1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH ENGLAND, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-02877

Judge Martha M. Pacold

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE DISCOVERY 

Plaintiff Kenneth England respectfully requests leave pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(d) to serve discovery on Defendant United Airlines while the Defendant’s Motion 

to Dismiss is pending. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter on May 13, 2020, alleging Defendant 

received substantial “Air Carrier Worker Support” funds from the federal government, made 

assurances regarding how it would compensate its employees in exchange for that financial 

assistance, and immediately breached those assurances by imposing a pay rate deduction on 

management and administration employees. See ECF No. 1 (Complaint). 

2. On July 2, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff filed 

a Response on July 28, 2020. ECF No. 18. Defendant filed a Reply on August 12, 2020. ECF No. 

19. It has now been over two years since the Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed, and there has 

been no discovery. 

3. Fed. R. Civ P. 26(f) requires a conference between the parties regarding a discovery 

plan prior to the service of discovery requests. No such conference has occurred in this case 

Case: 1:20-cv-02877 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/25/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:178
2

because the Motion to Dismiss remains pending.

4. Under Rule 26(d), a party may initiate discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference 

by leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In the Seventh Circuit, courts consider a request for 

leave to initiate discovery based “on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of 

the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Ibarra v. City of Chicago, 816 F. Supp. 

2d 541, 554 (N.D. Ill. 2011). The court determines whether the movant has shown “good cause” 

for a discovery order. In re Clearview AI, Inc., Consumer Priv. Litig., No. 21 C 135, 2021 WL 

5862494, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2021).

5. Here, Plaintiff’s request to initiate discovery is reasonable in light of the 

circumstances of this case. The contract at issue in the case was signed on April 20, 2020. See

ECF No 1-1 (Exhibit A to Complaint). The Unpaid Time Off Program at issue was implemented 

from May 16, 2020 through September 30, 2020. ECF No 1, ¶ 24. The more time that passes 

from the events at issue, the greater the risk of misplaced documents, fading witness memories, or 

inability to locate relevant witnesses. See Mathews v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 176 F.R.D. 442, 445 

(W.D.N.Y. 1997) (“the more time passes, the more difficult it may become to obtain meaningful 

discovery, as evidence is lost or forgotten and potential witnesses leave defendant’s employ or 

move away”). In addition, because this litigation will require third-party discovery from entities 

and individuals who had no reason to implement a litigation hold or otherwise preserve documents 

that may have relevance to issues in this lawsuit, further delay may prejudice Plaintiff’s ability to 

prosecute his claims. 

6. There is good cause to begin discovery in this case so that all Parties can develop 

an accurate and complete factual record. 

7. Plaintiff’s Counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant regarding the issue raised 

Case: 1:20-cv-02877 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/25/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:179
3

in this Motion prior to filing. Defendant opposes the Motion. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter an Order granting Plaintiff leave to serve

discovery requests on Defendant and for all other appropriate relief. 

Dated: August 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael M. Tresnowski

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Douglas M. Werman 

(dwerman@flsalaw.com)

Michael M. Tresnowski 

(mtresnowski@flsalaw.com)

WERMAN SALAS P.C. 

77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Phone: (312) 419-1008

Facsimile: (312) 419-1025

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-02877 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/25/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:180
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed 

with the Court’s CM/ECF filing system on August 25, 2022, which will serve a copy on all 

counsel of record.

/s/Michael M. Tresnowski

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Douglas M. Werman

Michael M. Tresnowski

Werman Salas P.C. 

77 W. Washington, Suite 1402

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel.: (312) 419-1008

Fax: (312) 419-1025

dwerman@flsalaw.com

mtresnowski@flsalaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-02877 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/25/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:181