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 

Judge Sara L. Ellis 

Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND REMAINING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, DAUBERT AND MOTION TO STRIKE BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

Defendants, Reynaldo Guevara, Darryl Daley, Geri Lynn Yanow, as special representative 

for William Erickson (deceased), Ernest Halvorsen (deceased), John Healy (deceased), and the 

City of Chicago, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move for an order extending the 

remaining summary judgment, Daubert and motion to strike briefing schedules, and state in 

support: 

1. On April 12, 2024, Defendants Halvorsen, Daley, Erickson and Healy moved for 

summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. (Dkt. 311.) Similarly, Defendant City moved for 

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Monell claim (Dkt. 317), and filed two Daubert motions. (Dkt. 

326, 327.) Defendant Guevara also moved for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. 309.) 

2. All Defendants except Guevara sought leave to file their respective memoranda in 

support of summary judgment in excess of fifteen pages (15) pages, (Dkt. 312, 318), which the 

Court granted. (Dkt. 322.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 356 Filed: 07/15/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:52260
2

3. In accordance with this Court’s summary judgment procedures, the Parties 

submitted Joint Statements of Undisputed Material Facts, one which relates to the underlying 

investigation (Dkt. 313), and the other which relates to Plaintiff’s Monell claim. (Dkt. 320.) The 

Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts related to the underlying investigation totaled 139 

paragraphs (Dkt. 313), and the Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts related to Plaintiff’s Monell

claim totaled 296 paragraphs. (Dkt. 320.)

4. On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for extension of time

requesting a four-week extension to June 10, 2024 to file his responsive briefs to Defendants’ 

motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions, (Dkt. 331), which the Court subsequently 

granted. (Dkt. 333.) The Court revised the summary judgment and Daubert briefing schedule as 

follows: Plaintiff's responses are due by 6/10/2024 and Defendants' replies are due by 7/19/2024. 

(Dkt. 333.)

5. Thereafter, on June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a single, consolidated response in 

opposition to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment totaling 168 pages, and a Statement of 

Additional Disputed Facts which includes 475 paragraphs and 66 sub-paragraphs, amounting to 

541 paragraphs in total. (Dkt. 340.) Approximately 283 of the paragraphs are directed towards 

the Individual Defendant Officers; the remaining 258 paragraphs (inclusive of sub-paragraphs)

are directed towards the City. (Dkt. 340.)

6. In support of his memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motions for summary 

judgment, Plaintiff filed 294 exhibits totaling approximately 20,208 pages. (Dkt. 339, 339-1—

339-20.)

7. Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant City’s Daubert motions are 40 pages for the 

Tiderington response (Dkt. 338) and 46 pages for the Steblay response. (Dkt. 336)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 356 Filed: 07/15/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:52261
3

8. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file instanter excess pages 

and statement of fact, specifically requesting leave to file his 168-page consolidated response to 

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and oversized Daubert responses. (Dkt. 342.) 

9. Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and informed the 

Court that Defendants intended to file a motion to strike Plaintiff’s Statement of Disputed Facts. 

(Dkt. 345.)

10. On June 17, 2024, over Defendants’ objection (Dkt. 345), the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file instanter, however, in doing so, the Court stated: “The Court 

notes that it has discussed the summary judgment briefing process with the parties ad nauseum. 

The entire point of the Court’s process is to avoid motions to strike or inefficient use of the 

Court’s and parties’ time. While Plaintiff is free, and in fact encouraged, to bring disputed facts 

to the Court’s attention that warrant a denial of summary judgment, the Court finds it hard to 

believe that it must sift through almost 500 statements of fact in order to do so. Nevertheless, the 

Court will rule on what the parties present and also impose any warranted sanctions for failing to 

follow the Court’s clear directives.” (Dkt. 347.) The Court sets the following briefing schedule 

on Defendants' motion to strike: Defendants' motion to strike is due by July 19, 2024; Plaintiff's 

response is due by August 2, 2024; and Defendants' reply is due by August 9, 2024. (Dkt. 347.)

11. While Defendants are mindful of the Court’s ruling granting Plaintiff’s motion, 

and have worked as expeditiously as possible on preparing responsive pleadings, in order to 

complete well-crafted, researched and supported pleadings in response to Plaintiff’s 168-page 

consolidated response (Dkt. 341) and 541 paragraphs of disputed facts (Dkt. 340), and provide a 

targeted reply that will assist this Court in deciding the critical issues, Defendants need additional 

time and respectfully request until August 9, 2024 to file their response pleadings. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 356 Filed: 07/15/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:52262
4

12. Plaintiff dedicates approximately 126 pages of his 168-page consolidated 

response towards the Individual Officer Defendants (Dkt. 341) with the remainder directed in 

response to the City’s arguments. See generally, id. Plaintiff’s 126-page response is three times 

longer than the Individual Officer Defendants’ 42-page memorandum in support of summary 

judgment. (Dkt. 323.) 

13. In addition, while simultaneously preparing a reply to Plaintiff’s 168-page 

consolidated response brief, Defendants will also have to review all 559 paragraphs of Plaintiff’s 

additional statement of disputed facts and cull through the 294 exhibits Plaintiff cites to for 

evidentiary support— a task that is tremendously labor intensive, challenging, and tedious.

14. Moreover, the City must file a reply in support of its two Daubert motions and 

build in time for the City’s internal client review and approval, in addition to defense counsels’ 

other professional obligations. Defense counsel are actively involved in continued summary 

judgment briefing in Rios v. Guevara, et. al., No. 22-CV-03973 and Maysonet v. Guevara, et al., 

No. 18-CV-2342.

15. On July 15, 2024, Defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel via email 

regarding the substance of this Motion who opposes this motion.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request an extension of time to file their replies 

and motion to strike, up to and including August 9, 2024.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 356 Filed: 07/15/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:52263
5 

Dated: July 15, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Josh M. Engquist 

Josh M. Engquist, Atty. No. 6242849

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel 

One of the Attorneys for Defendants Daley, 

Halvorsen, Erickson, and Healy 

James G. Sotos

Josh M. Engquist 

David A. Brueggen

Elizabeth R. Fleming

Daniel J. McGinnis 

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel 

The Sotos Law Firm, P.C.

141 W. Jackson, Suite 1240A 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

(630) 735-3300 

jengquist@jsotoslaw.com

/s/ Theresa B. Carney 

Theresa B. Carney, Atty No. 6308586 

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel 

One of the Attorneys for City of Chicago 

Eileen E. Rosen

Catherine M. Barber

Theresa B. Carney

Austin G. Rahe 

Lauren M. Ferrise

Jessica L. Zehner

ROCK FUSCO & CONNELLY, LLC

333 W. Wacker Dr., 19th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 494-1000 

tcarney@rfclaw.com 

/s/ Timothy P. Scahill 

Timothy P. Scahill, Atty. No. 6287296 

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel 

One of the Attorneys for Defendant Guevara 

Steven Blair Borkan 

Timothy P Scahill 

Whitney Hutchinson 

Emily E. Schnidt 

Christine E. Murray

Amanda Guetler 

Krystal Gonzalez

Borkan & Scahill, Ltd. 

20 South Clark Street 

Suite 1700 

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 580-1030 

tscahill@borkanscahill.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 356 Filed: 07/15/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:52264
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Josh M. Engquist, certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 that 

the foregoing is true and correct, that on Monday, July 15, 2024, I electronically filed the 

foregoing Defendants’ Opposed Motion to Extend Remaining Summary Judgment, 

Daubert, and Motion to Strike Briefing Schedules with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record on the 

below Service List.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Jon Loevy 

Anand Swaminathan 

Joshua Tepfer

Rachel Brady

Steven Art 

Sean Starr

Alyssa Martinez

Margaret Gould

Ruth Brown

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607 

312-243-5900 

jon@loevy.com

anand@loevy.com

josh@loevy.com

brady@loevy.com

steve@loevy.com

sean@loevy.com

alyssa@loevy.com

gould@loevy.com

ruth@loevy.com 

Attorneys for City of Chicago:

Eileen E. Rosen

Austin G. Rahe 

Catherine M. Barber

Theresa B. Carney

Lauren Ferrise

Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC 

333 W. Wacker Dr., 19th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606

312-494-1000 

erosen@rfclaw.com

arahe@rfclaw.com

cbarber@rfclaw.com

tcarney@rfclaw.com

lferrise@rfclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Guevara: 

Steven Blair Borkan 

Timothy P Scahill 

Whitney Hutchinson 

Emily E. Schnidt 

Christine E. Murray

Amanda Guetler 

Krystal Gonzalez

Borkan & Scahill, Ltd. 

20 South Clark Street

Suite 1700 

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 580-1030 

sborkan@borkanscahill.com

tscahill@borkanscahill.com

whutchinson@borkanscahill.com

eschnidt@borkanscahill.com

cmurray@borkanscahill.com

aguertler@borkanscahill.com

kgonzalez@borkanscahill.com

/s/ Josh M. Engquist 

Josh M. Engquist 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 356 Filed: 07/15/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:52265