COFRCP4i(a)(1) CO FRCP41i(a)(2).

(10) WW [Other docket entry) Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendants’ motion in limine to bar
evidence of any media reports is granted. (20-1) Defendants’ motion in limine to bar evidence as to
subjects referred to in the caption of this section is denied, but without prejudice. (21-1) Defendants’
motion in limine to exclude and bar is also denied without prejudice. (22-1) Counsel is again asked to
send letters to this Court’s chambers to reflect availabilities from March 14 through the end of April 2005.
This Court will then set the trial date.

(il) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.}

No notices required, advised in open court. .- Document
. sess Number
No notices required, munbes of paises
Y | Notices maited by judge’s staff, ye 2 3h
Notified counsel by telephone. se dosketnd
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 430 form hey depo
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
L vamanals
courtroom eat date matted na
SN deputy’s ee sw
initials
Date/time received in
ceintral Clerk's Office rmaitng deputy nits



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

DOCKETED
DEC 2 3 2008

Virgean Houskins
Plaintiff,

v. No. 03 C 6553
Michael F. Sheahan, the Sheriff
of Cook County, sued in his
official capacity, County of Cook,
and Donald Keith, sued in his
individual capacity.

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On October 4, 2004 this Court held a pretrial conference
with the litigants’ counsel, during which it (1) approved their
jointly-submitted proposed final pretrial order and (2) set a
schedule for the filing of any motions in limine and any
responses to such motions (in each instance with supporting
memoranda). On November 12, 2004 Sheriff Michael F. Sheahan
(“Sheahan”) filed three such motions, while no motions were filed
by codefendant Donald Keith or plaintiff Virgean Houskins
(“Houskins”). Now counsel for Houskins, having inadvertently
failed to conform to the timetable set by this Court during the
October 4 pretrial conference, has responded to Sheahan’s motions
so as to render them ripe for resolution.

Media Reports
In Dkt. 20-1 Sheahan seeks to bar evidence of any media

reports of improprieties at the Cook County Department of

a


Corrections. Houskins’ counsel has agreed that such evidence
would be inadmissable hearsay and therefore offers no objection
to the motion. Accordingly the motion is granted.

“Clout” or Political Favoritism

In Dkt. 21-1 Sheahan seeks to bar evidence as to the
subjects referred to in the caption of this section, on the
premise that no such evidence has been unearthed during
discovery. But that motion puts the cart before the horse,
because if any otherwise admissible evidence on those subjects
does exist -- something that this Court cannot know until trial--
it is clearly relevant to Houskins’ case. Accordingly the motion
is denied, but without prejudice to its possible reassertion in
the context of trial.

“Code of Silence”

What has just been said as to Dkt. 21-1 applies with equal
force to Dkt. 22-1, the subject of which is indicated by the
caption of this section. Accordingly that motion is also denied,
again without prejudice to its potential reassertion in the trial
environment.

Trial Date

With all of the pending motions thus having been resolved,
the case is ready to be set for the estimated three-day trial.
Because the letters from the parties’ counsel as to their

respective dates of availability fail to mesh with the open dates