IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION REVEREND DWAYNE FUNCHES individually) and as Independent Executor ofthe Estates of) ‘TRAVIS FUNCHES, DIONE FUNCHES, i ‘and DWAYNE FUNCHES, JR, ) Honorable judge Lynn Egan EMILY FUNCHES, LOVERA 8. FUNCHES, —) SHATIRA FUNCHES, Individusls, } Case No. 04 CH 1649 } Consolidated with 05 13088 Plaintifi, and 05 L9762 ) vs ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, « municipal corporation, —) ) Defendant ) Men )UM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINT) ‘ST FOR RELIEF 1 BACKGROUND ‘On October 19,2007, the Court hear oa arguments on Plains’ Request for Sanctions (the transcript ofthe October 19, 2007 hearing i attached as Exhibit 1. At the conclusion of ‘oral arguments the Cour requested that he partes soggest additonal sanctions for the Cou’ consideration, The purpose of this Memorandum isto: 1) inform the Cour of yet another discovery abuse conceming information that Ms. Lori Lightfoot has deliberately withheld from discovery; 2) propore additional sanctions; and 3) ask thatthe Cour rule on two evidentiary I MS. LIGHTFOOT’S TESTIMONY A. Affidavit Testimony ‘During the hearing on October 19%, the Court made several comments regarding Ms. Lightfoot's role inthis matter. In particular, the Court stated that Ms, Lightfoot’s conduct was, “{S]o cavalier and iradequate that it comes close to violating her duties as an officer of a court.” ‘EXHIBIT eaere(On September 27,2005, Ms, Lightfoot, who served as Chie of Staff and Genera Counsel forthe Office of Emergency Management and Communication ‘OEMC”) at the time of the fre, executed an ffidvit in this case (attached as Exhibit2). in her affidavit, Ms Lightfoot testified that she recived a faxed copy of Judge MoGann’s Temporary Restsining Order ("TRO") and attacked a Post-It note that advised her asistant to, handle” the mater (Lightfoot affidavit, paragraph 4, Exhibit2). Ms. Lightfoot farther ested that she, “Jad no further involvement... exzcuing the contents of the circuit cour’ order” (See Lightfoot affidavit, ‘paragraph 6, Exhibit 2). As discussed below, this statement is misleading at best B. Deposition Testimony Although Ms. Lightfoot said she had “no further involvement” in executing 1udge MeGann’s TRO, itis important to not that according to her deposition testimony, she played a ctl role in detemining what heppened within the OEMC onthe night ofthe fire (transcript ‘of Ms. Lightoot’s deposition is attached as Exhibit 3). As such, her actions are significant tothe Funches’ case. Uniotunately, Ms. Lightfoot has withheld eitical facts and documents regarding 9-1-1 calls that night. [At her deposition on May 31, 2006, Ms Lightfoot testified that on the night ofthe fre, she received a phoce all requesting that she report to the OEMC for a meeting (Exhibit 3, Lightfoot deposition, pe. 103). Ms. Lightfot testified thatthe meeting was held, “Because there ‘vasa fire and it was fainy serious one. AS I recall, there were four children that were killed in the ie” Exhibit 3, Lightfoot deposition, pg. 106) [At this meeting, or shortly thereafter, Ms. Lightfoot issued a “directive” wo her staff locate every cll and every tape regarding the Funches fie 0 that she could listen o all ofthe calls (Exhibit 3, Lightfoot deposition, pg. 112). By reporting to a meeting in the middle ofthe 2night and issuing the “irective” to her staf itis clear that Ms, Lightfot was involved in an effort to find, and yresumably to preserve, 9-1-1 call per Judge McGann’s TRO. Itis untenable for Ms. Lightfoot to amit she conducted an investigation to find the tapes, yet claim she had no responsibility to preserve the tapes she secured. Despite the fac that she characterize the Funches’ fire as “fil serious,” Ms. Lightfoot testified underoath at her deposition that she ould not remember even the most base details concerning event in which she was an active participant (Mi. Lightfoot’s testimony regarding ‘vents from September 24,2004 begin at page 102 of her deposition, Exhibit 3). For example, "Ms. Lightfoot doesnot remember who asked her to report tothe OEMC forthe meeting shortly ser the Funches' fre (Exhibit 3, Lightfoot deposition, pg 103); she does not remember what ‘was discussd at ths meeting (Exhibit 3, Lightfot deposition, pg 106); nor does she remember how long the meeting lasted ‘Ms. Lightfoot testified at her deposition that by the morning of Saturday, September 25, 2004, [There wer allegations that call came into 911 and that they could’t ge through or they were hang up on (Exhibit3, Lightfoot deposition, pg. 108). Ms. Lightfoot, however, does not recall who made these allegations. Its needle that Ms. Lightfoot, an attomey who conducted an invesigation ofthis matter, would not remember any details of such serious charges. Barly on Saturday, September 25,2004, Ms Lightfoot, {Slated geting tapes and stening to them Exhibit 3, Lightfoot deposition, pe 113), However, Ms Lightfoot dd not rememiberhow mary cast apes she received or the numberof also which she listened. 1 Ms. Lightfoot did remember looking at writen documentation, but she could not recall the ‘names ofthe docurents. Id. Ms. Lightfoot did recall making notes, eeating files, preparing 3