..

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 1 of 21

r:r

I 1

' •

.'
'

{:" ,r-.,
',," :.. ,I

<>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

J{'f t) \.iL_ ~

FRANK RICCI, MICHAEL BLATCHLEY, GREG BOIVIN, GARY CARBONE, MICHAEL CHRISTOFORO, RYAN DIVITO, STEVEN DURAND, WILLIAM GAMBARDELLA, BRIAN JOOSS, JAMES KOTTAGE, MATTHEW MARCARELLI, THOMAS J. MICHAELS, SEAN PATTON, CHRISTOPHER PARKER, EDWARD RIORDON, KEVIN ROXBEE, TIMOTHY SCANLON, BENJAMIN VARGAS, JOHN VENDETTO AND MARK VENDETTO

I.
CIVIL NO.
804CV01109(JCH)

Plaintiffs,
v.

July 8, 2004

JOHN DESTEFANO, KAREN DUBOISWALTON, THOMAS UDE, JR., TINA BURGETT, BOISE KIMBER, MALCOLM WEBER, ZELMA TIRADO AND THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT I. This civil action is brought to redress the deprivation by defendants of rights secured to the plaintiffs by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, all firefighters employed by the City of New Haven, have been unlawfully denied promotions and opportunities for promotions on account of their race and political association.

I
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE ToRRE • 51 ELM STREET, SunE 307, NEw HAvEN, CoNNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 2 of 21

<>

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction ofthis Court

1s invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1333. The plaintiffs further invoke the

supplemental jurisdiction of this Court with respect to those causes of action arising under

the laws of the State of Connecticut.

3. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendant John DeStefano was and

remains the Mayor of the City ofNew Haven and was acting under color or pretense oflaw,

to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages ofthe City ofNew Haven. In his

said capacity, the defendant DeStefano has chief executive authority over the affairs of the

City of New Haven, the employment of municipal personnel and enforcement of the City

Charter and ruies and reguiations of the City's various boards and commissions.

4. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendant Karen Dubois-Walton

was the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of New Haven. In said capacity, the

defendant had overall administrative responsibility and authority with respect to the affairs

of the City of New Haven, the conduct of all subordinate city officials, the enforcement of

the City's charter and rules and regulations of the City's various boards and commissions.

At all times relevant to this complaint, the said defendant was acting under color or pretense

oflaw, to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages ofthe City ofNew Haven.

The defendant Dubois-Walton is a political appointee of the Mayor, reports directly to the

defendant DeStefano and acts as a political operative for the Mayor by carrying out the

Mayor's policies, political agenda and municipal policies.

2
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE • 51 EtM STREET, SuiTE 307, NEw HAVEN, CoNNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 3 of 21
5. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant Thomas W. Ude, Jr., was
<)
and remains the Corporation Counsel for the City of New Haven and in said capacity was acting under color or pretense of law, to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages of the City of New Haven.
6. The defendant Ude is a political appointee and was appointed to his position by the defendant DeStefano. In his position as Corporation Counsel, defendant Ude has overall responsibility for the management ofthe City's legal office, the representation ofthe City in all legal matters and the further responsibility of ensuring, along with the other defendants, that the City and its officials obey the provisions of the City's Charter and the rules and regulations of its various boards and commissions. By provision ofthe charter, the defendant Ude reports directly to the Mayor, advances the Mayor's position on various legal matters and further acts as a political operative for the Mayor by carrying out the Mayor's policies and political agenda.
7. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant Tina Burgett was the Director ofPersonnel for the City ofNew Haven and in said capacity was acting under color or pretense oflaw, to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages of the City of New Haven. The defendant Burgett reports to the defendants DeStefano and DuBoisWalton and carries out the policies and decisions of the Mayor with respect to matters of municipal employment. Defendant Burgett is further responsible for enforcing the provisions ofthe City Charter and applicable civil service regulations with respect to hiring and promotion of municipal employees in the City's classified civil service.
3
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE • 51 ELM STREET, SuiTE 307, New HAVEN, CoNNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 4 of 21

8.

At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendants Malcolm Weber and

<>

Zelma Tirado were members of the Civil Service Board of the City of New Haven and in

said capacity were acting under color or pretense of law, to wit: under the Charter,

regulations, customs and usages of the City of New Haven. The Civil Service Board of the City of New Haven (hereinafter "Board") was established by authority of the City Charter and is comprised of five members, all of whom are appointed by the Mayor of the City of New Haven. The Board is responsible for carrying out and enforcing the provisions of the City Charter respecting the hiring and promotions of individuals in the City's classified service.

9. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant Boise Kimber was a member of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the City of New Haven and in said capacity was

acting under color or pretense oflaw, to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages of the City of New Haven. The defendant Kimber is a political appointee of the

defendant DeStefano and was chosen by the Mayor to serve as Chairman and later Commissioner of the City's Board of Fire Commissioners. In said capacity, the defendant

Kimber has supervisory and administrative control and authority over the affairs of the Fire Department of the City of New Haven, firefighters and other personnel employed by the Department of Fire Services.

I0. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendant City of New Haven (hereinafter "City") was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws

and Constitution of the State of Connecticut. The City was and is the employer of the

4

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE • 51 ELM STREET, SuiTE 307, Nsw HAVEN, CoNNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 5 of 21
plaintiffs and liable for the acts and omissions of its officials, representatives, agents and
<>
administrators. II. The acts and omissions of the defendants and each of them as complained of
herein were committed under the guise and pretense of municipal authority and pursuant to official practices, customs and policies of the City which are designed and operate to discriminate against municipal employees on the basis of race and political affiliation.
12. The plaintiffs are employees ofthe City and members of the City's classified civil service. All of the plaintiffs are employed as firefighters in the Department of Fire Service. The plaintiff Benjamin Vargas is Hispanic. All of the other plaintiffs are white. The majority ofthe plaintiffs live outside the boundaries ofthe City, are not members ofthe defendant DeStefano's political constituency and are not a source of political support for him.
13. The City ofNew Haven is governed by a charter the provisions of which are established and approved by the voters of the City of New Haven in an exercise of democratic will. The Charter has the force oflaw and all elected and appointed officials and agents of the City are mandated to respect and carry out its provisions. In particular, the Charter charges the Mayor with the duty of causing all laws and ordinances to be executed and enforced. The Mayor is further responsible for the good order and efficient government of the city.
14. The Charter provides for the establishment ofa classified civil service and all positions in city government within the classified service are subject to the various charter
5
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE • 51 ELM STREET, SunE 307, NEw HAVEN, CoNNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 6 of 21
provisions and Civil Service Board rules respecting the hiring and promotion of individuals
(>
in the classified service. The position of firefighter falls within the classified service. 15. To avoid to the greatest extent possible the ills ofthe old spoils system, to wit:
invidious discrimination, nepotism, cronyism, political horse-trading, graft and bribery, the Charter provides for a strictly merit-based system for the promotion ofmunicipal employees in the classified service.
16. Article XXX, §167 of the Charter provides that all promotions in the classified service shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained so far as practicable by competitive examination.
17. Article XXX, §172 of the Charter expressly mandates that no person in the classified service shall be appointed, promoted or in any way favored or discriminated against because of race, sex, age, national origin, or political or religious opinion or affiliation. The said section further provides that no person shall willfully or corruptly make any false statement, certificate, mark, rating or report in regard to any test, certification, promotion, reduction, removal or appointment held or made under the provisions of the charter or in any manner commit or attempt to commit any fraud preventing the impartial execution of the rules and regulations respecting the merit-based examination process.
18. The Charter further expressly provides that no person shall either directly or indirectly pay, render or give any money, service or any valuable thing to any person, for or on account of or in connection with any test, appointment, or promotion. A violation ofthis provision constitutes a criminal offense punishable by fine and imprisonment.
6
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL: (203) 865-554l

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 7 of 21
19. Article XXX, §166 ofthe Charter charges the Personnel Director ofthe City
0
with the duties of preparing, conducting and scoring examinations of qualified applicants for all positions in the classified service and certifYing the results of such examinations to the members of the Civil Service Board. The Personnel Director is further required to determine the eligibility of applicants for all positions in accordance with the Charter and rules established by the Civil Service Board and to maintain records of all applicants, their qualifications and scores.
20. Consistent with establishment of a merit-based system of hiring and promotion, Article XXX, §160 of the Charter, as well as the rules and regulations of the Board, provide that no promotion within the classified service shall be made except from among those applicants with the three highest scores of those who shall have passed a competitive examination with a score ofat least seventy percentum and are upon the eligible list established by the Director of Personnel and the Board. This requirement is commonly known and referred to as the "Rule of Three".
21. For some ten years, the City of New Haven, acting through its officials, among them the defendants herein, engaged in a pattern of repeated violations of the Rule ofThree for the improper and unlawful purpose ofengaging in race-based discrimination and political favoritism in the appointment and promotion ofindividuals in the classified service. As a result of its repeated and persistent lawbreaking, the City and various of its officials were named defendants in several civil actions brought in the Superior Court for the Judicial
7
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE ToRRE • 51 ELM SrREEr, SunE 307, NEw HAVEN, CoNNEcrJcur 06510 • TEL: (203) 865~5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 8 of 21
23. For the purpose of filling vacancies in the promotional ranks of its fire department, the City, in accordance with the Charter, administered competitive examinations for promotions to the ranks of lieutenant and captain.
24. The plaintiffs Gary Carbone, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew W. Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Edward Reardon, Kenneth Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas and John Vendetto competed in the examination process for promotion to the rank of captain. The plaintiffs Frank Ricci, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Michael Christoforo, Ryan DeVito, Steven Durand, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker and Mark Vendetto competed in the examination process for promotion to the rank of lieutenant.
8
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 9 of 21
25. The plaintiffs expended money and time in preparation for the examinations. They gave up much of their leisure time and time with family and friends in order to study for the examinations.
26. The competitive examination consisted of two components, a written examination and an oral examination. With respect to the position of lieutenant, a written examination was administered on or about November 22, 2003 and an oral examination was administered on or about December 13, 2003 to all those eligible to compete. With respect to the position of captain, a competitive written examination was administered on or about November 21, 2003 with the oral examination administered on or about December 14, 2003 to all those eligible to compete. With respect to all of these examinations, the City contracted with and engaged the services of a professional corporation which employs personnel possessed of expertise in the field of formulation and administration of competitive civil service employment examinations. The City expended the approximate sum of $100,000.00 in payment of professional fees for such purpose and the examinations were prepared upon input of city officials and fire department personnel. The form and content of the examinations were approved by the defendants, who determined that the examinations were appropriately related to the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to competent performance of the duties of both positions.
27. Consistent with the Charter's mandate that promotions be based upon merit and without regard to race or other improper factors, applicants participating in the examination process were assigned an identification number and no other characteristics of
9
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 10 of 21
an examinee, including his/her race, age, gender or ethnicity, were made available or known
<>
to the test administrators. On or about January 22, 2004, the scores achieved by all examinees were reported to the defendants by reference to the identification number of each examinee.
28. Upon information and belief the defendant Burgett, together with the City's Chief Examiner, Noelia Marcano, upon receipt of the scores from the test administrators, proceeded to peruse through personnel files and other city documents for the purposes of ascertaining the race and ethnicity of each applicant and labeling each applicant in accordance with what they believed or suspected to be his/her race and ethnicity. The defendant thereafter compiled another list ofexaminees identified only by assigned number which indicated each individual's score and his/her race as perceived by defendants.
29. The aforesaid list was published and circulated among city officials. Upon review of the list, with its labeling of candidates on the basis of race, the defendants alleged that white firefighters were the top scorers in both competitive examinations.
30. The defendants herein, having been enjoined by a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court from further violations of the City Charter and the Rule of Three, were obligated by court order to promote employees in strict accordance with the Charter. With respect to the promotional examinations for the ranks of captain and lieutenant, compliance with the law and the Charter would have required the promotion of the plaintiffs and/or consideration of them for promotion under the Rule of Three without regard to race, ethnicity or political opinion or affiliation.
10
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE ToRRE • 51 ELM StREET, SunE 307, Nsw HAVEN, CoNNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 11 of 21

<>

31. Compliance with the Charter, and thus promotion of those deemed most fit

based on merit, would have resulted in white and Hispanic firefighters being promoted first

given the number ofthen-existing vacancies in the promotional ranks. The defendants thus

embarked on a course ofconduct designed to avoid and/or evade compliance with their legal

obligations. The defendants and each of them collaborated and conspired with one another

to cause the City to discard the examination results and fail and refuse to establish an

eligible list for promotion to the ranks of captain and lieutenant.

32. The defendant DeStefano was subjected to pressure and lobbying by leaders of New Raven's African-American community including, but not limited to, defendant Boise Kimber and certain minority members of the City's Board of Aldermen.
33. The defendant Kimber is an African-American and a minister who leads a large congregation in the City ofNew Haven comprised largely of African-Americans. The defendant Kimber has long been active in Democratic Party politics and is a political ally and operative for the defendant DeStefano. The defendant DeStefano values his relationship with the defendant Kimber who has used his influence as a minister and civic leader to swing support and blocs of votes in favor of defendant DeStefano in his successful mayoral electoral campaigns. The defendant Kimber, angered that white firefighters would be promoted, proclaimed that the Civil Service Board would certify the test results "over [his] dead body" and proceeded to pressure the Mayor and lobby members of the Civil Service Board with the aim of provoking the Board to violate the Charter and refuse to proceed with promotions based on merit.

II

LAW OFFICES OP KAREN LEE TORRE • 51 Et.M STREET, SuiTE 307, NEw HAVEN, CoNNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 12 of 21
34. The defendant DeStefano not only has an interest in re-election to the office
<>
of Mayor but has disclosed publically his ambition to be elected Governor of the State of Connecticut. The defendant DeStefano feared that the City's compliance with the Charter and the promotion of firefighters based on merit and without regard to race and political association would engender the anger and retribution of leaders of the African-American community in New Haven and thus jeopardize his political standing and ambition. Defendant DeStefano feared that promotions in the fire department in accordance with the law and free from race-based discrimination and political influence-peddling would result in a withdrawal of political support by the defendant Kimber and other leaders of the African-American community in New Haven.
35. Well aware that his intended course of action was unlawful and wishing to appear neutral and uninvolved, the defendant DeStefano delegated to the other individual defendants, in particular defendants Dubois-Walton and Ude, the task of causing the City to engage in the acts and omissions complained of. Defendant DeStefano knew that his authority and influence, exerted surreptitiously and through his political appointees and subordinates, would achieve the desired result.
36. As part of their plan to evade compliance with the Charter and violate the rights of the plaintiffs by denying them justly earned promotions, the defendants first attempted to concoct a pretext under which they could deny promotions to the plaintiffs by discarding the examination results for a seemingly legitimate reason. Toward this end, defendants attempted unsuccessfully to solicit evidence of irregularities and/or cheating
12
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE ToRRE • 51 ELM SrREET, SmTE 307, NEw HAvEN, CoNNEcTICuT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865·5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 13 of 21
during the examination process. No evidence whatever existed, however, to support such
<>
a claim and the defendants thereafter sought to concoct other seemingly valid reasons to discard the test results, among them a suggestion that one or more minority firefighters who competed in the examinations was deprived of access to necessary information and/or study materials pertinent to the test by the act or failure of a city official or agent. When the defendants understood that such claim was likewise invalid, defendants resorted to behindthe-scenes lobbying and exertion of political pressure on the members of the Civil Service Board for the purpose of influencing the Board to engage in the unlawful acts complained of.
37. The defendant Ude, at the direction and with the approval ofDefendant DeStefano, proceeded to collaborate with defendants Burgett and Dubois-Walton to influence and provoke the Civil Service Board to violate the Charter, the state and federal constitutions, and state and federal law prohibiting race discrimination in employment and adverse employment actions on account of political expression and affiliation.
38. The defendant Ude made public remarks to the Board and the broadcast and print media which were designed to intimidate and influence the politically appointed members of the Civil Service Board, comments that were insulting and inflammatory and designed to make Board members afraid to discharge their legal obligation under fear of being labeled by City officials and others as "bigots".
39. The defendants Ude, Dubois-Walton and Burgett, acting at the direction of the Mayor and pursuant to the Mayor's policy, further proceeded to communicate and
13
LAw OFFICES oF KAREN LEE ToRRE • 51 ELM SrREET, sunE 307, NEw HAvEN, CoNNEcncur 06510 ·TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 14 of 21

<>

conspire to devise a strategy to produce the results desired by the Mayor which was a refusal

by the Board to carry out its duty to establish an eligible list and permit promotions to be

made. Through e-mail communications and surreptitious meetings, the defendants Ude,

Dubois-Walton and Burgett conspired and acted to cause the City to refuse to establish an

eligible list and thus prevent the plaintiffs from receiving promotions to which they were

lawfully entitled. Defendants acted covertly in a manner designed to disguise the fact that

the defendant DeStefano had dictated such course of action with the unlawful aims of

discriminating against employees on the basis of race and rewarding with promotions those

firefighters who are constituents of African-American leaders, friends or relatives of the

Mayor's political supporters and contributors, and friends or relatives of certain members of

the City's Board of Aldermen.

40. Defendants thereafter engaged the services of several professionals and/or academics for the alleged purpose of reviewing the examinations and offering an opinion as to their fairness. The defendant Burgett attempted improperly to influence these professionals in advance of their formulation of an opinion by providing them with selected media reports and publications which she hoped would persuade the professionals to offer an opinion upon which the City may justifY a refusal to certify the examination results. To the defendants' disappointment, however, none of these individuals offered an opinion that the examinations were not pertinent to the duties and responsibilities of the promotional positions or were otherwise unfair. The defendants also arranged for the personal appearance before the Civil Service Board of a representative of the firm which devised and

14

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 5I ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 15 of 21
administered the examinations who, in an extensive presentation to the Board, assured board
<>
members that the subject matter and content ofthe examinations were appropriate and the testing process fair to all who competed.
41. Despite all of the above facts, on or about March 18, 2004, the defendants, acting through the members of the Civil Service Board, opted to discard the examination results and refuse to establish an eligible list. As a result, none of the plaintiffs will be promoted or considered for promotion.
42. On diverse dates from January 22, 2004 until the date ofthe commencement of this action, the plaintiffs demanded disclosure of their individual scores for the purpose of determining their relative positions and ranks on the eligible list required by the Charter and the rules ofthe Board. Believing that their civil and constitutional rights were violated by the defendants, each plaintiff further wished to determine his standing to commence an administrative proceeding and/or civil action to redress his injuries.
43. The defendants were aware that those whose rights were violated and who suffered injury on account of defendants' unlawful acts would possess and may pursue causes of action as to which applicable statutes of limitation would require the plaintiffs to act promptly or suffer foreclosure of their rights.
44. The defendants aimed to thwart any scrutiny oftheir conduct in relation to the examination scores. Defendants further aimed to keep the plaintiffs in a state of uncertainty and confusion regarding their performance in the examinations and the extent to which their rights were violated by defendants. With ill motive, defendants conspired unlawfully to deny
15
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 Eu.l STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 16 of 21
plaintiffs access to information regarding their scores with the foreknowledge that said
<>
conduct would impede plaintiffs' ability to ascertain their rights and commence an administrative or civil proceeding to vindicate such rights.
45. Although the Charter, Civil Service Board rules and City policies allowed for the right of the plaintiffs to disclosure of their scores and despite the fact that the city and its officials had previously been admonished by state authorities for unlawfully refusing employees access to their examination scores, the defendants maliciously deprived and continue to deprive the plaintiffs ofthis information for the purpose ofcausing the plaintiffs to suffer distress and for the further unlawful purpose offrustrating and impeding plaintiffs' access to the agencies and courts of the State of Connecticut for redress of their injuries.
46. Each ofthe plaintiffs had an absolute right protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by article first, section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut to choose not to be a political supporter of the defendant DeStefano, to refrain from activities on behalfofthe Democratic Party in New Haven and to refrain from association with those whose manage and support the defendant DeStefano's campaigns for political office.
47. Each of the plaintiffs have the right under the Charter of the City of New Haven to promotion, opportunities and consideration for promotion on the basis ofmerit and free from favoritism and discrimination on the basis of their race, ethnicity or political association or affiliation.
16
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 17 of 21
48. By the acts and omissions of the defendants as complained of herein, the
0
plaintiffs were deprived of their right to equal protection ofthe laws and equal privileges as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
49. By the acts and omissions of the defendants as aforedescribed, the plaintiffs and each of them were deprived of their property interests without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
50. By the acts and omissions aforedescribed, the defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
51. By the acts and omissions aforedescribed, the defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights to freedom of association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
52. By the acts and omissions aforedescribed, the defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights to freedom of expression as guaranteed by article first, section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
53. Each ofthe acts and omissions ofthe defendants as aforedescribed constituted intentional, extreme and outrageous conduct which defendants knew was likely to cause the plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress. As a direct and proximate result ofdefendants' tortious conduct, the plaintiffs and each of them suffered severe emotional distress.
54. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendants and each ofthem acted willfully and intentionally and/or with reckless disregard of whether their conduct violated
17
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307. NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL; (203) 865-5541

------------
Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 18 of 21
the plaintiffs' civil and constitutional rights.
<>
55. In the manner aforedescribed, the defendants and each of them violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to the injury of the plaintiffs.
56. The defendants conspired with one another to violate the civil and constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and in so doing violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985 to the injury of the plaintiffs.
57. At all times relevant to this complaint, each defendant had the duty to intervene and prevent another defendant from engaging in the unlawful acts and omissions complained of herein. Each defendant failed to discharge this duty to the injury of the plaintiffs.
58. The aforedescribed acts and omissions of the defendants were committed pursuant to and as a part of an official policy, custom and practice established by the City of New Haven with the purpose and effect of depriving the plaintiffs and others similarly situated the aforesaid civil and constitutional rights on the unlawful bases ofrace, ethnicity, expression, association and political affiliation. As a direct and proximate result of the official policy and practices ofthe City ofNew Haven as complained ofherein, the plaintiffs and each of them have suffered injury.
59. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendants as aforedescribed the plaintiffs suffered the following injuries, including, but not limited to:
a. Denial of promotion; b. Denial of fair consideration for promotion;
18
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE • 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, New HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 19 of 21

c. Denial of opportunities for promotion;
<>
d. Loss of income, pension accruals and other benefits attendant to

promotion;

e. Loss ofmoney and time expended in connection with preparation for

and participation in the examinations;

f.

Inconvenience, annoyance, burden and time away from family and

leisure activities associated with unsuccessful efforts to secure

defendants' compliance with the law and their right to disclosure of

their examination scores;

g. Damage to their careers and standing in their profession;

h. Impeded and foreclosed opportunities for further promotion to higher

ranks of the New Haven Fire Department;

1.

Severe emotional distress, anxiety and upset;

J.

Other intangible injuries associated with the violation of their civil

and constitutional rights.

Wherefore, the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants and each ofthem

and further relief as follows:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount which a jury shall determine to

be just and reasonable;

b. Punitive damages in an amount which ajury shall determine to be just

and reasonable;

19

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT06SIO. TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 20 of 21

<>

c.

Reasonable counsel fees and the costs of this action;

d. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

e. Such further relief as law and equity may afford.

THE PLAINTIFFS,

BY~e en Lee Torre Fed. Bar No. ct01701 Law Offices of Karen Lee Torre 51 Elm Street, Suite 307 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Tel. (203) 865-5541 Fax: (203) 865-4844
Their Attorney

20
LAw OFFICES oF KAREN LEE ToRRE • st ELM SrREET, Su•re 307. NEw HAveN, CoNNecncUT 06510 • TeL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/08/04 Page 21 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANK RICCI, MICHAEL BLATCHLEY, GREG BOIVIN, GARY CARBONE, MICHAEL CHRISTOFORO, RYAN DIVITO, STEVEN DURAND, WILLIAM GAMBARDELLA, BRIAN JOSS, JAMES KOTTAGE, MATTHEW MARCARELLI, THOMAS J. MICHAELS, SEAN PATTON, CHRISTOPHER PARKER, EDWARD RIORDON, KEVIN ROXBEE, TIMOTHY SCANLON, BENJAMIN VARGAS, JOHN VENDETTO AND MARK VENDETTO
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL NO. July 8, 2004

JOHN DESTEFANO, KAREN DUBOISWALTON, THOMAS UDE, JR., TINA BURGETT, BOISE KIMBER, MALCOLM WEBER, ZELMA TIRADO AND THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN,
Defendants.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury on all issues.
:~. Karen Lee Torre (ct#O 1707 Law Offices of Karen Lee Torre 51 Elm Street, Suite 307 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Tel. (203) 865-5541 Fax: (203) 865-4844 Their Attorney

21

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL.: (203) 865-5541

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANK RICCI, MICHAEL BLATCHLEY, :

GREG BOIVIN, GARY CARBONE,

:

MICHAEL CHRISTOFORO, RYAN DIVITO:

STEVEN DURAND, WILLIAM

:

GAMBARDELLA, BRIAN JOOSS, JAMES :

KOTTAGE, MATTHEW MARCARELLI, :

THOMAS J. MICHAELS, SEAN PATTON :

CHRISTOPHER PARKER, EDWARD

:

RIORDAN, KEVIN ROXBEE, TIMOTHY :

SCANLON, BENJAMIN VARGAS, JOHN :

VENDETTO AND MARK VENDETTO :

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

JOHN DESTEFANO, KAREN DUBOIS- :

WALTON, THOMAS UDE, JR., TINA :

BURGETT, BOISE KIMBER, MALCOLM :

WEBER, ZELMA TIRADO AND THE CITY:

OF NEW HAVEN

:

:

Defendants.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 304CV01109(MRK) September 29, 2004

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Admit that this is a civil action and admit that the action alleges a deprivation by defendants of certain rights but deny that any such deprivation occurred. Admit that the plaintiffs are all firefighters employed by the City of New Haven but deny all other allegations of paragraph 1.
2. Admit.

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 2 of 9
3. Admit. 4. Admit, except deny the characterization as a “political operative.” 5. Admit. 6. Admit the first sentence. Admit that in his position as Corporation Counsel, defendant Ude has general overall responsibility for management of the City’s legal office and has such further responsibilities as are set forth and described in Section 18 of the City Charter and otherwise deny the remaining allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with those duties. 7. Admit the first sentence. Admit that defendant Burgett as Personnel Director has the powers and duties as set forth and described in Section 166 of the City Charter and otherwise deny the remaining allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with those duties. 8. Admit. 9. Admit the first sentence, admit that defendant DeStefano appointed defendant Kimber to the Board of Fire Commissioners and that defendant Kimber served as that Board’s Chair and deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph. 10. Admit the first sentence and admit that the City was and is the employer of the plaintiffs, and deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph as alleged. 11. Deny.
-2-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 3 of 9
12. Admit the first sentence. Admit, upon information and belief, the plaintiffs’ self-described ethnicity and that the majority of plaintiffs live outside the boundaries of the City. The remaining allegations are vague in that the terms “political constituency” and “source of political support” are not clear and thus defendants neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations but leave the plaintiffs to their proof.
13. Admit, except note that the Charter is not the only law that governs the City of New Haven and that the Charter states which officials are required to carry out its provisions.
14. Admit and refer to the actual charter for its scope. 15. Admit that the charter provides for a merit based system for promotion of municipal employees in the classified service and refer to the actual Charter for the scope and limits of such system. 16. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs’ paraphrasing of the Charter. 17. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs’ paraphrasing of the Charter. 18. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs’ paraphrasing of the Charter.
-3-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 4 of 9
19. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs’ paraphrasing of the Charter.
20. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs’ paraphrasing of the Charter.
21. Deny. 22. Admit that there were civil actions challenging the City’s interpretation of the Rule of Three but deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph. 23. Admit. 24. Admit. 25. The defendants have insufficient direct knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph and thus leave the plaintiffs to their proof. 26. Admit the first four sentences. Deny the fifth and sixth sentences. 27. Deny. 28. Deny. 29. Deny as stated, but admit that two lists with preliminary scores from the tests that identified race and ethnicity for purposes of evaluating adverse impact circulated among some City officials, and admit that those preliminary lists showed that the top scorers in both examinations were white. 30. Deny.
-4-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 5 of 9
31. Deny. 32. Deny. 33. Admit the first sentence. Admit the second sentence except deny the term “operative”. Admit the third sentence except deny that defendant Kimber can control how anyone other than he himself votes. Deny the fourth sentence. 34. Admit the first sentence. Deny the second sentence. Deny the third sentence. 35. Deny. 36. Deny. 37. Deny. 38. Deny. 39. Deny. 40. Admit that several experts were solicited for their opinions concerning certain aspects of the examinations but deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph. 41. Admit that on or about March 18, 2004 a motion before the Civil Service Board to certify promotional lists to be generated through the tests did not pass. Deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph. 42. With regard to the first sentence, admit that some of the plaintiffs sought disclosure of their individual scores but deny the remaining allegations.
-5-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 6 of 9
With regard to the second sentence defendants can neither admit nor deny the state of mind of the plaintiffs and leave them to their proof.
43. Deny. 44. Deny. 45. Deny. 46. Admit. 47. Deny as stated. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs’ paraphrasing of the Charter. 48. Deny. 49. Deny. 50. Deny. 51. Deny. 52. Deny. 53. Deny. 54. Deny. 55. Deny. 56. Deny. 57. Deny. 58. Deny.
-6-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 7 of 9
59. Deny. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The actions and inactions of the defendants were mandated by federal law and thus any state law claims of the plaintiff are preempted. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The matter is not yet ripe. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The individual defendants are absolutely immune from suit for the actions alleged in the complaint. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The individual defendants are qualifiedly immune from suit for the actions and inactions alleged in the complaint.
-7-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 8 of 9 DEFENDANTS – JOHN DESTEFANO, ET AL By /s/ Hugh F. Murray, III Hugh F. Murray, III – ct11418 Murtha Cullina LLP CityPlace I - 185 Asylum Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3469 Telephone: (860) 240-6000 Facsimile: (860) 240-6150 Email: hmurray@murthalaw.com
-8-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 8 Filed 10/01/04 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed first-class, postage prepaid, on this 29th day of September 2004, to: Karen Lee Torre Law Offices of Karen Lee Torre 51 Elm Street, Suite 307 New Haven, CT 06510
/s/ Hugh F. Murray, III Hugh F. Murray, III – ct11418
739679
-9-

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 24 Filed 02/28/05 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANK RICCI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN DESTEFANO, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

NO. 3:04cv1109 (MRK)

:

:

:

:

:

:

RULING AND ORDER Having conferred with the parties during an on-the-record telephonic conference on December 9, 2004 and having considered Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [doc. # 14] and attached Proposed Order Re: Discovery Confidentiality, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [doc. #17] and Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [doc. # 16], the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [doc. # 14]. Plaintiffs are all firefighters in the New Haven Fire Department who took the examination for Captain or Lieutenant in November and December 2003. The Plaintiffs claim that the City "threw out" those test results in violation of state and federal law. See Compl. [doc. #1]. The City asserts that it did not certify the scores and results of those examinations because, among other reasons, the examination had an adverse affect upon African Americans. The current dispute arises because in the course of discovery; Plaintiffs have sought the names, race and scores of those individuals who took the examinations for Captain and

1

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 24 Filed 02/28/05 Page 2 of 3
Lieutenant that are in dispute in this action. Defendants seek to restrict the use and dissemination of that information as provided by their proposed protective order. Plaintiffs appear to oppose any restriction on their use and dissemination of those test scores.
At this time and based upon the information currently available, the Court has decided to endorse the Proposed Order Re: Discovery Confidentiality. The Court does so because the Court is concerned about the interests of those who are not parties to this action and who have not heretofore consented to release of their results on a test that the Defendants claim was flawed. See Slater Steel, Inc. v. Vac-Air Alloys Corp., 107 F.R.D. 246, 248 (W.D.N.Y. 1985) (courts may limit discovery to "protect third parties from harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of confidential documents") (quoting Dart Indus. Co. v. Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980)). That said, the Court recognizes that Plaintiffs fear the Proposed Order will hamper their ability to prepare their case and will subject them to "vexatious claims of breach of the order." Pls.' Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. for Protective Ord. [doc. # 17], at 9. The Court believes that these are legitimate concerns, but it is not clear at this point that Plaintiffs' fears will be realized, and the Court is unwilling to subject innocent third parties to embarrassment and annoyance based on concerns that may never materialize.
Accordingly, the Court believes that as a first step, the parties should try to work within the strictures of the Proposed Order, and the Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Protective Order [doc. #14] to the extent that it seeks approval of the Proposed Order. However, the Court's endorsement of the Protective Order is conditional at this point and if Plaintiffs find – and can demonstrate to the Court – that their ability to prepare their case is being compromised by the terms of the Protective Order, or if the Court finds that Defendants are using the Protective
2

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 24 Filed 02/28/05 Page 3 of 3

Order to harass Plaintiffs, then the Court will reconsider its endorsement of the Protective Order and will entertain lifting any restrictions that are shown to be problematic.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

Mark R. Kravitz

United States District Judge

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: February 28, 2005.

3

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 23

\"

/'

<)

UNITED STATES DISTRICTCQ~~t«&.;) ..

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT'
",

,'-',....

FRANK RICCI, MICHAEL BLATCHLEY, GREG BOIVIN, GARY CARBONE, MICHAEL CHRISTOFORO, RYAN DIVITO, STEVEN DURAND, WILLIAM GAMBARDELLA, BRIAN JOOSS, JAMES KOTTAGE, MATTHEW MARCARELLI, THOMAS 1. MICHAELS, SEAN PATTON, CHRISTOPHER PARKER, EDWARD RIORDON, KEVIN ROXBEE, TIMOTHY SCANLON, BENJAMIN VARGAS, JOHN VENDETTO AND MARK VENDETTO
Plaintiffs,
V.

/

CIVIL ACTION NO. c::

3:04CVOl109 (MR}f9n ~ =<..r,>

r r:i \.:'J
-::-.:.: ::.')) ... -",

~;. -<
Ncr

~- "' C J

-C':I
. .

:
:-:.1

.r:::'

-··i

(Jl

~''-,; l,
.i..·,·'-·'·,,.',
ri" '-, ~.
~ Ii J

March 30, 2005

JOHN DESTEFANO, KAREN DUBOISWALTON, THOMAS UDE, JR., TINA BURGETT, BOISE KIMBER, MALCOLM WEBER, ZELMA TIRADO AND THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN,

Defendants.

AMENDED COMPLAINT I. This civil action is brought to redress the deprivation by defendants of rights secured to the plaintiffs by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, all firefighters employed by the City of New Haven, have been unlawfully denied promotions and opportunities for promotions on account of their race and political association. This action further seeks

1
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865·5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 23

<>

declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against the defendant City of New Haven to

redress the deprivation of rights secured to plaintiffs by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., as amended. (Hereinafter "Title VII") Plaintiffs seek a

declaratory judgment, an injunction to restrain the City of New Haven from maintaining or

continuing in its practices, policies, customs and usages which discriminate against plaintiffs

and members ofthe class that they represent because oftheir race with respect to promotions

in the classified civil service.

2. Injunctive and declaratory relief, damages and other appropriate legal and

equitable relief are sought against the defendant City of New Haven pursuant to §706(g) of

Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(g).

3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Jurisdiction ofthis Court

is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1333. With respect to the causes asserted against

the defendant City of New Haven under Title VII, the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(4), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(5) and 29 U.S.C. §626(c). The plaintiffs

further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court with respect to those causes of

action arising under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

4. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendantJohn DeStefano was and

remains the Mayor of the City ofNew Haven and was acting under color or pretense oflaw,

to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages of the City ofNew Haven. In his

said capacity, the defendant DeStefano has chief executive authority over the affairs of the

City of New Haven, the employment of municipal personnel and enforcement of the City

2
LAw OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TeL; (203) 865·5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 3 of 23

<>

Charter and rules and regulations of the City's various boards and commissions.

5. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendant Karen Dubois-Walton

was the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of New Haven. In said capacity, the

defendant had overall administrative responsibility and authority with respect to the affairs

of the City of New Haven, the conduct of all subordinate city officials, the enforcement of

the City's charter and rules and regulations of the City's various boards and commissions.

At all times relevant to this complaint, the said defendant was acting under color or pretense

oflaw, to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages ofthe City ofNew Haven.

The defendant Dubois-Walton is a political appointee of the Mayor, reports directly to the

defendant DeStefano and acts as a political operative for the Mayor by carrying out the

Mayor's policies, political agenda and municipal policies.

6. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant Thomas W. Ude, Jr., was

and remains the Corporation Counsel for the City of New Haven and in said capacity was

acting under color or pretense of law, to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and

usages of the City of New Haven.

7. The defendant Ude is a political appointee and was appointed to his position

by the defendant DeStefano. In his position as Corporation Counsel, defendant Ude has

overall responsibility for the management ofthe City's legal office, the representation of the

City in all legal matters and the further responsibility of ensuring, along with the other

defendants, that the City and its officials obey the provisions of the City's Charter and the

rules and regulations of its various boards and commissions. By provision ofthe charter, the

3

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510' TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 4 of 23

<>

defendant Ude reports directly to the Mayor, advances the Mayor's position on various legal

matters and further acts as a political operative for the Mayor by carrying out the Mayor's

policies and political agenda.

8. At all times relevant to this action, the defendant Tina Burgett was the

Director of Personnel for the City ofNew Haven and in said capacity was acting under color

or pretense oflaw, to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages of the City of

New Haven. The defendant Burgett reports to the defendants DeStefano and DuBois-

Walton and carries out the policies and decisions of the Mayor with respect to matters of

municipal employment. Defendant Burgett is further responsible for enforcing the

provisions of the City Charter and applicable civil service regulations with respect to hiring

and promotion of municipal employees in the City's classified civil service.

9. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendants Malcolm Weber and

Zelma Tirado were members of the Civil Service Board of the City of New Haven and in

said capacity were acting under color or pretense of law, to wit: under the Charter,

regulations, customs and usages of the City of New Haven. The Civil Service Board of the

City of New Haven (hereinafter "Board") was established by authority ofthe City Charter

and is comprised of five members, all of whom are appointed by the Mayor of the City of

New Haven. The Board is responsible for carrying out and enforcing the provisions ofthe

City Charter respecting the hiring and promotions of individuals in the City'S classified

servIce. 10.

At all times relevant to this action, the defendant Boise Kimber was a member

4

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 EL.M STREET, SUITE 307. NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510 • TEL: (203) 865-554 t

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 5 of 23
(> of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the City of New Haven and in said capacity was acting under color or pretense of law, to wit: under the Charter, regulations, customs and usages of the City of New Haven. The defendant Kimber is a political appointee of the defendant DeStefano and was chosen by the Mayor to serve as Chairman and later Commissioner of the City's Board of Fire Commissioners. In said capacity, the defendant Kimber has supervisory and administrative control and authority over the affairs of the Fire Department of the City of New Haven, firefighters and other personnel employed by the Department of Fire Services. 11. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendant City of New Haven (hereinafter "City") was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws and Constitution of the State of Connecticut. The City was and is the employer of the plaintiffs and liable for the acts and omissions of its officials, representatives, agents and administrators. 12. The acts and omissions of the defendants and each of them as complained of herein were committed under the guise and pretense of municipal authority and pursuant to official practices, customs and policies of the City which are designed and operate to discriminate against municipal employees on the basis of race and political affiliation. 13. The plaintiffs are employees ofthe City and members ofthe City's classified civil service. All of the plaintiffs are employed as firefighters in the Department of Fire Service. The plaintiff Benjamin Vargas is Hispanic. All of the other plaintiffs are white. The majority ofthe plaintiffs live outside the boundaries ofthe City, are not members ofthe 5
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 6 of 23

<>

defendant DeStefano's political constituency and are not a source of political support for

him.

14. The City ofNew Haven is governed by a charter the provisions of which are established and approved by the voters of the City of New Haven in an exercise of democratic will. The Charter has the force oflaw and all elected and appointed officials and agents of the City are mandated to respect and carry out its provisions. In particular, the Charter charges the Mayor with the duty of causing all laws and ordinances to be executed and enforced. The Mayor is further responsible for the good order and efficient government ofthe city.
15. The Charter provides for the establishment ofa classified civil service and all positions in city government within the classified service are subject to the various charter provisions and Civil Service Board rules respecting the hiring and promotion of individuals in the classified service. The position of firefighter falls within the classified service.
16. To avoid to the greatest extent possible the ills ofthe old spoils system, to wit: invidious discrimination, nepotism, cronyism, political horse-trading, graft and bribery, the Charter provides for a strictly merit-based system for the promotion ofmunicipal employees in the classified service.
17. Article XXX, §167 of the Charter provides that all promotions in the classified service shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained so far as practicable by competitive examination.
18. Article XXX, §172 of the Charter expressly mandates that no person in the

6
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510. TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 7 of 23

<>

classified service shall be appointed, promoted or in any way favored or discriminated

against because of race, sex, age, national origin, or political or religious opinion or

affiliation. The said section further provides that no person shall willfully or corruptly make

any false statement, certificate, mark, rating or report in regard to any test, certification,

promotion, reduction, removal or appointment held or made under the provisions of the

charter or in any manner commit or attempt to commit any fraud preventing the impartial

execution of the rules and regulations respecting the merit-based examination process.

19. The Charter further expressly provides that no person shall either directly or

indirectly pay, render or give any money, service or any valuable thing to any person, for or

on account of or in connection with any test, appointment, or promotion. A violation ofthis

provision constitutes a criminal offense punishable by fine and imprisonment.

20. Article XXX, §166 of the Charter charges the Personnel Director ofthe City

with the duties of preparing, conducting and scoring examinations of qualified applicants

for all positions in the classified service and certifying the results of such examinations to

the members of the Civil Service Board. The Personnel Director is further required to

determine the eligibility of applicants for all positions in accordance with the Charter and

rules established by the Civil Service Board and to maintain records of all applicants, their

qualifications and scores.

21. Consistent with establishment of a merit-based system of hiring and

promotion, Article XXX, §160 of the Charter, as well as the rules and regulations of the

Board, provide that no promotion within the classified service shall be made except from

7

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 5 I ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 8 of 23
among those applicants with the three highest scores of those who shall have passed a competitive examination with a score ofat least seventy percentum and are upon the eligible list established by the Director of Personnel and the Board. This requirement is commonly known and referred to as the "Rule of Three".
22. For some ten years, the City of New Haven, acting through its officials, among them the defendants herein, engaged in a pattern of repeated violations of the Rule ofThree for the improper and unlawful purpose ofengaging in race-based discrimination and political favoritism in the appointment and promotion ofindividuals in the classified service. As a result of its repeated and persistent lawbreaking, the City and various of its officials were named defendants in several civil actions brought in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven by municipal employees who were victims of the City's violations of its Charter.
23. In each case where the City's practice of violating the Rule of Three was challenged, the plaintiffs in all such civil actions prevailed in their efforts to seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief against such illegal practices. The defendants herein, intent on persisting in the illegalities complained of in this action, proceeded boldly and brazenly to ignore the opinions and orders of the judges of the Superior Court for the Judicial District ofNew Haven. In consequence certain plaintiffs sought and gained a permanent injunction and final judgment against the City enjoining the City from further violations ofthe Rule of Three.
24. For the purpose of filling vacancies in the promotional ranks of its fire 8
LAw OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 065 10 • TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 9 of 23

(>

department, the City, in accordance with the Charter, administered competitive examinations

for promotions to the ranks of lieutenant and captain.

25. The plaintiffs Gary Carbone, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James

Kottage, Matthew W. Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Edward Reardon, Kenneth Roxbee,

Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas and John Vendetto competed in the examination process

for promotion to the rank of captain. The plaintiffs Frank Ricci, Michael Blatchley, Greg

Boivin, Michael Christoforo, Ryan DeVito, Steven Durand, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker

and Mark Vendetto competed in the examination process for promotion to the rank of

lieutenant.

26. The plaintiffs expended money and time in preparation for the examinations. They gave up much of their leisure time and time with family and friends in order to study for the examinations.
27. The competitive examination consisted of two components, a written examination and an oral examination. With respect to the position ofiieutenant, a written examination was administered on or about November 22, 2003 and an oral examination was administered on or about December 13, 2003 to all those eligible to compete. With respect to the position of captain, a competitive written examination was administered on or about November 21,2003 with the oral examination administered on or about December 14,2003 to all those eligible to compete. With respect to all of these examinations, the City contracted with and engaged the services of a professional corporation which employs personnel possessed of expertise in the field of formulation and administration of

9
LAw OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICur06510. TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 10 of 23

<>

competitive civil service employment examinations. The City expended the approximate

sum of$100,000.00 in payment of professional fees for such purpose and the examinations

were prepared upon input of city officials and fire department personnel. The form and

content of the examinations were approved by the defendants, who determined that the

examinations were appropriately related to the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to

competent performance of the duties of both positions.

28. Consistent with the Charter's mandate that promotions be based upon merit

and without regard to race or other improper factors, applicants participating in the

examination process were assigned an identification number and no other characteristics of

an examinee, including his/her race, age, gender or ethnicity, were made available or known

to the test administrators. On or about January 22, 2004, the scores achieved by all

examinees were reported to the defendants by reference to the identification number ofeach

exammee.

29. Upon information and belief the defendant Burgett, together with the City'S

Chief Examiner, Noelia Marcano, upon receipt of the scores from the test administrators,

proceeded to peruse through personnel files and other city documents for the purposes of

ascertaining the race and ethnicity of each applicant and labeling each applicant in

accordance with what they believed or suspected to be his/her race and ethnicity. The

defendant thereafter compiled another list of examinees identified only by assigned number

which indicated each individual's score and his/her race as perceived by defendants.

30. The aforesaid list was published and circulated among city officials. Upon

10
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· Tel.; (203) 865M 554I

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 11 of 23
<) review of the list, with its labeling of candidates on the basis of race, the defendants alleged that white firefighters were the top scorers in both competitive examinations. 31. The defendants herein, having been enjoined by a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court from further violations of the City Charter and the Rule of Three, were obligated by court order to promote employees in strict accordance with the Charter. With respect to the promotional examinations for the ranks of captain and lieutenant, compliance with the law and the Charter would have required the promotion. of the plaintiffs and/or consideration of them for promotion under the Rule of Three without regard to race, ethnicity or political opinion or affiliation. 32. Compliance with the Charter, and thus promotion of those deemed most fit based on merit, would have resulted in white and Hispanic firefighters being promoted first given the number of then-existing vacancies in the promotional ranks. The defendants thus embarked on a course ofconduct designed to avoid and/or evade compliance with their legal obligations. The defendants and each of them collaborated and conspired with one another to cause the City to discard the examination results and fail and refuse to establish an eligible list for promotion to the ranks of captain and lieutenant. 33. The defendant DeStefano was subjected to pressure and lobbying by leaders of New Haven's African-American community including, but not limited to, defendant Boise Kimber and certain minority members of the City'S Board of Aldermen. 34. The defendant Kimber is an African-American and a minister who leads a large congregation in the City ofNew Haven comprised largely of African-Americans. The 11
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL; (203) 865~5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 12 of 23

<>

defendant Kimber has long been active in Democratic Party politics and is a political ally

and operative for the defendant DeStefano. The defendant DeStefano values his relationship

with the defendant Kimber who has used his influence as a minister and civic leader to

swing support and blocs of votes in favor of defendant DeStefano in his successful mayoral

electoral campaigns. The defendant Kimber, angered that white firefighters would be
promoted, proclaimed that the Civil Service Board would certify the test results "over [his1

dead body" and proceeded to pressure the Mayor and lobby members of the Civil Service

Board with the aim of provoking the Board to violate the Charter and refuse to proceed with

promotions based on merit.

35. The defendant DeStefano not only has an interest in re-election to the office of Mayor but has disclosed publically his ambition to be elected Governor of the State of Connecticut. The defendant DeStefano feared that the City's compliance with the Charter and the promotion of firefighters based on merit and without regard to race and political association would engender the anger and retribution of leaders of the African-American community in New Haven and thus jeopardize his political standing and ambition. Defendant DeStefano feared that promotions in the fire department in accordance with the law and free from race-based discrimination and political influence-peddling would result in a withdrawal of political support by the defendant Kimber and other leaders of the African-American community in New Haven.
36. Well aware that his intended course of action was unlawful and wishing to appear neutral and uninvolved, the defendant DeStefano delegated to the other individual

12
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 13 of 23
defendants, in particular defendants Dubois-Walton and Ude, the task ofcausing the City to engage in the acts and omissions complained of. Defendant DeStefano knew that his authority and influence, exerted surreptitiously and through his political appointees and subordinates, would achieve the desired result.
37. As part of their plan to evade compliance with the Charter and violate the rights of the plaintiffs by denying them justly earned promotions, the defendants first attempted to concoct a pretext under which they could deny promotions to the plaintiffs by discarding the examination results for a seemingly legitimate reason. Toward this end, defendants attempted unsuccessfully to solicit evidence of irregularities and/or cheating during the examination process. No evidence whatever existed, however, to support such a claim and the defendants thereafter sought to concoct other seemingly valid reasons to discard the test results, among them a suggestion that one or more minority firefighters who competed in the examinations was deprived ofaccess to necessary information and/or study materials pertinent to the test by the act or failure of a city official or agent. When the defendants understood that such claim was likewise invalid, defendants resorted to behindthe-scenes lobbying and exertion of political pressure on the members of the Civil Service Board for the purpose of influencing the Board to engage in the unlawful acts complained of.
38. The defendant Ude, at the direction and with the approval of Defendant DeStefano, proceeded to collaborate with defendants Burgett and Dubois-Walton to influence and provoke the Civil Service Board to violate the Charter, the state and federal
13
LLAAWW OOFFFFIICCEESS OOFF KKAARREENN LLEEEE TTOORRRREE.· 5511 EELLMM SSTTRREEEETT,, SSUUIITTee 330077,, NNEEWW HHAAVVEENN,, CCOONNNNEECCTTllccuurr0066SSIIOO··TTEELL:: ((220033)) 886655--55554411

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 14 of 23

<>

constitutions, and state and federal law prohibiting race discrimination in employment and

adverse employment actions on account of political expression and affiliation.

39. The defendant Ude made public remarks to the Board and the broadcast and

print media which were designed to intimidate and influence the politically appointed

members of the Civil Service Board, comments that were insulting and inflammatory and

designed to make Board members afraid to discharge their legal obligation under fear of

being labeled by City officials and others as "bigots".

40. The defendants Ude, Dubois-Walton and Burgett, acting at the direction of

the Mayor and pursuant to the Mayor's policy, further proceeded to communicate and

conspire to devise a strategy to produce the results desired by the Mayor which was a refusal

by the Board to carry out its duty to establish an eligible list and permit promotions to be

made. Through e-mail communications and surreptitious meetings, the defendants Ude,

Dubois-Walton and Burgett conspired and acted to cause the City to refuse to establish an

eligible list and thus prevent the plaintiffs from receiving promotions to which they were

lawfully entitled. Defendants acted covertly in a manner designed to disguise the fact that

the defendant DeStefano had dictated such course of action with the unlawful aims of

discriminating against employees on the basis of race and rewarding with promotions those

firefighters who are constituents of African-American leaders, friends or relatives of the

Mayor's political supporters and contributors, and friends or relatives of certain members of

the City'S Board of Aldermen.

41. Defendants thereafter engaged the services of several professionals and/or

14

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 5 I ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 15 of 23

<)

academics for the alleged purpose of reviewing the examinations and offering an opinion as

to their fairness. The defendant Burgett attempted improperly to influence these

professionals in advance oftheir formulation of an opinion by providing them with selected

media reports and publications which she hoped would persuade the professionals to offer

an opinion upon which the City may justify a refusal to certify the examination results. To

the defendants' disappointment, however, none ofthese individuals offered an opinion that

the examinations were not pertinent to the duties and responsibilities of the promotional

positions or were otherwise unfair. The defendants also arranged for the personal appearance

before the Civil Service Board of a representative of the firm which devised and

administered the examinations who, in an extensive presentation to the Board, assured board

members that the subject matter and content ofthe examinations were appropriate and the

testing process fair to all who competed.

42. Despite all of the above facts, on or about March 18,2004, the defendants, acting through the members of the Civil Service Board, opted to discard the examination results and refuse to establish an eligible list. As a result, none of the plaintiffs will be promoted or considered for promotion.
43. On diverse dates from January 22, 2004 until the date ofthe commencement of this action, the plaintiffs demanded disclosure of their individual scores for the purpose of determining their relative positions and ranks on the eligible list required by the Charter and the rules ofthe Board. Believing that their civil and constitutional rights were violated by the defendants, each plaintiff further wished to determine his standing to commence an

15

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 16 of 23

<>

administrative proceeding and/or civil action to redress his injuries.

44. The defendants were aware that those whose rights were violated and who

suffered injury on account of defendants' unlawful acts would possess and may pursue

causes of action as to which applicable statutes of limitation would require the plaintiffs to

act promptly or suffer foreclosure of their rights.

45. The defendants aimed to thwart any scrutiny oftheir conduct in relation to the examination scores. Defendants further aimed to keep the plaintiffs in a state of uncertainty and confusion regarding their performance in the examinations and the extent to which their rights were violated by defendants. With ill motive, defendants conspired unlawfully to deny plaintiffs access to information regarding their scores with the foreknowledge that said conduct would impede plaintiffs' ability to ascertain their rights and commence an administrative or civil proceeding to vindicate such rights.
46. Although the Charter, Civil Service Board rules and City policies allowed for the right of the plaintiffs to disclosure of their scores and despite the fact that the city and its officials had previously been admonished by state authorities for unlawfully refusing employees access to their examination scores, the defendants maliciously deprived and continue to deprive the plaintiffs ofthis information for the purpose of causing the plaintiffs to suffer distress and for the further unlawful purpose of frustrating and impeding plaintiffs' access to the agencies and courts of the State of Connecticut for redress of their injuries.
47. Each ofthe plaintiffs had an absolute right protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by article first, section 4 of the Constitution of the

16

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865 M 5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 17 of 23

<>

State of Connecticut to choose not to be a political supporter ofthe defendant DeStefano, to

refrain from activities on behalfof the Democratic Party in New Haven and to refrain from

association with those whose manage and support the defendant DeStefano's campaigns for

political office.

48. Each of the plaintiffs have the right under the Charter of the City of New Haven to promotion, opportunities and consideration for promotion on the basis ofmerit and free from favoritism and discrimination on the basis of their race, ethnicity or political association or affiliation.

49. By the acts and omissions of the defendants as complained of herein, the plaintiffs were deprived oftheir right to equal protection ofthe laws and equal privileges as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
50. By the acts and omissions of the defendants as aforedescribed, the plaintiffs and each of them were deprived of their property interests without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
51. By the acts and omissions aforedescribed, the defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

52. By the acts and omissions aforedescribed, the defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights to freedom of association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
53. By the acts and omissions aforedescribed, the defendants violated the

17

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 18 of 23
(> plaintiffs' rights to freedom of expression as guaranteed by article first, section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut. 54. Each ofthe acts and omissions ofthe defendants as aforedescribed constituted intentional, extreme and outrageous conduct which defendants knew was likely to cause the plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress. As a direct and proximate result ofdefendants' tortious conduct, the plaintiffs and each of them suffered severe emotional distress. 55. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendants and each ofthem acted willfully and intentionally and/or with reckless disregard of whether their conduct violated the plaintiffs' civil and constitutional rights. 56. In the manner aforedescribed, the defendants and each of them violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to the injury of the plaintiffs. 57. The defendants conspired with one another to violate the civil and constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and in so doing violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985 to the injury of the plaintiffs. 58. At all times relevant to this complaint, each defendant had the duty to intervene and prevent another defendant from engaging in the unlawful acts and omissions complained of herein. Each defendant failed to discharge this duty to the injury of the plaintiffs. 59. The aforedescribed acts and omissions of the defendants were committed pursuant to and as a part ofan official policy, custom and practice established by the City of New Haven with the purpose and effect of depriving the plaintiffs and others similarly 18
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 19 of 23

<>

situated the aforesaid civil and constitutional rights on the unlawful bases of race, ethnicity,

expression, association and political affiliation. As a direct and proximate result of the

official policy and practices ofthe City ofNew Haven as complained ofherein, the plaintiffs

and each of them have suffered injury.

60. The defendant City of New Haven is an employer and covered entity within the meaning of42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). At all times, the City was prohibited by Title VII from failing or refusing to promote or otherwise discriminating against any of the plaintiffs with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because ofsuch individual's race or national origin.
61. The plaintiffs herein have complied with all administrative prerequisites to suit under Title VII by the timely filing of administrative complaints with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO") and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission ("EEOC"), by receipt of a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC through the United States Department of Justice and the bringing of this cause of action in the United States District Court within ninety (90) days of their receipt thereof.
62. By the aforesaid acts and omissions complained of, the City of New Haven, in depriving the plaintiffs ofpromotions and opportunities for promotions on account oftheir race, violated the plaintiffs' rights to be free from discrimination in employment on account of their race and/or national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(J), (2), and 3(b). In further violation of said provisions of Title VII, the City ofNew Haven has also engaged in a practice by which it knowingly permits the skewing of assessments and scoring on the

19

LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 20 of 23
oral component ofthe examination process in favor of African-American candidates and in disfavor of white candidates. The conduct ofthe City in this respect has resulted in an overall depression of examination scores for white candidates undergoing oral examination in contradiction to their actual examination performance, which thus serves to dilute the white candidates' chances for promotion.
63. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendants as afore-described the plaintiffs suffered the following injuries, including, but not limited to:
a. Denial of promotion; b. Denial of fair consideration for promotion; c. Denial of opportunities for promotion; d. Loss of income, pension accruals and other benefits attendant to
promotion; e. Loss of money and time expended in connection with preparation for
and participation in the examinations; f. Inconvenience, annoyance, burden and time away from family and
leisure activities associated with unsuccessful efforts to secure defendants' compliance with the law and their right to disclosure of their examination scores; g. Damage to their careers and standing in their profession; h. Impeded and foreclosed opportunities for further promotion to higher ranks ofthe New Haven Fire Department;
20
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITI, 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEL: (203) 865-5541
\------------------------------------------

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 21 of 23

1.

Severe emotional distress, anxiety and upset;

J.

Other intangible injuries associated with the violation of their civil

and constitutional rights.

Where/ore, the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants and each ofthem and further relief as follows:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount which ajury shall determine to be just and reasonable;

b. Punitive damages in an amount which a jury shall determine to be just and reasonable;

c. Reasonable counsel fees and the costs ofthis action;

d. A declaratory judgment declaring the challenged practices unlawful

and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from persisting

in the challenged practices;

e. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

f.

Such further relief as law and equity may afford.

21
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 El.M STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEl.: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 22 of 23
<>
THE PLAINTIFFS,
Law Offices of Karen Lee Torre 51 Elm Street, Suite 307 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Tel. (203) 865-5541 Fax: (203) 865-4844 Their Attorney CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, on this 30th day of March, 2005, to: Richard A. Roberts, Esq. Nuzzo & Roberts, LLC One Town Center P.O. Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410
22
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN LEE TORRE· 51 ELM STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510· TEl.: (203) 865-5541

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 29 Filed 05/26/05 Page 23 of 23

<>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANK RICCI, MICHAEL BLATCHLEY, GREG BOIVIN, GARY CARBONE, MICHAEL CHRISTOFORO, RYAN DIVITO, STEVEN DURAND, WILLIAM GAMBARDELLA, BRIAN JOSS, JAMES KOTTAGE, MATTHEW MARCARELLI, THOMAS J. MICHAELS, SEAN PATTON, CHRISTOPHER PARKER, EDWARD RIORDON, KEVIN ROXBEE, TIMOTHY SCANLON, BENJAMIN VARGAS, JOHN VENDETTO AND MARK VENDETTO
Plaintiffs,
V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CVOII09 (MRK)
March 30, 2005

JOHN DESTEFANO, KAREN DUBOISWALTON, THOMAS UDE, JR., TINA BURGETT, BOISE KIMBER, MALCOLM WEBER, ZELMA TIRADO AND THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN,
Defendants.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues.

TIlli~?2

BY:

P'

42.&<.---

Itlrel1Le Torre (ct#01707

Law Offices of Karen Lee Torre

51 Elm Street, Suite 307

New Haven, Connecticut 06510

Tel. (203) 865-5541

Fax: (203) 865-4844

Their Attorney

23

LAW OffiCES OF KAREN LEE TORRE. 51 Eu,1 STREET, SUITE 307, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 065 lO • TEL: (203) 865-5541

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 35 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANK RICCI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN DESTEFANO, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

NO. 3:04cv1109 (MRK)

:

:

:

:

:

:

RULING AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Protective Order [doc. #34]. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [doc. #31] and Motion for Protective Order [doc. #30] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

Mark R. Kravitz

Mark R. Kravitz

United States District Judge

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: June 28, 2005.

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

------------------------------------------------------------x
FRAN K RICCI, ET AL.
plaintiffs

v.

NO: 3:04-CV-l109 (MRK)

JOHN DESTEFANO, JR., ET AL. defendants
-----.-----------------------------------------------------x

AUGUST 29, 2005

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Admit that this is a civil action which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief

and damages. Admit that the action alleges a deprivation by defendants of certain rights

but deny that any such deprivation occurred. Admit that the plaintiffs are all firefighters

employed by the City of New Haven but deny all other allegations of paragraph 1.

I

Admit.

J. Admit.

4. Admit.

5. As to that portion of paragraph 5 which states, "At all times relevant to this

complaint, the defendant Karen Dubois-Walton was the Chief Administrative Officer of

the City of New Haven" and "The defendant Dubois-Walton is a political appointee of the

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 9
Mayor, reports directly to the defendant DeStefano ... by carrymg out the Mayor's policies, political agenda and municipal policies." is admitted. As to the rest and remaining portion of paragraph 5, it is denied. It is further admitted that Karen Dubois-Walton had supervisory responsibility over six city departments.
6. Admit. 7 Admit the first sentence. Admit that in his position as Corporation Counsel, defendant Ude has general overall responsibility for management of the City's legal office and has such further responsibilities as are set forth and described in Section 18 of the City Charter and otherwise deny the remaining allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with those duties. 8. Admit the first sentence. Admit that defendant Burgett as Personnel Director has the powers and duties as set forth and described in Section 166 of the City Charter and otherwise deny the remaining allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with those duties. 9. Admit. 10. Admit the first sentence, admit that defendant DeStefano appointed defendant Kimber to the Board of Fire Commissioners and that defendant Kimber served as that Board's Chair and deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph.
-2 -

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 3 of 9
J 1. Admit the first sentence and admit that the City was and is the employer of the plaintiffs, and deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph as alleged.
12. Deny. 13. Admit the first sentence. Admit, upon information and belief, the plaintiffs' self described ethnicity and that the majority of plaintiffs live outside the boundaries of the City. The remaining allegations are vague in that the terms "political constituency" and "source of political support" are not clear and thus defendants neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations but leave the plaintiffs to their proof. 14. Admit, except note that the Charter is not the only law that governs the City of New Haven and that the Charter states which officials are required to carry out its prov ISlons. 15. Admit and refer to the actual charter for its scope. 16. Admit that the charter provides for a merit based system for promotion of municipal employees in the classified service and refer to the actual Charter for the scope and limits of such system. 17. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs' paraphrasing of the Charter. I 8. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs' paraphrasing of the Charter.
-3-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 4 of 9
19. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs' paraphrasing of the Charter.
20. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs' paraphrasing of the Charter.
21. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs' paraphrasing of the Charter.
22. Deny. 23. Admit that there were civil actions challenging the City's interpretation of the Rule of Three but deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph. 24. Admit. 25. Admit. 26. The defendants have insufficient direct knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph and thus leave the plaintiffs to their proof. 27. Admit the first four sentences. Deny the fifth and sixth sentences. 28. Deny. 29. Deny. 30. Deny as stated, but admit that two lists with preliminary scores from the tests that identified race and ethnicity for purposes of evaluating adverse impact
-4-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 5 of 9
circulated among some City officials, and admit that those preliminary lists showed that the top scorers in both examinations were white.
31. Deny. 32. Deny. 33. Deny. 34. Admit the first sentence. Admit the second sentence except deny the term "operative". Admit the third sentence except deny that defendant Kimber can control how anyone other than he himself votes. Deny the fourth sentence. 35. Admit the first sentence. Deny the second sentence. Deny the third sentence. 36. Deny. 37. Deny. 38. Deny. 39. Deny. 40. Deny. 41. Admit that several experts were solicited for their opmIOns concernmg certain aspects of the examinations but deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph. 42. Admit that on or about March 18, 2004 a motion before the Civil Service Board to certify promotional lists to be generated through the tests did not pass. Deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph.
-5-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 6 of 9
43. With regard to the first sentence, admit that some of the plaintiffs sought disclosure of their individual scores but deny the remaining allegations. With regard to the second sentence defendants can neither admit nor deny the state of mind of the plaintiffs and leave them to their proof.
44. Deny. 45. Deny. 46. Deny. 47. Admit. 48. Deny as stated. State that the provisions of the Charter speak for themselves and therefore neither admit nor deny the plaintiffs' paraphrasing of the Charter. 49. Deny. 50. Deny. 51. Deny. 52. Deny. 53. Deny. 54. Deny. 55. Deny. 56. Deny. 57. Deny
-6-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 7 of 9
58. Deny. 59. Deny. 60. Admit. 61. The defendants have insufficient direct knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph and thus leave the plaintiffs to their proof. 62. Deny. 63. Deny. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The actions and inactions of the defendants were mandated by federal law and thus any state law claims of the plaintiffs are preempted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The matter is not yet ripe. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The individual defendants are absolutely immune from suit for the actions alleged in the complaint.
-7-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 8 of 9
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The individual defendants are qualifiedly immune from suit for the actions and
inactions alleged in the complaint. THE DEFENDANTS JOHN DESTEFANO, ET AL.
d By.,". 1~W~~//./~
Richard A. Roberts Federal Bar No: ct 07665 Nicole C. Chomiak Federal Bar No: ct 18547 NUZZO & ROBERTS, L.L.C. One Town Center P.O. Box 747 Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 Tel: (203) 250-2000 Fax: (203) 250-3131 rroberts@nuzzo-roberts.com nchomiak(G)nuzzo-roberts.com
-8-

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on August 29,2005 a true copy of the foregoing Answer and Special Defenses was sent via first class postage prepaid mail to:
Karen Lee Torre, Esquire 51 Elm Street, Suite 307 I\e\\ Haven, CT 06510
Hugh F. Murray III, Esquire Murtha Cullina, LLP Cityplace I, 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103-3469
Theresa M. Waugh, Esquire Murtha Cullina, LLP Whitney Grove Square 2 Whitney Ave PO Box 704-A New Haven, CT 06503

II' IIULC<' III' 41110112'2S9\Answcr08 29 OS.DOC

Ricifard A. Roberts Federal Bar No: ct 07665 NUZZO & ROBERTS, L.L.C. One Town Center P.O. Box 747 Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 Tel: (203) 250-2000 Fax: (203) 250-3131 rroberts@nuzzo-roberts.com

-9-

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 75 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 1
!Caw &'flced 0/
KAREN LEE TORRE
Telephone - (203) 865-5541 Facsimile - (203) 865-4844
--.

Mr. Keuneth Ghilardi Deputy Clerk, United States District Court 141 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510

..C) ':'.~;:: -\'

-

:.;:d

-·-1

j?,....,.....·\i
,;~,..d

~ ~ Re: Frank Ricci v. John DeStefano. Docket No: 3:04CVOl109 (MRK)

~ Dear Mr. Ghilardi:

~ ~ This is a follow-up to our teleconference of this morning regarding the above-captioned case. As , I indicated, pursuant to a teleconference this morning between Court and counsel, it was agreed

that until such time as there may be a further order ofthe Court, certain identified material in the

~ .'"

cQurt~ecord needs to be placed under seal.

.

.

~ On December 19. 2005, plaintiffs submitted to the Clerk's Office six bound volumes of exhibits.

~. Volumes III and VI were filed under seal at that time. I should a~preciate your checking to

'. ~nsure that both these volumes have been segregated and sealed III case one or more clerks

overlooked the notice contained on the covers of the volumes.

In the wake ofthis morning's conference, Volume V of the Plaintiffs' Exhibits now needs to be 'sealed. In addition, Exhibit 43 of Volume I needs to be sealed. To facilitate this, you will find ,enclosed a sealed envelope containing Exhibit 43. I will appear at the Clerk's Office today for the purpose of removing Exhibit 43 from Volume I on record in the Clerk's Office.

I thank you for your attention and cooperation in this matter.
~ours,_
I Karen Lee Torre

KLT:db Enclosure cc: Chambers, Hon. Mark R. Kravitz (w/o encs.)
Richard A. Roberts, Esq. (w/o encs.)

- --'---~

--,--=:.=." --::.-=='---=-:::.:.~~",,~~~~~.-,,-~~~-=-,~~~~~.::::'"-- -- -
.. =--- - -~~==--- -=- ----= '> -- --"- '--= --"~ '-~- -~-~ -.--~ -=c~ _ ~-

- -O_-~

." -=--=:.=." --:::=,-:..=-:::.:.~~",,~~~~~.-,,-~~~-=-,~~~~~.::::'"-- -- -

- -- - -- - -~ -~ ':';0- o-;;-~~-<:-~"'~-~MT~r~f~-tiW~-~'-i~iilii¥"~~-tt~~~~ili);:~t~~-~,"'"~~----.t",-_--&-o--&__.!'".____",,_. "".•_...._

.. - -~~=-= -- =--- -=- ---= '" .- ---- <,-= ---"~ '-~- -~~ --~ .--~ -=c_~ ~-.- .-:=---,,_:

- - _c-~ ~--. ~--~ ~'. ~~--.i.~"'- '- - -~~~-io-i~~~~~~~~l'..~a,.'-vi:%~~~"il~:$~~~'<?.:

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 133 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANK RICCI, MICHAEL BLATCHLEY, GREG BIOVIN, GARY CARBONE, MICHAEL CHRISTOFORO, RYAN DIVITO, STEVEN DURAND, WILLIAM GAMBARDELLA, BRIAN JOOSS, JAMES KOTTAGE, MATTHEW MARCARELLI, THOMAS J. MICHAELS, SEAN PATTON, CHRISTOPHER PARKER, EDWARD RIORDON, KEVIN ROXBEE, TIMOTHY SCANLON, BENJAMIN VARGAS, JOHN VENDETTO AND MARK VENDETTO

v.

Civil No. 3:04 cv 1109 (JBA)

JOHN DESTEFANO, KAREN DUBOIS-WALTON, THOMAS UDE, JR., TINA BURGETT, BOISE KIMBER, MALCOLM WEBER, ZELMA TIRADO AND THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN

JUDGMENT This matter came on for consideration on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment before the Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge. The Court has reviewed all of the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and on September 28, 2006, entered a Ruling on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment granting the relief.

EOD:

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 133 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2
It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment is entered for the defendants and the case is closed.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 29the day of September, 2006.
KEVIN F. ROWE, CLERK By /s/ Patricia A. Villano Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 377 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

WILLIAM GAMBARDELLA
V.
JOHN DeSTEFANO, JR. CITY OF NEW HAVEN KAREN DuBOIS-WALTON THOMAS UDE, JR. TINA BURGETT BOISE KIMBER MALCOLM WEBBER ZELMA TIRADO

CIVIL NO. 3:04cv1109(JBA)

AMENDED JUDGMENT

This cause came on remand from the Second Circuit, before the Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. On July 20, 2011, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants John DeStefano, Jr., Karen DuBois-Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr., Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Webber, Zelma Tirado, and the City of New Haven made an Offer of Judgment to the plaintiff William Gambardella. On July 27, 2011, plaintiff Gambardella filed notice of his unconditional acceptance of said offer.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff William Gambardella against defendants John DeStefano, Jr., Karen DuBois-Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr., Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Webber, Zelma Tirado, and the City of New Haven in full and final satisfaction of on any and all claims brought in this lawsuit, including but not limited to claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1985 and Connecticut state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and any and all claims for monetary damages and/or any other form of relief.
The defendants shall pay the total sum of $100,679.66 in cash, plus additional pension benefits of substantial value; of said total cash sum, $40,271.86 will be payable by August 31, 2011 and $60,407.80 will be payable by August 31, 2012. Upon retirement additional benefits as stated; back pay of $16,859.15; interest on back pay of $1,553.66; as to any tax ramifications of the back pay award, an award of a gross-up payment of $5,000.00. As to any other claims for monetary damages

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 377 Filed 08/01/11 Page 2 of 2

and/or any other form of relief except attorney fees and costs, awarded $77,266.85 and three (3) years additional service with the New Haven Department of Fire Services (NHFD) for pension purposes, as described in the Offers of Judgment.

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 1st day of August, 2011.

EOD_____________

Robin D. Tabora, Clerk

______/s/_______________ Betty J. Torday Deputy Clerk

 
 United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT

D. Conn. 04-cv-1109 Arterton, J.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of June, two thousand eleven,

Present:

Roger J. Miner, Gerard E. Lynch, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.,
Circuit Judges.

Frank Ricci, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

John DeStefano, et al.,

Respondents.

11-703-op

Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to reinstate certain of their claims below and directing the reassignment of the case to a different district judge. However, Petitioners have not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances warrant the requeste d relief, see In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir. 1987), because, as is ge nerally true of plaintiffs som e of whose causes of action have been dismissed while others proceed to trial, their ability to appeal from the final judgment in the c ase is an adequate re medy. Accordingly, is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED. It is ufrther ORDERED that Petitioners’ motion to stay the district court proceedings pending resolution of the mandamus petition is DENIED as moot.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

SAO-JJ

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANK RICCI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN DESTEFANO, et al., Defendants.

: : : : Civil No. 3:04cv1109 (JBA) : : :

RULING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOCS. ## 52, 60]
In March 2004 the New Haven Civil Service Board (“CSB”) refused to certify the results of two promotional exams for the positions of Lieutenant and Captain in the New Haven Fire Department. This lawsuit arises from the circumstances leading to that decision and its consequences.
Plaintiffs are seventeen white candidates and one Hispanic candidate who took the promotional exams, on which they fared very well, but received no promotion because without the CSB’s certification of the test results, the promotional process could not proceed. Defendants are the City of New Haven, Mayor John DeStefano, Chief Administrative Officer Karen Dubois-Walton, Corporation Counsel Thomas Ude, Director of Personnel Tina Burgett, and the two members of the CSB, Malcolm Weber and Zelma Tirado, who voted against certification. Plaintiffs assert that defendants’ actions in voting or arguing against certification of the examination results violated their rights under Title VII of

1

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 48
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985; plaintiffs also allege a common law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment on the Title VII and Equal Protection claims, and defendants additionally move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ other claims.
For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 52] will be granted as to plaintiffs’ federal claims; plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 60] will be denied; and the Court will decline jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim.1 I. Factual Background
While the parties strenuously dispute the relevance and legal import of, and inferences to be drawn from, many aspects of this case, the underlying facts are largely undisputed. In November and December 2003, the New Haven Fire Department administered written and oral examinations for promotion to Lieutenant and Captain. The City’s Department of Human Resources issued a Request for Proposal for these examinations, as a result of which I/O Solutions (“IOS”), a seven-year-old Illinois company that specializes in entry-level and promotional examinations for
1Defendants also moved to strike portions of plaintiffs’ Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement, which motion was denied. See Ruling Denying Motion to Strike [Doc. # 130].
2

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 48
public safety (police and fire) departments, designed the examinations. Pl. Ex. IV(C) at 8. Under the contract between the City and the New Haven firefighters’ union, the written exam result counted for 60% of an applicant’s score and the oral exam for 40%. Those with a total score above 70% on the exam would pass.
Forty-one applicants took the Captain exam, of whom 25 were white, 8 black, and 8 Hispanic. Twenty-two of those applicants passed, of whom 16 were white, 3 black, and 3 Hispanic. Pl. Ex. Vol. I, at 43. Given that there were 7 Captain vacancies in the department when the tests were administered, and that the “Rule of Three” in the City Charter mandates that a civil service position be filled from among the three individuals with the highest scores on the exam, it appeared at that time that no blacks and at most two Hispanics would be eligible for promotion, as the top 9 scorers included 7 whites and 2 Hispanics.2
Seventy-seven applicants took the Lieutenant exam, of whom 43 were white, 19 black, and 15 Hispanic. Thirty-four passed, of whom 25 were white, 6 black and 3 Hispanic. Id. There were 8 vacancies, but because all of the top 10 scorers were white, it appeared that no blacks or Hispanics would be promoted.3
2Hispanics ranked 7, 8 and 13; blacks ranked 16, 19 and 22. Pl. Ex. Vol. I, at 43.
3Hispanics ranked 27, 28 and 31; blacks ranked 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, and 24. Pl. Ex. Vol. I, 43.
3

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 48
Certified promotional lists remain valid for two years. The CSB held five hearings between January and March 2004 on
the issue of whether to certify the test results. The issue appears to have been raised by New Haven’s Corporation Counsel, Thomas Ude. At the initial hearing on January 22, 2004, Mr. Ude characterized the exam results as “a very significant disparate impact . . . that caused us to think this was something we should bring to you, the Civil Service Board, to evaluate and to be part of and to ultimately make a decision about the process.” Pl. Ex. Vol. IV(A) at 32. While it is disputed whether Mr. Ude already had made up his mind to advise the CSB against certifying the results, his comments “emphasize[d] . . . that the case law does not require that the City find that the test is indefensible in order to take action that it believes is appropriate to remedy . . . disparate impact from examination.” Id. at 34-35. He advised that “federal law does not require that you [the CSB] make a finding that this test . . . was not job-related, which is another way of saying it wasn’t fair. A test can be job-related and have a disparate impact on an ethnic group and still be rejected because there are less discriminatory alternatives for the selection process.” Id. at 36.
During the hearings, the tests results were not released by name, and therefore none of the firefighters knew where they had placed. The only information provided to the CSB and the public,
4

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 5 of 48
including plaintiffs, was the scores by race and gender. Nonetheless, several firefighters, although they did not know where they had placed, spoke in favor of certifying the results. Plaintiff Frank Ricci stated that the questions on the test were drawn from “nationally recognized” books and New Haven’s own Rules and Regulations and Standard Operating Procedures. Pl. Ex. Vol. IV(A) at 88. He stated that he “studied 8 to 13 hours a day to prepare for this test and incurred over $1,000 in funds [sic] to study for this test,” including purchasing the books and paying an acquaintance to read them on tape because he is dyslexic and learns better by listening. Other firefighters, who believed the tests were fair, also spoke in support of the certifying the results. See, e.g., Testimony of Michael Blatchley, id. at 75 (“[N]one of those questions were not in that study material. Every one of those questions came from the material.”).
During the first hearing, the CSB also took statements from several New Haven firefighters who complained that some of the questions were not relevant to knowledge or skills necessary for the positions (see, e.g., Statement of James Watson, id. at 85 (“I think this test was unfair. We don’t use a lot of things that were on that test” such as whether to park a firetruck facing “uptown” or “downtown”)), or that the study materials were difficult to obtain (see Testimony of Gary Kinney, id. at 77
5

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 6 of 48
(“The only books that most of us had in front of us in the fire houses were Essentials of Fire Fighting. . . . [T]hese books [on the syllabus] were never in the fire houses.”)).
At the second hearing on February 5, Patrick Egan, president of the firefighters’ union, urged the CSB to conduct a validation study to determine the job-relatedness of the test, referring generally, although not by name, to the EEOC’s “Uniform Guidelines of Employee Selection Procedures.” Pl. Ex. Vol. IV(B) at 11-12. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the present case also spoke and urged certification.
On the other side, Donald Day, a representative of the Northeast Region of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters, argued against certification, stating that previous promotional examinations in 1996 and 1999 had black and Latino firefighters ranked sufficiently high to have a realistic opportunity for promotion, whereas “there was something inherently wrong with this test” because minorities did not score as highly. Id. at 33-34. He suggested that the CSB speak with the director of the civil service in Bridgeport “to find out what Bridgeport is doing different [sic] than New Haven,” as they have more diversity in their firefighter ranks. Id. at 35. In particular, he stated that Bridgeport had “changed the relative weights” among the portions of the exam, such that the written test counts for 30% of the total score, the oral test for 65%,
6

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 7 of 48
and seniority 5%. Id. at 36-37. Ronald Mackey, the Internal Affairs Officer for the Northeast Region of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters, supported Patrick Egan’s suggestion of obtaining a validation study, and also suggested that New Haven could “adjust the test” as Bridgeport had done, in order to “meet the criteria of having a certain amount of minorities get elevated to the rank of Lieutenant and Captain.” Id. at 43-45.
On February 11, 2004, the CSB heard from Chad Legel, Vice President of IOS, who was the “project manager” in charge of developing the exams at issue. He stated that IOS had prepared “both an entry-level exam and a physical ability test for the firefighter position” in New Haven, but had not previously prepared a New Haven promotional exam. Id. at 10. However, in recent years his company had worked with similarly-sized public safety departments with demographics similar to New Haven, including Lansing, Michigan, Orange County, Florida, and the North Miami Police Department, among others. Id. at 9.
Legel described the way in which the test was developed. First, the company interviewed a random sample of current New Haven Fire Department Lieutenants, Captains and Battalion Chiefs to determine basic information concerning the structure of the department, the tasks required of individuals at each rank, and the materials the department generally utilizes for training.
7

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 8 of 48
Based on the interviews, IOS developed a written job analysis questionnaire (“JAQ”) that asked all incumbents in the positions of Lieutenant and Captain “to provide information about how important they feel a specific task, knowledge area, skill or ability is. . . .” Id. at 17. The JAQ asked how important each task was to successful performance on the job and how frequently it was necessary to perform it. Importance and frequency were merged into a metric called “criticality or essentiality.” Id. at 19. Tasks above a certain criticality threshold were designated for testing on the written and oral portions of the exam. In response to the question of whether he has generally found a difference between information tested in various departments “based on the racial content of the city and the force,” Legel stated, “definitely no.” Id. at 21. The one difference among the New Haven firefighters of similar rank that Legel noted was different levels of training in certain specialized fields such as hazardous materials; such variation “throws up a red flag” indicating that IOS should not ask “highlevel questions about hazardous materials. . . .” Id. at 22.
Legal further stated that all the questions were firmly rooted in the study materials on the syllabus, which was distributed with the promotion applications. See Def. Ex. 16 (“Written Examination Reference List”). Once the test was completed, an “independent reviewer,” a Battalion Chief from the
8

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 9 of 48
Cobb County, Georgia, Fire Department, “reviewed the written exam for content and fidelity to the source material.” Pl. Ex. Vol. IV(B) at 24-25. Another independent reviewer, a retired Fire Chief from outside Connecticut, reviewed the oral exam questions. Id. at 26. IOS refrained from utilizing reviewers from Connecticut because the RFP had specified that examiners must come from outside Connecticut, due to concerns that utilizing internal personnel could potentially facilitate cheating on the test.
Likewise, IOS selected the panelists for the oral examination panels from departments outside Connecticut, making an effort “to gain maximum diversity.” Id. at 32. All but one panel had one African-American, one Hispanic and one white assessor, and a standby panel had two African-Americans and one white. Id. The assessors were trained on how to grade the oral exam scenarios consistently, utilizing checklists of desired criteria. Each panelist also held at least an equal rank (if not superior) to the position being tested, in order to be able to identify an answer that was good but not quite the best answer outlined in the checklist. Id. at 33-34, 37.
Legel concluded by “implor[ing] anyone that had . . . concerns [about disparate impact] to review the content of the exam. In my professional opinion, it’s facially neutral.” Id. at 49.
9

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 10 of 48
Noelia Marcano, Chief Examiner for the City of New Haven and Secretary to the CSB, explained the process by which the RFP was developed and IOS chosen. She further explained that the job applications for the Lieutenant and Captain positions contained a job description, employment application, and “the actual study list in final form,” and that when questions arose concerning conflicting information in some of the study books, IOS sent a letter to all applicants that they would not be asked questions on material where the sources differed. Id. at 78.
At the next hearing on March 11, 2004, the CSB heard from Christopher Hornick, Ph.D., an industrial/organizational psychologist from Texas who runs a consulting business in competition with IOS.4 See Pl. Ex. Vol. IV(D) at 7, 12. Dr. Hornick stated that he had “not had time to study the test at length or in detail.” Id. at 13. However, he reviewed statistics provided by the City and concluded that “we’re seeing relatively high adverse impact” from the IOS tests. Id. at 11. He opined that his company finds “significantly and dramatically less adverse impact in most of the test procedures that we
4Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Hornick’s non-sworn, hearsay statement at the CSB hearing is inadmissible as non-disclosed expert evidence. Plaintiffs’ argument is rejected because defendants proffer Dr. Hornick’s not for the truth of his conclusion that the tests had a racially disparate impact, but to show that defendants had a good faith belief, based in part on Dr. Hornick’s testimony, that such a disparate impact existed and justified the decision not to certify the exams.
10

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 11 of 48
design.” Id. at 12. He stated: Normally, whites outperform ethnic minorities on the majority of standardized testing procedures. That is, in fact, the case with the data that we’ve seen in New Haven. I’m a little surprised at how much adverse impact there is in these tests. And I hope at some point here we’ll be talking in detail about that. But my conclusion is that we did have significant adverse impact. Some of it is fairly typical of what we’ve seen in other areas of the countries (sic) and other tests that people have developed. But in other ways it is somewhat worse than what we’re typically seeing in the profession practiced by others.
Id. at 11-12. Dr. Hornick acknowledged that he had not looked at specific statistics from previous promotional examinations in New Haven to compare their results with the 2003 exam results. Id. at 14.
When asked about the reasons behind any possible disparate impact, Dr. Hornick answered, “I’m not sure that I can explain it,” but suggested that perhaps the 60%/40% breakdown mandated by the collective bargaining agreement could be responsible, and further suggested that there were “perhaps different types of testing procedures that are much more valid in terms of identifying the best potential supervisors in your fire department.” Id. at 15. He stated that based on his interviews with firefighters, “we know that” a written test is “not as valid as other procedures that exist.” Id. at 16. He also suggested that “[b]y not having anyone from within the department review the items [on the test] you inevitably get things in there” that
11

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 12 of 48
are not relevant to the specific department. Id. at 17-18. Finally, Dr. Hornick identified as an alternative to traditional written and oral testing processes “an assessment center process, which is essentially an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their knowledge of the . . . standard operating procedures, to demonstrate how they would address a particular problem as opposed to just verbally saying it or identifying the correct option on a written test. For example, there’s concepts of situation judgment tests that can be developed and designed, customized within organizations that demonstrate dramatically less adverse impacts. . . .” Id. at 22-23.
At the same hearing, Vincent M. Lewis, a Fire Program Specialist for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and a retired career firefighter from Michigan, testified that he believed the test was appropriate. He stated that he had looked “extensively at the Lieutenant’s exam and a little less at the Captain’s exam,” and believed that the candidates “should know that material.” Id. at 34-35. His one comment was that “a number of questions in the Lieutenant’s exam dealt with issues that an apparatus driver needed to know,” and a candidate who had not had such training would be disadvantaged on those questions. Id. at 34, 41. However, he generally “felt the questions were relevant for both exams,” and believed that the New Haven applicants were advantaged over examinees in other locations
12

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 13 of 48
because they were instructed exactly which chapters from the study materials would be on the tests. Id. at 36. He stated that he would not have changed anything about the way in which the tests were developed, and opined that any disparate impact could be due to a general pattern that “usually whites outperform some of the minorities on testing,” or that “more whites . . . take the exam.” Id. at 37-38.
The last expert witness was Dr. Janet Helms, a professor of counseling psychology and the Director of the Institute for the Study and Promotion of Race and Culture at Boston College. Her area of expertise “is not with firefighters per se but is more in the general area of how race and culture influence test performance more generally.” Id. at 43. She did not examine the specific tests at issue. Id. at 55. However, she offered several potential explanations for racially disparate impact on the tests. First, “[w]e know for a fact that regardless of what kind of written test we give in this country that we can just about predict how many people will pass who are members of underrepresented groups. And your data are not that inconsistent with what predictions would say were the case.” Id. at 44 (emphasis supplied). Second, Dr. Helms suggested that because 67% of the respondents in the JAQ survey were white, the questions may have been skewed toward their job knowledge, as “most of the literature on firefighters show that the different
13

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 14 of 48
[racial and gender] groups perform the job differently.” Id. at 46. Relying on information she had read in newspaper accounts of the situation in New Haven, she stated that the difference in performance may have been due to differences in opportunities for training and “informal mentoring” available to minorities. Id. at 48. With respect to the oral exam, Dr. Helms suggested that people who are bilingual or “speak accented speech” may elicit more negative reactions from evaluators. Id. at 49-50. As general concerns, Dr. Helms mentioned that test takers may score lower if they are expected not to perform well, or if tests focus on “traditional ways of doing the job and the test-taker, in fact, uses innovative approaches.” Id. at 51. Additionally, she suggested that “removing” “socioeconomic status” from test scores “reduces the disparate impact to some extent.” Id. at 57.
At the final hearing on March 18, 2004, defendant Ude, the Corporation Counsel, strongly advocated against certifying the exam results. He concluded: “You have a choice. It is my opinion that promotions under our rules as a result of these tests would not be consistent with federal law, would not be consistent with the purposes of our Civil Service Rules or our Charter, nor is it in the best interests of the firefighters and Lieutenants who took the exams.” Pl. Ex. Vol. IV(E) at 15-16. As a primary reason not to certify the results, Ude argued that the “results of previous exams in this department and in other
14

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 15 of 48
departments have not had this kind of a result, which is one of the reasons why these results were so startling when they came down. These results were different.” Id. at 19. He argued that Dr. Hornick’s statements to the CSB, standing alone, were “sufficient” reason not to certify, and advised the board “that it is the employer’s burden to justify the use of the examination” if a Title VII suit were brought. Id. at 21.
Defendant Walton spoke “on behalf of the Mayor” and also advocated discarding the test results, primarily because the eligibility list, when combined with the Rule of Three and the number of vacancies then available, would “create a situation in which African-Americans are excluded from promotional opportunity on both the Captain and Lieutenant positions and Latinos are excluded from promotional opportunity on the Lieutenant examination.” Id. at 30. She questioned whether there were “other ways of making the selection,” that would be less “discriminatory.” Id. at 31-32.
The board split two to two5 on the question of certifying each exam, see id. at 70-73, as a result of which the promotional lists were not certified.
Plaintiffs allege that the non-certification vote was due to
5The fifth member of the CSB, Barbara Tinney Jennings, was recused because her brother, Lt. Gary Tinney, was a candidate for promotion on the Captain’s examination. She did not attend the hearings concerning these promotional exams.
15

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 16 of 48
political pressure, particularly by defendant Rev. Boise Kimber, a vocal African-American minister who, it is acknowledged by all parties, is a political supporter and vote-getter for Mayor DeStefano. Plaintiffs’ theory is that the defendants urged the CSB not to certify the results in the interest of pleasing minority voters and other constituents in New Haven whose priority was increasing racial diversity in the ranks of the Fire Department. Plaintiffs further argue that this pattern of political manipulation is in keeping with prior actions by the City of New Haven disregarding the Charter-mandated Rule of Three in promotional decisions in the City’s police and fire departments. In support of this argument, plaintiffs proffer evidence regarding prior litigation in the Connecticut Superior and Appellate Court, the substance and outcome of which is largely admitted by defendants,6 and which resulted in sharp rebukes against the City for violating the civil service rules. See Pl. L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 64-90; Def. Am. L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶¶ 64-90. Plaintiffs argue that the apparent racial disparity in the results of the Lieutenant and Captain exams was due to the fact that hiring into, and promotion within, the Fire Department historically has been based on political patronage and promotion
6Defendants challenge the relevance of this evidence; however, as the Court held in its ruling on defendants’ motion to strike, such evidence is relevant as background information to the present case.
16

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 17 of 48
of racial diversity rather than merit; and they argue that the higher-scoring firefighters simply studied harder. In addition, they argue that the evident disparity was not appreciably worse on the 2003 examinations than other past promotional examinations.
Defendants argue that “the decision not to certify [the test] results was mandated by anti-discrimination federal, state and local laws.” Def. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 52] at 4. Alternatively, they argue that they had a good faith belief that Title VII mandated non-certification of the examinations, and they cannot be liable under Title VII for attempting to comply with that very statute. Defendants additionally argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their Equal Protection claim, or, if they do have standing, the claim lacks merit because all firefighters were treated the same, regardless of race, as no one was promoted as a result of the contested exams.
Plaintiffs counter that a “good faith belief” that certifying the test results would violate Title VII does not constitute a defense, as a matter of law, to an allegation of Title VII or Equal Protection violations against the plaintiffs. II. Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is
17

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 18 of 48
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue of fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law," and is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
On cross-motions for summary judgment "neither side is barred from asserting that there are issues of fact, sufficient to prevent the entry of judgment, as a matter of law, against it. When faced with cross-motions for summary judgment, a district court is not required to grant judgment as a matter of law for one side or the other." Heublein, Inc. v. United States, 966 F.2d 1455, 1461 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Schwabenbauer v. Board of Educ. of Olean, 667 F.2d 305, 313 (2d Cir. 1981)). "Rather, the court must evaluate each party's motion on its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration." Schwabembauer, 667 F.2d at 314. III. Discussion
A. Title VII Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ decision and/or advocacy against certifying the exam results amounted to intentional discrimination against plaintiffs, 17 of whom are white and one of whom is Hispanic, in favor of Hispanic and African-American
18

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 19 of 48
examinees who were favored due to their race and their alleged political support of Mayor DeStefano, via the Rev. Boise Kimber. Plaintiffs essentially argue that defendants’ professed desire to comply with Title VII’s anti-disparate-impact requirements was in fact a pretext for intentional discrimination against white candidates. Because plaintiffs allege intentional discrimination, the familiar McDonnell Douglas three-prong burden-shifting test applies.
1. Burden-Shifting Framework Under that framework, plaintiffs first must establish a prima facie case of discrimination on account of race. See Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 42 (2d Cir. 2000). To do so, they must prove: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) qualification for the position; (3) an adverse employment action; and (4) circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of membership in the protected class. See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000). "A plaintiff’s burden of establishing a prima facie case is de minimis." Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 467 (2d Cir. 2001). Defendants do not dispute the first three prongs of the test, but argue that plaintiffs cannot establish an inference of discrimination because all applicants were treated the same, as nobody was promoted off the examination
19

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 20 of 48
lists. Proof of a prima facie case shifts the burden to defendant
"to produce evidence that the plaintiff was [terminated] for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. This burden is one of production, not persuasion; it can involve no credibility assessment.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000) (internal citations, quotations, and alterations omitted). Defendant’s burden is satisfied if the proffered evidence "‘taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.’" Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993)). In this case, defendants proffer a good faith attempt to comply with Title VII as their legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to certify the exams.
If the employer articulates a neutral reason for the plaintiff’s termination, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show pretext. That is, the plaintiff "may attempt to establish that he was the victim of intentional discrimination by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143.
2. Prima Facie Case Plaintiffs’ evidence – and defendants’ own arguments – show that the City’s reasons for advocating non-certification were
20

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 21 of 48
related to the racial distribution of the results. As the transcripts show, a number of witnesses at the CSB hearings, including Kimber, mentioned “diversity” as a compelling goal of the promotional process. Ude, Marcano, and Burgett specifically urged the CSB not to certify the results because, given the number of vacancies at that time, no African-Americans would be eligible for promotion to either Lieutenant or Captain, and no Latinos would be eligible for promotion to Captain. They believed this to be an undesirable outcome that could subject the City to Title VII litigation by minority firefighters, and the City’s leadership to political consequences. Had the tests not yielded what defendants perceived as racially disparate results, defendants would not have advocated rejecting the tests, and plaintiffs would have had an opportunity to be promoted.
A jury could infer that the defendants were motivated by a concern that too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified. Given their minimal prima facie burden, the Court will assume arguendo that plaintiffs have proffered sufficient evidence to satisfy the fourth prong of the prima facie case, given defendants’ acknowledgment that racial concerns, i.e. the disparate impact of the test results on minority firefighters, provided the impetus for their actions.
21

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 22 of 48
3. Pretext/Discriminatory Intent Defendants proffer as their legitimate non-discriminatory reason that they desired to comply with the letter and the spirit of Title VII. Plaintiffs deride this “feigned desire to ‘comply’ with Title VII,” Pl. Mem. of Law [Doc. # 81] at 3, arguing that defendants in fact violated that statute, and their actions were a mere pretext for promoting the interests of African-American firefighters and political supporters of the mayor. As plaintiffs point out, this case presents the opposite scenario of the usual challenge to an employment or promotional examination, as plaintiffs attack not the use of allegedly racially discriminatory exam results, but defendants’ reason for their refusal to use the results. See Pl. Mem. of Law at 32, 3435. Ordinarily, as contemplated by the statute, the “complaining party” bears the burden of proving a disparate impact, and the “respondent” bears the burden of “demonstrat[ing] that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity,” or, alternatively, the “complaining party” may prevail by showing that an alternative employment practice with less disparate impact existed and that the respondent failed to utilize it. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). Here, the roles of the parties are in essence reversed, with the defendants, normally reflecting a “respondent” role in the Title VII disparate impact analysis, contending that use of the
22

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 23 of 48
promotional exams, if they had been certified, would have had an adverse impact, and the plaintiffs, normally the “complaining party,” arguing that the test results were sufficiently jobrelated to be defensible under the law.
a. Existence of Racially Disparate Impact Although the parties dispute the exact racial breakdown of candidates passing the Captain’s test,7 plaintiffs do not dispute that the results showed a racially adverse impact on AfricanAmerican candidates for both the Lieutenant and Captain positions, as judged by the EEOC Guidelines. Pl. L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶ 246; Def. L.R. 56 Stmt. ¶ 246. Thus, it is necessarily undisputed that, had minority firefighters challenged the results of the examinations, the City would have been in a position of defending tests that, under applicable Guidelines, presumptively had a disparate racial impact. Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate
7Plaintiffs assert that 32% of African-American examinees passed the Captain’s examination, while defendants assert the figure is 37.5%. See Marcano Aff., Def. Ex. 4, ¶ 21; Pl. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶¶ 244-47.
23

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 24 of 48
will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).
Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant’s exam the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6% and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio (“AIR”) of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC Guidelines. See Pl. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246; Def. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246. While the parties dispute the Captain’s exam pass rate for African-Americans and Hispanics (see supra note 7), the pass rate for Caucasians was 88%, which is more than double that of minorities and thus by either party’s statistic an AIR far below the four-fifths guideline is yielded.
Plaintiffs argue that these AIRs were not appreciably different from those on past promotional exams, and therefore defendants’ stated concern with avoiding adverse impact must be pretextual. The parties agree that the AIRs on the 1999 promotional examinations would have failed the four-fifths rule as well. The AIR for African-Americans on the 1999 Lieutenant’s exam was 0.58, compared to 0.59 on the 2003 test. See Pl. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246; Def. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246. The 1999 Captain examination had an AIR of 0.45 on African-American test-takers.
24

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 25 of 48
See Pl. Ex. Vol. I, 40 (1999 scores). However, it is also undisputed that, because of the Rule of
Three, the pass rate is not synonymous with the promotion rate, because only the top three scorers may be considered for each vacant position. Thus, the rank of the minority applicants is also a key factor. In 2003, given the number of vacancies, it appeared that at most two Hispanics and no African-Americans would have the opportunity to be promoted to Captain, and no minorities would have the opportunity to be promoted to Lieutenant. Although the record lacks specification, witnesses at the CSB hearings testified to the effect that in 1999 more minority candidates had scored toward the top of the lists, and therefore had more promotional opportunities.
In any event, in 2003 defendants’ concern was with the absence of minority candidates potentially eligible to be promoted, and with the diversity of the Fire Department’s management in general. Thus, the fact that the 1999 exams also had a statistically adverse impact yet were certified, while the 2003 results were not, is insufficient in itself to show that defendants’ concerns about complying with Title VII were pretextual.
b. Validation Study and Less Discriminatory Alternatives
Plaintiffs additionally argue that defendants’ decision was pretextual because they failed to complete a validation study to
25

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 26 of 48
test whether the 2003 exams could be defended as adequately jobrelated. Going further, plaintiffs argue that defendants were legally required to conduct such a validation study before rendering a decision on certification of the results.
Title VII provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision . . . it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for . . . an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h). As plaintiffs concede, this section “provides that professionally developed and properly validated tests are a defense to a claim of disparate impact.” Def. Mem. of Law at 32 (emphasis supplied). The statute itself does not require employers to implement or continue to use any test simply because it is professionally developed, nor does it provide a defense to an employer who “use[s]” a test with a discriminatory impact where other less-discriminatory, equally effective, alternatives are available. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h).
Although plaintiffs argue that EEOC guidelines mandated that defendants conduct a validation study before deciding not to certify the exams, the language of the guidelines does not support such a requirement. A validation study is a method for
26

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 27 of 48
determining whether a test is sufficiently related to the
position for which the test or other criterion is administered.
The EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures
create a presumption that “[t]he use of any selection procedure
which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other
employment or membership opportunities of members of any race,
sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and
inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been
validated in accordance with these guidelines.” 29 C.F.R. §
1607.3(A). The Guidelines further state:
Where two or more selection procedures are available which serve the user’s legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship, and which are substantially equally valid for a given purpose, the user should use the procedure which has been demonstrated to have the lesser adverse impact. Accordingly, whenever a validity study is called for by these guidelines, the user should include, as a part of the validity study, an investigation of suitable alternative selection procedures and suitable alternative methods of using the selection procedure which have as little adverse impact as possible, to determine the appropriateness of using or validating them in accord with these guidelines.
Id. at § 1607.3(B).
. . . Where a selection procedure results in an adverse impact on a race, sex, or ethnic group . . . and that group is a significant factor in the relevant labor market, the user generally should investigate the possible existence of unfairness for that group if it is technically feasible to do so. The greater the severity of the adverse impact on a group, the greater the need to investigate the possible existence of unfairness.
29 C.F.R. § 1607.14(B)(8)(b). The Guidelines provide technical
27

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 28 of 48
guidance for three types of studies: criterion-related validity studies, content validity studies, and construct validity studies. See generally 29 C.F.R. § 1607.14.
The Guidelines are written on the assumption that the employer would be defending a certain test and seeking to validate such test in response to a disparate impact challenge from protected group employees. They do not address the situation in the present case of an employer rejecting a test without conducting a validation study. Nonetheless, it is evident from the language of the guidelines that a validation study is contemplated as one method by which an employer can defend its use of a test or other selection method it desires to utilize by demonstration that it is sufficiently job-related to pass muster under the statute, despite a racially adverse impact. The guidelines do not require or mandate a validity study where an employer decides against using a certain selection procedure that manifests this impact and plaintiff’s argument that defendants violated Title VII by refusing to conduct a validity study before rejecting testing results is thus unpersuasive.
Plaintiffs argue that the CSB did not have extensive evidence of the existence of other, less-discriminatory, and equally-effective selection measures. Dr. Hornick telephonically testified that other tests, particularly ones he had developed, generally yield less adverse impact, and mentioned that an
28

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 29 of 48
“assessment center approach” might benefit New Haven, without specifically explaining what that approach entailed. As plaintiffs argue, there was no testimony that an “assessment center” approach has a demonstrably less adverse impact, and there is some evidence in the record in this case, including from Dr. Hornick’s website, that such an approach may still have some adverse impact. Dr. Hornick acknowledged that he had not had time to review the exams carefully, and his comments illustrated lack of familiarity with the methods IOS utilized to develop the tests. He suggested that lack of internal review by members of the New Haven Fire Department could have yielded questions that were less relevant to the particular department, but offered no explanation of why such a circumstance would have an adverse impact on minority candidates in particular. Dr. Helms from Boston College testified that the racial disparity on the exams at issue were not significantly different from the statistical disparities apparent on standardized tests nationwide. Mr. Lewis, the arson specialist from the Department of Homeland Security, stated that he believed the tests were fair and focused on material that a Lieutenant or Captain should know.
On the other hand, Dr. Hornick and representatives of the black firefighters’ union suggested that the 60/40 weighting system for the oral and written examinations could have produced an adverse impact. The testimony suggested that changing the
29

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 30 of 48
weighting system yielded increased minority pass rates and diversity in the ranks of Bridgeport firefighters and officers. Dr. Helms suggested that because different employees have different ways of doing the same job, the fact that approximately 2/3 of those interviewed for the JAQ were white could have unintentionally introduced a bias into the test instrument. She and Mr. Lewis also suggested that differences in the availability of formal training and informal mentoring may have created the disparate effect apparent in the results.
Plaintiffs purport to counter this argument with affidavits emphasizing how much they studied and sacrificed to perform well on the exams, compared to their observations of the efforts of some other examinees, and point to the availability of study groups and informal mentoring in the department.
It appears that the reasons for testing disparities remain elusive. Dr. Helms testified that many theories exist, but experts on standardized testing nationwide have been unable to satisfactorily fully explain the reasons for the disparity in performance observed on many tests.
Plaintiffs’ argument boils down to the assertion that if defendants cannot prove that the disparities on the Lieutenant and Captain exams were due to a particular flaw inherent in those exams, then they should have certified the results because there was no other alternative in place. Notwithstanding the
30

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 31 of 48
shortcomings in the evidence on existing, effective alternatives, it is not the case that defendants must certify a test where they cannot pinpoint its deficiency explaining its disparate impact under the four-fifths rule simply because they have not yet formulated a better selection method.
c. Diversity Rationale The real crux of plaintiffs’ argument is that defendants refused to explore alternatives or conduct a validity study because they had already decided that they did not like the inevitable promotional results if the process continued to its expected conclusion,8 and that their “diversity” rationale is prohibited as reverse discrimination under Title VII. In Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999), the Second Circuit held that race-conscious configuration of an entry-level police department exam did not violate Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause. In that case, the Nassau County Police Department was operating under several consent decrees prohibiting it from engaging in discrimination in its selection of police officers, and particularly from utilizing examinations with disparate impact on minority applicants. Following development of a test by the county and Department of Justice
8Plaintiffs present evidence in the form of emails from the Mayor’s staff suggesting they desired to convince the CSB not to certify, and further suggesting that if the CSB had certified, the Mayor would have announced his intention to refuse to forward the lists to the Fire Department for promotion.
31

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 32 of 48
advisors, a validity analysis was conducted to determine which configuration of the test was sufficiently job-related “yet minimized the adverse impact on minority applicants. Of the twenty-five sections administered to the applicants, the [technical report] recommended that Nassau County use nine sections as the . . . test.” Id. at 47. A class of White and Latino officers challenged use of the adjusted test under Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment, inter alia, contending that the deliberate design of the test to reduce adverse impact on African-American candidates necessarily discriminated against them on the basis of race. The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ contentions, finding plaintiffs were “mistaken in treating racial motive as a synonym for a constitutional violation” and observing that “[e]very antidiscrimination statute aimed at racial discrimination, and every enforcement measure taken under such a statute, reflect a concern with race. That does not make such enactments or actions unlawful or automatically suspect . . .” Id. at 48-49 (quoting Raso v. Lago, 135 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir.)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Hayden court further held that the construction of the Nassau County test for the purpose of minimizing adverse impact on minorities was not intentional “reverse discrimination” against whites because the same nine test sections were used for all applicants, so it was “simply not analogous to a quota system or
32

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 33 of 48
a minority set-aside where candidates, on the basis of their race, are not treated uniformly.” Id. at 50. Rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the design of the test reflected impermissible discriminatory intent, the Second Circuit wrote that “nothing in our jurisprudence precludes the use of raceneutral means to improve racial and gender representation. . . . [T]he intent to remedy the disparate impact of the prior exams is not equivalent to an intent to discriminate against non-minority applicants.” Id. at 51.
In Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 771 F.2d 1117 (2d Cir. 1983), the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s approval of a settlement that determined promotional order based partly on exam results and partly on race-normed adjustments to the exam, after minority employees made a prima facie showing that the test had an adverse impact on minorities. The Court of Appeals noted that “voluntary compliance is a preferred means of achieving Title VII’s goal of eliminating employment discrimination,” id. at 1128, and that requiring a full hearing on the test’s job-validity before approving a settlement “would seriously undermine Title VII’s preference for voluntary compliance and is not warranted,” id. at 1130. Thus, “a showing of a prima facie case of employment discrimination through a statistical demonstration of disproportionate racial impact constitutes a sufficiently serious
33

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 34 of 48
claim of discrimination to serve as a predicate for a voluntary compromise containing race-conscious remedies.” Id. at 1130.
The Second Circuit expanded Kirkland in Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission, 733 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1984). There, the civil service commission had administered a promotional examination that had a significant adverse impact, with non-minority applicants passing at almost twice the rate of minority applicants. The defendants race-normed the scores for each group, increasing the pass rate of the minority group to the equivalent of the non-minority group, and effectively making an additional 8 minority individuals eligible for promotion, without taking any non-minorities off the list. The Court of Appeals held that the initial results, particularly “the score distributions of minority and nonminority candidates, were sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of adverse impact,” id. at 225, and, consistent with Kirkland, “a showing of a prima facie case of employment discrimination through a statistical demonstration of disproportional racial impact constitutes a sufficiently serious claim of discrimination to serve as a predicate for employer-initiated, voluntary race-conscious remedies,” id. at 228. In other words, a prima facie case is one way that a race-conscious remedy is justified, but it is not required: all that is required is “a sufficiently serious claim of discrimination” to warrant such a remedy. Id. at 228; see
34

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 35 of 48
also id. at 226 n. 7.
In this case, the parties agree that the adverse impact
ratios for African-American and Hispanic test-takers on both the
Lieutenant and Captain exams were too low to pass muster under
the EEOC’s “four-fifths rule.” As Kirkland and Bushey held, a
statistical showing of discrimination, and particularly a pass
rate below the “four-fifths rule,” is sufficient to make out a
prima facie case of discrimination, and therefore sufficient to justify voluntary race-conscious remedies.9 Here, defendants’
remedy is “race conscious” at most because their actions
reflected their intent not to implement a promotional process
based on testing results that had an adverse impact on African-
Americans and Hispanics. The remedy chosen here was decidedly
less “race conscious” than the remedies in Kirkland and Bushey,
9Plaintiffs denigrate reliance on Kirkland and Bushey on the grounds that the “race-norming” procedures utilized in those cases would be unlawful under the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(l) (“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”). See also Hayden, 180 F.3d at 53 (this provision was “intended to prohibit ‘race norming’ and other methods of using different cut-offs for different races or altering scores based on race.”) (emphasis in original). While plaintiffs are correct that Title VII now prohibits race-norming, none is alleged to have happened here and the 1991 amendments do not affect the reasoning and holding of either case, namely, that a showing of a “sufficiently serious claim of discrimination” is adequate to justify race conscious, remedial measures.
35

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 36 of 48
because New Haven did not race-norm the scores, they simply
decided to start over, to develop some new assessment mechanism
with less disparate impact. Thus, while the evidence shows that
race was taken into account in the decision not to certify the
test results, the result was race-neutral: all the test results
were discarded, no one was promoted, and firefighters of every
race will have to participate in another selection process to be
considered for promotion. Indeed, there is a total absence of
any evidence of discriminatory animus towards plaintiffs – under
the reasoning of Hayden, 180 F.3d at 51, “nothing in our
jurisprudence precludes the use of race-neutral means to improve
racial and gender representation. . . . [T]he intent to remedy
the disparate impact of the prior exams is not equivalent to an
intent to discriminate against non-minority applicants.”10
10Taxman v. Bd. of Educ. of T’wp of Piscataway, 91 F.3d 1547, 1558 (3d Cir. 1996) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 522 U.S. 1010 (1997), relied on by plaintiffs, is readily distinguishable. There, the board of education relied on an affirmative action plan to defend its decision to lay off a white teacher instead of a black teacher with equal seniority, and the Third Circuit held that promoting racial diversity on the faculty, absent a history of past discrimination, was insufficient justification for laying off the white teacher because of her race and violated Title VII. Here, defendants had ample statistical evidence that the tests had an adverse impact on minority candidates and importantly did not opt to select black applicants over white applicants for promotion, but rather decided to select nobody at all. Williams v. Consol. City of Jacksonville, No. 00cv469, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27066 (D. Fla. July 5, 2002), can similarly be distinguished as that case did not concern a decision not to certify test results, but rather a post-certification decision not to create the positions which would result in plaintiffs’ promotions because plaintiffs were not African-American.
36

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 37 of 48
Plaintiffs contend that Hayden is distinguishable by the fact that the remedy approved there was pursuant to previous consent decrees; they do not explain why they view this distinction as significant. As Bushey held, it would contravene the remedial purpose of Title VII if an employer were required to await a lawsuit before voluntarily implementing measures with less discriminatory impact. Bushey, 733 F.2d at 227 (rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the remedial measures in Kirkland were only permissible as part of a settlement in that case, because that “would create an anomalous situation. It would require an employer . . . to issue a presumptively discriminatory eligibility list, wait to be sued by minority candidates, and only then seek a settlement.... Such an approach would serve no purpose other than to impede the process of voluntary compliance with Title VII and cause the proliferation of litigation in all such cases. . . .”).
Plaintiffs also attempt to distinguish Hayden on the grounds that the challengers to that test, which was constructed from the nine most job-related sections with the least disparate impact, were not injured or disadvantaged, whereas “the instant plaintiffs have been both injured, as they were deprived of promotions, and disadvantaged as they will now be forced to compete once again.” Pl. Mem. of Law at 58. Plaintiffs take this language from Hayden out of context. In holding that the
37

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 38 of 48
Hayden plaintiffs did not prove disparate impact on nonminority applicants, the Court of Appeals held that because “appellants continued to score higher than black candidates, on average, the exam did not impair or disadvantage these appellants in favor of African-American applicants. Thus, appellants are unable to set forth a claim that they endured any disparate impact as a result of the design and administration of the . . . examination.” Hayden, 180 F.3d at 52. Here, plaintiffs allege disparate treatment, not disparate impact. Nor do they have a viable claim of disparate impact because the decision to disregard the test results affected all applicants equally, regardless of race – all applicants will have to participate in a new test or selection procedure.11
Furthermore, plaintiffs were not “deprived of promotions.” As the parties agree, under New Haven’s civil service rules, no applicant is entitled to promotion unless and until the CSB certifies the results. Even then, application of the Rule of Three would give top scorers an opportunity for promotion, depending on the number of vacancies, but no guarantee of
11While plaintiffs, who describe their considerable efforts to perform well on this infrequently given promotion exam, are understandably disappointed and frustrated that their successful study efforts have come to naught this time, this result is not evidence of being disadvantaged because of their race nor evidence of disparate impact because it does not show injury or disadvantage, only uncertainty as to their performance in the City’s next promotion selection process.
38

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 39 of 48
promotion; it is even conceivable that the applicant with the highest score never would be promoted. See United States v. City of Chicago, 869 F.2d 1033, 1038 (7th Cir. 1989) (where state law permitted promotion from among five highest-ranked individuals on eligibility list, challenger had no property right to promotion: “a roster ranking may create an expectation of promotion, but an officer has no entitlement to a particular roster position or to promotion.”); Bridgeport Firebird Society v. City of Bridgeport, 686 F. Supp. 53, 58 (“At best, the provisions of the City Charter [mandating a Rule of One for promotions] provide the firefighters ranked on the . . . eligibility list only with a mere expectation of promotion, which does not rise to the level of a legally protected interest, especially in the face of ‘presumptively discriminatory employment practices.’”) (quoting Kirkland, 711 F. 2d at 1126)).
Thus, while the facts of Hayden were slightly different than those here, the Court finds the holding quite relevant and instructive. Defendants’ motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact, even in a political context,12 does not, as a matter of law, constitute
12Assuming arguendo that political favoritism or motivations may be shown to have been intertwined with the race concern, that does not suffice to establish a Title VII violation. See, e.g., EEOC v. Flasher Co., Inc., 986 F.2d 1312, 1321 (10th Cir. 1992) (pretext is not shown merely because “some less seemly reason – personal or political favoritism, a grudge, random conduct, an error in the administration of neutral rules – actually accounts
39

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 40 of 48
discriminatory intent, and therefore such evidence is insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claim. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendants’ motion and deny plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on this claim.
B. Equal Protection Claim Plaintiffs argue that defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause either by employing a race-based classification system for promotion or, alternatively, by applying facially neutral promotion criteria in a racially discriminatory manner. Defendants counter that they did not employ any racial classifications because every applicant was treated the same when the CSB decided that nobody would be promoted off the lists, and there was no discriminatory intent against whites motivating their non-certification decision. Additionally, defendants argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring an Equal Protection claim.
1. Standing Defendants acknowledge, as they must, that non-minorities have been found to be in a protected group for purposes of standing under the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 210 (1995) (holding that non-minority-owned business’ “allegation that it has lost a contract in the past because of a [minority set-aside] subcontractor compensation clause of course entitles it to seek
for the decision”). 40

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 41 of 48
damages for the loss of that contract.”). However, defendants argue that because plaintiffs have not suffered any harm, and specifically because plaintiffs were not “passed over for a benefit that was given to an allegedly less deserving minority,” Def. Reply Mem. at 37, they lack standing.
Defendants confuse standing with the merits of the case. The constitutional injury plaintiffs claim here is not failure to be promoted, but failure to be treated equally on the basis of race. Plaintiffs have standing to bring such a claim. See Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 791 (2d Cir. 1994) (plaintiff had standing to bring equal protection claim where she alleged that the defendant’s Section 8 housing subsidy program “rules and regulations, in their administration, violate the Constitution because they erect a barrier that makes it more difficult for economically disadvantaged blacks to obtain a housing benefit than it was for non-minorities”).
2. Racial Classification/Discriminatory Intent Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim, however, lacks merit, with respect to both the racial classification and disparate treatment arguments. As the Second Circuit held in Hayden when rejecting plaintiffs’ classification argument, if an exam is “administered and scored in an identical fashion for all applicants,” there is no racial classification. Hayden, 180 F.3d at 48. Further, a “desire” “to design an entrance exam which
41

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 42 of 48
would diminish the adverse impact on black applicants ... does
not constitute a ‘racial classification.’” Id. Here, all
applicants took the same test, and the result was the same for
all because the test results were discarded and nobody was
promoted. This does not amount to a facial classification based
on race.13 Likewise, where a test is administered and scored in
the same manner for all applicants, plaintiffs cannot make out a
claim that the exam was a facially neutral test used in a
discriminatory manner. Id. at 50.
Plaintiffs argue that their equal protection rights were
violated because they passed the tests and therefore were not
similarly-situated to minority applicants who failed. Plaintiffs
argue that if a black employee “shows up for work and works a
full day” and a white employee does not, and the black employee
13Therefore, plaintiffs’ reliance on Berkley v. United States, 287 F.3d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2002), is unavailing. In that case, the Air Force employed facially different criteria for selecting women and minority employees for layoff compared to white male employees, and the Federal Circuit held that such a program should be subjected to strict scrutiny (without ruling on the merits). Likewise, in Dallas Fire Fighters Assoc. v City of Dallas, 150 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 1998), also relied on by plaintiffs, the city followed an affirmative action plan that specifically called for promoting African-American, Hispanic and female firefighters out of rank, ahead of white and Native American male fighters with higher test scores. Here, no classification system was employed, as the test results were discarded for every examinee regardless of race. While defendants clearly were concerned with achieving diversity in the department by enhancing minority promotional opportunity, plaintiffs offer no evidence that defendants employed an actual race-based affirmative action plan that advantaged minority over white applicants for promotion.
42

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 43 of 48
complains “that he was due his wages,” the employer cannot be heard to defend the complaint on the ground that the employees were treated the same because neither was paid. Pl. Mem. in Opp. at 64. Plaintiffs’ analogy is faulty because performing well on the exam does not create an entitlement to promotion, whereas working entitles an employee to be paid. Second, a presumptively flawed test result may not be a proper measure for determining whether anyone should be promoted.
Finally, plaintiffs cannot show that defendants acted out of an intentionally discriminatory purpose. “Discriminatory purpose ‘implies that the decisionmaker ... selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’” Id. (quoting Personnel Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979)). Nothing in the record in this case suggests that the City defendants or CSB acted “because of” discriminatory animus toward plaintiffs or other non-minority applicants for promotion. Rather, they acted based on the following concerns: that the test had a statistically adverse impact on AfricanAmerican and Hispanic examinees; that promoting off of this list would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department and would fail to develop managerial role models for aspiring firefighters; that it would subject the City to public criticism; and that it would likely subject the City to Title VII lawsuits
43

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 44 of 48
from minority applicants that, for political reasons, the City did not want to defend. “[T]he intent to remedy the disparate impact of [the tests] is not equivalent to an intent to discriminate against non-minority applicants.” Hayden, 180 F.3d at 51. None of the defendants’ expressed motives could suggest to a reasonable juror that defendants acted “because of” animus against non-minority firefighters who took the Lieutenant and Captain exams.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim will be granted and plaintiffs’ motion will be denied.14
C. Civil Rights Conspiracy Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) permits recovery of damages if a plaintiff can prove a conspiracy “for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” Because the Court has found that plaintiffs fail to present sufficient evidence that their equal protection rights were violated, their § 1985 conspiracy claim must fail as well. See Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp., 7 F.3d 1085, 1088 (2d Cir. 1993) (evidence of “racial or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidious discriminatory animus” required to prevail on § 1985 claim).
14For this reason the Court need not reach defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the Equal Protection claim.
44

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 45 of 48
Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim will be granted.
D. First Amendment Defendants additionally move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedom-of-association claim, which motion will also be granted. Plaintiffs do not attempt to rebut defendants’ contentions that plaintiffs have not identified a free speech activity in which they participated nor claimed that any chilling of speech resulted. Rather, plaintiffs argue that the CSB’s noncertification decision, and the City defendants’ advocacy of that decision, resulted from political pressure by defendant Kimber, who threatened the CSB with “political ramifications” if they voted to certify the results. Plaintiffs argue that “a jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, the Mayor would incur the wrath of Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s AfricanAmerican community.” Pl. Mem. in Opp. at 73. While a jury could make such an inference, it would not lead to the conclusion that plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of association was violated as a matter of law. The evidence shows that Kimber spoke at the first CSB hearing and strenuously argued against certification, and the City defendants
45

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 46 of 48
do not dispute that Kimber is a close political ally of the Mayor. However, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the non-certification decision was made in retaliation for plaintiffs’ refusal to “associate with,” or their expression of disagreement with, Kimber. As with the Equal Protection claim, the fact that defendants desired to avoid the wrath of one group (in this case African-American firefighters and other political supporters of Kimber and DeStefano) does not logically lead to the conclusion that defendants intended to discriminate or retaliate against plaintiffs because they were not members of that group. More importantly, there is no evidence in the record even to suggest that defendants knew plaintiffs’ political affiliations, i.e., whether they supported Kimber and/or DeStefano on any issue other than the certification of these particular exam results. In sum, in plaintiffs’ terms, the record shows that defendants acted to head off the potential adverse impact of the promotion tests on African-American and Hispanic firefighters in order to curry favor with minority voters and political leaders in the City, but it does not contain any evidence of an intent or purpose to target plaintiffs for not supporting that political coalition or its interests. Thus, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment claim must be granted.
46

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 47 of 48
E. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Having granted defendants summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Tops Markets, Inc. v. Quality Markets, Inc., 142 F.3d 90, 103 (2d Cir. 1998) (“28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) . . . permits a district court, in its discretion, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all federal claims. The Supreme Court, in Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988), announced that when all federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, the balance of factors generally favors declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismissing them without prejudice.”). IV. Conclusion Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 52] is GRANTED as to the claims under Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. # 60] is DENIED. The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional
47

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 132 Filed 09/28/06 Page 48 of 48 distress. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/
Janet Bond Arterton United States District Judge Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 28th day of September, 2006.
48

 
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Frank Ricci, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
John DeStefano, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 3:04cv1109 (JBA) May 12, 2010

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO INTERVENE [Doc. # 173] On December 1, 2009, Michael Briscoe, an African–American member of the New Haven Fire Department (“NHFD”), moved to intervene in this six-year-old case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. For the reasons that follow, his motion will be denied as untimely. I. Background Plaintiffs’ suit against the City of New Haven (the “City”) and certain of its officials (collectively, “Defendants”) sought “to redress the deprivation by [D]efendants of rights secured to the [P]laintiffs” by virtue of Plaintiffs’ “hav[ing] been unlawfully denied promotions and opportunities for promotions on account of their race and political association.” (Compl. [Doc. # 1] at ¶ 1.) By way of Amended Complaint filed March 26, 2005, Plaintiffs alleged that they had taken promotional examinations designed to establish a list of those eligible for promotions to the ranks of lieutenant and captain in the NHFD, but that after Defendants learned “that white firefighters were the top scorers in both competitive examinations,” they “opted to discard the examination results and refuse to

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 17
establish an eligible list.” (See Am. Compl. [Doc. # 29] at ¶¶ 24–42.) Plaintiffs alleged that in so doing, the City made a decision on the basis of race, thereby violated, inter alia, Title VII, and injured Plaintiffs in various ways, including by denying them “promotion[s]” and “opportunities for promotion.” (Id. at ¶ 63.)
Because the “posture of [this] litigation at the time the motion to intervene [wa]s made” is a “[p]articular focus” in considering the motion, United States v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 1994), the principal litigation events reflected on the public docket of this case are relevant. The case was filed on July 8, 2004, proceeded through discovery, and both sides filed summary–judgment motions in November and December 2005, with amended briefing in June and July 2006. Oral argument was held on July 17, 2006. The September 28, 2006 ruling granting Defendants’ summary–judgment motion held, in pertinent part, that because the City’s decision not to certify the promotional examinations was driven by “motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact,” which “does not, as a matter of law, constitute discriminatory intent,” the City was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title VII disparate–treatment claim. Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 160 (D. Conn. 2006). The Second Circuit affirmed by summary order, see 264 F. App’x 106 (2d Cir. 2008), and later by per curiam opinion accompanying a denial of rehearing en banc, see 530 F.3d 87 and 530 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008). On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that “[o]n the record before [it], there is no genuine dispute that the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would
2

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 17
face disparate-impact liability if it certified the examination results,” and that Plaintiffs therefore “are entitled to summary judgment on their Title VII claim.” 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2673, 2681 (2009). The Supreme Court remanded to the Second Circuit, which in turn issued a Mandate of Remand to this Court on October 27, 2009. This Court accordingly entered judgment on liability in favor of Plaintiffs on their disparate–treatment Title VII claim and ordered certification of the promotional examination results and promotion of 14 of the Plaintiffs. (See Order dated Nov. 24, 2009 [Doc. # 168].)
Thereafter, on December 1, 2009, Briscoe moved to intervene in this case. His Proposed Intervening Complaint asserts the same allegations as those in a separate suit he had filed on October 15, 2009,1 and he seeks intervention “simply in order to forestall any argument by the City that the resolution of his underlying claim should be dictated by the choice to file a separate suit rather than moving to intervene here.” (Briscoe’s Mem. Supp. [Doc. # 173-2] at 1.)
1 More than five years after Plaintiffs filed this case, Briscoe brought suit against the City regarding the same 2003 lieutenant promotional examination, alleging that the City’s decision “to weight the written test 60 percent and the oral exam 40 percent . . . had a disparate impact on African–American candidates” and thereby violates Title VII’s disparate–impact provisions. See Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 19 (Docket No. 1), Briscoe v. City of New Haven, Civil No. 3:09cv1642(CSH) (D. Conn. Oct. 15, 2009). Judge Haight dismissed Briscoe’s suit as foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci. See Memorandum of Decision (Docket No. 101), Briscoe v. City of New Haven, No. 3:09cv1642(CSH) (D. Conn. Apr. 28, 2010).
3

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 4 of 17
II. Standards
Briscoe moves to intervene both as of right and permissively under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 24.2 Both types of intervention require timely motion. NAACP v. State of
New York, 413 U.S. 345, 365 (1973) (“Whether intervention be claimed of right or as
permissive, it is at once apparent, from the initial words of both Rule 24(a) and Rule 24(b),
that the application must be ‘timely.’ If it is untimely, intervention must be denied.”). As
the Second Circuit has repeatedly explained with respect to intervention motions under Rule
24(a),
Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) is granted when all four of the following conditions are met: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the applicant asserts an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject
2 In pertinent parts, this Rule provides:
(a) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: . . . (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
(b) PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. (1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: . . . (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. . . . (3) Delay or Prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b). 4

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 5 of 17
of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that without intervention, disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by the other parties. MasterCard Int’l Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, Inc., 471 F.3d 377, 389 (2d Cir. 2006); accord Weisshaus v. Swiss Bankers Ass’n (In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litig.), 225 F.3d 191, 197–98 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Weisshaus”); Catanzano v. Wing, 103 F.3d 223, 232 (2d Cir. 1996); Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d at 70; Wash. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 1990); Farmland Dairies v. Comm’r of New York State Dep’t of Agric. & Mkts., 847 F.2d 1038, 1043 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. State of New York, 820 F.2d 554, 556 (2d Cir. 1987). The motion “will be denied unless all four requirements are met.” Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d at 70; accord Weisshaus, 225 F.3d at 197–98 (a putative intervenor’s “[f]ailure to meet any one of these requirements suffices for a denial of the motion”); Farmland Dairies, 847 F.2d at 1043 (“Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements is a sufficient ground to deny the application.” (emphasis in original)). Both Plaintiffs and Defendants oppose Briscoe’s intervention as untimely. In the context of Rule 24, “[t]imeliness defies precise definition,” Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d at 70, and “when deciding timeliness under Rule 24(a)(2), . . . the determination must be based on all the circumstances of the case,” United States v. New York, 820 F.2d at 557. Factors to consider in determining timeliness include: “(a) the length of time the applicant knew or should have known of [its] interest before making the motion; (b) prejudice to existing parties resulting from the applicant’s delay;
5

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 6 of 17
(c) prejudice to [the] applicant if the motion is denied; and (d) [the] presence of unusual circumstances militating for or against a finding of timeliness.” MasterCard Int’l Inc., 471 F.3d at 390 (quoting United States v. New York, 820 F.2d at 557). The determination of timeliness applies to both Rule 24(a) and Rule 24(b), since where a district court “could properly find [an applicant’s] motion to intervene untimely” under Rule 24(a), there is “no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision denying [the applicant] permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).” Id. at 391; In re Bank of New York Derivative Litig., 320 F.3d 291, 300 n.5 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[I]nsofar as we affirm the District Court’s denial of [the applicant’s] motion to intervene as a matter of right, we need not also examine its denial of permissive intervention”); Catanzano, 103 F.3d at 234 (concluding that because Rule 24(a) motion was untimely, therefore Rule 24(b) motion was untimely). III. Discussion With a “[p]articular focus” on the “posture of [this] litigation at the time [Briscoe’s] motion to intervene [was] made,” Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d at 72, the Court considers whether his motion was timely. Briscoe asserts that his motion is timely because neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants will suffer prejudice if he were to intervene. He argues that “there is no conflict between the promotions that the [P]laintiffs are receiving and the promotional relief that [he] seeks” because the NHFD “has many more lieutenant vacancies than there are eligible Ricci [P]laintiffs, so that [he] is not competing with the [P]laintiffs for a scarce resource.” (Briscoe’s Mem. Supp. at 2.) He further asserts that “[t]he City has no legitimate interest in
6

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 7 of 17
barring the promotion of a victim of its discrimination,” and that because the examination results were kept under seal and protective order, he did not learn his score until “recently,” and thus “had no way to know that he had been harmed by the City’s weighting scheme—or even that he was not one of the African American firefighters who would be promoted from the list that the [P]laintiffs in this action wanted the City to certify.” (Id. at 2–3.) “Under these circumstances,” he argues, he
was in no position even to determine what legal claim he could bring because he did not know what the City had done that had injured him: he did not know whether he was injured by the test or, exactly the opposite, by the City’s failure to act on the basis of the test’s results. He brought his claim as soon as he learned of the City’s adverse action against him. (Id. at 3.) Opposing intervention, Plaintiffs argue that Briscoe should have known of the case because it attracted substantial media coverage at the outset. Second, even if he did not know of the suit, his “inattention” is not “a justification for delay in pursuing intervention.” (Pls.’ Opp’n [Doc. # 192] at 12 (citing Weisshaus, 225 F.3d at 198).) Third, whether or not Briscoe knew if his interests lay with the Plaintiffs or the City, he knew from the beginning that he had a “‘direct, substantial, and legally protectable’ interest, a standard that Briscoe’s purported interest could have satisfied long before the Supreme Court’s determination of the City’s Title VII liability.” (Id. at 13 (quoting Wash. Elec. Coop., Inc., 922 F.2d at 97).) Fourth, Plaintiffs argue, Briscoe’s “failure to intervene earlier [cannot] be excused by any lack of standing,” given that he can “piggyback off the established standing of plaintiffs in
7

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 8 of 17
an already–existing Article III ‘case or controversy.’” (Id. at 14 (citing United States Postal Serv. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188, 190 (2d Cir. 1977), and Dillard v. Chilton County Comm’n, 495 F.3d 1324, 1336–37 & 1337 n.10 (11th Cir. 2007).) Plaintiffs also assert that both they and Defendants would be prejudiced by intervention given that the case between them “has been pending more than five years and is now, finally, nearing completion” (id. at 15), any prejudice to Briscoe “stems only from his own failure to timely intervene to assert [his] interest in [Plaintiffs’] case” (id. at 18), and that “[t]he fact that Briscoe seeks to create a new and different factual record is irrelevant” to resolution of this case (id. at 19). Defendants assert similar arguments. (See Defs.’ Obj. [Doc. # 184] at 5–13.)
Briscoe responds that he could not have learned of his results on the promotional examination—and thus whether his interests lay with Plaintiffs or the City—before Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari because the examination results produced in discovery were subject to a protective order. He further asserts that the relief he seeks is not inconsistent with the relief sought by Plaintiffs, and that if he were to prevail the remedy “would produce an even stronger officer corps than the system the City used,” so neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants would be prejudiced by his intervention. (Reply Supp. [Doc. # 197] at 1–5.)
8

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 9 of 17
A. Notice “Among the most important factors in a timeliness decision is ‘the length of time the applicant knew or should have known of his interest before making the motion.’” Catanzano, 103 F.3d at 232 (quoting Farmland Dairies, 847 F.2d at 1044). Briscoe does not address the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ arguments that he had notice of his interest well prior to moving to intervene, and that the lawsuit as originally filed addressed the same issue as the interest he now asserts, that is, the lawfulness of the City’s promotional examinations and certification decisions. Both are clearly the case. In 2003 he was an African–American New Haven firefighter who took the same lieutenant promotional examination whose non-certification Plaintiffs—firefighters within the same department in which he worked—alleged in July 2004 was unlawful (see, e.g., Briscoe’s Prop. Compl. at ¶ 3), and he does not object to assertions by Plaintiffs and Defendants that he had notice of the lawsuit even before the appeal to the Second Circuit on October 27, 2006 (see Notice of Appeal [Doc. # 134]). The media attention received by the litigation, as well as the “heated public meetings” in 2004 resulting from the Plaintiffs’ complaint,3 bolsters the conclusion
3 Coverage of the suit began at least a month before Plaintiffs filed their original complaint, see William Kaempffer, Racial Tensions flaring up at NHFD: Promotional tests are tinder for lawsuits, NEW HAVEN REGISTER, June 20, 2004, and right after suit was filed, see William Kaempffer, White firefighters file suit against city, NEW HAVEN REGISTER, July 9, 2004; William Kaempffer, FOI officer says city must air test scores, NEW HAVEN REGISTER, Aug. 30, 2004. Moreover, according to the New Haven Register, “[b]etween January and March [of 2004], the city held a series of heated public meeting after discovering that 14 of the top 15 scores on the two tests were held by white firefighters,” after which Plaintiffs’ complaint to the CHRO was dismissed. William Kaempffer, Panel tosses firefighters’
9

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 10 of 17
that Briscoe had actual or constructive notice of the litigation. See, e.g., NAACP v. State of New York, 413 U.S. at 366–67 (affirming denial of intervention as untimely where lower court “could reasonably have concluded that [putative intervenors] knew or should have known of the [litigation] because,” among other things, “of an informative February article in the New York Times discussing the controversial aspect of the suit” published two months before motion to intervene was filed); United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 801 F.2d 593, 595 (2d Cir. 1986) (putative intervenors “had reason to become aware [of issue on which they sought to intervene] would be considered by the court” because “comments were submitted to the district court and became page one news in the Yonkers local newspaper”); Tummino v. Hamburg, 260 F.R.D. 27, 30, 36 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (putative intervenor had notice where the litigation “has been the subject of considerable discussion and national media coverage”); In re Bank of New York Derivative Litig. (Kaliski v. Bacot), 173 F. Supp. 2d 193, 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (denying motion to intervene as untimely where the “lawsuit has been pending for more than two years, and has garnered no small amount of media attention. Hence, [the applicant] has had notice of this action for some time.”), aff’d sub nom., In re Bank of New York Derivative Litig., 320 F.3d at 297, 300–01 (quoting district court).
In light of Plaintiffs’ allegations that the “top scorers” on the promotional examinations were white, Plaintiffs’ complaint and amended complaint gave notice to Briscoe that this litigation concerned his interest in a system of promotions free of disparate
discrimination claim, NEW HAVEN REGISTER, Nov. 6, 2004. 10

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 11 of 17
racial impact, that the examinations may have had such an impact, that he was not among the “top scorers,” and that the examination results were not certified. Certainly, by the time the parties moved for summary judgment, the issue of whether the examinations had a disparate impact on African–Americans was clearly part of this case: on November 4, 2005, the City argued on summary judgment that its legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for declining to certify the examination results was that it knew that “certification of the results of the subject exams would have had an adverse impact on African–American candidates and Hispanic candidates in violation of Title VII’s prohibition against disparate impact,” and it sought to “[a]void[] such violations of Title VII.” (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. # 522] at 13.) Briscoe should have been on notice that the Court would address the City’s argument that certification of the promotional examinations would have a disparate impact on African–Americans.
Briscoe’s argument that he only recently learned how he had scored, and thus whether his interests lay with the City or with Plaintiffs, is unavailing to satisfy the timeliness factor. In the Second Circuit an applicant for intervention need not demonstrate constitutional standing, see Brennan, 579 F.2d at 190,4 so consideration of the timeliness of
4 This remains the rule in the Second Circuit, notwithstanding developments in the 33 years since the Second Circuit decided Brennan. See Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 233 F.R.D. 95, 97 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (“[T]here is no Article III standing requirement in the Second Circuit, with an intervenor only needing to meet the Rule 24(a) requirements and have an interest in the litigation, if there is already a case or controversy in existence between the original parties to litigation who have standing” (citing, inter alia, Brennan, 579 F.2d at 190)); Herdman v. Town of Angelica, 163 F.R.D. 180 186–87 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (“The
11

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 12 of 17
Briscoe’s motion is unrelated to whether he has alleged an “injury in fact” sufficient to confer
on him constitutional standing to bring a separate lawsuit, see generally Lujan v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992), or, therefore, if or when the Title VII cause of action
he asserts accrued.5 Since Briscoe had notice that a subject of this suit was an exam he had
taken that allegedly had racially disparate results, his interest in Plaintiffs’ challenge to the
examination’s results was sufficiently “direct, substantial, and legally protectable” well before
he knew the fact—his score—on which he concluded that he had been injured by the City’s
weighting of the examination, that is, before the date on which he believes his cause of action
Second Circuit has held that prospective intervenors need not satisfy Article III standing requirements,” and despite later cases describing the interest a putative intervenor must assert in terms similar to that required under Article III, “the court has not expressly ruled that prospective intervenors must meet Article III standing requirements, and has implicitly left the question open.” (citing Brennan, 579 F.2d at 190, and Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 52 n.3 (2d Cir. 1994)).
5 Indeed, Briscoe’s argument in favor of timeliness relies on cases addressing the timeliness of a plaintiff’s Title VII claim in relation to learning of an employer’s adverse action against him, not on cases addressing the timeliness of a motion to intervene. (Briscoe’s Mem. Supp. at 3 (citing Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 628 (2007), Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 261 (1980), and Flaherty v. Metromail Corp., 235 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2000), and describing these cases as holding that a “limitations period [is] triggered by [an] employee’s knowledge that [an] adverse action had occurred”.) As Brennan suggests, this case reflects, and the Supreme Court has implied, a person’s “interest” for intervention purposes may arise before any independent cause of action accrues—or even if no such cause of action accrues. See Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68 (1986) (“[A]n intervenor’s right to continue a suit in the absence of the party on whose side intervention was permitted is contingent upon a showing by the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of Art. III.” (emphasis added)).
12

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 13 of 17
accrued.6 His timely intervention in this litigation would have entitled him to conduct his own discovery and also would have afforded him access to the examination–result list under seal. (See Order Re: Discovery Confidentiality [Doc. # 25] at ¶¶ 4–7.)
B. Prejudice to Existing Parties Briscoe argues that Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice from his intervention because the relief he seeks is not inconsistent with the relief Plaintiffs seek, and because “[t]he City has no legitimate interest in barring the promotion of a victim of its discrimination” and actually has an interest in Briscoe’s prevailing on his suit because it will result in an overall better–qualified firefighter corps. Whether or not in the abstract or at a policy level the City’s “interest[s]” actually lie with Briscoe, both Plaintiffs and Defendants would suffer prejudice, measured from the vantage point of this litigation, Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d at 72, if he were permitted to intervene. Defendants argue that they would suffer prejudice because after five–plus years of litigation they and Plaintiffs are close to a “final resolution” of the matter. (Defs.’ Obj. at 8.) And as Plaintiffs argue, “existing parties acquire substantial interests in ensuring their anticipated
6 For this reason, the Court’s conclusion that Briscoe was dilatory in moving to intervene in this litigation to assert his interests does not address in any way the timeliness or propriety of causes of action he may or did pursue in a separate action, and does not rely on any factual conclusion that he knew his score before moving to intervene. Cf. Briscoe’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal, Briscoe v. City of New Haven, 3:09cv1642(CSH) (D. Conn. Apr. 29, 2010) (seeking reconsideration to correct a “significant factual error,” and asserting that Briscoe “was not aware of his score or standing on the list until after the Supreme Court’s decision in June 2009”).
13

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 14 of 17
outcomes come to pass, particularly when resolution of claims is near.” (Pls.’ Opp’n at 15 (citing Farmland Dairies, 847 F.2d at 1044).) Judgment has entered, the City has promoted fourteen of the Plaintiffs, and the parties have briefed two post–remand matters—“(a) the scope and nature of damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled under Title VII, and (b) whether any counts remain for liability adjudication” (Scheduling Order [Doc. # 148] at 1). The existing parties’ interest in the finality of judgment on liability on the Title VII claim—which is the interest that intervention would prejudice—is substantial. Cf. Farmland Dairies, 847 F.2d at 1044 (affirming denial of intervention where district court had entered summary judgment and granted injunctive relief, after which the existing parties had negotiated settlement of remaining issues, and where “[t]he interests prejudiced by intervention” accruing from these developments “are clearly substantial”).
C. Prejudice to Briscoe An applicant for intervention cannot rely on prejudice that would result from being unable to intervene if the prejudice would “be attributed to [his] own failure to seek intervention when [he] first had reason to become aware that [the matter] would be considered by the court.” United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 801 F.2d 593, 595 (2d Cir. 1986). Briscoe has not precisely articulated what prejudice he would suffer—and indeed he states that his relief is not inconsistent with the Plaintiffs’ relief and that he does not seek to “undo[] any of the relief that the [P]laintiffs have sought” (Briscoe’s Reply Supp. [Doc. # 197] at 8–9). Notwithstanding these avowals, to the extent his potential prejudice relates to the
14

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 15 of 17
scope of remedial relief already ordered and that to which other Plaintiffs may be entitled, this prejudice results from his own “dilatoriness,” Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 801 F.2d at 596, by failing to intervene during discovery (i.e., to “fill the holes that the City left, and based on that more complete record[,] . . . be entitled to prevail” (Briscoe’s Reply to Defs.’ Obj. at 3)) or at summary–judgment briefing.
Nor does Briscoe’s view that the City’s actions after remand jeopardize his own interests make his otherwise untimely motion timely. Like all private litigants who believe their interests align with public officials who are parties to a particular litigation, Briscoe “should certainly have been aware . . . that the interests represented by the [public official] are not coterminous with [his] own,” since public officials are charged with duties and responsibilities unique to their role as representatives of the public, “and not mere individuals and private rights.” See Farmland Dairies, 847 F.2d at 1044 (noting that private dairy companies’ motion to intervene was untimely and that they should have known that state Attorney General’s interests were “not coterminous with their own”).
D. Exceptional Circumstances An exceptional circumstance further counsels against intervention in this case: the Supreme Court’s determination that Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment. Although after “searching for a standard” the Supreme Court announced a new “rule” to “guid[e] . . . employers and courts [in] situations when [the disparate–treatment and disparate–impact] prohibitions could be in conflict,” Ricci, 129 S. Ct. at 2674–75, the Court
15

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 16 of 17
did not remand for a new trial or summary disposition, see id. at 2702–03 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“When this Court formulates a new legal rule, the ordinary course is to remand and allow the lower courts to apply the rule in the first instance.” (citations omitted)), but instead granted Plaintiffs summary judgment “[o]n the record before [it],” id. at 2681 (Kennedy, J., for majority). The Supreme Court remanded to the Second Circuit, which then remanded to this Court “for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.”
The mandate rule dictates that the Supreme Court’s determination of the City’s liability to the Plaintiffs under Title VII is not subject to challenge in this action in this Court. “The mandate rule is a branch of the law-of-the-case doctrine. This rule holds ‘that where issues have been explicitly or implicitly decided on appeal, the district court is obliged, on remand, to follow the decision of the appellate court.’” Burrell v. United States, 467 F.3d 160, 165 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Minicone, 994 F.2d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 1993)). The mandate rule “describes the duty of the district court on remand.” United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 2000) (emphasis added); see also Burrell, 467 F.3d at 165 (“To determine whether an issue remains open for reconsideration on remand, the trial court should look to both the specific dictates of the remand order as well as the broader spirit of the mandate.” (internal quotation omitted)).
Thus, whether or not a new, separate, or supplemented record—which Briscoe expressly seeks to construct (see Briscoe’s Reply to Defs.’ Obj. at 3)—might demonstrate that
16

Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 236 Filed 05/12/10 Page 17 of 17
the City has some valid defense to a disparate–treatment claim, or that the City is liable under Title VII’s disparate–impact prohibition, the time to have done so is long past and the mandate rule bars further discovery in this case and in this Court regarding the liability of the City under Title VII.
E. Summary Each of the factors discussed above counsel against intervention, and there are no compelling or exceptional circumstances that weigh in favor of intervention. The motion to intervene will therefore be denied as untimely. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Briscoe’s Motion to Intervene [Doc. # 173] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 12th day of May, 2010.
17

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Frank Ricci, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
John DeStefano, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 3:04cv1109 (JBA) January 21, 2011

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION On August 20, 2010, the Court issued an Order [Doc. # 239] (“August 20 Order”) that vacated certain judgments previously entered in favor of Defendants and reinstated Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims for further adjudication along with damages under Title VII. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration [Doc. # 242] of this Order correctly points out that the Court did not rule on the status of Plaintiffs’ civil–rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and contends that those claims, too, must be reinstated. Defendants also move for reconsideration [Doc. # 243] of the August 20 Order, arguing that the Court erred in reinstating the Equal Protection and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims and in denying Defendants’ Motion to Amend Judgment with respect to Plaintiffs Thomas Michaels, Sean Patton, Edward Riordan, and John Vendetto. I. Standard The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is “strict,” and “[t]he major grounds for justifying reconsideration are ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.

1992) (quoting 18 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478 (1st ed. 1981)). II. Discussion
A. Section 1985 Claims Because the August 20 Order does not address Plaintiffs’ Section 1985 civil–rights conspiracy claim, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration for the purpose of determining the status of that claim. Upon reconsideration, the Court concludes that because Plaintiffs failed to advance an argument with respect to their Section 1985 claim on appeal before the Second Circuit, they waived any challenge to this Court’s ruling on that claim, and the original judgment for Defendants on that claim remains the law of the case. See Cnty. of Suffolk v. Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp., 106 F.3d 1112, 1117 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[A] decision made at a previous stage of litigation, which could have been challenged in the ensuing appeal but was not, becomes the law of the case; the parties are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision.”). Plaintiffs’ appellate brief before the Second Circuit failed to raise any argument as to this Court’s ruling on the Section 1985 claim. The table of contents lists only Title VII, Equal Protection, and First Amendment claims within its argument section; the “Issues Presented for Review” do not include any mention of Section 1985 or conspiracy; and Plaintiffs do not cite 42 U.S.C. § 1985 anywhere in their brief. See Appellants’ Brief, Ricci v. DeStefano, 264 F. App’x 106 (2d Cir. 2008) (No. 06–4996-cv), 2007 WL 5998076. However, Defendants addressed the Section 1985 conspiracy claim in their appellate briefing, asking the Second Circuit to “affirm the judgment on the conspiracy claim,” Brief of Defendants–Appellees at
2

82–83, Ricci v. DeStefano, 264 F. App’x 106 (2d Cir. 2008) (No. 06–4996-cv), 2007 WL
5998077, in reply to which Plaintiffs argued:
The District Court did not reach the issues of qualified immunity, absolute immunity for defendants Ude and DeStefano and the conspiracy to violate plaintiffs civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Accordingly, because appellants had no ruling from which to appeal, appellants did not brief those issues in their primary brief. All of the issues were thoroughly briefed in the trial court, however, and appellants rely on the arguments presented therein. See R. Doc. #81 at pp. 75–79 (qualified immunity), 79–80 (absolute immunity) and 80–81 (§ 1985). Because each of those claims involves disputed factual issues as to the defendants’ intent, summary judgment is inappropriate in any event.
Reply Brief of Plaintiffs–Appellants at 30–31, Ricci v. DeStefano, 264 F. App’x 106 (2d Cir.
2008) (No. 06–4996-cv), 2007 WL 5998079.
Plaintiffs’ position that this Court did not reach the Section 1985 conspiracy claim
in its September 28, 2006 Ruling on Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment is incorrect.
The Court ruled that because “plaintiffs fail to present sufficient evidence that their equal
protection rights were violated, their § 1985 conspiracy claim must fail as well.” Ricci v.
DeStefano, 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 162 (D. Conn. 2006) (Ricci I). Although Plaintiffs argued
on appeal that factual disputes rendered summary judgment on their Section 1985 claim
inappropriate, they did so only in their reply brief, and the Second Circuit “ha[s] concluded
that merely incorporating by reference an argument presented to the district court . . . or
raising an issue for the first time in a reply brief likewise d[oes] not suffice” to raise an issue
on appeal. Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Franks, 78 F.3d at
833). In order to have raised the issue on appeal, an appellant “must state the issue and
advance an argument.” Frank v. United States, 78 F.3d 815, 832–33 (2d Cir. 1996) (under
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)), rev’d on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997). Plaintiffs’ primary
3

appellate brief advances no argument with respect to Section 1985, thus they waived their right to challenge the disposition, which remains the law of the case. See Stone & Webster, 106 F.3d at 1117.
Because Plaintiffs have waived their challenge to this Court’s decision on their Section 1985 conspiracy claim, the Court will not reinstate that claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Vacating Judgment for Defendants with respect to the Section 1985 claim is denied.
B. Equal Protection Claim Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s August 20 Order reinstating Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim on two grounds: (1) that because this Court granted summary judgment in Defendants’ favor in 2006, the Second Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court declined to address the Equal Protection issue, the Second Circuit’s decision on Equal Protection remains the law of the case; and (2) that the Court overlooked the “long–standing legal canon of constitutional avoidance” in reinstating Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Recons. [Doc. # 243–1] at 3–6.) Because the Court overlooked the spirit–of–the–mandate doctrine and did not fully consider the spirit of the Supreme Court’s mandate with respect to constitutional avoidance, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for reconsideration to reconsider the status of Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim. Although an appellate court’s mandate, under the mandate rule, “is controlling only as to matters within its compass,” New England Ins. Co. v. Healthcare Underwriters Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 599, 606 (2d Cir. 2003), under spirit–of–the–mandate doctrine, that mandate “forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.”
4

United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2001) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)). “To determine whether an issue remains open for reconsideration on remand, the trial court should look to both the specific dictates of the remand order as well as the broader spirit of the mandate.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In its June 29, 2009 decision, the Supreme Court held that “[t]he City’s discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for [Plaintiffs] on their disparate–treatment claim.” Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2681 (2009) (Ricci II). In so ruling, the Supreme Court explained, as part of its mandate reversing and remanding the Second Circuit’s judgment, that it declined to address Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim: “Petitioners are entitled to summary judgment on their Title VII claim, and we therefore need not decide the underlying constitutional question. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Id. The Second Circuit, in turn, remanded to this Court “for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.” (October 27, 2009 Mandate [Doc. # 144].) The Supreme Court’s mandate, in specifically directing summary judgment for Plaintiffs on Title VII while employing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance with respect to Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, forecloses not only relitigation of the Title VII claims, but also the Equal Protection claim.
Although the Supreme Court explained that “it need not decide the constitutional question,” its express declaration to not decide the issue, as it bears on the spirit of the mandate, forecloses relitigation as if it were an express decision on Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim. See Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d at 95. Without “deciding” the Equal Protection
5

question, but instead avoiding the constitutional question and disposing of the case on the basis of Title VII, the Supreme Court implied that because Plaintiffs are entitled to relief on their Title VII claim, further consideration of the Equal Protection claim would be contrary to constitutional avoidance principles. See Ricci II, 129 S. Ct. at 2672 (“Petitioners raise a statutory claim, under the disparate–treatment prohibition of Title VII, and a constitutional claim, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A decision for petitioners on their statutory claim would provide the relief sought, so we consider it first.”) It therefore follows from the spirit of the Supreme Court’s mandate that there will be no further proceedings on Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim because Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought under Title VII.
C. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendants also move for reconsideration of the Court’s August 20 Order with respect to the reinstatement of Plaintiffs’ Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) claim. Defendants argue that the Court overlooked case law that established “that the plaintiffs could and should have appealed this Court’s decision declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. at 8.) Because the Court overlooked the law–of–the–case doctrine and misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s mandate with respect to Plaintiffs’ IIED claim, it will grant Defendants’ motion to reconsider the status of that claim. Plaintiffs did not challenge on appeal this Court’s decision declining supplemental jurisdiction over this IIED claim, see Appellants’ Brief, 2007 WL 5998076; they accordingly waived their challenge to that decision. See Stone & Webster, 106 F.3d at 1117. Plaintiffs, in their Motion to Vacate [Doc. # 201], argued that the Supreme Court’s reversal of this Court’s September 28, 2006 ruling “outright revers[ed] . . . judgment against the plaintiffs
6

on all their claims.” (Mot. to Vacate at 2–3.) This is incorrect. Because Plaintiffs appealed only with respect to their Title VII, Equal Protection, and First Amendment claims, see Appellants’ Brief, 2007 WL 5998076, neither their IIED claim, nor this Court’s declination of jurisdiction over that claim, were before the Supreme Court and thus did not form any part of the Supreme Court’s decision or mandate. See New England Ins., 352 F.3d at 606 (“[A] mandate is controlling only as to matters within its compass.”)
Although the Second Circuit has held that reinstatement on appeal of federal claims reinstates supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, it has done so only where an appellant properly raised the issue of supplemental jurisdiction on appeal. See Spinelli v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 160, 175 (2d Cir. 2009), Brief for Plaintiffs–Appellants, 2007 WL 7073582, at *3; Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61, 79 (2d Cir. 2003), Brief of Plaintiffs–Appellants, 2002 WL 3287521. However, where a party does not raise a specific issue on appeal and thus does not challenge the district court’s final judgment with respect to that issue, that final judgment remains the law of the case and is not modified by an appellate court’s decision with respect to other issues. See Stone & Webster, 106 F.3d at 1117. Because Plaintiffs did not raise supplemental jurisdiction over their IIED claim on appeal and because the Supreme Court’s mandate accordingly does not control with respect to this Court’s prior dismissal of IIED, that dismissal is unaffected by the Supreme Court’s reversal and mandate.
Therefore, the Court’s prior dismissal of the IIED claim is restored, Plaintiffs’ IIED claim will not be reinstated, and there will be no further proceedings with respect to this claim.
7

D. Defendants’ Motion to Amend Judgment Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s August 20 Order with respect to the denial of their Motion to Amend Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs Thomas Michaels, Sean Patton, Edward Riordan, and John Vendetto. Defendants argue that because these Plaintiffs did not have standing by virtue of the fact that their test scores fell below what was needed for promotion, the Court erred in not excluding them from the judgment. (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. at 9–11.) Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. Defendants rely on Bushey v. New York State Civil Svc. Com’n, 571 F. Supp. 1562, 1579–80 (N.D.N.Y. 1983) in arguing that with test scores below what was needed for promotion, Michaels, Patton, Riordan, and Vendetto did not suffer an injury–in–fact and accordingly do not have standing. This argument ignores, however, that Plaintiffs claimed as their injury not the failure to be promoted, but the failure to be treated non–discriminatorily. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 161 (D. Conn. 2006). Because these four Plaintiffs were petitioners before the Supreme Court, they are entitled to the judgment ordered under Title VII. The issue of what damages, if any, these Plaintiffs may be entitled to remains for resolution at a later stage. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 242] is GRANTED, however Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Vacating Judgment for Defendants [Doc. # 201] with respect to Plaintiffs’ Section 1985 claim is DENIED. Defendants Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 243] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Judgment for Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection and IIED claims will not be vacated
8

and there will be no further proceedings on these claims. The only remaining issue for adjudication is to what damages Plaintiffs are entitled with respect to their Title VII claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 21st day of January, 2011.
9

 
 Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 1 of 51
CLOSED,EFILE,JGM,REFCNF,REFDIS
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04−cv−01109−JBA

Ricci et al v. DeStefano et al Assigned to: Judge Janet Bond Arterton Referred to: Judge Joan G. Margolis
Judge Joan G. Margolis (Settlement) Related Cases: 3:09−cv−01642−CSH
3:10−mc−00037−PCD Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/08/2004 Date Terminated: 07/29/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Frank Ricci

represented by Karen Lee Torre Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis P.O. Box 280 Bethany, CT 06524 203−393−3017 Fax: 203−393−9745 Email: ktorre@pattislaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis The Pattis Law Firm, LLC 649 Amity Rd. Bethany, CT 06524 203−393−3017 Fax: 203−393−9745 Email: normpattis@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Blatchley

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Greg Boivin

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gary Carbone

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 2 of 51

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Christoforo

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ryan Divito

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Steven Durand

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William Gambardella

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Brian Jooss

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Kottage

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 3 of 51

Plaintiff Matthew Marcarelli
Plaintiff Thomas J. Michaels
Plaintiff Sean Patton
Plaintiff Christopher Parker
Plaintiff Edward Riordon
Plaintiff Kevin Roxbee
Plaintiff

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 4 of 51

Timothy Scanlon

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Benjamin Vargas

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Vendetto

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mark Vendetto

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John DeStefano

represented by Hugh F. Murray , III Murtha Cullina LLP Cityplace I, 185 Asylum St. Hartford, CT 06103−3469 860−240−6077 Fax: 860−240−6150 Email: hmurray@murthalaw.com TERMINATED: 09/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole C. Chomiak Nuzzo &Roberts One Town Center, PO Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 203−250−2000 Email: nchomiak@nuzzo−roberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 5 of 51

Richard A. Roberts Nuzzo &Roberts One Town Center, PO Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 203−250−2000 Fax: 203−250−3131 Email: rroberts@nuzzo−roberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacey L. Pitcher Nuzzo &Roberts One Town Center, PO Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 203−250−2000 Fax: 203−250−3131 Email: spitcher@nuzzo−roberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theresa M. Waugh Sykes Enterprises, Inc. 400 North Ashley Drive Suite 3100 Tampa, FL 33602 203−605−6130 Email: theresa.waugh@sykes.com TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson Nuzzo &Roberts One Town Center, PO Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 203−250−2000 Fax: 203−250−3131 Email: trichardson@nuzzo−roberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Karen Dubois−Walton

represented by Hugh F. Murray , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theresa M. Waugh (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 6 of 51

TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Thomas Ude, Jr.

represented by Hugh F. Murray , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theresa M. Waugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Tina Burgett

represented by Hugh F. Murray , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 7 of 51

Theresa M. Waugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Boise Kimber

represented by Hugh F. Murray , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theresa M. Waugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Malcolm Weber

represented by Hugh F. Murray , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 8 of 51

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theresa M. Waugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Zelma Tirado

represented by Hugh F. Murray , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theresa M. Waugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant City of New Haven

represented by Hugh F. Murray , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/02/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Foster Office Of Corporation Counsel −NH,CT 165 Church St. New Haven, CT 06510 203−996−7958 Fax: 203−946−7942 Email: Kfoster@newhavenct.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole C. Chomiak

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 9 of 51

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theresa M. Waugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor A. Bolden City of New Haven 165 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 203−946−7951 Fax: 203−946−7942 Email: vbolden@newhavenct.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Gary Tinney TERMINATED: 01/14/2010

represented by Christy B. Bishop Thompson &Bishop 946 Kenmore Blvd Village of Kenmore Akron, OH 44314 330−753−6874 Fax: 330−753−7082 Email: law@thompsonbishop.com TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis R. Thompson Thompson &Bishop 946 Kenmore Blvd Village of Kenmore Akron, OH 44314 330−753−6874 Fax: 330−753−7082 Email: law@thompsonbishop.com TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Martyn Philpot , Jr. Law Offices of W. Martyn Philpot, Jr.,

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 10 of 51

LLC 409 Orange St. New Haven, CT 06511−6406 203−624−4666 Fax: 203−624−5050 Email: lawoffice@philpotlaw.net TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Linda Cohens TERMINATED: 01/14/2010

represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Martyn Philpot , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Bernard McNeil TERMINATED: 01/14/2010

represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Martyn Philpot , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Rodney Patterson, Sr TERMINATED: 01/14/2010

represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 11 of 51

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Martyn Philpot , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Anthony Reese TERMINATED: 01/14/2010

represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Martyn Philpot , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Curtis Tolson TERMINATED: 01/14/2010

represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Martyn Philpot , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Anthony Wells TERMINATED: 01/14/2010

represented by Christy B. Bishop (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dennis R. Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 12 of 51

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Martyn Philpot , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Michael Briscoe TERMINATED: 05/12/2010

represented by David N. Rosen David N. Rosen &Associates, P.C. 400 Orange St New Haven, CT 06511 203−787−3513 Fax: 203−789−1605 Email: drosen@davidrosenlaw.com TERMINATED: 05/05/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/08/2004
07/08/2004 07/08/2004 07/08/2004 07/19/2004
07/23/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber ( Filing fee $ 150 receipt number N012896.), filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto.(Rodko, B.) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Motions to Dismiss due on 10/08/04. Amended Pleadings due by 9/6/2004. Discovery due by 1/7/2005. Dispositive Motions due by 2/6/2005. Signed by Clerk on 7/8/04. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
Summons Issued as to Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
3 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING re 1 Complaint, filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. Tina Burgett served on 7/9/2004, answer due 7/29/2004; John DeStefano served on 7/9/2004, answer due 7/29/2004; Karen Dubois−Walton served on 7/9/2004, answer due 7/29/2004; Boise Kimber served on 7/9/2004, answer due 7/29/2004; City of New Haven served on 7/9/2004, answer due 7/29/2004; Zelma Tirado served on 7/9/2004, answer due 7/29/2004; Thomas Ude Jr. served on 7/9/2004, answer due 7/29/2004; Malcolm Weber served on 7/9/2004, answer due 7/29/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Manual Filing)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
4 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Judge Janet C. Hall recused. Case reassigned to Judge Mark R. Kravitz for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/20/2004. (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 07/27/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 13 of 51

08/10/2004 08/18/2004 10/01/2004 10/27/2004 10/29/2004
11/23/2004
12/09/2004
12/09/2004 12/17/2004 12/17/2004 01/11/2005
01/13/2005

6 NOTICE of Appearance by Hugh F. Murray III on behalf of Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/11/2004)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Theresa M. Parietti on behalf of Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber (Malone, P.) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
8 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber.(Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
9 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
10 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 11/17/2004 at 08:15 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiff's attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. Counsel are ordered by the court to be prepared to discuss all pending motions. Please Note that the parties should commence discovery immediately in accordance with the discovery plan set forth in their 26(f) Report and they should not delay discovery pending the conference scheduled herein or entry of a scheduling order. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
11 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/13/2005 08:30 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Amended Pleadings due by 11/15/2004. Discovery due by 6/30/2005. Joinder of Parties due by 11/15/2004. Dispositive Motions due by 8/1/2005. Status Report due by 7/6/2005. Trial Ready Date 9/15/2005. Trial Brief due by 9/1/2005.. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 11/23/04. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
12 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. Having conferred with the parties during an on−the−record telephonic conference, the Court consents to Defendants filing a motion for a protective order and accompanying brief, which should be filed no later than December 17, 2004. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants' motion no later than January 10, 2005. Defendants shall file any reply no later than January 12, 2005. The parties shall serve each other by facsimile, in addition to a hard copy, and shall provide the Court with a courtesy copy of each filing. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 12/9/2004. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz : Telephone Status Conference held on 12/9/2004. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
14 MOTION for Protective Order by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber.Responses due by 1/7/2005 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
15 Memorandum in Support re 14 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
17 MOTION for Extension of Time Nun Pro Tuncto File Opposition as to 14 MOTION for Protective Order until 1 Day by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Malone, P.) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2005 (Malone, P.). (Entered: 01/14/2005)
16 Memorandum in Support re 14 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A &B filed manually)(Malone, P.) (Entered: 01/14/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 14 of 51

01/14/2005 01/20/2005 01/20/2005 01/24/2005
01/24/2005 02/09/2005 02/14/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 03/03/2005 03/30/2005
04/01/2005 05/26/2005
05/26/2005

Docket Entry Correction ATTACHED NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING re 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Protective Order until 1 Day (Malone, P.) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard A. Roberts on behalf of Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicole C. Chomiak on behalf of Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
20 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 17 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 14 MOTION for Protective Order. Plaintiffs shall file their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Proposed Order Re: Discovery Confidentiality no later than January 11, 2005. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/24/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
21 Supplemental Filing re 14 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude Jr., Malcolm Weber. Exhibit in manual format. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
22 NOTICE re: Electronic Filing of Case;Responses due by 3/18/2005.. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 2/9/05. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
23 Second Supplemental Filing Concerning 14 MOTION for Protective Order filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Malone, P.) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
24 RULING AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion for Protective Order . Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 2/28/05. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
25 ORDER RE: DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY Pursuant to Rule 26 (c) of Federal Rules of Civil Proceddure. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 2/28/05. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
Docket Entry Correction CORRECTED FILE DATE re 25 Order Discovery Confidentiality (Malone, P.) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
26 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint)(Malone, P.) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
27 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER . Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 4/1/05. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
28 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. In the absence of any objection, the Court GRANTS 26 Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint. The Clerk is directed to docket the Amended Complaint dated March 30, 2005. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 5/26/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
29 AMENDED COMPLAINT against John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven, filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone.(Malone, P.) (Entered: 05/27/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 15 of 51

06/01/2005 06/13/2005 06/13/2005 06/23/2005
06/27/2005 06/28/2005 06/30/2005
07/06/2005 07/19/2005 07/22/2005
07/25/2005 07/26/2005 07/26/2005 07/27/2005

30 First MOTION for Protective Order by John DeStefano.Responses due by 6/22/2005 (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
31 Second MOTION to Dismiss by John DeStefano.Responses due by 7/4/2005 (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
32 Memorandum in Support re 31 Second MOTION to Dismiss filed by John DeStefano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Release of Jurisdiction letter# 2 Exhibit Zachary vs. Whalen# 3 Exhibit Loftin vs. NYS Department of Mental Health)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
33 Opposition re 31 Second MOTION to Dismiss filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
34 MOTION to Withdraw 31 Motion to Dismiss and 30 Motion for Protective Order by John DeStefano, Tina Burgett, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 6/28/2005 to create links to Doc #'s 30 &31 (Malone, P.). (Entered: 06/27/2005)
35 RULING &ORDER denying 30 Motion for Protective Order, denying 31 Motion to Dismiss, granting 34 Motion to Withdraw . Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 6/28/05. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
36 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference reset for 7/19/2005 at 08:30 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiff's attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. Counsel are ordered by the court to be prepared to discuss all pending motions. The telephonic status conference previously scheduled for 7/13/2005 is canceled. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
37 STATUS REPORT by John DeStefano. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
38 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz : Telephone Status Conference held on 7/19/2005. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
39 First MOTION for Extension of Time until 09/21/05 Complete Discovery by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Manual Filing)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
40 Memorandum in Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion for Enlargement of Time re 39 First MOTION for Extension of Time until 09/21/05 Complete Discovery filed by John DeStefano. (Roberts, Richard) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/26/2005 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 07/25/2005)
41 Docket Entry Correction re 40 Memorandum in Opposition to 39 Motion for Extension of Time to 9/21/05 to Complete Discovery; added correct pdf (electronic document) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
42 Docket Entry Correction re 40 Memorandum in Opposition to 39 Motion for Extension of Time to 9/21/05 to Complete Discovery; added correct pdf (electronic document) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
43 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 8/1/2005 at 09:15 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiff's attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. Counsel are ordered by the court to be prepared to discuss all pending motions. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 07/27/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 16 of 51

07/27/2005
07/28/2005
07/28/2005 07/28/2005 08/19/2005 08/29/2005 10/20/2005 10/24/2005 11/01/2005
11/01/2005 11/01/2005

44 REPLY to Response to 39 First MOTION for Extension of Time until 09/21/05 Complete Discovery filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
45 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting 39 Motion for Enlargement of Time to the following extent only: Close of discovery is extended until October 1, 2005 for the sole purpose of allowing plaintiff to obtain the documents requested in document requests previously attached to deposition notices and to take the depositions of Mayor DeStefano, Noelia Marcano, Karen Dubois−Walton, and Chad Legel (by telephone). Plaintiffs shall also respond to any outstanding discovery by Defendants. Defendants' dispositive motions, if any, must be filed no later than November 1, 2005. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 7/28/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
Set Deadlines: Discovery due by 10/1/2005. Dispositive Motions due by 11/1/2005. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
46 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz : Telephone Status Conference held on 7/28/2005. (Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
47 MOTION for Default Entry 55(a) as to All parties by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
48 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER to Amended Complaint with AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven.(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
49 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Chomiak, Nicole) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
50 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting 49 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendants' may file a memorandum totaling no more than 55 pages in support of their motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/24/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
51 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. Defendants shall file any dispositive motions no later than November 4, 2005 and Defendants' opening brief may be as long as 55 pages; Plaintiffs will file any dispositive motions and also will respond to Defendants' dispositive motions in a single brief (not to exceed 55 pages) filed no later than December 2, 2005; Defendants shall reply to Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' dispositive motions and will respond to Plaintiffs' dispositive motions in a single brief no later than December 23, 2005; Plaintiffs will file any reply to Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' dispositive motions no later than January 6, 2006. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 11/01/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 11/4/2005. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
56 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz : Telephone Status Conference held on 11/1/2005. Time: 10 minutes (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 11/18/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 17 of 51

11/04/2005 11/04/2005
11/07/2005 11/08/2005 11/22/2005 11/29/2005
12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/19/2005
12/19/2005 12/19/2005

52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven.Responses due by 11/25/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Appendix # 4 Appendix)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
53 Statement of Material Facts re 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # 13 Exhibit # 14 Exhibit # 15 Exhibit # 16 Exhibit # 17 Exhibit # 18 Exhibit # 19 Exhibit)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
54 Statement of Material Facts re 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Affidavit)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
55 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER denying as moot 47 Motion for Default Entry 55(a) in light of 48 Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 11/8/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
57 First MOTION for Extension of Time until Conclusion of Litigation of the Protective Order signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on February 28, 2005 25 Order by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
58 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment until December 19, 2005 by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
59 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting absent objection 58 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and file Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment no later than December 19, 2005. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 12/1/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
Set Deadlines as to 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 12/19/2005 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
60 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone.Responses due by 1/9/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts # 2 Statement of Material Facts Response to defendants' statement)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
61 Statement of Material Facts re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
62 EXHIBIT Notice of manual filing by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone re 61 Statement of

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 18 of 51

12/20/2005 12/20/2005
12/23/2005 12/23/2005 12/27/2005 12/27/2005 01/04/2006 01/04/2006 01/06/2006 01/06/2006

Material Facts,, 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
63 RESPONSE Objection to Plaintiffs' 64 Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 12/21/2005 − created link to motion (Rodko, B.). (Entered: 12/20/2005)
64 MOTION for Extension of Time until December 27, 2005 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' 60 Motion for Summary Judgment by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 12/21/2005 − created link to motion (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
65 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting 64 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than December 27, 2005. Defendants will be granted an extension to file their reply brief if they require an extension in view of the holidays. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 12/23/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
66 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting 57 Motion for Extension of Time. In the absence of any opposition, 57 Defendant's Motion to Extend Protective Order is granted, and the protective order is extended until the end of this litigation. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 12/23/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
67 Memorandum in Opposition re 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
68 Memorandum in Support re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
69 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment until January 31, 2006 by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
70 First MOTION for Extension of Time until January 31, 2006 to Reply to Plaintiffs' 67 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
71 MOTION to Amend/Correct 61 Statement of Material Facts, by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone.Responses due by 1/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Torre, Karen) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2006 (Inferrera, L.). (Entered: 01/06/2006)
72 Statement of Material Facts re 71 MOTION to Amend/Correct 61 Statement of Material Facts, Proposed Revised Statement of Material Facts filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss,

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 19 of 51

01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/11/2006 01/11/2006 01/18/2006
01/18/2006 01/18/2006 02/03/2006
02/03/2006 02/03/2006

James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
73 Docket Entry Correction re 71 MOTION to Amend 61 Statement of Material Facts; corrected pdf (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
77 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz : Telephone Status Conference held on 1/9/2006. 30 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
74 MOTION to Seal Volume III, Volume VI and Exhibit 43 of Volume I of 62 Exhibits by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
75 ORDER granting 74 Motion to Seal Volume III, Volume VI and Exhibit 43 of Volume I of 62 Exhibits. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/10/06. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
76 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. Set Deadlines as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall file an amended and corrected Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Rule 56(a) Statement no later than 2/3/2006. Defendants shall file their response no later than 3/3/2006 and Plaintiff's reply brief is due no later than 3/17/2006. Oral argument is scheduled for 5/1/2006 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
Set Deadlines as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 3/3/2006 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
Set Deadlines as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 2/3/2006 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
78 MOTION for Extension of Time until February 6, 2006 Revised Memorandum of Law, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment until February 6, 2006 by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
79 Statement of Material Facts re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
80 Statement of Material Facts re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/03/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 20 of 51

02/06/2006
02/08/2006 02/08/2006
03/02/2006 03/02/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/10/2006
03/10/2006 03/10/2006
04/03/2006

81 Memorandum in Opposition re 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
82 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER denying as moot 69 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply, denying as moot 71 Motion to Amend/Correct Statement of Material Facts. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 2/8/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
83 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting 78 Motion for Extension of Time, granting 78 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall file his revised Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than February 6, 2006. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 2/8/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
84 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
85 First MOTION for Extension of Time until March 10, 2006 to file reply brief regarding 52 , Opposition to 60 and other supporting documents 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
86 ORDER granting 85 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall file their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, and other supporting documents, no later than March 10, 2006. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/6/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
87 ORDER granting 84 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendants shall file a memorandum in support of their motion to strike not to exceed 65 pages in length. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/6/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
Set Deadlines as to 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 3/10/2006 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, 60 Motion for Summary Judgement by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven.Responses due by 3/31/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support pages 1−27# 2 Memorandum in Support Pages 28−56)(Roberts, Richard) Modified on 3/13/2006 To create link to Motion #60(Malone, P.). (Entered: 03/10/2006)
89 RESPONSE re 80 Statement of Material Facts, 60 Motion for Summary Judgement filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 3/13/2006 To create link to Motion # 60 (Malone, P.). (Entered: 03/10/2006)
90 RESPONSE re 81 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment pages 1−25 &Table of Contents filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 pages 26−51# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
91 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, until April 7, 2006 by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 21 of 51

04/03/2006 04/07/2006
04/10/2006 04/12/2006
04/17/2006
04/19/2006 04/19/2006 04/25/2006
04/27/2006 04/28/2006

Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, John DeStefano, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
92 ORDER granting 91 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts. Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike no later than April 7, 2006. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 4/3/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
93 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, 60 Motion for Summary Judgment until April 12, 2006 by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 4/10/2006 (Malone, P.). (Entered: 04/07/2006)
94 ORDER granting 93 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts. Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike no later than April 10, 2006. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 4/10/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
95 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, until April 17, 2006 by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
96 RESPONSE re 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, 60 Motion for Summary Judgment. filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 4/18/2006 to create link to doc# 60 motion (Malone, P.). Additional attachment(s) added on 4/19/2006 (Malone, P.). (Entered: 04/17/2006)
97 Docket Entry Correction UPLOADED PDF FOR FREE LOOK re 96 Response,, (Attachments: # 1 Main Document Part 2# 2 Main Document Part 3) (Malone, P.) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
98 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 95 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts. Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike no later than April 17, 2006. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 4/19/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
99 Reset Deadlines as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts. NOTE CHANGE OF DATE/TIME. Oral argument previously set for 5/1/2006 is RESET for 5/4/2006 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
100 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
101 ORDER granting 100 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendants shall file a Reply Brief not to exceed 30 pages in length. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 4/28/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 04/28/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 22 of 51

05/01/2006
05/03/2006 05/03/2006 05/09/2006
05/10/2006 05/25/2006
05/25/2006 05/31/2006 06/05/2006
06/07/2006 06/08/2006 06/13/2006 06/16/2006

102 REPLY to Response to 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, 60 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−part I# 2 Exhibit A−part II# 3 Exhibit A−part III# 4 Exhibit B)(Roberts, Richard) Modified on 5/2/2006 to create link to doc # 60 Motion(Malone, P.). (Entered: 05/01/2006)
103 ORDER. The oral argument previously scheduled for May 4, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. is canceled pending further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 5/3/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
104 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case reassigned to Judge Janet Bond Arterton for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 5/3/06. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
105 MOTION for Status Conference Order by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
106 ORDER granting 105 Motion for Status Conference, with consent. A telephonic status conference will be held May 24, 2006 at 1:30 PM. Attorney Torre shall initiate the conference call. Chambers: 203−773−2456. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/10/06. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
107 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Oral Argument set for 7/12/2006 03:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Janet Bond Arterton. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
108 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pursuant to the colloquy with counsel on the record 5/24/06, Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement will be filed by 6/7/06. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/25/06. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
109 First NOTICE of Appearance by Norman A. Pattis on behalf of Frank Ricci (Pattis, Norman) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
110 First MOTION for Extension of Time until June 16, 2006 to file an Amended Rule 56(a)(2) Statement 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 80 Statement of Material Facts, by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
111 Endorsement ORDER granting 110 First MOTION for Extension of Time until June 16, 2006 to file an Amended Rule 56(a)(2) Statement 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 80 Statement of Material Facts, . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis on 6/7/06. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
Set Deadlines as to Amended Rule 56(a)(2) Statement 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 6/16/2006 (Malone, P.) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
112 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/24/06 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: Sharon Montini. (Torrenti, R.) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
113 ENTERED IN ERROR Supplemental MOTION to Strike 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts,, 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 80 Statement of Material Facts, by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven.Responses due by 7/7/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 pages 1 − 20# 2 Exhibit 1 pages 21 − 40# 3 Exhibit 1 pages 41 − 60# 4 Exhibit 1 pages 61 − 80# 5 Exhibit 1 pages 81 − 100# 6 Exhibit 1 pages 101 − 112)(Roberts, Richard) Modified on 6/19/2006 (Malone, P.). (Entered: 06/16/2006)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 23 of 51

06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/20/2006 07/05/2006 07/13/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006
07/17/2006 07/17/2006

114 Amended RESPONSE re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, 80 Statement of Material Facts, filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 pages 26 − 50# 2 pages 51 − 71# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Exhibit 11# 14 Exhibit 12# 15 Exhibit 13# 16 Exhibit 14# 17 Exhibit 15# 18 Exhibit 16# 19 Exhibit 17# 20 Exhibit 18# 21 Exhibit 19)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
115 Supplemental Memorandum in Support re 88 First MOTION to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Amended 80 Statement of Material Facts, 60 Motion for Summary Judgment. filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Pages 1−20# 2 Exhibit 1 Pages 21−40# 3 Exhibit 1 Pages 41−60# 4 Exhibit 1 Pages 61−80# 5 Exhibit 1 Pages 81−100# 6 Exhibit 1 Pages 101−112) Correction of Document #113(Malone, P.) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
116 Amended EXHIBIT 12 by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven re 114 Amended Response re 60 Motion for Summary Judgment, 52 First Motion for Summary Judgment.(Roberts, Richard) Modified on 6/22/2006 to create link to motion(Malone, P.). (Entered: 06/20/2006)
117 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Rescheduled Oral Argument set for 7/17/2006 04:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Janet Bond Arterton. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
120 EXHIBIT Notice of Manual Filing of Exhibits VII and VIII by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
118 MOTION to Preclude Plaintiffs' Proposed Submissions by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven.Responses due by 8/4/2006 (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
119 Supplemental RESPONSE re 60 Motion for Summary Judgment re 115 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,, and re: 52 Motion for Summary Judgment re 114 Response,, filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 7/17/2006 To create links to docket #'s 52 &60 Motions (Malone, P.). (Entered: 07/14/2006)
121 RESPONSE re 52 Motion for Summary Judgment And 60 Motion for Summary Judgment re 119 Response, filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) Modified on 7/18/2006 to create links to motion Docket #'s 52 &60 Motions (Malone, P.). (Entered: 07/17/2006)
122 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet Bond Arterton : Motion Hearing held on 7/17/2006 re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Frank Ricci,, Matthew Marcarelli,, Timothy Scanlon,, James Kottage,, Michael Blatchley,, Greg Boivin,, Gary Carbone,, Michael Christoforo,, Ryan Divito,, Steven Durand,, William Gambardella,, Brian Jooss,, Thomas J. Michaels,, Sean Patton,, Christopher Parker,, Edward Riordon,, Kevin Roxbee,, Benjamin Vargas,, John Vendetto,, Mark Vendetto,, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 24 of 51

07/17/2006 07/26/2006 07/31/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006
08/07/2006
08/09/2006
09/13/2006 09/18/2006 09/19/2006 09/28/2006 09/29/2006 10/27/2006

by City of New Haven,, John DeStefano,, Tina Burgett,, Karen Dubois−Walton,, Thomas Ude, Jr., Boise Kimber,, Malcolm Weber,, Zelma Tirado,, 118 MOTION to Preclude Plaintiffs' Proposed Submissions filed by City of New Haven,, John DeStefano,, Tina Burgett,, Karen Dubois−Walton,, Thomas Ude, Jr., Boise Kimber,, Malcolm Weber,, Zelma Tirado,, 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, filed by City of New Haven,, John DeStefano,, Tina Burgett,, Karen Dubois−Walton,, Thomas Ude, Jr., Boise Kimber,, Malcolm Weber,, Zelma Tirado,. Total Time: 1 hours and 45 minutes(Court Reporter S. Montini.) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, 118 MOTION to Preclude Plaintiffs' Proposed Submissions, 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
123 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis for Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 7/26/2006. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
124 ORDER Vacating re 123 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 7/27/06. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
125 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7/17/06 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: Sharon Montini. (Torrenti, R.) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
126 Memorandum in Opposition re 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, 118 MOTION to Preclude Plaintiffs' Proposed Submissions filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
127 REPLY to Response to 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment and 121 response to reply brief filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
128 First RESPONSE re 126 Memorandum in Opposition to 52 Motion for Summary Judgment 121 Response 118 MOTION to Preclude Plaintiffs' Proposed Submissions, 127 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 8/10/2006 (Malone, P.). (Entered: 08/09/2006)
129 CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7/17/06 (Errata Sheet Attached)before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: Sharon Montini. (Torrenti, R.) Modified text on 11/27/2006 (Pesta, J.). (Entered: 09/14/2006)
130 RULING denying 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts, . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 9/15/06. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
131 NOTICE of Appearance by Norman A. Pattis on behalf of all plaintiffs (Pattis, Norman) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
132 RULING granting 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, denying 60 Motion for Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 9/28/06. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
133 JUDGMENT in favor of defendants . Signed by Clerk on 9/29/06. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
134 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 132 Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment,, 133 Judgment by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 25 of 51

10/31/2006 11/09/2006 11/14/2006
11/27/2006 12/19/2006

Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number N019690. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
135 MOTION to Amend/Correct Record by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone.Responses due by 11/21/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Karen Lee Torre# 2 Notice of manual filing)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
136 ORDER granting 135 Motion to Amend/Correct the Record, with consent. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/9/06. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
137 Index to Record on Appeal by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone re 134 Notice of Appeal,, 120 Exhibit,, 104 Order of Transfer, 89 Response,, 40 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 79 Statement of Material Facts,, 81 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 116 Exhibit,, 121 Response,, 54 Statement of Material Facts,, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, 57 First MOTION for Extension of Time until Conclusion of Litigation of the Protective Order signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on February 28, 2005 25 Order, 96 Response,,, 130 Order on Motion to Strike, 127 Reply to Response to Motion,, 128 Response,, 114 Response,,, 102 Reply to Response to Motion,, 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts,, 132 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, 90 Response,, 68 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 29 Amended Complaint,, 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 129 Transcript, 126 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 80 Statement of Material Facts,, 53 Statement of Material Facts,,, 103 Order, 48 Answer to Amended Complaint, 55 Order on Motion for Default Entry 55(a), Order on Motion for Default Entry 55(a), 62 Exhibit,, 119 Response,,, 135 MOTION to Amend/Correct Record, 67 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 133 Judgment, 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Protective Order until 1 Day, 112 Transcript. For docket entries without a hyperlink, contact the court to arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
Docket Entry Correction: Modified text of 129 Corrected Transcript to indicate this it was a corrected version. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
138 Index to Record on Appeal by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone re 134 Notice of Appeal, 67 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 136 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, 104 Order of Transfer, 90 Response, 119 Response,, 135 MOTION to Amend/Correct Record, 112 Transcript, 118 MOTION to Preclude Plaintiffs' Proposed Submissions, 115 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 40 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 80 Statement of Material Facts, 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 75 Order on Motion to Seal, 62 Exhibit, 79 Statement of Material Facts, 128 Response, 88 First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts,First MOTION to Strike 80 Statement of Material Facts,, 57 First MOTION for Extension of Time until Conclusion of Litigation of the Protective Order signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on February 28, 2005 25 OrderFirst MOTION for Extension of Time until Conclusion of Litigation of the Protective Order signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on February 28, 2005 25 Order, 127 Reply to Response to Motion, 81 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 120 Exhibit, 68 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 74 MOTION to Seal, 133 Judgment, 102 Reply to Response to Motion, 29 Amended Complaint, 54 Statement of Material Facts, 103 Order, 52 First MOTION for Summary Judgment, 114 Response,, 66

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 26 of 51

03/16/2009 03/19/2009 03/19/2009 04/06/2009 08/07/2009 08/11/2009 08/13/2009 08/31/2009 09/02/2009 10/27/2009
10/30/2009 11/03/2009

Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 53 Statement of Material Facts,, 121 Response, 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Protective Order until 1 Day MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Protective Order until 1 Day MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Protective Order until 1 Day, 116 Exhibit, 89 Response, 96 Response,, 48 Answer to Amended Complaint, 132 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 126 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 129 Transcript, 130 Order on Motion to Strike. For docket entries without a hyperlink, contact the court to arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
Request Made Via email from Erin @ USCA re 134 Notice of Appeal, for Supplemental Record on Appeal to be shipped to US Supreme Court re 134 Notice of Appeal (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
Supplemental Record on Appeal to US Supreme Court consisting of Paper Documents 39,SEALED 62,112, 120−1, 120−2,125,129,135 re 134 Notice of Appeal, 138 Index to Record on Appeal (Brown, S.) Modified on 3/19/2009 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 03/19/2009)
Docket Entry Correction re Supplemental ROA shipped to US Supreme Court, modified by correcting docket #120−1 located in the Supplemental ROA docket entry (Brown, S.) Modified on 3/24/2009 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 03/19/2009)
139 Acknowledged Receipt of Supplemental ROA at US Supreme Court on 3/25/09 USCA Number: 06−4996cv (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
Appeal Record Returned re 134 Notice of Appeal. Manually filed document Nos. 39, 62, 112, 120−1, 120−2, 125, 129 and 135 returned. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
140 MOTION for Theresa M. Waugh to Withdraw as Attorney by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Waugh, Theresa) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
141 Endorsement ORDER granting 140 Motion for Attorney Theresa M. Waugh to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Theresa M. Waugh terminated. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 8/13/09. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
142 MOTION for Hugh F. Murray, III to Withdraw as Attorney by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado. (Murray, Hugh) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
143 ORDER granting 142 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Hugh F. Murray, III terminated. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 9/2/09. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
144 MANDATE of USCA dated 10/27/09 Remanding 134 Notice of Appeal, filed by Benjamin Vargas, Christopher Parker, Greg Boivin, John Vendetto, Frank Ricci, Ryan Divito, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Michael Christoforo, Sean Patton, Edward Riordon, James Kottage, Mark Vendetto, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Michael Blatchley, Gary Carbone, Brian Jooss (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
145 SCHEDULING ORDER. A scheduling conference will be held on November 5, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in chambers, Suite 118, 141 Church Street, New Haven, Conn. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 10/30/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
146 Proposed MOTION for Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(2) by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone.Responses due by 11/24/2009 (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 27 of 51

11/04/2009 11/05/2009
11/06/2009 11/09/2009
11/09/2009
11/12/2009 11/13/2009 11/13/2009 11/13/2009 11/13/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/17/2009 11/17/2009 11/17/2009

147 NOTICE of Appearance by Victor A. Bolden on behalf of City of New Haven (Bolden, Victor) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
148 SCHEDULING ORDER: By Nov. 13, 2009 the parties shall file a proposed stipulated order directing undisputed promotions or, if the parties cannot agree on a stipulated order, they shall file separate proposed orders. The parties shall brief the two issues listed herein, for which Plaintiff's brief shall be filed by Dec. 1, 2009; Defendants shall file their response by Dec. 22, 2009; and Plaintiffs shall file their reply, if any, by Jan. 4, 2010. The parties are referred to Magistrate Judge Margolis for a settlement conference. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/5/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
152 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis for Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/6/09. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
149 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Settlement Conference is set for 11/16/2009 and 11/17/2009 at 09:30 AM in Jury Room 309, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Joan G. Margolis. (Hill, M.) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
150 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. AMENDED Settlement Conference Calendar: Settlement Conference is set for 11/17/2009 at 09:30 AM in Jury Room 309, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Joan G. Margolis. (Hill, M.) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
151 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: At the request of counsel, the settlement conference scheduled for November 17, 2009 is postponed and will be rescheduled. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 11/12/2009. (Watson, M.) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
153 NOTICE of Appearance by Stacey L. Pitcher on behalf of John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven (Pitcher, Stacey) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
154 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd Jay Richardson on behalf of John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven (Richardson, Todd) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
155 PROPOSED ORDER RE: UNDISPUTED PROMOTIONS by William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
156 PROPOSED ORDER by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
157 NOTICE of Appearance by W. Martyn Philpot, Jr on behalf of Intervenor Plaintiffs (Philpot, W.) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
158 MOTION to Intervene by Intervenor Plaintiffs.Responses due by 12/7/2009 (Philpot, W.) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
159 ENTERED IN ERROR: NOTICE by William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, Gary Carbone Request for Status Conference (Torre, Karen) Modified on 11/18/2009 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 11/17/2009)
160 MOTION for Status Conference by William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, Gary Carbone, Replaces entry #159 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
161 MOTION for Attorney Christy B. Bishop to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Gary Tinney, Linda Cohens, Bernard McNeil, Rodney Patterson, Sr, Anthony Reese, Curtis Tolson, Anthony Wells. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N028992. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 28 of 51

11/17/2009 11/19/2009 11/19/2009 11/20/2009 11/23/2009
11/23/2009 11/24/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009 11/30/2009
12/01/2009 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 12/02/2009 12/02/2009 12/04/2009

162 MOTION for Attorney Dennis R. Thompson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Gary Tinney, Linda Cohens, Bernard McNeil, Rodney Patterson, Sr, Anthony Reese, Curtis Tolson, Anthony Wells. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N028992. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
163 ORDER granting 161 Motion for Attorney Christy B. Bishop to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 162 Motion for Dennis R. Thompson to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Clerk on 11/19/09. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
164 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen M. Foster on behalf of City of New Haven (Foster, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
165 RESPONSE re 160 MOTION for Status Conference filed by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
166 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/5/09 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: S. Montini. Type of Hearing: Transcript of Status Conference. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 12/14/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/24/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/21/2010. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
167 RESPONSE re 165 Response To 160 Request for Status Conference filed by William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 11/24/2009 to create link (Brown, S.). (Entered: 11/23/2009)
168 ORDER. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/24/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
169 ORDER finding as moot 160 Motion for Status Conference. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/30/09. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
170 MOTION to Stay promotions and for status conference by Gary Tinney.Responses due by 12/21/2009 (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
171 MOTION for Extension of Time until 12/17/2009 With Consent of the Defendants To Submit Briefs RE: The Scope and Nature of Damages and Any Counts That Remain For Liability Adjudication by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
172 MOTION for Status Conference by Gary Tinney. Part 2 of 170 (Brown, S.) Modified on 12/1/2009 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/01/2009)
Docket Entry Correction re 172 MOTION for Status Conference; modified to add Part 2 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
173 MOTION to Intervene by Michael Briscoe.Responses due by 12/22/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Rosen, David) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
174 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time 171 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/2/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
175 ORDER: The Putative Intervenors' 170 , 172 Motions to Stay are DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/2/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
176 JUDGMENT on liability entered in favor of Benjamin Vargas, Brian Jooss, Christopher Parker, Edward Riordon, Frank Ricci, Gary Carbone, Greg Boivin, James Kottage, John Vendetto, Kevin Roxbee, Mark Vendetto, Matthew Marcarelli, Michael Blatchley, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Sean Patton, Steven Durand, Thomas J. Michaels, Timothy Scanlon, William Gambardella

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 29 of 51

12/07/2009 12/07/2009
12/07/2009 12/07/2009 12/08/2009 12/08/2009 12/09/2009 12/10/2009
12/11/2009 12/14/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/16/2009 12/17/2009

against City of New Haven,For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 12/3/09. (Torday, B.) Modified on 12/7/2009 (Torday, B.). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
177 Docket Entry Correction re 176 Judgment, Correction as to parties−judgment against defendant City of New Haven only, (Torday, B.) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
178 MOTION to Stay by Intervenor/ Plaintiff Movants by Gary Tinney.Responses due by 12/28/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − New Haven Register Article, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Brief Amici Curiae, IO Psychologists, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Brief Amici Curiae, AIBPFF &IO Psychologists)(Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 12/8/2009 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/07/2009)
179 Memorandum in Opposition re 158 MOTION to Intervene filed by William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, Gary Carbone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
180 OBJECTION re 158 MOTION to Intervene filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
Docket Entry Correction re 178 MOTION to Stay by Intervenor/ Plaintiff Movants; modified to add all filers (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
181 OBJECTION re 178 MOTION to Stay by Intervenor/ Plaintiff Movants filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
182 ORDER: The Putative Intervenors' 178 Motion to Stay is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/9/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
183 MOTION to Amend/Correct 176 JUDGMENT by City of New Haven. Responses due by 12/31/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend Judgment, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit E−1, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G)(Roberts, Richard) LINKS Modified on 12/11/2009 (Bauer, J.). Modified on 12/11/2009 to remove filers (Malone, P.). (Entered: 12/10/2009)
Docket Entry Correction re 183 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Removed incorrect filers.(Malone, P.) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
184 OBJECTION re 173 MOTION to Intervene filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
185 RESPONSE re 184 Objection to 173 Motion to Intervene filed by Michael Briscoe. (Rosen, David) Modified to create link on 12/16/2009 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/15/2009)
186 RESPONSE re 185 Response Reply to 173 Motion to Intervene filed by William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified to create link on 12/16/2009 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/15/2009)
187 REPLY to Response to 173 MOTION to Intervene filed by Michael Briscoe. (Rosen, David) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
188 NOTICE by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin of Plaintiff's Brief on Post−Remand Liability Issues and Elements of Title VII Damages (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 30 of 51

12/18/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009
12/23/2009 12/29/2009
12/29/2009 12/30/2009 01/04/2010 01/06/2010
01/06/2010
01/06/2010

189 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 158 MOTION to Intervene and 173 Motion to Intervene until 12/31/2009 by Gary Tinney. (Thompson, Dennis) Modified on 12/21/2009 to create link(Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
190 ORDER: The Putative Intervenors' 189 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED absent objection. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/22/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
191 SCHEDULING ORDER: Oral argument on the 158 , 173 Motions to Intervene will be held on January 20, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom Two at 141 Church Street, New Haven, Conn. before Judge Janet Bond Arterton, after which a status conference with the current Plaintiffs and Defendants will be held. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/22/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
192 Memorandum in Opposition re 173 MOTION to Intervene filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
193 ENTERED IN ERROR: NOTICE by Michael Briscoe re 173 MOTION to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Rosen, David) Modified on 12/29/2009 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/23/2009)
194 MOTION for Extension of Time until January 21, 2010 To Respond to 183 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 12/30/2009 to change motion (Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/29/2009)
195 Memorandum in Support re 173 MOTION to Intervene filed by Michael Briscoe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
196 ORDER: Plaintiffs' 194 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Amend Judgment shall be filed by January 15, 2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/30/2009. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
197 REPLY to Response to 173 MOTION to Intervene filed by Michael Briscoe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Rosen, David) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
198 SCHEDULING ORDER: In order to enable the status conference set for January 20, 2010 to proceed, the Court's December 2, 2009 Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time is modified to require Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' brief regarding damages under Title VII and any counts remaining for liability adjudication by January 19, 2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/6/2010. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
199 ENTERED IN ERROR: NOTICE by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone of Request to Clerk For Entry of Order In Compliance with Local Rule 77.1(e) (Torre, Karen) Modified on 1/7/2010 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 01/06/2010)
200 MOTION for Entry of Judgment by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone.Responses due by

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 31 of 51

01/08/2010 01/12/2010
01/12/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/14/2010 01/15/2010 01/15/2010 01/15/2010
01/19/2010
01/20/2010

1/27/2010 [correction to entry 199](Bauer, J.) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
201 MOTION to Vacate 133 Judgment In Favor of Defendants by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
202 NOTICE by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven re 188 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Defendant's Brief Regarding Liability Issues and Title VII Damages (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
203 NOTICE: In accordance with Judge Arterton's standing order on status conferences, which states in pertinent part that "the parties should be prepared to discuss any pending motions, or contemplated motion," the Court advises that all matters bearing on the expeditious disposition of this case will be discussed at the status conference set for January 20, 2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/12/2010. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
204 MOTION to Withdraw 158 MOTION to Intervene by Gary Tinney, Linda Cohens, Bernard McNeil, Rodney Patterson, Sr, Anthony Reese, Curtis Tolson, Anthony Wells. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
205 MOTION for order to be excused from status conference scheduled for January 20, 2010 Order by Gary Tinney, Linda Cohens, Bernard McNeil, Rodney Patterson, Sr, Anthony Reese, Anthony Wells. (Thompson, Dennis) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
206 ORDER: The Putative Intervenors' 204 Motion to Withdraw and 205 Motion to be Excused are GRANTED. Accordingly, their 158 Motion to Intervene is WITHDRAWN. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/14/2010. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
207 OBJECTION re 201 MOTION to Vacate 133 Judgment In Favor of Defendants MOTION to Vacate 133 Judgment In Favor of Defendants filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
208 OBJECTION re 200 MOTION for Judgment filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
209 OBJECTION to Defendants 183 Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 1/19/2010 to create link and to delete filers (Brown, S.). (Entered: 01/15/2010)
210 RESPONSE to Defendants' 202 Brief Re: Scope of Damages and Counts Remaining for Liability Determination filed by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 1/20/2010 to create link (Brown, S.). (Entered: 01/19/2010)
211 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet Bond Arterton: Motion Hearing held on 1/20/2010 re 173 MOTION to Intervene filed by Michael Briscoe. Total Time: 2 hours and 20 minutes(Court Reporter Sharon Montini.) (Torday, B.)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 32 of 51

01/21/2010
01/21/2010 01/22/2010 01/25/2010 01/27/2010 01/27/2010 01/28/2010
01/28/2010 01/29/2010 02/04/2010

(Entered: 01/21/2010)
212 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/20/10 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: S. Montini. Type of Hearing: Transcript of Oral Argument on Motion to Intervene and Status Conference. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 2/11/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/21/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/21/2010. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
213 NOTICE by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven re 212 Transcript,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
214 MOTION for Telephonic Status Conference by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
215 SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiffs' 214 Motion for Telephonic Status Conference is GRANTED, and the Court will hold a telephonic status conference on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall initiate the call to chambers at 203−773−2456. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/25/2010. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
216 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 183 MOTION to Amend/Correct 176 JUDGMENT until 2/12/10 by City of New Haven. AND John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado,(Roberts, Richard) FILERS, MOTION RELIEF, LINKS TO MOTION AND TEXT Modified on 1/28/2010 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 01/27/2010)
220 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet Bond Arterton: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/27/2010. Total Time: 1 hours(Court Reporter Sharon Montini.) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
217 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/27/10 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: S. Montini. Type of Hearing: Transcript of Telephonic Status Conference. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 2/18/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/28/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/28/2010. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
218 ORDER granting 216 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion to Amend/Correct 183 , with consent. Responses due by 2/12/2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/28/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
219 NOTICE by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone of Exhibit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
221 MOTION for Examination of Proposed Intervenor Michael Briscoe Order by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley,

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 33 of 51

02/04/2010 02/08/2010
02/12/2010 02/18/2010 02/18/2010 02/19/2010 02/23/2010
02/23/2010 02/23/2010 02/24/2010

Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
222 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet Bond Arterton: Miscellaneous Hearing held on 2/4/2010. 35 minutes(Court Reporter S. Montini.) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
223 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/4/10 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: S. Montini. Type of Hearing: Transcript of Hearing. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 3/1/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/11/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2010. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
224 REPLY to Response to 183 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment filed by City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
225 First MOTION for Extension of Time until Monday, February 22 to file motion by Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Sean Patton, Christopher Parker, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
226 ORDER: Plaintiffs' 225 Motion for Enlargement of Time is GRANTED, on consent. Plaintiffs shall file their motion by Monday, February 22, 2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 2/18/2010. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
227 OBJECTION re 221 MOTION for Examination of Proposed Intervenor Michael Briscoe Order filed by John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Malcolm Weber, Zelma Tirado, City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
228 MOTION to Transfer/Disqualify/Recuse Judge by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
229 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until Feburary 23, 2010 nunc pro tunc to file motion to recuse nunc pro tunc by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
230 Memorandum in Support re 228 MOTION to Transfer/Disqualify/Recuse Judge filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Rodney Patterson, Sr, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
231 EXHIBIT 19 by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto re 228 MOTION to

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 34 of 51

02/25/2010 02/25/2010 03/12/2010 03/16/2010
05/12/2010 05/18/2010 08/09/2010 08/16/2010
08/20/2010 08/20/2010 08/24/2010 09/02/2010
09/03/2010

Transfer/Disqualify/Recuse Judge. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
232 ORDER granting 229 Motion for Extension of Time, with consent and nunc pro tunc, to 2/23/10. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 2/24/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
233 Memorandum in Opposition re 221 MOTION for Examination of Proposed Intervenor Michael Briscoe Order filed by Michael Briscoe. (Rosen, David) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
234 ORDER: the Clerk is directed to assign a "Miscellaneous Case" (MC) number to Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer/Disqualify/Recuse 228 and to randomly assign it in accordance with the District's random case assignment policy. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 03/12/2010. (Kretman, J.) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
235 OBJECTION re 231 Exhibit, 230 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 228 MOTION to Transfer/Disqualify/Recuse Judge filed by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
236 ORDER: Michael Briscoe's 173 Motion to Intervene is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/12/2010. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
237 ORDER: Plaintiffs' 221 Motion for Examination of Proposed Intervenor Michael Briscoe is DENIED AS MOOT in light of the Court's 236 Order denying Briscoe's Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/18/2010. (Rajendra, R.) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
Notice of Electronic Calendar: A telephonic status conference will be held on August 20, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. Status reports shall be electronically filed by August 16, 2010. Attorney Roberts shall initiate the conference call to chambers ~ 203−773−2456. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
238 Joint STATUS REPORT by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Tina Burgett, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, John DeStefano, Ryan Divito, Karen Dubois−Walton, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Boise Kimber, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, City of New Haven, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, Malcolm Weber. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
239 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment 200 is DENIED as moot; Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Vacating Judgment for Defendants 201 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and Defendants' Motion to Amend Judgment 183 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 08/20/2010. (Budris, K.) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
241 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet Bond Arterton: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/20/2010. Total Time: 1 hours(Court Reporter Sharon Montini.) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
240 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery with respect to damages and remedies will conclude on 12/31/2010. Dispositive Motions due by 10/4/2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 8/20/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2010)
242 MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate,,, by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto.Responses due by 9/23/2010 (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
243 MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate,,, by Tina Burgett, John

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 35 of 51

09/14/2010 09/24/2010
09/28/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/08/2010 10/12/2010
10/18/2010

DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber.Responses due by 9/24/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
244 OBJECTION re 242 MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate,,, MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate,,, filed by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
245 Memorandum in Opposition re 243 MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate,,, MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate,,, filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
246 MOTION for Extension of Time until October 12, 2010 to file Motion for Summary Judgment by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
247 ORDER granting 246 Motion for Extension of Time, with consent, to 10/12/10; 11/2/10; and 11/12/10, respectively. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 9/30/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
RESet Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 10/12/2010 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
248 REPLY to Response to 243 MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate, MOTION for Reconsideration re 239 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Judgment, Order on Motion to Vacate, filed by City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Thomas Ude, Jr., Tina Burgett, Boise Kimber, Zelma Tirado. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 10/13/2010 to add missing filers (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 10/08/2010)
249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber.Responses due by 11/2/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Material Facts Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)1, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U, # 24 Exhibit V, # 25 Exhibit W, # 26 Exhibit X, # 27 Exhibit 1, # 28 Exhibit 2, # 29 Exhibit 3, # 30 Exhibit 4, # 31 Exhibit 5, # 32 Exhibit 6, # 33 Exhibit 7, # 34 Exhibit 8, # 35 Exhibit 9, # 36 Exhibit 10, # 37 Exhibit 11, # 38 Exhibit 12, # 39 Exhibit 13, # 40 Exhibit 14)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
250 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 8/20/10 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: S. Montini. Type of Hearing: Transcript of Telephonic Conference. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 11/8/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/18/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/16/2011. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 10/18/2010)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 36 of 51

10/25/2010
10/28/2010 11/10/2010
11/11/2010 11/11/2010
11/12/2010 11/12/2010
11/12/2010
11/15/2010 11/15/2010 11/23/2010

251 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment until November 10, 2010 by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
252 ORDER granting 251 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment, with consent. Responses due by 11/10/2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 10/28/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
253 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until November 11, 2010 To Respond To Defendants' 249 Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 11/12/2010 to link to underlying motion (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 11/10/2010)
254 ORDER granting 253 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/11/10. (Arterton, Janet) (Entered: 11/11/2010)
255 Memorandum in Opposition re 249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/11/2010)
256 MOTION for Extension of Time until December 3, 2010 to reply to plaintiff's objection to defendant's 249 Motion for Summary Judgment 255 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 11/15/2010 to link to underlying motion and correct motion event (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 11/12/2010)
257 NOTICE by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
258 NOTICE by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
259 ORDER granting 256 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment, with consent. Responses due by 12/3/2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/15/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
Reset Deadlines as to 249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment. Reply due by 12/3/2010 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
260 MOTION for Extension of Time until December 10, 2010 to Reply to the plaintiffs' objection to the defendants' motion for summary judgment 249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment, 255 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 37 of 51

11/24/2010
11/24/2010
11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/30/2010 11/30/2010 12/06/2010 12/10/2010
12/13/2010
12/14/2010 12/21/2010 12/23/2010

Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 11/29/2010 to correct motion event (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 11/23/2010)
261 MOTION for Status Conference by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
262 First MOTION for Extension of Time until January 2, 2011 To Respond to Discovery Requests by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
263 ORDER granting 262 First MOTION for Extension of Time until January 2, 2011 To Respond to Discovery Requests. Signed by Clerk on 11/29/2010. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
264 ORDER granting 260 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply, with consent. Responses due by 12/10/2010. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/29/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
265 ORDER granting 261 Motion for Status Conference. A telephonic status conference will be held on December 17, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Plaintiffs' counsel shall initiate the conference call to chambers ~ 203−773−2456. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/29/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: The telephonic status conference has been rescheduled to December 22, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.(Tooker, A.) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
The parties' telephonic status conference set down for 12/22/2010 at 4:00 p.m. has been rescheduled to 4:30 p.m. (time change only).(Tooker, A.) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
266 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment until December 13, 2010 by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
267 OBJECTION re 255 Memorandum in Opposition to 249 Motion, filed by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Y, # 2 Exhibit Z, # 3 Exhibit AA, # 4 Exhibit BB, # 5 Exhibit CC, # 6 Exhibit DD)(Roberts, Richard) Modified on 12/14/2010 to add link to underlying motion (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 12/13/2010)
268 ORDER granting 266 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 249 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment, with consent and nunc pro tunc. Responses due by 12/13/2010 Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/14/10. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
The parties' telephonic status conference has been rescheduled to January 11, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. All other details remain unchanged.(Tooker, A.) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
269 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time 240 Scheduling Order by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber, Tina Burgett, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelii, Thomas Michaels, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordan, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 12/28/2010 to add missing filers (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 12/23/2010)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 38 of 51

01/10/2011 01/21/2011 01/21/2011 01/24/2011 01/28/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011
02/01/2011
02/02/2011 02/03/2011

Telephonic Status conference set for 1/21/2011 03:30 PM before Judge Janet Bond Arterton. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
270 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration 242 is GRANTED; Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 243 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 01/21/2011. (Budris, K.) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
278 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet Bond Arterton: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/21/2011. Total Time: 1 hours(Court Reporter Sharon Montini.) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
271 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 4/30/2011; Trial Ready Date 7/1/2011; Joint Trial Memorandum due by 6/1/2011; Jury Selection set for 7/6/2011 at 09:00AM before Judge Janet Bond Arterton. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/21/2011. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
272 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
273 First MOTION to Stay by Michael Blatchley, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto.Responses due by 2/21/2011 (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
274 MOTION for Conference by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
275 Motion to Terminate Obsolete Appearances by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto Of Request for Clean Up of Appearances (Torre, Karen) Modified on 2/1/2011 to correct event (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 01/31/2011)
276 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Transcript of Telephone Conference. Held on 1/21/11 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: S Montini. IMPORTANT NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 2/22/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/4/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/2/2011. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
277 Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification shall be filed no later than February 11, 2011.(Tooker, A.) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
Reset Deadlines as to 272 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability. Responses due by 2/11/2011 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 39 of 51

02/07/2011 02/11/2011 02/11/2011 02/14/2011
02/17/2011 03/02/2011 03/02/2011 03/03/2011
03/11/2011 03/21/2011 05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/09/2011
05/10/2011

279 OBJECTION re 274 MOTION for Conference filed by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
280 OBJECTION re 272 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
281 OBJECTION re 273 First MOTION to Stay filed by City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
282 MOTION for Extension of Time until February 22, 2011 Respond to Defendants' Discovery Requests by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
283 ORDER granting 282 Motion for Extension of Time, with consent, to 2/22/11. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 2/16/11. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
USCA Email Request from Nicholas Coffey re retrieval of non−electronic documents re Writ of Mandamus filed directly with USCA. USCA No. 11−703. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
Supplemental Record on Appeal Consisting of Paper Documents 16, 17, 21, 39, 62, 112, 120, 125, 129, 135, 231 to US Court of Appeals. USCA Number: 11−703. (Kelsey, N.) . (Entered: 03/02/2011)
284 Supplemental MOTION to Stay by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto.Responses due by 3/24/2011 (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
285 Acknowledgment of Receipt re: Appeal Record Sent to USCA. Items received by Court of Appeals. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
286 OBJECTION re 284 Supplemental MOTION to Stay filed by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
287 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion 272 for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motions 273 284 for Stay are DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 05/05/2011. (Budris, K.) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
288 ORDER: Parties' Joint Motion 269 for Enlargement of Time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 05/05/2011. (Budris, K.) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
289 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Request 275 for Termination of Appearances of Counsel is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 05/05/2011. (Budris, K.) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
290 Joint MOTION for STATUS Conference by City of New Haven, Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordan, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 5/10/2011 to add missing filers. (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 05/09/2011)
291 ORDER granting Joint Request for Status Conference. A telephonic status conference will be held on May 11, 2011 at 8:45 a.m. Defense counsel shall initiate the conference call to chambers: 203−773−2456. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/10/11. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 40 of 51

05/10/2011 05/11/2011 05/12/2011 05/13/2011
05/16/2011
05/17/2011 05/23/2011
05/25/2011

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/11/2011 at 8:45 AM before Judge Janet Bond Arterton (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
292 STATUS REPORT by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
293 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 6/24/2011 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Janet Bond Arterton; Joint Trial Memorandum due by 6/15/2011; Jury Selection set for 7/6/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom Two, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Janet Bond Arterton. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/11/2011. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
294 MOTION to Quash and for Protective Order by City of New Haven.Responses due by 6/3/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit T, # 22 Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit V, # 24 Exhibit W, # 25 Exhibit X, # 26 Exhibit Y, # 27 Exhibit Z, # 28 Exhibit AA, # 29 Exhibit BB, # 30 Exhibit CC, # 31 Exhibit DD, # 32 Exhibit EE)(Roberts, Richard). Added MOTION for Protective Order on 5/16/2011 (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 05/13/2011)
295 Memorandum in Opposition re 294 MOTION to Quash and for Protective Order MOTION for Protective Order filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Michael Briscoe, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Thomas Ude, Jr, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
300 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet Bond Arterton: Telephone Discovery Status Conference held on 5/17/2011. 30 minutes(Court Reporter S. Montini.) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
296 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Transcript of Telephone Conference. Held on 5/17/11 before Judge Arterton. Court Reporter: S. Montini. IMPORTANT NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 6/13/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/21/2011. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
297 MOTION to Compel and for Expedited Conference and Ruling by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto.Responses due by 6/15/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Affidavit)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 05/25/2011)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 41 of 51

05/25/2011 05/26/2011 05/26/2011 05/26/2011 05/27/2011 05/31/2011 06/01/2011 06/01/2011 06/01/2011 06/01/2011
06/01/2011
06/03/2011
06/03/2011

298 MOTION for Discovery Conference by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
299 ORDER granting 298 Motion for Conference. A telephonic discovery conference will be held 5/27/11 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the conference call to chambers: 203−773−2456. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/26/11. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephonic discovery conference set for 5/27/2011 at 2:00 PM before Judge Janet Bond Arterton (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
301 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion 274 for Status Conference to Reconstruct Unrecorded Conference is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 05/12/2011. (Budris, K.) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
303 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet Bond Arterton: Telephone Discovert Status Conference held on 5/27/2011. 30 minutes(Court Reporter S. Montini.) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
302 Pursuant to the colloquy with counsel on the record of 5/27/11, plaintiff's motion 297 is GRANTED in that defendant City agrees to withdraw its earlier objection and to serve responses and documents regarding damages. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/31/11. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
304 MOTION in Limine regarding emotional distress by City of New Haven.Responses due by 6/22/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
305 MOTION in Limine regarding non city actor by City of New Haven.Responses due by 6/22/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
306 MOTION in Limine regarding promotions by City of New Haven.Responses due by 6/22/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
307 MOTION in Limine regarding prior cases by City of New Haven.Responses due by 6/22/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
308 MOTION in Limine regarding newspaper articles by City of New Haven.Responses due by 6/22/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit T)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
309 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis for ruling on discovery matters including 304 MOTION in Limine regarding emotional distress, 306 MOTION in Limine regarding promotions, 294 MOTION to Quash and for Protective Order, 305 MOTION in Limine regarding non city actor, 308 MOTION in Limine regarding newspaper articles, 307 MOTION in Limine regarding prior cases. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 6/2/2011. Motions referred to Joan G. Margolis(Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
310 ORDER: re 309 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge. This Magistrate Judge will only be handling discovery matters including 294 Motion Quash and for Protective Order. Motions in Limine [304−308] will be ruled upon by Judge

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 42 of 51

06/06/2011
06/07/2011
06/07/2011
06/08/2011 06/08/2011 06/08/2011 06/09/2011 06/13/2011
06/21/2011 06/21/2011 06/23/2011 06/23/2011

Arterton. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 6/3/2011. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
311 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting in part and denying in part 294 Motion to Quash &granting in part and denying in part 294 Motion for Protective Order, to the extent decided by U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton during the telephonic conference held on 5/17/11. (See Dkt. #296). THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 6/6/11.(Margolis, Joan) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
312 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. A Telephonic Discovery Conference is set for 6/8/2011 at 11:15 AM before Judge Joan G. Margolis. **PLEASE note call in number. Attorney Pitcher will initiate the conference call to 203−773−2012. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
313 FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER FOR DAMAGES TRIAL: Jury Selection set for 8/3/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom Two, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Janet Bond Arterton; Jury Trial set for 8/26/2011; 8/29/2011 through 9/2/2011; 9/6/2011 through 9/8/2011; 9/12/2011 through 9/14/2011; 9/19/2011 through 9/23/2011; 9/26/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Janet Bond Arterton at 09:00 AM in Courtroom Two. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 6/7/2011. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
314 STATUS REPORT by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
315 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan G. Margolis: Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 6/8/2011. Total Time: 1 hour (Court Reporter − FTR.) (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
316 SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 6/8/2011. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
317 First MOTION for Extension of Time until July 8, 2011 293 Scheduling Order, by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. Motions referred to Joan G. Margolis(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
318 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 18, 2011 Modification of Pre−Trial Order by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. Motions referred to Joan G. Margolis(Torre, Karen) Modified on 6/14/2011 to add missing filer (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 06/13/2011)
319 ORDER granting 317 Motion for Extension of Time ; granting 318 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties' Joint Trial Memorandum will be filed by 7/18/11. A pre−trial conference will be held 7/26/11 at 11:00 a.m., Courtroom Two. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 6/21/11. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Trial Memorandum due by 7/18/2011. Pretrial Conference set for 7/26/2011 11:00 AM in Courtroom Two, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Janet Bond Arterton (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
320 MOTION for Extension of Time until June 23, 2011 by City of New Haven. Motions referred to Joan G. Margolis(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
321 MOTION for Clarification 316 Scheduling Order by City of New Haven. Motions referred to Joan G. Margolis(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 06/23/2011)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 43 of 51

06/23/2011 07/06/2011 07/06/2011 07/06/2011 07/18/2011
07/18/2011
07/18/2011 07/18/2011
07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/20/2011

322 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 320 Motion for Extension of Time until 6/23/11, nunc pro tunc. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 6/23/11. (Margolis, Joan) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
323 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joan G. Margolis: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/6/2011. Time: 10 minutes (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
324 RULING: granting to the extent set forth in ruling 321 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 7/6/2011. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
325 USCA Mandate Order denying Mandamus Petition and denying as moot motion to stay district court proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 7/6/2011. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
326 TRIAL MEMO (JOINT) by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, City of New Haven, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto Estimated trial time 90 hours. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
327 MOTION in Limine REGARDING SPECIFIC PIECES OF EVIDENCE by City of New Haven.Responses due by 8/8/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit T, # 22 Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit V)(Roberts, Richard) . (Entered: 07/18/2011)
328 Memorandum in Opposition re 304 MOTION in Limine regarding emotional distress filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
329 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 19, 2011 to object to and file motions re: 305 , 306 , 307 and 327 Motions in Limine by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) . Modified on 7/19/2011 to create links and change relief(Falcone, K.). (Entered: 07/18/2011)
330 Memorandum in Opposition re 306 MOTION in Limine regarding promotions filed by Michael Blatchley, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
331 Memorandum in Opposition re 305 MOTION in Limine regarding non city actor filed by Michael Blatchley, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
332 MOTION in Limine Re: Judicial Actions by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto.Responses due by 8/10/2011.(Torre, Karen) . (Entered: 07/20/2011)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 44 of 51

07/21/2011 07/22/2011
07/25/2011
07/25/2011
07/25/2011 07/25/2011 07/25/2011
07/25/2011 07/25/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011

333 ORDER granting 308 Motion in Limine, absent objection; granting 329 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, with consent. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 7/20/11. (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
334 Memorandum in Opposition re 307 MOTION in Limine regarding prior cases filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, James Kottage, Kevin Roxbee (Torre, Karen) Modified on 7/25/2011 to fix filers (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 07/22/2011)
335 OBJECTION to Defendant's Exhibits re 326 Joint Trial Memo filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto James Kottage, Kevin Roxbee. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 7/26/2011 to correct filers and create link to underlying document (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 07/25/2011)
336 Amended proposed Exhibit List by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto James Kottage, Kevin Roxbee (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Torre, Karen) Modified on 7/26/2011 to correct filers (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 07/25/2011)
337 Motion to Amend Exhibit List by City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Roberts, Richard) Modified on 7/26/2011 to correct event (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 07/25/2011)
338 Objections to Plaintiff's Witness List re 326 Trial Memo by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 7/26/2011 to link to underlying document (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 07/25/2011)
339 Joint MOTION to Continue and for Extension of Time by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, City of New Haven, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto, James Kottage, Kevin Roxbee. Motions referred to Joan G. Margolis(Roberts, Richard) Modified on 7/26/2011 to correct filers (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 07/25/2011)
340 ORDER: The Parties' Joint Motion for Continuance and Extension of Time 339 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 07/25/2011. (Budris, K.) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
341 Objection to Plaintiffs' Exhibit List re 326 Trial Memo by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 7/26/2011 to link to underlying document (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 07/25/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 8/1/2011 08:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Janet Bond Arterton (Tooker, A.) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
Set Deadlines as to 337 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Responses due by 8/15/2011. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
342 OBJECTION re 326 Trial Memo,, Plaintiffs' Proposed Voir Dire Questions filed by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
343 OBJECTION re 326 Trial Memo,, to Plaintiffs' Proposed Jury Charge filed by City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
344 OBJECTION re 326 Trial Memo,, Defendant's Proposed Voir Dire filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito,

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 45 of 51

07/26/2011
07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011
07/28/2011
07/29/2011

Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
345 OBJECTION to 326 Trial Memorandum re City's Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 7/28/2011 to create link to document 326. (Malone, P.). (Entered: 07/26/2011)
346 REPLY to Response to 305 MOTION in Limine regarding non city actor filed by City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
347 REPLY to Response to 307 MOTION in Limine regarding prior cases filed by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
348 REPLY to Response to 304 MOTION in Limine regarding emotional distress filed by City of New Haven. (Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
349 OBJECTION re 332 MOTION in Limine Re: Judicial Actions filed by City of New Haven. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
350 NOTICE by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto of acceptance of offer of judgment by all defendants (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
351 NOTICE by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella of acceptances of offers of judgment by all defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Blatchley, # 2 Exhibit Boivin, # 3 Exhibit Carbone, # 4 Exhibit Christoforo, # 5 Exhibit Divito, # 6 Exhibit Durand, # 7 Exhibit Gambardella)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
352 NOTICE by Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto of acceptances of offers of judgment by all defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Jooss, # 2 Exhibit Kottage, # 3 Exhibit Marcarelli, # 4 Exhibit Michaels, # 5 Exhibit Parker, # 6 Exhibit Patton, # 7 Exhibit Ricci, # 8 Exhibit Riordon, # 9 Exhibit Roxbee, # 10 Exhibit Scanlon, # 11 Exhibit Vargas, # 12 Exhibit Vendetto, J., # 13 Exhibit Vendetto, M.)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
353 NOTICE by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto re 350 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) of filing of offer of judgment by judgment respecting attorney fees and costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendants' Offer of Judgment Respecting Attorney Fees and Costs)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
354 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Michael Blatchley against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 46 of 51

07/29/2011

355 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Greg Boivin against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
356 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Gary Carbone against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
357 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Michael Christoforo against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
358 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Ryan Divito against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
359 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Steven Durand against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
360 JUDGMENT entered in favor of William Gambardella against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
361 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Brian Jooss against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
362 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Matthew Marcarelli against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
363 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Christopher Parker against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 47 of 51

07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
364 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Kevin Roxbee against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
365 JUDGMENT entered in favor of James Kottage against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
366 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Sean Patton against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
367 JUDGMENT entered in favor of John Vendetto against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
368 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Edward Riordon against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
369 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Thomas J. Michaels against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
370 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Mark Vendetto against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
371 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Benjamin Vargas against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 48 of 51

07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011 07/29/2011
07/29/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011

(Entered: 07/29/2011)
372 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Frank Ricci against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
373 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Timothy Scanlon against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
374 OBJECTION re 366 Judgment, 373 Judgment, 361 Judgment, 365 Judgment, 355 Judgment, 363 Judgment, 367 Judgment, 371 Judgment, 358 Judgment, 362 Judgment, 364 Judgment, 369 Judgment, 353 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 368 Judgment, 360 Judgment, 357 Judgment, 354 Judgment, 370 Judgment, 359 Judgment, 356 Judgment, 372 Judgment, filed by Tina Burgett, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Roberts, Richard) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link:
https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi−bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
375 JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY FEES. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/11. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
376 AMENDED JUDGMENT ON ATTORNEY FEES 375 JUDGMENT. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
377 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of William Gambardella against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
378 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Steven Durand against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
379 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Ryan Divito against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website:

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 49 of 51

08/01/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 08/01/2011

http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 379 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
380 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Michael Christoforo against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 380 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
381 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Gary Carbone against Benjamin Vargas, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 381 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
382 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Greg Boivin against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 382 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
383 AMENDED UDGMENT entered in favor of Michael Blatchley against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 383 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
384 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Timothy Scanlon against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 384 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
385 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Brian Jooss against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 385 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
386 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Matthew Marcarelli against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 386 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/01/2011)
387 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Christopher Parker against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.
For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 387 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 50 of 51

08/01/2011

388 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Mark Vendetto against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

08/01/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 388 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
389 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Benjamin Vargas against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

08/01/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
390 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Frank Ricci against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

08/01/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 390 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
391 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of James Kottage against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

08/01/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 391 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
392 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Kevin Roxbee against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

08/01/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 392 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
393 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Thomas J. Michaels against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

08/01/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 393 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
394 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Edward Riordon against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

08/01/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 394 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
395 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of John Vendetto against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

08/01/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 395 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
396 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered in favor of Sean Patton against Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, John DeStefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Malcolm Weber, Thomas Ude, Jr, Tina Burgett, Zelma Tirado.

Case: 3:04-cv-1109 As of: 08/28/2014 08:49 PM EDT 51 of 51

08/02/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 08/03/2011 12/12/2011

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 8/1/11. (Torday, B.) (Main Document 396 replaced on 8/3/2011) (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2011)
397 Docket Entry Correction re 376 Order (To Correct pdf) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
398 Docket Entry Correction re 389 Judgment,(To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
399 Docket Entry Correction re 377 Judgment,(To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
400 Docket Entry Correction re 378 Judgment,(To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
401 Docket Entry Correction re 379 Judgment,(To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
402 Docket Entry Correction re 380 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
403 Docket Entry Correction re 381 Judgment,(To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
404 Docket Entry Correction re 382 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
405 Docket Entry Correction re 383 Judgment,(To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
406 Docket Entry Correction re 384 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
407 Docket Entry Correction re 385 Judgment,(To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
408 Docket Entry Correction re 386 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
409 Docket Entry Correction re 387 Judgment,(To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
410 Docket Entry Correction re 388 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
411 Docket Entry Correction re 390 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
412 Docket Entry Correction re 391 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
413 Docket Entry Correction re 392 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
414 Docket Entry Correction re 393 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
415 Docket Entry Correction re 394 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
416 Docket Entry Correction re 395 Judgment, (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
417 Docket Entry Correction re 396 Judgment, (To Correct PDF) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
418 Appeal Record Returned: 134 Notice of Appeal, (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

 
 Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 1 of 9
EFILE
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:10−mc−00037−PCD

Ricci et al v. Destefano et al Assigned to: Judge Peter C. Dorsey Related Case: 3:04−cv−01109−JBA Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/12/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Frank Ricci

represented by Karen Lee Torre Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis P.O. Box 280 Bethany, CT 06524 203−393−3017 Fax: 203−393−9745 Email: ktorre@pattislaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis The Pattis Law Firm, LLC 649 Amity Rd. Bethany, CT 06524 203−393−3017 Fax: 203−393−9745 Email: normpattis@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Blatchley

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Greg Boivin

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gary Carbone

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address)

Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 2 of 9

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Christoforo

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ryan Divito

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Steven Durand

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William Gambardella

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Brian Jooss

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Kottage

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address)

Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 3 of 9

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Vendetto

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mark Vendetto

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Matthew Marcarelli

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas J. Michaels

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sean Patton

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 4 of 9

Plaintiff Christopher Parker
Plaintiff Edward Riordon
Plaintiff Kevin Roxbee
Plaintiff Timothy Scanlon
Plaintiff Benjamin Vargas

represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Lee Torre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Norman A. Pattis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John Destefano

represented by Nicole C. Chomiak Nuzzo &Roberts

Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 5 of 9

One Town Center, PO Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 203−250−2000 Email: nchomiak@nuzzo−roberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard A. Roberts Nuzzo &Roberts One Town Center, PO Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 203−250−2000 Fax: 203−250−3131 Email: rroberts@nuzzo−roberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacey L. Pitcher Nuzzo &Roberts One Town Center, PO Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 203−250−2000 Fax: 203−250−3131 Email: spitcher@nuzzo−roberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson Nuzzo &Roberts One Town Center, PO Box 747 Cheshire, CT 06410 203−250−2000 Fax: 203−250−3131 Email: trichardson@nuzzo−roberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Karen Dubois−Walton

represented by Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Thomas Ude, Jr.

represented by Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 6 of 9

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Tina Burgett

represented by Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Boise Kimber

represented by Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Malcolm Weber

represented by Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 7 of 9

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Zelma Tirado

represented by Nicole C. Chomiak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Stacey L. Pitcher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Jay Richardson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant City of New Haven

represented by Dennis R. Thompson Thompson &Bishop 946 Kenmore Blvd Village of Kenmore Akron, OH 44314 330−753−6874 Fax: 330−753−7082 Email: law@thompsonbishop.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen M. Foster Office Of Corporation Counsel −NH,CT City Of New Haven 165 Church St. New Haven, CT 06510 203−996−7958 Fax: 203−946−7942 Email: Kfoster@newhavenct.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Martyn Philpot , Jr. Law Offices of W. Martyn Philpot, Jr., LLC 409 Orange St.

Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 8 of 9

New Haven, CT 06511−6406 203−624−4666 Fax: 203−624−5050 Email: lawoffice@philpotlaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Michael Briscoe

represented by David N. Rosen David N. Rosen &Associates, P.C. 400 Orange St New Haven, CT 06511 203−787−3513 Fax: 203−789−1605 Email: drosen@davidrosenlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/23/2010
03/12/2010 03/16/2010 03/23/2010
03/30/2010
04/19/2010 05/03/2010
05/03/2010

# Docket Text
1 MOTION for Recusal by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Falcone, K.) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
3 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER − PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey on 3/12/2010. (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
2 OBJECTION re 1 MOTION to Transfer/Disqualify/Recuse Judge filed by Tina Burgett, John Destefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Mark Vendetto, Malcolm Weber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Falcone, K.) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
4 Memorandum in Support re 1 MOTION to Transfer/Disqualify/Recuse Judge filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Garguilo, B) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
5 REPLY to Response to 1 MOTION to Transfer/Disqualify/Recuse Judge filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, William Gambardella, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Transcript)(Torre, Karen) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
6 RULING denying 1 Motion to Recuse Judge. Signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey on 4/19/2010. (Villano, P.) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
7 MOTION for Reconsideration of 6 RULING denying 1 Motion to Recuse Judge by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto.Responses due by 5/24/2010 (Torre, Karen) Modified on 5/4/2010 to add links(Garguilo, B). (Entered: 05/03/2010)
8 Memorandum in Support re 7 MOTION for Reconsideration of 6 RULING denying 1 Motion to Recuse Judge filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher

Case: 3:10-mc-37 As of: 08/28/2014 09:21 PM EDT 9 of 9

05/05/2010 05/18/2010 05/24/2010 06/08/2010 06/18/2010

Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) Modified on 5/4/2010 to add links(Garguilo, B). (Entered: 05/03/2010)
9 RESPONSE re 8 Memorandum in Support of 7 MOTION for Reconsideration of 6 RULING denying 1 Motion to Recuse Judge , filed by Michael Briscoe. (Rosen, David) Modified on 5/6/2010 to add links (Garguilo, B). (Entered: 05/05/2010)
10 REPLY to Response to 7 MOTION for Reconsideration of ruling denying motion for recusal filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
11 OBJECTION re 7 MOTION for Reconsideration of 6 RULING denying 1 Motion to Recuse Judge filed by Tina Burgett, John Destefano, Karen Dubois−Walton, Boise Kimber, City of New Haven, Zelma Tirado, Thomas Ude, Jr, Malcolm Weber. (Roberts, Richard) Modified on 5/25/2010 to add link to documents(Garguilo, B). (Entered: 05/24/2010)
12 REPLY to Response to 7 MOTION for Reconsideration of ruling denying motion for recusal filed by Michael Blatchley, Greg Boivin, Gary Carbone, Michael Christoforo, Ryan Divito, Steven Durand, William Gambardella, Brian Jooss, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Thomas J. Michaels, Christopher Parker, Sean Patton, Frank Ricci, Edward Riordon, Kevin Roxbee, Timothy Scanlon, Benjamin Vargas, John Vendetto, Mark Vendetto. (Torre, Karen) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
13 RULING granting 7 Motion for Reconsideration and affirming 6 prior ruling. Signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey on 6−18−10. (Miller, K.) (Entered: 06/18/2010)