Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Pritzker campaign asks judge to dismiss 8 plaintiffs from racial discrimination case
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Pritzker campaign asks judge to dismiss 8 plaintiffs from racial discrimination case

Monday, Dec 2, 2019

* Brian Mackey

Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s campaign operation is striking back against a group of former workers who’re suing for racial discrimination.

Lawyers for Pritzker’s campaign say eight of the 12 defendants have blown deadlines, provided incomplete answers to questions, and ignored obligations to sit for depositions.

Because of that, they’re asking a federal judge to dismiss those plaintiffs from the case.

* From the filing

1. After weeks of attempting to schedule Plaintiffs’ depositions, eight Plaintiffs still have not provided available dates for their depositions to occur by the extended December 10 deadline.

2. In addition, none of the Plaintiffs have supplemented the information they withheld from their interrogatory responses based on untimely objections that the Court ruled they had waived. They have taken the position that the Court ordered them only to supplement their document productions.

* From the memorandum in support of the motion

Defendants request that the Court enter an order (1) dismissing with prejudice the claims of the eight Plaintiffs whom counsel have refused to provide dates for depositions to occur by December 10, (2) compelling the remaining four Plaintiffs to supplement their interrogatory responses with information withheld on the basis of untimely and waived objections and ordering Plaintiffs and their counsel to pay Defendants’ reasonable fees and costs associated with retaking any deposition based on late supplementation, and (3) granting Defendants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this motion. […]

Plaintiffs’ consistent position has been that their counsel are simply too busy to complete discovery in the time period ordered by the Court. Defendants cannot effectively defend this case unless they take Plaintiffs’ depositions, and the only way to do so now is to again extend discovery–which would effectively reward Plaintiffs’ misconduct. In these circumstances, while dismissal is a serious sanction, Defendants respectfully submit it is the right one here.

* And this isn’t the first delay

Finally, on September 19, Defendants received a CD containing the discovery responses and document productions. The discovery letter accompanying the materials was dated September 16–three days after Plaintiffs said they mailed the materials–and neither of the two separately mailed packages had any postmarks indicating when they had been sent. Despite finally responding more than six weeks late, Plaintiffs nevertheless raised several objections, confirming during a subsequent meet and confer on October 1 that they withheld documents based on those untimely objections. The verification pages that Plaintiffs submitted with their interrogatory responses further showed that several Plaintiffs did not complete their responses until September–well after the August 2 deadline.

…Adding… Some context…


- Posted by Rich Miller        

5 Comments »
  1. - RNUG - Monday, Dec 2, 19 @ 9:50 am:

    Never pays to tick off the Judge by not cooperating. Judges like their calenders to operate smoothly.

    This pattern of delay may do just that … and it may also lead the judge to suspect the delay tactics are to cover up weaknesses in the actual case.


  2. - Mr. Smithfield - Monday, Dec 2, 19 @ 10:33 am:

    The defendants not cooperating with simple discovery requests might lead one to conclude that these complainants were mostly politically motivated.

    Loyalty to the candidate and campaign are gone. Just ask Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, etc.

    JB dodged a big bullet here primarily because he has the vast campaign resources to move beyond this issue quickly. Other candidates, like Biss or Kennedy, may have permanently damaged by the mere filing of this Complaint.


  3. - Jocko - Monday, Dec 2, 19 @ 10:40 am:

    I think attorney Shay Allen (and his four remaining defendants) can kiss that $7.5 million goodbye.


  4. - Moist von Lipwig - Monday, Dec 2, 19 @ 11:29 am:

    Whatever happened to the other lawsuit? https://capitolfax.com/2019/01/18/pritzker-campaign-official-pushes-back-hard-against-latest-lawsuit/


  5. - Anoni - Monday, Dec 2, 19 @ 12:15 pm:

    My guess is that they were hoping that Pritzker would settle with them out of court before this whole thing took off, to avoid the scandal and because what’s a few bucks to a billionaire. Dumb calculation, as settling would have been a scandal itself.
    But here they are stuck with a trial that they clearly have no interest in putting in the effort to follow-through with, and that they’ll lose if it ever does move forward.


TrackBack URI

This is not Facebook, so uncivil comments, profanity of any kind, rumors and anonymous commenters will not be tolerated and will likely result in banishment.



* Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
* Three prison guards indicted on charges related to inmate death
* Doherty out at City Club, may have been conduit for 100 ComEd jobs
* Roundup and open thread
* *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller