The document just filed does look exactly as I received it (different formatting), but I bet some readers will find it interesting.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION

ZANE SEIPLER,
Plaintiff
V.
CAPTAIN ANTON CIINDIFF,
LIEUTENANT JOHN MILLER #1431,
LIEUTENANT WILLIAM LUT Z,
SERGEANT POPOUTS, KATHLEEN
SIETH, KEITH NYGREN, individually and in
his offrcial capacity as SHERIFF OF
MCHENRY COUNTY, and the COUNTY OF
MCHENRY, Defendants.

JUDGE KAPALA
MAGISTRATE MAHONEY
No.08-cv-50257

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MISCELLEANOUS RELIEF

NOW COMES the Plaintiff Zane Seipler, by and through his attorney, Blake Horwitz of The Blake Horwitz Law Firm, Ltd., and respectfully requests this Court to grant Plaintiffs Motion. In support of same, Plaintiff states the following:

1. Many matters need to be resolved. Plaintiff shall try to succinctly point out the material issues.

2. The deposition of Sheriff Nygren completed on August 30, 2011. The deposition was to take place for an hour. During the deposition, Defense counsel gave lengthy objections intended to use up precious deposition time and the Deponent, an experienced witness, feigned confusion over simple questions.

At the end ofthe deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel sought out three additional minutes of questioning with regard to the racial profiling and acts of misconduct of officers.

The Sheriff walked out of the deposition, encouraged by his counsel Mr. Sotos.

Plaintiffs counsel requested three more minutes of questioning on five occasions and called this Court for intervention. The Court was not available but a record was made. Plaintiff prays that this Court allow five additional minutes of questioning and that Defense counsel be ordered to refrain from lengthy speech
objections.

Plaintiff also prays for costs/fees in connection with the prosecution of this matter.

3. Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to move the August 31,2011 status date so that the parties could take two depositions on said date: Jose Rivera and Captain Cundiff. The dates for Captain Cundiff were limited, pursuant to the dates ofFered by Defense counsel.

Plaintiff proffered August 31, 2011, after the Rivera deposition, however, Defendants declined, arguing that August 31, 2011 status date can not be moved absent a Court order and Defendants were unable to agree to move the date. Plaintiff submitted an emergency motion but learned from speaking to this Court’s minute clerk that this Court will not entertain emergency motions over the telephone. Hence, Plaintiff presents said motion in the instant submission.

4. The deposition of Deputy Tim Matteson began and was continued, mid-way through at the request of defense counsel, so that other depositions could be taken. The other depositions were taken and completed; however, Deputy Matteson’s deposition was not completed. Plaintiff seeks to complete the deposition of Tim Matteson.

Additional Discovery Concerning Jim Sotos and Elizabeth Barton

5. Unfortunately, hidden from Plaintiff s counsel was a recent revelation that grew out of the Deposition of Sheriff Nygren (yesterday) and Commander Cedergren (the day before). This Court is well aware of the internal investigation that was undertaken relative to the 51 officers.

Jim Sotos and Elizabeth Barton (Defense Counsel) guided, managed and/or organized this investigation. The Defendants sought out and secured the services of Mr. Sotos and Ms. Barton to learn how a racial profiling investigation should be performed. Mr. Sotos provided a 30-45 minute presentation on this score in the first
meeting that Defendants undertook to sort out the racial profiling issues. Ms. Barton was present during this meeting. Subsequently, Mr. Sotos and Ms. Barton counseled Cedegren and Patanaude to guide them through the process of investigating the racial profiling that took place in this case. The record could reflect up to 50 telephone calls between Ms. Barton, Cedegren and Patanaude, in connection with the investigation.

6. With regard the results of the investigation, in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary, there is little mystery to the ultimate conclusion that was reached – that racial profiling did not occur asto any oflicers in the department.

7. There were of course, other law firms in the Chicago-land area that were available to Sheriff Nygren. Only the Sotos fum was chosen. The Sotos firm represents Sheriff Nygren and the other high ranking Defendant Ofhcers, in the pending litigation only.  The Sotos firm has no other litigation pending with these Defendants.

8.  Peculiarly, Defense counsel has inserted themselves as witnesses to this cause (for a fee) by manipulating facts and directing the large scale investigation. Perhaps this was the only way that the internal (versus external) investigation could be performed pursuant to the desires and goals of the Sheriff. Discovery on this score must be conducted.

9.  Plaintiff has requested a date for the deposition of Mr. Sotos and Ms Barton, by way of informal written correspondence, so that Defense counsel can submit their own dates and secure counsel of their choosing. Plaintiff has also requested that certain items be produced by way of request to produce (Exhibit A).

10. The depositions of Defense counsel is material to this case. The internal investigation, directed by these attorneys, was a sham. Though work was clearly generated relative to the misconduct of officers, the investigation was designed to hide and cover-up the true nature of hundreds of falsified tickets generated by Oflicer Bruketta – an officer that Plaintiff accused of racial profiling long before his termination. As of this day, Mr. Bruketta, enjoys a delightful increase in salary and promotion while the Plaintiff suffers from a long term job loss.

Defendants Pending Motion for Sanctions

11.  Regarding another matter, Defendants have filed a motion for sanctions, perjury, dismissal and costs. Defendants are still engaging in discovery on this score with regard to additional subpoenas (Yahoo, Comcast). Defendants will try to boot strap new arguments into their reply brief in connection with subpoenaed information they uncover.

Plaintiff asks that this Court regulate this process and order Defendants to generate one submission in connection with their opening brief wherein the submission contains all the evidence relative to their motion. Plaintiff requests that only at that time should he be required to submit a response brief. Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the Defendants’ motion in 14 days, Plaintiff now seeks additional time to respond, given Defendants subsequent subpoena requests.

12.  Lastly, Plaintiff asks for a protective order in connection with the subpoenaed material.  Defense counsel, Jim Sotos has agreed to Plaintiff’s request. In their subpoenas, Defense counsel has requested the e-mail communications that have been generated by Mr. Seipler, the Plaintiff. Mr. Sotos, in a recent conversation with Blake Horwitz, Plaintiffs counsel, has agreed to limit the depositions to information not relating to e-mails. Hence, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an order accordingly.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and provide any alternative relief deemed just under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Blake Horwitz

Blake Horwitz
One of Plaintiffs Attorneys
The Blake Horwitz Law Firm
Two First National Plaza
39 SouthLaSalle, Suite 1515
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: (312) 67 6-2104