Suggs et al v. Zinchuck et al

Filing 297

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/6/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LATANYA ALEXANDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICER ZINCHUCK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

08 C 6688

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Months ago this Court ruled that plaintiffs’ counsel Blake
Horwitz (“Horwitz”) was entitled to recompense for the added time
and expense that he and his associates had incurred because of
defendants’ much-delayed production of a key piece of evidence:
the identity of the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) officers to
whom pepper spray canisters had been issued on the November 2008
election night of President Barack Obama’s first term, with the
spray then being used to quell a celebration that occupied
several square blocks in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood.

That

information, which plays an important role in this multiplaintiff multi-defendant 42 U.S.C. §1983 litigation, had
appeared to be an elusive will-o’-the-wisp until it turned out to
have been detailed in a contemporaneous memorandum made by a CPD
higher-up, a Lieutenant Kilroy, that for some reason he had
failed to make a part of official CPD records.1

1

In fairness to defense counsel, it should be said that
they were unaware of the Kilroy memo when they were responding to
the discovery requests by plaintiffs’ counsel. As soon as

Quantification of the Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 37 award of
fees and expenses, however, has proved to be just about as
elusive as the belatedly-supplied memorandum had been:
Successive submissions by the litigants have shown them to be
miles apart in their views, and this Court most recently directed
attorney Horwitz to provide some added input to help in the
process.

But earlier this week Horwitz filed a submission that

advised that he had been unable to do so to date and that he
would be out of the country for some two months beginning today,
December 6.
This Court has declined Horwitz’ invitation in that filing
to attempt to resolve the matter before his departure despite the
absence of the requested added input on his part.

Instead this

Court will await Horwitz’ return and the response that he will
then provide.

This memorandum order therefore memorializes this

Court’s oral denial of Horwitz’ request for a current resolution
of the fee award.

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

December 6, 2012

defense counsel learned about the memo, they promptly delivered a
copy to plaintiffs’ counsel.
2