Case Activity (3261)

1. Filed: June 05, 2026 | Entered: June 05, 2026 Russell v. Village Of Skokie et al

   440 Civil Rights: Other | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Motion hearing held. Discussion held on motion to disclose confidential information and how the Village generally conducts fitness-for-duty examinations. The Village wants permission from the Court under the confidentiality order to send Plaintiff's confidential information (medical records and personal journal entries) to the Village's evaluator for fitness-for-duty purposes. As to the personal journal notes, they were presumably performed on a directive by Plaintiff's therapist. The Village can order Plaintiff to sit for a fitness for duty examination without court order. The Village shall proceed as it sees fit. The motion at [ 115 , 116 ] is premature because the Village can proceed without Court involvement (including requiring Plaintiff to sit for an exam and produce whatever records the Village or its evaluator determine are necessary). Plaintiff's motion to strike the reply 133 is denied as moot in light of the ruling on Dkt. # 116 . As to Village's motion to strike references to settlement negotiations 130 , Plaintiff asserts that Rule 408 does not preclude disclosure of settlement discussions in the instant context. The Village is concerned that the settlement discussions are being used to impute some type of retaliatory/disciplinary motive on the Village and will have a chilling effect. The Court is inclined to agree with Plaintiff but finds the prophylactic measure of placing pages 6 and 7 and Exhibit 4 under seal/redacting these pages to alleviate concerns is appropriate; accordingly, Dkt. # 130 is granted. The Court directs that Plaintiff file a modified version of its non-sealed response (currently found at Dkt. # 122 ) with pages 6 and 7 and Exhibit 4 redacted. Plaintiff agrees to do so but does not concede the legal point and does not believe these statements are protected under Rule 408. The Clerk is directed to remove Dkt. # 122 from the electronic docket and Plaintiff will re-file redacted/sealed versions, as directed above, by 6/10/26. The Village stated that if Plaintiff does not completely produce her records when directed by the Village to do so, that may result in potential discipline and should not be construed as retaliatory. Regarding placing the instant transcript under seal, the parties have no objection. As to Chief of Police's motion for rule to show cause Dr. Kroll, [ 112 and 113 ], police department states Dr. Kroll's counsel has indicated that there will be compliance with both subpoenas by Dr. Kroll by 6/12/26. The Court enters and continues Dkt. ## 112 and 113 ; Motion/Status hearing set for 6/18/26 at 1:30 p.m. for an update on compliance by Dr. Kroll. Plaintiff raised certain concerns as to the scope of the subpoenas issued but has not filed any motion. Because Dr. Kroll has her own counsel, she can pursue any objections to the subpoena pursuant to Rule 45. Regarding Dkt. # 98 , motion to compel Dr. Rafeyan, the Village has not received any responses or communications. Any rule to s... (truncated)

2. Motion | Filed: June 05, 2026 | Entered: June 05, 2026 Russell v. Village Of Skokie et al

   440 Civil Rights: Other | Illinois Northern

   Unopposed Oral Motion

   UNOPPOSED ORAL MOTION to place the transcript of today's hearing under seal.

   Presented before Magistrate Judge

   (ao, ) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

3. 3259 additional result(s)