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’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER EXCESS PAGES AND STATEMENT OF FACT

1. This Court’s standing order on summary judgment (which the Seventh Circuit has 

approved) explicitly states that “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.” 

2. Plaintiff did just that in a statement of disputed fact, one that points the Court to 

the material disputed facts on which a jury could find in Plaintiff’s favor, along with the exhibits 

that support them. Dkt. 340. 

3. Plaintiff acknowledges that in some cases, an agreed statement of facts is an 

efficient way to resolve summary judgment. In other kinds of cases, however, not so. This case is 

an example of the latter.

4. As Plaintiff has previously objected, Defendants’ argument relies on a view of the 

undisputed facts. Dkt. 305 at 1. But Plaintiff's argument opposing summary judgment does not 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 346 Filed: 06/17/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:52248
depend on the agreed facts. Given the nature of the case, Plaintiff's argument relies heavily on 

non-agreed (disputed) facts. 

5. That is a perfectly permissible approach.

1

 Indeed, it is entirely compatible with

Rule 56. Plaintiff is allowed to—and in many instances must—focus on what is disputed. Under 

Rule 56, there would be nothing improper or inappropriate about Plaintiff ignoring each and 

every agreed fact in the case, and instead defeating summary entirely based on facts that the 

Defendants sharply dispute. 

6. This case illustrates this well. Much energy has been spent getting to an 

agreement, for example, that a certain police report says “X.” Plaintiff’s objections that this is 

not a useful exercise have been overruled. It is now undisputed that this police report says “X.” 

But that fact is irrelevant. What really matters at summary judgment are the (disputed) facts that 

the witnesses listed in the police report have said that “X” never occurred. Or the many other 

(disputed) circumstances, statements, and testimony that contradict “X.” Because the jury might 

choose to believe the witnesses and myriad other evidence over the police report, Defendants 

cannot be entitled to summary judgment. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for leave must be granted in 

order to allow Plaintiff to present those facts. 

7. To the extent Defendants object to the length of Plaintiff’s brief or the number of 

facts, Plaintiff requires this much space to respond to the arguments Defendants have made. This 

1 Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has approved this Court’s case management procedure regarding summary 

judgment, but the Seventh Circuit’s approval has been premised on the understanding that a non-moving 

party can do precisely what Plaintiff has done here: “This [Court's case management procedure] is 

concerned solely with a statement of undisputed material facts to which both parties agree. Nothing in 

this CMP prohibits one party from responding to another party's version of the disputed facts. And 

nothing in this CMP prohibits a party from submitting additional facts, as the need may arise.” Sweatt v. 

Union Pac. R. Co., 796 F.3d 701, 711 (7th Cir. 2015) (emphases in original); see also Chicago Studio 

Rental, Inc. v. Illinois Dep’t of Com., 940 F.3d 971, 982 (7th Cir. 2019) (“The nonmoving party may 

include disputed facts in its response brief, and the moving party may respond to these disputed facts in 

its reply brief.”).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 346 Filed: 06/17/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:52249
is particularly so when Defendants make a number of perfunctory arguments that require pages 

of response. As one example, Defendants argued in a single paragraph that Plaintiff has no Brady

claim about a suppressed exculpatory lineup report because he was aware of the information in 

the report. Dkt. 323 at 31. This argument was so perfunctory as to be waived. But given this is a 

potentially dispositive issue, Plaintiff could not take the risk of simply arguing waiver, and 

needed to provide a fulsome explanation about why the argument is wrong as both a factual and 

legal matter. This response was necessary, and took several pages. Dkt. 341 at 79-84. Instances 

like this pervade the briefing, warranting Plaintiff’s page count. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant his motion for leave to 

excess pages and statement of fact instanter.

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

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 #: 346 Filed: 06/17/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:52250