IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION 

) 

JAMES FLETCHER JR., ) 

) Case No. 20−cv−04768 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Judge Andrea Wood 

v. ) 

) Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez 

JEROME BOGUCKI, ANTHONY ) 

NORADIN, RAYMOND SCHALK, ) 

ANTHONY WOJCIK, UNKNOWN CITY ) 

OF CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, and the ) 

CITY OF CHICAGO ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA TO IDOC FOR 

AUDIO RECORDINGS OF PLAINTIFF’S PHONE CALLS

Defendants Jerome Bogucki, Anthony Noradin, Raymond Schalk and Anthony Wojcik

(“Individual Defendants”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, move to enforce 

Individual Defendants’ subpoena to the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) to obtain 

certain relevant audio recordings of Plaintiff’s phone calls. In support thereof, Individual 

Defendants state as follows:

BACKGROUND

Individual Defendants prepared a subpoena to the IDOC Intelligence Center for all of 

Plaintiff’s recorded phone calls/audio recordings, and corresponding call logs placed between 

2002 through 2020. See Exhibit A (IDOC Subpoena and Rider). Counsel for Plaintiff objected to 

the subpoena as overbroad, seeking irrelevant information, and in Plaintiff's view, a fishing 

expedition which was both intrusive and harassing. Plaintiff also objected because such recordings 

may contain attorney-client communications. The parties held a telephonic meet and confer 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:681
2

pursuant to L.R. 37.2 and Individual Defendants agreed to initially limit the subpoena to the 

production of Plaintiff’s call logs. Individual Defendants would then review the call logs to narrow 

the scope of the recorded phone calls requested. 

IDOC provided two types of call log reports: 1) an electronic detail report listing each call 

made by an inmate (“Call Detail Report”), and 2) a report with call recipient information provided 

by the inmate, listing the phone number, relationship, and description of the call recipient (by 

name and address) (“PAN report”). Plaintiff’s Call Detail Report lists a total of 3,132 completed 

calls from March 1, 2013, through January 28, 2020, for which audio recordings exist. See Exhibit 

B (IDOC call logs for Arnold Dixon aka James Fletcher). 

After reviewing the Call Detail Report and the Pan Report, Individual Defendants seek 1,285 

audio recorded phone calls in which Plaintiff spoke to the following individuals: Deborah Sanders, 

Dawon Gardner, Natasha Reeves, Jennifer Blagg, Jimmie Fletcher Sr., and Yvette 

Loggins/McGhee. Each of these individuals are key witnesses in this case and had recorded phone 

calls with Plaintiff. 

The parties engaged in another telephonic meet and confer on January 4, 2022 regarding 

Individual Defendants request for the limited audio recordings. Counsel for the Individual 

Defendants identified the witnesses they were seeking the recorded phone calls of and explained 

the relevance of each witness to the underlying lawsuit, i.e., the witness being identified by 

Plaintiff as a damages witness in his Rule 26 disclosures. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated she 

understood the Individual Defendants argument and would consider the request. On January 10, 

2022, counsel for the Individual Defendants and counsel for the Plaintiff had another meet and 

confer conference via telephone. Counsel for Plaintiff informed counsel for the Individual 

Defendants that Plaintiff opposes this motion. This Court indicated that any motion to compel 

related to outstanding discovery disputes, shall be filed no later than January 10, 2022. (Dkt. # 66). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:682
3

Individual Defendants now seek leave of Court to enforce their subpoena to IDOC for the audio 

recordings of Plaintiff’s phone calls with the individuals listed above. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) allows the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter 

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” The 

information sought “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

Moreover, the “scope of material obtainable by a Rule 45 subpoena is as broad as permitted under 

the discovery rules.” Young v. City of Chicago, 2017 WL 25170, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2017).

“Liberal discovery is permitted in federal courts to encourage full disclosure before trial.” White 

v. Kenneth Warren & Son, Ltd., 203 F.R.C. 364, 366 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

When determining whether to enforce or quash a subpoena, the Court must balance the 

privacy interests of the person seeking to quash the subpoena against the relevance and benefit of 

the information sought. Pursley v. City of Rockford ̧ 2020 WL 1433827, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 

2020). In weighing the relevance of phone calls sought against the privacy interest of Plaintiff, 

the court considers “both the lesser privacy expectation for an incarcerated individual who knows 

his calls are being recorded, as well as the difficulty in identifying which phone calls were 

relevant without listening to the recordings.” DeLeon-Reyes v. Guevara, No. 1:18-CV-01028, 

2020 WL 7059444, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2020).

ARGUMENT

I. The Recorded Phone Calls are Relevant and Discovery of these Calls is Proportional 

to the Needs of the Case. 

Fletcher was convicted of the December 21, 1990, murder of Willie Sorrell. (Dkt. # 1). On 

that date, Edward Cooper was delivering bread near Madison and Central Avenue in Chicago. 

Two offenders with guns approached and entered the bread truck, robbing Cooper. As the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:683
4

offenders fled, Cooper, with his gun drawn, gave chase. The offenders and Cooper began firing 

at each other and a pedestrian, Willie Sorrell, was caught in the crossfire and killed. Eyewitness 

Shennee Friend and Cooper both identified Fletcher as one of the offenders and testified to this 

at Fletcher’s 2005 criminal trial. However, in 2011, these witnesses began making inconsistent 

statements in affidavits procured by Fletcher which were used in post-conviction and habeas 

corpus petitions. Although habeas corpus relief was granted based on a Confrontation Clause 

issue, the court noted that if it had reached the issue it would have likely granted relief based on 

the allegations in the affidavits. Dixon v. Pfister, 420 F. Supp. 3d 740, 767 (N.D. Ill. 2019). The 

Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office elected not to retry Fletcher and he subsequently filed this 

lawsuit. The central allegation of Fletcher’s case is that the Individual Defendants fabricated the 

eyewitness identifications of him and framed him for a crime he did not commit. 

Plaintiff’s audio recorded phone calls with Deborah Sanders, Dawon Gardner, Natasha 

Reeves, Jennifer Blagg, Jimmie Fletcher Sr., and Yvette Loggins/McGhee are relevant,

discoverable, and proportional. Individual Defendants are seeking less than half of the 3,132 calls 

completed by Plaintiff from 2013-2020. After the meet and confer process, Individual Defendants 

have narrowly tailored the scope of calls requested to only individuals who are listed in Plaintiff’s 

26(a) disclosures and/or are witnesses in the case. In contrast, Plaintiff has refused any 

compromise. While Plaintiff retains some privacy interest in his recorded calls, that interest is 

minimal because he knew that his calls were recorded and may be heard by others. See Coleman 

v. City of Peoria, No. 15-CV-1100, 2016 WL 3974005, at *4 (C.D. Ill. July 22, 2016). Moreover, 

any de minimus privacy interest Plaintiff may have in the recorded calls will be safeguarded by the 

Confidentiality Protective Order in this case. (Dkt. # 56). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:684
5

Several cases in this district have examined the standard in seeking to review recorded 

telephone conversations of incarcerated individuals: 

Taken together, Coleman, Simon, and Bishop teach that in order to overcome a 

prisoner's privacy interest in the recordings of her telephone calls, the subpoenaing 

party must offer more than mere speculation that the recordings could house 

relevant evidence. Put another way, there must be evidence already discovered 

indicating that the recordings would probably document something relevant. What 

separates the permissible subpoena for telephone call recordings in Coleman from 

the overbroad subpoenas in Simon and Bishop is the previously discovered evidence 

supporting the Coleman subpoena, as well as the narrow tailoring of the subpoena 

to reflect that discovered evidence.

Rodriguez v. City of Chicago, No. 18-CV-7951, 2021 WL 2206164, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2021),

quoting DeLeon-Reyes, No. 18-cv-1028, 2020 WL 705944. Here, the relevancy and 

proportionality of the calls Individual Defendants seek is clear: these are calls Plaintiff made to 

witnesses in this case.

Deborah Sanders is Fletcher’s ex-wife and testified on his behalf at the 2005 criminal trial. 

At trial, Ms. Sanders attempted to establish an alibi for Fletcher and testified that Fletcher’s 

appearance in December 1990 did not match the description of the offenders provided by the 

eyewitnesses. Ms. Sanders is listed on Fletcher’s Rule 26(a) disclosures as a witness with 

discoverable information in this case. See Exhibit C (Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures). 

Similarly, Jimmie Fletcher Sr., Fletcher’s father, was called as a witness by the defense at the 

2005 criminal trial and testified to the same topics as Ms. Sanders. As both individuals are 

witnesses to the case with knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s underlying criminal trial and his 

whereabouts at the time of the Sorrell murder, phone calls that Plaintiff made to these witnesses 

are discoverable. See Prince v. Kato, No. 18 C 2952, 2020 WL 7698373, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 

2020) (granting Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Subpoena for Plaintiff’s IDOC phone calls as to 

the 227 calls made to witnesses in the case.)

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:685
6

Calls that Plaintiff made to his post-conviction attorney, Jennifer Blagg, are also 

discoverable. As an initial matter, calls Plaintiff made to Ms. Blagg that were recorded, and not 

completed via the secure attorney-client telephone call procedure, are not protected by the 

attorney-client privilege because there was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality. See 

Bishop v. White, No. 16 C 6040, 2020 WL 6149567, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2020) (stating several 

courts in our circuit have concluded the attorney-client privilege does not apply to recorded prison 

phone calls because there is no reasonable expectation of confidentiality); Pursley, 2020 WL 

1433827, at * 4-5 (finding “Plaintiff could not reasonably expect that his conversations with his 

attorneys on recorded prison telephone lines would be confidential. The Offender Orientation 

Manual explicitly states that calls made from Statesville . . . are subject to monitoring and 

recording.”); Simon v. Nw. Univ., 2017 WL 66818, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. 2017); U.S. v. Thompson, 2007 

WL 2700016, at * 2 (C.D. Ill. 2007). 

Further, telephone calls with Ms. Blagg are relevant because she was instrumental in 

obtaining affidavits for Fletcher to use in his post-conviction proceedings. Individual Defendants 

have discovered evidence that the affidavits obtained may have been the result of undue pressure.

In particular, Shennee Friend signed a declaration in 2011, in which she claims that detectives told 

her to pick Fletcher out of a photo array and later out of a physical lineup. See Exhibit D (Friend

affidavit). On April 5, 2012, Friend signed a supplemental affidavit after speaking to Fletcher’s 

counsel and realizing that she knew additional facts that were relevant to Fletcher’s case. See

Exhibit E (Friend supplemental affidavit). On March 5, 2015, a Cook County State’s Attorney’s 

Office investigator met with Ms. Friend regarding the two affidavits obtained from her during 

Fletcher’s post-conviction proceedings. See Exhibit F (Office of the State’s Attorney Investigative 

Report). Ms. Friend told the investigator that the affidavits she signed were not accurate and that 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:686
7

she signed the affidavits to get Fletcher’s lawyers to leave her alone. Id. Given this evidence, calls 

with Ms. Blagg, potentially discussing these affidavits, are highly relevant to this litigation. See 

Prince, 2020 WL 7698373, at *3 (ordering the production of 71 recorded phone calls between the 

plaintiff and his criminal defense attorney).

Dawon Garder and Natasha Reeves are Plaintiff’s children and are also listed as witnesses 

on Plaintiff’s 26(a) disclosures with knowledge of Fletcher’s damages stemming from his 

conviction. See Exhibit C. Fletcher claims he suffered, in part, “emotional pain, anguish [and] 

disruption of his life and intimate and family relationships” as a result of his conviction. Both 

witnesses will be deposed by Individual Defendants during this litigation and questioned about 

their relationship with Fletcher before, during, and after his incarceration, their interactions with 

him while he was incarcerated, and their conversations with him while he was incarcerated. 

Recorded phone calls with these witnesses, who Fletcher himself identified, will provide 

Individual Defendants with information to test Fletcher’s claimed damages. As such, phone calls 

that Fletcher had with Mr. Garder and Ms. Reeves are discoverable. Rodriguez, No. 18-CV-7951, 

2021 WL 2206164, at *2 (finding defendants “adequately targeted their review to calls with family 

members that are likely to contain relevant information . . . [including] knowledge of [plaintiff’s] 

damages and the impact his wrongful prosecution and conviction had on Mr. Rodriquez and his 

family...”); Prince, No. 18 C 2952, 2020 WL 7698373, at * 2.

Furthermore, Ms. Friend indicated to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office

investigator that a woman identified as Fletcher’s daughter told her not to come to court prior to 

Fletcher’s criminal trial. This provides an additional basis for the relevancy of calls with Natasha 

Reeves. Specifically, Ms. Friend stated that she met members of Fletcher’s family after Fletcher 

was arrested and they kept coming back to her residence, telling her not to come to court. Ms. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:687
8

Friend recalled a tall African American woman in her twenties who identified herself as Fletcher’s 

daughter and a tall, skinny African American male who identified himself as Fletcher’s uncle. Id.

Ms. Friend’s allegation is corroborated by the original trial court proceedings in which an Assistant 

State’s Attorney stated in open court that Fletcher’s family was paying Ms. Friend not to appear 

in court for the trial. People v. Fletcher, 02 CR 16669 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Feb. 23, 2005). As such, 

Individual Defendants should be allowed access to Fletcher’s phone calls with Ms. Reeves. 

Yvette Loggins/McGhee was listed as Fletcher’s friend in the IDOC call logs and there 

appear to be 13 completed phone calls with Ms. McGhee during the relevant time period. See 

Exhibit B at p. 81. Plaintiff has produced documents indicating that Ms. McGhee played a role in 

securing the affidavit of Mr. Cooper for Fletcher that was used during the post-conviction and 

habeus corpus proceedings. Given the potential significance of Mr. Cooper’s affidavit in this case, 

these recordings are relevant to discover the circumstances underlying that affidavit. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Individual Defendants request this Court enter an order 

enforcing Individual Defendants’ subpoena to IDOC to obtain audio recordings for Plaintiff’s 

phone calls, related to the individuals mentioned above.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jennifer Bitoy

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

One of the Attorneys for Individual Defendants

Andrew M. Hale

Amy A. Hijjawi

Barrett Boudreaux

Brian J. Stefanich

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:688
9

Jennifer Bitoy

Allyson West

Hale & Monico LLC

53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 337

Chicago, Il 60604

Main (312) 341-9646

andy@halemonico.com

ahijjawi@halemonico.com

bboudreaux@halemonico.com

bstefanich@halemonico.com

jbitoy@halemonico.com

awest@halemonico.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:689
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jennifer Bitoy, an attorney, hereby certify that, on the date stamped on the margin within

this document, I caused to be filed with the Clerk of the Court’s CM/ECF filing system, the 

foregoing document which simultaneously sent electronic notification of this filing to all counsel 

of record.

/s/ Jennifer Bitoy

Service List

Anand Swaminathan

Jonathan Loevy

Mariah Garcia

Loevy & Loevy

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Flr.

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

anand@loevy.com

jon@loevy.com

mariah@loevy.com

margaret@loevy.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Jennifer Blagg

Law Office of Jennifer Blagg

1333 W. Devon Avenue, Suite 267

Chicago, IL 60660

Phone (312) 218-6015

Fax (773) 439-2863

jennifer@blagglaw.net

Attorney for Plaintiff, James Fletcher

Daniel Burns

Daniel Noland

Dhaviella Nichelle Harris

Paul A. Michalik

Terrence M. Burns

Reiter Burns, LLP

311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5200

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 982-0090

dburns@reiterburns.com

dnoland@reiterburns.com

dharris@reiterburns.com

pmichalik@reiterburns.com

tburns@reiterburns.com

dneville@reiterburns.com

mavitia@reiterburns.com

hbarhorst@reiterburns.com

Attorneys for Defendant, City of Chicago

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 67 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:690