FILE..[)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUj"\?t1(UR:(S OFFICE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS I iDJ) ];',!i I 8 ,6, Ii: ;:,8

)

CHARLES V, RYAN IV on behalf of himself)

and on behalf of others similarly situated, )

Plaintiffs

)

) Civil Action No,

v.

O~5 - 30017-MAP

ROBERT J. GARVEY, and PATRICK].

)

CAHILLANE in their individual capacities, )

Defendants

)

---------------------------)

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

RECEIPl" SO.5Q2 7

AMOUNT $ ISD - "'P .
SLwUOAMCIVAMLEOl1Nl OSlPJSS1ESlJl.V_.LYE-I-~r-1-

MalSSUlD

AO UI OR 121 #"fu..'

BY DPl'Y CUt_~i-'?::-

DATE

r ; ( I l l /eS

1. This is a civil rights class action for declaratory and injunctive relief and

money damages against Hampshire Sheriff Robert]. Garvey in his individual capacity

for routine unconstitutional strip searches on intake of pre-arraignment detainees,

2. The named plaintiff Charles V, Ryan IV, seeks to represent a class of all

people strip searched on or after January 18, 2002, without individualized reasonable

suspicion at the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction due to the policies or practices

of the defendant Hampshire Sheriff:

while waiting for bail to be set or for a first court appearance after being arrested on charges that did not involve a weapon or drugs or contraband or a violent felony, including arrests on a default or other warrant on charges that did not involve a weapon or drugs or contraband or a violent felony,

3. "Strip search" is used in this Complaint to refer to the inspection by a law enforcement officer of a person's bare breasts, buttocks, or genitals.
4. On information and belief, over a hundred people have been subjected to unconstitutional strip searches upon admission to the Hampshire Jail/House of Correction.
JURISDICTION 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.s.c. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.s.c. §§1331 and 1343.
PARTIES 6. Named plaintiff Charles V. Ryan IV was at all times relevant to this complaint a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is an attorney and former Hampshire County Commissioner. He was arrested at his home law office at approximately 4:45 p.m. on the Friday before a long weekend (Martin Luther King, Jf. holiday).
7. The defendant Robert J. Garvey was a resident of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the Hampshire Sheriff during the time period relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity for actions he took under color of law.
8. The defendant Patrick J. Cahillane was a resident of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and the Deputy Superintendent responsible for operation of the
-2-

Hampshire Jail and House of Correction during the time period relevant to this complaint. He is sued in his individual capacity for actions he took under color of law.
FACTS 9. At 4:45 p.m. on Friday, January 18, 2002, plaintiff Charles V. Ryan IV was arrested in Worthington, Massachusetts for allegedly violating a protective order two days earlier. The alleged violation consisted of driving by his ex-wife's home. 10. There was no allegation that the violation of the protective order involved violence or a threat of violence. 11. Mr. Ryan was taken by state police officers to the Russell State Police Barracks for booking. 12. State police officers then took Mr. Ryan to the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction to be held for his first court appearance on the following Tuesday morning, since Monday was a holiday. 13. On information and belief, it was the practice of State Police officers and other police officers in Hampshire County to bring pre-arraignment detainees to the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction to be held before a first court appearance when the person could not make bail. 14. On admission to the Jail and House of Correction, a correctional officer ordered Mr. Ryan to remove all of his clothing and submit to a strip search. 15. Because he had no choice, Mr. Ryan complied with the request. He removed his clothing and followed orders of the correctional officer to bend over.
-3-

16. The correctional officer visually inspected the plaintiff's nude body including his genitals.
17. The correctional officer had no reason to suspect that Mr. Ryan had any weapons or contraband hidden on his person.
18. After the strip search, the correctional officer told Mr. Ryan to change into a jail uniform.
19. Because the following Monday was a holiday, Mr. Ryan did not appear in court until Tuesday, January 22,2002. On that day Sheriff's officers took Mr. Ryan to court. He was arraigned by the judge and released from custody.
20. The criminal charge against Mr. Ryan was dismissed a few months later in May 2002, when the Commonwealth filed a nolle prosequi.
21. Mr. Ryan suffered emotional distress as a result of the strip search. He was shocked by the incident. He felt humiliated, degraded, and violated.
22. The policy or practice established and/or maintained by SheriffGarvey and implemented by defendant Cahillane was to require Hampshire Jail and House of Correction officers to view, without evaluating for individualized reasonable suspicion, the naked body of every person at the time of admission to the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction. This policy or practice applied regardless of the person's charges or anticipated duration of detention. The policy or practice directed employees of the Sheriff's Department to conduct illegal strip searches of the plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class.
-4-

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 23. This action is brought pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) (1) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the named plaintiff as a class action on behalf of all people strip searched on or after January 18, 2002, without individualized reasonable suspicion at the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction due to a policy or practice of Sheriff Garvey: while waiting for bail to be set or for a first court appearance after being arrested on charges that did not involve a weapon or drugs or contraband or a violent felony, including arrests on a default or other warrant on charges that did not involve a weapon or drugs or contraband or a violent felony. 24. The named plaintiff, Charles V. Ryan IV, is a member of the class. The class represented by the plaintiff is so numerous that joinder of all such persons is impractical. On information and belief, the policy or practice described above has existed for several years, affecting hundreds of potential class members. It continued to exist for approximately one year after this incident until a policy that comports with constitutional standards was implemented. 25. There are questions of law and fact common to the class of plaintiffs. Central to all the claims is the nature and constitutionality of the policy or practice of Sheriff Garvey regarding intake strip searches without individualized reasonable suspicion of pre-arraignment detainees. 26. The named plaintiff's claims or defenses are typical of the claims or defenses of the class of plaintiffs.
-5-

27. The named plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the class. Counsel for the plaintiff is experienced and capable in civil rights litigation. Class counsel has successfully represented plaintiffs in other class actions alleging unlawful strip searches. Counsel has the resources and expertise to prosecute this action.
28. This action is properly maintainable as a class action because the prosecutions of separate actions by the individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant.
29. This action is properly maintainable as a class action because the prosecutions of separate actions would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members who are not parties or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
30. As a direct result of policy or practice, class members have been subjected to unlawful strip searches, which has caused each member of the class to endure emotional distress, humiliation, and degradation.
CLAIM: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 31. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein. 32. Sheriff Garvey was the chief executive officer of the Hampshire Sheriffs Department. In this position he was responsible for establishing policies for correctional
-6-

officers and for supervising correctional offICers at the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction.
33. At the time of this incident, the Sheriff's formal written policies for the Jail and House of Correction did not make any distinction in the level of cause needed to conduct a strip search of pre-arraignment detainees from the cause needed to strip search pre-trial detainees or convicted prisoners. The policy affirmatively permitted strip searches on a detainee's entrance into the facility without any reason to suspect the person had hidden contraband.
34. On information and belief every person who was required to put on a jail uniform during the class period was subjected to a strip search without regard for cause.
35. Sheriff Garvey implemented, knew, or should have known that there was a policy or practice of conducting strip searches, without individualized reasonable suspicion, at intake of pre-arraignment prisoners in violation of the United States Constitution. He had an obligation to correct this practice so that it would conform to the Constitution but instead he allowed it to continue.
36. Deputy Superintendent Cahillanewas responsible for supervision and daily operations of the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction.
37. Deputy Superintendent Cahillane implemented, knew, or should have known that there was a policy or practice of conducting strip searches, without individualized reasonable suspicion, at intake of pre-arraignment prisoners in violation
-7-

of the United States Constitution. He had an obligation to correct this practice so that it would conform to the Constitution but instead he allowed it to continue.
3S. By January IS, 2002, the law was clearly established that routine intake strip searches of pre-arraignment detainees like the plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class without evaluating for cause were unconstitutional. A decision granting summary judgment to plaintiffs for a similar policy implemented by the Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts was issued on July 31,2001. Ford v. City of Boston, 154 F.Supp.2d 131 (D.Mass. 200 I) holding the law was clearly established in 1997.
39. By the actions described above, the defendants deprived the named plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class of their clearly established right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, to be free from unreasonable searches.
40. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, the plaintiffs have suffered injuries as described above.
WHEREFORE the plaintiffs request that this Court:
I. Award compensatory damages and punitive damages to the named plaintiff and to members of the plaintiff class;
2. Award the plaintiffs the costs ofthis action including reasonable attorney's fees; and
3. Award whatever additional relief this Court deems necessary and appropriate.
-S-

JURY DEMAND A jury trial is hereby demanded.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

~I Date:

J-I1-.::'3+-/--,°5::.-"_

Jennifer Bills
Myong J. Joun
Law Offices of Howard Friedman P.e. 90 Canal Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02114-2022 (617) 742-4100 (617) 742-5858 (fax) HFriedman@civil-rights-Iaw.com

-9-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)

CHARLES V. RYAN IV, on behalfofhimsclf )

and on behalf of others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

ROBERT 1. GARVEY, and PATRICK J.

)

CAHILLANE in their individual capacities,

)

)

Defendants

)

-----------------------------)

Civil Action No. 05-30017-MAP

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I. SUMMARY I. The parties, by counsel, enter into this Settlement Agreement, which they will
submit to the Court for its approval. The defendants agree to settle plaintiffs' claims by establishing a common fund of Two Hundred and Five Thousand Dollars ($205,000.00). This amount, hereinafter referred to as the "settlement fund," will not be segregated orplaced in a separate account by the Commonwealth. After payment of claims administration expenses, litigation expenses, an incentive award to the class representative and attorney's fees, the remaining settlement fund balance will be evenly divided among participating class members. Un der this agreement, class members will receive one payment each no matterhow many times they were booked into the jail during the class period.

II. BACKGROUND 2. The plaintiffs filed this action on January 18,2005. 3. On July 14,2006, the Court appointed Attorneys Howard Friedman and Myong J.
Joun as class counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g) and ce!1ified this case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) defined as follows:
All persons who were illegally strip searched at the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction from January 18,2002 to November 7, 2002, under a policy ofconducting strip searches without evaluating for individualized reasonable suspicion: (1) wbile waiting for bail to be set or for a first court appearance after being
arrested on charges that did not involve a weapon or drugs or contraband or a violent felony; or (2) while waiting for a first court appearance after being arrested on a default or other warrant (for exanlple, those issued by the State Parole Board) on charges that did not involve a weapon or drugs or contraband or a violent felony; or (3) while held after a finding of civil contempt of court for failure to pay child or spousal support, a judgment, or a fine. III. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT 4. On behalf of the defendants, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will pay Two Hundred and Five Thousand Dollars ($205,000.00) ("settlement fund") to settle all claims brought by the plaintiffs in this action including claims for attorney's fees and costs. 5. All payments hereunder will be made out ofthe Commonwealth's Settlement and Judgments account as detailed in this agreement and are subject to appropriation. 6. The defendants understand that this agreement will require the approval ofthe Court. The defendants will ask the Court to approve the terms of this settlement agreement.
2

7. The defendants and fheir counsel agree to provide reasonable assistance to facilitate the administration ofthis settlement including providing access to data and documents necessary to determine class membership if a person disputes denial of a claim. III. COURT SUPERVISION
8. The Court will retain jurisdiction ovcr the settlement and may enter orders as appropriate to enforce it, to adjudicate the rights and responsibilities ofthe parties, and to effect fair and orderly administration.
9. Any deadlines, dates, or other details in this Settlement Agreement may be changed by the Court on a showing of good cause. IV. HEARINGS
10. The parties will jointly request that the Court hold a hearing as soon as reasonably practicable to decide whether to grantpreiiminaryapproval to the settlement. Ifpreliminary approval is granted, the parties will begin to implement the settlement.
11. The Court will hold the Final Faimess Hearing to decide whether to grant final approval to the settlement on a date sixteen weeks after the Court grants preliminary approval to fhe settlement.
12. Ifthe Court gr311tS final approval of the settlement, the settlement fund will then be distributed pursuant to this agreement and the orders ofthe Court. VI. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR
13. Class counsel recommends that the firm ofAnalyties, Inc. ofChanhassen, Minnesota be approved by the Court as the claims administrator for this case. Analytics, Inc. has provided similar claims administration services in other strip search class actions.
3

14. The claim administrator will administer notice to class memhers in the manner prescribed by the Court; shall accept and docket all claim forms; shall send all notices that a claim has been either accepted or rejected to class members; shall resolve any appeals of claim denials and shall calculate the amount of each claim pursuant to the formula set out in this agreement.
15. Class counsel will oversee settlement administration and will provide direction to the claims administrator as needed. VII. COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE
16. The Comptroller's Office will distribute settlement checks to participating class members; prepare all 1099s and other necessary tax forms relating to the settlement; and provide periodic reports accounting for the distribution ofthe settlement fund and reporting on the status of issued checks as provided in thi s agreement.
17. The Office ofthe Attorney General will oversee the settlement distribution to class members as detailed below in paragraphs 39, 41, and 44-47 and will provide direction to the Comptroller's Office as needed by class counsel. VII. NOTICE, OBJECTIONS, AND OPT-OUTS
18. Class counsel will send a Notice ofClass Action and Proposed Settlement ("Notice") and a Settlement Claim Form ("Claim Form") (collectively, the "Notice Packet"), by first class mail postage prepaid to all potential class members at their last known addresses within three weeks after the Court's order granting preliminary approval. Ifany mail is returned by the post office with notice of a more current address, class counsel will resend the notice packet to the newer address. Class counsel is not required to mal<e any further efforts to send mail directly to class members.
4

19. The Notice will include the terms of the settlement and the class member's right to contest the settlement or opt-out. The Notice will answer anticipated questions explaining the settlement terms and answer anticipated questions. The proposed Notice is attached as Exhibit A.
20. The Claim Form requests the class member's contact information, instructions for check delivery, and a Form W-9. The proposed Claim Fonn is attached as Exhibit B.
21. Class counsel will also publish a notice in the Springfield Republican, the Daily Hampshire Gazette and the Greenfield Recorder. The defendants will post a notice in the Booking Room ofthe Hampshire JaiL These notices are attached as Exhihits C and D. In addition to the legal notices, class counsel will issue a press release infonning the public of the settlement. The press release is attached as Exhihit E.
22. In order for a class member to claim a share of the settlement, he or she must submit a valid and complete claim fonn postmarked no later than 2 weeks after the the Final Fairness Hearing. This deadline is the "Claims Deadline."
23. The claims administrator will send a claim form to anyone who requests one up to the date of the Final Fairness Hearing, or as allowed by the Court. In addition, the claims administrator will maintain updated documents regarding this settlement on a website including the claim fonn which can be printed and mailed.
24. In order for a class member to object to the proposed settlement, he or she must submit a written notice ofthe objection to the claims administrator postmarked no later than 2 weeks before the Final Fairness Hearing. An objector must also appear in person or through counsel at the Final Fairness Hearing to have the objection considered by the Court. The claims administrator will forward all letters of objection to the Comt and to counsel for all parties. The class member must
5

also submit a claim form if he or she wishes to he eligible to share in the settlement should it be approved despite an objection.
25. In order for a class member to opt out of the proposed settlement, he or she must submit a written notice of exclusion to the claims administrator postmarked within 2 weeks ofthe Final Fairness Hearing. The claims administrator will forward all notices of exclusion to the Court and to cOll1lsel for all parties. VIX. CLAIMS APPROVAL, DENIAL AND APPEALS
26. Claim forms received by the claims administrator within one week after the claims deadline will be treated as ifpostmarked by the claims deadline. 111is one-week grace is the Amnesty Period. Claim fonns received after the A,llilesty Period will be denied as untimely.
27. The claims administrator will review each claim fonn to dcternline that the claimant is a class member by confirming (a) that the claim form is timely and valid, (b) that the infonnation on the form is consistent with available booking data previously provided by the defendant, and (c) that the [ornl is completely filled out and signed.
28. The claims administrator may, in its discretion, waive a technical defect in a claim form to achieve substantial justice.
29. If the booking data indicates that the person does not meet the class definition, the claims administrator will send a Notice of Claim Denial to the claimant. The denial notice will, if possible, indicate the reason or reasons for the denial.
30. In order to object to the claims administrator's detennination that he or she is not a class member, a claimant must file a written appeal to the claims administrator postmarked no later than 2 weeks after the date ofthe mailing ofthe Notice of Claim Denial. The claimant must include
6

written documentation that shows that he or she is a class member, and may also include a written statement. The claims administrator will make a determination on each appeal no later than one week after the deadline for claimants to file such appeals. The claims administrator will infonn the claimant in writing of its detennination, and provide copies to all counsel.
3 I. A claimant may appeal to the Court the claims administrator's final decision denying a claim. In order to do so, a claimant must write a letter addressed to the claims administrator indicating his or her wish to appeal to the Court within 2 weeks after the date of the mailing of the Notice of Claim Denial Upon Appeal. The claims administrator will present all such appeals, along with supporting documentation, to the Court within 2 weeks of the deadline to file such appeals.
32. The claims administrator will send a Notice of Claim Approval to each approved claimant promptly but in no event later than 1 week after the Court grants final approval of the settlement.
33. A claimant who used a different name at booking must present documentation establishing that he or she is the person referred to in the booking records. X. EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
34. Class counsel will ask the Court to approve payment ofplaintiffs' litigation expenses, class action administrative costs (including the claims administrator's fees and expenses) and attorney's fees from the settlement fund. All of these expenses and attorney's fees will be incorporated into a single payment and paid by one check made payable to class counsel. XI. DISTRIBUTION TO CLASS MEMBERS
35. The named plaintiff Charles V. Ryan IV will receive $10,000, subject to approval of the Court, to be paid from the settlement fund to compensate him for bringing this case, the time he
7

spent on this case and his loss of privacy as a result of serving as the named plaintiff. Mr. Ryan answered interrogatories and requests for documents and counsel for the defendants took his deposition. This incentive payment is in addition to his share as a class member. This payment will be issued at the same time as the distribution payments to class members.
36. Class members will receive payment from the settlement fund after deducting attorney's fees, litigation expenses, claims administration costs and incentive payment to the class representative.
37. The claims administrator will calculate the amount ofmoney due each class member by dividing the number ofparticipating class members into the balance of the settlement fund. Class members will receive one payment each even if they were booked into the jail more than one time during the class period.
38. The claims administrator will prepare for the Comptroller's Office a settlement distribution list in the fom1 of a spreadsheet which will contain the legal names, current addresses, mailing addresses (if different), and TIN/ElNs of the participating class members as well as the amount payable to each class member. The claims administrator will also provide tJ1e Comptroller's Office with all of the Substitute W-9 forms submitted by the class members (Page 2 of the claim forms).
39. Within 60 days of receipt of the distribution spreadsheet from the claims administrator, the Comptroller's Office will directly pay each participating class member. The Comptroller's Office may deduct any outstanding child support obligations and IRS/DOR tax liens from a paliicipating class member's check if that class member owes any such obligations or liens.
8

40. Interest will accrue at an annual rate of 4.9% on any payments which are not made within 60 days after the receipt by the Comptroller's Office ofthe distribution spreadsheet and W-9 forms regardless of the reason for non-payment including inadequate funds in the Settlements and Judgments account due to appropriation issues or otherwise. Interest will only apply to the unpaid portion of the defendant~' obligation. Interest, if ill1Y, will not be paid by separate check but will be included in the original check issued by the Comptroller's Office.
41. The Comptroller's Office will be responsible for all tax withholding and repOlting. 42. Each class member's check will be made payable only in his or her name or in the name of a deceased class member's estate. The check will be mailed to the class member at the address indicated on the claim foml. Any change of address request must be made in writing and must be signed by the claimant. 43. If a participating class m.ember is confined in a prison, hospital, or other institution and has provided the address of such institution for payment, the settlement check will be sent to that address unless the class member makes other acceptable arrangements in writing with the claims administrator. XII. POST-DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATION 44. The Comptroller's Office will prepare all 1099s for class members who were issued a settlement check during the next regular tax-form processing period following the distribution and will prepare all other necessary tax forms relating to the settlement. 45. Within 60 days ofmailing settlement checks to class members, the Commonwealth will provide to the Attorney General's Office a settlement distribution report accounting for the distribution of the settlement fund, including attorney's fees and expenses. This report will be
9

provided to class counsel by the Attorney General's Office. Thereafter, the Attorney General's Office will request quarterly updates from the Commonwealth concerning the status ofpayments (or checks issued) and balance of the settlement fund remaining uncashed pursuant to this agreement. These updates will be provided to class counsel by the Attorney General's Office.
46. After one year from the original date on which the last check is issued, the Attorney General's Office will request a Final Report from the Commonwealth accounting for the distribution of the settlement fund, reporting the status of payments (or checks issued) and total amount transferred to the Unpaid Check Fund.
47. Class members will be informed that all settlement checks must be cashed within sixty days. Within one year of the original date of issue, class counsel may request, through the Attorney General's Office, that the State Treasurer's Office reissue a check to any affected class member.
48. If checks are returned as undeliverable to the Comptroller's Office, these checks will be forwarded to class counsel who will then attempt to locate the affected class members. The Comptroller's Office will not assume any responsibility for attempting to locate class members for uncashed or undeliverable checks nor will the Commonwealth incur any additional attorney's fees or costs for class counsel's attempt to do so.
49. Ifa check is uncashed or unclaimed after one year from the original date of issue, the fi.mds will be moved to the Commonwealth's Unpaid Chcck Fund. Any affected class member or herlegal representative may claim the money by filing an Unpaid Check Fund Claim Fonn with the State Treasurer.
10

50, If any settlement check is not cashed or claimed within three years ofthe original date of issne, monies for uncashed or unclaimed checks will be moved from the Unpaid Check Fund to the Commonwealth's Abandoned Property Fund, Any affected class member or her legal representative may later claim the money from the State Treasurer pursuant to 960 C,M,R, 4,04 of the Massachusetts Abandoned Property Act.
51, All funds or monies referred to herein will be transfen'ed in accordance with State TreasUlY procedures and State finance laws, XIII. DECEASED CLASS MEMBERS
52, If a class member is deceased, an authorized representative may file a Settlement Claim Fonn on behalf of the estate, However, the representative must provide to the Claims Administrator documentation that an estate has been established in accordance with the law and that he or she is the duly appointed administrator or executor. XIV. RELEASE AND AGREEMENT TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD
HARMLESS, 53, In consideration of payment of the settlement fund, the plaintiff class members, including those class members who do not file claims but excluding those class members who request exclusion and file claims within the statute oflimitations, hereby remise, release and forever discharge defendants ROBERT 1. GARVEY and PATRICK], CAHILLANE in their individual capacities, the Hampshire Sheriffs Office, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all of their present and fonner agents, servants, officers, employees and insurers from any and all past, present and future claims and liabilities of every name and nature arising out of or in any way related to the incidents, events, allegations or occurrences described in Charles V, Ryan IV, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated v, Robert ], Garvey and Patrick 1. Cahillane in their individual capacities, United States District Court Civil Action No, 05-300l7-MAP,
!I

XV. EXHIBITS

54. The following Exhibits are attached to this Agreement:

Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F

Class Notice to be mailed to class members. Claim Form Notice to be published in newspapers Notice to be posted at Hampshire Jail Press Release Documents regarding Analytics, Inc., the Administrator

proposed Claims

lot 1~1n Date: ~7

For the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class,
1 - f r " ~BO#180 0 Myong 1. Joun BBO #645099 Law Offices of Howard Friedman, P.C. 90 Canal Street, Fifth floor Boston, MA 021 14-2022 T (617) 742-4100 F (617) 742-5858 hfriedman(?Dcivil-rights-law.com mjjoun@civil-rights-Iaw.com

\~cr~_ Date: -,,=,-\l\--I-\-'''''-It Ii ~\

Ros BBO #492233 Assistant Attorney General Western Massachusetts Division 1350 Main Street, 4th Floor Springfield, MA 01103 T (413)784-1240 Ext. 112 F (413)784-1244 rosemary.tarantino@ago.state.ma.us
12

 
 Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

__________________________________________

)

CHARLES V. RYAN IV, on behalf of himself )

and on behalf of others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

ROBERT J. GARVEY, and PATRICK J.

)

CAHILLANE in their individual capacities,

)

)

Defendants

)

__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 05-30017-MAP

PLAINTIFFS’ CONSENT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

The parties have reached a settlement whereby the defendants will maintain a policy

protecting the privacy of pre-trial detainees at the Hampshire County Jail and will pay $205,000 to an estimated class of 90 people to resolve all of the plaintiffs’ claims.1 The settlement is the product

of intensive negotiations during the months from June through December 2006. Counsel for the

parties believe that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court.2 Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the

settlement, approve the notice forms and the notice plan, appoint Analytics, Inc. as the claims

administrator, set a date for the final fairness hearing and a date for filing motions to approve the

settlement and for attorney’s fees and costs.

1 The d efendants’ conse nt to this motion does not encomp ass an endorsement of all statements in the incorporated supporting memorandum, but the defendants do join fully with plaintiffs in requesting that the Court approve the written settlement agreement of the parties attached as Exhibit 1 and the other relief requested in the motion.
2 Ex. 2 at ¶22 (Affidavit of Howard Friedman).

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 2 of 14
II. CASE BACKGROUND Plaintiff Charles V. Ryan IV alleged that the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction
unconstitutionally required every person who was admitted into the jail to be strip searched without individualized suspicion. On July 14, 2006, the Court certified this case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). The class was defined as follows:
All persons who were illegally strip searched at the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction from January 18, 2002 to November 7, 2002, under a policy of conducting strip searches without evaluating for individualized reasonable suspicion: (1) while waiting for bail to be set or for a first court appearance after
being arrested on charges that did not involve a weapon or drugs or contraband or a violent felony; or (2) while waiting for a first court appearance after being arrested on a default or other warrant (for example, those issued by the State Parole Board) on charges that did not involve a weapon or drugs or contraband or a violent felony; or (3) while held after a finding of civil contempt of court for failure to pay child or spousal support, a judgment, or a fine. The parties began negotiating a settlement in June 2006. After the Court certified the case as a class action, and the parties agreed that the class consisted of approximately 90 people, plaintiffs made a detailed settlement proposal on August 2, 2006. The parties, through counsel, signed the Settlement Agreement, attached to this motion as Exhibit 1, on December 27, 2006. III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The Defendants have agreed to pay $205,000 to settle all claims brought by the plaintiff in this action, including attorney’s fees and costs. The agreement provides for a cash payment to every person who meets the class definition. The parties estimate that there are approximately 90 class members. Only one payment will be made no matter how many times a person was admitted into the
2

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 3 of 14
jail during the class period and strip searched. Class counsel recommends an incentive payment of $10,000 to the named plaintiff Charles V. Ryan IV to compensate him for his loss of privacy as a result of bringing this case and for the time he spent in responding to discovery and working with counsel to bring about the favorable result for the class. While the parties have no agreement with regard to attorney’s fees, counsel will request that the Court award a fee of 33.3% of the gross settlement amount. Fees and expenses, including the cost of administering the settlement, will be deducted from the settlement amount before calculating the distribution amounts to class members. IV. THE COURT SHOULD PRELIMINARILY APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AND
NOTICE PLAN AND SET A DATE FOR A FAIRNESS HEARING In deciding whether to approve a proposed settlement of a class action, the Court must hold a hearing and determine if the settlement is “fair, reasonable and adequate.”3 Before the final fairness hearing, this Court should conduct a review of the settlement and make a “preliminary determination of the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement terms.”4 This Court should be satisfied that the settlement is in the range of possible approval before the settlement proceeds. At this stage, the Court should also review the proposed notices, attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibits A, C and D, before permitting counsel to send notice to potential class members. This provisional approval is subject to a more searching inquiry at the fairness hearing. A. Benefit to Class Members Class members who submit a qualifying claim form will receive a check. The proposed claim form is attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B. The precise amount will depend on the total number of claims submitted. It is difficult to predict the participation rate in this case because
3 Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(e); See Durrett v. Housing Authority of Providence, 896 F .2d 60 0, 604 (1st Cir. 19 90). 4 Fed. R.Civ.P. 23 Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, (Federal Judicial Center 2004) §21.632.
3

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 4 of 14
of the very small size of the class. However, it is clear that each class member would receive a significant amount.5 If 30% of the potential class of 90 members were to submit claim forms, payments would be $3,666. Should 50% of the potential class members submit claims, each would receive $2,444.
By any measure, this is more than a token recovery. Participating class members will receive a significant cash payment for filling out a short form, affixing a $.39 cent stamp to an envelope and mailing it to the claims administrator. These class members will obtain money without having to find and hire their own lawyers, pay litigation expenses, endure the anxiety of litigation, respond to interrogatories or requests for documents, testify at depositions, and prepare for trials. Instead of giving up their privacy by filing suit, they will benefit from the anonymity provided by their membership in the class.
B. Courts Favor Settlements Particularly in Class Actions Courts consistently favor the settlement of disputed claims.6 In the class action context, “there is an overriding public interest in favor of settlement.”7 Settlement of this class action will prevent substantial litigation expenses, delayed payment to the plaintiffs and the strain on court resources that would result from nearly a hundred individual damages trials.8 Furthermore, settlement will increase the number of class members who are able to participate in this case, class members whose rights would otherwise not be vindicated.
5 Support for this statement and the rest of this para grap h is found in Ex. 2 at ¶27 (Affidavit of Howard Friedman).
6 See Durrett, 896 F.2d at 604. 7 Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 132 6, 13 31 (5th Cir. 19 77). 8 Id. at 1331.
4

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 5 of 14
By reaching a compromise, both sides avoid the risks they faced by proceeding to trial. If damages claims were decided individually, some class members may have received only one dollar.9
Of course, the defendant also faced the risk that many plaintiffs would obtain larger damages awards ranging from $5,000 to $40,000, and that some might recover more than $40,000.10 The wide range
of verdicts in strip search cases shows that, absent a settlement, both the plaintiffs and the defendants
faced significant uncertainty.
Even if plaintiffs were able to win large verdicts, collecting the amounts from the defendants
would have presented additional problems. First, the defendants would have been likely to appeal,
further delaying payment. Then, plaintiffs would have had to pursue collection against the individual
defendants who may not have had the means to pay, again delaying payment. The defendants also
had compelling reasons to settle. They could have lost the trial on liability based on their admitted
policy of requiring strip searching class members without individualized suspicion. The defendants
would then have been facing close to a hundred damages trials. Even if the damages in individual
cases were not large, the defendants would be liable for reasonable attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The costs of pursuing this litigation could have been large. Thus, both
sides had good reasons to settle.
9 No minal d amage verdicts have b een award ed in ind ividual strip search cases. See Foo te v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416 (10th Cir. 2001) (after two appeals, plaintiff awarded $1 for an admittedly illegal strip search); Stewart v. Lubbock County 767 F.2d 153, 154, n.2. (5th Cir. 1985)(one plaintiff awarded $1 and the other awarded $15,000); Sorenson v. City of New Yo rk, 2000 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 15090 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)(two plaintiffs award ed $1each); Polk v. Mo ntgomery County, 689 F.Supp. 556 (D. Md. 1988) (plaintiff awarded $1after rejecting a settlement offer of $31,000).
10 Verdicts in M assachusetts co urts for women alleging an illegal strip search have ranged from $45 ,000 to $177,000. Blackburn v. Snow, 771 F.2d 556 (lst Cir. 19 85)(award of $17 7,04 0); Denkv. Santos, 98-11963-N G (jury award of $1 35,0 00); Rodriguez v. Silva and City of New Bedford, June 17,1996, (award of $45 ,000 for plaintiff who was deceased at time of trial and $1 50,0 00 fo r another); Adams v. Town of Wareham, 94-11446-DPW (award of $50,000 ). In Joan W . v. City of Chicago, 771 F.2d 102 0 (7th Cir. 1985), the Seventh Circuit addressed the question whether a verdict of $112,000 was excessive. In ordering that the case be remanded for a new trial unless the plaintiff accepted a reduction of the award to $75,000, the Court looked to verd icts in nine o ther strip search suits aga inst the City of Chicago in which the juries returned awards of $3,300, $15,000, $15,000, $25,000, $25,000, $30,000, $45,000, $50,000 (reduced as excessive to $25,000), and $60,000. See id. at 1023–24.
5

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 6 of 14
C. Procedural Considerations Support Approval of the Settlement “When sufficient discovery has been provided and the parties have bargained at arms-length, there is a presumption in favor of the settlement.”11 In assessing a proposed settlement, a court is entitled to rely upon the views of experienced trial counsel.12
1. Stage of proceedings and discovery “The stage of the proceedings at which settlement is reached is important because it indicates how fully the district court and counsel are able to evaluate the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.”13 The defendants admitted that the County had a written policy requiring strip searches of class members without individualized suspicion. Therefore, counsel for the parties recognized very early in the case that the critical issue would be the size of the class.14 Plaintiff served a set of interrogatories and requests for documents in June 2005. In response, defendants produced multiple sets of electronic booking information relating to more than 900 bookings. The data was analyzed to determine the size and composition of the class. Because the Jail did not record in its booking computer system why or how a prisoner was brought to the Jail, a determination whether the individuals were pre-arraignment or pretrial detainees could not be made from examining the booking data alone. Class counsel visited the Jail to personally review 266 inmate booking files to determine class membership. It took a full year to determine class size. A class had been certified. The parties entered settlement negotiations with a full understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their positions on liability and potential damage awards.
11 City Partnership Co. v. Atlantic Acquisition Ltd. Partnership, 100 F.3d 1041, 10 43 (1st Cir. 19 96). 12 See Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330. 13 Duhaime, 177 F.R.D. at 67 (quoting Armstrong v. Bd. of School Directors of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 325 (7th Cir. 1980)). 14 Ex. 2 at ¶23 (Affidavit of Howard Friedm an).
6

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 7 of 14
2. Arm’s length negotiations The case settled after months of negotiations by counsel.15 The parties began negotiating a settlement in June 2006. After the Court certified the case as a class action, plaintiffs made a detailed settlement proposal on August 2, 2006. In late August, the parties reached agreement in principle on the terms of the settlement. It took another four months to agree on the details contained in the Settlement Agreement. This settlement is the result of very vigorous negotiations. D. The Amount of the Settlement is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate The Court should examine the amount of recovery as well as the plan for distributing the recovery to class members in order to determine whether the proposed monetary settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. “[I]n any case, there is a range of reasonableness with respect to a settlement . . . .”16 The settlement in this case is well within that range. In the two prior Massachusetts strip search class action cases, Judge Nancy Gertner approved a $10 million settlement for approximately 5,400 women in Mack v. Suffolk County and Magistrate Judge Robert Collings approved a $1.35 million settlement for approximately 700 women in Connor v. Plymouth County. In Mack, 1,500 women filed claims while 113 did in Connor.17 District courts in other jurisdictions have approved comparable lump-sum settlements in similar strip search class actions.18 In Eddleman v. Jefferson County, the court approved a settlement of $11.5 million for a class of about 50,000 class members - more than 4,000 made claims. In Tyson
15 Supp ort for this statement and the rest of this paragraph is found in Ex. 2 at ¶22 (Affidavit of Howard Friedman).
16 Newman, 464 F.2d at 693. 17 Ex. 2 at ¶¶14-15 (Affidavit of Howard Friedm an). 18 Suppor t for this statement and the rest of this paragraph is found in Ex. 2 at ¶¶18, 17 and 16 (Affidavit of Howard Friedman).
7

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 8 of 14
v. City of New York, the court approved a $50 million settlement for a class of over 50,000 approximately 6,000 made claims. In Nilsen, the court approved a $3.3 million settlement for more than 7,000 people - approximately 1,400 made claims. The settlement in this case of $205,000 to a potential class of 90 people falls comfortably within the “range of reasonableness” established by prior settlements approved by courts here in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
E. The Distribution Formula is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate Plaintiffs’ counsel approached settlement with the helpful experience of having settled, with court approval, two similar strip search class action case in Massachusetts, Mack v. Suffolk County and Connor v. Plymouth County, and one in Maine, Nilsen v. York County.19 Plaintiffs’ counsel had the additional benefit of advice from lawyers who had settled similar strip search class actions in other states. Some of those settlements required individualized determinations of each class member’s subjective experience to determine his or her share of the settlement. This method proved to be so time consuming and expensive that it harmed the class as a whole. For example, in the Tyson case the claims administrator was paid an amount that nearly equaled the amount distributed to the class. In that case, a claimant could only obtain a payment of $250 without providing answers to a detailed claim form and releases for medical, employment, social security and educational records. A settlement that attempted to decide damages individually would require spending much more money to administer the fact finding process. Counsel felt that given the limited funds available to settle this case, a proposal that limited administrative expenses in favor of payments to class members would be more beneficial to the class.
19 Support for this statem ent and the rest of this paragraph is found in Ex. 2 at ¶¶13 and 21 (Affidavit of Howard Friedman).
8

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 9 of 14
Therefore, plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to a settlement that provides one payment to every person who was subjected to the defendants’ policy. Those people who were arrested more than once during the class period do not receive additional payments because it is unlikely that a jury would reward a person for being arrested several times. Rather, it is more likely that a jury would feel the strip search was much less traumatic when the detainee had been through the search previously and would not be surprised by it the second or third time. Similarly, in administering the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, Kenneth Fineberg decided to award every family the same amount for noneconomic damages, recognizing how difficult it would be for him to attempt to make fine distinctions between the pain and suffering of the families.20
F. The Attorney’s Fees and Expenses are Reasonable Class counsel will request an attorney’s fee of 33.3% of the common fund plus litigation and claims administration expenses as provided for in the fee agreement between class counsel and the class representative.21 This is consistent with the fees awarded to counsel in other similar strip search class action cases. In Mack, class counsel was awarded fees of 30% of a $10 million settlement fund. In Connor, class counsel was awarded a fee of 33% of a $1.35 million settlement fund. In Eddleman v. Jefferson County, class counsel was awarded 33.3% of a $11.5 million settlement fund. In Moser v. Anderson, class counsel was awarded 33.3% of the $3 million settlement fund. The fee is justified by the amount of work, skill, and expertise needed to settle this case with the results achieved. Counsel will file a motion for attorney’s fees and expenses under Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(h) to be heard at the time of the fairness hearing. Counsel will provide the Court with a lodestar figure for attorney’s fees as a method to verify the reasonableness of the percent of fund method.
20 http://www.cbsnews.co m/stories/2003/1 1/07 /60m inutes/main58 252 9.shtml. 21 Ex. 2 at ¶25 (Affidavit of Howard Friedm an).
9

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 10 of 14
G. Bonus Should Be Paid to Compensate the Named Class Representative Class counsel requests an incentive payment of $10,000 for named class representative Charles V. Ryan IV.22 The purpose of the bonus is to compensate him for his loss of privacy as a result of bringing this case and for the time he spent in responding to discovery and working with counsel to benefit the entire class. Mr. Ryan spent significant time on this case: not only was he deposed, he also answered individual discovery requests, and he consulted with counsel throughout the litigation. Mr. Ryan endured a loss of his personal privacy by revealing his name to bring this lawsuit on behalf of the class. “Courts routinely approve incentive awards to compensate named plaintiffs for the services they provided and the risks they incurred during the course of the class action litigation.”23 In Eddleman, the court approved bonuses of $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000 to the class representatives and other class members who assisted class counsel in litigating the case.24 In Mack, the court approved bonuses in the amount of $15,000 for acting as a class representative and $5,000 for being the subject of a deposition. In Brecher v. St. Croix County, the two named plaintiffs shared an incentive award of $35,000. Bonuses are particularly proper for the named class representative here because he agreed to sacrifice his privacy in the embarrassing context of admitting that he was arrested and forced to strip naked as part of his detention in jail. It would be unfair not to compensate him for efforts that helped achieve a benefit for the entire class.
22 Support for this statement and the rest of this paragraph is found in Ex.2 at ¶24 (Affidavit of Howard Friedman). 23 In re Southern O hio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 , 272 -273 (S.D.Ohio 199 7)(citing 10 other courts where incentive awards were approved); Spicer v. Chicago Bd. Options Exchange, Inc., 844 F.Supp. 1226, 1266-68 (N.D .Ill. 1993)(citing 17 courts where incentive awards were approved). See also, Thorton v. Texas Motor Freight, 497 F.2d 416 (6th Cir. 1974). 24 Support for this statement and the rest of this paragraph is found in Ex. 2 at ¶¶18-19, 1 5 and 20 (A ffidavit of Howard Friedman).
10

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 11 of 14
H. The Notice to Class Members Satisfies Due Process Requirements and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) requires that notice of the proposed settlement be sent to all members of the class “in such manner as the court directs.”
“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”25 “Where the name and last known address of a class member or individual party is known or is capable of being readily identified,” individual notice must be given.26 Plaintiffs propose sending individual notice to each class member based on the mailing addresses provided at booking unless updated by the class member.
The Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement is attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A. The Notice summarizes the terms of the settlement, describes the options of each class member, discloses the bonus to the class representative, discloses the proposed amount of attorney’s fees and expenses and that this issue will be decided by the Court at the fairness hearing, gives the date, time and place of the fairness hearing, and provides contact information for any questions about the settlement.27 The notice is drafted in plain English. This notice will be sent by first class mail, postage-prepaid, to all potential class members at their last known addresses within three weeks of the court’s order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.
25 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 314 (1950 ). 26 In Re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litigation, 141 F.R.D. 534 , 539 (N.D .Ga. 1992). 27 See Notice, attached as Ex 3A; Manual for Complex Litigation §30.212.
11

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 12 of 14
In order to reach as many class members as possible, the notice plan includes several additional notices. First, because some class members may have moved without leaving a forwarding address, and to account for any errors in the class list, the notice plan also includes publication of a settlement notice in three local newspapers. A notice, attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit C, will be published in the Springfield Republican, the Daily Hampshire Gazette and the Greenfield Recorder. Second, the press will be notified of the settlement, through a release which is attached as Exhibit E, which is likely to result in news coverage of the settlement. Class members are more likely to learn of this settlement through news coverage than through paid notices in a newspaper. Third, the defendants have agreed to post a notice, attached as Exhibit D, in the Booking Room of the Hampshire Jail. Finally, a website will be established to provide additional information. The notices, forms and other information on the case will be posted to the website. The notice plan is designed to reach as many class members as possible, not to simply meet minimum due process requirements. V. ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT
Class counsel recommend that this Court appoint Analytics, Inc. as the claims administrator. Documents regarding Analytics are attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit F. Analytics is the oldest class action consulting firm in the country.28 They have experience in processing settlements in strip search class actions, having handled the administration of the Bilovde case in Wisconsin, the Nilsen case in Maine and distribution of the settlement proceeds of the Connor case in Massachusetts. Class members will be able to fill out a simple claim form, a copy of which is attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B.
28 Support for this statem ent and the rest of this paragraph is found in Ex. 2 at ¶26 (Affidavit of Howard Friedman) and Exhibit F to the Settlement Agreement (Affidavit of Richard W . Simmons).
12

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 13 of 14

VI. PROPOSED SCHEDULE Class counsel proposes the following schedule based on the time periods in the Settlement
Agreement. Assuming that there are no unforseen circumstances and that this Court approves the settlement, the schedule provides for distribution before the end of 2007. Based on this schedule, the fairness hearing would take place in June 2007, although it could be a few weeks earlier if the Court grants preliminary approval in February 2007.

Chronology of Anticipated Dates for Completing the Settlement Process

EVENT NUMBER
1 2
3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10
11
12 13
14
15
16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23

DATE C A L C U L AT I ON
To be determined by the Court 3 weeks after 2
2 weeks before 8 2 weeks before 8 To be determined
by the Court 2 weeks after 6 1 week before 7 To be determined by the Court 1 week after 9
1 week after 9
2 weeks after 11 1 week after 12
2 weeks after 13
To be determined by the Court 1 week after 15
60 days after 16
60 days after 17
90 days after 18 90 days after 20 90 days after 21 90 days after 22

D E S CR I PT I ON OF EVENT
Preliminary Hearing held. Court issues Order granting preliminary approval of settlement.

E S T IM A T E D DATE
1/19/2007 2/16/2007

Mail the Notice of Class Action Settlement and Settlement Claim Form. Also, 3/9/2007

print notice in newspapers and post notice at the jail.

Postmark date for class members to submit written objections to the settlement. 5/25/2007

Postmark date for class members to submit Notice of Exclusion to opt.

5/25/2007

Settlement Fairness Hearing held.

6/8/2007

Postmark date for class members to submit Settlement Claim Forms. One week amnesty ends. Court issues Order granting final approval of settlement.

6/22/2007 6/29/2007 7/13/2007

Claims administrator will send a Notice of Claim Approval to all participating 7/20/2007

class members.

Claims administrator will send a Notice of Claim Denial to claimants who are not 7/20/2007

verified as class members.

Claimants must appeal all claim denials to claims administrator by this date. 8/3/2007

Claims administrator will resolve all appeals regarding class membership and 8/10/2007

send notices to claimants regarding final decision approving or denying appeals.

Deadline for claimants to appeal to Court regarding claim's administrator's final 8/24/2007

decision denying claim.

Court willl decide all appeals.

9/7/2007

Claims administrator will make final calculation of distributions of the settlement 9/14/2007

funds. Claims administrator will prepare for the MA Comptroller's Office a

distribution spreadsheet.

Comptroller's Office will mail settlement checks to class members, then make 11/13/2007

payment to class counsel for fees and expenses.

Attorney General's Office will obtain settlement distribution report.

1/12/2008

Comptroller's Office will send 1099's to class members.

1/15/2008

Attorney General's Office will obtain settlement distribution report.

4/11/2008

Attorney General's Office will obtain settlement distribution report.

7/10/2008

Attorney General's Office will obtain settlement distribution report.

10/8/2008

Attorney General's Office will obtain final settlement distribution report.

1/6/2009

13

Case 3:05-cv-30017-MAP Document 33-1 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 14 of 14

VII. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement, approve the notice forms and the notice plan, appoint Analytics, Inc. as the claims administrator, set a date for the final fairness hearing and a date for filing motions to approve the settlement and for attorney’s fees and costs.

Date: December 29, 2006

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, For the plaintiff, and the class,
/s/ Myong J. Joun
Howard Friedman BBO #180080 Myong J. Joun BBO #645099 Law Offices of Howard Friedman, P.C. 90 Canal Street, Fifth floor Boston, MA 02114-2022 T (617) 742-4100 F (617) 742-5858 hfriedman@civil-rights-law.com mjjoun@civil-rights-law.com

14

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Ryan v. Garvey, et al., Civil Action No. 05-30017-MAP

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
A Federal Court authorized this notice. This is not from a lawyer.
You could get a payment of $1,500 or more from a class action settlement if you meet ALL of the following conditions:

1. TIME: You were held at the Hampshire County Jail at any time between January 18, 2002 and November 7, 2002.
2. TYPE OF CUSTODY: You were held at Hampshire County Jail after an arrest but before a bail hearing or ﬁrst court appearance (this includes arrests on default and other warrants) or after a ﬁnding of civil contempt of court for failure to pay a judgment, a ﬁne, or child or spousal support.
3. OFFENSE: You were not charged with a crime involving drugs or weapons or a violent felony.
4. SEARCH: You were strip searched on admission into the Jail.
Your legal rights are affected if you act or do not act. Please read the complete Notice carefully.
You are receiving this notice because records show that you may be a class member. To see if you qualify, you must submit a complete Settlement Claim Form, postmarked by June 22, 2007, to:
Ryan Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2004, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004
If you submit a claim form and qualify as a class member, you will share in this settlement after deducting attorney’s fees, and the costs and expenses for this case. The amount of money you will receive depends on how many people submit claim forms. The money will be divided by the number of claims.

THESE ARE YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM

This is the only way to get a payment. Remember: Claim Forms postmarked after June 22, 2007 will not be considered for payment.

ASK TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS CASE

If you exclude yourself from this class action case, you will not be bound by the Settlement or judgment. You will not get a cash payment in this case. You will be free to pursue your claims against the defendants at your own expense. This is the only option that allows you to bring your own lawsuit against the Hampshire Sheriff or his employees for the claims raised in this case. You must exclude yourself from the Settlement by May 25, 2007. If you exclude yourself, you will not be allowed to rejoin this class action.

OBJECT TO THIS SETTLEMENT
DO NOTHING

If you want to object to the settlement but you do not exclude yourself, you may object by writing to the Claims Administrator explaining why you believe the settlement is not fair, received no later than May 25, 2007, or you may appear in Court at the Fairness Hearing on June 22, 2007. You must also submit a claim form to preserve your right to receive payment.
You get no payment. You will still be bound by the settlement and you give up your right to sue the defendants or employees of the county on these claims later.

Questions? Visit www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com.

BASIC INFORMATION
What is this case about?
Plaintiff Charles V. Ryan IV claimed that it was illegal for the Hampshire Sheriff to routinely strip search people when they were admitted into the Hampshire County Jail. He brought this case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated seeking money damages for every person who was strip searched.
Are all strip searches in a jail illegal?
There are times when jail ofﬁcers can legally strip search a prisoner. This case does not claim that all strip searches at the Jail were illegal. Plaintiffs claim that the intake searches of people who were held before a ﬁrst court appearance and those who were held after a ﬁnding of civil contempt by a court were illegal. This case does not concern strip searches for cause, after contact visits, or on return from work release or court. The case does not challenge any strip searches of convicted prisoners.
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS – WHAT YOU GET AND HOW TO GET IT –
How much will my payment be?
We do not know the amount of the payments yet. The defendants agreed to pay $205,000 to settle this lawsuit. If you are eligible, you will get a payment for only one strip search. The amount will depend on how many people submit claim forms.
The amount per person will decrease as the number of forms submitted increases. We estimate that each participating class member will receive $1,500 or more.
The settlement money will be distributed after payment of attorneys’ fees, expenses and an incentive payment. The attorneys who represented the plaintiffs, also called class counsel, will request an attorney’s fee of no more than 33% of the settlement fund. Class counsel requests payment of an incentive payment to the class representative Charles V. Ryan IV who brought this case on behalf of all class members in order to compensate him for the time he spent helping to bring about this settlement and for his loss of privacy. The requested incentive payment is $10,000.
How can I get a payment?
You must ﬁll out the Settlement Claim Form completely and mail it to the Claims Administrator. A Claim Form is included with this notice. You can also obtain a Claim Form from www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com. The envelope must be postmarked no later than June 22, 2007; if it is not, your claim will be denied.
The settlement check will be written in your name with your social security number. Your check will be sent to your mailing address. If you move, you must notify the Claims Administrator in writing of your new address or the check will be sent to your old address.
When will I get my payment?
You cannot be paid until the settlement is approved by the Court and any appeals are over. The Court will hold a hearing on June 22, 2007 to decide whether to approve the settlement. Settlement checks will be issued after the Court approves the settlement and all appeals are completed. You may visit the website or contact the Claims Administrator for updates.
If I owe past child support or tax obligations, will I have to pay them?
Yes. Any amounts for outstanding child support obligations and IRS/DOR tax liens may be deducted from your share of the settlement before a payment is made to you.
Questions? Visit www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com.

Will I have to pay taxes on my payment?
You may have to pay taxes on your payment. You should consult your tax preparer when you ﬁle your tax returns. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts will send you a 1099 Form. (If you have questions about backup withholding, Form W-9 or Form 1099, call your tax preparer or the IRS Information Reporting Program Customer Service Section, toll free at (866) 455-7438, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.)
What claims will be released by this Settlement?
This settlement resolves all claims for illegal strip searches. This means that people who could have been a part of this lawsuit cannot ever again sue Hampshire Sheriff Robert J. Garvey or Superintendent Patrick J. Cahillane over the issue of illegal strip searches, unless you chose to opt-out of this lawsuit.
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT
What is a Class Action and who are Class Members?
In a class action, one or more people, called Class Representatives (in this case, Charles V. Ryan IV), sue on behalf of all people who have similar claims. All of the people who were similarly treated are known as a Class or Class Members. One court resolves the issues for all Class Members.
How do I know if I am a Class Member and part of the settlement?
The Court has ruled that you are a Class Member if you meet all four factors below:
1. You were held at the Hampshire County Jail at any time between January 18, 2002 and November 7, 2002. 2. You were held at Hampshire County Jail after an arrest but before a bail hearing or ﬁrst court appearance (this includes
arrests on default and other warrants) or after a ﬁnding of civil contempt of court for failure to pay a judgment, a ﬁne, or child or spousal support. 3. You were not charged with a crime involving drugs or weapons or a violent felony. 4. You were strip searched on admission into the Jail.
NOTE: You are not a class member if you were either (1) strip searched while you were serving a sentence or being held for trial, (2) you were strip searched because a correctional ofﬁcer had an individualized reason to think that you were in possession of contraband, drugs or weapons, or (3) you were arrested for and/or charged with a crime involving drugs, weapons or a violent felony.
What crimes are considered to be violent felonies?
The following crimes are examples of violent felonies: arson, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to rob or murder, extortion by threat of injury, home invasion, indecent assault and battery, intimidation of witness, kidnaping, manslaughter, mayhem, murder, rape, and robbery. This is not a complete list; other felony level crimes may be determined to be “violent”.
What if I was arrested for more than one crime?
The most serious charge for an arrest will determine your class membership. If any one of the charges was a crime involving weapons or drugs or was a violent felony, you are not a class member for that arrest. You might be eligible for another arrest that took place on a different date.
Questions? Visit www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com.

What if I was found not guilty of the crime for which I was arrested?
You are entitled to the same settlement amount whether you were found guilty or not guilty of the crime.
What if I was arrested on a default warrant for violation of probation or parole?
You are a class member if you were arrested on a default warrant or for violating the terms of probation or parole so long as the crime for which you were on probation or which you were arrested did not involve weapons, or drugs, or a violent felony.
I was not arrested. I was held on a ﬁnding of civil contempt. Am I a Class Member?
Yes, if you also meet all of the other requirements.
What if I was strip searched more than once at the Jail. Can I still participate?
Yes. If you were arrested and brought to the Jail more than once during the class period you are a member of the class and can recover money. You can only recover one payment, however, and will not be provided with extra payments for being strip searched at the jail more than one time.
What if I was at the Jail before January 18, 2002 or after November 7, 2002?
The time period for being a class member is based on the legal requirement that a case must be ﬁled within a certain time period; this is called the statute of limitations. The law in Massachusetts only allows a person to bring a claim within three years after his or her rights were violated. Because this case was ﬁled by Charles V. Ryan IV on January 18, 2005, class members include anyone strip searched in the three years before that date. If you were strip searched before January 18, 2002, it may be too late to bring a lawsuit. The time period for the class ends on November 7, 2002, the date when Hampshire County changed its written search policy. If you were strip searched after this date, that search is not a part of this lawsuit; you must ﬁle your own lawsuit.
What if I am still unsure about whether I am part of the Settlement?
If you are still unsure as to whether you are a member of the class, you may ﬁll out and return the Settlement Claim Form. If the settlement is approved, you will be notiﬁed if you do not qualify. If you qualify, you will receive a check. You may also visit the settlement website on the Internet at www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com to answer your questions.
What if I am currently incarcerated? Where will you send my payment to?
The Claims Administrator will send your payment to the address you indicate on your claim form, including jails and prisons. However, we recommend that you provide an outside address if possible.
Who makes the ﬁnal decision about who qualiﬁes as a Class Member?
The Class Administrator makes the ﬁnal decision about who qualiﬁes as a Class Member and the Judge will review that decision. The computerized booking records kept by the Hampshire County Jail will determine if you are a class member. You can help by listing the date or dates when you feel you met the class deﬁnition. If the records do not show that you ﬁt the class deﬁnition, your claim will be denied. You can appeal your denial to the Claims Administrator by sending documentation and information regarding the dates you believe you were held and strip searched. A decision of the Claims Administrator can be appealed to the judge. (If you are not a class member, you are not bound by this settlement. You can take action as an individual if you wish.)
Questions? Visit www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com.

How did the lawyers in this case ﬁnd me and how can I protect my privacy?
On admission into the Jail, you gave your name and address during booking. This information was given to the lawyers for the plaintiffs by Hampshire County. The lawyers for the plaintiffs will do everything they can to protect your privacy. Only the lawyers in the case and the court-appointed Claims Administrator will know your name and, in most cases, only the Claims Administrator will see your Claim Form.
What should I do if I do not want to participate in the Class Action?
If you do not wish to participate in the class action, you can either exclude yourself or do nothing. If you do not send in a claim form, you will not be a participating Class Member and you will not receive a payment. You will also be barred from ﬁling a case on these claims in the future.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
If I exclude myself, can I get money from this settlement?
No, you will not get a payment from this settlement. You will not be legally bound by the settlement. You can bring your own lawsuit. Class counsel will not represent you in pursuing your claims. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a Claim Form. Because you will no longer be part of the case, you cannot object to the settlement if you ask to be excluded. A request to be excluded means you have opted out of this case.
How do I get out of this settlement?
To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mail saying that you want to be excluded from Ryan v. Garvey, et al. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number and sign the letter. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than May 25, 2007, to the Claims Administrator at Ryan Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2004, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004. The Claims Administrator will ﬁle your notice with the court and counsel. You cannot exclude yourself by phone or by e-mail.
If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Hampshire County Sheriff for the same thing later?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue the Hampshire County Sheriff or his employees for the claims that this settlement resolves. Remember, the exclusion deadline is May 25, 2007.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
What if I think the proposed settlement is not fair? What can I do?
If you wish to object to the proposed settlement, you or a lawyer on your behalf must either state your objections to the Court in a letter sent to the Claims Administrator, received no later than May 25, 2007, or appear in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, 1550 Main Street, Springﬁeld, MA on June 22, 2007 to present your objections. If you write, the Claims Administrator will forward your objection to the Court and to the lawyers.
You may object to the proposed settlement and still be eligible to receive a payment. You must submit a valid Settlement Claim Form by the June 22, 2007 deadline even if you object to the settlement, if you wish to claim money should the settlement be approved.
Questions? Visit www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com.

THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
What is a Fairness Hearing?
The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. The Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court will also decide whether to approve the request for attorney’s fees, costs, expenses and the bonuses to class representatives and class members who were deposed. If the Court approves the proposed settlement, it will affect all class members.
When and where is the hearing?
The Hearing will be at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, June 22, 2007 in Courtroom 1 at the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, 1550 Main Street, Springﬁeld, MA.
Do I have to come to the hearing? May I or my lawyer speak at the hearing?
No, you are not required to attend the hearing. Class counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. You are welcome to come at your own expense. If you object to the settlement and you want to explain the objection to the Court, you can attend the hearing or hire your own lawyer to attend for you.
THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE
Who are the lawyers in this case?
The lawyers for the Plaintiff Charles V. Ryan IV and the class are Howard Friedman and Myong J. Joun, Law Ofﬁces of Howard Friedman P.C., 90 Canal Street, 5th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.
Defendants Hampshire Sheriff Robert J. Garvey and Superintendent Patrick J. Cahillane are represented by Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly and Assistant Attorney General Rosemary Tarantino, Western Massachusetts Division, 1350 Main Street, 4th Floor, Springﬁeld, MA 01103.
How will the plaintiffs’ lawyers be paid?
The lawyers for the plaintiffs will request that the Court award an attorney’s fee of no more than 33% of the settlement fund. In addition to the fee, they will seek reimbursement from the settlement fund for expenses of litigation and claims administration.
OTHER INFORMATION
If you wish to view the Court ﬁle or a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, you may go to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, 1550 Main Street, Springﬁeld, MA during regular business hours. You can also view the settlement papers on the web at www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com.
To obtain more information about the settlement, write to the Claims Administrator at Ryan Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2004, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004; or visit the website at www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com.
IMPORTANT: Please do not call the Court directly with questions about this lawsuit or the settlement. All questions regarding this lawsuit or the settlement should be addressed to the Claims Administrator.
Questions? Visit www.HampshireSheriffClassAction.com.

 
 United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Springfield) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05−cv−30017−MAP

CLOSED

Ryan v. Garvey et al Assigned to: Judge Michael A Ponsor Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff Charles V. Ryan, IV on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated

Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Date Terminated: 06/22/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Howard Friedman Law Offices of Howard Friedman, P.C. 90 Canal Street 5th Floor Boston, MA 02114−2022 617−742−4100 Fax: 617−742−5858 Email: hfriedman@civil−rights−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L. Bills Law Offices of Howard Friedman, PC 5th Floor 90 Canal Street Boston, MA 02114−2022 617−742−4100 Fax: 617−742−5858 Email: jbills@civil−rights−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Myong J. Joun Joun Law Office 420 Harvard Street Brookline, MA 02446 617−304−6186 Fax: 866−551−4983 Email: mjoun@massrights.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Robert J. Garvey

represented by Rosemary Tarantino Office of Attorney General 4th Floor 1350 Main Street Springfield, MA 01103 413−784−1240 Fax: 413−784−1244 Email: rosemary.tarantino@ago.state.ma.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy M. Jones Mass. Attorney General's Office 4th Floor 1350 Main Street Springfield, MA 01103

Defendant
Patrick J. Cahillane in their individual capacities

413/784−1240 ext.105 Fax: 413/784−1244 TERMINATED: 10/31/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rosemary Tarantino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy M. Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/18/2005
01/21/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/18/2005 02/18/2005
02/24/2005
04/11/2005 04/13/2005
05/03/2005
05/05/2005 06/02/2005 06/02/2005 06/06/2005 06/06/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Robert J. Garvey, and Patrick J. Cahillane Filing fee: $ 150.00, receipt number 305827, filed by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover &Category Sheets)(Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
Summons Issued as to Robert J. Garvey, and Patrick J. Cahillane. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed Patrick J. Cahillane served on 2/3/2005, answer due 2/23/2005. (Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed Robert J. Garvey served on 2/3/2005, answer due 2/23/2005. (Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy M. Jones on behalf of Robert J. Garvey, Patrick J. Cahillane (Jones, Timothy) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
5 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to April 11, 2005 to Respond to Complaint by Robert J. Garvey, Patrick J. Cahillane.(Jones, Timothy) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
Judge Michael A Ponsor : ENDORSED ORDER entered granting Dft's 5 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to complaint. Response to complaint due by 4/11/05. cc/cl (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by Robert J. Garvey, Patrick J. Cahillane.(Jones, Timothy) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
7 Judge Michael A Ponsor : Electronic ORDER entered. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman pretrial case management, no dispositive motions, scheduling conference(French, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/13/2005)
8 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference ISSUED, cc:cl. Initial Scheduling Conference set for 6/9/2005 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman; joint statement and LR 16.1 certs. due by 6/1/05. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
9 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 (d)(3) by Charles V. Ryan, IV.(Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
10 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Robert J. Garvey, Patrick J. Cahillane.(Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
11 JOINT STATEMENT re scheduling conference. (Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
12 MOTION Assented to Motion for Access to CORI by Robert J. Garvey, Patrick J. Cahillane. (Attachments: # 1)(Jones, Timothy) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
Judge Kenneth P. Neiman : Electronic ORDER entered granting 12 Defendants' assented−to Motion for Order Granting Access and Leave to Disclose Criminal

06/06/2005 06/07/2005
06/09/2005
06/09/2005
09/30/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 12/09/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005
02/27/2006 02/28/2006 03/03/2006 03/03/2006 03/03/2006
03/27/2006 04/11/2006

Offender Record and Other Information. Order to issue forthwith. (Neiman, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
13 Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. ORDER Granting Access to and leave to Disclose Criminal Offender Record and Other Information ENTERED, cc:cl. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
Remark: 13 Order re: Access to CORI Records was redacted by the clerk's office due to presence of personal information (date of birth). Unredacted Order was sealed by the clerk's office. A copy of the unredacted Order was forwarded to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants this day. (Healy, Bethaney) Modified (adding text "Plaintiff and") on 6/7/2005 (Healy, Bethaney). (Entered: 06/07/2005)
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. Counsel (Attys Friedman and Jones) appear for Initial Scheduling Conference held on 6/9/2005. Colloquy re: status. Scheduling Order to issue. (Court Reporter FTR.) (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
14 Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. SCHEDULING ORDER all class discovery compl by 10/28/05; P's motion for class cert. filed by 12/9/05; Ds' response by 1/2/06; written disc and non−expert depos. compl by 4/28/06; P's expert discl. 5/12/06; Ds' expert discl by 6/22/06; expert depos. compl by 7/31/06, ENTERED, cc:cl. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
15 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order)(Joun, Myong) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 15 Motion for Protective Order ENTERED, cc:cl. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
16 Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED, cc:cl. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
17 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 2/24/2006 to To File Motion For Class Certification by Charles V. Ryan, IV.(Joun, Myong) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 17 Motion for Extension of Time ENTERED, cc:cl. ALLOWED. See Revised Scheduling Order entered this day. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
18 Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. SCHEDULING ORDER setting P's motion for class cert by 2/27/06; Ds' response by 3/20/06; written disc and non−expert depos compl by 6/28/06; P's expert discl. by 7/12/06; Ds' expert discl by 8/22/06; expert depos compl by 10/2/06, ENTERED,cc:cl. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
19 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 3/3/06 to for filing motion for class certification by Charles V. Ryan, IV.(Joun, Myong) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
Judge Kenneth P. Neiman : Electronic ORDER entered granting 19 Plaintiff's assented−to Motion for Extension of Time to March 3, 2006, to file motion for class certification. (Neiman, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
20 MOTION to Amend the Class Definition by Charles V. Ryan, IV.(Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
21 MOTION to Certify Class by Charles V. Ryan, IV.(Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
22 MEMORANDUM in Support re 21 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Search Policy# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B−Affidavit of Myong J. Joun# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C−Affidavit of Howard Friedman)(Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
23 RESPONSE to Motion re 20 MOTION to Amend the Class Definition, 21 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Robert J. Garvey, Patrick J. Cahillane. (Jones, Timothy) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
NOTICE TO COUNSEL of Hearing on Motion 20 MOTION to Amend the Class Definition, 21 MOTION to Certify Class: Motion Hearing set for 7/14/2006 03:00 PM

06/22/2006
06/22/2006 07/06/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006
07/14/2006
07/27/2006 07/28/2006 10/17/2006
10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/24/2006 10/25/2006 10/31/2006 10/31/2006

in Courtroom 1 before Judge Michael A Ponsor. (French, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
24 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Class Certification by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Class Certification# 2 Affidavit Affidavit of Myong J. Joun)(Joun, Myong) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
25 Second MOTION to Amend the Class Definition by Charles V. Ryan, IV.(Joun, Myong) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
26 RESPONSE to Motion re 24 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Class Certification, 25 Second MOTION to Amend the Class Definition filed by Robert J. Garvey, Patrick J. Cahillane. (Jones, Timothy) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
Judge Michael A Ponsor : ENDORSED ORDER entered granting Ptf's 21 Motion for Class Certification. c/cl (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
Judge Michael A Ponsor : ENDORSED ORDER entered granting Ptf's 25 Second Motion to Amend the class definition. cc/cl (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
Judge Michael A Ponsor : ENDORSED ORDER entered denying Ptf's 20 Motion to Amend the class definition. DENIED, as moot, the court having allowed the more recent, Second motion to amend. cc/cl (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
27 Judge Michael A Ponsor : ORDER entered. The court this day allowed plaintiff's motions Dkt. No. 21 and 25 . Based on counsel's representation, the court orders Ptf's counsel to draft and file a joint report on behalf of all parties, no later than 7/28/06. See the attached order for complete details. cc/cl (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Michael A Ponsor : Motion Hearing held on 7/14/2006 re 25 Second MOTION to Amend the Class Definition filed by Charles V. Ryan, IV, 20 MOTION to Amend the Class Definition filed by Charles V. Ryan, IV, 21 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Charles V. Ryan, IV. Order to issue. (Court Reporter Alice Moran.) (Stuckenbruck, John) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
28 JOINT STATEMENT of counsel Regarding Class Size and Proposed Schedule. (Joun, Myong) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing : Status Conference set for 10/17/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Michael A Ponsor. (Stuckenbruck, John) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Michael A Ponsor : Status Conference held on 10/17/2006. Parties report case has settled, although need to finalize paperwork. (Court Reporter Alice Moran.) (French, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
29 Judge Michael A Ponsor : ORDER entered. SCHEDULING ORDER: As follows; The parties will submit a joint status report no later than 11/17/06. See the attached scheduling order for complete details. cc/cl(Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
NOTICE issued to Attorney Timothy M. Jones regarding mandatory registration with ECF in compliance with the Standing Order entered by Judge Ponsor and Magistrate Judge Neiman. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by Rosemary Tarantino on behalf of all defendants (Tarantino, Rosemary) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
31 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance of Attorney Timothy M. Jones for the Defts. filed. Terminated Timothy M. Jones for the Defts. (Finn, Mary) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2006 (Finn, Mary). (Entered: 10/31/2006)
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff. Correction: document 17 corrected because: to add notice of withdrawal signed by Attorney Timothy Jones and delete notice signed by Rosemary Tarantino. (Finn, Mary) (Entered: 10/31/2006)

11/08/2006 11/17/2006 11/24/2006 12/29/2006 01/08/2007
01/08/2007 01/11/2007 01/16/2007 06/15/2007 06/15/2007
06/21/2007
06/22/2007 06/22/2007

Documents terminated: 24 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Class Certification filed by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Stuckenbruck, John) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
32 JOINT STATEMENT of counsel regarding settlement. (Joun, Myong) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing re Settlement Approval :Hearing set for 1/19/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Michael A Ponsor. (French, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/24/2006)
33 Consent MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex.1: Settlement Agreement and Exs.A−F# 2 Exhibit Ex 2 Affidavit of Howard Friedman)(Joun, Myong) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
Judge Michael A Ponsor : ENDORSED ORDER entered granting 33 Motion for Settlement. ALLOWED. The settlement is hereby preliminarily approved, along with the notice forms and notice plan. Analytics, Inc. is appointed as the claims administrator. The fairness hearing will be June 8, 2007 at 2:00 P.M. So ordered. cc/cl (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: The Fairness Hearing set for 6/8/2007 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Michael A Ponsor. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
34 Assented to MOTION to Continue Fairness Hearing to June 22, 2007 by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Myong J. Joun)(Joun, Myong) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
Judge Michael A Ponsor : endorsedORDER entered granting 34 Motion to Continue Fairness Hearing RESET FROM 6/8/07 TO 6/22/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1 before Judge Michael A Ponsor. (French, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
35 MOTION for Settlement For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement by Charles V. Ryan, IV.(Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
36 MEMORANDUM in Support re 35 MOTION for Settlement For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement filed by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order On Motion For Final Approval of Class Settlement# 2 Exhibit Exhibits In Support of Final Approval# 3 Exhibit Ex. 1 Affidavit of Howard Friedman# 4 Exhibit Ex. 1A Resume of Howard Friedman# 5 Exhibit Ex. 2 Affidavit of Myong J. Joun# 6 Exhibit Ex. 2A Resume of Myong J. Joun# 7 Exhibit Ex. 2B Notice of Settlement, Claim Form, and Envelope# 8 Exhibit Ex. 2C Newspaper Notice in the Springfield Republican on January 23, 2007# 9 Exhibit Ex. 2D Newspaper Notice in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on January 27−28, 2007# 10 Exhibit Ex. 2E Newspaper Notice in the Greenfield Recorder on January 27, 2007# 11 Exhibit Ex. 2F News coverage of the Settlement# 12 Exhibit Ex 2G Jail Notice# 13 Exhibit Ex. 2H (Part 1) Photograph of Jail Notice Posting# 14 Exhibit Ex. 2H (Part 2) Photograph of Jail Notice Posting# 15 Exhibit Ex. 2H (Part 3) Photograph of Jail Notice Posting# 16 Exhibit Ex. 2I Summary of Attorney's Fees and Litigation Costs)(Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
37 MOTION Substitute Pages re 36 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,,, by Charles V. Ryan, IV. (Attachments: # 1 Substitute Page 17 for Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement# 2 Text of Proposed Order on Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement)(Friedman, Howard) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
38 Judge Michael A Ponsor : ORDER entered granting 35 MOTION for Final Approval of Class Settlement; cc/cl. (Finn, Mary) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
Civil Case Terminated. (Finn, Mary) (Entered: 06/22/2007)