Padilla et al v. City Of Chicago et al

Filing 593

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/27/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
NOEL PADILLA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

06 C 5462

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On June 20, 2012 plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment together with numerous supporting documents.
Defendants claimed that ten of those documents were covered by
protective orders and thus should have been filed under seal,
absent permission from this Court to file the documents unsealed.
On June 27, 2012 this Court issued an agreed order placing the
ten documents under seal with the understanding that plaintiffs
could file a motion to unseal if they were so inclined.
Plaintiffs have filed such a motion asking that these
documents be unsealed:
1. Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 497-1)
2. Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56.1(a)(3)
Statement of Facts (Dkt. 497-2)
3. Daily Assignment and Activity Report
(Dkt. 497-5)
4. Defendant Markiewicz's Answer to
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 497-6)
5.

Vice Case Report (Dkt. 497-7)

6. Defendant Herrera's Answer to Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 497-15)
7. Defendant Hopkins' Answer to Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 497-16)
8. Defendant City of Chicago's Answer to
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 497-17)
9.
497-20)
10.

Declaration of Jerome Finnigan (Dkt.
Dr. Whitman's Expert Report (Dkt. 497-32)

Defendants do not object to the unsealing of documents 3 through
8.

Those documents will therefore be unsealed without further

discussion.
Defendants do object, however, to the unsealing of Dr.
Whitman's Expert Report and the Declaration of Jerome Finnigan.
As defendants correctly point out, both of those documents relate
only to plaintiffs' Monell-type claim against the City of
Chicago, which has been mooted by the City's certification of
indemnification (Dkt. No. 564) and Monell certification (Dkt. No.
582).

Because those documents are also no longer relevant to

plaintiffs' lawsuit, plaintiffs' motion to unseal documents 9 and
10 has likewise been rendered moot.

Their motion to unseal those

documents is therefore denied on that ground.
As to plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their motion for
partial summary judgment and their Local Rule 56.1 Statement of
Facts (documents 1 and 2 in the above listing), defendants argue
that those documents contain material that should not be made

2

public, including references to the Dr. Whitman report and the
Finnigan declaration discussed in the preceding paragraph as well
as other unspecified documents that are under seal.

Plaintiffs

maintain that no material contained within the memorandum and
statement of facts must remain confidential, but that even if
such questioned material is included the solution ought to be the
use of appropriate redactions as opposed to wholesale exclusion
of the documents at issue.
Plaintiffs are clearly right in contending that the
inclusion of a few references to confidential material should not
prevent the complete removal of plaintiffs' facts and arguments
from public view.

Because Dr. Whitman's Report and the Finnigan

declaration are irrelevant to the remaining issues in this case,
references in documents 1 and 2 to those materials and to other
materials that are kept under seal will be redacted upon defense
counsel's submission of proposed redactions that will leave the
balance of those documents a matter of public record.

This is in

conformity with our Court of Appeals' strongly stated and often
repeated principle that the norm for litigation documents is
their public accessibility (see, e.g., Citizens First Nat’l Bank
of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944-46 (7th
Cir. 1999)).
In sum, plaintiffs' motion to unseal the entirety of
documents 1 and 2 is denied for the present.

3

Defendants are

granted leave to submit a suitably redacted version of documents
1 and 2, omitting only what must remain outside of public view,
on or before April 24, 2013.

If they fail to do so, the entirety

of documents 1 and 2 will be unsealed upon a motion from
plaintiffs to that effect.

If however defendants submit a timely

proposed redacted version of those documents, plaintiffs will be
given an opportunity to respond before either document is
unsealed.
Conclusion
In terms of the documents as numbered in the second
paragraph of this memorandum order, plaintiffs’ motion to unseal
is granted as to documents 3 through 8, denied as to documents 9
and 10 and denied for the present as to documents 1 and 2.
Because this memorandum order and this Court’s lengthy memorandum
opinion and order issued on March 26 have dealt with all pending
motions, a status hearing is set for 9 a.m. April 10, 2013 to
discuss further proceedings in this action.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

March 27, 2013

4