Williams et al v. Peterson et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/26/2009:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JEREMY WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER ) MATTHEW PETERSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) ) PIERRE MANNING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

No.

08 C 1657

No.

08 C 7273

MEMORANDUM ORDER City of Chicago ("City"), one of the defendants in each of the captioned lawsuits (the other named defendants are Chicago Police Officers), has moved for reassignment of the Manning case (presently assigned to this Court's colleague Honorable Ruben Castillo) to this Court under the provisions of this District Court's LR 40.4. Each plaintiff's counsel opposes the motion, This

currently set for presentment at 9:15 a.m. January 26.

memorandum order denies City's motion, though the related matter dealt with at the end of this order will be discussed at the scheduled presentment date. This Court regularly comments in response to an LR 40.4

motion--almost always orally, because such motions rarely call for written treatment--that the initial hurdle of establishing "relatedness" is easy to surmount. LR 40.4(a) is framed in the

disjunctive, so that satisfying any one of its four conditions suffices for that purpose. In this instance the satisfaction of

that requirement is particularly easy, because each plaintiff asserts that he was shot by one or another of the defendant officers on the same occasion, while the others assertedly took no steps to prevent the shooting. What almost always controls the grant or denial of reassignment based on relatedness, however, is the movant's need to satisfy all four provisions of LR 40.4(b), stated in the conjunctive. Of those four, the one that most frequently

controls is LR40.4(d), which requires a showing that "the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding." And in

cases such as these two, "single proceeding" means a single trial. It seems clear that the establishment of liability or nonliability in these cases can meet that "single proceeding" standard. But each plaintiff's damages, if they succeed in Moreover, it is

establishing liability, are a different matter.

too early to tell whether cross examination of either plaintiff may raise issues that could taint the other if a single trial were to take place.

2

Accordingly City's LR 40.4 motion is denied, essentially because it is really premature at this point. As indicated by

the preceding paragraph, such denial is without prejudice to the possible reassertion of a like motion if discovery or other further developments in the cases makes such a reassertion appropriate. In the meantime, though, arrangements for

coordinated discovery would appear to be in order, and that subject will be discussed at the January 26 presentment date.

________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: January 26, 2009

3