1

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, and GERI LYNN YANOW as 

Special Representative for the Estates of 

Defendants ERNEST HALVERSON, 

WILLIAM ERICKSON, and 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

OPPOSED MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME

TO FILE THEIR MOTION ON DISPUTES

IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants DARRYL DALEY, and GERI LYNN YANOW as Special Representative 

for ERNEST HALVERSON, deceased, WILLIAM ERICKSON, deceased, and JOHN HEALY,

deceased, (“Defendant Officers”) by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move this Cour for 

additional time to file their motion on Disputes in the Joint Statement of Facts and Summary 

Judgment, and state as follows:

1. On November 14, 2023, the Court extended expert discovery to December 15, 

2023 set the date for Defendants to file their motions for Summary Judgment for January 31, 

2024. 

2. On December 22, 2023, Defendant City of Chicago and Defendant Officers

submitted their separate draft JSOF to Plaintiff for review and comment. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 290 Filed: 01/22/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:6940
2

3. Defendant Officers continued to work on their motion for Summary Judgment1

and after not receiving any objections from Plaintiff, on January 2, 2024, informed Plaintiff that 

they made one edit to what was previously submitted to Plaintiff by adding one paragraph and 

identified the paragraph.

4. On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff for the first time requested all exhibits cited to in 

Defendant Officers’ draft JSOF. Defendants responded the same day with a link to all exhibits 

and also sent an updated version with edits to Defendant Officers’ citations.

5. On January 17, 2024 at 2:25 p.m., Plaintiff sent his initial objections to the 

Defendant Officers’ draft JSOF. Plaintiff’s response included red-lined edits to various facts and 

objections in Microsoft track changes comments in the margins of the draft JSOF. (See Ex. 1 -

Plaintiff’s 1.17.24 edits)

6. On January 19, 2024 at approximately 2:00 p.m., Defendant Officers responded 

to Plaintiff with responses to Plaintiff’s objections and stated:

Attached please find our response to your objections you sent over on the 

afternoon of the 17th to the draft JSOF. We have accepted some of your edits, 

withdrawn some draft facts, and where there is a current dispute we have 

responded.

We checked and it appears that Judge Ellis is off the bench from 1/29-2/2 and she 

has a three day notice requirement for motions.

Therefore, in order for us to attempt to meet her deadlines, if we need to litigate 

any of these facts a motion would have to be filed on Monday.

Accordingly, please advise when you are available on Monday to discuss this.

Additionally, in order for this draft JSOF to be in the format the court requires, 

please move all your stated objections and support for your objections directly 

below the draft fact.

(See Ex. 2 - Defendant Officers’ 1/19/2024 Email ) 

1 Defendant Officers have been mindful of where there are disputed issues of material fact and therefore, 

for the purposes of their motion for Summary Judgment, are not contesting that the “Erickson lineup 

report” was no produced to the prosecutor or defense counsel prior to trial.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 290 Filed: 01/22/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:6941
3

7. On January 21, 2024 at 11:55 a.m., Plaintiff responded with an email that they 

would be available at 4 p.m. (after a deposition)2to discuss the JSOF. (See Ex. 3 –1/21/24 email

exchange) Defendant Officers then inquired in three separate follow-up emails on January 21, 

2024 inquiring: 1) If Plaintiff’s counsel was going to be sending a new version with Plaintiff’s 

objections and support in the format the court requires prior to scheduled phone call, 2) if 

Plaintiff’s counsel was available for an earlier phone call so the parties could complete the work 

that needed to be done; and 3) if, due to the circumstances, Plaintiff would be willing to agree 

to a short extension. Plaintiff’s counsel responded at 9:31 p.m. that they would not agree to any 

additional time, as they saw the time crunch as solely the fault of Defendants and would confer 

at the end of Monday. (See Ex 3)

8. On January 22, 2024 at 11:59 a.m. Plaintiff responded with additional edits, but 

Plaintiff once again did not provide his objections in the format required by the Court. (See Ex.

4 – Plaintiff’s 1.22.24 edits to JSOF)

9. Defendant Officers then reviewed and cleaned up the working draft, including 

identifying the facts still in dispute and putting Plaintiff’s objections and citations from the 

comments in the margins into the Court required format and sending the latest draft to Plaintiff’s 

counsel just prior to a 4:30 p.m. telephone conference.

10. During the conference Plaintiff advised he would review the cleaned-up version 

and respond to Defendants. At the end of the phone conference, Defendant Officers confirmed 

with Plaintiff that they would pull all the exhibits cited in disputed fact paragraphs and remove 

any remaining notes in the margin so the document could be filed with the Court and the 

disputed paragraphs ruled upon by this Court. Additionally, Defendant Officers requested that 

2 This deposition was canceled by Plaintiff at 10:36 a.m. on Monday January 22, 2024.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 290 Filed: 01/22/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:6942
4

Plaintiff correct and ensure consistency in the cites in his objections so it could be filed. (See Ex 

5 – 1/22/24 email exchange) 

11. At 6:45 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant Officers that he would not 

be able to review and send any edits until the following morning. Defendant Officers then 

responded (at 7:03 p.m.) that the motion needed to be filed that evening. To which Plaintiff 

responded (at 9:49 p.m.), with his final response on the issue again asserting that any delay was 

not his fault and he would respond the next day. (See Ex 5) 

12. While Defendant Officers will continue work with Plaintiff to finalize which facts 

are in dispute and have those issues presented to the Court in the format the Court requires, 

additional time is needed to complete this.

Wherefore, Defendant Officers respectfully request this Honorable Court grant an 

extension of an additional seven days to file their Summary Judgment motion after the Court 

rules on the disputed facts and the Joint Statement of Facts is finalized.

Dated: January 22, 2024 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ Josh M. Engquist

JOSH M. ENGQUIST

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

One of the Attorneys for Defendant Officers

James G. Sotos

Josh M. Engquist

David A. Brueggen

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

The Sotos Law Firm, P.C.

141 W. Jackson, Suite 1240A

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(630) 735-3300

jengquist@jsotoslaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 290 Filed: 01/22/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:6943
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 that a copy of the foregoing

OPPOSED MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE THEIR MOTION ON 

DISPUTES IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

was filed on January 22, 2024 using the CM/ECF electronic filing system and notice thereof was 

sent to the below service list.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for City of Chicago

Jennifer Bonjean Eileen E. Rosen

Ashley Blair Cohen Stacy A. Benjamin

Bonjean Law Group, PLLC Catherine M. Barber

467 Saint Johns Place Patrick R. Moran

Brooklyn. NY 11238 Theresa B. Carney

Austin G. Rahe

718-817-1850 Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC

jennifer@bonjeanlaw.com 321 N. Clark, Suite 

ashley@bonjeanlaw.com Chicago, Illinois 60654

312-494-1000

erosen@rfclaw.com

pmoran@rfclaw.com

sbenjamin@rfclaw.com

cbarber@rfclaw.com

tcarney@rfclaw.com

arahe@rfclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Guevara 

James V. Daffada

Thomas M. Leinenweber

Justin L. Leinenweber

Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada

120 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2000

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 663-3003

jim@ilesq.com

thomas@ilesq.com

justin@ilesq.com

/s/ Josh M. Engquist

JOSH M. ENGQUIST

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Jon Loevy

Arthur Loevy

Anand Swaminathan

Steven Art

Joshua Tepfer

Sean Starr

Rachel Brady

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

312-243-5900

jon@loevy.com

arthur@loevy.com

anand@loevy.com

steve@loevy.com

josh@loevy.com

sean@loevy.com

brady@loevy.com

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 290 Filed: 01/22/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:6944