Refael AHARON, as an individual and as Guardian on behalf of O.A. and I.A., minor children,1 Plaintiffs, v. Susany BABU and Sonu Abraham, Defendants No. 22 CV 4502 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division Signed August 18, 2023 Counsel Refael Aharon, Pro Se. Richard Carmen Perna, Mariah C. Nix, Fuchs & Roselli, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Defendants Susany Babu, Sonu Abraham. Susany Babu, Chicago, IL, Pro Se. Sonu Abraham, Chicago, IL, Pro Se. Kim, Young B., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the court are discovery issues Defendants identify in their court ordered status report filed in June 2023, (R. 65). In this diversity action, Plaintiff Rafael Aharon (“Aharon”) sues his former landlords, Defendants Susany Babu and Sonu Abraham, alleging that he and his children suffer health problems because of exposure to undisclosed toxins at their rental property in Naperville, Illinois. Aharon alleges that in the Spring of 2021 he executed a lease on a house Defendants owned at 28W775 Grommon Road, Naperville, Illinois (the “Property”), and which Defendants had previously lived in for two years. Shortly after moving into the Property in June 2021, Aharon contends that he, his children, and the family dog began experiencing a variety of health issues, including bacterial and fungal infections, unexplained skin wounds, fatigue, brain fog, respiratory illnesses, coughing and sneezing, mouth ulcers, and insomnia. According to Aharon, Defendants were aware of toxins at the Property yet failed to disclose them to him or mitigate the issues after he showed them reports substantiating their presence, and despite their own concerns regarding the well water supply at the Property. Aharon and his family ultimately moved out in October 2021 because of Defendants’ alleged failure to take remedial actions, and Aharon filed a nine-count complaint in August 2022. Aharon seeks to recover damages for breach of contract and the implied warranty of habitability, negligence, trespass, failure to warn of latent defects, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Protection Act. These claims remain after the court granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 24, 2023. (R. 37.) In May 2023, this court held a hearing on Aharon's motion to compel discovery from Defendants. (See R. 53.) During the hearing Defendants advised the court that they received Aharon's responses to their written discovery requests two days earlier. As such, the court ordered Defendants to file a status report the following month and alert the court of any issues they have with Aharon's discovery responses. Defendants timely filed their report and complain that Aharon's Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, answers to their Interrogatory (“INT”) Nos. 2, 3(d), 8, and 12, and responses to their Requests to Produce (“RTP”) Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11 are inadequate. For the following reasons, Aharon is ordered to amend or supplement his answers to INT Nos. 2(b)-2(d), 8, and 12, and responses to RTP Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11: A. Initial Disclosures *2 The court ordered the parties to exchange their initial disclosures by April 25, 2023. (R. 44.) Aharon timely served his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on Defendants. (R. 65 at 22.) As for the required information under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i), Aharon named 16 individuals, their contact information, and the subject of the discoverable information they possess. (Id. at 11-13.) Aharon then added a paragraph including three general categories of people who may possess information related to the Property. Defendants complain that a general description of individuals without their names is not good enough. The court agrees, but the disputed paragraph on Page 4 of the disclosure with a title “List of individuals related to the Defendants – Defendant refusing to disclose:” can simply be ignored as it fails to comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Parties are advised that if they locate additional individuals with discoverable information, they must update their prior discovery disclosures in a timely manner as required under Rule 26(e). Otherwise, undisclosed individuals may not be offered as witnesses in this case. Aharon is not required to amend or supplement his Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) disclosure unless obligated under Rule 26(e). B. Interrogatories C. Requests to Produce D. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Aharon is ordered to amend or supplement his answers to INT Nos. 2(b)-2(d), 8, and 12, and responses to RTP Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11. Footnotes [1] The court uses the description of Plaintiffs as it appeared in the caption from the most current complaint on file. (R. 38, Am. Compl.)