IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON )

) Case No. 20 CV 4156

Plaintiff, )

) Judge Sara L. Ellis

v. )

) Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain

REYNALDO GUEVARA, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER EXCESS PAGES AND STATEMENT OF FACT

Defendants, Darryl Daley, Geri Lynn Yanow, as special representative for William Erickson 

(deceased), Ernest Halvorsen (deceased), John Healy (deceased), and the City of Chicago, together 

through their undersigned counsel, respond in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 

Instanter Excess Pages and Statement of Fact, (Dkt. 342), and state: 

INTRODUCTION 

On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Response in Opposition to Defendants’ 

Summary Judgment Motions (“Plaintiff’s Response”) (Dkt. 341) and his Statement of Disputed 

Facts in Support of His Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, (“PDSOF”)

(Dkt. 340). In addition, Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendant City of Chicago’s Motion to Bar 

Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Nancy Steblay, (Dkt. 336), and his Response to Defendant City of Chicago’s 

Daubert Motion to Bar Opinions of Thomas J. Tiderington. (Dkt. 338). While each of these filings 

are a direct violation of the local rules for the Northern District of Illinois1, the most egregious 

1 Each of Plaintiff’s briefs exceed the 15-page limit set forth in Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1 

and were filed on the docket without prior approval of the court. In fact, Plaintiff’s Response devotes 126 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 345 Filed: 06/14/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:52212
2

violations are of this Court’s Standing Order related to the statement of facts. Accordingly, the 

Defendants respectfully request this Court defer ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 

Instanter Excess Pages and Statement of Fact (“Motion for Leave”) to allow time for the 

Defendants to file a Motion to Strike. 

THIS COURT’S STANDING ORDER

 In addition to the Local Rules, this Court’s Standing Order reads as follows: 

Parties are required to file a joint statement of undisputed material facts that the 

parties agree are not in dispute. The joint statement of undisputed material facts 

shall be filed separately from the memoranda of law. It shall include citations to 

admissible evidence supporting each undisputed fact (i.e. the line, paragraph, or 

page number where the supporting material may be found in the record). The 

supporting material must be attached to the joint statement. The parties may not 

file – and the Court will not consider – separate statements of undisputed 

facts. However, the non-moving party may include facts in its response to the 

motion for summary judgment that it contends are disputed in order to demonstrate 

that a genuine issue of material fact exists that warrants denying the motion for 

summary judgment. The non-moving party must include citations to supporting 

material supporting the dispute and attach the same. The moving party may respond 

to these facts in its reply.

The Seventh Circuit has held on several occasions that this Court’ summary judgment 

practice does not violate Local Rule 56.1. See Chi. Studio Rental, Inc. v. Ill. Doc., 940 F.3d 971, 

982 (7th Cir. 2019); Sweatt v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 796 F.3d 701, 711-712 (7th Cir. 2015). 

ARGUMENT

 As this Court is acutely aware, the road to the submission of the joint statement of facts in 

this matter was extensive, involving multiple filings and substantial assistance and involvement 

from the Court. (See e.g., Dkts. 290, 292-1, 299, 302, 305). In fact, this Court brought the Parties 

in twice, providing its guidance and expectations related to the standing order. On January 25, 

2024, the Court admonished Plaintiff’s counsel that it had been struck by the nature of counsel’s 

pages (of his 168 response) to oppose the individual defendants 42 pages memorandum in support of 

summary judgment. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 345 Filed: 06/14/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:52213
3

objections in other cases because they are not really objections, but rather, argument. See, Jan. 25, 

2024, Hearing Transcript at 7:5-12, attached as Ex. 1. The Court went on to state that the 

expectation was that both sides would go into this process in good faith, advising “[y]ou cannot 

object to something simply because its not in your favor or you don’t like it or it’s a bad fact.” Id. 

at 7:13-17. On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel was again directed by the Court that there 

should be no argument in the statement of facts, rather, the argument belongs in the brief. See, 

Feb. 29, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 3:14-25, 4:24-5:2, attached as Ex. 2. 

After significant devotion of time and effort, the Parties each edited the facts and submitted 

a Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, which related to the underlying criminal 

investigation, (Dkt. 313), and the Parties’ Joint Statement of Facts, which related to the Monell 

claims. (Dkt. 320). These filings totaled 139 facts (of which 27 facts were submitted by Plaintiff) 

and 296 facts (of which approximately 115 facts were submitted by Plaintiff) respectively. Id. 

Despite this lengthy and arduous process, Plaintiff has filed what is titled a Statement of 

Disputed Facts in Support of His Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment 

which includes 493 paragraphs. (Dkt. 340). But that number itself is misleading as there appear 

to be at least 66 sub-paragraphs. Id. While this Court’s Standing Order allows for the nonmoving party to include “facts in its response to the motion for summary judgment that it contends 

are disputed in order to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists that warrants 

denying the motion for summary judgment” a cursory review of the PDSOF reveals that the 

PDSOF is really just a narrative constructed outside the meet-and-confer process for the JSOF that 

is largely unmoored to the record and designed to create the illusion that material disputes exist 

that prevent Defendants from prevailing on the arguments raised in their motions. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 345 Filed: 06/14/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:52214
4

Given these flagrant violations of this Court’s Standing Order and explicit guidance and 

expectations, the Defendants intend to file a motion to strike at a minimum, the PDSOF. 

Accordingly, the Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court defer ruling on Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants, Darryl Daley, Geri Lynn Yanow, as special representative for 

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

of Chicago, respectfully request this Honorable Court defer ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 

to File Instanter Excess Pages and Statement of Fact, and for any other relief as this Court deems 

just and reasonable. 

DATE: June 14, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Eileen E. Rosen

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel for 

Defendant City of Chicago 

Eileen E. Rosen 

Austin G. Rahe 

Catherine M. Barber 

Theresa B. Carney 

ROCK FUSCO & CONNELLY, LLC 

333 West Wacker Drive, 19th Fl.

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 494-1000 

erosen@rfclaw.com 

One of the Attorneys for the City of Chicago

/s/ Josh M. Engquist 

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel for 

Defendant Individual Officers 

James G. Sotos 

Josh M. Engquist 

David A. Brueggen 

The Sotos Law Firm, P.C. 

141 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1240A 

Chicago, IL 60604 

(630)735-3300 

JEngquist@jsotoslaw.com 

One of the Attorneys for the Individual 

Defendant Officers. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 345 Filed: 06/14/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:52215