IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON,

 

Plaintiff, 

v.

REYNALDO GUEVARA, the ESTATE of 

ERNEST HALVERSON, DARRYL DALEY, 

WILLIAM ERICKSON, JOHN HEALY, and 

the CITY OF CHICAGO, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 Case No. 20-cv-4156 

 Hon. Sara L. Ellis, 

District Judge

Hon. Heather K. McShain, 

 Magistrate Judge

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff DEMETRIUS JOHNSON, by his attorneys, respectfully submits this response in 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for an extension of the discovery and summary judgment 

deadlines, Dkt. 283, stating in support as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This Court should deny Defendants’ request for a further extension of discovery 

and summary judgment deadlines in this case and proceed instead to trial.

BACKGROUND

2. Fact discovery in this case closed in October 2022, more than a year ago. 

3. Nearly 10 months ago, on January 26, 2023, this Court set a schedule for expert 

disclosures and Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, ordering Plaintiff’s disclosures due 

on March 1, 2023, Defendants’ due on June 1, 2023, and Defendants’ motions for summary 

judgment due on August 28, 2023. Dkt. 204. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:6899
4. Plaintiff requested a one-week extension of his expert disclosure deadline, Dkt. 

217, and on March 8, 2023, Plaintiff disclosed three expert witnesses—Dr. Dysart, Dr. Steblay, 

and Mr. Tiderington. 

5. On May 1, 2023, Defendants filed their first motion to extend the schedule, asking 

the Court to make their expert disclosures due on July 12, 2023, which gave Defendants four 

months after Plaintiff’s disclosures to disclose their own experts, and to make their motion for 

summary judgment due on September 20, 2023. Dkt. 244. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants’

request. Id. The Court granted Defendants’ motion on May 3, 2023. Dkt. 246. 

6. On May 26, 2023, Defendants moved a second time to extend the schedule to 

make their expert disclosures due on August 11, 2023, adding a fifth month to their time to 

produce expert reports, and requesting that the Court set a summary judgment briefing schedule 

at its discretion. Dkt. 255. Plaintiff again did not oppose Defendants’ request. Id. The Court 

granted the motion, ordering that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment would be due on 

November 3, 2023. Dkt. 258.

7. On June 20, 2023, the deposition of Dr. Dysart was completed. On July 12, 2023, 

the deposition of Dr. Steblay was completed. As Defendants describe in their motion, Plaintiff 

offered additional expert deposition dates which Defendants did not accept, and both sides had to 

cancel one expert’s deposition. Dkt. 283.

8. On July 31, 2023, Defendants asked Plaintiff to agree to a third extension of their 

expert disclosure and summary judgment deadlines. Exhibit A. Plaintiff stated that he would not 

oppose a deadline of September 22, 2023, for Defendants’ expert disclosures and November 22, 

2023, for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id. Defendants never responded to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:6900
Plaintiff’s proposal, the parties never reached an agreement on a proposed schedule, and 

Defendants never filed a motion to extend the deadlines. Id.

9. In the meantime, Plaintiff raised with Defendants the issue of whether summary 

judgment was even appropriate in the case. On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff sent a letter to 

Defendants, setting out his view that there is no non-frivolous basis for certain Defendants to 

seek summary judgment, given the numerous material factual disputes in this case. Exhibit B.

Plaintiff proposed that he would agree to dismiss otherwise meritorious claims if the parties 

could avoid the cost and delay of summary judgment briefing and proceed directly to trial. Id. In 

particular, Plaintiff proposed that he would voluntarily dismiss his claims against Defendants 

Healy and Daley, and he would agree not to file a motion to preclude the City from relitigating 

Monell theories it has previously lost in recent trials in this District, if the remaining Defendants 

agreed to forgo summary judgment motions. Id. Plaintiff requested that Defendants provide their 

position before August 15, 2023. Id.

10. Defendants did not respond for a month. On September 12, 2023, the parties 

conferred, and Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s August 8 proposal. Exhibit C (Art September 12, 

2023 correspondence). Defendants responded that they would forgo summary judgment only if 

Plaintiff dismissed all claims against all parties, except those again Defendant Guevara. Id. 

Plaintiff rejected that counter proposal, but in the spirit of compromise set out a second proposal

more generous to Defendants than his first: He would agree to dismiss Defendants Healy and 

Daley and limit his Monell theory against the City in this case to a single file-suppression Monell

theory—the same as that which his counsel tried and won in both Rivera v. Guevara, et al., No. 

12 C 4428 (N.D. Ill.), and Fields v. City of Chicago, No. 10 C 1168 (N.D. Ill.)—if the City and 

Defendants Guevara, Halvorsen, and Erickson agreed not to move for summary judgment. Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:6901
Plaintiff asked, to the extent Defendants felt that Halvorsen or Erickson had a non-frivolous basis 

to move for summary judgment on some but not all of Plaintiff’s theories against them, that they

identify which particular theories they thought were amenable to summary judgment

proceedings. Plaintiff asked for a response by September 15, 2023. Id.

11. On September 22, 2023, without ever having reached an agreement on a third 

extension of deadlines and having not moved the Court for an extension of time, Defendants 

asked for Plaintiff’s agreement to a fourth extension of their deadline to disclose expert reports,

up to and including October 13, 2023. Exhibit D. Plaintiff again attempted to work with 

Defendants in good faith. Id. Plaintiff took the position that he had no objection to the extension

of expert disclosures, so long as the Defendants agreed that it would not delay the existing 

summary judgment schedule. Id. Defendants took that deal, and on October 13 and 18, 2023, 

they disclosed four expert reports. Exhibit E.

12. Meanwhile, the parties’ negotiations about summary judgment continued. On 

September 25, 2023, Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s September 12 proposal to avoid summary 

judgment. Exhibit C (Carney September 24, 2023 correspondence). They stated they believed 

Defendant Erickson had arguments for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims, except for 

Plaintiff’s Brady claims. Id. Defendants asserted that they would seek summary judgment on all 

of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Halvorsen. Id. Finally, the City asserted that it felt that it 

had a basis to obtain summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Monell file-suppression theory. Id. 

Defendants proposed that they would not pursue summary judgment if Plaintiff dismissed all of 

his claims against all Defendants, with the exception of his Brady claims against Defendant 

Erickson and his claims against Defendant Guevara. Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:6902
13. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff rejected Defendants’ proposal, explaining that 

Defendant Halvorsen participated in witness interviews, photo array identifications, and lineups 

in which Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen engaged in misconduct to 

fabricate evidence and to suppress exculpatory evidence to frame Plaintiff. Exhibit C (Art 

October 20, 2023 correspondence). Moreover, Plaintiff explained, Halvorsen’s partner, Reynaldo 

Guevara, has pleaded his Fifth Amendment rights rather than defend the actions of himself or 

Defendant Halvorsen (who did not testify). Id. Finally, Plaintiff reiterated his view that the City 

could not seek summary judgment on Plaintiff’s file-suppression theory, given that it had lost the 

same claim, based on the same evidence, at two recent trials, and considering that it had been 

precluded from even re-litigating that Monell theory in another recent case. Kluppelberg v. 

Burge, No. 13 C 3963, Dkt. 636 (N.D. Ill.). Id.

14. Still, Plaintiff made a third proposal to Defendants, even more generous than his 

first two: He would agree to dismiss all claims against Defendants Healy and Daley, all claims 

except for his Brady claim against Defendant Erickson, and all claims except for his filesuppression Monell theory against the City, and he would agree not to move to apply claim and 

issue preclusion against the City, if Defendants Guevara, Halvorsen, Erickson, and the City 

agreed not to move for summary judgment on the remaining theories in the case. Id.

15. At that point in time, Plaintiff had not received any proposed joint statement of 

facts from Defendants regarding their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff stated that if the 

parties could not reach an agreement on summary judgment, then Plaintiff would need 

Defendants’ proposed joint statement of undisputed facts by October 27, 2023, in order to timely 

provide feedback in advance of the summary judgment filing deadline of November 3, 2023. Id.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:6903
16. On October 30, 2023, five days before their motion for summary judgment was 

due, Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s proposal and took a step backwards, proposing an agreement 

that Defendants would not pursue summary judgment if Plaintiff dismissed all of his claims in 

the case, with the exception of only his Brady claims against Defendants Guevara and Erickson. 

Exhibit C (Art October 30, 2023 correspondence). Plaintiff pointed out that the proposal was 

worse than the one that had been rejected earlier in the month, noted that he still had not received 

Defendants’ proposed joint statement of facts regarding summary judgment, and asked 

Defendants to provide that proposed joint statement by November 1, 2023. Id.

17. Defendants never provided a draft of their proposed joint statement of facts 

required by this Court’s standing orders. Instead, on November 2, 2023, just before 5 p.m., 

contrary to the parties’ agreement that Defendants’ multiple requests for extensions of expert 

disclosures would not alter the summary judgment schedule, Defendants stated that they would 

file another motion to extend the expert discovery and summary judgment deadlines.

18. Less than 24 hours later, without conferring, Defendants filed their pending 

motion, in which they ask to extend the deadline for expert discovery into February 2024 and the 

summary judgment schedule indefinitely. Dkt. 283.

19. On November 5, 2023, Plaintiff informed Defendants that he intends to take the 

deposition of only one of their disclosed experts, confirming November 15, 2023, as the date for 

that deposition. Exhibit E.

DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTS FOR AN EXTENSION SHOULD BE DENIED

A. The Request to Extend Expert Discovery Should Be Denied

20. Fact discovery in this case closed in October 2022. Expert discovery in this case 

has been open nearly a year. Defendants disclosed experts on October 13 and 18, 2023, more 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6904
than five months after the Court’s initial deadline, after Plaintiff agreed to four extensions of 

time.

21. There is no more expert discovery to conduct. Plaintiff’s single deposition of one 

of Defendants’ experts will take place next week.

22. Moreover, none of Defendants’ expert reports (or any rebuttal submitted by 

Plaintiff) is relevant at all to Defendants’ summary judgment motions. They are not relevant 

because Defendants bear the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact 

on any of Plaintiff’s claims, and Defendants’ disclosed experts’ responses to Plaintiff’s experts 

cannot resolve disputes of fact in Defendants’ favor—at best those reports add to the material 

disputes of fact that a jury must consider. Wipf v. Kowalski, 519 F.3d 380, 385 (7th Cir. 2008) 

(explaining that “in a case of dueling experts . . . it is left to the trier of fact . . . to decide how to 

weigh the competing expert testimony”); Lebow v. Am. Trans Air, Inc., 86 F.3d 661, 667 (7th Cir.

1996) (resolution of battle of experts “is best reserved for the trier of fact”).

23. This Court should not extend the expert discovery schedule because there is no 

reason for such an extension.

B. The Request to Extend Summary Judgment Deadlines Should Be Denied

24. This Court should decide that Defendants have relinquished their opportunity to 

move for summary judgment.

25. Defendants agreed with Plaintiff that their delay in providing expert disclosures 

and the corresponding extensions agreed to by Plaintiff would not alter the summary judgment 

schedule set by the Court, which made their motions due on November 3, 2023. Only after 

making that agreement and taking months to disclose their expert reports, Defendants reneged on 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:6905
the agreement and sought to suspend the summary judgment deadline on the day that their 

summary judgment motions were due.

26. For weeks leading up to that summary judgment deadline, Plaintiff repeatedly 

asked Defendants to engage in this Court’s standing summary judgment procedures. Defendants 

never provided a proposed joint statement despite repeated requests. Moreover, Defendants have

agreed the summary judgment deadline would not be changed, and they never mentioned any 

extension until the day before their motions for summary judgment were due. 

27. Defendants simply ignored this Court’s summary judgment requirements. Parties 

should not be permitted to ignore the process and then ask for more time at the last second. See 

Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 607-08 (7th Cir.2006) (holding that district courts 

are allowed to strictly enforce summary judgment deadlines); Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 

F.3d 542, 548 (7th Cir.2006) (“[I]t is widely accepted that neglect due to a busy schedule is not 

excusable.”). Particularly so when the extension request is contrary to agreements made between 

the parties to govern the litigation. FrenchPorte IP, LLC v. C.H.I. Overhead Doors, Inc., No. 21-

CV-2014, 2023 WL 2447591, at *3 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2023) (“[I]f the parties could not rely on 

courts to enforce discovery agreements, there would be little incentive for parties to make 

them.”).

28. Granting more time for summary judgment motions here would be especially 

fruitless, given that there is no basis for Defendants to seek summary judgment in the first place.

Indeed, Plaintiff has been willing to narrow the claims in good faith to put that issue beyond 

reasonable dispute. In fact, he is still willing to adhere to his last offer made to Defendants 

regarding summary judgment: If the case proceeds directly to trial, Plaintiff will agree to 

voluntarily dismiss (a) all claims against Defendants Healy and Daley, (b) all claims except for 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:6906
his Brady claim against Defendant Erickson, and (c) all claims except for his Monell filesuppression theory against the City, and (d) he would agree not to move to apply claim and issue 

preclusion against the City. Defendants should not be permitted to simply reject Plaintiff’s goodfaith efforts to narrow the issues for trial to avoid the need for futile summary judgment motions 

in a case where there is sure to be a trial.

29. This Court should deny Defendants’ request for an extension of summary 

judgment deadlines and proceed instead to trial.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ Steve Art 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Arthur Loevy 

Jon Loevy 

Anand Swaminathan 

Steven Art

Rachel Brady

Sean Starr

Alyssa Martinez

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen

Chicago, Illinois 60607 

(312) 243-5900 

steve@loevy.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:6907
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Steve Art, an attorney, certify that on November 8, 2023, I filed the foregoing pleading 

using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which effected service on all counsel of record.

/s/ Steve Art 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 286 Filed: 11/08/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:6908