Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 1 of 18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. DEBBIE ULIBARRI; ESTATE OF SHAWN FRANCISCO VIGIL;
Plaintiffs, v. CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER COLORADO, INCLUDING ITS SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; ALVIN LACABE, in his official capacity as the Manager of Public Safety for the City &
County of Denver and in his individual capacity; JOHN DOE(S), former and current Administrators of any correctional facility
maintained, operated, or controlled by the City & County of Denver or the Denver Sheriff’s Department in their Official and Individual Capacities,
Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND ________________________________________________________________________
Debbie Ulibarri on behalf of herself and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, for her Complaint and Jury Demand and alleges and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. Shawn Francisco Vigil was Debbie Ulibarri’s son. Mr. Vigil had been arrested by the Denver Police Department and was being held in the Denver County Jail as a deaf pre-trial detainee. While incarcerated, Mr. Vigil attempted suicide and severely incapacitated himself. Several days later, on October 1, 2005, he died as a direct and proximate result of the injuries he sustained during his suicide attempt. Upon information and belief, the Denver County Jail took no steps to accommodate Mr. Vigil’s
1

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 2 of 18
hearing impairment and did not provide him necessary assistance in communicating his serious medical and/or mental health needs during his incarceration. Upon information and belief, it is the policy, practice and custom of the Denver County Jail to fail to accommodate individuals with hearing disabilities and this policy, practice and custom created the danger that suicide may occur with these individuals, specifically with Mr. Vigil, by the failure to provide these necessary accommodations. In addition, Defendants had a special relationship with respect to Mr. Vigil and their failure to provide protection and assistance to him resulted in his death. The Defendants also failed to operate the Denver County Jail in a manner consistent with state and federal laws, were negligent in operating the jail, in providing care, safety and supervision of Mr. Vigil and negligently failed to provide him basic medical and mental health care in a manner that accommodated his disability.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Colorado, including Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as amended by the Civil Rights Attorney Fee Award Act of 1976; 29 U.S.C. § 626(c)(1); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) and 2201. 3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as all of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Colorado.
2

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 3 of 18
PARTIES 4. Debbie Ulibarri (“Ms. Ulibarri”) is currently and at all times relevant to this suit is and was a resident of the State of Colorado. 5. The Estate of the Decedent, Shawn Francisco Vigil, brings its claim through Debbie Ulibarri, the mother of Shawn Francisco Vigil, who will be appointed the personal representative of his Estate. At all times relevant to this suit, Mr. Vigil, was a resident of Colorado. 6. Defendant the City & County of Denver is a home rule municipality under Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution. The Denver Sheriff’s Department is a department within the City & County of Denver. The City & County of Denver and its Sheriff’s Department’s official customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures caused the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. In accordance with C.R.S. § 24-10-109, Defendant City & County of Denver was provided with notice of Plaintiffs’ (pendent state) claims on March 24, 2006. Pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunities Act, immunity from suit is waived pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(b) or other applicable statutory or common law rule. 7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Alvin Lacabe has been the Manager of Public Safety for the City & County of Denver. 8. The John Doe Defendants are current or former administrators and employees of the City & County of Denver who have not been otherwise named in this Complaint. These Defendants, at all times relevant to the allegations concerning them, were responsible for creating and increasing the danger to the Plaintiffs, for the failure to properly train and supervise the officers involved, in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights
3

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 4 of 18
pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and certain state law claims for negligence and wrongful death. These same Defendants were also responsible for assuring that Mr. Vigil, as a hearing-impaired pretrial detainee was reasonably accommodated. These Defendants were performing the traditional government function of operating and maintaining custodial control of inmates and pretrial detainees and were acting under color of law. They are sued in their official and individual capacities.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. The Denver County Jail (“DCJ”) received Mr. Vigil on August 28, 2005. Because of the seriousness of the allegations against him, Mr. Vigil faced the possibility that he might be incarcerated for many years. DCJ had a written policy requiring that all prisoners be evaluated for the risk they would suicide. Upon information and belief had no policy, practice, or custom that would allow it to effectively evaluate deaf prisoner’s mental health status. 10. DCJ’s records demonstrate that employees at the jail knew that Mr. Vigil was deaf. And, as a direct and proximate result of his disability, jail employees classified Mr. Vigil as a “Special Management Inmate” and housed him in the Special Needs Unit (“SNU”) where he was isolated. 11. At the time of Mr. Vigil’s incarceration, the SNU also housed a large number of juveniles. 12. During Mr. Vigil’s incarceration in DCJ, he turned age twenty-three. 13. When Mr. Vigil was in the custody of the DCJ, the jail had no policy, procedure or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of deaf prisoners that
4

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 5 of 18
would allow its employees to have effective communications with those prisoners. The jail also had no policy, procedure or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of those deaf prisoners who wished to place telephone calls to family members.
14. At various times during his incarceration, Mr. Vigil indicated that he was having problems and asked to meet with the Administrative Review Board (“Board”). The Board is responsible for the operation of the SNU at DCJ. Despite Mr. Vigil’s name appearing on the list of inmates who wished to meet with the Board, he was never taken before the Board.
15. Upon information and belief, on September 27, 2005, correctional officers failed to conduct timely rounds of the tier on which Mr. Vigil was being held. Those rounds are required to be made every half-hour. Indeed, during the time period between Mr. Vigil’s hanging himself and the discovery of his body, one guard took a lengthy break leaving a single officer in charge of several tiers of prisoners which included including a large number of rowdy juveniles. After breakfast on the morning of September 27, 2005, an inmate discovered Mr. Vigil hanging in his cell.
16. Mr. Vigil was taken by ambulance to Denver General Hospital where he remained in critical and unstable condition.
17. After consulting with Mr. Vigil’s health care providers, his family, including Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri, made the difficult decision to withdraw medical support which resulted in Mr. Vigil’s death at the age of twenty-three.
18. The Defendants engaged in the discriminatory practices described herein with malice or reckless indifference to Mr. Vigil’s rights.
5

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 6 of 18
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) 19. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if fully set forth herein. 20. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), provides in pertinent part: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 706(8) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 21. Mr. Vigil was an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 22. Mr. Vigil was qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities, and benefits provided to prisoners at the DCJ facility within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 23. The City and County of Denver and its Sheriff’s Department receive and benefit from federal financial assistance. 24. The City and County of Denver and its Sheriff’s Department denied Mr. Vigil access to programs, benefits and services provided to other prisoners at the DCJ solely on the basis of his disability and for which he was qualified to participate in, thereby violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 25. By way of illustration, not limitation, The City and County of Denver and its Sheriff’s Department, discriminated against Mr. Vigil by failing to provide him with the qualified interpreters he required to make himself understood and to understand
6

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 7 of 18
others and also deprived him of essential assistive devices or equipment, such as access to TDD telephone systems and closed-captioned programming by which he could have communicated with his family and sought the help he needed.
26. Despite the clear provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Defendants persisted in imposing conditions and practices which discriminate against Mr. Vigil and other persons with hearing impairments.
27. The Defendants’ refusal to accommodate or assist Mr. Vigil directly and proximately caused his death.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and violations alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Americans with Disabilities Act) 29. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 above, as if fully set forth herein. 30. The Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and specifically 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, prohibits discrimination in public services on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 provides: Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
7

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 8 of 18
31. The ADA defines a "public entity" to include any state or local government or any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or local government, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). The DCJ is a "public entity" within the meaning of the ADA.
32. Mr. Vigil had a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities and thus he was an individual with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(2)(A).
33. Mr. Vigil, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies or practices, the removal of communication barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, met the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by the DCJ. Thus, Mr. Vigil was a "qualified individual with disabilities" within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
34. The Defendants excluded Mr. Vigil from participation in DCJ services, programs and activities, and have denied him the rights and benefits accorded to other prisoners, solely by reason of his disability in violation of the ADA. In addition, the defendants have violated the ADA by intentionally failing or refusing to provide reasonable accommodations to Mr. Vigil and other persons with hearing disabilities.
35. The Defendants have willfully disregarded their duties under the ADA and have knowingly allowed unlawful conditions and practices to continue at the DCJ facilities for prolonged and unreasonable periods of time.
36. Despite the clear provisions of the ADA, the Defendants persist in imposing conditions and practices which discriminate against Mr. Vigil and other persons with
8

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 9 of 18
hearing disabilities. An actual controversy exists between the parties entitling Plaintiffs to declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
37. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and violations alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Violations of the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments)
(Against All Individually Named Defendants and John Does in their Individual and Official Capacities) 38. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 above, as if fully set forth herein. 39. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional violations and violations of federal statutes, where the violations are committed under color of State law. 40. All Defendants, except Defendant DCJ, have acted in reckless disregard for the serious medical and rehabilitation needs of Mr. Vigil and other persons with disabilities, constituting willful violations the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 41. All Defendants, except Defendant DCJ, have engaged in discriminatory acts and practices constituting willful violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42. All Defendants, except Defendant DCJ, were personally involved in the alleged constitutional and statutory violations in that each of them: (1) directly participated in the infraction; (2) failed to remedy the wrong after learning of a violation through a report
9

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 10 of 18
or appeal; (3) created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional and unlawful practices occurred; (4) allowed such a policy or custom to continue; or (5) was grossly negligent in managing subordinates who caused the unlawful conditions and events.
43. Plaintiffs, as a result of the Doe Defendant’s mistreatment of Mr. Vigil, have suffered pain, anxiety and humiliation as a result of the Defendants' deliberate indifference to their rights and welfare.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and constitutional violations alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – State Created Danger (Against All Individually Named Defendants and John Does in their Individual and Official Capacities) 45. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 above, as if fully set forth herein. 46. Mr. Vigil was a member of a limited and specifically definable group – hearing-impaired pretrial detainees. 47. The conduct of the individually named Defendants and John Does placed Mr. Vigil at a substantial risk of serious, immediate and proximate harm by isolating him, by incarcerating him without conducting any meaningful analysis of whether he posed a substantial danger to himself, by precluding Mr. Vigil from having any effective means of communication with anyone at the jail or with his family or friends and by failing to adequately supervise him.
10

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 11 of 18
48. The high risk of serious harm to Mr. Vigil, as a deaf pretrial detainee facing a potentially lengthy period of incarceration, was obvious and known to the Defendants. Yet, the Defendants acted recklessly and calculatedly in conscious disregard of the known risks to Mr. Vigil and Plaintiffs and in violation of their own policies.
49. The Defendants created and/or increased the danger to Mr. Vigil by isolating him, by failing to communicate with him to determine his mental state and by failing to supervise him in any meaningful way. The Defendants also created and/or increased the danger to Mr. Vigil by failing to allow him to see the Administrative Review Board.
50. Mr. Vigil’s death would not have occurred except for the actions of the Defendants which caused and/or increased Mr. Vigil and Plaintiffs’ vulnerability to harm and ultimately caused the harm to Plaintiffs. The action and/or inaction on the part of Defendants rise to the level of shocking the conscience.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and constitutional violations alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
52. As a result of the above and foregoing, Plaintiffs seek a declaration of a violation of their constitutional rights, as well as an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, costs, expert witness fees, and legal interest from the date of the officers’ and administrators’ actions and omissions.
11

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 12 of 18
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Constitutional Denial of Due Process: Failure to Train and/or Supervise (Against Manager of Public Safety Alvin Lacabe, John Doe Denver Sheriff’s
Department Training Officer and the City & County of Denver) 53. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 52 above, as if fully set forth herein. 54. The Manager of Public Safety for the City & County of Denver, Alvin Lacabe, acting on behalf of the City & County of Denver, is a policy-maker for the Denver Sheriff’s Department and in that capacity establishes policies, procedures, customs and/or practices for its officers regarding the housing of inmates and pretrial detainees. He, along with the other supervising John Doe, are responsible for the training and supervision of officers of the Denver Sheriff’s Department. 55. The policies, procedures, customs and/or practices established by City & County of Denver, the Manager of Public Safety Alvin Lacabe, and the John Doe Training Officer are implemented by officers of the Denver Sheriff’s Department. 56. The City & County of Denver, Lacabe, and the John Doe Training Officer developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs and/or practices regarding the detention of hearing impaired prisoners, which exhibit a reckless, deliberate or calculated indifference to the constitutional rights of such persons, and either knew or should have known, that such policies, procedures, customs and/or practices were motivated by intent or reckless, deliberate or calculated indifference to cause harm to said citizens, which violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, including their right to due process under the law. 57. The City & County of Denver, Lacabe, and the John Doe Training Officer failed to properly train and supervise officers of the Denver Sheriff’s Department with
12

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 13 of 18
respect to failing to provide in any way for the needs of hearing impaired prisoners such as Mr. Vigil, which failure violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, including their right to due process under the law, as set forth above.
58. Above Defendants must have known and were aware of the training and supervision given to officers in the Denver Sheriff’s Department in dealing with hearingimpaired inmates, were unnecessarily dangerous without regard to the consequences, and amounted to unconstitutional treatment of Mr. Vigil.
59. Defendants knew or should have known that the training provided and the supervision given to its officers regarding the detention and isolation of hearing impaired prisoners were reckless and/or done with calculated and deliberate indifference to the rights of those in its legal and physical custody, and that further misconduct in that area was inevitable.
60. Defendants had a statutorily imposed duty to protect the constitutional rights of prisoners, including Mr. Vigil, from violations of those rights by members of the Denver Sheriff’s Department, and by failing to properly train such officers, Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
61. The direct result of Defendants’ failure to properly train and supervise its officers was the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as previously described herein causing Plaintiffs’ damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and physical impairment, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
13

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 14 of 18
62. As a result of the above and foregoing, Plaintiffs seek a declaration of a violation of their constitutional rights, as well as an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, costs, expert witness fees, and legal interest from the date of the officers’ actions and omissions from the individual Defendants.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Claim of Negligence
(Against City & County of Denver, Manager of Public Safety Alvin Lacabe in Respondeat Superior/Official Capacity and John Does in Respondeat Superior/Official Capacity) 63. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 62
above, as if fully set forth herein. 64. In the performance of their duties, the officers who participated housing
Mr. Vigil had a duty to not act in a manner that created an unreasonable risk of injury or damage to life or property.
65. As described above, the officers who housed Mr. Vigil willfully, wantonly and negligently committed the following acts:
a. Isolating Mr. Vigil in the Special Needs Unit solely on the basis of his disability;
b. Failing to provide Mr. Vigil or his family any effective way of communicating;
c. Failing to provide Mr. Vigil with any effective way of communicating with his jailers;
d. Failing to allow Mr. Vigil to appear before the Administrative Review Board despite his request to do so;
14

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 15 of 18
e. Failing to adequately supervise Mr. Vigil; and f. Acting in a manner without due regard for the safety of Mr. Vigil. 66. The above conduct of the officers caused the harm to Plaintiffs. 67. Alvin Lacabe, in his official capacity, and the City and County of Denver and the Denver Sheriff’s Department are liable for the above actions of its officers. 68. Governmental immunity for the above actions is waived pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(b).
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Claim of Wrongful Death for Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri (Against City & County of Denver, Manager of Public Safety Alvin Lacabe in Respondeat Superior/Official Capacity and John Does in Respondeat Superior/Official Capacity) 69. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 above, as if fully set forth herein. 70. Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri is the mother of Shawn Francisco Vigil. 71. Mr. Vigil was unmarried and without descendants at the time of his death. 72. Mr. Vigil’s death was caused by the negligent conduct of the Defendants. 73. Mr. Vigil’s death was caused by the reckless conduct of the defendants. 74. Defendants are liable to Debbie Ulibarri for damages pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-202.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Claim for Negligent Failure to Train/Supervise Officers (Against City & County of Denver, Manager of Public Safety Alvin Lacabe in Respondeat Superior/Official Capacity and John Does in Respondeat
Superior/Official Capacity) 75. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 74 above, as if fully set forth herein.
15

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 16 of 18
76. The Defendants herein had a duty to train and supervise the officers under their supervision to perform their duties including accommodating the needs of deaf prisoners and the competent supervision of those same prisoners and not creating an unreasonable risk of harm to life.
77. Defendants negligently and willfully and wantonly failed to train and supervise their respective officers in the performance of the above duties.
78. As a result of the failure to properly train and supervise their officers, the jailers committed the following acts:
a. Isolating Mr. Vigil in the Special Needs Unit solely on the basis of his disability;
b. Failing to provide Mr. Vigil or his family any effective way of communicating;
c. Failing to provide Mr. Vigil with any effective way of communicating with his jailers;
d. Failing to allow Mr. Vigil to appear before the Administrative Review Board despite his request to do so;
e. Failing to adequately supervise Mr. Vigil; and f. Acting in a manner without due regard for the safety of Mr. Vigil. 79. The willful, wanton and negligent failure to train and supervise these officers caused the harm to Plaintiffs. 80. Lacabe, in his official capacity, and the City & County of Denver are liable for the above actions of its officers under the theory of respondeat superior.
16

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 17 of 18
81. Governmental immunity for the above actions is waived pursuant to C.R.S. Section 42-4-108.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, and grant:
(a) Appropriate relief at law and equity; (b) Declaratory judgment against the individually named Defendants in their official capacities and against the named entities, compensatory and consequential damages, including but not limited to damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of income and enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims by law in the amount to be determined at trial against all Defendants, as allowed by law; (c) Punitive damages against individuals in their individual capacities on all federal claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined at trial; (d) Attorneys’ fees and costs of this action, including expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law; (e) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and (f) Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper, and any other relief as allowed by law. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST A JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August 2007.
KING & GREISEN, LLP By: s/ Laura E. Schwartz Laura E. Schwartz 1670 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 Phone: (303) 298-9878 Fax: (303) 298-9879
17

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 18 of 18

Plaintiffs’ Address: 11968 East 1st Avenue Aurora, CO 80011

Email: schwartz@kinggreisen.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18

 
 Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 40
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW
DEBBIE ULIBARRI; ESTATE OF SHAWN FRANCISCO VIGIL; COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado Corporation; COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, a Colorado Corporation; ROGER KREBS; SARAH BURKE;
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, INCLUDING ITS SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, AND ITS POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALVIN LACABE, in his official capacity as Manager of Public Safety for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; WILLIAM LOVINGIER, in his official capacity as the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; RON D. FOOS, in his official capacity as Division Chief for the County Jail Division for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; GARY WILSON, in his official capacity as Division Chief for the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility Division, and in his individual capacity; GERALD R. WHITMAN, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, and in his individual capacity.
Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Debbie Ulibarri on behalf of herself and as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of
the Deaf, Roger Krebs, and Sarah Burke by and through their attorneys, Carrie Ann Lucas and
1

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 40
Kevin W. Williams of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, King & Greisen, LLC, and Fox & Robertson, P.C., hereby bring this Complaint against the City & County of Denver, including its Sheriff Department; Alvin LaCabe, in his official capacity as Manager of Public Safety for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; William Lovingier, in his official capacity as the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; Ron D. Foos, in his official capacity as Division Chief for the County Jail Division for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; Gary Wilson, in his official capacity as Division Chief for the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility Division, and in his individual capacity; and Gerald R. Whitman, in his official capacity as Police Chief, and in his individual capacity.
INTRODUCTION 1. Seventeen years after the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, the City & County of Denver, its Sheriff Department, Police Department, and managers of the city and county jails and detention centers discriminate against people with disabilities by summarily isolating them, and by refusing to provide accommodations and modifications to policies, practices and procedures, including but not limited to providing sign language interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing individuals. 2. On July 26, 1990, then President George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., into law establishing the most important civil rights law for people with disabilities in our country’s history. 3. Among the primary purposes of the ADA is ensuring that people with disabilities
2

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 40
receive accommodations, including interpreter services and other auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication.
4. The ADA also prohibits public entities such as the City & County of Denver and its departments and agencies from segregating individuals with disabilities solely because of their disability.
5. The City & County of Denver, and its departments and agencies, systematically discriminate against people with disabilities who have been detained or imprisoned at its city and county jails and detention centers, or otherwise have contact with the Police and Sheriff departments. .
6. Shawn Francisco Vigil was Debbie Ulibarri’s son, and was profoundly deaf. Mr. Vigil had been arrested by the Denver Police Department and was being held in the Denver County Jail as a pre-trial detainee. While incarcerated, Mr. Vigil committed suicide.
7. Upon information and belief, the Denver County Jail took no steps to ensure effective communication with Mr. Vigil, and did not provide him with accommodations to allow him to effectively communicate his serious medical and/or mental health needs during his incarceration.
8. Roger Krebs is profoundly deaf. He was detained at the Denver Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility. Mr. Krebs was isolated, denied access to sign language interpreters, and was not permitted access to any technology that would enable him to make a telephone call.
9. Upon information and belief, it is the policy, practice and custom of the Denver County Jail to fail to accommodate individuals with disabilities and these policies, practices and
3

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 40
procedures create the danger that suicide may occur with these individuals, specifically with Mr. Vigil, by the failure to provide these necessary accommodations.
10. Defendants have a special relationship with respect to pretrial detainees, and in Mr. Vigil’s case, their failure to provide protection and assistance to him resulted in his death.
11. The Defendants also failed to operate the Denver County Jail in a manner consistent with state and federal laws, were negligent in operating the jail, in providing care, safety and supervision of Mr. Vigil and negligently failed to provide him basic medical and mental health care in a manner that accommodated his disability.
12. Sarah Burke is profoundly deaf, and has type-one diabetes. She was arrested at her home and detained on a bench warrant. The police officers who arrested her refused to provide a sign language interpreter, refused to write notes, and forced Ms. Burke’s eight year old son to interpret for them. They also refused to allow Ms. Burke to keep her insulin and other emergency diabetes medication. When Ms. Burke was detained at the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility, she was denied access to sign language interpreters, and only belatedly examined by medical personnel who then refused to treat her diabetes, causing her blood sugar to drop to life threatening levels.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Colorado, including Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as amended by the Civil Rights Attorney Fee Award Act of 1976; 29 U.S.C. §
4

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 40
626(c)(1); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) and 2201. 14. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as all of the events
giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Colorado PARTIES
15. Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri (“Ms. Ulibarri”) is currently and at all times relevant to this suit is and was a resident of the State of Colorado. Ms. Ulibarri is a Colorado CrossDisability Coalition member.
16. Plaintiff Estate of the Decedent, Shawn Francisco Vigil (“Mr. Vigil”), brings its claim through Debbie Ulibarri, the mother of Shawn Francisco Vigil, who is the personal representative of his Estate. At all times relevant to this suit, Mr. Vigil, was a resident of Colorado. Mr. Vigil was substantially limited in several major life activities, including hearing.
17. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a Colorado non-profit corporation whose members are persons with disabilities and their nondisabled allies.
18. Plaintiff Colorado Association of the Deaf (“CAD”) is a Colorado non-profit corporation whose members are individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and their family members.
19. Plaintiff Roger Krebs (“Mr. Krebs”) is currently, and at all times relevant to this suit is and was a resident of the State of Colorado. Mr. Krebs is substantially limited in several major life activities, including hearing. Roger Krebs is a CCDC member.
20. Plaintiff Sarah Burke (“Ms. Burke”) is currently, and at all times relevant to this suit is and was a resident of the State of Colorado. Ms. Burke is substantially limited in several
5

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 40
major life activities, including hearing. Sarah Burke is a CCDC member. 21. Defendant the City & County of Denver is a home rule municipality under Article
XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution. The Denver Sheriff Department is a department within the City & County of Denver. The City & County of Denver and its Sheriff Department’s official customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures caused the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. In accordance with C.R.S. § 24-10-109, Defendant City & County of Denver was provided with notice of Plaintiffs’ (pendent state) claims on March 24, 2006. Pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunities Act, immunity from suit is waived pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(b) or other applicable statutory or common law rule. On information and belief, Defendant City & County of Denver is a recipient of federal financial assistance.
22. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Alvin LaCabe has been the Manager of Public Safety for the City & County of Denver.
23. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant William Lovingier has been the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff for the City & County of Denver, and or has been a division chief for the Sheriff Department.
24. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Ron D. Foos, has been Division Chief for the County Jail Division for the City & County of Denver.
25. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Gary Wilson has been Division Chief for the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility Division.
26. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Gerald R. Whitman has been Police Chief for the Police Department for the City & County of Denver.
6

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 40
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 27. Plaintiff Shawn Vigil was profoundly deaf. He could not hear voices and could not communicate verbally. His primary mode of communication was American Sign Language. 28. Like many individuals who were deaf since childhood, Mr. Vigil did not read or write English with fluency. He considered American Sign Language, not English, to be his native language. 29. In order to communicate effectively in situations involving medical or legal advice, decision making, or more than very simple language, Mr. Vigil required the services of a qualified sign language interpreter. 30. Defendants own and operate the Denver County Jail (“DCJ”) located within the City & County of Denver. The DCJ received Mr. Vigil on August 28, 2005. Because of the seriousness of the allegations against him, Mr. Vigil faced the possibility that he might be incarcerated for many years. Defendants had a written policy requiring that all prisoners be evaluated for the risk they would commit suicide. Upon information and belief Defendants had no policy, practice, or custom that would allow it to effectively communicate with a deaf prisoner to evaluate that prisoner’s mental health status. On information and belief, DCJ never provided Mr. Vigil a sign language interpreter for communication. 31. DCJ’s records demonstrate that employees at the jail knew that Mr. Vigil was deaf. Solely on the basis of his disability, and, as a direct and proximate result of his disability, jail employees classified Mr. Vigil as a “Special Management Inmate” and housed him in the
7

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 40
Special Needs Unit (“SNU”) where he was isolated from other inmates. 32. At the time of Mr. Vigil’s incarceration, the SNU also housed a large number of
juveniles. 33. During Mr. Vigil’s incarceration in DCJ, he turned age twenty-three. 34. When Mr. Vigil was in the custody of the DCJ, the jail had no policy, procedure
or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of deaf or hard of hearing prisoners that would allow its employees to have effective communications with those prisoners. The jail also had no policy, procedure and or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of those deaf or hard of hearing prisoners who wished to place telephone calls to friends, family members, or legal counsel.
35. At various times during his incarceration, Mr. Vigil indicated that he was having problems and asked to meet with the Administrative Review Board (“Board”). The Board is responsible for the operation of the SNU at DCJ. Despite Mr. Vigil’s name appearing on the list of inmates who wished to meet with the Board, he was never taken before the Board.
36. Upon information and belief, on September 27, 2005, correctional officers failed to conduct timely rounds of the tier on which Mr. Vigil was being held. Those rounds are required to be made every half-hour. Indeed, during the time period between Mr. Vigil’s hanging himself and the discovery of his body, one guard took a lengthy break leaving a single officer in charge of several tiers of prisoners, including a large number of rowdy juveniles. After breakfast on the morning of September 27, 2005, an inmate discovered Mr. Vigil hanging in his cell.
8

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 40
37. Mr. Vigil was taken by ambulance to Denver Health Medical Center where he remained in critical and unstable condition.
38. After consulting with Mr. Vigil’s health care providers, his family, including Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri, made the difficult decision to withdraw medical support. Mr. Vigil died on October 1, 2005, at the age of twenty-three.
39. On information and belief, the Denver Police Department never provided Mr. Vigil with a sign language interpreter, or other means of effective communication.
40. The Defendants engaged in the discriminatory practices described herein with malice, deliberate, and/or reckless indifference to Mr. Vigil’s rights.
41. Plaintiff Roger Krebs is deaf. He cannot hear voices and cannot communicate verbally. His primary mode of communication is American Sign Language.
42. Like many individuals who are deaf since childhood, Mr. Krebs does not read or write with fluency. He considers American Sign Language, not English, to be his native language.
43. In order to communicate effectively in situations involving medical or legal advice, decision making, or more than very simple language, Mr. Krebs requires the services of a qualified sign language interpreter.
44. On March 29, 2007, Mr. Krebs was traveling from Colorado Springs to Salt Lake City, Utah. He was taken into custody at the Denver Greyhound bus station during a lay over. He repeatedly asked the police officers for an interpreter, but they never provided an interpreter.
9

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 40
45. Mr. Krebs was transported by ambulance to Denver Health Medical Center. While at the hospital and being treated for injuries suffered prior to his detainment, Mr. Krebs requested, and the hospital provided him with a sign language interpreter.
46. Defendants own and operate the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility (“PADF”) located within the City & County of Denver. Mr. Krebs was moved from the hospital to the PADF.
47. When Mr. Krebs was being readied for transport to the PADF, he requested that the interpreter accompany him. Mr. Krebs was told that interpreters were not allowed at the PADF. Mr. Krebs was told that he would have an interpreter for court.
48. While at the PADF, Mr. Krebs was denied access to an interpreter for booking, and was not allowed access to any technology that would permit him to make a telephone call.
49. Mr. Krebs was offered medical treatment at the PADF, but he was unable to effectively communicate with the treatment providers.
50. Mr. Krebs was isolated in a cell, with no contact with other detainees, and no means to contact PADF staff.
51. During the morning of March 30, 2007, PADF staff awakened Mr. Krebs by hitting him in the chest with a bag containing his breakfast.
52. Mr. Krebs attempted to communicate with PADF staff to find out what time he was going to court, but PADF staff refused to attempt to communicate with him.
53. On information and belief, at the time of Mr. Krebs detention, the PADF had no policy, procedure or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of deaf or hard of hearing
10

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 40
detainees that would allow its employees to have effective communications with those prisoners. The jail also had no policy, procedure and or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of those deaf or hard of hearing detainees who wished to place telephone calls to friends, family members, or legal counsel.
54. On information and belief, Mr. Krebs was isolated in a cell alone solely on the basis of his disability.
55. Mr. Krebs was not provided with an interpreter at his arraignment at the Denver County Court. Defendants did not permit Mr. Krebs to contact the court to request an interpreter himself. On information and belief, Defendants did not contact the court to request an interpreter on Mr. Krebs’ behalf, nor did Defendants provide an interpreter for Mr. Krebs. Mr. Krebs remained in the care, custody, and control of Defendants throughout his court appearance.
56. When Mr. Krebs asked Defendants to provide an interpreter, he was told that if he wanted an interpreter, he would have to remain detained for an additional three days until an interpreter would be provided. He was told that if he went ahead and pled guilty, he would be immediately released. As a result, Mr. Krebs pled guilty to all charges so that he could be released.
57. On information and belief, at the time of Mr. Krebs’ arrest, the Denver Police had no policy, procedure or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of deaf or hard of hearing arrestees that would allow its employees to have effective communications with those arrestees.
58. Plaintiff Sarah Burke is deaf. She cannot hear voices and cannot communicate
11

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 40
verbally. Her primary mode of communication is American Sign Language. 59. Like many individuals who are deaf since childhood, Ms. Burke does not read or
write with fluency. She considers American Sign Language, not English, to be her native language.
60. In order to communicate effectively in situations involving medical or legal advice, decision making, or more than very simple language, Ms. Burke requires the services of a qualified sign language interpreter.
61. Ms. Burke also has type-one diabetes. To control her diabetes, she monitors her blood glucose levels several times throughout each day, takes several insulin shots throughout the day, and times her meals to maintain acceptable blood glucose levels.
62. On August 29, 2007, after taking an insulin shot, and while at home cooking dinner for her family, including her two young children, Denver Police officers knocked on Ms. Burke’s door and asked to be allowed in the home.
63. Ms. Burke invited the officers in her home, where Ms. Burke indicated that she was deaf and requested a sign language interpreter. The police refused and required Ms. Burke’s then-eight-year-old son to interpret. Ms. Burke asked the police officers to write, but they refused, continuing to force the eight-year-old to interpret. Ms. Burke’s son struggled to interpret because he did not know the vocabulary the police officers were using. Finally the police wrote down something about contempt and handed it to Ms. Burke’s husband, James Burke, who is also deaf. Mr. Burke did not understand the note, and handed it to Ms. Burke, but the police officers took the note away before Ms. Burke could read it.
12

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 40
64. The police officers took Ms. Burke outside, handcuffed her and placed her under arrest. Ms. Burke did not understand why she was arrested.
65. Ms. Burke was barefoot, and could not communicate with her hands because she was handcuffed. She attempted to ask for shoes verbally, but the police officers ignored her. Ms. Burke’s son was again forced to interpret, and the police officers allowed Mr. Burke to bring Ms. Burke’s shoes. Mr. Burke tried to give the police Ms. Burke’s insulin and emergency diabetes medications, but the police officers refused to allow Ms. Burke to bring her medication. The police also refused to allow Ms. Burke to bring her pager/cell phone or any money.
66. Ms. Burke was taken to the District 3 police station where she was detained for about three hours. Ms. Burke sat handcuffed to a bench in a holding cell at the police station. Because she had taken her insulin, but not been permitted to eat, she began to experience hypoglycemia and feel very ill. She also needed to use the restroom, but had no way to communicate with the police officers to make that request. She was never provided with an interpreter during this time.
67. After several hours, a police officer who indicated that he knew sign language approached Ms. Burke. She told the officer she needed to use the restroom, but the officer did not even know the sign for restroom. She tried to explain that she has diabetes and needed to eat something, but she was denied any food.
68. On information and belief, at the time of Ms. Burke’s arrest, the Denver Police Department had no policy, procedure or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of deaf or hard of hearing arrestees that would allow its employees to have effective communications
13

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 40
with those arrestees. On information and belief, at the time of Ms. Burke’s arrest, the Denver Police Department had no policy, procedure or equipment in place to accommodate the needs of arrestees with diabetes that would allow arrestees to keep their medication, or access appropriate diabetic care.
69. Ms. Burke was then transported to the PADF. Ms. Burke again requested an interpreter, and requested medical attention because she was feeling so ill. Ms. Burke was instead placed in a holding cell.
70. After several minutes a female deputy approached Ms. Burke and began talking verbally to her. Ms. Burke asked the deputy to write, but the deputy instead slammed Ms. Burke against a wall and then searched Ms. Burke’s body.
71. When the deputy finished her search, she pointed to a telephone, as if to indicate that Ms. Burke was permitted to make telephone calls. Ms. Burke tried to explain that she could not use a standard telephone, but the deputy was indifferent. Ms. Burke was never offered the use of a TTY or videophone.
72. Ms. Burke was then placed in a cell with other women. She was so ill that the other women attempted to summon a jailer to get medical help for Ms. Burke, but they were ignored.
73. Some time later, when a deputy did come to the cell, Ms. Burke wrote on a piece of paper that she had diabetes and needed to see a doctor. The deputy acted as if she did not believe Ms. Burke. The deputy refused to write to Ms. Burke, and instead only spoke verbally to Ms. Burke, who could not understand what the deputy was saying.
14

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 40
74. About an hour and a half later, about three and a half hours after she arrived at the PADF, Ms. Burke was taken to an individual whom she believed to be medical officer. Ms. Burke again requested an interpreter, but was instead given paper to write with. Ms. Burke explained that she was diabetic, and needed something to eat to raise her blood sugar. The medical officer appeared to not believe Ms. Burke. Ms. Burke then asked for a blood glucose monitor, and explained that she had taken her insulin and needed to eat. After a delay to search for the equipment, the medical officer retrieved a blood glucose monitor. The medical officer fumbled with its use, but eventually was able to test Ms. Burke’s blood glucose which was quite low. The medical officer confirmed that the results demonstrated that Ms. Burke had diabetes. Ms. Burke again requested food to raise her blood sugar levels, but the medical officer refused saying that food would be served at 4:30 a.m., over four hours later, and Ms. Burke would simply have to wait until then for food..
75. Ms. Burke was then taken to another cell where she fell asleep. Ms. Burke was awakened when a deputy kicked her a short time later, and escorted Ms. Burke to be booked. Ms. Burke was then released, between 2:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m., and given bus tokens to get home.
76. Because the police would not allow Ms. Burke to bring her pager/cell phone, she was unable to contact her husband to pick her up at the detention center. Ms. Burke asked a deputy to assist her in making a telephone call to her husband, but the deputy refused. The deputy handed Ms. Burke a TTY device but it was broken. Despite the broken equipment, the deputy still refused to assist Ms. Burke in making a telephone call.
15

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 40
77. Unbeknownst to Ms. Burke, Mr. Burke had contacted the PADF to find out when Ms. Burke would be released. He was told she would be released at 3:00 a.m. Mr. Burke asked that the deputy give Ms. Burke a message that he would pick her up at 3:00 a.m., but the deputies never relayed the message.
78. Ms. Burke, still feeling desperately ill and disorientated with severely low blood sugars, walked to a nearby light rail station to go home. Once at the station, Ms. Burke discovered that the trains would not start service until 4:30 a.m., two hours later. Ms. Burke then walked back to the PADF to try to find someone to help her. On her way back a vehicle approached her, and the man inside offered Ms. Burke a ride home. Feeling very ill and confused, Ms. Burke accepted the offer for the ride. The man did not take Ms. Burke home, but rather took her to an alley and attempted to assault her. Terrified, Ms. Burke managed to escape and returned to the train station to wait for a train. Ms. Burke was afraid to contact the police based upon her experiences during the past twelve hours.
79. By the time Ms. Burke reached her home, she was severely hypoglycemic, and extremely traumatized.
80. On information and belief, at the time of Ms. Burke’s detention, the PADF had no policy, procedure or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of deaf or hard of hearing detainees that would allow its employees to have effective communications with those prisoners. The jail also had no policy, procedure and or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of those deaf or hard of hearing detainees who wished to place telephone calls to friends, family members, or legal counsel.
16

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 40
81. On information and belief, at the time of Ms. Burke’s detention, the PADF had no policy, procedure or equipment in place for accommodating the needs of detainees with diabetes that would allow detainees to access appropriate diabetic care including access to medications, emergency care and regular meals and snacks.
82. On information and belief, Defendants discriminate against other people with disabilities through their policies, practices and procedures, by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and modifications to policies, practices and procedures, by isolating arrestees, inmates and pretrial detainees with disabilities solely on the basis of their disability, and by failing to provide auxiliary aids and services to witnesses, victims, suspects, arrestees, inmates and pretrial detainees.
83. CCDC’s purpose is to promote independence, self-reliance, and full participation for people with all types of disabilities and to combat discrimination that impacts people with disabilities, through direct services, education, research and training. As part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- participating in government services, including services while detained or jailed.
84. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.
85. Defendants’ actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable, and
17

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 40
perceptible injury to CCDC. Those injuries include but are not limited to those described herein. 86. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other
outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to communicating with Defendants in an attempt to secure accessible services, activities and programs.
87. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to educate members and others who have been injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
88. Defendants’ discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve full inclusion for persons with disabilities. For example:
a. Defendants’ discrimination, in and of itself, isolates individuals with disabilities, preventing any inclusion with non-disabled individuals;
b. Defendants’ actions send the message that such discrimination continues to be acceptable at this time, and discourages people with disabilities from advocating for their own rights.
89. Defendants’ discrimination has required and continues to require CCDC to make a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CCDC’s counseling, advocacy, educational, and training missions.
90. CCDC also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of
18

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 40
discrimination in the community, including that of Defendants. 91. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are
traceable to Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
92. CCDC’s members include individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing who require auxiliary aids and services for effective communication, individuals who have diabetes, as well as individuals who have other disabilities.
93. CCDC’s members have been injured and will continue to be injured by Defendant’s discrimination described above.
94. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendant, and the integration of persons with disabilities into the community are at the core of CCDC’s organizational purpose.
95. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief.
96. CAD’s purpose is to empower deaf individuals to exercise self-determination and independence; to advocate for equal opportunities in social, educational, and employment opportunities; and to protect the rights of the deaf to accessible services in the State of Colorado. As part of that purpose, CAD seeks to ensure that individuals who are deaf have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- participating in government services, including services while detained or jailed.
97. CAD engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to
19

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 40
promote access for and combat discrimination against people who are deaf. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.
98. Defendants’ actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable, and perceptible injury to CAD. Those injuries include but are not limited to those described herein.
99. CAD has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to communicating with Defendants in an attempt to secure accessible services, activities and programs.
100. CAD has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to educate members and others who have been injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
101. Defendants’ discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to selfdetermination and independence for deaf individuals, and, therefore, frustrates CAD’s ability to achieve equal opportunities for deaf individuals. For example:
a. Defendants’ discrimination prevents deaf individuals from communicating basic needs, including medical information, preventing self-determination and independence;
b. Defendants’ discrimination isolates deaf individuals, preventing them from accessing the services offered by Defendants.
102. Defendants’ discrimination has required and continues to require CAD to make a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such
20

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 40
discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CAD’s mission.
103. CAD also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of discrimination in the community, including that of Defendants.
104. CAD’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
105. CAD’s members include individuals who are deaf who require auxiliary aids and services for effective communication.
106. CAD’s members have been injured and will continue to be injured by Defendant’s discrimination described above.
107. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendant, and the integration of deaf individuals into the community are at the core of CAD’s organizational purpose.
108. The participation of individual CAD members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) (Against City & County of Denver, including its Sheriff and Police Departments, and All Individually Named Defendants in their Official Capacities) 109. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
21

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 40
110. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), provides in pertinent part:
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 706(8) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
111. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of disability in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794 and its implementing regulations as more fully described above. Such discrimination includes but is not limited to failure to provide accommodations, auxiliary aids and services, and the imposition of isolation solely on the basis of disability.
112. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the strong likelihood that pursuit of Defendants’ questioned policies, and failure to provide auxiliary aids and services would likely result in a violation of federally protected rights.
113. Mr. Vigil was, Mr. Krebs is, and Ms. Burke is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
114. Mr. Vigil was qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities, and benefits provided to prisoners at the DCJ facility, the PADF facility, and the Denver Police Department within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
115. Mr. Krebs was qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities, and benefits provided to prisoners at the PADF facility, and the Denver Police Department within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
116. Ms. Burke was qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities, and
22

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 40
benefits provided to prisoners at the PADF facility, and the Denver Police Department within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
117. CCDC and CAD’s members are individuals with disabilities, and are qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities and benefits of Defendants’ within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
118. The City and County of Denver and its Sheriff and Police Departments receive and benefit from federal financial assistance as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. § 794.
119. The City and County of Denver and its Sheriff and Police Departments denied Mr. Vigil, Mr. Krebs and Ms. Burke access to programs, benefits and services provided to other prisoners at the DCJ and PADF solely on the basis of their disabilities and for which they were qualified to participate in, thereby violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
120. By way of illustration, not limitation, The City and County of Denver and its Sheriff and Police Departments, discriminated against Mr. Vigil, Mr. Krebs and Ms. Burke by failing to provide them with the qualified interpreters they required to make themselves understood and to understand others and also deprived them of essential assistive devices or equipment, such as access to TTY telephone systems, video phones, and closed-captioned programming by which they could have communicated with their families, and sought the help they needed. Defendants also discriminated against Ms. Burke by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications that would allow Ms. Burke to access her diabetes medications, equipment, supplies, food, water, and bathroom breaks.
121. Despite the clear provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Defendants
23

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 40
persisted in imposing conditions and practices which discriminate against Mr. Vigil, Mr. Krebs, Ms. Burke and other persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, have diabetes, or other disabilities.
122. The Defendants’ conduct toward Mr. Vigil, including but not limited to their refusal to accommodate or assist him, directly and proximately caused his death.
123. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and violations alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
124. Plaintiffs have been injured and aggrieved by and will continue to be injured and aggrieved by Defendants’ discrimination.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) (Against City & County of Denver, including its Sheriff and Police Departments, and All Individually Named Defendants in their Official Capacities) 125. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 126. The Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and specifically 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, prohibits discrimination in public services on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 provides: Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or
24

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 40
be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 127. The ADA defines a "public entity" to include any state or local government or any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or local government, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). The DCJ and the PADF each are a "public entity" within the meaning of the ADA. 128. Mr. Vigil had a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities and thus he was an individual with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(2). 129. Mr. Krebs has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities and thus he is an individual with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(2). 130. Ms. Burke has physical impairments that substantially limit one or more of her major life activities and thus she is an individual with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(2). 131. CCDC and CAD’s members are individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), or are individuals associated with individuals with disabilities. 132. Mr. Vigil, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies or practices, the removal of communication barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, met the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or
25

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 40
activities provided by the Defendants. Thus, Mr. Vigil was a "qualified individual with disabilities" within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
133. Mr. Krebs, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies or practices, the removal of communication barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services met the eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants. Thus, Mr. Krebs is a "qualified individual with disabilities" within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
134. Ms. Burke, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies or practices, the removal of communication barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services met the eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by Defendants. Thus, Ms. Burke is a "qualified individual with disabilities" within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
135. The Defendants excluded Mr. Vigil, Mr. Krebs and Ms. Burke from participation in their services, programs and activities, and have denied them the rights and benefits accorded to other prisoners and detainees, solely by reason of their disabilities in violation of the ADA. In addition, Defendants have violated the ADA by intentionally failing or refusing to provide reasonable accommodations and modifications to policies, practices and procedures to Mr. Vigil, Mr. Krebs, Ms. Burke and other persons with disabilities.
136. The Defendants have willfully disregarded their duties under the ADA and have knowingly allowed unlawful conditions and practices to continue at the Police Department, and the DCJ and PADF facilities for prolonged and unreasonable periods of time.
26

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 40
137. Despite the clear provisions of the ADA, the Defendants persist in imposing conditions and practices which discriminate against Mr. Vigil, Mr. Krebs, Ms. Burke and other persons with disabilities. An actual controversy exists between the parties entitling Plaintiffs to declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
138. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and violations alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri and Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil
(Violations of the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments) (Against City & County of Denver, and Defendants LaCabe, Lovingier, and Foos in their
Individual and Official Capacities) 139. Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri and Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 140. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional violations and violations of federal statutes, where the violations are committed under color of State law. 141. Defendants herein have acted in deliberate and reckless disregard for the serious medical needs of Mr. Vigil and other persons with disabilities, constituting willful violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 142. Defendants herein have engaged in discriminatory acts and practices constituting willful violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
27

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 40
143. Defendants herein were personally involved in the alleged constitutional and statutory violations in that each of them: (1) directly participated in the infraction; (2) failed to remedy the wrong after learning of a violation through a report or appeal; (3) created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional and unlawful practices occurred; (4) allowed such a policy or custom to continue; and/or (5) was deliberately and recklessly indifferent in managing subordinates who caused the unlawful conditions and events.
144. Plaintiffs, as a result of the Defendants’ mistreatment, have suffered pain, anxiety, and humiliation as a result of the Defendants' deliberate indifference to their rights and welfare.
145. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and constitutional violations alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – State Created Danger on behalf of Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri and Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil and Sarah Burke (Against All Defendants in their Individual and Official Capacities) 146. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 147. Mr. Vigil was a member of a limited and specifically definable group – deaf and hard of hearing pretrial detainees. 148. Ms. Burke was a member of a limited and specifically definable group — deaf
28

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 40
and hard of hearing and diabetic pretrial detainees. 149. The conduct of the individually named Defendants created the danger and/or
increased the danger to Mr. Vigil, and placed him at a substantial risk of serious, immediate and proximate harm by isolating him, by incarcerating him without conducting any meaningful analysis of whether he posed a substantial danger to himself, by precluding Mr. Vigil from having any effective means of communication with anyone at the jail or with his family or friends and by failing to adequately supervise him.
150. The high risk of serious harm to Mr. Vigil, as a deaf pretrial detainee facing a potentially lengthy period of incarceration, was obvious and known to the Defendants. Yet, the Defendants acted recklessly and calculatedly in conscious disregard of the known risks to Mr. Vigil and in violation of their own policies.
151. The Defendants created and/or increased the danger to Mr. Vigil by isolating him, not providing him auxiliary aids and services to communicate with his jailers, family and friends, by failing to communicate with him to determine his medical and mental health needs, and by failing to supervise him in any meaningful way. The Defendants also created and/or increased the danger to Mr. Vigil by failing to allow him to see the Administrative Review Board.
152. Mr. Vigil’s death would not have occurred except for the actions of the Defendants which caused and/or increased Mr. Vigil and Plaintiffs’ vulnerability to harm and ultimately caused the harm to Plaintiffs. The action and/or inaction on the part of Defendants rises to the level of shocking the conscience.
153. The conduct of the individually named Defendants placed Ms. Burke at a
29

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 40
substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm by failing incarcerating her without proving medical care or access to the accommodations she required, by precluding Ms. Burke from having any effective means of communication with anyone at the police station and the detention facility, or with her friends and family.
154. The high risk of serious harm to Ms. Burke, as a deaf pretrial detainee with diabetes was obvious and known to the Defendants. Yet, the Defendants acted recklessly and calculatedly in conscious disregard of the known risks to Ms. Burke, and in violation of their own policies.
155. The Defendants created and/or increased the danger to Ms. Burke by not providing her auxiliary aids and services to communicate with her jailers, family and friends, by failing to communicate with her to determine her medical needs, and by failing to treat her medical conditions.
156. Ms. Burke’s injuries would not have occurred except for the actions of the Defendants which caused and/or increased Ms. Burke’s vulnerability to harm and ultimately caused the harm to her. The action and/or inaction on the part of Defendants rises to the level of shocking the conscience.
157. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and constitutional violations alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
30

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 40
158. As a result of the above and foregoing, Plaintiffs seek a declaration of a violation of their constitutional rights, as well as an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, costs, expert witness fees, and legal interest from the date of the officers’ and administrators’ actions and omissions.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Constitutional Denial of Due Process: Failure to Train and/or Supervise on behalf of Plaintiffs
(Against All Defendants and in their Individual and Official Capacities) 159. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 160. The Manager of Public Safety for the City & County of Denver, Alvin LaCabe, acting on behalf of the City & County of Denver, is a policy-maker for the Denver Sheriff and Police Departments and in that capacity establishes policies, procedures, customs and/or practices for its officers regarding the housing of inmates and pretrial detainees, and the conduct of police officers. He, along with Director of Corrections and Undersheriff William Lovingier, Division Chief Ron D. Foos, and Division Chief Gary Wilson, are responsible for the training and supervision of officers of the Denver Sheriff Department. He along with Police Chief Gerald R. Whitman are responsible for the training and supervision of officers of the Denver Police Department. 161. The policies, procedures, customs and/or practices established by City & County of Denver, the Manager of Public Safety Alvin LaCabe, Director of Corrections William Lovingier, Division Chief Ron D. Foos, and Division Chief Gary Wilson are implemented by officers of the Denver Sheriff Department.
31

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 40
162. The policies, procedures, customs and/or practices established by City & County of Denver, the Manager of Public Safety Alvin LaCabe, Police Chief Gerald R. Whitman are implemented by officers of the Denver Police Department.
163. The City & County of Denver, Alvin LaCabe, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, and Gerald R. Whitman developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs and/or practices regarding the treatment of people with disabilities, which exhibit a reckless, deliberate or calculated indifference to the constitutional rights of such persons, and either knew or should have known, that such policies, procedures, customs and/or practices were motivated by intent or recklessness, deliberate or calculated indifference to cause harm to said citizens, which violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, including their right to due process under the law.
164. The City & County of Denver, LaCabe, Lovingier, Foos, Wilson and Whitman failed to properly train and supervise officers of the Denver Sheriff and Police Departments with respect to failing to provide in any way for the needs of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners such as Mr. Vigil, Mr. Krebs, and Ms. Burke which failure violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, including their right to due process under the law, as set forth above.
165. Above Defendants must have known and were aware that the training and supervision given to officers in the Denver Sheriff and Police Departments in dealing with deaf and hard of hearing individuals and individuals with diabetes and other disabilities was unnecessarily dangerous without regard to the consequences, and amounted to unconstitutional treatment of Mr. Vigil. Mr. Krebs and Ms. Burke.
166. Defendants knew or should have known that the training provided and the
32

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 40
supervision given to its officers regarding the detention and isolation of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners was reckless and/or done with calculated and deliberate indifference to the rights of those in its legal and physical custody, and that further misconduct in that area was inevitable.
167. Defendants had a statutorily imposed duty to protect the constitutional rights of prisoners, including Mr. Vigil, Mr. Krebs and Ms. Burke, from violations of those rights by members of the Denver Sheriff and Police Department, and by failing to properly train such officers, Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
168. The direct result of Defendants’ failure to properly train and supervise its officers was the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as previously described herein causing Plaintiffs’ damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and physical impairment, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
169. As a result of the above and foregoing, Plaintiffs seek a declaration of a violation of their constitutional rights, as well as an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, costs, expert witness fees, and legal interest from the date of the officers’ actions and omissions from the individual Defendants.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Constitutional Denial of Due Process: Special Relationship on behalf of Plaintiffs Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, and Sarah Burke (Against All Individually Named Defendants and in their Individual and Official Capacities) 170. Plaintiffs Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs and Sarah Burke reallege
33

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 40
and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 171. Plaintiffs Burke, Krebs and Vigil at all times relevant to the claims herein were
persons within the care and custody of Defendants. 172. As persons in the custody of Defendants, there was a special relationship that
existed under the United States Constitution that required Defendants to provide protection and assistance to the Plaintiffs.
173. Defendants failed to provide this protection and assistance to Plaintiffs’ despite that Defendants knew or should have known of the Plaintiffs need for this protection and assistance. Defendants' conduct in failing to provide necessary protection and assistance to the Plaintiffs was willful, reckless, deliberately indifferent and shocks the conscious.
174. Defendant's conduct in failing to provide protection and assistance caused the harm to the Plaintiffs alleged herein causing Plaintiffs’ damages, injuries, pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, impairment of quality of life, past and future economic losses, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, reasonable and necessary medical, hospital and other expenses, and physical impairment, and with respect to Mr. Vigil, his death.
175. As a result of the above and foregoing, Plaintiffs seek a declaration of a violation of their constitutional rights, as well as an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, costs, expert witness fees, and legal interest from the date of the officers’ actions and omissions from the individual Defendants.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Claim of Negligence on behalf of Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri and Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil
34

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 40
(Against City & County of Denver) 176. Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri and Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 177. In the performance of their duties, the officers who participated housing Mr. Vigil had a duty to not act in a manner that created an unreasonable risk of injury or damage to life or property. 178. As described above, the officers who housed Mr. Vigil willfully, wantonly and negligently committed the following acts:
a. Isolating Mr. Vigil in the Special Needs Unit solely on the basis of his disability;
b. Failing to provide Mr. Vigil or his family any effective way of communicating;
c. Failing to provide Mr. Vigil with any effective way of communicating with his jailers;
d. Failing to allow Mr. Vigil to appear before the Administrative Review Board despite his request to do so;
e. Failing to adequately supervise Mr. Vigil; and f. Acting in a manner without due regard for the safety of Mr. Vigil. 179. The above conduct of the officers caused the harm to Plaintiffs. 180. Defendant City and County of Denver and the Denver Sheriff Department are liable for the above actions of its officers.
35

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 40
181. Governmental immunity for the above actions is waived pursuant to C.R.S. § 2410-106(1)(b) and 1.5.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Claim of Wrongful Death for Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri
(Against City & County of Denver) 182. Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 183. Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri is the mother of Shawn Francisco Vigil. 184. Mr. Vigil was unmarried and without descendants at the time of his death. 185. Mr. Vigil’s death was caused by the negligent conduct of the Defendant. 186. Mr. Vigil’s death was caused by the reckless conduct of the Defendant. 187. Defendant City & County of Denver is liable to Debbie Ulibarri for damages pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-21-202.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Claim for Negligent Failure to Train/Supervise Officers on behalf of
Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri and Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil (Against City & County of Denver, including its Sheriff and Police Departments) 188. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 189. The Defendants herein had a duty to train and supervise the officers under their supervision to perform their duties including accommodating the needs of deaf prisoners and the competent supervision of those same prisoners and not creating an unreasonable risk of harm to life.
36

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 40
190. Defendants negligently and willfully and wantonly failed to train and supervise their respective officers in the performance of the above duties.
191. As a result of the failure to properly train and supervise their officers, the jailers committed the following acts:
a. Isolating Mr. Vigil in the Special Needs Unit solely on the basis of his disability;
b. Failing to provide Mr. Vigil or his family any effective way of communicating;
c. Failing to provide Mr. Vigil with any effective way of communicating with his jailers;
d. Failing to allow Mr. Vigil to appear before the Administrative Review Board despite his request to do so;
e. Failing to adequately supervise Mr. Vigil; and f. Acting in a manner without due regard for the safety of Mr. Vigil. 192. The willful, wanton and negligent failure to train and supervise these officers caused the harm to Plaintiffs. 193. Defendant City & County of Denver are liable for the above actions of its officers under the theory of respondeat superior. 194. Governmental immunity for the above actions is waived pursuant to C.R.S. § 2410-106(1)(b) and (1.5).
37

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 40
Relief Requested WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request: 1. That this Court assume jurisdiction; 2. That this Court enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally; 3. That this Court declare the actions of Defendants described in this Complaint to be in violation of Titles III and IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; 4. That this Court enter an injunction ordering Defendant to cease discrimination on the basis of disability at its jail and detention facilities, and at its Police Department; 5. That this Court award Plaintiffs all damages allowed at law; 6. That this Court award Plaintiffs appropriate relief at law and equity; 7. That this Court grant declaratory judgment against the individually named Defendants in their official capacities and against the named entities, compensatory and consequential damages, including but not limited to damages for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of income and enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims by law in the amount to be determined at trial against all Defendants, as allowed by law; 8. That this Court award Plaintiffs punitive damages against individuals in their individual capacities on all federal claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined at trial; 9. That this Court award attorneys’ fees and costs of this action, including expert
38

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 40
witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;
10. That this Court award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate;
and
11. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper
and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
COLORADO CROSS DISABILITY COALITION
s/ Carrie Ann Lucas Carrie Ann Lucas Kevin W. Williams 655 Broadway Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 303.839.1775 (voice) 303.839.1782 (fax) clucas@ccdconline.org kwilliams@ccdconline.org
Paula Dee Greisen Laura E. Schwartz King & Greisen, LLP 1670 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 298-9878 (voice) (303) 298-9879 (fax) schwartz@kinggreisen.com greisen@kinggreisen.com
Amy F. Robertson Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 16th Street Suite 610 Denver, CO 80204 303.595.9700 (voice)
39

Case 1:07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW Document 48 Filed 02/25/2008 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 40

Dated: February 4, 2008

303.595.9705 (fax) arob@foxrob.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Address of Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil 11968 East 1st Avenue Aurora, CO 80011
Address of Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203
Address of Plaintiff Colorado Association of the Deaf 1575 Elmira Street Aurora, CO 80010
Address of Plaintiff Roger Krebs 715 Badger Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80916
Address of Plaintiff Sarah Burke 3349 S. Monaco Pkwy. #C Denver, CO 80222

40

 
 Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 59
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO SENIOR JUDGE WALKER D. MILLER
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01814-WDM-MJW
DEBBIE ULIBARRI; ESTATE OF SHAWN FRANCISCO VIGIL; COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado corporation; COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, a Colorado corporation; ROGER KREBS; and SARAH BURKE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER; ALVIN LACABE, in his official capacity as Manager of Public Safety for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; WILLIAM LOVINGIER, in his official capacity as Director of Corrections and Undersheriff for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; RON D. FOOS, in his official capacity as Division Chief for the County Jail Division for the City & County of Denver, and in his individual capacity; GARY WILSON, in his official capacity as Division Chief for the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility Division, and in his individual capacity; GERALD R. WHITMAN, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, and in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
Miller, J.
This case is before me on the Objections (ECF Nos. 80 and 113) to orders entered
by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
197) filed by the City and County of Denver and the individual Defendants in their official
capacities1 (“Denver”), the Motion for Summary J udgment (ECF No. 198) filed by the
1Claims against government employees in their official capacities are considered to be claims against the entity that employs them. Pietrowski v. Town of Dibble, 134

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 59
individual Defendants in their indvi idual capacities, the Motion toStrike (ECF No. 224) filed by Plaintiffs, and the Motion to Strike Exhibits (ECF No. 243) filed by Defendants. I have reviewed the parties’ written arguments and the evidence submitted with their briefs and conclude that oral argument is not required. For the reasonsthat follow, the Objections to the orders of Magistrate Judge Watanabe ar e overruled. The Motions for Summary Judgment and Motions to Strike are granted in part and denied in part as set forth below.
Background2 This is a civil rights and disability rightscase concerning the arrest and detention of several deaf individuals by the members of Denver’s Police and Sheriff Departments and the practices of those entit ies with respect to persons with disabilities. The persons arrested and detained are Shawn Vigil, now deceased and represented here by his Estate, Plaintiff Roger Krebs, and Plaintiff Sarah Burke. Plaintiff Debbie Ulibarri is the mother of Mr. Vigil. Plaintiffs Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) and Colorado Association of the Deaf (“CAD”) assert claims seeking injunctive and other equit able relief. The Defendants are Denver and several of it s employees, including supervisory members of the Sheriff and Police Departments. The Denver Sheriff Department operates two facilities at issue in this litigation: the Pre-arraignment Detention Fa cility (“PADF”) and the Denver County Jail (the “Jail”).
F.3d 1006, 1009 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985)).
2The following facts are taken from the parties’ briefs and attached exhibits and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Facts that I have excluded pursuant to the Motions to Strike, discussed infra, and those I consider immaterial are not included in this recitation.
2

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 59
Medical services are provided at these facilit ies by employees of the Denver Health and Hospital Authority (“DHHA”), a separate and independent governmental entity not a party to these proceedings.
I will first review the backgrounds and events involving the three persons detained. Shawn Vigil Vigil became “profoundly” deaf at the age of two as a result of a severe bacterial infection. He attended the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where he communicated in large part through American Sign Language “(ASL”)3. According to one of Vigil’s school records from 2004, “Shawn’s primary mode of communication is sign language.” Exh. 22 to Plaintiffs’ Response, ECF No. 229-23. He spent time with his family inDenver on weekends and vacations. His family are all hearing and know little sign language. He communicated with them through gestures and written notes; however, his writing was sometimes diffi cult for his family to understand. School records from 2004 indicate that he read at approximately a second grade level. Exh. 22 to Plaintiffs’ Response, ECF No. 229-23. He could read lips for simple words like “Hi” or “good bye” but otherwise was unable to read lips. Vigil livedmostly with his grandparents, whose home had a telephone device for the deaf (“TDD”), which uses relay systems to permit deaf individuals to communica te with others over the telephone.4 Vigil’s mother
3 As explained by Plaintiffs’ expert witness, ASL is a separate and distinct language from written or spoken English, and uses its own grammatical rules and syntax. Dr. Jean F. Andrews Aff., Exh. 23 to Plaintiffs’ Response, ECF No. 229-24, ¶ 3. Deaf persons vary widely in their ability to understand and to communicate using written and spoken English. Andrews Dep., Exh. 1 to Plaintiffs’ Response, ECF No. 229-2, 13.
4Two types of devices are discussed throughout the parties’ briefs and evidence, TDD and TTY. The evidence shows that a TTY involves older technology and that a
3

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 59

denied that he had any history ofdepression or of anxiety or ter atment for those conditions. However, his school rec ords reflect that he had some behavioral issues at school and received some counseling in 2000. Exh. 22 to Plaintiffs’ Response, ECF No. 229-23.

Vigil was arrested by Denver police on August 17, 2005 and charged with second

degree kidnapping, second degree sexual assault, and cirminal attempt. At the time of his

arrest, he was twenty two years old. He had no previous arrests or detentions.

Vigil was first taken to the PADF on the dayof his arrest, August 17, 2005. He was

seen by nurse Robert Kelly Costin for a rouitne initial medical assessment. The document

used for such screening is titled “Denver Sheirff Department Medical Services - Admission

Assessment” and contains a listing of categories, including Drug Allergies, Mental Health

History, etc. Nurse Costin had no memory of hsi interaction with Vigil,but the form he filled

out regarding Vigil provides as follows:

Mental Health History: Denies hx / current problem

* * * Mental Status:

Appropriate / oriented

Behavior:

Calm/cooperative

* * *

Additional: IS DEAF . DO ES NOT READ LIPS. DOES COMMUNICATE BY WRITING. CLAIMS NEGATIVE FOR ALL MEDICAL PROBLEMS, IN WRITING. HOUSED ALONE FOR THIS REASON.

TDD is more computerized. Andrews Dep., Exh. 1 to Plaintiffs’ Response, ECF No. 229-2, 33. I understand that these devices are not equivalent but for the purposes of this order will refer to this assistive technology in all instances as a “TDD.”
4

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 59

Crum Aff. Attach. 1, Exh. A-6 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197-9.

Nurse Costin testified in his deposition thathis usual practice is to ask the detainee

if he has a mental health probel m. If the detainee reports acurrent mental health problem

or appears to need further screening, Nurse Costin refers to the inmate to a psychiatric

nurse, available only during daytime hours, for an in-depth mental health scr eening and

evaluation for medications. Costin testifi ed that the screening process is important in

determining whether a detainee is suicidal but also testified that in routine cases he goes

through his screening process in approximately twelve to fifteen seconds.

Nurse Costin explained that his usual pr actice for getting information from deaf

detainees is to write out the questions for the forms for the detainee to read. He us ually

recommends housing a deaf detainee with another cellmate so the cellmate can get

attention for the deaf detainee’s needs. He

does not specifically recall why he

recommended housing Vigil alone, although he stated it was possible that a deputy made

this suggestion for safety reasons.

Vigil had an initial courtappearance before a Denver County Court Judge on August

18, 2005 in Cas e No. 05F04992, and his bond was set at $100,000. A sign language

interpreter was provided at t he hearing and Vigil was represented by a public defender.

Vigil’s next court hearing was his second advisement on August 24, 2005. Again, he was

provided with a sign language interpreter and had a public defender.

While at the PADF, Vigil used a TDD to call his grandparents’ house, where he

communicated with his mother, Plaintiff Ulibarri. She told him that his bond was too high

and she could not get him released. He expressed concern about how long his sentence

would be. At some point while at the PADFV, igil had another inmate call his grandparents’

5

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 59
home for him. The inmate spoke to Vigil’s bor ther and relayed something to the effect that Vigil was having a hard time, did not understand what was going on and wanted a lawyer.
Vigil was transferred from the PADF to the Jail on August25, 2005. At the time, the Jail received an average of 50 inmates each morning. Routine processing by the deputy sheriffs included a search of each inmate, a shower and uniform for each inmate, an individual meeting with a deputy sheriff fo r the purpose of classification and cell assignment, and a medical screening. Initia l housing decisions are made by the classification officer, but then sometimes adj usted after the medical screening. The Jail has mental health units for inmates with ment al health issues. Deputies do not have access to an inmate’s medical screening or other medical records.5
Vigil met with Deputy Sheriff Randy Coleman, a classification offic er. The form completed is titled “Denver County Jail, Classifci ation Intake Questionnaire.” Exh. A-12 to Mot. for Summ. J ., ECF No. 197-15. It contai ns a list of questions with boxes to check “Yes” or “No.” Among the questions asked are: “Have you ever attempted suicide?”, “Do you want to see the medical staff?”, “Do you claim a disability?”, “Are you a U.S. citizen?” On Vigil’s form, these questions are marked “No” despite that fact that Vigil was deaf and was, in fact, a U.S. citizen. On another question, “Did you have access to a phone?”, both answers are crossed out and a handwritten notation of “Deaf” isadded. There is a section for the deputy to fill out regarding observations , specifically whether the inmate appears “injured, disabled, sick, anxious, withdr awn, hostile, depressed, under the use of
5Because medical services at the Jail are provided by DHHA, medical personnel have access to records of any inmate seen at any other DHHA facility, such as Denver Health Medical Center, a public hospital.
6

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 59
alcohol/drugs, aggressive, confused, suicidal.” None of these was circled on Vigil’s form. Vigil signed the form.
Deputy Coleman’s usual practice is to read aloud the questions to the inmate and note the answers. In the past he has interviewed deaf inmates and his practice has been to give the form to the inm ate to read and point to the answers. He does not recall his screening of Vigil and could not say how he would have ensured that Vigil understood the questions. Deput y Coleman’s practice then is to give the inmate the Jail’s inmate handbook, which explains information about the Jail, including how to submit a “kite,” or a written request, to deputies. Deputy Colem an does not explain the handbook. Deputy Coleman was not aware of anypolicy regarding when and how to bring an ASL interpreter to assist with the screening process and there is no evidence that an interpreter was provided during Vigil’s screening. Deputy Coleman also does not recall any special training regarding intake procedures to use when dealing with deaf inmates.
Vigil’s form from the medical screeni ng, the “De nver County Jail Health Assessment,” contains space for the nurse to list current complaints, allergies, chronic diseases, and medications. Crum Aff. Attach. 1, Exh. A-6 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197-9. There are also boxes to c heck for family history, social history, assessment, physical exam, and other areas. Id. Vigil’s form is essentially blank other than a recording of Vigil’s temperature, pulse, and blood pressure, even where there is a box to check for “ none” or “no.” Id. Similarly, there is a form for the mental health screening, which is completely blank other than Vigil’s name and inmate number. Id.
Vigil was assigned a classification code that all disabled or special needs inmates receive; inmates may receive more than one classification code. He was assigned to
7

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 59
administrative segregation. This is a non-punitive classification consisting of confinement to a single cell, which may be imposed for the inmate’s safety. An inmate may be classified in administrative segregation ifhe is unable to live in the genearl population for any reason. Aside from Vigil’s deafness, which woul d have m ade him vulnerable in the general population, other factors that may have contrbi uted to his placement include his youth, lack of previous experience in the criminal jusitce system, and the factthat he was charged with a sex assault. Vigil was housed in Building 6 of the J ail, which houses the special management inmates, including those cla ssified as administrative segregation.6
In general, inmates in administrative segr egation in 2005 retained the same privileges as those in the general population, including 45 minutes of out-of-cell and recreation time, television time, library time, access to telephones and showers, and the opportunity to be a tier clerk.7 There is a TDD at the Jail.8 However, the TDD is not in the same place as the other telephones and an inmate must specifically request to use the TDD, which is located in the sergeant’s o ffice. The inmate handbook does not provide information about the TDD. It is unclear , then, how an inmate who was unable to communicate with deputies would know or learn of the existence of the TDD. There is no evidence that Vigil used the TDD while he was at the Jail. In addition, there is a factual
6Inmates might be housed in Building 6 for a variety of reasons including physical or emotional disabilities, sexual orientation, security issues, protective custody, or administrative segregation.
7Tier clerks act as inmate representatives and do certain chores outside of their own cells.
8Plaintiffs provide evidence that during a December 2008 inspection pursuant to this litigation the Jail TDD did not work.
8

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 59
dispute about whether the televisions in Building 6 had closed-capt ioning in 2005 or whether staff is aware of the availability of closed-captioning.
Inmates had opportunities to interact with other inmates during out-of-cell time and recreation time, as well as with inmate tierclerks and deputies and medci al staff. Deputies were supposed to make rounds twice an hou9rand nurses were scheduled to make rounds three times a day to distribute medication and to look in, albeit briefly, on other inmates. Psychiatric nurses were on site seven days a week; phys icians and psychiatrists were available on call at any time. Inmates could submit kites to request medical attention or make other requests. Vigil at times had a cellmate while he was at the Jail but was frequently moved and other times was alone in hi s cell. As discussed further below, the Jail also had available ASL interpreters; howev er, there is no evidence that there was a written policy in 2005 regarding interpreters or that the deputies and staff were generally aware of the availability of interpreters or howto obtain this service for inmates. There may have been deputies who knew some sign language but it is unclear whether any of them came into contact with Vigil. In general, i ndividual deputies testified that they would communicate with deaf inmates through written notes. The deputies working on the tier while Vigil was at the Jail whose depositions were taken did not recall having any communication with him.
In addition, a deputy would contact each inmatein Building 6 once a week to ask two questions: “Are you having any problems?” and “Do you want to see the adm inistrative
9Plaintiffs have provided evidence that the logbooks in which such rounds were to be documented often showed gaps for the time period that Vigil was in the Jail, which could mean that the rounds were not done or that they were done but not recorded. These gaps were often in the mornings after breakfast.
9

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 59
review board?” Although the deputy’s notes for August 28, September 11, September 18, and September 25, 2005 with respect to these questions show that Vigil responded “no” to the first question, there is no evidenceregarding how the information was obtained and a factual dispute regarding whether the deputy’s communication with Vigil was effective. The deputy, however, did note “yes” to the second question, i.e., that Vigil wanted to see the Administrative Review Board10 (“ARB”), in notes for August 28, September 18, and September 25, 2005. Vigil wa s not seen during the week of August 28 because of time constraints and volume. It is unclear why he did not meet with the ARB during the week of September 18; there is a notation in the ARB’s records next to his name saying “Declined?” Vigil’s classification was not changed while he was at the Jail.
In addition, there was a practice at the time for a m ember of the nursing staff to make an additional round each week to see all the inmates housed in t he special management area of Building 6. Forms were filled out regarding visits with Vigil on August 27, September 3, September 10, and September 24, 2005. No problems were noted but there is no evidence regarding how communication with Vigil was conducted or whether it was effective.
Vigil had a preliminary hearing on September 16, 2005, which was scheduled to be continued on October 7, 2005. As before, a sign language interpreter was provided and Vigil was represented by a public defender.
No one from Vigil’s family visited him wh ile he was at the PADF or at the Jail. It
10The ARB is a panel of classification officers who review inmate housing and classification and hears complaints or concerns from inmates about their incarceration. The ARB meets at least once a week.
10

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 59
does not appear that he had any other visitors either. His mother attended his court hearings and had one opportunity to interact wit h him after a hearing as he was being escorted to an elevator. He appeared to Ulibarri to be in distress and cried at one point. Ulibarri did not inform anyone at the Denver Sheriff Department to let them know of concerns about her son or that he was a suicide risk. She called the Jail once to find out why she had not heard from Vigil and was toldthat the Jail did not have any equipment for him to use. Vigil was in the Jail on his birthday, August 29.
Around 9 a.m. on the morning of Sept ember 27, 2005, another inmate was out of his cell and found Vigil hanging. He informed the deputies on duty, who immediately summoned medical staff and supervising officers. Vigil was cut down from his noose and nursing staff arrived quickly and began CPR. An ambulance was called and Fire Department paramedics arrived around 9:15 and continued CPR. Vigil was transported to the hospital but did not survive his injuries. Vigil died on October 1, 2005; the cause of death was complications from ligature hanging.
Earlier in the day, a nurse had made a round around 6 a.m. Breakfast was served to inmates in their cells. It is unclear when the last round had been made; a deputy on duty claims that he made a round past Vigil’s tier at around 8:25 a.m. but the logbook does not document an entry at that time. On the day of his suicide, Vigil was housed in a cell that was the second farthest away from the officers’ cage (seventeenth of eighteen), although his classification required that he be housed near the cage.
An internal affairs investigation was done, which focused on whether the Sheriff Department personnel had followed Department policies and procedures. The investigation appears to have examined primarily the events following the discovery of Vigil’s hanging.
11

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 59
A comment was received from the Office ofthe Independent Monitor suggesting that more investigation be done regarding w hether there were any warning signs that Vigil was a suicide risk. It does not appear that any further investigation was done in this regard.
Plaintiff Ulibarri testified in her deposition that Vigil sent her a letter while he was incarcerated. Ulibarri recalled that the letter contained a picture of a “sad face” and said that Vigil loved and missed his family. 11 There is no evidence that Vigil was depr essed, suicidal or had attempted suicide before being incarcerated.
At the time of Vigil’s incarceration, the Jail was at 140- 150% capacity with no corresponding increase in staffing levels. During t his time period there was a 177% increase in assaults on staff and the critical incidents requiring the use of force increased 120% from the previous year.
Plaintiff Sarah Burke Plaintiff Sarah Burke has been deaf sincebirth. She communicates using ASL and with hearing individuals through writing and gestures. Burke uses email and text devices. If she needs to see a professional, such as a physician, or has an im portant event, she uses an ASL interpreter. She completed high school and took some community college courses using an interpreter. She previously worked at Wal Mart as a stocker and would communicate with her coworkers using notes. Burke is married and has childr en. Her husband is also deaf but her children are hearing. The family communicates using ASL. Burke was char ged with a misdemeanor child neglect charge in Case No.
11A drawing signed by “Shawn Vigil” was apparently found in Vigil’s cell and depicts a man standing against a brick wall with tears on his face. Exh. 37 to Plaintiff’s Response, ECF No. 229-38 There is no evidence that anyone saw this picture before Vigil’s suicide.
12

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 59
2004M201587 in Arapahoe County, Colorado. She pleaded guilt y to the charge and received a twelv e-month deferred sentence wh ich required her to complete parenting classes. Because she failed to attend some of the classes, a warrant was issued for her arrest on June 19, 2007. On August 29, 2007, Denver police officer Joseph Merino and another officer were at the Burke home to do a welfare check on the family. The officers determined the living conditions in the home were adequate but Officer Merino called to check on any outstanding warrants for Burkeor her husband. Helearned of the Arapahoe County warrant and arrested Burke.
Burke has Type I diabetes. When the police officers arrived, Burke was cooking dinner for her family. She had given herself an insulin shot around 4:30 p.m. but had not yet eaten.
During the welfare check and arrest, Offi cer Merino communicated with Burke by writing notes and by having her oldest childdo sign language interpreting. Burke testified in her deposition that she wrote him a note sayni g not to use her child to interpret and that she wanted a sign language interpreter. Officer Merino denies that Burke or her husband asked for an interpreter. Burke asked in writing what was going on and an officer wrote “contempt of court.” Burke testified that she did not understand what that meant.
Officer Merino stated that it is his usual practice to permit persons arrested to bring their medications with them upon request. However, Burke and her husband provide evidence that her husband attempted to giveBurke’s insulin and other diabetes medication and aids to Burke or the officers and the officers refused to permit these aids to be taken. They also did not permit Burke to bring her “Sidekick,” a device that can be used to send text messages.
13

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 59
Burke was transported to a Denver police substation. While there, a police officer approached her and used some sign language. She could not effectively respond, however, because she was handcuffed and was unable to communicate that she needed to use the restroom and needed food. She was then taken to the PADF. She arrived at the PADF at approximately 9: 19 p.m. on Augus t 29, 2007. The booking process at the PADF at the time involved a deputy sheriff collceting relevant information from the detainee or arresting officer or documents, including identifying information and medical issues. A charge slip is given to the detainee showing the charge and bond amount; the detainee is also given a copy of the charges upon whic h they are being held. The detainee is t hen screened by medical staff.
Burke testified in her depos ition that upon arrival at the PADF, as soon as s he received writing materials, she wrote that she needed a sign language interpreter, to eat, and to see a doctor. No sign language interpreter was provided. Burke was seen by a nurse for a medical screening at approximat ely 10:00 p.m. The “Denv er Sheriff Department Medical Services - Admission Assessment Record” notes the following:
CLIENT IS DEAF. CLAIMS IDDM. WRITES WELL/LEGIBLY. IN HER WRITING, SHE SAYS SHE TOOK INSULIN AT APPROXIMATELY 16:30 PRIOR T O DINNER AND THEN WAS ARRESTED BEF ORE SHE COULD EAT. CLAIMS INSULIN & “A MED FOR PR OTECTING HER KIDNEYS.” CALLED DR. CRUM RE: BS. TOLD TO GIVE 5 UNITS REG INSULIN NOW WITH SACK LUNCH AND PROCEED AS WE NORMALLY DO PER PROTOCOL. Wilson Aff. Attach. 6, Exh. A-7 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197-10. Burke testified that she again asked for a sign language interpreter but the request was ignored. The nurse t ested Burke’s blood sugar; Burke thought that the nurse had
14

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 59
difficulty with the blood sugar monitor and that the monitor was old. According to Burke, she saw that the monitor read a blood sugar level of 28. The medical form shows that the result was 377. Although the nurse noted in t he form that he was directed to give Burke a sack lunch,12 Burke states that she did not receive any food and was told that she would not receive a meal until the 4:30 a.m. breakfast. She asserts that she also wrote to the nurse that she did not want insulin because she needed food and more insulin would make things worse.
Burke posted a bond on August 29, 2007 at 10:36 p.m. Burke was released from the PADF at approximately 2:00 a.m. At her release, Burke again requested a sign language interpreter in writing, but the depu ties indicated that she needed to sign some paperwork and that she could go. She was given the opportunity to use a TDD. However, Burke states that the equipment did not work. Moreover, her home does not have a TDD. She also requested assistance from the officers in helping her to contact her husband but they did not help her other than to show her the TDD. She was given bus tokens by a deputy sheriff. Although her husband had called thefacility to say that he was on his way to pick her up, that message wasnot relayed to Burke. Thereis a waiting area in the lobby of the facility. Burke did not notice it and attempted to get herself home on her own. She found a light rail station but t he trains were not yet running. She accepted a ride from a passerby, who then wrote her a note saying they would “have fun.” She managed to get out of the vehicle and gotherself to a light rail station. Trains were running at this point and she returned home, arriving at approximately 5:30 a.m. S he testified that she began
12Sack lunches were kept in a refrigerator in the nurses’ station to provide to inmates who needed one.
15

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 59
experiencing symptoms of hypoglycemia at the police station that worsened through the night.
Plaintiff Roger Krebs Plaintiff Roger Krebs has been deaf since he was ei ghteen months old. He communicates using ASL with his family; his children are hearing. He can communicate in writing but uses simple words and if the writing is too ol ng he does not understand it. He does not lip read. He took some college classes at a school for the deaf. He is currently employed at Fort Carson; his job is to open UPS deliveries and distribute them. He communicates with his supervisor through notesor with the assistance of a coworker who knows some sign language. He communicates wiht his coworkers using notes or gestures but states that his job is routine and simple and requires little in the way of communication. If there is a workshop or trani ing his employer arranges fora sign language interpreter. He previously worked at the Air Force Academy asa library tech fixing book bindings. He has a computer at home and uses email. Krebs was arrested by Denver police on March 29, 2007 at appr oximately 10:40 p.m. He was at the Greyhound Bus Station inDenver when a security guard told him that he had to move. According toKrebs, he was sitting on the floorcharging the battery on his “Sidekick” device. A guard came up to him andgestured for him to move. Krebs indicated he is deaf. The guard tried to grab his Sidekick and Krebs pulled it back away from him. The guard then grabbed Krebs’ neck and Krebs bit him because he was being choked. The security guard’s version of events differssomewhat. According to the security guard, he wrote Krebs a note saying he had to move but Krebs refused to mo ve. The security guard then tried to move Krebsand Krebs bit him. It is undisputed that there was a scuffle.
16

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 59
Krebs testified in his deposition that the guard pushed him down and pounded his head. At some point, Krebs fell and injured his ankle. The security guard subdued him and handcuffed him tightly.
Another security guard and a polic e officer came over. The officer tried to stand Krebs up but he kept falling because of his inju red ankle. Krebs was taken to a security room at the bus station. The police officer noticed that the handcuffs were too tight and the cuffs were loosened. The police officer then gave Krebs a document to read b ut Krebs could not read it because his glasses had been knocked off during the scuffle. Even after the glasses were retrieved they were sm udged. The police officer charged Krebs with municipal ordinance violations of disorderly conduct, assault and trespass. Krebs wrote a note requesting a sign language interpreter but the officer did not respond. Krebs showed the officer that hi s foot was purple and swoll en and the officer called an ambulance.
Krebs was taken to the hospital, treated for a sprained ankle, and given crutches. At the hospital he was assisted by a sign language interpreter. After treatment, however, he was taken to the PADF and was not provided a sign language interpreter there despite his request. Records show that he arrived at the facility at approximately 3:27 a.m. on March 30, 2007 and was seen by anurse at approximately 4:30 a.m. The “Denver Sheriff Department Medical Services- Admission A ssessment Record” notes that Krebs is “deaf/mute” but should request medication “t hrough writing,” that he was on c rutches because of a sprained right ankle, and that he “will need to wriet to communicate or signing interpreter.” Wilson Aff. Attach. 3, Exh. A-7 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 19710. Krebs was housed alone at the PADF because of his deafness and because he had
17

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 59
crutches, which could be used to cause injury to him or to others. Krebs was not allowed to keep his “Sidekick” with him pursuant to a general policy at the PADF of prohibiting all cell phones and pagers. He states that he di d not understand why he was in jail and wanted to resolve whatever the problem was.
Krebs was arraigned at the County Court of the City and County of Denver on the same day, March 30, 2007. According to thecourt records, he pleaded guilty to the three counts. The judicial officer’s notes provide “Def. is deaf. But can read, advised of rights in writing and plead guilty. 1 day CTS.” Exh.A-2 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197-3. Krebs asserts that at t he hearing he wrote t hat he wanted a sign language interpreter but instead was given a writ ten advisement of his rights. He states that he pleaded guilty by circling “guilty” on a piec e of paper. He did not understand what was going on but knew that he should not have bitten the security guard. He was told that he if wanted a sign language interpreter he wouldhave to wait three days for another hearing but if he pleaded guilty he could be released immediately. Krebs and the judicial officer communicated by writing notes back and forth. A document in the court file contains the following colloquy:
[Handwriting 1] Sir: You are charged with Disturbni g the Peace, Assault and
Trespass. Do you wish to Plead guilty or not guilty? [“guilty” is circled]. [Handwriting 2] Because of disobey therefore luck of communication. [Handwriting 1] Anything else you want to tell me or any questions? [Handwriting 2] Yes yellowshirt sohard pull out of my neck tight choke even can’t understand of communication
18

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 59
[Handwriting 1] 1 day credit time served. You will be set free. [Initials] [Handwriting 2] OK thanks your honor! Exh. A-2 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197-3. Krebs was released from the PADF at 7:00 p.m. that day. Denver’s Policies and Training Denver has made sign language interpreters available 24 hours a day seven days a week upon request by the Police Department and Sheriff Department since the 1990s. Training and arrangements for sign language interpretation for the Sheriff Department are provided by Lori Kosinski. Ms. Kosinski s ends written notice to the Police Department, Sheriff’s Department and the Denver CountyCourt explaining how to obtain sign language interpreter services. There is now a written policy regarding the availability of interpreter services, although it does not appear that such a document existed in 2005. Ms. Kosinski has held numerous meetings with police and sheriff personnel regarding deaf access issues at the jail and with police. Ms. Kosinski provides a two-hour sessi on at the Sheriff Department training academy13 covering topics such as how to obtani and work with a sign language interpreter, terminology about communication with deaf people, descriptions of the deaf and hard of hearing communities, recognizing deafness, and types of communication modes. Written materials are also provided. She mentions the Americanswith Disabilities Act but does not specifically train on its requirements. She advises that an ASL interpreter is the best way
13She provides a similar training course for the Denver Police Department’s training academy. These classes have been ongoing since at least the 1990s.
19

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 59
to communicate with deaf inmates and that la w enforcement officers should not assume that writing is an effectiv e means of communication. She also does not advise law enforcement officers to rely on children to interpret for deaf individuals.
In general, the PADF and Jail do not have anypolicies regarding how to determine and document a deaf inmate’s preferred means of communication. There is no policy regarding saving notes passed between deaf inmates and deputies or staff. None of the employees who had interactions with the det ained Plaintiffs had a method or practice of ensuring that written or other communication with a deaf inmate was effective, and the representatives of Denver, other than Ms. Kosinski, were unaware of any training in this regard. The deputies interviewed generally were unaware that they could not necessarily rely on a deaf inmate’s ability to read or wr ite in c ommunicating with that inmate. No special training is provided to intake deputies regarding screening or classification issues with deaf inmates. There is no mandatory ongoing training regarding deaf inmate issues, although sign language instruct ion is offered to interested law enforcement officers and staff. While some deputies may know some sign language, there is conflicting evidence as to whether there is a list of such deputies as an available resource.
There are two TDDs at the PADF: one inthe sergeant’s office and one in the lobby. There is evidence that there is a sign posted at the PADF informing inmates of the TDD. Inmates at the PADF have access to a telephone twice daily, including to the TDD. A videophone for deaf inmates was installed at the PADF in 2008. There are no televisions at the PADF. As noted above, the Jail has a TDD in the ser geant’s office. There is no specific policy regarding how deaf inmates would be informed of the availability of accommodations for communication, such asthe TDDs or sign language interpreters, and
20

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 59
the Jail’s 2005 inmate handbook does not reference them. The Sheriff Department, and the Jail specifically, have suicide prevention policies
and deputies were expected to know and followhtem. The Jail’s general post order, which is undated, notes that high risk periods incl ude after booking, after receiving bad news, including the prospect of or imposition of a long sentence, court hearings, or after suffering some type of humiliation or rejection. Romero Aff. Attach. 6, Exhibit A-5 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197-8. The policy adveiss that inmates displaying unusual behavior should be monitored and housed with another resident if possible. Id. The policy further notes that “making rounds and logging rounds are essential.” Id. Officers are reminded that suicides may be pr evented if officers are caring and that many inmates “just need someone to talk to.” Id. Officers are warned that if they ignore obvious signs of suicidal intent they could be legally liable if the inmate commits suicide. Id. The Sheriff’s Department Order Number 5410.1,effective date February 24, 1997,recites that “[i]t is the policy of the Denver Sheriff Department that all staff responsible for inmate supervision are trained in the implementation of a suicide prevention program.” Romero Aff. Attach. 6, Exhibit A-5 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197-8. The Order identifies signs of a suicidal inmate, including s tatements regarding suicidal intent or history, depressed appearance or discussion of recent losses, physical indications of past suicide attempts, a significant sentence or general despondency over his charges or case. Id. The Order provides that the intake process should include a screening for suicidal inmates and that medical staff will determine appropriate housing and referrals. Id. Procedures for suicide watch are set forth, as are procedures for responding to a suicide attempt. Id.
Deputies are trained in suicide preventi on at the academy, al though there is no 21

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 59
ongoing or additional training other than what is contained in the written policies. There is no specific or different trainni g regarding suicide prevention for deaf inmates. Deputies are trained and expected to know thatsuicide is a particular riskat jails and detention facilities, and that feelings of isolation or seclusion can increase the risk.
One deputy responsible for Vigil whose deposition was taken showed that he knew that high risk periods included holidays, booking and court dates, sentencings, and after getting bad news from home and family. He al so knew of warning signs, such as withdrawal. Another deputy who was on duty on Vi gil’s tier could not name risk factors when asked in his deposition.
Representatives of the Sheriff Department stated that the mental health screening process is an important aspect of suicide prevention. Jail deputies in general do not have information about mental health needs of inma tes or access to their mental health or medical records. They also do not generally know about an inmate’s charges or potential sentence or personal information such as birthdays.
DHHA provides nursing staff on site at both the PADF and the Jail and has physicians and psychiatrists available on ca ll. DHHA trains deputies at the academ y regarding the proper response to inmate medical problems and how to recognize common acute presentations.
In the Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 48), which governs at this time, the following c laims are asse rted: (1) violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, against Denver; (2) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Denver; (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim asserted by Plaintiff Ulibarri and the Estate for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against all Defendants
22

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 59
(individual and official capacity); (4) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim asserted by Plaintiff Ulibarri, the Estate, and Plaintiff Burke for state created danger against all Defendants (individual and official capacity); (5) denial of due processfor failure to train and/or supervise against all Defendants (individual and official capacit y); (6) denial of due process, special relationship, asserted by Plaint iffs the Estate, Krebs, and Burke against all Defendants (individual and official capacity); (7) state negligence claim asserted by Plaintiff Ulibarri and the Estate against Denver; (8) state wrongful death claim asserted b y Plaintiff Ulibarri against Denver; (9) st ate negligence claim for failure to train and supervise asserted by Plaintiff Ulibarri and the Estate against Denver. A. Objections to Orders of Magistrate Judge
I first address the two Objections to the orders of Magistrate Judge Watanabe. On non-dispositive matters, I may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge’s order that I find to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
On August 18, 2008, Magistrate Judge Watanabe entered an order (ECF No. 76) denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (ECF No. 57). In their motion, Plaintiffs requested fuller responses to Interrogatories 5, 6, 10,and 11, unredacted versoi ns of several documents, and complete interr ogatory responses signed under oath by the defendants to whom they were directed. Magistrate Judge Watanabe ruled that Interrogatories 5, 10, and 11 were overly broad and no further response was r equired; Interrogatory 6 was fully answered by Deef ndants with information after reasonable inquiry and no further response was required; and the unredacted versions of the documents at issue, which were reviewedby Magistrate Judge Watanabein camera, fall within the official information privilege and did not need to be disclosed.
23

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 59

Plaintiffs filed a timely Objection (ECF No. 80) arguing that the information at issue

is critical to their case and that the order was clearly erroneousand contrary to law. I have

reviewed the interrogatories at issue and see no clear error in Magis

trate Judge

Watanabe’s determination. The interrogatories were either answered or were overbroad

and/or unduly burdensome. AlthoughPlaintiffs attempted to limit the scope of the requests

by narrowing the discovery sought, this does notdemonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s

decision regarding the interrogatories as propounded was in error.

With respect to the documents, it appears that Plaintiffs’ attorneys were permitted

to read but not to make copiesof the unredacted documents. Plaintiffs make no argument

that the documents do not fall within the official information privilege but rather argue that

“the concerns evinced by Defendants c ould have easily been addressed through a

protective order” and contend that Magistrate Judge Watanabe did not go through a ten-

factor balancing analysis to determi ne whether the interests of disclosure outweigh the

interests of the governm ent entity asserting t he privilege. However, Plaintiffs have not

shown that Magistrate Judge Watanabe’s ultimateconclusion, that the redactions at issue

here are privileged, was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

objection is overruled.

The second order was enteredNovember 10, 2008 (ECF No. 104). In it, Magistrate

Judge Watanabe addressed Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Discov ery Responses

(ECF No. 90) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Am end Scheduling Order (ECF No. 91). In the

motion to compel, Plaintiffs sought the productoi n of the personnel and internal affairs files

for 60 individuals identified in Defendants’ initial disclosures and further sought responses

to discovery requests that Defendants refus ed to respond to on the grounds that the

24

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 59

Plaintiffs had exceeded the limits in the Sc heduling Order. In the motion to amend,

Plaintiffs sought to amend the Scheduling Order to provide for fifty additional depositions,

ten additional interrogatories, and ten addi tional document requests, and to continue

discovery for four more months. Magistrate Watanabe denied the request for the files as

overly broad and because Plaintiffs had not established that the personnel and other files

were reasonably calculated to lead to the di scovery of admissible evidence or that a

compelling interest justified the intrus ion. M agistrate Judge Watanabe also found that

Plaintiffs had exceeded the number of discove ry requests permitted by the Scheduling

Order but that the Defendants’ obej ctions in this regard were overruled. Therefore, unless

another objection was presented, Defendants we re ordered to respond to the discovery

requests. Magistrate Judge Watanabe determined that the Plaintiffs had not shown good

cause for their request for additional discovery, patircularly since Plaintiffs had already been

given lengthy extensions to the original deadlines. Howeve r, an extension of time was

granted for expert disclosures.

In their Objection (ECF No.113), Plaintiffs appear to object only to the portion of the

order denying them fifty additional depositions. Plaintiffs argue that this order was

erroneous because Defendants had disclosed a number of witnesses without specifically

identifying the subject of their knowledge ortestimony. In response, Defendants argue that

Plaintiffs were not diligent with respect to th is issue. Defendants poi nt out that Plaintiffs

previously sought to amend the Scheduling Or der after disclosure of m any of these

witnesses but did not seek addit ional discovery. In addition, Defendants argue that

information about the witnesses is readilydiscerned through the documents produced and

other discovery. I agree with Defendants

and conclude that Plaintif fs have not

25

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 59
demonstrated that Magistrate Judge Watanabe’s denial of ht ese additional depositions was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Again, Plaintiffs’ objection is overruled. B. Motions to Strike
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike In their Motion to Strike (ECF No. 224), Plaintiffs request that I strike or disregard certain evidence submitted by Defendants with the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, specifically: (1) statements that constitute expert testimony under FRE 702 from witnesses that Defendants did not designate pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2); (2) statements that are not made on personal knowledge; (3) statements that contradict testimony from witnesses designated by Defendants pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6); and (4) hearsay. I will address each general category of objections. Plaintiffs assert that evidence offered in the form of affidavits, specifically the Affidavit of Peter Crum, M.D. (Exh. A-6, ECF No. 197-9), Affidavit of John Romero (Exh. A-5, ECF No. 197-8), and Affidavit of Gary Wilson (Exh. A-7, ECF No. 197-10), contain statements that amount to expert opinions but that these witnesses were not offered or disclosed as experts. I conclude that the only statements that should be disregarded or stricken are Paragraphs 17 and 19 of Dr. Crum’s affidavit in which he opines that the “routine multiple daily nursing rounds and the weekly nursing round for inmates in Special Management provided ample oppor tunity for Vigil to receive medical attention” and that after review of Vigil’s file “there was no evidence of high risk behavior by Vigil that would be a warning sign of suicide, and that his su icide was not preventable.” ECF No. 197-9. The first statement, regarding whether Vigil had sufficient opportunity to obtain medical care, is a central question in dispute and so I do not consider this t o be a s tatement of
26

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 59
“undisputed” fact. The second, concerning whether Vigil’s suicide was preventable, appears to require spec ialized knowledge by a witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education under FRE 702. Since Dr. Crum was not disclosed as an expert in any relevant area, such as p sychology or medical training on detection of suicide risks, these opinions will be disregarded.
The remaining statements at issue do notappear to involve opinions but rather are simply descriptions of events and routine practice concerning communications between inmates at the PADF and DCJ. I do not read the statements as containing any kind of opinion regarding the quality or effectivene ss of t he communication in general or as specifically applied to the deaf individuals invo lved in this litigation. Therefore, I will not strike these statements.
Next, Plaintiffs seek to exclude portions of the same affidavits on the grounds that the affiants do not have sufficient personal knowledge or because the affidavits contain conclusory statements. I disagree. I havereviewed the depositions and affidavits of these witnesses and am satisfied that the individuasl whose affidavits are offered have adequate personal knowledge of the matters that they are describing. Accordingly, I do not exclude any other statements in these affidavits on this basis.
Plaintiffs seek to strike a significant portion of the affidavit of Dr. Crum to the extent it conflicts with the testimony of Denver’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designees. Dr. Crum provided the affidavit as a representative of the DHHA; the affdi avit concerns the practices of the DHHA in providing medical services to the PADF and the Jail. The evidence Plaintiffs seek to strike primarily concerns the routine practices at the Jail in 2005, particularly with respect to the nurses making rounds. I see no conflict with the testimony
27

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 59
of the of ficial designees, who for the most part could not testify about the provision of medical services because those services areprovided by DHHA. Plaintiffs apparently did not seek to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of DHHA. 14 Because there is no conflict, I will not strike the contested portions of Dr. Crum’s affidavit.
Finally, Plaintiffs seek to strike any ni admissible hearsay contained in the affidavits. Several of the affidavits reference attac hed documents and restate their contents. See, e.g., Crum Aff., Exh. A-6, ECF No. 197-9, ¶ 16 (discussing Vigil’s medical records). To the extent that the affidavits provide context for the documents, I will deny the motion. To the extent the affidavits restate or interpret the documents, I will grant the motion and will consider only the documents themselves. Accordingly, the motion is granted with respect to Paragraph 16 of Dr. Crum’saffidavit and Paragraphs 19 and 20of Mr. Romero’s affidavit to the extent that theaffiants restate or interpret the contents of the referenced documents.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibits In their Motion to Strike Exhibits in Plaintiffs’ Combined Respon se to Summary Judgment (ECF No. 243), Defendants seek to exclude certain exhibits submitted by Plaintiffs in their Response to the two Mo tions for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Defendants request that I disregard evidence that amounts to inadmissible hearsay, documents not properly authenticated, and evidence that is inadmissible as irrelevant. Defendants’ objections based on authentication are overruled in that it appears that all of the contested evidence can be authenticated and indeed Pl aintiffs provided
14It may be that Plaintiffs believe that Denver should have designated a representative of DHHA to testify on certain topics. While the designation of a nonparty representative is theoretically permitted under Rule 30(b)(6), the nonparty must consent to do so, and Plaintiffs have not shown that this occurred.
28

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 59
authentication in their response to the motion to strike. As to the remaining issues, I rule as follows:
Exhibit 9,15 McCarten Aff. ¶ 5: hearsay objection isoverruled, not offered for the truth of the matters asserted and/or admission of a party opponent.
Exhibit 17, Krebs Aff. ¶¶ 8, 15, 16: hearsay obejction is overruled, not offered for the truth of the matters asserted.
Exhibit 20, excerpts of recording: hearsa y objection is overruled as record of regularly conducted activity.
Exhibit 22, educational records of Shawn Vigil: hearsay objection is overruled as record of regularly conducted activity.
Exhibit 24: document/letter concerning another case: relevance objection granted, evidence regarding Nurse Costin’s conduct in a later-occurring case is immaterial to the issues here.
Exhibit 25: document/letter concerning another case: relevance objection granted. Exhibit 31: photos of Vigil’s cell: rele vance objection overruled as Plaintiffs have provided substitute photos with proper authentication. Exhibit 32: notes of Shawn Vigil: hearsay objection overruled, not offered for the truth of the matters asserted. Exhibit 41: report from U.S. Dept of Justice concerning facility operated b y Defendants’ expert witness: relevance objectionoverruled, hearsay objection overruled as record of regularly conducted activity.
15This exhibit is duplicated as Exhibit 30. 29

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 59
Exhibit 57, Aff. Of Julie Reiskin ¶¶ 6-12, 15, 19-21: lack of personal knowledge objection overruled, affiant has shown that she has personal knowledge of the matters stated in the affidavit..
Exhibit 58, Aff. Of Jennifer Pfau: objecti on that Pfau is not authorized to make statements on behalf of the CAD is overruled;Defendants have not shown that declarant’s statement that she is able to speak for theorganization is incorrect; objection based on lack of personal knowledge objection overruled as affiant has shown that she has personal knowledge of the matters stated in the affidavit.. C. Motions for Summary Judgment
Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate when theer is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. A factual issue is genuine if “the evidence is suchthat a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Discussion 1. Claims 1 and 2: Violations of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA Denver moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims 1 and 2 on numerous grounds. Denver does not dispute, for the purposes of summary judgment, that Vigil, Burke, and Krebs are qualified individuals with a disability for the purposes of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act due to their deafness. However, Denver argues that any claims concerning Vigil can only be asserted forconduct occurring after August 28, 2005 because of a two-year statute of limitations. Denver further argues that any claims concerning the arrests of these individuals are barred becaues the ADA and Rehabilitatoi n Act do not apply
30

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 59
to arrests and/or because the failure to provide sign language interpreter during the arrests did not amount to discr imination. Denver then contends that the conditions of these individuals’ detentions were not discriminatory under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibtis discrimination against the disabled by recipients of federal funding. 29 U.S.C. § 794. Denver does not deny that it is subject to the Rehabilitation Act. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must demonstraet that he or she ishandicapped under the act, is otherwise qualified to participate in the program, the program receives federal financial assistance, and the program discrim inates against the plaintiff. Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep’t Of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2009). To recover compensatory damages under section 504, a plaintiff must establish that the agency’s discrimination was intentional; this does not require “a showi ng of personal ill will or animosity toward t he disabled person; rather, ‘intentional discr imination can be inferred from a defendant's deliberate indifference to the strong likelihood that pursuit of its questioned policies will likely result in a violation of federally protected rights.’” Id. at 1228-29 (citation omitted); see also id. at 1229 (deliberate indifference requires two elements: (1) “knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely,” and (2) “a failure to act upon that ... likelihood.”) (citation omitted).
Title II of the ADA prohibitsdiscrimination against the disabled by public entities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Again, there is no dispute that the PADF and Jail are subject to the ADA. In order to state a Title II claim, a plainti ff must demonstrate that he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; he or she was exculded from participation ordenied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; and suchexclusion, denial of benefits,
31

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 59
or discrimination was because ofthe individual’s disability. Robertson v. Las Animas Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 500 F.3d 1185, 1193 (10th Cir. 2007). As with the Rehabilitation Act, the Tenth Circuit appears to require a showing of intentional discrimination before a plaintiff may recover compensatory damages for mental or emotional injury. Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400, 1403-4 (10th Cir. 1997).
a. Arrests I first examine whether the arrests of Vigil, Krebs, and Burke violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Vigil was arrested on August 17, 2005 and the first complaint in this case was filed August 28, 2007. There appear s to be no r eal dispute that a two-year statute of limitations applies to ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Quinn v. Univ. of Okla., 276 Fed. Appx. 809, 810-811 ( 10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished); Hughes v. Colo. Dep’ t of Corr., 594 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1235 (D. Colo. 2009). Therefore, any claim based solely on Vigil’s arrest is time-barred. Denver cites Rosen v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 131 F.3d 154, 157 (4th Cir. 1997) for the proposition that a police arrest is not a “servcie, program, or activity” for which Title II of the ADA applies. However, as noted by Plaintiffs,the Tenth Circuit has observed, without adopting a similar rule, that other juri sdictions recognize disability discrimination claims in arrests based on thehteory that the law enforcementofficers “failed to reasonably accommodate the person’s disability in the cour se of investigation or arrest, causing the person to suffer greater injury or indignity in that process than other arrestees.” Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1220-21 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1998) ). Bec ause the plaintiff in Gohier did not argue a failure to reasonably accommodate theory similar to Gorman, the Tenth Circuit did not opine on whether such
32

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 59
a theory would apply in that case. 186 F.3d at 1222 (“this court merely clarifies that a broad rule categorically excluding arrests from the scope of Title II . . . is not the law”). Plaintiffs also cite Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 2000) for the proposition that when police respond to criminal activity or a disturbance, law enforcement officers are under a duty to reasonably accommodate an arrestee’s disability in handling and transporting the individual, assuming the area is secure and there is no threat to safety. 207 F.3d at 801-802.
I find the reasoning inGorman and Hainze to be persuasive and will assume for the purposes of summary judgment that the T enth Circuit would recognize a failure to reasonably accommodate theory during an arrest and examine whether Burke and Krebs can state a claim. I conclude that Krebs cannot demonstrate that he suffered “greater injury or indignity” than other arrestees in the arrest process because of the lack of a sign language interpreter. He described a certain amountof indignity with respect to his arrest, but this conduct came f rom the private security guard, not the Denver police officer. In Krebs’ deposition, he stated t hat the police officer was a “nice guy” and that the officer slowly and carefully said things like “calm down” and “take it easy” that Krebs could understand. Krebs Dep., Exh. A-16 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197-19, 70. Krebs was able to obtain medical attention for the injuries he incurred as a result of the scuffle with the guard. He was given a doc ument with the charges and while he claims difficulty reading, it was apparently because of hsiglasses, not his reading ability. Although he did not fully understand why he was being arreset d, he knew it had to do with biting the guard. Overall, I conclude that there is no genuine issue of fact regarding his arrest and that he did not s uffer discriminatory injury or indignity during his arrest because of his
33

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 59

disability.

Burke, on the other hand, has alleged facts which, if credited by a jury, could support

a claim of disability discrimination in the course of her arrest. There is evidence that she

did request a sign language interpreter and thatthere was some failure of communication

with the police officers who effected her arres t. Specifically, despite the officer’s stated

practice of permitting arrestees to bring their medication, Burke was not permitted to take

diabetes medication and aids withher. There is evidence to ni dicate that both she and her

husband attempted to convey that she needed thes e items but that, because of her

disability, the officers did not understand her medical needs. As a result, a significant

period of time passed before shesaw a medical professional to assist her. Burke testified

that she became hypoglycemic while waiting to be seen by the nurse and suffer

ed

avoidable discomfort as a result of the failu re in communication. In addition, although

arrestees are not permitted to have pagers and telephones at the detention facility, it does

not appear that there is any policy agains t permitting these items during an arrest.

Accommodating Burke’s disability by permitting her to retain her “ Sidekick” device as a

communication aid during her arrest coul d have decreased t he difficulty she had in

comprehending or obtaining assistance for her medical needs and in obt aining

transportation after her release. Accordingl y, I conclude that summary judgment is not

appropriate on Burke’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claim to the extent it is based on her

arrest.

b. Detention

There is no dispute that disabled i ndividuals are entitled to reasonable

accommodations during detention or incarceration. Robertson, 500 F.3d at 1194-95. This

34

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 59
means that the PADF and Jail were required to provide “meaningful” access to their programs and services for disabled detainees. Id. at 1195. To effectuate the mandate of the ADA, public entities must make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.” Id. (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) and noint g that “reasonable modifications” is understood to be equivalent to “reasonable accommodation” in the ADA’s employment provisions). This means that the entity should take steps to ensure that communications with disabled detainees are as effectiv e as communications with others and that appropriate auxiliary aids and services are provided as necessary. 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a) &(b)(1). “In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary considerationto the requests of the individuawl ith disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. 35.160(b)(2). However, if an individual’s disability or the need for an accommoda tion is obvious, the failure to expressly request a specific accommodation is not fatal to an ADA claim. Robertson, 500 F.3d at 1197 n. 10 (“Whether thepublic entity’s knowledge derives from an individual’s request for an accommodation or an individual’s obvious need for an accommodation, the critical component of the entity’s knowledge isthat it is aware not just that the individual is disabled,but that the individual’s disability affects his ability to receive the benefits of the entity’s services.”). A public entity isnot required “to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundament al alteration in the nature of a s ervice, program, or activity or in undue fniancial and administrative burdens.” Robertson, 500 F.3d at 1196; 28 C.F.R. § 35.164.
With respect to t he detentions, Plaintiffs allege numerous actions that amount to discrimination: isolating them because of their disability; failing to provide sign language
35

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 59
interpreters; depriving them of essential devices or equipment (i.e., TDDs, video phones, closed captioned programming); not permi tting Burke to use her personal diabetes medication at the PADF and not giving her accessto food, water, or bathroom breaks; and failing to provide Krebs with a sign language interpreter at his arraignment. I will address each detainee in turn.
Denver argues that Vigil never asked for a sign language interpreter while he was incarcerated and that there isno evidence of lack of effecitve communication between Vigil and the Jail staff during his initial screening. As a preliminary matter, I conclude that any claim for failure t o accommodate during Vigil’s booking is time-barred as it occurred on August 25, 2005, and, as noted above,the original complaint in this case was filed August 28, 2007.
However, I conclude that ht ere are issues of fact regarding whether Vigil had access to the Jail’s services a fter he was booked and placed in his housing assignment to the same extent as inmates who could communicate verbally. There are issues of fact as to whether Vigil had access to TDD at the Jail. Although Denver has provided evidence that the Jail had these devices, Ms. Ulibarri testified that she was told by the Jail that they had no equipment for her to communicate with her son. I conclude that there are also issues of fact as to whether Vigil had meaningful access to the services when he may not have been able to read the inmate handbook and, even ihf e could, the inmate handbook did not inform him of the availability of TDD or signlanguage interpreters so that he could request them. Plaintiffs have present ed evidence sufficient to show that the Jail’s services, including opportunities for interaction wit h medical staff, may have been limited in effectiveness to Vigil without the assistance of a sign language interpreter. Moreover, a
36

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 59
jury could find that there was a failure to determine whether Vigil could access the Jail’s services without assistance. Given that his disability was obvious, the question of whether the Jail therefore should have known of effect otfhe disability on Vigil’s ability to participate in the Jail’s programs and services should go to the jury.
Turning to Burke, I see no discrimination in the failure to provide Burke with a sign language interpreter during the intake process at the PADF. The governing regulations provide that a public entity “shall honor the [disabled person’s] choice [of accommodation] unless it can demonstrate that another e ffective means of communication ex ists.” Preamble, 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, app. A, Section 35.160 G eneral. It is apparent from the medical record that she adequately was able to communicate her medical needs and her current status regarding her insulin intake and need for food. Therefore, I c onclude that writing was an equally effective means of communciation in this process. If the nurse failed to provide food as directed by the physician it would not be because of the lack of a sign language interpreter but some other oversight or error. Any alleged problems with the blood sugar monitor or direction to give her more insulin also does not reflect inadequate communication. The Plaintiffs have not ident ified any errors in the booking process or otherwise that would indicate that some essential communication assistance was needed but not provided.
However, the problems Burke had upon release, including being unable to communicate with her husband to take her home, could demonstrate a failure to accommodate her disability. The evidence shows that her assistive communication device had been taken away at the time of her a rrest, the PADF’s PDD was not functional, and whoever staffed the release area was unwilling toassist her to makecontact with her family
37

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 59
using a computer or telephone. Under thes e circumstances, she was not in the same position as a hearing person who could have used a telephone tocontact family members for a ride home and so did not have the same access to the entit y’s services as nondisabled persons. Therefore, I conclude that summary judgment should not enter on her disability discrimination claim to the extent it is based on her treatment at the PADF.
Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants fa iled to reasonably accommodate Burke’s disability of diabetes in her arrest. Defendants dispute that Burke’s diabetes is a “disability” as defined by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs have not made a showing in this regard. I need not determine this issue, however, as I have already concluded that the question of whether Burke was discriminated against in the course of her arrest and detention should be determined by ajury. Similarly, even thoughthere is a factual dispute regarding whether Burke actuallyreceived food while at the PADF,it is clear that the nurse was ordered to do so and so I conclude that the oversight, if it occurred, does not demonstrate disability discrimination but rather simply negligence.
Finally, I examine whetherKrebs has provided evidenceto demonstrate that he was discriminated against based on his deafness duri ng his detention. I see no failure of effective communication with respect to the booking and screening of Krebs at the PADF. There is no indication that any error o ccurred on his medical screening or that a classification decision occurred that led to any injury that would have o therwise not occurred. Because he had crutches, it was reasonable to house him alone.
The failure to pr ovide him with a sign language interpreter at his arraignment, however, is somewhat more problematic and I conclude that Robertson is on point. In Robertson, the plaintiff was deaf but had a cochl ear implant that permitted him to hear
38

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 59
voices when the per son speaking faced him fr om a short distance. The plaintiff was arrested and detained and eventuallyhad a probable cause hearingat the detention facility, where he could only participate by closed-circuit television. Although he had an attorney present, he could not hear whatwas going on. The charges were dismissed. Nonetheless, the Tenth Circuit decided there were iss ues of fact regarding whether his need for accommodations was obvious. Moreover, the coutrheld that the plaintfif’s “injury” was that he “was denied the ability to participate in his probable cause hearing to the same extent as non-disabled individuals.” 500 F.3d at 1199.
Here, Krebs does not deny t hat he bit the security guard and does not appear to seek to overturn his conviction on the resulting charges. 16 Nonetheless, the evidence presented is sufficient for a jury to find that he was denied the opportunity to participate in his arraignment to the same extent as non-disabled individuals. The written colloquy with the judicial officer, although adequate to show that Kreb knowingly pleaded guilty to the charges, demonstrates that he could not communicate with the judicialofficer regarding the events that occurred. Ha ving read Krebs’ deposition, which was conducted with the assistance of a sign language interpreter, I believe that he was attempting to explain why he bit the security guard. However, a jurycould find that the words on the paper would not have been understandable to the judicial officer atthe hearing and thatKrebs therefore was not given the opportunity toexplain himself or understand the process as well as someone without his disability. Therefore, I will deny summary judgment on this claim.
16Denver argued that Krebs’ claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) to the extent that it is based on his court hearing and guilty plea. However, I see no indication that Krebs seeks to invalidate his conviction or argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and so I do not consider the effect of Heck in this order.
39

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 59
c. Availability of Damages and Injunctive Relief Denver argues that even if Plaintiffs can establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, they should not be permitted to seek compensatory damages because they cannot prove intentional discrimi nation. I conclude t here are sufficient issues of fact to preclude summary judgment in this regard. Although it appears that Denver makes efforts to train its deputies and staff on disability issues, including those affecting deaf individuals, there is evidence sufficient for a jury to fi nd that these efforts are insufficient. It appears that there are gaps in deputies’ knowledge ofhow best to communicate with deaf inmates as well as how and under what circumstances toobtain an interpreter. Although assistive devices are available, they are of questionabl e value if inmates have no way to learn of them or if they areinoperable. Therefore, I will not barPlaintiffs’ request for compensatory damages at this time. Denver argues that the c laims for injunctive relief are moot because Vigil is deceased and Burke and Krebs have been released. Plaintiffs respond that the entit y Plaintiffs, the CCDC and CAD, have standing to seekinjunctive relief and these claims are not moot. The entity Plaintiffs present evidence thatthey are impacted by Denver's failures to provide adequate accommodation for deaf and ot her disabled arrestees, detainees, and inmates because these organizat ions receive and investigate complaints from disabled individuals coming in contact with Denver's Police and Sheriff Departments. Therefore, the entities argue, they are required to expend time and resources attempting to obtain redress on behalf of their members and the community they serve. To establish standing for injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that:
40

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 59
(1) she has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that th e injury will be redressed by the relief requested. Tandy v. City of Wichita, 380 F.3d 1277, 1283 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000)). Denver first challenges the admissibilit y of the organizations' evidence regarding their injuries. As discussed in the section of this order concerning the motions to strike, I disagree with Denver and consider Plaint iffs’ evidence to be adequate and admissible. Denver then further argues that Plain tiffs have not established that the CCDC and CAD may bring associational claims on behalf of t heir members. Under Tenth Circuit law, an association has such standing only if: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) theinterests it seeks to protectare germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim assert ed nor the relief requested requir es the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742, 756 (10ht Cir. 2010) (quotingHunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 342, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed .2d 383 (1977)). However, Denver made this argument for the first time in itsreply brief, and arguments raised for the first time in a reply may be disregarded1.7 Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236, 1250(10th Cir. 2007); United States v. Murray, 82 F.3d 361, 363 n. 3 (10th Cir.1996). Moreover, it appears to me that the organizations are bringing their claims on their own behalf not exclusively on behalf of
17Nonetheless, since standing is essential to the assertion of the claims, Defendants are not precluded from raising this issue again.
41

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 59
their members. I will not dismiss the injunctive claims as moot. I conclude that the organizational
Plaintiffs have established that they have suffered a concrete and particular ized injury traceable to the alleged conduct of Denver and its agencies. Further, there is adequate evidence that the injury is actual and likely to recur in the future and can be redressed by the relief requested. There issignificant disputed evidence regarding the current existence and effectiveness of the accommodations fordeaf detainees and inmates at the PADF and Jail. For ex ample, at l east one deputy was st ill unaware of any policy regarding the availability of sign language interpreters. Similarly, there is evidence that the PDD at the PADF was not operational at a visit during the pendency of this litigation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that other deaf per sons detained will have some of the same difficulties as the detained Plaintiffs here. eBcause the organizational Plaintiffs have shown that this will require them to ex pend further resources, I conclude they have adequately demonstrated their standing t o seek injunctive relief. See, e.g., Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (in FaiHr ousing Act case, “an organization may satisfy the Article III requirement of injury in fact if it can demonstrate: (1) frustration of its organizational mission; and (2) diversion of its resources to combat the particular housing discrimination in question.”).
2. Claims 3 - 6: Constitutional Claims pursuant to § 1983 Plaintiffs assert several constitutional claims against Denver and t he individual Defendants; they concede in their response brief, however, that any constitutional claims against Defendant Lovingier, Foos, Wilson, and Whitman in their individual capacities based on Vigil’s arrest and detention are time-barred. Plaintiffs’ Response, ECF No. 228,
42

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 59
129. Accordingly, only Defendant McCabe remains as a defendant sued in his individual capacity for the civil rights claims asserted by Plaintiffs Ulibarri and the Estate.
In addition, Defendants argue t hat Plaintiff Ulibarri cannot assert claims f or constitutional violations on her own behalf because the alleged constitutional injuries here were inflicted on Vigil, not Ulibarri. Although there is a recognized constitutional cause of action for deprivation of a familial relationship, the government conduct at issue must be directed at the plaintiff and intended to deprive him or her of that relationship.Trujillo v. Bd. of Cty. Commr’s, 768 F. 2d 1186, 1190 (10th Cir. 1985). Ulibarri does not assert any such claim and all other alleged constitutional violat ions involve conduct directed at Vigil. It appears that Vigil is represent ed here by his Estate, not Plaint iff Ulibarri. Accordingly, I agree with Defendants that summaryjudgment should enter in their favor on any civil rights claims asserted by Ms. Ulibarri.
The individual Defendants have asserted qualified immunity as a defense. “In an action under section 1983, individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is demonstrated that theri alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in their positions would have known.” Murrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 186 F.3d 1238, 1251 (10th Cir. 1999). Once a defendant has raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff bears the heavy two-part burden of demonstrating that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and ( 2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028, 1030 (10th Cir. 2004). In Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808 (2009), the Supreme Court held ht at the court has discretion todetermine “which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis s hould be addressed first in light of the
43

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 59
circumstances in the particular case at hand.” 129 S. Ct. at 818. A municipality or other governmental entity is not subject to liability simply because
it was the employer or principal; instead, liability under section 1983 accrues only where the action alleged to be unconstitutional executes or implements a governmental policy or custom. Monell v. New York Dep’ t of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) . Denver would not be liable undersection 1983 solely because its employee inflicted injury. Graves v. Thomas, 450 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10ht Cir. 2006) (citingMonell). Rather, municipal liability would require (1) the existence of a policy or custom; and (2) a direct causal link between the policy or custom and the injury alleged. Id. (citing City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989)). “When the claim is a failure to act, the plaintif f must demonstrate the [governmental entity’s] inaction was the result of ‘deliberate indifference’ to the rights of its inhabitants.” Id. (punctuation omitted). U nder Tenth Circuit law, the deliberate indifference standard may be satisf ied “when the municipality has actual or constructive notice that its action or failure isubstantially certain to result in a constitutional violation, and it consciously and deliberateyl chooses to disregard the risk of harm.”Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1307 (10th Cir. 1999); see also Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1528 (10th Cir. 1988) (a supervisor or municipality may be held liable where there is essentially a complete failure to train, or training that is so reckless or grossly negligent that future misconduct is almost inevitable).
To establish individual supervisory liability, a plaintiff must establish a “deliberate, intentional act” by a supervisor such that there is a “sufficient causal connection” between the supervisor and the constitutional violation. Serna v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr. , 455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006). Mere negligence is not sufficient to establish liability. Id.
44

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 59
Rather, a plaint iff must show active participation or acquiescence through personal participation, exercise of control or direction, failure to supervise, or tacit authorization of the offending acts. Id. at 1152-53. If a sheriff is responsible for proper management of a jail, the sheriff maybe accountable if he “knew or should have known of the misconduct, and yet failed to prevent future harm.” Meade, 841 F.2d at 1528 (citations omitted).
I now turn to the evidence presented insupport of each claim to determine whether it adequately establishes that a constit utional violation occurred, that the individual defendant inflicted it, whether the constitutional right was clearly established, and whether the injury arose from a policy or custom of Denver.
a. Claim 3: Violation of Vigil’s Eighth Amendment Rights The third claim for relief asserts that D enver and its employees were deliberately indifferent to the serious medci al needs of Vigil in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which applies to pretrial detainees through the Fourteenth Amendment. Martin v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 909 F.2d 402, 406 (10th Cir. 1990) ( “pretrial detainees are entitled under the fourteenth amendment's due process clause to the same degree of protection regarding medical attention afforded convicted inmates under the eighth amendment.”). The theory underlying this claim appears to be that by isolating Vigil, failing to provide him with a sign language interpreter, keeping him in administrative segregation, failing to permit him the opportunity to meet with the ARB, and failing to timely conduct rounds, the Jail deputies were deliberately indifferent to Vigil’s de pression and suicidal impulses, resulting in his death. The supervisors are alleged to be li able individually and Denver is alleged to be liable as a municipality because of the fa ilure to adequately train and supervise the deputies in this regard.
45

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 59
It is well established that prison official s violate the Eighth Amendment if their “deliberate indifference to serious medicalneeds of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle v. Gam ble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, a claim based on “an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care” or alleging “that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition” does not state a vlaid claim of medicalmistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269, 1291 (10th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). “Rather, ‘a prisoner must allege actsor omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’”Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1230 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106).
To demonstrate an Eighth Am endment violation, an inmate must satisfy both objective and subjective elements. The objec tive component is met if the depriv ation is “sufficiently serious,” i.e., one that “has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or . . . is so obvious that evena lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1276 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir .1999)).
The subjective component of the deliberate indifference test is met if the defendant “knows of and disregards an exces sive risk to inmate health or safety.” Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir.2000). “Deliberate indifference” does not require a showing of express intent to harm, rather, it is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his or her knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 752 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
I conclude that the evidence here is simply insufficient to establis h deliberate 46

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 59
indifference. None of the evidence pr oduced by Plaintiffs indicates that Vigil had been suicidal prior to his incarceration or at ht e time of his medical screening. The deputies who observed Vigil had no recollection of any behaviors that would have indicated that he was depressed or suicidal or even that he lacked the means of communicating such feelings. Plaintiffs make much of several factors pr esent that could have in creased Vigil’s risk of suicide, including the possibility of a l ong sentence and Vigil having a birthday while incarcerated. They do not present any evidence, however, that the deputies were aware of these issues. Indeed, such information wa s not routinely provided to the deputies. I note that although Vigil’s mot her observed him in distress, sh e also did not have any reason to believe he would harm himself and did not warn the Jail or anyone else that he was at risk. Plaintiffs also argue that Vig il could not communicat e even if he wanted to because of the failure to provide a sign language interpreter. Again, however, they have not shown that the deputies had reason to know that not informing Vigil of the availability of a sign language interpreter or TDD would lead to his death. Vigil had a sign language interpreter at several court appearances at which his mother and his attorney were present but did not communicate to them that he was contemplating suicide.
Plaintiffs cite Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982) (abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. O’ Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)) for the proposition t hat “[p]rison officials show deliberate indifferenc e to serious medical needs if prisoners are unable to make their medical problems known to the medical staff.” This may be true but is inapplicable to the facts of this case. The evidence es tablishes that Vigil could communicate through writing and otherwise sufficiently to at least alert medical staff that he needed assistance and that medical staff made regular and frequent visits to the Jail.
47

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 59
Indeed, Ms. Ulibarri testified in her deposition that her son could always communicate to her when he’d had a bad day or was upset about something. Ulibarri Dep., Exh. A-14 to Denver’s Mot. for Summ, J., ECF No. 197-17, 54. Vigil had aslo made clear that he wished to see the ARB, and, at the PADF, had been able to communicate to another inmate sufficiently for the inmate to make a telephonecall on his behalf and inform his family of his needs. Had he made an effort toseek medical help and the Jail still did not provided a sign language interpreter to facilitatethe treatment and diagnosis ofhis condition, then the issue might be closer. Under the facts presented here, however, no reasonable jury could find that the persons supervising Vig il at the Jail were aware of a specific risk that he would commit suicide but nonetheless disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to prevent it. See Barrie v. Grand Cnty., Utah, 119 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 1997); Estate of Hocker v. Walsh, 22 F.3d 995, 1000 (10th Cir. 1994) (no deliberate indifference in case of inmate suicide where detention center staff had no actual knowledge of suicide risk and the facts did not suggest that inm ate’s “risk of suicide was so substantial or pervasive that knowledge can be inferred.”).
Because there was no underyl ing constitutional violation, the supervisor Defendants cannot be liable in either their official or individual capacities. Thompson v. City of Lawrence, 58 F.3d 1511, 1517 (10th Cir. 1995). T herefore, summary judgment should enter in favor of Defendants and against the Estate on this claim.
b. Claim 4: State Created Danger to Vigil and Burke This claim alleges violations of theFourteenth Amendment substantive due process guarantees against all the Defendants, individuallyand officially, under a theory of placing
48

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 59
Vigil and Burke in state-created danger.18 This is a theory whereby state actors may be liable for the acts of private third parties. Liebson v. New Mexico Corr. Dep’t, 73 F.3d 274, 276 (10th Cir. 1996) (discus sing both the spec ial relationship doctrine and the “danger creation” theory, which arises when the state createshte danger that harmed the individual) (citations omitted). In the Tenth Circuit, a plaintiff states a claim under the state-created danger doctrine if the following elements are established: (1) plaintiff was a member of a limited and specifically definable group; (2) defendants’ conduct put plaintiff at substantial risk of ser ious, immediate and proximat e harm; (3) defendants created the danger or increased plaintiff’s vulnerability t o the danger; (4) the risk was obvious or known; (5) defendants acted recklessly in conscious disregadr of that risk; and (6) such conduct, when viewed in total, is conscience shocking.Armijo v. Wagon Mound Pub. Sch,.159 F.3d 1253, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1998). “The key to the state-created danger cases . . . lies in the state actors’ culpable conduct in affirmatively pl acing an individual in a position of danger, effectively stripping a person of her ability todefend herself, or cutting off potential sources of private aid.” Id. at 1263 (quotingJohnson v. Dallas Ind. Sch. Dist,. 38 F.3d 198, 201 (5th Cir. 1994)). The Tenth Circuit has considered the danger creation theory in the context of a suicide. Christiansen v. City of Tulsa, 332 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2003); Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1256.
To establish the “shocks the conscience” element, a plaintiff must demonstrate “deliberately wrongful governm ent decisions rather than merely negligent government
18In their Response Brief, Plaintiffs also appear to argue that Krebs was placed in enhanced danger. However, the Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint does not contain a claim by Krebs under this theory and there are no facts to indicate that Krebs was placed in danger of any harm from a non-state actor.
49

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 59
conduct.” Uhlrig v. Harder , 64 F.3d 567, 573 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115 (1992)). As noted inCollins, the Due Process Clause “is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill advis ed [government] decisions.” 503 U.S. at 129. Therefore, a plaintiff asserting a substantive due process claim must establish either an intent to harm or an intent to place a person unreasonably at risk of harm, i.e., when a state actor “was aware of a known or obvious risk that was so grea t that it was highly probable that serious harm would follow and he or she proceeded in conscious and unreasonable disregard of the consequences.” Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 573-74 (citations omitted). Moreover, the plaintiff must “demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking,” in other words, “a high level of outrageousness.” Id. at 574.
Defendants argue that the Estate cannot pr evail on this claim bec ause it cannot show that the Defendants or any other re sponsible employee engaged in conduct in the treatment of Vigil that is conscience shocking. I agree. The failures described, such as housing Vigil in a dministrative segregation for his own safety, failing to provide an interpreter for the medical screening, and perhaps not conducting regular rounds, are at most negligent or ill-advised. Again, without any known history or indication of suicidal impulses, there is simply no evidence sufficient to show that any of the state actors were aware of a “known or obvious rsi k that was so great that itwas highly probable that serious harm would follow” but that these offic ials nonetheless “proceeded in conscious and unreasonable disregard of the consequences.” The facts alleged here simply do not demonstrate the “high level of outrageousness”needed to state a substantive due process
50

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 59
claim.19 With respect to Burke, her allegations regarding her late night release and the
potential harm from being unable to communicateor get herself home could fall under the state-created danger theory.20 Plaintiffs argue that Burke’s situation is analogous to the “classic” state created danger scenario, where police officers impounded a woman’s car and abandoned her in a high crime area at 2:30 a.m. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989). In their motions, Defendant s argue again that the conscience shocking element cannot be established because there is no evidence to show that they intended to harm Burke or recognized that she was at an unreasonable risk of harm. I agree with Defendants.
There are numerous facts that distinguishBurke’s situation from the facts of Wood. Burke was not abandoned in a high crime area; rather, she was released from a detention facility where there was a s afe waiting area and where she was surrounded by law enforcement officers. It is clear that she suffered unnecessary difficulty because of the PADF’s unwillingness to assist her in contacting her family and in their failure to give her the message that her husband was coming to pick herup. The officers offered her the use of a PDD; although it may not have been operaotinal there is no evidence that the deputies or staff knew that it did not work or that Burke otherwise could not make use of it. Burke
19The facts of Armijo, which Plaintiffs rely on, are distinguishable. In that case, school officials suspended a minor who was known to have expressed suicidal thoughts and sent him home where officials knew he would be alone and had access to firearms. 159 F.3d at 1264.
20In their Response Brief, Plaintiffs also appear to argue that the failures to provide adequate medical attention amounts to a state created danger. However, they cite no case law recognizing application of this theory to such facts.
51

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 59
has not shown that the officers would have been aware of the risk that instead of waiting in the facility for public transportation to begi n that Burke would leave and accept a ride from a stranger. This simplydoes not amount to a “known and obvious risk” that the PADF staff consciously and unreasonably disregarded. As discussed above, these facts adequately form the basis of a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act but do not demonstrate the level of outrageousness required to establish a substantive due process violation.
c. Claim 6: Special Relationship Responsibility to Vigil, Burke and Krebs This claim is predicated on the second doctrine whereby a state actor may be held liable for the acts of a private third party. Armijo, 159 F.3d at 1261 (“[I]f the state restrains an individual’s freedom to act to protect hi mself or herself through a restraint on that individual’s personal liberty, the state may thereby enter intoa ‘special relationship’ during such restraint to protect that individual from violent acts inflicted by others.”). This claim is asserted by the Estate, Krebs, and Burke. With respect to Krebs and Burke, I see no evidence of a violent act or other act inflicted by a third party whilein the custody ofthe Defendants. To the extent Burke bases her claim on her inability to get home safely afterher release, that claim is analyzed above under the state-created danger theory. The Estate’s claim appears to be premised on the theory that by taking Vigil into custody, Defendants undertook responsibilit y to prevent Vigil from harming himself. Plaintiffs’ Response Brief, ECF No. 228, 157 (citing Youngberg v. Romero, 457 U.S. 307, 324 (1982)). Plaintiffs’ cited cases, howev er, concern only the general principle that custodial facilities must not ignore an inmate’sserious medical needs. The issue of Vigil’s
52

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 59
serious medical needs has been addressed above,and the Tenth Circuit has indicated that the Eighth Amendment provides the appropriate framework in analyzing prison suicide cases. Barrie, 119 F.3d at 866 (“we note that claimsbased on a jail suicide are considered and treated as claims based on the failure of jail officials to provide medical care for those in their custody.”). Otherwise, Plaintiffs ctie case law concerning the general responsibility to provide for “reasonable safety” to custodial inmates. Plaintiffs do not, however, cite any authority to show that “safety” includes preventing an inmate’s harm to himself. Plaintiffs appear to argue that by faili ng to provide him adequate means of communicating, t he Defendants “imposed on [Vigil’s] freedom to acton his own behalf.” Response Brief at 158.
As discussed above, however, I disagree ht at Vigil had no means of communication at all; rather, his means of communication were far from optimal but adequate to indicate if he was in need or distress. Moreover, while additional ef fort might have made a difference in preventing the har m, there is simply no evidence to establish conduct that shocks the conscience. Accordingly, this claim fails.
d. Claim 5: Failur e to Train and S upervise Resulting in Due Process Violations
Because I find no due process violations, I need not address whether the alleged failure of the individual Defendants or Denver to adequat ely train and supervise the deputies and staff of the detention facilities gives rise to municipal or supervisory liability.
3. Claims 7-9: State Negligence and Wrongful Death Claims Plaintiff Ulibarri asserts a wrongful death claim against Denver on her own behalf. She and the Estate assert two negligence claims against Denver for negligence in failing
53

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 59

to prevent Vigil’s suicide and for failure to train and supervise. Denver asserts a defense

of governmental immunity to a portion of these claims and otherwise asserts that the

Plaintiffs cannot establish the elements of the wrongful death and state claims.

a. Governmental Immunity

The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) provides governmental immunity

for “all actions which lie in tort or could lie intort” unless immunity is waived. C.R.S. § 12-

10-105(a). Immunity is waived for injuries re sulting from the operation of any jail by a

public entity. C.R.S. § 12-10-106(1)(b). The “operation” of a facility is defined as “the act

or omission of a public entity or public empl oyee in the exercise and performance of the

powers, duties, and functions vested in them by law with respect to the purposes of any

public . . . jail . . . .” C.R. S. § 24-10-103(3)(a). In other words, sovereign immunity is

waived only if the activity at issue rela tes to the facility's primary “purpose.” Pack v.

Arkansas Valley Corr. Facility , 894 P.2d 34, 37 (Colo. App. 1995). There

fore,

governmental immunity was not waived for a vi sitor's claim against a correctional facility

and its warden resulting from a slip and fall injury a visitor sustained in the parking lot; the

“purpose” of the correctional facilit y, like hospitals and jails, was to house persons for

continuous periods, not to maintain a parking facility. Id.; see also Flores v. Colo. Dep’t of

Corr., 3 P.3d 464, 466 (Colo. App. 1999) (distinguishing Pack in the case of a slip and fall

within the visitor area of a correctional facility and therefore finding a waiver of immunity;

“because the purpose of a correctional facility is to manage convicts safely and effectively,

and visitation within the facility directly assists in meeting that purpose, the maintenance

of the visitor area within the custodial facility here is directly related to the purpose of the

correctional facility”).

54

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 59
Denver argues that itis not liable, therefore, for anyinjuries arising from the exercise of powers, duties, and functions not vested in the Sheriff Department by law, specifically any duty to train and supervise. I disagree. Under Colorado law, each county is required to have a jail “for the detention, safekeeping, and confinement of persons and prisoners lawfully committed.” C.R.S. § 17-26-101. The Sheriff is responsible for “the manner in which the same is kept” and “shall see that the same is kept clean, safe, and wholesome.” C.R.S. § 17-26-102. The actsand omissions alleged here allconcern the vested duty and powers of the Sheriff Department in keepi ng inmates safe and healthy, including proper classification, supervision, and provision of medical care, whic h implies the duty to adequately train and supervise in these areas.See also C.R.S. § 17-26-104.5 (concerning medical care in county jails); Flores, 3 P.3d at 466. Accordingly, I am persuaded that the waiver of governmental immunity for the operation of a jail applies to all of Plaintiffs’ claims here.
b. Merits of Wrongful Death and Negligence Claims Plaintiff Ulibarri and the Estate's claims21 are basically premised on the notion that the Jail was negligent in failing to prevent Vi gil's suicide and did not adequately train its staff in this regard. To establish a prima facie claim of negligence, a plaintiff must show a legal duty of care on the defendant's part, breach of that duty, injury to the plaint iff, and causation (i.e., that the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injury). Gerrity Oil & Gas
21As noted above, Ulibarri’s claim is for wrongful death, which is permitted under Colorado law, while the Estate’s claims are in a representative capacity for Vigil. See Rowell v. Clifford, 976 P.2d 363, 364 (Colo. App. 1998) (provision creating cause of action for wrongful death is separate and distinct from the action that the injured person would have had for personal injuries if he or she had survived).
55

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 59
Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913, 929 (Colo.1997). Whether a party owes a legal duty to another is a question of law for me to decide. Metro. Gas Repair Serv., Inc. v. Kulik, 621 P.2d 313, 317 (Colo.1980).
In determining whether the law imposes a duty on a defendant to exercise reasonable care, I examine the following relevant factors: “(1) the risk involved, (2) the foreseeability of harm to othersand likelihood of injury as weighed against the social utility of the actor's conduct, (3) the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury or harm, and (4) the consequences of placing the burden on the actor.M” ontoya v. Connolly's Towing, Inc., 216 P.3d 98, 104 (Colo. App. 2008). No one factor is controlling and the issue essentially comes down to “fariness under contemporary standards.” Id. In addition, in making this analysis Colorado law distinguishes between acting and failure to act; “by ‘misfeasance’ the defendant has created a new risk of harm to the plaintiff, while by ‘nonfeasance’ he has at leastmade the situation no worse,and had merely failed to benefit him by interfering in his affairs.” Western Innovations, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp ., 187 P.3d 1155, 1159 (Colo. App. 2008) (citations omitted). While generally a tortfeasor's nonfeasance does not give rise toliability, a duty to take affirmative action may arise where there is a “special relationship” between the parties. Id.
Denver argues that the ex istence and sc ope of a duty of a jailer to prevent an inmate’s suicide has not been determined by Colorado courts. It argues that to the extent such a duty exists, "the scope of the duty to prevent an inmat e’s suicide should, at a minimum, require that the officers were awar e of a specific risk t hat the prisoner would commit suicide, as the Tenth Cir cuit requires in a civil rights claim.” Denver’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 197, 64. I disagree. As discussed in detail above, the standard for a
56

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 59
civil rights claim in a jail suicide is deliberate indifference, which is a heightened standard for a plaintiff to meet, and is affirmatively not a negligence standard. Accordingly, I disagree that the duty in a s tate negligence action should be deemed equivalent to that required in a constitutional claim.
Plaintiffs argue that Denver's duty to Vi gil in the operation of the Jail included the duty to provide appropriate classification, communication and supervisio n. Plaintiffs contend that Denver breached those duties by isolating Vigil in the special management area solely on the basis of his disability, failing to allow Vigil to appear before the Administrative Review Board despite h is request to do so, failing to provide Vigil or his family any effective way of communicating and failing to provide Vigil any effective way of communicating with the deputies and medical st aff, failing to adequately supervise Vigil, and generally “[a]cting in a mannerwithout due regard for the safetyof Mr. Vigil.” Plaintiffs' Response Brief, ECF No. 228, 183.
I now examine whether the law would impose a duty on a jailer to take reasonable care to prevent an inmate from committing su icide by providing proper classification, supervision, and communication, and to adequately train staff in these areas. I note first that the risk involved is quite serious. As Denver and Plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrates, suicide is a significant risk among incarcerated populations and is a major cause of death in jails and detention facilities. Romero A ff. Attach. 6, ECF No. 197-8 (“Suicide is the number one cause of death in jails”). Second, the harm is foreseeable; inmate suicides are a documented hazard and, again, the evidence presented shows that numerous factors present in a detention facility, including isolation, demora lization, and an authoritarian environment, could contribute to despair. Foos Dep., Exh. 6 to Plaintiffs’ Response, ECF
57

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 59
No. 229-7, 87-89. The evidence indicates t he burden is not significant and that these processes are already in place to a large extent. Moreover, there is overwhelming social utility in placing this burden on the jail and its personnel, as inmates have no other source of protection or assistance and must rely al most solely on the facility for protection, communication, and medical and psychiatric services.
I conclude that Colorado courts would re cognize that the Jail owes the duties described by Plaintiffs to its inmates in the opeartion of the facility. The “due care” required in the execution of that duty would be per formance in a manner “in accordance with the knowledge and skill ordina rily possessed by [other] practitioners under similar circumstances.” Perreira v. State, 768 P.2d 1198, 1220 (Colo. 1989).
There are significant issues of fact regarding whether these duties were breached and whether these failur es proximately caused Vigil's death. Accordingly, summary judgment on the negligence claims is not appropriate.
Accordingly, it is ordered: 1. The Objections (ECF Nos. 80 and 113) to orders enter ed by Magistrate
Judge Michael J. Watanabe are overruled and the orders are affirmed. 2. The Motion to Strike (ECF No. 224) fiel d by Plaintiffs and the Motion to Strike
Exhibits (ECF No. 243) filed by Defendants are granted in part and denied in part as described in Part B of this order. 3. The Motions for Summary Judgment (ECFNos. 197 & 198)filed Defendants are granted in part and denied in part as follows:
a) The motions are denied as to Claims 1 and 2. b) The motions are grant ed as to Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6, the
58

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 265 Filed 09/30/10 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 59
constitutional claims for relief. Summary judgment shall enter in favor of all Defendants on these claims. c) The motions are denied as to Claims 7, 8, and 9. d) The individual defendants may have their costs. DATED at Denver, Colorado, on September 30, 2010.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Walker D. Miller United States Senior District Judge

PDF Final

59

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW DEBBIE ULIBARRI, et al. Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court on the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Defendants, the City and County of Denver and Alvin LaCabe, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, and Gerald R. Whitman, all in their official and individual capacities. Good grounds having been shown, it is therefore ORDERED that:
The Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Defendants, the City and County of Denver and Alvin LaCabe, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, and Gerald R. Whitman, all in their official and individual capacities is (Doc. # 466) is GRANTED. The complaint against

Defendants, the City and County of Denver and Alvin LaCabe, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, and Gerald R. Whitman, all in their official and individual capacities is dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay their own attorney fees and costs.
Dated this 4th day of October, 2012. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith

.

ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

 
 Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 27

FlJLL AND FINAL RELEASE AGREEMENT
2 This Pull and Final Release Agreement ("Agreement") is made this ±-'>- day of
September. 2012, by DEBBIE ULIBARRI, THE ESTATE OF SHAWN VIGIL. TfiE COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, THE COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, ROGER KREBS, AND SARAH BlJRKE ("Plaintiffs") and the CITY AND COlJNTY OF DENVER and ALVIN LACABE, WILLIAM LOVINGlER, RON D. FOOS, GARY WILSON, AND GERALD R, WHlTMAN, ALL IN THElR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES ("Defendants'').
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants ru-e partie$ in a civil action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under Civil Action No. 07-cv-01814-0DS.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs desires to settle their claims against Defendants asserted in the referenced civil action, and to enter into various agreements related to said civil action and the cl~ims giving rise thereto, anc! aL claims related to the incidents giving rise to this lawsuit, in accordance with the provisions and Upon the terms and conditions hereafter set forth.
IN CONSIDERATION of the City and County of Denver and aU originally named Defendants in this case, waiving and releasing any and all claims it or they may have against any of the Plaintiffs, individually or collectively, and payment of the sum of Six Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand Dollars ($695,000) by the City and County of Denver payable t(l the law firm of King & Greisen, LLP for the following: l) compensatior_ for the attorney's fees and costs in the above matter; 2) the physical injury (i.e. death) of Shawn Vigil; 3) the emotional distress dl;lmages for Roger Krebs, and 4) the emotional distress damages of Sarah Burke. and: in consideration of the agreement by the parties that the comi will vacate its order and opinion Dismissing Colorlldo Cross Disability Cr>alition at1d Colorado Association of the Deaf for Lack of Standing (ECF#426), and conditioned on such vacatur, Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, individually and as the representative of The Estate of Shawn Vigil, Roger Krebs, Sarah Burke, the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and the Colorado Association of the De&fagree as follows:
I. Plaintiffs hereby release. acquit, and forever discharge Defendants, all other related persons and entities, both past and present, including b\1\ not limited to the City and Cocmty of Denver's departments, divisions, insurel's, principals. attorneys, agents. employees, employers, successors. servants, elected oftlcials, officers, and directors, of and from any and all liahilities, claims, insurance reimbursement or suhrogation claims, demands, rights, controve•·s!es. agreements, damages, actions. causes of action, expenses, attorney's feeli, interest, compensation, judgment and any and ~II consequential and pt.mitivc damages, of whatsoever kind and nature, either in law m· in equity, which might exist with regard to all claims related to or giving rise to Civil Actitm No. 07·CV·Ol814-0DS including, bot no! limited to, all claims arising out of the arrCSl a~d incarceration of Shawn Vigil from August 17, 2005 to September 27, 2005; the arrest and incarcerati011 of Sarah Burke on August 29 and 30, 2007; and the arrest, incarceration and court hearing of Roger Krebs on March 29 and 30, 2007.

.D.u.
(initials)
--~ --
(initials)

90/10 38\7d

A

38\7

5595 l:PEEOE

E9'ET 6106/L0/50

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 27

2.

Plaintiffs lcereby acknowledge that the senlement referenced herein is conditioned

upon approval of the Denver City Council and Mayor. In the event that the Denver City Council

and Mayor fail to approve 30 day~ has elapsed since

or fund the the signing

payment of the monetary consideration set forth herein, or of this Agreement by the Plaintiffs and :he Denver City

Council and the Mayor have not determined whether they will apptove this Agreement, then the

Agreement becomes null and void, and the parties agree that the above action will proceed.

3.

Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, and the terms thereat; shall

be binding on their agents, attorneys, servants, employers, employees, principals, heirs.

executors, adminiatrators, insurers, successors, assigns, subrogee>, and any and all other persons

or entities which have or may have any claim on behalf of themselves or be entitled to share in

any settlement thereof.

4.

It is understood and agreed that the payment of said sum is in full settlement of

and is a comprmnise of Plaintiffs' disputed claims; that payment made under this Agreement is

not to be construed as M admission of liability on the part of the pel'sons and entities hereby

released; and that any liability by said persons and entitles is hereby expressly deniM.

5.

Pl"intiffs agree that the settlement payment of Six Hundred and Ninety Five

Thousand Dollars ($695.000) will be action according to their agreement

distributed · · '·

among

all

plaintiffs

and

all

law

firms

in

this

6.

Plaintiffs acknowledge that a portion of the consideration given for this

Agreement is being given for the full and final release of any and all unknown losses, claims,

in.Jttries, costs, expenses, <1nd damages which either may have occurred in the past and ate not yet

known. or which may occttr in the future and are not presently known with respect to this

incident. Plaintiffs agree to voluntarily and knowingly assume the risk of any mistake of tact,

either mul\ml or unilateral, with respect to said losses, claims, injuries, costs, expenses, and

dmnages, and shall not. under any circumstances, seek to present further claims, or on behalf of

their agents, attomeys, servants, employers, employees, heirs, executors, administrators, insurers,

successors, assigns and subrogees as against the persons and entities herein released.

7.

Plaintiffs represent that any and all subrogated interests or liens related to Civil

Action Number 07-cv-Ol814·0DS or this incident have been resolved or will be resolved upon

receipt of paymem as set fot1h above or that there are no outstanding subrogated interests or liens

related to thi$ claim. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is intended to forever

discharge any and ~II 5ubrogated interests or liens related to this claim. This includes, but is not

limited to, any interests or liens on behalf of any insurance companies, worket·s' compensation

providers, employers, medical providers and treatment providers for property damage or

personal injury on behalf of the Plaintiffs or related to this incident. Plaintiffs agree to defend,

indemnil'y and hold Defendants harmles's from any and all claims, actions, and liability

whatsoever, including any anorncy's fees or costs incurred by Defendants, which might arise

from any unpaid or unsatisfied subrogated interest or lien. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree to

indemnify, defend, a11d hold Defendants harmless as provided in this paragraph of this

2

·- .D..W,._..

(initials)

_l¥:1. .... .

(initials)

90/60 3917d

3817

56%117EE0E E9'E1 cc06/L0/50

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 27
Agreement, in tho event any other provision of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable and invalid for any reason, as it is Plaintiffs' express intent and understanding that this provision of this Agreement be viewed as a separately bargained for and independent provision.
8. Plaintiffs further covenant and agree that they will not bring any action at law, proceeding in equity, administrative proceeding, or otherwise, nor prosecute or sue tho Released Parties or its employees by way of complaint, counterclaim, or by any other manner at aiL relating to the facts nnd claims which wer~·Or could have been asserted in this lawsuit.
9, Plaintiffs hereby assume responsibility for any and all tax consequences associated with the settlement referenced herein. Plaintiffs and/or any designated payees agree to C<lmplete all necessary documents, including, but not limited to, a W-9 form in order to fitlly execute this Agreement.
10. This Agreement is further intended to and does release, acquit, and forever discharge any and all claims for attorney's fees or other expenses which might exist wiih regard to the claim.
11. It is funher understood and agreed that no promise, inducement, or agreement not
herein expressed have been made to Plaintiffs: th&t this Agreement contains tho entire tenns of
the agreement between tbe parties to settle the herein described dispute; that the terms are corwactual and not a mere recital: and thot this Agreement shall be construed accordittg to the
laws of the State of Colorado.
12. Upon payment of the settlement proceeds, Plaintiffs agree to properly execJte and tile a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice pertaining to this lawsuit. As a term of the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice and of this Agreement, each party agrees to pay their own costs and attorney's fees, except as otherwise provided herein.
13. ?lahtiff~ funhcr declare that they have tully and carefully read this Agreement, have consulted legal counsel of their own choice, that Roger Krebs and Satah Burke have had a full opportunity to have this agreement interpreted for them by a sign langLmge interpretet', and
understand the contents thereat: and r.1ign the same as their own free act.

90/EO 38\ld

3

_ft~.

(initials)

,_d:!M__. __

(initials)

38\1

55% II7EE0E E9'E! 6!06/L0/50

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 27
DebbieUiibarri individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Shawn Vigil Roger Krebs
Sarah Burke
CoiO;ado Association of t.hc Deaf Colorado Cross-Disability Coalit.ion

S0/170 39\ld

4

~iHls)u

-~(initials)

30\1

55%117££0£ £9:£1 ol0o/L0/50

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 27
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
By:-~-----~~,--,-­ Pox & Robertson, PC By:
The Center fot- Rights of Parents with Disabilities Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DENVER CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Afc~ By ·;L\lCLMJW(_
Suzanne A. Fasing Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for Defendants

90/90 39\ld

5

__ J:tu.

(initials)
....11\A.__

(initials)

38\1

5595 tt>EE0E E9'Et 6106/L0/50

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 27

FULL AND FINAL RELEASE AGREEMENT

This Full and Final Release Agreement ("Agreement") is made this

day of

September, 2012, by DEBBIE ULIBARRI, THE ESTATE OF SHAWN VIGIL, THE

COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, TBE COLORADO ASSOCIATION

OF THE DEAF, ROGER KREBS, AND SARAH BURKE C'Piaintiffs") and the CITY AND

COUNTY OF DENVER and ALVIN LACABE, WILLIAM LOVINGIER, RON D. FOOS,

,GARY WILSON, AND GERALD R WHITMAN, ALL IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND

IND1V1DUAL CAPACITIES ("Defendants").

WHEREAS. Plaintiffs and Defendants are parties in a civil action filed in the t l nit~d States District Court for the District of Colorado under Civil Action No. 07-cv-0 1814-0DS.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs desires to settle their claims against Defendants asserted in the
referenced civil action, and to enter into various agreements related to said civil action and the claims giving rise thereto, and all claims related to the incidents giving rise to this lawsuit, in accordance with the provisions and upon the terms and conditions hereafter set forth.

IN CONSTDERATION of the City and County of Denver and all originally named
Def(mdants in this case, waiving and releasing any and all claims it or they may have against any of the Plaintiffs, individually or collectively, and payment of the sum of Six Hundred and Ni nety
1)r Five Thousand Dollars ($695,000) by the City and County of Denver payable to the law firm
King & G reisen, LLP for the following: 1) compensation for the attorney's fees and costs in the above matter; 2) the physical injury (i.e. death) of Shawn Vigil; 3) the emotional distress
damages for Roger Krebs, and 4) the emotional distress damages of Sarah Burke, and; in consideration of the agreement by the parties that the court will vacate its order and opinion
Dismissing Colorado Cross Disability Coalition and Colorado Association of the Deaf for Lack of Standing (ECF#426), and conditioned on such vacatur, Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri. indivi duall y and as the representative of The Estate of Shawn Vigil, Roger Krebs, Sarah Burke, the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and the Colorado Association of the Deaf agree as follows :

I . Plaintiffs hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge Defendants. all other related persons and entities, both past and present, including but not limited to the City and COlmty o r Denver's departments, divisions, insurers, principals, attorneys, agents, employees.
employers. successors, servants, elected officials, officers, and directors, of and from any and all liabilities. claims, insurance reimbursement or subrogation claims, demands, rights, controversies, agreements, damages, actions, causes of action, expenses, attorney's fees, interest,
compensation, judgment and any and all consequential and punitive damages, of whatsoever
kind and nature, either in law or in equity, which might exist with regard to all claims related to or giving rise to Civil Action No. 07-cv-01814-0DS including, but not limited to, all claims arising out of the arrest and incarceration of Shawn Vigil from August 17, 2005 to September 27, 2005; the arrest ~d incarceration of Sarah Burke on August 29 and 30. 2007; and the arrest,
incarceration and court bearing of Roger Krebs on March 29 and 30, 2007.

<..Q
_;~
( iru tia ls)
S3
( init ials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 27

2. Plaintiffs hereby acknowledge that the settlement referenced herein is conditioned upon approval of the Denver City Council and Mayor. In the event that the Denver City Council and Mayor fail to approve or fund the payment ofthe monetary consideration set forth herein, or 30 days has elapsed si nce the signing of this Agreement by the Plaintiffs and the Denver City Council and the Mayor have not determined whether they will approve this Agreement, thl:!n the Agreement becomes null and void, and the parties agree that the above action will proceed.
3. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, and the terms thereof, shall be binding on their agents, attorneys, servants, employers, employees, principals, heirs, executors, administrators, insurers, successors, assigns, subrogees, and any and all other persons or entities which have or may have any claim on behalf of themselves or be entitled to share in any settlement thereof.

· 4.

It is understood and agreed that the payment of said sun1 is in full settlement of

and is a compromise of Plaintiffs' disputed claims; that payment made under this Agreement is

not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the persons and entities hereby

released; and that any liabili ty by said persons and entities is hereby expressly denied.

5. Plaintiffs agree that the settlement payment of Six Hundred and Ninety rive Thousand Dollars ($695,000) will be distributed among all plaintiffs and all law firms in this action according to their agreement.

6.

Plaintiffs acknowledge that a portion of the consideration given for this

Agreement is being given for the full and final release of any and all unknown losses , claims,

injuries, costs, expenses, and damages which either may have occurred in the past and are not yet

known, or which may occur in the future and are not presently known with respect to this

incident. Plaintiffs agree to voluntarily and knowingly assume the risk of any mistake of t'act,

either mutual or unilateral, with respect to said losses, claims, injuries, costs, expenses, and

damages, and shall not, under any circumstances, seek to present further claims, or on behalf of

their agents, attorneys, servants, employers, employees, heirs, executors, administrators, insurers,

successors. assigns and subrogees as against the persons and entities herein released.

7.

Plaintiffs represent that any and all subrogated interests or liens related to C ivil

Action Number 07-cv-01814-0DS or this incident have been resolved or will be resolved upon

receipt of payment as set fo11h above or that there are no outstanding subrogated interests or liens

related to this claim. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is intended to forever

discharge any and all subrogated interests or liens related to this claim. This includes, but is not

limited to, any interests or liens on behalf of any insurance companies, workers ' compensation

providers, employers, medical providers and treatment providers for property damage or

personal injury on behalf of the Plaintiffs or related to this incident. Plaintiffs agree to defend.

indemnify and hold Defendants harmless from any and all claims, actions, and liability

whatsoever, including any attorney's fees or costs incurred by Defendants, which might arise

ti"om any unpaid or Lmsa£istied subrogated interest or lien. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree to

indemnify, defend, and hold Defendants harmless as provided in this paragraph of this

2

S3 _

(i niti als)

::1S
(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 27

Agreement, in the event any other provision of this Agreement is deemed w1enforceable and
invalid for any reason, as it is Plaintiffs' express intent and understanding that this provision of
this Agreement be viewed as a separately bargained for and independent provision.

8.

Plaintiffs further covenant and agree that they will not bring any action at law,

proceeding in equity, administrative proceeding, or otherwise, nor prosecute or sue the Released

Pa11ies or its employees by way of complaint, counterclaim, or by any other manner at all,

relating to the facts and claims which were or could have been asserted in this lawsuit.

9.

Plaintiffs hereby assume responsibility for any and all tax consequences

associated with the settlement referenced herein. Plaintiffs and/or any designated payees agree

to complete all necessary documents, including, but not limited to, a W-9 fom1 in order to fully

execute this Agreement.

I0. This Agreement is further intended to and does release, acquit, and forever discharge any and all claims for attorney's fees or other expenses which might exist with regard to the claim.

I 1. It is further understood and agreed that no promise, inducement, or agreement not herein expressed have been made to Plaintiffs; 1hat this Agreement contains the entire terms of the agreement between the parties to settle the herein described dispute; that the terms are contractual and not a mere recital; and that this Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado.

12. Upon payment of the settlement proceeds, Plaintiffs agree to properly execute and file a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice pertaining to this lawsujt. As a term of the Stipulati on for Dismissal with Prejudice and of this Agreement, each party agrees to pay their own costs and attorney's fees, except as otherwise provided herein.

13. Plaintiffs further declare that they have fully and carefully read this Agreement. have consulted legal counsel of their own choice, that Roger Krebs and Sarah Burke have had a full opportunity to have this agreement interpreted for them by a sign language interpreter, and understand the contents thereof, and sign the same as their own free act.

3
(initials)
~(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 27
Debbie Ulibarri inctividually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Shawn Vigil Roger Krebs Sarah Burke Colorado Association of the Deaf Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition

4

So

(initials)

s~

(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 27

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

By:_ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ King & Greisen, LLP

- By:
Fox &

-Ro-be11-so-n, P-C -

-

--

--

-

By: - - - -- - -- - - - The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities
Attorneys tor Plaintit'fs

DENVER C ITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
By ~l.\.CC~ Afc~ · Suzanne A. Fasing Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for Defendants

5
(initials )
~~-
(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 27

FULL AND FINAL RELEASE AGREEMENT

This Ful l and Final Release Agreement ("Agreement") is made this

day of

September, 2012, by DEBBIE ULffiARRl, THE ESTATE OF SHAWN VIGIL, THE

COLORADO CROSSMDISABILITY COALITION, THE COLORADO ASSOCIATION

OF THE DEAF, ROGER KREBS, AND SARAH BURKE ("Plaintiffs") and tbe CITY AND

C OUNTY OF DENVER and ALVIN LACABE, WILLIAM LOVINGIER, RON D. FOOS,

G ARY WILSON, AND GERALD R. WffiTMAN, ALL IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND

INDIVIDUAL CAP ACITIES ("Defendants'').

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants are parties in a civil action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under Civil Action No. 07-cv-0 18 I4-0DS.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs desires to settle their claims against Defendants asserted in the referenced civil action, and to enter into various agreements related to said civil action and the claims giving rise thereto, and all claims related to the incidents giving rise to this lawsuit, in accordance with the provisions and upon the terms and conditions hereafter set forth.

IN CONSIDERATION of the City and County of Denver and all originally named Defendants in this case, waiving and releasing any and all claims it or they may have against any of the Plaintiffs, individually or collecti vely, and payment of the sum of Six Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand D01lars ($695,000) by the City and County of Denver payable to the law finn of King & Greisen, LLP for the following: l) compensation for the attorney's fees and costs in the above matter; 2) the physical injury (i.e. death) of Shawn Vigil ; 3) the emotional distress damages for Roger Krebs, and 4) the emotional distress damages of Sarah Burke, and; in consideration of the agreement by the parties that the court will vacate its order and opinion Dismissing Colorado Cross Disability Coalition and Colorado Association of the Deaf for Lack of Standing (ECF#426), and conditioned on such vacatur, Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, individually and as the representative ofThe Estate of Shawn Vigil, Roger Krebs, Sarah Burke, the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and the Colorado Association of the Deaf agree as fo llows:

I. Plaintiffs hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge Defendants, all other related persons and entities, both past and present, incl uding but not lim ited lo the City and County of Denver's departments, divisions, insurers, principals, attorneys, agents. employees, employers. successors, servants, elected officials, officers, and directors, of and from any and all liabil ities. claims, insurance reimbursement or subrogation claims, demands, rights, controversies, agreements, damages, actions, causes of action, expenses, attorney's fees, interest, compensation, judgment and any and all consequential and punitive damages, of whatsoever kind and nature, either in law or in equity, which might exist with regard to all claims related to or giving rise to C ivil Action No. 07-cv-018 14~0DS including, but not limited to, all claims arising out of the arrest and incarceration of Shawn Vigil from August 17, 2005 to September 27, 2005; the arresrand incarceration of Sarah Burke on August 29 and 30, 2007; and the arrest. incarceration and court h~aring of Roger Krebs on March 29 and 30, 2007.

I?K·
(initials)

(init ial s)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 27

2. Plaintiffs hereby acknowledge that the settlement referenced herein is conditioned upon approval of the Denver City Council and Mayor. In the event that the Denver City Cmmcil and Mayor fail to approve or fund the payment of the monetary consideration set forth herein, or 30 days has elapsed since the signing of this Agreement by the Plaintiffs and the Denver City Council and the Mayer have not determined whether they will approve this Agreement, then the Agreement becomes null and void, and the parties agree that the .above action will proceed.

3. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, and the terms thereof. shall be binding on their agents, attorneys, servants, employers, employees, principals, heirs, executors, administrators, insurers, successors, assigns, subrogecs, and any and all other persons or entities which have or may have any claim on behalf of themselves or be entitled to share in
. any settlement thereof. 4. It is understood and agreed that the payment of said sum is in full settlement of and is a compromise of Plaintiffs' disputed claims; that payment made under this Agreement is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the persons and entities hereby released; and that any liability by said persons and entities is hereby expressly denied.

5. Plaintiffs agree that the settlement payment of Six Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand Dollars ($695 ,000) will be distributed among all plaintiffs and all law firms in this action according to their agreement.

6. Plaintiffs acknowledge that a portion of the consideration given for this Agreement is being given for the full and final release of any and all unknown losses, claims, injuries, costs, expenses, and damages which either may have occurred in the past and are not yet known, or which may o<:cur in the future and are not presently known with respect to this incident. Plaintiffs agree to voluntarily and knowingly assume the risk of any mistake of fact, either mutual or unilateral, with respect 10 said losses, claims, injuries, costs, expenses, and damages, and shall not, under any circumstances, seek to present further claims, or on behalf of their agents, attorneys, servants, employers, employees, heirs, executors. administrators, insurers. successors, assigns and subrogees as against the persons and entities herein released.

7. Plaintiffs represent that any and all subrogated interests or liens related to Civil Action Number 07-cv-01814-0DS or this incident have been resolved or will be resolved upon receipt of payment as set forth above or that there are no outstanding subrogated interests or liens related to this claim. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is intended to forever discharge any and all subrogated interests or liens related to this claim. This includes, but is not limited to, any interests or liens on behalf of any insurance companies, workers' compensation providers, employers, medical providers and treatment providers for property dam1:1ge or personal injury on behalf of the Plaintiffs or related to this incident. Plaintiffs agree to defend, indemnify and hold Defendants hannless from any and all claims, actions, and liability whatsoever, including any at1omey's fees or costs incurred by Defendants, which might arise from any unpaid or unsatisfied subrogated interest or lien. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree to indemnifY, defend, and hold Defendants harmless as provided in this paragraph of this

2

~~

(initials)

(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 27
Agreement, in the event any other provision of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable and
invalid for any reason, as it is Plaintiffs' express intent and understanding that this provision or this Agreement be vi ewed as a separately bargained for and independent provi sion.
8. Plaintiffs further covenant and agree that they will not bring any action at law, proceeding in equity, administrative proceeding, or otherwise, nor prosecute or sue the Released Parties or its employees by way of complaint, counterclaim, or by any other manner at all , relating to the facts and claims which were or could have been asserted in this lawsuit.
9. Plaintiffs hereby assume responsibility for any and all tax consequences associated with the settlement referenced herein. Plaintiffs and/or any designated payees agree to complete all necessary documents, including, but not limited to, a W-9 form in order to fully execute this Agreement.
I0. This Agreement is further intended to and does release, acquit, and forever discharge any and all claims for attorney's fees or other expenses which mi ght exist with regard to the cJaim.
I 1. It is further understood and agreed that no promise, inducement, or agreement not herein expressed have been made to Plaintiffs; that this Agreement contains the entire terms of th~ agreement between the parties to settle the herein described dispute; that the terms are contractual and not a mere recital ; and that this Agreement shall be construed according to the Jaws of the State of Colorado.
12. Upon payment of the settlement proceeds, Plaintiffs agree to properly execute and file a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice pertaining to this lawsuit. As a term of the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice and of this Agreement, each party agrees to pay their own costs and attomey's fees, except as otherwise provided herein.
13. Plaintif s further declare that they have fully and carefully read this Agreement, have consulted legal counsel of their own choice, that Roger Krebs and Sarah Burke have had a full opportunity to have this agreement interpreted for them by a sign language inlerpreter, and understand the contents thereof, and sign the same as their own free act.

3

~·

(imtials)

(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 27
Debbie Ulibarri individually and as the
personal representative of the Eslate of Shawn Vigil
/
I
Sarah Burke
Colorado Association of the Deaf
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition

4

?~

(initials)

(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 27

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

By: ~ Ki- ng-&~-G-r- ei-se-n-, - L- L- P-----------

By: ·~~----------------------
Fox & Robertson, PC

By: The

-C-e-n-te-r-fo-r-R-i-gh-t-s

-o-f -Pa-r-en-t-s -w-i-th-D-i-sabilities

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DENVER CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

A ·::· -t~ By: .._)\.J...(:-(JJv\N.Q__

(' '

Suzanne A Fasing

Assistant City Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants

5

'£?d~

(initials)

(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 27

FULL AND FINAL RELEASE AGREEMENT

This Full and Final Release Agreement (''Agreement") is made thjs

day of

September, 2012, by DEBBIE ULIBARRI, THE ESTATE OF SHAWN VIGIL, THE

COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, THE COLORADO ASSOCIAT ION

OF THE DEAF, ROGER KREBS, AND SARAH BURKE ("Plaintiffs") and the CITY AND

COUNTY OF DENVER and ALVIN LACABE, WILLIAM LOVINGIER, RON D. FOOS,

GARY WILSON, AND GERALD R. WHITMAN, ALL IN THEIR OFFI CIAL AND

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES ("Defendants").

WHEREAS, Plajntiffs and Defendants are parties in a civil action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under Civil Action No. 07-cv-018 I4-0DS.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs desires to settle their claims against Defendants asserted in the referenced civil action, and to enter into various agreements related to said civil action and the claims giving rise thereto, and all claims related to the incidents gi ving rise to this lawsuit, in accordance with the provisions and upon the terms and conditions hereafter set forth.

IN CONSIDERATION of the City and Cow1ty of Denver and all originally named Defendants in this case, waiving and releasing any and all claims it or they may have against any of the Plaintiffs, individually or collectively, and payment of the sum of Six Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand Dollars ($695,000) by the City and County of Denver payable to the law firm of King & Greisen, LLP for the fo llowing: 1) compensation for the attorney 's fees and costs in the above matter; 2) the physical injury (i.e. death) of Shawn Vigil; 3) the emotional distress damages for Roger Krebs, and 4) the emotional distress damages of Sarah Burke, and; in consideration of the agreement by the parties that the court will vacate its order and opinion Dismissing Colorado Cross Disability Coalition and Colorado Association of the Deaf for Lack of Standing (ECF#426), and conditioned on such vacatur, Plaintiffs Debbie Ul ibarri, individually and as the representative of The Estate of Shawn Vigil, Roger Krebs, Sarah Burke, the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and the Colorado Association of the Deaf agree as follows:

I . PlainlitTs hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge Defendants, all other related persons and entities, both past and present, including but not limited to the City and County of Denver's departments, divisions, insurers, principals, attomeys, agents, employees, employers, successors, servants, elected ortlcials, officers, and directors, of and from any and all liabilities, claims, insurance reimbursement or subrogation claims, demands, rights, controversies, agreements, damages, actions, causes of action, expenses, attorney' s fees, interest, compensation, judgment and any and all consequential and punitive damages, of whatsoever kind and nature, either in law or in equity, which might exist with regard to all claims related to or giving rise to Civil Action No. 07-cv-01 814-0DS including, but not limited to, all claims arising out of the anest and incarceration of Shawn Vigil from August J7, 2005 to September 27, 2005; the arrest and incarceration of Sarah Burke on August 29 and 30, 2007; and the arrest, incarceration and court hearing ofRoger Krebs on March 29 and 30, 2007.

(ini tials) (initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 27

2. Plaintiffs hereby acknowledge that the settlement referenced herein is conditioned upon approval of the Denver City Council and Mayor. In the event that the Denver City Council and Mayor [ail to approve or fund the payment of the monetary consideration set forth herein, or 30 days has elapsed since the signing of this Agreement by the Plaintiffs and the Denver City Council and the Mayor have not determined whether they will approve this Agreement, then the Agreement becomes null and void, and the parties agree that the above action will proceed.

3. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, and the tem1s thereof, shall be binding on their agents, attorneys, servants, employers, employees, principals, heirs, executors, administrators, insurers, successors, assigns, subrogees, and any and all other persons or entities which have or may have any claim on behalf of themselves or be entitled to share in any settlement thereof.

4. It is understood and agreed that the payment of said sum is in fu ll settlement of and is a compromise of Plaintiffs' disputed claims; that payment made under this Agreement is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the persons and entities hereby released; and that any liability by said persons and entities is hereby expressly denied.

S.

Plaintiffs agree that the setllement payment of Six Hundred and Ninety Five

Thousand Dollars ($695 ,000) will be distributed among all plaintiffs and all law fim1s in this

action according to their agreement.

6.

Plajntiffs acknowledge that a portion of the consideration given for this

Agreement is being given for the full and final release of any and all unknown losses, claims,

injuries, costs, expenses, and damages which either may have occurred in the past and are not yet

known, or which may occur in the future and are not presently known with respect lo this

incident. Plainti ffs agree to voluntarily and knowingly assume the risk of any mistake of fact ,

either mutual or unilateral, with respect to said losses, claims, injuries, costs, expenses, and

dan1ages, and shall not, under any circumstances, seek to present further claims, or on behalf of

their agents, attorneys, servants, employers employees, heirs, executors, administratot·s, insurers,

successors~ assigns and subrogees as against the persons and entities herein released.

7. Plaintiffs represent that any and all subrogated interests or Hens related to Civil Action Number 07-cv-01814-0DS or this incident have been resolved or will be resolved upon receipt ofpayment as set forth above or that there are no outstanding subrogated interests or liens related to this claim. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is intended to forever discharge any and all subrogated interests or liens related ro this claim. This includes, but is not limited to, any interests or liens on behalf of any insurance companies, workers' compensation providers, employers, medical providers and treatment providers for property damage or personal injury on behalf of the Plaintiffs or related to this incident. Plaintiffs agree to defend, indemnify and hold Defendants harmless from any and all claims, actions, and liability whatsoever, including any attorney's fees or costs incurred by Defendants, which might arise from any unpaid or unsatisfied subrogated interest or lien. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold Defendants harmless as provided in this paragraph of this
2
(initials)

(in iti als)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 27

Agreement, in invalid for any this Agreement

the event reason, as be viewed

any it is as a

other provision of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable and Plaintiffs' express intent and understanding that this provision of separately bargained for and independent provision.

8. proceeding

in

Plaintiffs further covenant and agree that they equity, administrative proceeding, or otherwise,

will not bring any action at law, nor prosecute or sue the Released

Parties or relating to

its the

employees by way of complaint, counterclaim, or by facts and claims which were or could have been asserted

any other manner in this lawsuit.

at

all,

9. associated

Plaintiffs hereby assume with the settlement referenced

responsibility for any herein. Plaintiffs and/or

and all tax consequences any designated payees agree

to complete execute thjs

all necessary Agreement.

documents,

including,

but

not

limited

to,

a

W-9

form

in

order

to

fully

I 0. discharge any to tile claim.

This Agreement and all claims for

is further attorney's

intended to fees or other

and does release, acquit, and forever expenses which rrught exist with regard

ctlhhaoewenrestrainaogcrfetetuIxehIapme.lreSeasntnsatdet1edbtneoiohstfwtafCvaueeoermtlnhboeeerrtarehedneuornm.epdcaaeitdrratseilteo;tsooadntPodalnastidhenattattilgfetfrhse;iteshdtehAathhgteartetrheeniimsoneApdngretorssmecheriamisblelee,ndbitneddcciousoncpnetuasmttienre;usnetttd,hhoaealrcecatnhogterirrdeeeitnemtrgemerntmsotsnathoroeetf

12. Upon payment of the settlement proceeds, Plaintiffs agree to properly file a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice pertaining to this lawsuit. As a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice and of this Agreement, each party agrees own costs and attorney's fees, except as otherwise provided herein.

execute and term of the to pay their

have

13. Plaintiffs further consulted legal counsel of

declare that they their own choice,

have fully that Roger

and carefully read this Agreement. Krebs and Sarah Burke have had a

full opportunity to have this agreement interpreted for them by a sign understand the contents thereof, and sign the same as their own free act.

language

interpreter,

and

3 (initials)
(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 27
Debbie Ulibarri individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Shawn Vigil Roger Krebs Sarah Burke
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition

4

I.. I -

(initials)

(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 27
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
By:_ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _
King & Greisen, LLP
By:_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ Fox & Robertson. PC By: _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __
The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DENVER CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFJCE
By S~-to.Nv""-Q__ Af~
Suzanne A. Fasing Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
5 (initials)
(initials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 27

FULL AND FINAL RELEASE AGREEMENT

J This Full and Final Release Agreement ("Agreement'') is made this

_day or

September, 2012, by DEBBIE ULIBARRI, THE ESTATE OF SHAWNVffilL, THE

COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, THE COLORADO ASSOCIATION

OF THE DEAF, ROGER KREBS, AND SARAH BURKE (''Plaintitls'') and the CITY AND

COUNTY OF DENVER and ALVIN LACABE, WILLIAM LOVJNGIER, RON D. FOOS,

GARY WILSON, AND GERALD R. WHITMAN, ALL I~ THEIR OFFICIAL AND

INI>IVII>UAL CAPACITIES ('·Defendants").

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants are parties in a civil action filed in the United States District Cou11 for the District of Colorado under Civi I Action No. 07-cv-0 l 814-0DS.

\VHERF.AS, Plaintiffs desires to settle their claims against Defendants asserted in tbc rel'erenct!.d civil action, and to enter into various agreements related to said civil action and thc claims giving rise thereto, and all claims re lated to the incidents giving rise to this luwsuit. in accordance \vith the provisions and upon the terms and conditions hereafter set forth .

IN CONSH>ERATION of the City and County of Denver and all originally named Defendants in this case, waiving and releasing any and all claims it or they may have against any of the Plaintiffs, individually or collectively, and payment ofthe sum of Six Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand Doilars ($695,000) by the City and County of Denver payable to the law firm ol' King & Grcisen, LLP for the following: 1) compensation for the attorney 's fees and costs in the above matter; 2) the physical injury (i.e. death) of Shawn Vigil; 3) the emotional distress damages for Roger Krebs. and 4) the emotional distress damages of Sarah Burke, and: in consideration of the agreement by the parties that the court will vacate its o rder and opinion Dismissing Colorado Cross Disability Coalition and Colorado Association of the Deaf f()r Lack of Standing (ECF#426), and conditioned on such vacatur, Plaintiffs Debbie Ul ibarri. individually and as the representative of The Estate of Shawn Vigil, Roger Krebs, Sarah Burke. the Colorado Cross-Disabi lity Coalition, and the Colorado Association of the Deaf agree as follows :

I. Plaintiffs hereby release. acquit, and forever discharge Defendants. all other relatc:d persons and entities, both past and present, including but not limited to the City and County of Denver' s departments. divisions, insurers. principals. attorne ys, agents. employees. employers. successors, servants, elected oflicials, officers, and directors, of and from any and all li abilities, claims. insurance reimbursement or subrogation claims, demands. rights. controversies , agreements, damages, actions, causes of action, expenses, attorney's fees, interest.
or compensation, judgment and any and all consequential and punitive damages, whatsoever
kind and nature, either in law or in equity, which might exist with regard to all claims related to or giving rise to Civil Action No. 07-cv-01814-0DS including, but not limited to. all claims arising out of the arrest and incarceration of Shawn Vigil from August 17. :W05 to September 27, 2005: the arrest and incarceration of Sarah Burke on August 29 and 30, 2007 ; and the arrest, incarceration and court hearing of Roger Krebs on March 29 and 30, 2007 .

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 27

2. Plaintiffs hereby acknowledge that the settlement referenced herein is conditioned upon approval of the Denver City Council and Mayor. In the event that the Denver City Council and Mayor 1~1il to approve or fund the payment of the monetary consideration set forth herein, or 30 days has elapsed since the signing of this Agreement by the Plaintiffs and the Denver City Council and the Mayor have not determined whether they will approve this Agreement, then the Agreement becomes null and void, and the parties agree that the above action will proceed.

3. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, and the terms thereof. shall he binding on their agents, attorneys, servants, employers, employees, principals, heirs, executors, administrators, insurers, successors, assigns, subrogces, and any and all other persons or entities which have or may have any claim on behalf of themselves or be entitled to share in any settlement thereof.

4.

It is understood and agreed that the payment of said sum is in full settlement o t.

and is a compromise of Plaintiffs' disputed claims; that payment made und<.::r this Agreement is

not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the persons and entities hereby

released; and that any liability by said persons and entities is hereby expressly denied.

S.

Plaintiffs agree that the settlement payment of Six Hundred and Ninety Five

Thousand Dollars ($695,000) will be distributed among all plaintitTs and all law firms in this

action according to their agreement.

(J.

Plaintiffs acknowledge that a portion of the consideration given for this

Agreement is being given for the full and final release of any and all unknmvn losses, claims,

injuries, costs, expenses, and damages which either may have occurred in the past and arc not yet

known, or which may occur in the future and are not presently known with respect to this

incident. PJaintitis agree to voluntarily and knowingly assume the risk of any mistake of fact.

either mutual or unilateral, with respect to said losses, claims, injuries, costs. expenses, and

damages, and shall not. under any circumstances, seek to present further claims, or on behalf of

their agents, attorneys, servants, employers. employees, heirs, executors, administrators, insurers,

successors, assigns and subrogees as against the persons and entities herein released.

7. Plaintiffs represent that any and all subrogated interests or liens related to Civil

Action Number 07-cv-01814-0DS or this incident have been resolved or will be resolved upon

receipt of payment as set forth above or that there are no outstanding subrogated interests or li:.:ns

related to this claim. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is intended to forever

discharge any and all subrogated interests or liens related to this claim. This includes, but is not

limited to, any interests or liens on behalf of any insurance companies, workers· compensation

providers, employers. medical providers and treatment providers for property damage or

personal injury on behalf of the PlaintifTs or related to this incident. Plaintiffs agree to dcli:nd.

indemnil\.".

and

hold

Defendants

harmless

from

anv"'

and

all

claims ~

actions ..

and

l

i

a

b -

i

l

i

t.v..

whatsoever. including any attorney's fees or costs incurred by Defendants, which might arise

from any unpaid or unsatisfied subrogated interest or lien. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree to

indemnify. defend, and hold Defendants harmless as provided in this paragraph of this

2

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 27

Agreement. in the event an y other provision of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable a nd invalid t\.1r any reason , as it is Plaintiffs ' express intent and understanding that th is provisio n o f this Agreement be viewed as a separately bargained for and independent provi sion .

8.

Plainti1Ts further covenant and agree tha t they wi ll n ot bring any action at la w .

proceeding in equity, administra ti ve proceeding, or otherwise, nor prosecute or sue the Released

Parties or its employees by way of complaint, counterclaim, or by any other manner at all .

relating to the t~1cts and claims which \verc or could have been asserted in this lawsuit.

tl

Plaintifls hereby assume responsibility for any and all tax co nsequences

associated with the settlement referenced herein. Plaintiffs and/or any designated payees agree

to complete all necessary documents. including, but not limited to, a W-9 fo rm in o rder to full y

execute this Agreement.

I 0. T his Agreeme nt is further intended to and do es release, acq uit. and forever discharge any and all claims fo r a ttorney ' s tees or other expe nses w hich m ight ex ist w ith re gard
to the claim.

I I. It is further understood and agreed that no promise, inducement, or agreement not hen:in express~d have been made to Plaintiffs ; that this Agreement contains the entire terms o f the agreement between the parties to settle the here in described d ispute : th at the term s are contractual and not a mere recital; and that this Agreement shall be t:ans trued according to the
laws of the State of Colorado .

12. Upon payment of the settle ment proceeds. Plaintiffs agree to properly execute nnd
file a Stipulation for Dismi ssal with Prejudice pertaining to this lawsuit. A s a term of the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice and of this Agreement, each party agrees to pay their own costs and attorn~;;y' s fees, except as otherwise provided herein.

13. Plaintiffs furthe r declare that they have fully and careful ly read thi s Agrecnw nl. have consulted legal counsel of their own c ho ice, ihat Roger Krebs and Sarah Burke have haJ a full opportunity to have this agreement interpreted for them by a sign language interpreter. and understand the conte nts thereof, and sign the same as their own free act.

3

-

·--

( w ; - l s)

(@t~

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 27

··- .

-·-·-···--- ··-··•+-

Debbie Ulibarri individually and as the

personal representative of the Estate of Shawn Vigil

Roger Krebs

- -- - · - - - - ·~-~- ~--- ···--· - -----·-

......

Sarah Burke

- - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Colorado Association of the Deaf

4

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 27

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

By:

- - - · - - -- - -······-·-

King & Gn.:iscn, LLP

By: ··-·--- -·· -··- --- -- - -· Fox & Robc11son. PC
By: The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabi Iities
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DENV ER CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFJCE

By:__ )U,·t :<J_!\:\..,\~ {-\ ·-f~:l<\-~v-...0

. Suzanne A. Fasing

r, ··\-·..

Assistant City Attorney

,_...J

Attorneys for Defendants

5

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 27
APPROVED AS TO FORM AN D CONTENT:
By: ________________________ The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DENVER CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Suzanne A. Fasing Assistant City Attomey Attorneys for Defendants
5 (initials) (i nitials)

Case 1:07-cv-01814-ODS-MJW Document 463-1 Filed 09/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 27
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ King & Greisen, LLP
By:-::-::-:----=-----Fox & ~son, PC
By:L~
The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DENVER CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
By: Su.t:~ Af~ Suzanne A. Fasing Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
5 (initials) (initials)

Ulibarri et al v. Denver, Colorado, The City and County of et al, Docket No. 1:07-cv-01814 (D. Colo. Aug 28, 2007), Court Docket
General Information

Court
Nature of Suit Docket Number Status

United States District Court for the District of Colorado; United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Civil Rights - Other[440]
1:07-cv-01814
Closed

© 2014 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 28

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 1 of 46
NDISPO,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−01814−ODS−MJW

Ulibarri et al v. Denver, Colorado, The City and County of et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/28/2007 Date Terminated: 10/04/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Debbie Ulibarri

represented by Laura Ellen Schwartz King &Greisen, LLP 1670 York Street Denver, CO 80206 303−298−9878 Fax: 303−298−9879 Email: schwartz@kinggreisen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson Fox &Robertson, P.C. 104 Broadway #400 Denver, CO 80203 303−595−9700 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: arob@foxrob.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition 655 Broadway #775 Denver, CO 80203 303−839−1775 Fax: 303−839−1782 Email: amontoya@ccdconline.org TERMINATED: 05/17/2011

Carrie Ann Lucas Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities P.O. Box 756 Windsor, CO 80550 720−363−1131 Fax: 970−818−9295 Email: clucas@disabledparentrights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dana Lee Menzel King &Greisen, LLP 1670 York Street Denver, CO 80206 303−298−9878 Fax: 303−298−9879 Email: menzel@kinggreisen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin William Williams Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 2 of 46

655 Broadway #775 Denver, CO 80203 303−839−1775 Fax: 303−839−1782 Email: kwilliams@ccdconline.org TERMINATED: 05/17/2011

Paula Dee Greisen King &Greisen, LLP 1670 York Street Denver, CO 80206 303−298−9878 Fax: 303−298−9879 Email: greisen@kinggreisen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil

represented by Laura Ellen Schwartz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011

Carrie Ann Lucas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dana Lee Menzel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin William Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011

Paula Dee Greisen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition a Colorado Corporation

represented by Carrie Ann Lucas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011

Dana Lee Menzel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 3 of 46

Plaintiff Colorado Association of the Deaf a Colorado Corporation
Plaintiff Roger Krebs

Kevin William Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Laura Ellen Schwartz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula Dee Greisen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carrie Ann Lucas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Dana Lee Menzel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin William Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Laura Ellen Schwartz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula Dee Greisen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carrie Ann Lucas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Dana Lee Menzel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin William Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 4 of 46

Plaintiff Sarah Burke

Laura Ellen Schwartz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula Dee Greisen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carrie Ann Lucas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Farr Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Christopher Montoya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Dana Lee Menzel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin William Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/17/2011
Laura Ellen Schwartz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula Dee Greisen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Denver, Colorado, The City and County of (actually named as City &County of Denver Colorado) including its Sheriff's Department and its Police Department

represented by Lance Garrett Eberhart Hall &Evans, LLC−Denver 1125 17th Street #600 Denver, CO 80202−2052 303−628−3300 Fax: 303−628−3368 Email: eberhartl@hallevans.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Allen Stubbs Denver City Attorney's Office 201 West Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202−5332 720−913−3100 Fax: 720−913−3190 Email: dlefiling.litigation@ci.denver.co.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A. Wolf Denver City Attorney's Office−West

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 5 of 46

Colfax Avenue 201 West Colfax Avenue #1108 Denver, CO 80202−5332 720−913−3100 Fax: 720−913−3190 Email: dlefiling.litigation@ci.denver.co.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Suzanne A. Fasing Denver City Attorney's Office 201 West Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202−5332 720−913−3100 Fax: 720−913−3182 Email: dlefiling.litigation@denvergov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas G. Bigler Denver City Attorney's Office 201 West Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80202−5332 720−865−8751 Fax: 720−913−3182 Email: dlefiling.litigation@denvergov.org TERMINATED: 01/31/2012

Defendant
Alvin LaCabe in his official capacity as the Manager of Public Safety for the City &County of Denver TERMINATED: 09/30/2010

represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012

Defendant
Alvin (I) LaCabe in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 09/30/2010

represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012

Defendant
William Lovingier in his official capacity as the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff for the City &County of Denver TERMINATED: 09/30/2010

represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012

Defendant
William (I) Lovingier in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 09/30/2010

represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 6 of 46

Defendant Ron D. Foos in his official capacity as Division Chief for the County Jail Division for the City &County of Denver TERMINATED: 09/30/2010
Defendant Ron (I) D. Foos in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 09/30/2010
Defendant Gary Wilson in his official capacity as Division Chief for the Pre−Arraignment Detention Facility Division TERMINATED: 09/30/2010
Defendant Gary (I) Wilson in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 09/30/2010
Defendant Gerald R. Whitman in his offical capacity as Chief of Police TERMINATED: 09/30/2010
Defendant Gerald (I) R. Whitman in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 09/30/2010
Interested Party Denver Health and Hospital Authority doing business as Denver Health Medical Center

represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012
represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012
represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012
represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012
represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012
represented by Suzanne A. Fasing (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas G. Bigler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2012
represented by Laura Lee Revercomb McConnell Fleischner Houghtaling, LLC 4700 South Syracuse Street Denver Corporate Center, Tower I #200

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 7 of 46
Denver, CO 80237−2710 303−480−0400 Fax: 303−458−9520 Email: lrevercomb@mfhc.com TERMINATED: 09/17/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
Linda L. Siderius Caplan and Earnest, LLC 1800 Broadway Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302−5289 303−443−8010 Fax: 303−440−3967 Email: lsiderius@celaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/28/2007
08/30/2007 08/30/2007 09/06/2007 09/15/2007 10/10/2007 10/12/2007 10/12/2007 10/12/2007
10/15/2007 10/16/2007
10/18/2007
10/22/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT &Jury Demand against Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe ( Filing fee $ 350, Receipt Number COX003771) Summons issued, filed by Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Receipt)(llr, ) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
2 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Miller. (gms, ) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
3 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Paula Dee Greisen on behalf of all plaintiffs (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
4 ORDER setting Scheduling/Planning Conference set for 11/5/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/6/07. (dln, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
5 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Carrie Ann Lucas on behalf of all plaintiffs (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 09/15/2007)
6 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Amy Farr Robertson on behalf of all plaintiffs (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
7 NOTICE of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver by Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil (dln, ) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
8 MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference by Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
9 MEMORANDUM regarding 8 MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference filed by Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/12/07. (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
10 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Kevin William Williams on behalf of all plaintiffs (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
11 Minute ORDER granting 8 MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference. Scheduling Conference reset for 11/27/2007 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/16/07.(dln, ) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
12 First MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 1 COMPLAINT by Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(Lucas, Carrie) (Modified on 10/22/2007 to add linkage) (dln, ). (Entered: 10/18/2007)
13 MEMORANDUM regarding 12 First MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J.

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 8 of 46

10/22/2007 10/24/2007 10/24/2007 10/26/2007 10/29/2007
10/30/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
11/14/2007 12/14/2007 12/17/2007 12/21/2007

Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/22/07. (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
14 Docket Annotation re: 12 First MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 1 COMPLAINT by Plaintiffs. [Entry modified to add linkage]. Text only entry − no document attached (dln, ) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
15 Minute ORDER granting 12 First MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 1 COMPLAINT by Plaintiffs and the same is accepted for filing by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/24/07.(dln, ) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
16 AMENDED COMPLAINT against William Lovingier, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron D. Foos, Wilson, Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, filed by Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil.(dln, ) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
17 Second MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference and Related Deadlines by Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
18 MEMORANDUM regarding 17 Second MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference and Related Deadlines filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/29/07. (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
19 Minute ORDER granting 17 Second MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference and Related Deadlines by Plaintiffs. Scheduling Conference reset for 12/21/2007 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/30/07.(dln, ) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
20 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, AND JURY DEMAND by Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe.(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
21 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. William Lovingier(in his official capacity as the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff for the City &County of Denver) served on 10/25/2007, answer due 11/14/2007; William Lovingier served on 10/25/2007, answer due 11/14/2007; Ron D. Foos(in his official capacity as Division Chief for the County Jail Division for the City &County of Denver) served on 10/25/2007, answer due 11/14/2007; Ron D. Foos served on 10/25/2007, answer due 11/14/2007; Gary Wilson served on 10/25/2007, answer due 11/14/2007; Gary (I) Wilson served on 10/25/2007, answer due 11/14/2007; Alvin LaCabe served on 10/17/2007, answer due 11/6/2007; Alvin (I) LaCabe served on 10/17/2007, answer due 11/6/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
22 ANSWER to 16 Amended Complaint, by William Lovingier(in his official capacity as the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff for the City &County of Denver), William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos(in his official capacity as Division Chief for the County Jail Division for the City &County of Denver), Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson.(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
23 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs, Defendants William Lovingier, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
24 ANSWER to 16 Amended Complaint, by Denver, Colorado, The City and County of.(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
25 Minute Entry/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Scheduling Conference held on 12/21/2007. Confidential settlement statements due 2/7/2008. Settlement Conference set for 2/12/2008 03:00 PM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Discovery due by

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 9 of 46

12/21/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007 01/25/2008 01/28/2008
01/28/2008 01/28/2008 02/04/2008
02/04/2008 02/05/2008
02/05/2008

6/30/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 8/15/2008. Proposed Final Pretrial Order due by 12/10/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/15/2008 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Parties are directed to www.cod.uscourts.gov and shall fully comply with the procedures of the judicial officer assigned to try this case on the merits. (Court Reporter FTR − S. Moore.) (mjwcd, ) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
26 SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/21/2007. (mjwcd, ) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
27 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
28 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
29 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
30 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
31 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. Denver, Colorado, The City and County of served on 11/26/2007, answer due 12/17/2007. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
32 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
33 MEMORANDUM regarding 32 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 1/28/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
34 Minute ORDER granting Plaintiff's 32 Unopposed Motion for Protective Order. The written Protective Order is APPROVED as amended in paragraph 8, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/28/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
35 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/28/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
36 Joint MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs, Defendants William Lovingier, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
37 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint against all defendants, filed by Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
38 MEMORANDUM regarding 36 Joint MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference filed by Alvin LaCabe, Roger Krebs, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Ron D. Foos, Debbie Ulibarri, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 2/5/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
39 Docket Annotation re: 37 Amended Complaint,pdf attached is actually a Motion to Amend the Complaint and counsel will refile using correct event. Text only entry − no document attached (sah2, ) (Entered: 02/05/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 10 of 46

02/05/2008 02/05/2008
02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/08/2008 02/15/2008 02/20/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008
03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/13/2008

40 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 16 Amended Complaint, by Plaintiffs Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
41 MEMORANDUM regarding 40 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 16 Amended Complaint,Second MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 16 Amended Complaint, filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 2/5/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
42 Minute ORDER granting 36 Joint Motion to Continue Settlement Conference. The Settlement Conference set on February 12, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., is VACATED and RESET on July 22, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom A−502, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 02/07/08.(sah2, ) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
43 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to Minute Order dated 2/7/08, The Settlement Conference set on February 12, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., is VACATED and RESET for July 22, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom A−502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Text only entry − no document attached. (sah2, ) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
44 MINUTE ORDER re: 40 Plaintiff's Second MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 16 Amended Complaint. Defendants shall have up to and including February 15, 2008 to file any response, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 02/08/2008. (sah2, ) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
45 RESPONSE to Motion re 40 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 16 Amended Complaint filed by Defendants William Lovingier, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 2/20/2008 to remove system−generated duplicate text (sss, ). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
46 Docket Annotation re: 45 Response to Motion. Docket entry modified to remove system−generated duplicate text. Text only entry − no document attached (sss, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
47 ORDER granting 40 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint. The Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint is accepted for filing as of the date of this Order. That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 02/25/2008.(sah2, ) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
48 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT and SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT against Gerald R. Whitman in his offical and individual capacity, William Lovingier,William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, filed by Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs, Sarah Burke(sah2, ) Modified to add Burke as filer on 2/27/2008 (sah2, ). (Entered: 02/26/2008)
49 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. Gerald R. Whitman served on 3/3/2008, answer due 3/24/2008; Gerald (I) R. Whitman served on 3/3/2008, answer due 3/24/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Return of Service)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
50 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. Alvin LaCabe served on 2/19/2008, answer due 3/10/2008; Alvin (I) LaCabe served on 2/19/2008, answer due 3/10/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Return of Service)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
51 ANSWER to 48 Amended Complaint,, by Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of,

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 11 of 46

03/19/2008 03/21/2008
03/24/2008
03/24/2008
04/23/2008 06/10/2008 06/10/2008 06/10/2008 06/10/2008 06/10/2008 06/11/2008

Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe.(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
52 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 26 Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
53 MEMORANDUM regarding 52 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 26 Scheduling OrderUnopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 26 Scheduling Order filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 3/21/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
54 MINUTE ORDER granting 52 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Scheduling Conference or in the Alternative to Amend Scheduling Order. Scheduling order deadlines are as follows: Discovery cut off is 1/02/2009, Dispositive motion deadline is 2/17/2009; The Final Pre−Trial Conference set for 12/15/2008 is VACATED and RESET for 3/9/2009; Proposed Final Pre−trial Order is due 3/3/2009 by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 03/24/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
55 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to Minute Order dated 3/24/2008; Discovery due by 1/2/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 2/17/2009. Proposed Final Pretrial Order due by 3/3/2009. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/15/2008 is VACATED and RESET for 3/9/2009 08:30 AM by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Wantanabe Text only entry − no document attached (sah, ) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
56 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Thomas G. Bigler on behalf of all defendants (Bigler, Thomas) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
57 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit H, # 8 Exhibit I, # 9 Exhibit J, # 10 Exhibit L)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
58 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
59 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
60 MOTION to Seal Exhibits by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
62 Exhibits G and K in Support of 57 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. Public Entry for 58 and 59 Sealed Documents filed on 6/10/2008. Text Only Entry− No Document Attached. (sah, ) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
61 MEMORANDUM regarding 57 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, 60 MOTION to Seal Exhibits filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/10/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 12 of 46

06/11/2008 06/30/2008
07/14/2008 07/15/2008
07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/18/2008 07/21/2008 07/21/2008
07/22/2008 07/22/2008 08/06/2008

63 MINUTE ORDER granting 60 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 06/11/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
64 RESPONSE to Motion re 57 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Defendants William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit II, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit III, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit IV, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit V, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit VI, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit VII)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
65 Unopposed MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
66 MEMORANDUM regarding 65 Unopposed MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 7/15/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
67 MINUTE ORDER granting 65 Unopposed Motion to Continue SettlementConference. The Settlement Conference set on 7/22/2008, at 1:30 p.m., is VACATED and RESET on 8/21/2008, at 3:00 p.m., in Courtroom A−502 by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 07/15/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
68 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 7/15/2008, A Settlement Conference is set for 8/21/2008 03:00 PM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Text only entry − no document attached. (sah, ) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 57 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
70 Unopposed MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
71 MEMORANDUM regarding 70 Unopposed MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 7/21/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
72 MINUTE ORDER granting 70 Defendants Unopposed Motion to Continue Settlement Conference. The Settlement Conference set on 8/21/2008 at 3:00 p.m., is VACATED and RESET on 9/29/2008, at 8:00 a.m., in Courtroom A−502 by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 07/22/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
73 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 7/22/2008, Settlement Conference set for 9/29/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Text only entry − no document attached. (sah, ) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
74 MINUTE ORDER : On or before Monday, 8/11/2008, the defendants shall submit to the court for in camera review the following documents at issue in the pending Motion to Compel (Docket No. 57): Bates Nos. 000250, 000261, 000282, 000283, 000293, 000294, 000312, 000314, 000319, 000320, 000321, 000322, 000327,

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 13 of 46

08/11/2008 08/18/2008
08/18/2008 08/18/2008
08/18/2008 09/02/2008 09/08/2008 09/10/2008 09/11/2008
09/11/2008 09/12/2008 09/22/2008

000333, and 000334 by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 08/06/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
75 NOTICE of Compliance with Minute Order Dated August 6, 2008, by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
76 ORDER denying 57 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs. That the documents submitted, in camera, identified as Bates Nos. 000246, 000250, 000261, 000271, 000273, 000282, 000283, 000293, 000294, 000312, 000314, 000319, 000320, 000321, 000322, 000327, 000333, and 000334 shall be sealed and shall not be opened except by further Order of Court. If defendants have not already provided their interrogatory responses signed under oath by the Defendants to whom they were directed, they shall do so within ten days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 08/18/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
77 SEALED DOCUMENT by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (sah, ) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
78 SEALED DOCUMENT. Defendants' Notice of Compliance With Minute Order dated 8/06/2008. The documents submitted, in camera, identified as Bates Nos. 000246, 000250, 000261, 000271, 000273, 000282, 000283, 000293, 000294, 000312, 000314, 000319, 000320, 000321, 000322, 000327, 000333, and 000334 are SEALED by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (sah, ) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
79 Docket Annotation re: 77 Sealed Document. Document filed in error. Please see docket entry 78 for complete entry. Text only entry − no document attached (sahsl, ) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
80 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 76 Order on Motion to Compel,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
81 NOTICE of Change of Address by Amy Farr Robertson (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
82 Joint MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
83 MEMORANDUM regarding 82 Joint MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 9/11/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
85 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to the Order dated 09/11/2008, Settlement Conference set for 12/1/2008 10:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Text only entry − no document attached. (sah, ) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
84 (ORDER) Joint Motion to Continue Settlement Conference. The settlement conference is RESET to 12/1/2008 at 10:30, in Courtroom A−502. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 09/11/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
86 RESPONSE to objection to 80 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 76 Order on Motion to Compel,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke,

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 14 of 46

10/07/2008 10/07/2008 10/09/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008
10/17/2008

Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger KrebsAPPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 76 Order on Motion to Compel,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs filed by Defendants William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
87 REPLY to Response to Motion re 80 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 76 Order on Motion to Compel,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger . (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 10/8/2008 to remove system generated duplicate text. (sah, ). (Entered: 10/07/2008)
88 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 80 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 76 Order on Motion to Compel,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger , 87 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 10/8/2008 to remove system generated duplicate text.(sah, ). (Entered: 10/07/2008)
89 SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT to 80 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 76 Order on Motion to Compel,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs, 87 Reply to Response to Motion, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 10/10/2008 to remove system generated duplicate text. (sah, ). (Entered: 10/09/2008)
90 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
91 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order, MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
92 DECLARATION of Amy Farr Robertson regarding MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order 91 , Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses 90 by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−5, # 2 Exhibits 6−11, # 3 Exhibits 12−19)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
93 MEMORANDUM regarding 91 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, 90 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 15 of 46

10/20/2008 10/21/2008
10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/23/2008 10/24/2008 10/27/2008
10/28/2008
10/28/2008 11/05/2008

Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/17/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
94 MINUTE ORDER Defendants shall have up to and including 10/27/2008, to file any response to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and forExpedited Scheduling Conference 91 by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/20/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
95 SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT to 91 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
96 First MOTION for Hearing/Conference Telephone Hearing on Expert Disclosure Deadlines by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order For Forthwith Telephone Hearing on Expert Disclosure Deadlines)(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
97 MEMORANDUM regarding 96 First MOTION for Hearing/Conference Telephone Hearing on Expert Disclosure Deadlines filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/22/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
98 MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 96 Motion for Forthwith Telephone Hearing on Expert Disclosure Deadlines, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/23/2008.(sss, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
99 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 98 Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference on Expert Disclosure Deadlines by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
100 RESPONSE to Motion re 91 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 10/28/2008 to remove system duplicate text(jmp, ). (Entered: 10/27/2008)
101 REPLY to Response to Motion re 91 MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 54 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 26 Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
102 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance Entry of Appearance by Laura Ellen Schwartz on behalf of all plaintiffs (Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
103 RESPONSE to Motion re 90 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Defendants William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/05/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 16 of 46

11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/12/2008
11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/21/2008

104 ORDER denying plaintiffs' Second 90 Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 91 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Granted to the extent that the expert disclosure deadlines shall be addressed during a telephone status conference on 11/14/08 at 9:30 a.m. Each party to pay their own attorney fees and costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/10/08.(gmssl, ) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
105 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Status Conference set for 11/14/2008 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, pursuant to the order of 11/10/08. Text only entry − no document attached. (gmssl, ) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
106 RESPONSE to objection to 99 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 98 Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference on Expert Disclosure Deadlines by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 11/13/2008 to delete system generated text (ecm2, ). (Entered: 11/12/2008)
107 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw Objection and Vacate Telephone Status Conference by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
108 MEMORANDUM regarding 107 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw Objection and Vacate Telephone Status Conference filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/13/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
109 MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's 107 Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Objection and Vacate Telephone Status Conference. The 99 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court is deemed WITHDRAWN and the Telephone Status Conference set for 11/14/08 at 9:30 AM is VACATED, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/13/08.(ecmsl, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
110 MOTION to Quash Subpoena by Defendants William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
111 MEMORANDUM regarding 110 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 11/20/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
112 Minute ORDER Setting oral argument on 110 MOTION to Quash Subpoena: Motion Hearing set for 11/24/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/20/08. (gms, ) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
113 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 104 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify,,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
114 BRIEF in Opposition re 110 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy Farr Robertson)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered:

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 17 of 46

11/24/2008 12/01/2008 12/08/2008 12/09/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008
12/11/2008 12/11/2008

11/21/2008)
115 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Motion Hearing held on 11/24/2008. 110 MOTION to Quash Subpoena by Defendants filed 10/20/08 is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The parties have up to and including December 12, 2008 to submit the documentation for in camera review as specified on the record. A written order and ruling shall issue. (FTR − Debra Brown) (kmtcd) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
116 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Settlement Conference held on 12/1/2008. No settlement reached (gms, ) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
117 MOTION for Protective Order by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Bigler, Thomas) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
118 MEMORANDUM regarding 117 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/9/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
119 MOTION for Leave to Take Deposition by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
120 RESPONSE to Motion re 117 MOTION for Protective Order, 119 MOTION for Leave to Take Deposition filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
121 DECLARATION of Amy Farr Robertson regarding MOTION for Protective Order 117 , Response to Motion, 120 , MOTION for Leave to Take Deposition 119 by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
122 MEMORANDUM regarding 119 MOTION for Leave to Take Deposition filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/10/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
123 RESPONSE to objection to 113 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 104 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify,,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, CAPPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 104 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify,,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, C filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
124 Docket Annotation re: 123 Response to Objection to Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision. The wrong event was used for this response to the appeal. Counsel is being advised to re−file. Text only entry − no document attached (gms, ) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
125 OBJECTION to 113 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier,

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 18 of 46

12/12/2008 12/12/2008 12/12/2008
12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/17/2008 12/17/2008 12/22/2008
12/24/2008 12/24/2008 12/30/2008

Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
126 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Documents Submitted for In Camera Review by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
127 REPLY to Response to Motion re 117 MOTION for Protective Order and Objection to Motion for Leave to Take Second Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Bigler, Thomas) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
128 MEMORANDUM regarding 126 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Documents Submitted for In Camera Review filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/12/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
129 MOTION to Enforce Terms of the Rice Case Protective Order and Submission of Documents for In Camera Review by Interested Party Denver Health and Hospital Authority. (Siderius, Linda) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
130 MEMORANDUM regarding 129 MOTION to Enforce Terms of the Rice Case Protective Order and Submission of Documents for In Camera Review filed by Denver Health and Hospital Authority. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/15/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
131 REPLY to Response to Motion re 113 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 104 Order by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 12/19/2008 to delete duplicate text generated by the system. (gmssl, ). (Entered: 12/17/2008)
132 REPLY to Response to Motion re 119 MOTION for Leave to Take Deposition filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
133 RESPONSE to Motion re 129 MOTION to Enforce Terms of the Rice Case Protective Order and Submission of Documents for In Camera Review, 126 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Documents Submitted for In Camera Review filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy Farr Robertson)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
134 MOTION for In Camera Inspection of Kelly Costin Deposition by Plaintiffs. (Schwartz, Laura) Modified on 12/30/2008 to add all Plaintiffs as the filers (wjc, ). (Entered: 12/24/2008)
135 MEMORANDUM regarding 134 MOTION for In Camera Inspection of Kelly Costin Deposition filed by Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/24/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
136 Docket Annotation re: 134 MOTION for In Camera Inspection of Kelly Costin Deposition. Modified on 12/30/08 to add all Plaintiffs as filers. Text only entry − no document attached. (wjc, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 19 of 46

12/30/2008 12/30/2008
12/30/2008
12/31/2008 12/31/2008 01/07/2009

137 MINUTE ORDER denying 134 Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited In Camera Review of Kelly Costin Deposition, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/30/08.(wjc, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
138 Expedited MOTION For Continuance of Deposition Subpoena of Kelly Costin by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Greisen, Paula) Modified on 12/31/2008 to clarify the title of the Motion (wjc, ). (Entered: 12/30/2008)
139 MEMORANDUM regarding 138 MOTION to Expedite Motion For Continuance of Deposition Subpoena of Kelly Costin filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/30/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
140 MINUTE ORDER granting 138 Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for Continuance of Deposition of Kelly Costin, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/31/08.(wjc, ) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
141 Docket Annotation re: 138 MOTION to Expedite Motion For Continuance of Deposition Subpoena of Kelly Costin. Modified on 12/31/2008 to clarify the title of the Motion. Text only entry − no document attached. (wjc, ) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
142 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 11−24−08 before Magistrate Judge Watanabe. Pages: 1−61.

NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.

01/09/2009 01/12/2009 01/12/2009 01/15/2009
01/15/2009

Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/7/2009. (Avery Woods Reporting, ) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
143 BRIEF in Support re 129 MOTION to Enforce Terms of the Rice Case Protective Order and Submission of Documents for In Camera Review filed by Interested Party Denver Health and Hospital Authority. (Siderius, Linda) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
144 Docket Annotation re: 143 Brief in Support of Motion. This document is actually a reply brief rather than a brief in support. Counsel has been requested to re−file using the correct event. Text only entry − no document attached (gms, ) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
145 REPLY to Response to Motion re 129 MOTION to Enforce Terms of the Rice Case Protective Order and Submission of Documents for In Camera Review filed by Interested Party Denver Health and Hospital Authority. (Siderius, Linda) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
146 MOTION to Strike Expert Reports or for Other Sanctions by Defendants Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gerald R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron (I) D. Foos, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin (I) LaCabe and Alvin LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Deposition Excerpts 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 1/16/2009 to add additional filers(gmssl, ). (Entered: 01/15/2009)
147 MEMORANDUM regarding 146 MOTION to Strike Expert Reports or for Other Sanctions filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, Gary Wilson, Alvin (I) LaCabe.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 20 of 46

01/16/2009 01/26/2009 01/26/2009
01/27/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 02/02/2009 02/02/2009 02/04/2009
02/04/2009 02/04/2009

Walker D. Miller on 1/15/09. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
148 Docket Annotation re: 146 MOTION to Strike Expert Reports or for Other Sanctions. This docket entry was modified to add filers. Text only entry − no document attached (gmssl, ) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
149 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time of Dispositive Motion Deadline and Continuance of Final Pretrial Conference by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
150 MEMORANDUM regarding 149 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time of Dispositive Motion Deadline and Continuance of Final Pretrial Conference filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Walker D. Miller on 1/26/09. Text only entry − no document attached (wdmsec, ) Modified on 1/26/2009 to indicate this is a text only entry (gms, ). (Entered: 01/26/2009)
151 Minute ORDER granting 149 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Dispositive Motion Deadline and Continuance of Final Pretrial Conference. Dispositive Motions due by 3/17/2009. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 7/1/2009 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/27/09.(gmssl, ) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
152 Minute ORDER granting 126 Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Seal Documents Submitted for In Camera Rview, as set forth in the order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/28/09.(gmssl, ) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
153 Minute ORDER granting 117 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order; granting 119 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take Deposition, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/28/09.(gmssl, ) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
154 BRIEF in Opposition re 146 MOTION to Strike Expert Reports or for Other Sanctions filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Debbie Ulibarri, Roger Krebs . (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 2/4/2009 to add 2 additional filers (gmssl, ). (Entered: 02/02/2009)
155 DECLARATION of Amy F. Robertson regarding MOTION to Strike Expert Reports or for Other Sanctions 146 , Brief in Opposition to Motion 154 by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Debbie Ulibarri and Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 2/4/2009 to add 2 additional filers (gmssl, ). (Entered: 02/02/2009)
156 ORDER denying 110 Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena; denying 129 Denver Health's Motion to Enforce Terms of the Rice Case Protective Order and Submission of Documents for in Camera Review. Defendant to provide documents set forth in the order to plaintiffs on or before 2/18/09. The documents submitted for in camera review by this court shall be sealed and not opened except by further order of this Court. Each party to pay their own attorney fees and costs, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/4/09.(gmssl, ) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
157 ORDER denying 146 Defendants' Motion to Strike Expert Reports or for Other Sanctions. Discovery deadline extended to 3/13/2009 for limited purpose of deposing Dr. Pogrebin. Each party to pay their own attorney fees and costs, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/4/09.(gmssl, ) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
158 Docket Annotation re: 155 Declaration, 154 Brief in Opposition to Motion. These docket entries were modified to add 2 additional filers. Text only entry − no document attached (gmssl, ) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 21 of 46

02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/13/2009 02/18/2009
02/18/2009 03/10/2009
03/10/2009 03/11/2009 03/11/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009
03/23/2009

159 NOTICE of Change of Address by Amy Farr Robertson (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
160 Conventionally Submitted Material : Documents Submitted for In Camera Review regarding MOTION to Quash Subpoena 110 and MOTION to Enforce Terms of the Rice Case Protective Order and Submission of Documents for In Camera Review 129 , filed pursuant to the order of 156 2/4/09. Text Only Entry − No Document Attached. (Placed in Sealed Room) (gms, ) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
161 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order 26 by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 2/17/2009 to create a linkage (gmssl, ). (Entered: 02/13/2009)
162 MEMORANDUM regarding 161 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 2/18/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
163 Minute ORDER granting 161 Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Amend Schedulng Order. Discovery deadline extended to 4/20/2009 for limited purpose of deposing rebuttal experts. Dispositive Motions due by 5/20/2009, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/18/09.(gmssl, ) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
164 (WITHDRAWN) MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order 26 and re: 163 Order, by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 3/11/2009 to add linkage and clarify the text (gmssl, ). Modified on 4/14/2009 to WITHDRAW pursuant to the Minute Order dated 04/14/2009 (sah, ). (Entered: 03/10/2009)
165 MEMORANDUM regarding 164 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 163 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, Scheduling Order. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 3/10/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(ebs, ) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
166 Docket Annotation re: 164 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify. This docket entry was modified to add linkage and clarify the text. Text only entry − no document attached (gmssl, ) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
167 MINUTE ORDER Plaintiffs have up to and including 3/23/09 to file any response to 164 Defendants' MOTION to Amend 163 Order on Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/11/09. (ebs, ) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
168 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Produce 30(b)(6) Designees for Depositions by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula D. Greisen)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
169 MEMORANDUM regarding 168 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Produce 30(b)(6) Designees for Depositions MOTION to Compel Defendants to Produce 30(b)(6) Designees for Depositions filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 3/23/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
170 MOTION to Withdraw Opposition to Defendants' 164 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 22 of 46

03/24/2009 03/24/2009 04/13/2009 04/14/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 05/13/2009 05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/20/2009

Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Greisen, Paula) Modified on 3/24/2009 to create linkage and to clarify the title of this document (gmssl, ). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
171 Docket Annotation re: 170 MOTION to Withdraw Document. This docket entry was modified to create a linkage and to clarify the title of this document. Text only entry − no document attached (gmssl, ) (Entered: 03/24/2009)
172 MINUTE ORDER granting 164 Defendants' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. The deadline to designate rebuttal expert is extended to 4/20/09. Discovery due by 5/20/2009, for the limited purpose of taking the deposition of the rebuttal expert. Dispositive Motions due by 6/22/2009, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/24/09.(ebs, ) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
173 RESPONSE to Motion re 168 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Produce 30(b)(6) Designees for Depositions filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 4/14/2009 to delete duplication (jjh, ). (Entered: 04/13/2009)
174 ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Rule 30(b)(6) Designees for Depositions 168 is granted in part. Plaintiffs Withdrawal of Opposition to Defendants Motion to Amend Scheduling Order 170 is granted by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 04/14/2009.(sah, ) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
175 MOTION to Compel Identification of Witness and Leave to Depose That Witness by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1−5)(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
176 MEMORANDUM regarding 175 MOTION to Compel Identification of Witness and Leave to Depose That Witness filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/15/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
177 RESPONSE to Motion re 175 MOTION to Compel Identification of Witness and Leave to Depose That Witness filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
178 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on 175 MOTION to Compel Identification of Witness and Leave to Depose That Witness : Motion Hearing set for 6/17/2009 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/19/09. (gmssl, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
179 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Regarding Defendants' Rebuttal Expert by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (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)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
180 MEMORANDUM regarding 179 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Regarding Defendants' Rebuttal Expert filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 5/20/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 23 of 46

06/01/2009 06/03/2009 06/03/2009 06/05/2009 06/05/2009 06/12/2009 06/17/2009
07/30/2009 07/30/2009

181 REPLY to Response to 175 MOTION to Compel Identification of Witness and Leave to Depose That Witness filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
182 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 26 Scheduling Order by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
183 MEMORANDUM regarding 182 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 26 Scheduling OrderUnopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 26 Scheduling Order filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/3/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
184 MINUTE ORDER granting 182 Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 10/1/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/5/09.(gmssl, ) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
185 RESPONSE to 179 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Regarding Defendants' Rebuttal Expert filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
186 REPLY to Response to 179 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Regarding Defendants' Rebuttal Expert filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
187 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Motion Hearing held. Deadlines Reset. Granting 175 Motion to Compel, the Defendant shall provide the name of the person who placed the handwritten notation next to Mr. Vigil's name on the document dated September 18, 2005, and attached it as Exhibit 1 to the reply [#181] to the plaintiff's on or before June 26, 2009. The plaintiff shall have two hours to depose that individual provided; Granting 179 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, Mr. Haley shall appear in Denver, CO for his disposition. The Plaintiff shall pay all travel expenses for Mr. Haley and for his deposition time. The Plaintiff will have to file an Ancillary Discovery Case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of AL for those documents sought in Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces tecum since Mr. Haley resided in that jurisdiction. Discovery deadline is extended to 8/17/2009 to complete the additional dispositions., Dispositive Motions deadline is extended to 9/17/2009. (Court Reporter FTR−Ginny Kramer.) (gkram, ) Modified on 6/19/2009 to correct the filed date(sah, ). (Entered: 06/18/2009)
188 MINUTE ORDER : Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/30/2009 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 07/30/2009. (mjwcd ) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
189 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Status Conference held on 7/30/2009. Plaintiff's Oral Motion for Addional Time is granted; Plaintiff shall have an additional two (2) hours to depose Sgt. Romero 7/30/2009. (Court Reporter FTR − Ellen E. Miller) (mjwcd, ) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 24 of 46

08/06/2009 09/09/2009 09/10/2009 09/15/2009 09/16/2009 09/17/2009 09/17/2009
09/17/2009
09/17/2009
09/17/2009 09/18/2009 09/21/2009

190 ORDER denying 88 Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Oral Argument by Judge Walker D. Miller on 8/6/09.(erv, ) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
191 STIPULATION Stipulated Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel by Interested Party Denver Health and Hospital Authority. (Siderius, Linda) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
192 Docket Annotation re: 191 Stipulation. Counsel has been requested to re−draft this stipulated notice as a motion to withdraw and to re−file using the appropriate motion event. Text only entry − no document attached (gms, ) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
193 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Interested Party Denver Health and Hospital Authority. (Revercomb, Laura) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
194 MEMORANDUM regarding 193 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Denver Health and Hospital Authority.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 9/16/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
195 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Linda L. Siderius on behalf of Denver Health and Hospital Authority (Siderius, Linda) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
196 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Order Granting Motion to File Excess Pages)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
197 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe. IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3 (Part 1), # 4 Exhibit A−3 (Part 2), # 5 Exhibit A−4 (Part 1), # 6 Exhibit A−4 (Part 2), # 7 Exhibit A−5, # 8 Exhibit A−6, # 9 Exhibit A−7, # 10 Exhibit A−8, # 11 Exhibit A−9, # 12 Exhibit A−10, # 13 Exhibit A−11, # 14 Exhibit A−12, # 15 Exhibit A−13, # 16 Exhibit A−14, # 17 Exhibit A−15, # 18 Exhibit A−16, # 19 Exhibit A−17, # 20 Exhibit A−18, # 21 Exhibit A−19 (Part 1), # 22 Exhibit A−19 (Part 2), # 23 Exhibit A−20)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Modified on 9/18/2009 added text IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY)(erv, ). (Entered: 09/17/2009)
198 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William (I) Lovingier, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary (I) Wilson, Alvin (I) LaCabe. IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Excerpts A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3 (Part 1), # 4 Exhibit A−3 (Part 2), # 5 Exhibit A−4 (Part 1), # 6 Exhibit A−4 (Part 2), # 7 Exhibit A−5, # 8 Exhibit A−6, # 9 Exhibit A−7, # 10 Exhibit A−8, # 11 Exhibit A−9, # 12 Exhibit A−10, # 13 Exhibit A−11, # 14 Exhibit A−12, # 15 Exhibit A−13, # 16 Exhibit A−14, # 17 Exhibit A−15, # 18 Exhibit A−16, # 19 Exhibit A−17, # 20 Exhibit A−18, # 21 Exhibit A−19 (Part 1), # 22 Exhibit A−19 (Part 2), # 23 Exhibit A−20)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Modified on 9/18/2009 added text IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIY)(erv, ). (Entered: 09/17/2009)
199 MINUTE ORDER granting 193 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Laura Lee Revercomb terminated, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 09/17/2009.(mjwcd ) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
200 MINUTE ORDER granting 196 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jane Trexler, Judicial Assistant/Deputy Clerk, on behalf of Judge Walker D. Miller on 9/18/09.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (wdmsec, ) Modified on 9/21/2009 to correct the date entered by the judicial officer (gmssl, ). (Entered: 09/18/2009)
201 Docket Annotation re: 200 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. This docket entry was modified to correct the date entered by the judicial officer. Text only entry − no document attached (gmssl, ) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 25 of 46

09/23/2009 09/23/2009
09/24/2009 09/25/2009
09/29/2009 09/30/2009
09/30/2009 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 10/02/2009 10/05/2009

202 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
203 MEMORANDUM regarding 202 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 9/23/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
204 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
205 RESPONSE to 202 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 9/28/2009 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (gmssl, ). (Entered: 09/25/2009)
206 Proposed Pretrial Order (Final) by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
207 SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT to Brief in Support of 202 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 10/1/2009 to delete duplicate text generated by system and to clarify text as to the title of this document (gmssl, ). (Entered: 09/30/2009)
208 AMENDED Certificate of Service re: 207 by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Lucas, Carrie) Modified on 10/1/2009 to create linkage (gmssl, ). (Entered: 09/30/2009)
209 Docket Annotation re: 207 Supplement/Amendment. This docket entry was modified to delete duplicate text generated by system and to clarify text as to the title of this document. Text only entry − no document attached (gmssl, ) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
210 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Final Pretrial Conference held on 10/1/2009. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/2/2009; parties to file one jointly created proposed Final Pretrial Order. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/5/2009 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. (Court Reporter FTR − Ellen E. Miller) (mjwcd ) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
211 Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
212 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: granting 202 Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment; Sarah Burke answer due 12/18/2009; Debbie Ulibarri answer due 12/18/2009;

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 26 of 46

10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/19/2009 10/26/2009 12/08/2009 12/08/2009
12/09/2009 12/28/2009 12/29/2009
12/29/2009

Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil answer due 12/18/2009; Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition answer due 12/18/2009; Colorado Association of the Deaf answer due 12/18/2009; Roger Krebs answer due 12/18/2009. Final Pretrial Conference held on 10/5/2009. Final Pretrial Order entered. (Court Reporter FTR − Ellen E. Miller) (mjwcd ) Modified on 10/6/2009 to correct typographical error (ebs, ). (Entered: 10/05/2009)
213 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/5/2009. (mjwcd,) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
214 ORDER re: 202 granting Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 197 and 198 , filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf; Plaintiffs shall have until 12/18/2009 to file their responses, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/5/2009. (mjwcd ) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
215 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Proposed Trial Exhibits by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
216 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Proposed Trial Exhibits by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
217 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
218 MEMORANDUM regarding 217 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/8/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (ebs, ) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
219 ORDER granting 217 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, up to and including 1/4/2010, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/9/09.(ebs, ) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
220 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
221 MEMORANDUM regarding 220 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/29/09. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) Modified on 12/30/2009 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 12/29/2009)
222 MINUTE ORDER granting 220 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment;Plaintiffs shall have to and including 1/19/2010 to file their responses to Defendants' Motions for

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 27 of 46

01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/20/2010 01/20/2010 01/20/2010 01/20/2010
01/22/2010 01/22/2010

Summary Judgment 197 and 198 , by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/29/2009.(mjwcd ) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
223 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Exhibits by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
224 MOTION to Strike 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
225 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Brief re: 197 and 198 by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Greisen, Paula) Modified on 1/21/2010 to create linkages (gms, ). (Entered: 01/19/2010)
226 MEMORANDUM regarding 225 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Brief filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, 223 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Exhibits filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 1/20/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
227 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
228 RESPONSE to 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
229 Exhibits in Support of 228 Response to Motion, for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (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, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 41b, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 50, # 52 Exhibit 51, # 53 Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit 54, # 56 Exhibit 55, # 57 Exhibit 56, # 58 Exhibit 57, # 59 Exhibit 58, # 60 Exhibit 59, # 61 Exhibit 60)(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
230 RESPONSE to 227 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
231 MINUTE ORDER: granting 225 Plaintiffs' Motion for Two Hour Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Granted to the extent that the responses should be filed on or before

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 28 of 46

02/04/2010 02/05/2010 02/05/2010
02/08/2010 02/12/2010 02/26/2010 02/26/2010 04/13/2010 05/10/2010

1/20/2010, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/22/2010, nunc pro tunc 1/20/2010.(mjwcd ) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
232 REPLY to Response to 227 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
233 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 197 Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 2/5/2010 to create a linkage (gmssl, ). (Entered: 02/05/2010)
234 MEMORANDUM regarding 233 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 2/5/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) Modified on 2/8/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 02/05/2010)
235 MINUTE ORDER granting 233 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall have 30 days from Judge Miller's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment to file their Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Motions for Summary Judgment, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/8/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
236 RESPONSE to 224 MOTION to Strike 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 2/16/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 02/12/2010)
237 REPLY to Response to 224 MOTION to Strike 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Debbie Ulibarri, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Roger Krebs. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 3/1/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 02/26/2010)
238 MINUTE ORDER granting 223 Plaintiffs' Motion for One Day Extension of Time to File Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment up to and including 1/20/2010, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/26/2010, nunc pro tunc 1/20/2010.(mjwcd ) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
239 MINUTE ORDER granting 227 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jane Trexler, Judicial Assistant, on behalf of Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/13/10.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
240 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 29 of 46

05/10/2010
05/12/2010 05/27/2010 05/27/2010 05/27/2010 05/27/2010 05/28/2010 06/10/2010 06/16/2010
06/16/2010

241 MEMORANDUM regarding 240 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary filed by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 5/10/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) Modified on 5/11/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (gmssl, ). (Entered: 05/10/2010)
242 MINUTE ORDER granting 240 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants have to and including 5/27/10 to file their reply to the response to Defendants' motions for summary judgment, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/12/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
243 MOTION to Strike 229 Exhibits,,,,, in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment by Defendants Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
244 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Defendants Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
245 REPLY to Response to 197 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−21, # 2 Exhibit A−22, # 3 Exhibit A−23, # 4 Exhibit A−24)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
246 MOTION to Strike Expert Witnesses by Defendants Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit)(Bigler, Thomas) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
247 MINUTE ORDER granting 244 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jane Trexler, Judicial Assistant, on behalf of Judge Walker D. Miller on 5/28/10.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
248 MINUTE ORDER: Counsel are directed to contact chambers within 10 days to set a hearing on Defendants' Daubert motion, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/10/10. (ebs, ) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
249 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 246 MOTION to Strike Expert Witnesses, 243 MOTION to Strike 229 Exhibits in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Schwartz, Laura) Modified on 6/17/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 06/16/2010)
250 MEMORANDUM regarding 249 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 246 MOTION to Strike Expert Witnesses, 243 MOTION to Strike 229 Exhibits in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/16/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) Modified on 6/17/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 06/16/2010)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 30 of 46

06/17/2010 06/21/2010 06/24/2010 06/24/2010
06/25/2010 07/29/2010 07/29/2010 07/29/2010
07/30/2010 08/13/2010

251 MINUTE ORDER: Daubert Hearing set for 11/2/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 902 before Judge Walker D. Miller, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/17/10. (ebs, ) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
252 MINUTE ORDER granting 249 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extensions of Time. Responses to both Defendants Motion to Strike 243 and Defendants' Fed.R. Evid. 702 Motion to Strike 246 are due no later than 7/7/10, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/21/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
253 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 246 MOTION to Strike Expert Witnesses, 243 MOTION to Strike 229 Exhibits, in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment Second Unopposed Motion by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Schwartz, Laura) Modified on 6/25/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 06/24/2010)
254 MEMORANDUM regarding 253 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 246 MOTION to Strike Expert Witnesses, 243 MOTION to Strike 229 Exhibits, in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/24/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) Modified on 6/25/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 06/24/2010)
255 MINUTE ORDER granting 253 Plaintiffs' Second Unopposed Motion for Extensions of Time. Plaintiff shall have up to and including 7/30/10 to respond to both the Motion to Strike Exhibits in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike Expert Witnesses, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/25/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
256 MOTION for Leave to File Substitute Exhibit by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
257 MEMORANDUM regarding 256 MOTION for Leave to File Substitute Exhibit filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf.Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 7/29/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
258 RESPONSE to 243 MOTION to Strike 229 Exhibits in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Laura E. Schwartz, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Carrie Ann Lucas, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Darold Killmer, # 5 Affidavit Declaration of Debbie Ulibarri)(Robertson, Amy) Modified on 7/30/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 07/29/2010)
259 BRIEF in Opposition to 246 MOTION to Strike Expert Witnesses filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laura E. Schwartz, # 2 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
260 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 256 MOTION for Leave to File Substitute Exhibit, 246 MOTION to Strike Expert Witnesses, 243 MOTION to Strike 229 Exhibits, in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment by Defendants Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman,

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 31 of 46

08/13/2010
08/18/2010 08/31/2010 09/07/2010
09/30/2010
10/01/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 10/13/2010 10/18/2010

Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 8/16/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 08/13/2010)
261 MEMORANDUM regarding 260 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed, by Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Gary (I) Wilson, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Alvin (I) LaCabe. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 8/13/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(lyg, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
262 MINUTE ORDER granting 260 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time up to and including 9/7/2010, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 8/18/2010.(mjwcd) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
263 MINUTE ORDER granting 256 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Substitute Exhibit, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 8/31/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
264 REPLY to Response to 243 MOTION to Strike 229 Exhibits, in Plaintiffs' Combined Response to Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 9/8/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 09/07/2010)
265 ORDER: The Objections 80 and 113 to orders entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe are overruled and the orders are affirmed. The Motion to Strike 224 filed by Plaintiffs and the Motion to Strike Exhibits 243 filed by Defendants are granted in part and denied in part as described in Part B of this order. The Motions for Summary Judgment 197 and 198 filed by Defendants are granted in part and denied in part as follows: The motions are denied as to Claims 1 and 2. The motions are granted as to Claims 3, 4, 5, and 6, the constitutional claims for relief. Summary judgment shall enter in favor of all Defendants on these claims. The motions are denied as to Claims 7, 8, and 9. The individual defendants may have their costs, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 9/30/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
266 NOTICE re 259 Brief in Opposition to Motion, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
267 MINUTE ORDER. Counsel are directed to contact chambers within 10 days to set this case for trial, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/12/2010. (wjc, ) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
268 MINUTE ORDER. The 267 Minute Order to set trial is rescinded, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/12/2010. (wjc, ) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
269 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Rule 702 (Daubert) Hearing by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
270 MINUTE ORDER granting 269 Motion to Vacate Daubert Hearing. Status Conference set for 12/15/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom A 902 before Judge Walker D. Miller, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/13/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
271 Unopposed MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) re 265 Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,, by Defendants Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 32 of 46

10/18/2010 11/05/2010
11/05/2010
11/08/2010 11/10/2010 11/19/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/07/2010 12/07/2010

272 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) re 265 Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Strike,,,,,,, by Defendants Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
273 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 272 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) re 265 Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 11/8/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 11/05/2010)
274 MEMORANDUM regarding 273 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 272 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) re 265 Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 11/5/10. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) Modified on 11/8/2010 to delete duplicate text generated by the system (ebs, ). (Entered: 11/05/2010)
275 MINUTE ORDER granting 273 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including 11/22/2010 to file any response to Defendants' Amended Opposed Motion for Certification of Rule 54(b) Judgment 272 . By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/8/2010.(mjwcd) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
276 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Andrew Christopher Montoya on behalf of Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri (Montoya, Andrew) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
277 BRIEF in Opposition to 272 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) re 265 Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 11/22/2010 to delete duplicate text (ebs, ). (Entered: 11/19/2010)
278 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss Official Capacity Claims by Defendants Ron D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, William Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gary Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 12/7/2010 to correct the filers (ebs, ). (Entered: 12/06/2010)
279 REPLY to Response to 272 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) re 265 Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, filed by Defendants Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary (I) Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 12/7/2010 to correct the filers and to delete system−generated duplicate text (ebs, ). (Entered: 12/06/2010)
280 Docket Annotation re: 278 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss Official Capacity Claims and 279 Reply to Response to Motion. These docket entries were modified to correct the filers. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (ebs, ) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
281 ORDER granting 278 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Official Capacity Claims. Claims 1 and 2, as asserted against Defendants Alvin LaCabe, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, and Gerald Whitman in their official capacities, are dismissed. These claims remain pending against Defendant the City and County of

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 33 of 46

12/09/2010 12/15/2010 01/03/2011
01/05/2011 01/18/2011 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 03/22/2011 04/05/2011
04/06/2011
04/06/2011 04/06/2011
04/11/2011

Denver, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/7/10.(ebs, ) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
282 MOTION to Strike 279 Reply to Response to Motion, or in the Alternative for Leave to File a Surreply by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
283 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Walker D. Miller: Status Conference held on 12/15/2010. Counsel are directed to chambers to set a status hearing, a daubert hearing and trial. (Court Reporter: Gwen Daniel) (gkram) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
284 RESPONSE to 282 MOTION to Strike 279 Reply to Response to Motion, or in the Alternative for Leave to File a Surreply MOTION to Strike 279 Reply to Response to Motion, or in the Alternative for Leave to File a Surreply filed by Defendants Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary (I) Wilson. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
285 MINUTE ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/8/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Walker D. Miller. Daubert Hearing (3 days) set for 4/19/2011, 4/20/2011, and 4/21/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Walker D. Miller, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 1/5/11. (ebs, ) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
286 MINUTE ORDER. Jury Trial is scheduled for 10/31/2011 through 11/17/2011, and will begin 10/31/2011 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom A 902 before Judge Walker D. Miller, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 1/18/11.(mnf, ) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
287 ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR HEARING ON MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 3/8/11. (mnfsl, ) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
288 Minute Entry for Status Conference held before Judge Walker D. Miller on 3/8/2011. Court will issue an order instructing the parties on how to proceed. (Court Reporter: Kara Spitler) (lag) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
289 MINUTE ORDER. Trial Preparation Conference set for 10/13/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 902 before Judge Walker D. Miller, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 3/22/11. (mnf, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
290 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Verified Statements by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
291 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Regarding the Verified Statement of Dr. Mark Pogrebin by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
292 STATEMENT by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
293 ORDER ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT. The 272 Amended Opposed Motion for Certification of Rule 54(b) Judgment is denied. Plaintiffs' 282 Motion to Strike Portions of the Individual Defendants' Reply is denied. By Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/6/11.(mnf, ) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
294 MOTION for Leave to File Brief Regarding Hearing on Rule 702 Motion by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Brief Regarding Hearing on Rule 702 Motion)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 34 of 46

04/12/2011 04/12/2011 04/12/2011 04/12/2011 04/12/2011 04/12/2011 04/13/2011
04/13/2011 04/15/2011 04/18/2011
04/18/2011 04/19/2011 04/19/2011 04/19/2011

295 MINUTE ORDER granting 290 Motion for Extension of Time by Jane Trexler, Judicial Assistant, on behalf of Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/12/11.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
296 MINUTE ORDER granting 291 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jane Trexler,Judicial Assistant, on behalf of Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/12/11.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
297 MINUTE ORDER granting 294 Motion for Leave to file brief by Jane Trexler, Judicial Assistant, on behalf of Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/12/11.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
298 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to for One−Day Extension of Time for Filing Additional Witness Report by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Bigler, Thomas) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
299 Exhibit List for Daubert Hearing by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Exhibit List)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
300 BRIEF Regarding Hearing on 246 Rule 702 Motion, by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (mnf, ) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
301 STATEMENT re 287 Order Defendant's Submission of Gary L. Wilson's C.V. and Report Pursuant to Order Regarding Procedures for Hearing on Motion to Exclude Testimony by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B")(Bigler, Thomas) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
302 MINUTE ORDER granting 298 Motion for Extension of Time by Jane Trexler, Judicial Assistant, on behalf of Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/13/11.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
303 Exhibit List for Daubert Hearing (Amended) by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Joint Exhibit List)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
304 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Response to Defendant's Brief Regarding Hearing on Rule 702 Motion by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Response to Defendant's Brief Regarding Hearing on Rule 702 Motion)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
305 Exhibit List (Second Amended) for Daubert Hearing by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Second Amended Joint Exhibit List)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
306 MINUTE ORDER granting 304 Motion for Leave by Jane Trexler, Judicial Assistant, on behalf of Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/19/11.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (wdmsec, ) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
307 RESPONSE to Defendant's 300 Brief Regarding Hearing on 246 Rule 702 Motion, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (mnf, ) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
308 Minute Entry for Daubert Hearing − Day One held before Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/19/2011. Evidence and testimony entered. ORDERED: Daubert hearing continued to April 20, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. (Court Reporter: Tracy Weir) (lag) Modified on 4/25/2011 to add day one to text (mnf, ). (Entered: 04/25/2011)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 35 of 46

04/20/2011 04/21/2011
04/21/2011 04/22/2011 04/25/2011 04/25/2011 05/04/2011 05/04/2011 05/09/2011 05/12/2011
05/13/2011 05/16/2011

309 Minute Entry for Daubert Hearing − Day Two held before Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/20/2011. Evidence and testimony entered. ORDERED: A sequestration order is invoked for the purposes of this hearing. Daubert hearing continued to April 21, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter: Tracy Weir) (lag) Modified on 4/25/2011 to add day two to text (mnf, ). (Entered: 04/25/2011)
311 Minute Entry for Daubert Hearing − Day Three held before Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/21/2011. Evidence and testimony entered. ORDERED: Jean Andrews may testify as to matters concerning communication, language, and literacy skills and methodologies between the hearing and the deaf and may testify to render opinions as to those matters. The Court sustains objections to the cause of the suicide; Dr. Pogrebin does qualify to render an expert opinion on administration, management and operation of the jail. He may testify to the mental health aspect based upon his knowledge of the impact of a person in custody, but not precisely as to the decedent; Witnesses Dr. Pogrebin and Mr. Wilson may use the ACA as a frame of reference; Defendant's argument as to why the methodology of witnesses Jean Andrews and Dr. Pogrebin is inappropriate under Rule 702 is due by May 4, 11. Plaintiff's response is due by May 18, 2011. (Court Reporter: Tracy Weir) (lag) Modified on 4/25/2011 to add day three to text (mnf, ). (Entered: 04/25/2011)
320 AMENDED Minutes Daubert Hearing Day 3 311 adding deadlines for argument regarding admissibility of events occurring outside the statute of limitations. Plaintiff's argument is due May 4, 2011 and defendants' response is due May 18, 2011. (lag, ) Modified on 5/17/2011 to remove duplicate text(mnf, ). (Entered: 05/16/2011)
313 STIPULATION AND ORDER GOVERNING THE CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF EXHIBITS. By Judge Walker D. Miller on 4/22/11. (mnf, ) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
310 Docket Annotation re: 308 Daubert Hearing modified on 4/25/11 to add day one to text. 309 Daubert Hearing modified on 4/25/11 to add day two to text. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (mnf, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
312 Docket Annotation re: 311 Daubert Hearing. Modified on 4/25/2011 to add day three to text. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (mnf, ) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
314 BRIEF Post−Hearing Brief Regarding 246 Rule 702 Motion, re: 311 Minute Entry by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 49, # 2 Exhibit 50, # 3 Exhibit 51, # 4 Exhibit 52)(Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 5/5/2011 to create linkage(mnf, ). (Entered: 05/04/2011)
315 BRIEF Memorandum of Law Regarding the Admissibility of Events Occurring Outside the Statute of Limitations by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
316 NOTICE of Change of Address and Firm by Carrie Ann Lucas (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
317 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Post−Hearing Brief Regarding Rule 702 Motion [Dkt. # 314 ] and Memorandum of Law Regarding the Admissibility of Events Occurring Outside the Statute of Limitations [Dkt. # 315 ] by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Lucas, Carrie) Modified on 5/13/2011 to correct linkage (mnf, ). (Entered: 05/12/2011)
318 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Kevin W. Williams and Andrew C. Montoya by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
319 MEMORANDUM regarding 318 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Kevin W. Williams and Andrew C. Montoya filed by Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition,

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 36 of 46

05/16/2011 05/17/2011 06/15/2011 06/15/2011 06/16/2011 06/16/2011 06/28/2011
06/28/2011
06/28/2011

Colorado Association of the Deaf. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Walker D. Miller on 5/16/11. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
321 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 317 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extensions of Time, which seeks to extend the time to respond to Defendant's post−hearing brief. The response due date for both Plaintiffs and Defendant is extended to 6/15/2011. By Judge Walker D. Miller on 5/16/11.(mnf, ) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
322 ORDER granting 318 Motion for Permission to Withdraw as Counsel of Record. Attorney Andrew Christopher Montoya and Kevin William Williams terminated, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/17/2011.(mjwcd) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
323 RESPONSE to Post Hearing Brief Regarding Rule 702 Motion (ECF No. 314 ) filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C, # 4 Exhibit Ex D, # 5 Exhibit Ex E, # 6 Exhibit Ex F, # 7 Exhibit Ex G)(Lucas, Carrie) Modified on 6/16/2011 to correct linkage (mnf, ). (Entered: 06/15/2011)
324 RESPONSE 315 to Memorandum of Law Regarding the Admissibility of Events Occurring Outside the Statute of Limitations by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1)(Fasing, Suzanne) Modified on 6/16/2011 to add linkage (mnf, ). (Entered: 06/15/2011)
325 RESPONSE to 314 Brief, Post Hearing Brief Regarding Rule 702 Motion by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C, # 4 Exhibit Ex D, # 5 Exhibit Ex E, # 6 Exhibit Ex F, # 7 Exhibit Ex G)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
326 Docket Annotation re: 323 Response to Motion is refiled at 325 Response using the correct event. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (mnfsl, ) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
327 TRANSCRIPT of Daubert Hearing held on 4−21−11 before Judge Miller. Pages: 1−131. <br> NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov. <br> Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2011. (Weir, Tracy) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
328 TRANSCRIPT of Daubert Hearing held on 4−19−11 before Judge Miller. Pages: 1−96. <br> NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov. <br> Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2011. (Weir, Tracy) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
329 TRANSCRIPT of Daubert Hearing held on 4−20−11 before Judge Miller. Pages: 97−252. <br> NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 37 of 46

06/28/2011
06/28/2011 08/02/2011 08/23/2011 08/24/2011
09/30/2011 09/30/2011 10/11/2011 10/13/2011 10/17/2011 10/17/2011

Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov. <br> Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2011. (Weir, Tracy) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
330 Corrected as to page numbers only TRANSCRIPT of Daubert Hearing held on 4−21−11 before Judge Miller. Pages: 253−383. <br> NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov. <br> Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2011. (Weir, Tracy) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
331 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 246 Defendant's Fed.R.Evid. 702 Motion to Strike Expert Witnesses. By Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/28/11.(mnf, ) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
332 REASSIGNING JUDGE. Judge Walker D. Miller has assumed an inactive senior judge status. This case has been reassigned to Judge Robert E. Blackburn, effective this date. Instead of WDM, all future pleadings should now reference the case number initials of the judge to whom the case is reassigned. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (gmssl, ) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
333 TRANSFER ORDER. Case reassigned to Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith for all further proceedings. Judge Robert E. Blackburn no longer assigned to case. By Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 8/23/2011. (sah, ) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
334 ORDER (1) DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT AND (2) SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL. Joint Status Report shall be filed on or before 9/30/2011. The parties are advised that this case is set for a jury trial commencing at 8:00a.m. on March 12, 2012. The Court has set aside three weeks to conduct the trial. A more comprehensive schedule will be issued once the Court receives the Joint Status Report. By Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/24/2011. (sah, ) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
335 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
336 ORDER granting 335 Motion for Extension of Time. The joint status report shall be filed on or before 10/11/11. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 9/30/11. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(odslc1, ) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
338 Joint STATUS REPORT by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
339 ORDER Addressing Outstanding Issues by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/13/11. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
340 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/9/2012 10:00 AM before Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith via telephone. Jury Trial set for 3/12/2012 08:00 AM before Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/17/2011. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
341 RULES OF TRIAL. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/17/2011. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 38 of 46

11/02/2011 11/08/2011
11/08/2011 11/23/2011 11/28/2011 12/13/2011
12/13/2011 12/14/2011 12/15/2011
12/15/2011 12/22/2011 12/28/2011 01/20/2012
01/20/2012 01/20/2012

342 MOTION to Clarify re 339 Order by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
343 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Final Pretrial Order by Defendants Denver, Colorado, The City and County of, Ron D. Foos, Ron (I) D. Foos, Alvin LaCabe, Alvin (I) LaCabe, William Lovingier, William (I) Lovingier, Gerald R. Whitman, Gerald (I) R. Whitman, Gary Wilson, Gary (I) Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
344 ERRATA re 343 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Final Pretrial Order by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
345 ORDER finding as moot 343 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. Issued by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 11/23/11.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
346 RESPONSE to 342 MOTION to Clarify re 339 Order filed by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
347 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Identify Business Records Plaintiffs Intend to Self−Authenticate by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
348 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 340 Scheduling Order, Identification of Business Records by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
349 ORDER granting 347 Motion for Extension of Time to designate business records that will be self−authenticated. Deadline is extended two days as requested. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/14/11. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
350 REPLY to Response to 342 MOTION to Clarify re 339 Order Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Clarification Of Order Addressing Outstanding Issues filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
351 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 340 Scheduling Order, Identification of Business Records by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
352 ORDER denying 342 Motion to Clarify and Setting Deadlines for Additional Briefing. Order signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 12/22/11.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
353 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Robert A. Wolf on behalf of Denver, Colorado, The City and County of (Wolf, Robert) (Entered: 12/28/2011)
354 MOTION in Limine by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 2 Declaration of Caitlin R. Anderson, # 3 Exhibits 1−2, # 4 Exhibit 3, Part 1, # 5 Exhibit 3, Part 2, # 6 Exhibits 4−5, # 7 Exhibit 6, Part 1, # 8 Exhibit 6, Part 2, # 9 Exhibits 7−15)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
355 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carrie Ann Lucas)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
356 MOTION for Leave to Restrict Document by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/20/2012)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 39 of 46

01/20/2012
01/20/2012 01/20/2012
01/23/2012 01/23/2012 01/26/2012
01/27/2012 01/30/2012
01/30/2012 01/30/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 02/01/2012
02/02/2012 02/02/2012 02/02/2012

357 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File One Motion in Limine by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
358 MOTION in Limine by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Wolf, Robert) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
361 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Confidential Juvenile and Dependency and Neglect Records and Declaration of Carrie Ann Lucas, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. Public entry to 355 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT− Level 1, filed on 1/20/2012. TEXT ONLY ENTRY. (sah, ) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
359 ORDER granting 357 Motion for Extension of Time. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 1/23/12. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
360 ORDER reminding parties regarding pretrial conference. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 1/23/12. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 01/23/2012)
362 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
363 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Richard Allen Stubbs on behalf of Denver, Colorado, The City and County of (Stubbs, Richard) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
364 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Brief Relating to Jurisdiction by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
365 ORDER granting 364 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs' brief addressing jurisdictional issues due on or before February 2, 2012. Signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 1/30/12. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
366 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney and Notice by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Bigler, Thomas) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
367 ORDER granting 366 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Thomas G. Bigler terminated. Signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 1/31/12. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
368 OBJECTIONS to 362 Designation of Deposition Testimony, by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
369 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
370 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (Amended) by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
371 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 361 MOTION in Limine by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
372 Witness List by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
373 RESPONSE to 354 MOTION in Limine filed by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Wolf, Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2012)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 40 of 46

02/02/2012 02/02/2012
02/02/2012
02/02/2012 02/02/2012 02/02/2012 02/02/2012 02/02/2012
02/03/2012 02/06/2012 02/06/2012 02/09/2012 02/10/2012 02/10/2012

374 Exhibit List by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Exhibit List)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
375 BRIEF re 352 Order on Motion to Clarify Plaintiffs' Suggestions re: Organizational and Associational Standing by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
376 OBJECTIONS to 369 Designation of Deposition Testimony and Cross−Designation of Deposition Testimony by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
377 STIPULATION (Plaintiffs' Proposed Stipulation of Facts) by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
378 DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (Plaintiffs' Reply in Support) by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
379 Witness List (Plaintiffs') by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
380 Exhibit List by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
381 OBJECTIONS to 358 MOTION in Limine by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Amy F. Robertson and Declaration Exhibits 1−7, # 2 Exhibit Declaration Exhibits 8−18, # 3 Exhibit Declaration Exhibits 19 and 20)(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
382 ORDER granting 371 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (Doc. # 361) is due on or before February 6, 2012. Signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/3/12.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
383 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 1: by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of.. (Wolf, Robert) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
384 RESPONSE to 361 MOTION in Limine filed by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. Public entry to 383 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT −Level 1 filed on 2/6/2012. TEXT ONLY ENTRY. (sah, ) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
385 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Dana Lee Menzel on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Menzel, Dana) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
386 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 354 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 358 Motion in Limine; granting 361 Motion in Limine. Signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/10/12.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
387 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Judge Brett Woods by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caitlin R. Anderson)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 41 of 46

02/15/2012 02/15/2012 02/15/2012 02/15/2012 02/15/2012
02/16/2012 02/16/2012 02/16/2012
02/17/2012 02/23/2012 02/27/2012
02/27/2012 02/27/2012 02/27/2012 02/27/2012

388 ORDER following pretrial conference. Signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/15/12. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
389 MINUTE ORDER: The three week jury trial set to commence on March 12, 2012 shall be conducted in Courtroom A601 of the Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse. Entered by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/15/2012. (Text Only Entry) (kweck) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
390 MOTION in Limine by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
391 RESPONSE to 387 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Judge Brett Woods filed by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Wolf, Robert) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
392 Supplemental MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Supplemental Pretrial Motions by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caitlin R. Anderson)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
393 NOTICE (Joint) Regarding Mediation by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri, Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of (Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
394 Amended ORDER following pretrial conference. Signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/16/12. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
395 RESPONSE to 392 Supplemental MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Supplemental Pretrial Motions filed by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Attachment 5, # 6 Attachment 6, # 7 Attachment 7, # 8 Attachment 8, # 9 Attachment 9, # 10 Attachment 10)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
396 RESPONSE to 390 MOTION in Limine filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Depo Excerpts of Michael Haley)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
397 ORDER denying 387 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 390 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 392 Motion in Limine. Signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/23/12.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
398 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Jury Instructions and Objections by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
399 ORDER granting 398 Motion for Extension of Time. Joint Proposed Jury Instructions shall be filed on or before 2/29/12, and objections and alternatives shall be filed on or before 3/7/12. Signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/27/12. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
400 Proposed Voir Dire Questions by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
401 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1, # 2 Exhibit Attachment 2, # 3 Exhibit Attachment 3, # 4 Exhibit Attachment 4, # 5 Exhibit Attachment 5)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
402 NOTICE re 369 Designation of Deposition Testimony, 394 Order, 368 Objections by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/27/2012)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 42 of 46

02/27/2012 02/27/2012 02/28/2012 03/05/2012 03/13/2012 03/19/2012 05/15/2012 05/16/2012
05/24/2012 05/31/2012 06/08/2012 06/08/2012 06/11/2012
06/12/2012

403 STATUS REPORT Regarding the Status of Deposition Designations for Trial by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
404 Proposed Voir Dire (Plaintiffs) by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 02/27/2012)
405 ORDER continuing trial setting and setting deadline for parties to notify Court of new proposed dates for trial. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 2/28/12. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
406 Joint MOTION to Continue Trial Subpoenas by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Menzel, Dana) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
407 STATEMENT re 405 Order Joint Submission Proposing Trial Dates by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
408 ORDER granting 406 Motion to Continue Trial Subpoenas; Jury Trial set for 9/4/2012 08:00 AM before Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith; setting deadlines for filing of materials in advance of trial. Order signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 3/19/12.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
409 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Calculation of Damages by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
410 Order (1) Directing Parties to Submit Proposed Dates for Mediation, (2) Directing Plaintiffs to File Itemized Statements of Attorney Fees under Seal, and (3) Directing Defendants to File a Brief Regarding the Organizational Plaintiffs Standing. Order signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 5/16/12. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
411 ORDER directing parties to participate in settlement conference at 9:30 a.m. on 8/1/12. Magistrate Judge's Order filed at direction of Magistrate Judge John T. Maughmer. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
412 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 702 before Magistrate Judge John T. Maughmer. Text Only Entry (sahsl, ) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
413 Unopposed MOTION to Clarify re 410 Order, (Regarding Due Date or, in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time Until June 11, 2012) by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Stubbs, Richard) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
414 ORDER granting 413 Motion to Clarify. Defendants' brief regarding standing due on or before June 11, 2012. Order issued by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 6/8/12. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
415 RESPONSE to 375 Brief, by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibits 3 to 3−4, # 4 Exhbiits 3−5 to 3−11, # 5 Conventionally Submitted Exhibit 3−12, # 6 Exhbiit 3−13, # 7 Exhibits 4 − 4−5, # 8 Exhibit 4−6, # 9 Exhibit 4−7, # 10 Exhibits 4−8 to 4−13, # 11 Exhibit 6)(Stubbs, Richard) Modified on 6/12/2012 to correct the description of the 11th attachment (gmssl, ). (Entered: 06/11/2012)
416 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 415 Response, by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Stubbs, Richard) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 43 of 46

06/12/2012 06/12/2012 06/14/2012 06/18/2012 06/20/2012 06/21/2012 07/09/2012
07/13/2012 07/13/2012 07/20/2012
07/23/2012 07/30/2012

417 RESPONSE to 375 Brief, Corrected Response to Suggestion Re: Organizational and Associational Standing by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5 − Affidavit of Major Phazaria Koonce)(Stubbs, Richard) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
418 ORDER granting 416 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. Defendants' Amended Brief is accepted. Order issued by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 6/12/2012. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
419 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Opposition/Reply Brief 417 Response, 375 Brief, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
420 ORDER granting 419 Motion for Leave to file Reply Suggestions. Plaintiffs shall have until and including July 3, 2012, to file Reply Suggestions regarding the issue of standing. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 6/18/12. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
421 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond re 417 Response, Motion for an Extension of Time to submit Reply Suggestions regarding the issue of standing by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
422 ORDER granting 421 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Defendants' submissions regarding standing. Organizational Plaintiffs shall respond on or before July 9, 2012. Inasmuch as the Court wishes to resolve the issues before the mediation takes place, no further extensions will be granted. Order signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 6/21/12. Text Only Entry(odslc1, ) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
423 REPLY to 417 Response, 375 Brief, Reply Suggestions Concerning Standing and Mootness by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caitlin R. Anderson, # 2 Declaration of Major Jon Michael Scott, # 3 Declaration of Jean F. Andrews, # 4 Declaration of Julie Reiskin, # 5 Declaration of Jennifer Pfau, # 6 Declaration of Sarah Burke)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
424 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT − Level 3: by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri.. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
425 STATEMENT of Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Public entry for 424 Restricted Document − Level 3 filed 7/13/12) Text Only Entry (mnfsl, ) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
426 VACATED − ORDER AND OPINION DISMISSING COLORADO CROSS DISABILITY COALITION AND COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF FOR LACK OF STANDING. The organizational plaintiffs have not suffered a concrete and particularized injury that would grant them standing to seek damages. The organizational plaintiffs are also unable to identify a member who has standing to seek injunctive relief. Accordingly, the organizational plaintiffs lack standing to seek relief in this case. By Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 7/20/12. (mnfsl, ) Modified on 9/20/2012 to add vacated pursuant to order entered 9/20/12 (mnfsl, ). (Entered: 07/20/2012)
427 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Lance Garrett Eberhart on behalf of Denver, Colorado, The City and County of (Eberhart, Lance) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
428 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 372 Witness List by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 44 of 46

07/31/2012
08/14/2012 08/15/2012 08/15/2012 08/15/2012 08/16/2012 08/22/2012 08/23/2012
08/23/2012
08/24/2012 08/24/2012
08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012

Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Stubbs, Richard) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
429 MINUTE ORDER: Due to a scheduling conflict with the Court's calendar, the Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2012 at 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Maughmer will be conducted in Courtroom A 601 of the Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO. Entered by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 7/31/2012. (Text Only Entry) (kweck, ) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
430 ORDER (1) granting 428 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify Witness List and (2)directing parties to file Schedule of Witnesses. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/14/12.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
431 Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
432 Proposed Verdict Form by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
433 Proposed Jury Instructions by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
434 STIPULATION re 431 Proposed Jury Instructions, 433 Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
435 Proposed Jury Instructions Submission of Instructions to be Read Prior to Opening Statements by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
436 MINUTE ORDER: The Jury Trial set to commence 9/4/2012 at 8:00 AM shall be conducted in Courtroom A 601 of the Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse before Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith. Entered on 8/23/12. (Text Only Entry) (kweck, ) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
437 MOTION for Reconsideration re 430 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify Regarding Response to Defendant's Motion to Amend Witness List and Plaintiffs' Reservartion of Rights by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
438 Witness List Schedule of Witnesses by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
439 Witness List (Schedule of Witnesses) by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
440 ORDER denying 437 Motion for Reconsideration without prejudice. by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/27/12.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
441 Proposed Jury Instructions Additional Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
442 OBJECTIONS to 435 Proposed Jury Instructions, 433 Proposed Jury Instructions by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
443 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit Plaintiff Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil's Non−Economic Damages Claims by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
444 Proposed Jury Instructions Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 45 of 46

08/27/2012 08/28/2012 08/28/2012
08/29/2012 08/29/2012
08/29/2012 08/30/2012 08/30/2012 08/30/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012
09/01/2012 09/02/2012 09/02/2012 09/02/2012

445 TRIAL BRIEF by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
446 ORDER denying 443 Motion in Limine by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/28/12.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
447 MOTION for Hearing/Conference Telephonic Pretrial Conference by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
448 ORDER granting 447 Motion for Hearing/Conference by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/29/12.(odslc1, ) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
449 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 379 Witness List Plaintiffs' Motions (1) to Add Roxane England to Their Witness List; (2) to Add an Exhibit from the England Deposition to Their Exhibit List; and (3) in Limine to Limit Ms. England's Testimony on Behalf of Defendant by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
450 OBJECTIONS to 374 Exhibit List by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
451 ORDER Establishing Time Limits for Presentation of Evidence by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 8/30/12. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
452 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 380 Exhibit List to Add Two Additional Exhibits by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
453 RESPONSE to 449 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 379 Witness List Plaintiffs' Motions (1) to Add Roxane England to Their Witness List; (2) to Add an Exhibit from the England Deposition to Their Exhibit List; and (3) in Limine to Limit Ms. England's T filed by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Stubbs, Richard) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
454 STATEMENT Clarification of Record by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
455 REPLY to Response to 449 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 379 Witness List Plaintiffs' Motions (1) to Add Roxane England to Their Witness List; (2) to Add an Exhibit from the England Deposition to Their Exhibit List; and (3) in Limine to Limit Ms. England's T filed by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
456 ORDER Addresing Certain Pretrial Matters signed by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 9/1/12. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 09/01/2012)
457 ORDER Status Conference set for 9/3/2012 10:30 AM before Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith. Order issued by Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 9/2/12. (odslc1, ) (Entered: 09/02/2012)
458 Exhibit List Amended by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Amended Exhibit List)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 09/02/2012)
459 MOTION in Limine Regarding Letter Dated 8/12/05 from Brandon Ulibarri to Shawn Vigil by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz, Laura) (Entered: 09/02/2012)

Case: 1:07-cv-1814 As of: 05/10/2013 08:47 AM MDT 46 of 46

09/03/2012 09/06/2012 09/18/2012 09/19/2012 09/19/2012 09/20/2012 10/04/2012 10/04/2012

460 Exhibit List (Amended) by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Colorado Association of the Deaf, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List (Amended))(Greisen, Paula) (Entered: 09/03/2012)
461 ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL SETTING. The Court continues the trial that was scheduled to begin 9/4/2012 and it will be rescheduled for 10/1/2012. By Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 9/6/12. (mnfsl, ) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
462 STATUS REPORT and Notice of Settlement by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
463 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate 426 Order,, by Plaintiffs Sarah Burke, Estate of Shawn Francisco Vigil, Roger Krebs, Debbie Ulibarri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
464 ORDER STRIKING TRIAL SETTING. Based on the Status Report filed on 9/18/2012, the trial setting of 10/1/2012, is canceled. By Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 9/19/12. (mnfsl, ) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
465 ORDER granting 463 Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal. The 426 Order and Opinion Dismissing Colorado Cross Disability Coalition and Colorado Association of the Deaf for Lack of Standing is vacated. By Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 9/20/12.(mnfsl, ) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
466 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice by Defendant Denver, Colorado, The City and County of. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Granting Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice)(Fasing, Suzanne) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
467 ORDER granting 466 Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The complaint against Defendants, the City and County of Denver and Alvin LaCabe, William Lovingier, Ron D. Foos, Gary Wilson, and Gerald R. Whitman, all in their official and individual capacities is dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay their own attorney fees and costs. By Senior Judge Ortrie D. Smith on 10/4/12.(mnfsl, ) (Entered: 10/04/2012)