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

PLAINTIFF DEMETRIUS JOHNSON’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER EXCESS PAGES AND STATEMENT OF FACT 

1. Defendants have filed three summary judgment motions, totaling 109 pages,

Dkts. 309, 323, 330, two joint statements of fact totaling 106 pages and 435 paragraphs,

Dkts. 313, 321, and two Daubert motions totaling 136 pages, Dkts. 326 (Steblay), 327

(Tiderington), for a grand total of 245 pages of briefing and 106 pages of facts.

2. Johnson has prepared his responses to all of the above filings. In addition to 

responding to the sheer volume of filings, Johnson’s job of responding in full to many 

dozens of paragraph-long arguments in hundreds of pages of briefing necessarily requires

more detail in response than is included in Defendants’ motions. This is particularly so 

because Defendant Guevara, who is differently situated than other Defendants given his 

invocation of the Fifth Amendment in response to all questions about this case, has filed a

bare bones motion to join the motions of other Defendants, requiring a Guevara-specific 

response to arguments that he himself doesn’t even make. Similarly, in many instances, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 342 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:52205
2

Defendants pluck a single piece of evidence from the massive factual record to support a 

particular legal argument; the response to that argument requires providing a more fulsome

recitation of the factual record on the issue, and applying that context to Defendants’ 

arguments.

3. Accordingly, while Johnson has been as concise as possible, responding to 

each of Defendants’ arguments, and preserving factual and legal arguments, has required

lengthy briefs.

4. Johnson’s single, consolidated response in opposition to Defendants’ three

motions for summary judgment is 169 pages, and his additional statement of disputed facts in 

support is 493 paragraphs. Johnson’s responses to the City’s two Daubert motions are 40

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

336).

5. As this Court is aware, Plaintiff has previously proposed that both Parties agree 

not to waste time on motions for summary judgment. Defendants refused, necessitating the 

lengthy briefing on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and Plaintiff’s cross-motion.

6. In order to ensure that there is a fully developed record at summary judgment

and that arguments are developed in a manner that assists the Court in efficiently resolving 

the pending motions, Johnson hereby seeks leave to file the above excess-length briefs.

7. Also, pursuant to this Court’s standing order allowing a non-moving party to 

file additional disputed facts that “demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists that 

warrants denying the motion for summary judgment,” Plaintiff is filing an accompanying 

disputed statement of fact, with supporting citations and exhibits.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 342 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:52206
3

8. Plaintiff’s counsel worked diligently to complete and file Plaintiff’s 

consolidate response and corresponding statement of disputed facts, but due to the number 

and breadth of arguments raised in Defendants’ lengthy motions seeking dismissal of all 

claims against all Defendants, Plaintiff failed to complete the responsive brief and statement 

of disputed facts on time.

9. Accordingly, Plaintiff is filing his response brief and statement of fact about 

three hours after midnight on the day they were due, before the opening of business. For that 

reason, Plaintiff submits that there is no unfair prejudice to Defendants as a result of this brief 

delay. 

10. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to file instanter his 

statement of disputed facts and an enlarged brief, as follows:

a) A consolidated response in opposition to all Defendants’ motions for summary

judgment of 169 pages;

b) Daubert responses to the City’s motion to bar the expert opinions of

Tiderington and Steblay of, respectively, 40 pages and 46 pages.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON

 By: /s/Steve Art 

 One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Arthur Loevy

Jon Loevy

Anand Swaminathan

Steven Art

Sean Starr

Alyssa Martinez

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 342 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:52207
4

Meg Gould

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 North Aberdeen St., 3rd Fl.

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

steve@loevy.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 342 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:52208