Chicago Joe’s Tea Room, LLC v. Village of Broadview

Dist. Ct. did not err in excluding plaintiff’s proposed lay witness from rendering opinion on plaintiff’s lost profits arising out of defendant’s denial of plaintiff application for special use permit to operate adult entertainment club that served liquor, where plaintiff’s business never opened for business, and where State of Illinois enacted legislation that made it impossible for plaintiff to operate said business some three months after plaintiff filed instant lawsuit. Opinion of said witness stemmed from his operation of different adult entertainment and fell within realm of expert witness testimony, and plaintiff had failed to disclose said witness as expert witness. Moreover, extensive differences between existing adult entertainment business and plaintiff’s business precluded apt comparison and witness lacked personal knowledge to support key aspects of his opinion, Too, Dist. Ct. could also base instant exclusion on differences in locations of plaintiff’s proposed business and location of comparative business. Dist. Ct. also did not abuse its discretion in either: (1) excluding different expert report, where said report was disclosed six years after 2015 close of discovery deadline; or (2) entering order that precluded plaintiff from introducing evidence of any damages figure that had not been properly disclosed under Rule 26, under circumstances where plaintiff had not updated any damages calculation under Rule 26 since December of 2012.