IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANTONIO SOLIS, JOSE SOLIS, and JUAN

RANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HILCO REDEVELOPMENT LLC, HRE

CRAWFORD LLC, HRP EXCHANGE 55

LLC, MCM MANAGEMENT CORP.,

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.,

and MARINE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

LLC,

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 20 CV 2348 

Hon. Martha M. Pacold, 

District Judge

Hon. Sunil R. Harjani,

Magistrate Judge 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL MARINE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLC

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Antonio Solis, Jose Solis, and Juan Rangel move pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) for an order compelling Defendant Marine Technology Solutions 

LLC (“MTS”) to provide its overdue response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production and 

make a full and complete production within 14 days, stating in support as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs in this case allege that the Defendants conducted an unnecessary and

unsafe demolition of a smokestack on the site of a former coal plant on Easter weekend in the 

middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, spewing potentially toxic dust throughout the Little Village 

neighborhood. 

2. In moving to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, MTS asserted that “MTS provided a

proposed method to demolish the smoke stack at the Crawford site,” but another contractor on 

the job “rejected that plan for whatever reason and retained Defendant Controlled Demolitions, 

Inc. (CDI) to plan and execute the demolition.” Dkt. 84 ¶ 2. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02348 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/22/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:425
2

3. In response to MTS’ assertion that it proposed a plan that another contractor 

rejected, Plaintiffs served a single Request for Production on MTS on September 11, 2020, 

asking for “all Documents and Communications relating to Marine Technology Solutions’ 

proposed method to demolish the smoke stack at the Crawford site.” Ex. 1 (First Set of Requests 

for Production to MTS).1

4. On September 23, 2020, MTS provided the parties with a document that it 

described as “the proposal for stack removal prepared by MTS prepared September 29, 2019,” 

further explaining that the “proposal was not accepted by MCM and MTS was not involved with 

the actual implosion which is the subject of this case.” Ex. 2 (email string between Plaintiffs’ 

counsel and MTS’s counsel).

5. Plaintiffs’ Request for Production asked for all documents and communications 

relating to MTS’ proposed plan, not just a final presentation that MTS prepared and provided to 

the other Defendants. Thus, MTS’ September 23, 2020 production was not complete.

6. Moreover, although its response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production was due on 

October 12, 2020, MTS has not provided a written response to Plaintiffs’ Request or produced 

any documents other than the presentation that it produced on September 23. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34.

7. Plaintiffs have now sent two emails and left a voicemail more than a week ago 

asking for MTS’s response to the Request for Production. Ex. 3 (emails to counsel for MTS). 

MTS has not responded to those emails or returned the voicemail.

8. Given MTS’ unresponsiveness, Plaintiffs were unable to have a telephonic meet

and confer with MTS and were instead left with no choice other than moving to compel. See, 

1 The parties held a Rule 26 planning conference in August 2020. See Dkt. 88 at 4.

Case: 1:20-cv-02348 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/22/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:426
3

e.g., In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 351, 356 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (“The doctrine of 

futility is as applicable in the context of Rule 37 and Local Rule 37.2 as it is in any other.”) 

(footnote omitted).

9. In short, MTS’ response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production is 

overdue, and Plaintiffs have been unable to secure a response without Court intervention. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order MTS to make a full and complete 

production of responsive documents within 14 days, which is a longer period than other courts 

have permitted when parties have failed to respond to discovery requests on a timely basis. See

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 396, 399 (N.D. Ill. 2006) 

(ordering production of documents within 7 days after untimely responses to request for 

production). The Court should also hold that MTS has waived any objections it may have had to 

the Request for Production. See id. at 398 (“Failure to timely assert objections to discovery 

requests may result in a waiver of all objections that could have been seasonably asserted.”).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their motion to compel 

and order MTS to provide a full and complete response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for 

Production within 14 days.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY,

/s/ Scott Rauscher

Scott Rauscher

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Jon Loevy

Michael Kanovitz

Steve Art

Scott Rauscher

Julie Goodwin

Danielle Hamilton

Case: 1:20-cv-02348 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/22/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:427
4

Renee Spence

John Hazinski

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

(312) 243-5900

scott@loevy.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02348 Document #: 94 Filed: 10/22/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:428