Part 1 – Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Argument that Zane Seipler Should Be Held in Contempt of Court for Posting Secret Documents on the Internet

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

Zane Seipler, ))

Plaintiff, )

v. ))

Case No. 08 c 50257

Anton Cundiff, et al., ) Honorable Judge Frederick J. Kapala

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ POST-HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF SANCTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I. Clear and Convincing Proof Plaintiff Violated the Protective Order and Submitted a Perjured Affidavit Denying Knowledge of Real MCSO (Nos. 1-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. Clear and Convincing Proof Plaintiff Created Shadow and Cited it on June 21, 2011 in Order to Mock and Misdirect the Court (No. 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

III. Clear and Convincing Proof Horwitz Affirmatively Misled the Court on September 7 and 23, 2011 as to the Creation of Real MCSO (Nos. 11-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

  1. Plaintiff’s Fabrication of a False Affirmative Defense (Nos. 17-19) . . . . . . . . . 10

(1) Why would Mrs. Seipler review, alter, and publicly post the

documents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

(2) How did Mrs. Seipler hide her document review and blogging from Plaintiff . . . . . . . . . 14

(3) How did Mrs. Seipler create Real MCSO with Plaintiff’s email address?. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

(4) Why did Plaintiff fail to alert the Court to the evidence until December 2011?. . . . . . . . . . 19

V. Only the Remedy of Dismissal Can Adequately Redress Plaintiff’s Misconduct . . . . . . . . . 21

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

ABF Freight Sys, Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S 317 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Bautista v. Star Cruises, 696 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Bell v. Inland Mut. Ins., 332 S.E.2d 127 (W.Va. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig, 200 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9

Cox v. West Virginia, 460 S.E.2d 25 (W.Va. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1, 8 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Dotson v. Bravo, 202 F.R.D. 559 (N.D. Ill. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Footman v. Cheung, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (M.D. Fla. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

In re Lightfoot, 217 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Jackson v. Murphy, 468 Fed. App’x 616 (7th Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Jimenez v. Madison Area Tech. Coll., 321 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Kendall Lakes Condo. v. Pac. Ins. Co., No. 10-24310, 2011 WL 6190160

(S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Oliver v. Gramley, 200 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Quela v. Payco-General Am. Credits, Inc., No. 99 C 1904, 2000 WL 656681

(N.D. Ill. May 18, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

REP MCR Realty, L.L.C. v. Lynch, 363 F. Supp. 2d 984 (N.D. Ill. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Rhodes v. LaSalle Bank, No. 02 C 2059, 2005 WL 281221 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2005) . . . . . . . . . 22

Ridge Chrysler Jeep LLC v. Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC,

516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Rodriguez v. M&M/Mars, No. 96 C 1231, 1997 WL 349989 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 1997) . . . . . . . 22

Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Sys., Inc., 579 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Ty, Inc. v. Softbelly’s, Inc., 517 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

U.S. Comm. Tr. Comm’n v. L.S. Asset Mgmt., No. 07 C 3598, 2007 WL 2915647

(N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

United States v. Shaffer Equip., 11 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Wade v. Soo Line R.R. Corp., 500 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Webb v. CBS Broad., Inc., No. 08 C 6241, 2010 WL 2104179

(N.D. Ill. May 25, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 9

Statutes

FED. R. CIV. P. 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 10

= = = = =

Part 2 tomorrow.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *