Valencia et al v. City of Springfield, Illinois

Filing 60

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 50 is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part; Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 55 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 20 June, 2018 02:33:20 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MARY B. VALENCIA,
Independent Administrator of
the estate of A.D., deceased;
B.A.; and
INDIVIDUAL ADVOCACY
GROUP, INC., an Illinois
not-for-profit corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-cv-3331

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
(d/e 50) (Motion 50), and Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (d/e 55)
(Motion 55). For the Reasons stated below, Motion 50 is ALLOWED in part
and DENIED in part, and Motion 55 is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff Individual Advocacy Group, Inc. (Advocacy), operates
group homes for disabled individuals. A.D., deceased, was a disabled
individual who resided in one of Advocacy’s group homes in Springfield,
Illinois (Home). B.A. is a disabled person who resides in the Home. The
Page 1 of 4

Home violates Defendant City of Springfield, Illinois’ zoning ordinance
(Ordinance). The City refused to give the Home a Conditional Permitted
Use to allow Advocacy to continue operating the Home. Plaintiffs brought
this action against the City for intentional violation of the Fair Housing Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act. See Amended Complaint (d/e 33),
¶ 1.
The Plaintiffs propounded written discovery on the City in June and
August of 2017. The Plaintiffs also sought a preliminary injunction. On
August 2, 2017, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining
enforcement of the Ordinance. Opinion entered August 2, 2017 (d/e 21).
The City filed an interlocutory appeal. The District Court stayed the
proceeding until resolution of the interlocutory appeal. Order entered
October 31, 2017 (d/e 31). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the entry of the
preliminary injunction. Valencia v. City of Springfield, Illinois, 883 F.3d 959
(7th Cir. 2018). On March 27, 2018, the District Court lifted the stay. Text
Order entered March 27, 2018.
In light of the Seventh Circuit’s decision, the City has amended its
Answer to the Amended Complaint. Answer to Amended Complaint (d/e
58) (Amended Answer). The Amended Answer admits the Ordinance
discriminated against individuals based on disability in violation of federal
Page 2 of 4

law, but denied any specific intent to discriminate. See e.g., Amended
Answer ¶ 1.
The City now asks for a protective order to relieve it of the obligation
to respond to Plaintiffs’ written discovery. Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel
the City to answer all discovery fully.
The City must respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests even with its
Amended Answer. The Amended Answer still denies portions of Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint, including ¶¶ 1, 26-27, 32-37, 40-44, 49-53, 59-60, 6263, 69-70, and 72-73. Clearly, factual issues still exist in this case. The
Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery given that factual issues exist.
The City argues that its amended Ordinance will eliminate any
discrimination, thereby rendering discovery unnecessary. The Court
disagrees. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged intentional
discrimination. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 54(c); 64(c); 74(c). The
amendment to the Ordinance will not moot these claims for damages or
other issues that may depend on the remaining factual disputes. The City
must respond to the Plaintiffs’ discovery. Motion 55 is DENIED.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the City to respond to its written
discovery and to hold that the City has waived all objections. The City must
respond, but the Court will not hold that all objections are waived. In light
Page 3 of 4

of the stay and the City’s efforts to resolve the discrimination by amending
the Ordinance, the Court, in its discretion and for good cause, excuses the
City’s failure to object in a timely manner. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3) and
33(b)(1)(4).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
(d/e 50) is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part; and Defendant’s Motion
for Protective Order (d/e 55) is DENIED.
ENTER: June 20, 2018

s/

Tom Schanzle-Haskins

TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 4 of 4