Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL DRIVER, and,

)

TERRY CLAYTON,

)

individually and as representatives

)

of a class of all similarly situated individuals, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

THE MARION COUNTY SHERIFF,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-2076 Jury Trial Requested

PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. Introduction

1. This case seeks money damages for the class of individuals who were incarcerated in the

Marion County correctional system longer than legally authorized.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and is premised on the fourteenth
amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction of the federal questions presented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. 3. Venue is proper in this Court and Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because the events giving rise to this action occurred in, and the defendant is located in the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana.

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2
III. Parties 4. Plaintiff Michael Driver is an adult resident of Indiana. He brings this suit in his individual
capacity and as a representative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, of a class of all other similarly situated persons who were incarcerated longer than legally authorized and then released from the Marion County correctional system. 5. Plaintiff Terry Clayton is an adult resident of Indiana. He brings this suit in his individual capacity and as a representative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, of a class of all other similarly situated persons who were incarcerated longer than legally authorized and then released from the Marion County correctional system. 6. The putative class consists of those individuals who have been released from confinement and does not include individuals who are presently incarcerated as of the date of the filing of this complaint. 7. Defendant Marion County Sheriff is located in Marion County, Indiana, and is a political subdivision of the state of Indiana.
IV. Facts 8. The Marion County Sheriff has instituted a policy and practice to keep individuals detained
in its correctional system for an unreasonable period of time after they have been ordered released or satisfied conditions to be released. 9. The experiences of plaintiffs Michael Driver and Terry Clayton are representative of experiences of numerous detainees.
-2-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3
Michael Driver 10. On Saturday, December 13, 2014 Michael Driver was arrested for operating a motor vehicle
with a blood alcohol content of .08 mg/dl or greater, a Class C Misdemeanor. 11. Mr. Driver was transported to the Arrestee Processing Center and then transferred to the
Marion County Jail. 12. A bond was set for Mr. Driver at $1,500. 13. Mr. Driver’s lawyer petitioned the court to lower or eliminate the bond. 14. On Monday, December 15, 2014, at approximately 1:30 p.m., the court having jurisdiction
over Mr. Driver held a hearing on his bond reduction motion. The court found that Mr. Driver had only one other very old minor criminal conviction, that he was employed, and that he was not a flight risk. The court then vacated the order setting the bond and ordered Mr. Driver released on his own recognizance. 15. After the hearing, Mr. Driver was returned under guard to the Marion County Jail for processing out of the jail. 16. Rather than being released promptly, Mr. Driver was kept at the jail an additional two days, and not released until Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at approximately 6:00 p.m. 17. Mr. Driver missed two full days of work as a result of the defendant’s practice.
Terry Clayton 18. Terry Clayton was a pretrial detainee in the Marion County Jail awaiting trial. 19. On Wednesday, December 10, 2014, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Mr. Clayton’s jury
returned a non-guilty verdict in his favor.
-3-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
20. The judge presiding over the trial informed Mr. Clayton that he would forward paperwork to the Sheriff’s office for Mr. Clayton’s immediate release.
21. Instead of being promptly released, Mr. Clayton was held at the jail for almost another two days and not released until Friday, December 12, 2014 until approximately 4:00 p.m.
22. Mr. Clayton complained about the delay in his release and was told by correctional officers and a correctional sergeant that the jail had 72 hours to release inmates.
23. The experiences of these two individual plaintiffs, of being held past the time they should have been released, is part of a policy, pattern, and practice of the Marion County Sheriff in holding incarcerated persons longer than legally authorized.
24. It is not uncommon for prisoners who have been released by the courts on their own recognizance, paid a bond, found not guilty, or pled guilty for time served, to be held by the Marion County Sheriff longer than legally authorized, including days, past the time they should have been released.
25. A number of individual class members, their family members, and their lawyers, have complained to the sheriff about this practice, but to no avail.
26. The Marion County criminal courts have recognized this as a problem and have complained to the Sheriff about it, but to no avail. See e.g., “Delayed releases continuing problem at Marion County Jail,” The Indiana Lawyer,” Aug. 15, 2014 (“Two Marion Superior criminal court judges said Friday they continue to be frustrated by delayed releases of arrestees detained after orders have been signed for their release.”) (http://www.theindianalawyer.com/delayed-releases-continuing-problem-at-marion-count y-jail/PARAMS/article/34923) (last accessed 12/17/14).
-4-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
27. Attorneys for inmates have also recognized this as a problem and have complained about it. See “Public defender blasts Marion County Jail” The IndyChannel.com, Dec. 12, 2014 (“A Marion County public defender questioned why the jail kept her client two days after he was supposed to be released”) (http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/public-defender-blasts-marion-county-jail) (last accessed 12/17/14).
28. The individual plaintiffs and the class of similarly situated individuals they represent have suffered damages as a result of these prolonged detentions in the form of physical discomfort, loss of liberty, lost opportunities, and emotional distress.
29. At all times relevant, the Marion County Sheriff and its officers, employees and agents, were acting under color of state law.
V. Claims 30. Defendant’s actions and inactions constitute a deprivation of liberty without due process of
law in contravention of the fourteenth amendment, actionable pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983. 31. Plaintiffs and the class reserve the right to proceed with any and all claims which the facts
averred in this Complaint support, pursuant to the notice pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
VI. Jury Trial Requested 32. The plaintiffs and Class request a jury trial on their claims.
-5-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 12/19/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6

VII. Relief Requested 33. The plaintiffs and Class seek all relief available under the law, including the creation of a
common fund from which all class members can claim compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs, and all other appropriate relief.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 19, 2014

/s/ Richard A. Waples Richard A. Waples Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class

Dated: December 19, 2014
WAPLES & HANGER 410 N. Audubon Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46219 TEL: (317) 357-0903 FAX: (317) 357-0275 EMAIL: rwaples@wapleshanger.com
YOUNG & YOUNG 128 N. Delaware St. 3rd Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 639-5161 TOLL FREE 1 (888) 639-5161 Fax (317) 639-4978 EMAIL: john@youngandyoungin.com

/s/ John Young John Young Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class

-6-

 
 Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 163

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL DRIVER, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS SWORDS, and, ROY SHOFNER, individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, and, THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-2076 RLY-MJD

)

)

)

)

)

Jury Trial Requested

)

)

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. Introduction

1. This case seeks money damages for a class of individuals who were incarcerated in the

Marion County correctional system for unreasonable periods of time as a result of the Marion

County Sheriff’s practice of instituting a 72 hour release time period and employing

unreasonable release procedures and processes.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and is premised on the fourth and

fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has original subject

matter jurisdiction of the federal questions presented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343.

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 164
4. Venue is proper in this Court and Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because the events giving rise to this action occurred in, and the defendant is located in the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana. III. Parties
5. Plaintiff Michael Driver is an adult resident of Indiana. He brings this suit in his individual capacity and as a representative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, of a class of all other similarly situated persons who were subjected to the Marion County Sheriff’s unreasonable release procedures and incarcerated longer than legally authorized and then released from the Marion County correctional system.
6. Plaintiff Terry Clayton is an adult resident of Indiana. He brings this suit in his individual capacity and as a representative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, of a class of all other similarly situated persons who were subjected to the Marion County Sheriff’s unreasonable release procedures and incarcerated longer than legally authorized and then released from the Marion County correctional system.
7. Plaintiff Michael Boyd is an adult resident of Indiana. He brings this suit in his individual capacity and as a representative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, of a class of all other similarly situated persons who were subjected to the Marion County Sheriff’s unreasonable release procedures and incarcerated longer than legally authorized and then released from the Marion County correctional system.
8. Plaintiff Nicholas Swords is an adult resident of Indiana. He brings this suit in his individual capacity and as a representative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, of a class of all other similarly situated persons who were subjected to the Marion County Sheriff’s
-2-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 165
unreasonable release procedures and incarcerated longer than legally authorized and then released from the Marion County correctional system. 9. Plaintiff Roy Shofner is an adult resident of Indiana. He brings this suit in his individual capacity and as a representative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, of a class of all other similarly situated persons who were subjected to the Marion County Sheriff’s unreasonable release procedures and incarcerated longer than legally authorized and then released from the Marion County correctional system. 10. The putative class consists of those individuals who have been released from confinement and does not include individuals who are presently incarcerated as of the date of the filing of this amended complaint. 11. Defendant Marion County Sheriff is located in Marion County, Indiana, and is a political subdivision of the state of Indiana. 12. Defendant Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County (“City/County”) is a political subdivision of the state of Indiana.
IV. Facts 13. The Marion County Sherif, individually and in collaboration with the Consolidated City of
Indianapolis and Marion County, has instituted and maintained unreasonable policies and practices resulting in its keeping individuals detained in the Marion County correctional system for extended periods of time after they have been ordered released or legal authority for their detention has ceased. 14. The experiences of plaintiffs Michael Driver, Terry Clayton, Michael Boyd, Nicholas Swords, and Roy Shofner are representative of experiences of numerous detainees.
-3-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 166
Michael Driver 15. On Saturday, December 13, 2014 Michael Driver was arrested for operating a motor vehicle
with a blood alcohol content of .08 mg/dl or greater, a Class C Misdemeanor. 16. Mr. Driver was transported to the Arrestee Processing Center and then transferred to the
Marion County Jail. 17. A bond was set for Mr. Driver at $1,500. 18. Mr. Driver’s lawyer petitioned the court to lower or eliminate the bond. 19. On Monday, December 15, 2014, at approximately 1:30 p.m., the court having jurisdiction
over Mr. Driver held a hearing on his bond reduction motion. 20. The sheriff brought Mr. Driver to the hearing, removed his handcuffs, and produced him in
open court. 21. At the hearing, the court found that Mr. Driver was employed, had only one other very old
minor criminal conviction, and was not a flight risk. The court then vacated the order setting the bond and ordered Mr. Driver released on his own recognizance. 22. Rather than releasing Mr. Driver on his own recognizance, Marion County Sheriff deputies, following the Sheriff’s standard operating procedures, handcuffed Mr. Driver, put him in chains, and returned him under guard to the Marion County Jail where they reimprisoned him. 23. Rather than being processed and released promptly, Mr. Driver was imprisoned at the jail an additional two days, and not released until Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at approximately 6:00 p.m. 24. There were 6 or 7 inmates in the Marion County cell block where Mr. Driver was confined
-4-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 167
who had been approved for release who had been waiting 1 to 5 days and had still not been released. 25. It was common knowledge among the inmate population where Mr. Driver was confined that the Sheriff took up to seventy-two (72) hours or even longer to release prisoners. 26. Mr. Driver contacted his counsel, who then contacted the staff of the criminal court which had ordered Mr. Driver released on his own recognizance. 27. The court staff then contacted the Sheriff’s office, and complained that the court’s order had not been implemented. 28. It was not until the court’s staff contacted the Sheriff’s office that Mr. Driver was finally released. 29. Once initiated, the actual release process of providing Mr. Driver his clothing and property took approximately one hour. 30. Mr. Driver missed two full days of work as a result of the defendant’s practices. 31. The Marion County Sheriff’s practice of not releasing inmates ordered released on their own recognizance, but rather re-arresting these individuals and imprisoning them in the Marion County correctional system, is unreasonable and results in substantial delays in the release of these individuals.
Terry Clayton 32. In December , 2014 Terry Clayton was a pretrial detainee in the Marion County Jail awaiting
trial. 33. On Wednesday, December 10, 2014, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Mr. Clayton’s jury
-5-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 168
returned a non-guilty verdict in his favor. 34. The judge presiding over the trial entered an order for Mr. Clayton’s immediate release. 35. Instead of releasing Mr. Clayton, Marion County Sheriff deputies, following the Sheriff’s
standard operating procedures, handcuffed Mr. Clayton and took him from the courtroom and took him under guard to the Marion County Jail where they reimprisoned him. 36. Instead of being promptly released, Mr. Clayton was held at the jail for almost another two days and not released until Friday, December 12, 2014 at approximately 4:00 p.m. 37. Mr. Clayton complained about the delay in his release and was told by correctional officers and a correctional sergeant that the jail had 72 hours to release inmates. 38. It was not until Mr. Clayton’s public defender prompted the court which had presided over his criminal case to intervene with the Sheriff’s Department that the Sheriff’s department released Mr. Clayton. 39. The Marion County Sheriff’s practice of not releasing inmates acquitted or found not guilty of criminal charges, or who have had their charges vacated or dismissed and for whom the Sheriff no longer has any legal right to detain, but rather re-arresting and imprisoning these individuals in the Marion County correctional system, is unreasonable and results in substantial delays in the release of these individuals.
Michael Boyd 40. Michael Boyd is a 46-year-old Marion County resident who pled guilty to DUI. 41. Mr. Boyd was sentenced to ten (10) days in the Marion County Jail, with one-for-one credit,
meaning he would physically serve five (5) days of his sentence in jail.
-6-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 169
42. Prior to going to court to enter his guilty plea and begin his sentence, Mr. Boyd made arrangements with his work to take five days off.
43. Mr. Boyd’s confinement was to begin immediately at the conclusion of his plea hearing on November 20, 2014 and was to end on November 24, 2014.
44. At the conclusion of his plea hearing, Marion County Sheriff’s courtroom deputies took Mr. Boyd into custody.
45. When he was taken into custody, Mr. Boyd inspected the sentencing information sheet that the court provided to the sheriff, and it correctly set forth that he had a ten day sentence and would receive one-for-one credit for each day served, meaning that he should be released after five (5) days.
46. Mr. Boyd was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail (“Jail I”) for approximately a day and a half, and then transferred to the Marion County Jail II.
47. On November 24, 2014, Mr. Boyd complained to officials at Jail II that he should be released. His complaints were ignored.
48. By telephone, Mr. Boyd informed his parents of the situation, and asked if his father could assist in contacting the sheriff’s department and the sentencing court to aid in his release.
49. Mr. Boyd’s father attempted to contact the sheriff’s department and the court by telephone, but to no avail.
50. Mr. Boyd’s father traveled to the City-County building where he informed the court staff of his son’s situation.
51. The court’s staff confirmed that Mr. Boyd should have been released on November 24, 2014. 52. The Marion Superior Court staff intervened with the Sheriff’s custody officials, and Mr.
Boyd was finally released on November 26, 2014, two days later than he was scheduled to -7-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 170
have been released. 53. The Marion County Sheriff’s practice of not releasing inmates at the conclusion of their
sentences, but rather keeping them in jail past their scheduled release time while the Sheriff then “processes” them out of the Marion County correctional system, is unreasonable and results in substantial delays in the release of these individuals.
Nicholas Swords 54. Nicholas Swords is a 39-year-old Boone County resident who had never been arrested before
December 10, 2014. 55. On December 10, 2014 Mr. Swords was arrested in Marion County and charged with two
misdemeanor criminal charges for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. 56. Mr. Swords was taken into custody and processed at the Arrestee Processing Center where
he was taken before a judge who set his bail at $150 cash bond. 57. Mr. Swords was able to contact family members and his cousin, Marty Murphy, paid the
bond on the morning of December 12, 2014. 58. The Marion County Sheriff does not accept cash or surety bonds directly at the jail. 59. Instead, the Marion County Sheriff has outsourced the payment and collection of cash bonds
to the Marion County Clerk. 60. These bonds are paid at the same designated office of the Marion County Clerk which
accepts both bond payments and child support payments. 61. Mr. Swords should have been released shortly after the cash bond was paid. 62. Instead, when Mr. Murphy paid his cousin’s cash bond, he was told by the clerk not to wait
-8-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 171
around downtown for his cousin because it would take “up to 72 hours” for the Sheriff to release Mr. Swords. 63. Instead of processing Mr. Swords for release, the Marion County Sheriff’s computers did not accurately reflect that Mr. Swords had even seen a judge or that his cash bond had been paid. 64. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Sword’s cousin who paid the cash bond, repeatedly called the Marion County Jail where his cousin was incarcerated, in order to determine when he would be released. 65. Marion County Sheriff employees responding to these calls told Mr. Murphy that the Sheriff’s office had 72 hours to release Mr. Swords. 66. When Mr. Swords complained about not being released despite his bond having been paid, correctional officers informed him that the jail had 72 hours to release him. 67. When Mr. Swords was finally processed out for release, the supervising correctional officer conducting the processing informed Mr. Swords that the jail processes a set number of prisoners out of the jail each day, and that it takes up to 72 hours to release prisoners. 68. Mr. Swords was kept in the Marion County Jail three days after his cash bond was paid, and not released until December 15, 2014. 69. Once commenced, the actual processing of Mr. Swords for release took approximately 45 minutes to one hour. 70. The Marion County Sheriff’s practice of not releasing inmates upon payment of their bonds, but rather keeping them in jail while they then “process” them out of the Marion County correctional system within 72 hours is unreasonable and results in substantial delays in the release of these individuals.
-9-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 172
Roy Shofner 71. Roy Shofner is a 46-year-old Hendricks County resident who pled guilty to DUI in Marion
County. 72. Mr. Shofner was sentenced to serve nine (9) actual days in the Marion County Jail, with his
sentence to begin on February 4, 2015 and to end on February 12, 2015. 73. At the conclusion of his physical incarceration in jail, Mr. Shofner was to begin a sentence
of electronic monitoring/home detention by Marion County Community Correction. 74. The sentencing court explained to Mr. Shofner that he was to be released from the jail on
February 12, 2015 and that he should then walk over and report to Marion County Community Corrections to receive an ankle bracelet and electronic monitoring devise. 75. The Chronological Case Summary for Mr. Shofner’s case set forth the sentence as: “Split sentence as follows: 1st (9) actual days to be served in the Marion County Jail Defendant give 1 actual day credit. Defendant to be released on 2-12-15. Followed by 170 days on Marion County Community Corrections/Home Detention.” 76. The conditions of Mr. Shofner’s electronic monitoring/home detention sentence permitted him to continue working outside of the home. 77. Before reporting for his jail sentence of nine days, Mr. Shofner made arrangements with his employer to take the time off, and he was scheduled to report back to work following those nine days. 78. Instead of being released from the Marion County Jail on February 12, 2015, Mr. Shofner was kept incarcerated by the Marion County Sheriff for an additional five days, until February 17, 2015.
-10-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 173
79. Mr. Shofner lost his job because he missed scheduled shifts he was obligated to work during the time he was falsely incarcerated.
80. Rather than release Mr. Shofner on February 12, 2015 and allow him to report to Community Correction per the Court order, the Marion County Sheriff followed its standard practice to keep such individuals incarcerated until Community Corrections is “ready” to process a group of such individuals, and then the Sheriff transports the individuals as a group under guard to the Community Correction facility just a few blocks away from the jail.
81. The result of the Sheriff’s practice is to keep such individuals incarcerated many days past their legal sentences.
82. Mr. Shofner complained about his over-incarceration to the correctional officers holding him, and was told that the Sheriff had 72 hours to release inmates.
83. Mr. Shofner complained to correctional officers that he should be released to report to Community Corrections, and was told that the Sheriff used to release inmates to self-report, but that some inmates did not report, so now the practice is to keep inmates in the jail until they could be transported under guard and processed as a group at Community Corrections.
84. The Marion County Sheriff’s practice of not releasing inmates at the conclusion of their sentences, but rather keeping them in jail until Community Corrections is “ready” to process them as a group, is unreasonable and results in substantial delays in the release of these individuals.
Common Facts 85. The above individual plaintiffs’ experiences, of being held past the time they should have
been released, is part of a policy, pattern, and practice of the Marion County Sheriff and the -11-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 174
Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County of enacting unreasonable procedures resulting in the Sheriff holding incarcerated persons longer than legally authorized. 86. A number of individuals who complained about being incarcerated after they have been legally released, were told by Sheriff Department personnel that the Sheriff has seventy-two (72) hours after a release order to process prisoners out of jail. 87. The Sheriff’s practice of operating under a standard of seventy-two (72) hours to release prisoners who are ordered released is unreasonable. 88. The Sheriff employs or operates a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners. 89. The Sheriff’s practice of re-arresting and imprisoning individuals who are released on their own recognizance, found not guilty or acquitted, or who have had their criminal charges vacated or dismissed, and for whom the Sheriff no longer has any legal right to detain, but rather re-arresting and imprisoning these individuals in the Marion County correctional system, is unreasonable and results in substantial delays in the release of these individuals. 90. The Sheriff’s practice of not accepting cash or surety bonds but instead outsourcing the payment and processing of these bonds to the Marion County Clerk, is unreasonable and results in individuals being held for unreasonable periods of time. 91. Due to these above policies and procedures, it is not uncommon for prisoners who have been released by the courts on their own recognizance, paid a bond, found not guilty, had all criminal charges against them dismissed or vacated, or pled guilty and completed their sentences, to be held by the Marion County Sheriff longer than legally authorized, including days, past the time they should have been released.
-12-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 175
92. A number of individuals, their family members, and their lawyers, have complained to the sheriff about these practices, but to no avail.
93. Historically, the Marion County Sheriff processed individuals out of the Marion County Jail within a half-hour of the payment of a bond or other court orders for release.
94. This is consistent with the practices of the Indiana counties surrounding Marion County, and of counties with large urban areas such as Lake County, all of which process inmates out of their jails in approximately thirty (30) minutes after payment of a bond or other court orders for release.
95. This 30 minute processing time is still the norm followed by the Marion County Sheriff when bonds are paid for arrestees at the Arrestee Processing Center.
96. However, when arrestees are transferred from the Arrestee Processing Center to the Marion County Jail or the Marion County Jail II, much longer release times are the norm.
97. Historically, the Marion County Sheriff would release prisoners from the Marion County Jail or Lock-Up in approximately 30 minutes after the prisoner’s bond was paid at the Marion County Lock-Up located in the basement of the City County Building or at the Marion County Jail.
98. However, during the tenure of Sheriff Frank Anderson, (2003-2011), the Sheriff changed its practice and no longer permitted bonds to be paid at the Marion County Lock-Up or Jail, and instead required such bonds to be paid to the Marion County Clerk in the City-County Building.
99. The transfer of this bond payment and processing function substantially increased the time period it would take the Sheriff to release prisoners once bond was paid, increasing that time from approximately 30 minutes to 6 to 8 hours. -13-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 176
100. In June 2014 this already substantial and unreasonable delay in the release of prisoners was increased from hours to days when the Sheriff and the City/County implemented a new software system to interface with a state-mandated software system for courts named “Odyssey.”
101. The Marion County Sheriff does not deny that a problem exists, and admits that it is subjecting inmates to “over detentions.” “Marion County sheriff sued for illegal detentions,” The Indiana Lawyer, Dec. 22, 2014 (http://www.theindianalawyer.com/marion-county-sheriff-sued-for-illegal-detentions/PA RAMS/article/35966) (last accessed 1/15/15) (“In a statement, the Sheriff’s Office said since the department began its largest-ever information technology changes in June, it ‘has grappled with early releases and over detentions ... The transition has not gone as well as expected.’”).
102. The Sheriff has blamed the problem on his adoption or operation of computer software to interface with the Odyssey computer system.
103. The Sheriff states that these computer software problems are caused by the City/County and its Information Services Agency, and/or the City/County’s computer services contractors.
104. The Sheriff states that it is required to utilize the computer services of the City/County. 105. The Sheriff states that it has not been unable to avoid the information technology problems
created by the City/County and its computer services contractors. 106. The City/County requires the Sheriff to utilize its information technology services provided
by the City/County’s Information Services Agency. 107. The Indiana counties surrounding Marion County utilize the Odyssey software computer
system and have not experienced an increase in their average half-hour release times. -14-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 177
108. The Sheriff has enacted an unreasonable policy of not abiding by court orders for the release of jail inmates when such orders appear on the Odyssey system until after three separate sheriff department employees manually read the court’s entire case minutes for the inmate’s criminal case in order to “make sure” the court really wants the inmate released.
109. The surrounding counties do not triple check a court’s order appearing on Odyssey. 110. The surrounding counties do not follow a 72 hour release policy, as does the Marion County
Sheriff. 111. The surrounding counties do not operate their computer software in a manner which
unreasonably delays prisoner releases. 112. The Marion County criminal courts have recognized the Sheriff’s procedures delaying the
release of detainees as a problem and have complained to the Sheriff about it, but to no avail. See e.g., “Delayed releases continuing problem at Marion County Jail,” The Indiana Lawyer,” Aug. 15, 2014 (“Two Marion Superior criminal court judges said Friday they continue to be frustrated by delayed releases of arrestees detained after orders have been signed for their release.”). (http://www.theindianalawyer.com/delayed-releases-continuing-problem-at-marion-count y-jail/PARAMS/article/34923) (last accessed 1/15/15). 113. Attorneys for inmates have also recognized this as a problem and have complained about it. See “Public defender blasts Marion County Jail” The IndyChannel.com, Dec. 12, 2014 (“A Marion County public defender questioned why the jail kept her client two days after he was supposed to be released”) (http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/public-defender-blasts-marion-county-jail) (last accessed 12/17/14).
-15-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 178
114. The problem is widespread and affects numerous individuals. “Delayed releases continuing problem at Marion County Jail,” The Indiana Lawyer,” Aug. 15, 2014 (http://www.theindianalawyer.com/delayed-releases-continuing-problem-at-marion-count y-jail/PARAMS/article/34923) (last accessed 1/15/15) (“[Marion Superior Court Judge] Stoner said bailiffs in his court have told him ‘it happens so often they feel like the only way they can deal with it is doing it by paper,’ either faxing or delivering release orders [to the jail].” ).
115. These policies and procedures followed by the Sheriff of: enacting a 72 hour release procedure; re-arresting and imprisoning individuals released on their own recognizance or found not guilty; refusing to accept the payment of bonds and instead outsourcing their collection and processing; employing and operating a computer system in a manner which delays prisoner releases; keeping prisoners in jail past their release dates until Community Corrections is ready to process them; and, ignoring court orders for release until it manually triple checks the court’s entire docket for the case, are common to the class and result in unreasonable periods of detention.
116. The individual plaintiffs and the class of similarly situated individuals they represent have suffered damages as a result of these unreasonable practices in the form of prolonged and unreasonable detentions, physical discomfort, loss of liberty, lost opportunities, and emotional distress.
117. At all times relevant, the defendant was acting under color of state law. 118. Plaintiffs properly served defendants with notices of tort claims on behalf of themselves and
the class pursuant to Indiana’s Tort Claim Statute.
-16-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 179
V. Claims 119. Defendant’s actions and inactions constitute unreasonable seizures and detentions in
contravention of the fourth amendment, actionable pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983. 120. Defendant’s actions and inactions constitute the deprivation of liberty without due process
of law in contravention of the fourteenth amendment, actionable pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983. 121. Defendant’s actions and inactions constitute false imprisonment under Indiana state law. 122. Defendant’s actions and inactions constitute negligence under Indiana state law. 123. Plaintiffs and the class reserve the right to proceed with any and all claims which the facts averred in this Complaint support, pursuant to the notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
VI. Jury Trial Requested 124. The plaintiffs and Class request a jury trial on their claims.
VII. Relief Requested 125. The plaintiffs and Class seek all relief available under the law, including the creation of a
common fund from which all class members can claim compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs, and all other appropriate relief.
-17-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 180

Dated: May 5, 2015
Dated: May 5, 2015
WAPLES & HANGER 410 N. Audubon Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46219 TEL: (317) 357-0903 FAX: (317) 357-0275 EMAIL: rwaples@wapleshanger.com

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard A. Waples Richard A. Waples Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class
/s/ John Young John Young Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class
YOUNG & YOUNG 128 N. Delaware St. 3rd Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 639-5161 TOLL FREE 1 (888) 639-5161 Fax (317) 639-4978 EMAIL: john@youngandyoungin.com

-18-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 38 Filed 05/13/15 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 181

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on May 5, 2015, a copy of this document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system:
aoverholt@fbtlaw.com Adriana.Katzen@indy.gov Amanda.Dinges@indy.gov

WAPLES & HANGER 410 N. Audubon Road Indianapolis, IN 46219 TEL: (317) 357-0903 FAX: (317) 357-0275 EMAIL: rwaples@wapleshanger.com

/s/ Richard A. Waples Richard A. Waples

-19-

 
 Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 227

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL DRIVER, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS SWORDS, and ROY SHOFNER, individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, and THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD )) ) ) ) )

Defendant.

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendant, Marion County Sheriff, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), with the agreement of Plaintiff, and Co-Defendants, moves the Court for entry of a Stipulated Protective Order and states:
1. Certain documents and information have been and may be sought, produced or exhibited by and between the parties to this action are protected information such as trade secrets, non-public research and development, commercial or financial information, protected law enforcement records, or other information that may cause harm to the producing party or a non-party, more specifically detailed in the Agreed Protective Order.
2. The parties desire to maintain the confidentiality of such documents and have prepared the attached Stipulated Protective Order.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Marion County Sheriff, respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed Stipulated Protective Order.

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 228

FROST BROWN TODD LLC
By: /s/Anthony W. Overholt Anthony W. Overholt, #16481-49
Attorneys for Defendant, The Marion County Sheriff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 19th day of June, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was filed

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court’s

electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

Richard A. Waples Waples & Hanger 410 N. Audubon Road Indianapolis, In 46219
Amanda J. Dinges Pamela G. Schneeman Office of Corporation Counsel City of Indianapolis 200 E. Washington Street , Suite 1601 Indianapolis, In 46204

John Young
Matthew C. Boldt Young & Young 128 N. Delaware St., 3rd Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204

FROST BROWN TODD LLC 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900 P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961 317-237-3800 Fax: 317-237-3900 aoverholt@fbtlaw.com
LR10348.0975408 4820-2174-5189v1

/s/Anthony W. Overholt Anthony W. Overholt

 
 Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 229

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL DRIVER, TERRY CLAYTON,

)

MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS SWORDS,

)

and, ROY SHOFNER, individually and as

)

representatives of a class of all similarly

)

situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

) Cause No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD

)

v.

)

)

THE MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, and THE )

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS )

AND MARION COUNTY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION The parties, by their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), hereby
stipulate to the following provisions of this Court’s Uniform Stipulated Protective Order. II. SCOPE OF PROTECTED INFORMATION
In the course of discovery in this action, the parties may be required to produce information that constitutes, in whole or in part, protected information such as trade secrets, non-public research and development, commercial or financial information, protected law enforcement records, or other information that may cause harm to the producing party or a non-party. The parties anticipate production of the following categories of protected information:
a. police investigative reports and other investigatory materials; and

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 230
b. personnel, employee, and inmate files which may include payroll, compensation, benefit information and performance evaluations.
III. DESIGNATION OF PROTECTED INFORMATION A. Scope: This Order governs the production and handling of any protected
information in this action. Any party or non-party who produces protected information in this action may designate it as “Confidential” consistent with the terms of this Order. “Designating Party” means the party or non-party who so designates the protected information; “Receiving Party” means the party or non-party to whom such information was produced or disclosed. Whenever possible, the Designating Party must designate only those portions of a document, deposition, transcript, or other material that contain the protected information and refrain from designating entire documents. Regardless of any designations made hereunder, the Designating Party is not otherwise restricted from use or disclosure of its protected information outside of this action. In addition, any party may move to modify or seek other relief from any of the terms of this Order if it has first tried in writing and in good faith to resolve its needs or disputes with the other party(ies) pursuant to the terms of this Order and S.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1.
B. Application to Non-Parties: Before a non-party is given copies of designated information as permitted hereunder, it must first sign the acknowledgment to be bound to these terms that is attached hereto as Exhibit A; if it fails to do so, the parties to this action must resolve any such dispute before making disclosure of designated information as permitted hereunder to the non-party. If a non-party wishes to make designations hereunder, it must first sign the acknowledgment to be bound to these terms that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
C. Timing and Provisional Protection: Designations may be made at any time. To avoid potential waiver of protection hereunder, the Designating Party should designate
2

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 231
information at the time of production or disclosure, including on the record during the taking of any testimony. Deposition testimony will be deemed provisionally protected for a period of 30 days after the transcript is released to the parties by the court reporter, although the parties may agree at any time to different timelines of provisional protection of information as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only as part of one or more specific depositions. To retain any designations beyond the provisional period, a Designating Party must designate specific pages and lines of deposition testimony before the provisional period has expired. Such designations must be made in writing so that all counsel and court reporters may append the designation to all copies of the transcripts.
D. Manner of Designation: Information may be designated hereunder in any reasonable manner or method that notifies the Receiving Party of the designation level and identifies with specificity the information to which the designation applies. If made verbally, the Designating Party must promptly confirm in writing the designation. Whenever possible, the Designating Party should stamp, affix, or embed a legend of “CONFIDENTIAL” on each designated page of the document or electronic image. IV. CHALLENGES TO DESIGNATED INFORMATION
In the event that a Receiving Party disagrees at any time with any designation(s) made by the Designating Party, the Receiving Party must first try to resolve such challenge in good faith on an informal basis with the Designating Party pursuant to S.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1. The Receiving Party must provide written notice of the challenge and the grounds therefor to the Designating Party, who must respond in writing to the challenge within 15 days. At all times, the Designating Party carries the burden of establishing the propriety of the designation and protection level. Unless and until the challenge is resolved by the parties or ruled upon by the Court, the designated information will remain protected under this Order. The failure of any
3

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 232
Receiving Party to challenge a designation does not constitute a concession that the designation is proper or an admission that the designated information is otherwise competent, relevant, or material. V. LIMITED ACCESS/USE OF PROTECTED INFORMATION
A. Restricted Use: Information that is produced or exchanged in the course of this action and designated under this Order may be used solely for the preparation, trial, and any appeal of this action, as well as related settlement negotiations, and for no other purpose, without the written consent of the Designating Party. No designated information may be disclosed to any person except in accordance with the terms of this Order. All persons in possession of designated information agree to exercise reasonable care with regard to the custody, use, or storage of such information to ensure that its confidentiality is maintained. This obligation includes, but is not limited to, the Receiving Party providing to the Designating Party prompt notice of the receipt of any subpoena that seeks production or disclosure of any designated information and consulting with the Designating Party before responding to the subpoena. Any use or disclosure of Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information in violation of the terms of this Order may subject the disclosing person or party to sanctions.
B. Access to “Confidential” Information: The parties and all persons subject to this Order agree that information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” may only be accessed or reviewed by the following:
1. The Court, its personnel, and court reporters; 2. Counsel of record for any party in this action and their employees who assist
counsel of record in this action and are informed of the duties hereunder; 3. The parties, including their agents and employees who are assisting or have
reason to know of this action, so long as each such agent or employee has 4

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 233
signed the acknowledgment to be bound to these terms that is attached hereto as Exhibit A; 4. Experts or consultants employed by the parties or their counsel for purposes of this action, so long as each such expert or consultant has signed the acknowledgment to be bound to these terms that is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and 5. Other witnesses or persons with the Designating Party’s consent or by court order. C. Review of Witness Acknowledgments: At any time and for any purpose, including to monitor compliance with the terms hereof, any Designating Party may demand to review all copies of Exhibit A in any Receiving Party’s possession. The Receiving Party must, within 3 business days of the demand, provide all such copies to the Designating Party making the demand. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Receiving Party has retained an expert whose identity has not yet been disclosed to the Designating Party, the Receiving Party may generically identify how many acknowledgments that it has in its possession attributable to non-disclosed experts, whose acknowledgements must later be provided contemporaneously with any reports issued by one or more of said experts. If a Receiving Party is not required to disclose the identity of any consulting experts, it may not be compelled to produce any acknowledgments from those experts to the Designating Party. However, if the Designating Party provides to the Court evidence of breach of this Order via unauthorized leak of designated information, the Court may require an in camera production of all acknowledgments held by a Receiving Party in order to determine breach and consider enforcement of this Order. D. Non-Waiver Effect of Designations: Neither the taking of, nor the failure to take, any action to enforce the provisions of this Order, nor the failure to object to any designation,
5

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 234
will constitute a waiver of any party’s claim or defense in this action or any other action or proceeding, including but not limited to a claim or defense that any designated information is or is not confidential, is or is not entitled to particular protection, or embodies or does not embody information protectable by law.
E. In-Court Use of Designated Information: If information designated pursuant to this Order will or may be offered in evidence at a hearing or trial, then the offering party must give advance notice to the party or non-party that designated prior to offering the information so that any use or disclosure may be addressed in accordance with the Court’s casemanagement or other pre-trial order, or by a motion in limine.
Nothing in this Order shall be construed as a waiver by a party of any objections that may be raised as to the admissibility at trial of any evidentiary materials. VI. CLAW-BACK REQUESTS
A. Failure to Make Designation: If, at any time, a party or non-party discovers that it produced or disclosed protected information without designation, it may promptly notify the Receiving Party and identify with particularity the information to be designated and the level of designation (the claw-back notification). The Receiving Party may then request substitute production of the newly-designated information. Within 30 days of receiving the claw-back notification, the Receiving Party must (1) certify to the Designating Party it has appropriately marked or, if substitute production has been requested, destroyed all unmarked copies that it received, made, and/or distributed; and (2) if it was practicably unable to mark or destroy any information because disclosures occurred while the Receiving Party was under no duty of confidentiality under the terms of this Order regarding that information, the Receiving Party must reasonably provide as much information as practicable to aid the Designating Party in
6

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 235
protecting the information, consistently with the Receiving Party’s attorney-client, workproduct, and/or trial-preparation privileges.
B. Inadvertent Production of Privileged Information: If, at any time, a party discovers that it produced information that it reasonably believes is subject to protection under the attorney/client, work-product, or trial-preparation privileges, then it must promptly notify each Receiving Party of the claim for protection, the basis for it, amend its privilege log accordingly, and comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Whenever possible, the producing party must produce substitute information that redacts the information subject to the claimed protection. The Receiving Party must thereupon comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) as to the information subject to the claimed protection. The parties must also comply with S.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1 before seeking Court intervention to resolve any related dispute. VII. DURATION/CONTINUED RESTRICTIONS
A. Handling of Designated Information Upon Conclusion of Action: Upon conclusion of this action, including all appeals, the Designating Party(ies) is/are responsible for ensuring that any party or person to whom the party shared or disclosed designated information in this action returns or destroys all of its copies, regardless of the medium in which it was stored. Within 60 days after the later of dismissal of this action or expiration of all deadlines for appeal, the Receiving Party(ies) must certify to each Designating Party that all designated information hereunder has been destroyed by all parties and witnesses for whom that party is responsible. No witness or party may retain designated information that it received from any other party or non-party under this Order; only counsel of record are the authorized agents who may retain one copy for their respective legal files, and who must also describe to the Designating Party the extra steps taken to seal its legal file containing paper and/or electronic copies of the designated information so that it is not accessed, used, or
7

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 236

disclosed inconsistently with the obligations under this Order. This provision does not apply to

the Court or Court staff.

B. Continued Restrictions Under this Order: The restrictions on disclosure and use

of confidential information survive the conclusion of this action.

VIII. REQUESTS TO SEAL

This protective order does not authorize a party to file or maintain a document under

seal. Any party that seeks to file any document, or any portion of a document, under seal, and

any party that opposes its maintenance under seal, must comply with S.D. Ind. L.R. 5-11.

Respectfully Submitted,

Respectfully Submitted

WAPLES & HANGER

FROST BROWN TODD LLC

/s/Richard Waples (w/permission) Richard Waples, #2132-49 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Waples & Hanger 410 N. Audubon Road Indianapolis, IN (317) 357-0903 Fax: 317-357-0275 rwaples@wapleshanger.com
YOUNG & YOUNG

/s/Anthony W. Overholt Anthony W. Overholt, #16481-49 Attorney for Marion County Sheriff Frost Brown Todd LLC P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961 (317) 237-3919 Fax: 317-237-3900 aoverholt@fbtlaw.com

/s/John Young (w/permission)
John Young, #14099-49 Matthew C. Boldt, 31896-49 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Young & Young 128 N. Delaware St., 3rd Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-639-5161 Fax: 317-639-4978 john@youngandyoungin.com matthew@youngandyoung.com

/s/Amanda J. Dinges (w/permission) Amanda J. Dinges, #28939-49 Attorney for Consolidated City of Indianapolis 200 E. Washington, T-1600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-327-4055 Fax: 317-327-3968 Amanda.dinges@indy.gov

8

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 237

APPROVED: _______________

__________________________ United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

9

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 52-1 Filed 06/19/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 238

EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL DRIVER, and, TERRY CLAYTON, )

individually and as representatives of a class )

of all similarly situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Cause No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD

))

THE MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY PROTECTIVE ORDER

The undersigned acknowledges having been provided with and having read the “Uniform

Stipulation Protective Order” in this matter ("Protective Order"). The undersigned further agrees

he/she (i) is bound under the Protective Order, (ii) will comply with all of its provisions, and (iii)

is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court for all purposes arising under the Protective Order,

including enforcement of its terms.

[INSERT DATE & SIGNATURE BLOCK WITH WITNESS ATTEST]

LR10348.0975408 4834-6975-6709v1

10

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL DRIVER,

)

TERRY CLAYTON,

)

MICHAEL BOYD,

)

NICHOLAS SWORDS, and

)

ROY SHOFNER, individually and as

) 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD

representatives of a class of all similarly )

situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, and

)

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF

)

INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION

)

COUNTY,

)

)

Defendants. )

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs, Michael Driver, Terry Clayton, Michael Boyd, Nicholas Swords, and Roy Shofner, move to certify a class with five subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion.

I. Background Plaintiffs bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), claiming the

policies and practices of the Marion County Sheriff caused them to be detained in the Marion County Jail awaiting release for an unreasonably long period of time, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. For example, Mr. Driver was arrested on Saturday, December

1

13, 2014, for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor. (Filing No. 73-4, Affidavit of Michael Driver (“Driver Aff.”) ¶ 7). His bond was set at $1,500. (Id. ¶ 9). On Monday, December 15, 2014, he appeared before the court for a reduction in bond. (Id. ¶ 10). The court granted the motion and he was released on his own recognizance. (Id. ¶ 13). Following the hearing, Sheriff’s deputies returned him to the Jail for processing, but he was not released until Wednesday, December 17, 2014, at approximately 6:00 p.m. (Id. ¶¶ 13-15). According to Mr. Driver, it was “common knowledge among the inmate population . . . that the Sheriff took up to seventy-two (72) hours or even longer to release prisoners.” (Id. ¶ 16).
Mr. Clayton was a pretrial detainee at the Jail from May 28, 2014 to December 10, 2014. (Filing No. 73-16, Affidavit of Terry Clayton (“Clayton Aff.”) ¶ 7). Following a jury trial on Wednesday, December 10, 2014, he was found not guilty around 11:30 p.m. that day. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10). The judge entered an order for his immediate release. (Id. ¶ 11). Sheriff’s deputies returned him to the Jail, and he was not released until Friday, December 12, at approximately 4:00 p.m. (Id. ¶ 13). Mr. Clayton complained about the delay, but “was told by correctional officers and a correctional sergeant that the jail had 72 hours to release inmates.” (Id. ¶ 14).
Mr. Boyd pled guilty to a charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated on November 20, 2014. (Filing No. 73-5, Affidavit of Michael Boyd (“Boyd Aff.”) ¶ 8). He was sentenced to ten days in the Jail, but with good time credit, he would actually serve five days. (Id. ¶ 9). His sentence was to begin immediately after the conclusion of the plea hearing and was to end on November 24. (Id. ¶ 11). On November 24, he
2

complained that he was not released, but his complaints were ignored. (Id. ¶ 15). Marion Superior Court staff intervened, and he was released on November 26. (Id. ¶ 20).
Mr. Swords was arrested and charged with two misdemeanor charges of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on December 10, 2014. (Filing No. 73-6, Affidavit of Nicholas Swords (“Swords Aff.”) ¶ 8). A judge set his bond at $150. (Id. ¶ 9). His cousin paid the bond on December 12, and was told not to wait around “because it would take ‘up to 72 hours’ for the Sheriff to release [him].” (Id. ¶ 15). Mr. Swords was not released until December 15. (Id. ¶ 21).
Lastly, Mr. Shofner pled guilty to driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to nine days in the Marion County Jail, beginning on February 4, 2015. (Filing No. 73-7, Affidavit of Roy Shofner (“Shofner Aff.”) ¶ 8). At the conclusion of his jail sentence on February 12, Mr. Shofner was to begin a sentence of electronic monitoring/home detention by Marion County Community Corrections. (Id. ¶ 9). He was scheduled to return to work on Friday, February 13. (Id. ¶ 13). Instead of being released on February 12, he remained incarcerated until February 17. (Id. ¶ 14). When he “complained about [his] over-incarceration to the correctional officers holding [him], [he] was told that the Sheriff had 72 hours to release inmates.” (Id. ¶ 18).
The Plaintiffs claim their illegal detention is the result of various policies and practices instituted by the Sheriff, which include: (1) “operating under a standard of seventy-two hours to release prisoners who are ordered released” (Filing No. 38, Third Amended Complaint ¶ 87); (2) the “employment of a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners” (id. ¶ 88); (3) “re-
3

arresting and imprisoning individuals who are released on their own recognizance, found not guilty or acquitted, or who have had their criminal charges vacated or dismissed” (id. ¶ 89); (4) “not accepting cash or surety bonds but instead outsourcing the payment and processing of these bonds to the Marion County Clerk” (id. ¶ 90); and (5) “not releasing inmates at the conclusion of their sentences, but rather keeping them in jail until Community Corrections1 is ‘ready’ to process them as a group” (id. ¶ 84). They seek to certify a class of all individuals who, from December 19, 2012, to the present, were held in confinement by the Sheriff after legal authority for those detentions ceased. They also seek to certify five subclasses based on each of the five alleged policies and practices set forth above. II. Rule 23 Requirements
Class action suits are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. A party seeking class certification bears the burden of establishing that certification is appropriate. Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993). The decision whether to grant or deny a motion for class certification lies within the broad discretion of the trial court. Id.
Rule 23 prescribes a two-step analysis to determine whether class certification is appropriate. First, a plaintiff must satisfy Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Clark v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 256 Fed. Appx. 818, 821 (7th Cir. 2007); Williams v. Chartwell Fin. Serv., Ltd., 204
1 In their Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs narrowed the subclass to those released to Community Corrections for electronic monitoring.
4

F.3d 748, 760 (7th Cir. 2000). The failure to meet any one of these requirements precludes certification of a class. Retired Chicago Police Ass’n, 7 F.3d at 596. Second, the action must also satisfy one of the conditions of Rule 23(b). Clark, 256 Fed. Appx. at 821; Williams, 204 F.3d at 760. Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which permits class certification if “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members” and class resolution is “superior to other available methods for failure and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”
Under the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), common questions of law or fact must predominate; in other words, there must be a common nucleus of operative facts applicable to the entire class. Messner v. Northshore Univ. Healthsystem, 669 F.3d 802, 815 (7th Cir. 2012). The Messner court explained:
If, to make a prima facie showing on a given question, the members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to member, then it is an individual question. If the same evidence will suffice for each member to make a prima facie showing, then it becomes a common question. Id. (quoting Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562, 566 (8th Cir. 2005)). An analysis of the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) begins with the elements of the underlying cause of action. Id. A Section 1983 Monell claim requires the Plaintiffs to establish that: (1) they have suffered a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional violation was caused by (i) an express municipal policy; (ii) a widespread, though unwritten, custom or practice; or (iii) a decision by a municipal agent with “final policymaking authority.” Milestone v. City of Monroe, Wis., 665 F.3d 774,
5

780 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Darchak v. City of Chi. Bd. of Educ., 580 F.3d 662, 629 (7th Cir. 2009)). III. Discussion
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification primarily because, they argue, individual questions predominate over class questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). To give context to their specific argument, the court will provide a brief overview of the applicable law.
A. Cases Addressing Length of Detention In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), the Supreme Court held that an officer’s “on-the-scene assessment of probable cause” justifies an arrest and “a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest.” Id. at 113-14. But “the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty.” Id. at 114. “[T]his [judicial] determination must be made . . . promptly after arrest.” Id. at 125. In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), the Supreme Court clarified how “promptly” a judge must review the allegations, holding that a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 56. A delay of more than 48 hours is presumed unreasonable, and the government bears the burden of showing the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. Id. at 57. Ultimately, “the constitutionality of [any] detention depends on whether the length of delay between the time the Sheriff was notified that [the detainee should be released] and the time the
6

detainee was released was reasonable.” Harper v. Sheriff of Cook Cnty., 581 F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 2009).
With respect to class certification based on the constitutionality of the length of detention, two Seventh Circuit decisions guide the court’s analysis. The first of these is Harper, supra. There, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court’s class certification of detainees who challenged the length of delay between the time bond was posted and the time that the detainee was released. Id. at 515. The court reasoned that the constitutionality of the detentions at issue depended on whether the length of the delay before the detainee’s release was reasonable in any given case. Id. This determination depended on “how long each detainee was held after bond was posted and what justifications there might be for the delay on that particular day or for that particular detainee.” Id. After noting various justifications that might exist for any given delay, it found that “[l]iability, to say nothing of damages, would need to be determined on an individual basis.” Id. Thus, the court reasoned, “common issues do not predominate over individual issues, making this case inappropriate for class disposition.” Id.
In the second, Portis v. City of Chicago, 613 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class in a case challenging the Chicago Police Department’s allegedly unconstitutional detention of individuals detained for non-jailable offenses. Id. at 705. The plaintiffs argued that taking more than two hours to process and release those individuals constituted an unreasonable detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court erred in prescribing a two-hour limit to this process, and that
7

the plaintiffs needed to show “that any particular detention was excessive.” Id. at 705. In determining whether a particular detention was excessive, the court would need to examine both the length of a given detention and the reasons why release was deferred. Id. Citing Harper, the court held that “common issues do not predominate.” Id.
B. Merits According to Defendants, because Plaintiffs challenge the length of their detention after a court ordered them released from custody, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is foreclosed by Harper and Porter. But as Plaintiffs correctly observe, Harper left open the possibility for plaintiffs in an “over-detention” case to obtain class certification so long as their challenge is to the constitutionality of common policies and practices that result in unreasonably long detentions. See Harper, 581 F.3d at 514 (“Failing to take issue with any particular intake procedure, Harper is left with a claim that the Sheriff is unconstitutionally holding detainees after bond has been posted.”); see also Otero v. Dart, 306 F.R.D. 197, 203-04 (N.D. Ill 2014) (certifying class where definition and claims were modified to “focus on a specific detention procedure, rather than the length of detention”); Donovan v. St. Joseph Cnty. Sheriff, No. 3:11-cv-133-TLS, 2012 WL 1601314, at *7 (N.D. Ind. May 3, 2012) (certifying prisoner class because “[t]he overriding legal issue is whether the Defendant had a policy, practice, or custom in place that accounted for the length of the class members’ detention”). Defendants respond that Plaintiffs’ case cannot be certified on that ground because the alleged policies or practices they rely upon do not exist, or to the extent they do exist, they are constitutional and not the cause of any constitutional violations allegedly
8

experienced by the proposed class. “[A]s a general principle, a court is not allowed to engage in analysis of the merits in order to determine whether a class action may be maintained.” Retired Chicago Police Ass’n, 7 F.3d at 598; see also Messner, 669 F.3d at 811 (“In conducting [the Rule 23] analysis, the court should not turn the class certification proceedings into a dress rehearsal for the trial on the merits.”). Arguing the existence and constitutionality of the Sheriff’s alleged policies and practices inappropriately touches upon the merits of Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 Monell claims. Therefore, the court will focus its analysis on the propriety of class certification with respect to each of the five subclasses. See Johnson v. Meriter Health Servs. Employee Retirement Plan, 702 F.3d 364, 368 (7th Cir. 2012) (court applies Rule 23 requirements to each subclass). As noted by the Johnson court, “one can . . . think of this class action as actually [5] separate class actions and apply the standard in Rule 23(b)[(3)] to each of them.” Id. at 368-69.
1. 72-Hour Release First, Plaintiffs seek to certify a subclass based on the Sheriff’s policy, practice, or custom of allowing Jail staff to hold inmates for up to 72 hours before releasing them. The problem with this subclass is twofold. First, the way the subclass is defined presupposes that some members of the class were detained less than 48 hours and others were detained more than 48 hours. But as noted above, the 48-hour line between the time one is ordered released from custody and the time he is released determines the reasonableness of a particular detention; less than 48 hours is presumptively reasonable and more than 48 hours is presumptively unreasonable. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 56-57.
9

Thus, those within the class would be subject to two different burdens of proof. Second, a number of variables such as staffing levels during the time the inmate was to be processed; the number of holds on the inmate; the extent of the inmate’s criminal history; the number of aliases used by the inmate; and whether there are any unusual circumstances present at the time the inmate is to be processed such as internet outages; can complicate the timing of a detainee’s release. Accordingly, common issues amongst the members of the subclass do not predominate. Certification of this subclass is therefore DENIED.
2. Outsourcing Payment and Processing of Bonds Second, Plaintiffs seek to certify a subclass based upon the Sheriff’s policy or practice of “not accepting cash or surety bonds but instead outsourcing the payment and processing of these bonds to the Marion County Clerk.” This policy or practice, they claim, led to an increase in processing times in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Defendants respond that the Sheriff has never been involved in the payment and processing of bonds because, by statute, the payment and processing of bonds belongs to the Marion County Clerk. Ind. Code § 35-33-8-3.2(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2)(A). Plaintiffs did not reply to this argument, and appear to have conceded that this subclass should not be certified. (See Filing No. 157, Plaintiffs’ Reply, at 35 (omitting this subclass from the subclasses they seek to certify)). Certification of this subclass is therefore DENIED.
10

3. Employing an Inadequate Computer System Third, Plaintiffs seek to certify a subclass based on the Sheriff’s “employ[ment] of a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners.” The computer system of which they complain is known as the Offender Management System (“OMS”). The Sheriff chose OMS as the means to integrate the Jail’s IT functions with Odyssey—the Marion Superior Court’s new electronic case management system which went “live” on June 1, 2014. (Filing No. 119, Declaration of Derek Peterson ¶¶ 11-12, 14). OMS was beset with technical issues, the most significant of which was its inability to interface with DEXTER, the computerized transfer system that would allow the various computer programs used by the stakeholders—the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), the Public Defender’s Office, Community Corrections, and the Prosecutor’s Office—to exchange information with each other on Odyssey. (Id. ¶ 13). As a result, the MCSO did not receive electronic court information when the new system went live. (Id. ¶ 14). This technical issue required the MCSO to rely upon automated reports from Odyssey sent from the Courts on an hourly basis, that listed all of the event codes—e.g., setting of bond—regardless of custody status. (Id.). Those codes were then manually updated and processed by MCSO staff. (Id.). The MCSO also had to rely on emails, paper records, faxes, and telephone calls to gather information to make release decisions. (Id.; Filing No. 116-3, Deposition of Tammy Wood at 12-13, 41). Suffice it to say that release times increased.
11

As the court understands the subclass, it consists of all individuals who, from December 19, 2012 to the present, were victims of the computer issues spawned by OMS. To certify a class, however, the plaintiff must establish “that the class is indeed identifiable.” Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2006). In other words, “the description of a class [must be] sufficiently definite to permit ascertainment of the class members.” Alliance to End Repression v. Rockford, 565 F.2d 975, 977 (7th Cir. 1977). The definition of the subclass that Plaintiffs advance is problematic because the technical issues plaguing OMS is one of the overriding reasons for the over-detention of the entire class. As such, the court is not convinced it is a policy or practice from which this subclass can be anchored. Certification of this subclass is therefore DENIED.
4. Re-arresting and Imprisoning Individuals Next, Plaintiffs seek to certify a class based on the Sheriff’s policy of re-arresting and imprisoning individuals who are released on their own recognizance, found not guilty or acquitted, or who have had their criminal charges vacated or dismissed. Defendants respond that these inmates are not re-arrested or re-imprisoned; rather, they are returned to the Jail for processing. If no other holds exist, Defendants claim, the inmate will be released. Because Defendants do not deny that members of the subclass were returned to the Jail after a court ordered their release, Defendants’ alleged practice is common to the subclass. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The question of the constitutionality of this practice is also common to the subclass. The court further finds the subclass meets Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement as a “‘common nucleus of operative facts and issues’ underlies the claims
12

brought by the proposed class.” Messner, 669 F.3d at 815 (quoting In re Nassau Cnty. Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219, 228 (2d Cir. 2006)). Certification of this subclass is therefore GRANTED.
5. Keeping Inmates Imprisoned Who the Courts Released to Community Corrections for Electronic Monitoring
Lastly, Plaintiffs seek to certify a subclass based on the Sheriff’s policy of keeping inmates imprisoned after the courts have released them to Community Corrections for electronic monitoring. The representative of this subclass, Mr. Shofner, testified by affidavit that, after he served the jail portion of his sentence, the Jail did not release him to report to Community Corrections. (Shofner Aff. ¶ 16). He was told the Jail keeps inmates until Community Corrections is ready to process a group of such individuals because in the past, some inmates failed to report. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 19). Defendants do not deny the existence of this policy. Instead, they offer the affidavit of John Dieter, the Director of Marion County Community Corrections, who said that due to Jail population pressures, Community Corrections has employed the services of its electronic detention equipment vendor to “provid[e] inmates with electronic detention equipment after hours and on weekends to get those inmates out of the Jail sooner.” (Filing No. 117, Declaration of John Dieter ¶ 7). The application of the policy to the subclass and the constitutionality of the policy are questions common to the subclass. The court therefore finds the subclass meets not only the commonality requirement, but also the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Certification of this subclass is therefore GRANTED.
13

IV. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part (Filing No. 71). Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the subclasses defined as: All individuals who, from December 19, 2012, to the present, were held in confinement by the Sheriff after legal authority for those detentions ceased due to the Sheriff’s policies or practices of: (1) re-arresting and imprisoning individuals who are released on their own recognizance, found not guilty or acquitted, or who have had their criminal charges vacated or dismissed; and (2) keeping inmates imprisoned who the courts have released to Community Corrections for electronic monitoring.
Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED with respect to the subclasses defined as: All individuals who, from December 19, 2012, to the present, were held in confinement by the Sheriff after legal authority for those detentions ceased due to the Sheriff’s policies or practices of: (1) operating under a standard of 72 hours to release prisoners who are ordered released; (2) not accepting cash or surety bonds but instead outsourcing the payment and processing of these bonds to the Marion County Clerk; and (3) employing a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners. SO ORDERED this 30th day of September 2016.
__________________________________ RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
14

Distributed Electronically to Registered Counsel of Record. 15

 
 Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 184 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1273

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL DRIVER,

)

TERRY CLAYTON,

)

MICHAEL BOYD,

)

NICHOLAS SWORDS,

)

ROY SHOFNER,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

MARION COUNTY SHERIFF,

)

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF

)

INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, )

)

Defendants.

)

No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings in this matter. [Dkt. 178.] Plaintiff seeks to stay the matter pending an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s order denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs’ primary argument relates to their upcoming expert witness disclosure deadline, as the scope and substance of the required disclosures could be materially affected by a decision expanding the scope of the class in this matter. Defendant objects, arguing that a stay is premature. The Court, while acknowledging and supporting Defendants’ desire to move this case forward, agrees with Plaintiffs that judicial economy and the best interests of this matter are not advanced by requiring Plaintiffs to serve their expert reports while a request for an interlocutory appeal is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) (“An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders.”); Blair v. Equifax Check Servs.,

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 184 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1274
Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 1999) (determining whether a stay is appropriate under Rule 23(f) requires weighing whether “the costs of pressing ahead in the district court exceed the costs of waiting”). If the request is denied, any delay should be brief. If the appeal is allowed and granted, requiring Plaintiffs to materially revise their expert reports would be extraordinarily inefficient. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiffs’ motion to stay this matter pending the resolution of their interlocutory appeal be GRANTED.
Any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation shall be filed with the Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and failure to timely file objections within fourteen days after service shall constitute a waiver of subsequent review absent a showing of good cause for such failure.
Dated: 05 DEC 2016
Distribution: Service will be made electronically on all ECF-registered counsel of record via email generated by the court’s ECF system.

 
 Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 2700

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028277

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 2 (16 of 17)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk Phone: (312) 435-5850 www.ca7.uscourts.gov

July 10, 2017

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

Laura A. Briggs To:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Indiana United States Courthouse Indianapolis , IN 46204-0000

No. 16-4239

MICHAEL DRIVER, individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.

MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants - Appellees
Originating Case Information:
District Court No: 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division District Judge Richard L. Young
Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to costs shall constitute the mandate.

AMOUNT OF BILL OF COSTS (do not include the $):

500.00

DATE OF MANDATE OR AGENCY

07/10/2017

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2701

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028277

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 2 (17 of 17)

CLOSING LETTER ISSUANCE: RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS:

No record to be returned

NOTE TO COUNSEL: If any physical and large documentary exhibits have been filed in the above-entitled cause, they are to be withdrawn ten (10) days from the date of this notice. Exhibits not withdrawn during this period will be disposed of.
Please acknowledge receipt of these documents on the enclosed copy of this notice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Received above mandate and record, if any, from the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Date:

Received by:

7/10/2017
_________________________

____________________________________

form name: c7_Mandate(form ID: 135)

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 2702

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028275

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 1 (13 of 17)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk Phone: (312) 435-5850 www.ca7.uscourts.gov

June 16, 2017

FINAL JUDGMENT

Before:

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 16-4239

MICHAEL DRIVER, individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.

MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants - Appellees
Originating Case Information:
District Court No: 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division District Judge Richard L. Young

The decision of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The above is in accordance with the decision of this court entered on June 15, 2017. Costs to be awarded to the prevailing party.

form name: c7_FinalJudgment(form ID: 132)

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 2703

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (1 of 17)

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

No. 16-4239
MICHAEL DRIVER, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated individuals, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD — Richard L. Young, Judge.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 21, 2017 — DECIDED JUNE 15, 2017

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs in this case brought a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the policies and practices of the Marion County Sheriff’s Depart-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 2704

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (2 of 17)

2

No. 16-4239

ment and the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County (collectively referred to as the “Sheriff”) caused them to be detained in the Marion County Jail awaiting release for an unreasonably long period of time, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought to certify five subclasses in that action, and the district court granted certification as to two of those subclasses, but denied it as to the remaining three. The plaintiffs then filed a petition in this court seeking permission to appeal the denial of two of those class certifications pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Specifically, the plaintiffs contested the court’s denial of two classes, consisting of all individuals who, from December 19, 2012 to the present, were held in confinement by the Sheriff after legal authority for those detentions ceased, due to: (1) the Sheriff’s practice of operating under a standard of allowing up to 72 hours to release prisoners who are ordered released; and (2) the Sheriff’s practice of employing a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners.
We granted permission for the interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f), and now proceed to the appeal on the merits. We hold that the district court erred in its decision denying class certification and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
In order to certify a class, “‘a district court must find that each requirement of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) is satisfied as well as one subsection of Rule 23(b).’” Harper v. Sheriff of Cook County, 581 F.3d 511, 513 (7th Cir. 2009). The plaintiffs sought to certify a subclass based on the Sheriff’s policy, practice or

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 2705

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (3 of 17)

No. 16-4239

3

custom of allowing the jail staff to hold inmates for up to 72 hours before releasing them. The district court held that the subclass as so defined would presuppose that some members were detained for less than 48 hours and others for greater than 48 hours. The district court believed that such a range of detention periods was problematic, because the court—relying on County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)—believed that the 48-hour line was a critical defining period in establishing the reasonableness of the detention. According to the district court, detentions of less than 48 hours would be presumptively reasonable, and those that extended beyond 48 hours would be presumptively unreasonable, thus subjecting those members within the class to two different burdens of proof.
The district court erred in applying the 48-hour presumption to this context and in relying on it as a basis to deny class certification. The court relied for that denial on the Supreme Court’s holding in McLaughlin, which addressed the detention resulting from a warrantless arrest and held that the amount of time between the warrantless arrest and a judicial determination of probable cause was presumptively reasonable if it was 48 hours or less, and presumptively unreasonable if longer. See McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 56–57; Portis v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 613 F.3d 702, 703–04 (7th Cir. 2010). That time period necessarily would include the time involved in processing and booking the defendant, determining the appropriate charge and preparing charging documents, assigning and transporting to court, and ultimately obtaining a judicial determination of probable cause. See McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 55.

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 2706

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (4 of 17)

4

No. 16-4239

The class proposed by the plaintiffs involved a markedly different situation. It is composed of persons for whom legal authority for detention has ceased, whether by acquittal after trial, release on recognizance bond, completion of jail time in the sentence, or otherwise. For those persons, all that is left is for the officials to merely process the release. None of the myriad steps required in McLaughlin, between an arrest and a judicial determination of probable cause, are required here; the class members already qualify for release, and all that is left are the ministerial actions to accomplish that release which are within the control of the jail officials. Evidence in the record indicates that the average time period to effect such a release is 2–4 hours in counties in general, and up to 6 hours if problems are encountered, but even if we doubled those times, release still would be accomplished within 12 hours. Because the tasks involved in the situation presented here are significantly less onerous and less time-consuming than the ones involved in McLaughlin, the 48-hour rule makes no sense in this context.
Accordingly, the district court erred in denying the subclass based on its perception that the 48-hour rule in McLaughlin would create different burdens and challenges among the potential subclass members. The only other reason given by the court for denying the subclass was that individual variables could complicate the timing of the release, but those variables were present in McLaughlin as well and they did not preclude class status. The Court in McLaughlin recognized that at some point the State has no legitimate interest in detaining persons for an extended period of time, and if the regular practice exceeds that time period deemed constitutionally-permissible,

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 2707

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (5 of 17)

No. 16-4239

5

the State is not immune from systemic challenges such as a class action. 500 U.S. at 55, 58–59. At some point well short of the 24-plus hours alleged here, there is no reason to believe that individual issues would account for that delay.
The defendants nevertheless claim that cases from our circuit, Portis and Harper, foreclose class certification here. They assert that those cases and McLaughlin provide that common questions do not predominate where the core complaint challenges the length of detention rather than the conditions of confinement, and that any extended detention must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Those cases do not support that conclusion. In Harper, 581 F.3d at 512, the plaintiff sought to bring a class action alleging that new detainees remanded to the sheriff’s custody were unconstitutionally required to undergo certain intake procedures. We held that the claims were not appropriate for class disposition because Harper was not challenging specific intake procedures, but instead was asserting that the Sheriff was unconstitutionally holding detainees after bond was posted. Id. at 514–15. The unconstitutionality depended on the length of the delay, which was an individualized determination because Harper did not allege any overriding policy or practice causing the delay. Id. at 514–15. The only common issue alleged by Harper was whether it was reasonable to assign a jail identification number before releasing a detainee on bond—with the concomitant delay that process entailed—but we held that the issue was not central to his claim because it could not cause the type of injuries asserted, and because it could not be unconstitutional unless it took an unreasonable amount of time in an individual case, thus again not supporting class disposition. Id. at 515–16.

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 2708

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (6 of 17)

6

No. 16-4239

Similarly, in Portis, 613 F.3d at 703, we addressed a class challenge by persons subjected to custodial arrests for fine-only offenses, alleging that the failure to release them within two hours from generation of the central booking number was unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We held that the Constitution forbids detentions that are unreasonable in length, but that an arbitrary inflexible time period such as two hours for release was not justified. Id. at 704. Accordingly, the claims required an individualized determination as to whether the delay in release was unreasonable, and class certification was improper. We noted, however, that “[t]he Supreme Court suggested in McLaughlin that class treatment might be appropriate if the class sought to establish that a jurisdiction had adopted a policy of deliberate delay.” Id. at 705. The Portis court explicitly stated that it did not foreclose the possibility of class-wide relief if the record established such deliberate delay. Id. at 705–06. Neither Portis nor Harper preclude class certification in a case such as this one, in which the plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ policy or practice caused them to be detained for an unconstitutionally-unreasonable length of time. See also Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County, 828 F.3d 541, 550 (7th Cir. 2016) (the proper focus in determining commonality is whether the prospective class can “articulate at least one common question that will actually advance all of the class members’ claims”).
On appeal, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs’ case nevertheless cannot be certified because the alleged 72-hour policy and practice upon which they rely does not exist or, if it exists, it is constitutional. The district court refused to address the merits of the allegation that the Sheriff operated under such

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 2709

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (7 of 17)

No. 16-4239

7

a 72-hour rule, stating that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the case on its merits at the stage of class certification. As the Supreme Court has noted, “Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard,” and a party seeking class certification “must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.” WalMart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). To certify a class, the trial court must satisfy itself “after a rigorous analysis” that the Rule 23(a) prerequisites are established, and “[f]requently that ‘rigorous analysis’ will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Id. at 350–51. That does not mean that the Rule 23 analysis is transformed into a summary judgment motion. The defendants argue the merits of the claim, challenging the existence and constitutionality of the policies, without referencing the Rule 23 factors or establishing how those factors are impacted. The district court properly recognized that its role in assessing class certification did not include a determination of the case on the merits. On remand, the court should, of course, consider factual and legal issues comprising plaintiffs’ cause of action insofar as those issues are necessary to a determination of the Rule 23 factors. Id.; Parko v. Shell Oil Co., 739 F.3d 1083, 1085 (7th Cir. 2014); Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 675–76 (7th Cir. 2001).
The plaintiffs also challenge the denial of certification for a class consisting of all individuals who, from December 12, 2012 to the present, were held in confinement by the Marion County Sheriff after legal authority for those detentions ceased, due to the Sheriff’s practice of employing a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended that dramatically delayed the

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 2710

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (8 of 17)

8

No. 16-4239

release of prisoners. The plaintiffs presented evidence that the Sheriff acquired a computer system, OMS, from Global Tel Link which offered the system to the Sheriff free of charge in return for the Sheriff’s extension of GTL’s contract for inmate collect call services. GTL provided the hardware, software, installation and maintenance of the phones and lines, and profited from the high rate charged to inmates for such collect calls. Evidence indicated that the Sheriff profited from the arrangement as well, receiving commissions totaling approximately $800,000 per year.
In addition, the plaintiffs produced some evidence that the Sheriff bypassed the standard review process in choosing and retaining the computer system, disregarding the impact on the release times. At the time that it acquired OMS, the Sheriff knew that the Marion County Courts were using software called Odyssey. The Sheriff was also aware that, prior to acquiring any jail information management software, it was imperative to know whether the software would be compatible with the court’s Odyssey software. Evidence nevertheless indicated that the Sheriff acquired OMS outside the standard channels bypassing the Information Services Agency which was the Marion County agency formed to coordinate information technologies among the City and County agencies and through which such acquisitions are supposed to occur in order to assure that the systems integrate with those of other agencies. There is a dispute as to whether the Sheriff vetted OMS; the Sheriff’s chief administrative officer testified that prior to acquiring OMS the Sheriff’s department received assurances from three IT people that OMS would work with Odyssey, but the plaintiffs introduced evidence from those

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 2711

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (9 of 17)

No. 16-4239

9

three persons that they never vetted the system and were never asked to do so.
As the district court noted, OMS was beset with technical issues from the start; it could not interface with DEXTER, the computerized transfer system that allowed agencies such as the Sheriff, the Public Defender, the Prosecutor’s Office, Community Corrections, and the Indianapolis Police Department to exchange information with each other on Odyssey. And with OMS the Sheriff could not receive electronic court information, which required the Sheriff’s office staff to manually update and process the codes received from the court and to rely on emails, paper records, faxes, and telephone calls to gather information to make release decisions.
Finally, the record contains evidence that the Sheriff chose to remain with OMS even in the face of the significant delays in release times, and did not take efforts to measure the magnitude of the problem. That delay in release often totaling 72 hours was significant both in the pure sense and in proportion to the time that the prisoners could be properly detained. For instance, the plaintiffs produced evidence of individuals who served short sentences for DUI convictions of 5–9 days, but for whom the 2–4 day delay in release increased their incarceration time by 40–50%. Another person was arrested and released by the court on bond two days later, but detained 3 more days awaiting release by the Sheriff, thus more than doubling the period of detention. An expert produced by the plaintiff found that from June to December 2014, 38,000 extra days were spent in jail by inmates pending release compared to the practice before OMS. The delays resulted in complaints to the Sheriff’s department by judges, defense counsel and

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 2712

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (10 of 17)

10

No. 16-4239

family members, but in the face of those widespread excessive delays the Sheriff chose to continue with OMS rather than implement the compatible system recommended by its IT people.
The class sought by the plaintiffs consisted of all individuals who, from December 19, 2012 to the present, were victims of the computer issues spawned by OMS. The district court denied certification of the subclass because it held that the class was not “identifiable.” The court noted that the class description must be sufficiently definite to allow ascertainment of the class members. Dist. Ct. Op. at 12 citing Alliance to End Repression v. Rockford, 565 F.2d 975, 977 (7th Cir. 1977). It held that “[t]he definition of the subclass that Plaintiffs advance is problematic because the technical issues plaguing OMS is one of the overriding reasons for the over-detention of the entire class. As such, the court is not convinced it is a policy or practice from which this subclass can be anchored.” [emphasis in original] Dist. Ct. Op. at 12. The court appears to deny certification of the subclass because the policy or practice caused the over-detention of the entire class. That, however, would be a basis to grant certification of the class as a whole rather than as a subclass, not to deny certification because it is not limited to a portion of the class. We have recognized that a class may lack the definitiveness required for class certification if there is no way to know or readily ascertain who is a member of the class, but that issue is not apparent here. Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch., 668 F.3d 481, 495 (7th Cir. 2012). The class is defined by all persons whose excessive detention resulted from the inadequate computer system. Given the evidence of a dramatic increase in detention times in correla-

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 2713

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (11 of 17)

No. 16-4239

11

tion with the implementation of the computer system, the evidence that release information could not be properly transmitted electronically in that system and the court having to resort to alternative channels of communication, and the absence of any evidence that delays of that length could be attributable to individual factors, the class is capable of definition both by the timing and the length of the delay in release. Compare Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513–14 (7th Cir. 2006) (in consumer fraud action alleging that CocaCola was deceptive in failing to inform consumers that its fountain Diet Coke contained saccharine, proposed class was not sufficiently definite because it required only the purchase of fountain Diet Coke and could include millions who were not deceived). But we need not further define the class in this appeal to conclude that the district court’s reasoning, in denying class status because the alleged violation applied to the class as a whole rather than a subclass, was an improper basis to deny certification.
With respect to the denial of certification as to this class, the defendants argue that the denial should be upheld because the plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to establish the existence of an unconstitutional policy or practice and also failed to present sufficient evidence of intent. We do not understand the district court’s decision to hold that the plaintiffs have not established that their injury resulted from a policy or practice, as the defendants suggest; such an argument would be difficult to make, as the determination to process releases through the OMS system certainly appears to fall within our understanding of what constitutes a policy or practice. See generally Glisson v. Indiana Dept of Corrections, 849

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 2714

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028274

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 12 (12 of 17)

12

No. 16-4239

F.3d 372, 378–80 (7th Cir. 2017)(en banc). And as to establishing deliberate indifference, we have recognized in another context that deliberate indifference can be shown by systemic and gross deficiencies in equipment or procedures that result in a deprivation of a constitutional right. See Phillips, 828 F.3d at 554. But as we discussed earlier, the district court did not consider whether the policies or practices existed, nor did it consider whether the evidence indicated deliberate indifference, because the court determined that it was not allowed to engage in an analysis of the merits, and therefore we are presented only with the evidence recited above without any factual findings by the court on those matters. The court on remand should consider all issues related to the Rule 23 factors even if they overlap with the merits, and can make the appropriate fact findings at that time. The issues have never been decided by the district court and are not properly before us at this time.
The decision of the district court is VACATED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 2715

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028276

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 2 (14 of 17)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk Phone: (312) 435-5850 www.ca7.uscourts.gov

July 10, 2017

BILL OF COSTS

Taxed in Favor of: Appellant Michael Boyd ; Appellant Terry Clayton ; Appellant Michael Driver ; Appellant Roy Shofner ; Appellant Nicholas Swords

No. 16-4239

MICHAEL DRIVER, individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.

MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants - Appellees
Originating Case Information:
District Court No: 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division District Judge Richard L. Young
The mandate or agency closing letter issued in this cause on July 10, 2017.

BILL OF COSTS issued in the amount of: $500.00.

Cost of Each Item

Total Cost Each Item

For docketing a case on appeal or review or 1.
docketing any other proceeding: ___________________________

__________ __________

2. For reproduction of any record or paper, __________ __________
per page: _______________________________________

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 196 Filed 07/10/17 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 2716

Case: 16-4239 Document: 00713028276

Filed: 07/10/2017 Pages: 2 (15 of 17)

3. For reproduction of briefs: ___________________________________________
4. ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________
5. ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________

__________ __500.00___ __________ __________

__________ __________

TOTAL:

___500.00__

form name: c7_BillOfCosts(form ID: 140)

 
 Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 390 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 5663

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MICHAEL DRIVER,

)

TERRY CLAYTON,

)

MICHAEL BOYD,

)

NICHOLAS SWORDS, and

)

ROY SHOFNER, individually and as

) 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD

representatives of a class of all similarly )

situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, and

)

CONSOLIDATED CITY OF

)

INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION

)

COUNTY,

)

)

Defendants. )

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (on remand from the Seventh Circuit)
Plaintiffs, Michael Driver, Terry Clayton, Michael Boyd, Nicholas Swords, and

Roy Shofner, bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the policies and practices of

the Marion County Sheriff caused them to be detained in the Marion County Jail awaiting

release for an unreasonably long period of time, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Plaintiffs originally sought to certify five subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The court granted certification as to two of those subclasses

but denied it as to the remaining three. Plaintiff appealed the court’s denial of

certification for two of the three subclasses and prevailed. The two subclasses at issue

1

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 390 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 5664
consist of all individuals who, from December 19, 2012 to the present, were held in confinement by the Sheriff after legal authority for those detentions ceased, due to:
1) the Sheriff’s practice of operating under a standard allowing up to 72 hours to release prisoners who are ordered released; and
2) the Sheriff’s practice of employing a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners.
Upon review of the record, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable law, the court finds these subclasses are appropriate for class treatment under Rule 23.
I. Discussion A. 72-Hour Delay In its Entry on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, the court denied
certification of this subclass because, it found, common issues did not predominate under Rule 23(b)(3). The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument, finding instead that class treatment may be appropriate if the record established the Sheriff adopted a policy of deliberate delay. Driver v. Marion Cty. Sheriff, 859 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017); see also id. (“Neither Portis [v. City of Chicago, Ill., 613 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2010)] nor Harper [v. Sheriff of Cook Cty., 581 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2009)] preclude class certification in a case such as this one, in which the plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ policy or practice caused them to be detained for an unconstitutionally-unreasonable length of time.”).
Plaintiffs submitted evidence establishing that inmates were held for “24-plus hours”—a time period the Seventh Circuit suggested was constitutionally unacceptable. Id. at 491-92. They also submitted evidence that the Sheriff was aware of this problem;
2

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 390 Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 5665
nonetheless, over detentions continued and apparently continue to this day. (Filing Nos. 73-1, Affidavit of Mark Thompson ¶ 11 (noting “Sheriff Layton recognized a problem existed” but “[t]he over detentions continue”); Filing No. 73-3, Affidavit of William E. Young ¶ 6 (stating delays “could be as few as 24 hours to as much as 72 hours”); Filing No. 73-15, Indiana Lawyer article (noting “[t]wo Marion Superior criminal court judges . . . continue to be frustrated by delayed releases of arrestees detained after orders have been signed for their release”); Filing No. 73-18, Email communications between public defender and Sheriff’s office and between Superior Court Master Commissioner and technology officer discussing delays in the release of inmates). The court finds this evidence is sufficient for purposes of class certification to establish that the Sheriff adopted a policy of deliberate delay. Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden. Class certification is GRANTED.
B. Inadequate Computer System Initially, the court denied certification of this subclass—the Sheriff’s adoption of an inadequate computer system which resulted in lengthy release times—because it found the class was not sufficiently identifiable. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, finding “the class is capable of definition both by the timing and the length of the delay in release.” Driver, 859 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2017). On remand, this court is directed to consider whether a policy or practice existed and whether the evidence indicated deliberate indifference. Id. at 495. At the class certification hearing held on October 9, 2019, Defendants conceded that the Sheriff’s selection and use of the OMS computer system was a policy or practice.
3

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 390 Filed 11/05/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 5666
That leaves the issue of deliberate indifference. “[D]eliberate indifference can be shown by systemic or gross deficiencies in equipment or procedures that result in a deprivation of a constitutional right.” Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook Cty., 828 F.3d 541, 554 (7th Cir. 2016).
The computer system at issue is known as the Offender Management System (“OMS”). The Sheriff chose OMS as the means to integrate the Jail’s IT functions with Odyssey—the Marion Superior Court’s electronic case management system which went “live” on June 1, 2014. (Filing No. 119, Declaration of Derek Peterson ¶¶ 11-12, 14). Plaintiffs submitted evidence that the Sheriff chose OMS because it was a good deal and implemented it despite never having determined whether it was compatible with the court’s Odyssey software. (Id. at 110 (“Q: Nobody, to the best of your knowledge, ever looked at that issue, though, whether GTL’s OMS worked with Odyssey before the sheriff acquired Odyssey? A: Not that I’m aware of.”).
OMS was beset with technical issues, the most significant of which was its inability to interface with DEXTER, the computerized transfer system that would allow the various computer programs used by the stakeholders—the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), the Public Defender’s Office, Community Corrections, and the Prosecutor’s Office—to exchange information with each other on Odyssey. (Id. ¶ 13). As a result, the MCSO did not receive electronic court information when the new system went live. (Id. ¶ 14). This technical issue required the MCSO to rely upon automated reports from Odyssey sent from the Courts on an hourly basis, that listed all of the event codes—e.g., setting of bond—regardless of
4

Case 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD Document 390 Filed 11/05/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5667
custody status. (Id.). Those codes were then manually updated and processed by MCSO staff. (Id.). The MCSO also had to rely on emails, paper records, faxes, and telephone calls to gather information to make release decisions. (Id.; Filing No. 116-3, Deposition of Tammy Wood at 12-13, 41). Suffice it to say that release times increased significantly. (Filing No. 158-9, Deposition of Derek Peterson at 45-47). The Sheriff continued to use OMS even though he was aware that its continued use caused undue delay in the release of inmates. (Id. at 79-80, 146-47; Filing No. 158-2, Deposition of Royce Cole at 14-15, 17; Filing No. 158-7, Deposition of James Martin at 23-24). The court finds these systemic and gross deficiencies in OMS, of which the Sheriff was aware and resulted in the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, indicates for purposes of class certification that the Sheriff acted with deliberate indifference. Accordingly, class certification is GRANTED. II. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Filing No. 71) with respect to the following classes:
1) the Sheriff’s practice of operating under a standard allowing up to 72 hours to release prisoners who are ordered released; and
2) the Sheriff’s practice of employing a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of November 2019.
Distributed Electronically to Registered Counsel of Record. 5

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 1 of 33
MANDATE
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−02076−RLY−MJD

DRIVER et al v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF Assigned to: Judge Richard L. Young Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore Related Case: 1:19−cv−04912−JMS−MJD
Case in other court: 7th Circuit, 16−01176 − Mandate
7th Circuit, 16−04239 − Mandate Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Petitions − Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

MICHAEL DRIVER individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals

represented by John P. Young YOUNG & YOUNG 128 North Delaware Street Third Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 639−5161 Fax: (317) 639−4978 Email: john@youngandyoungin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard A. Waples WAPLES & HANGER 410 N. Audubon Road Indianapolis, IN 46219 (317)357−0903 Fax: (317)357−0275 Email: rwaples@wapleshanger.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
TERRY CLAYTON individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals

represented by John P. Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard A. Waples (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MICHAEL BOYD individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals

represented by John P. Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard A. Waples (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
NICHOLAS SWORDS individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals

represented by John P. Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard A. Waples (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 2 of 33

ROY SHOFNER individually and as representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals

represented by John P. Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A. Waples (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF
Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY Interested Party AMITAV THAMBA

represented by Anthony W. Overholt FROST BROWN TODD LLC 201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900 P.O. Box 44961 Indianapolis, IN 46244−0961 (317) 237−3800 Fax: (317) 237−3900 Email: aoverholt@fbtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony W. Overholt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard G. McDermott OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS 200 East Washington Street Room 1601 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317−327−4055 Fax: 317−327−3968 Email: rmcdermo@indygov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/19/2014
12/19/2014 12/19/2014 12/22/2014 12/22/2014 12/23/2014 01/05/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against THE MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0756−3293099) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Summons, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard A. Waples on behalf of Plaintiffs TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by John P. Young on behalf of Plaintiffs TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER. (Young, John) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
4 Summons Issued as to MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (NRN) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (NRN) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony W. Overholt on behalf of Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
7 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by MICHAEL DRIVER, TERRY CLAYTON. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF served on 12/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Card)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 3 of 33

01/08/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015
01/14/2015 02/09/2015 02/20/2015 02/23/2015 02/24/2015
02/27/2015
02/27/2015 03/02/2015 03/03/2015 03/09/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015 03/26/2015 04/02/2015

8 NOTICE of Appearance by Adriana Katzen on behalf of Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Katzen, Adriana) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
9 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Katzen, Adriana) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER: The Initial Pretrial Conference is set for 2/24/2015 at 9:00 AM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/9/2015. (BGT) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
11 DISCOVERY Notice of Service of Discovery Requests, filed by Plaintiffs TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER.(Young, John) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT against MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, filed by MICHAEL DRIVER, TERRY CLAYTON.(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
13 Agreed CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, NICHOLAS SWORDS . (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
14 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 03/09/2015 to File Answer, filed by Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Enlargement of Time to Answer)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
15 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant is granted an enlargement of time to and including March 9, 2015 in which to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/24/2015. (MGG) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
16 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 2/24/2015. The Court will approve the Case Management Plan, by separate order, with the changes to which the parties have agreed. Plaintiffs report they intend to move shortly to amend to complaint to add another sub−class. Settlement Conference set for 3/18/2016 at 09:00 AM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Status Conference set for 4/16/2015 at 03:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information adn deadlines*. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
17 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED AS AMENDED. Discovery due by 3/18/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 4/18/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/27/2015.(CBU) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard A. Waples on behalf of Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by John P. Young on behalf of Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 19 NOTICE of Appearance by John P. Young on behalf of Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) Modified on 3/10/2015 (NRN). (Entered: 03/09/2015)
21 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second against MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, filed by All Plaintiffs.(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard A. Waples on behalf of Plaintiff ROY SHOFNER. (Waples, Richard) Modified on 3/25/2015 (NRN). (Entered: 03/24/2015)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by John P. Young on behalf of Plaintiff ROY SHOFNER. (Young, John) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
24 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 04/02/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 4 of 33

04/07/2015 04/08/2015 04/08/2015 04/14/2015 04/15/2015 04/20/2015
04/21/2015
05/04/2015 05/05/2015 05/11/2015 05/12/2015 05/13/2015
05/13/2015 05/13/2015

25 ANSWER to 21 Amended Complaint Second, filed by MARION COUNTY SHERIFF.(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
27 Exhibit List Preliminary, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
28 Witness List Preliminary, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Amanda J. Dinges on behalf of Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Dinges, Amanda) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
30 Witness List , filed by Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, Exhibit List , filed by Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
31 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 4/16/2015. Counsel for Plaintiff reports they will be moving to amend the complaint. The parties further report on the status of discovery and Plaintiff reports issues with Defendant's responses to discovery. Discovery Conference set for 4/21/2015 at 01:00 PM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore.*see order for additional information*. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
32 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Discovery Conference held on 4/21/2015. The parties discussed issues Plaintiffs have with Defendant's written discovery responses. On or before May 13, 2015 the parties shall confer, complete and file an ESI Supplement to the Report of the Parties' Planning Meeting (as found on the Court's website at www.insd.uscourts.gov/Judges/CMP_info.htm). Discovery Conference set for 5/19/2015 at 09:00 AM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) Modified on 4/23/2015 (NRN). (Entered: 04/22/2015)
33 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures , filed by Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
34 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Summons)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
35 MOTION to Transfer Case to Indiana Supreme Court, filed by B.A. CORLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(NRN) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
36 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Adriana Katzen, filed by Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dinges, Amanda) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
37 ORDER − granting 34 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint; GRANTS the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(2) and Local Rule S.D. 15−1, and ORDERS that Plaintiff is granted leave to file the Third Amended Complaint. The Clerk is directed to file Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [Dkt. 34−1] as of the date of this order. The Court further directs the Clerk to issue the Summons to the new defendant, a copy of which was attached to Plaintiffs' Motion Dkt. 34 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 5/13/2015. (CKM) (Entered: 05/13/2015)
38 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, filed by MICHAEL DRIVER, MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS SWORDS, ROY SHOFNER, TERRY CLAYTON. c/s(CKM) Modified on 5/14/2015 (NRN). (Entered: 05/13/2015)
39 Summons Issued as to CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (CKM) Modified on 5/14/2015 (NRN). (Entered: 05/13/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 5 of 33

05/15/2015 05/15/2015 05/18/2015 05/18/2015 05/19/2015
05/21/2015 06/04/2015 06/04/2015 06/08/2015
06/08/2015 06/09/2015

40 Submission of Parties' ESI Supplement Plan, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
41 ORDER granting 36 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Adriana Katzen is withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 5/15/2015. (MGG) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew C. Boldt on behalf of Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Boldt, Matthew) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by Pamela G. Schneeman on behalf of Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Schneeman, Pamela) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
44 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Discovery Conference held on 5/19/2015. The Court and parties discussed the proposed electronic discovery plan. With the agreement of the parties, the approved Case Management Plan [Dkt. 17] is hereby amended as follows:II. Jurisdiction and Statement of Claims C. On or before August 22, 2016, and consistent with the certification provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), the party with the burden of proof shall file a statement of the claims or defenses it intends to prove at trial, stating specifically the legal theories upon which the claims or defenses are based. Discovery due by 8/8/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 9/8/2016. *SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DEADLINES* Discovery Conference set for 6/9/2015 at 01:30 PM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) Modified on 5/21/2015 (NRN). (Entered: 05/20/2015)
45 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by All Plaintiffs. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY served on 5/19/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Card)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
46 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of the June 9, 2015, ESI Conference, filed by Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schneeman, Pamela) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
47 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Schneeman, Pamela) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
48 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Continuance. The Court, having considered the City−County's unopposed motion to continue the June 9, 2015, ESI conference and being duly advised in the premises, now grants said motion. The June 9, 2015, ESI conference is thus VACATED. The Court will conduct a telephonic status conference on June 9, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss a mutually agreeable date on which the ESI conference can be rescheduled. Counsel shall attend the status conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system.Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/8/2015.(NLR) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
50 ANSWER to 38 Amended Complaint Third, filed by MARION COUNTY SHERIFF.(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
51 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 6/9/2015. The parties discussed a mutually convenient date to reschedule the in person ESI conference. Counsel for Plaintiff reported that there remains several other discovery issues. The parties are to meet and confer and on or before June 26, 2015 they are to e−mail the Court at MJDinsmore@insd.uscourts.gov, and a copy to each other, a brief outline of any remaining discovery disputes, their respective positions on the issues and any other documents they would like the Court to review in advance of the in−person conference. In person conference set for 6/29/2015 at 02:00 PM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 6 of 33

06/19/2015 06/22/2015 06/25/2015 07/01/2015
07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/07/2015 07/28/2015 07/28/2015 08/14/2015
08/25/2015 08/31/2015 09/02/2015

52 MOTION for Protective Order , filed by Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Protective Order)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
53 ORDER approving as amended 52 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/22/2015. (CBU) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
54 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Bowman on behalf of Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Bowman, Daniel) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
55 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Discovery Conference held on 8/12/2015. The parties discussed the status of their electronic discovery plan. Discovery Conference set for 8/12/2015 at 02:00 PM in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
56 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Pamela G. Schneeman on behalf of CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY (Schneeman, Pamela) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
57 Defendant's ANSWER to 38 Amended Complaint , filed by CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY.(Bowman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
58 DEMAND for Trial by Jury, filed by Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Bowman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
59 Notice of Service of Discovery Request to Defendant City of Indianapolis and Marion County, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS.(Young, John) Modified on 7/29/2015 (TMB). (Entered: 07/28/2015)
60 Notice of Service of Discovery Request to Defendant Marion County Sheriff, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS.(Young, John) Modified on 7/29/2015 (TMB). (Entered: 07/28/2015)
61 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Discovery Conference held on 8/12/2015. The parties reported on the status of discovery and are in the process of finalizing their revised ESI Supplement to the Case Management Plan, which the parties are ordered to file on or before August 25, 2015. In light of the current status of discovery in this matter, the Court sua sponte amends paragraph III(E) of the approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 & 44] as follows: E. Plaintiff(s) shall serve Defendant(s) (but not file with the Court) a statement of special damages, if any, and make a settlement demand, on or before January 18, 2016. Defendant(s) shall serve on the Plaintiff(s) (but not file with the Court) a response thereto on or before February 2, 2016. Status Conference set for 10/2/2015 at 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
62 Amended ESI Supplement to CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS . (Young, John) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
63 AMENDED ESI SUPPLEMENT TO CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN 62 Accepted and incorporated as paragraph III(M) of the approved Case Management Plan [Dkt. 17]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/31/2015.(SWM) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
64 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference is set for 2/9/2017 at 1:30 PM in room #349, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Richard L. Young. Jury Trial (3 days) is set for 2/21/2017 at 9:00 AM in room #349, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Richard L. Young. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 9/2/2015.(TMD) (Entered:

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 7 of 33

09/15/2015 09/15/2015 09/16/2015 10/05/2015
10/14/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015 10/15/2015
10/21/2015 10/23/2015 11/06/2015 11/13/2015

09/02/2015)
65 MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Management Deadline, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Amending CMP Deadline)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
66 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Responses, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS.(Young, John) Modified on 9/16/2015 (NRN). (Entered: 09/15/2015)
67 ORDER granting Defendants' 65 Motion to Amend Case Management Deadline. The Case Management Plan is hereby amended and the deadline in which to add an additional party is extended to October 15, 2015. All other requirements of the parties' approved Case Management Plan [Dkts. 17 and 61] remain in effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/16/2015. (SWM) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
69 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 10/2/2015. The parties reported on the status of discovery. In order to assist the Court in monitoring the ongoing discovery in this matter, on or before November 6, 2015, the parties shall jointly file a "Joint Report on the Status of Discovery" *see order for additional information* Status Conference set for 11/12/2015 at 02:00 PM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
70 ORDER denying non−party B.A. Corley's 35 Motion to Transfer Case to the Indiana Supreme Court (see Order). Copy to B.A. Corley via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/14/2015. (SWM) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
71 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) Modified on 11/5/2019 (JRB). (Entered: 10/15/2015)
72 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 71 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
73 Designation of Evidence re 71 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Mark Thompson Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit B − Byron Frierson Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit C− William Young Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit D − Michael Driver Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit E − Michael Boyd Affidavit, # 6 Exhibit F − Nicholas Swords Affidavit, # 7 Exhibit G − Roy Shofner Affidavit, # 8 Exhibit H − Jane Ruemmele Affidavit, # 9 Exhibit I − Novella Nedeff Affidavit, # 10 Exhibit J − James Kissee Affidavit, # 11 Exhibit K − Kristian Law Affidavit, # 12 Exhibit L − Class member submissions, # 13 Exhibit M − Indiana Lawyer 12−22−14, # 14 Exhibit N − Def MCS 2nd Supp Answer to Interrogatories, # 15 Exhibit O − Indiana Lawyer 8−15−14, # 16 Exhibit P − Terry Clayton Affidavit, # 17 Exhibit Q − Indy Channel 12−12−2014, # 18 Exhibit MCS Document Production)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
74 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 11/29/15 re 71 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extention of Time to Respond to Motion to Certify Class)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
75 ORDER granting Defendants' 74 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 11/30/2015 re 71 MOTION to Certify Class . Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/23/2015. (SWM) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
77 REPORT Parties' Joint Report on the Status of Discovery by CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
78 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 11/12/2015. The parties discussed issues raised in their Joint Report on the Status of Discovery [Dkt. 77.]. With the agreement of the parties,

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 8 of 33

11/30/2015
12/04/2015 12/11/2015 12/14/2015 12/17/2015 12/18/2015
01/11/2016 01/19/2016 01/19/2016 01/19/2016 01/21/2016

the settlement conference scheduled for March 18, 2016 is hereby CONTINUED to August 12, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. All other requirements of the Court's order dated 2/27/2015 [Dkt. 16] remain in effect. Status Conference set for 12/17/2015 at 09:10 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
79 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 1/28/16 re 71 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Second Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Motion for Class Certification)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
80 NOTICE of Appearance by Ameen R. Najjar on behalf of Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Najjar, Ameen) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
82 REPORT Parties' Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
83 Emergency MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance and for a Stay of this Litigation Pending the Appearance of Replacement Counsel, filed by Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Douglas M. Kowalski, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
84 REQUEST for Production of Documents, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS.(Young, John) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
85 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 12/17/2015. This matter comes before the Court on counsel for the City's Emergence Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearances and for a Stay of this Litigation Pending the Appearance of Replacement Counsel. [Dkt. 83.] Following a discussion with the parties, that motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This matter is STAYED pending further order of the Court. Counsel's motion to withdraw is taken under advisement pending the appearance of replacement counsel. Also before the Court is Defendants' Unopposed Second Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Motion for Class Certification. That motion is GRANTED and Defendants are granted an enlargement of time to and including February 29, 2016 in which to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. Furthermore, the deadline for the parties to file their next Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery [see Dkt. 69 at 2] is hereby enlarged from January 15, 2016 to February 26, 2016. Status Conference set for 1/21/2016 at 08:40 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* (NLR) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
86 NOTICE of Service of Request for Admissions to Defendant Marion County Sheriff, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
88 NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony W. Overholt on behalf of Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
89 B.A. Corley's Objection to "Obstructive" Ruling. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(NRN) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
91 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 70 Order on Motion to Transfer Case, filed by non−party B. A. CORLEY (No fee paid with this filing). **Received via email from USCA on 1/29/2016.** (Attachments: # 1 Envelope, # 2 USCA Letter)(LBT) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
90 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 1/21/2016. The parties discussed the status of discovery. The parties were asked to expedite their meet−and−confer over a pending discovery

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 9 of 33

01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 02/10/2016 02/12/2016
02/15/2016 02/16/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/23/2016 02/25/2016 02/26/2016
03/02/2016

dispute and contract chambers for a telephone conference if the parties are not able to resolve their dispute. New counsel for Defendant Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County has appeared. Accordingly, the motion of prior counsel for Defendant Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County to withdraw their appearances in this matter [Dkt. 83] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to show Amanda J. Dinges, Ameen R. Najjar and Daniel P. Bowman as terminated on the docket. The December 18, 2015 stay of this matter [Dkt. 85] is hereby lifted. Status Conference set for 3/2/2016 at 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) Modified on 1/25/2016 to correct typo and filed date (NRN). (Entered: 01/22/2016)
92 PARTIES' SHORT RECORD re 91 Notice of Appeal − Instructions for Attorneys and Designation of Record information attached. (copy mailed to Appellant/Non−party, B. A. Corley) (LBT) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
93 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 91 Notice of Appeal. − for Court of Appeals Use Only. (LBT) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
94 USCA Case Number 16−1176 for 91 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 PLRA Fee Notice)(LBT) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
95 MOTION to Serve More than 25 Requests for Admission, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Requests for Admission, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Young, John) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
96 SCHEDULING ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Serve More Than 25 Requests for Admissions [Dkt. 95]. Any response to the motion is due on or before February 16, 2016. Any reply in support of the Motion is due on or before February 18, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/12/2016.(SWM) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
97 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Matthew C. Boldt, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Young, John) (Entered: 02/15/2016)
98 ORDER granting 97 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Matthew C. Boldt withdrawn as counsel for the Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/16/2016. (CBU) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
99 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 95 Motion to Serve More than 25 Requests for Admission Pursuant to Local Rule 36−1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/19/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
100 NOTICE of Service of Requests for Admission to Defendant Marion County Sheriff, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
101 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Requests, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
102 REPORT Parties Joint Report on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − proposed Quick Peek Order, # 2 Exhibit B − 37−1 letter)(Young, John) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
104 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 5/2/16 re 71 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Clase Certification)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
105 ORDER granting Defendants' 104 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 5/2/2016 re 71 MOTION to Certify Class . No further enlargements will be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/2/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 03/02/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 10 of 33

03/03/2016
03/18/2016 03/24/2016 03/30/2016 03/31/2016
03/31/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016

106 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 3/2/2016. The Court and parties discussed the parties' supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery. [Dkt. 102.] A discussion was held regarding the parties' proposed order memorializing a "quick peek" agreement. [Dkt. 102−1.] Possible revisions to the proposed order were discussed. The parties were instructed to move for the entry of such an order if they wish it to be entered. The Court and parties also discussed a number of discovery disputes. The parties' are ordered to file their next Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery on or before March 30, 2016. Status Conference set for 3/31/2016 at 08:40 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *see order for additional information* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (NLR) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
107 MANDATE of USCA as to 91 Notice of Appeal (USCA #16−1176) − IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for failure to pay the required docketing fee pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant pay the appellate fee of $505.00 to the clerk of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall collect the appellate fees from the prisoner's trust fund account using the mechanism of Section 1915(b). Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 1997). (MAG) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
108 MOTION for Protective Order Agreed "Quick Peek" Inspection Protective Order, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
110 REPORT , Parties' 3−30−2016 Joint Discovery Report by All Plaintiffs. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
111 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 3/31/2016. The parties discussed the status of and future plans for discovery, as well as the parties' proposed "quick peek" agreement. Status Conference set for 5/4/2016 at 01:00 PM (Eastern) in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore to discuss the parties' Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery, which is due on or before May 3, 2016, as well as any proposed changes to the Case Management Plan. *See order for additional information.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
112 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER Approved as Amended 108 for "Quick Peek" Inspection of Documents claimed to be subject to a deliberative process privilege or attached to Attorney−Client/Work Product Communications. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/31/2016.(MAC) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
114 MOTION to Strike the Testimony of William Young, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
115 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 114 MOTION to Strike the Testimony of William Young , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cited Portions of the Deposition of William E. Young, # 2 Exhibit Cited Portions of the Deposition of Tammy Wood)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
116 RESPONSE in Opposition re 71 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A 72 Hour Case Handling & Disposition Procedures, # 2 Exhibit Cited Portions of L. Dezelan Deposition, # 3 Exhibit Cited Portions of T. Wood Deposition, # 4 Exhibit Cited Portions of M. Thompson Deposition, # 5 Exhibit Cited Portions of W. Young Deposition)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
117 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Response in Opposition to Motion re 71 MOTION to Certify Class Declaration of John Deiter, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/02/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 11 of 33

05/02/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016 05/02/2016 05/03/2016 05/05/2016
05/10/2016 05/11/2016 05/12/2016 05/19/2016 05/24/2016
05/25/2016

118 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Response in Opposition to Motion re 71 MOTION to Certify Class Declaration of James Martin, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
119 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Response in Opposition to Motion re 71 MOTION to Certify Class Declaration of Derek Peterson, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
120 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Response in Opposition to Motion re 71 MOTION to Certify Class Declaration of Louis Dezelan, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
121 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Response in Opposition to Motion re 71 MOTION to Certify Class Declaration of Tammy Wood, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
122 REPORT Parties May 3, 2016 Joint Discovery Report on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
123 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Status Conference held on 5/4/2016. The parties discussed their Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery 122 . The approved Case Management Plan as amended 17 & 44 is hereby amended as follows: II. Jurisdiction and Statement of Claims C. On or before February 13, 2017, and consistent with the certification provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), the party with the burden of proof shall file a statement of the claims or defenses it intends to prove at trial, stating specifically the legal theories upon which the claims or defenses are based. Discovery due by 2/3/2017. Dispositive Motions due by 3/6/2017. Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery due by 6/9/2016. Discovery Conference set for 6/13/2016 at 09:00 AM (Eastern) in room #257, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *See order for additional deadlines and information.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
124 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Request, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
125 Joint MOTION to Continue Trial Date, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Young, John) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
126 First MOTION for Extension of Time to June 30, 2016 to Reply on Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
127 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 126 Motion for Extension of Time to File a reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification to 6/30/2016. No further enlargements will be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 5/19/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
128 ORDER granting 125 Motion to Continue. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/09/17 is VACATED AND RESET to 11/8/2017 at 3:00 PM (Eastern Time) in room #349, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Richard L. Young. Jury Trial (10 days) set for 2/21/17 is VACATED AND RESET to 12/7/2017 at 9:00 AM (Eastern Time) in room #349, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Richard L. Young. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 5/24/2016.(TMD) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
129 Supplemental MOTION for Protective Order Supplemental Agreed Order for "Quick Peek" Inspection of Documents Claimed to be Subject to a Deliverative Process or Attorney−Client/Work Product Privileges, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 12 of 33

05/27/2016 05/27/2016 06/01/2016 06/09/2016 06/13/2016 06/13/2016 06/14/2016
06/17/2016 06/27/2016 06/27/2016 06/27/2016
06/27/2016 06/27/2016
06/28/2016

SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
130 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 30, 2016 to respond to Defendant's Motion to Strike Testimony of William Young, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Young, John) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
131 ORDER approving 129 Motion for Protective Order and it is entered (marginal). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 5/27/2016. (CBU) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
132 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 130 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant Marion County Sheriff's Motion to Strike Testimony of William Young to 6/30/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/1/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
133 REPORT Parties June 9, 2016 Joint Discovery Report on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
134 Witness List , filed by Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
135 Exhibit List , filed by Defendant CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
136 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Discovery Conference held on 6/13/2016. The parties discussed the status of and future plans for discovery. Plaintiffs were authorized to file motion to compel regarding a number of discovery requests to which Defendants have not yet fully responded. The parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery shall be filed on or before July 5, 2016. Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/7/2016 at 9:00 AM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *See order for additional information.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
137 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Requests, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
138 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard G. McDermott on behalf of Interested Party AMITAV THAMBA. (McDermott, Richard) Modified on 6/28/2016 to correct party role (NRN). (Entered: 06/27/2016)
139 Emergency MOTION to Quash or in the Alternative, Modifying Subpoena, filed by Interested Party AMITAV THAMBA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Subpoena)(McDermott, Richard) Modified on 6/28/2016 to correct party role (NRN). (Entered: 06/27/2016)
140 MOTION to Quash Last Minute−Served Subpoena for Deposition, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Quash Last Minute−Served Subpoena for Deposition)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
141 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Subpoena of Amitav Thamba, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
142 MOTION for Extension of Time to August 1, 2016 to Respond to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Young, John) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
143 MOTION for Leave to File Over−sized Brief on Class Cert Reply, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS, AMITAV THAMBA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 06/28/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 13 of 33

06/30/2016 06/30/2016
06/30/2016 07/05/2016 07/05/2016 07/05/2016 07/07/2016 07/07/2016 07/08/2016 07/14/2016
07/21/2016

144 RESPONSE to 114 Motion to Strike Testimony of William Young, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Affidavit of William Young)(Young, John) Modified on 7/1/2016 to create link to motion (LBT). (Entered: 06/30/2016)
145 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS: This matter comes before the Court on Interested Party Amitav Thamba's Emergency Motion to Quash or in the Alternative, Modifying Subpoena [Dkt. 139] and Defendants' Motion to Quash Last Minute−Served Subpoena for Deposition [Dkt. 140]. Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Subpoena of Amitav Thamba [Dkt. 141], and therefore, the Emergency Motion to Quash [Dkt. 139] and Motion to Quash [Dkt. 140] are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/30/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
146 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 142 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification to 8/1/2016 (see Order for additional information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/30/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
148 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 143 Motion for Leave to File Oversized Brief. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief on class certification not exceeding 35 pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/5/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
149 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to 07/21/2016 re 114 MOTION to Strike the Testimony of William Young , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extention of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike the Testimony of William Young)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
150 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to 07/08/2016 to file Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery and the July 7th Status Conference re Discovery, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Postponing Joint Report and Conference Call on the Status of Discovery)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
151 ORDER granting 150 Motion for Extension of Time to File to 7/8/2016 to file the next supplemental joint report on the status of discovery. The TELEPHONIC Status Conference reset for 7/12/2016 at 2:30 PM (Eastern) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/7/2016.(CBU) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
153 ORDER granting 149 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 7/21/2016 re 114 MOTION to Strike the Testimony of William Young. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/7/2016. (CBU) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
154 REPORT Parties' July 5, 2016 Joint Report on the Status of Discovery by CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
155 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/12/2016. The parties discussed the status of and future plans for discovery. The parties are reminded to review and comply with all requirements of the Court's order scheduling the upcoming settlement conference. [Dkt. 16 at 2−5; Dkt. 78.] The parties are ordered to file their next Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery on or before August 4, 2016. Thereafter the parties shall file each subsequent Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery on each twenty−eighth day thereafter until the parties report that all discovery in this matter has been completed. *See order for additional information.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
156 REPLY in Support of Motion re 114 MOTION to Strike the Testimony of William Young , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/21/2016)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 14 of 33

07/28/2016 07/28/2016
07/29/2016 08/03/2016 08/04/2016 08/04/2016 08/05/2016 08/09/2016
08/12/2016
09/01/2016 09/08/2016

157 REPLY in Support of Motion re 71 MOTION to Certify Class , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
158 Designation of Evidence re 157 Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S − Sheriff Layton deposition, # 2 Exhibit T − Royce Cole deposition, # 3 Exhibit U − Michael Driver deposition, # 4 Exhibit V − Terry Clayton deposition, # 5 Exhibit W − Nicholas Swords deposition, # 6 Exhibit X − Roy Shofner deposition, # 7 Exhibit Y − James Martin deposition, # 8 Exhibit Z − Eva Talley−Sanders deposition, # 9 Exhibit AA − Derek Peterson deposition, # 10 Exhibit BB − Geneva Roembke deposition, # 11 Exhibit CC − Louis Dezelan deposition, # 12 Exhibit DD − Marvin Thornsberry deposition, # 13 Exhibit EE − Padfield study, # 14 Exhibit FF − Court's 4−13−15 correspondence, # 15 Exhibit GG − Robert Sandy report, # 16 Exhibit HH − Barb Thompson affidavit, # 17 Exhibit II − Tyler Tech. proposal email, # 18 Exhibit JJ − Amitav Thamba deposition)(Young, John) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
159 RESPONSE to Discovery Request, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS.(Young, John) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
160 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to October 12, 2016 to Submit Settlement Statement and to Postpone Settlement Conference, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Young, John) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
161 REPORT Parties' 8−4−16 Joint Report on Status of Discovery by MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
162 ORDER denying Parties' 160 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Settlement Statement and to Postpone Settlement Conference. The August 12, 2016 settlement conference will proceed as scheduled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/4/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
163 Joint MOTION for Relief from order Requiring Filing of Draft Settlement Agreement, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Relief from Order Requiring Filing of Draft Settlement Agreement)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
164 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Parties' 163 Joint Motion for Relief from Order Requiring Filing of Draft Settlement Agreement. The parties are relieved of the obligation to file a fully negotiated draft settlement prior to the August 12, 2016 settlement conference; however, Defendants are directed to submit a Word version of a draft standard agreement that is acceptable to Defendants, which the Court and parties may use as the foundation for a settlement agreement in the event this matter is resolved. Such draft should be forwarded to the Magistrate Judge at MJDinsmore@insd.uscourts.gov on or before August 11, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/9/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
165 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Settlement Conference held on 8/12/2016. Settlement was not achieved. At the conclusion of the settlement conference, the parties discussed the status of and future plans for discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/8/2016 at 11:00 AM (Eastern Time) to discuss the parties' next supplemental joint report on the status of discovery, due September 1, 2016. *See order for additional information.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
166 REPORT Parties 9−1−16 Joint Report on Status of Discovery by MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
168 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/8/2016. The parties discussed the status of and future plans for discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/5/2016 at 1:00 PM

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 15 of 33

09/29/2016 09/30/2016 09/30/2016 10/05/2016
10/14/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 11/02/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016 11/09/2016 11/16/2016

(Eastern Time) to discuss case status and the parties' next supplemental joint report on the status of discovery, due September 29, 2016. *See order for additional information.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
169 REPORT Parties September 29, 2016 Joint Report on Status of Discovery by MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
171 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 71 Motion to Certify Class − SEE ENTRY. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 9/30/2016. (TMD) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
172 ORDER denying as moot Defendants' 114 Motion to Strike the Testimony of William Young. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 9/30/2016. (TMD) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
173 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/5/2016. The parties discussed the status of and future plans for discovery. The parties jointly moved to amend certain case management deadlines. That motion is hereby GRANTED and the approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 , 44 , & 123 ] is hereby amended as follows: II. Jurisdiction and Statement of Claims C. On or before February 24, 2017, and consistent with the certification provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), the party with the burden of proof shall file a statement of the claims or defenses it intends to prove at trial, stating specifically the legal theories upon which the claims or defenses are based. IV. Discovery and Dispositive Motions D. Dispositive Motions due by 3/17/2017. Discovery due by 2/17/2017. All other requirements of the approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 , 44 , & 123 ] remain in effect. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/3/2016 at 11:00 AM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore to discuss the parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on the Status of Discovery due October 27, 2016. *See order for additional deadlines and information.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
174 Notice from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re Docketing of Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23(f) in USCA (USCA #16−8024). (LBT) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
175 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Discovery Report, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
177 NOTICE of Defendants' Report on the Status of Discovery, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
178 MOTION to Stay , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
179 RESPONSE in Opposition re 178 MOTION to Stay , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
180 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/3/2016. The parties discussed the status of discovery, as well as Plaintiffs' motion to stay. The conference was concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 11/08/2016)
181 REPLY in Support of Motion re 178 MOTION to Stay , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
182 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 178 MOTION to Stay filed by MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS, MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON for Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 16 of 33

11/23/2016 12/05/2016 12/20/2016 12/21/2016
12/22/2016 12/23/2016 12/27/2016 12/27/2016 12/27/2016 12/28/2016 12/28/2016 12/29/2016
12/30/2016 07/10/2017
08/17/2017

11/16/2016. Motions referred to Mark J. Dinsmore.(JRB) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
183 REPORT Parties November 23, 2016 Joint Report on Status of Discovery by MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
184 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 178 MOTION to Stay, filed by MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS, MICHAEL BOYD and TERRY CLAYTON. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 12/5/2016.(SWM) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
185 REPORT Parties 12−20−16 Joint Report on Status of Discovery by MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
186 USCA Order (Certified) Granting Plaintiffs/Petitioners' Petition for Permission to Appeal as to 171 Order on Motion to Certify Class. Petitioners shall pay the required appellate fees to the clerk of the district court within ten days from the entry of this order pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d)(1). (No fee paid with this filing) **Docketed as a Notice of Appeal to open appeal database.** (LBT) Modified on 12/21/2016 (LBT). (Entered: 12/21/2016)
187 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505.00 receipt number IP053730 re 186 Notice of Appeal filed by MICHAEL DRIVER (USCA #16−8024 or other applicable number to the appeal assigned on the 7th Circuit CA general docket) (DJH) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
188 RESPONSE to 183 Discovery Request, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS.(Young, John) Modified on 12/27/2016 (JRB). (Entered: 12/23/2016)
189 PARTIES' SHORT RECORD re 186 Notice of Appeal − Instructions for Attorneys and Designation of Record information attached. (LBT) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
190 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 186 Notice of Appeal. − for Court of Appeals Use Only. (LBT) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
191 USCA Case Number 16−4239 for 186 Notice of Appeal filed by MICHAEL DRIVER. (LBT) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
192 ORDER adopting 184 Report and Recommendations. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/28/2016. (JRB) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
193 JUDGMENT − Pursuant to the Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this matter is now administratively closed. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/28/2016.(JRB) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
194 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 186 Notice of Appeal (USCA #16−4239). (Attachments: # 1 Pleadings Doc. (1−70), # 2 Pleadings Doc. (71−110), # 3 Pleadings Doc. (111−End), # 4 Oversized Doc. 158 (Part 1 of 3), # 5 Oversized Doc. 158 (Part 2 of 3), # 6 Oversized Doc. 158 (Part 3 of 3), # 7 Notice to Transmit Record)(MAT) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
195 Appeal Remark re 186 Notice of Appeal (USCA #16−4239): Original record on appeal filed electronically. Contents of record: 3 vol. pleadings. 3 vol. loose pleadings. (LBT) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
196 MANDATE of USCA as to 186 Notice of Appeal filed by MICHAEL DRIVER (USCA #16−4239) − The decision of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The above is in accordance with the decision of this court entered on June 15, 2017. Costs to be awarded to the prevailing party. Bill of Costs Taxed in Favor of: Appellant Michael Boyd ; Appellant Terry Clayton ; Appellant Michael Driver ; Appellant Roy Shofner ; Appellant Nicholas Swords in the amount of $500.00. (MAT) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
197 MOTION to Modify Class Certification Order Consistent with Seventh Circuit Opinion, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 17 of 33

08/31/2017 09/06/2017 09/08/2017 09/12/2017 09/12/2017 09/13/2017
09/15/2017 09/15/2017 09/19/2017
09/19/2017 09/26/2017 10/03/2017

198 RESPONSE in Opposition re 197 MOTION to Modify Class Certification Order Consistent with Seventh Circuit Opinion , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
199 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to September 15, 2017 re 197 MOTION to Modify Class Certification Order Consistent with Seventh Circuit Opinion , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
200 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 199 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 9/15/2017 re 197 MOTION to Modify Class Certification Order Consistent with Seventh Circuit Opinion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/8/2017. (SWM) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
201 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF . (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
202 MOTION for Pretrial Conference , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Setting PTC)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
203 ORDER granting Defendants' 202 Motion for Pretrial Conference. Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 9/18/2017 at 3:00 PM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Counsel shall attend the conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/13/2017.(SWM) Modified on 9/15/2017 (GD). (Main Document 203 replaced on 9/15/2017) (GD). (Entered: 09/14/2017)
205 Proposed Scheduling Order, CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS . (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
206 REPLY in Support of Motion re 197 MOTION to Modify Class Certification Order Consistent with Seventh Circuit Opinion , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
207 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Pretrial Conference held on 9/18/2017. Parties discussed status of & future plans for discovery. Approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 , 44 , 123 , & 173 ] hereby amended as follows: Dispositive Motions due by 5/18/2018; Discovery due by 4/20/2018. Parties' Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due by 10/16/2017 & every 28th day thereafter. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/18/2017 at 12:00 PM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL DEADLINES & INFORMATION.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
208 MOTION to Set a Class Certification Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes on Rule 23 Factors, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Setting Class Certification Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes on Rule 23 Factors)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
209 RESPONSE in Opposition re 208 MOTION to Set a Class Certification Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes on Rule 23 Factors , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mullins Case, 7th Cir, # 2 Exhibit Young Case, 6th Cir)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
210 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to 10/09/2017 re 208 MOTION to Set a Class Certification Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes on Rule 23 Factors , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 18 of 33

10/04/2017 10/04/2017 10/10/2017 10/16/2017 10/18/2017
10/26/2017
11/10/2017 11/13/2017 11/15/2017 12/11/2017 12/14/2017
12/20/2017

COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting EOT to file Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification Hearing)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
211 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Requests, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
212 ORDER granting Defendants' 210 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 10/9/2017 re 208 MOTION to Set a Class Certification Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes on Rule 23 Factors. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/4/2017. (SWM) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
213 REPLY in Support of Motion re 208 MOTION to Set a Class Certification Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes on Rule 23 Factors , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
214 REPORT Parties October 16, 2017 Joint Report on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
216 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/18/2017. Parties discussed status of & future plans for discovery. Court confirmed stay lifted & matter reopened. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/15/2017 at 5:00 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss status & parties' next Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 11/13/2017. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
217 SCHEDULING ORDER − Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/14/2019 at 01:30 PM in room #349, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Richard L. Young. Jury Trial set for 2/25/2019 at 09:00 AM in room #349, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Richard L. Young. The court has allotted eight days for this trial. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 10/26/2017.(JRB) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
218 EXHIBIT in Support of Motion re 208 MOTION to Set a Class Certification Hearing to Resolve Factual Disputes on Rule 23 Factors , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Defendants' Expert Report)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 11/10/2017)
220 STATUS REPORT Parties' Joint Status Report on Discovery, by All Plaintiffs. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
221 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/15/2017. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/14/2017 at 10:30 AM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
222 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
224 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 197 Motion to Amend Class Certification Order Consistent with Seventh Circuit Decision and GRANTING Defendants' 208 Request to set Class Certification Hearing. Class Certification Hearing is set for 2/16/2018 at 9:00 AM (Eastern Time) in room #349, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Richard L. Young. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/14/2017.(TMD) (Entered: 12/14/2017)
225 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/14/2017. Parties discussed status of & future plans for discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/10/2018 at 4:00 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 1/8/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 19 of 33

12/20/2017
01/08/2018 01/10/2018
01/16/2018 01/19/2018 01/22/2018 01/24/2018 01/25/2018 01/26/2018 01/29/2018
01/30/2018 02/05/2018

226 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 12/20/2017. Parties discussed issues relating to deposition of Jon Padfield & discovery relating thereto; Plaintiffs were authorized to move to compel such discovery if necessary. Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/19/2018 at 1:30 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss any required modifications to hearing schedule in light of Plaintiffs' data production. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
228 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
229 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/10/2018. Parties discussed status of & future plans for discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/7/2018 at 5:10 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next supplemental joint report on status of discovery due 2/5/2018. Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/19/2018 [Dkt. 226 at 1−2] remains on calendar as scheduled. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
231 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Requests, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
232 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 5, 2018 to Disclose Experts, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
233 SCHEDULING ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on 232 Plaintiffs' Verified Motion to Extend Time for Expert Disclosures. Response due 1/24/2018. Reply due 1/25/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/22/2018. (Entered: 01/22/2018)
234 RESPONSE in Opposition re 232 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 5, 2018 to Disclose Experts , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Dr. Robert Sandy Statement)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
235 REPLY in Support of Motion re 232 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 5, 2018 to Disclose Experts , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defs' Responses to Pls' RPD, # 2 Exhibit Defs' June 10, 2016 Letter re Discovery Issues, # 3 Exhibit Thamba to Judges and OD inmates)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
236 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/19/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery & readiness for upcoming class certification hearing. Court VACATES 2/16/2018 hearing re class certification, to be rescheduled by separate order. Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/7/2018 remains on calendar as scheduled. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
237 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 232 Motion to extend time for expert disclosures. T he Court hereby SUSPENDS the deadlines set forth in paragraphs II(C), III(G), (I), and (J), and IV(D) of the approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 , 44 , 123 , & 207 ]. The parties are directed to notify the Court upon production by Defendant of the requested OMS data, at which time the Court will reset the deadlines set forth above (See Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/29/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
238 NOTICE of Providing Supplemental Data, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
239 REPORT Parties Joint Report on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit GTL response to non−party request for production)(Young, John) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 20 of 33

02/08/2018
02/26/2018 02/26/2018 03/05/2018 03/12/2018
03/26/2018 04/02/2018 04/09/2018
04/13/2018 04/16/2018
04/30/2018 05/09/2018

241 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/7/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Court & parties also discussed resetting remaining case management deadlines. Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/7/2018 at 4:30 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status, rescheduling remaining case management deadlines & parties' next supplemental joint report on status of discovery due 3/5/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
242 RESPONSE to Discovery Request, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS.(Young, John) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
243 ***DUPLCIATE FILING OF 242 . PLEASE DISREGARD*** RESPONSE to Discovery Request, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS.(Young, John) Modified on 2/27/2018 (JRB). (Entered: 02/26/2018)
245 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Young, John) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
246 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/7/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Court & parties further discussed case schedule & Court hereby amends approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 , 44 , 123 , 173 , 207 , & 237 ]. Statement of Claims or Defenses due by 11/16/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 12/7/2018. Discovery due by 11/9/2018. Court does not anticipate any further enlargement of deadlines absent extraordinary circumstances. By 3/26/2018, parties shall move to continue trial. Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/9/2018 at 5:00 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 4/2/2018. *SEE ORDER FOR ALL DEADLINES.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
247 Joint MOTION to Vacate 217 Scheduling Order , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
248 REPORT of Parties Regarding Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
250 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/9/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/2/2018 at 1:00 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 4/30/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
251 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Requests, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
252 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 4/11/2018. Parties discussed issue that arose during deposition of Tim Clark. Court reminded parties of extremely limited circumstances under which deponent may be instructed not to answer question during a deposition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2), none of which appeared to apply in circumstances presented. Defendants' counsel agreed to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel all contact information for Beth Hallen, including but not limited to all telephone numbers, in possession of deponent Tim Clark. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
254 NOTICE of Filing of Parties' 21st Joint Discovery Status Report by All Plaintiffs (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
255 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/2/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/31/2018 at 8:30 AM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 21 of 33

05/25/2018 05/31/2018
06/01/2018
06/08/2018
06/21/2018 07/02/2018
07/19/2018 07/20/2018
08/06/2018 08/13/2018 08/17/2018
09/07/2018 09/10/2018

5/29/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
256 REPORT of Parties Regarding Status of Discovery by All Defendants. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
258 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/31/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 6/29/2018 at 10:45 AM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Joint Report on Status of Discovery 6/27/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
259 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of June 29, 2018 Telephonic Status Conference, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Continuance of 6.29.18 Telephonic Status Conference)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
260 ORDER granting Defendants' 259 Motion for Continuance. Status Conference RESET for 7/2/2018 09:45 AM (Eastern Time) in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. All other requirements of the Court's order dated May 31, 2018 [Dkt. 258 ] remain in effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/8/2018.(SWM) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
261 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − letter)(Young, John) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
263 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/2/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/20/2018 at 12:00 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 7/19/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
265 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
266 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/20/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/17/2018 at 2:30 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 8/16/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
267 NOTICE of Service of Expert Disclosures, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 08/06/2018)
268 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
270 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/17/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/12/2018 at 4:40 PM (Eastern Time) discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 9/10/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
271 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Responses, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
272 MOTION for Continuance , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Continuing 9.12.18 Telephonic Status Conference)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 22 of 33

09/10/2018 09/11/2018 09/17/2018
09/28/2018 10/01/2018
10/05/2018 10/15/2018
10/16/2018 11/01/2018 11/07/2018

273 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
274 ORDER granting Defendants' 272 Motion for Continuance. Status Conference RESET for 9/17/2018 02:00 PM (Eastern Time) in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. All other requirements of the Court's order dated August 17, 2018 [Dkt. 270 ] remains in effect. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/11/2018.(SWM) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
276 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/17/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/10/2018 at 12:30 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 10/8/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
277 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/31/18 for Defendants to Submit Their Expert Reports, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Grating Defendants' Unopposed EOT to Submit Expert Reports)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
278 ORDER granting Defendants' 277 Motion for Extension of Time. The approved Case Management Plan is amended. Scheduling: Dispositive Motions due by 3/8/2019., Discovery due by 2/8/2019. On or before October 16, 2018, the parties shall move to continue the trial of this matter until in or after December, 2019. In light of this order, the portion of the parties' March 26, 2018 motion seeking to continue the trial of this matter [Dkt. 247 ] is DENIED IN PART AS MOOT; the portion of that motion requesting that the Court schedule a class certification hearing remains pending. (See Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/1/2018. (MAC) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
280 NOTICE of Parties' Joint Discovery Report, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
281 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/10/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/7/2018 at 10:30 AM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 11/5/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
282 Joint MOTION for Continuance of Trial Date, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Continuance of Trial Date)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
283 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
285 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/7/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. In light of parties' 282 Joint Motion to Continue Trial Date, parties' previous 247 Joint Motion to Vacate and Reset the Trial and to Set the Class Certification Hearing is DENIED AS MOOT. Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/5/2018 at 10:15 AM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 12/3/2018. To the extent Defendant has not received responses to its outstanding nonparty requests for production by that date, counsel for Defendant is requested to include in the report the date by which such responses have been promised, if any, and if no such date has been provided, counsel for Defendant is requested to provide call in information for the Court's status conference to counsel for the nonparty, along with the Court's request that said counsel participate in the call (if counsel for the nonparty declines to participate as requested, a separate conference will be scheduled and said counsel will be ordered to attend). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 11/08/2018)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 23 of 33

12/03/2018 12/03/2018 12/05/2018
12/14/2018
12/21/2018 12/27/2018 01/02/2019
01/02/2019
01/04/2019 01/07/2019 01/22/2019 01/25/2019

287 Submission of Parties' Joint Discovery Report No. 29, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
288 ENTRY: Although President Trump has declared a federal holiday on Wednesday, December 5, 2018, to support a national day of mourning out of respect for the passing of former President George H.W. Bush, the Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/5/2018 at 10:15 AM in this matter will proceed as scheduled. SO ORDERED. By Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 12/3/2018. (GD) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
289 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/5/2018. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/2/2019 at 5:00 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 12/31/2018. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
290 ORDER granting 282 Motion for Continuance of Trial − The court sets this matter for hearing on Class Certification on MAY 9, 2019, at 2:45 p.m. Parties are ordered to appear before the Honorable Richard L. Young, in room 349 of theBirch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. The final pretrial conference setting of 2/14/19 and trial date of 2/25/19 are VACATED. These matters will be set by separate order, when necessary. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 12/14/2018.(JRB) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
291 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to January 31, 2019 to Submit Expert Reports, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
293 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
294 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Anthony W. Overholt, counsel for Defendants, is hereby ordered to show cause why he failed to appear for the January 2, 2019 telephonic status conference [Dkts. [ 289 ] & [ 292 ] in this matter. Counsel shall have through and including, January 11, 2019 to respond to this order. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause may result in sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/2/2018.(SWM) Modified on 1/3/2019 (SWM). (Entered: 01/03/2019)
295 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/2/2019. Defendants' counsel failed to appear. Plaintiffs' counsel reported on status of discovery. Court also discussed 291 Defendants' unopposed motion for an enlargement of time to serve Defendants' expert reports. That motion is hereby GRANTED. Approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 , 44 , 123 , 173 , 207 , 237 , 246 , & 278 ] is hereby further amended. Dispositive Motions due by 5/3/2019. Discovery due by 4/5/2019. Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/24/2019 at 3:15 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery now due 1/22/2019. *SEE ORDER FOR ALL AMENDED DEADLINES.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
296 RESPONSE to Rule to Show Cause (Verified), re 294 Order to Show Cause, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
297 MARGINAL ENTRY re 296 Response to Rule to Show Cause. The Court's January 2, 2019 Order to Show Cause is hereby DISCHARGED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/7/2019.(SWM) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
299 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
300 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/24/2019. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/21/2019 at 5:00 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 24 of 33

01/29/2019 01/31/2019 01/31/2019 01/31/2019 01/31/2019 02/04/2019 02/04/2019 02/04/2019 02/07/2019
02/13/2019
02/17/2019 02/18/2019 02/22/2019

2/19/2019. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
301 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 15, 2019 to Submit Expert Reports, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
302 RESPONSE in Opposition re 301 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 15, 2019 to Submit Expert Reports , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
303 Witness List , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Putative class members)(Young, John) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
304 Exhibit List , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Documents utilized in depositions)(Young, John) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
305 MOTION for Extension of Time to February 4, 2019 to File and Serve Final Witness and Exhibit Lists, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
306 ORDER granting Defendants' 305 Motion for Extension of Time to File final witness and exhibit lists to 2/4/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/4/2019. (SWM) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
307 Witness List Final, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
308 Exhibit List Final, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
309 REPLY in Support of Motion re 301 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 15, 2019 to Submit Expert Reports , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Rule 37.1 Letter)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
310 SCHEDULING ORDER: This cause comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Expert Report. [Dkt. 301.] This matter is set for a telephonic hearing on the above−noted motion on Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. (Eastern). Counsel shall attend the hearing by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/13/2019.(SWM) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
312 Surreply re 301 MOTION for Extension of Time to March 15, 2019 to Submit Expert Reports , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Waples to Overholt, 2−12−19)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 02/17/2019)
313 NOTICE of Filing of Parties' Joint Discovery Report, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 02/18/2019)
315 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference & Hearing held on 2/19/2019 re 301 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Expert Report. Court & parties discussed status of discovery. Defendants were authorized to file motion to compel with regard to all remaining discovery disputes between parties. Defendants shall file such motion to compel on or before February 26, 2019; Plaintiffs shall file any response to Defendants' motion to compel on or before March 5, 2019; and Defendants shall file

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 25 of 33

02/25/2019 02/26/2019 02/26/2019 02/26/2019
03/05/2019 03/06/2019
03/08/2019 03/11/2019

any reply in support of their motion to compel on or before March 8, 2019. Court heard argument from both parties re 301 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Expert Report. For reasons more fully set forth on record, Court hereby GRANTS IN PART & DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion. Approved Case Management Plan as amended [ 17 , 44 , 123 , 173 , 207 , 237 , 246 , 278 , & 295 ] is hereby further amended. Statement of Claims or Defenses due by 5/24/2019. Dispositive Motions due by 6/14/2019. Discovery due by 5/17/2019. No further enlargement of case deadlines is expected. Court hereby VACATES 2/21/2019 Telephonic Status Conference. Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/21/2019 at 3:30 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Report on Status of Discovery due 3/19/2019. *SEE ORDER FOR ALL AMENDED DEADLINES.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
314 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Requests, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
316 MOTION to Compel Production of Additional Expert Witness Materials, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
317 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 316 MOTION to Compel Production of Additional Expert Witness Materials , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
318 Designation of Evidence re 316 MOTION to Compel Production of Additional Expert Witness Materials , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A 8.6.18 Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert Witnesses, # 2 Exhibit B. Excerpt of spreadsheet of alleged over−detentions produced in connection with Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Expert Witnesses, # 3 Exhibit C. 1.17.19 Transcript of the Deposition of Steven R. Henderson, # 4 Exhibit D. 1.31.19 Expert Report of Brian D'Andrade, # 5 Exhibit E. 11.6.18 Overholt Rule 37.1 letter to Plaintiffs' counsel, # 6 Exhibit F. 1.28.19 Overholt Rule 37.1 letter to Plaintiffs' counsel, # 7 Exhibit G. 2.12.19 Waples response to 1.28.19 Rule 37.1 letter)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
319 RESPONSE in Opposition re 316 MOTION to Compel Production of Additional Expert Witness Materials , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
320 SCHEDULING ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Additional Expert Witness Materials. [Dkt. 316 .] This matter is set for a telephonic hearing on the above−noted motion on Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern). Counsel shall attend the hearing by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/6/2019.(SWM) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
322 REPLY in Support of Motion re 316 MOTION to Compel Production of Additional Expert Witness Materials , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − 3.6.19 email to Plaintiff's Counsel, # 2 Exhibit B − 3.7.18 Response from Plaintiff's Counsel)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
323 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Hearing held on 3/11/2019 re 316 Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Additional Expert Witness Materials. Subsequent to filing of motion, Plaintiffs produced information requested. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. In light of additional production, Defendants orally requested adjustment of case management deadlines; that request was granted over Plaintiffs' objection. Approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 , 44 , 123 , 173 , 207 , 237 , 246 , 278 , 295 , & 315 ] is hereby further amended. Statement of Claims or Defenses

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 26 of 33

03/25/2019 03/25/2019 03/27/2019
04/03/2019 04/08/2019
04/16/2019 04/18/2019 04/21/2019 04/24/2019
04/26/2019 05/17/2019 05/23/2019 06/04/2019

due by 6/7/2019. Dispositive Motions due by 6/28/2019. Discovery due by 5/31/2019. No further enlargement of the case deadlines is expected. Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/21/2019 is hereby CONTINUED to 3/27/2019 at 11:15 AM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery now due 3/25/2019. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
325 NOTICE of Parties' Joint Discovery Report No. 33, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
326 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
327 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/27/2019. Parties discussed status of discovery. Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/24/2019 at 1:45 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 4/22/2019. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
328 Exhibit List (Supplement), filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
329 MOTION for Continuance of May 9th Class Certification Hearing, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Continuing 5.9.19 Class Certification Hearing)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
330 ORDER granting 329 Motion for Continuance − IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the May 9, 2019 Class Certification Hearing is hereby continued to the 11th day of JULY, 2019, at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom #349. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 4/16/2019.(JRB) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
331 Exhibit List (Second Supplement), filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Young, John) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
332 NOTICE of Parties' April 22, 2019 Joint Report on the Status of Discovery, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 04/21/2019)
335 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/24/2019. Parties discussed status of discovery. At request & with agreement of parties, Court further amends approved Case Management Plan as amended [Dkts. 17 , 44 , 123 , 173 , 207 , 237 , 246 , 278 , 295 , 315 , & 323 ]. Statement of Claims or Defenses due by 6/14/2019. Discovery due by 6/14/2019. Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/22/2019 at 4:30 PM (Eastern Time) to discuss case status & parties' next Supplemental Joint Report on Status of Discovery due 5/20/2019. *SEE ORDER FOR ALL AMENDED DEADLINES.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
334 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Request, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS (Young, John) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
336 REPORT on Status of Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Young, John) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
338 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/22/2019. Parties discussed status of discovery. Conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
339 Exhibit List Defendants' Supplemental Final, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 27 of 33

06/15/2019 06/17/2019 06/25/2019 06/25/2019 06/26/2019
06/28/2019 06/28/2019 06/28/2019 06/28/2019
06/28/2019 06/28/2019 06/28/2019

SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
340 Statement of Claims by All Plaintiffs. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 06/15/2019)
341 Statement of Claims and Defenses by CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
342 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages on Summary Judgment Brief, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 06/25/2019)
343 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages on Summary Judgment Brief, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Oversized Summary Judgment Brief)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/25/2019)
344 ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on the parties' unopposed motions to file oversized briefs in support of their motions for summary judgment. [Dkts. 342 & 343 .] The Court, being duly advised, and mindful of Lord Polonius' admonition that "brevity is the soul of wit," WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, HAMLET act 2, sc. 2, hereby GRANTS the motions. The parties are permitted to file briefs in support of their motions for summary judgment in excess of the page limits established in Local Rule 7−1(e)(1), not to exceed 50 pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/26/2019. (SWM) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
345 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
346 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Motion re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment Second Declaration of James Martin, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
347 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Motion re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment Third Declaration of Derek Peterson, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
348 Designation of Evidence re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibits 1−20, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Cited Portions of Thamba Deposition, # 2 Exhibit 2 Cited Portions of Dezelan Deposition, # 3 Exhibit 3 MCSO−E000150264, # 4 Exhibit 4 MSCO−R0057, # 5 Exhibit 5 MCSO−N0000001527, # 6 Exhibit 6 MCSO−N0000001237, # 7 Exhibit 7 Sheriff000776, # 8 Exhibit 8 MCSO−N000000981, # 9 Exhibit 9 MCSO−R0000002, # 10 Exhibit 10 Cited Portions of Nelson Deposition, # 11 Exhibit 11 Cited Portions of Thornsberry Deposition, # 12 Exhibit 12 MCSO−N000000530, # 13 Exhibit 13 MCSO−N000000198, # 14 Exhibit 14 MCSO N000000198 attachment, # 15 Exhibit MCSO N000000531, # 16 Exhibit MCSO N000000487, # 17 Exhibit MCSO−N000000472 Attachment, # 18 Exhibit 18 MCSO−N000000479, # 19 Exhibit 19 MCSO−T0000007, # 20 Exhibit 20 MCSO−N0000000364 Attachment)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
350 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
351 Designation of Evidence re 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Expert Report by

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 28 of 33

06/28/2019 06/28/2019
06/28/2019 07/01/2019

Richard G. Kiekbusch, Ph.D., # 2 Exhibit 2. Justice Delayed, Report on Marion County Jail Inmate Release Times, by Robert Sandy, Steven Henderson, and Alison Shine, Aug. 6, 2018, # 3 Exhibit 3. Expert Report by Brian DAndrade, Jan. 31, 2019, # 4 Exhibit 4. Supplement to Expert Report by Brian DAndrade, April 12, 2019, # 5 Exhibit 5. Plaintiffs Supplemental Expert Disclosure, Experts Response to DAndrade Reports by Robert Sandy and Steven Henderson, May 10, 2019, # 6 Exhibit 6. Audit: Marion County inmates being held hours, sometimes days after posting bond, by Russ McQuaid with Fox 59, # 7 Exhibit 7. Email, Thamba to Marion County Criminal Courts, Nov. 21, 2017, # 8 Exhibit 8. BSC Sheriff Findings as of 5/12/2015 by the City of Indianapolis Information Services Agency, # 9 Exhibit 9. Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Twelfth Request for Production to Defendants Marion County Sheriff and City of Indianapolis, # 10 Exhibit 10. Emails: Young to Overholt, Jan 9, 2019; Overholt to Young, Jan. 21, 2019, # 11 Exhibit 11. Request for Proposal RFP−33SHF−130, # 12 Exhibit 12. Supplemental OMS Data, Jan. 26, 2018, # 13 Exhibit 13. Inmate Releases, Marion County Criminal Courts, Nov. 17, 2017, # 14 Exhibit 14. Declaration of Martin Murphy, # 15 Exhibit 15. Deposition of Rachel Coss, pages 8−12, 14, 17, # 16 Exhibit 16. Deposition of Brian DAndrade, pages 19−21, 25, # 17 Exhibit 17. Deposition of Louis Dezelan, page 10, # 18 Exhibit 18. Deposition of Byron Frierson, pages 7−10, # 19 Exhibit 19. Deposition of Gerry Gabler, pages 25, 31, # 20 Exhibit 20. Deposition of Steven Henderson, pages 20, 28, 38, 40, # 21 Exhibit 21. Deposition of Jim Nelson, pages 44−45, # 22 Exhibit 22. Deposition of Jon Padfield, Depo. II, pages 4−26, 30−32, 35−39, # 23 Exhibit 23. OMS Functional Limitations Inmate Booking (Depo. Exhibit 53), # 24 Exhibit 24. OMS Functional Limitations Inmate Releases (Depo. Exhibit 135), # 25 Exhibit 25. Deposition of Derek Peterson, pages 21, 58, 63, 69, # 26 Exhibit 26. Deposition of Robert Sandy, Depo II, pages 36−37, 41, # 27 Envelope 27. Deposition of Amitav Thamba, pages 4, 10, 23−24, 37, # 28 Exhibit 28. Deposition of Rick Thomas, pages 16−18, # 29 Exhibit 29. Deposition of Marvin Thornsberry, pages 3)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
352 Designation of Evidence re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment Part 2, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 21 MCSO N000000504, # 2 Exhibit 22 MCSO N0000001351, # 3 Exhibit 24 MCSO N000000365 Attachment 2, # 4 Exhibit 26 CHDRV001163, # 5 Exhibit 27 MCSO N000000386, # 6 Exhibit 28 MCSO N000000698, # 7 Exhibit 29 MCSO N000000698 Attachment, # 8 Exhibit 30 MCSO N000000429, # 9 Exhibit 31 CHDRV001353, # 10 Exhibit 32 MCSO N000000358, # 11 Exhibit 34 MCSO N000000382, # 12 Exhibit 35 MCSO N000000506, # 13 Exhibit 36 CHDRV000145, # 14 Exhibit 37 MCSO N000000381, # 15 Exhibit 38 MCSO N00902, # 16 Exhibit 39 CHDRV000674, # 17 Exhibit 40 CHDRV001357, # 18 Exhibit 41 MCSO N000000470)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
353 Designation of Evidence re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment Part 3, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 42MCSO N000000489, # 2 Exhibit 43 MCSO−R000001, # 3 Exhibit 44 MCSO N000000372 Attachment, # 4 Exhibit 45 MCSO N000000367, # 5 Exhibit 46 MCSO N000000511, # 6 Exhibit 47 MCSO N000000739, # 7 Exhibit 48 MCSO N000000512, # 8 Exhibit 49 MCSO N000000371, # 9 Exhibit 50 MCSO T00000034, # 10 Exhibit 51 MCSO N000000271, # 11 Exhibit 52 Cited Portions of Wood Deposition, # 12 Exhibit 53 MCSO T000000115, # 13 Exhibit 54 MCSO T0000002, # 14 Exhibit 55 MCSO R0000012, # 15 Exhibit 56 MCSO R0000049, # 16 Exhibit 57 MCSO R00064, # 17 Exhibit 58 MCSO 13th 000148, # 18 Exhibit 59 MCSO−13th 000151, # 19 Exhibit 60 MCSO 13th 00042, # 20 Exhibit 61 MCSO 13th 00060)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
354 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
355 Designation of Evidence re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment Part 4, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 23

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 29 of 33

07/02/2019 07/22/2019 07/23/2019 07/23/2019 07/24/2019 07/29/2019
07/29/2019 08/02/2019 08/06/2019

MCSO−N000000365, # 2 Exhibit 26 MCSO−P002564, # 3 Exhibit 33 MCSO−P002554)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
356 MOTION to Amend/Correct File Three Exhibits Instanter and for Leave to File Amended Summary Judgment Memorandum, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Amended Summary Judgment Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Three Exhibits Instanter and to File Amended Summary Judgment Memorandum)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
357 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 08/23/2019 re 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial, 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
358 ORDER granting Defendants' 356 Motion to File Three Exhibits Instanter and for Leave to File Amended Summary Judgment Memorandum. On or before July 26, 2019, Defendants shall file their three exhibits instanter and an amended summary judgment brief containing the citations to the filing numbers for the three exhibits, all of which shall be deemed filed as of June 28, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/23/2019. (SWM) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
359 ORDER granting Parties' 357 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 8/23/2019 re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/23/2019.(SWM) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
360 SCHEDULING ORDER: The court, having previously vacated the hearing setting of 7/11/19 now RESETS this matter for Class Certification Hearing on AUGUST 19, 2019, at 3:00 p.m. Parties are ordered to appear before the Honorable Richard L. Young, in room 349 of the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 7/24/2019.(JRB) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Deposition of A. Shine, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Defendants' First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Expert Witness Materials, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Plaintiffs Response to First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Expert Witness Materials, # 4 Exhibit 4 − R. Waples' email to A. Overholt, # 5 Exhibit 5 − June 7, 2019 Correspondence, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Deposition of B. D'Andrade, # 7 Exhibit 7− Deposition of R. Sandy, # 8 Exhibit 8 − MCSO R00069, # 9 Exhibit 9 − MCSO−N00000075, # 10 Exhibit 10 − CHDRV000589, # 11 Exhibit 11 − CHDRV000739, # 12 Exhibit 12 − MCSO−N000001602, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Sheriff_000191, # 14 Exhibit 14 − MCSO−R000046, # 15 Exhibit 15 − Excerpt from Henderson Spreadsheet 09−06−14)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
362 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts and in Opposition of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Regarding Computer Issues, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
363 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to August 26, 2019 re 361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts and for Continuance of Hearing on Class Certification, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Young, John) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
364 ORDER granting 363 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts to 8/26/19. The class certification hearing scheduled for August 19, 2019 is hereby VACATED. The Courtroom Deputy will contact counsel to reschedule the hearing. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 8/6/2019. (JRB) (Entered: 08/06/2019)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 30 of 33

08/13/2019 08/16/2019 08/19/2019 08/23/2019 08/23/2019 08/23/2019
08/23/2019 08/23/2019
08/30/2019 09/03/2019

365 SCHEDULING ORDER: The Class Certification hearing set August 19, 2019 was VACATED and is now RESET to OCTOBER 9, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. in Room 349 of the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 8/13/2019.(JRB) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
366 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to September 2, 2019 re 361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
367 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 366 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 9/3/2019 re 361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts Reply Deadline as to 361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts due by 9/10/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/19/2019.(SWM) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
368 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard Kiekbusch, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
369 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 368 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard Kiekbusch , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
370 RESPONSE in Opposition re 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 01 MCSO−E00298810, # 2 Exhibit 02 MCSO−N000001208 (1), # 3 Exhibit 03 MCSO−N000001207(1), # 4 Exhibit 04 MCSO−E00161371, # 5 Exhibit 05 MCSO−E00160100, # 6 Exhibit 06 Declaration of Terri Blakeman, # 7 Exhibit 07 March & April, 2013 Superior Court Executive Committee Minutes, # 8 Exhibit 08 6.24.19 email from Thamba to IT Department Staff, # 9 Exhibit 9 Declaration of Angela Grider, # 10 Exhibit 10 Cited Portions of the Declaration of Jon Padfield, # 11 Exhibit 11 Declaration of James Bradley, # 12 Exhibit 12 Cited Portions of the Deposition of James Bradley, # 13 Exhibit 13 MCSO−T00000112, # 14 Exhibit 14 6.26.13 email from V. Anderson re Odyssey Criminal Conversion, # 15 Exhibit 15 Sheriff_002405, # 16 Exhibit 16 Declaration of Ken Clark)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
371 RESPONSE in Opposition re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
372 Designation of Evidence re 371 Response in Opposition to Motion , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Layton Depo Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit Layton Depo Exhibit 12, Marion County Sheriff Sued for Illegal Detentions, Ind. Lawyer, Dec. 22, 2014, # 3 Exhibit Martin Depo Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit Nelson Depo Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit T. Wood Depo Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit Depo. Exhibit 239 Email Thamba to Fahey, # 7 Exhibit Rachel Coss Affidavit, # 8 Exhibit Shofner Jail Commitment Sentencing Order, # 9 Exhibit Shofner CCS, # 10 Exhibit Transcript of Shofner GP & Sentencing)(Waples, Richard) Modified to add link to 345 on 8/26/2019 (TMB). (Entered: 08/23/2019)
373 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to 09/27/2019 re 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial, 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Replies)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
374 ORDER granting 373 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 9/27/2019 re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial. No further enlargement of this deadline will be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/3/2019. (MAC) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 31 of 33

09/03/2019 09/03/2019
09/05/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/12/2019 09/20/2019
09/26/2019 09/27/2019 09/27/2019 09/27/2019 09/27/2019

375 RESPONSE in Opposition re 361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
376 Designation of Evidence re 375 Response in Opposition to Motion , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Depo of Alison Shine Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit 2 Depo of Brian D'Andrade Excepts, # 3 Exhibit 3 Depo of Rachel Coss Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit 4 Depo of Sandy II Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit 5 Deposition of Steven Henderson, # 6 Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Steven Henderson, # 7 Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Kathryn Ziegler, # 8 Exhibit 8 Parties' Joint Discovery Rpts, Magistrate's Entries, # 9 Exhibit 9 D'Andrade Invoices, # 10 Exhibit 10 Correspondence, Waples to Overholt, Sept. 3, 2019)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
377 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to 09/20/2019 re 368 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard Kiekbusch , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Experts)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
378 RESPONSE in Opposition re 368 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard Kiekbusch , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
379 ORDER granting Defendants' 377 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 9/20/2019 re 368 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard Kiekbusch. No further enlargement of this deadline will be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/6/2019. (SWM) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
380 REPLY in Support of Motion re 368 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard Kiekbusch , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Hanson v. Baxter Cty, Ark.,)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
381 REPLY in Support of Motion re 361 MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard Kiekbusch , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 2019 May 17 Sandy Dep 11−12, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Pltfs exh Roembke−72 (Shofner), # 3 Exhibit 3 − 2018−08−01 Verified Data (SHO excerpt), # 4 Exhibit 4 − Sep 2019 Boyd−Shine add'l emails prod, # 5 Exhibit 5 − MCSO−R00064, # 6 Exhibit 6 − 2019 May 17 Sandy Depo 59, # 7 Exhibit 7 − MCSO−T00000002, # 8 Exhibit 8 − 2018−08−01 Verified Data (Clayton excerpt))(Overholt, Anthony) Modified on 9/20/2019 (JRB). (Entered: 09/20/2019)
382 MOTION for Leave to File an Oversized Reply Brief in Support of Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
383 ORDER granting 382 Plaintiffs' Motion to File. Plaintiffs are permitted to file a reply brief in support of their motion for partial summary judgment in excess of the page limits established in Local Rule 7−1(e)(1), not to exceed 30 pages. *SEE ORDER.* Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/27/2019. (GD) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
384 REPLY in Support of Motion re 345 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
385 REPLY in Support of Motion re 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
386 Designation of Evidence re 385 Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 32 of 33

09/27/2019 10/21/2019 10/22/2019 11/05/2019
11/20/2019 01/13/2020 01/22/2020 02/05/2020 02/10/2020
03/03/2020 03/04/2020 03/11/2020

DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Depo. of James Bradley Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit 2 Depo. of Louis Dezelan Excerpt, # 3 Exhibit 3 Depo. of James Martin Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit 4 Depo. of Jon Padfield I Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit 5 Depo. of Derek Peterson Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit 6 Depo. of Amitav Thamba Excerpts, # 7 Exhibit 7 Second Declaration of Barbara Thompson, # 8 Exhibit 8 Purdue Professor to aid MCJ − Indy Star article, # 9 Exhibit 9 Defendants Privilege Log, # 10 Exhibit 10 Inmate Telephone Service, FCC)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
387 Surreply re 361 MOTION to Exclude Plantiffs' Experts , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
388 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 10/21/2019)
389 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Response to Defs' Subm of Suppl Authority, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS, re 388 Notice (Other). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Levy v. Marion County Sheriff) (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
390 ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION − The court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 71 with respect to the following classes:1) the Sheriff's practice of operating under a standard allowing up to 72 hours to release prisoners who are ordered released; and 2) the Sheriff's practice of employing a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended with respect to the timely release of prisoners. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 11/5/2019. (JRB) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
391 Notice of Docketing from 7th Circuit Court of Appeals − Case No. 19−8021 assigned to Petition for Permission to Appeal Class Certification Order filed with the 7th Circuit by Defendants MARION COUNTY SHERIFF and CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY. (LBT) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
392 USCA Order (#19−8021) − IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the petition for permission to appeal, filed by MARION COUNTY SHERIFF, et al, is DENIED. (LBT) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
393 MOTION to Approve Form of Class Notice and Opt−Out Form and to Set Date to Opt−Out, filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
394 RESPONSE in Opposition re 393 MOTION to Approve Form of Class Notice and Opt−Out Form and to Set Date to Opt−Out , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 02/05/2020)
395 REPLY in Support of Motion re 393 MOTION to Approve Form of Class Notice and Opt−Out Form and to Set Date to Opt−Out , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Waples, Richard) (Entered: 02/10/2020)
396 MOTION for Daubert Evidentiary Hearing, filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Setting Daubert Evidentiary Hearing)(Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
397 RESPONSE in Opposition re 396 MOTION for Daubert Evidentiary Hearing , filed by Plaintiffs MICHAEL BOYD, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL DRIVER, ROY SHOFNER, NICHOLAS SWORDS. (Waples, Richard) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
398 REPLY in Support of Motion re 396 MOTION for Daubert Evidentiary Hearing , filed by Defendants CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF. (Overholt, Anthony) (Entered: 03/11/2020)

Case: 1:14-cv-2076 As of: 05/05/2020 03:33 PM EDT 33 of 33

04/29/2020 04/30/2020 05/01/2020 05/01/2020

399 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 368 Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Richard Kiekbusch − SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 4/29/2020. (JRB) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
400 ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS 361 − Defendants Motion to Exclude Experts DKT. 361 is DENIED. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 4/30/2020. (AAS) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
401 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Hearing is set for 5/5/2020 at 2:00 PM (Eastern Time) before Judge Richard L. Young. The information needed to participate in this telephonic conference will be provided by a separate notification. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 5/1/2020.(TMD) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
403 ORDER denying as moot 396 DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR DAUBERT EVIDENTIARYHEARING − Defendants filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing on their Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs Experts. The court has ruled on that motion; consequently, the motion (Filing No. 396) is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 5/1/2020. (AAS) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

Case #: 1:14−cv−02076−RLY−MJD