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’ MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY 

SCHEDULE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULE 

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, together through their undersigned counsel, respectfully move this Court for an 

extension of time to complete expert discovery and to extend the summary judgment schedule. In 

support of this motion, Defendants state as follows: 

1. On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff disclosed three expert witnesses: (1) Thomas 

Tiderington, a police procedures expert and Monell expert opining on evidence suppression; (2) 

Dr. Jennifer Dysart, an eyewitness identification expert opining on the identification procedures 

used in the criminal investigation; and (3) Dr. Nancy Steblay, a Monell expert opining on the rate 

at which eyewitnesses made suspect identifications. 

2. On May 26, 2023, after various scheduling delays and disputes between the Parties, 

Defendants filed an unopposed motion to extend the expert discovery schedule (Dkt. 255), which 

this Court granted. (Dkt. 258). Pursuant to this Order, Defendants were to complete the 

depositions of Plaintiff’s experts by June 30, 2023, Defendants’ expert disclosures were due 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:6825
2 

August 11, 2023, and Plaintiff was to complete Defendants’ expert depositions by September 22, 

2023. (Dkt. 258). The Court further modified the summary judgment briefing schedule, ordering 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to be filed by November 3, 2023; Plaintiff’s response 

to be filed by December 4, 2023, and Defendants’ Reply to be filed by January 5, 2024. (Dkt. 

258). 

3. The deposition of Dr. Dysart was completed on June 20, 2023. 

4. Pursuant to an agreement between the Parties, the depositions of Dr. Steblay and 

Mr. Tiderington were scheduled for July 12th and 13th respectively. Despite these depositions 

being scheduled after June 30, 2023, Defendants were confident that the remainder of the schedule 

would not be impacted and would remain in place. 

5. The deposition of Dr. Steblay took place on July 12, 2023. While Mr. Tiderington’s 

deposition was scheduled for July 13, 2023. 

6. Unfortunately, due to an unexpected death in one of defense counsel’s families, the 

deposition of Mr. Tiderington could not go forward on July 13, 2023. The first available date that 

was available for all Parties and the witness to reschedule was August 22, 2023. At this time, 

defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss an extension of the expert schedule 

and subsequent summary judgment schedule. Despite agreeing generally to an extension of time 

to complete expert discovery, Plaintiff resisted Defendants’ request to extend the summary 

judgment schedule to allow for expert discovery to be fully completed before Defendants were to 

file their summary judgment briefs. 

7. While the parties were negotiating the extension, and before the completion of 

expert discovery, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendants regarding summary judgment 

arguing that no Defendant had any basis to file summary judgment on any of the claims and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:6826
3 

threatened Rule 11 sanctions against any Defendant that filed summary judgment. See August 8, 

2023, Correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

8. On August 21, 2023, one day before Mr. Tiderington’s deposition was scheduled 

to go forward, Plaintiff cancelled his deposition, without explanation. The next available dates 

offered by counsel to complete the last expert deposition were September 19 and 20, 2023. Almost 

three months after the initial deadline to complete the depositions, and over a week after 

Defendants were to disclose their rebuttal reports. 

9. On September 6, 2023, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s correspondence, and, 

in the spirit of this Court’s Standing Order on summary judgment practice, initiated discussions 

with Plaintiff in an attempt to narrow the scope of summary judgment by requesting Plaintiff drop 

certain claims against certain Defendants and conceding that they did not have a viable summary 

judgment motion for certain claims and Defendants. See September 6, 2023, Email attached hereto 

as Exhibit B. Plaintiff immediately responded by invoking Rule 11 yet again and requesting a 

telephone conference. Id. The Parties conferred telephonically on September 12, 2023, but little 

progress was made. While Defendants were prepared to and did in fact provide the factual and 

legal basis for their motions for summary judgment on specific claims and Defendants, Plaintiff 

continued to invoke Rule 11 in response to Defendants’ arguments and failed to provide the factual 

and legal basis for Plaintiff’s position. See September 12, 2023 Email attached hereto as Exhibit 

C. Despite these threats, Defendants have continued to confer with Plaintiff in good faith, and in 

accordance with the Court’s Standing Order related to summary judgment practice. 

10. Mr. Tiderington’s deposition was completed on September 20, 2023, almost three 

months after the initial schedule had required. On September 22, 2023, the Defendants again 

sought Plaintiff’s agreement on adjusting the remainder of the expert schedule. See September 22, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:6827
4 

2023 Email Correspondence, attached hereto as Exhibit D. Pursuant to that agreement, Defendants 

tendered their expert disclosures on October 13 and October 18, 2023. On October 20, 2023, 

Plaintiff requested dates for the depositions of each of Defendants’ experts, and on October 27, 

2023, Defendants provided November dates for their experts’ depositions. As of the filing of this 

motion, Plaintiff has not responded to or confirmed any of the proposed dates. It is likely that the 

depositions of Defendants’ experts will not be completed until the end of November at the earliest 

(assuming Plaintiff confirms the dates that have been proposed). Further, Defendants anticipate 

that Plaintiff will disclose at least one rebuttal expert report, which, based upon past experience, 

will require an additional deposition. 

11. The Parties are still engaged in conversations regarding the scope of summary 

judgment. Since the September 12, 2023, telephone conference, the Parties have exchanged 

additional written correspondence on the issue of summary judgment. Throughout these 

negotiations, the Defendants have repeatedly asked Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with this Court’s 

meet and confer requirements and provide the factual or legal authority that would defeat 

Defendants’ motions. Plaintiff has continuously refused to do so, and instead repeatedly invoked 

his intention to file a Rule 11 sanction motion against Defendants. See September 25, 2023, Email 

Correspondence, attached here to ax Exhibit E; October 20, 2023 Email correspondence attached 

as Exhibit F; October 30, 2023 Correspondence attached as Exhibit G; October 30, 2023, Email 

attached as Exhibit H. 

12. On October 31, 2023, Defendants sent another email to Plaintiff asking them to 

point to any specific questions of fact that would make Defendants’ proposed summary judgment 

arguments frivolous. See October 31, 2023, Email attached as Exhibit I. Plaintiff has not 

responded to this correspondence. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:6828
5 

13. Thus, Defendants request that the Court extend the expert schedule for the 

remaining deadlines and modify the summary judgment schedule to allow for the completion of 

expert discovery. The current schedule, as set in May, accounted for expert discovery being 

completed before summary judgment briefing, including Daubert motions, was to begin. 

Understanding this Court’s preference for Daubert and summary judgment motions to be filed 

simultaneously, the City cannot prepare and file its motion for summary judgment without 

completing its Daubert motions because Plaintiff’s Monell theories almost exclusively rely on his 

experts’ testimony1. Indeed, in a related case, Rodriguez v. Guevara, Northern District of Illinois 

Case No. 18-CV-7951, involving similar allegations against the City, and where the plaintiff is 

represented by the same counsel here, the plaintiff has conceded that he will rely on his experts’ 

opinions in an effort to defeat the City’s motion for summary judgment. See Rodriguez Dkt. 219. 

The City cannot prepare its Daubert motions until expert discovery is completed, including 

Plaintiff’s anticipated rebuttal expert(s). 

14. Furthermore, while Defendants’ final email inquiry remains unanswered, and 

Plaintiff appears to have closed the door on further discussions, Defendants remain hopeful that 

the parties will be able to resolve certain issues and either limit the scope of the summary judgment 

motions or eliminate the need for them entirely. Regardless, the current schedule set by this court 

needs to be adjusted to allow for the completion of expert discovery before summary judgment 

1

 As one example of this, Plaintiff’s responses to the City’s contention interrogatories regarding Monell 

make it clear that his Monell claims are dependent on his experts. For instance, in response to 

interrogatories requesting each theory of liability Plaintiff intends to pursue and the complete factual basis 

and evidence upon which Plaintiff will rely to establish how such theory amounts to a “policy” pursuant to 

Monell, Plaintiff objected that the parties had not yet completed expert discovery, and stated that the 

requests were premature to the extent they called for “quintessentially expert opinions” that were 

propounded before Plaintiff’s expert disclosures. Therefore, conceding that his Monell claims are reliant 

on his experts’ opinions. Indeed, Plaintiff made this same objection for nearly all 25 contention 

interrogatories tarted at the basis for his Monell claims. See, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant City’s 

Interrogatories, attached hereto as Exhibit J. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:6829
6 

briefing can begin. 

15. On November 2, 2023, the undersigned counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel 

to inform Plaintiff’s counsel of Defendants’ intention to file a motion for extension of time and to 

confirm what Plaintiff had previously conveyed to Defendants that he would object to any 

extension of the summary judgment schedule. To Defendants’ surprise, Plaintiff’s counsel 

responded to Defendants’ request they wished to confer on November 3. Defendants indicated 

their willingness to confer and provided their availability and requested that Plaintiff respond to 

Defendants’ previous email proposing expert deposition dates so that the parties could discuss the 

length of the extension that would be necessary. See November 2, 2023, Email Exchange. As of 

this filing, Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to Defendants’ email or provided their position 

on this extension. 

16. Accordingly, Defendants seek to extend the expert discovery schedule as follows: 

(1) Plaintiff to complete Defendants’ Expert Depositions by December 15, 2023; (2) Plaintiff to 

disclose any rebuttal experts by January 5, 2024; (3) Defendants to complete any rebuttal expert 

depositions by February 10, 20242. Assuming expert discovery is completed by February, the 

Court can set a summary judgment schedule. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant this Motion and 

extend the expert discovery schedule, modify the summary judgment schedule, and for any other 

relief as this Court deems just and reasonable. 

2

 Defendants propose this schedule under the assumption that Plaintiff agrees to the dates currently proposed 

for their four expert depositions. In the event that the eight proposed dates do not work, this current 

schedule is likely unworkable given other personal and professional obligations in the month of December. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6830
7 

DATE: November 3, 2023 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 

Lauren M. Ferrise 

ROCK FUSCO & CONNELLY, LLC 

333 West Wacker Drive, 19th Fl. 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 494-1000 

erosen@rfclaw.com 

/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 

/s/ Thomas M. Leinenweber 

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel for 

Defendant Reynaldo Guevara 

Thomas M. Leinenweber 

James V. Daffada 

LEINENWEBER BARONI & DAFFADA, 

LLC 

120 North LaSalle Street 

Suite 2000 

Chicago, IL 60602 

(312) 663-3003 

thomas@ilesq.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 283 Filed: 11/03/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:6831