IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ‘COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION BISHOP DWAYNE FUNCHES, et al, Judge Lynn Egan Plaintiff, Case No. 04 CH 16049 Consolidated with 05 1. 3088, v. and 05 1.9762 CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal ‘corporation eta, Defendants FUNCHES' SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY TO ‘THE DEFENDANT'S FILING ON FEBRUARY 22,2008 1. Background (On Friday, February 22, 2008, Defendant City of Chicago filed and served electronically 4 document led “City of Chicago's Supplemental Reply o Plant's Request for Relief and Supplement” (“City’sSupplement). Due tothe size ofthe file the City's Supplement was never receive in elecroni frmby the undersigned. (On Monde, Fbrary 25,2008, the undersigned timely fled and served “Punches” Reply to Chicago's Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Relief” (*Funches’ Reply”). When the "undersigned prepared he Funches' Reply, he had not received nr considered, the City's Supplement. This Suplemental Reply adresses the intormation contained inthe City's Supplement T —_ Lightfoot: Revised Testimony Included inthe City's Supplement are two affidavits exceuted by Lori Lightfoot dated February 22,2008 (bot afidavits ar tached hersto as Exhibit A). Based upon the February 22nd affidavits, Ms, Lightfoot has dramatically changed her testimony from the testimony she‘pave at her deposition. Ms, Lightfoot now recants her deposition testimony that she created a timeline for her own purposes. At her deposition on May 31, 2006, Ms. Lightfoot was asked: “What document or documents did you create?” Ms, Lightfoot testified believe I crewed for my own purposes a time ine of sorts. And that’s all recall. There may have been more, but I don’ recall (Exhibit B, pe. 16). However, in ore of her February 22nd affidavits, Ms Lightfoot testified: 1. Thad stated under oath in my deposition that, while T worked atthe City of Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications, | recalled seeing several dafts ofa time line relating to the fire that oceurred at 5056 West Huron Street on September 24, 2004. 4, To the bestof my understanding the time line was created by Barbara ‘MeDonald, who worked for OEMC at that time, (Exide). ‘The transcrip of Ms, Lihtfoot’s deposition s lear, she dd not testy that several dats ‘of atimelne existed that she called seeing” daftimelnes. Rather, Ms Lightfoot testified ater deposition tha she ereateda timeline. Ms, Lihtfots affidavit testimony is categorically inconeet tis incompreensible fora witness fo ety, nonce instance that she “rete” —for her own purposes ~a timeline of rica events, but later say that she was mistaken, and thatthe timeline was created ty somcone ese, The act of creating a timeline of specific events is oo exact and detailed of a task for anyone to have mistakenly believed they preformed In dition tothe fac tht Ms Lightfoot has now changed he testimony regarding the reaton ofthe timeline, othe troubling questions remain regarding documents she mentioned at her deposition. Specifically, no information exists regarding the following:1 Writen documentation corresponding to calls Ms. Lightfoot listened to (Exhibit B, pg 113, line 19, 2, Notes taker by Ms. Lightfoot, When asked ifshe made any notes, she testified, “I'm sure I did” (Exhibit B, pg. 115, line 3). 3. Ms, Lightfot testified she create a write-up of @ summary report related to discipline ‘that was meted out in connection with the “Funches report.” Defendant has not ohio ote Fuchs pr?” Es B pgs 15 4. Memorandum of interviews (Exhibit B, pg. 116) Without any explanation, critical information regarding an important investigation into ‘event tat lie atthe heart of this lawsuit is now gone. Inadvertence cannot explain why critical documents, created by the Chief of Staff/General Counsel forthe City of Chieago OEMC, are snow missing. IIL, MeDonald Timeline Included in the City's Supplement isan affidavit executed by Barbara MeDonald. In September 2004, Ms, McDonald worked as a consultant forthe Office Emergency Management and Communication, in her affidavit Ms. MeDonald testified that afew days after the Funches’ ire, the Executive Director (Ron Huberman) asked her to create atime line of events related to the fire. Ms. MeDonaid does not indicate in her affidavit how many different drafts ofthe timeline she created. Ms, MeDonaldl never mentioned the name of Ms. Lightfoot inher affidavit. Inher deposition testimony, Ms. Lightfoot never mentioned the name of Barbara ‘MeDonald. Ms, Lightfoot specifically stated in her deposition that she created the timeline for hher “own purposes.” Now Ms. Lightfoot testifies thatthe timeline she used for her “own purposes” was timeline created by Barbara McDonald atthe direction of Ron Huberman. More ‘troubling is the fact that Ms. Lightfoot doesnot know ifthe timeline attached to McDonald's affidavits the final timeline, Lightfoot testifies in her January 22" affidavit thatthe McDonald