Polletta v. Dart et al
MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, defendant Cook County Sheriff's motion to quash the notice of deposition 60 is granted, without prejudice to Polletta's possible future reassertion of a "real need" for any of those depositions in more convincing terms. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/26/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook County,
Case No. 16 C 9492
On July 10, 2017 Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart filed "Defendant Cook County
Sheriff's Motion To Quash the Notice of Deposition To Daniel Korso and for a Protective Order
Limitnig [sic] Scope of Said Deposition" (the "Motion," Dkt. No. 60) that sought alternative
relief: either an order quashing the notices of depositions of three top officials in Sheriff Dart's
office or a protective order limiting the scope of such depositions. This Court has had occasion
in the immediate past to address a number of matters initiated by plaintiff and putative class
representative Nicholas Polletta ("Polletta") that provide some added perspective on the issues
posed by the Motion.
As Sheriff Dart's Motion states at page 2, a plaintiff such as Polletta must "show a 'real
need' for a high-ranking government official's testimony before he or she is taken away from
work to spend time answering a lawyer's questions." On that score Sheriff Dart has cited Olivieri
v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 1997), and that principle remains true today. As the
Motions goes on to demonstrate persuasively, Polletta has not surmounted that threshold
requirement. Accordingly the motion to quash the notice of deposition is granted, without
prejudice to Polletta's possible future reassertion of a "real need" for any of those depositions in
more convincing terms.
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: July 26, 2017
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?