Benson V Chicago - Agreed Motion To Extend Discovery
Uploaded by
John RichardsonBenson V Chicago - Agreed Motion To Extend Discovery
Uploaded by
John RichardsonCase: 1:10-cv-04184 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/03/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:742
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BRETT BENSON, KENNETH PACHOLSKI, )
KATHRYN TYLER, MICHAEL HALL, )
RICK PERE, and the ILLINOIS ASSOCATION )
OF FIREARMS RETAILERS, )
) No. 10-CV-4184
) Judge Ronald A. Guzman
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
THE CITY OF CHICAGO and )
RICHARD M. DALEY, Mayor of the )
City of Chicago, )
)
Defendants. )
AGREED MOTION TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY
NOW COME Defendants the City of Chicago and Mayor Richard M. Daley, and
Plaintiffs Brett Benson, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler, Michael Hall, Rick Pere, and the
Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, by and through their attorneys, and respectfully move
the Court to continue the close of fact discovery until March 31, 2010. In support of this Motion,
the parties respectfully state:
1. This case presents a constitutional challenge to several provisions of the City of
Chicago’s firearms ordinance, enacted on July 2, 2010, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s
decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). Plaintiffs challenge the ban on
possession of firearms outside the “home,” insofar as the City’s definition of “home” excludes
possession in certain areas such as garages and yards; the ban on sales or transfer of firearms
within the city; the ban on shooting galleries and firing ranges within the city; the ban on
1
Case: 1:10-cv-04184 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/03/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:743
possession of more than one operable firearm in the home; and the ban on carriage of firearms.
2. Fact discovery in this case began on September 1, 2010 and is set to close on January 7,
2011.
3. Since that time the parties have methodically and diligently pursued discovery, serving
numerous requests for production, interrogatories, deposition notices, and third-party subpoenas,
as well as responses thereto. For example, Plaintiffs served a first set of document requests and
interrogatories on September 21, 2010, and Defendants did so on October 22. The parties have
already tendered written responses and objections, and produced documents, in response to this
discovery. In addition, Defendants served a second set of document requests and interrogatories
on November 5, 2010, and Plaintiffs did so on November 12. Responses to this discovery will
be due over the next week and a half. The depositions of four of the Plaintiffs are set to occur
during the week December 13, 2010.
4. Notwithstanding the parties’ respective timely responses to discovery and production of
documents, the parties have, in response to various discovery requests, disputed the permissible
scope of discovery in this case. For example, the parties have disagreed about the permissible
scope of document requests and whether certain depositions are appropriate. Nonetheless, for
over a month, the parties have engaged, and continue to engage, in good-faith negotiations to
come to agreement on these issues—or at least to narrow the ultimate scope of disagreement.
Despite these efforts, complete agreement does not appear likely and thus the parties anticipate
that some of these issues will soon be brought before the Court in the form of motions to compel
or to quash. But the parties continue to work to refine and narrow the ultimate issues that will be
litigated.
5. Moreover, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and with Defendants’ written consent,
2
Case: 1:10-cv-04184 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/03/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:744
Plaintiffs plan to file a Second Amended Complaint in this action.1 Although Plaintiffs have not
fully come to rest on these matters, the Second Amended Complaint will likely add a party, add a
count, and add some factual detail and allegations. These amendments may require additional
fact discovery.
6. In light of these developments, the schedules of counsel, and the impending holidays, the
parties do not believe they can reasonably complete desired fact discovery by January 7, 2011.
The parties have negotiated and have agreed to a fact-discovery cutoff of March 31, 2011—an
extension that they believe would provide the time necessary to complete fact discovery in this
action without materially delaying the resolution of the case. The parties have further agreed that
if fact discovery closes on March 31, then: expert disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(A)-(C), if any, should be due on May 2, 2011; rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, should
be due on June 15, 2011; and expert discovery should close on June 30, 2011.
7. The parties have further agreed that by consenting to this motion they have not and do not
waive any position they may take on the permissibility of any particular discovery that has been
or might be sought by any party.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants and Plaintiffs respectfully and jointly request that
the Court enter an order continuing fact discovery until March 31, 2011, setting May 2, 2011 as
the date for expert disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A)-(C), setting June 15, 2011
as the date for disclosure of expert rebuttal reports, and setting June 30, 2011 as the date when
expert discovery closes.
1
Defendants would reserve their right to answer or otherwise plead to the new additions.
3
Case: 1:10-cv-04184 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/03/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:745
Dated: December 3, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:
s/ Charles J. Cooper MARA S. GEORGES
Charles J. Cooper* Corporation Counsel
David H. Thompson* for the City of Chicago
Jesse Panuccio*
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC By: s/ Andrew W. Worseck
1523 New Hampshire Ave., NW Assistant Corporation Counsel
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 220-9600 Michael A. Forti
Fax: (202) 220-9601 Mardell Nereim
Email: ccooper@cooperkirk.com Andrew W. Worseck
William Macy Aguiar
*Admitted pro hac vice. Rebecca Alfert Hirsch
City of Chicago, Department of Law
Stephen Kolodziej Constitutional and Commercial Litigation
Atty. ID # 6216375 Division
BRENNER FORD MONROE & SCOTT LTD. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1230
33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60602
Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-9018 / 6975 / 7129 / 4216
Tel: (312) 781-1970
Fax: (312)781-9202 Attorneys for Defendants
Email: skolodziej@brennerlawfirm.com