1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, 

v.

REYNALDO GUEVARA, JOANN 

HALVORSEN as PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE to the ESTATE of 

ERNEST HALVORSEN, DARRYL 

DALEY, WILLIAM ERICKSON, JOHN 

HEALY, and the CITY OF CHICAGO

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-04156

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Defendants City of Chicago (“City”), Reynaldo Guevara, Darryl Daley, Geri Yanow as 

Special Representative of William Erickson (deceased), John Healy (deceased), and Ernest 

Halvorsen (deceased) (“Defendant Officers”), by and through their respective undersigned 

attorneys, file this Response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. at 164):

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

(“Motion for Leave”) references a telephone conference in which counsel for the parties 

participated on August 9, 2022, but it misstates Defendants’ arguments that support why his 

proposed Motion is premature. Additionally, it does not provide adequate support for why 

Plaintiff should be allowed to ignore the dispositive motion schedule soon to be set for the 

instant case and proceed with his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Therefore, this 

Honorable Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 166 Filed: 08/15/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:2422
2

2. First, and most simple, discovery in this case is not complete. In fact, Plaintiff has 

yet to be deposed, despite efforts to schedule.

1 Defendants are entitled to depose Plaintiff and 

continue to gather potentially relevant evidence to respond to a dispositive motion. See,

Fed.R.Civ.P 56(d) (“If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, 

it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the 

motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) 

issue any other appropriate order.”).

3. In his Motion for Leave, Plaintiff acknowledges that other dispositive motions are 

expected in the instant case beyond the motion at issue here, which addresses only one of his 

eleven separate claims, and just one of the six named Defendants. Contrary to Plaintiff’s 

argument, allowing him to proceed on a dispositive motion separate and apart from the schedule 

to be adopted by this Court would not streamline anything, but rather would block the effective, 

efficient resolution of this case he purports it would allow. 

4. Because essentially, Plaintiff wants to put this case on a two-track system: the 

parties will be on one track negotiating the joint pleadings necessary to file Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment, while on another working to complete discovery in support of his 

other ten claims. Such a system would be untenable for the parties given their resources of staff 

and time. The Court should deny Plaintiff’s invitation to open an additional dispositive motion 

track while discovery is on-going. 

5. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave does not appear to grasp the inherent 

difficulty of dispositive motion practice. The motion seems to imply that since he has submitted 

a proposed Statement of Undisputed Facts in support of the Motion at issue, it is well on the way 

1 Plaintiff’s deposition is currently set on the first available date for all counsel, August 31, 2022.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 166 Filed: 08/15/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2423
3

to completion. This is not an accurate assessment. In the Joint Status Report recently submitted 

by the parties (Dkt. at 162), Plaintiff mentions that the “parties are conferring on Plaintiff’s 

forthcoming motion,” but gave no specific detail about what has been discussed. In fact, the 

parties have not even begun conferring about the substance of Plaintiff’s proposed statement of 

facts, but rather discussed the propriety of the motion itself.

6. During the August 9, 2022, telephone conference cited above, Defense counsel 

explained that Plaintiff’s initial draft is just that – initial. It will take numerous additional 

conferences and exchanges of drafts before the parties have a document suitable for submission 

as a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts pursuant to this Court’s Standing Orders. And Plaintiff 

proposes these numerous conferences and exchanges occur between depositions and review of 

additional written discovery. This would be unmanageable and inefficient as the parties are still 

working to complete discovery and meet the current discovery deadline. 

7. Plaintiff proposes a case-management schedule that would have counsel working 

to complete fact discovery by October 27, 2022, while at the same time working to complete a 

dispositive motion. Defendants’ counsels are aware of other cases where a plaintiff sought to 

proceed with a Motion for Partial Summary Judgement before all discovery had closed but case 

management became too difficult, and the Partial MSJ was moved to the same schedule as all 

dispositive motions. See, Gibson v. City of Chicago, et al., 19cv4152, at Dkt. 271 (July 11, 

2022). The same should be done here.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the City Defendants respectfully request 

this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Partial Motion for Summary 

Judgment. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 166 Filed: 08/15/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:2424
4

Respectfully Submitted:

DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO

/s/ Eileen E. Rosen

Eileen E. Rosen

Catherine M. Barber

Theresa Berousek Carney

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC

333 W. Wacker, 19th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60606

/s/ Josh M. Engquist

Attorney for Defendants Halvorsen, Daley,

Erickson, and Healy,

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel 

James G. Sotos

Josh M. Engquist

Jeffrey R. Kivetz

David A. Brueggen

The Sotos Law Firm, P.C.

141 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1240A

Chicago, Illinois 60604

DEFENDANT REYNALDO GUEVARA

/s/ Megan K.McGrath

Thomas M. Leinenweber

James V. Daffada

Megan K. McGrath

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada, LLC

120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 166 Filed: 08/15/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:2425