Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN;

)

BENJAMIN CHEAVES;

)

JOHN CURRAN;

)

ALAN DALE;

)

MARK DANAK;

)

CHRISTOPHER DANIELS;

)

THOMAS FAST;

)

SEAN GABOYA;

)

FELIX GARCIA;

)

THOMAS HAYES;

)

BRIAN HUGHES;

)

KENNETH KECK;

)

NICHOLAS KOPERSKI;

)

ROBERT MARLOW;

)

RAYMOND MATHESON;

)

ROBERT MCLENDON, III;

)

JEFFREY MCLEOD;

)

SAVERIO MONTELEONE;

)

MATTHEW PRESLEY;

)

M. DU-WAYNE RAY;

)

CHRIS SCHMALTZ;

)

DAVID SHEPHERD;

)

DAVID THOMAS;

)

ROBERT TREUTEL, JR.;

)

ALLAN VIVES;

)

GARY ZIEMER;

)

RAMEY & KELLEY, INC. D/B/A ATLANTA EAGLE, )

a Georgia corporation; and

)

RAWHIDE LEATHER, INC., a Georgia corporation, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Civil Action File No.: 1:09-CV-3286-TCB

1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 46

v.

)

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, individually;

)

GEORGE TURNER, Interim Chief of Police for the )

City of Atlanta, in his official capacity;

)

CITY OF ATLANTA;

)

WILLIE ADAMS, III, individually;

)

BENNIE E. BRIDGES, individually;

)

JOHN H. BROCK, individually;

)

DIMITRIO O. CALDWELL, individually;

)

KELLY COLLIER, individually;

)

CRAIG CONDON, individually;

)

GREGORY D. DABNEY, individually;

)

STALONE DAVIS, individually;

)

CHRISTIPHER DOWD, individually;

)

JEREMY D. EDWARDS, individually;

)

HERMAN E. GLASS, individually;

)

ROBERT C. GODWIN, individually;

)

BRANDON JACKSON, individually;

)

DIMITRI JAQUES, individually;

)

MELONIE MAGUE, individually;

)

VICENTE MARCANO, individually;

)

CAYENNE MAYES, individually;

)

TIMOTHY MCCLAIN, individually;

)

JAMES MENZOIAN, individually;

)

DION MERIDITH, individually;

)

MARLON O. NOBLE, individually;

)

SCOTT PAUTSCH, individually;

)

DARNELL PERRY, individually;

)

SCOTT PERRY, individually;

)

WILLIAM PORTER, individually;

)

EDWARD RABB, individually;

)

CEDRIC F. SMITH, individually;

)

TYRONE TAYLOR, individually;

)

KELLEITA THURMAN, individually;

)

STEPHANIE UPTON, individually;

)

RONALD J. WALKER, individually;

)

WILLIAM WALTERS, individually;

)

2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 46

JARED G. WATKINS, individually;

)

DEBRA A. WILLIAMS, individually;

)

)

Defendants.

)

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Plaintiffs Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. du-Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr., Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer, Ramey & Kelley, Inc. d/b/a Atlanta Eagle, and Rawhide Leather, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs), by their attorneys, for their Complaint against George Turner, in his official capacity, City of Atlanta, Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter,
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 46
Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, and Debra A. Williams (collectively, “Defendants”), allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION 2. This Complaint asserts a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to redress Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution and Georgia Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to ask questions of and make comments to police officers regarding the discharge of their duties. This Complaint also seeks redress for the numerous state law torts committed by individual Defendants, including false imprisonment, assault, battery, and trespass. 3. Defendants violated the Constitution and committed said torts when, without search or arrest warrants, officers of the Atlanta Police Department (“APD”) raided the Atlanta Eagle (“the Eagle”) and Rawhide Leather (“Rawhide”) on September 10-11, 2009 (the “Raid”). During the Raid, officers of the APD detained all persons who were customers or employees at the Eagle and Rawhide (forcing most to lay flat on the ground, many to lay in spilled beer and broken glass, and restraining some with handcuffs); used excessive force, including
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 5 of 46
shoving individuals to the floor and kicking others already on the floor; made threats of improper and excessive violence; made anti-gay slurs; searched all persons on the premises; seized the driver’s licenses or other ID documents of persons on the premises; and entered the names of persons on the premises into a police computer and checked their names against a police database. These actions were taken without particularized reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that any individual patron, let alone every person at the establishment, was involved in any criminal activity whatsoever.
4. The only charges against anyone at the Eagle on the night of the Raid were filed against Eagle employees, for Atlanta City Code violations relating to allegedly unlicensed adult entertainment, because four dancers were observed, in the words of the arresting officers, allegedly “wearing underwear” and “dancing.”
5. Each and every patron of the Eagle and Rawhide Leather was detained, searched, and seized during the Raid. Not a single patron was charged with any crime.
6. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth herein.
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 6 of 46
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the laws and Constitution of the United States; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983; pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367; and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as an actual controversy exists within this Court’s jurisdiction. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202. 8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because at least one Defendant resides in this district and all Defendants reside in this State, and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth in this Complaint occurred within this district. 9. Plaintiffs provided the City of Atlanta with notice of their allegations by letter sent to the Council of the City of Atlanta via certified mail on November 30, 2009, in accordance with Georgia’s ante litem notice statute, O.C.G.A. § 3633-5. The City of Atlanta acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ ante litem notice by letter on December 15, 2009 and assigned claim number 09L0995 to it. Because thirty days have passed from the presentation of such claim to the City of Atlanta and the City of Atlanta has not acted upon it, see O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5(b), (c),
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 7 of 46
Plaintiffs now amend their Complaint to add additional allegations regarding their money damages claims against the City of Atlanta.
PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Geoffrey Calhoun is a resident of Georgia. He was a patron at the Atlanta Eagle the night of September 10-11, 2009. Herein, Calhoun and all individuals who are Plaintiffs and who were not working for the Eagle that night as owners, managers, employees, or independent contractors, are referred to as “Patron Plaintiffs,” and each was at the Atlanta Eagle the night of September 10-11, 2009. 11. Patron Plaintiff Benjamin Cheaves is a resident of Georgia. 12. Patron Plaintiff John Curran is a resident of Georgia. 13. Patron Plaintiff Alan Dale is a resident of Georgia. 14. Patron Plaintiff Mark Danak is a resident of Georgia. 15. Patron Plaintiff Christopher Daniels is a resident of New Hampshire. 16. Patron Plaintiff Thomas Fast is a resident of Georgia. 17. Patron Plaintiff Sean Gaboya is a resident of Georgia. 18. Patron Plaintiff Felix Garcia is a resident of Georgia. 19. Patron Plaintiff Thomas Hayes is a resident of Georgia. 20. Patron Plaintiff Brian Hughes is a resident of Georgia.
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 8 of 46
21. Patron Plaintiff Kenneth Keck is a resident of Georgia. 22. Patron Plaintiff Nicholas Koperski is a resident of Georgia. 23. Patron Plaintiff Robert Marlow is a resident of Georgia. 24. Patron Plaintiff Raymond Matheson is a resident of Georgia. 25. Patron Plaintiff Robert McLendon, III is a resident of Florida. 26. Patron Plaintiff Jeffrey McLeod is a resident of Georgia. 27. Patron Plaintiff Saverio Monteleone is a resident of New York. 28. Patron Plaintiff Matthew Presley is a resident of Georgia. 29. Patron Plaintiff Chris Schmaltz is a resident of Texas. 30. Patron Plaintiff David Thomas is a resident of Georgia. 31. Patron Plaintiff Robert Treutel, Jr. is a resident of Georgia. 32. Patron Plaintiff Allan Vives is a resident of Georgia. 33. Patron Plaintiff Gary Ziemer is a resident of Georgia. 34. Plaintiff M. du-Wayne Ray is a resident of Georgia. He is an employee of Rawhide Leather and was working for Rawhide Leather on September 10, 2009 when the Raid began. He is not an employee of Ramey & Kelley and does not work for the Eagle. 35. Plaintiff David Shepherd is a resident of Georgia. Plaintiff Shepherd lives in a private apartment he rents at 306 Ponce de Leon Avenue, located in the
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 9 of 46
same building as the Eagle. Collectively, the Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Ray and Shepherd are referred to herein as the “Individual Plaintiffs.”
36. Plaintiff Ramey & Kelley, Inc. d/b/a Atlanta Eagle (“Ramey & Kelley”) is a Georgia corporation which owns and operates the Atlanta Eagle (the “Eagle”), a business licensed as a Night Club and located at 306 Ponce de Leon Avenue in Atlanta, Georgia.
37. Plaintiff Rawhide Leather, Inc. (“Rawhide Leather”) is a Georgia corporation which owns and operates Rawhide Leather, a retail store, on premises leased from Ramey & Kelley and located at 306 Ponce de Leon Avenue in Atlanta, Georgia. Collectively, Ramey & Kelley and Rawhide Leather are referred to as the “Corporate Plaintiffs.”
38. Defendant City of Atlanta is a municipal governmental entity and maintains an office at 55 Trinity Avenue SW, Atlanta, Georgia whose policies, practices and customs were a moving force in the constitutional and statutory violations set out herein.
39. Defendant Richard Pennington (“Pennington”) was Chief of Police of the Atlanta Police Department at all times pertinent to this action. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Pennington was acting under color of state law.
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 10 of 46
40. Defendant George Turner is the Interim Chief of Police of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his official capacity.
41. Defendant Willie Adams, III is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Adams was acting under color of state law.
42. Defendant Bennie E. Bridges is an investigator in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Bridges was acting under color of state law.
43. Defendant John H. Brock is a Sergeant in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Brock was acting under color of state law.
44. Defendant Dimitrio O. Caldwell is an officer in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Caldwell was acting under color of state law.
45. Defendant Kelly Collier is an officer of the Atlanta Police Department. Collier is sued in his/her individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Collier was acting under color of state law.
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 11 of 46
46. Defendant Craig Condon is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Condon was acting under color of state law.
47. Defendant Gregory D. Dabney in an investigator in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Dabney was acting under color of state law.
48. Defendant Stalone Davis is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Davis was acting under color of state law.
49. Defendant Christipher Dowd is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Dowd was acting under color of state law.
50. Defendant Jeremy D. Edwards is an officer in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Edwards was acting under color of state law.
51. Defendant Herman E. Glass in an investigator in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Glass was acting under color of state law.
11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 12 of 46
52. Defendant Robert C. Godwin is an officer in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Godwin was acting under color of state law.
53. Defendant Brandon Jackson is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Jackson was acting under color of state law.
54. Defendant Dimitri Jaques is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Jaques was acting under color of state law.
55. Defendant Melonie Mague is an officer in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. She is sued in her individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Mague was acting under color of state law.
56. Defendant Vicente Marcano is an officer in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Marcano was acting under color of state law.
57. Defendant Cayenne Mayes is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. Mayes is sued in his/her individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Mayes was acting under color of state law.
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 13 of 46
58. Defendant Timothy McClain is an officer of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Collier was acting under color of state law.
59. Defendant James Menzoian is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Menzoian was acting under color of state law.
60. Defendant Dion Meridith is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. Meridith is sued in his/her individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Meridith was acting under color of state law.
61. Defendant Marlon O. Noble is an officer in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Noble was acting under color of state law.
62. Defendant Scott Pautsch is a Lieutenant in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Pautsch was acting under color of state law.
63. Defendant Darnell Perry is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Perry was acting under color of state law.
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 14 of 46
64. Defendant Scott Perry is an investigator in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Perry was acting under color of state law.
65. Defendant William Porter is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Porter was acting under color of state law.
66. Defendant Edward Rabb is an officer in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Rabb was acting under color of state law.
67. Defendant Cedric F. Smith is an investigator in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Smith was acting under color of state law.
68. Defendant Tyrone Taylor is a Sergeant in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Taylor was acting under color of state law.
69. Defendant Kelleita Thurman is an investigator in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. She is sued in her individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Thurman was acting under color of state law.
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 15 of 46
70. Defendant Stephanie Upton is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. She is sued in her individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Upton was acting under color of state law.
71. Defendant Ronald J. Walker is a Sergeant in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Walker was acting under color of state law.
72. Defendant William Walters is an officer in the Red Dog Unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Walters was acting under color of state law.
73. Defendant Jared G. Watkins is an officer in the vice unit of the Atlanta Police Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Watkins was acting under color of state law.
74. Defendant Debra A. Williams is a Major of the Atlanta Police Department. She is sued in her individual capacity. At all times pertinent to this action, Williams had ultimate supervisory authority over the Red Dog Unit. At all times pertinent to this action, Williams was acting under color of state law.
75. Defendants Adams, Bridges, Brock, Caldwell, Collier, Condon, Dabney, Davis, Dowd, Edwards, Glass, Godwin, Jackson, Jaques, Mague, Marcano, Mayes, McClain, Menzoian, Meridith, Noble, Pautsch, Pennington,
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 16 of 46
Perry (Darnell), Perry (Scott), Porter, Rabb, Smith, Taylor, Thurman, Upton, Walker, Walters, Watkins, and Williams are referred to collectively herein as “Individual Defendants.”
76. Individual Defendants who were present at the Eagle on September 10-11, 2009, and who personally participated in the raid conducted that night, are referred to herein as the “Raiding Party.”
77. Because of improper actions taken by Defendants themselves, including their specific refusal to provides names and badge numbers upon request of Plaintiffs, it is impossible for Plaintiffs at this point to allege which particular Individual Defendants did which particular acts. Plaintiffs believe they will be able to identify Defendants through Discovery, and that additionally, Individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the wrongful acts described in this Complaint.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 78. On the evening of September 10, 2009, at some point before 11:00 PM, certain of the Defendants serving as undercover officers of the Atlanta Police Department entered the Eagle without a search or arrest warrant. On information and belief, these officers were assigned by final decisionmakers for the City to conduct an undercover investigation.
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 17 of 46
79. These officers entered the Eagle pretending to be customers. 80. While inside the Eagle, certain of the Defendant undercover officers who later participated in the activities described below consumed alcoholic beverages including Ketel One vodka, Tanqueray gin, Budweiser beer, and Amstel Light beer. 81. Later that evening, these Defendant undercover officers without displaying badges or identifying themselves as members of the Atlanta Police department, began screaming at patrons and employees to “hit the floor” and get down on the ground. 82. Several plaintiffs were in terror and feared for their lives, believing that the Eagle was being robbed or invaded by criminals or gay-bashers who might kill or injure them. 83. Shortly after the Defendant undercover officers inside the Eagle ordered everyone to lay on the floor, additional Defendant officers of the Atlanta Police Department, including members of the Red Dog Unit, forced their way into the Eagle, also without a search or arrest warrant, without requesting permission or consent to enter the premises, and outside the terms of the Eagle’s invitation to the public. The Red Dog Unit is a special force of police officers used to “provide aggressive police presence in areas that have a high incidence of street drug sales,
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 18 of 46
use, and drug related crimes.” City of Atlanta Police, About Red Dog Unit, http://www.atlantapd.org/index.asp?nav=RD&menu=42 (last visited Mar. 12, 2010).
84. These additional Defendant officers, many of whom were dressed in black, paramilitary-style uniforms which are not recognizable as police uniforms to those unfamiliar with the Red Dog Unit, stormed into the Eagle with a massive show of force but without verbally identifying themselves as police officers. They screamed at patrons and employees to lay flat on the floor with their faces against the floor and their hands behind their backs or in front of them and to “shut the fuck up.”
85. Police officers shoved some of the patrons, including some of the Patron Plaintiffs, to the ground, and pressed their boots into the back of certain patrons, and some patrons were handcuffed by the police.
86. Certain patrons, including some of the Patron Plaintiffs, were made to lie on the floor in spilled beer and broken glass, and patrons who asked permission to move away from the broken glass were told to “stay down and shut the fuck up.” Some of these patrons received cuts from the glass in which they were forced to lie.
18

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 19 of 46
87. During the Raid, patrons were forced to remain flat on the floor, even long after the police officers had searched them and found them to be unarmed.
88. Some patrons, including some of the Patron Plaintiffs, who were told to move to another part of the Eagle were again made to lay flat on the ground, with their faces against the floor, even after they had been searched, found to be unarmed, and moved.
89. Patrons, including Patron Plaintiffs were detained, either handcuffed, or flat on the ground with their faces against the floor, between thirty minutes and two-and-a-half hours after the raid began, until they were eventually released one by one or in small groups.
90. Patrons, including some of the Patron Plaintiffs, who asked questions of the police officers, including asking for their names or badge numbers and/or why they were being detained, were told to “shut the fuck up,” some were threatened with arrest for disorderly conduct, some were threatened with being handcuffed, some were threatened with violence and physical harm, and some were retaliated against by being forced to remain at the Eagle long after they had been searched.
91. All persons at the Eagle complied fully, promptly, and peacefully with all demands made by the officers, no person at the Eagle offered any physical
19

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 20 of 46
resistance to the officers whatsoever, and none was charged with obstructing the officers in any way.
92. For no legitimate law enforcement purpose, police officers kicked some patrons, including some of the Patron Plaintiffs, who had been forced to lay on the floor during the Raid.
93. During the Raid, police officers kicked down at least one locked door at the Eagle (in full sight and sound of nearby patrons) despite the offer by an Eagle manager to open the door for them.
94. During the Raid, police officers broke into and searched a locked, non-public storage area where liquor was stored.
95. Officers forcibly and without consent searched patrons, including some of the Patron Plaintiffs, as they lay on the floor, putting their hands in the patrons’ pockets and removing keys, cash, wallets, cell phones, driver’s licenses, and anything else in the patrons’ pockets, or ordered patrons to empty the contents of their pockets onto the floor where they lay.
96. Officers took identification documents from every Patron Plaintiff, either by forcibly taking the same without consent or by demanding that patrons hand over their identification documents. An officer entered ID information about
20

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 21 of 46
each of the Patron Plaintiffs into a police computer and checked each of those names against a police database.
97. Based in part on representations by defendants’ counsel, all Individual Defendants other than Richard Pennington and Debra Williams were personally involved in the planning or execution of the Raid.
98. The aforementioned practices in conducting the Raid were done pursuant to official policy or custom and usage, as admitted by Deputy Chief Carlos Banda, in his public statement that everything done at the Eagle was standard practice for Red Dog, which does “the same thing in each situation” and “[by the numbers] they do it all the same way, they don’t vary [in how they do it].” Carlos Banda, Deputy Chief, Atlanta Police Dep’t, Community Forum at the Virginia-Highland Church (Oct. 5, 2009), available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjTYf2WHWbw#t=08m43s. In addressing the practice of the APD to “do criminal history checks on everybody, when we hit an establishment, no matter what it is,” Deputy Chief Banda stated: “At this point, that’s the policy.” Id. Deputy Chief Banda also stated that if an APD officer sees a crime being committed in a location, he has probable cause to search “the whole body [i.e., everyone present], not just one individual.” Id.
21

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 22 of 46
99. Debra Williams, a Major and senior official with the APD who was in ultimate command of the Red Dog Unit on September 10-11, 2009, stated publicly at a Community Forum at the Virginia-Highland Church on Oct. 5, 2009 that it is standard practice of the APD to take IDs and run ID checks on everyone in an establishment during a “raid”: “Once we’re inside a location based on any illegal activity, for the safety of not only the citizens of the City of Atlanta but for the safety of the patrons and the officers, we conduct warrant checks on all the patrons, on everyone.” When asked about probable cause to run ID checks on the patrons, Major Williams referred to probable cause being “based on the reason for being there,” and on “safety,” and she commented that, if police did not check the IDs of “subjects that are at the location that we hit, or make an arrest, or in an open area also, we allow subjects with warrants, wanted for murder or wanted for other things, to walk away. . . .” Id. Williams personally participated in and showed deliberate indifference to the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by her acceptance, acquiescence, and endorsement of these policies.
100. As indicated by his comments during a press conference on September 14, 2009, Richard Pennington was personally aware of the widespread practice within the APD of searching each person at the scene of a “raid,” and performing ID checks on each person as part of “normal procedure,” regardless of
22

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 23 of 46
probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and Pennington personally participated in and showed deliberate indifference to the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by his acceptance, acquiescence, and endorsement of these policies. Richard Pennington, Chief, Atlanta Police Dep’t, Press Conference (Sept. 14, 2009). When asked whether officers had “probable cause to search each and every person” at the Eagle during the Raid, or to check their names against a police database, Pennington replied: “Well, I can’t answer that because, I can only say this, each person would have had to been frisked for the police officers’ safety. . . . Now if they ran the person’s name through, we do that in normal procedures to make sure the person is not wanted.” Id. And with regard to whether police are required to have consent to search an individual, Pennington replied: “Well, I would say, we are required to frisk someone for the safety of the officer. . . .” Id.
101. Pennington also personally authorized and encouraged the unconstitutional searches and seizures of Plaintiffs by personally issuing and promulgating official written policy which authorized police officers to conduct warrantless searches without probable cause. See CITY OF ATLANTA, ATLANTA POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY MANUAL, APD.SOP.3020, § 4.3.1(2) SEARCH AND SEIZURE (2007) (signed by Richard J. Pennington).
23

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 24 of 46
102. In sworn testimony before the Atlanta Municipal Court on March 11, 2010, Defendant Bridges testified that the Red Dog Unit was brought to the Atlanta Eagle on the night of the Raid specifically to “hold everyone” at the Eagle as part of a police department “investigation.” In other words, Defendant Bridges and the other Individual Defendants had already decided to seize everyone present at the Eagle before any officer entered the Eagle, had any chance to observe any of the Plaintiffs, or had made any determination with regard to reasonable suspicion or probable cause in connection with any of the Plaintiffs. City of Atlanta v. Kelley et al., Citation No. 1920907 (Atlanta Mun. Ct. Mar. 11, 2010).
103. On information (viz. Richard Pennington, Chief, Atlanta Police Dep’t, Press Conference (Sept. 14, 2009)) and belief, at least twenty-one officers, were present inside the Eagle on September 10-11, 2009, supported by numerous additional officers outside the Eagle, three Atlanta Police prisoner transport vehicles, and numerous police cars and other vehicles. The true number of officers inside and outside the Eagle is not yet known by the Plaintiffs.
104. Even after many of the Individual Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Ray were told that they were free to go, and in fact ordered to leave the premises, the Raiding Party Defendants continued and prolonged the seizure of plaintiffs by blocking their cars preventing their ability to do so by continuing to block their
24

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 25 of 46
cars in the parking lot with police vehicles and refusing to move those police vehicles when Plaintiffs pointed out that they could not leave.
105. During the course of the Raid, police officers searched the premises of the Eagle, including cash registers, beer coolers, the manager’s office, a locked liquor storage area, and other private areas.
106. Atlanta Police officers also entered the premises of the Rawhide Leather store, without a search or arrest warrant, and searched the premises of the Rawhide Leather store, including the cash register.
107. Atlanta Police officers also entered private, nonpublic areas located in the same building as the Eagle without a search or arrest warrant, including the private office of Ramey & Kelley shareholders Richard Ramey and Robert Kelley, and the private residence of Plaintiff Shepherd, who lives in an apartment located at the same address as the Eagle.
108. Atlanta Police officers entered and searched Plaintiff Shepherd’s home without a search or arrest warrant.
109. Atlanta Police officers arrested Plaintiff Shepherd inside his home without a search or arrest warrant.
110. No illegal drugs were found on anyone present at the Eagle, Rawhide Leather, or in the private home of Plaintiff Shepherd.
25

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 26 of 46
111. No illegal drugs were found on the premises of the Eagle, Rawhide Leather, or in the private home of Plaintiff Shepherd.
112. Not a single patron of the Eagle or Rawhide Leather was charged with any crime.
113. The only charges filed against anyone at the Eagle on the night of the Raid were for Atlanta City Code violations relating to alleged unlicensed adult entertainment under ATLANTA, GA., CODE ch. 10, art. II, § 10-206 (2009), because four dancers were observed, in the words of the arresting officers, allegedly “wearing underwear” and “dancing,” and ATLANTA, GA., CODE ch. 30, art. III, § 30-55, which is the penalty provision of a city code section on occupational taxes. None of the Plaintiffs, with the exception of Plaintiff Shepherd, was the subject of such charges.
114. A consolidated trial was held on March 11, 2010 for all persons issued Atlanta City Code violations on the night of the Raid, as outlined in paragraph 113 above, which trial ended in dismissals and/or acquittals for all defendants, except Antonio Benitez, who failed to appear. City of Atlanta v. Kelley et al., Citation No. 1920907 (Atlanta Mun. Ct. Mar. 11, 2010); see also Ty Tagami & Larry Hartstein, Trial a Win for Eagle Gay Bar, ATLANTA J. CONST., Mar. 12, 2010, at
26

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 27 of 46
B1, available at http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/judge-atlanta-eagle-defendants362511.html.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unconstitutional Search and Seizure) Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 115. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
Unreasonable Seizure 116. Defendants had no particularized, reasonable, articulable, or objective basis to suspect that any of the Patron Plaintiffs they seized had committed, or were committing, or were about to commit any criminal offense. 117. The detentions of the Individual Plaintiffs were unreasonable seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 118. Atlanta Police officers had no particularized probable cause to believe that any of the Patron Plaintiffs had committed or were committing any criminal offense. 119. Each Individual Defendant present during the Raid exercised his/her authority as a police officer to effect the seizure of Plaintiffs.
27

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 28 of 46
120. The seizure of the Individual Plaintiffs was excessive and unreasonable in duration and scope.
121. The seizure of the Patron Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Ray and Plaintiff Shepherd constituted an arrest, for which probable cause was required.
122. The arrest of the Patron Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Ray and Plaintiff Shepherd was unreasonable.
123. Atlanta Police officers intended to confine the Individual Plaintiffs, committed acts resulting in their confinement, and the Individual Plaintiffs were aware of their confinement. The Individual Plaintiffs reasonably did not believe that they were free to leave.
Excessive Force 124. Atlanta police officers used and directed excessive force against the Patron Plaintiffs when they were not authorized to utilize any force. 125. Defendants’ use of force was excessive and unreasonable.
Unreasonable Search 126. Atlanta police officers had no reasonable belief that any of the Individual Plaintiffs was armed and dangerous. 127. The pervasive searches of the Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd were unreasonable.
28

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 29 of 46
128. Atlanta police had neither a warrant, nor probable cause plus exigent circumstances, authorizing a search of any of the Patron Plaintiffs or Plaintiff Shepherd.
129. Each Individual Defendant present during the Raid exercised his/her authority as a police officer to effect the search of Plaintiffs.
130. The searches of the Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd, including forcible and unconsented searching of the contents of their pockets, and seizing personal articles including keys, cash, wallets, and driver’s licenses and other identification documents, were unreasonable.
131. The search of the personal residence of Plaintiff Shepherd and the business premises of Plaintiff Ramey & Kelley, and Plaintiff Rawhide Leather was unreasonable.
132. Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Plaintiffs.
133. Raiding Party Defendants were present during the unreasonable search and seizure of Plaintiffs and during the application of excessive force to Plaintiffs. Raiding Party Defendants had a duty to intervene when these constitutional violations took place in their presence in order to protect the victims
29

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 30 of 46
of the unconstitutional acts, but failed or refused to do so, and they therefore are directly and personally liable for their nonfeasance under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
134. It was clearly established on September 10, 2009 that detaining, arresting, or searching the Patron Plaintiffs, about whom officers had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause, simply because they were present at a particular bar, would violate the Patron Plaintiffs’ clearly-established constitutional rights. The Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the Constitution, and no reasonable officer could have believed that the detention, arrest, or search of the Patron Plaintiffs was legal.
135. It was clearly established on September 10, 2009 that entering or searching the Eagle or the Rawhide Store in the absence of a warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances would violate the Corporate Plaintiffs’ clearlyestablished constitutional rights. The Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the Constitution, and no reasonable officer could have believed that the warrantless entry and search of the Eagle or the Rawhide Store was legal.
136. It was clearly established on September 10, 2009 that entering or searching Plaintiff Shepherd’s private home in the absence of a warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances would violate Plaintiff Shepherd’s
30

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 31 of 46
clearly-established constitutional rights. The Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the Constitution, and no reasonable officer could have believed that the warrantless entry and search of Plaintiff Shepherd’s private home was legal.
137. It was clearly established on September 10, 2009 that arresting Plaintiff Shepherd within his private home in the absence of a warrant, or probable cause plus exigent circumstances, would violate Plaintiff Shepherd’s clearlyestablished constitutional rights. The Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the Constitution, and no reasonable officer could have believed that the warrantless arrest of Plaintiff Shepherd in his private home was legal.
138. It was clearly established on September 10, 2009 that conducting warrantless raids using mass detentions and searches of patrons and bar premises, seizure of patrons’ identity documents, and running warrant checks on all patrons would violate the Plaintiffs’ clearly-established constitutional rights. The Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the Constitution and any reasonable officer would have known of the binding legal precedent that clearly established these rights.
31

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 32 of 46
139. The Defendants’ actions at the Eagle were conducted pursuant to an Atlanta Police Department policy, practice and/or custom with the force of law (A) to conduct warrantless raids using mass detentions; (B) to search and seize everyone located at the scene of a “raid,” or at a place where police believe a crime has been committed, without regard to particularized reasonable suspicion or probable cause; (C) to search all individuals found at the scene of a “raid,” or at a place where police believe a crime has been committed, and to seize their identification documents and to run warrant checks on them without regard to particularized reasonable suspicion or probable cause or exigent circumstances; (D) to apply force and tactics of forceful control (including forcing individuals to lay flat on the ground and/or otherwise restraining them) to persons found at the scene of a “raid,” or at a place where police believe a crime has been committed, without regard to a particularized reasonable belief that any individuals are armed and dangerous.
140. A real and actual controversy exists, necessitating declaratory and injunctive relief from this Court, in that Defendant City of Atlanta continues to maintain the legality of the aforementioned policies, practices and/or customs. Patron Plaintiffs continue to be specially subject to such raids.
32

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 33 of 46
141. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief as set forth herein.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unconstitutional Search and Seizure) Violation of the Georgia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1, ¶¶ XIII, XVII (by all Plaintiffs against Individual Defendants) 142. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 143. The Individual Defendants, by the foregoing actions, committed unreasonable seizures, used excessive force, and conducted unreasonable searches in violation of Georgia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1, ¶¶ XIII, XVII. 144. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief as set forth herein.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unconstitutional Denial and Suppression of the Right of Free Speech and the
Right to Question the Conduct of Police Officers) Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (by Individual Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 145. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 146. By responding to Individual Plaintiffs who unobtrusively asked for names, badge numbers, or other information about the officers’ execution of their
33

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 34 of 46
duties with force, threats, and other acts of retaliation, the Defendants violated the rights of the Individual Plaintiffs under the United States Constitution verbally to question, challenge, or criticize the police in a manner that does not obstruct the officers.
147. Defendants acted with reckless, deliberate and callous indifference to the constitutionally protected rights of the Individual Plaintiffs.
148. Raiding Party Defendants were present while APD officers used force, threats, and other acts of retaliation to suppress the Individual Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment. Raiding Party Defendants had a duty to intervene when these constitutional violations took place in their presence in order to protect the victims of the unconstitutional acts, but failed or refused to do so, and they therefore are directly and personally liable for their nonfeasance under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
149. It was clearly established on September 10, 2009 that preventing persons from exercising their First Amendment right verbally to question, challenge, or criticize the police in a manner that does not obstruct the officers, or punishing them for doing so, violated those Individual Plaintiffs’ clearlyestablished constitutional rights. The Defendants had fair warning that their conduct would violate the Constitution, and no reasonable officer could have
34

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 35 of 46
believed that under these circumstances it was legal to prevent persons from exercising their First Amendment rights or punish them for doing so.
150. The Defendants’ actions at the Eagle were conducted pursuant to an Atlanta Police Department policy, practice and/or custom with the force of law to prevent persons from exercising their First Amendment right verbally to question, challenge, or criticize police officers in a manner that does not obstruct legitimate law enforcement activity, and/or punish them for doing so.
151. A real and actual controversy exists, necessitating declaratory and injunctive relief from this Court, in that defendant City of Atlanta continues to maintain the legality of the aforementioned policy, practice and/or custom.
152. The Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief as set forth herein.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unconstitutional Denial and Suppression of the Right of Free Speech and the
Right to Question the Conduct of Police Officers) Violation of Georgia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1, ¶¶ V, IX (by the Individual Plaintiffs against the Individual Defendants) 153. The Individual Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 154. By responding to Individual Plaintiffs who unobtrusively asked for names, badge numbers, or other information about the officers’ execution of their
35

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 36 of 46
duties with force, threats, and other acts of retaliation, the Defendants violated the rights of the Individual Plaintiffs under the Georgia Constitution verbally to question, challenge, or criticize the police in a manner that does not obstruct legitimate law enforcement activity.
155. The Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief as set forth herein. \
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (False Imprisonment)
(by Individual Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 156. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 157. By unlawfully detaining Individual Plaintiffs and depriving them of their personal liberty, Defendants are guilty of false imprisonment, a tort for which an action for damages will lie under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-20. 158. Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of falsely imprisoning the Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd by unlawful means.
36

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 37 of 46
159. The false imprisonment was the act of the several Defendants jointly, and Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages pursuant to OCGA § 51-7-22.
160. The Individual Defendants, with malice and oppression, falsely imprisoned and/or combined and conspired to falsely imprison the Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd, and did so under color of legal process.
161. Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as set forth herein. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Assault)
(by Individual Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 162. The Individual Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 163. When the Raiding Party Defendants entered the Eagle, shouted to the Patron Plaintiffs to get on the floor, and threatened them with violence (including threatening to hit a patron on the head with a barstool) Defendants committed unlawful acts that would lead a person reasonably to apprehend a violent injury. Such acts are civilly actionable as an assault under the laws of Georgia. 164. All of the Raiding Party Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of assaulting the Individual Plaintiffs by unlawful means.
37

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 38 of 46
165. The Raiding Party Defendants, with malice and oppression, assaulted and/or combined and conspired to assault the Individual Plaintiffs, and did so under color of legal process.
166. The Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as set forth herein. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Battery)
(by Individual Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 167. The Individual Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 168. The Raiding Party Defendants intended to make harmful or insulting or provoking contact with the Individual Plaintiffs. The Raiding Party Defendants’ acts of shoving the Individual Plaintiffs to the ground, kicking them, putting their boots on their back, and putting their hands inside the Individual Plaintiffs’ pockets were offensive, unlawful touchings that would have been offensive to an ordinary person. Such acts constitute battery by Defendants under the laws of Georgia. 169. The Raiding Party Defendants’ acts of shoving the Individual Plaintiffs to the ground, kicking them, putting their boots on their back, and putting their hands inside the Individual Plaintiffs’ pockets were illegal attempts to commit
38

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 39 of 46
a physical injury upon the Individual Plaintiffs and are actionable under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-14.
170. By shoving the Individual Plaintiffs to the ground, kicking them, putting their boots on their back, and forcing them to lay in broken glass, the Defendants intentionally caused physical injury to the Individual Plaintiffs, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 51-1-13.
171. All of the Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of committing a battery on the Individual Plaintiffs by unlawful means.
172. Defendants, with malice and oppression, committed a battery on and/or combined and conspired to commit a battery on, the Individual Plaintiffs, and did so under color of legal process.
173. The Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as set forth herein.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Trespass and Damage to Property) (by Plaintiffs Shepherd, Ramey & Kelley, and Rawhide Leather
against all Defendants) 174. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
39

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 40 of 46
175. Defendants stormed into the Eagle, Rawhide Leather, and the private home of Plaintiff Shepherd without a warrant, probable cause plus exigent circumstances, or consent, and damaged property including unlawfully kicking in a door at the Eagle, and these acts constitute a trespass in violation of O.C.G.A. § 51-10-3.
176. Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of trespassing on the premises of the Atlanta Eagle.
177. Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of trespassing on the premises of Rawhide Leather and the private home of Plaintiff Shepherd.
178. Defendants, with malice and oppression, trespassed upon and/or combined and conspired to commit trespass.
179. Plaintiff Shepherd, Plaintiff Ramey & Kelley, and Plaintiff Rawhide Leather are entitled to damages as set forth herein.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Computer Invasion of Privacy Brought Under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-93(c))
(by Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Ray and Shepherd against all Defendants)
180. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
40

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 41 of 46
181. Defendants, knowing that they lacked the authority to do so, committed Computer Invasion of Privacy against Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd by entering their personal information in a police computer and checking it against a police database with the intention of examining personal information about Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd.
182. Defendants combined and conspired to accomplish the unlawful objective of committing Computer Invasion of Privacy against the Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd by unlawful means.
183. Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd are entitled to damages as set forth herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:
1. Award Plaintiffs all actual damages, including damage to property, physical pain and injury, mental anguish and emotional distress.
2. Award Plaintiffs nominal damages for violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights;
3. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages to the extent permitted by law; 4. Declare that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ legal and constitutional rights by: (a) conducting a warrantless raid in the absence of both probable cause
41

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 42 of 46
and exigent circumstances; (b) entering and searching the business premises of Plaintiffs Ramey & Kelley and Rawhide Leather without either a warrant, or probable cause plus exigent circumstances; (c) entering and searching the private home of Plaintiff Shepherd without either a warrant, or probable cause plus exigent circumstances; (d) arresting Plaintiff Shepherd inside his private home without either a warrant, or probable cause plus exigent circumstances; (e) searching Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Shepherd without reasonable belief that any of them was armed and dangerous; (f) conducting a warrantless search of Patron Plaintiffs without reasonable suspicion to believe that any of them was involved in criminal activity; (g) detaining Patron Plaintiffs without probable cause to believe that any of them was involved in criminal activity; (h) arresting Patron Plaintiffs without probable cause to believe that any of them was involved in criminal activity; (i) forcing Patron Plaintiffs to remain face-down and flat on the floor of the Eagle without probable cause, or an reasonable basis to suspect a threat to officer safety combined with reasonable suspicion; (j) impeding the departure of Patron Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Ray by releasing them, telling them to leave, but blocking their cars in the parking lot with police vehicles; and (k) responding to Plaintiffs’ unobtrusive communications with police with violence, threats, or retaliatory action;
42

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 43 of 46
5. Enjoin Defendants: (a) to delete and expunge from any and all police records or databases any information about Patron Plaintiffs obtained at the Atlanta Eagle on September 10-11, 2009, or any record of Patron Plaintiffs’ presence at the Atlanta Eagle on September 10-11, 2009, after trial in this action and any trial involving the Raid or arrests made during the Raid; (b) from conducting warrantless raids in the absence of both probable cause and exigent circumstances, (c) from stopping or detaining any individual in connection with enforcement of the criminal law without reasonable suspicion to believe the particular individual is engaging or has engaged in criminal conduct (consistent with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1967); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979); and other controlling law); (d) from demanding the name or identification documents of any individual in connection with the enforcement of the criminal law without reasonable suspicion to believe the individual is engaging or has engaged in criminal conduct (consistent with Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) and other controlling law); (e) from conducting a warrantless search of any person, unless incident to lawful arrest, without both probable cause to believe he or she personally is involved in criminal activity and exigent circumstances which preclude the obtaining of a warrant; (f) from “frisking” or “patting down” individuals stopped pursuant to a lawful investigatory detention (a “Terry Stop”) without a reasonable suspicion that
43

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 44 of 46
the individual is armed and dangerous (consistent with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1967) and Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979), and other controlling law); (g) from handcuffing any person without probable cause, or an articulable basis to suspect a threat to officer safety combined with reasonable suspicion; (h) from requiring any person to lay flat on the ground without probable cause, or an articulable basis to suspect a threat to officer safety combined with reasonable suspicion; and (i) from preventing persons from verbally questioning, challenging, or criticizing the police in a manner that does not obstruct legitimate law enforcement activity, and punishing persons for such communications that do not obstruct the execution of proper law enforcement function (consistent with City of Houston v. Hill, 82 U.S. 451 (1987); Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2007); Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759 (11th Cir. 2006) and other controlling law); (j) to delete and expunge any “arrest record” that may have been created and recorded pursuant to the Raid for any of the Patron Plaintiffs;
6. Award attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable provision of law;
7. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
44

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 45 of 46
A JURY TRIAL IS REQUESTED.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s Elizabeth L. Littrell Elizabeth L. Littrell, GA State Bar No. 454949 Gregory R. Nevins, GA State Bar No. 539529 Graham S. Lee, GA State Bar No. 304877 Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. 730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1070 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 897-1880 Facsimilie: (404) 897-1884
Daniel J. Grossman GA State Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Dr., Suite F-138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 654-0326 Facsimilie: (404) 897-1884
Gerald R. Weber, Jr. GA State Bar No. 744878 Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimilie: (404) 688-9440
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.
45

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 44 Filed 03/17/10 Page 46 of 46

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Action File No. ) 1:09-CV-03286-TCB ) ) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 17th day of March, 2010, I electronically filed the

foregoing Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures with the clerk of the court using the

CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:

Stephen A. Power City of Atlanta Law Department 68 Mitchell Street, SW, Suite 4100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 spower@atlantaga.gov

By: /s/ Elizabeth L. Littrell________ Georgia Bar No. 454949 Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. 730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1070 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 897-1880 Facsimilie: (404) 897-1884

46

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 1 of 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

__________________________________________________________________

)

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Civil Action

v.

)

File No.:

)

1:09-CV-3286-TCB

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, Chief )

of Police for the City of Atlanta, in )

his official and individual capacities, )

et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

_________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS

INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING This motion arises from Defendants’ pervasive violations of their obligations under Rule 26 and Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the spoliation of evidence through both actual destruction and the failure to preserve evidence; the failure to search for and produce responsive items; and the failure to obey explicit orders of the Court.

75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 2 of 55
Among Defendants’ many specific discovery violations, this Motion will address:
• The deletion of mobile phone data by individual Defendants after the Court ordered them to produce their phones;
• The overwriting of back-up tapes by the City of Atlanta after the Court ordered the City to produce them;
• The failure to implement an effective litigation hold, and the consequent failure to preserve evidence;
• The pervasive failure to search for responsive items; • The failure to produce responsive items and to supplement discovery as
ordered by the Court, including the failure to serve any response at all Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production to the individual defendants; • The failure to comply with specific instructions issued by the Court. Defendants’ collective failures to respond to individual requests are enumerated and discussed in Appendix A, and a verbatim recitation of the requests and responses at issue is attached as Appendix B.
Request for expedited ruling
Given the bad faith spoliation of electronic data, and the nature of electronic evidence, which can be lost or overwritten by the passage of time even in the best of circumstances, Plaintiffs respectfully request an expedited ruling on this Motion in the interest of preventing any further loss or spoliation of evidence.1
1 Plaintiffs’ mobile phone forensics expert has testified that additional mobile phone data is likely to be lost as Defendants continue to use their phones on a daily
2
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 3 of 55
The Court should: • Order Defendants fully to comply with discovery. • Order Defendants or their counsel to pay for the forensic examination
of electronically stored information, including the restoration of deleted data. • Order Defendants or their counsel to pay for the collection of electronically stored information and the creation of an e-discovery search facility available to all Parties and the Court. • Order Defendants to provide their online user-ids and passwords, and their consent to third party internet providers to release online content. • Award the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants’ continued and repeated failure to comply with discovery. • Plaintiffs request the Court to enforce all orders granted under this motion by a finding of civil contempt. • Impose such punitive sanctions, if any, as the Court finds appropriate.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. The Complaint On November 24, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the present action under 24 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that Defendants violated their rights under the United States Constitution under color of law, violated the Georgia Constitution, and committed tortious acts under the laws of the State of Georgia.
basis, many of them heavily, and phone memory is recycled, thus obliterating deleted data.” (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶ 31, Attachment 4 hereto.)
3
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 4 of 55
This action arises from a warrantless raid (the “Raid”) conducted on the night of September 10, 2009 and early morning of September 11, 1009, by the Atlanta Police Department (“APD”) on a bar called the Atlanta Eagle. Defendants have admitted that APD officers forced all 60-70 persons in the establishment to lay on the floor while they frisked them and entered all their names into a police database to search for warrants and/or criminal history.2
Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that Defendants unlawfully detained them without particularized reasonable articulable suspicion; unlawfully arrested them without probable cause; unlawfully frisked them for weapons without particularized reasonable articulable suspicion that they were armed and dangerous; unlawfully searched them without a warrant or probable cause; unlawfully searched the premises of the Atlanta Eagle, a retail store in the same building, and the home of Plaintiff Shepherd without a warrant or probable cause; and unlawfully arrested Plaintiff Shepherd in his home.
2 (Defendants’ Initial Disclosures, p. 5, Docket item No. 21.); Defendant City of Atlanta’s September 13, 2010 Defendants’ Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories lists 58 individuals whose names were entered into a police database during the Raid, but this list does not include all persons known to have been seized by police during the Raid, including Plaintiffs du-Wayne Ray, Christopher Schmaltz, and Saverio Montelone.
4
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 5 of 55
II. Discovery Plaintiffs served discovery requests on the City of Atlanta and the individual Defendants beginning March 26, 2010. Defendants were consistently late in their responses and failed to comply with Plaintiffs’ requests as discussed throughout the present Motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel Daniel Grossman made numerous good faith attempts to encourage Defendants to comply with discovery, including letters, emails, phone calls, and in-person meetings with Defendants’ counsel, but to no avail.3 III. The 30(b)(6) Deposition By June, 2010, it had become obvious that Defendants were not going to comply with discovery and Plaintiffs noticed a 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant City of Atlanta to inquire into the existence of responsive items and Defendants’ efforts to preserve and search for those items. The City of Atlanta designated Defendant Debra Williams as its witness, but when Defendant Williams appeared for her deposition on August 5, 2010, she was not prepared to testify and the City terminated the deposition.4 Defendant Williams appeared again on August 10, 2010, but was still not prepared to testify about all topics in the 30(b)(6) notice and
3 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶¶ 4-17, Attachment 3 hereto.) 4 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 5, 2010, p. 75, ll. 12-24.) Original deposition transcripts referred to in this Motion will be filed with the Court.
5
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 6 of 55
the City again terminated the deposition.5 The deposition was eventually concluded with the testimony of Jeremy Johnson on August 19, 2010.6
IV. The August 20, 2010 Telephone Conference On August 20, 2010, the parties had a telephone conference with the Court to discuss the problems with discovery. The Court found Defendants had been “woefully deficient in their responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests,” overruled Defendants’ objections to discovery, and ordered Defendants to supplement their discovery responses and comply fully with Plaintiffs’ requests on or before September 3, 2010.7 The Court also issued a number of specific orders, e.g., ordering the individual Defendants to produce their mobile phones for inspection by Plaintiffs and to produce photographs of themselves; ordering the City of Atlanta to produce existing computer backups and email archives; and allowing Plaintiffs to inspect original documents at the offices of the Atlanta Police Department.
5 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, p. 193, ll. 20-22; p. 198, ll. 7-23.) 6 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, August 19, 2010.) 7 (Transcript of August 20, 2010 Telephone Conference, Attachment 7 hereto.)
6
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 7 of 55
V. The August 27, 2010 Telephone Conference On August 27, 2010, Defendants’ counsel requested a telephone conference to ask the Court to issue a written order addressed to their clients. The Court denied Defendants’ request but granted an additional week (to September 10, 2010) for Defendants to comply with the Court’s August 20th orders, while shortening Defendants’ time to produce computer back-ups and archives to September 1, 2010.8 VI. The Site Visits to APD Plaintiffs’ counsel Daniel Grossman visited APD’s offices to view original documents as authorized by the Court on August 27, August 30, and September 1, 2010.9 During these visits Plaintiffs discovered thousands of pages of responsive documents that had previously been withheld by Defendants.10 VII. The Mobile Phone Reports None of the Defendants produced their phones to Plaintiffs as ordered by the Court,11 but twenty-one of the thirty-five individual Defendants gave their phones
8 (Transcript of August 27, 2010, Telephone Conference, pp. 10, 15-16, Attachment 8 hereto.) 9 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶¶ 19, 24, 25, Attachment 3 hereto.) 10 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶¶ 19-22, 25-27, Attachment 3 hereto.) 11 Plaintiffs did not insist on the production of mobile phones which are currently in use because Plaintiffs’ forensic examiner could not guarantee
7
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 8 of 55
to an employee of the APD for examination on September 3, 2010.12 The APD
employee reviewed the “active” (i.e., non-deleted) data on the phones and prepared
reports of his findings, which Defendants’ counsel provided to Plaintiffs on September 14, 2010.13
ARGUMENT AND CITATION TO AUTHORITY
I. Defendants’ spoilated evidence by destroying and failing to preserve evidence.
“Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the
failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably
foreseeable litigation.” Graff v. Baja Marine Corp., 310 Fed. Appx. 298, 300
(11th Cir. Ga. 2009), citing West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776,
779 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1999); Griffin v. GMAC Commercial Fin., L.L.C., 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 10504, at *8-9 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2007). “Aside perhaps from
examination of each phone in less than 24 hours as ordered by the Court, but Plaintiffs have repeatedly asked for the production of the Defendants’ retired or replaced phones. (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 32, Attachment 3 hereto, Letter from Daniel Grossman to Robert Godfrey, September 17, 2010, Exhibit M.) Turning over these phones, which are not in use, would pose no hardship for Defendants. Yet, Defendants have not produced these phones. 12 (Affidavit of John Carney, p. 10, Attachment 4 hereto.) 13 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 32, Attachment 3 hereto.) No mobile phone information was produced for the remaining fourteen defendant officers, and the APD examiner chose not to recover deleted data with any of the forensic tools which are available for that purpose. (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶ 30, Attachment 4 hereto.)
8
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 9 of 55
perjury, no act serves to threaten the integrity of the judicial process more than the spoliation of evidence.” United Med. Supply Co. v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 257, 258 (Fed. Cl. 2007). Defendants are guilty of both forms of spoliation—the actual destruction of evidence and the failure to preserve relevant evidence. Spoliation occurred even after this Court issued orders requiring certain evidence to be produced.
A. Defendants deliberately deleted mobile phone data they were ordered to produce to Plaintiffs.
After being ordered to produce their mobile phones for inspection, some of the Defendants destroyed the evidence on their phones instead.
Plaintiffs’ forensic expert examined the APD mobile phone reports for a sample group comprised of six Defendants. The officers selected for this sample were the four most senior officers involved in the Raid (Red Dog commander Lt. Scott Pautsch, Raid commanders Sgt. John Brock and Sgt. Kelly Collier, and lead investigator Bennie Bridges); an officer whose phone was used to take a photograph during the Raid (Officer Jeremy Edwards); and one “rank-and-file” officer (Officer Brandon Jackson).
9
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 10 of 55
Plaintiffs’ expert concluded that each of the six Defendants in the sample group deleted text messages from their mobile phones after the Court ordered them to produce their phones for inspection.14
Some of the missing messages specifically concern the Raid, and some were even sent during the Raid itself.15
The reports indicate that mobile phone photographs are missing as well, including photographs taken during the period of the Raid. Defendant Jeremy Edwards’ phone, for example, contained a photograph taken during the Raid, but the two previous photographs are missing.16
The reports also suggest the possibility of “mobile phone hacking” (i.e., corrupt data being placed on the phones specifically to disrupt forensic extraction) on the phones of Defendants Darnell Perry, Jeremy Edwards, Timothy McClain, Dimitri Jacques, and Vincente Marcano.17
The data deleted from the officers’ mobile phones likely includes items which are relevant to this action. Even the limited data Plaintiffs received from the examination reports shows that Defendants used their mobile phones to take 14 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶¶ 4-9, Attachment 4 hereto.) 15 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶ 4, Attachment 4 hereto.) 16 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶4, Attachment 4 hereto.) 17 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶¶ 28-29, Attachment 4 hereto.)
10
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 11 of 55
photographs and exchange text message regarding the Raid. For example, the mobile phone of Defendant Dimitri Jacques contained the following exchange of text messages during the Raid between Defendant Jacques (who was waiting outside the bar as part of the Red Dog unit) and Defendant Jeremy Edwards (who was inside the bar as an undercover Vice officer)18:
Edwards to Jacques: 11/09/09 02:53:20 (GMT) It's just now getting busy
Edwards to Jacques: 11/09/09 02:53:33 (GMT) The actions just begining (sic)
Edwards to Jacques: 11/09/09 02:53:59 (GMT) Our Sgt is wanting to make as many cases as possable (sic)
Jacques to Edwards: 11/09/09 02:54:30 (GMT) What the eta
Edwards to Jacques: 11/09/09 02:59:08 (GMT) Don't know..... Soon19
18 Defendants Jacques and Edwards both denied having any writings relating to the Raid in both their initial and supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to the individual Defendants (Requests 1 and 2). Defendant Edwards was even more untruthful: Edwards denied having any mobile phone at all. “Defendant does not use portable communication devices.” Response to Request 6 of Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant Jeremy Edwards. Even after being ordered to supplement his responses by the Court Edwards stuck to his original and untruthful response: “See previously produced responses.” 19 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶ 4, Attachment 4 hereto.)
11
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 12 of 55
On September 15, 2009, four days after the Raid, when alleged use of anti-
gay slurs by officers was being widely discussed in the Atlanta press, Defendant
Jacques and Defendant Brandon Jackson had the following communication by text
message20:
Jacques to Jackson 22:18:33 (GMT): Bro no more fuckin gay jokes. For rear for real21 (sic)
On August 26, 2010, the day the individual officer Defendants met with
their counsel to discuss the Court’s August 20 discovery orders, the following
exchange took place between Defendant Jacques (a Red Dog officer), Defendant
20 Defendant Brandon Jackson also denied having any writings relating to this case. (Response to Requests 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant Brandon Jackson.)
It should be noted that Defendant Jackson was one of four APD Red Dog officers found by United States Magistrate Linda T. Walker to have been “less than candid” during testimony in her court. United States v. Kelvin Bryant, Criminal Case No. 1:09-CR-018-JEC (N.D. Ga., October 15, 2009), Attachment 9 hereto.
Two of the other officers cited by Magistrate Walker for untruthfulness were William Porter and James Menzoian, who are also Defendants in this action and who also denied having any responsive writings. (Response to Requests 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ First Requests for Production to Defendant William Porter and James Menzoian.)
When asked by interrogatory if they had “ever been found to have been untruthful or to have misled any court, judge, [or] magistrate,” Defendants Jackson and Menzoian each dishonestly answered “No.” Response to Interrogatory No. 13, Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to Defendant Brandon Jackson and James Menzoian.
21 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶ 6, Attachment 4 hereto.)
12
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 13 of 55
Scott Pautsch (the Red Dog commander), and Defendant Caldwell (a Red Dog officer):22
Pautsch to Jacques: 19:23:29 (GMT): Tell everybody to stop making comments.
Jacques to Pautsch: 19:25:22 (GMT): I already text everyone Defendant Pautsch and officer Robert Godwin had the following communication on September 2, 2010:
Godwin to Pautsch: 10:39:58 (GMT-5): Have you been advised of the eagle case information deadline Friday?
Pautsch to Godwin 11:18:43 (GMT-5): No. All i know is that there supposed to come and take my phone.
Godwin to Pautsch: 11:19:35 (GMT-5): Check your city email. Very important. 23 Mobile phone billing records also show that Defendants exchanged text messages, voice calls, and photographs with one another during and shortly after the Raid. For example: • Defendant Robert Godwin's billing records show two phone calls to
Defendant Marlon Noble (mobile # 404-707-4588) made during the Raid (at 11:15 PM and again at 11:17 PM); • Defendant Porter's billing records show a phone call to Defendant Brandon Jackson (mobile # 404-201-5691) made toward the end of the Raid (at 12:43 AM);
22 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶ 9, Attachment 4 hereto.) 23 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶ 9, Attachment 4 hereto.)
13
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 14 of 55
• Defendant Stephanie Upton’s billing records show that she received a multimedia text message (a photograph or video) from Defendant Brandon Jackson (mobile #404-201-5691) at 1:55 PM on the day after the Raid.24
These messages and the billing records show that Defendants’ mobile phones were used in connection with the Raid and contain discoverable and highly relevant items; and it is reasonable to conclude that some of the deleted items are also relevant to this case.
B. The City destroyed computer back-up tapes in direct violation of this Court’s order to produce them.
During the August 19, 2010, deposition of the City’s 30(b)(6) witness, Plaintiffs learned that the City of Atlanta Department of Information Technology (“DIT”) recycles network back-up tapes every 90 days (a process which overwrites and thus deletes all data on the previous tapes), and that Defendants never altered this policy due to this litigation.25 Plaintiffs informed the Court of the 90-day deletion and the Court ordered Defendants to produce any tapes still in existence no later than September 1, 2010.26
24 Defendants Upton and Porter are among the Defendants for whom no mobile phone examination report was given to Plaintiffs. 25 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 44, l. 17 to p. 45, l. 14; p. 49, ll. 1-12.) 26 (Transcript from August 20, 2010 telephone conference, pp. 10-11, Attachment 7 hereto; Transcript from August 27, 2010 telephone conference, p. 16, Attachment 8 hereto.)
14
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 15 of 55
On September 1, 2010, when it became apparent that Defendants were not going to produce the back-up tapes before the deadline set by the Court, counsel for the parties held a 4.5 hour conference call which included three representatives of the City’s DIT and Plaintiffs’ e-discovery consultants. During this conference Plaintiffs learned that the City never disabled its tape recycling policy and continued to destroy backup tapes in direct violation of the Court’s order to produce them.27 In fact, even as counsel conducted the conference call old backup tapes were being overwritten with new data; the September 1 back-up process which started at 4:00 PM that afternoon used 90-day old tapes according to the City’s standard practice.28 The City did not agree to stop recycling tapes until Plaintiffs’ sent the Court an email requesting an emergency order.29
27 (Affidavit of Constance R. Martin, ¶¶ 7-9, Attachment 5 hereto.) 28 (Affidavit of Constance R. Martin, ¶ 8, Attachment 5 hereto.) 29 It should be noted that Defendants’ counsel Tamara Baines was dishonest to the Court in response to Plaintiffs’ request for an emergency order when she wrote, in an email to the Court dated September 2, 2010, “We were not aware that the tapes containing the data were being recycled every ninety days.” Baines defended the 30(b)(6) deposition of Jeremy Johnson and was present when he testified about the 90-day deletion policy on August 19, 2010; her statement to the Court two weeks later denying knowledge of this practice was in violation of her duty of candor to the Court.
15
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 16 of 55
C. Defendants failed to preserve evidence as require by law. Defendants’ spoliation of evidence also includes their conspicuous failure to preserve evidence after notice of anticipated and actual litigation.
1. Defendants had an obligation to preserve evidence beginning as early as September, 2009.
“It is well established that the duty to preserve evidence arises when a party reasonably anticipates litigation.” Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “Notice does not have to be of actual litigation, but can concern ‘potential’ litigation. Otherwise, any person could shred documents to their heart’s content before suit is brought without fear of sanction.” Griffin v. GMAC Commercial Fin., L.L.C., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10504, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2007). See Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before the litigation when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.”); United States ex rel. Koch v. Koch Indus., 197 F.R.D. 463, 482 (N.D. Okla. 1998) (“A litigant has a duty to preserve evidence that it knows or should know is relevant to imminent or ongoing litigation.”)
Within less than 48 hours after the Raid the conduct of police officers at the Atlanta Eagle became the subject of media attention and the APD issued a public statement acknowledging “allegations of improper behavior by police officers
16
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 17 of 55
conducting the investigation.”30 During the next few days the City Council
discussed allegations of improper police conduct and two separate public demonstrations were held to protest the Raid. 31
On September 14, 2010, fourteen individuals who had been present at the Raid filed complaints with the Internal Affairs unit of the APD’s Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) alleging illegal conduct by officers at the Raid.32
On September 16, 2010, an attorney representing eight individuals at the Raid wrote a letter to OPS asking for “a complete and thorough investigation into the
illegal actions of the officers present at The Atlanta Eagle” and stating, “It is our
belief that you will find that the actions of these officers violated not only the law, but the standards of your profession.”33
30 (http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/atlanta-police-raid-gay-136646.html)
31
(http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Supporters_of_Gay_Bar_to_Voice_Ange r_091509 http://clatl.com/atlanta/demonstrators-protest-eagle-raid/Content?oid=1283424 http://www.towleroad.com/2009/09/hundreds-turn-out-to-protest-raid-on-atlantaeagle-gay-bar.html These articles are presented merely to show that Defendants had reason to anticipate litigation within days of the Raid by virtue of media coverage if nothing else.) 32 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 26, Attachment 3 hereto.) 33 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 27, Attachment 3 hereto, Letter from Alan Begner to OPS, dated September 16, 2009, Exhibit L.)
17
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 18 of 55
These facts triggered an obligation on the part of Defendants to preserve evidence in connection with anticipated litigation.
2. Defendants failed to issue a litigation hold letter upon anticipation of litigation, and no effective litigation hold was ever implemented.
Despite ample reason to anticipate litigation as early as September 14, 2009, and the filing of this action on November 24, 2009, Defendants’ counsel did not issue a litigation hold letter until December 21, 2010. 34
When the litigation hold letter was finally issued it was not distributed to the necessary people. An effective litigation hold requires communicating with “the ‘key players’ in the litigation, i.e., the people identified in a party's initial disclosure and any subsequent supplementation thereto. Because these ‘key players’ are the ‘employees likely to have relevant information,’ it is particularly important that the preservation duty be communicated clearly to them.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (“Zubulake V”), 229 F.R.D. 422, 433-34 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). The key players in this case include (at the very least) the police officers who participated in the Raid, but Defendants’ counsel did not distribute the December
34 Defendants issued the letter only after receiving a “Preservation Letter” from Plaintiffs which specifically described items the Defendants were required to preserve for use as evidence. (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 33, Attachment 3 hereto, Letter dated December 17, 2009, Exhibit N.)
18
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 19 of 55
21, 2010 litigation hold letter to all those officers or even to the police supervisors in command of the Raid (Defendants Brock, Collier, and Adams).35
Equally incomprehensible, even though Plaintiffs’ Preservation Letter specifically called for the preservation of electronic information, Defendants’ counsel did not send their litigation hold letters to the City of Atlanta’s Department of Information Technology (“DIT”), which has exclusive responsibility for the computer system of the APD, including its email and other electronically stored information.36 As soon as Defendants’ counsel became aware of the need for a litigation hold they were obligated to communicate “with information technology personnel, who can explain system-wide back-up procedures and the … implementation of the firm’s recycling policy.” Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. at 432. Once a preservation duty is triggered, a party “must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and . . . ensure the preservation of relevant documents.’” Pension Comm., 685 F. Supp. 2d at 466; see also Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC (“Zubulake IV”), 220 F.R.D. 212, 18 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 219 F.R.D. 93, 100 (D. Md. 2003); Goodman v. Praxair Servs., LLC, 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 511(D. Md. 2009). This was never
35 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 33, Attachment 3 hereto, Letter from Jerry De Loach dated December 21, 2009, Exhibit O.) 36 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, pp. 11-12.)
19
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 20 of 55
done, and the City made virtually no effort to preserve electronically stored
information:
• The City made no effort to preserve evidence on the computer workstations of City employees.37
• The City made no specific effort to preserve emails relating to the Raid.38
• The City made no effort to preserve voicemail recordings relating to the Raid.39
• The City made no effort to preserve the electronic files of retired employees Defendant Richard Pennington or Carlos Banda (who retired as police chief and deputy police chief, respectively, after the filing of this action); the City routinely deletes the computer files of retired employees 90 days after they leave their employment, an no exception to this policy was made with regard to Defendant Pennington or Deputy Chief Banda.40
• The City made no effort to alter its policy of using old computer backup tapes to create new back-ups every 90 days; as a result, back-up tapes from September, October, November, and December, 2009, which existed when this action was filed and when the litigation hold letters were issued, no longer exist.41
37 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 56, l. 25 – p. 57, l. 5; p. 66, ll. 11-15; Affidavit of Constance R. Martin, ¶ 16, Attachment 5 hereto.)
38 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, pp. 182-183; Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 52, ll. 21-25.)
39 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 79, l. 24 – p. 80, l. 3; p. 81, ll. 15-22.)
40 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 99, ll. 7-11; p. 101, ll. 7-14.)
41 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 50, ll. 1-25.)
20
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 21 of 55
In addition, voice recordings (including telephone calls) from 2009 have also been lost or deleted. Major Debra Williams testified that police supervisors participating in the raid would have communicated with the APD Communications Supervisor by telephone (for example, raid supervisors would likely have alerted APD that officers were entering the establishment), and that all such calls are recorded.42 In its supplemental response to Plaintiffs Second Request for Production, the City admits that “it does not have” these recordings. Defendants’ counsel Robert Godfrey informed Plaintiffs that while these recordings existed when Plaintiffs’ Preservation Letter was served in December, 2009, the recordings were subsequently deleted and no longer exist.43
3. Defendants were specifically aware of their duty to preserve mobile phone data.
Defendants and their counsel were also under a specific obligation to preserve the mobile phone data which has now been lost. Mobile phone data was specifically mentioned in the “Preservation Letter” that Plaintiffs sent to Defendants on December 17, 2009, and at the Rule 26(f) conference held on February 24, 2010, Plaintiffs’ counsel Daniel Grossman stated that he had reason to believe discoverable evidence existed on the mobile phones of police officers
42 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, pp. 36-38, 40-41.) 43 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 30, Attachment 3 hereto.)
21
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 22 of 55
involved in the Raid and reminded Defendants’ counsel of their duty to preserve this evidence; Grossman specifically warned that deletion or destruction of this evidence could result in severe sanctions.44 At numerous times over the following months Grossman spoke with Defendants’ attorneys Dennis Young, Stephen Power, Robert Godfrey, and Christopher Walker to inquire about the preservation and production of mobile phone data and to request that this information be preserved and searched. Defendants’ counsel were aware of the need to preserve mobile phone data and even issued an additional Litigation Hold letter on this very point, but never took effective steps to implement such a hold.45
On June 30, 2010, frustrated that mobile phone data was apparently not being preserved, Grossman wrote to Dennis Young and Christopher Walker to again “remind defendants of their duty to preserve electronic data relevant to this case, in particular data located on the mobile phones, PDAs, laptop computers, and other electronic devices used by officers involved in the Eagle Raid.” Grossman recommended that Defendants hire an electronic discovery consultant to help Defendants preserve and produce responsive items contained on these devices, and
44 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 3, Attachment 3 hereto.) 45 This Litigation Hold letter is undated, but may have been issued after the February 24, 2010, Conference at which the subject was discussed. (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 33, Letter from Dennis M. Young, undated, Exhibit P. Attachment 3 hereto.)
22
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 23 of 55
he cited numerous federal court decisions regarding sanctions for the spoliation of evidence. Finally, Grossman asked the Defendants to “confirm what actions you have taken or intend to take to preserve and produce this data.”46 Defendants never responded to this letter47, and the City made no effort to preserve evidence on mobile phones, Blackberries, and other electronic devices in the possession of Atlanta police officers during the Raid.48
“Nothing other than bad faith can be inferred” where a requesting party’s preservation letters are clear and concise but the responding party’s counsel fails to ensure that the evidence is preserved. See, Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F.Supp. 2d 1274, 1280-1281 (M.D. Fla. 2009). II. The City failed to search for and produce responsive items.
A. Defendants have admitted they failed to search for responsive items
Defendants and their counsel had a “responsibility . . . to take affirmative steps to monitor compliance so that all sources of discoverable information [we]re identified and searched.” In Re Seroquel Prod. Liability Litig., 244 F.R.D. 650,
46 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 9, Attachment 3 hereto, Letter from Dan Grossman to Christopher Walker, June 30, 2010, Exhibit B.) 47 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 10, Attachment 3 hereto.) 48 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, pp. 137-138.)
23
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 24 of 55
663 (M.D. Fla. 2007); Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D at 432. Instead, there was an almost
complete failure by Defendants and their counsel to search for responsive items:
• The City never searched the paper files of numerous individuals likely to have responsive documents (including Defendant Richard Pennington, police chief George Turner, Zone 5 commander Major Khirus Williams, assistant chief Peter Andresen, deputy chief Carlos Banda, deputy chief Ernest Finley, Deputy Chief Calvin Moss, Major Darryl Tolleson, Major Moses Perdue, or Mayor Shirley Franklin).49
• The City never searched the computer workstations of City employees involved with the Raid.50
• The City never searched the personal computer of any Atlanta police officer for information about the Raid.51
• The City never searched the mobile phones, Blackberries, or PDAs of police officers involved in the Raid.52
• The City never searched either of its two voicemail systems.53
• The City never searched the electronic calendars of police officers involved in the Raid who use an electronic calendar to store information.54
49 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, pp. 120-123.)
50 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 55, ll. 12-17; Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, pp. 124-125.)
51 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 76, ll. 11-17.)
52 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 58, ll. 3-6; p. 59, ll. 1-4; Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, pp. 124-125.)
53 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, pp. 79-81, p. 79, ll. 19-23; p. 80, ll. 15-20.)
54 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, p. 197, ll. 19-23.)
24
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 25 of 55
• The City never searched for the telephone, 911, and radio recordings requested by the Plaintiffs.55
• The City never searched the APD’s “Horizon” message board system for messages about the Raid.56
• The City never searched its Omnix database for information about the Raid.57
• The City never even asked numerous police officers who were involved with this case whether or not they had any responsive documents.58
When Defendants did finally make an attempt to search for responsive items their efforts were late and wholly inadequate. For example, the City made no timely or meaningful attempt to locate one of the most important sources of evidence, the emails written and received by police officers and other City employees:
55 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, p. 63, ll. 9-25; p. 64, ll. 12.) 56 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, p. 232, ll. 14-22; Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 77, ll. 4-18; p. 104, ll. 11-15.) 57 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 77, ll. 19-23.) 58 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, pp. 112-114.)
25
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 26 of 55
• The City did not conduct any email search at all until sometime after July 14, 2010 (several months after Defendants’ discovery responses were due).59
• The July, 2010 search was based on a narrow list of keywords.60 • The City searched the emails of only 13 City employees. • The City did not search the emails of all 35 individual Defendants let
alone other “key players.”61 • The City did not even search the email of Investigator Bennie Bridges,
who was the lead investigator for the Eagle case and one of the supervisors present at the Raid itself.62 The City’s search for radio recordings was similarly late and inadequate. Although the deadline to produce these recordings was May 5, 2010 (in response to Request 7 of Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production to Defendant City of Atlanta), the Law Department did not even request any recordings from APD until May 20, 2010, and then requested radio traffic related to the wrong incident
59 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 245.) 60 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, pp. 70-73; Exhibit 23 to Deposition of Jeremy Johnson.) 61 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, pp. 70-73 and Exhibit 23 to Deposition of Jeremy Johnson.) 62 (Id. p. 73; Bennie Bridges’ Response to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories.)
26
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 27 of 55
number.63 As a result, Defendants failed to produce the radio recordings which were due on May 5 until more than four months later, on September 14 (four days after the compliance deadline established by the Court).
B. The City failed to produce responsive documents. As a result of Defendants’ pervasive failure to search, and perhaps a willful attempt to conceal evidence, Defendants withheld a massive quantity of discoverable and in some cases highly relevant and even dispositive items. 1. The City withheld responsive paper documents. The site visits to APD revealed the existence of 12,046 pages of responsive documents, many of which had previously been withheld. 64 The visit to the Red Dog unit alone, for example, uncovered thousands of previously unproduced documents including personnel files, Use of Force Reports, tactical plans of other police raids, Red Dog training materials, and Command Memoranda concerning arrest, search and seizure, and other responsive topics. 65
63 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, p. 57.) 64 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 19, Attachment 3 hereto.) 65 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 20, Attachment 3 hereto.) Given the large quantity of responsive documents uncovered during these site visits Defendants may claim the visits satisfy their obligations under discovery. These site visits were not intended to relieve Defendants of their obligation to search for and produce responsive items; not only do Defendants have a much better understanding of their own filing system than Plaintiffs, but some key responsive items were missing from their normal locations as discussed below.
27
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 28 of 55
The documents discovered by Plaintiffs included “smoking gun” items such sworn statements by police officers admitting key factual issues which are in dispute in this action. For example, one of the disputed issues is whether police officers searched the premises of the Atlanta Eagle, including the manager’s office on the second floor and a locked liquor storage room. Raid commander Defendant John Brock stated in his interrogatory response that “The Club was not searched,” but in a sworn statement he made to Internal Affairs, which was never produced to Plaintiffs and was only discovered during the site visit, Defendant Brock admitted that he himself instructed officers to “clear” the upstairs office and that officers kicked in the door to the liquor storage area (which he called a “kitchen”).66 In another Internal Affairs statement Defendants also withheld, but which was found during the site visit, Investigator Bennie Bridges similarly admitted that officers kicked down the door and searched the liquor storage area.67
In addition to discovering documents which had previously been withheld, the site visits also disclosed documents which are missing and may have been spoliated. For example, Plaintiffs discovered detailed minutes of “Special
66 (John Brock Response to Interrog # 3, Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 25, John Brock OPS Statement, June 29, 2010, P. 21A-2-3, Exhibit I, Attachment 3 hereto.) 67 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 25, Bennie Bridges’ Statement, June 29, 2010, P. 22A-2-2, Exhibit J, Attachment 3 hereto.)
28
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 29 of 55
Enforcement Section (SES) Supervisor Meetings” for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, in which commanders of SES units (including the two units involved in the Raid, Vice and Red Dog) presented detailed descriptions of their activities during that week. Minutes of each weekly meeting were located except for one period of time—the period that included the Raid. These key minutes were missing not only from the file cabinets of the Special Enforcement Section itself, but also from the file cabinets of the Criminal Investigation Division of which SES is a department.68 These minutes may well go to the very heart of who ordered the Raid and what happened. It is Defendants’ obligation to locate and produce these minutes, or to admit that they have been spoliated and no longer exist, but so far Defendants have done neither.69
2. The City failed to produce its Microsoft Exchange Archives as ordered by the Court.
At the two August conferences the Court ordered Defendants to produce all existing computer backups including “archives” of Microsoft Exchange files (which include emails, email attachments, and calendar information)70 and all other
68 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 22, Attachment 3 hereto.) 69 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 23, Attachment 3 hereto.) 70 DIT creates an “archive” the City’s Microsoft Exchange servers every 30th day. This archive is a “snapshot” of all data on the Exchange server on that date, and these 30-day archives are retained for seven years. (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 42, ll. 17-25; pp. 43-44, ll. 1-5; Affidavit of Constance R. Martin, ¶ 11,
29
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 30 of 55
backups to be produced to Plaintiffs no later than September 1, 2010.71 On
September 14, 2010, the City of Atlanta finally produced a USB external hard
drive which Defendants’ counsel described as containing the archives of Microsoft Exchange data for 63 employees of the City of Atlanta.72 Plaintiffs’ e-discovery
consultant examined that data and determined that it does not, in fact, contain the
complete back-up archives ordered by the Court:
Even a cursory review of these PST files indicated that the Defendants failed to produce all existing backup files even for these 63 employees. Complete Microsoft Exchange data (such as emails) from the 2009-2010 timeframe were not contained on the drive received by the Plaintiff on September 14, 2010. As just one example of many, the PST files relating to Defendant Debra Williams contained no data later than November, 2008, and contained no “Sent Items” later than June 6, 2008.73
Since the City’s 30(b)(6) witness testified that these Microsoft Exchange archives
are created every 30th day and are retained for seven years, the City clearly has not
produced all Microsoft Exchange back-up archives currently in existence as
Attachment 5 hereto.) While the City’s witness referred to these archives as “back-ups,” they are in fact “accessible data” which the DIT uses on a daily basis to access emails sent or received by City employees. (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 89, ll. 3-20.) 71 (August 20, 2010 Telephone Conference Transcript p. 10, Attachment 7 hereto; August 27, 2010 Telephone Conference Transcript p. 16, Attachment 8 hereto.) 72 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 31, Attachment 3 hereto.) 73 (Affidavit of Constance R. Martin, ¶ 13, Attachment 5 hereto.)
30
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 31 of 55
ordered by the Court. 3. Defendants have failed to produce photographs of themselves as ordered by the Court. During the August 20, 2010, telephone conference the Court explicitly
ordered Defendants to produce at least five photographs of themselves as requested by Plaintiffs, but not a single individual defendant has complied with the Court’s order. Twenty of the 35 individual defendants have still produced nothing but a single ID photo in the form of a small, fuzzy 2" x 3" inkjet printout, and of the remaining 15 defendants, the majority produced only 2-3 photos and many of these are so fuzzy or dark as to be unrecognizable.74 It would have been quite easy for Defendants to comply with this simple request and their failure to do so shows an especially arrogant contempt for the authority of this Court. III. Responsibility for these violations falls on both defendants and their
counsel. A. The responsibility of Defendants. Defendants are responsible for the general failure to preserve and produce responsive items: “At the end of the day… the duty to preserve and produce documents rests on the party. Once that duty is made clear to a party, either by
74 The few photographs produced by Defendants were low-quality inkjet printouts of digital photographs, where the original digital files are likely of high quality and could easily have been produced on disc or by email.
31
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 32 of 55
court order or by instructions from counsel, that party is on notice of its obligations and acts at its own peril.” Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. at 436.
The duty to preserve was made clear to the Defendant City of Atlanta by Plaintiffs’ December 17, 2009 Preservation Letter (which was mailed to Atlanta’s Mayor, City Council President, Police Chief, Deputy Police Chief, and Deputy City Attorney, among others), but even parties who may not have been informed of the Preservation Letter are liable for their failure to preserve evidence. Swofford v. Eslinger, 671 F.Supp. 2d 1274, 1282 (M.D. Fla. 2009). Defendants “cannot absolve themselves of liability from their failure to preserve the evidence by having their counsel withhold the demand for preservation from them. If the law were otherwise, no party would be responsible for the willful violation of a preservation demand or the destruction of evidence known to be relevant to ongoing or impending litigation if they simply counseled their attorney not to communicate the demand to them.” Id. at 1283.
And, of course, it is always appropriate to hold parties accountable for their own personal conduct, and any individual Defendants who personally spoliated evidence (such as those who deleted mobile phone data) are naturally responsible for those acts. See, Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. 427 F.3d 939, 944 (11th Cir. 2005); Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1377 (N.D. Ga. 2008).
32
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 33 of 55
B. The responsibility of counsel.
Defendants’ counsel are also liable for their violations of Rules 26 and 37 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures in connection with their conduct in this
action. Attorneys have many obligations in responding to discovery and the
counsel for these Defendants failed virtually each and every one of them:
counsel has a duty to effectively communicate to her client its discovery obligations so that all relevant information is discovered, retained, and produced. In particular, once the duty to preserve attaches, counsel must identify sources of discoverable information. This will usually entail speaking directly with the key players in the litigation, as well as the client's information technology personnel. In addition, when the duty to preserve attaches, counsel must put in place a litigation hold and make that known to all relevant employees by communicating with them directly. The litigation hold instructions must be reiterated regularly and compliance must be monitored. Counsel must also call for employees to produce copies of relevant electronic evidence, and must arrange for the segregation and safeguarding of any archival media (e.g., backup tapes) that the party has a duty to preserve.
Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. at 439.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) imposes a continuing duty to supplement discovery and
while “the Rule 26 duty to supplement is nominally the party's, it really falls on
counsel.” Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. at 433 (“a party cannot reasonably be trusted to
receive the ‘litigation hold’ instruction once and to fully comply with it without the
active supervision of counsel.”) This duty to supplement applies equally to all the
individual attorneys who have represented Defendants because the duty has
applied at all times throughout this litigation.
33
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 34 of 55
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) also contains a certification requirement that imposes upon counsel “an affirmative duty under Rule to make a reasonable inquiry into the basis of their discovery responses and to “stop and think about the legitimacy of [those responses].” Metro. Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Employees, 212 F.R.D. 178, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also Apex Oil Co. v. Belcher Co. of N.Y., 855 F.2d 1009, 1017 (2d Cir. 1988). The attorney’s “signature certifies that the lawyer has made a reasonable effort to assure that the client has provided all the information and documents available to him that are responsive to the discovery demand.” Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(G) advisory committee’s notes.) The attorneys who signed the original discovery responses (Peter Andrews and Dennis Young) clearly did not take that responsibility seriously. Among many other incomprehensible responses, these attorneys falsely denied the existence of any “training materials used by or prepared specifically for the Red Dog unit of the APD,” even though it defies common sense to think that APD would employ a SWAT-type narcotics unit to provide an “aggressive police presence” without providing them with any specialized training75, and they signed responses for dozens of individual Defendants who each denied having even a single personal
75Atlanta Police Website, http://www.atlantapd.org/Index.asp?nav=RD&menu=42; (Response 32 to Plaintiffs Second Request for Production to Defendant City of Atlanta.)
34
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 35 of 55
email or text message about a major police raid which involved more than 35 police officers and 60 civilians and which has been the focus of widespread attention. Did these attorneys really “stop and think” about the legitimacy of these answers?
After the Court ordered Defendants to supplement discovery the attorneys who signed the new responses (Jerry De Loach, Robert Godfrey, and Tamara Baines) sometimes just incorporated the same untruthful and unbelievable answers as the original responses: “See previously produced responses.” Did these attorneys themselves “stop and think?” And it was these attorneys who, after the Court’s orders on August 20 and August 27, failed to prevent the recycling of backup tapes; failed to take effective measures to discourage Defendants from deleting mobile phone data; failed to supplement discovery; and failed to produce the email archives, photographs, and other items specifically compelled by the Court.
It should be noted that the attorneys who are responsible for these violations include those who participated in discovery on behalf of Defendants but never entered a notice of appearance, despite being ordered to do so by the Court. These include Jerry de Loach, who signed discovery responses and participated in the August 27 telephone conference. In addition, Mr. De Loach, as the Law Department’s head of litigation and Robert Godfrey’s superior, participated in the
35
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 36 of 55
August 26, 2010 meeting between Defendants’ counsel and the individual Defendants76; Mr. De Loach is at least partly responsible for counsel’s failure to impress upon the Defendants the importance of preserving evidence such as the mobile phone data which was subsequently deleted. Further, Assistant City Attorney Amber Robinson, who coordinated discovery with APD’s Internal Affairs unit, may be responsible for the failure to produce the sworn Internal Affairs statements that were withheld from Plaintiffs.77 These attorneys should not be able to evade sanctions by pointing to their failure to enter an appearance. V. Sanctions
The Court has broad discretion to impose sanctions for discovery violations, deriving “from the court’s inherent power to manage its own affairs and to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Flury, 427 F.3d at 944, citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991).78 Defendants and their counsel
76 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 18, Attachment 3 hereto.) 77 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 28, Attachment 3 hereto.) 78 “‘The key to unlocking the court’s inherent power is a finding of bad faith,’ and a party may demonstrate bad faith by delaying or disrupting litigation or hampering the enforcement of a court order.” Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 260 F.R.D. 682, 699 (N.D. Ga. 2009), citing In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., 456 F.3d 1291, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006).
36
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 37 of 55
are also subject to specific sanctions under Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.79
The relief specifically requested at this time by Plaintiffs is remedial and
compensatory; it is intended to put Plaintiffs in the same place they would be
without Defendants’ abuses by giving Plaintiffs the discovery they should have
received months ago, and compensating them for the unnecessary time and
expenses they have incurred as a result of these violations.
79 Under Rule 26(g)(3), “If a certification violates this rule without substantial justification, the court, on motion or on its own, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose behalf the signer was acting, or both. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3).
Rule 37 authorizes the Court to impose sanctions for the failure to obey a discovery order, including “(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
“Instead of or in addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
37
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 38 of 55
The Court may also, in its discretion, wish to impose punitive sanctions arising from Defendants’ deliberate spoliation of evidence and refusal to obey the Court’s clearly expressed orders.
Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to enter the following orders in this action:
A. Order Defendants fully to comply with discovery. The Court has already ordered full compliance with discovery but these orders have been ignored. Plaintiffs ask the Court again to order full compliance with discovery and, as discussed below, to use its civil contempt authority to compel actual compliance with these orders. B. Order Defendants or their counsel to pay for the forensic
examination of electronically stored information, including the restoration of deleted data. Defendants’ bad faith authorizes the Court, in its discretion, to impose the severest of sanctions, including the striking of pleadings or entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). However, since it is feasible to restore deleted electronic information on both computer hard drives and mobile phones,80 Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants and/or their counsel to pay Plaintiffs’ forensic expert to restore this data to as great an extent as possible, and to prepare a report to the Court
80 (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶¶ 33, 35, Attachment 4 hereto.)
38
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 39 of 55
describing the specific items deleted by Defendants. This should provide Plaintiffs with at least some of the responsive items Defendants should have preserved in the first place and thus fulfill one of the goals of a spoliation sanction, which is to “restore the prejudiced party to the same position [it] would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of evidence by the opposing party.” Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), citing West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2d Cir. 1999). The restoration of deleted data will also assist the Court in determining what additional sanctions may be appropriate in light of the spoliation that actually occurred, since the factors considered in making this determination can much better be addressed after the deleted data is restored in whole or in part.81
Restoration of deleted data can be an expensive process, but if Defendants had fulfilled their obligation to preserve electronic data in the first place no such restoration would be required. It is therefore appropriate to order Defendants to pay for the restoration of deleted data as other courts have done. See, e.g., Canon
81 These factors include “(1) whether the [party] was prejudiced as a result of the destruction of evidence; (2) whether the prejudice could be cured; (3) the practical importance of the evidence; (4) whether the [party] acted in good or bad faith; and (5) the potential for abuse if expert testimony about the evidence was not excluded.” Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. 427 F.3d 939, 945 (11th Cir. 2005).
39
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 40 of 55
U.S.A., INC. v. S.A.M., Inc. 2008 LEXIS 47712 (U.S.D.C., E.D. La. 2008).82
1. The forensic examination and collection of data should include the personal computers of the individual defendants.
Given the individual Defendants’ failure to produce even a single personal
writing (such as a personal email, Facebook message, or online postings), the
forensic examination and data collection discussed above should include the
individual defendants’ personal computers, since this is where personal emails and
other writings are most likely to be found. Each of the individual Defendants has
denied being in possession of responsive writings such as personal emails but these
assertions are not credible, and in the case of at least several defendants they are
clearly untruthful. Plaintiffs have little reason to trust these claims since the failure
to produce certain relevant items raises doubt about a party’s assertion that no
other items exist. Connor v. Sun Trust Bank, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1376 (N.D.
Ga. 2008).
82 Defendants’ preferred method of having forensic examination performed by employees of the APD rather than a third-party expert is completely inappropriate, not only for the obvious conflict of interest, but because the mobile phone examination performed by the APD examiner was grossly inadequate and unprofessional, as described by Plaintiffs’ forensic expert. (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶¶ 11-30, Attachment 4 hereto.) “… the mobile phone forensic examination performed by the Defendants was substantially and materially inadequate with a flawed process design that lacked conformance in every meaningful way with best practices in the mobile phone forensics field.” (Affidavit of John Carney, ¶ 32, Attachment 4 hereto.)
40
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 41 of 55
2. The forensic examination and collection of data should include the City of Atlanta computer workstations of “key players” and others likely to have responsive information.
The forensic restoration and collection of data should include the City of Atlanta computers workstations of “key players” and others likely to have responsive information, such as the administrative assistants and primary subordinates assigned to key players and to the police department units directly involved in this action (Vice, Red Dog, Special Enforcement Section, and Criminal Investigation Division).
Under the user permissions established by the DIT, individual City employees are free to save files exclusively to their own assigned computer hard drives and the City did not take any steps in response to this litigation to prevent such files from being deleted.83 These hard drives should therefore be examined for responsive files which may have been deleted.
C. Order Defendants or their counsel to pay for the collection of electronically stored information and the creation of an e-discovery search facility available to all Parties and the Court.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants or their counsel to pay Plaintiffs’ e-discovery consultants to collect electronically stored information in the possession of Defendants (including emails, database entries, mobile phone data, text documents, and photographs,) and load the information into a search
83 (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson, p. 66, ll. 1-15.)
41
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 42 of 55
facility, which will then be made available to all parties and the Court. The City of Atlanta agreed to this procedure with regard to its own electronic data during the August 20, 2010, conference (“That’s fine with the City. The City has no objection to that”)84, but Plaintiffs were reluctant to begin the project out of concern Defendants would not honor their agreement; Defendants’ counsel Tamara Baines had already agreed, on the record, that the City would pay the cost of the 30(b)(6) deposition it terminated but the City later refused to make any such payment.85
The procedure proposed by Plaintiffs is no different than what Defendants should have already done on their own to comply with discovery. Without an ediscovery search facility there is no practical way to search tens-of-thousands of emails, text messages, and database entries from a large number of employees for items responsive to such a wide variety of discovery topics (including the Raid itself, the investigation which preceded the raid, the discussions which followed the Raid, APD training on topics such as search and seizure, and other police raids which may show evidence of a custom and practice relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding municipal liability). Defendants’ “failure to establish any systematic
84 (Transcript of August 20, 2010, pp. 10-11, Attachment 7 hereto.) 85 (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 5, 2010, p. 77, ll. 6-8.) (Ms. Baines stated: “The City will pay for her to be deposed again as a 30(b)(6) witness because we are stopping it.”) See also, Id. p. 75, ll. 21-24.)
42
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 43 of 55
process to comply with plaintiffs’ discovery requests” on their own represents “culpable intent” in failing to comply with discovery. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 551 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “the presumption is that the responding party . . . must bear the expense of complying with discovery requests.” Peskoff v. Faber, 251 F.R.D. 59, 61 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 358 (1978), and this presumption applies to the discovery of electronically stored information. Peskoff at 61; Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309, 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Defendants should already have borne the expense of an e-discovery search facility to fulfill their burden to search for and produce responsive materials, and Plaintiffs are merely asking the Court to assure that Defendants do now what they should have done months ago.
D. Order Defendants to provide their online user-ids and passwords, and their consent to third party internet providers to release online content.
No individual Defendant has produced even a single online writing (such as a personal email, online comment, social media posting, or instant message) in response to Requests 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to the individual Defendants. Moreover, no individual Defendant has served any response at all to Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production, which specifically
43
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 44 of 55
requested the production of “comments or writings of any kind made by the defendant concerning or relating in any way to the Atlanta Eagle, the Atlanta Eagle Raid, the above-styled action, or any of the plaintiffs in this action” posted on “Facebook.com, MySpace.com, Officer.com, Twitter.com, Yahoo.com, AOL.com, and any other website, forum, and internet social media outlet of any kind.” Defendants’ responses to this request were due on September 7, 2010 (over two weeks after Defendants were ordered to comply with discovery), yet not one Defendant has responded to the request.
Given Defendants’ complete failure to produce this information voluntarily, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order each individual Defendant to identify all online accounts (including email, social networking, instant messaging, and message boards and forums, but excluding financial or medical accounts) that he or she has used from May, 2009 (when the Eagle investigation began) to the present; to provide their user-ids and passwords to all such accounts; to provide their consent to third parties (e.g. internet providers) for the release of online content86; and to pay for Plaintiffs’ e-discovery consultants to collect this data and load it into a search facility available to all parties and the Court.
86 Defendants’ consent is required to satisfy the requirements of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(3). Plaintiffs may also ask this Court for an order addressed to these internet providers requiring production of this data.
44
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 45 of 55
E. Award the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants’ continued and repeated failure to comply with discovery.
Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as a result of Defendants’ conduct both before and after the Court’s August discovery orders. Plaintiffs’ counsel should not have had to spend time and expenses on multiple phone calls, emails, letters, good faith conferences, a three-part deposition, consultation with forensic experts, and now this extensive motion to compel as a result of Defendants’ continuing and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery.87
Throughout this litigation Defendants have attempted to wear Plaintiffs down by dragging out discovery disputes as much as possible. For example, by late June, when, it had become obvious that Defendants had no intention of complying with discovery, Plaintiffs served a notice for a 30(b)(6) deposition to inquire into the existence of responsive items. On July 13, 2010, Plaintiffs’ counsel Daniel Grossman sent an email to Defendants’ counsel Dennis Young stating: “Please let me know if the defendants will fully comply with all our outstanding discovery requests within the next few days, or please schedule a date early next week for the 30(b)(6) deposition.”88
87 (This effort is described in the Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶¶ 4-17, Attachment 3 hereto.) 88 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 11, Attachment 3 hereto.)
45
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 46 of 55
In an effort to prompt voluntary compliance with discovery, Grossman explicitly told Defendants’ counsel Christopher Walker that the 30(b)(6) testimony would be used in connection with a motion to compel and Grossman encouraged Defendants to avoid the deposition (and thus a motion to compel) simply by agreeing to comply with discovery.89 Grossman explained Plaintiffs’ position to Christopher Walker again by email and offered to take the deposition off the calendar, and even give Defendants additional time to comply with discovery, if they would simply agree to a date certain for compliance.90 How did Defendants respond to this offer? Christopher Walker replied: “I believe the best option is for us to schedule the 30(b)(6) witness for the City of Atlanta.”91
In other words, Defendants were so determined to avoid compliance with discovery that rather than take advantage of the additional time offered by the Plaintiffs, Defendants chose, instead, to make Plaintiffs begin the tedious,
89 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 12, Attachment 3 hereto.) 90 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 13, Attachment 3 hereto; Daniel Grossman July 14, 2010, email to Christopher Walker, Exhibit D.) 91 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 14, Attachment 3 hereto; Christopher Walker email to Daniel Grossman, Exhibit E.)
46
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 47 of 55
painstaking, and expensive process of documenting Defendants’ discovery
violations though a 30(b)(6) deposition.92
Even after being twice ordered by the Court to comply with discovery,
Defendants failed to do so, necessitating the present motion to compel, taking the
time not only of Plaintiffs’ counsel but of the Court and its staff as well.
92 Even that process, however, did not go smoothly. When the City’s designated 30(b)(6) witness, Major Debra Williams, finally sat for her deposition on August 5, 2010, she was not only one hour late but was so unprepared that Defendants’ counsel Tamara Baines terminated the deposition, stating, “there’s obviously a few things that should have taken place before we can truly present her as a 30(b)(6)… I understand, too, that we’ll end up having to pay for the deposition when she’s deposed again, but I cannot present her as a 30(b)(6) today.” (Deposition of Debra Williams, August 5, 2010, p. 6; p. 75, ll. 15-23.)
Not only did the City never pay for the deposition as promised, but when Major Williams appeared again on August 10 she was still not prepared to testify about some of the matters in the deposition notice. ( Deposition of Debra Williams, August 10, 2010, p. 193.) The City therefore scheduled yet a third deposition, with another witness, which took place on August 19, 2010, two weeks after the first deposition. (Deposition of Jeremy Johnson.)
The production of an unprepared 30(b)(6) witness is considered a failure to appear, which is sanctionable under Rule 37(d)(1). Continental Cas. Co. v. Compass Bank, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12288, at *56-70 (S.D. Ala., March 3, 2006), citing Black Horse Lane Assoc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 228 F.3d 275, 304 (3d Cir. 2000) (“We hold that when a witness is designated by a corporate party to speak on its behalf pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), ‘producing an unprepared witness is tantamount to a failure to appear’ that is sanctionable under Rule 37(d).”); Starlight Int’l Inc. v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626, 639 (D.Kan. 1999) (“‘Producing an unprepared witness is tantamount to a failure to appear at a deposition.’ . . . The court may find lack of preparation at a deposition to be a failure to appear.”); and United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 363 (M.D.N.C. 1996) (“Producing an unprepared witness is tantamount to a failure to appear.”), order aff’d, 166 F.R.D. 367 (M.D.N.C. 1996).
47
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 48 of 55
F. Plaintiffs request the Court to enforce all orders issued under this motion by a finding of civil contempt.
The Court has already ordered Defendants to comply with discovery on two occasions. Indeed, to emphasize the gravity of disobedience with these orders the Court even warned that the “Sword of Damocles” was hanging over the City’s head.93 Despite these warnings Defendants ignored the Court’s clear orders, and so Plaintiffs are concerned that additional orders may be similarly ignored.
In fact, it appears that Defendants may have deliberately chosen to defy the Court. On August 26, 2010, Defendants’ counsel Robert Godfrey stated in an email: “I have just completed my meeting with the officers and as I anticipated, there was a good deal of discomfort with what we have to do to comply with the Court’s order. First of all, I am going to have to have an order from the judge that I can show the officers and APD brass.”94 The next day Defendants, through counsel, asked the Court for such a written order, and when the request was denied it seems they simply chose to ignore the Court’s verbal orders. Instead of producing their mobile phones as ordered, several Defendants deleted the data they were told to produce, and all 35 Defendants refused to do something as simple as producing five photographs of themselves, suggesting an intentional and coordinated defiance of the Court’s authority. 93 (Transcript of August 27, 2010, p. 17, Attachment 8 hereto.) 94 (Affidavit of Daniel Grossman, ¶ 18, Attachment 3 hereto.)
48
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 49 of 55
“Courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.” Smith v. Pefanis, 652 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1339 (N.D. Ga. 2009). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize the Court to “[treat] as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination,” and other courts have exercised this authority to with regard to discovery violations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(B)(2)(A)(VII); Pesaplastic, C.A. v. Cincinnati Milacron Co., 799 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1986).
A finding of civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence that: “(1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order.” Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002). The Court’s orders to produce mobile phones, backup tapes, email archives, and photographs were clear and unambiguous and transcripts of the hearings were available to Defendants; there can be little doubt that Defendants had the ability to comply with these orders.
A federal court recently used its civil contempt authority to enforce an order (in that case, the payment of attorneys’ fees) arising from discovery violations similar to the violations in this action (including the failure to implement a litigation hold, the deletion of electronically stored information, the failure to preserve electronic evidence, and the failure to stop the recycling of computer
49
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 50 of 55
backup tapes). Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93644 (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2010). The court in Victor Stanley found the use of its contempt authority appropriate because it believed that “without the threat of jail time, [the responding party’s] future conduct would be predicted by his past.” Id., at 157.
Given Defendants’ refusal to obey the clear orders issued by this Court, Plaintiffs ask the Court to hold Defendants and their counsel in civil contempt and order them imprisoned, but give them the opportunity to purge the contempt and avoid ever being jailed simply by complying with the Court’s orders within a reasonable period of time.
Plaintiffs wish to make it clear that they do not seek the actual incarceration of Defendants or their counsel; Plaintiffs merely suggest that the Court use its civil contempt authority as a mechanism to assure compliance with the Court’s orders, which have already been blatantly and deliberately violated by these Defendants. As the court noted in Victor Stanley, “to avoid jail time, all that is required” of Defendants is to obey the orders of the Court. Id. at 158.
G. Impose such punitive sanctions, if any, as the Court finds appropriate.
Defendants’ abuse of discovery hurt not only Plaintiffs but also the Court and the adversary system itself, which “relies in large part on the good faith and diligence of counsel and the parties in abiding by these rules and conducting
50
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 51 of 55
themselves and their judicial business honestly.” Metro. Opera Ass'n v. Local 100, Hotel Employees, 212 F.R.D. 178, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Victor Stanley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93644 at *98 (“the duty to preserve evidence … is a duty owed to the court, not to a party’s adversary.”)
Discovery sanctions are intended not only to prevent unfair prejudice to litigators but also “to insure the integrity of the discovery process.” Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. 427 F.3d 939, 944 (11th Cir. 2005); Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns., 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). Severe sanctions are available to the district court “not merely to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.” NHL v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976). As discussed above, these sanctions can include entry of default judgment and the striking of pleadings or defenses.
The sanctions requested by Plaintiffs for their own sake, at this time, are remedial and compensatory, and it is for the Court to determine in its own discretion if additional sanctions are appropriate to protect the integrity of the judicial process or to deter misconduct in the future.
51
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 52 of 55
CONCLUSION Throughout this litigation the Defendants and their counsel have acted as if the rules, the law, and even the orders of this Court simply do not apply to them: They have responded late to most discovery requests; failed to respond at all to others; failed to follow the Court’s “Instructions to Parties and Counsel;” failed to use good faith in making or certifying their discovery responses; failed to preserve, search for, or produce responsive items as required by law; failed to obey clear and unambiguous orders of this Court; and rather than produce evidence pursuant to this Court’s Order, they destroyed it. These violations involved all thirty-five Defendants and at least eight individual attorneys. The judicial process cannot function when parties and their counsel so flagrantly, pervasively, and deliberately ignore their obligations. This 6th day of October, 2010.
/s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman GA State Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Dr., Suite F-138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 654-0326 Facsimile: (404) 897-1884
52
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 53 of 55
Elizabeth L. Littrell, GA State Bar No. 454949 Gregory R. Nevins, GA State Bar No. 539529 Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. 730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1070 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 897-1880 Facsimile: (404) 897-1884 Gerald R. Weber, Jr. GA State Bar No. 744878 Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
53
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 54 of 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

______________________________________________________________

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Civil Action

v.

) File No.:

) 1:09-CV-3286-TCB

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, Chief )

of Police for the City of Atlanta, in )

his official and individual capacities, )

et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

_______________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 6, 2010 I electronically filed Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions with the Clerk of Court using
the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the following attorneys of record:95

Dennis McRay Young
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell Gerald R. Weber Gregory R. Nevins Lisa L. Kung Robert N. Godfrey

dmyoung@atlantaga.gov; ahickman@atlantaga.gov jdeloach@atlantaga.gov; ljwoods@atlantaga.gov bethlittrell@bellsouth.net wgerryweber@gmail.com, gweber@schr.org gnevins@lamdalegal.org lkung@schr.org rgodfrey@atlantaga.gov; ahickman@atlantaga.gov

95 Counsel hereby certifies that this document has been prepared in Times New Roman font (14 point), in accordance with Local Rule 5.1C.
54
75205468.1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 236 Filed 10/06/10 Page 55 of 55

Tamara Nikki Baines

tbaines@atlantaga.gov; ljwoods@atlantaga.gov
/s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman GA State Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Dr., Suite F-138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 654-0326 Facsimile: (404) 897-1884 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

55
75205468.1

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 1 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. RICHARD PENNINGTON et al
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. ) 1:09-CV-3286-TCB ) ) )

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS
COMES NOW, Defendants in the above-styled case and files this response in opposition to Plaintiffs‟ motion to compel as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION The Defendants first respond to the Plaintiffs‟ Motion to Compel by stating that despite the protestations and overwrought demands, that all of the reasonably relevant documents to which the Plaintiffs would be entitled under the Civil Practice Act have been produced or offered for production. In this motion, Plaintiffs request that Defendants be compelled to file responses to Plaintiffs‟ various Requests for Document Production and Requests for Interrogatories. The motion follows a complex format stating that Defendants

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 2 of 42
have failed to preserve evidence, failed to search for responsive items and failed to comply with the Court‟s orders. While Plaintiffs‟ motion is impressively thick and filled with attachments, it does not place the factual content and the subject discovery requests and responses in their full context. An examination of the circumstances surrounding this motion demonstrates that Plaintiffs‟ motion and the relief sought is unwarranted and unnecessary. Therefore, Plaintiffs‟ motion should be denied.
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Despite the strident protestations of Plaintiffs‟ counsel, the Defendants in this matter have not engaged in any willful conduct that would justify the relief requested. While Defendants concede that discovery in this matter has not progressed as smoothly as either side would have anticipated, this is not solely the responsibility of Defendants. This case originally was filed on November 24, 2009 alleging constitutional violations relative to an event that occurred on September 10, 2009 at the Atlanta Eagle. Service was effectuated by consent of the City on January 4, 2010 and the appropriated waivers were filed thereafter. At the time of filing and service of the Complaint, the named defendants were the City, Chief Pennington and Officers Bridges, Noble and Watkins, along with Jane and John Does 1-45. The Answer to the original Complaint was filed March 1, 2010. The Complaint was amended on
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 3 of 42
March 17, 2010 and for the first time the current defendants were added as parties. Initial discovery to the individual defendants was served April 5, 2010.
Discovery that originally was undertaken by previous defense counsel in this case resulted in the intervention by the Court in the parties‟ discovery disputes. As noted by Plaintiffs, there was a teleconference with the Court on August 20, 2010 at a point in the litigation where new defense counsel had been substituted into the case. Neither of the two original attorneys who had worked the case was associated with the City‟s Law Department at that time, and newly substituted counsel was attempting to familiarize themselves with this case as well as some thirty other cases that had to be reassigned. The conference progressed as a fairly one-sided recitation by Plaintiffs‟ counsel of what he perceived to have been abuse of the discovery process and concluded with the Court‟s directive that Defendants cooperate fully with Plaintiffs‟ discovery requests, including, inter alia, permitting Plaintiffs‟ counsel to conduct site visits to review documents in the places where they were maintained.
Counsel conferred by telephone after this teleconference to determine how best to proceed and at the behest of defense counsel, Plaintiffs‟ counsel and the defense counsel met on August 25, 2010, at the City‟s Law Department for their first in person conference. During this meeting, defense counsel sought to determine from plaintiffs‟ counsel the particular concerns of counsel regarding
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 4 of 42
discovery and the proposed methods that counsel intended to pursue relative to forensic and electronic discovery. This meeting was followed by a series of email communications that provided further clarification to defense counsel as to process for producing the required information.
The parties made arrangements to get the site visits underway, with the initial visit at APD Headquarters occurring on August 27. Prior to that site visit, the parties had been communicating regarding the logistics for providing access to cell phones, electronically stored data and emails. During the course of the initial site visit, it became obvious to defense counsel, based upon the manner in which the site visit was progressing, that the parameters of the Court‟s directive were so broadly drawn as to make it difficult for counsel to be certain that they were in compliance. As a result, defense counsel requested another teleconference with the Court and that conference occurred the same day.
During the August 27 conference, defense counsel advised the Court that that they felt they would be better able to comply with the Court‟s directive, if an order were to be issued that would provide better guidance. Again, it should be noted that newly assigned defense counsel was still in the process of becoming familiar with this case. Counsel also informed the Court of the difficulty in complying with the Plaintiffs‟ request for cell phones being turned over for as long as four (4) days per forensic examination. While the Court originally agreed to
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 5 of 42
enter an order summarizing the conference that was to be drafted by Plaintiffs‟ counsel, the Court later recanted and chose not to do so. The Court did, however, agree that cell phones could not be in Plaintiffs‟ control for longer than twenty-four (24) hours.
The parties then proceeded to complete the site visits at Headquarters and the Office of Professional Standards on August 27 and August 30 and on September 1. Thereafter, Plaintiffs‟ counsel having identified thousands of documents that he wanted copied, defense counsel proceeded to copy the requested documents and turn them over to Plaintiffs‟ counsel. At Plaintiffs‟ request, documents that were archived in storage were retrieved and produced for inspection. Cell phone content was retrieved, transferred to disc1 and provided to Plaintiffs. During the site visits, Plaintiffs‟ counsel identified by serial number, the computer hard drives that he wanted his expert to inspect.
With regard to the larger body of electronic data stored on the City‟s servers, due to the unlimited nature of the Court‟s directive, Plaintiffs‟ counsel demanded that the entire universe of electronic files for seven thousand seven hundred (7,700) users, including lawyers, be downloaded and provided to him. His request was based upon deposition testimony of the IT staff that suggested this was a readily available universe of information that routinely is archived every 30 days. Upon
1 Approximately 22 discs were provided to Plaintiffs‟ counsel.
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 6 of 42
defense counsel‟s objection and request that counsel limit the scope by naming the individuals whose files were essential, Plaintiffs‟ counsel insisted he was not limited by the Court‟s directive and demanded retrieval of the entire universe of information. To facilitate the retrieval process, the City‟s IT staff and Plaintiffs‟ expert engaged in a four and a half hour telephone conference with Plaintiffs‟ counsel to sort the logistics of the production. Following this conference, it was determined that the process of retrieval would require several thousand man hours as each of the 7,700 individual files would take four (4) hours to download. It was only after this determination that counsel agreed to specify certain files to be retrieved and in communication with defense counsel explained that it was never his intent to get all 7,700 files; that the testimony of the City‟s IT staff had led him to believe that the emails were conveniently accessible. These were then downloaded and provided by defense counsel. In addition, existing back-up tapes were provided to counsel pursuant to the Court‟s August 20, 2010 and subsequent directives.
Plaintiffs‟ counsel also raised the issue of spoliation with the Court following the conference with the IT staff when it was discovered that back-up tapes were being re-used. However, the Court was persuaded that defense counsel had instituted measures to correct this situation. Immediately after the close of the teleconference with the IT staff, defense counsel issued a written directive to the
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 7 of 42
City‟s IT staff to discontinue overriding back-up tapes. In addition, the City‟s IT Department invested $80,000.00 for a new Symantec Netbackup Dedupe digital storage system that allowed the City to abandon the use of back-up tapes with software applications that more efficiently facilitates e-discovery.
In the last conversation that defense counsel had with Plaintiffs‟ counsel when he came to inspect retrieved archived documents, it appeared to defense counsel that the parties were continuing to make satisfactory progress in complying with the Court‟s directive. The next day, defense counsel was surprised to learn that Plaintiffs‟ counsel felt it necessary to file the motion that is now before the Court.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS At the time of the initial conference with the Court on August 20, 2010, Defense counsel Robert N. Godfrey and Tamara Baines had been involved in this case for only a few weeks at most. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 1; Exhibit C, Affidavit of Tamara Nikki Baines, ¶ 2). As a result, as of the August 20 teleconference, there had been no time to assess the status of this case and counsel‟s participation was limited to listening to the assertions of Plaintiffs‟ counsel as to what had or had not been accomplished in discovery. Thus, when the Court issued its directive that defense counsel was required to cooperate fully in discovery with their defenses having been summarily dismissed, defense counsel
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 8 of 42
essentially had to depend upon Plaintiffs‟ counsel to provide some specific direction as to what he saw as deficiencies. (Exhibit C, Affidavit of Tamara Nikki Baines, ¶ 9).
Defense counsel invited Plaintiffs‟ counsel to confer and the resulting meeting concluded on a positive note and in the spirit of mutual cooperation on a going forward basis. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 2). One of the major areas discussed during this meeting was the ongoing need for patience from plaintiffs‟ counsel as defense counsel attempted to familiarize themselves with the issues in dispute. (Id.)
Upon initial investigation, counsel determined that over twenty thousand (20,000) documents had been produced by Defendants prior to August 20, based upon the Bates-stamped record available to counsel. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 10). Since that time, in the full spirit of cooperation, defendants have produced and continue to produce an equivalent amount of documents that they believe to be responsive to Plaintiffs‟ requests. (Id.) A summary of the document production by type and related Bates number is attached as Exhibit A.
Following the August 20 conference, defense counsel arranged an all hands meeting with the named defendants and their superiors to inform them of the court‟s directive. (Exhibit C, Affidavit of Tamara Nikki Baines, ¶ 9). At that
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 9 of 42
meeting, defendants were provided with a questionnaire that sought relevant information regarding cell phones and social media pages. (Id.) There was some concern expressed during that meeting when the officers were informed that their cell phones would be out of their possession for as long as four days, based upon the representation of Plaintiffs‟ counsel that this would be the amount of time needed for a forensic review. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 5; Exhibit C, Affidavit of Tamara Nikki Baines). This issue was addressed to Plaintiffs‟ counsel for a possible compromise solution that ultimately had to be addressed by the Court in a subsequent teleconference. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 5). During that latter conference on August 27, the Court limited the Plaintiffs to a 24 hour period for the forensic analysis. Defendants never refused to hand over the cell phones for review. (Id.) Moreover, Defendants utilized the APD‟s technical staff to download a complete copy of everything currently on the telephones and deliver the downloaded information to Plaintiffs‟ counsel. (Id.)
After the meeting with the officers and their command staff, arrangements were then made to provide Plaintiffs‟ counsel with the access to Police Department files. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 3). Complete access to the files was provided in the company of defense counsel on August 27, August 30 and on September 1, 2010. (Id.) Plaintiffs‟ counsel was permitted to look into any file
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 10 of 42
cabinet, desk or storage area that he desired and to designate for copying and production any individual file, file drawer or other set of files he desired. (Id.) These documents then were accumulated, copied, Bates stamped and scanned to disc for counsel‟s convenience. (Id.) In addition, wherever counsel located documents that he wanted copied, he was provided those copies as well as duplicates in the overall scanned production. (Id.)
In addition to reviewing documents, Plaintiffs‟ counsel identified computers throughout APD Headquarters that he wanted made available for a forensic analysis of the hard drive by his request. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 4). Those computers remain in place and await the forensic analysis by the expert. What the parties agreed was to have the Plaintiffs‟ expert come in and clone the hard drive of each identified computer for off-site analysis. (Id.) This remains to be done. (Id.)
The electronic data that counsel requested the City to provide included backup tapes from the City‟s servers as well as existing user files. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 8). This would have been in addition to the files that would be recovered from the individual hard drives of the computers identified at the various APD offices that Defendants agreed to produce and also would have been a duplication of those files. (Id.) As an initial matter, defense counsel sought some consideration from plaintiffs‟ counsel from the enormity of such a production
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 11 of 42
that would involve the files of 7,700 City users, including lawyers and individuals not remotely related to the claims in the case. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 7). Defense counsel suggested that it would be more productive to attempt to limit the production to a specific set of users whose documents might prove relevant. (Id.) In response, counsel insisted that he was in no way limited by the Court‟s directive, that all objections had been overruled and that he intended for Defendants to provide him, in a readable medium, the entire universe of the 7,700 files. (Id.)
In an effort to reason with plaintiffs‟ counsel, defense counsel suggested that the City‟s IT staff and the Plaintiffs‟ expert be included in a teleconference to discuss the feasibility of the request and the logistics of the production. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶¶ 7, 8). After a four and a half hour teleconference, Plaintiffs‟ counsel continued to demand the 7,700 files. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 7).
The City‟s IT staff then undertook to analyze the feasibility of compliance and determined that it would require several thousand man-hours to comply. (Id.) Each of the 7,700 files would require a four (4) hour timeframe to be downloaded. Given this information, Plaintiffs‟ counsel finally agreed to provide a list of the individuals whose files he desired and this data was downloaded to a portable hard drive and given to Plaintiffs‟ counsel. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey,
11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 12 of 42
¶ 8, 11). At the same time this hard drive was hand-delivered to counsel, the existing back-up tapes were delivered. (Id.) However, counsel did not take the back-up tapes with him and they remain available for production to him. (Id.)
Plaintiffs‟ counsel and defense counsel were continuously in communication throughout the period prior to the filing of the motion to compel and defense counsel was attempting on almost a daily basis to satisfy the demands of Plaintiffs‟ counsel. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 9). When it was determined that Chief Pennington‟s files were no longer in the active files at APD Headquarters, the archived files were immediately retrieved from storage and presented to Plaintiffs‟ counsel for unfettered inspection. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 3). The Pennington files were made available on the same day he appeared to inspect the downloaded cell phone records. (Id.)
In one conversation with Plaintiffs‟ counsel that occurred on the day of the site visit to the Atlanta Police Department‟s Office of Professional Standard (OPS”), when it appeared that the parties were done with the particulars of document production, defense counsel inquired as to what specifically was outstanding that counsel was seeking. (Exhibit B, Affidavit of Robert N. Godfrey, ¶ 9). The response was that the previous responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents needed to be supplemented. (Id.) Defense counsel agreed that that would be done and then inquired about the second set of discovery
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 13 of 42
requests. (Id.) The response, as defense counsel understood it, was that the second requests were not significantly different from the first and that supplementing the original responses should suffice. (Id.) Those responses were in fact supplemented and served on counsel.
IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY A. THE MOTION TO COMPEL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTES.
It is well-established that a “range of choice” exists in how a District Court may rule on a motion to compel. United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 745 (11th Cir. 1989). However, before filing a motion to compel further disclosures or discovery pursuant to Rule 37(a), the aggrieved party must attempt to confer with the unresponsive party in an effort to obtain the desired material without court action. All motions to compel must include a certification that such an effort has been made. Rule 37(d)(1)(B) has a similar requirement for a party who moves for Rule 37(b) sanctions due to an opponent's failure to serve interrogatory answers or to serve a response to a document request. Plaintiff‟s Motion to Compel should be dismissed for failure to engage and certify that, prior to filing this motion, counsel for Plaintiff has contacted counsel for Defendants in a good faith effort to resolve the matters in Plaintiff‟s Motion pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 37 (a)(1).
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 14 of 42
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part: On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.
All of Plaintiffs‟ attempts to engage in a good faith resolution of discovery issues occurred before the telephone conference with Judge Batten on August 20, 2010. During the time prior to the conference call, Plaintiffs‟ counsel was on notice that the attorney of record was no longer employed with the City and that new counsel was being substituted. Plaintiffs‟ counsel specifically requested the August 20, 2010 conference to address discovery issues related to the timeframe before the substitution of the current counsel for Defendants. Moreover, Defendants‟ counsel, Bob Godfrey, engaged in several conversations with Plaintiff‟s counsel, Dan Grossman, regarding compliance with previous discovery requests. At no time, between the timeframe of September 14, 2010 and prior to the filing of this instant motion, did Defendants‟ counsel assert that Defendants were not in compliance with production of discovery.
B. THE CITY HAS COMPLIED WITH THE COURT’S AUGUST 20, 2010 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE DIRECTIVES.
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 15 of 42
Plaintiffs‟ counsel alleges that Defendants have failed to comply with the Court‟s directives from the August 20, 2010 telephone conference. Plaintiffs‟ counsel alleges that the Defendants are not in compliance with regards to the following: (1) production of individuals Defendants‟ mobile phones and photographs for inspection, (2) production of “existing” backup tapes, (3) inspection of original documents at the offices of the Atlanta Police Department, and (4) Production of 30(b)(6) witness. (Plaintiff‟s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions, pp. 5-8). However, review of the Court‟s directions and Defendants‟ actual responses do not support Plaintiff‟s contentions. Defendants will address the general issues as articulated in Plaintiff‟s instant motion and then address each of the specific issues articulated in Exhibit A to Plaintiff‟s instant motion.
First, the Court specifically directed Plaintiffs‟ counsel to inform Defendants‟ counsel of any perceived noncompliances with discovery:
“Mr. Grossman, I‟ll allow you to point out to defendants‟ counsel any alleged noncompliances that you would like to see corrected in the form of supplemental responses.” Court‟s August 20, 2010 Order, p. 9. In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed to engage in a good faith effort to address any perceived problems with the current discovery responses as of August 20, 2010, before filing this motion nor has Plaintiff filed the required certification of good faith as required pursuant to FRCP 37 or pursuant to the
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 16 of 42
Court‟s August 20, 2010 order.2 As such, Plaintiff‟s Motion to Compel should be
dismissed.
1. Defendants are in compliance with the Court’s August 20, 2010 directive regarding the requested photographs.
Plaintiffs‟ counsel alleges noncompliance with providing photographs of the
officers. However, the court addressed this issue in its August 20, 2010 order:
“It seems to me that what you [Plaintiffs‟ counsel, Dan Grossman] ought to do is look at those pictures first and see if they‟re sufficient, And I would think they probably would be. Be if you still feel that they‟re not sufficient, I‟m going to find that they need--that these individual defendants need to go to Lambda Legal. But don‟t make them go if the pictures are good enough. Court‟s August 20, 2010 Order, p.14.
In this passage, the Court referenced Defendants‟ counsel proposal to have
individual Defendants go to Lamda Legal in order to have their pictures taken.
“I noticed [that] the City has made the offer …to have the remaining defendants travel to Lambda Legal and have their photographs taken at their convenience. That sounds about as reasonable as the Court could ever imagine. Court‟s August 20, 2010 Order, p.6.
As such, any issues regarding individual Defendant‟s photographs could
have been easily resolved by Plaintiffs‟ request of Defendants‟ initial offer.
As established below, Defendants provided photographs to Plaintiffs, which
Plaintiffs then complained as to the color and visual characteristics of the group of
pictures, without specifying a single picture that did not meet his personal
2 “I assume that counsel‟s seen my instruction to the parties and counsel that they need to try to resolve these disputes by agreements.” See Court‟s Order, August 20, 2010, pg. 5.
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 17 of 42
preference. Instead of complying to the Court‟s August 20, 2010 order with regards to Lambda Legal taking the photographs, and without conferring with Defendants, Plaintiffs filed this motion stating that Defendants were not in compliance regarding production of photographs.
2. Defendants are in good faith compliance with the Court’s August 20, 2010 and August 27, 2010 directives regarding the production of mobile phones.
The court‟s August 20, 2010 order granted that Defendants‟ would provide electronic mobile phones and Blackberries for Plaintiff‟s inspection. In the subsequent August 27, 2010, the court directed:
The one thing I do want the Plaintiffs to do and to confer with the Defendants to make sure is done appropriately is to make arrangements for the inspection of these cell phones and other electronic devices over a period of days so that each individual defendant who produces his phone only has to be without his phone for one day. (Court‟s August 27, 2010 order, pg. 10).
Plaintiffs‟ and Defendants‟ counsel did confer, and decided to have the City‟s Homeland Security Department complete an initial analysis of Defendants‟ phones to capture all images and written communications. Then after examination of the initial analysis, Plaintiffs‟ counsel would identify any individual phone that they wanted for a forensic analysis. Here again, Plaintiffs‟ counsel has misconstrued the Court‟s directive. Defendants provided an initial report of 22 out
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 18 of 42
of the 34 individual officers named.3 Instead of adhering to the joint agreement, Plaintiffs now file this instant motion, without providing any notice to Defendants of which phones would be required for forensic analysis.
3. Defendants are in compliance with the Court’s August 20, 2010 directives regarding the inspection of site visits and production of documents.
Plaintiffs allege that all documents were not produced; however review of the record does not support this contention. In order to facilitate Plaintiffs‟ counsel request for original documents, the court ordered Plaintiffs‟ counsel to have complete access to inspect the site of police headquarters, including individuals‟ workspaces, OPS investigations headquarters, commanding officers‟ files, and other locations. As part of the site inspection, Plaintiff‟s counsel was allowed to note and mark documents to be copied. However, Plaintiffs counsel now alleges that Defendants compliance with the Court‟s order indicates Defendant‟s intentionally withheld documents. However, Plaintiff‟s allegations are confusing, when one reviews the Court‟s order.
MR. GROSSMAN: I would like to mention the subject of paper files. The City has refused, in fact Ms. Baines refused…, to allow us to inspect and copy original documents. They are only willing to provide photocopies of the documents made by the defendants themselves.
3 Additional cell phone reports have been provided to Plaintiffs‟ counsel for remaining officers.
18

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 19 of 42
MS. BAINES: Well, we produced a number of documents. It would be very difficult for us to take a lot of these original documents out of circulation to them make them available to the plaintiffs…
MS. BAINES (CON‟T): Now, we will allow him… to check it against the originals, but we don‟t want to have these [original] documents leaked, to be taken off site.
THE COURT: All right. Now that …to me seems reasonable. I understand why you want to look at the …original document. And if she‟s telling you we‟ll make you a copy of everything and then you can come down at that time when you pick up the copies or sometime shortly thereafter and compare them to the originals, to the extent you want to make sure that the copies are authentic, that seems reasonable.
Court‟s August 20, 2010 Order, pp. 17-18.
MR. GROSSMAN (Plaintiff‟s Counsel): We simply wanted access to look at the original documents in the place where they‟re stored in the ordinary course of business. And part of the reason we‟re concerned about is that Major Williams testified that the paper files of numerous people were never searched. So, we would like the opportunity to look at these files, where they‟re stored in the ordinary course of business, take a look at how they‟re stored, what kind of file numbering system there is. Removing them is less important than having a chance to inspect them so that we know we‟re getting everything that might exist.
THE COURT: Well, it doesn‟t sound to me like you want a document inspection. You want an inspection of the premises.
MR. GROSSMAN: We‟re not asking for that, Judge.
THE COURT (CONT‟D): Ms. Baines, you just take them on a tour over there and show them where the documents are and let them see the actual original files to see how things are maintained. And they can take notes, but not—but not pictures, but they can take notes of what they see and that type thing.
MS. BAINES: All right, Your Honor.
Court‟s August 20, 2010 Order, pp. 17-19.
19

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 20 of 42
Plaintiffs admit that on August 27, August 30, and September 1, 2010, they were permitted to inspect the Atlanta Police Department offices in compliance with the Court‟s August 20, 2010 directives. (Plaintiff‟s Motion to Compel, pg. 7.) Not only did Defendants comply with the Court‟s order for site inspection, but in a good faith cooperation, allowed Plaintiff‟s counsel to mark any documents that he wanted copied and produced. Following counsel site visits, all documents marked were copied and produced to him. This allowance was not ordered in the Court‟s August 20 or August 27 orders, but constituted Defendants good faith compliance with any outstanding discovery issues.
4. The City’s 30 (b)(6) witness was sufficient. Lastly, Plaintiff‟s counsel goes to extreme lengths to suggest that Defendants‟ 30(b)(6) witness, Debra Williams, was not prepared and that costs and/or sanctions should be awarded. It is incredulous to believe that the witness was not prepared sufficiently when her testimony is so heavily relied upon to buttress the averments of Plaintiff‟s instant motion. Specifically, Plaintiffs‟ counsel quotes at length testimony obtained from Williams that alerted him to perceived issues of noncompliance. Moreover, Williams‟ deposition occurred on August 5 and August 10, 2010, more than 10 days before the August 20, 2010 conference with Judge Batten regarding discovery issues. The August 20, 2010 conference is void of any objection or dissatisfaction with testimony Williams provided as the
20

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 21 of 42
City‟s 30 (b)(6) witness. Moreover, Plaintiffs‟ counsel contends that he was provided another witness from the City‟s Department of Technology, Jeremy Johnson, to answer questions regarding the City technical infrastructure. Plaintiffs‟ counsel, remarkably, now characterizes the City‟s production of these witnesses as noncompliance, although he is notably silent on this issue in both the August 20 and August 27, 2010 record from the court.
C. SPECIFIC ALLEGED FAILURES TO COMPLY The specific issues raised in the motion to compel were set forth separately within Appendix A to the motion (Doc. 236-1). Those issues will be addressed in the order presented in Appendix A. 1. First Request for Production No. 2 This request sought disciplinary files for the Defendant officers. In response, the City produced two sets of documents which it believed satisfied the request. The entire personnel file of each of the Defendants was produced with the presumption that all personnel related matters would be captured within the personnel files, including pre-employment investigations that normally are retained in all City employees‟ personnel files. The City also produced any investigative files relating to complaints against the officers that were maintained separately by the Office of Professional Standards (OPS). The OPS files were updated and supplemented after the August 20, 2010 court directive. It was later determined
21

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 22 of 42
that there also existed separate background investigation files for the officers that were maintained by the recruitment arm of the APD. However, the information in those files do not relate to disciplinary concerns relative to an APD officer‟s performance as an employee with the City of Atlanta. Moreover, as many of the officers have been employed by the City for more than ten or twenty years, the information in those files would relate to whatever was uncovered as part of a background investigation that may be decades old. Even so, those files were located, copied and produced in a supplemental production as document nos. 36501-41111.4,5
2. First Request for Production No. 2 This request sought training records of the officers. Once again the records were presumed to have been a part of the officers‟ personnel files, as they are for other City employees, including other public safety personnel such as firefighters. In fact there were training records within the personnel files that were produced, although those records reflect general training requirements for all City employees and did not include records from the officers‟ training period at the Training Academy. As with the background investigation files, many of the officers training records may be decades old due to the amount of time they have been employed. 4 The files of the following defendants could not be found: George Turner, Herman Glass, Cayenne Mayes, Scott Perry and Debra Williams. 5 Defendants made a supplemental production after the filing of the motion to compel.
22

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 23 of 42
The records of the officers from the Training Academy have been produced in a supplemental production as document nos. 33885-36400.
3. First Request for Production No. 5 This request asked for all personnel records of the officers and in response the personnel files were produced with the presumption that the personnel files contained all relevant documents. Since the August 20th directive from the Court, as noted above, background investigation and training files have been produced as a supplement to the original production. 4. First Request for Production No. 6 This request asked for all documents concerning OPS investigations of the officers. As noted above, all OPS files were produced as document nos. 585620043. In addition, the OPS file for the Atlanta Eagle investigation was produced as document nos. 4608-5255. When these files originally were produced, they included both open and closed investigations. As such, while the closed investigations would have been complete files, the open investigations, including the Atlanta Eagle file, may not have been complete at the time. In an open investigation, other documents and electronic media may have been created after the date of the original production. At the site visit to OPS on September 1, it was determined that some of the open files had additional information that had not been
23

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 24 of 42
supplemented. Since that time those files have been updated in a supplemental production as document nos. 31500-33605, 36499 and 36500.
5. Second Request for Production No. 7 This request was for recordings of telephone communications among APD officers during the raid. Counsel is correct that this information could not be produced because the custodian of the recordings within APD had deleted the data. The retention system that was used for audio recording retained the audio version of the calls for a period of 180 days. As such, calls related to the September 10, 2009 operation at the Atlanta Eagle would have dropped from the system on or around March 10, 2010. While it is factually accurate that the data was lost after the litigation hold memorandum was issued to preserve electronic data, the responsive data was no longer in existence as of April 5, 2010, the date of service of the second production request and the Court‟s August 20th directive. However, the City was able to capture the record of all communications during the time frame surrounding the Atlanta Eagle operation in a digital printout that was produced to counsel on the same day that was provided the telephone dumps, email dumps and back-up tapes. 6. Second Request for Production No. 21 This request was for photographs or text messages created during the Atlanta Eagle operation. Following the Court‟s August 20th directive, counsel met and
24

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 25 of 42
conferred about the logistics of producing the cell phones of the officers for forensic inspection by Plaintiffs‟ expert. Defense counsel was advised that the expert was located in Minnesota and the telephones would need to be out of the officers‟ possession for a minimum of four (4) days to facilitate delivery analysis and return delivery. Because many of the officers rely solely on their personal cell phones for communication with superiors and with friends and family, it would have been burdensome to comply with the production as it was set by Plaintiffs‟ counsel. During the August 27th conference with the Court, the Court agreed and directed that telephones not be kept from the officers for more than twenty-four hours. At no time have the Defendants refused to comply with this directive. In an effort to assist Plaintiffs‟ counsel with this process, the City organized and carried out a telephone dump of the officers‟ cell phones that transferred to a readable disc all information then existing on the phones. Counsel was provided this information and was asked to review the information as a first step to determine which of the phones he specifically wanted for further forensic analysis based on what the initial data suggested. There has been no follow-up request from counsel other than what is contained in the motion. Defendants continue to be ready and willing to provide the telephones for forensic analysis as directed in the August 27th conference.
25

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 26 of 42
7. Second Request for Production Nos. 23 and 24 These requests were for boots and clothing worn by undercover officers during the operation. The intent of the request as represented by Plaintiffs‟ counsel was for the Plaintiffs‟ to identify the officers who were inside the club during the operation because their identities were unknown to Plaintiffs. In a supplemental response to discovery, the City has identified every participant in the operation, including the specific location of each officer within the club and each officer‟s area of responsibility during the operation. Some of the officers named as defendants had zero involvement with the operation for a number of reasons. In addition, photographs of clothing for John Brock (20953-20957). The boots worn by the uniformed officers involved in the operation are standard and pictures of the boots worn by James Menzoilan have been produced as document nos. (3649036498). 8. Second Request for Production No. 28 This request was for files maintained regarding the Plaintiffs. There was confusion regarding the Index to which Major Williams testified and counsel had difficulty determining where this index was maintained and by whom. The index was located within the City‟s Department of Information Technology (“DIT”) and produced as document nos. 40679-40952.
26

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 27 of 42
9. Second Request for Production Nos. 30 and 31 These requests were for training materials for APD officers generally and specifically for the Red Dog Unit. All documents identified by counsel during site visits have been produced. Other responsive documents that have been produced are identified as document nos. 20957 (APD Policy Manual CD); 21251-21555 (Law Enforcement Standards); 26085-26392 (Warrants and Tactical Information); 26398-30398 APD Tactical Plans); 33885-36400 (Training Academy Files); 41112-41133 (Confidential SOPs). 10. Second Request for Production Nos. 35-37 These requests were for similar facts operations conducted by the Red Dog units. The specific objection to what has been produced relates to warrant execution by the narcotics Unit at residential addresses and ID checks (presumably for underage drinking) at businesses selling alcohol. Neither narcotics nor underage drinking was involved in the Atlanta Eagle operation. The operation was directed toward sexual intercourse and other lewd activities occurring in a business establishment in violation of State law and City ordinances. Defendants have produced what it believes to be responsive to the original request that now is being re-defined by the instant motion.
27

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 28 of 42
11. First Individual Request for Production Nos. 1 and 2 These requests seek communications between the officers regarding the Atlanta Eagle operation. As noted above, Plaintiffs have been provided with cell phone dumps from the officers‟ phones; the defendants have agreed to further forensic examination of the phones; the emails of the defendants have been produced from the City‟s servers; and, the Plaintiffs have identified every computer hard drive they want to conduct forensic analysis on but have not yet done so. In addition, when plaintiffs expressed their disbelief of the officers responses, defense counsel offered the officers for deposition for determination under oath of the existence of responsive information that would have included a process wherein the officers logged on to social media pages during the deposition for Plaintiffs‟ review. Plaintiffs originally agreed to this process but have not followed through. 12. Individual Request for Production No. 3 This request seeks photos of the officers. Aside from the fact that this request is inconsistent with the Plaintiffs‟ representation that they can only identify the officers by their clothing, photographs of many [all] of the defendants have been provided in one form or another as document nos. 20044-20079, 2085220853, 25924-25974, 26393-26397, 36415-36489.
28

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 29 of 42
13. Individual Request for Production Nos. 4 and 5 These are the same requests for clothing and boots addressed previously. 14. Second Individual Request for Production No. 1 This request seeks access to the officers‟ online accounts. As indicated, counsel advised that responses were not required and none was provided based on this representation. At the time of service of this request, the parties already had agreed that the officers would be deposed and would log on during the depositions to their online accounts. 15. First Continuing Interrogatories No. 1 This request seeks the identity of the officers involved in the Atlanta Eagle operation. The City believes it adequately identified all officers involved in the operation as well as each officer‟s involvement. If further clarification is required it can be provided and could easily have been addressed during the depositions of the officers to which the parties had agreed. As indicated, the officer whose name was not included, Officer Bashir, was not technically a part of the operation and only drove the transport vehicle, as counsel obviously is aware, based upon his own representations. Omission of Officer Bashir‟s name was not an attempt to be less than fully responsive and her limited participation has been known to counsel for Plaintiffs. If it now is necessary to supplement the response further that is easily remedied.
29

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 30 of 42
16. First Continuing Interrogatories No. 2 This request is for the identity of electronic devices used in connection with the operation. The City has provided the cell phone dumps that include the identifying information for those devices, which included the PDAs of command staff from the involved units. In concert with Plaintiffs‟ counsel during the site visits, the computers logically utilized in the offices of the APD units involved in the operation were identified and await Plaintiffs‟ expert‟s analysis. 17. First Continuing Interrogatories No. 7 This request seeks the identity of other operations by APD in which more than ten civilians were detained at a place of public accommodation. The City‟s response was believed to be responsive when made (See document nos. 2095821049). The essence of the request, because no record is maintained by the number of civilians involved, is that every warrant and every Narcotic and Vice operation would have to be included. Moreover, while plaintiffs use the term “raid” that term is not defined and is not a term utilized routinely by APD. However, during the site visits with counsel, every document considered by him to have been responsive was identified copied and produced. The operations that he identifies on page 11 of Exhibit A were not specifically requested until the filing of the motion to compel. Documents related to those operations, to the extent that they exist, will be produced.
30

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 31 of 42
18. First Continuing Interrogatories No. 8 This request seeks documents related to “raids” by the Red Dog Unit. Again, the documents identified by counsel during the site visits were copied and produced. 19. First Continuing Interrogatories No. 10 This request seeks information about complaints related to the Atlanta Eagle. Any such complaints would have been included as part of the OPS file regarding the investigation of the operation (See document nos. 36401-36405). 20. First Individual Continuing Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10 These Requests seek information about complaints or disciplinary sanctions relative to each of the officers. The City has produced, as indicated above, OPS files, personnel files and background investigation files that would include the requested information.
D. THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS PREMATURE AND NOT WARRANTED.
Courts have broad discretion to impose sanctions. This power derives from the court's inherent power to manage its own affairs and to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. 427 F.3d 939, 944 (2005); See also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132 (1991). Accordingly, sanctions for discovery abuses are intended to prevent unfair prejudice to litigants and to insure the integrity of the discovery process.
31

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 32 of 42
Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 427 F.3d 939, 944 (11th Cir. 2005); see also
Gratton v. Great American Communications, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir.1999).
“A judge's decision as to whether a party or lawyer's actions merit
imposition of sanctions is heavily dependent on the court's firsthand knowledge,
experience, and observation. At times the actions of the individual or party
involved may be judged over the course of time.” Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 506 (11th Cir. 1996). As the Court noted in its August 27, 2010 teleconference:
I agree with Mr. Godfrey that this is not the day to say I want sanctions because you haven‟t finished what you‟ve set out to do, Mr. Grossman. What I want you to do is to finish doing what you set out to do and what I authorized and allowed you to do, and then after doing that if you are able to show that you were put through a lot of unnecessary trouble and expense because of the City‟s failure to comply with the Discovery Rules and/or the orders of this court, then you can apply for sanctions at that time. (Court‟s August 27, 2010 order, pg. 9).
The Court further reiterated:
That‟s how we‟re going to resolve this and I expect that to be done amicably. Now, if it‟s not, Mr. Grossman, you can file whatever motion you think is appropriate if after all of your work is done in this discovery process, you just have a laundry list of things that the City failed to do. I‟m just saying there‟s no reason to file it now. (Court‟s August 27, 2010 order, pg. 9).
Discovery does not end in this case until March 2011. Defendants
respectfully request that the court consider their actions as of August 20, 2010, at
which time Defendants‟ substituted counsel was in good faith cooperating with
Plaintiffs‟ counsel and attempting to cure all discovery defects which had occurred
32

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 33 of 42
prior to their appearance on the case. Moreover, there is no evidence of spoliation and such allegation is also premature. Plaintiffs have gone to extreme lengths to create the inference that spoliation has occurred, without proof.
“Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” Graff v. Baja Marine Corp., 310 Fed.Appx. 298, 301, 2009 WL 226308, 2 (11th Cir. 2009) citing West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2d Cir.1999).
The “obligation to preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation-most commonly when suit has already been filed, providing the party responsible for the destruction with express notice, but also on occasion in other circumstances, as for example when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.” Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir.1998); accord Silvestri, 271 F.3d at 591. “Notice does not have to be of actual litigation, but can concern „potential‟ litigation. Otherwise, any person could shred documents to their heart's content before suit is brought without fear of sanction.” Bayoil, S.A. v. Polembros Shipping Ltd., 196 F.R.D. 479, 483 (S.D.Tex.2000)(citing ABC Home Health Serv., Inc. v. IBM Corp., 158 F.R.D. 180, 182 (S.D.Ga.1994)).
33

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 34 of 42
To determine whether spoliation sanctions are warranted, a court must consider the factors identified in Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 427 F.3d 939. Graff v. Baja Marine Corp., 310 Fed.Appx. 298, 301, 2009 WL 226308, 2 (C.A.11 (Ga. (C.A.11 (Ga.),2009)Griffin v. GMAC Commercial Fin., L.L.C., No. 1:05-CV199-WBH-GGB, 2007 WL 521907, at *3 (N.D.Ga. Feb. 15, 2007).
In determining whether a spoliation sanction is warranted, this court must consider the following factors: (1) whether plaintiff was prejudiced as a result of the destruction of evidence; (2) whether the prejudice could be cured; (3) the practical importance of the evidence; (4) whether defendant acted in good or bad faith; and (5) the potential for abuse if expert testimony about the evidence provided by the spoliator were not excluded. Flury v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 427 F.3d 939, 945 (11th Cir.2005). “With regard to the fourth factor, [the] law does not require a showing of malice in order to find bad faith. The court should weigh the degree of the spoliator's culpability against the prejudice to the opposing party.” Flury, 427 F.3d at 946 (citations omitted; See also Griffin v. GMAC Commercial Finance, L.L.C., 2007 WL 521907, 3 (N.D.Ga.) (N.D.Ga.,2007)
Resolution of motions for sanctions “turns, in part, on when defendant knew, or should have known, that plaintiff was likely to bring a lawsuit against it for which the destroyed documents might be relevant.” Moreover, the relevant time period for acquisition of this knowledge is circumscribed by defendant's document
34

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 35 of 42
retention policy, Cf. United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir.2002)(holding that defendants did not engage in spoliation of evidence where records were intentionally destroyed in accordance with a document retention policy and state regulations before litigation commenced). Moreover, an individual “[d]efendant cannot be held accountable for information it received after the documents were destroyed.” Griffin v. GMAC Commercial Finance, L.L.C., 2007 WL 521907, 4 (N.D.Ga.) (N.D.Ga.,2007).
In the instant motion, Plaintiff alleges that some individual Defendants deliberately deleted mobile data from their phone. (Plaintiffs‟ Motion to Compel, pp. 9-14.) Plaintiffs‟ allegations are unsubstantiated. First, examination of the expert‟s report proffered by Plaintiffs‟ merely asserts that there may be missing information, not a deliberate deletion as asserted by Plaintiffs. Defendants‟ have offered Plaintiffs counsel the opportunity to conduct forensic analysis and take individual Defendants‟ depositions to inquire into any perceived allegation regarding substantive and evidentiary issues related to the trial. In fact, Defendants‟ counsel coordinated and scheduled dates for Plaintiffs‟ counsel to conduct the depositions; however, to date Plaintiffs‟ counsel has not conducted the depositions. Furthermore, Plaintiffs‟ counsel alleges that the individual Defendants have failed to produce all electronic devices without evidence of such. Again, the Court stated:
35

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 36 of 42
I do think the individual defendants have got to provide their own phones that they had…either had with them on the night of the raid or that they have used to transmit any messages, texts, or emails or any other type of electronic message touching upon the raid. And, of course, its going to be your [Mr. Grossman] during your deposition to ask them under oath if they have done that.(Court‟s August 20, 2010 Order, pg 22.) Moreover, Defendants have produced all backup tapes and archived records in existence as of the August 20, 2010 conference call pursuant to the Court‟s order. To allege that evidence was deleted and request sanctions based on speculation and limited analysis, without an adequate determination on the merits including deposition and continuing discovery, is premature, unreasonable, and unjust. Secondly, Plaintiffs‟ allege that their December 17, 2009 Preservation letter, should have put the individual officers on notice, and that Defendants are in violation of the Court‟s directive. However, the individuals alleged to have deleted phone communications within the instant motion, were not joined as parties until the Amended Complaint filed on March 17, 2010 and were not served with discovery until April 5, 2010. As such, each individual officer was not on notice that he/she would be joined in an individual capacity or that their personal cellphones would be subjected to discovery requests. Their continued use of their cell phones and routine deletion due to capacity for six months after September 2009 operation are clearly excusable.
36

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 37 of 42
A party seeking an adverse inference instruction (or other sanctions) based on the spoliation of evidence must establish the following three elements: (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a “culpable state of mind” and (3) that the destroyed evidence was “relevant” to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
In order to establish bad faith, one must establish that the alleged acts were intentional or willful to demonstrate relevance. By contrast, when the destruction is negligent, relevance must be proven by the party seeking the sanctions. Id. at 431.
The court in Zubulake, specifically stated: In the context of a request for an adverse inference instruction, the concept of “relevance” encompasses not only the ordinary meaning of the term, but also that the destroyed evidence would have been favorable to the movant. “This corroboration requirement is even more necessary where the destruction was merely negligent, since in those cases it cannot be inferred from the conduct of the spoliator that the evidence would even have been harmful to him.” This is equally true in cases of gross negligence or recklessness; only in the case of willful spoliation does the degree of culpability give rise to a presumption of the relevance of the documents destroyed.” (internal citation omitted).
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC , 229 F.R.D. 422, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
37

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 38 of 42
Although Plaintiffs have cited the Zubulake decision extensively throughout their brief, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the legal requirements for imposing sanctions under the decision. Defendants‟ counsel issued a litigation hold memo in December 2009 which the Court found to be appropriate and necessary under the law as memorialized in the transcribed minutes from the August 20, 2010 telephone conference. Any allegations of deletion of data can be addressed directly with each Defendant during deposition cross-examination. This will allow them an opportunity to explain any discrepancies under oath.
E. COSTS FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND COLLECTION OF DATA
Plaintiffs are asking the Court to compel the Defendants to bear the cost of attempting to retrieve data that has not been determined to exist. This request is premature. The federal courts are often confronted with a party's complaint that its opponent must have documents that it claims not to have. Such suspicion is, however, insufficient to warrant granting a motion to compel. Alexander v. FBI, 194 F.R.D. 305, 311 (D.D.C.2000). See Bethea v. Comcast, 218 F.R.D. 328 (D.D.C. 2003) (applying principle to demand to search opponent's hard drive). In the context of computer systems and computer records, inspection or seizure is not permitted unless the moving party can “demonstrate that the documents they seek to compel do, in fact, exist and are being unlawfully withheld.” Id. As indicated by this court and other courts, a party's suspicion that another party has failed to
38

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 39 of 42
respond to document requests fully and completely does not justify compelled inspection of its computer systems. See id.; see also Medical Billing Consultants, Inc. v. Intelligent Medical Objects, Inc., No. 01 C 9148, 2003 WL 1809465, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Apr.4, 2003).
Per discussions with Plaintiffs‟ counsel regarding the electronic data, Defendants have previously agreed to allow Plaintiffs‟ expert to clone the hard drive for every key employee‟s terminal identified by Plaintiffs‟ counsel, and to examine and extract related data. Plaintiffs have never attempted to arrange this inspection. The offered inspection would be the Plaintiffs‟ opportunity to establish if any discoverable data exists to be restored and the potential costs involved.
In the alternative, Defendants will agree to share the cost of a neutral thirdparty to assess the probability of success and the associative costs of electronic restoration. Any cost-shifting order for forensic examination and collection prior to this step would be unjustified and premature.
F. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT MET THE LEGAL STANDARD TO SUPPORT A RULING OF CIVIL CONTEMPT.
Defendants have not intentionally violated an order of nor been disrespectful of this Court. Defendants have made and continue to make every effort to comply with the Court‟s orders. Thousands of pages of documents have been produced pursuant to the Court‟s order. Since the Court‟s order, Plaintiffs‟ counsel has received volumes of responsive documents as well as responsive electronic data.
39

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 40 of 42
Plaintiffs‟ counsel has failed to communicate to Defendants any dissatisfaction with these responses. The first notice Defendants received regarding Plaintiffs‟ concerns with the latest produced information was via the instant motion to compel.
“The party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate that the alleged contemnor violated the court's order by „clear and convincing evidence,‟ not merely a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 880 (1999) (quoting In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993)). This clear and convincing evidence must show the alleged contemnor “violated a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court's order.” Local Union 58, 340 F.3d at 379 (quoting Cincinnati Bronze, 829 F.2d at 591)). “Clear and convincing evidence is not a light burden and should not be confused with the less stringent, proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. Defendants are making every attempt to provide Plaintiffs with the requested information. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Defendants have violated a specific order of this Court; therefore, a finding of civil contempt is unwarranted.
40

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 41 of 42

V. CONCLUSION
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Defendants respectfully submit that
this Court should deny Plaintiff‟s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions.
Defendants further submit that they would be receptive to the appointment of a
Court Appointed Monitor for the remaining discovery matters should the Court
decide that additional oversight of the discovery process is warranted.
Certification
Counsel for Defendants certifies that this brief has been prepared with Times
New Roman font, 14 point, and therefore it complies with the requirements of L.R.
5.1(C).
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of October, 2010.
s/Jerry L. DeLoach JERRY L. DeLOACH Deputy City Attorney Georgia Bar No. 081763
s/Robert N. Godfrey ROBERT N. GODFREY Sr. Assistant City Attorney Georgia Bar No. 298550

CITY OF ATLANTA LAW DEPARTMENT Suite 4100, 68 Mitchell Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3520 (404) 330-6655 (telephone) rgodfrey@atlantaga.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

41

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 251 Filed 10/22/10 Page 42 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. RICHARD PENNINGTON et al
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. ) 1:09-CV-3286-TCB ) ) )

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 22, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

s/ Robert N. Godfrey ROBERT N. GODFREY

42

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA . ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN;

)

BENJAMIN CHEAVES;

)

JOHN CURRAN;

)

ALAN DALE;

)

MARKDANAK;

)

CHRISTOPHER DANIELS;

)

THOMAS FAST;

)

SEAN GABOYA;

)

FELIX GARCIA;

)

THOMAS HAYES;

)

BRIAN HUGHES;

)

KENNETH KECK;

)

NICHOLAS KOPERSKI;

)

ROBERT MARLOW;

)

RAYMOND MATHESON;

)

ROBERT MCLENDON, III;

)

JEFFREY MCLEOD;

)

SAVERI0 MONTELEONE;

)

MATTHEW PRESLEY;

)

M.DU-WAYNERAY;

)

CHRIS SCHMALTZ;

)

DAVID SHEPHERD;

)

DAVID THOMAS;

)

ROBERT TREUTEL, JR.;

)

ALLAN VIVES;

)

GARY ZIENIER;

)

RAMEY & KELLEY, INC. D/B/A ATLANTA EAGLE, )

a Georgia corporation; and

)

RAWHIDE LEATHER, INC., a Georgia corporation, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

Civil Action 
 File No.: 
 1:09-CV-3286-TCB 


1 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265 Filed 12/08/10 Page 2 of 4

RICHARD PENNINGTON, individually;

)

GEORGE TURNER, Interim Chief of Police for the )

City of Atlanta, in his official capacity;

)

CITY OF ATLANTA;

)

WILLIE ADAMS, III, individually;

)

BENNIE E. BRIDGES, individually;

)

JOHN H. BROCK, individually;

)

DIMITRIO O. CALDWELL, individually;

)

KELLY COLLIER, individually;

)

CRAIG CONDON, individually;

)

GREGORY D. DABNEY, individually;

)

STALONE DAVIS, individually;

)

CHRISTOPHER DOWD, individually;

)

JEREMY D. EDWARDS, individually;

)

HERMAN E. GLASS, individually;

)

ROBERT C. GODWIN, individually;

)

BRANDON JACKSON, individually;

)

DIMITRI JAQUES, individually;

)

MELONIE MAGUE, individually;

)

VICENTE MARCANO, individually;

)

CAYENNE MAYES, individually;

)

TIMOTHY MCCLAIN, individually;

)

JAMES MENZOIAN, individually;

)

DION MERIDITH, individually;

)

MARLON O. NOBLE, individually;

)

SCOTT PAUTSCH, individually;

)

DARNELL PERRY, individually;

)

SCOTT PERRY, individually;

)

WILLIAM PORTER, individually;

)

EDWARD RABB, individually;

)

CEDRIC F. SMITH, individually;

)

TYRONE TAYLOR, individually;

)

KELLEITA THURMAN, individually;

)

STEPHANIE UPTON, individually;

)

RONALD 1. WALKER, individually;

)

WILLIAM WALTERS, individually;

)

JARED G. WATKINS, individually;

)

DEBRA A. WILLIAMS, individually;

)

)

Defendants.

2 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265 Filed 12/08/10 Page 3 of 4
ORDER 
 The Court hereby approves the settlement agreement negotiated by the parties, which includes (1) payment by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs the amount of One Million Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($1,025,000); and, (2) the implementation by Defendant City of Atlanta of the reforms set forth in Exhibit A which are incorporated by reference in this Order. The Court finds, based on the evidence in the record, that each of the above­ named Plaintiffs was unlawfully searched, detained, and/or arrested on September 10-11, 2009, at the Atlanta Eagle in Atlanta, Georgia, and that none of the Plaintiffs was personally suspected of any criminal activity. This finding has no preclusive effect as to any other person or entity not a party to this litigation. The Court is advised that the settlement negotiated by the parties required the legislative approval of the Atlanta City Council and the Mayor of the City of Atlanta, and that the requisite legislative and executive approval of the settlement has been accomplished in Council Resolution 10-R-2142, approved by the Atlanta City Council on December 6, 2010 and approved by the Mayor on December 7, 2010. The Resolution has been properly certified by the Municipal Clerk of the City of Atlanta. This Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction and the Defendant City of Atlanta hereby agrees to the entry of a consent order requiring Defendant City of
3 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265 Filed 12/08/10 Page 4 of 4
Atlanta to implement the actions set forth in the Exhibit A if these actions have not been not fully implemented within one hundred eighty (180) days of the entry of this Order.
The parties having settled all issues in this matter and the Court having accepted the terms of the settlement, this matter is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice except for reopening as provided herein.
SO ORDERED, this 8.f~ day of December, 2010.
TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR. 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4 


 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
 ATLANTA DIVISION 


)

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Civil Action

v.

) File No.:

) 1:09-CV-3286-TCB

RICHARD PENNINGTON, Chief )

of Police for the City of Atlanta, in )

his official and individual capacities, )

et al.

)

)

Defendants

)

Exhibit A: Reforms of the Atlanta Police Department
1. Revocation or Amendment of Unconstitutional Policies
The City of Atlanta agrees permanently to revoke or amend all Atlanta Police Department SOPs, Command Memoranda, and any other policies, including but not limited to SOP.3020 § 4.3.1(2) (regarding warrantless searches), SOP.3030 (regarding arrests), and SOP.3065 (regarding investigatory detentions and frisks without reasonable articulable suspicion), which contain provisions that are inconsistent with the following constitutional requirements:

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 2 of 11
a) Police officers may not lawfully detain any individual without reasonable articulable suspicion, particularized to the person being detained (i.e., a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person") that the individual is involved in specific and identifiable criminal activity.
A police officer may conduct a brief, investigatory stop of a person when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that that person is involved in criminal activity (A "Terry stop"). While "reasonable suspicion" is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the Terry stop. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' " of criminal activity by the person. Illinois v. Warlaw, 528 U.S. 119, 122 (2000) (citations omitted). The officer must have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979). Also, the officer's action must be " 'justified at its inception, and . . . reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.'" United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968)).
b) Police officers may not lawfully take or demand identification, or require an individual to identify himself, without reasonable suspicion, based on objective criteria, that the individual is engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.
When a police officer is conducting a Terry stop on the basis of reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is engaged or has engaged in criminal activity, the officer may demand that a person identify himself or display identification. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court do Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177 (2004); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979). In the absence ofa lawful Terry stop, a police officer may not lawfully take identification or demand an individual to identify himself.
2 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 3 of 11
c) Police officers may not lawfully frisk an individual for weapons without a reasonable belief, directed at the particular person to be frisked, that the person is both armed and presently dangerous.
During a lawful Terry stop, a police officer for his own protection and safety may conduct a patdown of a person to find weapons that he reasonably believes or suspects are then in the possession of the person he has stopped. Police may not conduct a generalized "cursory search for weapons" or any search whatever for anything but weapons. The "narrow scope" of the Terry exception does not permit a frisk for weapons on less than reasonable belief or suspicion directed at the person to be frisked, even though that person happens to be on premises where an authorized narcotics search is taking place. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 93 (1979).
d) A warrantless arrest is constitutionally valid only when there is probable cause to arrest. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 417 (1976). Probable cause exists if, "at the moment the arrest was made, 'the facts and circumstances within [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing' that [the suspect] had committed or was committing an offense." United States v. Floyd, 281 F.3d 1346, 1348 (11 th Cir. 2002); United States v. Gonzalez, 969 F.2d 999, 1002 (11 th Cir. 1992). "Probable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149 (1972). "[P]robable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, and that the belief of guilt must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized." Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366,371 (2003).
e) An arrest requiring probable cause is defined using an objective standard: whether the suspect is '''subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest. '" United States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1149 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 441 (1984)).
3 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 4 of 11
f) In the absence of a lawful arrest, voluntary consent, or the exception commonly known as "the plain feel exception," a police officer may not lawfully search an individual for anything other than weapons without either a search warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances.
As to the "plain feel exception," if in conducting a lawful Terry patdown for weapons a police officer in lawfully patting down a suspect's outer clothing feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent as contraband, it may be seized without a warrant. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 37-376 (1993).
g) Police officers may not lawfully arrest an individual in his or her home without either an arrest warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
h) A police officer may not enter a suspect's home without a search warrant or voluntary consent unless probable cause and exigent circumstances exist, and any resulting search and seizure is prohibited under the Fourth Amendment. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980). Exigent circumstances exist "when the inevitable delay incident to obtaining a warrant must give way to an urgent need for immediate action." United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 844 (11 th Cir. 1984). Situations in which exigent circumstances exist include: "danger of flight or escape; danger of [physical] harm to police officers or the general public; risk of loss, destruction, removal, or concealment of evidence; and 'hot pursuit' of a fleeing suspect." United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 1325 (11 th Cir. 1983). "The mere presence of contraband, however, does not give rise to exigent circumstances." United States v. Lynch, 934 F.2d 1226, 1232 (11 th Cir. 1991). Rather, "the appropriate inquiry is whether the facts ... would lead a reasonable, experienced [officer] to believe that evidence might be destroyed before a warrant could be secured." United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1510 (11 th Cir. 1991).
4 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 5 of 11
2. Identification Requirement for APD Officers
The City of Atlanta shall require all Atlanta police officers who are in uniform, other than a rain slicker or traffic direction vest, to wear a conspicuously visible nametag, and to require any Atlanta police officer who is in uniform or has displayed a badge or other indicia of police authority (such as a police vest, etc.), to identifY himself by name and badge number upon request at some point before the end of an encounter with a civilian.
3. No Interference with Audio or Video Recordings The City of Atlanta shall prohibit Atlanta police officers from
interfering in any way with a citizen's right to make video, audio, or photographic recordings of police activity, as long as such recording does not physically interfere with the performance of an officer's duty.
4. Documentation of Warrantless Seizures With regard to any warrantless seizure (e.g. Terry stop), warrantless
frisk, or warrantless search of a person conducted by an Atlanta police officer inside any residence or commercial building or structure, the City of Atlanta shall require the officer to fill out a written or electronic form before the end of hislher shift documenting the specific crime(s) of which the individual was suspected; indicating the specific facts giving rise to
5 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 6 of 11
reasonable articulable suspicion regarding that crime; indicating whether the individual was frisked for weapons, and if so giving the specific facts giving rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that he was both armed AND dangerous; indicating whether the individual was searched for anything other than weapons, and if so giving the specific facts giving rise both to probable cause and exigent circumstances. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if the action is in immediate response to a non­ police-officer-initiated 9-1-1 call. These reports shall be a public record, routinely available for public inspection by electronic or other means, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act.
5. Documentation of ID Checks With regard to any ID check over the ACIC/GCICINCIC system by
an Atlanta police officer and involving persons within any residence or commercial building or structure, the City of Atlanta shall require the officer performing the check to fill out a written or electronic form before the end of hislher shift documenting the specific authority for the ID check (whether by consent or pursuant to a Terry stop or arrest), and in the case of checks pursuant to a Terry stop, to complete the form described above. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if the action is in immediate response to a non-police-officer-initiated 9-1-1 call. These reports shall be a
6 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 7 of 11
public record, routinely available for public inspection by electronic or other means, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act.
6. Training The City of Atlanta shall conduct mandatory, in-person training for all
sworn employees of the Atlanta Police Department as soon as practicable, given by outside sources not employed by the Atlanta Police Department, to instruct all sworn Atlanta Police Department employees about: (A) the changes contained in this agreement; (B) the law regarding detentions, arrests, frisks, and searches generally; and (C) emphasizing the existing regulation (SOP.2010, 4.6.09) which prohibits the aiming of a weapon unless the discharge of that weapon would be justifiable. Recurring training on these topics will be given to each sworn officer every two years. The training materials used in connection with this training reports shall be a public record, routinely available for public inspection by electronic or other means, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act.
7 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 8 of 11

7. Timely Resolution of Citizen Complaints The Atlanta Police Department shall investigate and finally adjudicate
all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint.

8. Investigation of Officer Conduct The Atlanta Police Department shall conduct and conclude, within
180 days of this agreement, a thorough and meaningful investigation into the individual conduct of each officer involved in the planning, execution, and aftermath of the "Eagle Raid" and any proceeding arising therefrom with regard to each of the following Work Rules in effect on the date of the conduct under investigation:

4.1.03

Truthfulness ("Employees will be truthful in their

written and spoken words at all time.")

4.1.05

Obey the Law ("Employees will uphold the Constitutions

of the United States and the State of Georgia, obey all applicable

federal, state, and local laws, and comply with all applicable court

decisions and orders of the courts.")

4.2.02

Courtesy ("A. Employees will be civil, orderly and

courteous to the public, co-workers, and supervisors and should not

use coarse, insensitive, abusive, violent, or profane language. ")

4.2.03

Responsibilities of Supervisor: ("A. Supervisory

employees will enforce the rules and regulations of the Department

and will ensure the proper conformity to Department policies and

procedures. B. Supervisors will take immediate, appropriate action(s)

when the conduct of any employee is contrary to the public interest or

the good reputation or proper operation of the Department.")

8 


•

I

.

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 9 of 11
4.2.05 Unlawful Orders: ("Supervisors are prohibited from issuing any order which is in violation of any law or Department rule, regulation, directive, or procedure. ")
4.2.12 Discrimination: ("Employees will not allow any of their actions or decisions to be affected by prejudice of gender, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, social class, position or standing in the community, or political belief. ")
4.2.13 Discriminatory References ("Employees will not refer to any person in a derogatory manner because of their gender, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, social class, position or standing in the community, or political preference.")
4.2.33 Conformance to Directives ("Employees are required to familiarize themselves with, and conform to, the rules, regulations, directives, and standard operating procedures of the Department.")
4.2.49 Abuse of Authority ("Employees will not use their authority to abuse, harass, oppress, or persecute any person.")
4.2.50 Maltreatment or Unnecessary Force ("A. Employees are expressly prohibited from the unnecessary or unreasonable use of force against any person or property. B. Employees will only use that force which is reasonable and necessary to affect an arrest, prevent an escape, necessarily restrict the movement of a prisoner, defend himself or another from physical assault, or to accomplish other lawful objectives. The reasonableness inquiry refers to whether the employees actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him or her, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) pp. 396-397).")
4.6.09 Use of Firearms ("B. Employees will not point firearms at persons in circumstances unless the discharge of that firearm would be justifiable. Employees who find it necessary to point a firearm at a person should not interpret this necessity as an obligation to discharge the weapon.")
9 


Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 10 of 11
This investigation will include a specific inquiry into whether each officer present at the Eagle Raid used his authority to unlawfully detain, frisk, and/or search persons or premises in violation of SOP.3020 and the laws of Georgia and the United States.
In conducting this investigation the Atlanta Police Department will interview all witnesses who were present during the raid and who agree to cooperate with the investigation, and will provide these witnesses a meaningful opportunity to identify individual officers by various means, including at a minimum a meaningful selection of photographs showing each officer's face, physical stature, and other physical characteristics.
The Atlanta Police Department's investigation regarding Work Rule 4.1.03 (Truthfulness) shall consider all statements about the Eagle Raid including but not limited to statements made to the Atlanta Police Department's Office ofProfessional Standards, the Atlanta Citizen Review Board, fellow and superior officers, and testimony during the March 11, 20 I0 Municipal Court trial arising from the Raid.
10 


" ." 
 •

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 11 of 11

9. Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force Assignments Any non-constitutional changes to the Atlanta Police Department's
standard operating procedures, command memoranda, or policies and procedures set forth herein do not apply when an Atlanta police officer is acting in the course of that officer's assignment with any multi-jurisdictional task force.

11 


 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al.

Plaintiffs, V.

Civil Action File No.: 1 :09-CV-3286-TCB

RICHARD PENNINGTON, Chief of Police for the City of Atlanta, in his official and individual capacities, et al.

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Earlier today, Defendant City of Atlanta ("the City") wrote to the Court "to request the Court's assistance in evaluating the City's compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Order." To assist the Court in evaluating this matter, Plaintiffs respectfully submit the following discussion of the relevant issues regarding compliance with the settlement agreement.

75210161.3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 2 of 18

Because Plaintiffs believe that the City has failed to fully implement actions required by the settlement agreement within 180 days (i.e., before June 6, 2011), Plaintiffs therefore move for entry of a consent order as previously agreed to by the City, requiring Defendant City of Atlanta to implement all the actions set forth in Exhibit A to the Settlement Order.
Plaintiffs also respectfully move the Court to sanction Defendant City of Atlanta and/or its counsel for falsely advising the Court in the "Status Report" filed on June 6, 2010 that "the City of Atlanta is in full compliance with the terms of Exhibit A." (Status Report, ECF No. 270, p. 1.) I. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
On December 8, 2010, the parties concluded a settlement of the above-styled action under which Defendant City of Atlanta agreed to take certain actions described in Exhibit A ("Reforms of the Atlanta Police Department") to this Court's Order of December 8, 2010 (the "Settlement Order"). (ECF Nos. 265, 265-1, Dec. 8, 2010.)
Of the eight actions required by Exhibit A to the Settlement Order, six of the requirements took effect immediately upon entry of the Settlement Order; one was to be completed "as soon as practicable" after the date of the December 8, 2010 Order 6, "Training," Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-1); and one had a

75210161.3

2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 3 of 18

specific deadline of 180 days, which was later extended to June 27, 2011 by consent of the parties (lt 8, "Investigation of Officer Conduct," Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-1; Motion to Amend, ECF No. 266; Consent Order, ECF No. 269.) In addition, and as a self-executing enforcement provision, Defendant City of Atlanta agreed "to the entry of a consent order requiring Defendant City of Atlanta to implement the actions set forth in the Exhibit A if these actions have not been not fully implemented within one hundred eighty (180) days of the entry of this Order." (Settlement Order, ECF No. 265, pp. 3-4.) (Emphasis added.) II. THE CITY'S FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUIRED ACTIONS
The Settlement Order entered on December 8, 2010 required the City of Atlanta to implement certain specific reforms, many of which require the adoption, revocation, or revision of APD Standard Operating Procedures ("SOPs"). The City has not implemented most of these required changes.' Most egregiously, even the specific SOPs that were identified as unconstitutional in the Settlement Order have still not been changed as required by the terms of the settlement.

In an attempt to demonstrate its alleged compliance with the Settlement Order, Defendant City of Atlanta provided Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer disc on June 8, 2011, containing the SOPs revised by the APD. The revised SOPs attached as exhibits to this motion are from the disc provided by the City.

75210161.3

3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 4 of 18

1. "Revocation or Amendment of Unconstitutional Policies" (Paragraph 1 of the Reforms)
Defendant City of Atlanta agreed that certain specific SOPs were unconstitutional and needed to be revoked or amended (including SOP 3020 § 4.3.1(2), SOP 3030, and SOP 3065), but these SOPs have still not been changed to comply with the settlement. Nor, it seems, has the City done anything to remedy the APD's unconstitutional practice of detaining and performing ID checks on all persons in a specific location without regard to individual suspicion, although the settlement agreement clearly articulated the constitutional standards for searches and seizures. 2 (Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-1, pp. 2-3.)

2 The settlement agreement summarized the constitutional standards for, inter alia, reasonable articulable suspicion, demands for identification, frisks, warrantless arrests, probable cause, searches of the person, the "plain feel exception," and entrance, searches or arrests in the home, as articulated in Illinois v. Warlaw, 528 U.S. 119 (2000); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985); Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cnty., 542 U.S. 177 (2004); Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 93 (1979); United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 417 (1976). United States v. Floyd, 281 F.3d 1346, 1348 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Gonzalez, 969 F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1992); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149 (1972); Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003); United States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1149 (11th Cir. 2004); Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980); United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 844 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 1325 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Lynch, 934 F.2d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1510 (11th Cir. 1991).)

75210161.3

4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 5 of 18

a. SOP 3020 (Searches)
The City specifically agreed to revoke or amend SOP 3020 § 4.3.1(2), which
purports to authorize warrantless searches without requiring (or even mentioning)
probable cause. (Reforms of the APD, ECF 265-1, ¶ 1.) Yet the "revised" SOP is
nearly identical to the "old" SOP that the City was required to amend:
"Old" SOP:
4.3.1
2. To justify a warrantless search, two essential elements must exist:
a. It must be established that the circumstances at the time of the search were sufficient to require immediate action, which necessitated not complying with the restrictions of the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
b. The manner and scope of the search that was conducted must be reasonably related to the justification of the search.

(SOP 3020, effective April 1, 2007, Exhibit 1.)
"New" SOP:
4.3.1
2. To justify a warrantless search, two essential elements must exist:
a. It must be established that the exigent circumstances at the time of the search were sufficient to require immediate action, which necessitated not complying with the restrictions of the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

75210161.3

5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 6 of 18

b. The manner and scope of the search that was conducted must be reasonably related to the justification of the search.
(SOP 3020, dated June 1, 2011, Exhibit 2.) As a result of this failure to comply with the settlement agreement the
APD's Standard Operating Procedure regarding warrantless searches still fails to inform police officers that probable cause is a necessary and required element of a lawful search. (See Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-1, ¶ 1(f).)
b. SOP 3030 (Arrests) The City agreed to amend SOP 3030 regarding arrests. (Reforms of APD, ECF No. 265-1, ¶ 1.) Yet the newly revised SOP still fails to instruct officers that it is unconstitutional to arrest a suspect inside his home without a warrant or exigent circumstances, as happened to Plaintiff David Shepherd during the "Eagle Raid." See "old" SOP (Exhibit 3) and "new" SOPs (Exhibit 4).
c. SOP 3065 ("Field Interviews") The City agreed to amend or revoke SOP 3065, which purports to authorize investigatory detentions, ID checks, and frisks without reasonable articulable suspicion. (Reforms of APD, ECF No. 265-1, ¶ 1; SOP 3065, Exhibit 5.) This unconstitutional SOP, however, is still in effect. See Exhibit 5.

75210161.3

6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 7 of 18

SOP 3065 authorizes and instructs Atlanta police officers to detain, frisk ("from the rear with the suspect in a kneeling position"), and perform ID checks on "suspicious persons" in order to "remove the anonymity of potential criminals." (Exhibit 5, §§ 1, 2.) The words "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable articulable suspicion" do not appear anywhere in this SOP, nor are police officers instructed that they may lawfully detain only persons whom they reasonably believe are involved in criminal activity. To the contrary, this SOP encourages officers to detain and question "potential criminals" who do not seem to belong in a particular place. 3 The May 24, 2011 Memorandum to Chief Turner recommending "Mandated Eagle Reform of Departmental SOPs" fails to mention SOP 3065 at all. (Exhibit 6.) This SOP remains in force and unchanged, despite the City's agreement to revoke or amend it.

3 The SOP attempts to shift the burden to the detained individual to present a "legitimate reason" for his presence at the location: Officers are instructed to "inquire as to what the person was doing and why he or she was observed at a particular location." (Exhibit 5, § 4.2.1.) The SOP also suggests that when an officer unlawfully stops a person without reasonable suspicion, the officer can somehow convert an unlawful "second tier" detention into a voluntary "first tier" citizen encounter after the fact: "After stopping a person and the officer finds that he or she has a legitimate reason for being at the location and the officer's suspicions have been satisfied, the officer will de-escalate the situation by courteously explaining what prompted the stop. Officers will tactfully alter the encounter into a less formal citizen contact and not detain the person any longer than necessary." (Exhibit 5, § 4.3.4.)

75210161.3

7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 8 of 18

d. APD's Unlawful Custom and Practice to Detain and ID Check All Persons at the Location of a Police Action

The Plaintiffs in this action obtained evidence of an unlawful APD custom

and practice to detain all persons in a given location and perform ID checks

without regard to individualized suspicion, the exercise of which formed the basis

of this case. The commander of the APD section that conducted the Atlanta Eagle

Raid, Major Debra Williams, stated: "Once we're inside a location based on any

illegal activity, for the safety of not only the citizens of the city of Atlanta but for

the safety of the patrons and the officers, we conduct warrant checks on all the

patrons, on everyone." ProjectQAtlanta, Public Forum About Atlanta Eagle Raid,

YouTuBE, at 0:49 (Dec. 8, 2010),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPz4e5uJWAo; also available at

http://www.AtlantaEagleRaid.com . Deputy Police Chief Carlos Banda stated that

it was APD policy to "do criminal history checks on everybody when we hit an

establishment, no matter what it is....At this point, that's the policy." Id., at 0:13.

Nowhere in the documents produced by the City is there any mention of any

SOP revision, Command Memorandum, training material, or anything else to

indicate that the APD has remedied this unconstitutional practice or instructed

officers that it is unconstitutional to detain and search individuals simply because

they are at a given location, without regard to individualized reasonable suspicion.

75210161.3

8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 9 of 18

(Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-1, ¶1(a) (stating, "Police officers may not lawfully detain any individual without reasonable articulable suspicion, particularized to the person being detained...").) 4 The City's failure to revoke this policy or countermand this practice is a significant breach of the settlement agreement.
2. "Identification Requirement for APD Officers" (Paragraph 2 of the Reforms)
Defendant City of Atlanta agreed, as of the December 8, 2010 Settlement Order, to require all Atlanta police officers to identify themselves "upon request at some point before the end of an encounter with a civilian." The SOP regarding officer identification was revised by the APD, but the revision materially fails to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The provision of the settlement agreement concerning officer identification was intended to remedy a "loophole" in the officer identification SOP in effect at the time of the Eagle Raid, which allowed Atlanta police officers to refuse to identify themselves if they felt it would "compromise their safety or the safety of others due to the nature of their assignment or the task." (Exhibit 7, APD SOP

4 Even the newly added SOP paragraphs regarding identity checks (e.g. SOP 3020 § 4.3.13) fail to instruct officers that they may not lawfully detain or check the identification of persons simply because they are at the scene of a police action.

75210161 3

9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 10 of 18

2010, effective December 10, 2007, § 4.2.23.) 5 To close this loophole, Paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement requires that "any Atlanta police officer who is in uniform or has displayed a badge or other indicia of police authority (such as a police vest, etc.), to identify herself or himself by name and badge number upon request at some point before the end of an encounter with a civilian." (Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-1, ¶ 2.) In other words, whenever an officer holds himself out to the public as a police officer (as opposed to working in a covert or undercover capacity) he is required, without exception, to identify himself or herself upon request.
Rather than amend the officer identification SOP pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Order, however, the City "revised" the SOP to incorporate the very same wording loophole that the City agreed to abandon as part of the settlement of this action. 6 (Exhibit 8, APD SOP 2010, § 4.2.23, Effective June 1, 2011; see also,

5 4.2.23 Giving Identification Employees will identify themselves by name and assignment upon request while on duty or performing their official duties unless doing so would compromise their safety or the safety of others due to the nature of their assignment or the task. (Exhibit 8.) 6 The "revised" SOP, containing the same language as the previous SOP, states:

4.2.23 Giving Identification

1. Employees shall identify themselves by name, badge number,

75210161.3

10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 11 of 18

Exhibit 6, Memorandum From Lt. Henrietta Smith to Chief George N. Turner, May 24, 2011, p. 1.)
3. "No Interference with Audio or Video Recordings" (Paragraph 3 of the reforms)
The City of Atlanta has complied with this provision of the Settlement Order.
4. "Documentation of Warrantless Seizures" and "Documentation of ID Checks" (Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Reforms)
As of the date of the December 8, 2010 settlement, the City of Atlanta agreed to require officers performing certain types of warrantless searches and certain types of ID checks to "to fill out a written or electronic form before the end of his or her shift" documenting certain information. (Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-1, ¶ 4, 5; "The City of Atlanta shall require...") When Plaintiffs requested copies of any completed forms, the City of Atlanta admitted that "no such

assignment and department issued identification card upon request while on duty or performing their official duties unless doing so would compromise their safety or the safety of others due to the nature of their assignment or the task.
2. Sworn employees at the rank of Investigator or above shall provide, upon Request, the badge number that was initially assigned to them at the rank of Officer.

75210161.3

11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 12 of 18
documents exist." (Exhibit 9, June 8, 2011 letter from Defendant's counsel Robert Godfrey to Plaintiffs' counsel Daniel Grossman, p.1.)
The City explained that "the implementation of the use of the forms in the field will follow the training as it is impracticable to have the officers begin to utilize the forms properly without the formal training required by the Order." Id. at 2. In other words, the City, without justification, delayed compliance with Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Reforms until the completion of the training required by Paragraph 6. Nowhere in Exhibit A to the Settlement Order, however, did the City reserve the right to delay the implementation of these provisions. Moreover, while Plaintiffs understand that instruction is required before officers can begin using these forms, there is no reason this instruction needed to be delayed until completion of the full program of comprehensive training required by Paragraph 6. Rather, officers could have been instructed in the proper use of these simple forms at any point during the past six months (for example, during the "roll call training" that is provided on a regular basis) and the City's intentional failure to document warrantless seizures and ID checks as required by the settlement was a bad faith violation of the terms of the settlement agreement.

75210161 3

12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 13 of 18

5. "Training" (Paragraph 6 of the Reforms)

The City of Atlanta agreed to conduct mandatory, in-person training for all

sworn officers of the APD "as soon as practicable" following the December 8,

2010 settlement. (Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-1, ¶ 6.) Rather than conduct

this training "as soon as practicable," however, the City did not even approve

procurement of a training contract until May 20, 2011, a full 163 days (more than

five months) after the date of the Settlement Order. (Exhibit 10, May 20, 2011

Procurement Order.) The training is not scheduled to begin until August 22, 2011,

and according to the calendar produced by the City the training will not be

completed until September 9, 2011—almost nine months after the date of the

Settlement Order—even assuming the City meets its current schedule. (Exhibit 11,

Proposed Training Schedule.)

Plaintiffs contend that the City of Atlanta has failed to comply with its

agreement to conduct training "as soon as practicable," and that as a result of this

failure Atlanta police officers may be continuing the same unconstitutional

practices that gave rise to this litigation.

6. "Timely Resolution of Citizen Complaints" (Paragraph 7 of the Reforms)

The City of Atlanta agreed that "the Atlanta Police Department shall

investigate and finally adjudicate all citizen complaints of police misconduct of

75210161.3

13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 14 of 18

any kind within 180 days of the complaint." (Reforms of the APD, ECF No. 265-
1, ¶ 7.) While the plain language of Paragraph 7 imposes a "hard deadline" of 180
days to adjudicate citizen complaints of police misconduct, the SOP revisions
suggest the APD's intention to disregard this 180-day limit. These revisions
include a procedure to excuse or extend investigations that are not completed
within 180 days:
Section 4.2.2 Investigative Procedure
(8) All complaints, regardless of the nature of the complaint, shall be investigated and adjudicated within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the complaint. In instances whereby an investigation is not completed within the aforementioned timeframes, a letter outlining the delay, the extension and the new deadline, must be forwarded to the OPS Commander. This documentation will become a part of the investigative file. (Exhibit 12, SOP 2020, effective June 1, 2011.)
No procedure for excusing or extending this 180-day deadline is authorized
under the settlement negotiated by the parties.
Information provided by the APD also seems to indicate that despite the
terms of the settlement certain complaint files remain open after 180 days.
(Exhibit 13, Open Records Act Request; Exhibit 14, summary of complaint files
provided by City of Atlanta pursuant to Open Records Act (indicating complaints
open more than 180 days).) Plaintiffs are unable to determine compliance with this

75210161.3

14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 15 of 18

part of the agreement, however, because the City failed to provide a complete list of all open complaints as Plaintiffs requested. (Exhibit 15, Letter from D. Grossman to R. Godfrey, June 6, 2011.)
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order the City to produce the information from which compliance or non-compliance can be determined.
7. "Investigation of Officer Conduct" (Paragraph 8 of the Reforms)
The parties agreed to extend the deadline for compliance with this requirement until June 27, 2011. (Motion to Amend, ECF No. 266; Consent Order, ECF No. 269.)
III. THE CITY OF ATLANTA'S DISHONESTY TO THE COURT
On June 6, 2010, the City of Atlanta filed a "Status Report" in which the counsel for the City represented to the Court that "the City of Atlanta is in full compliance with the terms of Exhibit A." (Settlement Order, ECF No. 270, at 1.) As set forth above, that statement appears to be knowingly false and dishonest, and represents a material misrepresentation. The City had not "fully implement[ed]" the terms of the settlement when it filed its "Status Report" on June 6, 2010: unconstitutional SOPs that were required to be revoked or amended still have not been changed; the documentation of warrantless seizures and ID checks still has

75210161.3

15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 16 of 18
not been done; and training that was supposed to be conducted "as soon as practicable" has not been conducted at all.
Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to sanction Defendant and/or its counsel for making this false statement to the Court. Plaintiffs also respectfully request the Court to consider any other actions that this Court deems advisable to address counsel's breach of their duty of candor to this Court.'
The actions of Defendant's counsel also run afoul of Rule 3.3 of the State Bar of Georgia's Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires that a lawyer show candor to the tribunal. GEORGIA RULES OF PROE'L CONDUCT R. 3.3 (2001). Rule 3.3 states that "[a] lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal." Id.
The City's statement that it was "in full compliance with the terms of Exhibit A" was materially false, misleading, and dishonest and an appropriate sanction should be imposed to insure the integrity of the judicial process.

7 The Status Report purports to be endorsed by all counsel for Defendants, including attorneys from the firm of Greenberg Traurig, but the Greenberg Traurig

75210161.3

16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 17 of 18

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs move for entry of a consent order pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and move the Court to sanction Defendant and/or its counsel for making a false statement to the Court. This 16th day of June, 2011.

/s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman, GA State Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Dr Suite F-138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 654-0326 Facsimile: (404) 897-1884
Gregory R. Nevins, GA State Bar No. 539529 Elizabeth L. Littrell, GA State Bar No. 454949 Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund 730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1070 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 897-1880 Facsimile: (404) 897-1884
Gerald R. Weber, Jr., GA State Bar No. 744878 Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

firm was charged with only one aspect of the Settlement Agreement (the investigation required by Paragraph 8).

75210161.3

17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 271 Filed 06/16/11 Page 18 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

)

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Civil Action

v.

) File No.:

) 1 :09-CV-3286-TCB

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, Chief )

of Police for the City of Atlanta, in )

his official and individual capacities, )

et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 16, 2011 I electronically filed Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Consent Order and for Sanctions with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to all counsel of record: 8
Is/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman, GA State Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Dr., Suite F-138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 654-0326 Facsimile: (404) 897-1884

8 Counsel hereby certifies that this document has been prepared in Times New Roman font (14 point), in accordance with Local Rule 5.1C.

75210161.3

18

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

_____________________________________________________________

)

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Civil Action

v.

) File No.:

) 1:09-CV-3286-TCB

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, AND DISCOVERY NOTICE REGARDING CONTEMPT

I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have become aware that Defendant City of Atlanta (the “City”) is
in violation of the December 15, 2012 Order of this Court (ECF No. 280). Plaintiffs are filing this Motion for Contempt to notify the Court of the violations of which Plaintiffs are currently aware, and of Plaintiffs’ intention to conduct discovery regarding the full extent of the City’s non-compliance. When the extent of the City’s non-compliance has been determined through discovery, Plaintiffs will file an amended motion for such sanctions as are appropriate in light of the facts.

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 25
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case arose from the unlawful raid of a gay bar by Atlanta police
officers in September, 2009 (the “Atlanta Eagle Raid”). On December 8, 2010, the parties concluded a settlement of the above-styled action under which the City agreed to undertake certain reforms intended to deter future occurrences of police misconduct such as those that took place during the Atlanta Eagle Raid. These reforms were enumerated in Exhibit A (“Reforms of the Atlanta Police Department”) to this Court’s Settlement Order of December 8, 2010 (the “Settlement Order”). ECF Nos. 265, 265-1, Dec. 8, 2010.
By June, 2011 – six months after entry of the Settlement Order -- it had become apparent that the City was not complying with the terms of the Settlement Order. Multiple letters, emails, and meetings -- including Plaintiffs’ offer to waive attorney fees in return for simple compliance -- failed to persuade the City to comply with the agreement, and on June 16, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions to enforce the Settlement Order. ECF Nos. 271, 272-1, June 16, 17, 2011.
The Court ordered the parties to appear at a status conference scheduled for December 20, 2011, and in a last minute action to avoid sanctions, just one week before the scheduled conference, the City agreed to:
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 25
• Comply with all demands set forth in Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions;
• Consent to the conversion of the Settlement Agreement into an Order of the Court; and
• Pay $25,000.00 as attorney’s fees to compensate Plaintiffs’ counsel for the necessity of filing the motion for sanctions.
Joint Status Report and Consent Agreement, ECF No. 279, Dec. 14, 2011. The Court issued an Order incorporating the City’s commitments on
December 15, 2011, specifically ordering the City to implement the “Reforms of the Atlanta Police Department” in the December 8, 2010 Settlement Agreement. ECF No. 280, Dec. 15, 2011.
Now, more than three years later, it is apparent that the City is again failing to comply with what is now an Order of this Court. III. DETAILS OF THE CITY’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECEMBER
15, 2011 ORDER OF THIS COURT The City is in violation of numerous sections of the Order, including those requiring revision of unconstitutional APD Standard Operating Procedures and recurrent training of police officers. In particular, the City is in violation of the following sections of the Order: • Section 1: Revocation or Amendment of Unconstitutional Policies • Section 2: Identification Requirement for APD Officers
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 25
• Sections 4 and 5: Documentation of Seizures and ID Checks • Section 6: Training • Section 7: Timely Resolution of Citizen Complaints
1. Revocation or Amendment of Unconstitutional Policies (Section 1 of the Court’s Order)
Section 1 of the Settlement Order required the City “permanently to revoke or amend all Atlanta Police Department SOPs” which contained provisions inconsistent with Fourth Amendment law, “including but not limited to… SOP.3065.” See ECF No. 280, Dec. 15, 2011 (emphasis added).
SOP.3065 is the City’s “Stop and Frisk” procedure. The version in effect at the time of the Atlanta Eagle Raid instructed police officers to detain and frisk “suspicious” individuals without the reasonable articulable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment.
The City’s refusal to revise SOP.3065 in accordance with the December 8, 2010 Settlement Order was one of the failures for which Plaintiffs requested sanctions in June, 2011. ECF Nos. 271, 272. As part of the City’s last minute bid to avoid sanctions, the City finally revised SOP.3065 on December 8, 2011, just a week before the scheduled sanctions hearing, to include the following language:
Officers may detain an individual only when they have reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity. If, following the stop, the officer reasonable believes that the
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 25
person is both armed and presently dangerous, they may frisk for weapons. APD.SOP 3065, signed 12/8/11, Section 4.1.1., Exhibit A. The inclusion of this language rendered SOP.3065 constitutional, and Plaintiffs informed the Court that “Defendant City of Atlanta promulgated revisions to the Atlanta Police Departments Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in accordance with specific requests made by the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendant City of Atlanta is now in compliance.” ECF No. 279, p.1. Plaintiffs have just recently learned that, after revising the SOP in 2011 to avoid sanctions, in 2013 the City removed the language it had added. In other words, although this Court “ORDERED the City to implement the terms of …”Reforms of the Atlanta Police Department,” which specifically included the “permanent” revision of SOP.3065 on December 15, 2011(ECF No. 280) the City un-revised SOP.3065 in 2013 without notice to the Court or Plaintiffs. As a result, the SOP in place today is once again identical to the unconstitutional SOP that was in place at the time of the Atlanta Eagle Raid. (Compare APD.SOP 3065, Signed 5/6/13, Section 4.1.1., Exhibit B with APD.SOP 3065, Signed 9/29/05, Section 4.1.1., Exhibit C )
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 6 of 25
It is hard to imagine a more flagrant example of bad faith, or a more shocking example of a city’s disrespect for its own agreements and the authority of a federal court, than a city that waits until the Court and opposing party are no longer paying attention and deliberately undoes something it did to avoid sanctions, in violation of an order of the Court.
As a result of the City’ unauthorized change, the version of SOP.3065 that is currently in effect incorporates blatantly unconstitutional instructions to Atlanta police officers. The SOP instructs officers to “to contact, identify, and document encounters with suspicious persons and vehicles” in order to “remove the anonymity of potential criminals, thereby reducing suppressible crimes.” SOP.3065, Sections 1, 2. But since 1967 it has been unlawful for police officers to detain “suspicious” persons or “potential criminals” – whatever those terms may mean – without the specific requirement set forth by the Supreme Court: reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1967). Under Terry and its progeny officers are simply not allowed to intrude on the liberty of “potential criminals” without satisfying this very specific requirement.1
1 And there is no question that this SOP instructs officers to detain individuals -commonly known as a “Terry Stop” -- rather than engage in a consensual citizen
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 7 of 25
The SOP further instructs officers to “obtain the person's name, date of birth, address, and identification.” SOP.3065, Exhibit B, Sections 4.2.1. But since Brown v. Texas officers have been prohibited from demanding the name or identification documents of any individual without reasonable articulable suspicion to believe the individual is engaging or has engaged in criminal conduct. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
Perhaps most bizarrely, the SOP instructs officers that “After stopping a person and the officer finds that he or she has a legitimate reason for being at the location and the officer's suspicions have been satisfied… officers will tactfully alter the encounter into a less formal citizen contact and not detain the person any longer than necessary.” SOP.3065, Exhibit B, Sections 4.3.4. But contrary to the suggestion in this SOP, officers cannot “alter” a Terry Stop into a consensual “citizen contact” after the fact; once a Terry Stop has occurred, it has occurred, and if the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion before detaining the individual the stop is unlawful and the officer is personally liable for civil damages and even potential criminal liability.
contact, because the SOP specifically refers to “stopping a person.” SOP.3065, Exhibit B, Sections 4.3.4.
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 8 of 25
It is hard to imagine a more flagrant example of a city’s disrespect for the Constitution, or for the rulings of the Supreme Court, than a city that deliberately removes from its police “stop and frisk” regulation the requirement, imposed by the Supreme Court, that police officers may stop an individual and demand identification only with reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity.
It is also shocking that the City would expose its police officers to civil and even criminal liability by instructing them to do something that is clearly unlawful.
The very essence of this case was the City of Atlanta’s disregard for the law generally and for the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in particular, and it is hard to imagine a clearer example of the City’s continued intention to disregard the law than its deliberate removal of a “permanent” revision ordered by the Court to remedy an unconstitutional operating procedure.
2. Identification Requirement for APD Officers (Section 2 of the Court’s Order)
Section 2 of the Order requires “all Atlanta police officers who are in uniform, other than a rain slicker or traffic direction vest, to wear a conspicuously visible nametag.”
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 9 of 25
During the “Ferguson protests” in Atlanta in December, 2014, it became obvious from press photographs and news reports that many Atlanta police officers were not wearing a nametag as required.2 The City itself has admitted that some Atlanta police officers “assigned to the Ferguson detail did not have conspicuous name identification on the riot gear they donned over their regular uniforms.” Email from Karen Thomas to Daniel Grossman, Dec. 10, 2014, Exhibit D.
Plaintiffs do not yet have sufficient information to know how widespread this problem may have been or whether or not Atlanta police officers have failed to wear nametags on other occasions, and therefore Plaintiffs do not know if this problem merits sanctions or merely remedial measures. Plaintiffs firmly believe the identification requirement of this Order is a crucial element of accountability, since a citizen cannot complain or seek redress against a police officer he cannot identify, but it is not possible for Plaintiffs to know if this issue is a widespread problem or an aberration without conducting additional discovery.
2 Jim Burress, Does the Arrest of a Journalist During Atlanta’s Ferguson Rally Point to Bigger Problems?, WABE 90.1 FM, Dec. 8, 2014, http://wabe.org/post/doesarrest-journalist-during-atlantas-ferguson-rally-point-bigger-problems
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 10 of 25
3. Documentation of Warrantless Seizures and ID Checks (Sections 4 and 5 of the Court’s Order)
Sections 4 and 5 of the Order require Atlanta police officers to document specific information in connection with certain types of warrantless seizures and ID checks. With regard to such seizures, officers are required to “fill out a written or electronic form before the end of his or her shift” recording the following information:
• the specific crime(s) of which the individual was suspected;
• the specific facts giving rise to reasonable articulable suspicion regarding that crime;
• whether the individual was frisked for weapons, and if so the specific facts giving rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that he was both armed AND dangerous;
• whether the individual was searched for anything other than weapons, and if so giving the specific facts giving rise both to probable cause and exigent circumstances; and
• the specific authority for the ID check (whether by consent or pursuant to a Terry stop or arrest)
On December 8, 2014, Plaintiffs asked the City to provide “copies of all the forms completed by APD officers in compliance with the ‘Documentation of Warrantless Seizures’ and ‘Documentation of ID Checks’ required by the court order in Calhoun v. Pennington.” Email from Daniel Grossman to Robert
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 11 of 25
Godfrey, Dec. 8, 2014, Exhibit E. In response the City produced several hundred documents that it claimed were these forms.3 But not a single one of the documents produced by the City includes the information required to be recorded by police. Indeed, it appears that the City has not even developed a usable “written or electronic form” for officers to record this information if they want to. The “form” provided by the City is the pre-existing “Demographics” section of the standard APD Incident Report, which does not even have the appropriate questions or check boxes for officers to supply the required information. The City’s failure even to develop an appropriate form, as required by the Order, means the City has not made it possible for conscientious officers who want to comply with the Order to do so.
4. Training (Section 6 of the Court’s Order) Section 6 of the Order requires the City to “conduct mandatory, in-person training for all sworn employees of the Atlanta Police Department” regarding “the changes contained in this agreement” and “the law regarding detentions, arrests, frisks, and searches generally” and to provide “recurring training on
3 Letter from Deputy City Attorney Karen Thomas to Daniel Grossman, Jan. 15, 2015, para. 4, Exhibit F. Plaintiffs are attaching a few examples of the forms produced by the City. Exhibit G. Plaintiffs will file all documents produced by the City at the Court’s request.
11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 12 of 25
these topics … to each sworn officer every two years.” While the City eventually provided the initial training, after Plaintiffs filed their 2011 motion for sanctions, it is now apparent that the City has not provided the recurrent training as required.
In December, 2014, when Plaintiffs became aware of this problem, they asked the City if the recurrent training had been accomplished. Letter from Daniel Grossman to Cathy Hampton, Dec. 5, 2014, Exhibit H. In response the City provided documents that, the City claimed, demonstrate compliance with this training requirement. Email from Karen Thomas to Daniel Grossman, Dec. 10, 2015, Exhibit D. But these documents do not show compliance and actually suggest the lack of it. Therefore, on January 27, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel Daniel Grossman wrote to Karen Thomas of the City’s Law Department and asked:
Please confirm that these documents, and those you provided by email on December 10, 2014, represent all information reflecting the city’s attempt to comply with the court orders in these three cases. If there is any additional information we should also take into account, please provide it without delay. Letter of Daniel Grossman to Karen Thomas, Jan. 27, 2015, Exhibit I. The City never responded to this inquiry. The only information provided by the City, therefore, indicates that the City has not conducted the recurrent training required by the Order, as discussed in detail below.
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 13 of 25
The City’s failure to train police officers as required by various court orders, including the one in this case, is viewed as such a serious problem by police officers themselves that Atlanta’s police union, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 623 (the “Police Union”), has addressed a letter to this Court and other courts that have issued similar orders. The letter states that “adequate training on these issues appears to have fallen short of the intended outcome” and that there is a “disconnect” between the training required by these orders and “what actual training has been given.” Letter of Ken Allen, President of IBPO Local 623, Mar. 13, 2015, Exhibit J.
a. Training regarding search and seizure Among the documents provided by the City to show compliance was a training roster of officers who attended “Agency Training for Course INA00G” on specific dates during 2013. Exhibit K. The City provided no material to indicate the contents of “Course INA00G.” The City did provide Plaintiffs with copies of two lesson plans (a “Search and Seizure refresher” that was “Prepared/Completed/Taught” on March 13, 2013, and a “Use of Force” lesson “Prepared/Completed/Taught” on April 9, 2013; Exhibits L and M) but there is no indication that these lesson plans were included in “Course INA00G,” and indeed they could not have been: The training roster shows that many Atlanta police officers attended “Course INA00G” in February and early March, 2013,
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 14 of 25
and those officers could not have been trained from lesson plans that did not exist until mid-March and early April, 2013.
It is possible, naturally, that “Course INA00G” included earlier versions of similar training, and it is equally possible that “Course INA00G” had nothing to do with these subjects at all; there is no way for Plaintiffs to determine that from the information provided by the City, so Plaintiffs will need conduct discovery to determine what recurrent search and seizure training, if any, was actually provided to Atlanta police officers.
b. Training regarding the changes contained in the Settlement Agreement
The City provided no documents whatsoever to indicate that officers received the recurrent training required by the Order about “the changes contained in [the Settlement Agreement].” For example, the City provided no documents to suggest that officers received any recurrent training about Section 3 of the Order (prohibiting “Interference with Audio or Video Recordings”) before December, 2014, when Plaintiffs informed the City about their concerns regarding non-compliance.
Similarly, in response to Plaintiffs’ request for all information and documents demonstrating compliance with the Order, the City provided no information to suggest that officers have ever received recurrent training about
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 15 of 25
Section 2 of the Order (concerning “Identification Requirement for APD Officers”), Section 4 of the Order (“Documentation of Warrantless Seizures”), or Section 5 of the Order (“Documentation of ID Checks”).
5. Timely Resolution of Citizen Complaints (Section 7 of the Court’s Order)
Section 7 of the Order requires the Atlanta Police Department to “investigate and finally adjudicate all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint.” In response to Plaintiffs’ request for information regarding compliance with this Order, the City provided nothing at all to demonstrate compliance with this section of the Order, and Plaintiffs have received anecdotal information indicating that the City is in violation of this requirement. Plaintiffs will propound a discovery request requiring the City to disclose, with regard to each citizen complaint of police misconduct since the date of the order, the following information:
a) the date the complaint was made; b) the name of the complainant and file number assigned to the
complaint; c) the name of the officer against whom the complaint was made; d) the law, rule, or SOP the officer was alleged to have violated;
e) the date the complaint was finally adjudicated;
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 16 of 25
f) and the disposition of the complaint (i.e., whether the complaint was sustained, not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated).
IV. EVEN ATLANTA’S POLICE OFFICERS AGREE: THE CITY MUST BE MADE TO OBEY THIS ORDER Even Atlanta’s police officers agree that the City should be made to provide training as required by court orders. In its letter to this Court and others the Police Union set forth its concern that training deficiencies can lead to misconduct by even well-intentioned officers: IBPO Local 623 fundamentally believes that the CITY of ATLANTA should adhere to and follow any COURT ORDERED training to ensure that the Rank-and-File of the Atlanta Police Department meet and/or exceed the courts expected standards. Any shortcoming in these expectations increases the risk of disciplinary actions towards the officers, and further creates the possibility of criminal and/or civil liabilities. IBPO Local 623 Leadership agrees that these particular topics of court-ordered training are of the utmost importance and ALL standards must be met and maintained, to prevent conflicts of interest and future liabilities. Allen Letter , Exhibit J. Plaintiffs fully agree with the Police Union’s concern: The City’s failure to train officers as required by these orders is fundamentally unfair to the police officers of Atlanta. It is the City’s obligation to train its police officers and it is unreasonable for any City to send its officers out to do their jobs without adequate (and in this case, court ordered) training about search and seizure and
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 17 of 25
other important topics, since individual officers themselves face civil and criminal liability -- as well as discipline or dismissal by the City -- if they are not aware of these laws. Police officers have a right to expect thorough and adequate training, but the City seems unwilling to train its officers appropriately, even in the opinion of the officers themselves. This Court has the power – at least with regard to the training required by the Order in this case – to impose effective sanctions to coerce and compel such training. V. DISCOVERY
Because it is not possible to determine the full measure of the City’s non-compliance without conducting discovery, Plaintiffs will conduct discovery toward that end. The scope of discovery in civil matters is governed by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense ….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). The Eleventh Circuit, for example, has found that Rule 26(b)(1) allows a party to conduct discovery for the purpose of enforcing a judgment. Nat’l Service Industries, Inc. v. Vafla Corp., 694 F.2d 246, 250 (11th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). See also Cheeves v. Southern Clays, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 1570, 1580 (M.D. Ga. 1992) (“Discovery under the rules is … available with respect to a wide variety of collateral or ancillary issues”) (citations omitted).
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 18 of 25
Having established that the City is not in compliance with at least certain aspects of this Court’s order, Plaintiffs are entitled to discover information concerning the full extent of the City’s non-compliance. Such information will, at the very least, have a bearing on the nature and type of sanctions that Plaintiffs will ask this Court to impose against the City for its contumacious behavior. See United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 33 U.S. 258, 304 (1947) (in imposing coercive sanctions, court should “consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired”); Mercer v. Mitchell, 908 F.2d 763, 769 n.10 (11th Cir. 1990) (contempt sanctions are appropriate where “prior conduct” of offending party “indicates that it will not continue to comply with the court’s [order]”). VI. SANCTIONS
After determining the extent of the City’s non-compliance through discovery Plaintiffs will request such sanctions as seem appropriate and necessary in light of the facts. Plaintiffs will certainly ask the Court to fashion a remedy that includes reporting or monitoring to encourage future compliance with the Order of this Court. The City has an established track record of complying with court orders only when pressed to do so. It took a full year for the City to comply with the December 8, 2010 Settlement Order in this case, and
18

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 19 of 25
then only because the City faced the threat of sanctions, and as soon as the City believed the Court and Plaintiffs were no longer paying attention it reversed a “permanent” SOP change that it had promulgated to avoid sanctions. And despite having paid $25,000.00 of taxpayer money in December, 2011, as attorney fees for its initial non-compliance, the City again did nothing to meet its continuing compliance obligations during the following three years.
The City’s track record of complying with court orders in similar cases is equally dismal. In Anderson v. City of Atlanta, No. 11-CV-3398-SCJ, the Hon. Steve C. Jones issued an Order on March 22, 2012, requiring the City to amend a particular SOP to prohibit destruction of photo and video evidence. Exhibit N. The City did not make the required revision until December 18, 2014, two and a half years later, and then only after the plaintiff in that case expressed concerns about the City’s failure to comply with the order.4 The City’s failure to comply with the order in Anderson is detailed fully in the Motion for Sanctions that the plaintiff in Anderson recently filed against the City, attached hereto as Exhibit O.
Similarly, in Walker v. Reed, No 1:11-CV-3334-CAP, the Hon. Charles A. Pannell, Jr. issued an Order on March 20, 2012, requiring the City “to conduct
4 Counsel for the plaintiff in Anderson include two of the attorneys who represent Plaintiffs here, Gerald Weber and Daniel Grossman.
19

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 20 of 25
mandatory in-person training of all Atlanta police officers every two years” regarding the unlawfulness of strip searching suspects in public. Exhibit P. Yet according to the documents provided by the City and referenced in Exhibits D and F, the City apparently made no attempt whatsoever to comply with that order until December, 2014, again two and a half years later, and again only after the plaintiffs in that case expressed concerns about the City’s failure to comply with the order.5
Given the City’s track record, at a minimum it seems necessary to impose on the City the affirmative duty to report to Plaintiffs regarding future compliance. For example, since the City “un-revised” a permanent SOP without any notice to Plaintiffs, it would seem appropriate to impose an affirmative duty on the City to advise Plaintiffs of any future revisions to the SOPs covered by the Order in this case. And since the City failed to provide required training, it would seem appropriate to impose an affirmative duty on the City to advise Plaintiffs in advance of scheduled training sessions and to allow Plaintiffs to attend and video the training sessions to verify compliance.
5 Counsel for the plaintiffs in Walker include one of the attorneys who represent Plaintiffs here, Daniel Grossman.
20

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 21 of 25
A. Monetary or Coercive Sanctions and Attorney Fees It is premature for Plaintiffs to suggest monetary or coercive sanctions before conducting discovery to determine the extent of the City’s noncompliance, but some form of sanctions will likely be appropriate depending on the information obtained during discovery, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney fees in connection with this motion. The only defense available in a contempt action requires proof that the defendant “either … did not violate the court order or that he was excused from complying.” Id. (citation omitted). Efforts to comply with a court order must be done with “reasonable diligence” in order for it to be considered a defense to contempt. At a bare minimum, “reasonable diligence” means that the offending party must “become aware of [its non-compliant behavior] quickly – through its own efforts, not those of [the complainant] – and to set about correcting them.” Sizzler Fam. Steak Houses v. Western Sizzlin Steak, 793 F.2d 1529, 1537 (11th Cir. 1986). It is well-established that “[c]ourts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.” Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943, F.2d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966)). Once the court finds a party in contempt it is vested with “wide discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy for civil
21

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 22 of 25
contempt.” McGregor v. Chierico, 206 F.3d 1378, 1385 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Such sanctions may be imposed to achieve “either or both of two purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court’s order, and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.” Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Assoc. v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 443 (1986) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But the goal of both forms of sanctions, is, in essence, the same: to “vindicat[e] the authority of the court.” Chandler v. James, 180 F.3d 1254, 1268 (11th Cir. 1999) (Tjoflat, J., specially concurring) (citation omitted). The Eleventh Circuit has found appropriate sanctions in the form of “a coercive daily fine … attorneys’ fees and expenses … and coercive incarceration.” Watkins, 943, F.2d at 1304 (citations omitted). VII. CONCLUSION
It is disheartening and depressing that the City of Atlanta does not want to provide its police officers with adequate training and constitutional SOPs voluntarily, simply as a matter of good government. But it is shocking that the City will not do so even when ordered by multiple federal courts. It is in the interest of both the residents and the police officers of Atlanta for the City to provide officers with appropriate guidance and training, and Plaintiffs hope this Court will ultimately fashion a remedy that is sufficiently persuasive to make these continuing problems a thing of the past.
22

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 23 of 25
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of March, 2015.
/s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman GA State Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Dr., Suite F-138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 654-0326 Dan@DanGrossmanLaw.com Gregory R. Nevins GA State Bar No. 539529 Elizabeth L. Littrell GA State Bar No. 454949 Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund 730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1070 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 897-1880 Facsimile: (404) 897-1884 Gerald R. Weber, Jr. GA State Bar No. 744878 Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
23

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 24 of 25
CERTIFICATION REGARDING FORMAT Counsel hereby certifies that this document has been prepared in Book Antiqua font (13 point) in accordance with Local Rule 5.1C.
/s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman GA State Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Dr., Suite F-138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 654-0326 Dan@DanGrossmanLaw.com
24

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 281 Filed 03/17/15 Page 25 of 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 17, 2015, I electronically filed the attached with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the following attorney of record:
Robert Godfrey Tamara N. Baines
LaShawn Terry Attorneys for Defendant City of Atlanta
City of Atlanta Department of Law 68 Mitchell Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 /s/ Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman GA State Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Dr., Suite F-138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 654-0326 Dan@DanGrossmanLaw.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
25

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

G E O F F R E Y CALHOUN, et al Plaintiffs,
R I C H A R D PENNINGTON, et al Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. l:09-CV-3286-TCB

CONSENT ORDER SETTING FORTH INITIAL SPECIAL MASTER MONITORING. D I S C O V E R Y , AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES Upon consideration of the Special Master's Unopposed Motion for Entry of
an Order Setting Forth Initial Special Master Monitoring, Discovery, and Dispute Resolution Procedures [Dkt. No. 321] (the "Initial Special Master Motion"! based on the consent of the Parties to the relief requested therein as indicated by the signatures of their undersigned counsel, and for other good cause shown, the Initial Special Master Motion is hereby GRANTED, and it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, as follows:

1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 25
CALHOUN TRAINING 1) Effective beginning September 17, 2016 or upon entry ofthis Order, whichever occurs later, the City of Atlanta shall temporarily cease providing voluntary training on the specific topics identified by the Court Orders (the "Calhoun Training") pending completion of the requirements set forth at paragraph 2 o f t h i s Order. 2) The City of Atlanta and Plaintiffs shall comply with the following procedures and deadlines to ensure timely approval of a comprehensive Calhoun Training program using a format and content acceptable to Plaintiffs that will cover all topics contemplated by the Court Orders, including, but not limited to, appropriate use of nametags and supervision thereof, appropriate use of warrantless seizure/ID check forms, and appropriate responses to video photography and requests for an officer's identification credentials, as follows:
A. The procedures set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this Order apply to all Calhoun Training, including (i) roll call training, (ii) in-service training, and (iii) recurrent training.
B. The City of Atlanta shall arrange through the Special Master to meet with one or more representatives of the Georgia Bureau o f Investigation ("GBI"), the United States Attomey's Office in the
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 25
Northem District of Georgia ("US Attomey's Office"), and/or others identified by the Special Master as willing and able to contribute to the City of Atlanta's development of an effective civil rights training program to provide a live sample training program within 30 days of entry of this Order on the Calhoun Training topics (the "Practice Calhoun Training") and to entertain any discussion or other contributions regarding elements of an effective civil rights training program. The City of Atlanta shall take reasonable steps necessary to facilitate this process, including direct communication with the abovereferenced agencies, at the direction of the Special Master; C. In conjunction with the Practice Calhoun Training, the City of Atlanta shall also schedule a meeting with the Special Master, the GBI, the US Attomey's Office, and/or others identified by the Special Master (as set forth in paragraph 2(B) above) to take place after receipt and review of the Materials for Consideration (as defined below) but no more than 60 days after the Practice Calhoun Training (the "Second Meeting");
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 4 of 25
D. The Practice Calhoun Training shall be video-recorded, and a visible and audible video-recording of the Practice Calhoun Training shall be delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master within 5 days thereafter, together with copies of any presentation materials or handouts (the "Practice Training Materials");
E. Within 15 days of receipt by Plaintiffs' Counsel of the Practice Training Materials, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall review the Practice Calhoun Training and Practice Training Materials and provide succinct written comments to the Special Master regarding any perceived shortcomings thereof, i f any, under the Court Orders and the proposed resolution thereof To the extent any perceived shortcoming relates to a presentation material or handout, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall provide altemate, supplemental, or revised presentation materials or handouts to the Special Master and the City of Atlanta using format and content acceptable to the Plaintiffs for consideration by the Special Master, the City of Atlanta, the GBI, the US Attomey's Office, and/or others (the "Materials for Consideration");
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 5 of 25
F. Within 40 days of receipt of the Materials for Consideration, the City of Atlanta shall complete the Second Meeting, at which the City of Atlanta shall consider ways to improve the format, content, and effectiveness of the Practice Calhoun Training, including, but not limited to, review and discussion of any Materials for Consideration and any additional contributions by the GBI, the US Attomey's Office, and/or others.
G. To the extent the City of Atlanta has bona fide concems about incorporating any Materials for Consideration or any other proposed contributions, such bona fide concems and any reasons therefor shall be presented to the Special Master at the Second Meeting, together with a proposed resolution thereof, for consideration by the Special Master and others present, or other arrangements made with the Special Master within the parameters set forth by this Order;
H. After the Second Meeting, the City of Atlanta shall incorporate into its training program all proposed content and other contributions that are not the subject of a bona fide concem to be addressed as outlined in paragraph 2(G) above. Any bona

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 6 of 25
fide concems will be addressed by the Special Master with counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for the City of Atlanta, with potential for input from the GBI, the US Attomey's Office, and/or others, to accomplish a mutually agreeable resolution, i f possible; I . No later than 90 days after the Second Meeting, the City of Atlanta shall complete a second live sample training program for Plaintiffs' Counsel, the Special Master, the GBI, the US Attomey's Office, and/or potentially others to be identified by the Special Master on the specific topics identified by the Court Orders, incorporating into its training program any proposed content and other contributions that are not then the subject of a bona fide concem to be addressed as outlined in paragraphs 2(G) and 2(H) above (the "Second Practice Training"! The date ofthe Second Practice Training shall be coordinated by the City of Atlanta through the Special Master as soon as reasonably practicable, and i f possible, shall be scheduled for a time that will allow any bona fide concems addressed in paragraph 2(G)
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 7 of 25
and 2(H) to be resolved and any related material incorporated into the training program prior to the Second Practice Training; J. The Second Practice Training shall be video-recorded, and a visible and audible video-recording of the Second Practice Training shall be delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master within 5 days thereafter, together with copies of any presentation materials or handouts (the "Second Practice Training Materials"); K. Within 15 days of receipt by Plaintiffs' Counsel of the Second Practice Training Materials, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall, i f deemed necessary, review the Second Practice Training and Second Practice Training Materials, and either: (i) provide to the Special Master written approval as to the
then-current form and content of the Second Practice Training and Second Practice Training Materials for prospective use as Calhoun Training, subject to the procedures set forth by the Court Orders; or (ii) provide succinct written comments regarding any perceived shortcomings of the Second Practice Training
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 8 of 25
and Second Practice Training Materials, together with the proposed resolution thereof, if, and only if, such matters were not resolved by the City of Atlanta or the Special Master pursuant to paragraphs 2(G), 2(H), and 2(1) of this Order. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall not use this provision as an opportunity to raise issues that could have been but were not previously raised as Materials for Consideration; L. Once Plaintiffs' counsel provides written approval to the Special Master of the then-current format and content of the City of Atlanta's training program as contemplated by paragraph K(i) of this Order, all duties and obligations set forth in paragraph 2 of this Order shall be deemed fully satisfied, such that the temporary stay on training set forth by paragraph 1 of this Order shall be terminated and the prospective duties and obligations related to the Calhoun Training shall then be fully set forth by the Court Orders and paragraph 3 of this Order. 3) The City of Atlanta shall not implement any material changes to the structure, format, or content of the Calhoun Training, as approved by Plaintiffs'
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 9 of 25
Counsel pursuant to paragraph K ( i ) of this Order, unless such changes are presented to and approved in writing by Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master prior to implementation, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. This paragraph applies to all Calhoun Training, including (i) roll call training, (ii) inservice training, and (iii) recurrent training.
MONITORING 4) The City of Atlanta and Plaintiffs shall comply with the following procedures and deadlines to assist with the Special Master's ongoing duty to monitor compliance with the Court Orders:
A. Standard Operating Procedures: On a quarterly basis, on or before the 1st day of December 2016, March 2017, June 2017, and September 2017, respectively, the City of Atlanta shall provide to the Special Master the following: (i) a current copy of all Atlanta Police Department ("APD") Standard Operating Procedures (individually an "SOP", or collectively, "SOPs") then in effect; (ii) a document tracking any changes between the SOPs then in effect and the SOPs provided the previous quarter; and
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 10 of 25
(iii) an affidavit from the Chief of PoHce that the foregoing documents accurately reflect the SOPs then in effect and any changes made to the SOPs during the preceding quarter.
Office of Professional Standards Investigations: On a quarterly basis, on or before the 15th day of November 2016, February 2017, May 2017, and August 2017, respectively, the City of Atlanta shall provide to the Special Master the following: (i) a spreadsheet setting forth all of the information outlined
at paragraph 5 ofthis Court's May 19, 2015 Order [Dkt. No. 289] for each complaint or investigation submitted to or opened by the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") during the 3 month period ending on the 31st day of the preceding month and additionally identifying ( I ) the duration (in days after inception) of each such OPS complaint or investigation; (2) whether each such OPS complaint or investigation involves any allegations that specifically implicate any conduct at issue in the Court Orders or topics of the Calhoun Training,

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 11 of 25
including, but not limited to, identification of any alleged violations of SOPs 3020, 3030, 3065, 2010, 2011, 2130, or 3060; and (3) identification of the specific conduct and SOP at issue; and (ii) electronically searchable copies of all documents created or maintained in the ordinary course of business in conjunction with any OPS investigations closed during the 3 month period ending on the 31st day of the preceding month. Warrantless Seizure/ID Check Form Forms: On a quarterly basis, on or before the Sth day of December 2016, March 2017, June 2017, and September 2017, respectively, the City of Atlanta shall provide to the Special Master the following: (i) a copy of each Warrantless Seizure/ID Check Form completed during the 3 month period ending on the 31st day of the preceding month and any associated incident reports; and (ii) documentary evidence sufficient to determine (A) the frequency of warrantless seizures or ID checks completed

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 12 of 25
at a certain location (e.g., the Airport), to be identified by the Special Master within 30 days of the due date, during the 3 month period ending on the 31st day of the preceding month and (B) whether a Warrantless Seizure/ID Check form should have been generated under the Court Orders. For example, the required production may include, but is not necessarily limited to, documentary evidence of ACIC/GCIC/NCIC I D checks in substantially similar form as the documentation produced in conjunction with the investigation of the Atlanta Eagle Raid (identifying the Terminal, Date, Time, Source, and Identifying Information for the party searched) and documentary evidence of any circumstances that would obviate the need for the generation of a Warrantless Seizure/ID Check Form (e.g., dispatch records).
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 13 of 25
Identification Requirement for APD Officers: The City of Atlanta shall: (i) Prior to October 7, 2016, provide the Special Master an
affidavit setting forth which types of uniforms utilized by APD officers are available for purchase from its third party vendor without a permanent nametag affixed thereto and which types of uniforms cannot be purchased without a permanent nametag affixed thereto; (ii) Prior to December I , 2016, cause to be implemented or issued an SOP and/or a Chief of Police Command Memorandum mandating periodic uniform inspections at least as frequently as existing weapons inspections whereby each APD officer will also have an affirmative obligation to: (1) affix appropriate identification credentials
(permanently where possible) to any new uniforms before placing same into service; (2) represent to his/her immediate supervisor that all uniforms in his/her possession bear appropriate

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 14 of 25
identification credentials (permanently where possible); and review the SOP or Command Memorandum with his/her immediate supervisor and acknowledge that any instances in which a supervising officer identifies a police officer, whether on or off duty, in a uniform authorized for use by APD officers in completion of lawful duties and identifiable by the public as such, other than in a rain slicker or traffic direction vest, including, by way of example, but not limited to, polo shirts, mesh raid/tactical vests, body armor carriers and covers, tactical uniforms, specialty unit uniforms, riot control gear or turtle suits, and all other uniforms and uniform components authorized for use by APD officers in the performance of lawful duties and identifiable by the public as such, without a conspicuously visible nametag will result in an OPS investigation and other appropriate reprimand.
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 15 of 25
The SOP or Command Memorandum shall also require all supervising officers to report through the OPS system any instance in which they identify a police officer in uniform without a nametag (other than in a rain slicker or traffic direction vest) and shall implement, in the context of all uniform inspections, the accountability or "chain o f command" standards that govern supervising officers in the context of weapons inspections.^ (iii) upon request by the Special Master: (1) allow the Special Master access to and provide the
information necessary to monitor one or more of the above-referenced periodic uniform inspections; (2) provide the Special Master with information or documents sufficient to identify approved "second jobs" or "extra jobs" for APD officers and the locations thereof, including, but not limited to.
The Special Master will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of this initial accountability or "chain of command" system in performance of ongoing duties and re-evaluate whether the accountability or "chain of command" system needs to be escalated or de-escalated.
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 16 of 25
access to the field inspection team monitoring same; and (3) provide the Special Master advance notice of daily roll call and then-scheduled roll call, in-service, and recurrent training for the following week or greater period of time and allow the Special Master access to same. 5) A l l documents and information provided to the Special Master pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Order (including all subparts) are documents and information contemplated by paragraph 3 of the Special Master Order that shall be provided to Plaintiffs' Counsel in addition to the Special Master. Additionally, the Special Master is considering implementation of procedures designed to facilitate more open sharing of information and documents by Plaintiffs' Counsel with the Special Master and City of Atlanta related to instances of alleged non-compliance with the Court Orders to assist with the Special Master's ongoing duty to monitor compliance with the Court Orders and to allow the City of Atlanta to investigate and appropriately address any such instances/allegations, and the Special Master encourages Plaintiffs' Counsel to consider providing such information and documents voluntarily in the spirit of "develop[ing] a collaborative rather than
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 17 of 25
adversarial relationship between the parties" as set forth by the Special Master Order.
D I S C O V E R Y ANP S E C T I O N 11 R E Q U E S T S 6) A l l currently pending post-judgment discovery requests and requests made pursuant to paragraph 11 of this Court's Order entered May 19, 2015 [Dkt. No. 289] ("Section 11 Requests") are hereby stayed without prejudice to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs may reissue any such stayed requests consistent with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules and Standing Orders of this Court, the Court Orders, and this Order Setting Forth Initial Special Master Monitoring, Discovery, and Dispute Resolution Procedures (the "Applicable Rules"). 7) The City of Atlanta and Plaintiffs shall comply with the Applicable Rules and the following additional procedures in conjunction with post-judgment discovery requests and Section 11 Requests:
A. Post-Judgment Discovery: (i) prior to serving any post-judgment discovery requests. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall articulate to the Special Master the need for additional information or documents necessary to monitor compliance with the Court Orders,
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 18 of 25
including an explanation in plain English as to why the discovery is necessary to monitor compliance with the Court Orders, and allow a reasonable period of time for the Special Master to request the discovery under the powers set forth by the Special Master Order; to the extent the Special Master does not request any specific information or documentation deemed necessary, in Plaintiffs' discretion, to monitor compliance with the Court Orders, or an adequate substitute for such documents and information, post-judgment discovery requests for same may be served on the appropriate party under the Applicable Rules with a copy to the Special Master and shall include, in plain English, an explanation to the other party as to why the request is necessary to monitor compliance with the Court Orders or otherwise appropriate; objections/responses to any such requests shall be served on the appropriate party with a copy to the Special Master and shall include either (A) a date and time by
18

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 19 of 25
which responsive documents and information will be produced to the Special Master and to Plaintiffs, or (B) an explanation in plain English as to why the requested discovery is not necessary to monitor compliance with the Court Orders or is otherwise inappropriate or properly withheld under the Applicable Rules; (iv) i f any post-judgment discovery dispute is not resolved by the parties, discovery motion practice may proceed in accordance with the Applicable Rules, and when any such dispute is ripe for determination, the Special Master will schedule an evidentiary hearing to resolve any pending disputes, including apportionment of costs, i f appropriate, under applicable law. Section 11 Requests: (i) prior to serving any Section 11 Requests, Plaintiffs' Counsel shall articulate to the Special Master the need for additional information or documents necessary to monitor compliance with the Court Orders, including an explanation in plain English as to why requested

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 20 of 25
documents and information are necessary to monitor compliance with the Court Orders, and allow a reasonable period of time for the Special Master to request the discovery under the powers set forth by the Special Master Order; to the extent the Special Master does not request any specific information or documentation deemed necessary, in Plaintiffs' discretion, to monitor compliance with the Court Orders, or an adequate substitute for such documents and information, a Section 11 Request for same may be served on the appropriate party with a copy to the Special Master and shall include, in plain English, an explanation as to why the Section 11 Request is reasonable and necessary to monitor compliance with the Court Orders; the City of Atlanta shall comply with any reasonable Section 11 Requests consistent with the Court Orders, or, to the extent the City of Atlanta disputes the reasonableness of a Section 11 Request, the City of
20

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 21 of 25
Atlanta shall, as soon as practicable and no later than 15 days, provide Plaintiffs' and the Special Master (A) an explanation in plain English as to why the requested discovery is not reasonable or not necessary to monitor compliance with the Court Orders, and (B) a suggestion as to what would make the request reasonable (e.g., an appropriate substitute for the requested documents and information, or an extended time frame) and an explanation why; i f any Section 11 Request is not resolved by the parties in accordance with these procedures, upon request by any party, the Special Master will schedule an evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonableness of any outstanding Section 11 Requests, after which the Special Master will resolve any such Section 11 Requests including a determination regarding the reasonableness ofany related fees and costs.
21

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 22 of 25
MISCELLANEOUS 8) Based on all of the parties' submissions, the Special Master beheves and finds that the parties intend to fully comply with the Court Orders, this Order, and the other Applicable Rules. Therefore, in lieu of setting forth pre-determined sanctions, the Special Master is focusing attention in this Order prospectively on monitoring compliance with the Court Orders and resolving future discovery disputes, i f any, between the parties, as described herein, until proven otherwise. 9) However, the Special Master expressly reserves the right to implement appropriate remedial measures, including but not limited to predetermined sanctions, consistent with the Special Master Order, and will do the same, augment or supplement the monitoring procedures set forth in this Order, or make a report and recommendation of contempt, whichever appropriate, i f deemed necessary to achieve compliance with this Court's Orders, this Order, or any other Applicable Rules. 10) Additionally, the Special Master is independently investigating the City of Atlanta's compliance with the Court Orders to date and what may or may not be potential violations thereof The Special Master will file its quarterly compliance reports consistent with the Special Master Order independent of this Order. Therefore, nothing in this report shall be construed or interpreted as a
22

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 23 of 25

fmding or determination by the Special Master regarding any past actions (or omissions) by the City of Atlanta.
11) I f compliance with this Order is not possible due to any circumstances beyond the control o f the Plaintiffs or the City of Atlanta, such circumstances should be made known to the Special Master as soon as reasonably practicable together with a proposed solution for consideration by the Special Master.
12) Notliing in this Order is intended to (nor shall it) modify, alter, or amend any of this Court's prior orders, including the Court Orders and the Special Master Order.

I T IS SO O R D E R E D this JA

day of September, 2016.

I
Timothy C. Batten, Sr^ United States District Judge

[END OF ORDER] ###
23

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 24 of 25

Submitted & consented to by: Consented to by:

/s Joe D. Whitley JOE D. W H I T L E Y Georgia Bar No. 756150 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 3414 Peachtree Road, NE Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com (404) 223-2209
Special Master
Is Gerald Weber GERALD R. WEBER, JR. Georgia Bar No. 744878 Southem Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 gweber@schr.org (404)688-1202
/s Daniel Grossman DANIEL GROSSMAN Georgia Bar No. 313815 1579 Monroe Drive, Suite F138 Atlanta, GA 30324 Dan@DanGros smanLaw. com (404) 654-0326
Is Gregory R. Nevins
GREGORY R. NEVINS Georgia Bar No. 539529
ELIZABETH L. LITTRELL Georgia Bar No. 454949 Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
24

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 323 Filed 09/23/16 Page 25 of 25

Consented to by:

730 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 640 Atlanta, GA 30308 GNevins@lambdalegal.org (404) 897-1880
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Is Robin Jov Shahar ROBIN JOY SHAHAR Chief Counsel Georgia Bar No. 089435 rshahar@atlantaga. gov (404) 546-4171
ALISHA WYATT-BULLMAN Assistant City Attomey Georgia Bar No. 189850 aiwvattbullman@atianta. gov (404) 546-4125
MAIYSHA R. RASHAD Assistant City Attomey Georgia Bar No. 836938 mrrashad@atlantaga. gov (404) 546-4086
City of Atlanta Department of Law Atlanta City Hall 55 Trinity Avenue, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 546-4100
Attorneys for Defendants
25

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:09-CV-3286-TCB

SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2016
COMES NOW, Joe D. Whitley, the appointed Special Master in the abovereferenced case, in furtherance of the duties imposed upon the Special Master by this Court's Order entered June 22, 2016 [Dkt. No. 309] (the "Special Master Order"), and submits this Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report dated September 29, 2016 (the "9/29 Compliance Report"), recommending no further action by the Court at this time beyond entry of the Consent Order Setting Forth Initial Special Master Monitoring, Discovery, and Dispute Resolution Procedures [Dkt. No. 323] (the "Procedures Order"), which was entered September 23, 2016, and deferment of any further action, if any, for the reasons that follow:
1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 25
PROLOGUE During the first three months of the Special Master's appointment, the Special Master quickly ascertained that an order setting forth initial monitoring, discovery, and dispute resolution procedures would be critical to accomplishing the parties' shared goals of "develop[ing] a collaborative rather than adversarial relationship between the parties" (Special Master Order, at ¶3(c)) and establishing complete consensus as to the City of Atlanta's compliance with the Court Orders, due, in large part, to mutual communication breakdowns that are not attributable to any one party. This has been the Special Master's primary focus for the first three months of his appointment. As indicated by the Unopposed Motion for Order Setting Forth Initial Special Master Monitoring, Discovery, and Dispute Resolution Procedures [Dkt. No. 321] (the "Unopposed Motion") and the Procedures Order, significant progress has been made in furtherance of these critical objectives, and the Special Master believes and finds that Plaintiffs and the City of Atlanta (the "City") intend to fully comply with the Court Orders (as defined below), the Procedures Order, and the other applicable rules in an effort to achieve a mutual understanding, agreement, and consensus of complete compliance.
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 25
Notwithstanding, the Special Master Order requires the Special Master to issue written quarterly reports on compliance with the Court Orders and electronically file such reports with this Court. Accordingly, this 9/29 Compliance Report sets forth the Special Master's initial, limited findings to date regarding the City's compliance, with the understanding that the Special Master will be further investigating, revisiting, and/or supplementing these findings in the next quarterly compliance report, due December 22, 2016, and those that follow.
METHODOLOGY In conducting the Special Master's independent investigation and preparing this report, the Special Master has given consideration to (i) relevant pleadings, filings, and discovery in the above-styled case, including, but not limited to, the Court's Orders entered December 8, 2010 [Dkt. No. 265] (the "2010 Order"), December 15, 2011 [Dkt. No. 280] (the "2011 Order"), and May 19, 2015 [Dkt. No. 289] (the "2015 Order") (hereinafter, collectively, the "Court Orders"); (ii) various party and non-party documents, information, and accounts requested and received by the Special Master to date as relevant to the determination of compliance with the Court Orders; and (iii) the parties' direct representations, as officers of the Court, to the Special Master, as an officer of the Court.
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 25
Where possible, evidence was reviewed according to a preponderance of the evidence standard to make an initial determination about compliance; however, no formal evidentiary hearing has been held, and, given the recentness of his appointment, the Special Master has not had an opportunity to review all evidence. Additionally, in some instances, the Special Master explicitly finds that additional evidence is needed to formulate a complete opinion on compliance. Therefore, these initial, limited findings are subject to further review and revision, and no party is deemed to have waived any evidentiary rights or objections.
INITIAL FINDINGS For purposes of these initial findings, the Special Master utilizes the 2015 Order as a road map because it sets forth fourteen (14) paragraphs of discrete requirements that generally articulate the compliance issues presented by the Court Orders. In an effort to create a more readable document, the Special Master paraphrases the requirements of the 2015 Order below. The Special Master has attempted to accurately paraphrase the requirements and understands and acknowledges that compliance with the Court Orders -- not the Special Master's short form interpretations thereof -- is the relevant inquiry. Accordingly, nothing in this 9/29 Compliance Report, including any paraphrased language, is intended to
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 25
(nor shall it) modify, alter, or amend any of this Court's prior orders. To the extent there is any conflict, the Court Orders prevail and are controlling.
Paragraph 1 - Requirement to complete in-person training of all sworn APD employees within 90 days, using a format and content acceptable to Plaintiffs, on the topics specified in the 2010 Order.
Based on the Special Master's review of the record, there is no dispute as to whether the City actually conducted "Calhoun" training within the relevant time period; however, disputes do exist as to whether or not Plaintiffs approved (or acquiesced to) the format and content of the training.
The record confirms that the City and Plaintiffs met on June 29, 2015 and again on July 16, 2015 to discuss (among other things) early draft(s) of the "Calhoun" training that were not acceptable to Plaintiffs. While not entirely clear, it appears the parties discussed revisions that would (in theory) make the draft training acceptable and agreed that a five-day period would be sufficient for Plaintiffs' counsel to review and comment on the revised training.
The dispute boils down to a July 17, 2015 email from City counsel to Plaintiffs' counsel ostensibly attaching for review the revised training materials, which incorporated certain revisions discussed at the June 29 and/or July 16 meetings. The record confirms that the City waited five days after sending the
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 6 of 25
revised training materials on July 17. Then, when no objection (or any other response) was received, the City interpreted Plaintiffs' silence as approval/acquiescence and proceeded with "Calhoun" training despite the lack of an affirmative confirmation regarding the format and content of the training from Plaintiffs' counsel.
The City proceeded with the initial "Calhoun" training from July 28 through August 12, completing the training of every police officer in the APD, with the exception of those on extended leave, on or before August 17, 2015, as required by the timing component of paragraph 1, and as more particularly set forth by the Declaration of Major Darin Schierbaum filed with the Court on August 21, 2015 [Dkt. No. 299-1].
In fact, the format and content of the 2015 "Calhoun" training are not acceptable to Plaintiffs (although Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed the training was much improved), and Plaintiffs' counsel deny receiving the July 17 email enclosing the training materials for their review. Notwithstanding, it appears Plaintiffs knew the City was proceeding with the initial "Calhoun" training and did not intervene to prevent the training in progress.
In lieu of engaging in potentially complex and expensive discovery (including metadata/ESI) to determine whether or not the July 17 email was, in
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 7 of 25
fact, sent by City counsel and/or received by Plaintiffs' counsel, the Special Master is inclined to take the mere existence of the July 17 email at face value as standing for the proposition that the City did, in fact, attempt to provide the revised training materials to Plaintiffs' counsel prior to conducting the training, and did, in fact, attempt to achieve a format and content acceptable to Plaintiffs (albeit unsuccessfully) through meetings with Plaintiffs' counsel and a good faith revision and review process.
It would be impossible for the Special Master to find complete compliance due to the subjective element of paragraph 1 requiring that the format and content be "acceptable to Plaintiffs." It is not. However, it is also not possible for the City to return to August 2015 to timely ascertain that Plaintiffs did not receive the July 17 email, and it appears clear that the City attempted to comply with (and substantially complied with) the spirit of paragraph 1.
In coming to this conclusion, the Special Master does not condone the City's behavior in moving forward without receiving positive confirmation from Plaintiffs, which would have been, in hindsight, the more prudent course. However, the Special Master gives the City the benefit of the doubt based on the fact that City counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel had exchanged emails previously and continue to do so, with no other known issues.
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 8 of 25
Further, the City submitted the training to Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council ("POST"), who independently reviewed the training and concluded that although certain aspects of the training could be improved,
"It appears that this training was structured to meet the aspects agreed upon in the consent order. The objectives of the training are clear…" Finally, a finding of non-compliance would undermine the substantial progress made by the parties in the past 3 months in reaching agreement as to detailed procedures (set forth more fully in the Procedures Order) that will undoubtedly prevent any misunderstanding as to whether the format and content of the training is "acceptable to Plaintiffs" going forward. Based on the foregoing, the Special Master is inclined to find that the City technically and substantially complied with paragraph 1, provided that the City confirm its good faith through completion of the procedures related to future training set forth by the Procedures Order, which will result in a "Calhoun" training program with content and in a format acceptable to Plaintiffs. This approach is consistent with the parties' prospective focus and approach in the Procedures Order. Accordingly, compliance will be revisited in conjunction with future compliance reports.
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 9 of 25
Paragraph 2 - Requirement to provide recurrent "Calhoun" training consistent with Section 1 of the 2015 Order every two years.
The recurrent training required by paragraph 2 must be completed by August 2017. Consequently, compliance is not ripe for determination. Further, all "Calhoun" training has been stayed by the Procedures Order pending approval of a "Calhoun" training program with content and format acceptable to Plaintiffs. Compliance will be re-visited when this matter is ripe for determination.
Paragraph 3 - Requirement for City to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with (i) reasonable advance notice of dates and places of proposed training; (ii) copies of proposed training materials sufficiently in advance of training so Plaintiffs' counsel may review and consult with the City; (iii) a videorecording of each training session conducted pursuant to the 2015 Order; and (iv) an affidavit attesting to the names of all officers who attended training and the dates of their attendance.
Additional fact-finding is necessary before the Special Master can make a determination as to compliance with paragraph 3. Accordingly, final findings are withheld or deferred out of necessity, provided this issue will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 10 of 25
Paragraph 4 - Requirements to (a) within 20 days amend any SOP dealing with dress code to require all police officers in uniform to wear a conspicuously visible nametag (except in limited circumstances) and (b) to distribute a Chief of Police Command Memorandum emphasizing certain officer identification requirements set forth more particularly in the 2015 Order.
Documents received from the City of Atlanta confirm, at a minimum, timely partial or technical compliance with paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) of the 2015 Order.
By way of illustration with respect to paragraph 4(a), ADP.SOP.2010 and ADP.SOP.2130 were signed into effect by Chief of Police George Turner on May 29, 2015 and filed with the Court on June 3, 2015 [Dkt. Nos. 291-2, 291-3], with no objection filed by Plaintiffs. They provide (in relevant part) as follows:
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 11 of 25 11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 12 of 25
With respect to paragraph 4(b), Chief Turner's Command Memorandum was distributed to each APD employee on May 26, 2015, and APD records confirm the date the Command Memorandum was reviewed by each of 1806 APD officers, generally on or before May 29, 2015.
Notwithstanding these initial findings, the Special Master has determined that additional fact finding is necessary before a final finding as to compliance would be appropriate. Accordingly, a final finding of compliance is withheld or deferred out of necessity, pending review of additional evidence by the Special Master, and the issue of complete compliance will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
Paragraph 5 - Requirement to provide Plaintiffs' counsel, on or before May 22, 2015, with a spreadsheet providing certain categories of information set forth more particularly in the 2015 Order with regard to each complaint of
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 13 of 25
police misconduct and each Office of Professional Standards (OPS) investigation received or commenced after December 8, 2010.
The record confirms that the City did, in fact, provide Plaintiffs with a spreadsheet responsive to paragraph 5 on May 22, 2015. Disputes exist as to whether the spreadsheet provided on May 22 was fully responsive.
The disputes appear to boil down to reasonable, differing opinions regarding the scope of paragraph 5. Plaintiffs' counsel perceives two deficiencies with respect to the City's May 22 production. First, Plaintiffs allege that the spreadsheet lacked identification of "the law, rule, or SOP the officer was alleged to have violated" as required by paragraph 5(e) (emphasis added). Second, Plaintiffs allege that the spreadsheet (erroneously) omitted internal investigations, which Plaintiffs contend are encompassed by the language including "each Office of Professional Standards (OPS) investigation." The City takes the position that the spreadsheet was fully compliant, and, to the extent it was not, the City has cured any deficiency.
The Special Master finds that the City's spreadsheet was technically compliant with paragraph 5(e) inasmuch as the spreadsheet, without exception, identifies the specific work rule alleged to have been violated. There can be no dispute the paragraph 5(e) requirement is disjunctive.
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 14 of 25
Further, when Plaintiffs raised the issue, the City did not ignore the request, but treated it as a "section 11" request, and set out to provide the additional information requested, including which SOP was alleged to have been violated. Indeed, by June 19, 2015, the City had provided at least three updated spreadsheets itemizing all internal investigations within the more expansive interpretation of paragraph 5. Additionally, the City represents that it has now provided electronically searchable copies of all responsive OPS files that support the spreadsheets and provide the SOP alleged to have been violated. Finally, the City has committed (in the Procedures Order) to continue providing all OPS files and even more comprehensive OPS spreadsheets with additional categories of information requested by Plaintiffs and the Special Master as necessary to monitor compliance.
Without deciding whether or not the initial production was complete, the Special Master finds that the City has achieved, at a minimum, technical and substantial compliance with paragraph 5 by curing any apparent deficiencies, if any, despite reasonable differing opinions as to scope. Nonetheless, given the ongoing nature of the OPS disclosure requirements and the City's commitments, compliance will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 15 of 25
Paragraph 6 - Requirement to implement within 60 days a form that is acceptable to Plaintiffs' counsel for use in complying with the requirements of Section 4 ("Documentation of Warrantless Seizures") and Section 5 ("Documentation of ID Checks") of the 2010 Order, to provide copies of completed forms upon request for same at no charge, and to maintain the forms as public records.
There is no dispute as to the City's technical compliance with paragraph 6. Documentation confirms that City counsel collaborated with Plaintiffs' counsel to accomplish a mutually acceptable form, which was implemented by the City within the time frame allotted. A declaration confirming the City's compliance was filed with the Court on July 20, 2015 [Dkt. No. 295], with no objection filed by Plaintiffs.
Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs dispute whether the agreed forms are being utilized effectively by APD. Without making a finding as to whether the City's training program has been effective in this regard, the Special Master finds that the City has made good faith efforts to train APD employees how to utilize the required forms. Specifically, the City (by way of example, not an exhaustive list):
 implemented ADP.SOP.3020;
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 16 of 25
 provided training on ADP.SOP.3020 (more specifically, Section 4.5.11 thereof) in the City's August 2015 training and additional training programs;
 conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel to ascertain what would improve the APD's effectiveness in utilizing the forms; and
 committed to additional actions in furtherance of the strategies proposed by Plaintiffs' counsel, including (i) development of a flow chart for circulation to APD (upon approval by Plaintiffs of same); and (ii) agreement to coordinate with Plaintiffs to develop more effective training programs, as set forth in the Procedures Order.
Based on the foregoing, the Special Master finds that the City of Atlanta has technically and substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph 6. However, due to the ongoing nature of the City's commitments and potential unresolved issues related to the effectiveness of training, compliance will be revisited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
Paragraph 7 - Requirement to amend, within 20 days, APD.SOP.3065 to restore certain language.
Documents received from the City of Atlanta confirm timely compliance with the technical requirements of paragraph 7 of the 2015 Order. Revised
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 17 of 25
ADP.SOP.3065 was signed into effect by Chief of Police George Turner on May 29, 2015, and provides as follows:
In addition to technical compliance, the City has taken additional steps to ensure that the operative language is not later removed. See, for example, the below:
Finally, amended ADP.SOP.3065 was filed with the Court on June 3, 2015 [Dkt. No. 291-4], with no objection filed by Plaintiffs.
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 18 of 25
Based on the foregoing, the Special Master finds that the City timely complied with the technical requirements of paragraph 7. Notwithstanding, due to the ongoing nature of the paragraph 7 requirements (see also, paragraph 8), compliance will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
Paragraph 8 - Requirement that the "Calhoun" related amendments to SOP's pursuant to 2010 Order and 2011 Order shall be permanent; and City shall inform Plaintiffs of any revisions to the affected SOP's within 5 days.
The Special Master has reviewed the APD SOP's and has confirmed that amendments were made to each of the following SOP's in an effort to achieve compliance with the Court Orders: (i) APD.SOP.3020; (ii) APD.SOP.3030; (iii) APD.SOP.3065; (iv) APD.SOP.2010; (v) APD.SOP.2011; (vi) APD.SOP.2130; (vii) APD.SOP.3060; (viii) ADP.SOP.1060; (ix) ADP.SOP.2020; (x) ADP.SOP.2060; (xi) ADP.SOP.2080; (xii) ADP.SOP. 3110; and (xiii) ADP.SOP.3080.
Each of the aforementioned SOP's was signed into effect by Chief of Police George Turner on May 29, 2015, and copies of the amended SOP's were filed with this Court as exhibits to a Notice of Compliance filed June 3, 2015 [Dkt. No. 291], with no objection filed by Plaintiffs. With regard to "Calhoun" related amendments
18

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 19 of 25
to the aforementioned SOP's, the City has taken additional steps to ensure that the operative language is not later removed, consistent with its handling of ADP.SOP.3065 (see above). The City has also represented to the Special Master that the amended SOP's remain in effect as of the filing of this 9/29 Compliance Report. Finally, the Procedures Order institutes quarterly review of all SOP's by the Special Master and Plaintiffs' counsel to guarantee and confirm ongoing compliance.
Additional fact finding and scrutiny are necessary before the Special Master can find that the ADP SOP's, as amended, have fully implemented "all [] revisions required by [the Court Orders]." Therefore, and due to the ongoing nature of the paragraph 8 requirements, pending further review, the Special Master believes a finding of compliance eventually will be appropriate and forthcoming, but the Special Master withholds or defers any final finding out of necessity at this time. This issue will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
19

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 20 of 25
Paragraph 9- Requirement to comply with future post-judgment discovery requests pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and all Standing Orders of this Court.
Based on the agreement of Plaintiffs and the City to stay all pending postjudgment discovery requests and to deal with these matters as set forth in the Procedures Order, the Special Master finds that compliance or non-compliance with paragraph 9 is not currently ripe for determination. Accordingly, and because additional fact finding would be necessary for the Special Master to formulate an opinion and basis therefor as to compliance, findings are presently withheld or deferred out of necessity, provided this issue will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
Paragraph 10- Requirement to respond to outstanding discovery requests no later than Friday, May 22, 2015.
Based on the agreement of Plaintiffs and the City to stay all pending postjudgment discovery requests and to deal with these matters as set forth in the Procedures Order, the Special Master finds that compliance or non-compliance with paragraph 10 is not currently ripe for determination. Accordingly, and because additional fact finding would be necessary for the Special Master to
20

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 21 of 25
formulate an opinion and basis therefor as to compliance, findings are presently withheld or deferred out of necessity, provided this issue will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
Paragraph 11- Requirement to comply within 15 days with any reasonable request made by Plaintiffs' counsel seeking records or documents related to the City's compliance with the Court Orders.
Based on the agreement of Plaintiffs and the City to stay all pending "section 11" requests and to deal with these matters as set forth in the Procedures Order, the Special Master finds that compliance or non-compliance with paragraph 11 is not currently ripe for determination. Accordingly, and because additional fact finding would be necessary for the Special Master to formulate an opinion and basis therefor as to compliance, findings are presently withheld or deferred out of necessity, provided this issue will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
Paragraph 12- Requirement for the City to reimburse Plaintiffs' counsel for any reasonable fees and costs expended to monitor compliance with the Court Orders.
The Special Master has reviewed the record related to paragraph 12 and finds that the City is generally and technically compliant; however, due to the
21

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 22 of 25
ongoing nature of the paragraph 12 requirements, a final finding is withheld or deferred out of necessity, and this issue will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
Paragraph 13- Requirement to reimburse Plaintiffs' counsel for fees and costs incurred to bring the contempt proceeding.
The Special Master has reviewed the record related to paragraph 13 and finds that the City fully complied with the requirement of paragraph 13.
Paragraph 14- Providing that the terms of the 2015 Order (with a limited exception) shall expire six years from the date of entry and that the 2015 Order shall have no effect on the terms of the 2010 Order and 2011 Order.
Paragraph 14 sets forth the 6-year timeframe contemplated by the 2015 Order and reiterates that the 2015 Order does not overrule, supersede, or otherwise affect the requirements set forth by the 2010 Order and the 2011 Order. Beyond these general concepts, paragraph 14 does not impose any new or additional requirements on the City.
Due to the ongoing nature of the paragraph 14 requirements (for 6 years) and the overall applicability to the other requirements of the Court Orders, the Special Master finds that compliance with paragraph 14 is not presently ripe for
22

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 23 of 25
compliance and that additional fact finding would be necessary for the Special Master to formulate an opinion and basis therefor as to compliance. Accordingly, a final finding is withheld or deferred out of necessity, and this issue will be revisited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Generally, except as set forth otherwise above, the Special Master preliminarily finds that the City has complied or attempted in good faith to comply with the requirements of the Court Orders after entry of the 2015 Order, provided the Special Master will re-visit all of the initial findings herein in conjunction with future quarterly reports as additional facts are discovered and evaluated. Along these lines, the Special Master will continue to develop the record related to compliance through additional discovery within the powers set forth by the Special Master Order and requests that the parties immediately make the Special Master aware of any circumstances that would prevent a finding of compliance, so the Special Master can evaluate the need for an evidentiary hearing in advance of the next quarterly compliance report due December 22, 2016. In light of the foregoing, Special Master respectfully recommends that the Court adopt this 9/29 Compliance Report and defer any further action (beyond entry of the Procedures Order) at this time.
23

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 24 of 25

Respectfully submitted by:

/s Joe D. Whitley
JOE D. WHITLEY Georgia Bar No. 756150 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 3414 Peachtree Road, NE Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com (404) 223-2209
Special Master

24

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 25 of 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have electronically filed the foregoing SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 with the Clerk of Court using the Court's CM/ECF system, which will automatically send electronic notification of such filing to all parties through their counsel of record.
This 29th day of September, 2016.
/s/ Joe D. Whitley Joe D. Whitley Georgia Bar No. 756150 BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 3415 Peachtree Road NE Monarch Plaza, Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Telephone: 404-223-2209 Facsimile: 404-238-9799 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com Special Master
25

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:09-CV-3286-TCB

SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED APRIL 12, 2017

COMES NOW, Joe D. Whitley, the appointed Special Master in the above-

referenced case, in furtherance of the duties imposed by this Court's Order entered

June 22, 2016 [Dkt. No. 309] (the "Special Master Order"), and submits this

Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report dated April 12, 2017 (hereinafter, the

"4/12 Report") setting forth the Special Master's compliance findings as of the date

of this 4/12 Report:

PROLOGUE

On September 29, 2016, the Special Master filed the Special Master

Quarterly Compliance Report dated September 29, 2016 [Dkt. No. 324] (the "9/29

1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 2 of 30
Report")1, and on December 30, 2016, the Special Master filed the Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report dated December 30, 2016 [Dkt. No. 325] (the "12/30 Report" and together with the 9/29 Report, the "Past Compliance Reports"). In the Past Compliance Reports, the Special Master preliminarily found, except as set forth otherwise therein, that the City had complied or attempted in good faith to comply with the requirements of the Court Orders after entry of the 2015 Order and generally reserved final judgment, provided the Special Master would be revisiting all preliminary findings in conjunction with future reports, pending discovery and evaluation of additional facts.
As more fully explained in the Past Compliance Reports, this approach was based on an assumption of continued commitment by the City towards achieving a consensus of compliance with the Court Orders through ongoing efforts under the Consent Order Setting Forth Initial Special Master Monitoring, Discovery, and Dispute Resolution Procedures [Dkt. No. 323], as subsequently modified by the Consent Order Modifying Limited Provisions of Consent Order Setting Forth Initial Special Master Monitoring, Discovery, and Dispute Resolution Procedures [Dkt. No. 339] (hereinafter, collectively, the "Procedures Order").
1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall be attributed the same meanings attributed to them in the 9/29 Compliance Report.
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 3 of 30
Over the past three months, the Special Master has continued to perfect the record related to compliance with the assistance of the parties. Below are the Special Master's limited findings as of this 4/12 Report regarding compliance with the Court Orders, with a particular focus on the time period between the 12/30 Report and the filing of this report, provided the Special Master will be further investigating, revisiting, and/or supplementing all findings in the next quarterly compliance report, due in June 2017, and those that follow.
METHODOLOGY In conducting the Special Master's independent investigation and preparing this report, the Special Master has given consideration to: (i) relevant pleadings, filings, and discovery in the above-styled case, including, but not limited to, the Court Orders and the Procedures Order; (ii) various party and non-party documents, information, and accounts requested and received by the Special Master as relevant to the determination of compliance with the Court Orders; and (iii) the parties' direct representations, as officers of the Court, to the Special Master, as an officer of the Court. Where possible, evidence has been reviewed according to a preponderance of the evidence standard to make a preliminary determination about compliance; however, no formal evidentiary hearing has been requested or held, and the Special
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 4 of 30
Master has not had an opportunity to consider all potentially relevant evidence. Additionally, in some instances, the Special Master explicitly finds that additional evidence or time is needed to formulate a complete opinion on compliance. Therefore, these limited findings are subject to further review and revision, and no party is deemed to have waived any evidentiary rights or objections.
Ultimately, the Special Master intends to move to more formal briefings and hearings in conjunction with efforts to apply applicable Eleventh Circuit compliance standards and additional finality; however, at this time, the Special Master continues to believe that additional and more frequent informal meetings among the parties will continue to cater to a consensus of complete compliance, as contemplated by the Special Master Order and as discussed more fully below.
FINDINGS For purposes of this 4/12 Report, the Special Master is organizing compliance findings by topic, as referenced in the 2010 Order and the 2011 Order, with references to related issues from the 2015 Order. Utilizing this approach, the Special Master aims to provide a more comprehensive and wholesome analysis of related compliance issues arising out of the Court Orders. The Special Master has attempted to accurately paraphrase the requirements of the Court Orders and understands and acknowledges that compliance with the Court Orders -- not the
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 5 of 30
Special Master's short form interpretations thereof -- is the relevant inquiry. Accordingly, nothing in this 4/12 Report, including any paraphrased language, is intended to (nor shall it) modify, alter, or amend any of this Court's Orders. To the extent there is any conflict, the Court Orders prevail and are controlling. 1. REVOCATION OR AMENDMENT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL
POLICIES [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 1] AND RELATED ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶¶ 4(a), 4(b), 7, and 8]. As more particularly set forth in the Past Compliance Reports, to the best of the Special Master's knowledge, the City timely complied with the technical requirements of the Court Orders referenced above, and the Special Master is not presently aware of any disputes related to the revocation and/or amendment of unconstitutional policies, as required by the Court Orders. Notably, on January 6, 2017 and on March 1, 2017, the City of Atlanta provided affidavits of APD Police Chief Erika Shields attaching copies of all Standard Operating Procedures ("SOPs") related to the above-captioned matter, which confirm that the SOPs attached thereto accurately reflect the SOPs then in effect and that no changes had been made to those particular SOPs on or after the date they were signed into effect by former Police Chief George N. Turner on May 29, 2015 in response to the 2015 Court Order. Further, on or around March 27, 2017, the Special Master received written confirmation from Plaintiffs' Counsel
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 6 of 30
confirming that "Plaintiffs have no comment about the affidavit submitted by the Chief."
However, the Special Master notes that the aforementioned affidavits are unclear on their face as to whether all APD SOPs have been provided, as contemplated by the Procedures Order at paragraph 4(A) and as required to make a final determination as to compliance with the 2011 Order. Upon review, the Special Master did receive an email from the City seeking clarification as to whether all APD SOPs were requested. Accordingly, consistent with the Special Master's discussion during an April 3, 2017 ex parte conference with the City, the Special Master hereby clarifies and requests that all SOPs be provided in future productions, together with any additional or amended affidavits that may be necessary to address the requirements set forth by paragraph 4(A) of the Procedures Order and to monitor compliance with the requirements set forth at Ex. A, ¶ 1 of the 2011 Court Order and at ¶¶ 4(a), 4(b), 7, and 8 of the 2015 Order. This shall clarify the scope of paragraph 4(A) of the Procedures Order going forward until future notice.
In sum, additional fact finding and scrutiny are necessary before the Special Master can find that the ADP SOPs, as amended, have fully implemented "all [] revisions required by [the Court Orders]." The Special Master believes a finding
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 7 of 30
of compliance eventually will be appropriate and forthcoming; however, the Special Master again withholds or defers any final finding out of necessity at this time. This issue will be re-visited in conjunction with future quarterly reports. 2. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR APD OFFICERS [2011
Order at Ex. A, ¶ 2]. As set forth in the Past Compliance Reports, disputes existed and still exist as to whether the City has achieved complete compliance with respect to the following requirement of the 2010 Order and 2011 Order:
2. Identification Requirement for APD Officers The City of Atlanta shall require all Atlanta police officers who are in uniform, other than a rain slicker or traffic direction vest, to wear a conspicuously visible nametag, and to require any Atlanta police officer who is in uniform or has displayed a badge or other indicia of police authority (such as a police vest, etc.), to identify himself by name and badge number upon request at some point before the end of an encounter with a civilian.
In conjunction with development of the Procedures Order, the parties agreed to implement and monitor additional procedures that would aid in achieving a consensus of complete compliance with regard to the identification requirements for APD Officers in the Court Orders, including, but not limited to, the ones set forth at paragraph 4(D) of the Procedures Order. Along these lines, on or around January 3, 2017, the City provided to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master a
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 8 of 30
schedule of routine daily uniform inspections and addresses for the inspections by APD zone, affording the Special Master and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel the opportunity to attend daily uniform inspections for monitoring purposes contemplated by the Court Orders.
On March 9, 2017, the Special Master sent staff members to inspect a Zone 2 daily roll-call uniform inspection supervised by Sergeant A. P. Taddei, Lieutenant A. Singh, and Major Barry Shaw, among others. At the inspection, the Special Master's staff observed one individual wearing an APD issue bullet-proof vest but no conspicuously visible name tag. This individual was not actively participating in but was present at the APD offices during roll-call. All other APD personnel present for or participating in daily roll call were confirmed by the Special Master's staff and by APD supervisors to be wearing conspicuously visible name tags in conjunction with the daily roll call uniform inspection.
After the inspection, the Special Master's staff interviewed one or more Zone 2 supervisors related to, among other things, (i) standard practices related to compliance with the identification requirements, (ii) ramifications of an officer's failure to wear a conspicuously visible name tag during daily roll-call inspections, and (iii) the presence of somebody without a conspicuously visible name tag. The Special Master's staff was informed that the standard practice is to inspect every
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 9 of 30
officer's name tag during his/her respective roll call and the ramification for failure
to wear a conspicuously visible name tag during roll-call is to be sent home
without pay. When asked about the person present without a name tag, one or more
supervisors confirmed that the individual in question was not a member of APD,
but instead an intern, who must wear a bullet proof vest by law but would not be
covered by the Court Orders and would not be allowed to wear an APD badge or
other insignia of APD authority. An intern is not a sworn APD officer.
Based on this initial inspection and report, the Special Master is generally
satisfied with the chain of command supervision of the name tag requirements
observed at the March 9, 2017 daily roll call inspection. Nonetheless, the Special
Master will continue to inspect daily roll call inspections and explore other
situations contemplated by the Court Orders, including any additional concerns raised by Plaintiffs.2
2 On or around November 6, 2016, Plaintiffs' Counsel provided a specific example of an APD officer who was photographed by Plaintiffs' Counsel and appears to be in APD uniform, other than a rain slicker or traffic direction vest, without a conspicuously visible nametag. Notably, however, Plaintiffs' Counsel did not provide identifying information related to the individual, and therefore, the Special Master has limited ability to investigate further. As set forth in this report, the Special Master continues to assess compliance with the identification requirements set forth in the Court Orders utilizing the powers available to him under the Special Master Order and the Procedures Order. Based on presently available information, the Special Master believes that the situation identified by Plaintiffs' Counsel on or around November 6, 2016 was most likely an isolated occurrence. If Plaintiffs' Counsel have reason to believe it was not an isolated occurrence, the Special
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 10 of 30
By way of example, first, the Special Master has requested a schedule of the more robust, periodic uniform and nametag inspections required by paragraph 4(D)(ii) of the Procedures Order. The Special Master was advised by the City that these inspections are not scheduled in advance, to preserve the element of surprise; however, the City has agreed to coordinate one or more inspection(s) with the Special Master's schedule. The Special Master will coordinate directly with Major McGhee of the APD. Second, the Special Master would like to review and hereby requests (on a prospective basis) that the City provide to the Special Master and Plaintiffs' Counsel any written records of or related to the paragraph 4(D)(ii) nametag inspections, to assist with the Special Master's monitoring efforts related to same, including, but not limited to, any completed Watch Commander's Roll Call Checklists and/or Roll Call Assignment Sheets, and any other documentation that tends to confirm (or not to confirm) compliance with the identification requirements. Third, the Special Master hereby requests that the City provide records sufficient to identify approved "second jobs" or "extra jobs" for APD officers and the locations thereof, including, but not limited to, access to the field inspection team monitoring same, as contemplated by paragraph 4(D)(iii)(2) of the Procedures Order. Fourth, the Special Master hereby requests an opportunity for Master hereby requests from Plaintiffs' Counsel any additional information that can be provided so the Special Master may investigate the situation more fully.
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 11 of 30
inspection of the robust nametag inspections contemplated by paragraph 4(D)(ii) of the Procedures Order as they pertain to one or more "special units" as identified by Major Schierbaum and Captain Klotzer in the Special Master's April 3, 2017 ex parte conference with the City and certain other representatives of APD. The Special Master presently intends to continue monitoring compliance with the identification requirements for APD officers and will document his findings to Plaintiffs' Counsel, the City, and this Court.
Generally, however, as of the filing of this report, the Special Master has no basis to believe that the City is not complying with and/or attempting in good faith to comply with the identification requirements for APD officers and therefore again preliminarily finds that the City is in substantial compliance with the same. Notwithstanding these preliminary findings, the Special Master has determined that additional fact finding is necessary before a final finding as to compliance would be appropriate. Accordingly, a final finding of compliance is withheld or deferred out of necessity, pending review of additional evidence by the Special Master, and the issue of complete compliance will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 12 of 30
3. NO INTERFERENCE WITH AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDINGS [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 3]. The Special Master does not have sufficient evidence to make a
determination related to this requirement and withholds any further discussion until the next quarterly compliance report due in June of 2017. Plaintiffs' Counsel has expressed potential concerns, which need to be investigated further. The Special Master hereby requests an ex parte conference with one or more members of the Plaintiffs' Counsel team to discuss compliance concerns related to this particular requirement of the Court Orders. Accordingly, a finding of compliance is withheld or deferred out of necessity, pending review of additional evidence by the Special Master, and the issue of complete compliance will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports. 4/5. DOCUMENTATION OF WARRANTLESS SEIZURES AND ID
CHECKS [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶¶ 4, 5] AND RELATED ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶ 6]. The Special Master has reviewed the documentation provided relative to the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks and has identified two critical concerns to be addressed. First, the documents/information provided by the City appear to be insufficient to effectively monitor and to make a determination regarding compliance with the above-referenced requirements of the Court Orders. Second, although the documentation is insufficient to effectively monitor
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 13 of 30
compliance, the Special Master's review and related communications with the parties confirms that the City has not achieved substantial compliance with the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks. However, on the second issue, the Special Master acknowledges that certain provisions of the Procedures Order and related communications have contributed to the City's understanding that they should not train on certain topics related to the abovecaptioned case unless or until the training programs are approved by Plaintiffs' Counsel. To be clear, Plaintiffs disagree with any notion that the City has been prevented from training on the topic.
The City and Plaintiffs' Counsel have both expressed the desire to expedite a path towards a consensus of complete compliance, including, among potential other strategies, the following: (i) approval and distribution of a "demographic form flowchart" for reference by APD officers in the field as a compliance tool; (ii) approval and distribution of a limited "roll call" training program on the requirement to document warrantless seizures; (iii) approval and distribution of a more robust Calhoun Training covering this topic, among others; and (iv) prospective monitoring of more limited data sets in shorter time intervals to allow for evaluation of the City's compliance and adjustments to the monitoring process on a more frequent basis than originally contemplated by the Procedures Order.
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 14 of 30
However, there has not been ample time to fully discuss and reach agreement on these matters prior to the filing of this report.
Given the importance of the requirements related to the documentation of warrantless seizures and ID checks to the spirit of the Court Orders, and given both parties' stated desire to achieve a consensus of complete compliance, in lieu of any sanctions, the Special Master is coordinating and requiring the following: (i) Major Schierbaum and his Training Academy team are asked to deliver to a sample recruiting class the "demographic form flowchart" approved by Plaintiffs' Counsel and the "demographic form flowchart" in the format contemplated by the City as discussed at the April 3, 2017 ex parte meeting for a test-run; (ii) within two weeks, Major Schierbaum and his team are to provide the Special Master the test data and results from the recruiting class sampling, to be shared with Plaintiffs' Counsel; (iii) contemporaneously with the presentation of the test data and results, Major Schierbaum and his team are asked to present to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master a proposed "roll-call training" program or agenda for review and approval, separate and apart from the Calhoun Training program; (iv) subject to reasonable objections by the Plaintiffs' Counsel and/or the Special Master within seventy-two hours, the City is directed to disseminate the approved "demographic form flowchart" and "roll-call training" program to all APD personnel as soon as
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 15 of 30
reasonably possible and to provide documentary confirmation of the roll out to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master; (v) on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 or Thursday, April 27, 2017 or another date mutually acceptable to the parties, Plaintiffs Counsel, City Counsel, the Special Master, and certain APD representatives present for the April 3, 2017 ex parte conference with the Special Master will meet at Director Barrett's 911 Call Center facility to discuss the documents and processes by which Director Barrett, Major Schierbaum, Captain Klotzer, Major Murphy, and Lt. Spann recommend the Special Master and Plaintiffs' Counsel monitor compliance with the warrantless seizure and ID check requirements, including, but not limited to, appropriately filtered CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) System records, GCIC/NCIC/ACIC records, "before end of shift" demographic forms, supervisor approved demographic forms, and "audit trail" reports related to all demographic forms identifying when, if ever, any changes were made to the demographic forms in the City's systems or databases and what those changes entailed; and (vi) after the meeting at Director Barrett's 911 call center, the City will be required to provide all documentation agreed upon by the parties at said meeting in two week intervals and to discuss any compliance issues in weekly or bi-weekly in-person meetings between the parties and the Special Master to be scheduled on Friday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon at the
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 16 of 30
Law Offices of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., with attendance required by at least one authorized representative for each party and any necessary APD representatives. Please note: Any prospective monitoring requirement is in addition to all other productions required by the other Court Orders, the Procedures Order, or by agreement between the Special Master and the City, until further notice or agreement by the parties. 6. "CALHOUN" TRAINING [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 6] AND RELATED
ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶¶ 1, 2, 3]. As set forth more fully in the Past Compliance Reports, although there are disputes related to past compliance with the requirements of the Court Orders related to Calhoun Training, the Special Master has been and remains inclined to find that the City has achieved substantial, technical compliance with the past requirements related to Calhoun Training, provided that the City confirm its good faith through completion of the procedures related to future training set forth by the Procedures Order, resulting in a Calhoun Training program with content and in a format acceptable to Plaintiffs to be delivered to all sworn APD employees within the time frames contemplated by the Court Orders for recurrent Calhoun Training, on or before August 17, 2017. This approach is consistent with the parties' prospective focus and approach in the Procedures Order and ongoing collaborative
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 17 of 30
efforts between the parties. Accordingly, compliance with the Calhoun Training requirements will be revisited in conjunction with future compliance reports.
Notably, the City has agreed to circulate a revised Calhoun Training script on or before April 14, 2017, and the parties are presently scheduled to meet on April 19, 2017 with the Special Master and APD Training Academy team to address any issues related to the then-current content and format of the Calhoun Training script. Upon receipt of the revised script, the Special Master hereby directs Plaintiffs' Counsel to proceed with the "Materials for Consideration" process contemplated by the Procedures Order to the extent possible, including review of the revised script to confirm whether all required material is included.
To the extent all issues are not resolved, the Special Master will expect the parties to discuss any remaining issues in weekly or bi-weekly in-person meetings between the parties, the Special Master, and representatives of the APD Training Academy team to be scheduled on Friday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon at the Law Offices of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., with attendance required by at least one authorized counsel representative for each party, until the Calhoun Training program has been approved as to format and content by Plaintiffs' Counsel.
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 18 of 30
7. TIMELY RESOLUTION OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 7] AND RELATED ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶ 5] AND PROCEDURES ORDER. As set forth more fully in the Past Compliance Reports, without making any
final findings, the Special Master preliminarily found that the City achieved, at a minimum, technical and substantial compliance with the requirements of the 2015 Order through its initial production and subsequent curing of any apparent deficiencies, if any, related to the OPS spreadsheet. However, disputes existed and still exist as to the City's compliance with certain related requirements of other Court Orders, for example, paragraph 7 of Exhibit A to the 2010 Order, which provides:
7. Timely Resolution of Citizen Complaints The Atlanta Police Department shall investigate and finally adjudicate all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint.
Again, the disputes between the parties appear to relate to two issues. First, there are questions related to the documentation being provided and its effectiveness to monitor compliance. Second, Plaintiffs' Counsel have expressed concerns about the City's substantive compliance (i.e., whether all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind are being investigated and adjudicated within 180 days of the complaint).
18

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 19 of 30
In conjunction with development of the Procedures Order, the parties agreed to implement and monitor additional procedures that would aid in achieving a consensus of complete compliance with regard to the timely resolution of citizen complaints required by the Court Orders, including, but not limited to, the procedures set forth at paragraph 4(B) of the Procedures Order and various additional procedures put in place at the request of the Special Master after review of initial materials submitted by the City under the Procedures Order and applicable Court Orders.
Based on the City's initial and supplemental submissions to the Special Master and Plaintiffs, the Special Master generally believes and finds, as a preliminary matter, that the City has substantially complied with or attempted to comply in good faith with the additional requirements set forth at paragraph 4(B) of the Procedures Order and related requests from the Special Master, which demonstrates a good faith commitment to accomplishing the end goal of a complete consensus of compliance with the Court Orders. However, this does not necessarily demonstrate compliance with the Court Orders.
Notably, a comprehensive project has been commenced by the Special Master to confirm the date that each OPS "closed file" referenced on the OPS spreadsheets prepared by the City was produced pursuant to paragraph 4(B) of the
19

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 20 of 30
Procedures Order and to verify the data set forth on the spreadsheet relative to the requirement in the Court Orders "to investigate and finally adjudicate all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint." See 2011 Court Order at ¶ 7. While the review is not complete, the Special Master's initial findings tend to support the Special Master's preliminary finding of compliance inasmuch as some 98.5% of OPS citizen complaint files reviewed by the Special Master were investigated and adjudicated within the required 180-day period. The Special Master will continue the comprehensive review and provide compliance metrics to the parties upon completion of the same.3 Of course, given the incomplete status of the review, these findings are preliminary.
Notwithstanding the Special Master's preliminary findings, there also remain disputes between the parties as to the full breadth of the requirements related to the resolution of citizen complaints, and the Special Master has determined that additional fact finding is necessary before a final finding as to compliance with the
3 Notably, on or around April 3, 2017, the Special Master discussed with certain APD representatives the ongoing project and additional information that could potentially expedite the Special Master's review on a prospective basis; however, the City expressed staffing and budgetary concerns that presently limit the City's ability to agree to any additional voluntary procedures at this time. Accordingly, the Special Master will continue its review based on the documentation presently available but will revisit this issue any time at the request of the City, in an effort to decrease overall costs related to monitoring compliance.
20

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 21 of 30
Court Orders would be appropriate.4 These disputes and the potential ramifications thereof require additional consideration by the Special Master. Accordingly, a final finding of compliance is withheld or deferred out of necessity, pending review of additional evidence by the Special Master, and the issue of complete compliance will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
To the extent all issues are not resolved by agreement between the parties, the Special Master will expect the parties to discuss any remaining issues in weekly or bi-weekly in-person meetings between the parties, the Special Master, and representatives of the APD to be scheduled on Friday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon at the Law Offices of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., with attendance required by at least one authorized counsel representative for each party and any appropriate APD representatives, until any issues related to the compliance requirements have been fully resolved.
4 For example, Plaintiffs' Counsel have expressed their position that the requirement to investigate and adjudicate citizen complaints of police misconduct "of any kind" within 180 days of the complaint must be construed literally and has broad application to citizen complaints "of any kind." The City's position has been that the Court Orders must be construed more narrowly.
21

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 22 of 30
8. INVESTIGATION OF OFFICER CONDUCT [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 8]. The Special Master is not aware of any disputes related to the requirements
relative to the investigation of officer conduct but has not fully investigated the matter. Therefore, at this time, while the Special Master believes a finding of compliance is appropriate and will be forthcoming, there is not sufficient evidence to make a final determination related to this requirement, and any further discussion is withheld until the next quarterly compliance report due in June 2017. 9. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE ASSIGNMENTS [2011
Order at Ex. A, ¶ 9]. The Special Master is not aware of any disputes related to the requirements relative to the multi-jurisdictional task force assignments but has not fully investigated the matter. Therefore, at this time, while the Special Master believes a finding of compliance is appropriate and will be forthcoming, there is not sufficient evidence to make a final determination related to this requirement, and any further discussion is withheld until the next quarterly compliance report due in June 2017. 10. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 2015 COURT ORDER [2015 Order at ¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14]. A. Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the 2015 Order. Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the 2015 Order relate to requests for documents and information in conjunction with efforts to monitor compliance under the Court
22

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 23 of 30
Orders. With regard to these requirements, the Special Master finds that the City has generally attempted in good faith to comply with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules and Standing Orders of this Court, the Court Orders, and the Procedures Order; however, the Special Master finds that additional coordination and collaboration with APD representatives is necessary to identify the documentation needed to monitor compliance efforts, to streamline monitoring efforts, and to achieve a consensus of complete compliance with the Court Orders. Along these lines, and in an effort to make the monitoring process more transparent and efficient for everyone involved, the Special Master is requiring additional weekly or bi-weekly in-person meetings between the parties and the Special Master to be scheduled on Friday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon at the Law Offices of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., with attendance required by at least one authorized counsel representative for each party and any necessary APD representatives.
With regard to the specific outstanding document and information requests set forth in Plaintiffs' Counsel's letter dated March 2, 2017, based on April 3, 2017 discussions with APD representatives including Director Barrett, Major Schierbaum, Captain Klotzer, Major Murphy, and Lt. Spann, the Special Master believes and finds that certain documents requested by Plaintiffs' Counsel may and
23

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 24 of 30
certain documents may not be appropriate and/or reasonable to monitor compliance with the Court Orders. Instead of requiring the City to produce all of the requested documents, the Special Master is requiring the City to present its recommendation regarding a compliance monitoring program to the Special Master and Plaintiffs' Counsel on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 or Thursday, April 27, 2017 or another date mutually acceptable to the parties, including a review and discussion of the documents referenced in Plaintiffs' letter request dated March 2, 2017, the documents referenced in the Special Master's email request dated March 7, 2017, and the documents discussed during the April 3, 2017 ex parte conference between the City, APD representatives, and the Special Master, including, but not limited to, appropriately filtered CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) System records, GCIC/NCIC/ACIC records, "before end of shift" demographic forms, supervisor approved demographic forms, and "audit trail" reports related to all demographic forms identifying when, if ever, any changes were made to the demographic forms in the City's systems or databases and what those changes entailed.
As set forth above, after the meeting at Director Barrett's 911 call center, the City will be required to provide all documentation agreed upon by the parties at said meeting in two week intervals and to discuss any compliance issues in weekly or bi-weekly in-person meetings between the parties and the Special Master to be
24

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 25 of 30
scheduled on Friday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon at the Law Offices of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., with attendance required by at least one authorized counsel representative for each party and any necessary APD representatives. Please note: Any prospective monitoring requirement is in addition to all other productions required by the other Court Orders, the Procedures Order, or by agreement between the Special Master and the City, until further notice or agreement by the parties.
With regard to the matters set forth in the letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel dated March 10, 2017, the Special Master has investigated the allegations set forth therein and finds that although the original affidavit contained inaccurate statements, there was no intent to deceive by the affiant and/or the City, as confirmed by the amended affidavit. The Special Master's inquiry is ongoing; however, the initial inaccuracies identified by Plaintiffs' Counsel were not and are not material to the Special Master's duties or compliance with the Court Orders. However, the Special Master does encourage the City to increase its attention to detail and quality of review prior to submissions to the Special Master, as an officer of this Court.
Furthermore, the Special Master does believe that additional communication and transparency are necessary and appropriate to achieve a consensus of complete
25

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 26 of 30
compliance with the Court Orders. Along these lines, the Special Master encourages the parties to engage in more open discussion of this and other compliance issues in the weekly or bi-weekly in-person meetings between the parties and the Special Master to be scheduled on Friday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon at the Law Offices of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.
B. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the 2015 Order. The Special Master has reviewed the record related to paragraph 12 and finds that the City is generally and technically compliant; however, due to the ongoing nature of the paragraph 12 requirements, a final finding is withheld or deferred out of necessity, and this issue will be re-visited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports. The Special Master has reviewed the record related to paragraph 13 and finds that the City fully complied with the requirement of paragraph 13. C. Paragraph 14 of the 2015 Order. Paragraph 14 of the 2015 Order sets forth the 6-year timeframe contemplated by the 2015 Order and reiterates that the 2015 Order does not overrule, supersede, or otherwise affect the requirements set forth by the 2010
26

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 27 of 30
Order and the 2011 Order. Beyond these general concepts, paragraph 14 does not impose any new or additional requirements on the City.
Due to the ongoing nature of the paragraph 14 requirements (for 6 years) and the overall applicability to the other requirements of the Court Orders, the Special Master finds that compliance with paragraph 14 is not presently ripe for compliance and that additional fact finding would be necessary for the Special Master to formulate an opinion and basis therefor as to compliance. Accordingly, a final finding is withheld or deferred out of necessity, and this issue will be revisited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future quarterly reports.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The Special Master believes that most, if not all, of the disputes between the parties related to compliance with the Court Orders are the direct result of avoidable communication breakdowns. Recognizing that the burden on the City to perform under the Court Orders and Procedures Order is substantial, the Special Master believes that the quickest path to a consensus of complete compliance is through additional and more effective communications between and among the parties and the Special Master. For this reason, the Special Master is requiring the parties to discuss compliance issues more regularly in weekly or bi-weekly inperson meetings between the parties and the Special Master to be scheduled on
27

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 28 of 30
Friday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon at the Law Offices of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., with attendance required by at least one authorized counsel representative for each party and any necessary APD representatives.
That said, the Special Master is encouraged by the general pattern of compliance established by the record and believes that any concerns will be resolved by more frequent and effective communications that will lead to quicker identification and resolution of compliance-related disputes toward the end goal of a consensus of complete compliance. Along these lines, the Special Master will continue to develop the record related to compliance through additional discovery within the powers set forth by the Special Master Order and requests that the parties immediately make the Special Master aware of any circumstances that would prevent a finding of compliance.
Notably, the Special Master's strong preference remains to avoid re-visiting past issues as counter-productive and detrimental to the larger process unless extraordinary circumstances exist, given the parties' commitment to the approach set forth in the Procedures Order and the continued progress being made consistent therewith. However, the Special Master will not deny any party the opportunity to be heard, upon request, if the parties cannot reach a mutual understanding
28

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 29 of 30
regarding the proper resolution of any compliance related matters. Any such requests for a formal hearing should be submitted directly to the Special Master in the form of a motion with appropriate briefing pursuant to the applicable rules of this Court.
In light of the foregoing, the Special Master respectfully recommends that the Court adopt this 4/12 Report, imposing the requirements set forth herein but deferring any further action at this time.
Respectfully submitted by: /s Joe D. Whitley JOE D. WHITLEY Georgia Bar No. 756150 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 3414 Peachtree Road, NE Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com (404) 223-2209 Special Master
29

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 341 Filed 04/12/17 Page 30 of 30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have electronically filed the foregoing SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED APRIL 12, 2017 with the Clerk of Court using the Court's CM/ECF system, which will automatically send electronic notification of such filing to all parties through their counsel of record.
This 12th day of April, 2017.
/s/ Joe D. Whitley Joe D. Whitley Georgia Bar No. 756150 BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 3415 Peachtree Road NE Monarch Plaza, Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Telephone: 404-223-2209 Facsimile: 404-238-9799 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com Special Master
30

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:09-CV-3286-TCB

SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED JULY 14, 2017

COMES NOW, Joe D. Whitley, the appointed Special Master in the above-

referenced case, in furtherance of the duties imposed by the Court's Order entered

June 22, 2016 [Doc. No. 309] (the "Special Master Order"), and submits this

Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report dated July 14, 2017 (hereinafter, the

"7/14 Report") setting forth the Special Master's compliance findings and

recommendations to the Court as of July 14, 2017:

1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 2 of 43
I. COMPLIANCE REFERENCE CHART AND TABLE OF CONTENTS1
1 The below chart is provided as a demonstrative reference tool and does not modify, amend, or supersede any of the specific compliance findings set forth in this 7/14 Report; however, the chart attempts and intends to accurately reflect the status of compliance as of the date of this 7/14 Report. This chart should not be read alone, but should be reviewed together with the analysis that follows. As indicated within the report, most of the compliance areas require ongoing review and evaluation, and therefore, although a compliance area may be marked as "Resolved" for the limited purposes of this report, this does not mean that compliance has been fully or finally achieved. Instead, a designation of "Resolved" is intended to convey that this area is not a key compliance concern for the limited purpose of this 7/14 Report, provided, compliance will be revisited in future reports.
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 3 of 43
II. HISTORICAL RECAP Approximately one year has passed since Joe D. Whitley was appointed Special Master and charged with certain duties, including: (i) the duty to monitor and enforce compliance with the Court Orders2; (ii) the duty to manage and supervise discovery disputes between the parties and work with the parties to address any barriers to compliance; and (iii) the duty to issue written quarterly reports on compliance with the Court Orders. (Special Master Order, Doc. No. 309, ¶¶ 1, 3). For purposes of evaluating the status of compliance at the time of this 7/14 Report, a brief historical recap of efforts and compliance findings to date is appropriate.
First Three Months The Special Master was appointed on June 22, 2016. (Special Master Order, Doc. No. 309). At the time of his appointment, the Special Master had very limited knowledge of the key compliance issues in this case. From June 22, 2016 through the submission of the Special Master's first Quarterly Compliance Report dated
2 For purposes of this report, "Court Orders" shall collectively refer to this Court's Order entered December 8, 2010 [Doc. No. 265] (if referenced alone, the "2010 Order"), this Court's Order entered December 15, 2011 [Doc. No. 280] (if referenced alone, the "2011 Order"), and this Court's Order entered May 19, 2015 [Doc. No. 289] (if referenced alone, the "2015 Order").
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 4 of 43
September 29, 2016 [Doc. No. 324] (the "9/29 Report"), the Special Master relied heavily on the parties' counsel to develop an understanding of the key compliance issues, obstacles preventing a mutual consensus of complete compliance, and potential strategies to overcome such obstacles.
Through discussions with all parties and ex parte discussions, it became apparent that structure and predictability was needed to help guide the compliance monitoring process. This became the Special Master's primary focus for the first three months of his appointment. (9/29 Report, Doc. No. 324, at pg. 2 "Prologue"). Ultimately, by agreement and compromise, the parties developed an order setting forth initial monitoring, discovery, and dispute resolution procedures that the parties agreed would help the Special Master fulfil his duties to the Court and help establish a consensus of compliance with the Court Orders. Id.
As indicated in the 9/29 Report, it appeared that significant progress had been made by the parties in reaching a consent agreement regarding the various procedures that would aid the parties in achieving a mutual understanding, agreement, and consensus of complete compliance with the Court Orders. Id. Based on the Special Master's report and recommendation, and with the consent of the parties, the Court entered the parties' Consent Order Setting Forth Initial
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 5 of 43
Special Master Monitoring, Discovery, and Dispute Resolution Procedures [Doc. No. 323] (hereinafter, as modified by subsequent agreement between the parties at Doc. No. 339, the "Procedures Order"). As of this 7/14 Report, the Procedures Order remains in full force and effect.
Months Three to Six From the time of the 9/29 Report through the filing of the Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report dated December 30, 2016 [Doc. No. 325] (the "12/30 Report"), the parties began collecting documents and implementing the additional procedures set forth in the Procedures Order. Six months into his appointment, it appeared to the Special Master that the parties remained committed to the intent and spirit of the Procedures Order, and the Special Master gave substantial deference to the City of Atlanta's ("City") apparent commitment to the Procedures Order as demonstrating a "continuing, good faith commitment to achieving a complete consensus of compliance with the Court." (12/30 Report, Doc. No. 325, at pg. 2-4 "Prologue") (internal citations and quotations omitted). Nonetheless, the Special Master reported that certain disputes were emerging between the parties, and the Special Master committed to evaluating the same in the months and quarterly compliance reports to follow. Id.
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 6 of 43
During the three months leading up to the 12/30 Report, the City undertook significant efforts to produce documents consistent with the requirements of the Procedures Order. However, as of the 12/30 Report, Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master had not had time to fully evaluate such productions or to determine how they might affect determinations of compliance with the Court Orders. Accordingly, based on limited findings set forth in the 12/30 Report, the Special Master recommended that the Court defer any immediate action, provided:
…the Special Master will continue to develop the record related to compliance through additional discovery within the powers set forth by the Special Master Order and requests that the parties immediately make the Special Master aware of any circumstances that would prevent a finding of compliance, so the Special Master can evaluate the need for an evidentiary hearing in advance of the next quarterly compliance report… (Id. at pg. 23 "Preliminary Conclusion and Recommendation"). Subsequent to this report, the Special Master, with input from all parties, continued to evaluate the documents and information received from the City pursuant to the Procedures Order.
Months Six to Nine During the months following the 12/30 Report, it became clear that there existed prevailing areas of disagreement between the parties regarding, inter alia, certain requirements of the Court Orders and the appropriate ways to monitor and
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 7 of 43
evaluate compliance with the same. These issues were discussed in the Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report dated April 12, 2017 [Doc. No. 341] (the "4/12 Report").
Despite the apparent disputes, the Special Master still believed that all issues could be resolved, particularly because the Court Orders all reflect and memorialize consent agreements reached by the parties with the approval of the Court. In other words, the parties have repeatedly reached agreements on the proper resolutions of disputes in this case dating back to 2010.
Importantly, it also appeared that the parties, and specifically the City, remained committed to: (i) complying with requirements under the Procedures Order; (ii) accommodating additional, more frequent, informal meetings among the parties to resolve issues; and (iii) taking additional steps set forth in the 4/12 Report. This demonstrated to the Special Master a continued commitment to taking steps necessary to establish a consensus of complete compliance with the Court Orders.
Based on, inter alia, the City's apparent commitments in this regard, the Special Master set forth a series of requirements aimed at resolving the disputes related to compliance, and recommended no further action by the Court. Notably,
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 8 of 43
most or all of the requirements imposed on the City in the 4/12 Report were discussed with and agreed upon by the City prior to submission of the 4/12 Report. The Special Master also articulated in the 4/12 Report his belief that additional meetings between the parties would help facilitate resolutions of discrete compliance issues, and recommended weekly meetings until all issues were resolved.
Indeed, the 4/12 Report identified critical concerns regarding compliance with several important requirements of the Court Orders that needed (and still need) to be resolved. (See e.g., 4/12 Report, Doc. No. 341, at ¶2 "Identification Requirement for APD3 Officers…", ¶¶4/5 "Documentation of Warrantless Seizures and ID Checks…", and ¶7 "Timely Resolution of Citizen Complaints…"). For a summary of all outstanding compliance issues as of this 7/14 Report, please see the Compliance Reference Chart and Table of Contents at the beginning of this report.
Months Nine to Twelve In the three months since the 4/12 Report, it has become clear that there are fundamental disagreements between the parties regarding the requirements of the Court Orders and what documents and actions are appropriate to evaluate
3 As used in this report, "APD" refers to the Atlanta Police Department.
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 9 of 43
compliance with the Court Orders. The most pervasive issues and obstacles preventing a complete consensus of compliance are addressed by topic below.
Ultimately, this 7/14 Report sets forth the Special Master's recommendation to the Court based on all documents and information reviewed to date, including, without limitation, information covered in the 9/29 Report, the 12/30 Report, and the 4/12 Report (hereinafter, collectively, the "Past Compliance Reports"), but with particular emphasis on the three months elapsed since the 4/12 Report, provided, the Special Master will be further investigating, revisiting, and/or supplementing all findings in the next quarterly compliance report and those that follow.
III. METHODOLOGY In conducting the Special Master's independent investigation and preparing this report, the Special Master has given consideration to: (i) relevant pleadings, filings, and discovery in the above-styled case, including, but not limited to, the Court Orders, the Procedures Order, and the Past Compliance Reports; (ii) various party and non-party documents, information, and accounts requested and received by the Special Master as relevant to the determination of compliance with the Court Orders; and (iii) the parties' direct representations, as officers of the Court, to the Special Master, as an officer of the Court.
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 10 of 43
Where possible, evidence has been reviewed according to a preponderance of the evidence standard to make a preliminary determination about compliance; however, no formal evidentiary hearing has been requested or held, and the Special Master has not had an opportunity to consider all potentially relevant evidence. Additionally, in some instances, the Special Master explicitly finds that additional evidence or time is needed to formulate a complete opinion on compliance. Therefore, these limited findings are subject to further review and revision, and no party is deemed to have waived any evidentiary rights or objections.
Ultimately, as indicated herein, the Special Master will move to more formal briefings and hearings in conjunction with efforts to apply Eleventh Circuit compliance standards and finality. Notably, the Special Master continues to believe that cooperation and agreement between the parties remains the most efficient and reasonable path towards establishing a consensus of complete compliance with the Court Orders, as contemplated by the parties and the Court. However, if the parties are unable to reach agreement, this 7/14 Report sets forth the Special Master's limited findings to date and recommendation to the Court regarding the appropriate path ahead.
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 11 of 43
IV. COMPLIANCE FINDINGS For purposes of this 7/14 Report, the Special Master is organizing compliance findings by topic, as referenced in the 2010 Order and the 2011 Order, with references to related issues from the 2015 Order, the Procedures Order, and the 4/12 Report. Utilizing this approach, the Special Master aims to provide the most essential analysis of related compliance issues arising out of the Court Orders. The Special Master has attempted to accurately paraphrase the requirements of the Court Orders and understands and acknowledges that compliance with the Court Orders -- not the Special Master's short form interpretations thereof -- is the relevant inquiry. Accordingly, nothing in this 7/14 Report, including any paraphrased language, is intended to (nor shall it) modify, alter, or amend any of the Court's Orders. To the extent there is any conflict, the Court Orders prevail and are controlling. 1. REVOCATION OR AMENDMENT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 1] AND RELATED ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶¶ 4(a), 4(b), 7, and 8]. As more particularly set forth in the Past Compliance Reports, to the best of the Special Master's knowledge, the City timely complied with the technical requirements of the relevant Court Orders, and the Special Master is not presently
11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 12 of 43
aware of any disputes related to the revocation and/or amendment of unconstitutional policies, as required by the Court Orders. (See e.g., 4/12 Report, Doc. No. 341, ¶1). In fact, on or around March 27, 2017, the Special Master received written confirmation from Plaintiffs' Counsel confirming that "Plaintiffs have no comment about the affidavit submitted by the Chief" consistent with the City's obligations set forth at paragraph 4(A) of the Procedures Order. Id. The Special Master is not presently aware of any change in this status.
In the 4/12 Report, the Special Master clarified the City's responsibilities under the Procedures Order, articulating that all SOPs4 should be provided in future productions, together with any additional or amended affidavits that may be necessary to address the requirements set forth by paragraph 4(A) of the Procedures Order and to monitor compliance with the requirements set forth at Ex. A, ¶ 1 of the 2011 Court Order and at ¶¶ 4(a), 4(b), 7, and 8 of the 2015 Order. Id.
The Special Master received verbal confirmation from the City in a June 21, 2017 status conference that all such documentation was provided by the City on or around June 1, 2017. The Special Master has not independently verified the extent or Constitutionality of all of the SOPs provided, and does not plan to undergo a
4 As used in this report, "SOP" refers to the APD's Standard Operating Procedures.
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 13 of 43
comprehensive review at this time, given the representations of the City and Plaintiffs' Counsel, to date, and the lack of any apparent controversy.
That said, additional fact finding and scrutiny are necessary before the Special Master can find that the ADP SOPs, as amended, have fully implemented "all [] revisions required by [the Court Orders]", and the requirements relative to APD SOPs are ongoing in nature. (See e.g., 2015 Order, Doc. No. 289, ¶ 8). Accordingly, the Special Master believes a finding of compliance eventually will be appropriate and forthcoming; however, the Special Master again defers any final finding out of necessity at this time. This issue will be revisited in conjunction with future reports.
In sum, provisions of the Procedures Order appear to be contributing to a consensus of compliance, and, therefore, the Special Master recommends the procedures set forth at paragraph 4(A) of the Procedures Order be extended for another year. The Special Master will file a motion to extend the relevant provisions of the Procedures Order, consistent with this report.
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 14 of 43
2. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR APD OFFICERS [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 2] AND RELATED ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶¶ 4(a), 4(b)]. As set forth in the Past Compliance Reports, disputes existed and still exist
as to whether the City has achieved complete compliance with respect to the following requirement of the 2010 Order and 2011 Order:
2. Identification Requirement for APD Officers The City of Atlanta shall require all Atlanta police officers who are in uniform, other than a rain slicker or traffic direction vest, to wear a conspicuously visible nametag, and to require any Atlanta police officer who is in uniform or has displayed a badge or other indicia of police authority (such as a police vest, etc.), to identify himself by name and badge number upon request at some point before the end of an encounter with a civilian.
(hereinafter, the "Identification Requirement") (See e.g., 4/12 Report, Doc. No. 341, ¶2; see also 2011 Order, Doc. No. 280, "Exhibit A: Reforms of the Atlanta Police Department", ¶2).
In conjunction with development of the Procedures Order, the parties agreed to implement and monitor additional procedures that would aid in achieving a consensus of complete compliance with regard to the Identification Requirement as set forth in the Court Orders, including, but not limited to, the procedures set forth at paragraph 4(D) of the Procedures Order. Previously, there had been a lack of
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 15 of 43
clarity among the parties regarding how to establish compliance with the "shall require" element of the Identification Requirement. Notably, all parties agreed to the Procedures Order as a way to help establish verifiable compliance metrics.
Along these lines, on or around January 3, 2017, the City provided to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master a schedule of routine daily uniform inspections and addresses for the inspections by APD zone, affording the Special Master and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel the opportunity to attend daily uniform inspections for monitoring purposes contemplated by the Court's Orders.
In the 4/12 Report, the Special Master articulated findings from a March 9, 2017 inspection of a daily roll-call uniform inspection and reported general satisfaction with the APD's handling of daily roll-call uniform inspections; however, the Special Master still had not witnessed one of the more robust, periodic uniform and nametag inspections required by paragraph 4(D)(ii) of the Procedures Order (hereinafter, a "Robust Nametag Inspection"). Again, the Robust Nametag Inspection was one in a series of procedures developed (and agreed to by the parties) as a way to create verifiable compliance metrics related to the Identification Requirement set forth at paragraph 2 of the 2011 Order, which the parties interpreted differently.
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 16 of 43
To address this and other gaps in compliance monitoring, the Special Master
outlined in the 4/12 Report a series of additional requests or requirements, as
follows:
• First, the Special Master requested a schedule of the more robust, periodic uniform and nametag inspections required by paragraph 4(D)(ii) of the Procedures Order (i.e., Robust Nametag Inspections), and noted that the City agreed to coordinate one or more such inspection(s) with the Special Master's schedule.
• Second, the Special Master requested (on a prospective basis) that the City provide to the Special Master and Plaintiffs' Counsel written records of or related to the paragraph 4(D)(ii) nametag inspections (i.e., Robust Nametag Inspections") to assist with the Special Master's monitoring efforts related to same, including, but not limited to, any completed Watch Commander's Roll Call Checklists and/or Roll Call Assignment Sheets, and any other documentation tending to confirm (or not to confirm) compliance with the identification requirements.
• Third, the Special Master requested that the City provide records sufficient to identify approved "second jobs" or "extra jobs" for APD officers and the locations thereof, including, but not limited to, access to the field inspection team monitoring same, as contemplated by paragraph 4(D)(iii)(2) of the Procedures Order.
• Fourth, the Special Master requested an opportunity for inspection of the Robust Nametag Inspections contemplated by paragraph 4(D)(ii) of the Procedures Order as they pertain to one or more "special units" as identified by Major Schierbaum and Captain Klotzer in the Special Master's April 3, 2017 ex parte conference with the City and certain other representatives of APD.
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 17 of 43
(4/12 Report, Doc. No. 341, ¶2). The Special Master committed to continue monitoring compliance with the identification requirements for APD officers and to document his findings to Plaintiffs' Counsel, the City, and the Court. Id. Notably, the requirements set forth in the 4/12 Report generally track the requirements of the Procedures Order.
To date, despite considerable efforts, the Special Master has not observed a Robust Nametag Inspection and is unable to report meaningful compliance by the City with regard to the additional requirements set forth in the 4/12 Report, which the Special Master contemplated as reasonably necessary to fulfill his duties to the Court with regard to monitoring and enforcement of the Court Orders and related quarterly compliance reporting. As a result, the Special Master is unable to confirm compliance with the Court Orders, because the City has not established, at a minimum, its compliance with the relevant portions of the Procedures Order.
This is not to suggest that the City has necessarily failed to comply with paragraph 2 of the 2011 Court Order (i.e., the Identification Requirement); however, the City has failed to establish its compliance with the Procedures Order and to appropriately address the additional requests set forth in the 4/12 Report,
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 18 of 43
which were designed to assist with performance of the Special Master's duties, as set forth above.
In sum, due to the City's failure to establish compliance with the Procedures Order, which was developed to create verifiable compliance metrics related to the Identification Requirement, and due to the City's failure to appropriately respond to the 4/12 Report, the Special Master cannot find that the City is in compliance with the Court Orders. Further, the Special Master questions the City's level of commitment to establishing compliance with the Identification Requirement through steps previously agreed upon by the City.
As a result, the Special Master recommends that the Court enter a show cause order in the same or substantially similar form as the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Show Cause Order") without delay.
At a minimum, the Special Master recommends that the procedures set forth at paragraph 4(D) of the Procedures Order be extended for another year. The Special Master will file a motion to extend the relevant provisions of the Procedures Order, consistent with this report.
18

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 19 of 43
3. NO INTERFERENCE WITH AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDINGS [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 3]. The Special Master does not have sufficient evidence to make a
determination related to this requirement and withholds any further discussion until the next quarterly compliance report.
As stated in the 4/12 Report, Plaintiffs' Counsel previously expressed potential concern related to the City's compliance with this requirement, and the Special Master requested an ex parte conference with one or more members of the Plaintiffs' Counsel team to discuss compliance concerns related to this particular requirement of the Court Orders, to the extent appropriate. (4/12 Report, Doc. No. 341, pp. 12, ¶3). However, no further communications from Plaintiffs' Counsel were forthcoming on this particular topic. Therefore, unless or until additional information is brought to the Special Master's attention, the Special Master is operating under the assumption that the City has established some satisfactory level of compliance with this requirement, while remaining open to additional feedback and suggestions regarding appropriate ways to monitor compliance.
However, as this requirement is ongoing in nature, a finding of compliance is deferred out of necessity, pending review of additional evidence by the Special
19

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 20 of 43
Master, and the issue of compliance will be revisited, as necessary and appropriate,
in conjunction with future reports.
4/5. DOCUMENTATION OF WARRANTLESS SEIZURES AND ID CHECKS [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶¶ 4, 5] AND RELATED ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶ 6]. In the 4/12 Report, the Special Master identified critical concerns relative to
the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks, as follows:
• First, the documents/information provided by the City appear to be insufficient to effectively monitor and to make a determination regarding compliance with the above-referenced requirements of the Court Orders.
• Second, although the documentation is insufficient to effectively monitor compliance, the Special Master's review and related communications with the parties confirms that the City has not achieved substantial compliance with the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks.
(4/12 Report, Doc. No. 341, ¶2).
Then, the Special Master set forth a series of remedial requirements aimed at
addressing these critical concerns, in large part, based on the parties' mutually
expressed desires to expedite a path towards a consensus of complete compliance,
including, inter alia, the following: (i) approval and distribution of a "demographic form5 flowchart" for reference by APD officers in the field as a compliance tool;
5 For purposes of this report, the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks is sometimes referred to as the "demographic form" requirement, and any references to the term "demographic form" in this 7/14 Report refer to the
20

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 21 of 43
(ii) approval and distribution of a limited "roll call" training program on the requirement to document warrantless seizures; (iii) approval and distribution of a more robust Calhoun Training6 covering this topic, among others; and (iv) prospective monitoring of more limited data sets in shorter time intervals to allow for evaluation of the City's compliance and adjustments to the monitoring process on a more frequent basis than originally contemplated by the Procedures Order (hereinafter, collectively, the "Demographic Form Objectives"). Id. However, there had not been ample time to fully discuss and reach agreement on all matters relative to the Demographic Form Objectives and how to accomplish same prior to the filing of the 4/12 Report.
Accordingly, given the importance of the requirements related to the documentation of warrantless seizures and ID checks to the spirit of the Court Orders, and given both parties' stated desire to achieve a consensus of complete
specific form utilized by the APD in efforts to comply with the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks, as set forth in the Court Orders. 6 "Calhoun Training" refers to the recurrent, mandatory training for sworn employees of the Atlanta Police Department described more particularly at paragraph 6 of Exhibit A to the 2010 Order and 2011 Order and at paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the 2015 Order. Compliance with the Calhoun Training requirements is evaluated separately at paragraph 6 of this 7/14 Report below.
21

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 22 of 43
compliance, in lieu of any sanctions, the Special Master required the following
steps in furtherance of the Demographic Form Objectives:
(i) Major Schierbaum and his Training Academy team [were asked] to deliver to a sample recruiting class the "demographic form flowchart" approved by Plaintiffs' Counsel and the "demographic form flowchart" in the format contemplated by the City as discussed at the April 3, 2017 ex parte meeting for a test-run;
(ii) within two weeks, Major Schierbaum and his team [were asked] to provide the Special Master the test data and results from the recruiting class sampling, to be shared with Plaintiffs' Counsel;
(iii) contemporaneously with the presentation of the test data and results, Major Schierbaum and his team [were asked] to present to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master a proposed "roll-call training" program or agenda for review and approval, separate and apart from the Calhoun Training program;
(iv) subject to reasonable objections by the Plaintiffs' Counsel and/or the Special Master within seventy-two hours, the City [was directed] to disseminate the approved "demographic form flowchart" and "roll-call training" program to all APD personnel as soon as reasonably possible and to provide documentary confirmation of the roll out to Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Special Master;
(v) on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 or Thursday, April 27, 2017 or another date mutually acceptable to the parties, Plaintiffs' Counsel, City Counsel, the Special Master, and certain APD representatives present for the April 3, 2017 ex parte conference with the Special Master [were asked] to meet at Director Barrett's 911 Call Center facility to discuss the documents and processes by which Director Barrett, Major Schierbaum, Captain Klotzer, Major Murphy, and Lt. Spann recommend the Special Master and Plaintiffs' Counsel monitor compliance with the warrantless seizure and ID check requirements, including, but not limited to, appropriately filtered CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) System records, GCIC/NCIC/ACIC records, "before end of shift" demographic forms, supervisor approved demographic forms, and "audit trail" reports related
22

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 23 of 43
to all demographic forms identifying when, if ever, any changes were made to the demographic forms in the City's systems or databases and what those changes entailed; and
(vi) after the meeting at Director Barrett's 911 call center, the City [was required] to provide all documentation agreed upon by the parties at said meeting in two week intervals and to discuss any compliance issues in weekly or bi-weekly in-person meetings between the parties and the Special Master to be scheduled on Friday mornings from 9:00 AM to 12:00 Noon at the Law Offices of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., with attendance required by at least one authorized representative for each party and any necessary APD representatives.
(hereinafter, collectively, the "Demographic Form Process") (4/12 Report, Doc.
No. 341, ¶4/5). Notably, the 4/12 Report states explicitly that "[a]ny prospective
monitoring requirement is in addition to all other productions required by the other
Court Orders, the Procedures Order, or by agreement between the Special Master
and the City, until further notice or agreement by the parties." Id. The
Demographic Form Process was, in large part, discussed with and agreed upon by
the City prior to the filing of the 4/12 Report.
To date, none of the Demographic Form Process and none of the
Demographic Form Objectives have been accomplished as contemplated by the
4/12 Report.
The Special Master has attempted several times to schedule meetings
contemplated by the Demographic Form Process; however, the City now appears
23

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 24 of 43
disinclined to engage in the Demographic Form Process and/or to accomplish the Demographic Form Objectives, and has asserted to the Special Master its belief that the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks is either overly burdensome or unnecessary. On information and belief, the City may even seek relief from the requirement.
Notwithstanding, the requirements related to documentation of warrantless seizures and ID checks remain in full force and effect as a result of the Court Orders, the Procedures Order, and the 4/12 Report, none of which have been modified, amended, vacated, or superseded as of the filing of this report.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs' Counsel have presented credible evidence to the Special Master in ex parte discussions and in meetings with all parties and the Special Master suggesting that the City may, in fact, be out of compliance with the relevant requirements. Notably, some portion of Plaintiffs' presentation was ex parte, and therefore, the City has not waived any objections or rights to challenge such evidence, and all parties should be given a fair opportunity to present their complete cases related to same. However, it should be noted that the Special Master has concerns about the City's ability to establish compliance with the Court Orders at this time.
24

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 25 of 43
For these additional reasons, the Special Master recommends that the Court enter a show cause order in the same or substantially similar form as the proposed Show Cause Order attached hereto as Exhibit A without delay.
Upon resolution of all issues related to the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks, including confirmation regarding appropriate documentation to monitor, evaluate, and report on compliance, the Special Master will file a motion to modify and extend the relevant provisions of the Procedures Order, as appropriate, in a continued effort to transition this compliance issue towards more routine monitoring and reporting. 6. "CALHOUN" TRAINING [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 6] AND RELATED
ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶¶ 1, 2, 3]. As set forth more fully in the Past Compliance Reports, there have been disputes related to past compliance with the requirements of the Court Orders related to Calhoun Training. Nonetheless, the Special Master has been and remains inclined to find that the City has achieved substantial or technical compliance with past requirements related to Calhoun Training, provided that the City confirm its good faith through completion of the procedures related to future training set forth by the Procedures Order, to be demonstrated by a Calhoun Training program acceptable in format and content to Plaintiffs and delivered to all
25

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 26 of 43
sworn APD employees within the time frames contemplated by the Court Orders, on or before August 17, 2017. This approach is consistent with the parties' prospective focus and approach in the Procedures Order and ongoing collaborative efforts between the parties related to Calhoun Training. Accordingly, compliance with the Calhoun Training requirements will be revisited in conjunction with future compliance reports. 7. TIMELY RESOLUTION OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS [2011 Order at
Ex. A, ¶ 7] AND RELATED ISSUES FROM 2015 ORDER [2015 Order at ¶ 5] AND PROCEDURES ORDER. As set forth more fully in the Past Compliance Reports, without making any final findings, the Special Master preliminarily found that the City achieved, at a minimum, technical or substantial compliance with the requirements of the 2015 Order through its initial production and subsequent curing of any apparent deficiencies, if any, related to the OPS7 spreadsheet. However, disputes existed and still exist as to the City's compliance with certain related requirements of other Court Orders, for example, paragraph 7 of Exhibit A to the 2010 Order, which provides:
7 "OPS" refers to the Atlanta Police Department Office of Professional Standards, which is at least one mechanism by which citizens may submit complaints of police misconduct. More information about OPS is available online at http://www.atlantapd.org/services/office-of-professional-standards.
26

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 27 of 43
7. Timely Resolution of Citizen Complaints The Atlanta Police Department shall investigate and finally adjudicate all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint. (emphasis added) (hereinafter, the "180 Day Requirement") (See e.g., 4/12 Report, Doc. No. 341, ¶7; see also 2011 Order, Doc. No. 280, "Exhibit A: Reforms of the Atlanta Police Department", ¶7). To be clear, there is disagreement regarding the meaning of “all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind” as contemplated by the 2010 Order and the 2011 Order. To paraphrase the issue, Plaintiffs opine that the language is intentionally broad and includes types of unspecified citizen complaints that are not necessarily investigated and adjudicated through the OPS system. In other words, Plaintiffs do not believe the OPS system effectively tracks or monitors compliance with the requirements of the Court Orders. On the other hand, the City opines that “citizen complaint” is a "term of art" and expressly refers to and contemplates the OPS system and process and nothing more. In short, there appears to be a fundamental disagreement regarding what constitutes a "citizen complaint" and, therefore, what is required by the Court Orders.
27

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 28 of 43
This fundamental disagreement regarding the meaning of the Court Orders
boils down to two critical issues for purposes of this report. First, the interpretation
of the Court Orders necessarily impacts substantive compliance (i.e., whether "all
citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind" are being investigated and
adjudicated within 180 days of the complaint as contemplated by the Court
Orders). Second, after the scope of substantive compliance is resolved, there are
undoubtedly questions related to the documentation being provided to the Plaintiffs
and the Special Master and its completeness and effectiveness to monitor and
effectively evaluate compliance efforts.
To address the issue, the Special Master held an informal hearing on May
25, 2017 and articulated to the parties a procedure to resolve the dispute, as
follows:
If a mutual resolution cannot be reached during these meetings, the Special Master will issue an informal assessment regarding how he believes the issue should be resolved based on the information presented. Going forward, if the parties agree with the Special Master’s informal assessment, he will request that they stipulate and/or consent to any necessary amendments to the Procedures Order to memorialize the parties’ agreement. If, however, either party disagrees with the Special Master’s findings and wishes to stand firm, the Special Master will request that the dissenting party submit for his consideration an appropriate motion. He will then entertain a briefing and hold a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to a schedule to be determined, so that the Special Master can issue
28

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 29 of 43
a formal ruling consistent with the procedures set forth in the Special Master Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. (hereinafter, the "Dispute Resolution Procedure") (See Holly Hampton Email, 5/23/2017 at 11:49 AM). Consistent with the Dispute Resolution Procedure and the parties' requests to provide guidance on this issue, attached hereto as Exhibit B is a proposed order addressing the scope of the 180 Day Requirement (hereinafter, the "Proposed 180 Day Order"), which sets forth the manner in which the Special Master believes the issue should be resolved based on the information and limited argument presented by the parties to date. As set forth more fully in the Dispute Resolution Procedure, if the parties do not oppose the Proposed 180 Day Order, the Special Master requests they consent to its entry. If, however, any party disagrees with the Special Master’s findings and wishes to stand on its objections, the Special Master hereby requests that the dissenting party file an appropriate motion within 35 days of the filing of this report. Upon receipt of a timely filed motion, the Special Master will entertain briefing, hold a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to a schedule to be determined, and issue a formal ruling on any such motion, subject to appeal,
29

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 30 of 43
consistent with the procedures set forth in the Special Master Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53.
In the interim, due to probable implications of a ruling regarding the scope of the 180 Day Requirement on the scope of documents necessary to monitor compliance efforts, and in the interests of efficiency and economy, the Special Master has placed a temporary hold on his monitoring efforts related to City's OPS files, including, but not limited to, review of documents being produced pursuant to the 2015 Order and the procedures set forth at paragraph 4(B) of the Procedures Order. If the Court Orders contemplate more “citizen complaints” beyond those submitted or otherwise processed through OPS, any review of documents limited only to OPS compliance is incomplete, and the procedures relative to monitoring compliance must necessarily be reconsidered. Indeed, the City's compliance efforts may require substantial reform if it is determined that OPS is not the appropriate mechanism through which to establish compliance with the Court Orders.
In sum, for the reasons set forth in the Proposed 180 Day Order, the Special Master opines that the 180 Day Requirement contemplated by the Court Orders is broader in scope than the City's current compliance efforts. However, since there are potentially unresolved disputes related to the interpretation of the 180 Day
30

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 31 of 43
Requirement that have not been fully briefed and argued, a final finding of compliance is deferred out of necessity, and the issue of compliance will be revisited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future reports.
Upon resolution of the issues related to the 180 Day Requirement, including confirmation regarding appropriate documentation to monitor, evaluate, and report on compliance, the Special Master will file a motion to modify and extend the relevant provisions of the Procedures Order, as appropriate, in a continued effort to transition this compliance issue towards more routine monitoring and reporting. 8. INVESTIGATION OF OFFICER CONDUCT [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶
8]. The Special Master has not been made aware of any disputes related to the requirements relative to the investigation of officer conduct but has not fully investigated the matter. Therefore, at this time, while the Special Master believes a finding of compliance is appropriate and will be forthcoming, there is not sufficient evidence to make a final determination related to this requirement, and any further discussion is deferred until the next quarterly compliance report. 9. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE ASSIGNMENTS [2011 Order at Ex. A, ¶ 9]. The Special Master has not been made aware of any disputes related to the requirements relative to the multi-jurisdictional task force assignments but has not
31

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 32 of 43
fully investigated the matter. Therefore, at this time, while the Special Master believes a finding of compliance is appropriate and will be forthcoming, there is not sufficient evidence to make a final determination related to this requirement, and any further discussion is deferred until the next quarterly compliance report. 10. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 2015 COURT ORDER [2015 Order at
¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14]. A. Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the 2015 Order. As set forth in the Past Compliance Reports, paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the 2015 Order relate to requests for documents and information in conjunction with efforts to monitor compliance under the Court Orders. With regard to these requirements, the Special Master has previously opined that the City was attempting in good faith to comply with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules and Standing Orders of the Court, the Court Orders, and the Procedures Order. However, the 4/12 Report expressly articulated that additional coordination and collaboration with APD representatives was necessary to identify the appropriate documentation needed to evaluate compliance, to streamline efforts related to monitoring, and to achieve a consensus of complete compliance with the Court Orders. (4/12 Report, Doc. No. 341, pp. 23, ¶8). Along these lines, and in
32

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 33 of 43
an effort to make the monitoring process more transparent and efficient for everyone involved, the Special Master requested meetings, with attendance required by at least one authorized counsel representative for each party and any necessary APD representatives. Id. In the 4/12 Report, the Special Master also articulated various documents that needed to be discussed, particularly with regard to the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks, discussed in greater detail at paragraph 4/5 above. Id.
To date, none of the Demographic Form Process and none of the Demographic Form Objectives have been accomplished as contemplated by the 4/12 Report.
Notably, the Special Master has attempted several times to schedule meetings contemplated by the Demographic Form Process; however, the City appears disinclined to engage in the Demographic Form Process and/or to accomplish the Demographic Form Objectives, and has asserted to the Special Master its belief that the requirement to document warrantless seizures and ID checks is overly burdensome. On information and belief, the City may even seek relief from the requirement.
33

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 34 of 43
Notwithstanding, the requirements relative to post-judgment discovery and compliance monitoring remain in full force and effect as a result of the Court Orders, the Special Master Order, the Procedures Order, and the 4/12 Report, none of which have been modified, amended, vacated, or superseded as of the filing of this report.
For these additional reasons, the Special Master recommends that the Court enter a show cause order in the same or substantially similar form as the proposed Show Cause Order attached hereto as Exhibit A without delay.
Upon resolution of the issues discussed in this report, including confirmation regarding appropriate documentation to monitor, evaluate, and report on compliance, the Special Master will file a motion to modify and extend the relevant provisions of the Procedures Order, as appropriate, in a continued effort to transition this compliance issue towards more routine monitoring and reporting.
B. Paragraph 12 of the 2015 Order. As stated in the Past Compliance Reports, the Special Master has reviewed the record related to paragraph 12 of the 2015 Order and has previously found that the City has been generally complying with the requirements of the 2015 Order relative to the payment of Plaintiffs' counsels' fees; however, since the 4/12 Report,
34

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 35 of 43
it has become clear that disputes exist as to whether Plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to reimbursement under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Court’s Orders of certain attorneys' fees related to Plaintiffs’ defense of that certain Petition for Emergency Relief from Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia [Case No. 17-mi-00004-RWS, Doc. No. 1; Case No. 17-cv-00530-RWS, Doc. No. 1] (the "Petition for Emergency Relief") filed by the City. Notably, the Special Master has not been made aware of any other disputes regarding any other attorneys' fees at this time.
With regard to the disputed fees, the Special Master articulated to the parties the Dispute Resolution Procedure and held an informal hearing on May 26, 2017. Consistent with the Dispute Resolution Procedure and the parties' requests to provide guidance on this issue, attached hereto as Exhibit C is a proposed order addressing Plaintiffs' entitlement to attorneys' fees relative to Plaintiffs' defense of the Petition for Emergency Relief (hereinafter, the "Proposed Fee Dispute Order"), which sets forth the manner in which the Special Master presently believes the issue should be resolved based on the information and limited argument presented at by the parties to date.
35

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 36 of 43
As set forth more fully in the Dispute Resolution Procedure, if the parties agree with the Special Master’s informal assessment in the Proposed Fee Dispute Order, the Special Master requests they consent to its entry. If, however, any party disagrees with the Special Master’s findings and wishes to stand on its objections, the Special Master hereby requests that the dissenting party file an appropriate motion within 35 days of the filing of this report. Upon receipt of a timely filed motion, the Special Master will entertain briefing, hold a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to a schedule to be determined, and issue a formal ruling on any such motion, subject to appeal, consistent with the procedures set forth in the Special Master Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53.
Since the Special Master has not been made aware of any other disputes between the parties relative to the requirements set forth at paragraph 12 of the 2015 Order, except as expressly set forth above and in the Proposed Fee Dispute Order, the Special Master otherwise believes and finds that the City is compliant. However, due to the ongoing nature of the paragraph 12 requirements, a final finding is deferred out of necessity, and this issue will be revisited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future reports.
36

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 37 of 43
C. Paragraph 13 of the 2015 Order. The Special Master has reviewed the record related to paragraph 13 of the 2015 Order and finds that the City has established compliance. D. Paragraph 14 of the 2015 Order. Paragraph 14 of the 2015 Order sets forth the 6-year timeframe contemplated by the 2015 Order and reiterates that the 2015 Order does not overrule, supersede, or otherwise affect the requirements set forth by the 2010 Order and the 2011 Order. Beyond these general concepts, paragraph 14 does not impose any new or additional requirements on the City. Due to the ongoing nature of the paragraph 14 requirements (for 6 years) and the overall applicability to the other requirements of the Court Orders, the Special Master finds that compliance with paragraph 14 is not presently ripe for compliance and that additional fact finding would be necessary for the Special Master to formulate an opinion and basis therefor as to compliance. Accordingly, a final finding is deferred out of necessity, and this issue will be revisited, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with future reports.
37

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 38 of 43
V. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION As set forth herein, the Special Master has concerns about the City's interpretation, understanding, and compliance efforts with regard to certain requirements of the Court Orders, the Special Master Order, the Procedures Order, and the 4/12 Report. It should be noted that significant progress has been made by the parties with respect to several requirements of the Court Orders, and in some instances, there are no apparent compliance issues. However, with respect to the concerns and requirements discussed in this report, the Special Master believes there is significant and critical work to be done in order to establish a consensus of compliance with the Court's Orders and transition to more routine compliance monitoring. As stated previously, the Special Master believes that the most expeditious and economical path to a consensus of complete compliance is through effective communications between the parties and the Special Master. Indeed, the Court Orders, the Special Master Order, and the Procedures Order are all decrees entered with the consent of the parties. However, the City appears disinclined to discuss and/or collaborate with Plaintiffs' Counsel regarding outstanding monitoring and compliance issues, which has contributed, in part, to the lack of consensus
38

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 39 of 43
regarding compliance. If the parties cannot agree on a reasonable resolution of monitoring and compliance issues related to the previously agreed upon Court Orders, the Special Master is concerned that this matter will move away from the collaborative environment contemplated by the parties in the Special Master Order and evolve into expensive, contentious, and potentially counter-productive litigation.
The Special Master's ultimate goal is for the parties to transition this matter to a posture of routine compliance monitoring and reporting, consistent with the process contemplated by the Procedures Order and the Special Master Order. However, this goal cannot be realized until there is a mutual understanding of the requirements of the Court Orders and a mutual willingness to work together to accomplish a consensus of complete compliance. For the first three to six months of the Special Master's appointment, it appeared the parties were committed to working towards this mutual goal of routine compliance monitoring. However, the Special Master now has reservations regarding the City's commitment to the consent orders to which it previously agreed.
There is no doubt that the Procedures Order will require modification in order to accomplish the mutual goals of the parties and the Special Master in terms
39

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 40 of 43
of routine compliance monitoring. Indeed, it has already been established that certain documents contemplated by the Procedures Order are not sufficient or appropriate to monitor compliance with the Court Orders. However, the City has not taken the steps necessary to establish what modifications to the compliance monitoring procedures are appropriate. To be clear, the Special Master needs the City's cooperation in establishing the procedures, documents, and other resources available to assist the Special Master in fulfilling his duties to the Court, and the Special Master Order requires the City to provide "access to any and all documents, Atlanta Police Department staff, and any other information as he or she deems necessary to provide the Court with [ ] quarterly compliance reports." The Special Master is concerned that he is not presently receiving the City's complete cooperation in this regard.
Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth in this 7/14 Report, the Special Master is additionally recommending that the Court enter the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit D without delay.
VI. RECOMMENDATION AND PLEA Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in this 7/14 Report, the Special Master's complete recommendation and plea to the Court is as follows:
40

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 41 of 43
(1) that the Court enter the Show Cause Order attached hereto as Exhibit A without delay;
(2) that the Court adopt the Special Master's proposed Dispute Resolution Procedure related to the Proposed 180 Day Order and the Proposed Fee Dispute Order attached hereto as Exhibit B and Exhibit C, respectively, including, specifically, the following:
(a) that, upon receipt of an unopposed motion submitted by the Special Master and signed by the parties indicating no opposition to the Proposed 180 Day Order or the Proposed Fee Dispute Order, the Court immediately enter such order;
(b) that, to the extent no motion is filed within 35 days of submission of this report and upon notification from the Special Master regarding same, the Court enter the Proposed 180 Day Order and the Proposed Fee Dispute Order in the form or substantially similar form as attached hereto as Exhibit B and Exhibit C, respectively;
(c) that, to the extent any party timely files a motion seeking relief different than what is set forth in the Proposed 180 Day Order and the Proposed Fee Dispute Order attached hereto as Exhibit B and Exhibit C,
41

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 42 of 43

respectively, the Court adopt the Special Master's proposed procedure to entertain briefing and hold a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to a schedule to be determined, so that the Special Master can issue a formal ruling on any such motion, subject to appeal, consistent with the procedures set forth in the Special Master Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53; (3) that the Court enter the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit D, whereby without delay; and (4) that the Court grant such other appropriate relief as it deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted by:

/s Joe D. Whitley
JOE D. WHITLEY Georgia Bar No. 756150 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 3414 Peachtree Road, N.E. Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com (404) 223-2209
Special Master

42

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 346 Filed 07/19/17 Page 43 of 43
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have electronically filed the foregoing SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED JULY 14, 2017 with the Clerk of Court using the Court's CM/ECF system, which will automatically send electronic notification of such filing to all parties through their counsel of record.
This 19th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Joe D. Whitley Joe D. Whitley Georgia Bar No. 756150 BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 3415 Peachtree Road N.E. Monarch Plaza, Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Telephone: 404-223-2209 Facsimile: 404-238-9799 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com Special Master
43

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:09-CV-3286-TCB

SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT AS OF OCTOBER 13, 2017

COMES NOW, Joe D. Whitley, the appointed Special Master, in furtherance

of the duties imposed by the Court's Order entered June 22, 2016 [Doc. No. 309]

(the "Special Master Order") and FED. R. CIV. P. 53, and pursuant to the Court's

direction in its Order entered September 27, 2017 [Doc. No. 377] (the "9/27

Order"), submits this Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report as of October

13, 2017 (hereinafter, this "10/13 Report"):

I. UPDATE REGARDING PENDING MATTERS

The Special Master filed the last Special Master Quarterly Compliance on

July 19, 2017 [Doc. No. 346] (hereinafter, the "7/14 Report") setting forth his

compliance findings and recommendations to the Court as of July 14, 2017. As set
1

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 10
forth in the 7/14 Report, there are critical disputes among the parties regarding whether the City has complied with the Court Orders1 to date and whether
modification of the Court Orders is appropriate. [See 7/14 Report, generally]. In
light of such disputes, the Special Master recommended and this Court ordered that
the parties should be heard on all such matters. [See Doc. Nos. 347, 348
(hereinafter, the "Show Cause Orders")].
In addition to the Show Cause Orders, the 7/14 Report established a briefing schedule related to two other disputed matters: the 180 Day Requirement2; and the Fee Dispute.3 Subsequent to the 7/14 Report, the City filed a Motion to Reassign
Matters to the District Court [Doc. No. 375] ("Motion to Reassign").
1 For purposes of this 10/13 Report, "Court Orders" means and collectively refers to the Orders entered by this Court on December 8, 2010 (the "2010 Order"), December 15, 2011 (the "2011 Order"), May 19, 2015 (the "2015 Order"), and September 23, 2016 (the "Procedures Order"), as well as any requirements set forth in the Special Master's prior reports and recommendations to the Court. 2 For purposes of this 10/13 Report, "180 Day Requirement" means and refers to the provisions in the 2010 Order and 2011 Order requiring the City to investigate and adjudicate "all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint." [See Doc. 265 at ¶ 7; Doc. No. 280 at ¶ 7]. 3 For purposes of this 10/13 Report, "Fee Dispute" means and refers to the Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees from the City pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 related to the City's Petition for Emergency Relief from Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia [See e.g., Doc. Nos. 346, 352, 360, 373, 386].
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 3 of 10
These substantive matters (i.e., the Show Cause Orders, the 180 Day Requirement, the Fee Dispute, and the Motion to Reassign) remain pending and are addressed in greater detail below.4 The Court has addressed all other substantive submissions to date.
A. The 180 Day Requirement and Fee Dispute are Ripe for Ruling. Following the 7/14 Report, the 180 Day Requirement and the Fee Dispute have been fully briefed [see Doc. Nos. 351, 352, 360, 361, 372, 373], and the Special Master has submitted his reports and recommendations to the Court [see Doc. Nos. 386, 387]. As set forth more fully therein, these matters are now ripe for ruling by the Court. [Id.]. B. The Motion to Reassign is Ripe for Ruling. The Motion to Reassign has also been fully briefed by the parties [see Doc. Nos. 375, 380, 384] and the Special Master filed a response brief [see Doc. No. 381] per this Court's Order directing the same [Doc. No. 377]. As set forth in the Special Master's response brief [Doc. No. 381], the Special Master will not submit any further report and recommendation with regard to the Motion to Reassign
4 Please note, this 10/13 Report does not address routine matters such as motions seeking leave to exceed page limitations, motions to continue, and motions for extensions of time.
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 4 of 10
unless directed to do so by the Court. Absent further direction from the Court, the Special Master submits this matter is now ripe for ruling by the Court.
C. The Special Master Recommends that the Parties Submit a Consolidated Pretrial Order Regarding the Show Cause Orders.
With regard to the Show Cause Orders, the parties have completed all of the preliminary briefing requested by the Special Master with regard to the Order at Doc. No. 348 (hereinafter, the "Show Cause for Relief Order"). [See Doc. Nos. 348, 354, 358, 367, 388]. With regard to the Order at Doc. No. 347 (hereinafter, the "Show Cause for Contempt Order"), the City submitted a substantive brief [Doc. No. 363], and the Special Master provided notice that he was awaiting briefing in response to the Show Cause for Relief Order before determining the briefing schedule with regard to the Show Cause for Contempt Order [Doc. No. 370]. The Special Master's recommendation for next steps with regard to the Show Cause Orders is set forth below [see Parts II and III, infra].
In short, the Special Master believes that further proceedings and presentation of evidence will be necessary in order to resolve the Show Cause Orders but submits that the parties are best positioned to evaluate the extent to which further briefing and argument will be needed in order for the Court to rule. Accordingly, as set forth in greater detail below, the Special Master recommends that this Court adopt this 10/13 Report and require, among other relief [see
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 5 of 10
discussion Part III infra], that the parties prepare and file a complete, consolidated "Pretrial Order" in the form approved by this Court. To the extent any party wishes to waive further briefing and/or argument, they should do so in the parties' joint submission to the Court. II. COMPLIANCE RECAP AND THE SHOW CAUSE ORDERS
The Special Master's quarterly reports have traditionally organized preliminary compliance findings by the topics identified in the 2010 Order and the 2011 Order, with references to related issues from the 2015 Order, the Procedures Order, and prior quarterly compliance reports, where appropriate. [See e.g., the 7/14 Report; see also discussion Part I supra]. This 10/13 report represents a departure from the Special Master's prior methodology for good cause. 5
As set forth in the 7/14 Report, there were (and remain) substantial disputes among the parties regarding whether the City has complied with the Court Orders to date and whether modification of the Court Orders is appropriate. [Id.]. The
5 The Special Master acknowledges that this report and recommendation is less comprehensive than prior reports but submits this is the appropriate approach in light of the current posture of this case and the pendency of the Show Cause Orders. Of course, nothing in this 10/13 Report is intended to (nor shall it) modify, alter, or amend any of the Court's Orders. Furthermore, these limited findings are subject to further review and revision, and no party is deemed to have waived any evidentiary rights or objections.
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 6 of 10
Special Master recommended and this Court ordered that the parties should be heard on all such matters. [See Doc Nos. 347, 348].
Since the 7/14 Report, the prior-reported disputes generally remain, and additional disputes continue to emerge. By way of example only, and not as an exhaustive list, the parties now disagree as to whether the Atlanta Police Department's Standard Operating Procedures have been revoked or amended consistent with the requirements of the Court Orders [see e.g., October 12, 2017 correspondence from Plaintiffs' Counsel attached hereto as Exhibit A, at ¶3; see also October 13, 2017 correspondence from City Counsel attached hereto as Exhibit B, at ¶3], whereas the Special Master was previously unaware of any issues related to this particular requirement of the Court Orders [see 7/14 Report Part IV.1 pp. 11-13]. There are also now disputes related to Calhoun Training [see Exhibit A at ¶4; compare Exhibit B at ¶4] that did not exist previously [see 7/14 Report Part IV.6 pp. 25-26]. The theme that continues to emerge is that the parties do not agree on much of anything related to the City's obligations under and compliance with the Court Orders.
In lieu of revisiting in comprehensive detail each of the compliance issues that remains outstanding as of this 10/13 Report, the Special Master incorporates by reference his 7/14 Report, the parties' compliance submissions attached hereto
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 7 of 10
as Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively, and all substantive briefing submitted by the parties and the Special Master during the period from July 14, 2017 through October 13, 2017 [see e.g., discussion Part I supra], and reiterates and renews his prior analysis and recommendation that the parties should be given the opportunity to be heard regarding compliance with and modification of the Court Orders in accordance with applicable legal standards, as contemplated by the Show Cause Orders [Doc. Nos. 347, 348].
At this juncture, the Special Master submits that the parties are best positioned to evaluate the extent to which further briefing and argument will be needed in order for the Court to rule. Accordingly, and in order to facilitate prompt review of these pending matters (either by the Special Master or the Court), the Special Master recommends that the Court adopt this report and recommendation, requiring the parties on or before January 12, 2018: (i) first, to meet in person for a settlement conference and discuss resolution of any issues presented by the Show Cause Orders that can be resolved by agreement between the parties; (ii) second, to prepare and file a joint report regarding the result of the
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 8 of 10
settlement conference; and (iii) third, to prepare and file a complete, consolidated "Pretrial Order" in the form approved by this Court.6
Upon filing of the Pretrial Order, the Special Master or the Court (depending on the Court's ruling on the Motion to Reassign) will make necessary arrangements for further proceedings on the Show Cause Orders consistent with the parameters set forth by the parties in the Pretrial Order, whereby all parties will be provided a fair opportunity to present their evidence and argument in accordance with applicable legal standards. III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in this report, the Special Master's complete recommendation to the Court is as follows:
(1) that the Court enter an order adopting this 10/13 Report and recommendation in the same or substantially similar form as the proposed order attached hereto as Exhibit C; and
(2) that the Court grant such other appropriate relief as it deems just and proper.
6 See NDGa LR 16.4A; see also NDGa Pretrial Instructions at Part VIII., available at: http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/PretrialInstructions.pdf.
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 9 of 10
Respectfully submitted by: /s Joe D. Whitley JOE D. WHITLEY Georgia Bar No. 756150 BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 3414 Peachtree Road, NE Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30326 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com (404) 223-2209 Special Master
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 391 Filed 10/23/17 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have electronically filed the foregoing SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED OCTOBER 13, 2017 with the Clerk of Court using the Court's CM/ECF system, which will automatically send electronic notification of such filing to all parties through their counsel of record. This 23rd day of October, 2017.
/s/ Joe D. Whitley Joe D. Whitley Georgia Bar No. 756150 BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 3415 Peachtree Road NE Monarch Plaza, Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Telephone: 404-223-2209 Facsimile: 404-238-9799 jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com Special Master
10

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:09-cv-3286-TCB

Defendants.

O R D E R

This case comes before the Court on the City of Atlanta’s motion

[375] to reassign matters to the district court from the special master

and upon the special master’s October 13 status report [391]. The City’s

motion is denied and the special master’s October 13 status report is

adopted as modified in this Order.

I. Background

This case arises from the illegal search and detainment of

Plaintiffs by the Atlanta Police Department (“APD”) during a raid of the

Atlanta Eagle bar in September 2009. The Court entered a consent

judgment on December 8, 2010 (the “2010 Order”) resolving the lawsuit

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 2 of 23
and settling Plaintiffs’ claims by, inter alia, requiring payment of a monetary judgment and enjoining the APD to implement a number of reforms to their police operations.
A year later, the City had not complied with the 2010 Order. This resulted in post-judgment motions and another consent order entered by the Court on December 15, 2011 (the “2011 Order”). The 2011 Order restated the injunctive obligations of the City to reform the APD.
Four years later, Plaintiffs filed additional post-judgment motions for contempt against the City for failure to comply with the Court’s previous orders and the ongoing injunction. On May 19, 2015, after a hearing on Plaintiffs’ second motion for contempt, the Court granted the contempt motion and once again ordered the City to undertake certain reforms and also to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for bringing the contempt motion (the “2015 Order”). The 2015 Order did not modify the 2010 Order or 2011 Order.
On June 20, 2016, the parties made a joint motion [308] to appoint a special master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which this Court granted [309] on June 22. This resulted in a consent order
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 3 of 23
[323] setting forth the role and function of the special master, which was modified by another consent order [339] (collectively, the “Special Master Orders”).
The parties jointly agreed to appoint Joe Whitley as special master, who has been serving pursuant to the Special Master Orders and Rule 53. Under the Special Master Orders the special master presides over and investigates the City’s compliance with the Court’s orders. This includes reviewing implementation of training procedures, presiding over and resolving discovery disputes, making determinations and recommendations to the Court regarding the necessity of sanctions, and providing the Court with quarterly reports regarding the City’s compliance. These powers are exercised consistent with the special master’s appointment under the Special Master Orders and Rule 53.
The special master has performed this function for over a year. In his most recent compliance reports, dated July 14 [346] and October 13 [391], the special master indicates that while progress has been made, the City’s compliance with the Court’s orders is still a future prospect.
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 4 of 23
What is worse, it appears that the resolution of this case has all but stalled and relations between the parties have deteriorated.
On September 7, 2017, the special master moved [359] for the Court to renew and modify certain of the Special Master Orders. The City objected, and filed the instant motion [375] to disqualify the special master as well as an “emergency” motion to stay the special master’s activities. The Court denied both the special master’s motion and the City’s emergency motion, and directed the special master to continue in his role while the Court reviewed the City’s motion [375] to disqualify.1 The special master responded [381] to the City’s disqualification motion, filed his last quarterly compliance report dated October 13 [391], and provided the Court with recommendations for moving the case forward.
Other issues persist and will be addressed in subsequent orders. For now, the most pertinent issue before the Court is whether the special master will be disqualified. As explained below, the Court does not believe that the special master should be disqualified. Accordingly,
1 Plaintiffs oppose disqualification [380].
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 5 of 23
the Court will not reassign matters now pending before the special master to the Court. This Order also prescribes the next steps, particularly as they relate to the Court’s show-cause orders [347–48]. II. Disqualification of the Special Master
It is well-settled that acceptance of an appointment as a special master entails accepting “the duties and obligations of a judicial officer.” In re Gilbert, 276 U.S. 6, 9 (1928); see also Hoffman v. EMI Resorts, Inc., 689 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1374 (S.D. Fla. 2010). As judicial officers, “[m]asters are subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, with exceptions spelled out in the Code.” FED. R. CIV. P. 53(a)(2)–(3) advisory committee’s notes to 2003 amendments. “The standard of [a master’s] disqualification is established by 28 U.S.C. § 455.” Id. “A master must not have a relationship to the parties, attorneys, action, or court that would require disqualification of a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455, unless the parties, with the court’s approval, consent to the appointment after the master discloses any potential grounds for disqualification.” Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Tien, 598 F. App’x 613, 616 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 53(a)(2)). Thus, § 455
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 6 of 23
guides the Court’s analysis of whether Special Master Whitley should be disqualified.
The City argues that pursuant to § 455(a),2 the special master should be disqualified because “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” [375] at 1. This argument is based on the special master’s September 7 motion [359] for an order “renewing certain obligations set forth by consent procedures order.” The City argues that the special master’s request to modify the Special Master Orders evinces his bias.
The circumstances giving rise to the special master’s motion came about after the Court ordered the City to show cause on two issues upon recommendation by the special master in his July 14 status report [346]. The Court ordered the City to show cause as to (1) why it should not be held in contempt of the Court’s previous orders, see [347], and (2) why the City believes it is entitled to relief from the Court’s previous orders, see [348]. The Court directed the special master to receive briefing and hold a hearing on the first contempt issue and to receive
2 The City also raises a disqualification charge under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Because this argument was raised for the first time in a reply, it will not be considered. See United States v. Martinez, 83 F.3d 371, 377 n.6 (11th Cir. 1996).
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 7 of 23
briefing on the second relief issue. The special master was instructed to provide a report and recommendation on both issues.3
A flurry of docket activity has ensued since this time, including the special master’s motion about which the City complains. The City argues that by filing a motion to renew the special master procedures, rather than depending solely upon a report and recommendation, the special master has shown his hand as to how he would rule on the show-cause issues, and thus made a prejudgment against the City. In the City’s words, “the Special Master is advocating a position on remedies in direct opposition to the position taken by the City, and premises the position upon his predetermination that the City is substantively not in compliance with the [Court’s orders].” [375] at 5. The City believes the special master cannot now be impartial in making a recommendation to the Court on the show-cause issues.
“Under § 455(a), recusal is appropriate only if ‘an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the
3 Some deadlines for resolving these issues have passed. This Order revises the procedures and deadlines regarding the resolution of the show-cause orders [347–48]. See infra at 19–23.
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 8 of 23
grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.’” United States v. Amadeo, 487 F.3d 823, 828 (11th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added) (citation omitted in original) (quoting United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003)). “[A]ny doubts must be resolved in favor of recusal.” Patti, 337 F.3d at 1321 (citation omitted).
But the evidence forming the basis of a recusal motion must be competent to that end. The actions of the special master the City complains about were judicial in nature, and “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). This is known as the “extrajudicial source doctrine,” which the Supreme Court has held applies to § 455(a). Id. at 554. To the extent that there is any impropriety in a judicial ruling, the appropriate remedy is to appeal that ruling rather than to seek disqualification of the judge who rendered it. See id. at 555 (“Almost invariably, [judicial rulings] are proper grounds for appeal, not recusal.”).
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 9 of 23
When a disqualification motion is asserted based on some expressed opinion of the judge, the Supreme Court has explained that
opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Id. at 555 (emphasis added). Under these rules, the City has not carried its burden of showing the special master’s bias because the special master’s motion is subject to the extrajudicial source doctrine. Though styled a “motion,” it was effectively a sua sponte recommendation to the Court to temporarily extend and modify the procedures in the Special Master Orders. The motion had no binding effect until ruled on by the Court, the City had an opportunity to (and did) object to the motion, and the Court ultimately denied it. It would also be subject to the special master’s final report and recommendation, and ultimately, the Court’s scrutiny. The appropriate remedy was for the City to appeal to the Court to intervene, which it did and the Court ruled in the City’s favor because the relief sought by the special master was not necessary at the time.
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 10 of 23
Because the City can point to no other, extrajudicial evidence of the special master’s bias, its bias charge cannot be sustained.4
Moreover, the special master’s actions hardly demonstrate a deepseated favoritism or antagonism against the City. And it is far from clear that the renewal motion rendered the special master’s fair judgment “impossible.” Id.
The City’s allegations of bias are also contradicted by the special master’s record in this case. The special master has ruled myriad times in the City’s favor on issues brought before him. For example, the special master reported in favor of the City on a dispute over whether the City had complied with the Calhoun training requirements over Plaintiffs’ objections that they had not approved the training. See [324] at 5–8; see also [325] at 7 (reporting the City’s technical and substantial compliance with the Calhoun training requirement); [346] at 2 (charting five separate instances where the City’s compliance issues are marked as “resolved”). The special master’s practice has been to give the City
4 The City also complains that the special master’s motion sought to improperly modify the consent orders in this case. Because the Court denied the special master’s motion, it considers this argument moot.
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 11 of 23
the benefit of the doubt by finding in certain instances that the City technically complied with the Court’s orders contingent upon ongoing factual development. See [325] at 7 (regarding Calhoun training); id. at 17 (regarding amendments to APD standard operating procedures); [341] at 5–7 (regarding revocation or amendment of unconstitutional policies). It is only now that the City believes the special master could rule against it that it questions the special master’s impartiality. The charges ring hollow, as the special master’s reports to the Court have consistently demonstrated an even-handed demeanor toward both sides as they litigate issues related to compliance with the Court orders.
Allegations of bias are also inconsistent with the special master’s desire that the parties be heard before ruling on pending issues. See [346-1] at 2; see also [381] at 3. These issues include the show-cause issues, which the City asserts the special master is now disqualified from presiding over because of his renewal motion.
Even if the special master’s motion expressed a sense that the City was non-compliant prior to a fuller hearing on the issue, there is no rule against the special master forming an impression, contrasted with
11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 12 of 23
a prejudgment, about the status of the case over which he is appointed. Judges do this every day. Nor is the special master forbidden from acting upon his impressions as he fulfills his role in moving the case forward. It just may not affect his judgment on the merits. Here, the special master’s motion was an interim measure; it was neither intended to nor did supplant his ruling on the merits.
In response to the City’s motion, the special master explains the motivation behind his filing the renewal motion: “[T]he limited procedural reforms sought by the Special Master were intended to provide a ‘stop-gap’ to certain procedures that were sun-setting but continue to be viewed by the Special Master as essential to the performance of his duties.” [381] at 9. To the special master, there remained a number of miles to go and he was running out of track as he performed his monitoring, presiding, and adjudicating duties pursuant to the Court’s orders; so, he sought the Court’s intervention.5 And while
5 As the Court has noted, this intervention was premature. There appears to be a mistaken impression that the special master’s term was limited to a twelvemonth period. This is unsupported by the Special Master Orders. The only timelimited aspects of the special master’s appointment are the dates by which he was to provide quarterly compliance reports, the last one of which was to be provided based on the City’s reports to the special master due in September 2017. See [323]
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 13 of 23
the Court disagreed that the order sought by the special master was necessary, the request did not constitute or reflect prejudice against the City.
The special master’s actions are no different than a judge issuing orders based on what he learned while presiding over a case. Cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 559 F.2d 234, 237 (5th Cir. 1977) (“[Disqualifying prejudice] must stem from an extrajudicial source and that prejudice and bias must result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the Judge was exposed to in his participation in this case.”). A judge often makes procedural decisions based on his impression of the case, but this does not amount to bias. Similarly, Special Master Whitley sought to keep the case moving and maintain the status quo by modifying the procedures consistent with his view of the needs of the case. His decision was reviewable upon objection and driven by benign motivation. Thus, he should not be disqualified from continuing to serve as special master.
at 9. Otherwise, the special master continues to fulfill his role under the Special Master Orders and other orders of the Court until ordered to do otherwise. This remains the case, and though the special master’s quarterly reporting duties have expired, his role continues. See [377].
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 14 of 23
The D.C. Circuit case cited by the City does not require a different conclusion. It is both non-binding and distinguishable. In Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2003), the D.C. Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by re-appointing a monitor as a special master over the Government-defendant’s objection. The circumstances in Cobell are much more egregious than in this case. First, the Cobell master, unlike Special Master Whitley, was not initially appointed as a special master; he was simply a court monitor. See id. at 1133. The court of appeals took issue with the fact that the district court, over objection, elevated the monitor to the role of master—a role entirely uncontemplated by and inconsistent with his original appointment. See id. at 1143–44.
Contrastingly, Special Master Whitley’s power has not been so aggrandized. He was appointed by consent of the parties, and from the outset he exercised the power of a master under Rule 53. His powers, while partly dealing with monitoring, also include presiding over and making rulings and recommendations pursuant to the Special Master Orders. The show-cause orders are just such an example because in his
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 15 of 23
July 14 status report, the special master made a recommendation to the Court to issue show-cause orders, and the Court adopted the recommendation. See [346] at 41–42. Indeed, the City has not argued that the special master lacked adjudicatory power ab initio; its argument for disqualification is primarily based on the special master’s recent docket activity. Special Master Whitley, unlike the Cobell monitor, has been functioning as a judicial officer for the duration of his tenure. And no evidence from outside his judicial tenure has been proffered to disqualify him.
Another distinction between this case and Cobell is that the Cobell monitor’s initial appointment was time-limited to one year. Id. at 1140. But the district court extended the monitor’s service to a more indefinite term as special master over the Government’s objection. Id. The D.C. Circuit’s holding that the district court abused its discretion was derived both from the improper extension of the monitor’s temporal service and the enlargement of his power beyond the scope of the consent order appointing him. No such arguments can be levied against
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 16 of 23
Special Master Whitley. He was appointed to an indefinite term, and his powers have not been enlarged since his appointment.
Finally, the impropriety alleged by the Cobell appellants surpasses that alleged by the City. The Government in Cobell complained about significant ex parte contact and communication by the monitor, which undermined his impartiality. That is, by virtue of extrajudicial activity the Cobell monitor had disqualified himself.
As already noted, the City cries foul regarding Special Master Whitley based only on judicial, on-the-record declarations. The City’s arguments that the special master’s ex parte contact disqualifies him is unavailing because, as permitted under § 455, the parties consented to a certain level of ex parte contact by the special master in the special master’s initial appointment. See [308] at 4; [309] at 4. Thus, the parties considered that the special master’s function would entail some limited ex parte contact, provided notice is given to the other side, in order to facilitate the unique circumstances of the special master’s appointment. Moreover, the scale of ex parte contacts and enlarged and unchecked
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 17 of 23
investigatory power of the Cobell monitor does not compare easily to the special master’s function in this case.
The City has not shown how the special master’s activities in this case justify his disqualification. The City has pointed only to the special master’s actions that were (a) within the context of on-the-record, judicial activities; (b) substantially justified in light of the special master’s experience in his quasi-judicial role; and (c) consistent with the Special Master Orders and Rule 53. None of these actions support his disqualification. III. Reassignment from the Special Master to the Court
Because the Court denies the City’s motion to disqualify the special master, it follows that there is no reason based on 28 U.S.C. § 455 for the Court to reassign matters from the special master.
The City also asserts that reassignment is warranted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which states that the Federal Rules “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 18 of 23
every action and proceeding.” The Court is not persuaded by this argument.
First, the City does not cite any authority that ties the admonition in Rule 1 to a justification for reassignment of a case from a special master to the Court when the special master has achieved more than a year’s experience presiding over the case.
Second, the Court does not believe that the City has adequately explained how it would be any more just or speedy or inexpensive for the Court, rather than the special master, to administer this case. This is especially true when the City consented to the special master’s appointment and the attendant procedures authorizing his activities in this case.
The Court is satisfied that the special master has done an excellent job. Over the past year he and his authorized staff have spent hundreds of hours overseeing, refereeing, and managing this languishing case. He has reviewed a raft of documents, including primary evidence and briefing, regarding the City’s compliance. His reports and recommendations to the Court—totaling nearly two-
18

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 19 of 23
hundred pages at last count—have been an exceptional resource that keeps this case in forward motion. It would be a waste of judicial resources to reassign matters from him now, and in fact, would likely be inconsistent with Rule 1 to do so.
This case has already gone seven years past judgment, and in light of the City’s contemptuous noncompliance to date, much of this derives from the City’s own malfeasance. Consequently, it is plenty just for the City to continue to pay for compliance monitoring until it demonstrates that compliance has been achieved, rather than shifting the burden to the Court and thereby diverting the Court’s attention from its service to other parties. IV. Conclusion
The City’s motion [375] to reassign matters from the special master is denied. The special master will continue to perform his role and exercise authority consistent with the Special Master Orders and Rule 53. The Court also adopts the special master’s October 13, 2017 status report [391] as modified below. The Court’s previous orders are
19

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 20 of 23
modified only to the extent described herein, and otherwise retain full force and effect.
Show-Cause Orders (1) Time limits provided in paragraphs 2–5 below shall not
begin until the Court rules on the special master’s report and recommendation [387] regarding the 180-day rule. (2) Within thirty-five days of the Court’s order on [387], the parties shall meet in person for a settlement conference and discuss resolution of any issues presented by the show-cause orders [347–48] and to outline and prepare a consolidated status report. (3) Within thirty-five days of the settlement conference the parties will file a consolidated status report that sets forth the following: • The results of the settlement conference; • Any pending motions or other matters to be addressed
in a hearing before the special master;
20

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 21 of 23
• A joint executive summary regarding the outstanding motions or other matters that need to be addressed, including the parties’ positions on each of the motions or other matters;
• The parties’ joint, or separate, arguments/proposals for a resolution of outstanding motions or other matters, with citations to legal authority as appropriate;
• A proposal regarding the conduct of a hearing before the special master on the outstanding motions or other matters, including the extent to which discovery is necessary as to the show-cause hearings;
• A statement regarding the parties’ positions on whether further briefing on the show-cause issues is needed before the hearing and how such briefing should be conducted;
• If discovery or factual presentation is necessary, a proposal regarding the conduct and procedures for
21

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 22 of 23
discovery that minimizes wasted time and resources; and • Proposed times for a hearing before the special master. (4) The special master shall hold a hearing within sixty days of when the parties file the consolidated status report described in paragraph 3. The special master has discretion regarding the conduct and procedures for the hearing but should consider the parties’ proposals in the consolidated status report. (5) Within sixty days of the hearing in paragraph 4, the special master shall issue a report and recommendation as to the resolution of the issues identified in the parties’ consolidated status report. Special Master Orders (1) The Special Master Orders shall remain in full effect. See [377]. The Court will decide whether to renew the reporting obligations of the special master after it receives the report
22

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 398 Filed 11/28/17 Page 23 of 23
and recommendation from the special master on the showcause issues in paragraph 5 above. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2017.
____________________________________ Timothy C. Batten, Sr. United States District Judge
23

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:09-cv-3286-TCB

Defendants.

O R D E R

This case comes before the Court on Special Master Joe Whitley’s

report and recommendation (the “R&R”) [386] regarding the parties’

post-consent-decree fee dispute, as well as Defendant City of Atlanta’s

objections [352] to an earlier special master proposal on the same issue.

While no objections to the R&R have been filed, the Court considers the

City’s objections [352] applicable to the recently issued R&R [386]. For

the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the R&R [386] to the extent

it is consistent with this Order and overrules the City’s objections [352].

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 2 of 14
I. Background The facts giving rise to this case are more thoroughly set forth in
this Court’s order [398] denying the City’s motion to reassign matters from the special master to the district court. The specific events as they pertain to this Order are as follows.
In December 2010, the parties entered into a consent order (the “2010 Order”) settling a lawsuit regarding the Atlanta Police Department’s (“APD”) unconstitutional search of an Atlanta nightclub. The 2010 Order set forth a number of reforms the City was required to undertake in order to remediate the unlawful practices of its police force. See [265]. In 2011, the City consented to the entry of another order (the “2011 Order”) due to its noncompliance with the 2010 Order. See [280]. The City was later held in contempt of the Court’s prior orders in 2015 (the “2015 Order”). See [289]. The Court refers to the aforementioned orders as the “Calhoun judgments,” and the related proceedings as the “Calhoun proceedings.”
The 2015 Order required that the “City of Atlanta shall reimburse Plaintiffs’ counsel for any reasonable fees and costs they expend in
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 3 of 14
ensuring compliance with the Orders of this Court,” which included specific tasks for which Plaintiffs’ counsel would be reimbursed, though reimbursement was not limited solely to those tasks. [289] ¶ 12. One of the Plaintiffs’ primary tasks was to serve as a monitor of the City’s compliance with the Calhoun judgments. See generally id.
The parties subsequently agreed to the appointment of Joe Whitley, Esq., as special master, who has been coordinating, presiding over, and monitoring this action and the City’s compliance with the Calhoun judgments. See [308, as modified by 309]. The special master has assumed the role of assisting the Court with the resolution of the growing number of disputes between the Plaintiffs and the City during the course of the Calhoun proceedings.
The question now before the Court is whether the City of Atlanta is obligated to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees expended in defending against an emergency petition for relief filed by the City on January 17, 2017. The emergency petition sought to disqualify certain of Plaintiffs’ counsel in various suits against the City, including the Calhoun proceedings. As a new civil action, it was assigned to Judge Richard W.
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 4 of 14
Story, who dismissed it as “procedurally improper.” Calhoun v. City of Atlanta, No. 1:17-cv-530-RWS, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2017), ECF No. 15.
The R&R recommends that the Court hold that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The City objects, asserting that it is under no obligation to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in connection with the emergency petition. II. Standard of Review of a Special Master’s R&R
The standard of review for a special master’s report is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, unless the Court or parties have agreed otherwise. Here, they have not.
When reviewing a special master’s factual conclusions, a “court must decide de novo all objections to findings of fact made or recommended by a master.” FED. R. CIV. P. 53(f)(3). Factual findings not objected to will be reviewed for clear error. See Martin v. Univ. of S. Ala., 911 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1990) (“[F]indings of fact made by a Special Master must be accepted by the district court unless clearly
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 5 of 14
erroneous.”). Similarly, “[t]he court must decide de novo all objections to conclusions of law made or recommended by a master.” FED. R. CIV. P. 53(f)(4).
After reviewing the special master’s factual and legal conclusions under the appropriate standard, the Court “may adopt or affirm, modify, wholly or partly reject or reverse, or resubmit [them] to the master with instructions.” Id. at 53(f)(1). III. Discussion
The special master concluded that Plaintiffs were entitled to fees incurred by defending against the City’s emergency petition. The Court first reviews the law applicable to the recoverability of fees in a § 1983 case and post-judgment proceedings. It then deals with the City’s objections to the R&R.
A. The Standard for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in a § 1983 Action
The special master correctly concluded that in civil rights cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an award of attorneys’ fees is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Section 1988(b) provides that “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonably attorney’s
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 6 of 14
fee as part of the costs . . . .” In order for Plaintiffs to be considered a prevailing party, there must be a “court-ordered . . . ‘material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.’” Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (quoting Tex. Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 792– 93 (1989)). Because the Calhoun judgments altered the legal relationship between Plaintiffs and the City, there is no dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees for their efforts related to the Calhoun judgments.
B. Recovery for Post-Judgment Attorneys’ Fees Plaintiffs are undoubtedly entitled to fees for their efforts in obtaining the Calhoun judgments. But the Calhoun judgments do not automatically grant fees for every proceeding between the City and Plaintiffs after the judgments were entered. Therefore, to determine whether a fee award for the emergency petition proceedings is appropriate, the Court must resolve first whether fees related to postjudgment proceedings are recoverable, and then, whether the emergency petition proceedings fall within that category of proceedings.
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 7 of 14
The Eleventh Circuit has permitted fees to be recovered without obtaining another victory on the merits in a later proceeding in the same action. In Turner v. Orr, 785 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir. 1986), postjudgment fees were recoverable if incurred to monitor or enforce the other (losing) party’s compliance with the underlying judgment because such efforts were considered to flow from the underlying decree. See also Adams v. Mathis, 752 F.2d 553, 554 (11th Cir. 1985) (“[A] party who ‘vindicates important rights [including post-trial vindication] “prevails” for purposes of [42 U.S.C.A.] § 1988 even though he or she does so without obtaining a formal judicial order.’” (some alterations in original)). Moreover, as in Turner, 785 F.2d at 1503, the City has already agreed to pay such fees “by contract,” see [289 ¶ 12].
Although Buckhannon, decided after Turner, requires a legal alteration in the parties’ relationship in order to be considered a prevailing party in the original action, the Court agrees with the special master and its sister court that Buckhannon did not disturb the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent regarding post-judgment fee awards. That
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 8 of 14
is, after obtaining a favorable outcome in the underlying suit, a party engaged in post-judgment proceedings does not have to show that the later proceedings “yield[ed] additional court-ordered relief” to be awarded fees under § 1988. Laube v. Allen, 506 F. Supp. 2d 969, 998 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (citing Miller v. Carson, 628 F.2d 346, 348–49 (5th Cir. 1980)). However, the post-judgment fees are still required to be “reasonably related to the claims upon which plaintiffs were definitely successful [and] . . . no doubt ha[ve] the effect of maintaining compliance with the Court’s [order].” Turner, 752 F.2d at 1504 (some alterations in original) (quoting Miller, 628 F.2d at 348).
Accordingly, to qualify as a post-judgment proceeding for feeaward purposes, Plaintiffs must show that their efforts related to the emergency petition (1) were reasonably related to the Calhoun judgments, and (2) had the effect of maintaining compliance with the Calhoun judgments. The Court finds that both elements are met.
First, the emergency petition proceedings were not only related to the Calhoun judgments, they were in large part based upon them. The City filed its emergency petition in order to address the Plaintiffs’
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 9 of 14
behavior in a number of lawsuits, including Calhoun. Judge Story recognized the petition’s relation to Calhoun when he dismissed it on the grounds that the relief requested is more appropriately addressed here, rather than in a separate petition.
Second, by responding and appearing in the emergency petition proceedings, Plaintiffs’ effort also had the effect of maintaining compliance with the Calhoun judgments. As part of the Calhoun judgments, this Court appointed Plaintiffs as monitors of the City’s compliance. The City’s emergency petition sought to undermine their role as monitor. In order to protect this role, Plaintiffs necessarily had to respond to the emergency petition.
1. The City’s First Objection: The Emergency Petition Was a Separate Action
The Court is not convinced by the City’s objections that a fee award for the emergency petition proceedings is improper because the emergency petition was an entirely separate action from the Calhoun proceedings.
As a matter of form, the emergency petition was, of course, a separate action from the instant case. To hold otherwise would defy
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 10 of 14
reality. The emergency petition had a different judge, different schedule, and its own case number. But to say that this technical distinctiveness is dispositive as to whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded would elevate form over substance.
As Judge Story noted, the City’s petition for relief was not properly before him; rather, it should have been raised with the presiding judge. Calhoun, No. 1:17-cv-530-RWS, at *4–5. In this case, the presiding judge is the undersigned. If the emergency petition had been properly raised, it would have been in this case, before this judge. In other words, if the petition were properly raised, the City’s objection that the petition is separate from the Calhoun proceedings would have little merit, and Plaintiffs’ claim to fees would be clear.
The City cannot escape its obligation to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees simply by filing collateral actions like the emergency petition. This would create a perverse incentive to file a new action whenever a losing party in an underlying judgment is on the hook for the other party’s fees. Such gamesmanship would foster inefficiency and stall the Court’s
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 11 of 14
docket. Thus, the Court rejects the City’s argument that the emergency petition is rightly considered a separate action from this case.
2. The City’s Remaining Objections The City cites North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Crest Street Community Council, Inc., 479 U.S. 6 (1986), for the proposition that fees related to the emergency petition are unavailable because it was not a civil rights action. But this is a red herring. Crest Street held that “only a court in an action to enforce one of the civil rights laws listed in § 1988 may award fees.” Id. at 15. The question here is whether this Court can award fees in this case, not the emergency petition. This case was based on § 1983, one of the civil rights law listed in § 1988. Thus, this Court has the power to award fees. Similarly, the Court rejects the City’s contention that because Judge Story did not reach the merits of the emergency petition, attorneys’ fees are unavailable. This misses the point: the authority to award attorneys’ fees in this case is based on the Calhoun judgments, not the emergency petition. The Calhoun judgments have already
11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 12 of 14
opened the font of attorneys’ fees as between Plaintiffs and the City. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111–12 (1992) (“[T]o qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim. The plaintiff must obtain an enforceable judgment against the defendant from whom fees are sought, or comparable relief through a consent decree or settlement.” (citations omitted)). The only question now is whether the fee-waters flow all the way down the course of the post-judgment proceedings to the emergency petition. As discussed above, the Court holds that they do.
The City also objects on the basis that Judge Story finally decided the issue of Plaintiffs’ fees with respect to the emergency petition by ruling against them on their Rule 11 motion for sanctions. That decision, however, has no bearing on entitlement to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Calhoun judgments and § 1988.
Finally, the Court rejects the City’s objection that the special master lacks the authority to determine whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a fee award. The special master did not overstep his jurisdiction, as he made recommendations regarding the propriety of a fee award in
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 13 of 14
this case, over which he has jurisdiction. Cf. generally [377, 398]. He did not purport to decide a matter in Judge Story’s case, nor did he effectively overrule a sitting district court judge, as the City intimates. The authority to award attorneys’ fees stems from the Calhoun judgments, not the emergency petition. Thus, the special master properly considered and made a report and recommendation to this Court on issues properly before him. IV. Conclusion
The Court adopts as its Order the R&R [386] to the extent consistent with the foregoing and overrules the City’s objections [352]. Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by responding to the City’s emergency petition and related filings.
The Court orders the special master to facilitate briefing and issue a report and recommendation on the issue of whether the attorneys’ fees sought by Plaintiff are appropriate under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). To the extent possible, the parties should coordinate with each other and the special master to determine the amount of fees due to Plaintiffs in concert with the upcoming the show cause
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 403 Filed 02/12/18 Page 14 of 14
proceedings, outlined in the Court’s November 28, 2017 Order. See [398] at 20–23.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2018. ___________________________________ TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14

 
 Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. RICHARD PENNINGTON, et al.
Defendants.

) ) ) ) Civil Action ) ) File No. 1:09-CV-03286-TCB ) ) ) )

ORDER

This Court, having considered the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of
Proposed Consent Order [Doc. 432], and for good cause shown, hereby finds
that the requirements of the Court’s July 25, 2017 Orders [Docs. 347-8] are fully
satisfied, and further ORDERS the parties as follows:
I. TRAINING
A. Training
1. The City of Atlanta (“the City”) shall conduct Calhoun “Approved Training” (as defined in Part B below) for all sworn employees within 90 days of the entry of this Order, and then every even-numbered year thereafter (“Training Year”) by no later than the last day of August, through and including August, 2024.

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 2 of 32
B. Continuation of Reform
1. The requirements of Paragraph A1 shall not apply to sworn officers who work no hours in the month during which training is conducted, or who experience extenuating circumstances making them unavailable to timely complete the training, for example depart for military duty or become hospitalized. The City will require such officers to complete the Calhoun training within 30 days of their return to active Atlanta Police Department (“APD”) duty.
2. The Calhoun Approved Training may be presented on-line rather than in-person, and shall instruct about current Fourth Amendment law regarding detentions, arrests, frisks and searches generally, the topics set forth in Exhibit A hereto (“Constitutional Principles”), and the topics set forth in Exhibit B hereto (“Calhoun SOP Topics”).
3. Plaintiffs approve the training video (contained on a thumb drive that is Exhibit C to this Order, the “Approved Training”) with the exception of the Assessment Questions. Plaintiffs do not approve the Assessment Questions, but for purposes of compromise Plaintiffs stipulate that: 1) they will not argue that the Assessment Questions in the Approved Training violate subsection (A)(1) of Part I (Training) of this Order; and 2) the Approved Training may be used for full satisfaction of the training and recurrent training requirements of subsection (A)(1) of Part I (Training) of this Order. The Parties further agree that:
(a) the “fast forward” function of the Approved Training video will be disabled, so that trainees are unable to fast forward through any portion of the training that they have not yet viewed; and
(b) for each embedded segment of Assessment Questions in the Approved Training, the segment’s order of questions and the questions’ order of answer choices will be randomized.
The City shall not change any material element of the structure, format, or content of the Approved Training or the Assessment Questions unless such changes are presented to and approved by Plaintiffs’ counsel in writing prior to implementation; Plaintiffs’ approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned.
2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 3 of 32
4. In addition to the training implemented pursuant to this Part I, the City may implement the Approved Training at any other time in its sole discretion, without prior consent of Plaintiffs.
C. Monitoring Facilitation
1. Within two weeks (14 calendar days) of the City’s completion of the Approved Training in 2018 or 2019, and by September 15 of a subsequent Training Year, the City shall provide Plaintiffs with a roster of all sworn employees of the Department as of the final day of August (except that for 2018 or 2019, the roster shall be for the month in which the Approved Training was conducted), which shall contain the date that each of those sworn employees completed the Approved Training, or as applicable pursuant to paragraph B1, above, the reason why timely completion did not occur. In addition, the City shall provide a composite analysis for each test question showing the number of officers who initially answered each question correctly, the number who initially answered each question incorrectly, and the average number of attempts needed for officers to correctly respond to each question.
2. For each such sworn officer unable to timely complete the Calhoun training for reasons described in paragraph A1, above, the City will inform Plaintiffs within 15 days of the sworn officer’s completing the Calhoun training, indicating the date that the officer returned to active-duty and the date that the training was completed.
II. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPS)
A. APD Standard Operating Procedures
1. The City shall not maintain, adopt, or revise any APD Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) inconsistent with the any of the Constitutional Principles set forth in Exhibit A hereto.
2. The City shall not maintain, adopt, or revise any SOP inconsistent with any provision of this Order, any of the Calhoun SOP Topics set forth in Exhibit B hereto, or any of the “Calhoun SOPs” (as defined below), except as set forth in paragraph B3, below.
3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 4 of 32
B. Continuation of Reform
1. As used herein, “Calhoun SOP” shall mean the SOPs listed on the attached Exhibit D and any SOP added to this list pursuant to the process described in this Part II(B).
2. Except as set forth in this Part II(B), the City shall retain without change the Calhoun SOPs.
3. The City may modify the Calhoun SOPs to the extent that a change is made to the applicable legal principle through statutory change or legal interpretation by the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court of Georgia or the Georgia Court of Appeals.
4. If the City modifies any Calhoun SOP for any reason, within five business days (i.e., weekdays except federal holidays) the City shall inform Plaintiffs’ counsel and provide a copy of the modified SOP to Plaintiffs’ counsel. This requirement shall be referred to as the “Five Day Reporting Requirement.”
5. If Plaintiffs reasonably believe that language in any SOP not listed on Exhibit D substantively implicates or is inconsistent with any provision of this Order, any of the Constitutional Principles set forth in Exhibit A, or any of the Calhoun SOP Topics set forth in Exhibit B, or any of the Calhoun SOPs, Plaintiffs may request in writing that the City add such an SOP to the list of Calhoun SOPs, which SOPs are subject to the Five Day Reporting Requirement. If the City objects to adding an SOP to the list of Calhoun SOPs, the parties shall meet and confer. If a dispute remains, the City will have 15 business days in which to add the SOP to the list of Calhoun SOPS or present the issue to the Court for resolution. If the City does not timely object, the SOP shall be added to the list of Calhoun SOPs.
C. Monitoring Facilitation
1. By no later than midnight on the 28th day of February, until and including February 28, 2024, the City must provide Plaintiffs with a copy of every SOP in effect on December 31 of the immediately preceding year, except that the requirements of this Paragraph C(1) shall not apply to Confidential SOPs,. The
4

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 5 of 32
SOPs shall be provided in both Microsoft Word and PDF (Adobe Acrobat) formats. These files shall be named as follows: [SOP number] [SOP Title] [Year.Month.Day of Last Revision]
2. Beginning April 15, 2019, by no later than midnight on the fifteenth days of the months of January, April, July, and October, until October 15, 2024 (hereafter the “Reporting Dates”), the City must provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with the following information for the immediately preceding quarter, except that the requirements of this Paragraph C(2) shall not apply to Confidential SOPs:
(a) A copy of every SOP that is subject to the Five Day Reporting Requirement, which is in effect on the final day of the immediately preceding quarter. For example, on October 15, 2020 (the Reporting Date), the City must provide copies of all SOPs subject to the Five Day Reporting Requirement in effect on September 30, 2020. The SOPs shall be provided in both Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat formats. The titles of these SOPs shall contain: [SOP number] [SOP Name] [Year.Month.Day of Last Revision].”
(b) As a separate document, a revision list indicating, in separately headed sections: (i) every SOP first implemented during the immediately preceding quarter; (ii) every SOP revoked during the immediately preceding quarter; and (iii) every SOP other than those already identified in (i) or (ii) to which any change whatsoever has been made during the immediately preceding quarter. The SOPs identified on these lists shall be denoted as follows: “[SOP Number] [SOP Name] [Year.Month.Day of Last Revision].” For any category in which there are no applicable SOPs for the immediately preceding quarter, this shall be indicated affirmatively by the word “None.” This document must always be provided, even if no SOPs were implemented, revoked, or changed during the immediately preceding quarter.
(c) For every SOP identified in Section (b)(iii), a separate blackline document in Microsoft Word format reflecting every change made to that SOP in the immediately preceding quarter. The
5

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 6 of 32
parties agree that this blackline document shall be created by comparing the version of the SOP in effect on the immediately preceding Reporting Date and the version of the SOP in effect on the current Reporting Date using Microsoft Word’s blackline function or the equivalent thereof that is mutually approved by the parties.
3. No more than once per calendar year, the City shall be entitled to a four-calendar-day extension of one Reporting Date, if the request for such extension is timely (i.e., communicated to Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to midnight on the Reporting Date).
D. Sunset
1. Except for the provisions of Part IIA(1), the provisions in Part II shall expire six years following the entry of this Order.
III. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
A. Citizen Complaints
1. APD shall investigate and finally adjudicate all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint.
B. Continuation of Reform
1. Definitions. For purposes of this Part III, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “APD Administration” means any sworn member of the Atlanta Police Department whose rank is sergeant or higher.
(b) “APD Facilities” means Atlanta Police zone precincts or miniprecincts, OPS building, Training Academy, Headquarters, or their functional equivalent.
(c) “Citizen Complaint” means a complaint that alleges one or more acts of police misconduct performed by a sworn member of the Atlanta Police Department, which is initiated by any
6

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 7 of 32
person other than City employees or officials acting in their official capacity:
(1) in a reasonably legible written communication, including without limitation any signed or unsigned letter, form, electronic communication or other document using written words, in any format including hard, electronic or otherwise, received by:
(i) the APD Administration; (ii) an APD Facility; (iii) any sworn or unsworn on-duty OPS employee; (iv) the OPS website or functional equivalent; or (v) any online communication to APD through the
links described in Section 2(a) or its functional equivalent.
or
(2) in an audible oral communication, including without limitation those made in-person, by telephone or via OPS hotline, received by:
(i) a member of the APD Administration at APD Facilities; or
(ii) any sworn or unsworn on-duty OPS employee.
2. Enhanced Accessibility: APD shall enhance accessibility of the OPS complaint process as follows:
(a) The City shall include a prominent link informing persons “How to Make a Complaint”: on the index page (i.e., the “main page,” or any functional equivalent) of the City website; the APD section of the City website; the APD general information website; on both the index page and the “Contact Us” page of the APD web site, which link should be functional on all user platforms, including desktops, mobile device platforms and any functional equivalents. This link shall lead users directly to a
7

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 8 of 32
page or form (or any functional equivalent) on which a Citizen Complaint can be submitted to APD.
(b) Plaintiffs are allowed to submit “test” complaints to ensure the systems (electronic and non-electronic) are working properly.
(c) On-duty uniformed sworn officers at an NPU meeting or cityrecognized neighborhood association meeting will have “informational sheets” for distribution to any person alleging APD police misconduct, and the information shall instruct how to submit an OPS complaint via the OPS WEB site and OPS telephone hotline.
(d) Informational sheets, as described in subparagraph c, will be available at all APD Facilities in a visible location that is accessible by the public without assistance from APD personnel.
3. Effective Date. The provisions of this Part III Section A shall be implemented within 30 days of the entry of this Order. The provisions of this Part III Section B shall be implemented by the latter of 30 days after entry of this Order or January 15, 2019, with the exception of the Web page enhancement described in Paragraph 2(a), which shall be implemented within 90 days after entry of this Order.
C. Monitoring Facilitation
1. For Citizen Complaints that are assigned an OPS Complaint number by APD, the City shall produce the following on a monthly basis, on or before the 15th day of the following month, beginning on the latter of 30 days after entry of this Order or January 15, 2019:
(a) A spreadsheet indicating, with regard to each Citizen Complaint opened, open or closed during the immediately preceding month:
(i) the date the complaint was made; (ii) the name of the person making the complaint; (iii) the file number assigned to the complaint;
8

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 9 of 32
(iv) the name(s) of the officer(s) against whom the complaint was made;
(v) the law, rule, or SOP the officer was alleged to have violated;
(vi) the date that the complaint was finally adjudicated; (vii) the final disposition of the complaint (i.e., whether
the complaint was sustained, not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated) and (viii) the nature of any discipline imposed (e.g., oral admonishment, written reprimand, the duration of any suspension, dismissal, etc.).
(b) Electronically searchable PDF files of all documents created or maintained in the ordinary course of business in conjunction with any of the citizen complaints listed in the afore-described spreadsheet whose investigation was closed during the previous month. Each OPS investigation file shall be provided as an individual PDF document, the file name of which shall be the OPS number of the investigation (e.g., 18-X-12345-XXX.pdf).
2. For Citizen Complaints that are not assigned an OPS Complaint number by APD, the City shall produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel the following on a monthly basis, on or before the 15th day of the following month, beginning on the latter of 30 days after entry of this Order or January 15, 2019:
(a) A spreadsheet indicating, with regard to each Citizen Complaint opened, open or closed during the immediately preceding month:
(i) the date the complaint was made; (ii) the name and contact information (if available) of
the person making the complaint; (iii) the file number assigned to the complaint (if a file
number is used or assigned); (iv) the name of the APD Administration individual
who received the complaint (if the complaint was not received by OPS); (v) whether the complaint was oral or written;
9

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 10 of 32
(vi) a factual summary of the conduct alleged by the complainant;
(vii) the date that the complaint was finally adjudicated; and
(viii) the final disposition of the complaint (e.g., whether the complaint was sustained, not sustained, unfounded, exonerated, or some other disposition).
(b) Electronically searchable PDF files of all documents created or maintained in the ordinary course of business in conjunction with any of the citizen complaints listed in the afore-described spreadsheet, including any document with the name(s) of the officer(s) against whom the complaint was made (if available), whose investigation was closed during the immediately preceding month. Each Citizen Complaint file shall be provided as an individual PDF document.
D. Sunset
1. Except for Parts III(A)(1) and (B)(1), the provisions in this Part III shall expire six years following the entry of this Order.
IV. STOP AND THINK FORMS
A. Stop and Think Forms
1. Documentation of Warrantless Seizures. With regard to any warrantless seizure (e.g. Terry stop), warrantless frisk, or warrantless search of a person conducted by an Atlanta police officer inside any residence or commercial building or structure, the City of Atlanta shall require the officer to fill out a written or electronic form before the end of his or her shift documenting the specific crime(s) of which the individual was suspected; indicating the specific facts giving rise to reasonable articulable suspicion regarding that crime; indicating whether the individual was frisked for weapons, and if so giving the specific facts giving rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that he was both armed AND dangerous; indicating whether the individual was searched for anything other than weapons, and if so giving the specific facts giving rise both to probable cause and exigent circumstances. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if the action is in immediate response to a non-police-officer-initiated 9-1-1 call. These
10

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 11 of 32
reports shall be a public record, routinely available for public inspection by electronic or other means, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act.
2. Documentation of ID Checks. With regard to any ID check over the ACIC/GCICINCIC system by an Atlanta police officer and involving persons within any residence or commercial building or structure, the City of Atlanta shall require the officer performing the check to fill out a written or electronic form before the end of his or her shift documenting the specific authority for the ID check (whether by consent or pursuant to a Terry stop or arrest), and in the case of checks pursuant to a Terry stop, to complete the form described above. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if the action is in immediate response to a non-police-officer-initiated 9-1-1 call. These reports shall be a public record, routinely available for public inspection by electronic or other means, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act.
B. Continuation of Reforms
1. The forms required in paragraph A1 and A2 above shall be public records, routinely available for public inspection by electronic or other means, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act. For the purpose of public inspection under the Open Records Act, the Forms will be available after supervisor review and approval. In the event that the content of any Form completed by an officer before the end of her or his shift (“End of Shift Form”) prior to supervisor review is not identical to the publicly available form, the City will retain for production to Plaintiffs’ counsel, as set forth below, the End of Shift Form, an audit trail showing the history of transactions associated with the End of Shift Form, and the supervisor notes associated with the audit trail. Plaintiffs’ counsel agree to keep confidential such End of Shift Forms, audit trails and supervisor notes.
2. Training and Promotion of Compliance
(a) Within thirty days of entry of this Order, the City shall cause the Chief of Police to distribute a Memorandum to all sworn staff describing the Stop and Think Forms and their proper use, explaining the New Incident Report Form (discussed below), identifying the relevant SOPs, giving examples of when Stop and Think Forms should be completed, and identifying particular units in which the completion of Stop and Think
11

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 12 of 32
Forms may be required more often. Prior to its distribution, the City shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with a draft Chief of Police Memorandum for Plaintiffs’ approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(b) Calhoun Training shall include training on the Stop and Think Forms and their proper use, including a “flow chart” explaining when the Stop and Think Forms are required and not required, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E.
(c) To prompt officers completing incident reports to also complete Stop and Think Forms when appropriate, the incident report form shall, by March 15, 2019, be modified to force completion of Stop and Think Forms unless the officer “unchecks” each of two provisions stating, in substantial effect, “You were in a commercial or residential building or structure” and “You were not immediately responding to a civilian 911 call.”
3. Monitoring Facilitation
(a) On the 15th day of each month, beginning the latter of 30 days after entry of this Order or January 15, 2019, the City shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with the following information for the immediately preceding month: (i) each Stop and Think Form (in the form of an individual PDF document for each Stop and Think Form) and the corresponding incident report (in the form of an individual PDF document for each incident report); (ii) each End of Shift Form that differs from the corresponding publicly available Stop and Think Form (in the form of an individual PDF document for each such End of Shift Form) and the corresponding audit trail and supervisor notes (in the form of an individual PDF document for each End of Shift Form, or other format acceptable to Plaintiffs); (iii) all criminal trespass warnings recorded electronically (in the form of an Excel spreadsheet with a row for each criminal trespass warning and a column for each field in the criminal trespass warning template); (iv) copies of all criminal trespass warnings that were created in paper form (in the form of an individual PDF
12

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 13 of 32
document for each paper criminal trespass warning); and (v) all Field Interview Forms, as currently contained in the Field Contact Module referenced in SOP 3065 § 4.4.1, or any functional equivalent (in the form of an Excel spreadsheet with a row for each Field Interview Form and a column for each field in the Field Interview Form template). Plaintiffs will not assert any violation or contempt with regard to any missing or improperly-completed Stop and Think Form completed before March 1, 2019. The parties understand that the Plaintiffs’ counsel will also request in discovery GCIC/ACIC/NCIC records from time to time, and data from individual APD incident reports (in the form of an Excel spreadsheet with a row for each incident report and a column for each field in the incident report template).
(b) For a six-month period beginning on or about April 15, 2019, the parties will have monthly meetings to address whether the procedures set forth above are sufficient or necessary to promote reasonable compliance by APD police officers with the Stop and Think Form requirement. Such meetings may continue thereafter on an as needed basis.
C. Sunset
1. The provisions in Part IV shall expire six years following the entry of this Order.
V. IDENTIFICATION
A. Identification Requirement for APD Officers
1. The City of Atlanta shall require all Atlanta police officers who are in uniform, other than a rain slicker or traffic direction vest, to wear a conspicuously visible nametag, and to require any Atlanta police officer who is in uniform or has displayed a badge or other indicia of police authority (such as a police vest, etc.), to identify himself by name and badge number upon request at some point before the end of an encounter with a civilian.
13

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 14 of 32
B. Continuation of Reform
1. APD’s Standard Operating Procedure SOP.2130 pertaining to Dress Code (or any future functional equivalent) shall include a section requiring that any Atlanta police officer who is in uniform must, at all times, wear a conspicuously visible nametag, and emphasizing that the only exception to this requirement is a rain slicker or traffic direction vest. No APD SOP shall supersede or contradict this section of SOP.2130.
2. APD’s Standard Operating Procedure SOP.2010 pertaining to Work Rules (or any future functional equivalent) shall include a section requiring any Atlanta police officer who is in uniform or has displayed a badge or other indicia of police authority (such as a police vest, etc.), to identify himself by name and badge number upon request at some point before the end of an encounter with a civilian.
3. APD recruits shall be trained on the name tag and identification requirements.
4. All APD supervisors who identify a police officer in uniform, whether on duty or off duty, without a conspicuously visible nametag, shall initiate an OPS investigation, discipline, or issue a written reprimand where deemed appropriate.
C. Monitoring Facilitation
The City shall make available for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel, by the 15th day of each month (beginning no less than 30 days after the entry of this Order), all videos and photographs (including BWC, handheld, dashcam) of operations by officers in “tactical” and “SWAT-type” gear or uniforms conducted the immediately preceding calendar month, except for such videos and photographs that are exempt from public disclosure under the Georgia Open Records Act (OCGA §50-18-72) or other applicable Federal or State law, which videos and photographs shall be made available when they are no longer exempt. Plaintiffs’ counsel agree to keep confidential information received pursuant to this Paragraph C. The City understands that Plaintiffs’ counsel may also be requesting videos in discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
14

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 15 of 32
D. Sunset
1. The provisions in Part V(B) “Continuation of Reform” and Part V(C) “Monitoring Facilitation” shall expire six years following the entry of this Order.
VI. NO INTERFERENCE WITH AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDINGS
The City of Atlanta shall prohibit Atlanta police officers from interfering in any way with a citizen's right to make video, audio, or photographic recordings of police activity, as long as such recording does not physically interfere with the performance of an officer's duty.
VII. DISCOVERY
1. Plaintiffs are granted the right to conduct post-judgment discovery to monitor compliance with this Order pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and all Standing Orders of this Court.
2. The Parties agree that the City’s compliance with the document production requirements set forth in this Order should facilitate Plaintiffs’ ability to monitor the City’s compliance with the Order and accordingly reduce Plaintiffs’ discovery requirements.
3. The City shall comply within 20 days with any request made by Plaintiffs’ counsel for discovery. Any such request from Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be accompanied by an explanation of the reason for additional information or documents to monitor compliance with this Order. Any records or documents that would not be subject to disclosure under the Georgia Open Records Act shall be used by Plaintiffs’ counsel solely for the purpose of monitoring the City’s compliance with this Order and shall not be disclosed to the public.
4. In any instance in which the City objects to or seeks clarification of a discovery request, the City shall present such objections or requests for clarification in writing to Plaintiffs’ counsel within 5 working days of receipt of the request, including the specific bases for each objection or the nature of any ambiguity. Within 5 working days thereafter the parties shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve the dispute. Plaintiffs’ counsel will waive attorneys’ fees for the first hour of such a meeting. If a dispute remains, the City must, within 10
15

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 16 of 32
working days of the parties’ meeting, do the following: (1) produce complete, responsive records or (2) petition the Court for relief.
5. The provisions in this Part VII shall expire six years following the entry of this Order.
VIII. IMPORTANCE OF MONITORING FACILITATION
The parties agree that enforcement of this Order is dependent upon the timely, full and accurate production of the records and information required to be provided under this Order, and the City acknowledges and understands that failure of the City to comply will be raised with this Court.
IX. ATTORNEY FEES
1. The City shall pay Plaintiffs’ counsel their reasonable attorney fees and reimburse any costs they reasonably expend in ensuring compliance with the Orders of this Court. The City shall pay these sums directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel upon receipt (i.e., within thirty calendar days) of each itemized accounting of reasonable time and expenses.
2. If the City believes any element of such itemized accounting to be unreasonable, the City shall present such objections, including the specific bases for each objection, in writing to Plaintiffs’ counsel within 5 calendar days of receipt of such accounting. Within 5 calendar days thereafter, the parties shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve the dispute. If a dispute remains, the City must, within 10 business days of the date it raised its objections, do one of the following: (1) pay Plaintiffs’ counsel’s accounting as presented; or (2) petition the Court, in a writing served on Plaintiffs’ counsel, for relief.
3. The parties recognize that the Plaintiffs’ counsel are entitled to compensation for their reasonably expended monitoring hours under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The City also acknowledges that certain aspects of the monitoring regime and mechanisms may require Plaintiffs’ counsel to expend significant and compensable time.
4. The provisions in this Part IX (“Attorney Fees”) shall expire six years following the entry of this Order.
16

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 17 of 32
X. STATEMENT This Consent Order represents the desire and agreement of the parties to focus on ensuring compliance by the City in the future, rather than litigating Plaintiffs’ allegations of the City’s non-compliance. The parties view this Consent Order as their good-faith effort to both advance compliance with Orders of this Court and as an important tool advancing APD’s work to ensure both public safety and respect for citizens’ constitutional rights.
XI. THIS ORDER SUPERCEDES PREVIOUS ORDERS This Order shall supersede this Court’s Orders of December 8, 2010, December 15, 2011, May 19, 2015 and all orders subsequent to May 19, 2015. Nothing in this Order shall preclude any party from filing a motion to modify any part of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2018.
_____________________ Timothy C. Batten, Sr. United States District Judge
17

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 18 of 32
(;+,%,7$

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 19 of 32
EXHIBIT A Constitutional Principles
a) Police officers may not lawfully detain any individual without reasonable articulable suspicion, particularized to the person being detained (i.e., a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person") that the individual is involved in specific and identifiable criminal activity.
A police officer may conduct a brief, investigatory stop of a person when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that that person is involved in criminal activity (A "Terry stop"). While "reasonable suspicion" is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the Terry stop. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' " of criminal activity by the person. Illinois v. Warlaw, 528 U.S. 119, 122 (2000) (citations omitted). The officer must have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979). Also, the officer's action must be " 'justified at its inception, and . . . reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.'" United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968)).
b) Police officers may not lawfully take or demand identification, or require an individual to identify himself, without reasonable suspicion, based on objective criteria, that the individual is engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.
When a police officer is conducting a Terry stop on the basis of reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is engaged or has engaged in criminal activity, the officer may demand that a person identify himself or display identification. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979). In the absence of a lawful Terry stop, a police officer may not lawfully take identification or demand an individual to identify himself.
Exhibit A Page 1 of 3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 20 of 32
c) Police officers may not lawfully frisk an individual for weapons without a reasonable belief, directed at the particular person to be frisked, that the person is both armed and presently dangerous.
During a lawful Terry stop, a police officer for his own protection and safety may conduct a patdown of a person to find weapons that he reasonably believes or suspects are then in the possession of the person he has stopped. Police may not conduct a generalized "cursory search for weapons" or any search whatever for anything but weapons. The "narrow scope" of the Terry exception does not permit a frisk for weapons on less than reasonable belief or suspicion directed at the person to be frisked, even though that person happens to be on premises where an authorized narcotics search is taking place. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 93 (1979).
d) A warrantless arrest is constitutionally valid only when there is probable cause to arrest. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 417 (1976). Probable cause exists if, "at the moment the arrest was made, 'the facts and circumstances within [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing' that [the suspect] had committed or was committing an offense." United States v. Floyd, 281 F.3d 1346, 1348 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Gonzalez, 969 F.2d 999, 1002 (11th Cir. 1992). "Probable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149 (1972). "[P]robable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, and that the belief of guilt must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized." Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003).
e) An arrest requiring probable cause is defined using an objective standard: whether the suspect is '''subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest. '" United States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141, 1149 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 441 (1984)).
f) In the absence of a lawful arrest, voluntary consent, or the exception commonly known as "the plain feel exception," a police officer may not
Exhibit A Page 2 of 3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 21 of 32
lawfully search an individual for anything other than weapons without either a search warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances.
As to the "plain feel exception," if in conducting a lawful Terry patdown for weapons a police officer in lawfully patting down a suspect's outer clothing feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent as contraband, it may be seized without a warrant. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 37-376 (1993).
g) Police officers may not lawfully arrest an individual in his or her home without either an arrest warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
h) A police officer may not enter a suspect's home without a search warrant or voluntary consent unless probable cause and exigent circumstances exist, and any resulting search and seizure is prohibited under the Fourth Amendment. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980). Exigent circumstances exist "when the inevitable delay incident to obtaining a warrant must give way to an urgent need for immediate action." United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 844 (11th Cir. 1984). Situations in which exigent circumstances exist include: "danger of flight or escape; danger of [physical] harm to police officers or the general public; risk of loss, destruction, removal, or concealment of evidence; and 'hot pursuit' of a fleeing suspect." United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 1325 (11th Cir. 1983). "The mere presence of contraband, however, does not give rise to exigent circumstances." United States v. Lynch, 934 F.2d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 1991). Rather, "the appropriate inquiry is whether the facts ... would lead a reasonable, experienced [officer] to believe that evidence might be destroyed before a warrant could be secured." United States v. Tobin, 923 F .2d 1506, 1510 (11th Cir. 1991).
Exhibit A Page 3 of 3

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 22 of 32
(;+,%,7%

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 23 of 32
EXHIBIT B Calhoun SOP Topics
a) Identification Requirement.
All Atlanta police officers who are in uniform, other than a rain slicker or traffic direction vest, must wear a conspicuously visible nametag, and to require any Atlanta police officer who is in uniform or has displayed a badge or other indicia of police authority (such as a police vest, etc.), to identify himself by name and badge number upon request at some point before the end of an encounter with a civilian.
b) Interference with Audio and Video Recordings.
The City shall prohibit Atlanta police officers from interfering in any way with a citizen's right to make video, audio, or photographic recordings of police activity, as long as such recording does not physically interfere with the performance of an officer's duty.
c) Documentation of Warrantless Seizures (e.g. Terry Stops), Warrantless Frisks, Warrantless Searches of a Person, and ID Checks over the ACIC/GCICINCIC System.
With regard to any warrantless seizure (e.g. Terry stop), warrantless frisk, or warrantless search of a person conducted by an Atlanta police officer inside any residence or commercial building or structure, an officer must fill out a written or electronic form before the end of his or her shift documenting the specific crime(s) of which the individual was suspected; indicating the specific facts giving rise to reasonable articulable suspicion regarding that crime; indicating whether the individual was frisked for weapons, and if so giving the specific facts giving rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that he was both armed AND dangerous; indicating whether the individual was searched for anything other than weapons, and if so giving the specific facts giving rise both to probable cause and exigent circumstances. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if the action is in immediate response to a non-police-officerinitiated 9-1-1 call. These reports shall be a public record, routinely available for public inspection by electronic or other means, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act.
Exhibit B Page 1 of 2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 24 of 32
With regard to any ID check over the ACIC/GCICINCIC system by an Atlanta police officer and involving persons within any residence or commercial building or structure, the officer performing the check must fill out a written or electronic form before the end of his or her shift documenting the specific authority for the ID check (whether by consent or pursuant to a Terry stop or arrest), and in the case of checks pursuant to a Terry stop, to complete the form described above. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if the action is in immediate response to a non-police-officer-initiated 9-1-1 call. These reports shall be a public. record, routinely available for public inspection by electronic or other means, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act. d) Citizen Complaints. APD shall investigate and finally adjudicate all citizen complaints of police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint. e) Aiming Weapon. An officer is prohibited from pointing or aiming a weapon at a person unless the discharge of the weapon would be justifiable. f) Greenberg Traurig LLP Report The results of the "Investigation of Officer Conduct" as reflected in "Greenberg Traurig, LLP's APO.SOP 20.20 § 3.4.1 Final Report Regarding The Planning, Execution, And Subsequent Conduct Related To The 'Eagle Raid"' presented on June 27, 2011.
Exhibit B Page 2 of 2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 25 of 32
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 26 of 32
EXHIBIT C VIDEO:
“APPROVED TRAINING”

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 27 of 32
EXHIBIT D

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 28 of 32
Exhibit D- Calhoun SOPs All SOP Sections below refer to the Sections in effect on November 28, 2018*
SOP 2010 – Work Rules Section 4.2.22 (3) – Nametags Section 4.2.23 (1) – Nametags Section 4.6.9 (2) – Pointing of firearms
SOP 2011– General Conduct Section 4.4.1 – Interfering with citizen’s right to record
SOP 2130 – Dress Code Section 4.1.2 – Nametags
SOP 3020 – Search and Seizure Section 4.1.6 –Taking or demanding identification Section 4.3.1 (1) – Constitutional preference for searches pursuant to warrant Section 4.3.1 (2) – Justification for warrantless search Section 4.3.1 (3) – Warrantless search, plain view doctrine Section 4.5.1 – Stop and frisk Section 4.5.2 – Exigent circumstances Section 4.5.11– Documentation of ID Checks
Exhibit D
Page 1 of 2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 29 of 32
SOP 3020 – Search and Seizure Section 5.9 – Definition of “probable cause” Section 5.10 – Definition of “reasonable articulable suspicion” Section 5.15 – Definition of “stop and frisk”
SOP 3030 – Arrest Procedures Section 4.1.4 (1)(a-e) – Arrest without a warrant Section 4.1.7 (6) – Documentation Section 5.4 – Definition of “probable cause”
SOP 3060 – Report Writing Section 4.7– Documentation of ID Checks
SOP 3065 – Field Interviews Section 4.1.1 – Stops Section 4.3.4 – De-escalation after stop
*The following SOPs were in effect on November 28, 2018: SOP 2010 – Work Rules (Effective Date September 15, 2015) SOP 2011– General Conduct (Effective Date September 15, 2015) SOP 2130 – Dress Code (Effective Date December 15, 2017) SOP 3020 – Search and Seizure (Effective Date October 15, 2018) SOP 3030 – Arrest Procedures (Effective Date September 1, 2017) SOP 3060 – Report Writing (Effective Date June 1, 2015) SOP 3065 – Field Interviews (Effective Date June 1, 2015)
Exhibit D
Page 2 of 2

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 30 of 32
EXHIBIT E

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 31 of 32

Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 434 Filed 11/29/18 Page 32 of 32

IS THE DEMOGRAPHIC MODULE NEEDED?
Were you inside of a RESIDENCE or COMMERCIAL BUILDING or STRUCTURE

IF NO STOP

IF YES H

Were you IMMEDIATELY responding to a CIVILIAN 911 call?

IF YES STOP

IF NO H

While inside of the LOCATION, did you CONDUCT any of the following

IF NO STOP

IF YES H

COMPLETE THE DEMOGRAPHIC MODULE
EVEN IF YOU COMPLETED AN INCIDENT REPORT

 
 6months,CLOSED,SM,SUBMDJ
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−03286−TCB

Calhoun et al v. Pennington et al Assigned to: Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Special Master Joe D. Whitley TERMINATED: 10/10/2019
Plaintiff Geoffrey Calhoun

Date Filed: 11/24/2009 Date Terminated: 12/08/2010 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Joe Dally Whitley Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.−GA Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600 3414 Peachtree Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30326−1164 404−223−2209 Fax: 404−238−9799. Email: jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel J. Grossman Daniel J. Grossman, Attorney at Law Suite 138 1579−F Monroe Drive Atlanta, GA 30324 404−664−5187 Email: dan@dangrossmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber Law Offices of Gerry Weber P.O. Box 5391 Atlanta, GA 31107 404−522−0507 Email: wgerryweber@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.−GA Suite 640 730 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30308 404−897−1880 Email: gnevins@lambdalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring Clyde & Co. US., LLP −Atl Suite 1720 271 17th Steet Atlanta, GA 30363 404−410−3150 Fax: 404−410−3151 Email: jane.warring@clydeco.us

TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303−2122 404−688−1202 Email: lkung@schr.org LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman UCLA School of Law 385 Charles E. Young Drive East Room 3472 Los Angeles, CA 90095 310−825−9562 Email: littman@law.ucla.edu TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner Vantage Point South − The Skinner Law Firm PO BOX 77005 Atlanta, GA 30357 706−215−5006 Email: clay@vpsouth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell Lambda Legal Suite 640 730 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30308 404−897−1880 ext. 231 Fax: 404−897−1884 Email: bethlittrell@bellsouth.net TERMINATED: 08/30/2018
Graham Spencer Lee Alvarez & Marsal, LLC Suite 1500 3424 Peachtree Road, NE Atlanta, GA 303026 404−260−4040 Fax: 404−260−4089 Email: glee@alvarezandmarsal.com TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett Robins Kaplan, LLP−ATL One Atlantic Center, Suite 2200 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 404−760−4300 Fax: 404−233−1267 Email: madisonburnett@gsu.edu TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, NY 34th Floor 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−980−7400

Plaintiff Benjamin Cheaves
Plaintiff John Curran

Email: mrbutler@rkmc.com TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address)

Plaintiff Alan Dale

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman

Plaintiff Mark Danak

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address)

Plaintiff Christopher Daniels
Plaintiff Thomas Fast

TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell

Plaintiff Sean Gaboya

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Thomas Hayes

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010

Plaintiff Brian Hughes
Plaintiff Kenneth Keck

Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Nicholas Koperski

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Marlow

Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Raymond Matheson

Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010

Plaintiff Robert McLendon, III
Plaintiff Saverio Monteleone

Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Matthew Presley

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins

Plaintiff M. Du−Wayne Ray

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019

Plaintiff David Shepherd
Plaintiff Allan Vives

Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ramey & Kelley, Inc. a Georgia corporation doing business as Atlanta Eagle

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung

Plaintiff
Rawhide Leather, Inc. a Georgia corporation

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Lisa L. Kung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address)

Plaintiff Felix Garcia
Plaintiff Jeffrey McLeod

TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell

Plaintiff Chris Schmaltz

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address)

Plaintiff David Thomas

TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address)

Plaintiff Robert Treutel, Jr.
Plaintiff Gary Ziemer

TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
represented by Daniel J. Grossman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald R. Weber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Nevins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane Warring (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/12/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

V.
Defendant
Richard Pennington individually

Aaron Michael Littman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2019
Clayton Skinner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Littrell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/30/2018
Graham Spencer Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Katharine Madison Burnett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2015
Marla R. Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/10/2015
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman City of Atlanta Law Department 55 Trinity Avenue, SW Suite 5000 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−546−4100 Email: aiwyattbullman@atlantaga.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad Maiysha Rashad, Esq. 960 St. Charles Ave #10 Atlanta, GA 30306 917−476−9151 Email: maiysharashadesq@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar City of Atlanta Law Department 55 Trinity Avenue, SW Suite 5000 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−546−4171 Email: rshahar@AtlantaGA.gov TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Dennis McRay Young Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation−DC 550 17th Street, NW Room F−2026 Washington, DC 20429 404−330−6400

Defendant City of Atlanta

Email: deyoung@fdic.gov TERMINATED: 07/23/2010
LaShawn W. Terry City of Atlanta, Department of Law 55 Trinity Avenue SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404−546−4178 Fax: 404−546−9535 Email: lterry@atlantaga.gov TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey City of Atlanta, Department of Law 55 Trinity Avenue SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404−546−4137 Fax: 404−494−1685 Email: rgodfrey@atlantaga.gov TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller City of Atlanta Law Department Suite 5000 55 Trinity Avenue, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303−3520 404−546−4083 Email: sjmiller@atlantaga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power Daniels & Taylor, PC Suite 300 390 West Crogan Street Lawrenceville, GA 30046 770−962−4070 Fax: 404−651−5304 Email: steve@thepowerfirm.net TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines City of Atlanta, Department of Law 55 Trinity Avenue SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404−546−4115 Fax: 404−546−8366 Email: tbaines@atlantaga.gov TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Bennie E. Bridges individually

Bruce P. Brown Bruce P. Brown Law Suite 6 1123 Zonolite Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30306 404−881−0700 Fax: . Email: bbrown@brucepbrownlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/2010
Joe Dally Whitley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/22/2016
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Richard J. Valladares Greenberg Traurig, LLP Terminus 200, Suite 2500 3333 Piedmont Road NE Atlanta, GA 30305 678−553−2100 Fax: 678−553−4745 Email: valladaresr@gtlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/18/2017
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Marlon O. Noble individually

Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/2010
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/2010
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016

Defendant Jared G. Watkins individually
Defendant John/Jane Does 1−45 individually TERMINATED: 03/17/2010

represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/2010
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman City of Atlanta Law Department Suite 5000 55 Trinity Avenue, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303−3520 404−546−4100 Email: aiwyattbullman@atlantaga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant George Turner Interim Chief of Police for the City of Atlanta, in his official capacity
Defendant Willie Adams, III individually

represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address)

Defendant John H. Brock
Defendant Dimitrio O. Caldwell

TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kelly Collier individually

Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016

Defendant Craig Condon individually
Defendant Gregory D. Dabney individually

Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Stalone Davis individually

Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Christipher Dowd individually
Defendant Jeremy D. Edwards individually

Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Herman E. Glass individually

Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines

Defendant Robert C. Godwin individually
Defendant Brandon Jackson individually

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Dimitri Jaques individually
Defendant

LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by

Melonie Mague individually
Defendant Vicente Marcano individually

Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016

Defendant Cayenne Mayes individually
Defendant Timothy McClain individually

Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James Menzoian individually

Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016

Defendant Dion Meridith individually
Defendant Scott Pautsch individually

Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Darnell Perry individually

Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power

Defendant Scott Perry individually
Defendant William Porter individually

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Edward Rabb individually

Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address)

Defendant Cedric F. Smith individually
Defendant Tyrone Taylor individually

TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Kelleita Thurman individually
Defendant Stephanie Upton individually

LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address)

Defendant
Ronald J. Walker individually

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey

Defendant William Walters individually
Defendant Debra A. Williams individually

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
represented by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis McRay Young (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maiysha Rashad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Joy Shahar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
LaShawn W. Terry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Robert Nathaniel Godfrey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016
Staci J. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Power (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2010
Tamara Nikki Baines (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2016

Date Filed 11/24/2009
11/24/2009 11/24/2009 11/24/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Consent form to proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions provided. (Filing fee $350 receipt number 18636.) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(alc) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 11/25/2009)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel J. Grossman on behalf of Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (alc) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Graham Spencer Lee on behalf of Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (alc) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Lynn Littrell on behalf of Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (alc) (Entered: 11/25/2009)

11/24/2009
11/25/2009 11/30/2009 12/07/2009 12/09/2009 12/17/2009 01/19/2010
01/19/2010
01/19/2010
02/04/2010
02/04/2010 02/05/2010 02/05/2010

5 Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement, filed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (alc) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
6 INSTRUCTIONS to Parties and Counsel. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 11/25/2009. (alc) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
Clerks Notation re 5 Certificate of Interested Persons reviewed by TCB. (jgs) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
7 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to atty Daniel J. Grossman at Powell Goldstein Frazer and Murphy re 6 Instructions to Parties and Counsel. (alc) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
Clerk's Certificate of Re−Mailing as to atty Daniel J. Grossman re 6 Instructions to Parties and Counsel. Documents mailed to atty at new address of Daniel J. Grossman, Attorney at Law, Suite 138, 1579−F Monroe Drive, Atlanta, GA 30324 (new address as updated on the docket). (alc) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
8 Summons Issued as to Richard Pennington, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins. (alc) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. B.E. Bridges (in his official capacity) waiver mailed on 12/30/2009, answer due 3/1/2010. (Lee, Graham) Modified on 2/26/2010 to add notation re capacity (alc). (Entered: 01/19/2010)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. City of Atlanta waiver mailed on 12/30/2009, answer due 3/1/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Richard Pennington waiver mailed on 12/30/2009, answer due 3/1/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
12 MOTION for Clerks Entry of Default of Defendant Richard Pennington by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
13 PROPOSED ORDER Default Judgment as to Richard Pennington . (Lee, Graham) Modified on 2/5/2010 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (alc). (Entered: 02/04/2010)
Notification of Docket Correction re 13 PROPOSED ORDER Default Judgment as to Richard Pennington: the docket has been corrected to accurately reflect the e−filed pleading as a proposed order. (alc) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
14 Return of Service Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels,

02/05/2010
02/11/2010 02/25/2010
02/26/2010
02/26/2010
02/26/2010 03/01/2010 03/02/2010 03/09/2010 03/11/2010 03/11/2010

Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Richard Pennington in his individual capacity served on 1/2/2010, answer due 1/25/2010. (Lee, Graham) Modified on 2/5/2010 to add text re defendant capacity and correct answer due date (alc). (Entered: 02/05/2010)
Notification of Docket Correction re 14 Return of Service Executed as to Richard Pennington: the docket text has been updated to reflect the service executed as to Defendant in his individual capacity, with corresponding answer due date of 1/25/2010. (Note: Defendant in his official capacity waived service via the 11 Waiver of Service Executed, with corresponding answer due date of 3/1/2010). (alc) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
15 MOTION to Set Aside Default by Richard Pennington. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Affidavit of Amber A. Robinson, # 4 Affidavit of Dennis M. Young)(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
16 RESPONSE re 15 MOTION to Set Aside Default filed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Graham S. Lee)(Lee, Graham) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
17 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. B.E. Bridges waiver (in his individual capacity) mailed on 2/18/2010, answer due 4/19/2010. (Lee, Graham) Modified on 2/26/2010 to add notation re capacity (alc). (Entered: 02/26/2010)
18 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Marlon O. Noble waiver (in his individual capacity) mailed on 2/18/2010, answer due 4/19/2010. (Lee, Graham) Modified on 3/1/2010 to add notation re capacity (alc). (Entered: 02/26/2010)
Submission of 12 MOTION for Clerk's Entry of Default of Defendant Richard Pennington, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. (alc) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
19 City Defendants' ANSWER to 1 COMPLAINT by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins. Discovery ends on 7/29/2010.(Young, Dennis) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 03/01/2010)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen A. Power on behalf of Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins. (Power, Stephen) Modified on 3/2/2010 to remove John/Jane Does 1−45 as filers (alc). (Entered: 03/02/2010)
21 First Initial Disclosures by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins. (Power, Stephen) Modified on 3/10/2010 to remove John/Jane Does 1−45 as filers (alc). (Entered: 03/09/2010)
22 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Robert Kelley filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
23 NOTICE to Take Deposition of David Shepherd filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)

03/11/2010 03/11/2010 03/11/2010 03/11/2010 03/11/2010 03/11/2010 03/11/2010 03/11/2010 03/12/2010 03/12/2010 03/12/2010 03/12/2010 03/12/2010 03/12/2010 03/12/2010 03/12/2010 03/12/2010

24 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Matthew Pressley filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
25 NOTICE to Take Deposition of David Thomas filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
26 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Thomas Hayes filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
27 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Kenneth Keck filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
28 NOTICE to Take Deposition of John Curran filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
29 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Nicholas Koperski filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
30 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Geoffrey Calhoun filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
31 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Brian Hughes filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
32 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mark Danak filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
33 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Raymond Matheson filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
34 NOTICE to Take Deposition of M. Du−Wayne Ray filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
35 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Rob Treutel filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
36 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Benjamin Cheaves filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
37 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Gary Ziemer filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
38 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Sean Gaboya filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
39 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Robert Marlow filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
40 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Alan Dale filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)

03/12/2010 03/15/2010 03/16/2010 03/17/2010
03/19/2010
03/22/2010 03/22/2010 03/23/2010
03/23/2010

41 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Thomas Fast filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
42 Initial Disclosures by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Littrell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
43 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Robert Marlow filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, B.E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, J.G. Watkins (Power, Stephen) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
44 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr., and Gary Ziemer. (Littrell, Elizabeth) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on 3/18/2010 to add Garcia, McLeod, Schmaltz, Thomas, Treutel, and Ziemer as filers (alc). (Entered: 03/17/2010)
45 Joint PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, Bennie E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, Jared G. Watkins. (Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 3/22/2010 to add dft co−filers (alc). (Entered: 03/19/2010)
46 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Melonie Mague waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
47 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Debra A. Williams waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
48 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Felix Garcia filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, Bennie E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, Jared G. Watkins, George Turner, Willie Adams, III, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Scott Pautsch, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Debra A. Williams (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
49 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jeffrey McLeod filed by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, Bennie E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, Jared G. Watkins, George Turner, Willie Adams, III, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon,

03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010

Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Scott Pautsch, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Debra A. Williams (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
50 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. George Turner waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
51 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Willie Adams, III waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
52 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. John H. Brock waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
53 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Dimitrio O. Caldwell waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
54 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Kelly Collier waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
55 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Craig Condon waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
56 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian

03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010

Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Gregory D. Dabney waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
57 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Stalone Davis waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
58 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Christipher Dowd waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
59 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Herman E. Glass waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
60 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Robert C. Godwin waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
61 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Brandon Jackson waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
62 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Dimitri Jaques waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
63 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Cayenne Mayes waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)

03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010

64 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Timothy McClain waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
65 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. James Menzoian waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
66 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Dion Meridith waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
67 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Scott Pautsch waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
68 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Darnell Perry waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
69 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. William Porter waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
70 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Edward Rabb waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
71 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary

03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010

Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Cedric F. Smith waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
72 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Tyrone Taylor waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
73 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Kelleita Thurman waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
74 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Ronald J. Walker waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
75 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. William Walters waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
76 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Jared G. Watkins waiver mailed on 3/15/2010, answer due 5/14/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
77 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Jeremy D. Edwards waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
78 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Vicente Marcano waiver mailed on

03/26/2010 03/29/2010 04/01/2010 04/02/2010 04/02/2010 04/05/2010
04/05/2010
04/05/2010

3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
79 NOTICE of Appearance by Dennis McRay Young on behalf of Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, Bennie E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, Jared G. Watkins, George Turner, Willie Adams, III, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Scott Pautsch, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Debra A. Williams (Young, Dennis) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
80 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Stephanie Upton waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
Submission of 15 MOTION to Set Aside Default, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. (alc) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
81 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiffs First Request For Production To Defendant City Of Atlanta by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
82 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. Scott Perry waiver mailed on 3/17/2010, answer due 5/17/2010. (Lee, Graham) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
83 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Willie Adams, III by Geoffrey Calhoun, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service and add co−filers (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
84 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Bennie E. Bridges by Geoffrey Calhoun, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III..(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service and add co−filers (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
85 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant John H. Brock by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives,

04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010

Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
86 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Dimitrio O. Caldwell by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
87 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant City of Atlanta by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
88 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Kelly Collier by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
89 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Craig Condon by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
90 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Gregory D. Dabney by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
91 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Darnell Perry by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel)

04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010

Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
92 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Stalone Davis by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Robert Treutel, Jr. (Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service and add Treutel as co−filer (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
93 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Christipher Dowd by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
94 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Jeremy D. Edwards by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
95 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Herman E. Glass by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
96 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Robert C. Godwin by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
97 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Brandon Jackson by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Dimitri Jaques by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives,

04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010

Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
99 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Melonie Mague by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Vicente Marcano by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
101 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Cayenne Mayes by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Timothy McClain by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant James Menzoian by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Dion Meridith by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)

04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010

105 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Marlon O. Noble by Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Saverio Monteleone.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service and add Monteleone as co−filer (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
106 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production to Defendant Scott Pautsch by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service and remove George Turner as filer (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production to Defendant Richard Pennington by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant William Porter by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
109 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Edward Rabb by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
110 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Scott Perry by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Cedric F. Smith by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas,

04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/05/2010

Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
112 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Tyrone Taylor by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Kelleita Thurman by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Stephanie Upton by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
115 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Ronald J. Walker by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
116 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant William Walters by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
117 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production and First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Jared G. Watkins by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)

04/05/2010
04/07/2010 04/07/2010 04/07/2010 04/12/2010 04/13/2010 04/19/2010 04/19/2010
04/28/2010

118 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery − Plaintiffs' First Request for Production to Defendant Debra Williams by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 4/6/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 04/05/2010)
119 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Scott Pautsch by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Debra Williams by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
121 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' First Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant Richard Pennington by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
122 SCHEDULING ORDER approving the 45 Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. The time limits for adding parties, amending pleadings, filing motions, completing discovery, and discussing settlement are as set out in the FRCP and NDGa LR, except as herein modified: the discovery period shall be 6 months. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 4/12/2010. (alc) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
123 ORDER DENYING Plaintiffs' 12 Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default and GRANTING Defendant Pennington's 15 Motion to Set Aside Default. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 4/13/2010. (alc) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
124 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): April 27−May 7, 2010; May 14−May 21, 2010 and July 12−23, 2010, by Gerald R. Weber. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
125 City Defendants' First Amended ANSWER to 44 Amended Complaint by Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, Bennie E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, Jared G. Watkins, George Turner, Willie Adams, III, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Scott Pautsch, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Debra A. Williams.(Power, Stephen) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on 4/20/2010 to remove capitalization (alc). (Entered: 04/19/2010)
126 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production to Defendant City of Atlanta by City of Atlanta.(Power, Stephen) (Entered: 04/28/2010)

05/19/2010 05/21/2010 05/24/2010
05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010

127 Certificate of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Dennis M. Young replacing Stephen A. Power as Counsel for Defendants. (Power, Stephen) Modified on 5/20/2010 to update text to more accurately reflect e−filed pleading (alc). (Entered: 05/19/2010)
128 Request for Leave of Absence for the following dates: June 9 through June 11, June 24 through June 25, and July 1 through July 23, 2010, by Gregory Nevins (Nevins, Gregory) Modified on 5/24/2010 to correct text to more accurately reflect e−filed pleading (alc). (Entered: 05/21/2010)
129 DOCUMENT FILING ERROR &nbsp &nbsp CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Sgt. Kelly Collier's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Collier by Bennie E. Bridges(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to indicate filing error (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
130 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Bennie Bridges' Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by Bennie E. Bridges.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to correct filer (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
131 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant John Brock's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by John H. Brock.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to correct filer (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
132 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Sgt. Kelly Collier's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by Kelly Collier.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to correct filer (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
133 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Gregory Dabney's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by Gregory D. Dabney.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to correct filer (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
134 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Jeremy Edwards' Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by Jeremy D. Edwards.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to correct filer (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
135 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Herman Glass's Response to Planitiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by Herman E. Glass.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to correct filer (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
136 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant Robert Godwin's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by Robert C. Godwin.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to correct filer (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
137 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Melonie Mague.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
138 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Melonie Mague.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
139 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Vicente Marcano.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Vicente Marcano.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
141 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Timothy McClain.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
142 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Timothy McClain.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)

05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010
05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010
05/24/2010 05/25/2010
05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010

143 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Marlon O. Noble.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
144 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Marlon O. Noble.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Kelleita Thurman.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
146 DOCUMENT FILING ERROR − DUPLICATE PDF &nbsp &nbsp CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Kelleita Thurman.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to correct text re subject of service and indicate filing error (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
147 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Jared G. Watkins.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
148 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Jared G. Watkins.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
149 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Dimitrio O. Caldwell.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
150 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Dimitrio O. Caldwell.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
151 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Willie Adams, III.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
152 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Willie Adams, III.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
153 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by James Menzoian.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
154 DOCUMENT FILING ERROR − DUPLICATE PDF &nbsp &nbsp CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by James Menzoian.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 5/25/2010 to indicate filing error (alc). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
155 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by James Menzoian.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
Notification of Docket Correction re 129 Certificate of Service: this entry has been notated as a filing error, atty having attached an incorrect PDF during filing. Atty subsequently refiled the Certificates of Service Defendants Sgt. Kelly Collier and Bennie E. Bridge's Responses to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories and Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents at 132 and 130 , respectively. Notification of Docket Correction re 146 and 154 Certificates of Service: these entries have been notated as filing errors as they are duplicates of other filed entries ( 145 and 153 , respectively). (alc) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
156 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Debra A. Williams.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
157 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Richard Pennington.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
158 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Scott Perry.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
159 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Cedric F. Smith.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
160 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by

05/28/2010 06/10/2010
06/11/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010

City of Atlanta.(Young, Dennis) Modified on 6/1/2010 to correct text re RPD designation (alc). (Entered: 05/28/2010)
161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Edward Rabb.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
162 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 6/14/2010 to update text (alc). (Entered: 06/10/2010)
163 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production by City of Atlanta.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
164 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Willie Adams, III.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
165 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Craig Condon.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
166 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Stalone Davis.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
167 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Christipher Dowd.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
168 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Brandon Jackson.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
169 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Dimitri Jaques.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
170 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Cayenne Mayes.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
171 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by James Menzoian.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
172 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Dion Meridith.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
173 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Continuing Interrogatories by Scott Pautsch.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
174 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Darnell Perry.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
175 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by William Porter.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
176 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Tyrone

06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010 06/16/2010
06/18/2010 06/23/2010
06/24/2010 07/23/2010 07/26/2010 07/28/2010
07/28/2010

Taylor.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
177 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Stephanie Upton.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
178 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by Ronald J. Walker.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
179 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Continuing Interrogatories by William Walters.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
180 NOTICE of Subpoena to Yahoo! Inc., filed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
181 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs' 162 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The Parties shall have up through and including 12/1/2010 within which to complete discovery. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 6/18/2010. (alc) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
182 NOTICE to Take 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant City of Atlanta filed by Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, Allan Vives, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., John Curran, Geoffrey Calhoun, Alan Dale, Felix Garcia, Jeffrey McLeod, Mark Danak, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Gary Ziemer, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Benjamin Cheaves, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
183 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Continuing Interrogatories by City of Atlanta.(Young, Dennis) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
184 Certificate of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Robert N. Godfrey replacing Dennis McRay Young as Attorney for Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, Bennie E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, Jared G. Watkins. (Young, Dennis) Modified on 7/26/2010 to correct filers and text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (alc). (Entered: 07/23/2010)
Notification of Docket Correction re 184 : the docket text has been corrected to accurately reflect the e−filed pleading as a Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by Defendants Richard Pennington, City of Atlanta, Bennie E. Bridges, Marlon O. Noble, Jared G. Watkins; Robert N. Godfrey has been correspondingly substituted for Dennis McRay Young as attorney for said Defendants. (alc) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
185 NOTICE of Subpoena to DIRECPATH, LLC by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
186 NOTICE of Subpoena to Comcast Cable Communications Inc. by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David

07/29/2010 07/29/2010 08/03/2010
08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010

Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
187 MOTION to Withdraw Graham Spencer Lee as Attorney by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Copy of notice provided to clients)(Lee, Graham) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
188 NOTICE of Subpoena to Yahoo! Inc. by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
189 NOTICE of Appearance by Tamara Nikki Baines on behalf of Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams (Baines, Tamara) Modified on 8/4/2010 to remove John/Jane Does 1−45 as represented party (alc). (Entered: 08/03/2010)
190 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Willie Adams III by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
191 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Bennie E. Bridges by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
192 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant John H. Brock by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
193 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Kelly Collier by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio

08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010

Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
194 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Dimitrio O. Caldwell by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Ronald J. Walker, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
195 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Craig Condon by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Gregory D. Dabney by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
197 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Stalone Davis by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
198 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Christipher Dowd by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
199 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Jeremy D. Edwards by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
200 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Herman E. Glass by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves,

08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010

John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Robert C. Godwin by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
202 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Brandon Jackson by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
203 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Dimitri Jaques by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, Cedric F. Smith, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
204 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Melonie Mague by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
205 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Vicente Marcano by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Cayenne Mayes by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered:

08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010

08/09/2010)
207 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Timothy McClain by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
208 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant James Menzoian by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
209 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Dion Meridith by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
210 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Marlon O. Noble by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
211 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Scott Pautsch by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
212 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Darnell Perry by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
213 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Scott Perry by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio

08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010 08/09/2010

Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
214 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant William Porter by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
215 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Edward Rabb by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
216 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Cedric F. Smith by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
217 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Tyrone Taylor by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
218 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Kelleita Thurman by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
219 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Stephanie Upton by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
220 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Ronald J. Walker by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia,

08/09/2010
08/09/2010
08/09/2010
08/20/2010
08/20/2010 08/26/2010 08/27/2010

Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
221 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant William Walters by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
222 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Jared G. Watkins by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
223 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery of Plaintiffs' Second Rule 34 Request for Production to Defendant Debra A. Williams by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Herman E. Glass, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
224 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.: Telephone Conference held on 8/20/2010. The Court found that Plaintiffs' discovery requests were valid and reasonable and that Defendants' objections thereto are overruled because they did not comply with the Court's 6 Instructions to Parties and Counsel, the NDGa LR, and FRCP. The Court ordered Defendants to provide supplemental responses to Plaintiffs' discovery requests and to produce all documents and tangible things requested therein by 9/3/2010. The discovery period is extended for 3 months beyond its current expiration date. (Court Reporter Elise Smith Evans)(alc) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
Submission of 187 MOTION to Withdraw Graham Spencer Lee as Attorney, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. (alc) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
225 ORDER GRANTING the 187 Motion to Withdraw Graham Spencer Lee as Attorney. Daniel J. Grossman, Elizabeth L. Littrell, Gerald R. Weber and Gregory R. Nevins will continue to represent Plaintiffs in this action. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 8/26/2010. (alc) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
226 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.: Telephone Conference held on 8/27/2010. The Court heard from counsel regarding discovery issues. Defendants requested the Court enter a written order requiring Atlanta City Police named in this action to produce their cell phones; the Court denied that request. The oral order issued at the telephone conference on 8/20/2010 is sufficient. The deadline for the cell phone and electronic information production is 2 weeks from today. Plaintiffs orally moved for sanctions; the Court denied the motion but advised counsel that it would consider the sanctions issue after the Parties have completed discovery. Counsel who have not entered a notice of appearance in this case should do so immediately. (Court Reporter Montrell Vann)(alc) (Entered: 08/27/2010)

08/30/2010
09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010
09/13/2010
09/27/2010
09/28/2010 09/29/2010 10/06/2010

227 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert N. Godfrey on behalf of Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams (Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
228 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's 2nd Request for Production of Documents by City of Atlanta.(Baines, Tamara) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
229 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's 1st Continuing Interrogatories by City of Atlanta.(Baines, Tamara) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
230 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Continuing Interrogatories by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams.(Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
231 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams.(Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
232 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference Proceedings held on 8/20/2010, before Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Elise Evans, Telephone number 404−215−1456. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/18/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/28/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/27/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Transcript) (ee) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/28/2010: # 2 Verification of Financial Arrangements) (fem). (Entered: 09/27/2010)
233 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference Proceedings held on 8/27/2010, before Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Montrell Vann, Telephone number 404−215−1549. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/19/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/29/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/27/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Notice of Transcript Filing) (mv) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
234 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Second Continuing Interrogatories by City of Atlanta.(Baines, Tamara) Modified on 9/30/2010 to correct capitilization on docket (fap). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
235 MOTION for Permission to Deviate From the Requirements of Local Rule 37.1 and for an Extension of the Page Limitation of Local Rule 7.1(D) re 236 Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion for Sanctions, filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert

10/06/2010
10/07/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010 10/08/2010

Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 10/7/2010 to add document link (alc). (Entered: 10/06/2010)
236 MOTION to Compel Discovery, MOTION For Sanctions by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A − Attachment 1, # 2 Appendix B − Attachment 2, # 3 Affidavit of Daniel J. Grossman − Attachment 3, # 4 Affidavit of John J. Carney − Attachment 4, # 5 Affidavit of Constance R. Martin − Attachment 5, # 6 Affidavit of Jonathan P. Rowe − Attachment 6, # 7 8/20/10 Transcript − Attachment 7, # 8 8/27/10 Transcript − Attachment 8, # 9 US v. Bryant − Attachment 9)(Grossman, Daniel) . Added MOTION for Sanctions on 10/7/2010 (alc). Modified on 10/7/2010 to edit access to Attachment #3 Affidavit of Grossman. (aaq). (Entered: 10/06/2010)
237 Redacted AFFIDAVIT of Daniel J. Grossman re 236 MOTION to Compel Discovery, MOTION for Sanctions replacing Affidavit (Attachment 3) previously filed on 10/06/10, filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 10/8/2010 to update text (alc). (Entered: 10/07/2010)
238 NOTICE Of Filing Original Deposition Transcripts of Debra A. Williams and Jeremy Johnson, filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (alc) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
239 MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Original Deposition Transcript and Errata Sheet of Debra Williams, filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(alc) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
240 DEPOSITION of DEBRA A. WILLIAMS taken on 8/5/2010 by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document − Part 2, # 2 Exhibits, # 3 Errata) (alc). (Entered: 10/08/2010)
241 DEPOSITION of JEREMY JOHNSON taken on 8/19/2010 by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document − Part 2, # 2 Exhibits)

10/08/2010
10/11/2010
10/11/2010
10/15/2010 10/20/2010
10/21/2010 10/22/2010

(alc). (Entered: 10/08/2010)
242 (FILED UNDER SEAL) &nbsp &nbsp DEPOSITION of DEBRA WILLIAMS, Volume II, taken on 8/10/2010 by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (alc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/12/2010: # 1 Main Document − Part 2, # 2 Main Document − Part 3, # 3 Main Document − Part 4, # 4 Errata Sheet, # 6 Exhibits 3 − 7, # 7 Exhibit 8 − Part 1, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Part 2, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Part 3, # 10 Exhibit 8 − Part 4, # 11 Exhibit 8 − Part 5, # 12 Exhibits 9 − 18, # 13 Exhibit 19, # 14 Exhibits 20 − 22) (alc). (Entered: 10/08/2010)
243 NOTICE of Appearance by LaShawn W. Terry on behalf of Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams (Terry, LaShawn) Modified on 10/12/2010 to remove John/Jane Does as filers (alc). Modified on 10/15/2010 to terminate notification(cdg). (Entered: 10/11/2010)
244 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of City of Atlanta's First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams.(Godfrey, Robert) Modified on 10/12/2010 to remove John/Jane Does as filers (alc). (Entered: 10/11/2010)
245 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following dates: November 22−26, 2010 and December 17, 2010 through January 3, 2011, by Robert Godfrey. (Godfrey, Robert) Modified on 10/18/2010 to update text (alc). Modified on 10/21/2010 to reclassify document as a notice, per direction of chambers (alc). (Entered: 10/15/2010)
246 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's 236 Motion to Compel by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Terry, LaShawn) Modified on 10/21/2010 to add document link and remove John Does as filers (alc). (Entered: 10/20/2010)
247 ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 246 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's 236 Motion to Compel. The response period is extended through and including 10/22/2010. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 11/21/2010. (alc) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
248 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Individual Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request to Produce Documents by Willie Adams, III, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Robert C. Godwin, Dimitri Jaques, Cayenne Mayes, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Scott Pautsch, Darnell Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, William Walters, Debra A.

10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010
11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010

Williams.(Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
249 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant City of Atlanta's Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' First and Second Request for Production by City of Atlanta.(Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
250 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
251 RESPONSE in Opposition re 236 MOTION to Compel Discovery, MOTION for Sanctions filed by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (Godfrey Affidavit), # 3 Exhibit C (Baines Affidavit))(Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
252 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Plaintiffs Reply To Defendants Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Discovery And For Sanctions by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
253 REPLY to Response to Motion re 236 MOTION to Compel Discovery, MOTION for Sanctions filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
254 MOTION for Leave to File Attachment Under Seal re 253 REPLY to Response to Motion re Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion for Sanctions, filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(alc) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
255 (FILED UNDER SEAL) &nbsp &nbsp ATTACHMENT re 253 Reply to Response to Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion for Sanctions Master Alphabetical Name Index, filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz,

11/02/2010
11/03/2010 11/04/2010 11/05/2010
11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010
11/19/2010 11/19/2010 11/19/2010

David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (alc) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
Submission of 236 MOTION to Compel Discovery, MOTION for Sanctions, 250 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions, 252 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Plaintiffs' Reply To Defendants' Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery And For Sanctions, 239 MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Original Deposition Transcript and Errata Sheet of Debra Williams, 235 MOTION for Permission to Deviate From the Requirements of Local Rule 37.1 and for an Extension of the Page Limitation of Local Rule 7.1(D), all submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. (alc) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
NOTICE of Hearing: In Chambers Conference set for 11/10/2010 at 02:00 PM before Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. (jgs) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
256 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery in Accordance With Local Rule 5.4 − Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents by City of Atlanta.(Terry, LaShawn) Modified on 11/5/2010 to update text re subject of service (alc). (Entered: 11/04/2010)
257 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiffs' Third Continuing Interrogatories/Third Request for Production to Defendant City of Atlanta by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 11/8/2010 to remove capitalization and condense text (alc). (Entered: 11/05/2010)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman for mediation/settlement conference. (alc) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
258 ORDER Scheduling Mediation. Settlement conference set for 11/22/2010 at 10:00 AM in ATLA Courtroom 1875 before Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman. All parties SHALL submit a BRIEF informal confidential ex parte memorandum to the undersigned no later than 12:00 PM on 11/19/2010; said memoranda shall not be filed with the Clerk. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman on 11/10/2010. (alc) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
259 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.: Status Conference held on 11/10/2010. Counsel for all parties appeared for an off−the−record conversation at the conclusion of which the Court ordered parties to mediation before Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman on 11/22/10. Parties are directed to contact Judge Baverman for details regarding preparation for the mediation. Until the mediation is complete, the parties and counsel are ordered not to discuss the case with the media, other than toacknowledge that mediation has been scheduled. (alc) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
260 NOTICE of Appearance by Katharine Madison Burnett on behalf of Geoffrey Calhoun, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Gary Ziemer (Burnett, Katharine) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
261 NOTICE of Appearance by Marla R. Butler on behalf of Geoffrey Calhoun, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Gary Ziemer (Butler, Marla) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
262 NOTICE of Appearance by Jane Warring on behalf of Geoffrey Calhoun, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Felix Garcia, Thomas

11/23/2010 11/24/2010 12/01/2010 12/03/2010
12/06/2010 12/08/2010
12/08/2010 05/31/2011 05/31/2011 05/31/2011 06/01/2011 06/01/2011 06/06/2011 06/16/2011

Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Thomas, Gary Ziemer (Warring, Jane) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
263 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman: Settlement Conference held on 11/23/2010. The settlement conference has been continued until 12/1/2010 at 9:00 AM. (alc) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
Submission of 254 MOTION for Leave to File Attachment Under Seal, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. (acm) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
264 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman: Settlement Conference held on 12/1/2010. The settlement conference has been continued until 12/3/2010 at 10:00 AM. (acm) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman: Settlement Conference held on 12/3/2010. The parties have reached an agreement to settle this case, which they believe is in the best interest of the City, its residents, and visitors. This agreement includes monetary compensation and reforms of the Atlanta Police Department. Until this agreement is approved by the Atlanta City Council and by the District Court, the parties and counsel shall not make further comment to the media about this case. (dbt) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman for settlement as of 12/3/2010. (acm) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
265 ORDER APPROVING the settlement agreement negotiated by the Parties which includes payment by Defendants to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,025,000 and the implementation by Defendant City of Atlanta of the reforms set forth in the attached Exhibit A. This Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction and Defendant City of Atlanta agrees to the entry of a consent order requiring it to implement the actions set forth in Exhibit A if these actions have not been fully implemented within 180 days of the entry of this Order. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice except for reopening as provided herein. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 12/8/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(acm) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
Civil Case Terminated. (acm) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
266 Consent MOTION to Amend The Court's December 8, 2010 Order by City of Atlanta. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
267 NOTICE of Appearance by Joe Dally Whitley on behalf of City of Atlanta (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
268 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard J. Valladares on behalf of City of Atlanta (Valladares, Richard) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
NOTICE of Undeliverable Electronic Mail re: 267 Notice of Appearance, 266 Consent MOTION to Amend The Court's December 8, 2010 Order, 268 Notice of Appearance. Mail returned for Lisa L. Kung due to no longer being employed with the agency. (aar) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
269 CONSENT ORDER granting 266 Motion to Amend the Court's December 8, 2010 Order as outlined within this order. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 06/01/2011. (rvb) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
270 STATUS REPORT of City of Atlanta Regarding the Court's December 8, 2010 Order by City of Atlanta. (Godfrey, Robert) Modified on 6/7/2011 to remove all caps from text (rvb). (Entered: 06/06/2011)
271 MOTION for Order for Entry of Consent Order and MOTION for Sanctions, with Brief In Support by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary

06/17/2011 06/24/2011
06/29/2011 06/29/2011 06/30/2011 07/01/2011

Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Grossman, Daniel) . Added MOTION for Sanctions on 6/17/2011 (rvb). (Entered: 06/16/2011)
272 CORRECTED MOTION for Entry of Consent Order, and MOTION for Sanctions by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Grossman, Daniel) Modified on 6/20/2011 to remove caps from text (rvb). Added MOTION for Sanctions on 6/20/2011 (rvb). (Entered: 06/17/2011)
273 RESPONSE in Opposition re 272 CORRECTED MOTION for Entry of Consent Order, and MOTION for Sanctions filed by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Robert N. Godfrey, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Major Erika Shields)(Godfrey, Robert) Modified on 6/27/2011 to remove duplicate text (rvb). (Entered: 06/24/2011)
274 STATUS REPORT (Supplemental) by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
275 RESPONSE in Opposition re 272 MOTION for Order MOTION for Sanctions (Supplemental) filed by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
276 REPLY to Response to Motion re 272 MOTION for Order MOTION for Sanctions filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
Submission of 271 MOTION for Order PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS MOTION for Sanctions, 272 MOTION for Order MOTION for Sanctions, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. (rvb) (Entered: 07/01/2011)

11/02/2011
11/21/2011 12/14/2011 12/15/2011 12/19/2011 03/17/2015
03/24/2015 03/30/2015

277 MOTION for Status Conference and, MOTION to Bring Audio/Visual/Electronic Equipment in the Courtroom by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
278 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 277 motion. A status conference will be held December 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 2106. On or before December 14, 2011, the parties shall file a joint report detailing the issues remaining to be resolved. The Court will not allow audio or video recordings of the proceedings. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 11/21/11. (rsh) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
279 STATUS REPORT and Consent Agreement by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
280 ORDER that the City of Atlanta implement the terms of Exhibit A to the Court's 12/8/11 order, entitled "Reforms of the Atlanta Police Department". In exchange plaintiffs agree to withdraw their motions for sanctions. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate 271 and 272 Motions for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 12/15/11. (jlm) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF STATUS CONFERENCE set for 12/20/11 re 278 . (jgs) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
281 Second MOTION for Contempt by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A − SOP.3065 2011, # 2 Exhibit Ex B − SOP.3065 2013, # 3 Exhibit Ex C − SOP.3065 2005, # 4 Exhibit Ex D − Thomas email 12−10−14, # 5 Exhibit Ex E − Grossman email 12−8−14, # 6 Exhibit Ex F − Thomas letter 1−15−15, # 7 Exhibit Ex G − APD Demographic forms, # 8 Exhibit Ex H − Grossman letter 12−5−14, # 9 Exhibit Ex I − Grossman letter 1−27−15, # 10 Exhibit Ex J − IBPO letter 3−13−15, # 11 Exhibit Ex K − APD training roster, # 12 Exhibit Ex L − Search and seizure lesson plan, # 13 Exhibit Ex M − Use of force lesson plan, # 14 Exhibit Ex N − Anderson court order, # 15 Exhibit Ex O − Anderson motion for sanctions, # 16 Exhibit Ex P − Walker court order)(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
282 MOTION for Order for Leave of Absence by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
283 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PLAINTIFFS FIRST POST JUDGMENT INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA and PLAINTIFFS FIRST POST JUDGMENT REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale,

04/01/2015
04/09/2015
04/14/2015 04/15/2015 04/21/2015 04/28/2015 04/28/2015 05/05/2015
05/05/2015 05/11/2015 05/12/2015 05/19/2015

Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
284 RESPONSE re 281 Second MOTION for Contempt filed by City of Atlanta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Grossman Letter− December 12, 2014, # 2 Exhibit B, Affidavit of Deputy Chief Cerelyn CJ Davis, # 3 Exhibit C, Affidavit of Deputy Chief Joseph Spillane, # 4 Exhibit D, Screen Print Demographic Form, # 5 Exhibit E, Affidavit of Major Byron K. Martin, OPS)(Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
285 REPLY BRIEF re 281 Second MOTION for Contempt filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit SOP3020(2017), # 2 Exhibit DOJ Report)(Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
Submission of 282 MOTION for Leave of Absence, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
286 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): April 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2015, May 21 and 22, 2015, by Robert N. Godfrey. (Godfrey, Robert) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
Submission of 281 Second MOTION for Contempt, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
NOTICE of Hearing re: 281 Second MOTION for Contempt Motion Hearing set for 5/5/2015 at 02:00 PM in ATLA Courtroom 2106 before Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. (se) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
ORDER granting 282 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 04/27/2015. (Entered: 04/28/2015)
287 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr: Motion Hearing held on 5/5/2015 re 281 Second MOTION for Contempt. Argument on motion for contempt. Defendants acknowledged that they were deficient in some areas and they would be retraining officers. Court ordered City to provide all training within 90 days; City must let all officers know that they must wear their name tag while on duty. Parties to prepare consent order for consideration by the Court. Court further orders that the City compile a spreadsheet to ascertain whether they are dealing with discipline issues within 180 days. Court directed the City to let Defendants monitor police training for a period of six years; directed parties to include all of this in proposed order. Written order forthcoming. Plaintiff's motion for post−judgment discovery is granted. (Court Reporter Lori Burgess)(jlm) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
ORDER clarifying 287 regarding Motion Hearing. The parties are directed to submit their proposed order to the Court by Tuesday, May 12. Further, Defendants are directed to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests no later than Friday, May 22. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 05/05/2015. (nxd) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
288 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time File Proposed Consent Order re: Order, by City of Atlanta. (Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
ORDER granting 288 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 05/12/2015. (nxd) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
289 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 281 Second Motion for Contempt Sanctions Against Defendant City of Atlanta. Court grants plaintiff's request for post−judgment discovery; City of Atlanta is ordered to respond to plaintiff's currently outstanding discovery requests no later than Friday, 5/22/15. Court awards attorney fees and costs. The terms of this Order, with the exception of the biennial training requirement in Section 2, shall expire six years from the date of entry of this Order. This provision

05/22/2015 06/03/2015 06/18/2015 07/09/2015 07/10/2015 07/20/2015 07/28/2015
07/29/2015 08/06/2015
08/21/2015 08/27/2015
09/04/2015 02/29/2016

does not modify and shall have no effect on the terms of the December 8, 20101 and December 15, 2011 Orders of this Court. (See order for specifics). Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 5/19/15. (jlm) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
290 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (of City Defendant's Responses to Plaitniff's First Post Judgment Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents) by City of Atlanta.(Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
291 NOTICE by City of Atlanta re 289 Order on Motion to Hold in Contempt,, (NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH MAY 19, 2015 ORDER) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
292 NOTICE Of Filing Declaration of Chief George N. Turner by City of Atlanta (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration)(Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
293 MOTION to Withdraw Marla R. Butler as Attorneyby Geoffrey Calhoun. (Butler, Marla) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
294 ORDER GRANTING 293 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Marla R. Butler terminated. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 7/10/15. (jlm) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
295 NOTICE by City of Atlanta re 289 Order on Motion to Hold in Contempt,, (Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
296 MOTION to Withdraw Katharine Madison Burnett as Attorneyby Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A − Notice Letters to Plaintiffs)(Burnett, Katharine) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
297 ORDER GRANTING 296 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Katharine Madison Burnett terminated. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 7/29/15. (jlm) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
298 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiffs Second Post Judgment Requests For Production by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
299 NOTICE Of Filing Declaration of Major Darin Schierbaum by City of Atlanta (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit to Declaration)(Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
300 TRANSCRIPT of MOTIONS Proceedings held on 5/5/2015, before Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lori Burgess, Telephone number 404−215−1528. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/17/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/28/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/25/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Transcript) (llb) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of City of Atlanta's Response to Plaintiffs' Second Post Judgment Request for Production to Defendant City of Atlanta in Accordance with L.R. 5.4 by City of Atlanta.(Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
302 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PLAINTIFFS THIRD POST JUDGMENT REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by Geoffrey Calhoun,

03/30/2016
04/13/2016 04/25/2016
04/25/2016 06/20/2016 06/20/2016
06/22/2016 07/06/2016 07/18/2016 07/18/2016

Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
303 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of City of Atlanta's Response to Plaintiffs' Third Post Judgment Request for Production to Defendant City of Atlanta by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams.(Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
304 RESPONSE re 302 Certificate of Service,, COA's Supplemental Reponse to Plaintiff's 3rd Post Judgment Request for Production to Defendant City of Atlanta filed by City of Atlanta. (Terry, LaShawn) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
305 Redocketed as 306 using correct event NOTICE by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams , City Defendants Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel for City Defendants (Baines, Tamara) Modified on 4/25/2016 (jlm). (Entered: 04/25/2016)
306 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Attorneys Robin Joy Shahar,Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman and Maiysha Rashad for defendants replacing attorneys LaShawn W. Terry; Tamara Nikki Baines and Robert N. Godfrey. (jlm) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
307 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): June 22, 2016 − July 3, 2016, by Gerald R. Weber. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
308 Joint MOTION Appointment of Special Master by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
309 ORDER GRANTING 308 Joint Motion for Appointment of Special Master. Court APPOINTS Joe D. Whitley as Special Master. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 6/22/16. (jlm) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
310 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 7/18/16−7/28/16, by Daniel J. Grossman. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
311 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw Joe Dally Whitley as Attorneyby City of Atlanta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
312 AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 07/18/2016)

07/20/2016 07/20/2016
07/21/2016 07/22/2016 07/22/2016 07/25/2016 08/11/2016 08/12/2016 09/16/2016 09/22/2016 09/22/2016
09/23/2016 09/29/2016 12/30/2016 01/17/2017 01/18/2017

313 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): August, 2−11, 2016, by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
314 MOTION to Withdraw Jane Warring as Attorneyby Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Warring, Jane) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
315 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): July 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, August 1, 2016, by Joe Dally Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
316 ORDER granting 311 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Joe Dally Whitley terminated; no longer representing City of Atlanta. Clerk to update docket accordingly. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 7/22/16. (rsh) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
317 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): August 3−14, 2016, by Gregory R. Nevins. (Nevins, Gregory) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
318 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): August 2 − August 12, 2016, by Maiysha Rashad. (Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
Submission of 314 MOTION to Withdraw Jane Warring as Attorney, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
319 ORDER granting 314 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jane Warring terminated. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 8/12/16. (rsh) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
320 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 11/14/16−12/2/16, by Daniel J. Grossman. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
321 Unopposed MOTION for Order SETTING FORTH INITIAL SPECIAL MASTER MONITORING, DISCOVERY, AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Consent Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
322 PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER SETTING FORTH INTITIAL SPECIAL MASTER MONITORING, DISCOVERY, AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES re: 321 Unopposed MOTION for Order SETTING FORTH INITIAL SPECIAL MASTER MONITORING, DISCOVERY, AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
323 CONSENT ORDER granting 321 Motion, and Setting Forth Initial Special Master Monitoring, Discovery, and Dispute Resolution Procedures. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 9/23/16. (rsh) (See 339 Order for Modifications) (Entered: 09/23/2016)
324 STATUS REPORT : SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
325 STATUS REPORT : SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED DECEMBER 30, 2016 by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Draft Unopposed Motion for Order Modifying Limited Provisions of Consent Order and Draft Consent Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
326 Motion and Notice of Filing to Continue Unchanged the Duties of the Special Master and Stay Paid Compliance Monitoring by Plaintiffs' Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment − Petition & Brief)(Shahar, Robin) Modified on 1/18/2017 to reflect motion filed (rsh). (Entered: 01/17/2017)
327 NOTICE by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente

01/19/2017 01/31/2017
02/09/2017
02/10/2017
02/15/2017 02/15/2017 02/15/2017 02/15/2017 02/22/2017

Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel − Richard Valladares (Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
328 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): January 31, February 1, and February 24, 2017, by Robin Joy Shahar. (Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
329 RESPONSE re 326 MOTION to Continue Unchanged Duties of Special Master filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
330 NOTICE Of Filing by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer Response to "Petition for Emergency Relief" with Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 − Response to "Petition for Emergency Relief", # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2 − David Rudovsky Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3 − Lawrence Fox Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 4 − Chart of Claims, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 5 − Emails, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 6 − Rule 11 Motion)(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
331 REPLY BRIEF re 326 MOTION to Continue Unchanged Duties of Special Master filed by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
332 SPECIAL MASTER'S NOTICE REFERRING City's 326 MOTION to Continue Unchanged Duties of Special Master (City Motion) to the Court for ruling unless otherwise directed by the Court to rule on the City Motion. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
Submission of 332 SPECIAL MASTER'S NOTICE REFERRING City's 326 MOTION to Continue Unchanged Duties of Special Master (City Motion) to the Court for ruling unless otherwise directed by the Court to rule on the City Motionsubmitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
334 ORDER DENYING 326 MOTION to Continue Unchanged Duties of Special Master filed by City of Atlanta Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 2/15/17. (jlm) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
Notification of Docket Correction re 333 Order on Exparte Motion. Re−docketed as 334 . (jlm) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
335 NOTICE Of Filing by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared

03/02/2017 03/06/2017 03/07/2017
03/08/2017 03/08/2017 04/12/2017 05/16/2017 05/26/2017 06/14/2017 06/15/2017
07/19/2017 07/25/2017

G. Watkins, Joe D. Whitley, Debra A. Williams (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit City's Reply)(Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
336 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): April 28−May 11, 2017 and June 28−July 19, 2017, by Gerald R. Weber. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
337 Unopposed MOTION for Order MODIFYING LIMITED PROVISIONS OF CONSENT ORDER SETTING FORTH INITIAL SPECIAL MASTER MONITORING, DISCOVERY, AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES [DOC. NO. 323] by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order EXHIBIT 1)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
338 NOTICE Of Filing by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Joe D. Whitley, Debra A. Williams (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit City's Response, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A−B to City's Response)(Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
339 CONSENT ORDER GRANTING 337 Unopposed Motion for Order Modifying Limited Provisions of Consent Order Setting Forth Initial Special Master Monitoring, Discovery and Dispute Resolution Procedures (Doc. No. 323 ). Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 3/8/17. (jlm) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
340 ORDER denying City's Petition for Emergency Relief; denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Reply. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 3/8/2017. (bdb) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
341 STATUS REPORT Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report Dated April 12, 2017 by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
342 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): May 16 26, 2017, June 9−19, June 30−July 6, and July 24−August 4, by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
343 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 5/29/17, 5/30/17, 6/8/17, and 6/9/17, by Maiysha Rashad. (Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
344 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruce P. Brown on behalf of City of Atlanta (Brown, Bruce) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
345 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron Michael Littman on behalf of Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer (Littman, Aaron) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
346 STATUS REPORT Special Master Quarterly Compliance Report Dated July 14, 2017 by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Show Cause Order, # 2 Exhibit B − Proposed 180 Day Order, # 3 Exhibit C − Proposed Fee Dispute Order, # 4 Exhibit D − Proposed Show Cause Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
347 ORDER that The City of Atlanta SHOW CAUSE why it should not be held in contempt of the Orders entered by this Court on 12/8/10, 12/15/11, 5/19/15 and 9/23/16, respectively, as well as any requirements set forth in the Special Master's prior reports and recommendations to the Court. Plaintiffs and City are ORDERED to APPEAR before the Special Master for a HEARING on a date and time to be determined by the Special Master, no sooner than 35 days after entry of this Order, at the offices of Banker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, 3414 Peachtree Rd., N.E., Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600, Atlanta, GA, 30326. The Special Master shall

07/25/2017
07/27/2017 08/17/2017 08/23/2017 08/23/2017 08/24/2017
08/29/2017 08/30/2017 08/31/2017 09/07/2017
09/07/2017 09/07/2017

preside over the hearing, determine the manner of any procedures for the parties' presentation of evidence and argument and following such hearing, submit a report and recommendation to the Court. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 7/25/17. (jlm) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
348 ORDER that The City of Atlanta SHOW CAUSE as to why the city is entitled to relief (as outlined in this order) from any provisions of the Orders entered by this Court on 12/8/10, 12/15/11, 5/19/15 and 9/23/16, respectively, as well as any requirements set forth in the Special Master's prior reports and recommendations to this Court. The City shall have a period of 35 days from the date hereof to file and serve a brief with the Court in support of its position, thereafter, Plaintiffs shall have a period of 35 days to file a responsive brief, which shall include the legal basis for Plaintiffs' position and appropriate citation to applicable legal authority. Following such briefing, the Special Master shall submit a report and recommendation to the Court to include a recommendation re any further proceedings that may be appropriate in the Special Master's discretion. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 7/25/17. (jlm) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
349 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 09/25/2017−10/07/2017, by Daniel J. Grossman. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
350 NOTICE by City of Atlanta Notice of Complaince with Training Requirement Affidavit of Lieutenant Jesse Webb (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
351 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Order on 180 Rule with Brief In Support by City of Atlanta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachments A−E)(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
352 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Fee Dispute Order with Brief In Support by City of Atlanta. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
353 NOTICE Of Filing by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer re 351 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Order on 180 Rule , 352 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Fee Dispute Order , 346 Status Report, (Notice of Intent to File/Scheduling) (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
354 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Show Cause Brief by City of Atlanta. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
355 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 9/5/17, 9/6/17, 9/7/17, 9/8/17, by Maiysha Rashad. (Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
356 ORDER granting 354 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to and including 9/8/17 for defendants to file their briefs. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 8/31/17. (jlm) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
357 NOTICE of Appearance by Staci J. Miller on behalf of Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams (Miller, Staci) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
358 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Order to Show Cause by City of Atlanta. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
359 MOTION for Order RENEWING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH BY CONSENT PROCEDURES ORDER by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

09/07/2017
09/08/2017
09/08/2017 09/08/2017
09/08/2017
09/13/2017 09/14/2017 09/15/2017 09/15/2017 09/15/2017

Proposed Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
360 RESPONSE re 353 Notice of Filing,, (Response to Objections to Proposed Order) filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
361 RESPONSE re 351 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Order on 180 Rule filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A: APD Complaint Process, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B: June 2, 2015 Email, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C: July 2, 2015 Email, # 4 Exhibit Ex. D: June 1, 2015 Letter)(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
362 ORDER granting 358 Motion for Extension of Time through 9/15/17 for Dfts to file briefs as ordered in 348 . Plas' responsive brief now due 10/20/17. No other briefing deadlines are modified, and Court will not grant further extensions, absent good cause. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 9/8/17. (rsh) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
363 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Joe D. Whitley, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−U)(Miller, Staci) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
364 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Miller, Staci) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
365 ORDER sua sponte NOTIFYING Parties that the Court permits and expects ex parte communications to occur from time to time by the Special Master with the Court. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 9/13/17. (jlm) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
366 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): November 22−December 8, 2017 and December 21−December 26, 2017, by Gerald R. Weber. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
367 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: 348 Order to Show Cause,,, filed by City of Atlanta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, C, D, E, # 3 Exhibit F)(Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
368 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief In Support by City of Atlanta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
369 RESPONSE in Opposition re 359 MOTION for Order RENEWING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH BY CONSENT PROCEDURES ORDER filed by City of

09/15/2017 09/18/2017 09/21/2017
09/22/2017
09/22/2017 09/25/2017
09/25/2017

Atlanta. (Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
370 NOTICE by Joe D. Whitley re 363 Response to Order to Show Cause,, SPECIAL MASTER'S NOTICE TO COURT AND PARTIES REGARDING DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND INCORPORATED BRIEF FILED AT DOC. NO. 363 (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
371 NOTICE by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer re 370 Notice (Other) (Notice Re Plaintiffs' Briefing on Contempt) (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
372 REPLY BRIEF re 351 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Order on 180 Rule filed by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
373 REPLY BRIEF re 352 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Fee Dispute Order filed by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
374 REPLY to Response to Motion re 359 MOTION for Order RENEWING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH BY CONSENT PROCEDURES ORDER filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
375 MOTION to reassign matters to the District Court from the Special Master with Brief In Support by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
376 Emergency MOTION to Stay Special Master Activities by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

09/26/2017
09/27/2017
10/02/2017 10/02/2017 10/02/2017
10/06/2017 10/06/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/17/2017 10/19/2017 10/20/2017
10/20/2017

Submission of 351 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Order on 180 Rule , 352 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Fee Dispute Order , 359 MOTION for Order RENEWING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH BY CONSENT PROCEDURES ORDER, 364 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages , submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
377 ORDER denying 359 Special Master's Motion for Order, and directing him to continue to perform duties as described in Order; holding in abeyance 375 City's Motion to reassign matters, pending response of Special Master by 10/6/17. Denying 376 City's Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 9/27/17. (rsh) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
378 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 11/20/17−11/28/17, 12/20/17−01/06/18, 03/31/18−04/06/18, by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
379 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 10/17/17−10/23/17, 11/22/17, 12/26/17−12/29/17, 01/01/18−01/04/18, by Maiysha Rashad. (Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
380 RESPONSE in Opposition re 375 MOTION to reassign matters to the District Court from the Special Master filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
Submission of 368 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
381 RESPONSE re 375 MOTION to reassign matters to the District Court from the Special Master filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Scheduling Emails)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
382 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 364 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages , filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
383 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 368 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages , filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
384 REPLY to Response to Motion re 375 MOTION to reassign matters to the District Court from the Special Master filed by City of Atlanta. (Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
385 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by City of Atlanta. (Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
386 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 352 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Fee Dispute Order , filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
387 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 351 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Order on 180 Rule , filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
388 RESPONSE re 367 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A to L)(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
389 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE [Doc. 367] TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale,

10/23/2017 10/23/2017 10/27/2017 11/02/2017
11/09/2017 11/09/2017
11/09/2017
11/13/2017

Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
390 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
391 STATUS REPORT − SPECIAL MASTER QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT AS OF OCTOBER 13, 2017 by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Plaintiffs Letter−10−12−17, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − COA Letter− 10−13−2017, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C− Proposed Order Adopting Special Master October 13 Report and Recommendation)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
Submission of 375 MOTION to reassign matters to the District Court from the Special Master , submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
392 RESPONSE re 391 Status Report, (Request Scheduling Order on Discovery) filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
393 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 389 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE [Doc. 367] TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER, filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
394 RESPONSE in Support re 375 MOTION to reassign matters to the District Court from the Special Master Defendants' Supplemental Brief Supporting Its Motion to Modify Court Orders filed by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−S)(Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
395 NOTICE Of Filing EXHIBIT F to Defendants' Supplemental Brief Supporting Its Motion to Modify by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams (Rashad, Maiysha) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
Submission of 382 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 364 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages; 383 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 368 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages; 385 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages; 386 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 352 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Fee Dispute Order; 387 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 351 MOTION Objection to Special Master Proposed Order on 180 Rule and 389 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Reply to Defendant's 367 Response to ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and Motion to Modify Court Order, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/15/2017 11/16/2017
11/20/2017
11/28/2017 12/04/2017 12/11/2017 12/11/2017 12/29/2017 01/05/2018
01/16/2018 01/19/2018

Flash drive marked Exhibit F re 395 Notice of Filing placed in file. (adg) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
396 MOTION for In Camera Review by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
397 REPLY BRIEF re 393 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 389 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE [Doc. 367] TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO MODIFY COURT ORDER, filed by Joe D. Whitley (Response re Doc 394) filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
398 ORDER denying 375 City of Atlanta's Motion to reassign matters to the district court from the special master and upon the special master's October 13 status report 391 . The City's motion is denied and the special master's October 13 status report is adopted as modified in this Order. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 11/28/17. (rsh) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
Submission of 393 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 389 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages In Reply to Defendants Response [Doc. 367] To Order to Show Cause and Motion to Modify Court Order and 396 MOTION for In Camera Review, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
399 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 396 MOTION for In Camera Review , filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
400 RESPONSE re 392 Response (Non−Motion),, 391 Status Report, SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO COMPLIANCE REPORT 391 AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER ON CONTEMPT DISCOVERY 392 filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
Submission of 399 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 396 MOTION for In Camera Review , filed by Joe D. Whitley, submitted to District Judge Timothy C. Batten. (jlm) (Entered: 12/29/2017)
401 ORDER ADOPTING the 387 Report and Recommendation of Special Master as herein modified and OVERRULING the City's 351 Objections. Paragraph 7 of the Consent Orders is to be interpreted as follows: The Atlanta Police Department shall investigate and finally adjudicate all [expressions of wrong suffered, or grievances, regarding APD] police misconduct made by a citizen regarding police misconduct of any kind within 180 days of the complaint. The parties are DIRECTED to comply with the deadlines as prescribed in the Courts November 28, 2017 Order 398 beginning with the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 1/5/18. (jlm) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
ORDER denying as moot 385 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The City's motion is moot following the Court's order 398 on its motion to reassign. (Entered by law clerk at Court's instruction). Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 1/16/2018. (Entered: 01/16/2018)
402 ORDER adopting 382 , 383 , 393 , 399 , 400 Reports and Recommendations of Special Master, as Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 1/19/18. (rsh) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

01/19/2018
02/12/2018
02/22/2018 02/26/2018 03/14/2018 03/19/2018
03/19/2018
03/20/2018 05/10/2018 05/14/2018 05/15/2018

ORDER GRANTING 364 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; GRANTING 368 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; GRANTING 389 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and AUTHORIZING 396 Motion for In Camera Review. Parties are authorized to coordinate the in camera review of the draft Calhoun training video, and are instructed to keep the Court apprised of the time and date of such review. Court DEEMS and DENIES AS MOOT City's 392 Request for Scheduling Order on Contempt Discovery.(Contained in 402 Order). Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 1/19/18. (jlm) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
403 ORDER adopting 386 Report and Recommendation of Special Master to extent outlined in order, and overruling City's objections. Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by responding to the City's emergency petition and related filings. The Court orders the special master to facilitate briefing and issue a report and recommendation on the issue of whether the attorneys' fees sought by Plaintiff are appropriate under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). To the extent possible, the parties should coordinate with each other and the special master to determine the amount of fees due to Plaintiffs in concert with the upcoming the show cause proceedings, outlined in the Courts November 28, 2017 Order. See 398 at 2023. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 2/12/18. (rsh) (Entered: 02/12/2018)
404 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): March 2, 12−19, 30 and May 21−25 and June 18−22, 2018, by Gerald R. Weber. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
405 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): April 2−10, 2018; May 9−14, 2018; May 17−21, 2018; July 2−9, 2018; and August 1− 6, 2018, by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
406 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): April 12−18, 2018, May 10−19, 2018, by Daniel J. Grossman. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
407 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consolidated Status Report by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 03/19/2018)
408 STATUS REPORT by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 03/19/2018)
409 ORDER granting 407 Motion for Extension of Time through 5/15/18 to file Consolidated Status Report. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr on 3/20/18. (rsh) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
410 MOTION Extended Leave of Absence by City of Atlanta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
411 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): June 12−15, July 9−20 and August 13−16, 2018, by Gerald R. Weber. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
412 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Consolidated Status Report by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch,

05/15/2018
05/15/2018 05/16/2018 05/16/2018 05/21/2018 06/04/2018
06/05/2018
06/05/2018
06/06/2018 06/12/2018

Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
413 STATUS REPORT by Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
414 ORDER granting 410 Motion for leave of absence 6/12/18 through 9/14/18, as to Robin Joy Shahar. Court will not hold any hearings in this case during that time period; however counsel remains responsible for any other case deadlines. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 5/15/18. (rsh) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
415 ORDER granting 412 Motion for Extension of Time through 6/5/18 for parties to file Consolidated Status Report. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 5/16/18. (rsh) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
416 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 44 Amended Complaint,,, filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
ORDER terminating 416 Report and Recommendation of Special Master. Relief effectively granted by the Court's 5/16 Order 415 . Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 5/21/2018, entered by law clerk at direction of the Court. (Entered: 05/21/2018)
417 NOTICE by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer Leave of Absence (Littman, Aaron) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
418 STATUS REPORT (Joint and Extension Request) by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
419 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (to Finalize Settlement Process) by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
420 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re 419 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (to Finalize Settlement Process) , filed by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
421 ORDER GRANTING 419 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to and including 6/19/18 for parties to file their Consolidated Status Report and ADOPTING the 420 Report and Recommendation of Special Master. Upon recommendation in the R&R, relief is further ordered such that in the event the parties file by June 19 a joint notice indicating they have jointly developed a reasonable plan to finalize a settlement agreement within sixty days, an extension of time to file shall be automatically

06/19/2018 08/15/2018 08/17/2018
08/30/2018
08/30/2018 09/06/2018 09/06/2018 09/06/2018 09/06/2018 09/10/2018 09/11/2018
11/28/2018 11/28/2018 11/29/2018

extended through August 20, 2018. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 6/12/18. (jlm) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
422 STATUS REPORT Parties' Consolidated Status Report by City of Atlanta. (Brown, Bruce) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
423 SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding Parties' Request for Extension of Deadline. by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) Modified on 8/16/2018 (jlm). (Entered: 08/15/2018)
424 ORDER ADOPTING the 423 Report and Recommendation of the Special Master as the Order of the Court. Deadline for the Parties to submit their Consolidated Status Report is extended to and including 9/5/18, provided counsel be advised to continue to hold the week of 11/5/18 on their calendars should proceedings become necessary. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 8/16/18. (jlm) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
425 MOTION to Withdraw Elizabeth Lynn Littrell as Attorneyby Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice to Plaintiffs via email, # 2 Exhibit Notice to Plaintiffs via letter)(Littrell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 425 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Elizabeth Lynn Littrell terminated. Entered by CRD at the direction of Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 8/30/18. (se) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
426 Refiled at 429 STATUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PARTIES' CONSOLIDATED STATUS REPORT DEADLINE EXTENSION by Joe D. Whitley. (Whitley, Joe) Modified on 9/7/2018 (jlm). (Entered: 09/06/2018)
427 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 9/10−11, 9/19, 9/24−28, 10/1, by Aaron Michael Littman. (Littman, Aaron) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
428 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 9/10/18−9/14/18, 9/26/18−9/28/18, by Daniel J. Grossman. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
429 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master re Parties Extension of Deadline to Submit Consolidated Status Report. (jlm) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
430 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by City of Atlanta. (Brown, Bruce) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
431 ORDER adopting 429 Report and Recommendation of Special Master, extending deadline for submittal of Consolidated Status Report, to allow finalization of settlement agreement. Parties directed to R&R for further details. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 9/11/18. (rsh) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
432 Joint MOTION for Order [Proposed Consent Order] by City of Atlanta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
433 NOTICE Of Filing Electronic Media for Joint Motion for Proposed Consent Order by City of Atlanta (Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
434 CONSENT ORDER (SEE CONSENT ORDER FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS/DIRECTIVES/DEADLINES). This Consent Order represents the desire and agreement of the parties to focus on ensuring compliance by the City in the future, rather than litigating Plaintiffs allegations of the Citys non−compliance. The parties view this Consent Order as their good−faith effort to both advance compliance with Orders of this Court and as an important tool advancing APDs work to ensure both public safety and respect for citizens constitutional rights. This Order shall supersede this Courts Orders of December 8, 2010, December 15, 2011, May 19, 2015 and all orders subsequent to May 19, 2015. Nothing in this Order shall preclude any party from filing a motion to modify any part of this Order. Signed by Judge Timothy C.

11/29/2018 01/23/2019
01/24/2019 06/17/2019
07/01/2019
07/01/2019
07/02/2019 07/03/2019 07/03/2019
07/09/2019

Batten, Sr. on 11/29/18. (jlm) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
Remark: Received flash drive re 433 Notice of Filing (Forwarded to Judge Batten's chambers) (adg) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
435 MOTION to Withdraw Robin Joy Shahar as Attorneyby Willie Adams, III, Bennie E. Bridges, John H. Brock, Dimitrio O. Caldwell, City of Atlanta, Kelly Collier, Craig Condon, Gregory D. Dabney, Stalone Davis, John/Jane Does 1−45, Christipher Dowd, Jeremy D. Edwards, Herman E. Glass, Robert C. Godwin, Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Jaques, Melonie Mague, Vicente Marcano, Cayenne Mayes, Timothy McClain, James Menzoian, Dion Meridith, Marlon O. Noble, Scott Pautsch, Richard Pennington, Darnell Perry, Scott Perry, William Porter, Edward Rabb, Cedric F. Smith, Tyrone Taylor, Kelleita Thurman, George Turner, Stephanie Upton, Ronald J. Walker, William Walters, Jared G. Watkins, Debra A. Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Shahar, Robin) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
436 ORDER GRANTING 435 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Robin Joy Shahar terminated. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 1/24/2019. (usw) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
437 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for PLAINTIFFS 6/17/2019 INTERROGATORY TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
438 MOTION to Withdraw Aaron Michael Littman as Attorneyby Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Littman, Aaron) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
439 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of PLAINTIFFS 7/1/19 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
440 ORDER GRANTING 438 Motion to Withdraw Michael Littman as Attorney. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 07/02/2019. (usw) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
441 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of PLAINTIFFS 7/3/19 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
443 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 07/09/2019)

07/12/2019 07/16/2019 07/22/2019 07/23/2019
07/29/2019 08/12/2019 08/16/2019 08/16/2019
09/19/2019 09/19/2019 09/30/2019
10/07/2019 10/10/2019

444 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CITY OF ATLANTAS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS 7/3/2019 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
445 Request for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 8/6/2019−8/23/2019, by Daniel J. Grossman. (Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
446 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE City of Atlantas Response to Plaintiffs 7/3/2019 Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant City of Atlanta by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
447 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of PLAINTIFFS 7/23/19 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
448 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CITY OF ATLANTAS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS 7/23/2019 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
449 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
450 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CITY OF ATLANTAS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS 8/9/2019 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF ATLANTA by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
451 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Ps' 08/09/19 Interrogatory) by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
452 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): October 28 − November 1, 2019, November 7−12, 2019, November 14 −18, 2019, November 22−30, 2019, December 20, 2019 − January 1, 2020, by Alisha Irene Wyatt−Bullman. (Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
453 MOTION TO BE DISCHARGED FROM DUTIES AS SPECIAL MASTER by Joe D. Whitley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitley, Joe) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
454 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs 9/30/19 Requests for Production To Defendant City Of Atlanta by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Grossman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
455 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
456 ORDER GRANTING Joe D. Whitley's 453 Motion to be Discharged from Duties as Special Master. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 10/09/2019. (usw) (Entered: 10/10/2019)

10/24/2019 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 10/25/2019 11/01/2019 11/05/2019 11/05/2019 11/05/2019 11/05/2019

457 NOTICE of Appearance by Clayton Skinner on behalf of Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer (Skinner, Clayton) (Entered: 10/24/2019)
458 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10/25/19 Request for Production by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Skinner, Clayton) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
459 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10/25/19 Requests for Admission by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Skinner, Clayton) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
460 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10/25/19 Interrogatories by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Skinner, Clayton) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
461 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
462 First NOTICE to Take Deposition of City of Atlanta filed by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer (Skinner, Clayton) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
463 First NOTICE to Take Deposition of ZANE SMITH filed by John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer (Skinner, Clayton) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
464 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NOTICE OF SUBPOENA by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Skinner, Clayton) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
465 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NOTICE OF SUBPOENA by Geoffrey Calhoun, Benjamin Cheaves, John Curran, Alan Dale, Mark Danak, Christopher Daniels, Thomas Fast, Sean Gaboya, Felix Garcia, Thomas Hayes, Brian Hughes, Kenneth

11/13/2019

Keck, Nicholas Koperski, Robert Marlow, Raymond Matheson, Robert McLendon, III, Jeffrey McLeod, Saverio Monteleone, Matthew Presley, Ramey & Kelley, Inc., Rawhide Leather, Inc., M. Du−Wayne Ray, Chris Schmaltz, David Shepherd, David Thomas, Robert Treutel, Jr, Allan Vives, Gary Ziemer.(Skinner, Clayton) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
466 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Atlanta.(Wyatt−Bullman, Alisha) (Entered: 11/13/2019)