Sapia v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 1:14-cv-07946

Three former tenured Chicago teachers (Sapia, Passmore, Hall) challenge their 2012 layoffs/terminations as pretextual discharges based on unsatisfactory ratings.
Plaintiffs served subpoenas on two former Board officials (CEO Ron Huberman; HR Director Alicia Winckler) seeking testimony about the Board’s evaluation policies and communications.
The Board moved to quash those subpoenas, arguing the officials lack relevant, factual knowledge; Winckler submitted a declaration saying she has "no direct" knowledge; Huberman submitted none.
Plaintiffs also moved to compel various Board documents (executive-session materials, 2010–2011 layoff/practice information, job postings/vacancy reports).
The magistrate judge found discovery scope depends on the governing claims and defenses, which remain uncertain because plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and a new motion to dismiss is pending before Judge Wood.
Given that uncertainty, the magistrate suspended briefing and denied the discovery motions without prejudice, directing the parties to refile after resolution of the pending motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subpoenas/depositions of former Board officials	Officials possess information about Board’s adoption/implementation/communications of teacher-evaluation policy relevant to plaintiffs’ pretext theory	Officials lack direct knowledge of facts concerning plaintiffs’ layoffs/ratings; subpoenas are overbroad	Discovery motions regarding subpoenas denied without prejudice; briefing suspended pending resolution of motion to dismiss
Compel executive-session materials (agendas, minutes, audio, transcripts, reports, videos)	Such materials may show Board intent, policy adoption, or use of layoffs as pretext for terminations	Materials are potentially irrelevant or privileged; scope depends on claims that are in flux	Motion to compel denied without prejudice; revisit after Judge Wood rules on motion to dismiss
Discovery of Board layoff practices (2010–2011)	Pre-2012 practices bear on whether layoffs were truly economic or pretextual	Relevance disputed given disagreement about applicable collective bargaining agreement and operative claims	Deferred; relevance to be reassessed after motion to dismiss decides operative claims
Requests for job postings and vacancy reports	Useful to show availability of positions and whether layoffs were pretextual	Burdensome or not relevant to current pleaded claims	Denied without prejudice; parties may refile after case parameters are clarified

Woolard v. Woolard, 547 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (unsupported statements in briefs are not evidence)
United States v. Stevens, 500 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2007) (attorney statements do not substitute for evidence)
Phillips v. Allen, 668 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2012) (court rejects lawyers' talk as substitute for proof)
United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (public generally entitled to evidence; limits on testimonial immunity)
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (high public officials not immune from civil deposition)
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) (discovery relevance requirement should be firmly applied)
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (trial judges must control discovery scope)
Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014) (judicial case-management can check overlawyering)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards and limits on speculative claims)
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (judicial control over discovery is necessary)