1

IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

JOHN M. MARSZALEK; )

ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION; and )

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) No. 1:20 CV 4270

v. )

)

BRENDAN F. KELLY, in his official capacity as )

Director of the Illinois State Police; and )

GREGORY HACKER, in his official capacity )

as Bureau Chief of the Illinois State Police )

Firearms Services Bureau, )

)

Defendants. )

JOINT STATUS REPORT 

The Plaintiffs, Illinois State Rifle Association, and Second Amendment

Foundation, Inc., and the Defendants, Illinois State Police, Brendan F. Kelly, in his

official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, and Gregory Hacker, in his

official capacity as Bureau Chief of the Illinois State Police Firearms Services 

Bureau, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, submit this Joint 

Status Report: 

I. Nature of the Case 

A. The Plaintiffs are represented by David G. Sigale (lead), Gregory A. 

Bedell, and Jacob Huebert. The Defendants are represented by Mary A. Johnston.

B. The basis for federal jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201 and 

2202, and 42 U.S.C. §1983, in that this action seeks to redress the alleged 

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 113 Filed: 02/18/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:727
2

deprivation, under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and 

usages of the Defendants as they execute, administer and enforce the complained-of 

laws, of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States 

Constitution and by Acts of Congress.

C. Plaintiff allege violations of their Second Amendment and Fourteenth 

Amendment procedural due process rights due to the Defendants’ administration of 

the application process of the Firearm Owners Identification (“FOID”) Act (430 

ILCS 65/1, et seq.). Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief. 

Plaintiffs also are making a 42 U.S.C. § 1988 claim.

D. The major legal and factual issues anticipated in the case are the 

administration of the FOID card application process by the Defendants and their 

employees/subordinates, and whether the FOID application process, and the 

administration thereof, violate the Plaintiffs’ Second and Fourteenth Amendment 

rights.

E. All Defendants have been served. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended 

Complaint on November 9, 2020, and Defendants received leave to Court to file an

Answer on February 21, 2022 (extended with agreement of Plaintiffs to February

22, 2022, which was requested because February 21, 2022 is a federal holiday).

II. Discovery and Case Plan 

A. The Plaintiffs have propounded F.R. Civ. P. 33 Interrogatories and 

F.R. Civ. P. 34 Document Requests, and the Defendants will do so by March 18,

2022. Plaintiffs have propounded an F.R. Civ. P. 36 Request for Admission, which 

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 113 Filed: 02/18/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:728
3

by the agreement of the parties Defendants will answer by March 23, 2022. The 

parties also anticipate the taking of depositions.

B. The parties anticipate: (1) the first-set of written discovery requests to 

be issued as noted above; (2) fact discovery completion on September 30, 2022.

C. If there will be expert discovery, an expert discovery completion date, 

including dates for the delivery of expert reports (or summaries for non-retained 

expert testimony), will be October 31, 2022 for disclosure of Plaintiffs’ expert report, 

November 30, 2022 for the deposing of Plaintiff’s expert, January 31, 2021 for 

disclosure of Defendants’ expert report, February 28, 2023 for the deposing of 

Defendants’ expert. The “extra” time in December and January is for the typical 

delays encountered during the holiday season.

D. There are no currently-pending motions. Plaintiffs anticipate motions

for summary judgment, and to resolve discovery disputes, if any.

E. The parties agree to service of pleadings and other papers by electronic 

means under F.R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E).

III. Trial 

A. Plaintiffs do not demand a jury. Should the case progress to trial, 

defendants do demand a jury.

B. The parties anticipate being ready for trial by March 31, 2023.

C. The estimated length of trial is 7 days.

IV. Consent and Settlement Discussions 

A. The parties do not unanimously consent to proceed before the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 113 Filed: 02/18/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:729
4

Magistrate Judge.

B. No settlement discussions have occurred.

C. The parties do not request a settlement conference at this time.

Dated: February 18, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants

Illinois State Rifle Association, and Illinois State Police, Brendan F. Kelly,

Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and Gregory Hacker

/s/ David G. Sigale /s/ Mary A. Johnston 

David G. Sigale (Atty. ID # 6238103) Mary A. Johnston (Atty. ID# 6320865)

Law Firm of David G. Sigale, P.C. Office of the Illinois Attorney General

430 West Roosevelt Road 100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor

Wheaton, IL 60187 Chicago, IL 60601

630.452.4547 (312) 721-8734

dsigale@sigalelaw.com Mary.Johnston@ilag.gov 

/s/ Gregory A. Bedell

Gregory A. Bedell (Atty. ID# 6189762)

Knabe & Bedell

33 North Dearborn Street

10th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312.977.9119

gbedell@kkbchicago.com

/s/ Jacob Heubert

Jacob Huebert (Atty. ID# 6305339)

Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the

GOLDWATER INSTITUTE

500 E. Coronado Rd.

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Telephone: (602) 462-5000

jheubert@goldwaterinstitute.org

litigation@goldwaterinstitute.org

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 113 Filed: 02/18/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:730