Sommerfield v. City of Chicago et al

Filing 593

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 6/10/2011. Motions in Limine are resolved as follows: Defendants motions 513 , 514 , 517 , and 518 are granted;accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from referencing any alleged discovery or litigation misconduct; any City Counsel resolutions congratulating Lawrence Knasiak on his retirement; or those facts that are only relevantto Plaintiffs dismissed § 1981 or § 1983 claims, his dismissed Title VII discrimination claim, o r thedismissed portion of Plaintiffs Title VII retaliation claim. Plaintiff is also barred from referencing the EEOCcharges, investigation, or determinations. See Lewis v. City of Chi., 563 F. Supp. 2d 905, 919 (N.D. Ill.2008). Defendants motion [515 ] is granted in part: Plaintiff is barred from referencing the specific examplesof Lawrence Knasiaks other bad acts set forth in Defendants motion. Defendants motion 516 isdenied. Plaintiffs motion 521 is granted in part and denied in part as fo llows: subpart 9 is granted as to the specificterms discussed in the motion; therefore, Defendant shall not refer to the litigation lottery, get rich quicksystem, or legal welfare. Subpart 6 is granted: Defendant shall not refer to any war medals tha t were givento Plaintiff by his relatives, nor shall Defendant reference whether any of Plaintiffs relatives were membersof the Nazi party or German military. Subpart 11 is granted: Defendant shall not reference whether and how Plaintiff practices th e Jewish faith. Subpart 13 is granted to the extent that Defendant is not to reference anyfee agreements Plaintiff may have with his counsel. Subpart 22 is granted reciprocally: witnesses will bebarred from the courtroom, except that Plaintiff and La wrence Knasiak will be permitted to remain. Subparts1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 are denied. Plaintiffs motion 522 is granted inpart and denied in part: granted as to affirmative defense #1 and denied as to #7. Thus, Plaintiff mayreference actions and events that occurred more than 300 days prior to the EEOC charge consistent withNatl R.R. Passenger vs. Morgan, 536 US 101, 113 (2002). Plaintiffs motions 523 , 524 , and 530 aredenied.(lcw, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Joan B. Gottschall

CASE NUMBER

06 C 3132

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/10/2011

Sommerfield vs. City of Chi.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Motions in Limine are resolved as follows: Defendant’s motions [513], [514], [517], and [518] are granted;
accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from referencing any alleged discovery or litigation misconduct; any City
Counsel resolutions congratulating Lawrence Knasiak on his retirement; or those facts that are only relevant
to Plaintiff’s dismissed § 1981 or § 1983 claims, his dismissed Title VII discrimination claim, or the
dismissed portion of Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim. Plaintiff is also barred from referencing the EEOC
charges, investigation, or determinations. See Lewis v. City of Chi., 563 F. Supp. 2d 905, 919 (N.D. Ill.
2008). Defendant’s motion [515] is granted in part: Plaintiff is barred from referencing the specific examples
of Lawrence Knasiak’s “other bad acts” set forth in Defendant’s motion. Defendant’s motion [516] is
denied.
Plaintiff’s motion [521] is granted in part and denied in part as follows: subpart 9 is granted as to the specific
terms discussed in the motion; therefore, Defendant shall not refer to the “litigation lottery,” “get rich quick
system,” or “legal welfare.” Subpart 6 is granted: Defendant shall not refer to any war medals that were given
to Plaintiff by his relatives, nor shall Defendant reference whether any of Plaintiff’s relatives were members
of the Nazi party or German military. Subpart 11 is granted: Defendant shall not reference whether and how
Plaintiff practices the Jewish faith. Subpart 13 is granted to the extent that Defendant is not to reference any
fee agreements Plaintiff may have with his counsel. Subpart 22 is granted reciprocally: witnesses will be
barred from the courtroom, except that Plaintiff and Lawrence Knasiak will be permitted to remain. Subparts
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 are denied. Plaintiff’s motion [522] is granted in
part and denied in part: granted as to affirmative defense #1 and denied as to #7. Thus, Plaintiff may
reference actions and events that occurred more than 300 days prior to the EEOC charge consistent with
Nat’l R.R. Passenger vs. Morgan, 536 US 101, 113 (2002). Plaintiff’s motions [523], [524], and [530] are
denied.
O[ For further details see text below.]

06C3132 Sommerfield vs. City of Chi.

Docketing to mail notices.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
The court has ruled on a number of the outstanding motions in limine. The court writes not to set forth a
detailed analysis of these motions, but instead to note that the parties continue to make the court’s job
exceedingly difficult.
The plaintiff unquestionably must heed the earlier rulings of this court, and is not to use his motions in limine
to attempt to circumvent those rulings. Further, a number of the plaintiff’s twenty-eight motions are cursory
and contain no legal argument or citation whatsoever–indeed, in a few it is difficult even to discern the nature
of the ruling the plaintiff seeks. Others simply seem to restate the rules of evidence without any application
to the matter at hand. These perfunctory filings will not be entertained. Defendant’s responses to these
frivolous motions are inexplicably voluminous and poorly organized, creating a further burden for the court.
While a few motions in limine do raise potential issues, without the benefit of the actual evidence or
testimony, the court is ill-equipped to make a determination at this time.
These rulings are without prejudice and may be revisited if justice so requires.

Courtroom Deputy
Initials:

06C3132 Sommerfield vs. City of Chi.

RJ/JKF

Page 2 of 2