October 30, 2026 minute entry

Docket text

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Motion hearing set for 11/4/26 is stricken. Having reviewed the briefing in this matter, Plaintiff's motion to modify the amended pleading deadline and to amend the complaint [211] is denied. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b) to amend the complaint to add a new count. The deadline to amend the complaint passed 17 months ago. Discovery is closed. Summary judgment has been completed, and trial is scheduled for March 1, 2027. The pretrial order materials will be due soon. Plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking amendment. A review of Plaintiff's motion reveals that most of the facts that form the basis of the new count were known to Plaintiff for the last several years, such as the 2017 DOJ Report, the Consent Decree, and other monitoring reports. Plaintiff primarily seeks to use new documents: the final summary report (FSR), the concurrence and nonconcurrence report and the supplemental FSR that were produced in April 2026, as a basis to explain the delay. These reports contain facts that were already known to Plaintiff, including information about the incident from this case and that were the subject of discovery. In the proposed Count X, Plaintiff uses the newly produced documents in April 2026 not for its contents, but to claim that the City's withholding of the documents pursuant to deliberative process privilege, which was ultimately resolved by the parties and the prior district judge, demonstrates the City's code of silence policy or practice. Even if the Court were to consider these new documents, Plaintiff waited six months to file their motion to amend the Complaint and he has no explanation for this delay. So no good cause has been shown. Even if there was good cause, Count X can be denied under Rule 15 because it does not cure the defect that Judge Bucklo identified in her prior order dismissing the Monell claim and the amendment would be futile. Plaintiff focuses on his case only, and the City's position to claim privilege over the COPA-related documents in this case, as evidence of the code of silence. This is insufficient to show widespread custom or practice. The only new facts pled are what happened in this case with the withholding of documents, and do not recount any other incidents or policies of the City from the use of the deliberative process privilege to withhold COPA documents. Dean v. Wexford Health Serv., 18 F.4th 214 (7th Cir. 2021). Nor does it plausibly plead that this claim of using the deliberative process privilege was the moving force behind a shooting that occurred many years prior to this litigation position. Finally, leave to amend would significantly prejudice the defendant, who would need discovery to defend against this count, and an opportunity to file summary judgment on the proposed Count X. The City asserts it would have to retain an expert, which is common in combatting Monell claims. All of this as defendants prepare for a trial that is scheduled on this Court's calendar for March 1, 2027 with the final pretrial order due today. This is substantial prejudice. Thus, under Rule 16 and then, alternatively, on Rule 15 grounds, the motion fails. Mailed notice(lxs, )