Opinion
Case No. 06 C 1243.
September 12, 2007
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this matter, plaintiff Lawanda Williams ("Williams") seeks the production of certain complaint register files from defendant City of Chicago. This matter was referred to this Court by Judge Kocoras pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. Judge Kocoras's referral came on the heels of an order in which Judge Kocoras directed the City to produce the complaint register files to this Court for in camera review.
I. Standards
The primary issue in the production of these documents is whether the various complaint register files are relevant to Williams's claim. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) states that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The relevance standard that governs discovery, as laid out in Rule 26, is very broad and is broader than the relevance standard that pertains to trial and admissibility issues. See Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350, (1978) ("relevance [in discovery] has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case."). "For discovery purposes, relevance is broadly construed." American Hardware Mfrs. Ass'n v. Reed Elsevier Inc., 03 C 9421, 2007 WL 1610455, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2007) (citing Behnia v. Shapiro, 176 F.R.D. 277, 280 (N.D. Ill. 1997)). Furthermore, information is relevant if it makes an issue in the case more or less likely, or if it speaks to the credibility of any witnesses. See Medical Waste Techs., LLC v. Alexian Bros. Med. Ctr., 97 C 3805, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 24, 1998) ("Although documents 16-29 relate to business dealings with Italian entities, they are relevant to show the credibility of MWT in similar transactions."). It is under this standard that the Court considers the documents produced in camera pursuant to Judge Kocoras's order. Defendants have made no claims of privilege as to any of the documents; therefore, the only issue before the Court is that of discovery relevance.
II. Rulings
After carefully considering each document in light of the issues that are likely to arise at trial, and in light of the discovery standard discussed above, the Court makes the following determinations:
Relevant
CR # 273062
CR # 276573 (relevant as to Officer Thomas Young; references to other officers may be redacted)
CR # 283176 (relevant as to Lt. Robert Stasch; references to other officers may be redacted)
CR # 292190
CR # 293340
CR # 294350
CR # 297672
CR # 302276
CR # 304620
CR # 306609
CR # 308514
CR # 309186
CR # 141303
CR # 151644
CR # 153762
CR # 156923
CR # 178783
CR # 192414
CR # 222348
CR # 231862
CR # 229859
CR # 230863
CR # 224498
CR # 229142
Not Relevant
CR # 227580
CR # 223744
CR # 268891
CR # 263447
CR # 263298
CR # 259799
CR # 256984
CR # 249554
CR # 242848
CR # 241885
CR # 238284
CR # 236583
CR # 223658
CR # 171875
CR # 309960
CR # 306595
CR # 305467
CR # 303662
CR # 295172
CR # 294316
CR # 293982
CR # 292152
CR # 291978
CR # 284320
CR # 283064.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants in part and denies in part Williams's Motion to Compel. The complaint register files tendered to the Court for in camera inspection will be returned to the City of Chicago, and the City of Chicago will produce those files that the Court has determined to be relevant to Williams.ENTER ORDER.