Walker v. City of Chicago et al, No. 1:2021cv02648 - Document 64 (N.D. Ill. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court denies the motion 53 . Motion hearing set for 10/20/22 is stricken. Status hearing set for 11/3/22 at 1:00 p.m. remains. Parties shall dial in using the Court's conference call-in number. The conference call-in number is 1-877-411-9748 and the passcode is 1814539. Please note that the Court's conference call-in will be used by all cases that are on the Court's calendar for the said date, theref ore counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line and must have the telephone muted until your case is called by the Court. Once the Court has heard your case you shall disconnect from the conference line. Members of the public and media who w ish to listen to this hearing may call in. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result i n sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. (For further details see order.) Signed by the Honorable M. David Weisman on 10/6/2022. Mailed notice (ao, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Walker v. City of Chicago et al Doc. 64 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMAL WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 21 C 2648 Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff asks the Court to compel defendants to answer discovery concerning the confidential informant (“CI”) whose information defendants allegedly relied on to obtain the search warrant that lead to plaintiff’s arrest. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion [53]. Discussion Plaintiff alleges that Chicago police officers Diblich and Ohle falsely stated in their reports about the execution of a search warrant that plaintiff admitted possessing ammunition found during the search. Plaintiff further alleges that the fabricated evidence was used to obtain his wrongful conviction for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and that defendants conspired to secure his conviction with this evidence. Plaintiff served discovery on defendants asking them to identify the CI. (See ECF 53-6 ¶ 3; ECF 53-7 ¶ 3; ECF 53-8 ¶ 3; ECF 53-9 ¶ 2; ECF 53-11 ¶ 2.) Defendants objected on the grounds of relevance and the CI privilege. The Court overrules the relevance objection. Though not necessarily pivotal to plaintiff’s claim, the existence and/or identity of the CI is relevant to defendants’ credibility. Thus, relevance is not a basis for withholding discovery about the CI. However, the objection based on the CI privilege is well taken. The CI privilege “is in reality the Government’s privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law.” Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957). The CI privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases, but “the privilege is more likely to give way in a criminal proceeding than in a civil one.” Wade v. Ramos, 26 F.4th 440, 445 (7th Cir. 2022). “To overcome the privilege, the party seeking disclosure has the burden of demonstrating a need for the identity of the informant that outweighs the public’s interest in effective law enforcement.” Guzman v. City of Chi., 242 F.R.D. 443, 447 (N.D. Ill. 2007); see United States v. Valles, 41 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 1994) (stating that a party Dockets.Justia.com who attempts to overcome the CI privilege does so “in the face of an assumption that the privilege should apply”). “Thus, the privilege ‘will not yield to permit a mere fishing expedition, nor upon bare speculation that the information may possibly prove useful.’” Guzman, 242 F.R.D. at 447 (quoting Dole v. Local 1942, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 368, 373 (7th Cir. 1989)). “Instead, the discovery proponent must show that the identification of the informant or of a communication is essential to a balanced measure of the issues and the fair administration of justice.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that he has overcome the CI privilege because he believes Diblich made up the CI and the information allegedly provided by the CI to obtain the search warrant. (ECF 54 at 7.) Even if that were true, it would not prove that defendants made false statements in their reports or conspired to use those statements against plaintiff at his trial, which is the only remaining claim in this suit. 1 Rather, at most, the CI evidence might cast doubt on defendants’ credibility. That kind of bare speculation that the CI information might possibly be useful is insufficient to overcome the privilege. Guzman, 242 F.R.D. at 447. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel [53] is denied. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: October 6, 2022 M. David Weisman United States Magistrate Judge 1 The cases plaintiff cites are inapposite because, unlike this one, they involved claims for unconstitutional searches pursuant to warrants that were obtained using information from an unreliable CI. Tate v. City of Chi., No. 18 C 7439, 2021 WL 1885991 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2021); Heffernan v. City of Chi., No. 10 C 7564, 2012 WL 642536 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2012); Coleman-Johnson v. Chi., Ill. Police Officers, No. 95 C 3455, 1996 WL 66140 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 1996). 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
