investigation of alleged improper conduct. Having said this, it
appears that the defendants seek to admit the report to show that
Mr. Hare said or did what he is alleged to have said and done to
Ms. Koudelka, and it is therefore hearsay. Accordingly, the report
will be excluded unless the defendants can persuade the Court that
it falls within a recognized exception. It too should be removed
from the exhibit books until the hearsay issue is resolved.

The objection to Exhibit MM is overruled; although the rules
and regulations were adopted in June 2001, some of the alleged acts
of retaliation occurred after that time; the earlier version is
also submitted and the plaintiff is free to explore any relevant
modifications in the 1994 and 2001 versions. Exhibit 00, which
would seem to be the same as Exhibit MM is excluded as redundant.

Exhibit PP is excluded; the Court fails to see the relevance;
to the extent the defendants want to show that the Village was
seeking to intervene in that proceeding, they may do so through
live testimony. Exhibits RR, SS, and TT are similarly excluded

and must be removed from defendants’ exhibit book.

Date: August 8, 2006

ENTER:

Otena— les

ARLANDER KEYS
United States uegistrate Judge



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

RICHEY A. HARE, SR.

Plaintiff, No. 02 € 3973

Vs.

JOHN ZITEK, individually and in his
official capacity as Chief of
Police of the Stickney Police
Department, DONALD TABOR,
individually and in his official
capacity as President of the
Village of Stickney, and THE
VILLAGE OF STICKNEY, a municipal
corporation,

Magistrate Judge
Arlander Keys

Defendants.
MEMCRANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The purpose of this Memorandum Opinion and Order is to rule on
the parties’ objections to proposed trial exhibits.
A. Plaintiff’s Proposed Exhibits

Turning first to the defendants’ objections to the plaintiff’s
proposed trial exhibits, pursuant to the Court’s in-court ruling
yesterday, Exhibits 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28, and 29 are
excluded.

Next, defendants’ objection to Exhibit 6 is overruled; the
documents are relevant to plaintiff's claim that he suffered a loss
of overtime pay when Chief Zitek reassigned him and changed his
duties, allegedly in retaliation for his whistle-blowing; they
would also be relevant to rebut the defendants’ claim that the

changes in his assignments and duties had no impact on Mr. Hare.



Defendants object to Exhibits 14, 15, 16, 23 and 24 on hearsay

grounds. The Court is not persuaded that these documents pose a
hearsay problem, and the objections are, therefore, overruled.
Finally, the defendants object to Exhibits 43 amd 44 on the

ground that the information contained therein was not disclosed

during discovery. Plaintiff, in response, argues that the
information - plaintiff's lost pre-trial wages (Exhibit 43} and
plaintiff's lost future earnings (Exhibit 44) - was, in fact

disclosed. Whether or not it was disclosed, the information is
based upon Mr. Hare’s salary as of the time he left the Village of
Stickney Police Department, multiplied by a period of years
{through trial for Exhibit 43, or through a retirement date for
Exhibit 44). The Court sees nothing shocking or surprising in the
charts; moreover, they would seem to be a reasonable means of
conveying to the jury the plaintiff’s compensatory damages theory.
Exhibits 43 and 44 will be allowed.
B. Defendants’ Proposed Exhibits

Turning to the defendants’ proposed trial exhibits, the Court
first notes that the defendants have included in their exhibit book
a number of emails between Mr. Hare and Karyn Stratton (defendants’
Exhibits A through U}. The defendants moved in limine to bar these
exhibits, and the plaintiff, who had objected to them in the first
instance, did not oppose the motion to bar them. Accordingly, the

Court granted the defendants’ motion to exclude them. The


defendants will be held to that ruling, and the emails, which the
Court excluded at the defendants’ request, must be pulled from the
exhibits binder. The documents may, however, be used for
impeachment or other purposes.

Next, the plaintiff objects to Exhibits V, W, and AA through
KK, arguing that these documents should be excluded consistent with
plaintiff’s Seventh Motion in Limine, which sought to bar any
evidence that Mr. Hare improperly or inadequately supervised the
Stickney Police Department’s evidence room. The Court denied that
motion, finding that the defendants were entitled to put on
evidence to support their claim that any perceived mistreatment or
harassment was the result of animosity that had nothing to do with
Mr. Hare’s whistle-blowing. The plaintiff’s relevance objections
to these exhibits are, therefore, overruled. Assuming the
defendants can lay a proper foundation and avoid hearsay problems,
these documents will be admitted. Until the defendants can satisfy
the Court on hearsay, the documents should be removed from the
exhibits books.

Next, the plaintiff objects to Exhibit X, a report prepared by
Detective Mallon in the wake of the “Kim Koudelka incident.” The
report is relevant to the defendants’ claim that Chief Zitek
handled the Kim Koudelka incident the way he did, not because he
wanted to retaliate against Mr. Hare for speaking out about

corruption, but because he felt that the situation warranted an