Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PEARL BEALE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Givon Pendleton and Legal Representative of Givon Pendleton
2140 Brooks Drive #122 Forestville, MD 20747
Plaintiff,
v.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A Municipal Corporation
441 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC. 20001
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. _ _ _ __

)

)

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT (Negligence, Survival Action, Wrongful Death, and Civil Rights Violations)
I. Jurisdiction I. This is a civil action seeking compensatory damages for the death of Givon Pendleton. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C. § 1988, the common law, §12101 and §16-2701 of the District of Columbia Code, and the United States Constitution. 2. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

DC ]4]6811·]

"
,

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 2 of 17

II. Parties 3. Plaintiff Pearl Beale is an adult resident of the state of Maryland. She was duly qualified as Personal Representative of the Estate of Givon Pendleton, deceased, Court of Maryland for Prince George's County, Administration No. 64154, having been appointed on December 30, 2002. Plaintiff is the mother of the decedent and is empowered to maintain this cause of action pursuant to D.C. Code §12-101. 4. Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal corporation. It has, and at all relevant times to this action had, responsibility for persons incarcerated under its authority. The District of Columbia Jail, aJk!a Central Detention Facility, is a prison facility located within the District of Columbia and is utilized by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DC DOC) for the purpose of housing pretrial detainees and other persons who have been sentenced under the laws ofthe District of Columbia.
III. Factual Allegations 5. The DC DOC is charged by the DC Code §24-211.02 with responsibility for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction and discipline of all persons housed in its penal institutions. 6. For over thirty (30) years, up to and including December II, 2002, the District of Columbia was operating and maintaining its prison facilities in a hazardous and unsafe condition. 7. Campbell v. McGruder and Inmates of DC Jail v. Jackson, respectively, both were lawsuits filed in the 19705 seeking redress for unconstitutional conditions at the DC Jail. Campbell was filed on behalf of pretrial detainees confined to DC Jail. Inmates of DC Jail was filed on behalf of sentenced prisoners housed at the DC Jail. U.S. District Court Judge William B. Bryant held that the conditions of confinement in the Jail were so overcrowded and otherwise
2

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 3 of 17
inhumane that they violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
8. For many years thereafter, the District consistently violated the District Court's orders stemming from the above cited lawsuits, and failed to bring the Jail up to minimal constitutional standards. In 1985, the Court found that conditions at DC Jail continued to violate prisoners' constitutional rights:
Time and again, defendants [the District] have requested the Court to defer to their accumulated wisdom, to stay its hand and to give them more time. Time and again, these requests have been honored in the hope and expectation that defendants would solve these problems expeditiously and effectively. However, instead of matters improving, they have deteriorated (Memorandum and Order, July 15, 1985, at page 50). 9. The Court's findings were based on many factors, including evidence that prisoners were confined in cells with non-functioning toilets and sinks, basic supplies were denied to many inmates, medical care was grossly deficient, and assaults and stabbings were regular occurrences. 10. As a result of defendant's maintenance of these unconstitutional conditions, Judge Bryant imposed an inmate population cap of 1,694. 11. Even with the Court imposed population cap, the District continued to defy numerous court orders designed to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at DC Jail. Finally, in 1993, the Court appointed a Special Officer to assist in ensuring compliance with its orders. In her February 1994 status report, the Special Officer documented that the District remained in "substantial noncompliance" with the Court's orders. The District did not dispute the Special Officer's findings and agreed to be held in contempt of court as part of a 1994 Consent Order. The Consent Order set forth a remedial plan with specific timetables to achieve compliance with constitutional requirements. Once again, however, the District failed to comply. In light of the
3

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 4 of 17
District's chronic noncompliance, which was particularly egregious in regard to medical and mental health care services, in 1995 the Court appointed a Receiver for medical care at the Jail.
12. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). This Act stripped the federal courts of much of their power to issue orders to prospectively correct even the most egregious prison conditions, and paved the way for the termination of the Court ordered Jail population cap in June 2002.
13. Within months, defendant purposefully increased the daily population at DC Jail to over 2,300 inmates, overwhelming the already deficient operating systems.
14. Despite an inmate population increase of almost forty percent (40%) , there was no corresponding increase in the number of correctional staff assigned by defendant to provide security to prisoners at the DC Jail.
15. Even before the inmate population ballooned, the DC Jail for many years had not implemented an inmate classification system to evaluate and assign appropriate housing and supervision to pretrial detainees. Inmates charged with nonviolent misdemeanors were housed alongside convicted violent felons, and no effort was made to separate predatory pretrial detainees charged with multiple murders from pretrial detainees charged with less serious offenses.
16. Although classification systems are routinely used by j ails to classify inmates upon intake to the most appropriate level of custody and security, to make housing assignments, and to be reviewed regularly, the District simply did not care enough to conduct this basic screening process for pretrial detainees. These deficiencies were well known to the DC DOC management. In a 1996 report on the Department of Corrections (District of Columbia Department of Corrections Study) by the National Institute of Corrections, Dr. James Austin
4

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 5 of 17
concluded that DC DOC needed to develop a classification system for its pretrial population, which accounted for seventy percent (70%) of the Jail population.
Some of the specific findings were as follows: a) no objective classification system IS III place for the
pretrial population .... (p.IS) b) the DOC needs to develop an objective classification system for the
pretrial population .... (p.3I) c) there are no system wide standards for inmate housing units within the
DOC .... (p.37) d) the majority of housing units have the following major deficiencies:
(i) substantial overcrowding (p.37) (ii) limited staff to provide security supervisIOn and response
capability (p.37) (iii) inadequate sight lines (p.37) (iv) inappropriate assignment of inmates relative to their custody
levels (p.37) (v) circulation and movement control systems did not allow for
constant supervision of inmates when they were outside of their assigued cells(p.37) (vi) staffing in open areas IS insufficient to provide appropriate observation of inmates (p.3S)
5

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 6 of 17

(vii) because of the design of the facility, in which many areas are not

visible to the officers, closed circuit televisions are a necessity for

adequate supervision and security. (p.67)

17. In a follow up report in 1997 (Assessment ofthe District of Columbia Department

of Corrections) which was fimded by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and conducted by the

National Institute of Corrections, the following security deficiencies at DC Jail were highlighted:

a) the absence of a classification system for pretrial detainees - the majority

ofjail inmates (p.65)

b) DOC has not adopted the new classification forms and procedures or

implemented any of the other recommended tasks. As of this writing, the

Department still operates under the classification system established in

1987. (p.66)

18. In addition to these reports, during the two (2) years preceding the murder of

Givon Pendleton, the following events occurred:

a) April 13, 2001 - William H. Dupree, chairman of the Fraternal Order

of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee, wrote to Odie

Washington, Director of the DC Department of Corrections, that the

administration's plan to "increase the inmate population at the DC Jail ...

while simultaneously eliminating security posts and decreasing the work

force ... will present a major risk to the safety oLinmates confined at that

facility."

b) September 29, 2001 -

A study (District of Columbia Department

of Correction Staffing and Overtime Assessment) prepared by Security

6

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 7 of 17

Response Technologies, Inc. warned that the District must "implement the

proposed critical minimum staffing complement as the CDF's base roster

of mandatory posts." (p.2)

c) November 9, 2001 -

Mr. Dupree wrote to Mayor Williams

concerning "an urgent safety and security matter at the DC Jail.... The

Department of Corrections is in the process of implementing a very

irresponsible plan that not only violates the Court ordered ceiling at the

DC Jail, but compromises the safety of both staff and inmate populations."

d) November 12, 2001 -

James F. Wallington, Esquire, an attorney

representing the Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections

Labor Committee wrote to the Special Officer requesting assistance in

seeking "a temporary restraining order directing the Office ofthe Mayor ...

and the Director of the DC Department of Corrections to cease the

intentional overcrowding at the DC Jail. As of Sunday, November II,

200 I, the Department of Corrections has failed to increase the correctional

officer staff at the DC Jail to address the immediate influx of inmate

population. "

e) November 14,2001 -

Correctional Officer Irving Robinson, who

was assigned to the DC Jail, wrote that "it is my observation that the

overcrowded conditions at the DC jail pose an immediate threat to staff

and inmates."

f) November 16,2001 -

Mr. Dupree swore in an affidavit that "again

the Department has deceived the employees of the Department of

7

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 8 of 17

Corrections and their representatives in a matter which clearly places the

health and safety of employees and the public at risk ... based upon my

experience as a correctional officer, I am of the opinion that these

overcrowding conditions will only get worse and lead to serious injury or

death .... "

g) April 10, 2002 - Dominic Jones (the inmate who eventually

murdered Givon Pendleton) along with two (2) other inmates, assaulted an

inmate in the Southwest Three cellblock at the DC Jail. This inmate was

hospitalized for his injuries. An informant advised correctional staff that

Dominic Jones and the other assailants were part of a group of Muslims

that had been strong arming inmates in the unit.

h) May 21, 2002 - The Special Officer reported that DOC Director

Washington, in a March 25, 2002 Declaration, filed with the Court,

represented that all posts on the "Critical Staffing Complement" would be

filled at all times. However, according to shift rosters, cellblocks with an

inmate population of 100 inmates or greater were not consistently staffed

with three (3) officers. (p.5-6)

i) June 4, 2002 -

The Special Officer reported that"According to the

shift rosters and the cellblock logs, there have been numerous instances

when cellblocks containing greater than 100 inmates have not been

assigned three (3) officers.... I feel strongly that the Department of

Corrections should adhere to its representations made in the Declaration

filed with the Court.(p.5)

8

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 9 of 17

j) November 13,2002 -

Pamela Chase, Chairperson of the Fraternal

Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee testified at

an oversight Hearing of the DC Department of Corrections that staffing

shortages had created "reoccurring breaches in public safety and

embarrassing incidents within the Department of Corrections.... Essential

equipment and staffing have been sacrificed ... placing lives at risk and

immediate action must be taken."

k) November 26, 2002 -

The Honorable Kathleen Patterson, the

District of Columbia City Council Judiciary Committee chairperson, and

Ward 6 Councilmember Sharon Ambrose, wrote to Mayor Williams,

stating in part as follows: "We are very concerned that the conditions

appear to be worsening ... at the DC Jail due to overcrowding.... In sum,

we fear for the physical safety of inmates, staff and the public at large."

19. Against this backdrop, on December II, 2002, while incarcerated in the Southeast

One cellblock at DC Jail, Givon Pendleton was brutally attacked by Dominic Jones, who stabbed

him repeatedly with a metal weapon, believed to be a street knife, that had been smuggled into

the institution. Mr. Pendleton died from his injuries. According to the MPD affidavit in support

of the arrest warrant for Dominic Jones, Mr. Jones "was known to Detective Michael Irving as a

defendant charged with shooting and killing of two individuals in an unrelated murder case....

The investigation revealed that the defendant is a member of a group called the "Muslim

Brotherhood." The defendant was a detailee on the date of this murder and was in charge of

dispensing meals and beverages (including milk) to the inmates during the dinner hour when this

murder took place."

9

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 10 of 17

20. The autopsy report documented that Givon Pendleton suffered the following

mJunes:

a) Stab wound to left lateral chest with perforation of heart aud lung;

b) Stab wound to left side of head

c) Stab wound to left posterior neck

d) Stab wound to left mid-chest

e) Stab wound to right mid-chest

f) Stab wound to left abdomen

g) Stab wound to left lateral back

h) Stab wound to left mid-back

i) Stab wound to left arm

j) Stab wound to left elbow

21. No prison guard saw, heard, or was present at the time of the assault to supervise,

monitor or deter the brutal murder of Givon Pendleton by Dominic Jones, a predatory inmate

awaiting trial on mUltiple counts of Ist degree murder while armed, aud a known gaug leader

(Muslim Brotherhood) with a documented history of assaulting aud strong arming other pretrial

detainees. Moreover, Mr. Jones improperly had been detailed by correctional authorities to

dispense food aud milk to other inmates, including decedent. At the time of Mr. Pendleton's

murder, there were 153 prisoners housed in the Southeast One cellblock.

22. Taken as a whole, these examples document the District's custom aud policy of

exhibiting deliberate indifference to its constitutional duty to protect pretrial detainees at the DC

Jail. All of these matters became known to the highest policymakers in the District government

through court orders, studies, reports, expert reports which were provided to the District, lawsuits

10

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 11 of 17
filed against the District, settlements entered into by it and adverse verdicts delivered by juries. These documents placed the District on notice of the unconstitutional conditions of confinement at DC Jail.
COUNT ONE (Negligent Contraband Control- Survival Statute) 23. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs I through 22, supra, by reference. 24. The Department of Corrections of the District of Columbia was under a statutory and common law duty to provide for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction and discipline all of all persons housed in its penal institutions, including decedent Givon Pendleton. 25. Defendant District of Columbia knew or should have known that, due to its lack of commonly accepted prison security measures including, but not limited to, its failure to control contraband, install metal detectors, and conduct and document frequent and unannounced housing unit, inmate and cell shakedowns, it was reasonably foreseeable that residents, including plaintiff, would be attacked by other residents with lethal and prohibited weapons. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, plaintiff was assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in his death. He experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and he suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for a judgment against defendant District of Columbia awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $10 Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00), costs of this suit, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
COUNT TWO (Negligent Supervision of Inmates - Survival Statute)
11

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 12 of 17
27. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs I through 26, supra, by reference. 28. Defendant District of Columbia knew or should have known that, due to its lack of security measures including, but not limited to, its failure to assign adequate staff to watch, hear, monitor and supervise properly resident activity and movement, it was reasonably foreseeable that residents, including plaintiffs decedent, would be attacked by other residents with lethal and prohibited weapons. 29. As a result, Mr. Jones was able to acquire a metal knife or shank which he used to repeatedly stab decedent Givon Pendleton without sight or sound supervision or deterrence by correctional personnel, in violation ofcommonly accepted prison security standards. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, plaintiff was assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in his death. He experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and he suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for a judgment against defendant District of Columbia awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $10 Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00), costs ofthis suit, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
COUNT THREE (Negligent Overcrowding - Survival Statute) 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs I through 30, supra, by reference. 32. Shortly after the court ordered population cap of 1,674 inmates at DC Jail was lifted in June 2002, the daily popUlation at DC Jail grew and was over 2,300 inmates at the time of Givon Pendleton's murder.
12

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 13 of 17
33. Despite the rapid increase in the jail population, there was no corresponding increase in the assignment of correctional staffto provide security at DC Jail.
34. Defendant District of Columbia had been repeatedly warned of the dangers to inmates that would result from overcrowding.
35. Defendant District of Columbia knew or should have known that, due to its lack of commonly accepted security measures including, but not limited to, its failure to reduce overcrowding, and/or to assign adequate numbers of correctional officers to supervise the excessive numbers of residents, its failure to control contraband, and to install metal detectors, its failure to monitor and supervise properly resident activity and movement, and its failure to conduct and document frequent and unannounced housing unit, inmate and cell shakedowns, it was reasonably foreseeable that residents, including plaintiffs decedent, would be attacked by other residents with lethal and prohibited weapons in the crowded cellblock.
36. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, plaintiff was assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in his death. He experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and he suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for a judgment against defendant District of Columbia awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $10 Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00), costs ofthis suit, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
COUNT FOUR
(Negligent Supervision and Training - Survival Statute) 37. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs I through 36, supra, by reference.
13

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 14 of 17
38. At the time of plaintiffs decedent's injuries, DC Jail was staffed by guards who were inadequately supervised and trained.
39. Because the guards were inadequately supervised and trained, and were too few in number, they failed to properly monitor, supervise and secure the area, and prevent or deter the attack upon plaintiff.
40. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, plaintiff was assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in his death. He experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and he suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for a judgment against defendant District of Columbia awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $10 Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00), costs of this suit, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
COUNT FIVE (Wrongful Death Statute) 41. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 40, supra, by reference. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, decedent Givon Pendleton died on or about December II, 2002. There were no intervening or superseding causes contributing to his death. 43. As a further direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence and the ensning death of Givon Pendleton, plaintiff and decedent's next of kin suffered the loss of decedent's services, companionship, comfort, care, love, affection, attention, assistance, financial support, future earnings and other pecuniary benefit which they would have derived had plaintiffs decedent survived.
14

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 15 of 17
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for a judgment against defendant District of Columbia awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $10 Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00), costs of this suit, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
COUNT SIX (Civil Rights Violations) 44. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs I through 43, supra, by reference. 45. At all relevant times, the District of Columbia operated DC Jail under color of state law, and adopted a pattern, practice, custom, and policy of acting with deliberate indifference and reckless disregard with respect to providing for the safety, security, and protection of pretrial detainees. 46. The District's pattern, practice, custom, and policy of acting with deliberate indifference and reckless disregard with respect to providing for the safety, security, and protection of pretrial detainees was known to, and sanctioned by, District policymakers. 47. The aforesaid actions constitute violations of 42 U.S.c. § 1983 and the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and deprived plaintiff of his rights to life, liberty, and bodily integrity, and further subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described municipal pattern, practice, custom and policy, plaintiff was assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in his death. He experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and he suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings. 49. As a further direct and proximate result of the above-described municipal pattern, practice, custom and policy and the ensuing death of Givon Pendleton, plaintiff and decedent's
15

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 16 of 17 next of kin suffered the loss of decedent's services, companionship, comfort, society, care, love, affection, attention, assistance, guidance, advice, financial support, future earnings and other pecuniary benefit which they would have derived had plaintiffs decedent survived.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for a judgment against defendant District of Columbia awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $10 Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00), costs of this suit, attorneys' fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
16

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 1 Filed 06/10/04 Page 17 of 17
Jury Demaud
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
ALLEN & SPARKS, LLP.
By: ~ 1<.
Douglas R. Soarks DC Bar No. 296921 1822-D Biltmore Street. NW Washington. DC 20009 202-797-8200
COVINGTON & BURLING
Bv: ~~~v'~
DC Bar No. 450462 Timothv L. Jucovv DC BarNo. 481470 1201 Pennsvlvania Avenue. NW Washington. DC 20009 202-662-6000
DC PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT. INC.
Bv: PLtf PPY~ IrJ
Philio Fomaci DC Bar No. 434824 2639 Connecticut Avenue. NW Suite 225 Washington. DC 20008 202-775-0323
Attornevs for Plaintiff
17

 
 Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PEARL BEALE, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Givon Pendleton and Legal Representative of Givon Pendleton, and

BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN Florence High USP 5880 Hwy 67 S Florence, CO 81226,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 04-959 (RMU)

v.

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

and

ODIE WASHINGTON, Individually and in His Official Capacity
Director, DC Department of Corrections 1923 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 202A Washington, DC 20001,

MARVIN L. BROWN, Individually Warden (Retired), DC Jail 1901 D Street, SE Washington, DC 20003,

DENNIS HARRISON, Individually and in His Official Capacity
Deputy Warden for Programs, DC Jail 1901 D Street, SE Washington, DC 20003, and

STEVEN A. SMITH, Individually and in His Official Capacity
Warden, DC Jail 1901 D Street, SE Washington, DC 20003

Defendants. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Civil Rights Violations, Negligence, Survival Action, and Wrongful Death)

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 2 of 27
I. Background 1. Pearl Beale and Bradley Raymond Autman, by counsel, bring this action against the District of Columbia and its officials responsible for the operations of the District of Columbia Jail (the "Jail"). 2. Ms. Beale brings this suit as the mother of decedent Givon Pendleton. Mr. Pendleton was murdered while he was a pretrial detainee at the District of Columbia Jail (the "Jail") on December 11, 2002. His assailant, an inmate named Dominic Jones, stabbed him to death in retaliation for asking for his ration of milk; Mr. Jones, a known gang leader with a history of misconduct within the Jail and awaiting trial for two murders (of which he was later convicted and sentenced to prison for more than 100 years), was at the time of the stabbing in charge of distributing milk to other inmates during their evening meal. No correctional officer witnessed Mr. Pendleton's murder, and at least one ofthe three guards assigned to provide security in the cellblock was out of the housing unit on a break at the time of the stabbing. 3. Mr. Pendleton's murder was the first event in a tragic and bloody stretch at the Jail. Two days later, a second inmate, Mr. Autman, was stabbed in the neck by another inmate. Again, no correctional officer witnessed the attack, and at least one of the three officers assigned to provide security in the unit was out on a break when the attack occurred. Mr. Autman was hospitalized as a result of the stabbing. 4. Just three days after the murder ofMr. Pendleton and one day after the stabbing of Mr. Autman, a third inmate, Mikal Gaither, was stabbed at the Jail and died the next day. Like Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Autman, Mr. Gaither was stabbed in his housing unit by another inmate outside the presence of guards, and while at least one of the three officers assigned to provide security was away on a break.
2

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 3 of 27
5. These three attacks came soon after District officials had increased the population of the Jail by more than 600 inmates (or by nearly 40% over the existing population) following the termination of a court-imposed population cap that had been part of a long-standing consent decree. The three stabbings were the result of unconstitutional conditions at the Jail as well as negligence of District officials in operating that facility. The actions of District officials in overpopulating the Jail while maintaining a shortage of staff, a lack of training, and dangerous policies and procedures for staffing, classification, and security were taken not only negligently, but also with deliberate indifference to the safety and security of inmates at the Jail.
6. On December 10, 2003, Ms. Beale filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against the District for claims arising from Mr. Pendleton's murder, including various counts of negligence, wrongful death, and constitutional violations. In the months after she filed that action, Ms. Beale and her counsel learned of an earlier lawsuit that had been filed in federal court by Pearl Gaither, who is the mother of Mikal Gaither - the inmate murdered in the Jail just days after Mr. Pendleton, and under eerily similar circumstances. In addition, Ms. Beale and her attorney retained a second law firm, Covington & Burling, to assist her counsel and to represent her on a pro bono basis. Understanding that the issues presented in these cases may affect the entire prisoner population, the District of Columbia Prisoners' Legal Services Project also joined Ms. Beale's legal team. Because the principal issue in this case is whether District officials maintained the Jail in violation of the United States Constitution - and because the factual background and legal issues underlying this case are common to both it and Gaither - Ms. Beale and her counsel refiled the Superior Court complaint in this Court on June 10, 2004. Plaintiff petitioned for and received a stay in the Superior Court case, and she intends voluntarily to dismiss from that action all claims she can pursue here.
7. Ms. Beale now files this First Amended Complaint, which joins Mr. Autman as a co-plaintiff; names defendants Odie Washington, Marvin Brown, Dennis Harrison, and Steven
3

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 4 of 27
A. Smith in various capacities; and adds additional and more detailed causes of action for constitutional violations by the District and the individual defendants.
8. This Amended Complaint also directly links the District's constitutional violations with respect to Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Autman to its official policy or custom of operating the Jail with deliberate indifference to its inhabitants' safety and security, including by overpopulating the facility while maintaining a shortage of staff, a lack of training, and dangerous policies and procedures for staffing, classification, and security. Moreover, the Amended Complaint alleges that the constitutional requirements prohibiting deliberate indifference to the safety and security ofMr. Pendleton and Mr. Autman, and guaranteeing prisoners due process, were clearly established at the time of the events in question such that reasonable prison officials would have understood that the actions alleged herein violated those rights. As a result, the conduct of the individual defendants - Messrs. Washington, Brown, Harrison, and Smith - subjects them to individual liability for their constitutional violations.
II. Jurisdiction 9. This is a civil action seeking damages and other relief for the death of Givon Pendleton and stabbing of Bradley Raymond Autman. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C. § 1988, the United States Constitution, the common law, and §§ 12-101 and 16-2701 of the District of Columbia Code. 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.c. § 1391(b).
III. Parties 11. Plaintiff Pearl Beale is an adult resident of the state of Maryland. She was duly qualified as Personal Representative of the Estate of Givon Pendleton, deceased, Court of Maryland for Prince George's County, Administration No. 64154, having been appointed on
4

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 5 of 27
December 30, 2002. Plaintiff Beale is the mother of the decedent and is empowered to maintain this cause of action pursuant to DC Code § 12-101.
12. Plaintiff Bradley Raymond Autman is an adult resident of the District of Columbia who is currently incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. Mr. Autman was incarcerated in the Jail during times relevant to this action. In compliance with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Mr. Autman exhausted such administrative remedies as were available to him at the Jail. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
13. Defendant District of Columbia is a municipal corporation. It has, and at all relevant times to this action had, responsibility for persons incarcerated under its authority. The Jail- which is also known as the Central Detention Facility - is a prison facility located within the District of Columbia. It is used by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections ("DC DOC") to house both pretrial detainees and persons who have been sentenced under the laws of the District of Columbia.
14. Defendant Odie Washington is the Director of the DC DOC, and held that position at all relevant times. Defendant Washington is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
15. Defendant Marvin L. Brown was the Warden of the District of Columbia Jail at the time of the attacks on Messrs. Pendleton and Autman. Defendant Brown is sued in his individual capacity.
16. Defendant Dennis Harrison was the Associate Warden of Operations at the Jail at the time of the attacks on Messrs. Pendleton and Autman, and is currently the Deputy Warden for Programs at the Jail. Defendant Harrison is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
5

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 6 of 27
17. Defendant Steven A. Smith was the Associate Warden of Operations at the Jail at the time of the attacks on Messrs. Pendleton and Autman, and is currently the Warden of the Jail. Defendant Smith is sued in both his official and individual capacities.
IV. Factual Allegations 18. The DC DOC is charged by DC Code § 24-211.02 with responsibility for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons housed in its penal institutions, including decedent Givon Pendleton and plaintiff Bradley Autman. A. Campbell v. McGruder and the Population of the Jail 19. For the past thirty (30) years, the District of Columbia has been operating and maintaining its prison facilities in a hazardous and unsafe condition. 20. In the 1970s, two lawsuits - Campbell v. McGruder and Inmates ofDC Jail v. Jackson - sought redress for unconstitutional conditions at the Jail. Campbell was filed on behalf of pretrial detainees confined to the Jail. Jackson was filed on behalf of sentenced prisoners housed at the Jail. U.S. District Court Judge William B. Bryant held that the Jail was so overcrowded and that the conditions of confinement were so inhumane that the Jail was being operated in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 21. For many years thereafter, the District consistently violated the District Court's orders in Campbell and Jackson, and failed to bring the Jail up to minimum constitutional standards. In 1985, the Court found that the conditions at the Jail continued to violate prisoners' constitutional rights:
Time and again, defendants [the District] have requested the Court to defer to their accumulated wisdom, to stay its hand and to give them more time. Time and again, these requests have been honored in the hope and expectation that defendants would solve these problems expeditiously and effectively. However, instead of matters improving, they have deteriorated.
6

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 7 of 27
Memorandum and Order at 50, Campbell v. McGruder, No. 71-1462 (D.D.C. July 13,1985).
22. The Court's findings were based on many factors, including evidence that prisoners were confined in cells with non-functioning toilets and sinks, basic supplies were denied to many inmates, medical care was grossly deficient, and assaults and stabbings were regular occurrences.
23. As a result of defendant's maintenance of these unconstitutional conditions, Judge Bryant signed a consent order in 1985 that, inter alia, imposed an inmate population cap of 1,694.
24. The District's failure to operate its incarceration facilities according to constitutional minimums was not confined to the Jail. In 1986, inmates at the District's nowdefunct Occoquan Facility of the Lorton Correctional Complex filed a class action alleging that the health and safety conditions at Occoquan also violated the Eighth Amendment. Judge June Green of this Court agreed, finding that
the present conditions relating to prisoner safety and mental health objectively violate the Eighth Amendment. ... [T]he combination of understaffing, crowding classification deficits, plant deterioration, idleness and environmental and safety deficiencies have a mutually enforcing effect that exposes the Plaintiffs to a constitutionally unacceptable risk of violent assault and death.... These conditions violate contemporary standards of decency. Memorandum at 5, Inmates ofOccoquan v. Barry, No. 86-2128 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 1995). The Court also specifically criticized defendants for the use of "staff assignment rosters [that] are misleading because they indicate two, sometimes three officers in each dormitory when, in reality, it is much less due to officers being 'pulled'" out of the unit. Inmates ofOccoquan v. Barry, 717 F. Supp. 854, 864 (D.D.C. 1989). 25. The consent order and various rulings in Campbell, the Court's numerous opinions and orders in Inmates ofOccoquan, expert reports, numerous lawsuits, and the legal
7

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 8 of 27
landscape with respect to prison conditions that developed over the 1980s and 1990s clearly established to the District and its officials the constitutional requirements for conditions at the Jail, and defendants Washington, Brown, Harrison, and Smith knew or should have known of these requirements, and were bound by them.
26. Even with the Court-imposed population cap, the District continued to defy numerous court orders designed to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at the Jail. Finally, in 1993, the Court appointed a Special Officer to assist in ensuring compliance with its orders. In her February 1994 status report, the Special Officer documented that the District remained in "substantial noncompliance" with the Court's orders. The District did not dispute the Special Officer's findings and agreed to be held in contempt of court as part of a 1994 Consent Order. The Consent Order set forth a remedial plan with specific timetables to achieve compliance with constitutional requirements. Again, however, the District failed to comply. In light of the District's chronic noncompliance, which was particularly egregious in regard to medical and mental health care services, in 1995 the Court appointed a Receiver for medical care at the Jail.
27. In June 2002, the District asked the Court to lift the popUlation cap in Campbell. In support of this request, the District stated that "the Department of Corrections has substantially improved the conditions at and operation ofthe Central Detention Facility [the Jail] and there are no systemic on-going unconstitutional conditions that would justify the continued imposition of a population limitation ...." Defendant's Motion to Terminate the Population Limitation at 1, Campbell v. McGruder, No. 71-1462 (D.D.C. June 7, 2002). In so doing, the District represented that it had implemented and/or would develop adequate staffing, security, and classification procedures in light of the increase in population. Moreover, in 2002, defendant Washington submitted a declaration to the Court in a related case indicating the "critical staffing complement" at the Jail that he averred would be filled at all times, including three officers on the day and evening shifts for all cellblocks that were double-celled.
8

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 9 of 27
Declaration of Odie Washington ~ 5-6, Fraternal Order ofPolice v. Williams, No. 02-461 (D.D.C.2002).
28. On June 24, 2002, without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, the Court terminated the population cap at the Jail that had been imposed in Campbell.
29. Within months, defendants knowingly increased the daily population at the Jail to over 2,300 inmates, overwhelming already deficient operating systems.
30. Despite this inmate population increase of almost forty percent (40%), there was no corresponding increase in the number of correctional staff assigned by defendants to provide security to prisoners at the Jail. Conditions were so dangerous that correctional officers brought suit in federal court to compel an improvement in the health and safety conditions at the Jail, which had been worsened by overcrowding. B. Deficiencies in Classification, Staffing, and Security
31. Even before the inmate population ballooned in 2002, the Jail had operated for many years without an inmate classification system to evaluate and assign safe housing and supervision to pretrial detainees. Inmates charged with nonviolent misdemeanors were housed alongside convicted violent felons, and no effort was made to separate predatory pretrial detainees charged with murders and other violent crimes from those charged with less serious or non-violent offenses. Although classification systems are routinely used by jails to assign inmates to the most appropriate level of custody and security, to make housing assignments, and to protect vulnerable inmates from predatory prisoners, the District consistently refused to conduct this basic screening process for pretrial detainees.
32. The District also repeatedly failed to provide sufficient staffing, to implement necessary security procedures at the Jail, and to improve the training and supervision of Jail employees.
9

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 10 of 27

33. The security measures in place at the Jail were severely lacking. Such

inadequacies included, but were not limited to, the failure to control contraband, install metal

detectors, and conduct and document frequent and unannounced housing unit, inmate, and cell

shakedowns.

34. Additionally, Jail employees were inadequately trained and supervised by the

District and its correctional officials. Although the inadequacy of training and supervision was

ongoing, defendants failed to improve the quality of the training programs or require greater

supervision of prison guards.

35. These deficiencies were well known to the DC DOC management, including all

defendants. A 1995 study (DC Jail Comparison o/Staffing Recommendations) warned that the

District must provide adequate relief at meal breaks in order to ensure that there would never be
a reduction in guard coverage. In a 1996 report on the Department of Corrections (District 0/

Columbia Department o/Corrections Study) by the National Institute of Corrections, Dr. James

Austin concluded that the DC DOC must develop a classification system for its pretrial

population, which accounted for seventy percent (70%) of the Jail population.

Dr. Austin found numerous dangerous deficiencies at the Jail including, without

limitation: a) b)

no objective classification system for the pretrial population (p. 18);
a need to develop an objective classification system for the pretrial population (p. 31);

c) no system-wide standards for inmate housing units (p. 37); and

d) major deficiencies in the majority of housing units:

(i) substantial overcrowding (p. 37);

(ii) limited staff to provide security supervision and response capability (p. 37);

(iii) inadequate sight lines (p. 37); 10

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 11 of 27
(iv) inappropriate assignment of inmates relative to their custody levels (p. 37);
(v) circulation and movement control systems that did not allow for constant supervision of inmates when they were outside of their assigned cells (p. 37);
(vi) staffing in open areas that was insufficient to provide appropriate observation of inmates (p. 38); and
(vii) the absence of closed circuit televisions, which were a necessity for adequate supervision and security because of the design of the facility, in many areas that were not visible to the officers (p. 67).
36. In 1997, a follow-up report (Assessment ofthe District ofColumbia Department
of Corrections), which was funded by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and conducted by the
National Institute of Corrections, again highlighted dangerous security deficiencies at the Jail:
a) the absence of a classification system for pretrial detainees, who were the majority of the inmates (p. 65); and
b) the DOC's failure to adopt the new classification forms and procedures or implement any of the other recommended tasks, but rather to continue to operate under its antiquated classification system established in 1987 (p. 66).
37. In the two (2) years leading up to the murder of Givon Pendleton - at the same
time that District officials were successfully seeking to persuade the Court to lift the population
cap imposed by Campbell and subsequently increasing the number of inmates by nearly 40% -
urgent warnings to District officials about life-threatening conditions at the Jail became more
frequent and ominous.
a) April 13, 2001: William H. Dupree, chairman of the Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee, wrote to defendant Washington that the administration's plan to "increase the inmate popUlation at the DC Jail ... while simultaneously eliminating security posts and decreasing the work force ... will present a major risk to the safety of ... inmates confined at that facility."
b) September 29, 2001: A study (District of Columbia Department of Correction Staffing and Overtime Assessment) prepared by Security Response Technologies, Inc. warned that the District must "implement the
11

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 12 of 27
proposed critical minimum staffing complement as the CDF's base roster of mandatory posts." (p. 2)
c) November 9,2001: Mr. Dupree wrote to Mayor Williams concerning "an urgent safety and security matter at the DC Jail. . .. The Department of Corrections is in the process of implementing a very irresponsible plan that not only violates the Court ordered ceiling at the DC Jail, but compromises the safety of both staff and inmate populations."
d) November 12, 2001: James F. Wallington, an attorney representing the Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee, wrote to the Special Officer requesting assistance in seeking "a temporary restraining order directing the Office of the Mayor ... and the Director of the DC Department of Corrections to cease the intentional overcrowding at the DC Jail. As of Sunday, November 11, 2001, the Department of Corrections has failed to increase the correctional officer staff at the DC Jail to address the immediate influx of inmate population."
e) November 14, 2001: Correctional Officer Irving Robinson, who was assigned to the DC Jail, wrote that "it is my observation that the overcrowded conditions at the DC Jail pose an immediate threat to staff and inmates."
f) November 16,2001: Mr. Dupree swore in an affidavit that "again the Department has deceived the employees of the Department of Corrections and their representatives in a matter which clearly places the health and safety of employees and the public at risk. . .. [B]ased upon my experience as a correctional officer, I am of the opinion that these overcrowding conditions will only get worse and lead to serious injury or death ...."
g) May 21, 2002: The Special Officer appointed by the U.S. District Court noted that DOC Director Washington, in a March 25,2002, Declaration filed with the Court, had sworn that all posts on the "Critical Staffing Complement" would be filled at all times. However, according to shift rosters, cellblocks with an inmate popUlation of 100 inmates or greater were not consistently staffed with three (3) officers. (pp. 5-6)
h) June 4,2002: The same Court-appointed Special Officer again complained that "[a]ccording to the shift rosters and the cellblock logs, there have been numerous instances when cellblocks containing greater than 100 inmates have not been assigned three (3) officers. . .. I feel strongly that the Department of Corrections should adhere to its representations made in the Declaration filed with the Court." (p. 5)
i) November 13, 2002: Pamela Chase, Chairperson of the Fraternal Order of Police Department of Corrections Labor Committee testified before the DC Council Committee on the Judiciary at an oversight Hearing of the DC Department of Corrections that staffing shortages had created "reoccurring breaches in public safety and embarrassing incidents within the
12

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 13 of 27
Department of Corrections. . .. Essential equipment and staffing have been sacrificed ... placing lives at risk ... immediate action must be taken." j) November 26,2002: The Honorable Kathleen Patterson, the District of Columbia City Council Judiciary Committee chairperson, and Ward 6 Councilmember Sharon Ambrose, wrote to Mayor Williams that "we are very concerned that the conditions appear to be worsening ... at the DC Jail due to overcrowding .... In sum, we fear for the physical safety of inmates, staff and the public at large." 38. At the same time that they were receiving these warnings, District officials saw first-hand the consequences of its unconstitutional policy of operating an overcrowded, understaffed Jail without adequate procedures for classification, staffing, and security. Significant Incident Reports from the Jail in the months immediately before and after the popUlation cap was lifted in June 2002 reveal increasingly violent, chaotic, and dangerous conditions, including repeated instances of undeterred inmate-on-inmate violence. Each of the individual defendants - Washington, Brown, Harrison, and Smith - were members of the chain of command during this time period. As a result, they knew or should have known of these Incident Reports and were aware of the increasingly violent and dangerous conditions at the Jail.
c. December 11-14, 2002
39. The problems at the Jail culminated in two murders and a third near-fatal stabbing over a four-day span in December 2002.
40. On December 11, 2002, while incarcerated in the Southeast One cellblock at the Jail, Givon Pendleton was brutally attacked by inmate Dominic Jones. Jones stabbed Mr. Pendleton repeatedly with a metal weapon, believed to be a street knife, that likely had been smuggled into the institution. Mr. Pendleton died from his injuries.
41. On December 13, 2002, a second inmate - plaintiff Bradley Raymond Autman (a military veteran with a prosthetic leg) - was stabbed in the neck by another prisoner at the Jail.
Mr. Autman survived the attack, although he sustained serious injuries.
13

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 14 of 27
42. On December 14, 2002, a third inmate - Mikal Gaither - was stabbed at the Jail. Like Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Gaither died from injuries he sustained in the attack.
43. The circumstances surrounding the stabbings of Messrs. Pendleton, Autman, and Gaither were remarkably similar to one another and followed a well-documented pattern of inmate violence at the Jail. Both Messrs. Pendleton and Gaither were pretrial detainees who were murdered by predatory inmates with histories of aggravated violence against other inmates, and while both assailants were being preventively detained on murder charges. All three individuals were stabbed with knife-like weapons that had either been smuggled into the institution or fashioned inside it, and the weapons used against two of the victims were not even recovered after the crimes. The weapon used to kill Mr. Gaither was recovered only after another inmate directed guards to its location. Each stabbing took place outside the presence or sight of any correctional officer in a cellblock, overcrowded with misclassified inmates, and after one of the critical officers assigned to the housing unit had abandoned his security post without first securing a relief officer.
44. An investigation into the murder of Mr. Pendleton followed his death. According to the District Metropolitan Police Department affidavit in support of the arrest warrant for Dominic Jones, Mr. Jones "was known to Detective Michael Irving as a defendant charged with shooting and killing of two individuals in an unrelated murder case. . .. The investigation revealed that the defendant is a member of a group called the 'Muslim Brotherhood. '"
45. This was at least the second inmate assault that had been committed by Mr. Jones in the Jail: on April 10,2002, Mr. Jones - along with other inmates being held on murder charges - assaulted an inmate in the Southwest Three cellblock at the Jail. That inmate was hospitalized for head injuries. An informant at the time advised correctional staff that Mr. Jones and the other assailants were part of a group of Muslims that had been strong-arming inmates in the unit.
14

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 15 of 27
46. Despite his multiple murder charges, history of violence, and known gang affiliation within the Jail, defendants had at the time of the murder placed Mr. Jones in charge of dispensing meals and beverages to other inmates. Mr. Jones stabbed Mr. Pendleton to death in retaliation for Mr. Pendleton asking for his daily ration of milk.
47. The autopsy report documented that Givon Pendleton suffered the following lllJunes:
a) Stab wound to left lateral chest with perforation of heart and lung; b) Stab wound to left side of head; c) Stab wound to left posterior neck; d) Stab wound to left mid-chest; e) Stab wound to right mid-chest; f) Stab wound to left abdomen; g) Stab wound to left lateral back; h) Stab wound to left mid-back; i) Stab wound to left arm; and j) Stab wound to left elbow. 48. No prison guard saw, heard, or was present in the vicinity of the assault to supervise or monitor the inmates, or to deter the murder ofMr. Pendleton by Mr. Jones. 49. At the time of the murder, there were 153 prisoners housed in the Southeast One cellblock, but - despite defendant's sworn representations with respect to critical staffing levelsonly two guards in the unit. 50. Mr. Autman was stabbed just two days later in the Southeast Two cellblock. After that attack, prison officials conducted cell searches to identify the assailant and locate any weapon that may have been used during the assault. Neither search was successful. Mr. Autman was seriously wounded and hospitalized as a result ofthe injuries he sustained. As with Mr.
15

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 16 of 27
Pendleton, no officer witnessed the attack, and at least one of the three guards assigned to the unit was out on a break at the time of the stabbing.
51. The overcrowding, understaffing, and substantial and unreasonable risk to detainee and inmate safety described above became known to the highest policymakers in the District government and to corrections officials through court orders, studies, technical and expert reports that were provided to the District, testimony and documents generated at City Council oversight hearings, lawsuits filed against the District, settlements entered into by the District, adverse verdicts delivered against the District by juries, a long line of inmate assaults at the Jail, and by other means. These documents and events clearly established to defendants the constitutional requirements for conditions at the Jail.
52. Despite their longstanding awareness of the conditions of confinement at the Jail and the clearly established constitutional requirements for the facility, defendants adopted a custom or policy with respect to the operations of the Jail that was deliberately indifferent to, and recklessly disregarded, the safety and security of the detainees and inmates housed there. Defendants' actions caused a substantial and unreasonable risk to inmate and detainee safety, and resulted in the murders of Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Gaither, and the near-fatal stabbing of Mr. Autman.
53. The overcrowding, understaffing, and deliberate indifference to the substantial and unreasonable risk to inmate and detainee safety described above continued at the Jail even after the murders of Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Gaither and the stabbing of Mr. Autman, and the conditions of confinement at the Jail today remain unconstitutional. District officials have taken constitutionally insufficient measures to remedy these conditions.
16

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 17 of 27
First Cause of Action: (42 US.c. § 1983 - Violation of Eighth Amendment
Alleged by Plaintiff Autman Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their
individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity) 54. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 53, supra, as set forth herein. 55. At all relevant times, defendants operated the Jail under color of state law and having incarcerated Mr. Autman at the facility, stripped him of all means of self-protection, and foreclosed his access to private aid - were constitutionally required to provide him and other inmates with protection from substantial and unreasonable risk of harm. 56. Inmates housed in the Jail were subject to a substantial and unreasonable risk of violent injury as a result of the unconstitutional conditions at the Jail, which included historic and pervasive violence, overcrowding, a shortage of staff, a lack of staff training, negligent supervision of correctional officers, and inadequate policies and procedures for staffing, classification, and security. Defendants were repeatedly made aware ofthese constitutionally infirm and dangerous conditions, but they purposely and consistently failed to take action to remedy those conditions. To the contrary, defendants adopted a pattern, practice, custom, or policy of acting with deliberate indifference and reckless disregard for the safety, security, and protection of inmates, and/or acted in violation of clearly established constitutional requirements for prison conditions. 57. To date, defendants have failed to remedy these unconstitutional conditions. 58. Defendants' continual failure to address these conditions was and is the result of a conscious and deliberate decision or reckless disregard. 59. Defendants' pattern, practice, custom, or policy of deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, the substantial and unr~asonable risk of harm to inmate safety at the Jail
17

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 18 of 27
directly and proximately caused Mr. Autman's injuries, thus depriving him of his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of 42 U.S.c. § 1983. Plaintiff Autman experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
Second Cause of Action: (42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Violation of Fifth Amendment
Alleged by Plaintiff Beale Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their
individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity) 60. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 59, supra, as set forth herein. 61. At all relevant times, defendants operated the Jail under color of state law and having incarcerated Mr. Pendleton at the facility, stripped him of all means of self-protection, and foreclosed his access to private aid - were constitutionally required to provide him and other pretrial detainees with protection from substantial and unreasonable risk of harm. 62. Pretrial detainees housed in the Jail were subject to a substantial and unreasonable risk of violent injury as a result ofthe unconstitutional conditions at the Jail, which included historic and pervasive violence, overcrowding, a shortage of staff, a lack of staff training, negligent supervision of correctional officers, and inadequate policies and procedures for staffing, classification, and security. Defendants were repeatedly made aware of these constitutionally infirm and dangerous conditions, but they purposely and consistently failed to take action to remedy those conditions. To the contrary, defendants adopted a pattern, practice, custom, or policy of acting with deliberate indifference and reckless disregard for the safety, security, and protection of pretrial detainees, and/or acted in violation of clearly established constitutional requirements for prison conditions. 63. To date, defendants have failed to remedy these unconstitutional conditions.
18

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 19 of 27
64. Defendants' continual failure to address these conditions was and is the result of a conscious and deliberate decision or reckless disregard.
65. Defendants' pattern, practice, custom, or policy of deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, the substantial and unreasonable risk of harm to pretrial detainee safety at the Jail directly and proximately caused Mr. Pendleton's injuries, in violation of the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Decedent Pendleton experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
Third Cause of Action: (42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Violation of Fifth Amendment
Alleged by Plaintiff Beale Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their
individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity) 66. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 65, supra, by reference. 67. As a pretrial detainee, decedent Pendleton had not yet been found guilty and thus could not be subjected to punishment. 68. Defendants subjected decedent Pendleton to jailhouse conditions so dangerous, horrible, and cruel that they amounted to punishment rather than to reasonable effectuation of legitimate municipal objectives. 69. Defendants' pattern, practice, custom, or policy of housing pretrial detainees in a facility that was and is characterized by historic and pervasive overcrowding, a shortage of staff, a lack of staff training, and dangerous policies and procedures for staffing, classification, and security constitutes punishment in violation of the clearly established rights of pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.c. § 1983.
19

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 20 of 27
Fourth Cause of Action: (42 U.S.c. § 1983 - Violation of Fifth Amendment
Alleged by Plaintiffs Beale and Autman Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their
individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity) 70. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 69, supra, as set forth herein. 71. By taking decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman into custody and holding them there against their will, and by restricting decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman's ability to defend themselves from injury to their life, liberty, and bodily integrity, defendants incurred an affirmative duty to protect decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman's safety and general wellbeing. 72. Defendants grossly ignored their responsibilities and breached this duty. By persistently perpetuating and refusing to remedy the unconstitutional and dangerous conditions at the Jail- of which they had been aware for many years and on which they had been advised by both courts and experts to act on numerous occasions - defendants exhibited and continue to exhibit a custom and policy of deliberate indifference or reckless disregard, and/or acted in violation of clearly established constitutional requirements for providing security in prisons. 73. Defendants' pattern, practice, custom, or policy of deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, the substantial and unreasonable risk of inmate violence and injury at the Jail constitutes conduct so egregious or outrageous that it shocks the contemporary conscience; such conduct deprived decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman of substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Fifth Cause of Action: (42 U.S.c. § 1983 - Violation of Fifth and Eighth Amendments
Alleged by Plaintiffs Beale and Autman Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their
individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity) 20

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 21 of 27
74. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 73, supra, by reference. 75. At the time of the murder of Mr. Pendleton and the stabbing ofMr. Autman, the Jail was staffed by guards who were inadequately supervised and trained. 76. Because the guards were inadequately supervised and trained, and were too few in number, they failed properly to monitor, supervise, and secure the area, and left their security posts with no relief officer to prevent or deter the attacks upon decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman. The staff assignment rosters were drafted in such a way that it was impossible to provide continuous coverage in housing units during staffbreaks. 77. At all relevant times, defendants were aware of an ongoing deficiency in the city's training program for Jail guards and in the supervision of those guards on the job. Despite their awareness of this continuing problem, defendants failed to improve the quality of the training programs or require greater supervision of Jail employees. 78. The need for more or different training and more supervision of Jail personnel was so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees and inmates, that the District of Columbia and its correctional officials acted with deliberate indifference in failing to remedy the need. 79. Defendants adopted a pattern, practice, custom, or policy of acting with deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard for the need for adequate training and supervision of the Jail employees. 80. To date, defendants have failed to address adequately these unconstitutional conditions. 81. Defendants' continual failure to address the lack of adequate training and supervision was and is the result of a conscious and deliberate decision or reckless disregard.
21

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 22 of 27
82. Defendants' pattern, practice, custom, or policy of deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, the need for adequate training and supervision of Jail employees directly and proximately caused Mr. Pendleton's death and Mr. Autman's injuries, thus depriving them of their constitutional rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, respectively, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and they suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
Sixth Cause of Action: (Negligent Contraband Control- Survival Statute
Alleged by Plaintiffs Beale and Autman Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their
individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity) 83. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 82, supra, by reference. 84. The Department of Corrections of the District of Columbia was under a statutory and common law duty to provide for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons housed in its penal institutions, including decedent Givon Pendleton and plaintiff Bradley Autman. 85. Defendants knew or should have known that, due to their lack of prison security measures including, but not limited to, the failure to control contraband, install metal detectors, and conduct and document frequent and unannounced housing unit, inmate, and cell shakedowns, it was reasonably foreseeable that residents, including Messrs. Pendleton and Autman, would be attacked by other residents with lethal and prohibited weapons. 86. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman were assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in the death ofMr. Pendleton and serious bodily injury to Mr. Autman. They experienced bodily pain and
22

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 23 of 27
mental anguish, and they suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
Seventh Cause of Action: (Negligent Monitoring and Supervision of Inmates - Survival Statute
Alleged by Plaintiffs Beale and Autman Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their
individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity) 87. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 86, supra, by reference. 88. Defendants knew or should have known that, due to the lack of security measures including, but not limited to, the failure to assign adequate staff to watch, hear, monitor, and supervise properly resident activity and movement, it was reasonably foreseeable that residents, including decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman, would be attacked by other residents with lethal and prohibited weapons. 89. As a result, Mr. Jones was able to acquire a metal knife or shank, which he used to stab repeatedly decedent Givon Pendleton without sight or sound supervision or deterrence by correctional personnel, in violation of commonly accepted prison security standards. In addition, Mr. Autman was stabbed by a metal knife or shank - by an unidentified assailant - without a correctional officer hearing, deterring, or witnessing the incident in violation of commonly accepted prison security standards. 90. As a direct and proximate result of this negligence, decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman were assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in the death of Mr. Pendleton and serious bodily injury to Mr. Autman. Both experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and they suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
Eighth Cause of Action: (Negligent Overcrowding - Survival Statute
Alleged by Plaintiffs Beale and Autman 23

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 24 of 27
Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity)
91. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 90, supra, by reference. 92. Shortly after the Court-ordered population cap of 1,674 inmates at the Jail was lifted in June 2002, District officials - including all defendants - significantly increased the population of the Jail. At the time of the murder of Mr. Pendleton and the attack on Mr. Autman, the Jail was crowded with more than 2,300 inmates. 93. Despite the rapid increase in the Jail population, there was no corresponding increase in the assignment of correctional staff to provide security at the Jail. 94. Defendants had been repeatedly warned of the dangers to inmates that would result from overcrowding. 95. Defendants knew or should have known that, due to the lack of security measures including, but not limited to, the failure to reduce overcrowding and/or to assign adequate numbers of correctional officers to supervise the excessive numbers of residents; the failure to control contraband and to install metal detectors; the failure to monitor and supervise properly resident activity and movement; and the failure to conduct and document frequent and unannounced housing unit, inmate, and cell shakedowns, it was reasonably foreseeable that residents, including decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman, would be attacked by other residents with lethal and prohibited weapons in the crowded cellblocks. 96. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman were assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in the death of Mr. Pendleton and serious bodily injury to Mr. Autman. They experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and they suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
24

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 25 of 27
Ninth Cause of Action: (Negligent Supervision and Training - Survival Statute
Alleged by Plaintiffs Beale and Autman Against Defendant District of Columbia - Defendants Washington, Harrison, and Smith in their
individual and official capacities - Defendant Brown in his individual capacity) 97. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 96, supra, by reference. 98. At the time of the murder of Mr. Pendleton and stabbing of Mr. Autman, the Jail was staffed by guards who were inadequately supervised and trained. 99. Because the guards were inadequately supervised and trained, and were too few in number, they failed properly to monitor, supervise, and secure the area, and left their security posts with no relief officer to prevent or deter the attacks upon decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman. The staff assignment rosters were drafted in such a way that it was impossible to provide continuous coverage in housing units during staff breaks. 100. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, decedent Pendleton and plaintiff Autman were assaulted with a metal knife or shank, resulting in the death ofMr. Pendleton and serious bodily injury to Mr. Autman. They experienced bodily pain and mental anguish, and they suffered pecuniary loss, including, but not limited to, hospital and medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
Tenth Cause of Action: (Wrongful Death Statute Alleged by Plaintiff Beale Against Defendant District of Columbia) 101. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 100, supra, by reference. 102. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence, decedent Givon Pendleton died on or about December 11, 2002. There were no intervening or superseding causes contributing to his death.
25

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 26 of 27 103. As a further direct and proximate result of the above-described negligence and the ensuing death of Givon Pendleton, plaintiff and decedent's next of kin suffered the loss of decedent's services, companionship, comfort, care, love, affection, attention, assistance, financial support, future earnings, and other pecuniary benefit that they would have derived had plaintiff s decedent survived.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this honorable Court:
a) Issue a judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, awarding each plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $10 million;
b) Issue any other legal or equitable relief that that the Court deems proper; c) Award plaintiffs attorneys' fees and the costs of this action; d) Award plaintiffs punitive damages as allowed by applicable law; and e) Award plaintiffs all such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled.
26

Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 14 Filed 11/18/04 Page 27 of 27
Jury Demand Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward H. Rippey (DC Bar No. 450462) Timothy L. Jucovy (DC Bar No. 481470) COVINGTON & BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 Phone: (202) 662-5861 Fax: (202) 778-5861 Douglas R. Sparks (DC Bar No. 296921) ALLEN & SPARKS, LLP. 1822-D Biltmore Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 797-8200 Fax: (202) 797-0468 Philip Fomaci (DC Bar No. 434824) Executive Director DC Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc. 2639 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 225 Washington, DC 20008 Phone: (202) 775-0323 Fax: (202) 775-0315 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
27

 
 Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 8 (2008)

545 F.Supp.2d 8 United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Pearl BEALE et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 04–959 (RMU). | March 31, 2008.
Synopsis Background: Inmate who was stabbed at jail and mother of pretrial detainee who was fatally stabbed at jail sued District of Columbia, director of District of Columbia’s corrections department, jail’s former and current wardens, and jail’s deputy warden, alleging that stabbings stemmed from unconstitutional conditions at jail and negligence of officials operating jail. Plaintiffs appealed after the District Court, Kay, United States Magistrate Judge, granted defendants’ motion to reopen and extend discovery and denied as moot plaintiffs’ motion for dispositive motions schedule.
Holdings: The District Court, Ricardo M. Urbina, J., held that:
[1] magistrate judge applied good cause standard and sufficiently articulated his reasoning;
[2] replacement of defendants’ lead attorney could serve as good cause for reopening discovery;
[3] magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for dispositive motions schedule was not final order usurpative of district court’s authority;
[4] conclusion that defendants lost their lead counsel was not clearly erroneous;
[5] determination that loss of lead counsel established excusable neglect supporting finding of good cause to reopen and extend discovery was not clearly erroneous; and
[6] plaintiffs were not unduly prejudiced by relief granted to defendants.

Appeal denied.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*10 Edward Holden Rippey, Timothy Laszlo Jucovy, Andrew W. Lamb, Edward Michael Mathias, Joseph Zambuto, Jr., Kimberly S. McNish, Covington & Burling LLP, Douglas Reid Sparks, Sparks & Silber, LLP, Ivy Ann Lange, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urba, Philip J. Fornaci, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Corliss Vaughn Adams, Zuberi Bakari Williams, Patricia Ann Jones, Office of the Attorney General, Shameka L. Gainey, Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.
DENYING THE PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDERS REGARDING REOPENING OF DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
This case involves a lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs following the stabbing of Givon Pendleton and Bradley Autman at the D.C. Jail in December, 2002. Before the *11 court is the plaintiffs’ appeal of Magistrate Judge Kay’s Memorandum Order reopening discovery and his Minute Order denying as moot the plaintiffs’ motion for a dispositive motions schedule, both issued December 12, 2007. The plaintiffs argue that Judge Kay failed to make a finding of “good cause” when he granted the defendant’s motion to reopen and extend discovery; that a substitution of counsel does not constitute good cause for reopening
1

Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 8 (2008)
discovery; that, even if it did, the defendants did not truly lose their lead counsel before the discovery deadline expired and have shown no pre-deadline due diligence; that the law of the case precludes an extension of discovery for the defendants; and that reopening discovery will unduly prejudice the plaintiffs. The defendants maintain that Judge Kay did apply the correct standard, that he clearly articulated the basis of his finding of excusable neglect, that loss of counsel is good cause for an extension, and that the plaintiffs will incur no prejudice from an extension. Because the court concludes that Judge Kay correctly applied the appropriate legal standards, and because his factual findings are not clearly erroneous, the court denies the plaintiffs’ appeal.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History
On December 11, 2002, Dominic Jones, an inmate at the D.C. Jail, fatally stabbed Givon Pendleton, a pretrial detainee at the D.C. Jail. Am. Compl. ¶ 2. On December 13, 2002, an unknown inmate at the D.C. Jail stabbed inmate Bradley Raymond Autman in the neck.1 Id. at 3. The following day, a third stabbing, this time of inmate Mikal Gaither, took place in a housing unit of the D.C. Jail. Id. at 4. Gaither died as a result of the stabbing wounds the following day. Id.

1

Autman survived the stabbing, though he was

hospitalized for several days. Am. Compl. ¶ 3.

Decedent Givon Pendleton’s mother, Pearl Beale, and stabbing victim Bradley Raymond Autman bring this suit against the District of Columbia; Odie Washington, the director of the D.C. Department of Corrections; Marvin Brown, the retired Warden of the D.C. Jail; Dennis Harrison, the Deputy Warden; and Steven Smith, the current Warden. See Am. Compl. According to the plaintiffs, these stabbings occurred soon after a population explosion at the jail following the expiration of a judicially created population cap and were the result of “unconstitutional conditions at the Jail as well as negligence of District officials in operating that facility.” Id. ¶ 5.

B. Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed suit in this court on June 10, 2004. On December 19, 2005, the court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Kay for all discovery and discovery-related disputes. Order (Dec. 19, 2005). Within a little more than four months, the plaintiffs had filed three separate motions for sanctions alleging numerous discovery violations, stonewalling and violations of court orders. On March 30, 2006, the court referred these motions to Judge Kay. Order (Mar. 31, 2006). On January 31, 2007, Judge Kay issued a Minute Order deferring a ruling on the plaintiffs’ sanctions motions until the close of all discovery. Min. Order (Jan. 31, 2007). Contemporaneously, this court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice and declared that it would entertain dispositive motions after the close of discovery. Min. Order (Jan. 31, 2007).
*12 On April 10, 2007, Judge Kay ordered that all discovery would close on October 9, 2007. Order (Apr. 10, 2007). On September 25, 2007, Judge Kay granted a request by the defendants for an extension of discovery to November 9, 2007. Min. Order (Sept. 25, 2007). On October 25, 2007, Judge Kay granted a further extension, unopposed by the plaintiffs, setting November 5, 2007 as the deadline for defendants to serve their expert reports and November 19, 2007 as the deadline for the close of discovery. Min. Order (Oct. 25, 2007). On November 23, 2007, the defendants moved for an extension of time to complete discovery. Defs.’ Mot. to Reopen Discovery and Schedule Dispositive Mot. Deadline (“Defs.’ Mot.”). Specifically, they sought (1) to late file their expert reports; (2) to take depositions of plaintiffs’ experts “and any other necessary fact witnesses, including plaintiff Bradley Autmon, and Melvin Reese”; and (3) to file a dispositive motion after discovery. Id. at 1. Defendants explained that “[o]n or about November 9, 2007, former counsel of record began Administrative Leave.” Id. at 2. C. Vaughn Adams, current counsel, was assigned to the case on November 19, 2007, entering his appearance on November 21, 2007. Id. at 1–2. Additionally, Shameka Gainey entered her appearance on November 23, as did Zuberi Williams on November 27. Id. at 2. Defendants represent that because of “personnel changes and the shortage of staff attorneys because of attrition, reassignment of this case could not be more timely made.” Id. at 4. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b), they asked the court to enlarge the discovery close
2

Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 8 (2008)
date and accept their late filed motion on the basis of excusable neglect. Id. Counsel Vaughn cited other circumstances for his untimeliness, including the fact that he entered appearance in another case for a trial scheduled to begin a day later, and that he did not learn of this assignment until November 20, whereupon he entered his appearance the next day. Id.
On December 7, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an opposition. They noted that the court had already set five deadlines for serving expert reports and five deadlines for closing discovery. Pls.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. at 2. Moreover, in the fourth extension granted on September 25, 2007, the court ruled that there would be “no further extensions.” Id. The plaintiffs also complain that the defendants did not cite Rule 16(b)(4) for the standard governing modifications of scheduling orders. Id. at 4. Under that rule, the court must make a finding of “good cause,” which includes evidence of due diligence by the movant. Id. As the defendants’ former counsel did not leave until November 9, the defendants, the plaintiffs maintain, did not explain why they failed to move for an extension of the expert report deadline before the November 5 deadline. Id. at 5. Moreover, the defendants did not assign a new attorney to the case until November 20, one day after the close of discovery. Id. at 7. Finally, the plaintiffs opposed any postponement of the dispositive motion briefing schedule, as “compound[ing] the prejudice suffered by Plaintiffs and continu[ing] to reward Defendants for their ongoing failure to follow the law, the orders of this Court, and the applicable procedural rules.” Id. at 8.
On December 12, 2007, Judge Kay issued a Memorandum Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion. Judge Kay recognized that, “[p]ursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), the Court may, for good cause, extend the time in which an act may be done on the basis of a motion made after the time for doing such act has expired, if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Mem. Order (Dec. 12, 2007) at 1. Judge Kay noted *13 the personnel changes in the defendants’ legal office; stated that “[d]uring the time this Court has been charged with handling discovery disputes in this matter only this counsel has appeared on behalf of Defendants,” id. at 2 n. 3; and cited in particular the defendants’ representation that “new counsels need additional time to familiarize themselves with the trial record, including ... plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the arguments made in various motions ... [and] the 15,000 plus documents produced in discovery,” id. at 2. Judge Kay held:

While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ position in this matter, particularly in light of the history of delays in this case, the Court must consider the circumstances and timing of prior counsel’s withdrawal of his appearance and the efforts being made by the Office to staff this case with three attorneys who are diligently working to familiarize themselves with this litigation.
Id. at 2–3. Judge Kay also highlighted the timing of the request, “which occurred shortly after the November 19, 2007 close of discovery and prior to any expert depositions being taken, dispositive motions being filed or the setting of a trial date.” Id. at 3. Accordingly, he found no undue prejudice to the plaintiffs. Id. Judge Kay ordered that discovery be reopened to close on February 20, 2008, and extended the deadline for defendants’ expert reports to December 30, 2007, and the deadline for dispositive motions to March 5, 2008. Id. Judge Kay concluded with a declaration that “[t]here shall be no more extensions of discovery absent exigent circumstances.” Id. at 3.
The plaintiffs appealed Judge Kay’s decision on December 21, 2007, and briefing before this court ensued. The parties’ arguments now presented, the court begins its analysis.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard Review of Magistrate Judge Decisions
[1] [2] A party may invoke Federal Rule 72(a) and Local Rule 72.2 to seek reconsideration of a magistrate judge’s determination in a discovery dispute. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a); LCvR 72.2. Upon review, “the magistrate judge’s decision is entitled to great deference” and will not be disturbed “unless found to be ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’ ” Boca Investerings P’ship v. United States, 31 F.Supp.2d 9, 11 (D.D.C.1998). “In view of this standard, the court will affirm the magistrate judge’s determination unless ‘on the entire evidence’ the court ‘is
3

Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 8 (2008)
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Neuder v. Battelle Pac. Northwest Nat’l Lab., 194 F.R.D. 289 (D.D.C.2000) (citing United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 365, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)); Arakelian v. Nat’l W. Life Ins. Co., 126 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C.1989).
B. Magistrate Judge Kay’s Conclusion that Good Cause and Excusable Neglect Warranted Reopening
and Extending Discovery is not Contrary to Law
1. The Decision Applies the Correct Law and Sufficiently Articulates Its Reasoning
[3] The plaintiffs rehash before this court essentially the same arguments they presented to Magistrate Judge Kay. To begin, they accuse Judge Kay of failing to apply the correct legal standard. Plaintiffs argue that he “failed to acknowledge—let alone apply—[Rule 16(b)(4)’s ‘good cause’] standard.” Pls.’ Objections to Orders Reopening Discovery (“Pls.’ App. Mot.”) at 6. The plaintiffs further *14 allege that the order “contain[s] no finding—under any potentially applicable standard,” resting their argument on the formalistic observation that the order uses the words “considers” and “takes note” rather than “finds.” Id. at 6–7. The defendants describe the plaintiffs’ characterization here as “disingenuous,” because Judge Kay clearly acknowledged that the standards of good cause and excusable neglect governed his decision. Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ App. Mot. (“Defs.’ App. Opp’n”) at 7. Furthermore, they argue, Rule 6(b) explicitly provides the discretionary authority for a judge to extend a deadline on the basis of an untimely motion and uses the same standard as Rule 16(b)(4). Id. Thus, whether Judge Kay specifically cited Rule 16(b)(4) as well is of no event. Id.
[4] Whether the plaintiffs’ argument is disingenuous the court cannot say, but it is undoubtedly frivolous. Rule 6 affords a district court, or appointed magistrate judge, the authority to enlarge time periods set either in the federal rules or by the court’s own orders. FED.R.CIV.P. 6(b) (providing for enlargement “[w]hen by these rules ... or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time”); Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 464 n. 2 (8th Cir.2000). Rule 16(b)(4) does contemplate the issuance of a scheduling order early in the litigation process and does provide a means of

modification for the dates thereof, but nowhere does its language suggest that it prohibits the filing or consideration of a motion to late file and expand discovery deadlines under Rule 6. See, e.g., Blumenthal v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 236, 240 (D.D.C.1999) (identifying Rule 6(b) as applicable method for considering timely requests and untimely motions to extend discovery); cf. FED.R.CIV.P. 6(b)(2) (listing exceptions for extensions of time under Rule 6; namely, “Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and 60(b)” but not Rule 12(b)). The same standard, good cause, applies to both rules, and the court finds no law dictating a preference either way in the case of an untimely motion, as here.2 See LCvR 16.4 (allowing the court to “modify the scheduling order at any time upon a showing of good cause”); Advisory Comm. Note on FED.R.CIV.P. 6(b) (explaining that “Rule 6(b) is a rule of general application giving wide discretion to the court to enlarge these [the Federal Rules’] time limits or revive them after they have expired”).

2

The argument is particularly frivolous because the

plaintiffs are or should be aware that (1) the standard is

identical for both rules and (2) this court reviews a

magistrate’s legal conclusions de novo; thus, even if

Judge Kay had chosen the wrong standard, his decision

would constitute, at worst, harmless error. See United

States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 100

(D.C.Cir.2001) (explaining that “an appellate court will

not interfere with the trial court’s exercise of its

discretion to control its docket and dispatch its business

... except upon the clearest showing that the procedures

have resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the

complaining litigant”); Tagayun v. Lever &

Stolzenberg, 239 Fed.Appx. 708, 709 (3d Cir.2007)

(reversing on other grounds but leaving undisturbed

district court’s conclusion that a magistrate judge’s

handling of the dispositive aspects of a case “ ‘at most’

constituted a harmless error because the district court

was going to review the parties’ claims de novo ”).

As for the plaintiffs’ cavil at the order’s phraseology, frankly the court has difficulty taking it seriously. Judge Kay’s Memorandum Order clearly sets out the parties’ arguments and—by articulating a conclusion that affirms the credibility of the defendants’ representations—sets forth the basis for a finding of excusable neglect and absence of undue prejudice. Mem. Order (Dec. 12, 2007) at 1–2; see FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a), (b)(1) (tasking, for nondispositive matters, magistrate judges to “issue a *15 written order stating the decision” rather than, as for dispositive motions, issue “proposed findings of fact”). That he does not precede his conclusions with the magic
4

Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 8 (2008)
words “I find” is immaterial. See FED.R.CIV.P. 52(a)(3) (providing that a “court is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Rule 12 or 56 or ... on any other motion”).
2. Loss of Counsel May Constitute Good Cause for Reopening Discovery
[5] The plaintiffs next argue the magistrate judge erred in concluding that the voluntary decision of a party to replace one attorney with another constitutes good cause for an extension of discovery. Pls.’ App. Mot. at 7. The cases the plaintiffs cite for this proposition do express dissatisfaction by different courts with various parties’ lackadaisical approach to scheduling deadlines, but they are not firm affirmations of the proposition that a court cannot grant an extension when a party’s lead attorney suddenly takes administrative leave, that party promptly files a motion for extension, and no undue prejudice attaches to the opposing party. See Smith Wilson Co. v. Trading and Dev. Establishment, 1991 WL 171689, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 1991) (castigating party requesting extension for not “promptly obtaining replacement counsel, ... [but instead] wait[ing] until the eleventh hour” and “accomplish[ing] nothing” in the way of discovery during the past 3 months); Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359, 363 (D.C.Cir.2006) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to extend discovery because “request came over three months after discovery closed and several weeks after [opposing party] filed its motion for summary judgment”).
[6] As this jurisdiction has repeatedly declared, a district court has wide discretion in managing its discovery process; thus, the above-cited cases merely reflect affirmations and instantiations of that discretion. See Hussain, 435 F.3d at 363 (recognizing that district courts have broad discretion in structuring discovery and in resolving discovery problems). Moreover, here Judge Kay highlighted the timing of the defendant’s request, noting that it “occurred shortly after the November 19, 2007 close of discovery and prior to any expert depositions being taken, dispositive motions being filed or the setting of a trial date.” Mem. Order (Dec. 12, 2007) at 3. That a dilatory motion to extend discovery based on a purported need for new counsel might raise the ire of a judge who might in his discretion deny said motion does not necessitate the conclusion that every judge must react thusly in every case before him. The histories, vagaries

and progress of each case are unique, and the judge managing discovery is in the best position to weigh the equities. The court, therefore, does not conclude that Magistrate Judge Kay’s decision that the replacement of the defendants’ lead counsel justified an extension is contrary to law.
3. Magistrate Judge Kay’s Order did not Violate the Law of the Case Doctrine
[7] The plaintiffs contend that Judge Kay bound himself to the deadlines for the defendant’s expert reports and the close of discovery set forth in his September 25, 2007 order because he wrote: “There will be no further extensions of discovery.” Pls.’ App. Mot. at 8. The plaintiffs then claim that Judge Kay’s decision ignored this court’s standing order, as the defendants moved for an extension of time (1) not at least four days prior to the deadline and (2) without indicating the number of previous extensions of time granted. Id. at 9. Additionally, the plaintiffs challenge *16 the decision’s failure to address this court’s September 30, 2005 admonition that it would “not tolerate any dilatory tactics or attempts at stonewalling.” Id. (citing Mem. Order (Sept. 30, 2005) at 3 n. 3). Finally, the plaintiffs contend that because the district court referred the case to Judge Kay only “for discovery disputes,” his order denying as moot the plaintiffs’ motion for scheduling of dispositive motions violates the law of the case. Id. (citing Min. Order (Dec. 12, 2007)).
[8] [9] The plaintiffs forget a fundamental rule of litigation: the court’s discretionary pronouncements are for it—not the parties—to enforce. See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) (affirming that the law-of-the-case doctrine “directs a court’s discretion,” but “does not limit the tribunal’s power”); U.S. on Behalf of Dept. of Labor v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 131 F.3d 1037, 1043 n. 12 (D.C.Cir.1997) (noting that doctrine “is a prudential rule rather than a jurisdictional one, motivated by a practical concern for judicial economy,” making remand for reconsideration appropriate where new facts were available). A judge does not bind his own broad discretion by preemptively warning parties that he runs a tight ship. And if, in furtherance of case management, a judge occasionally betrays the fact that his bark is scarier than his bite, that is not a grievance on which a losing party is entitled to rest a reversal.
5

Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 8 (2008)

[10] Moreover, the law-of-the-case doctrine has little to do with docket management. It “refers to a family of rules embodying the general concept that a court involved in later phases of a lawsuit should not re-open questions decided (i.e., established as the law of the case) by that court or a higher one in earlier phases.” Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 49 F.3d 735, 739 (D.C.Cir.1995). Its purpose is to ensure a consistency of legal analysis and findings on dispositive questions throughout the litigation process. See Northwestern Ind. Tel. Co. v. FCC, 872 F.2d 465, 471 (D.C.Cir.1989) (holding that appellate court’s prior ruling establishing exhaustion requirement was law of the case and could not be challenged on second appeal). In discovery disputes, the exact same legal issue is rarely presented twice. Indeed, here Judge Kay had not already issued a decision on these specific facts and legal questions. See Doe v. Cigna Life Ins. Co. of New York, 304 F.Supp.2d 477, 503–04 (W.D.N.Y.2004) (holding that law-of-the-case doctrine did not preclude magistrate from reconsidering arguments in motion for summary judgment that were previously rejected in the context of a motion to amend). And, in any event, no Circuit has ever held that the doctrine should be extended to preempt the court’s ability to manage its docket in a flexible, fact-driven manner.3 Therefore, the court concludes that the law of the case doctrine is not implicated here, but even if it were, the defendants’ representations to Judge Kay constitute sufficient cause for him to revise his prior orders. See Laffey v. Northwest *17 Airlines, Inc., 740 F.2d 1071, 1102–03 (D.C.Cir.1984) (excusing adherence to doctrine when evidence is “substantially different, controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the applicable law, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice”).

3

The First, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits apply the

doctrine only to final judgments. See, e.g., Union

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 793 F.2d 1, 15

(1st Cir.1986); Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool

Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 185 (5th Cir.1990); Murr

Plumbing, Inc. v. Scherer Bros. Fin. Servs. Co., 48 F.3d

1066, 1070 (8th Cir.1995); Unioil v. Elledge, 962 F.2d

988, 993 (10th Cir.1992). On the other hand, the

Second, Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits apply the

doctrine to all trial rulings concerning dispositive legal

questions. See, e.g., DiLaura v. Power Auth. of the

State of New York, 982 F.2d 73, 76–77 (2d Cir.1992);

Bridge v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 981 F.2d 97, 103 (3d

Cir.1992); Wzorek v. City of Chicago, 906 F.2d 1180,

1185 (7th Cir.1990); Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55

F.3d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir.1995).

[11] The plaintiffs’ complaint with the order denying as moot the plaintiffs’ motion for scheduling of dispositive motions is also baseless. Judge Kay had the authority to manage the case for all discovery and discovery-related purposes, broadly interpreted. See Min. Order (Dec. 19, 2005) (referring case “for discovery disputes”); LCvR 72.2(a) (authorizing magistrate, at the request of the district judge, to “hear and determine any pretrial motion or matter”); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a) (same). The areas in which a district court is prohibited to refer a matter to a magistrate are clearly demarcated by the rules and statute; it is there that a court strictly scrutinizes a magistrate’s exercise of his power. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(a) (enumerating non-discovery related motions that district judge may not refer to a magistrate) and (b)(3) (permitting allocation of “additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States”). By extending the discovery deadlines, the plaintiffs’ motion was rendered moot: Judge Kay’s recognition of this ineluctable fact did not constitute a final order on the dispositive motions schedule usurpative of this court’s authority. Vickers Motors, Inc. v. Wellford, 502 F.2d 967, 969 (6th Cir.1974) (holding that referral to magistrate judge, “even if erroneous,” involved no abuse of judicial power because 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2) authorizes magistrates to furnish assistance in pretrial or discovery proceedings). And, even if this court were more jealous of the scope of its referrals, the error is harmless. Had the motion been brought to this court’s attention, it would have entered an identical order declaring the motion moot, consonant with Judge Kay’s decision reopening discovery or pending the disposition of the appeal of that order. Moreover, this appeal disrupts any extant dispositive motions deadlines. The court, therefore, holds that Judge Kay’s order finding as moot the plaintiffs’ motion for scheduling dispositive motions is not contrary to law.
C. Magistrate Judge Kay’s Conclusion that Good Cause and Excusable Neglect Warranted Reopening and Extending Discovery is not Clearly Erroneous
1. The Conclusion that the Defendants Lost their Lead Counsel is not Clearly Erroneous
6

Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 8 (2008)
[12] The plaintiffs argue that the defendants did not actually lose their lead counsel but merely voluntarily substituted him. George Rickman, they insist, “may have handled most of the day-to-day issues in this litigation, [but] he was just one member of [the defendants’] team.” Pls.’ App. Mot. at 11. The plaintiffs identify Patricia Jones as the defendants’ “lead attorney” because she “signed defendants’ Answer.” Id. She entered her appearance on July 12, 2004, and “has received electronic notification of every court filing.” Id. They further note that she signed the initial Rule 16.3 Report, “arguably signed (and was listed as counsel of record on) defendants’ April 21, 2006 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Third Motion for Sanctions,” and engaged in correspondence about scheduling and discovery in July 2005 and April 2006. Id. Additionally, they point out that another of the defendants’ new attorneys, Phillip Lattimore, in fact signed five filings from September to October 2007. Id. at 11–12.
*18 The defendants respond that Rickman was the lead and primary counsel “responsible for carrying out the yeoman’s work of conducting discovery, researching case law, gathering documents[,] ... [and] responding to and filing motions.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 3. They deny that his administrative leave was a calculated strategic move, alerting the court to Judge Kay’s awareness from a November 29, 2007 conference call of his abrupt departure in two other cases only days before the start of trial in one. Id. at 4. Thus, the defendants maintain that “[c]ounsel was not substituted; counsel left the office.... There was no decision for ‘voluntary substitution of counsel by defendants.’ ” Id. at 9. Moreover, Patricia Jones and Phillip Lattimore are Section Chiefs in the D.C. Office of Attorney General, not lead attorneys. Id. Section Chiefs review and sign the filings of attorneys under their supervision but cannot serve as substitutes for primaries. Id.
The court has difficulty imagining how the plaintiffs expected this court to treat their kitchen-sink assault on Judge Kay’s fact finding. Did they anticipate the court would vindicate their argument that the mere signatures of OAG Section Chiefs confers upon them lead counsel status, designating them responsible for the day-to-day management of the multitude of cases that they supervise? The plaintiffs do not even attempt to explain why, if Jones and Lattimore were as involved as Rickman, the OAG found it necessary to enter the appearance of three new attorneys within three weeks of Rickman’s departure. See Summers v. Howard Univ., 374 F.3d 1188, 1196 (D.C.Cir.2004) (upholding magistrate’s finding when

appellant “offer[red] nothing to support the proposition that its ... methodology was ... preferable to that [relied upon by the magistrate]”). Indeed, the plaintiffs present the court with no substantial evidence compelling a reversal of Judge Kay’s finding. Cf. Sanderlin v. United States, 794 F.2d 727, 734 (D.C.Cir.1986) (reversing magistrate’s finding as clearly erroneous because finding was based on an erroneous recollection of events by magistrate). Nor do they cite to any instance of another court overturning an evidentiary determination based on such meager arguments. See Camenisch v. Singh, 1998 WL 545434, at *1 (D.C.Cir. July 31, 1998) (upholding magistrate’s finding, giving due regard to magistrate’s judgment of credibility). If the court has little to say here, it is because the plaintiffs present it with a claim about which the less said the better.
2. The Conclusion Affirming Excusable Neglect and Good Cause is not Clearly Erroneous
[13] The plaintiffs’ penultimate challenge argues that the November 9, 2007 personnel disruption does not excuse the defendants’ failure to meet their November 5, 2007 deadline for filing expert reports. Pls.’ App. Mot. at 12. The defendants, the plaintiffs persist, did not demonstrate their diligence in pursuing discovery before the deadline or in seeking relief afterwards. Id. at 13. The defendants explain that they did pursue discovery but were obstructed by the plaintiffs’ refusal to provide deposition dates of their experts until they received the defendants’ expert reports. Defs.’ Opp’n at 10.
The plaintiffs offer no reason for the court to second-guess Judge Kay’s determination that the circumstances of Rickman’s departure constituted excusable neglect, supporting a finding of good cause to reopen and extend discovery. Judge Kay held:
While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ position in this matter, particularly in light of the history of delays in this case, the Court must consider the circumstances *19 and timing of prior counsel’s withdrawal of his appearance and the efforts being made by the Office to staff this case with three attorneys who are diligently working to familiarize themselves
7

Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F.Supp.2d 8 (2008)
with this litigation.
Mem. Order (Dec. 12, 2007) at 2–3. A fair reading of the decision reveals that Judge Kay concluded that the departure of the defendants’ lead counsel was neither a nefarious (and risky) strategic decision to trick him into reopening discovery nor a careless substitution of attorneys. Compare Marcin Engineering, LLC v. Founders at Grizzly Ranch, LLC, 219 F.R.D. 516, 521 (D.Colo.2003) (denying motion to modify scheduling order on account of carelessness of party substituting counsel) with Coast Grading Co., Inc. v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 309, 313 (Fed.Cl.1998) (concluding that excusable neglect and good cause existed because of inability of party to secure substitution of counsel for reasons beyond her control) and Keystone Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Jaccard Corp., 2007 WL 4264609, at *2–3 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2007) (denying motion to reopen discovery when new lead attorney had been on litigation team for 18 months and movant voluntarily chose attorney as new representative).
The plaintiffs object that the defendants have not produced “admissible evidence (e.g., by affidavit or documentary exhibit)” supporting their allegation that Rickman’s sudden departure left the defendants in the lurch. Pls.’ Reply at 4. But no rule commands a judge to refer to affidavits or exhibits when resolving nondispositive pre-trial matters. It may be good policy to do so, but that is left to the discretion of the presiding judge familiar with the parties and entitled to make credibility determinations. Accordingly, the court cannot conclude that Judge Kay’s conclusions on excusable neglect and good cause were clearly erroneous.
3. The Conclusion Affirming no Undue Prejudice is not Clearly Erroneous
[14] In their final argument, the plaintiffs contend that Judge Kay erred in finding that a reopening of discovery would not unduly prejudice them. Pls.’ App. Mot. at 14. Ninety days of additional discovery is not “brief,” they complain. Id. This case has been delayed for “more than two years because of defendants’ misconduct.” Id. at 15. Additionally, plaintiff Beale is 63 years of age and “in declining health.” Id. The defendants respond that the extended discovery concerns only a few depositions,

mostly of the plaintiffs’ five designated experts. Defs.’ Opp’n at 10.
The plaintiffs’ claim that undue prejudice attaches to a 90–day extension for the defendants to depose a handful of individuals rings shrill. In finding no undue prejudice, Judge Kay correctly highlighted the timing of the request, “which occurred shortly after the November 19, 2007 close of discovery and prior to any expert depositions being taken, dispositive motions being filed or the setting of a trial date.” Mem. Order (Dec. 12, 2007) at 3; cf., Dag Enters., Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 226 F.R.D. 95, 110 (D.D.C.2005) (finding undue prejudice from new cycle of expert discovery when defendant had already incurred significant expenses in litigating through first round of discovery, including preparing substantive Daubert motions, and new discovery would introduce new facts and theories). Other than a wildly inapposite discrimination case declaring three months beyond the maximum interval to establish causation between protected activity and retaliation, Hollander v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80, 86 (2d Cir.1990), the plaintiffs cite no case to the effect that 90 days is inherently long or burdensome. And their allegation of misconduct by the *20 defendants falls flat, based as it is on outstanding contempt motions that the court has not yet considered. Finally, on the subject of the plaintiffs’ invocation of Ms. Beale’s declining health, the fact that the plaintiffs filed this appeal belies their overwrought exclamations of urgency. Ninety days spent filing, briefing, and waiting for a decision on an appeal takes just as long as ninety days complying with a limited discovery order in the first instance. Because the plaintiffs have presented no evidence warranting a reversal of Judge Kay’s finding of no undue prejudice, the court will not categorize it as clearly erroneous.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the plaintiff’s appeal to reverse Magistrate Judge Kay’s December 12, 2007 orders. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 31st day of March, 2008.
	  

8

 
 Case 1:04-cv-00959-RMU Document 107 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_____________________________________

PEARL BEALE, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 04-959 (RMU/JMF/AK)

)

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________________ )

PRAECIPE OF DISMISSAL

Will the Clerk of the Court: Kindly take note that this case has been settled and enter it

as dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the parties this 18th day of November, 2008,

/s/

___

Edward H. Rippey (DC Bar No. 450462)

Joseph Zambuto, Jr. (DC Bar No. 484542)

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: (202) 662-6000 Fax: (202) 778-5187

PETER J. NICKLES Acting Attorney General for the District of Columbia
GEORGE C. VALENTINE Deputy Attorney General, D.C. Civil Litigation Division

Douglas R. Sparks (DC Bar No. 296921) SPARKS & SIBLER, LLP 3221 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Phone: (202) 338-0687 Fax: (202) 797-0468
Philip Fornaci (DC Bar No. 434824) Ivy Lange (DC Bar No. 488147) DC PRISONERS’ PROJECT Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 319-1000 Fax: (202) 319-1010 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PATRICIA A. JONES [428132] Chief, General Litigation Sec. IV

/s/

___

C. VAUGHN ADAMS [449770]

ZUBERI BAKARI WILLIAMS [980789]

SHAMEKA GAINEY [493891]

Assistant Attorney General/Special

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 14600

Washington, DC 20044-4600

202/442-9840; 202/724-6650; 202/724-

6520;202/727-6295/202/727-3625 (fax)

Attorneys for Defendants

 
 Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 1 of 18
CLOSED,JURY,TYPE−L
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04−cv−00959−RMU

BEALE v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Assigned to: Judge Ricardo M. Urbina Demand: $10,000,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
PEARL BEALE Personal Representative of the Estate of Givon Pendleton and Legal Representative of Givon Pendleton

Date Filed: 06/10/2004 Date Terminated: 11/18/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Edward Holden Rippey COVINGTON &BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004−2401 (202) 662−5171 Email: erippey@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jenny C. Ellickson COVINGTON &BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 662−5452 Email: jellickson@cov.com TERMINATED: 03/26/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Timothy Laszlo Jucovy COVINGTON &BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 662−5861 Fax: (202) 778−5861 Email: tjucovy@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew W. Lamb COVINGTON &BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004−2401 (703) 528−6728 Email: alamb@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Michael Mathias AXINN, VELTROP &HARKRIDER, LLP 90 State House Square Hartford, CT 06103−3702 (860) 275−8112 Fax: (860) 275−8101 Email: emm@avhlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy Ann Finkenstadt Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urba 11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 2 of 18
Washington, DC 20036 (202) 319−1000 Fax: (202) 319−1010 Email: ivy.lange@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Zambuto , Jr. COVINGTON &BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 815A Washington, DC 20004 (202) 662−5187 Fax: 202−778−5187 Email: jzambuto@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly A. Love COVINGTON &BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 662−5498 Email: klove@cov.com TERMINATED: 09/09/2005
Kimberly S, McNish COVINGTON &BURLING, LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 662−5513 Email: kmcnish@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew G.T. Martin COVINGTON &BURLING 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 662−6000 Email: mmartin@cov.com TERMINATED: 02/06/2006
Philip J. Fornaci WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS DC Prisoners' Project 11 Dupoint Circle, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 319−1000 Fax: (202) 319−1010 Email: philip_fornaci@washlaw.org TERMINATED: 04/22/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Reid Sparks SPARKS &ASSOCIATES 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 (202) 797−8200 Fax: (202) 315−3777 Email: dsparks@sparkslaw.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 3 of 18

BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN

represented by Edward Holden Rippey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jenny C. Ellickson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Timothy Laszlo Jucovy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Andrew W. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Michael Mathias (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Ann Finkenstadt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Zambuto , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly A. Love (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2005

Kimberly S, McNish (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew G.T. Martin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/06/2006

Philip J. Fornaci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

represented by Corliss Vaughn Adams DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 2000 14th Street, NW 8th Fl Washington, DC 20009 (202) 724−4176 Fax: (202) 741−5857 Email: corlissv.adams@dc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shameka L. Gainey FULBRIGHT &JAWORSKI, LLP

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 4 of 18

801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 662−4502 Fax: (202) 662−4643 Email: sgainey@fulbright.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zuberi Bakari Williams OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 441 Fourth Street, NW Room 6N13 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 724−6650 Email: zuberi.williams@dc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E. Rickman LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E. RICKMAN Kalorama Station P.O. Box 21267 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 258−3643 Email: georgerick11@comcast.net TERMINATED: 11/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Ann Oxendine OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Civil Litigation Division 441 Fourth Street, NW Room 6N−011 Washington, DC 20782 (202) 442−9863 Email: patricia.oxendine@dc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
STEVEN A. SMITH Individually and in his official capacity as Warden, DC Jail

represented by Corliss Vaughn Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Shameka L. Gainey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E. Rickman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zuberi Bakari Williams (See above for address)

Defendant
DENNIS HARRISON Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden for Programs, DC Jail

represented by Corliss Vaughn Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 5 of 18

Shameka L. Gainey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E. Rickman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zuberi Bakari Williams (See above for address)

Defendant
MARVIN L. BROWN Individually

represented by Corliss Vaughn Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Shameka L. Gainey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E. Rickman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zuberi Bakari Williams (See above for address)

Defendant
OBIE WASHINGTON Individually and in his official capacity as Director, DC Department of Corrections

represented by Corliss Vaughn Adams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Shameka L. Gainey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George E. Rickman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zuberi Bakari Williams (See above for address)

Date Filed 06/10/2004 06/10/2004 06/10/2004 06/21/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Filing fee $ 150.) filed by PEARL BEALE.(bcs, ) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
Summons Issued (1)as to THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (bcs, ) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by PEARL BEALE. Case related to Case No. 03cv1458. (bcs, ) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
Summons Issued (2) as to THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (rje, ) (Entered: 06/21/2004)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 6 of 18

06/22/2004 06/24/2004
06/24/2004
07/12/2004 07/13/2004 07/13/2004 07/29/2004
07/29/2004 10/13/2004
10/27/2004 10/29/2004 11/03/2004 11/05/2004
11/05/2004 11/11/2004
11/11/2004 11/18/2004 11/18/2004
11/23/2004

Case Reassigned to Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly no longer assigned to the case. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA served on 6/21/2004, answer due 7/12/2004 (Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA served on 6/21/2004, answer due 7/12/2004 (Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
5 District of Columbia's ANSWER to Complaint with jury demand by THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.(Jones, Patricia) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
6 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE. (Sparks, Douglas) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by George E. Rickman on behalf of THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Rickman, George) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 11/8/2004 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 12, fourth floor, before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. Parties are to meet and confer and file their Joint Local 16.3 Report at least seven (7) days prior to scheduled hearing date.(jwd) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
8 STANDING ORDER Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on July 29, 2004. (jwd) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
9 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by PEARL BEALE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A: First Amended Complaint)(Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
10 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 9 to Amend Complaint filed by THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Rickman, George) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
11 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
12 REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 filed by PEARL BEALE. (Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. The initial status conference is rescheduled for Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 12:00. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 11/5/04. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Initial Status Conference reset for 11/16/2004 12:00 PM in Courtroom 12 before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. (cdw) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
MINUTE ORDER. The initial status conference is rescheduled for 11/23/04 at 11:45 am. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 11/11/04. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/11/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Initial Status Conference reset for 11/23/2004 at 11:45 AM in Courtroom 12 before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. (cdw) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
13 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 9 Motion for Leave to File . Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 11/17/04. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA filed by BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN, PEARL BEALE.(cp, ) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
Minute Entry Initial Scheduling Conference held on 11/23/2004 before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina: Status Conference set for 9/12/2005 09:45 AM in Courtroom 12 before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. Parties to proceed directly to Magistrate Facciola chambers today to schedule date for settlement discussions in August 2005. Scheduling order forthcoming.(Court Reporter William McAllister) (tb) (Entered: 11/23/2004)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 7 of 18

11/23/2004 11/23/2004
11/30/2004 11/30/2004 11/30/2004 11/30/2004 12/01/2004 12/08/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004 12/21/2004
12/23/2004 01/03/2005 01/06/2005 01/24/2005 01/26/2005 03/22/2005

15 SCHEDULING ORDER . Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 11/23/04. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 9/30/2005. Dispositive Motions are due by 10/28/2005. Oppositions to Dispositive Motions are due by 11/30/2005. Replies to Oppositions toDispositive Motions are due by 12/15/2005. Proponent's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Statement is due by 5/31/2005. Opponent's Rule 26(a)(2)(B)Statement is due by 7/20/2005. An Interim Status Conference set for 9/12/2005 09:45 AM in Courtroom 12 before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina. (jwd) (Entered: 11/28/2004)
Summons (3) Issued as to DENNIS HARRISON, STEVEN A. SMITH, OBIE WASHINGTON. (adc) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
16 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. OBIE WASHINGTON served on 11/30/2004, answer due 12/20/2004 (Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
17 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. STEVEN A. SMITH served on 11/30/2004, answer due 12/20/2004 (Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
18 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DENNIS HARRISON served on 11/30/2004, answer due 12/20/2004 (Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Ivy Ann Lange on behalf of all plaintiffs (Lange, Ivy) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Philip J. Fornaci on behalf of all plaintiffs (Fornaci, Philip) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
Summons Issued (1) as to MARVIN L. BROWN. (cp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
21 Notice to counsel regarding referral to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for settlement. Signed by Judge John M. Facciola on 12/16/04. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
22 ORDER re settlement confidentiality. Signed by Judge John M. Facciola on 12/16/04. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2005 10:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
23 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve First Amended Complaint on Defendant Marvin Brown by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for Settlement Discussions. (jsc) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
MINUTE ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve. The complaint shall be served on Marvin Brown by no later than 1/21/05. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 1/3/05. (Entered: 01/03/2005)
24 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. MARVIN L. BROWN served on 1/6/2005, answer due 1/26/2005 (Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
25 First ANSWER to Amended Complaint by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.(Rickman, George) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly A. Love on behalf of all plaintiffs (Love, Kelly) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: The Settlement Conference previously set for 8/1/2005 has been RESET for 8/15/2005 at 2:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (lcjf1, ) (Entered: 03/22/2005)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 8 of 18

05/20/2005 05/31/2005
05/31/2005 06/21/2005 06/30/2005
06/30/2005
07/06/2005 07/15/2005 07/18/2005
08/16/2005 08/29/2005 09/07/2005 09/08/2005

27 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Love, Kelly) (Entered: 05/20/2005)
28 ORDER Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on May 27, 2005, granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery. Proponent's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Statements on or before 9/16/2005; Opponent's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Statements on or before 11/4/2005. Discovery to be completed on or before 1/20/2006. Dispositive motions on or before 2/17/2006. Oppositions or or before 3/22/2006. Replies on or before 4/6/2006 (jwd) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 1/20/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 2/17/2006. Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 3/22/2006. Replies to Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 4/6/2006. Proponent's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Statements due by 9/16/2005. Opponent's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Statements due by 11/4/2005. (jwd) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Jenny C. Ellickson on behalf of all plaintiffs (Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
30 First MOTION for Summary Judgment and/or for Judgment on the Pleadings by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh A# 2 Exhibit Exh B# 3 Exhibit Exh C# 4 Exhibit Exh D# 5 Exhibit Exh E# 6 Exhibit Exh F# 7 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
31 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment and/or fo Judgment on the Pleadings by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh A# 2 Exhibit Exh B# 3 Exhibit Exh C# 4 Exhibit Exh D# 5 Exhibit Exh E# 6 Exhibit Exh F# 7 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Rickman, George) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/5/2005 (nmw, ). (Entered: 06/30/2005)
32 First MOTION to Stay Discovery by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
33 Joint MOTION to Stay Briefing on Defendants' Pending Motions by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
MINUTE ORDER: Motion to stay GRANTED. Briefing on defendants? motions for judgment on the pleadings and/or summary judgment, and to stay discovery, shall be stayed until after the parties? August 15, 2005 mediation, at which time the parties shall ask this Court to set a briefing schedule for plaintiffs? responses to the defendants? motions. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 7/18/05. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
34 First MOTION for Protective Order by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
35 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 34 Protective Order filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Index of Exhibits# 3 Exhibit A (Part 1 of 3)# 4 Exhibit A (Part 2 of 3)# 5 Exhibit A (Part 3 of 3)# 6 Exhibit B# 7 Exhibit C# 8 Exhibit D)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the pending discovery motion, the court converts the September 12, 2005 status hearing to a teleconference with chambers. The parties shall jointly call chambers at 9:45 am for their conference call. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 9/7/05. (djr) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
36 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney to Plaintiffs Beale and Autman by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 9 of 18

09/08/2005 09/09/2005 09/30/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005
10/18/2005 10/18/2005
11/21/2005 12/07/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/19/2005

Order)(Love, Kelly) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew G.T. Martin on behalf of all plaintiffs (Martin, Matthew) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
ORDER granting 36 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Kelly A. Love terminated. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 9/9/05. (djr) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
38 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 34 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 9/30/05. (djr) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/3/2005 (lcrmu1, ). (Entered: 09/30/2005)
39 Joint MOTION for Discovery and Briefing Schedule by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
MINUTE ORDER granting 39 Motion for Discovery and DENYING the Defendants' 30 , 31 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Proponents' Rule 26(a)(2)(B) statements relating to issues raised by dispositive motions is due December 16, 2005, Opponents' Rule 26(a)(2)(B) statements relating to issues raised by dispositive motion is due by January 13, 2006, discovery as related to dispositive motion shall conclude on February 10, 2006. Defendants are instructed to refile their motion for summary judgment at the close of this limited discovery, by February 14, 2006, if such a motion is warranted. Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' dispositive motion is due on March 10, 2006, and defendants' reply in support of dispositive motion is due March 24, 2006. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 10/18/05. (djr) Modified on 10/18/2005 (jwd, ). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
MINUTE ORDER denying 32 Motion to Stay as MOOT. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 10/18/05. (djr) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery as releated to dispositive motion shall conclude on 2/10/2006. Proponent's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) statements relating to issues raised by dispositive motion due by 12/16/2005. Opponent's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) statements relating to issues raised by dispositive motion is due by 1/13/2006. Defendants are instructed to refile their Motion for Summary Judgment at the close of this limited discovery, by 2/14/2006, if such motion is warranted. Plaintiffs' opposition to defendant dispositive motion is due by 3/10/2006;and defendants' reply in support of dispositive motion is due by 3/24/2006. (jwd) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
40 MOTION to Enforce Court Order and For Sanctions by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
41 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 40 Motion to Enforce Court's Order and for Sanctions filed by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
42 REPLY to opposition to motion re 40 Enforce Court Order and for Sanctions filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Part 1 of 2)# 2 Exhibit 1 (Part 2 of 2)# 3 Exhibit 2A−2D# 4 Exhibit 3A−3C# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5A−5B# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7A−7E# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
43 MOTION to Enforce Court Order With Respect to Deponents and Second Motion for Sanctions by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2A−2E# 4 Exhibit 3A−3D# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5A−5B# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for Discovery Disputes. (jsc) (Entered: 12/19/2005)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 10 of 18

12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 12/23/2005 01/04/2006 01/04/2006 01/04/2006
01/18/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 03/13/2006 03/27/2006
03/27/2006
03/30/2006

44 ORDER re referral to Judge Facciola for settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 12/20/05. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 1/23/2006 02:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (SP, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
MINUTE ORDER setting a mediation to address Plaintiffs' motions to enforce court orders and for sanctions [40,43], per the request of counsel. The mediation will be held in chambers (room 1130) on Friday, January 6, 2006, at 3pm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 12/20/05. (DM) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
45 Memorandum in opposition to re 43 filed by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
MINUTE ORDER rescheduling the mediation for January 27, 2006, at 2 pm, [instead of January 23] pursuant to the request of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 01/04/06. (DM) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
46 REPLY to opposition to motion re 43 Motion to Enforce filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Martin, Matthew) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
MINUTE ORDER dated 01/04/06 regarding rescheduling of mediation was entered in error. The mediation relating to motions to enforce court orders/sanctions is being conducted by Magistrate Judge Kay on Friday, January 6, 2006, at 3 pm, as originally set. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 01/04/06. (DM) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference rescheduled from 1/23/06 to 3/20/2006 at 03:30 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (lcjf1, ) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
47 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Protective Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
48 ORDER granting 47 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 2/1/05. (djr) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
49 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Martin, Matthew) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
ORDER granting 49 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney as to Matthew Martin. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 2/6/06. (djr) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: at the request of the parties, Settlement Conference rescheduled from 3/20/06 to 3/29/2006 at 03:30 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola. (lcjf1, ) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
50 Third MOTION for Sanctions by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Affidavit of Timothy L. Jucovy# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2 (Part 1 of 3)# 5 Exhibit 2 (Part 2 of 3)# 6 Exhibit 2 (Part 3 of 3)# 7 Exhibit 3 (Part 1 of 2)# 8 Exhibit 3 (Part 2 of 2)# 9 Exhibit 4 (Part 1 of 4)# 10 Exhibit 4 (Part 2 of 4)# 11 Exhibit 4 (Part 3 of 4)# 12 Exhibit 4 (Part 4 of 4)# 13 Exhibit 5# 14 Exhibit 6)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
51 NOTICE of Additional Exhibits by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN re 50 Third MOTION for Sanctions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 7 (Part 1 of 2)# 2 Exhibit 7 (Part 2 of 2)# 3 Exhibit 8 (Part 1 of 2)# 4 Exhibit 8 (Part 2 of 2)# 5 Exhibit 9# 6 Exhibit 10 (Part 1 of 2)# 7 Exhibit Part 10 (Part 2 of 2)# 8 Exhibit 11# 9 Exhibit 12# 10 Exhibit 13 (Part 1 of 3)# 11 Exhibit 13 (Part 2 of 3)# 12 Exhibit 13 (Part 3 of 3))(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola : Settlement Conference held on 3/29/2006. (lcjf1, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 11 of 18

03/31/2006 04/10/2006 04/12/2006 04/17/2006
04/18/2006 04/18/2006 04/18/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/24/2006 04/26/2006 04/27/2006 04/28/2006 05/12/2006 05/15/2006

52 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 50 Third MOTION for Sanctions filed by PEARL BEALE,, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 3/30/06. (djr) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for Motion for Sanctions for resolution as part of the referral of all discovery disputes. (jsc) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
53 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposiotn to Third Motion for Sanctions by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order ORDER)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
54 Memorandum in opposition to re 53 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposiotn to Third Motion for Sanctions filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
55 ORDER granting 53 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Sanctions. Defendants' response will be filed no later than April 21, 2006, and no further extensions will be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 04/18/06. (DM) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' response to plaintiffs' third motion for sanctions due by 4/21/06. (kk) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' Response ro Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Sanctions due by 4/21/2006 (jwd) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
56 Memorandum in opposition to re 50 Third MOTION for Sanctions filed by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
57 Consent MOTION for Protective Order for Disciplinary Records by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
58 Joint MOTION for Protective Order for Inmate Disciplinary Files by THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Birnbaum, Lauren) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
59 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Exhibits by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Enxhibits)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
60 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Sanctions by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 60 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Reply is now due by 05/15/2006. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 04/27/06. (DM) Modified on 4/28/2006 (nmw, ). (Entered: 04/27/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines : Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Sanctions 50 due by 5/15/06. (kk) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
61 NOTICE Certificate Regarding Discovery by THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Rickman, George) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
62 REPLY to opposition to motion re 50 Third MOTION for Sanctions filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (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)(Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 12 of 18

05/24/2006 05/30/2006
06/02/2006 06/23/2006
06/27/2006 07/11/2006 07/20/2006 08/03/2006 08/07/2006 08/09/2006 09/18/2006 10/03/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006

63 NOTICE of Expiration of Defendants' Deadline for Production of Outstanding Discovery by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
64 First MOTION Leave to File Surreply to Third Motions for Sanctions by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 2 Supplement Surreply to Third Motion for Sanctions# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Surrpely# 4 Exhibit Exhibits A and C to Surreply)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
65 Memorandum in opposition to re 64 First MOTION Leave to File Surreply to Third Motions for Sanctions filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2)(Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
MINUTE ORDER setting a telephonic status conference on July 6, 2006, at 4:00 p.m., to discuss the District's production of documents generated pursuant to a search of electronic mail. The Court notes that the trial court has a Standing Order requiring the parties to confer in good faith to attempt to resolve discovery disputes. Counsel should contact chambers at 202−354−3030, prior to the status conference to inform chambers of persons who will participate in the conference and numbers where they can be contacted. Chambers will initiate the conference call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 06/23/06. (DM, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Status Conference set for 7/6/06 at 4:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk, ) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 7/06/2006. (DM) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
66 First MOTION for Protective Order by THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through E# 2 Exhibit Exhibits F and G# 3 Exhibit Exhibit F and G# 4 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 5 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
67 Memorandum in opposition to re 66 First MOTION for Protective Order as to the Production of E−Mails filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jucovy, Timothy) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
68 ORDER referring this case to Judge Kay for resolution of all discovery disputes. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 8/7/06. (djr) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/7/2006 (lcrmu1, ). (Entered: 08/07/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay for All Discovery Disputes. (jsc) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 66 set for 10/3/2006, at 02:30 PM, in Courtroom 7 before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 09/18/06. (DM) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
Minute Entry for Motion Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/3/06 : Motion by defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA for a Protective Order as to the Production of E−Mails 66 , heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: Pro−Typists, Inc.; Ctrm. 7) (kk) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
MINUTE ORDER granting 58 Joint Motion for Protective Order, and approving proposed Protective Order which governs the confidential treatment of inmate disciplinary files disclosed by defendants in connection with this litigation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/12/06. (DM) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 57 Motion for Protective Order, in light of the Court's Minute Order dated 10/12/06 granting 58 Consent Motion for Protective Order, and approving proposed Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/12/06. (DM) (Entered: 10/12/2006)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 13 of 18

10/12/2006 10/18/2006 10/18/2006 10/20/2006 11/02/2006 01/19/2007 01/23/2007 01/30/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007
01/31/2007
02/12/2007 02/20/2007 03/06/2007

69 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/12/06. (DM) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
70 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 64 Defendants' Motion for leave to file a surreply. The surreply is deemed to be filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/18/06. (DM) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
71 SURREPLY to re 50 Third MOTION for Sanctions filed by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A &C# 2 Exhibit B)(jf, ) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
72 NOTICE of Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Orders of October 12 and October 18, 2006 by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN re 70 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 69 Order on Motion for Protective Order (Ellickson, Jenny) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
73 NOTICE by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Rickman, George) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/30/2007, at 02:00 PM. Counsel for Plaintiffs will please initiate the call with counsel for Defendants and then contact chambers at 202−354−3030. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 01/19/07. (DM) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
MINUTE ORDER noting that the Telephonic Status Conference set for January 30, 2007, which is to be initiated by Plaintiffs' counsel, should commence at 2:00 pm instead of 2:30 pm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 01/23/07. (DM) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
MINUTE ORDER setting a 4:30 p.m., February 8, 2007 telephonic status conference to discuss discovery issues. Counsel shall contact each other and then call chambers at 202−354−3030. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 01/30/07. (DM) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Status Conference set for 2/8/07 at 4:30 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 1/30/2007, to discuss status of discovery. (DM) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
MINUTE ORDER deferring ruling on 40 Motion to Enforce [First Motion for Sanctions], deferring ruling on 43 Motion to Enforce [Second Motion for Sanctions], deferring ruling on 50 [Third] Motion for Sanctions. As indicated during the telephonic status conference held on January 30, 2007, the Court will defer ruling on the outstanding motions for sanctions until the close of all discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 01/31/07. (DM) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice the defendants' 30 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying without prejudice the defendants' Amended 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. The court will entertain dispositive motions after the close of discovery. Matters raised by the defendants in their dispositive motions may turn on factual matters as yet uncovered. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 1/31/07. (djr) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference re: status of discovery held on 2/08/2007. (DM) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
MINUTE ORDER setting a telephonic status conference for March 12, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. to discuss discovery. Counsel should contact chambers when they are all ready to proceed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 02/20/07. (DM) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Status Conference set for 3/12/07 at 5:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 14 of 18

03/19/2007 03/22/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/26/2007 04/05/2007
04/10/2007
04/11/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 07/06/2007
07/06/2007 07/12/2007 07/12/2007
07/12/2007 07/13/2007

74 NOTICE of Appearance by Edward Michael Mathias on behalf of PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Mathias, Edward) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
75 MOTION for Order Setting Schedule by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mathias, Edward) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 3/12/2007. (DM) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
MINUTE ORDER setting telephonic status conference for March 23, 2007, at 5 pm. Counsel will contact chambers. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 03/23/07. (DM) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Status Conference set for 3/23/07 at 5:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
76 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mathias, Edward) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 3/23/2007. (DM) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 76 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney as to Jenny C. Ellickson. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 3/26/07. (djr) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
77 Memorandum in opposition to re 75 MOTION for Order Setting Schedule filed by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
78 SCHEDULING ORDER granting in part, denying in part and deferring in part [for the trial court's consideration] Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order. Please see Order for discovery deadlines set by the undersigned. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 04/10/07. (DM) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines : Proponents' Rule 26(a)(2)(B) statements due 8/15/07; Opponents' Rule 26(a)(2)(B) statements due 9/21/07; Discovery to be completed by 10/9/07 (kk) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
79 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly S, McNish on behalf of PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (nmw, ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
80 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew W. Lamb on behalf of all plaintiffs (Lamb, Andrew) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
MINUTE ORDER setting a telephone conference on July 11, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. to discuss pending discovery issues. Parties should jointly contact chambers at 202−354−3030. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 07/06/07. (DM) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Conference set for 7/11/07 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 7/12/2007. (DM) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
MINUTE ORDER setting a telephonic status conference for July 19, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN DATE. Counsel will jointly contact the Court at 202−354−3030. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 07/12/07. (DM) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Status Conference set for 7/19/07 at 4:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference re: contested discovery held on 7/13/2007. (DM) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 15 of 18

07/25/2007
07/25/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 08/06/2007 08/06/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007
08/13/2007 09/21/2007
09/25/2007
09/26/2007 10/09/2007 10/10/2007
10/12/2007
10/22/2007

MINUTE ORDER setting a telephone status conference (to discuss discovery) for Thursday, July 26, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. Parties should jointly contact chambers. If this date and time do not work for counsel, please contact chambers at 202−354−3030, and a new date and/or time will be selected. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 07/25/07. (DM) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Status Conference set for 7/26/07 at 3:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 7/26/2007. (DM) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
MINUTE ORDER setting the next telephonic status conference for August 3, 2007, at 3:30 p.m., to be initiated by counsel jointly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 07/26/07. (DM) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Status Conference set for 8/3/07 at 3:30 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 8/3/2007. (DM) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
MINUTE ORDER setting a telephonic status conference for 3:30 pm on Friday, August 10, 2007. Counsel should initiate the call to chambers. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 08/06/07. (DM) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 8/10/2007. (DM) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
MINUTE ORDER setting a telephonic status conference for August 17, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. (to be intitiated by counsel.) Conference will be held at the discretion of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 08/10/07. (DM) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Status Conference set for 8/17/07 at 4:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
81 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports and Enlarge Discovery by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 81 Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) Reports and to Enlarge the Time for Discovery. Defendants' Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Reports due by October 22, 2007, and discovery closes on November 9, 2007. There will be no further extensions of discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 09/25/07. (DM) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines : Defendant's Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports due by 10/22/07; Discovery to close on 11/9/07.(kk) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
82 MOTION for Order Setting Schedule for Dispositive Motions by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Mathias, Edward) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
83 MOTION to Take Deposition from Bradley Autman by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
84 MOTION to Compel Deposition of Melvin Reese by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kimberly S. McNish# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Text of Proposed Order)(McNish, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/12/2007)
85 Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Lamb, Andrew) (Entered: 10/22/2007)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 16 of 18

10/23/2007 10/23/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007 10/26/2007
11/05/2007 11/05/2007 11/21/2007 11/26/2007
11/27/2007 12/03/2007 12/07/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007

MINUTE ORDER granting 85 Joint Motion for Protective Order and approving the proposed Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/23/07. (DM) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
ORDER granting 83 Defendants' Consent Motion for Leave of Court to Depose Plaintiff Bradley Raymond Autman. Defendants shall be allowed to take the deposition of Plaintiff Autman, telephonically, at a determined date and time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/25/07. (DM) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
MINUTE ORDER granting 86 Defendants' Motion to Enlarge the Time to File Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) Reports and Enlarge the Time for Discovery. The Court grants this Motion based upon the reasons alleged therein and Defendants' representation that Plaintiffs will not oppose the relief sought. Defendants' Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports are now due on or before November 5, 2007, and discovery closes on November 19, 2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 10/25/07, nunc pro tunc 10/22/2007. (DM) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 11/19/2007.,Defendant Rule 26a2(B) due by 11/5/2007. (ldc, ) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
87 Memorandum in opposition to re 82 MOTION for Order Setting Schedule for Dispositive Motions filed by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rickman, George) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
88 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 84 Motion to Enforce Subpoena and Compel Deposition of Melvin Reese. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 11/05/07. (DM) Modified document name on 11/6/2007 (nmw, ). (Entered: 11/05/2007)
89 REPLY to opposition to motion re 82 MOTION for Order Setting Schedule for Dispositive Motions filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Lamb, Andrew) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
90 NOTICE of Subtitution of Counsel by Corliss Vaughn Adams on behalf of all defendants Substituting for attorney George E. Rickman (Adams, Corliss) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
ORDER setting a telephonic status conference on Thursday, November 29, 2007, at 1:20 p.m., to discuss outstanding discovery issues. Counsel for the Plaintiffs will contact counsel for Defendants and then all counsel will jointly contact chambers at 202−354−3030. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 11/26/07. (DM) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
91 NOTICE of Appearance by Zuberi Bakari Williams on behalf of all defendants (Williams, Zuberi) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
92 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Schedule Dispositive Motion Deadline by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Adams, Corliss) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
93 Memorandum in opposition to re 92 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Schedule Dispositive Motion Deadline filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Lamb, Andrew) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
94 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion to Reopen Discovery and Schedule DIspositive Motion Deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 12/12/07. (DM) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 82 Motion for Order for Dispositive Motions Schedule, in light of this Court's prior Memorandum Order dated 12/12/07, which sets a schedule. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 12/12/07. (DM) Modified event name on 12/13/2007 (nmw, ). (Entered: 12/12/2007)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 17 of 18

12/12/2007
12/12/2007 12/21/2007
01/07/2008
01/17/2008 01/23/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/28/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008 03/03/2008
03/31/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 04/14/2008

MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 75 Motion for Scheduling Order, in light of this Court's Memorandum Order dated 12/12/07. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 12/12/07. (DM) Modified event name on 12/13/2007 (nmw, ). (Entered: 12/12/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines : Defendants' Expert Reports (including supplements) due by 12/30/07; Discovery to close by 2/20/08; Dispositive Motions due by 3/5/08. (kk) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
95 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN re 94 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points &Authorities# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1A# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2A# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3A)(Sparks, Douglas) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
96 MEMORANDUM re 95 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Adams, Corliss) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
97 Appellant's REPLY BRIEF by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Lamb, Andrew) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
98 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Zambuto, Jr on behalf of PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Zambuto, Joseph) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
99 Consent MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Edward M. Mathias by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lamb, Andrew) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
MINUTE ORDER setting a telephonic status conference re: discovery issues, to be initiated jointly by counsel on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 01/25/08. (DM) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
Set/Reset Hearings : Telephone Status Conference set for 1/29/08 at 11:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. (kk) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay: Telephone Conference held on 1/29/08. (DM) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
100 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Adams, Corliss) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
101 Memorandum in opposition to re 100 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zambuto, Joseph) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
102 ENTERED IN ERROR.....ORDER denying appeal from Magistrate Judge's Orders. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 3/31/08. (lcrmu1, ) Modified on 3/31/2008 (jeb, ). (Entered: 03/31/2008)
103 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 3/31/08. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 102 Order was entered in error and said order to be reissued with correct pleading type. (jeb, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
104 ORDER denying appeal from Magistrate Judge's orders. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 3/31/08. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
MINUTE ORDER setting a brief telephonic status conference to discuss timing of remaining discovery. Counsel should jointly contact chambers on April 17, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 04/14/08. (DM) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

Case: 1:04-cv-00959-RMU As of: 01/31/2014 12:52 PM EST 18 of 18

04/16/2008
04/17/2008 04/17/2008 05/06/2008 05/07/2008
06/05/2008 11/18/2008

105 Joint MOTION Entry of a Scheduling Order by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN, STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for the Entry of a Scheduling Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Stipulation and Order)(Zambuto, Joseph) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 105 Stipulation setting close of discovery for June 6, 2008, and deadline for filing dispositive motions, if any, set for June 20, 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 04/17/08. (DM) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot 100 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, in light of the Stipulation 105 and Minute Order granting the same, setting close of discovery for June 6, 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 04/17/08. (DM) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
106 Joint MOTION to Stay Discovery by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN, STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Adams, Corliss) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
MINUTE ORDER granting 106 Consent Motion to Stay Discovery while the parties pursue mediation with a private mediator. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parties will notify the Court and, within 5 business days, submit a joint motion to lift the discovery stay and modify the deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions previously approved by the undersigned. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 05/07/08. (DM) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines : Close of Discovery by 6/6/2008; Dispositive Motions due by 6/20/08. (kk) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
107 STIPULATION of Dismissal by PEARL BEALE, BRADLEY RAYMOND AUTMAN, STEVEN A. SMITH, DENNIS HARRISON, MARVIN L. BROWN, OBIE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Zambuto, Joseph) (Entered: 11/18/2008)