A federal magistrate judge recently ruled several dozen men, who are suing current and former Chicago police officers for allegedly falsely arresting them, may be asked in depositions about any crimes they committed, but for which they were not charged, after their wrongful arrests.
In Chicago federal court, more than 70 plaintiffs are suing the city and a number of current and ex-Chicago officers, led by former Chicago Police Department Sgt. Ronald Watts and former Officer Kallat Mohammed. The suit alleges the officers trumped up drug and gun charges against plaintiffs between 2002 and 2008 in the area around the now defunct Ida B. Wells Housing Complex. Those charges led to convictions that were later thrown out.
In 2012, Watts and Mohammed were convicted of taking protection payoffs from drug dealers; they were sentenced to 22 and 18 months in prison respectively, according to government records.
Of the 73 plaintiffs, 55 are represented by the Chicago firm of Loevy & Loevy. The remainder are represented by the Law Offices of Kenneth N. Flaxman in Chicago.
The 55 Loevy & Loevy plaintiffs filed for a protective order to bar defendants from asking the 55 plaintiffs, during depositions, about any criminal conduct since the end of 2008 for which these plaintiffs have not been charged. Regarding acts for which these plaintiffs were charged, plaintiffs may be questioned, but do not want to be asked to name any accomplices who were not charged or mentioned in police reports.
Defendants insisted the questions are valid because they bear on damages and plaintiff recollection, as well as the credibility of plaintiffs and of witnesses that plaintiffs may call.
Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan pointed out plaintiffs have to show how these questions would cause "undue embarrassment or oppression" to plaintiffs, in order for these questions to be off limits. They failed to do so, in Finnegan's eyes.
"The approximately 55 plaintiffs cannot be lumped together and a finding made on behalf of all — based on broad allegations of harm unsubstantiated by specific examples — that good cause exists to deviate from the normal discovery rules. On the sparse record here, the Court has no basis to find that all Plaintiffs necessarily would suffer undue embarrassment, annoyance, or oppression," Finnegan said in the December ruling.
Finnegan noted plaintiffs have no problem with questions about charged or uncharged criminal acts before Jan. 1, 2009 or charged acts after that date, excepting questions about identities of other participants not recorded in police reports. As a consequence, this lack of concern left Finnegan wondering why questions about post-2008 uncharged conduct would bother them.
Plaintiffs contended the proposed questions are irrelevant, but Finnegan found them pertinent, because they address the claims of distress and disruption brought by the wrongful convictions. As Finnegan termed it, "Plaintiffs have put their character and conduct at issue."
Finnegan also shut down what she called the plaintiffs' "novel" argument that answering the questions will endanger them. Finnegan said presumably if a plaintiff names a participant in a crime, that participant might retaliate. Finnegan allowed that if danger was shown to be possible, a protective order would be warranted, but plaintiffs have only put forth "unsubstantiated and vague claims of risk," so an order is not justified.
Instead of trying to restrict the questions, Finnegan suggested the "better course" is for plaintiffs to answer the questions, with both sides then arguing the admissibility of the answers to the trial judge, who at that stage can rely on a "fully developed record."
Both sides said they believe depositions will be done by late 2022.
Defendants have motions on the table to dismiss some of plaintiffs' claims.
The district judge overseeing the case is Franklin Valderrama. He was a Cook County associate judge from 2007 to September 2020, when the U.S. Senate ratified President Donald Trump's nomination of Valderrama to the federal bench.
Defendants are variously represented by the following Chicago firms retained by the city: Hale & Monico; Daley Mohan Groble; Johnson & Bell; Reiter Burns; and Leinenweber, Baroni & Daffada.