Image text: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO PRODUCE DISCOVERY Defendants, by their attorney, Andrew S. Boutros, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 (b)(1)(A), hereby request that the court extend time from February 27, 2026, to March 12, 2026, for defendants to produce surveillance footage stored in the decommissioned server at the Broadview Processing Center, and state the following in support: 1. At the hearing on February 13, 2026, this court ordered defendants to produce footage saved in the server by February 27, 2026, and requested plaintiffs to notify defendants by February 18, 2026, if plaintiffs’ IT expert wished to attend the sessions during which footage is retrieved. Dkt. 163. Plaintiffs timely notified defendants that their expert will attend. 2. Counsel for the defendants informed counsel for the plaintiffs on February 19, 2026, that government contractors will attempt to switch on and retrieve footage from the server on Tuesday, February 24, 2026. And that the contractors believe it is highly unlikely retrieval can be completed by February 27, 2026.
Partial Image text: 3. At the hearing on February 20, 2026, counsel for defendants informed the court that although retrieval was planned to start on February 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., defendants will likely request an extension of the February 27, 2026, deadline, for the reasons stated above. 4. On February 24, 2026, before 10:00 a.m., counsel for the defendants was informed of a delay. Counsel for the contractors asked defendants to obtain a written statement from counsel for the plaintiffs disclaiming any right to seek remedies against the contractors should the retrieval be unsuccessful. Pointing to aggressive questioning at their depositions and in seeking subpoenaed records by counsel for the plaintiffs, the contractors needed written assurance of no liability. 5. With the assistance of agency counsel, counsel for the defendants negotiated disclaimer language and exchanged drafts with counsel for the contractors and one of counsel for plaintiffs, who was already at Broadview with IT experts. Agreement was not readily reached so retrieving footage from the server was postponed to the following day, February 25, 2026. 6. To eliminate the inconvenience of driving to Broadview again, the contractors gave plaintiffs’ team remote access to a closed-circuit camera system so they could observe the contractors as they worked. However, the contractors did not begin work until the afternoon of February 25, 2026, when connectivity issues experienced by plaintiffs’ team were resolved. 7. After switching on the server, and reviewing its contents, contractors estimated it will take about 14 business days to transfer footage from the ten cameras plaintiffs requested to their hard drives: about seven days to download footage from the server directly into a DHS approved storage device, and another seven days to transfer files from the storage device to plaintiffs’ hard drives.
Image text: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A SECOND SITE INSPECTION Plaintiffs’ request for a second inspection of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility located in Broadview, Illinois, should be denied as beyond the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2), cumulative, unnecessary, not proportionate to the needs of the preliminary injunction hearing set for April 21-22, 2026, and burdensome. More particularly, plaintiffs seek a three-hour inspection of Broadview to be attended by two attorneys, an interpreter, and Pablo Stewart, M.D. In addition to walking through Broadview, Dr. Stewart seeks to evaluate detainees during the inspection. Exhibit A. Rule 34(a)(2) provides that: A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b): * * * (2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). Rule 34 only allows for the inspection of property, not the questioning of individuals present at the property. Belcher v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., 588 F.2d 904, 909-910 (4th Cir. 1978) (reversing district court order allowing inspection of premises and
![Image text:
questioning of individuals present at the site of inspection); Curry v. Goodman, No. 02 C 1149,
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17861, *2 (D. Conn. May 22, 2003) (Rule 34 “does not permit plaintiff’s
expert ‘basic access to managerial personnel to understand the operations of the [premise].’”). Yet
that is plaintiffs’ goal here. The detainees may also be represented by counsel not present during
the inspection who might not want their client giving statements that might be used in litigation.
For these reasons, plaintiffs’ request is improper and beyond the scope of Rule 34(a)(2).
Moreover, plaintiffs have already been allowed to inspect, photograph, and measure
Broadview along with their prison expert Dora Schriro. Dkt. 68, 73. Now they seek a cumulative,
unnecessary second inspection by Dr. Stewart that is not proportionate to the needs of the
preliminary injunction hearing. The inspection is unnecessary because several sources of
information exist outside of an inspection that Dr. Stewart may rely on in formulating his opinions
including declarations of the detainees that complain about access to medical care at Broadview
(including declarations produced as recently as February 26, 2026) and photographs,
measurements, a diagram of the facility, and 24/7 video footage already in plaintiffs possession.
Dr. Stewart may also speak with individuals who were previously detained at Broadview.
Permitting plaintiffs and Dr. Stewart to meet with detainees at Broadview when they need
to be processed and prepared for transport to a long-term detention facility would impair
operations. Transport is scheduled in advance. Processing can take two to three hours.
Information concerning the date and time of transport cannot be shared in advance for security
reasons.
Case: 1:25-cv-13323 Document #: 179 Filed: 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2666
3
For the foregoing reasons, the court should deny plaintiffs’ request for a second site
inspection.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7422wlmkminudypjv6cywlzl/bafkreiegih5m7a4ulcg3p7kwvtbphjk543b22ftv5u52fjwdzncs4cco6i@jpeg)
Image text: questioning of individuals present at the site of inspection); Curry v. Goodman, No. 02 C 1149, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17861, *2 (D. Conn. May 22, 2003) (Rule 34 “does not permit plaintiff’s expert ‘basic access to managerial personnel to understand the operations of the [premise].’”). Yet that is plaintiffs’ goal here. The detainees may also be represented by counsel not present during the inspection who might not want their client giving statements that might be used in litigation. For these reasons, plaintiffs’ request is improper and beyond the scope of Rule 34(a)(2). Moreover, plaintiffs have already been allowed to inspect, photograph, and measure Broadview along with their prison expert Dora Schriro. Dkt. 68, 73. Now they seek a cumulative, unnecessary second inspection by Dr. Stewart that is not proportionate to the needs of the preliminary injunction hearing. The inspection is unnecessary because several sources of information exist outside of an inspection that Dr. Stewart may rely on in formulating his opinions including declarations of the detainees that complain about access to medical care at Broadview (including declarations produced as recently as February 26, 2026) and photographs, measurements, a diagram of the facility, and 24/7 video footage already in plaintiffs possession. Dr. Stewart may also speak with individuals who were previously detained at Broadview. Permitting plaintiffs and Dr. Stewart to meet with detainees at Broadview when they need to be processed and prepared for transport to a long-term detention facility would impair operations. Transport is scheduled in advance. Processing can take two to three hours. Information concerning the date and time of transport cannot be shared in advance for security reasons. Case: 1:25-cv-13323 Document #: 179 Filed: 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2666 3 For the foregoing reasons, the court should deny plaintiffs’ request for a second site inspection.
Feds made 2 new filings Friday in the case over conditions inside the Broadview, IL ICE facility.
In one filing, the govt opposes another visit to the facility by lawyers, a doctor and an interpreter.
In the other, the govt asks for more time to produce surveillance footage from the facility.
02.03.2026 04:35 —
👍 3562
🔁 1202
💬 130
📌 58
