123456789101112131415161718192021222324251IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISIONDONNA MOORE, as legalcustodian of her son, J.M., aminor, and her daughter, A.M.,a minor,Plaintiffs,vs.ROBERT SMITH, JAMES EVITT,CITY OF CHICAGO, STACEY SMITH,and EDWIN GORMAN,Defendants.))))))))))))))No. 07 C 5908Chicago, IllinoisMarch 4, 20099:15 a.m.TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - MOTIONBEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. GETTLEMANAPPEARANCES:For the Plaintiff: PEOPLE'S LAW OFFICE1180 North Milwaukee AvenueChicago, Illinois 60622BY: MR. G. FLINT TAYLOR, JR.MR. BENJAMIN H. ELSONFor Defendant City: DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC10 South Wacker DriveSuite 2300Chicago, Illinois 60606BY: MR. TERRENCE M. BURNSMR. DANIEL M. NOLANDFor Defendant City: CITY OF CHICAGO30 North LaSalle StreetChicago, Illinois 60602BY: MS. RITA C. O'CONNOROfficial Reporter: JENNIFER S. COSTALES, CRR, RMR219 South Dearborn StreetRoom 1706Chicago, Illinois 60604(312) 427-5351

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252(Proceedings in open court.)THE CLERK: 07 C 5908, Donna Moore versus Officer Smith,motion for sanctions, motion to supplement.MR. BURNS: Good morning, Your Honor.Terrence Burns and Daniel Nolan appearing on behalf ofthe City of Chicago.MS. O'CONNOR: Rita O'Connor on behalf of the City.MR. TAYLOR: Good morning, Judge.Flint Taylor and Ben Elson on behalf of the plaintiff.This is our motion or motions, Judge. It's a motion forsanctions and also a motion to supplement.THE COURT: Well, I'll grant the motion to supplement.Mr. Burns has already supplemented. I got it very lateyesterday, I got a pleading from him, which I've reviewed thismorning.Well, is there anything you want to add, Mr. Taylor?MR. TAYLOR: Well, Judge, I take it that you've read ourmotion, and I don't need to rehash what are both our factualpredicate and our relief that we seek is. We're seekingsanctions as we've both illuminated in the motion for aneight-month pattern of delay and obstruction that culminated inthe direct and now admitted defiance of orders by this Court andby Judge Valdez by the city itself and by its chief policy-makingpolice official, Mr. Weis.We think that we've made out in the pleading bad faith.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324253The Seventh Circuit has said deliberate defiance of an orderitself is bad faith. But we feel that also the falserepresentations to counsel, us, and to the Court, Judge Valdezparticularly, over a period of time that the City would comply ifand when all of these various motions to reconsider had beendealt with, and then, in fact, they had no intention apparentlyof doing so, as soon as they reached the end of the line, theyfiled the Weis document which, in fact, said: Thanks, but nothanks, we will not comply.I think also the bad faith is shown, Judge, by thetransparent and often rejected reason posited by the chief ofpolice and the City previously, that being the fact of privacy,safety, and morale, Judge. You rejected on a couple ofoccasions, Judge Valdez rejected it on a couple of occasions, andthen Mr. Weis brought it in again.I think this is a simple two-word answer that the Courtgave for that, and that was protective order. They make a bigdeal about how this is somehow going to bother morale, it's goingto bother safety, when, in fact, the documents are being turnedover to us, not turned over to the public. The Court recognizedthat last time we were in court here. So that's an argumentthat's very transparent. It's one that shouldn't have beenrepeated, and certainly shouldn't be the basis for a contemptuousactivity by Mr. Weis.And I also want to say, Judge, that they attempt to put