Swanson v. Griebel et al
MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories 53 is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated on the record during thi s morning's court hearing and as briefly summarized in the statement below. Defendant Weiffenbach is given leave to file by 4/24/12 a motion to reconsider the Court's decision on the issue of his production of financial information in ligh t of his proposed stipulation that he will not contend at trial that he lacks the financial resources to pay a punitive damage award. If such a motion is filed, Plaintiff may file a response by 5/8/12. The Court will rule on that motion via the CM/ECF system. See order for further details. Mailed notice(ep, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Ronald A. Guzman
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
11 C 7768
Swanson vs. Griebel et al
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Motion hearing held. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories
 is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated on the record during this morning’s court
hearing and as briefly summarized in the statement below. Defendant Weiffenbach is given leave to file by
4/24/12 a motion to reconsider the Court’s decision on the issue of his production of financial information in
light of his proposed stipulation that he will not contend at trial that he lacks the financial resources to pay a
punitive damage award. If such a motion is filed, Plaintiff may file a response by 5/8/12. The Court will rule
on that motion via the CM/ECF system.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Griebel to answer interrogatories 10, 11 and 12 and
Defendant Weiffenbach to answer interrogatories 9, 10 and 11 (Motion , at ¶ 13) is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
(a) Defendant’s Griebel and Weiffenbach shall provide the net wage information
requested by interrogatories 9 (Weiffenbach) and 10 (Griebel), respectively. To the extent this
information was produced in redacted form, it shall be re-produced without redaction. According to
Defendants, this information is publicly available as these Defendants are public employees.
(b) Defendants Griebel and Weiffenbach shall provide the financial information
requested by interrogatories 10 and 11 (Weiffenbach) and 11 and 12 (Griebel) no later than 30 days
before the Pretrial Order in this case is due (or, alternatively, if the parties agree, Defendants may
provide a net worth statement listing all material assets (including the information requested by said
interrogatories) and material liabilities by the same date). This information may be produced
pursuant to the terms of a protective order.
(c) This ruling is without prejudice to either Defendant Griebel or Defendant
Weiffenbach filing a motion in limine before trial in which such Defendant contends that any of the
financial information referenced above is inadmissible at trial as a matter of law.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants Griebel and Weiffenbach to provide a timeline of
11C7768 Swanson vs. Griebel et al
Page 1 of 2
events in answer to interrogatory 13 (Griebel) and 12 (Weiffenbach) (Motion , at ¶ 14) is denied. It
appears that the burden of creating such a narrative timeline is similar for both Plaintiff and these Defendants
and, in any event, the information can be obtained economically and efficiently in depositions of the
Defendant officers. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Griebel to answer interrogatory 14 by identifying
the individuals who witnessed the events listed in interrogatory 13 (Motion , at ¶ 14) is granted to the
extent that the identity of any such witnesses is not contained in the arrest report and dispatch records. To be
clear, if Defendant Griebel contends that other witnesses are identified in other “records produced by
Defendant and Plaintiff” (see Defendant Griebel response to interrogatory 14), then the names of those
witnesses must be provided in answer to interrogatory 14 either expressly or by reference to Defendant
Griebel’s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Weiffenbach to provide his cell phone number and a
record of calls to and from that number on June 4, 2010 (Motion , at ¶ 15) is granted.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to produce their joint defense agreement (Motion
, at ¶ 16) is granted to the extent that Defendants shall state, in writing, (a) whether they have a written
joint defense agreement, (b) the parties to that agreement, and (c) the date(s) each party entered into that
agreement. The motion is denied without prejudice at this time to the extent Plaintiff seeks production of the
actual join defense agreement (requests to produce 7 (Weiffenbach), 8 (Griebel) and 10 (Sheriff)) as
Plaintiff’s counsel represented that the information described above is sufficient for Plaintiff’s purposes at
Plaintiff’s motion to compel information concerning the LEADS terminals (Motion , at ¶
17) is withdrawn.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of various excerpts from the Will County Sheriff’s
Office policies and/or procedures manual (Motion , at ¶ 18) is denied for the reasons stated on the record
and without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing the Motion in this regard with respect to particular policies and
procedures as to which there exists a good faith basis to believe such particular policies and procedures exist
and are relevant to the claims or defenses being made in this case.
The documents and information ordered produced herein shall be produced at least four (4)
business days before the deposition(s) with respect to which the documents or information are/is relevant.
It is so ordered.
11C7768 Swanson vs. Griebel et al
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?