COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
DELBERT J. CHARLES, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of ABNERD JOSEPH, deceased,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
SUDLER AND COMPANY d/b/a SUDLER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, et. al.,
Defendant(s).
Court No. 2024L005346
Courtroom 2207
Calendar D
DEFENDANTS NATALIE BISHOPP AND ROBERT BISHOPP’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 219(c)
Defendants NATALIE BISHOPP and ROBERT BISHOPP (“Bishopps”), by their attorneys BEST, VANDERLAAN & HARRINGTON, and for their Emergency Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c), state as follows:
1.Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on May 14, 2024, arising out of the alleged shooting of Abnerd Joseph on September 14, 2023, at the Legacy condominium building located at 60 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois.
2.On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff answered written discovery wherein Plaintiff was requested to disclose those treating physicians Abnerd Joseph saw in the five years prior to his death. In response, Plaintiff disclosed two facilities, Clear Immediate Care Physician and Peachtree Psychiatric Services.
3.On July 25, 2025, Plaintiff disclosed a third facility, Florida State University Health Services.
4.Plaintiff has supplemented their document productions up to 19 times to date.
5.Since July 25, 2025, Plaintiff has not disclosed any additional facilities.
6.On March 13, 2026, counsel for the Bishopps was made aware of cell phone data pulled from Abnerd Joseph’s phone and preserved by the Chicago Police Department. Defense counsel for the Bishopps was given access to this information for the first time on March 13, 2026. This data contains hundreds of thousands of text messages that counsel has been in the process of reviewing.
7.Abnerd Joseph’s cellphone has been in Plaintiff’s possession – both the decedent’s family members who are parties to this matter and plaintiff’s counsel - since his passing in 2023 and throughout discovery in this matter.
8.Through their review of the data, counsel for the Bishopps has identified numerous other facilities at which Plaintiff sought treatment. There were also multiple messages with the decedent’s friends and employer about him seeking medical treatment. Despite this, Plaintiff failed to disclose these facilities which were readily discoverable to Plaintiff.
9.When answering discovery, parties have an obligation to make “reasonable efforts in good faith” to obtain secure responsive information, including from individuals and sources that are within their control. See Grant v. Rancour, 2020 IL App (2d) 190802.
10.“Discovery is intended to be a mechanism for the ascertainment of truth, for the purpose of promoting either a fair settlement or a fair trial.” Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill.2d 273, 282 (1982). There is a requirement of full and frank disclosure imposed by the discovery rules.
11.Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(i) imposes onto a party a duty to seasonably supplement or amend prior answers to written discovery whenever new or additional information becomes known to a party.
12.Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) authorizes a trial court to impose sanctions, including barring evidence and/or dismissing claims, upon any party who unreasonably fails to comply with any provisions of the court's discovery rules or any order pursuant to these rules. See Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp., 181 Ill.2d 112, 120 (1998); Redelmann v. K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., 377 Ill. App. 3d 971, 976–77 (1st Dist. 2007).
13.Illinois courts have consistently held that fractional discovery answers undermine the rules of discovery and warrant sanctions when the complete information was available to the answering party. See Zagorski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 IL App (5th) 140056; Buehler v. Whalen, 70 Ill.2d 51 (1977).
14.Here, Plaintiff had information pertaining to prior medical facilities that Abnerd Joseph treated at within the months leading up to his death and yet failed to disclose it at any point during discovery. To date, Plaintiff has not supplemented their discovery answers – despite issuing their own subpoenas to the same medical providers on March 31, 2026.
15.Counsel for the Bishopps had to discover these facilities on its own after being provided access to the cell phone data pulled by the Chicago Police Department from Abnerd Joseph’s cellphone.
16.Once these facilities were discovered by defense counsel, subpoenas for records were timely issued.
17.Plaintiff then chose to continue his attempts at preventing fair and open discovery by filing his Motion to Quash those subpoenas issued by the Bishopps. This is even more egregious given that Plaintiff has issued subpoenas to some of the same providers.
18.Given the tactical gamesmanship that has been employed by Plaintiff to prevent fair and open discovery, the Bishopps have been left with no other option but to seek sanctions.
19.As such, the Bishopps request that this Court enters sanctions against Plaintiff including, but not limited to, ordering Plaintiff to pay the costs incurred, including legal fees, in identifying these new facilities Plaintiff failed to disclose, obtaining the records from said facilities, and preparing this Motion necessitated by Plaintiff’s own conduct.
WHEREFORE, Defendants NATALIE BISHOPP and ROBERT BISHOPP respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an Order granting their Motion in its entirety and for any other relief in their favor that this Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
NATALIE BISHOPP and ROBERT BISHOPP
By: ______________________________________
One of their attorneys
Christina M. Tribbia
Richard J. Vadasy
Best, Vanderlaan & Harrington
200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312-819-1100
Attorney No: 37240
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 11, E-Service is accepted only at eservice@bestfirm.com and service by U.S. Mail is not accepted except where allowed by law.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, state that I caused copies of the foregoing to be served, with enclosures referred to thereon, if any, by Email to the attorney(s) of record at the address(es) of record from 200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL, 60601 prior to 5:00 p.m. on April 8, 2026.
__________________________________________
ATTORNEY SERVICE LIST
Re: Charles v. Bishopp et al
Court No.: 2024L005346
BVH File: LIB.25571
Stephan Blandin
Paul McMahon
Maura D. White
Romanucci & Blandin, LLC.
321 N. Clark St., Ste. 900
Chicago, IL 60654
(312) 253-8632
sblandin@rblaw.net
pmcmahon@rblaw.net
mwhite@rblaw.net
Attorneys for Plaintiff
John J. Scharkey
Erin I. Wenger
SWEENEY SCHARKEY LLC
230 West Monroe Street
Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 384-0500
jscharkey@ssbpartners.com
ewenger@ssbpartners.com
Attorneys for Garrett Mark Smith
Thomas P. Scherschel
Amundsen Davis, LLC
3815 East Main Street, Suite A-1
St. Charles, IL 60174
(630) 587-7912
TScherschel@amundsendavislaw.com
Attorney for Andrew Clement
Wendy Enerson
COZEN O’CONNOR
123 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1800
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 382-3100 (Main)
(312) 382-8910 (Facsimile)
wenerson@cozen.com
Attorneys for Sudler and Company, d/b/a Sudler Property Management, Deborah Romero, and Dominic Tedaldi
Attorneys for Respondents Steven Levy, Constantine “Dean” Andrews, John Carona, and Associa, Inc.
Ken Yeadon
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
151 N. Franklin, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60608
(312) 704-3000
kyeadon@hinshawlaw.com
Attorneys for the Legacy at Millennium Park Condominium Association and Younan “Jonah” Nena
Jay Paul Deratany
Milan Doan
DERATANY & JOSNER
221 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 748-3378
jpderatany@lawinjury.com
Attorneys for Delbert J. Charles