Socha's Revenge Porn Lawsuit Against Joliet: Judge Issues Ruling

JOLIET, IL — Monday marked the five-year anniversary of Joliet police officer Cassie Socha filing her federal lawsuit against the Joliet Police Department accusing Sgt. Ed Grizzle of obtaining nude photos from her private phone and making them accessible to future Chief Al Roechner, Detective Sgt. Darrell Gavin and a host of other men in the police department. Federal Judge Jorge Alonso's summary judgment ruling also went public Monday, and the judge ruled in the favor of the lawyers defending the city of Joliet and Grizzle.

"Accordingly, the Court grants Joliet’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, grants Grizzle’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and dismisses Socha’s claims. Case terminated," the Chicago federal judge ruled.

Judge Alonso's ruling is 17 pages.

Here are some of the key points raised in Alonso's ruling against Socha, who was hoping to receive millions of dollars from the city of Joliet as a result of her lawsuit:

• "Joliet Police Detectives Don McKinney and Brad McKeon 'are the only two Joliet employees who have admitted to seeing a sexually explicit photo from Socha’s phone. However, Socha points to several rumors or accounts indicating that others in the Joliet PD — particularly Roechner and Detective Darrell Gavin — may have viewed explicit photographs or videos extracted from Socha’s phone. However, these are based on inadmissible hearsay which the Court disregards.
• "Roechner kept a flash drive containing Socha’s extracted phone data in a locked cabinet in his office. Roechner also allegedly told another Joliet PD employee, Detective Dave Jackson, that Roechner had downloaded the contents of Socha’s phone onto his work computer. Joliet PD Sergeant Shawn Stachelski further testified that Joliet PD IT Officer Phillip Bergner told Stachelski that Roechner, upon later learning that Joliet PD electronic devices would be investigated, asked Bergner to get rid of Roechner’s work phone, which Bergner then did. Socha’s offered statements of Roechner via Jackson and Stachelski are hearsay or, in the case of Stachelski, hearsay within hearsay, which is inadmissible."
• "Socha has not attempted to explain how these statements qualify for a hearsay exception or exemption, and thus has waived inadmissibility. The Court thus disregards those statements for purposes of summary judgment."
• "Socha points to rumors that Gavin had bragged to other officers that Socha 'sucks ____ like a porn star,' indicating that he had viewed an explicit video from Socha’s phone data. However, the record lacks admissible evidence that Gavin made this comment. None of the witnesses who testified to the rumor actually heard Gavin make that alleged comment or admissibly identified who did hear Gavin make the comment. For example, Jackson and Stachelski testified that they heard of Gavin’s purported comment from (Detective Carlos) Matlock, who did not personally hear the comment and did not recall who told him about the comment, and others testified that Matlock had told them that he had heard about the comment from Brown, who himself denied hearing it. This meandering hearsay within hearsay is not admissible evidence. And again, Socha has not attempted to argue admissibility and thus has waived it, so the Court disregards Gavin’s purported comment."
• "Socha also received two anonymous letters containing rumors and allegations that others in the Joliet PD had seen and shared explicit images and videos from Socha’s phone. However, the authorship of those letters is unknown, and they constitute inadmissible hearsay as to the truth of the rumors and allegations contained therein. Socha does not dispute this, so the Court ignores the allegations made in the letters for purposes of summary judgment."

"Among other things, the parties dispute whether McKinney or any other Joliet PD employee intentionally viewed Socha’s private images. The Court addresses each relevant person below. Because the Court finds that Socha has not presented a genuine dispute of material fact that any Joliet PD employee intentionally viewed her private images, the Court does not reach the parties’ other merits arguments or the issue of whether Joliet is entitled to immunity under the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act."

"Based on the record, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could not find that McKinney intentionally pried into Socha’s seclusion. At most, the material record indicates that McKinney was indiscriminately reviewing investigative files in the Cellebrite program, inadvertently saw a nude photograph and suspected that the photograph might be from Socha’s data and said so to McKeon, and then, upon seeing the separate photograph of Socha’s face and thus confirming the photograph was Socha’s, immediately stopped reviewing the data. These circumstances, even in the light most favorable to Socha, do not suggest that McKinney intentionally pried into Socha’s private images."

"Socha’s contrary theory relies on uncorroborated 'speculation and innuendo' that McKinney must have been looking for Socha’s data because he would not have found it otherwise, and McKeon’s testimony that McKinney told him that the nude picture he showed him might be from Socha’s phone before McKinney saw the photograph of Socha’s face. But Socha does not offer material evidence to genuinely rebut Joliet’s story that McKinney was generally browsing through investigative files, inadvertently stumbled on Socha’s phone data, and unknowingly opened a nude picture that he then realized might be Socha’s — and upon realizing or confirming that it was, immediately closed the program. There also is no evidence that McKinney ever saw or sought out any more private images or data from Socha’s phone."

"Socha acknowledges that she lacks direct evidence that any other Joliet PD employee viewed any of her private images, but argues that circumstantial evidence provides enough for a jury to infer that it happened. The Court disagrees."

"First, Socha claims that a jury could conclude that Gavin viewed an explicit video of her because he allegedly bragged about doing so. However, as discussed above, Gavin’s alleged comment has not been traced back to him in the record and constitutes inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, which Socha has not rebutted. Accordingly, it must be disregarded, and Socha has not pointed to any other material, non-hearsay evidence that Gavin had viewed or pried into any of her private data. A jury thus could not find liability against Joliet based on Gavin’s conduct in the admissible record."

"Similarly, Socha claims that Roechner saw her explicit images based primarily on hearsay testimony from Jackson and Stachelski, as explained above. But, as Joliet argues without rebuttal from Socha, those statements too are inadmissible hearsay, which the Court must disregard. After ignoring those statements, the Court is left only with Socha’s speculation that Roechner viewed Socha’s private data simply because Roechner, as Joliet PD’s Deputy Chief of Investigations, kept a USB drive containing Socha’s phone data in a locked cabinet in his office. This is not enough for a reasonable jury to conclude that Roechner pried into Socha’s private data."

"Lastly, Socha summarily claims that other Joliet PD employees may have seen her private data because data on the Cellebrite computer and USB drives with copies of Socha’s data could have been accessed by others and because of rumors that one of her private videos had been circulated among or viewed by certain officers. Socha offers nothing beyond inadmissible hearsay and speculation on these points, and a jury could not conclude that anyone else, including Grizzle, intentionally viewed Socha’s private data. Summary judgment for Joliet thus is appropriate."