U.S. v.Tennessee

•

™ "

""

V«

»

»

MR-TN-003-005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

V.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, Ned McWherter, Governor of the State of Tennessee; Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., Director, Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; Mona ReevesWinfrey, Superintendent, Arlington Developmental Center

) Civil Action No.
> 92 2 0 62 HA
) ) Complaint ) ) ) Civil Rights

Defendants. )
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA alleges:

1. This action is brought by the Attorney General on behalf

of the United States pursuant to the Civil Rights of

Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq..

to enjoin the named defendants from depriving persons residing at

the Arlington Developmental Center ("Arlington") of rights,

privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution

of the United States and the Education of the Handicapped Act, 20

U.S.C. § 1400 fit seq.

JURISDICTION

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28

U.S.C. § 1345.

3. The United States has standing to maintain this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997a.

4. The Attorney General has certified that all the pre-

filing requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. § 1997b have been met.

The certificate of the Attorney General is appended to this Complaint and is incorporated herein.
5. Venue in the Western District of Tennessee is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391. All claims set forth in the Complaint arose in said District.
DEFENDANTS 6. Defendant STATE OF TENNESSEE owns and operates Arlington, a state facility for mentally retarded and developmentally disabled persons located in Arlington, Tennessee. 7. Defendant NED MCWHERTER is the Governor of Tennessee, and in this capacity heads the Executive Branch of the State government and, among other duties, reviews and approves budget requests submitted by Executive Branch agencies. He selects and appoints the Director of the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. 8. Defendant EVELYN C. ROBERTSON, JR. is the Director of the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and, in this capacity, exercises administrative control of, and responsibility for, Arlington. 9. Defendant MONA REEVES-WINFREY is the Superintendent of Arlington and is responsible for its day-to-day operations. 10. The individual Defendants named in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 are officers of the Executive Branch of the State of Tennessee and are sued in their official capacities. 11. Arlington is an institution within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1997(1).
- 2-

12. Persons residing at Arlington include individuals who are mentally retarded and developmentally disabled.
13. Defendants are legally responsible, in whole or in part, for the operation of and conditions at Arlington, as well as for the care and treatment of persons residing at that institution.
14. At all relevant times, defendants have acted or failed to act, as alleged herein, under color of state law.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 15. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to ensure that Arlington residents are protected from abuse and neglect, including medical neglect. 16. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to provide adequate medical care to Arlington residents. 17. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to provide residents of Arlington with that level of individualized training and behavioral programming necessary to ensure that residents are free from undue bodily restraint, including chemical restraint, and unreasonable risks to their personal safety. 18. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to ensure that there is an adequate number of sufficiently trained direct care and professional staff to render and implement professional judgments regarding care and treatment of Arlington residents.
- 3-

19. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to maintain professionally based recordkeeping and record review systems to ensure that resident records contain accurate, up-todate and relevant information necessary to enable staff to exercise professional judgment regarding treatment and training of Arlington residents.
20. Defendants have subjected and are continuing to subject Arlington residents to unreasonable risks of harm from fire and fire hazards.
21. Defendants have failed and are continuing to fail to provide Arlington residents under 22 with a free appropriate public education.
22. The acts and omissions alleged in paragraphs 15 through 20 constitute patterns or practices of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States, and deprive Arlington residents of such rights, privileges or immunities.
23. The acts and omissions alleged in paragraph 21 constitute deprivations of rights secured by the Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 gt seq.
24. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the conduct and practices set forth in paragraphs 15 through 21 which deprive residents of Arlington of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Education of the
- 4-

Handicapped Act, and cause irreparable harm to Arlington residents.
25. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.c. § 1997 to seek only equitable relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, subordinates, successors in office, and all those acting in concert or participation with them from continuing the acts, practices and omissions at Arlington set forth in paragraphs 15 through 21 above, and to require Defendants to take such action as will provide constitutional conditions of care to persons who reside at Arlington. The United States further prays that this Court grant such other and further equitable relief as it may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM P. BARR •Acting^ Attorney General of the United States

ED BRYANT United States Attorney Western District of
Tennessee

R. DUNNE Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
ARTHUR E. PEABODY, Chief Special Litigation Section - 5-

BENJAMIN P. SCHOEN Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
SUSAN BOV WILLIAM G. MADDOX Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 320 First Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-6252 (202) 514-6251
- 6-

 
 . FRO

U.S. v. Tennessee

1.1995 15:29

P. 2

MR-TN-003-006 JH THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

VS. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

NO. 92-2062-M1/A

OPINION OP THE COURT NOVEMBER 22, 1993

y

O. vS.

?-'•;> .uk; /ca

I

/*•"

•'(.-

BRENDA PARKER

OFFICIAL REPORTER

910 FEDERAL BUILDING

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103

.FROM V

11.01.1995 15!29

P. 3

THE COURT: As each of you l:nows, I'm usually

accustomed to being very much on time and today I apologise

for being somewhat longer. However, i:he importance of this »
case and the necessity of being comfortable with those

comments that X intend to make to you today require that X

take eom© additional time. I'm going to go through some

comments in this case and it will tak<i me a little time to

do that. 1 also want to make it clear and it will be clear

from my written comments that the defendant in this case, of

10 course, 1 B the state of Tennessee. I point that out because 11 obviously, sometimes it is necessary Eor me to make comments 12 which seem to be directed at individuals. Now, that is

13 because no institution, whether it is the state or the federal government, can act through aiyone other than those

people who work for that entity. But it is, of course, the

16 State of Tennocsee that has the responsibilities in this
17 case and it is as to tho State of Tennessee and as tothe

IB United States that 1 direct my commeennts.

19

tJ; 1 also point out that in his case, the rights of

20 those individuals who are being litigated are the rights of 21 individuals whose condition preclude. them often from making 22 their own complaint. Often they are individuals who, while 23 they enjoy all of the constitutional rights of every citizen 24 of this country, are because of physical or mental
disability unable to articulate theix own claim. While that

FROM
t •t

11.01. 1995 15:29

P. 4

does not givo them special rights, it points out the problem

that each of UB must recognize, and that is that often it is

the circumstantial evidence which has great weight in these

cases. We arc generally unable to hear from those*
individuals whowould in many cases * the ones to articulate the claim.

Ladies and gentlemen/ it is important that each of

8 you recognizes that this is a court of law and a nation of

laws, that the settlement of disputes between people through

10 a lawsuit is a ntrong and necessary foundation upon which
11 our civilization rests. It is proper under our system of

12 justice when there is a dispute between parties regarding

13 the application of the law that those parties resolve their

14 case in court. It is the responsibility of the federal

15 district courts to hear those claims and specifically to

16 hear those claims arising under the Constitution and laws of

n the United States and to render a prcmpt decision regarding
IB the application of the law to the facts as established by

19 the record during the trial.

20

In making that decision/ tl e law requires that the

21 Court not be influenced by sympathy, bias, prejudice or

22 passion. This is a case in which th< re has been much 23 testimony, much testimony which might be very sympathetic 24 for one side or the other, but the Cc urt must make its
25 decision notbased on a sympathetic reaction, but on the

11.01.1995 15:30

P. 5
4

objective facts as established on th* record.

Additionally, the Court mu t consider, of course,

all of the applicable law and not a • ingle principle in

reaching its conclusion. The Court may not disregard a

portion of the law and make its deci ion only on a single

law, but must regard all of the law ind each law in light of

all of the other applicable laws. Tie United States* in

accordance with the authority granted by the Congress, under

the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, which is<

10 sometimes referred to as CRIPA, is t 10 plaintiff in this

11 case. While the United States appears as a frequent

12 litigant in federal district courts, it is entitled to no

special consideration and appears be ore the Court as any

14 other litigant.

15

The burdon placed on the Ut tited States is no

16 different from the burden placed on ther litigants before

17 the Court in similar cases. And if he United States fails

18 to satisfy any portion of that burde , by the standard placed

19 upon it by thn law, it cannot prevaijj on that claim or

20 claims.

21

in this case, the State of Tennessee and several

22 individuals named in their official capacity as employees of

23 the State of Tennessee are defendants in this case. When a

24 suit is brought against employees of a state or a county or

25 other political subdivision in their official capacity/ the

.FROM

11.01.1995 15:30

P. 6

governmental entity with whom they are employed is, for all

practical purposes, the actual party in the case. The State

of Tennessee/ merely because it is a Btate, is not entitled

to special consideration in this case. Just as the United

States, the State of Tennessee, as with every other

litigant, is entitled to no preferential treatment under the

laws in this case.

As I previously noted, the United States has

brought this case pursuant to the Civil Rights of

10 institutionalized Persons Act and asserts that the State of

11 Tennessee in its operation of the Arlington Development i

12 I Center has failod to comply with those lavs protecting the

13 civil rights of disabled individuals and has failed to

14 provide to those individuals educational opportunities as

15 required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education

16 Act. The United States more specifically claims that the

17 defendants have failed'to provide adequate food, medical

16 care, reasonable safety and training, freedom from

19 unreasonable restraints and adequate psychological and

20 psychiatric services as required under the Fourteenth

21 Amendment of the United States Constitution and has failed

22 to provide Arlington residents under the age of 22 with the

23 educational services required by IDEA,

24

The Btate of Tennessee, the governor of the State

25 of Tennessee, the director of the Department of Mental

FROM

11.81 .1995 15:31

P. 7

Health and Mental Retardation and the superintendent of the

Arlington Development Center are the defendants in this

case. All of the individuals named in this case, as I have

indicated, arc named in their official capacities.

The dafondants contend that their operation of the

Arlington Development Center has not fallen so far below the

standard of acceptable care for individuals with mental

retardation as to constitute a violation of those

individuals' civil rights. The defendants further contend

10 that the educational opportunities provided to the residents

11 of Arlington Development Center below the age of 22 are in

12 compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education

13 Act.

14

I will explain to you somewhat the procedure that

15 the Court goes through in deciding a case of this nature or

16 lor that matter, any case. The Court in this case, and I

17 refer to the Court, because it sounds funny to say me all

18 the time, but I have to act as the Court in this case. Mow,

19 when a person acts as the Court or the judge, you no longer

20 act as an individual. Your individual beliefs or

21 perceptions are not what govern your conduct, but rather the

22 laws of the United states and the Constitution of the United

23 States. The Court also acts in the capacity as a

24 fact-finder. The Court has to decide what are the true 25 facts in thin case. So when I say the Court, I thinK it's

PROM

1 1.ei. 1995 15S31

P. 8

best for you to understand that I'm not confused about who I

am and who the Court is, but it is important for each of you

to understand that the Court doesn't act like me. The Court

is, in fact, something that is more than just an individual

speaking. The Court in this case is the judge of the facto

concerning the controversy in this lawsuit.

The trial of this case began on August the 30th/

1993 with the testimony of Dr. Walter P. Christian, the

first witness presented by the United States. Sixteen

10 additional witnesses testified live in the courtroom/ many

11 oi whom or some o£ whom were seen by individual members here

12 and all by the lawyers, and a large number of depositions or

13 portions of depositions were placed in tho record.

14

On September the 10th, 1993, the State of

15 Tennessee presented its first witness, Mona Reeves-Winfrey,

16 the superintendent of the Arlington Development Center.

17 Seven' other witnesses testified for the state. The case was

18 then recessed from September the 17th, 1993 to October 18,

19 1993, at which time the state resumed its proof with the

20 testimony of Dr. Alexander Horwitc. The state presented an

21 additional 11 witnesses, including the testimony of Dr.

22 Philip Robert Ziring. The United States then presented

23 three rebuttal witnesses by live testimony. Dr. Christian,

24 Dr. Victoria Therriault, and Dr. Irene MeEwen, all of whom

25 who had previously testified in the case and also presented

FROM

11.01.1995

13:32

P. 9
8

by video deposition the testimony of Dr. Susan Hyman. The parties were allowed to submit post-trial proposed findings of fact and post-trial memoranda. And the united states submitted a proposed order'in this case.
It is now for the Court to determine what the true facts are in this case and to apply the law to those facts.
Now, in order for a fact-finder to determine what the true facts arc, the fact-finder in called upon to weigh the testimony of every witness who hau appeared before it or 10 whose testimony has boon submitted into evidence and to give 11 the testimony of the witnesses the weight, faith, credit and 12 value to which the Court determines i'; is entitled. In 13 determining which testimony to believo and, where necessary, 14 which testimony not to believe, the Court considers a number IS of factors. The factors that the Cou t has considered in 16 determining the credibility or believ ability of each witness 17 include the manner and demeanor of th i witness while on the 18 witness stand, whether the witness im;pressed the Court as 19 one who was telling the truth or one /ho was telling a 20 falsehood and whether or not the witn iss was a frank 21 witness. The Court also considered t reasonableness or 22 unreasonableness of the testimony of the witness, the 23 opportunity or lock of opportunity.of the witness to know 24 the facts about which he or she test!tied, the intelligence 25 or lack of intelligence of the witness, the interest of the

•FROM

11.81.1995 15:32

P. 10

witness in the result of the lawsuit, if any, the

relationship of the witness to any oi the parties to the

lawsuit, if any, and whether the witress testified

inoonsistently while on the witness eitand or if the wltneas

said or did something or failed to day or do something at

any other time that 1 B inconsistent with what that witness

said while testifying.

Ladies and gentlemen, if there lo a conflict in

the testimony of the witnesses, it ie the Court's duty to

10 reconcile that conflict, if it can b$ reconciled, because

11 the law presumes that every witness has attempted to and has

12 testified to the truth. .But if then? is a conflict in the
k 13 testimony of tho witnesses that the ourt is not able to

14 reconcile, then the Court has to determine which ones of the 15 witnesses to believe and which ones ;.t cannot be believe, 16 that is which witnesses testified to a falsehood*

17

of course, immaterial discrepancies do not affect

X8 a witness' testimony, but material discrepancies do.

19

It should be noted that th<» greater weight of the

20 evidence in a case is not determined by the number of

21 witnesses testifying to a particular fact or a particular 22 state of facts, rather it depends on the weight, credit and

23 value of the total evidence on either side of the issue.

24

As I previously noted, the Court may also consider

25 circumstantial evidence as well ae direct evidence in

11.61.1995 15:33

P.11
10

deciding a case and, obviously, the law permits the Court to

give equal weight to both direct and circumstantial

evidence. Of course, it is up to the Court to decide what

weight to give any of it.

In this case, particularly for those of you who

have participated in this case and for those of you who have

attended portions of it, there have been a large number of

individuals who are called expert witnesses. You nay, if

you're not a lawyer, may not understand or know that the

10 Rules of Evidence do not normally present ~ do not normally

11 permit a pernon to testify as to opirions or conclusions.

12 An exception to this rule exists for those who testify under

13 the Rules of Evidence as an expert w: tness.

14

An expert witness is a perron, who by education

15 and experience, has become an expert in some art, science,

16 profession or calling. Expert witnesses are allowed to

state their opinions as to a relevant and material matter as

18 to those things which are relevant axjxd material and, of

19 course, as to those things as which i;hey profess to be

20 expert and they way give their reasons for that opinion.

21

In this case, the Court hau considered each expert

22 opinion received as evidence in the case and has given to

23 each expert's opinion that weight, il any, the Court thinks

24 it deserves. Where an expert opinio; is not based on

25 sufficient education and experience or if the Court

•FROM

11.01.1995 15:33

P. 12

concludes that the reasons given in support of the opinion

are not supported by the record or if the Court finds that

the opinion iB outwoighed by other evidence or is

unsupported by the facts in the

the Court may*

disregard an expert opinion, or at Xexst portions of that

opinion.

In this case, there have bean three categories of

individuals supplying testimony. Additionally, there have

been over 440 exhibits. Actually, many of those have not

10 been paper exhibits, but there have been many, many

11 exhibits, some of which are long documents, others of which

J.2 are videotapes. These exhibits include records from

13 Arlington Development Center* They nclude videotapes of

14 the facility and of practices at the facility. They include

15 photographs of patients and they inc ude charts and graphs

16 containing summary information.

V

Now, the testimony has bee from three basic

18 groups of people. First, current an former employees of

19 Arlington Development Center. Secon< ly, parents and family

20 members of individuals who are or we a residents at

Arlington Development Center and, th rd, experts and

22 consultants retained either by the U ited States or the

23 State of Tennessee in connection wit i this case or in

24 connection with contracts to provide services to Arlington
25 Development Center.

11.01.1995 15S34

P.

12
i

As is often the case, the documents generated at tho time of the occurrence of events Often provide some of the most reliable information concerning the events in this

cane,

I vill talk a little bit more about some of those

documents later. However/ 1 have considered all of those

documents in reaching my conclusions in this case.

Additionally, those individuals who are currently at

Arlington Development Center, or who have previously worked

10 there are in a particularly good position to provide 11 information regarding the ordinary practices and policies of 12 the institution.

13

Parents and family members jare in a position to

14 provide some information, and their tjestimony has been

appreciated and has been helpful. Of course, the Court must

16 recognize that individuals who have m|ade the choice to place 17 their loved one In any institution have a strong desire for

18 that institution to provide the best bossible care.

19 Additionally, and understandably, generally, their view of

20 the institution may be strongly affec*ed by whether they

21 have a continuing interest in the institution as a care

22 provider or whether they no longer have that interest.

23

The testimony of experts, of course, is affected

24 by the reliability of the information they receive on which

25 they base their expert testimony. It they receive

1 1.01 . 1995

P. 14

inaccurate or incomplete information/: then the testimony

provided by the expert nay be of limited or .little value,

similarly, if thoir inquiry is a narrow inquiry as to a

specific aspect of the institution, their opinion may have

little or no application to other parts of that institution

Finally, if they can be demonstrated to have previous ~ to

have previously existing biases or prejudices or to have

8 previously committed to a position without examination of

the facts at the institution/ their testimony may be

10 severely impeached. Before X proceed to tell you my

11 assessment of the evidence, I also an going to review with

12 you in some more detail what the United states must prove in 13 order to meet its burden of proof on its claim that the 14 state of Tennessee has violated the fourteenth Amendment 15 rights of the residents at that institution.

16

Again, in order for the plaintiff to establish a

17 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the plaintiff must

18 show that tho defendants committed the acts alleged by the

19 plaintiff, that those facts caused the residents of

20 Arlington Development Center to suffer the loss of a federal

21 right and that in performing the acts alleged/ the

22 defendants' actions were a substantial departure from

23 accepted professional judgment, practice or standards as to

24 demonstrate that the perspn responsit le actually did not

25 base a decision on such a judgment. A mere negligent act by

« FROM

11.01.1995 15!35

P. 15
14 i

the defendants causing harm does not constitute a violation

of the Fourteenth Amendment even though those acts would

constitute malpractice. Thus a mere lack of due care by the

state official does not deprive a resident of a

constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment.

I now OIBO want to review with you more

particularly eomo of the language fron the United States

Supreme Court in the case of Youngberg versus Romeo, which I

believe eoto out the principles governing the Fourteenth

10 Amendment claim in this case.

11

In Youngberg, the Supreme Court specifically

12 stated when a person is institutionalised and wholly

13 dependent on the state, a duty to provide certain services

and care dons exist, although even thBn a state necessarily

has considerable discretion in determining the nature and

16 scope of its responsibilities.

17

The Supreme Court in Youngberg went on to

18 specifically raise the question of what is the proper

19 standard for determining whether a state adequately has
20 protected the rights of the mentally retarded. The Court

21 pointed out tho Constitution only requires that the courts

22 make certain that professional judgment, in fact, was

exercised. It is not appropriate -for the courts to specify

24 which of soveral professionally acceptable choices should

25 have been made. The.mentally retarded are entitled to more

• i.

FROM

11.01.1995 15:35

P. 16
15

considerate treatment, of course, and conditions of

confinement better than criminals who e conditions of

confinement are designed for punishme nt.

Obviously, the Supreme Court points that'out

because wa have always recognised in he United States, or

at least for a number of years, that ndividuale who are

incarcerated involuntarily for the purpose of punishment

give up many rights. So the court poLnts out in Youngberg

that individuals in institutions of t lie nature have rights

10 nnd that those rights are different firom the righto of those

11 people who are involuntarily incarcerated for purposes of

punishment.

13

In Youngbcrg, the Court als observed, the courts

14 must show deference to the judgment ekeroised by qualified

15 professionals. By so limiting judici il review of challenges

16 to conditions in state institutions, Interference by the

17 federal judiciary with the internal operations of these

13 institutions should be minimized.

19

The Court noted that the cojirts should not

20 eecond-guoes the expert administrator on matters on which

21 they are better informed. The Court Lndicated that for

22 those reasons, the decision, if made >y a professional, is

23 presumed valid; liability may be imposed only when the

24 decision by the professional is such substantial departure

26 from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards

i i

11.81.1995 15:36

P.I?

1 OB to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did 2 not base the decision on euch a judgment.

Youngherg reminds us that the state has a duty to

4 provide adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care.

5 These are essential to the care that jthe state — these are

6 essential oleraents of the care that the state must provide.

7 The state also has an unquestioned duty to provide
e reasonable safety for all residents and personnel within the

institution. Renidents enjoy constitutionally protected

10 interests in the conditions of reasonable care and safety,
n reasonable nonrestrictive confinement conditions and such

12 training as may bo required by these interests.

33

Ladies and gentlemen, it ie these principles that

govern tho determination made by the Court today*

In reviewing the evidence in this case, there is !

much testimony and documentation which appears to be

reconcilable. As a general proposition, it appears that
i
even the defense experts do not seribusly question that 19 conditions at Arlington Development Center in 1990 and 1991 ' 20 failed to comply with minimal requirements established under! 21 the Fourteenth Amendment for individuals with mental 22 retardation. In 1990 and 1991, key positions at the 23 institutions were unfilled. Psychiatric and psychological 21 cervices worn virtually nonexistent,: Outside consultants

were rarely, if ever, used. And sta£f lacked the training '',

FROM

U . 81 . 1995 15! 36

P. 18

or direction to properly feed, train, monitor and care for

this population.

Even at the time of his teeimony on September 14,

1993, Dr. Jon Scott bailey, a fellow> f the American

Psychological Association and profess r at Floridafetate

University and a consultant for the S ate of Tennessee

stated that he is now only beginning o Bee people who are

0 starting to be sensitive to the needs of residents at

Arlington Development Center. Dr. Baley appeared to

I

io concede that data collection at Arlin ton Development Center !

l i is really not quite good enough to develop behavior

12 development plane. Dr. Bailey described the work of oneof

13 his colleagues, Dr. Riordan as — in one of the resident

14 cottageB at Arlington Development Certer indicating that in

15 the Spruce Unit, they are doing much better and that in

16 other areas they are not as good. \

17

.Dr. Bailey described the psychology staff as quotej

18 "in transit11 and acknowledged that since December 1992, some

19 of them have quit and some have been added. He also stated '

20 that none of the masters level psych jlogists have a 21 background in behavior analysis. He also said we have asked1

22 a lot of people to change the way they're doing things.

They're getting more interested, more involved, morale is

24 improved a little bit on the two units we have been roost 25 involved in. Dr. Bailey acknowledged that he is not a

.FROM

11.01.1995 15:37

P. 19

clinical psychologist and confirmed that he is -- that he

did not indopendently verify any of the data submitted by

Arlington Development Center for some of hie calculations. •

I should also note that Dr. Bailey submitted a

document entitled Some Common Characteristics of Severely

and Profoundly Retarded Persons, which was marked as Exhibit

309, which on ciose examination of Dr. Bailey and on

explanation by other witnesses was thoroughly discredited.

Dr. Alexander V. Horwitz, a doctor of psychiatry

10 and consultant lor Arlington Developnent Center had only, asj

11 of the month of his testimony, recently been increased from I

12 16 hours of consultation per month to 44 hours of

;

13 consultation per month at Arlington Development Center. Dr. \

14 Horwitz, again, an expert for the defendants gave testimony ?

15 contrary to the testimony of the director of psychology of <

16 Arlington Development Center, Dr. Beverly Cox. Dr. Cox had

17 given testimony to the effect that sone or many of Arlington j

18 residents would prefer to be alone whareas Dr. Horwitz'B

19 testimony was thnt nitting alone, not socialising is a

20 behavioral problem. Dr. Horwitz/ of :ourse, Is a trained

21 psychiatrist, whoreas Dr. Cox has a Ph.D. in education and a j

22 masters in guidance. While Dr. Horwitz has been a

i

23 consultant for Arlington Development Center for over one

24 year, he acknowledged that he has never performed a data

;

25 collection chock and that he would be concerned if he found .

.FROM

11.01.1995 15:37

P. 20

that certain patients were not getting behavioral reinforcement.
Dr. Michael j. Levin©, a de elopment 4 neuropeychiatrist in the State of Louisiana and medjLcal
director for the Office of Citizens with Development Disabilities of the State of Louisiana also testified as an expert for the state of Tennessee. Dr. Levine, more bluntly than Dr. Horwitz stated his candid opinion as the Court understood, that Dr. Cox, the director of psychology at j 10 Arlington Development Center did not liave the level of! 11 training required* He went on to eta ;e the opinion that 12 experts from out of state are fun to have, but you have to 13 grow your own internal expertise. Moreover, in hie initial 14 deposition, Dr. Levine stated that Arlington Development is Center did not meet common practice iiji neuropsychiatry and 16 he stated that a good initial evaluation of five to seven' 17 pages is essential and normal in Louisiana, but that he saw 16 none of that at Arlington Development Center. He was 19 careful to say that he did not evaluate the quality and 20 quantity of staffing at Arlington Development Center, but 21 noted that he did find things missing.in records and found 22 no particular pattern in charts. He admitted that Arlington 23 Development Center did not have data Collection under 24 control. Dr. Levine described going to Arlington 25 Development Center's psychiatric program'as like going to

.1

•FROM

11.01.1995 15:38

P. 21
20

Samoa and asking where is your nuclear reactor. He also compared Arlington Development Centex with the research program at the University of Califorria , L O B Angeles, indicating that it was like comparing a Cadillac factory, that is UCLA, to an ox cart factory. Arlington Development Center. He stated that he did not se,etraining taking place at mealtime, at the time he gave his deposition, and he also confirmed that he saw very little social skill program* development. Dr. Levine criticized the way in which 10 Arlington Development's records are cjriented, indicating

11 that they are problem-oriented records and that they should

12 hove been service-oriented records.

13

While the State of Tennessee's experts and

14 consultants were very cautious in thcjlr testimony regarding

15 psychological and psychiatric service's, the experts

16 presented by the United States were ^equivocal in their

17 insistence that the services, processes, procedures,

IB medication and treatments provided ii this institution fall]

19 far below any acceptable standard as to constitute a failure!

20 to exercise professional judgment in their entirety.

i

21

Dr. Walter Christian, a Ph.D. clinical

!

22 psychologist and president of the Ma)Institute in Chatham,

23 Massachusetts, testified both inthe United States initial

24 presentation of proof and in rebuttal Dr. Christian

25 visited Arlington Development Center on October the 14th and:

FROM

11.01.1995 15s38

P.22

15th, 1993. You will recall that we had a break in the
i
presentation of the testimony and he v'isited it again having previously gone several other times.
He visited the Arlington Development Center, as I indicated, on October the 14th and 15th, 1993 to determine whether psychological services had improved since his previous visitts to Arlington.. The vinit was a surprise visit as authorized by the Court, and Dr. Christian found that most patients were Idol and he saw more self-in jury,,
10 than on any previous tour. Because h e October visit was a
11 surprise visit, ho concluded that the previous visits were 12 staged for my benefit, in his words. He testified that 13 conditions in his October visit were worse than the visit in 14 July of 1991, his first visit to the facility. He found 15 that the staff was poorly trained , that there was no 16 evidence that the staff was better trained, that the
i
17 staff-to-patient ratio remained inadequate and that the 18 number of psychologists remain totally inadequate. He found 19 that tho Daniol Roono cottage which \\&d been the subject of 20 work by Dr. Bailey, whom I have previously mentioned, was in 21 October of 1993 in worse shape thanriianybase line units and 22 ho observed this — he observed that this was after the 23 consultants had essentially finished their work at Daniel 24 Boon©. Ho tostified that the problems with self-injury,
inability of staff to react to situa :ions and inadequate or

"FROM

11.81.1995 15:39

P. 23

no data collection were, according to Dr. Christian, still

in existence during his October visit Dr. Christian even

described hie observations of a resid< nt -- in fact, he

described his observations of several residents, but he

described his observations of Candace T. who had previously

been observed eelf-injuring herself ii order to obtain
'!•;••'
reinforcement with orange juice. DurJ ng his visit in

octobor, she was found sitting in a 1: ne of nonambulatory

patients facing a wall. It appeared 1 hat no one was

10 observing this gruup of residents and certainly that no one was interacting with them. Ultimately r, after waiting some

12 period of time, he determined that those residents had

13 apparently been placed in line facing the wall so that a

14 Rtaff member could sit in an office a a desk and look out

15 the office door to see the patients or the residents lined

16 up,

*,<•(<"•!"

»'•'•

Dr. Christian found that th blue cards described

at some length by Dennis Mozingo in h s testimony on behalf

19 of the United States were in Dr. Chri tian's words just a

20 bell and whistle which was not being properly used to record

21 behavior.

22

Dr. Christian observed in Daniel Boone 3 at 9 a.m.1

23

>bill not had breakfast

24 because of the new improved feeding program adopted by

25 Arlington Development Center.

F ROM

11.01.1995 15:48

P.24

1

In reconciling the testimony of Dr. Christian, Dr.

2 Bailey, Dr» Horwitz, Dr. Cox, Dr. 8zym*nski and others,

3 there is no credible testimony that conditions have .

4 substantially improved from the period of July, 1991, when

S it is virtually conceded by the State af Tennessee that

6 psychiatric and psychological services were virtually

7 nonexistent, while it is true that s ie limited progress
a may have been made in identifying and analyzing the problem,

9 and in that regard, the Btate of Tennessee should be

10 commended, the actual delivery of services to the vast

11 majority of Arlington Development resi dents in need of them,

12 nnd the development of a system to provide for the delivery,

13 monitoring and sustaining of those services has yet to

14 occur.

15

The pattern demonstrated by the experiences of Dr.

16 Bailey, Riordan, Mozingo and others, bther consultants

17 consulting to provide improved care a: Arlington Development

18 Center has been repeated in other are is as well. Thus,

19 while iinpjrovoidonts have been planned ay Dr. William Hinkle

20 and feeding programs and efforts to implement improvements

21 hove been undortoken by Carla Lynn Andreas, the lack of any

22 judgment in implementing that advice has resulted in a

23 failure thus far of. the institution to meet any minimal

24 standards.

25

in a surprise visit authorized by the Court on

•FROM

11.01.1995
I

15:40

P.25
24

October l and 2, 1993, Victoria Therriault observed the samej

problem as Dr. Christian concerning Icing delays in residents

being allowed to oat.

i

Additionally, while there uuiy be some improvement

i

•

in the preparation of actual feeding ^lans, Nurso Therriault

testified that those individuals who were actually feeding

residents generally had not been trained on any feeding plan|

at all or had specifically not been trained on the feeding <•

plan for the resident they ware feeding.'
10
Apparently, because it was a surprise visit and
11
not a planned visit, Nurse Therriault: was also able; to
12
consistently observe inadequate staffj-to-resident ratios and
13
failure of staff to interact with residents. She found as
14
many as ten people in the Holly Unit who were completely
15
unsupervised, that is alond. This is| significant fnd wan>

16
significant to Nurse Therriault because those individuals^,

17
have been identified as individuals at high rlBk. Asshe

18
had observed in her earlier visits, in her October, visit/

19
she also sow food trays which were given to tho wrong

20
patient - a particular problem since many patients require

. j

•

speoialized diets and the consumption of the wrong; or*

22 wrongly textured food may result in immediate harm or even

23 death. Nurse Therriault also saw, during her October, 1993,

24 visit continued improper nursing c a n in connection with the

25 administration of medication, the repositioning of a patieni

•FROM

11.81.1995 IS:41

P. 26

by a nurse in which the nurse actually pulled up o{Ta

fractured arm, causing the patient tc cry out. Once again/

Nurse Therriault was able to observe records in which no

vital signs had been taken when appropriate and whtore

patients with greater than therapeutic drug levels were

experiencing a complication which nurjsing personnel, should

have, but did not identify.

Weighing all of the expert testimony in ihis case,

including the testimony of individuals who were consultants

10 or employees of Arlington Development Center, it if clear

11 that the care actually provided to residents' at Arlington
!
12 Development center falls wej.1 below any minimum standard and

13 well below the medical malpractice standard.

14

It further appears and the Court finds that the

caro ot Arlington Development Center fails to meet the

constitutional tests which I told you about earlier as set

17 out by the Supremo Court in Youngberg versus Romeo*

18

A similar analysis, when applied to the testimony

Id concerning compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities

20 Education Act, reveals that the requirements of that act are

21 not being satisfied. •It is clear that in some are* »- it is

22 clear that in this aroa, some progress may be being made and

23 that the consultants in this area have perhaps had the most

24 satisfactory effect.

25

The evidence from the State of Tennessee itself,

"FROM

II.61.1995 I

15:41

P. 27

however, reflects that the principal tithin the Arlington Development Center has recently almos been .terminated and that the bast teacher, and the teachejr who was shown in the
:hing at Arlington Development Conter has now left Arlington Development Center,
It is clear from the testlm ny of the defendants'
8 own export, Dr. Gene Alvin Vergason, ; •resident of vjergaeon Associates, inc., that the individual education plans are of
10 questionable adequacy under ~ in fac :, inadequate under the
11 Act and that Arlington Development Co iter does not meet the 12 standards for the uae of assessment d*ta. Dr. Vergason 13 observed that it W A S necessary for him to combine the 14 individual habilitation plan and the Lndividual education 15 plan in order to obtain sufficient da a to create an 16 adequate 1EP. Dr. Vergason concedes hat the IEP should 17 have all of the education goals conta ned in that plan. Dr.
18 Vergason testified that the Arlington Development Center is 19 doing well in placing students in the least restrictive
environment and that he has observed mprovements in 21 attitude, institutional technique, ma erials and activities, 22 His testimony was that Arlington Deve opment Center is 23 moving "in the right direction." Dr. Vergason's 24 credibility, however, was placed at iissue and in question 25 because hie initial opinions were giv<»n without the benefit

FROM

11.81.1995 15:42

P. 28
2?

1 of an adequate review. His conclusions, generally, however,
i
2 are not irreconcilable with the proof: submitted by the
3 United states through Dr. Susan Thibaieau, the May Center

4 program director. Dr. Thibadeau pointed out from lier three

5 visits to Arlington Development Center, that the individual

6 educational plans, iEP'e are inadequate under IDEA

7 standards. Specifically, the goals aid objectives are not 8 sufficiently comprehensive and the system is inadequate to

9 measure progress. In fact, that was Very, very clearly

30 demonstrated. Dr. Thibadeau gave numorous examples' from

11 actual students at Arlington Development Center in jthat

12 regard. She also testified that related services are not
i adequately incorporated for — into the educational process.

For example, the physical therapist interviewed did! not even

15 know what an individual education plan was. Yet, ufith this

16 student population, physical therapy must work cloajely with

17 education in order to achieve educational objectives since

IB many of those objectives are functional in nature. '

Reviewing the testimony of Dr. Vergaeon in conjunction with

20 the testimony of Dr. Thibadeau, the evidence weighs heavily

21 in favor of determination that Arlington Development Center

i,B not in compliance with IDEA.

;

23

Now, whilo 1 have told you about failure to comply

:

I

24

i

with the Fourteenth Amendment, I am compelled to ma'ke one

Additional observation regarding the danger that Arlington

FROM

11.01.1995 15:42

P. 29

residents currently face. The Court has indicated that in

;

i

each of tho areas cited by the United States, the Uijdted

i

States has carried its burden of proof. But the CoUrt

should note specifically thai in the medical care area and

in the area of direct staff supervision of patients or

residents, conditions at Arlington Development Center pose>

an immediate danger of irreparable harm, including an active

risk of death to patients at Arlington Development tenter.1

'

. i

Medical care within the institution/ particularly for

10

i '

!

i

11 patients with seizure disorders, is so deviant from I any,,

12 recognized principles of medical oare that any patient

13 suffering prolonged seizures; or status epilepticus iay be in

immediate peril of his life. 14
The testimony is virtually uncontradicted:that no 15

16 standard of care recognizes the administration of

intramuscular Vallum for status epilepticus and that the 17

only appropriate treatment for status epilepticus involving

18

i

19 the use of Vallum is IV Valium. Similarly/ the failure of

20 direct care staff to directly and properly supervises

21 individuals with known behavior disorders, including eating

22 disorders, has resulted in deaths whidh were entirely

23 preventable. In fact, during these proceedings one resident

24 of Arlington Development Center, Jane E. died. Jane E. died

25 on Thursday, September 14, 1993 at 8i32 p.m., on tho 9th day

of the trial of this case. This is evidenced in Trial

FROM

11.01.1995 15:43

P.30

1 Exhibit 384. The cause of her death, the Court finds,, was

2 lack of supervision, complicated by lack of.adequate

3 emergency medical treatment.

4

While tha State of Tennessee may -- it nay be

5 argued has begun to make improvements or to at least

6 institute processes' that might lead to improvements at

7 Arlington Development Center, it does not appear that at

6 this time thone improvements have either been sufficiently

9 implemented or continue to be Implemented in such a way as

10 to preclude the necessity of injunctive relief.

In analyzing the appropriate relief in this case,

jhe plaintiffs argue that the defendants have demonstrated

13 unwillingness to provide Arlington Development Center

14 residents with constitutional levels of care.. The United

IB States further argues that their resistance to taking

16 meaningful, voluntary corrective action is so pronounced as
i
17 to be deliberate. Plaintiff points to the defendants'

16 refusal to acknowledge the existence of deficiencies from

19 the time of the issuance by the United States of its

20 findings letter in March of 1991. The United States points

21 to the extraordinary step taken by the Tennessee General

22 assembly to repeal state statutes that suggested that the

23 defendants were responsible for the care of mentally

24 retarded persons at Arlington Development Center.

25

There has been proof in thi B case, some of which

FROM

11.01.1995 15S43

P.31
30

has olready been referred to, which supports the position

taken by the United states. During s case, there has

been the late dellvory by the State Tennessee of

documents sought in discovery, documents which were

detrimental to the case presented by the State of Tennessee.

It could bo argued that there has beeh an effort, as

demonstrated by Exhibit 414, by Arlington Development Center
i
to misrepresent the nature of these proceedings and to

frighten the families and friends of residents at Arlington

10 Development Center.

11

There has been testimony by former employees of

12 Arlington Development Center of an atmosphere of

13 intimidation. One doctor in hie letter of resignation

addressed to Dr. Thomas McLemore of December 10, 1990,

stated I have never before worked in a climate such as

16 existB at Arlington Development Center, the leadership is

17 poor and one has difficulty in justifying some of the

IB medical situations that seem to have{to be tolerated becausi

19 of administrative influence. It seeijis to me to be a lack o

20 genuine concern by some of the administrative staff for the

21 residents who live here and especially for the employees whe

22 are charged with their care. Sincerely yours, George

23 P. Jones M. D. That is Exhibit 376. :

24

Two highly sought after employees in psychology'

left Arlington Development Center when their efforts to,'

-FROM

11.81.1995 15:44

P.32

compile and report to the administration a list of .suspected* •physical and verbal abuse by direct care staff of Arlington Development Center were detected. The supervisor, Vickie Thompson and her supervisor, Assistant Superintendent Robinson, upon learning of the list demanded a copy and then another Arlington supervisory employe^, Mr. Durr, gave copies of that list to the employees who were suspected of possible abuse, either physical or verbal. Two employees, Rebecca Palmer and Sherry Wilson, found their jobs made 10 impossible, understandably, because of the actions of the 11 administrator's intent on protect possible abusers as 12 opposed to protecting and disciplining individuals for that 13 offense, in fact, Ms. Palmer was reprimanded for her action. No investigation was conducted regarding the employees who were identified as possible abusera. And I'm 16 not referring to pome perfunctory review, I will talk about 1,-omo of those later, but no meaningful investigation was conducted.
Ms. Wilson and Ms. Palmer both testified in these 20 proceedings. Ms. Wilson has a masters in special education 21 and now works at Open Arms, a group home in the Frayser area 22 of Memphis. Ms. wilcon testified regarding a lack of 23 general care, a lack of interaction and a lack of teaching 24 at the Institution. She observed poor feeding and bathing 25 practices and observed on occasion five or six females in'

"FROM

11.01.1995 15:44

P. 33
32

line naked in tho bathroom. Vickie Thompson, the immediate

supervisor told Ms. Wilson when Ms. Wilson inquired about

the lack of caro that "I give staff rest time" between

Modicaid reviews and Department of Justice inspections.

Rebecca Palmer also testified in this case. She

ha£3 a bachelors degree in psychology and is now a team

leader at Southern Oklahoma Resource Center. She took a

position at Arlington Development Center in January, 1991

end found tho atmosphere negative and intimidating. She

10 observed a lack of affection for residents, the use of harsh

11 voice tones and a severe Jack of training. The staff which

12 was charged with supervising residents spent time watching

13 television, and Mr. Durr, as had Mrs. Thompson, gave the

14 excuse that "we work hard during surveys, therefore, we IS don't work as hard at other times.1'

16

Ms. Palmer observed that the residents; were not

17 treated with respect and that there was evidence of physical

18 abuse, but as noted above, her efforts to initiate an

19 investigation in that regard only resulted in her receiving

20 a reprimand and no meaningful investigation being conducted.

21

Ms. Palmer's husband, Roland Palmer, also worked

22 at Arlington Development Center for the period January 11, 23 1991 through June 3, 1991. He is also now located in 24 Oklahoma. But while at Arlington Development Center, he was 25 the director of psychology, Vickie Thompson was his

FROM

11.61.1995 15:45

P.34

supervisor. When he arrived, he found a virtual absence of psychological services.
It is perhaps instructive to observe what the ouperintendent of Arlington Development Center wrote tothe Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental Retardation on January *i, 1991, regarding Mr. Palmer. She wrote as follows in advocating his retention by the institution: We cannot afford to I O R O this most qualified — the roost qualified candidate recruited since May, 1989, when the position was JO vacated. Further, this request is justified, that was the request to deviate so they could employ Mr. Palmer'or Dr. 12 Palmer. Further, this request is justified because ofour 13 critical need to have the required doctoral expertise as 14 head of a service component impacting all individuals Bervet IS at the facility. The psychological director — excuse roe, 16 the psychology director is responsible for the overall 17 development and implementation of facility-wide behavioral IB management strategies. It is the effectiveness of those 19 strategies that allows the accomplishment of all other 20 habilitative efforts. For four and a half years/ the 21 continued absence of a psychological director has placed Ui 22 in a vulnerable position in maintaining certification and 23 accreditation. Considering our present Department of 24 Justice investigation of,the quality of our services, our 25 time is running out/ we must have a psychology director.

FROM

11.01.1995 15:45

P.35

1 She went on to say Dr. Palmer has the directly related

2 experience to meet our needs and is the only applicant

3 having this experience to present reasonable Balary

4 expectations. Dr. Palmer has a total of four years, one

5 month professional psychologist experience* Two years and

6 two months of this .experience was obtained at a facility

7 under the same regulations as we must operate. He haB a

S Ph.D. and masters degree in psychology, both with a

9 concentration in mental retardation. That letter was sent

10 to Commissioner Taylor front Mona Reeves-Winfrey dated

11 January 7, 1991, and is Exhibit 268 in this case.

12

Dr. palmer testified in these prcceedings. As I

13 have indicated, ho found staff with little professional

14 training. He cited a number of examples, including that of

15 a patient whose first name is Philip who had a behavioral

16 disorder in which he struck the corner of tables with his

17 head. This was a serious condition which Dr. Palmer

18 immediately recognized. In fact, Dr. Palmer personally

19 bought a helmet and trained staff regarding the use of the

20 hoimet in order to reduce the personal injury to Philip.
i

1

21 Ironically, Thompson and Riddle, employees at Arlington

22 Development Center, attempted to oppose the use of the

i

23 helmet, both displaying a lack of knowledge regarding

i

i

24 regulations concerning restraint of which this helmet was

i

]

25 not. Palmer made recommendations regarding obtaining

- FROM

1 1 . 0 2 . 1 9 9 5 12: 32

P. 3
35

psychiatric services, including the consultative iservices of

a psychiatrist. Ho routinely found inadequate staffing,,

that is one staff parson to as many as 16 residents at"

Arlington, and routinely found staff watching television.

He found poor and disruptive attitudes by the staff. When

given the task of reviewing the Department of Juejtice

findings latter which has been marked as an exhibit in this

case, Dr. Palmer'&- review was unsatisfactory to Arlington Development Center; that ie, it reported that the Department

10 of Justice was correct, and it appeared to Dr. Pa liner that
l i the superintendent at that time concurred in his findings.
12 But as you know, the conditions regarding the continued i
13 employment of Ms. Palmer, and as you may not know, the

14 frustrations of Dr. Palmer in attempting to perform his 15 duties at Arlington Development Center led to their leaving 16 Arlington Development Center. Of course, Rebecca Palmer, as 17 you know, left Arlington Development Center because 18 conditions had boon made impossible and neither Of them was
allowed to exercise their professional judgment ^t the

20 institution.

21

This attitude of obstruction within the

22 institution was dramatically demonstrated in an incident

23 which occurred on December 11, 1992, which is reflected in

Exhibits 275 and 275A in this record.

25

On December 11, 1992, shortly after nobn,

FROM

1 1 . 0 2 . 1995

12i32

P. 4
36

Lieutenant Kobort Yoakum of the Tennessee Highway Patrol

received a call from the state department, that Is from the

police department in Brownsville, Tennessee. Th# call was

that two state vans had stopped at a store and the drivers

had purchased one quart of beer each and then proceeded

toward Brownsville on Highway 19. The vans were loaded with

residents from Arlington Development Center. Tht vans were

{stopped by Trooper Joe Crook and officer Mark Williams of

the liaywood County Sheriff's Department.

10

Trooper Cook or Crook detected an odor: of alcohol

11 from each driver'G broath. One of the drivers whs Larry

Williams, an employee of Arlington Development Center, who

13 stated to Lieutenant Yoakum that both he and Cornell
i
14 Willison had stopped at a store in Lauderdale Cojunty and had

35 purchased o quart of beer each. Willison, the other driver 16 who was also from Arlington Development Center, confirmed 17 that they had both drunk a quart of beer each.

18

Lieutenant Yoakum then called Mona Reeves-Winfrey,

19 the superintendent of Arlington Development Center, and

20 reported what had happened. H« reported that the drivers —

21 he reported the driver's condition and he further reported

22 that each driver stated he knew the seriousness of his

23 actions and that they had made an error in judgment.

24

The notes of the call* made by Ms. Winfrey at the

25 time of her conversation with Lieutenant Yoakum state

FROM

11 .02. 1995 12:33

P. 5

"obviously, blown out of proportion." When the employees

returned, they were not placed on suspension, but' an

investigation wap conducted by June Stewart with ja report to

Edna Robinson. Juno Stewart, despite the admission of these

two individuals, found that this was simply a case'of

misidentificotion and that the two Arlington employees had

not purchased any beer at all. The report concluded on

December 11, they were notified that no action was being

taken in this matter and that they were to return to work on

10 their noxt scheduled work day of December 12, 1992. See

11 Trial Exhibit 275A for a full statement of the events.

12

Ms. Reeves-Winfrey wrote the letter to the two

13 employees confirming that no — "no action is deemed

14 iiecoesary on tho part of Arlington Development Center."

15 This was in spite of the fact that Ms. Reeves-Winfrey had

16 talked directly with Lieutenant Yoakum and that she knew

17 that there was no mieidentification as reported by June

18 Stewart in hor report.

.

19

Ms. Stewart's report was a hastily done document

20 with no inquiry to the State of Tennessee, with no

21 investigation with Lieutenant Yoakum/ obtained no

22 documentation that W O E available readily from the State of

23 Tennessee. M R . June Stewart's report was consistent with

24 the manner of doing business at Arlington Development

25 Center.

F'ROM

11.82.1995 12:33

P. 6
38

1

In this case, there has been testimony! regarding

2 doing things the Arlington Way/' The Arlington Why, as
]
3 described byDr. Palmer and Rebecca Palmer and Ms. Wilson
4 and as reflected in the action of Arlington DeveXoptnetvfe

5 Center inthe incident ofDecember 11, 1992/ and throughout

6 its conduct inthis case,'is a system or policy under which*

7 the convenience And job security of employees ia>

8 consistently placed above the constitutional rightsof

-

i

9 residents ofArlington Development CentertV

10

The Arlington way is reflected in the irecordation

11 of injuries which were the subject ofextensive testimony, in

12 this cneo. it isreflected inthe conduct — in the

13 conducted tours and the lack of services when third parties

14 or inspectors ore not present, 'i It isreflected ^nther

IS higher than normal mortality rate, the higher than normal

16 injury rate, the failure toeffectuate any meaningful

17 behavior modification programs for residents inneed of that

18 training, it isreflected bythe fact that there is very

19 little staff turnover and that there are very few, as

20 evidenced by the testimony of the superintendent,

21 investigations of abuse, much less any discipline for

22 resident abuse.

23

It is reflected in the testimony of the parents.

24 In this case, a number ofparents testified, and I, don't

25 disregard the testimony ofthose parents who hope for the

F-ROM

11.82.1995

12:34

P. ?

best at Arlington Development Center and I'm thankful that not every parent has had a terrible experience there with a devastating result, but the testimony that is persuasive from the parents in this case was the testimony given by Carolyn Tucker whose daughter was admitted to Arlington Development Contot,, a happy, higher functioning individual at the institution who, because of a failure to provide proper treatment, and I'm not talking about a failure of judgment, I'm talking about a failure of any remqtely 10 correct medical judgment at all is now unable to |function*
li Those ovento, I'm cure for those of you were who were here
12 and heard tho testimony, were particularly disturbing 13 because Carolyn Tucker was on the phone, in fact, telling 14 Dr. Herring the correct procedure for cause — for allowing 15 her daughter to come out of status epilepticus. ,Dr.
Herring/ when tho seizure began and, in fact, Stevelyn 17 Tucker hod an aura and knew the seizure was to begin because
that was how her seizures manifested themselves* Dr. 19 Herring gave her Vallum IM, that is intramuscularly. The 20 testimony was simply overwhelming in the case, as 1 have ?.i previously indicated, that that is .not effective in these 22 circumstances. Most Badly, Carolyn Tucker was on the phone 23 trying to locate her daughter whom she spoke to regularly 24 most every evening. At first, there was some confusion 25 about where che was, and ultimately she was able to talk to

FROM

11.82.1995 12:34

P. 8
40

of tho modicnl personnel. She had told all of the

medical personnel when her daughter was Admitted in March of

1991 that when these events occurred, she had in |the past

BuccoGsfully been treated with Valium intravenously. She

also had told them that she had very severe seizures. On

the phone that night, she told Dr. Herring they had to start

Valium intravenously. That is, of 'course, the prescribed

8 method of treatment. But the seizure continued for three or
i
four hours. Dr. Herring did not start the proper procedure.

10 Ultimately, Stevelyn Tucker was transported to Lebonheur

Hospital where, of course, she lingered close to death and

now one of tho highest functioning individuals at that

13 institution, a person who could speak, a person Who could

14 lead a clone to normal life for someone in that

15 circumstance, a person who had wanted to go to Arlington so

16 ohe could be with people like herself because it was hard

17 going to school in middle Tennessee and this was a better

18 institution for her, that person now is deprived of any

19 chance whatsoever of fulfilling those goals. It's a tragic

20 thing that happened that day, but it was the Arlington way

21 because Dr. Herring was not disciplined* In the mortality

22 review Dr. Herring was not sanctioned and he's still there

23 at Arlington Development Center.

24

Jinutile Davis talked about her sister Bobbie. I

25 brought the photographs of Ms. — of her sister here,

FROM

11.02.1995 12:35

P. 9

Barbara S. I'm not going to show you those photographs

because she has got terrible bruising, terrible bruising on

the front of her body, black eyes. When she went to

Arlington, that wasn't the circumstance. The superintendent

when confronted with the evidence said she couldn't* have

done this to herself, and the Court agrees, but the

investigation blamed it on the resident, a common phenomenon

e at Arlington. Of course, the residents have trouble with
1
credibility becauoe they are there because of their mental •

10 or physical disabilities. No effective investigation was
11 conducted.

12.

Peggy Moore testified regarding her brother Mac.

13 Mrs. Moore'B mother is now 74 years old and she took care of

14 Mac for approximately 40 years of his life. Mac was finally

15 placed at Arlington. He was a large individual, apparently

16 very gregarious, cat at the table, enjoyed eating with the

17 family. The family noted that he ate too fast, so they 18 would say, "Mac, don't eat so fast,11 or "Mac, slow down,

19 it's not going to go away." He would respond to that.

20 Finally, because of his mother's advanced age and because of

21 his disabilities, he was placed at Arlington. When he went

22 to Arlington, he weighed about 230 pounds. He was a large

23 person. He was also a very tall person. Arlington, of

24 course, put him on a diet to where eventually he got down to

25 140. I think the diet just continued, nobody really

' T

FROM

11.02.1995 12:35

P. 10
42

1 monitored it that much. It was very inconvenient:to have a

2 large patient that they couldn't handle very well, although

3 Mac could respond to verbal commands, but anyway, he was —

4 his weight was greatly reduced. He ultimately died as a

5 result of his eating disorder, fiheryl McCollum teotified

G regarding her Ron Eric, There was other testimony about

7 Eric in the record. Eric has two dislocated hips, but

8 apparently thai; wasn't noted for some period of time at

9 Arlington. Mrs. McCollum was understandably upset when she

XO went on a recent visit to him because she found him soaked

11 in urine. !*• wan not uncommon for people who made

12 observations at Arlington to find situations in which

13 patients had not been cleaned up, and on occasion,

14 apparently Arlington personnel would say, ••!£ we;had known

15 you were coming, we would have cleaned him or heir up."

16

Sam Nuckolls testified in this case regarding his

17 eon. His son had severe disabilities, but had lived at home

18 and had been taught to help ~ considerable amount of

19 self'help. He had been taught to feed himself with a spoon.

20 He had been tnught to hold the cup and drink water from a

21 straw. He had been taught to stand and they had worked hard

22 so he could bo an active and bright young man despite his

23 disabilities. Mr. Nuckolls determined that it was

24 appropriate for his son to be placed at Arlington. I think

25 it is fair to say that Arlington makes a good superficial

FROM

11.02.1995 12:36

P. 11
43

presentation and that roost individuals would expect that the

institution could provide adequate care. His son was placed

at Arlington and regressed greatly. He lost his ability to

hold a cup or do those other things that he had been taught

to do. The expert testimony establishes that in this, case,

individuals have to be trained repeatedly. They can't

simply remember from long periods of time how to $o a

6 function. And if they're not consistently helped and

reminded, if they don't use that function regulariy, they

10 will lose that part of their life which has been enriched.

11 That happened with Mr- Nuckolla' son. An interesting thing

12 also happened, they — Mr. Nuckolls, of course, as with all

13 parents who ie concerned about the health and welfare of his

14 child, they wanted to strengthen his leg muscles and they

15 bought a prone standor that allows the individual to be

16 placed in the standing position. It improves their muscle

17 tone. It assists them to the degree that they can to avoid

18 regression and aloo hopefully to have some actual

id improvement over long periods of time.

20

After awhile, he noticed that the leg stander

21 seemed to always be in the same place when they came to

22 visit his son. So he simply put something on the stander so

23 he could see if anybody moved it or used it. And when they

24 came back later, not immediately later, but some days later

25 as you or 1 might now suspect, it had not been used. That

FROM

11.02.1995 12:36

P. 12

device, which should be used on a regular basis, which

physical therapy would require its use, was not used at all.

Peggy Ann Perkins Derringer also testified

regarding her daughter Heather. • Heather/ when she went to

Arlington was able to ride a big wheel. She could walk and

run and was a happy, bright child. 8he could swim. In

fact, during that part of the testimony, or some part of the

8 testimony, I asked about the pool at Arlington because I

knew that they hod a pool, but it turned out that it doesn't

10 have any water in it and haBn't for a number of years. But

XI anyway, she went, to the — she went to Arlington because her

12 mother at the time could not continue to provide the care

13 needed and they had a number of children. Her mother since

14 has gone on to become, it's my recollection, a nurse, and is

15 now, I believe, at St. Jude Hospital, but — at One of the

16 hospitals here in Memphis.

17

Her daughter is no longer at Arlington and has now

18 had some surgery which considerably improved her condition.

19 But the reason that her daughter didn't have that surgery

20 earlier, the reason that her daughter didn't have that

21 surgery at Arlington -- and let me say this about her.

22 situation, it was clear front the record that her daughter's

23 condition at Arlington as of the condition of other children

24 that I have described, deteriorated at Arlington, Now, we

25 all understand that there may be some deterioration with

FROM
4
i

11.02.1995 12i37

P. 13

o£ this patient population, but these individual©
suffered deterioration which VOLB notbecause of the natural
progression of the condition/ At was tho result of failure to provide appropriate care, a failure to provide physical therapy on a regular and consistent basis, a failure to provide any program which would allow them to continue or havo eome reasonable hope of continuing to have those few things in life which made life enjoyable or pleasant. Why didn't her daughter have the surgery while she was at 10 Arlington? why did eho have it later? She didn't have.that 11 surgery because the doctor who recommended surgery to 12 correct strictures that had occurred because of the fact 13 that her child had been placed in a wheelchair and not been 14 allowed to ambulate as she should have been allowed to 15 ambulate, bocauso the doctor told her, and it was part of the record in this case in Exhibit 202, and at least 17 Arlington was on notice of this, even if it wasn't a major IB factor, but the doctor told her that Arlington couldn't 19 provide appropriate follow-up care. It was because of the 20 poor quality of! physical therapy at Arlington Development 21 Center. That's consistent with all of the testimony 22 regarding physical therapy at Arlington Development Center*
All of those recent examples that X have given to 24 you are examples of the Arlington way. A system designed 25 a system that follows a policy of convenience for employees

FROM

1 1.02. 1995

12:37

P. 14
46

of casting the blame on a resident where there

be, some*

fault of an employee, a failure to investigate, because;there

is a policy of virtually no discipline of employs'es at

Arlington Development Center in most oases.

A defense witness in this case, Dr. Philip Siring,

chairman of the Department of Pediatric at Chicago Medical

School testified about the difficulty of changing an

institutional culture. Dr. Ziring had been at Willowbrook,

a very large institution in the State of New York, which,

10 according to Dr. Ziring, was the institution, and the case

11 that resulted in the enactment of CRIPA. Arlington

12 Development Center has the same problems that Dr. Ziring

13 identified at Willowbrook.

14

There are, of course, a number of specific actions

15 which may be appropriate for a remedial order in this case.

16 It is, however, the pervasive policy of elevating employee

17 rights over the civil rights of residents that underlies the

18 violations of rights in this case.

19

The Court will enter a very brief injunction, in

20 essence, a preliminary injunction in this case to deal with

21 the immediate threat to human life at Arlington Development

22 Center. That order will be entered this afternoon and will

23 be quite brief.

24 •

The Court will also enter a broader injunction

after a 15-day opportunity for the State of Tennessee to

FROM

11.8.2.1995 12:38

P. 15
47

1 comment on the proposed injunctive order submitted by the

2 United States In this case. The Court finds that the

3 injunctlve order submitted by the United States generally

4 covers those areas appropriate for relief in this case.

5

Additionally, the Court will file additional

6 findings of fact in this case to supplement the oral

7 findings of the Court which were made here today• Finally/

0 the Court will require the State of Tennessee, that is the

9 Commissioner in this case, to submit a plan to remedy the

10 violations of constitutional rights and the deprivation of

11 educational opportunities found to exist in this case. That

12 plan, after consultation with the United States, should l;e

13 submitted by no later than Friday, January 21, 1994 at 5»00

14 p.m.

15

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes these

16 proceedings for today.

17

MRS. BOOKER: M l rise, please. This Court is in

18 recess until 2:00 o'clock.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FROM

11.82.1995 12:38

P. 16

CERTIFICATE
I, hUENDA PARKER, do hereby certify that the foregoing 47 pages are, to the best of my knowledge, skill and ability, a true and accurate transcript from my etenotype notes of the opinion of the Court on November 22, 1993/ in the matter of:

United States of America vs. State of Tennessee, et al.
Dated this 6th day of December, 1993.
IAk BRENDA W>ARKER Official Court Reporter United States Dietrict Court western District of Tennessee

***END***

 
 U.S. v. Tennessee

MR-TN-003-007

IN T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED BY

D.C.

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT- OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

9UFEB I 8 AH11=51

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

ROBERT H. Di TROUO CLERK, U.S. DIST. CT. W.D. OF TN. MEMPHIS

v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, Ned Wherter, Governor of the State of Tennessee; Evelyn C. Robertson, Jr., Director, Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; Mona Reeves-Winfrey, Superintendent, Arlington Developmental Center,

No. 92-2062-M1/A
CERTIFI BOB BXJC
DEPUTY. CLERK

Defendants.

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT

These findings of fact supplement the Court's oral ruling delivered on November 22, 1993, and attached as Addendum I.
1. The Arlington Developmental Center (hereinafter "ADC") is a state operated, residential mental retardation facility housing approximately 432 developmentally disabled persons located in Arlington, Tennessee. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 149; Ex. 244.)
2. ADC's population consists primarily of individuals currently assessed as severely or profoundly retarded or developmentally disabled, some of whom have associated physical

dQeument ent U ) FHCP on_

on docket sheet in compliance.jsiti_Bule 58

handicaps, medical problems, or behavior problems. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 390-91; Ex. 244.)
3. Developmental disabilities include such conditions as cerebral palsy and mental retardation. (Hyman, Tr. Vol..Ill at 390-91.) Persons with mental retardation have substantial limitations in present functioning, characterized by significantly sub-average intellectual functioning existing concurrently with limitations in applicable adaptive skill areas, e.g.. communication, self-care, social skills, self-direction, safety, functional academics, leisure and work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 29.)
4. The functional capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of persons with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities cannot be determined absent appropriate evaluation, analysis and treatment implementation, individualized to the particular person in question. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 43, 49; Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV, generally and at 775-76, 878.)
5. Persons with developmental disabilities, including mental retardation, require treatment through the use of an individualized assessment and treatment plan, known as the Individual Habilitation Plan (IHP) at Arlington. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 49; Winfrey, Tr. at 136.)
- 2 -

6. Services for persons with developmental disabilities, including mental retardation, must be developed on an individual basis by a properly constituted interdisciplinary team. An interdisciplinary team must consist of, at a minimum, those individuals who provide both clinical and direct care services for the particular individual, including any specialty services, such as speech and hearing, communication, psychiatry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and any others whose presence is necessary to ensure each individual's needs are met. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 588; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 155-56; Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 811.)
7. ADC's mission statement and obligation is to provide a broad array of services to residents in accordance with their needs which are identified in Individualized Habilitation Plans which institutional staff design for each individual. (Reeves-Winfrey, Tr. at 135; Ex. 241-44, 258.)
8. Since early 1993, Arlington has been engaged in improving its data collection system, case management system, clinical aspects of behavior analysis, activities and training system on the Daniel Boone, Spruce, and Davy Crockett units, and the quality management program, with the assistance of Behavior Management Consultants, Inc. Arlington plans to continue with those improvements and to expand them to all living units at ADC pursuant to a contract which extends to June 30, 1994. (Cox, Tr,
- 3-

at 287-90; Riordan, Tr. at 525-27; Mozingo, Tr. at 425-26; Reeves-Winfrey, Tr. at 53-5; Bailey, Tr. at 609.)
9. However, the evidence shows that the conditions at Arlington Developmental Center in 1990, 1991 and 1992, at the time of testimony (even after the improvements listed above) and continuing through the present, do not comply with minimal requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendants fail to protect ADC residents from harm and fail to provide a safe and humane environment at ADC. (Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2845.)
10. Defendants are failing to provide residents with reasonable care and a reasonably safe environment. ADC residents are subjected to serious harm and undue risks of harm due to inadequate supervision which results, at least in part, from insufficient numbers of staff and inadequate training of the staff available given the current number of residents at the facility. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 48, 62-3, 67-8, 72; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 261; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2766.)
11. During the past three years, ADC's own records demonstrate that there have been over 6100 reported injuries to ADC residents. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 79-80; Ex. 6, 7.)
12. Arlington has a system of policies and procedures for documenting incidents and injuries in which residents are
- 4-

involved. (Cox, Tr. at 307-09, 331; Reeves-Winfrey, Tr. at 6465; Bailey, Tr. at 685-86; Ex. 285, 286.) Arlington compiles statistics concerning incidents and injuries, and analyzes the data for identification of trends and ways to possibly reduce the incident rate. (Cox, Tr. at 308-14; Reeves-Winfrey, Tr. at 6971; Ex. 287, 288.) However, ADC's recordkeeping system is inadequate and inaccurate. Thus, the 6100 reported injuries under-represents the actual number of injuries that occurred at ADC. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 85-86; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 305-06; Reeves-Winfrey, Tr. at 186-97; Cox, Tr. at 394-411; Ex. 11.)
13. The ADC staff is not properly trained and accordingly they do not accurately record injuries or report them in a uniform manner. This results in data collection which is insufficient to develop behavior development plans. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 84-90; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2766-83; Cox, Tr. at 394; Ex. 295.)

14. Defendants fail to meet their own direct care staff"1 to resident ratios on three shifts of 1:4 (day), 1:4 (evening) and 1:8 (night); ratios are regularly much higher than that, at times as high as one staff member for 16 residents. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 64, 66; Ex. 3-5; Christian rebuttal,

C

The term "direct care staff" includes Developmental Technicians (OTs) and Developmental Technician

Trainers (DTTs) as described in the Superintendent's testimony.

- 5-

Tr. at 2763-64, 2766-68; Reeves-Winfrey, Tr. at 136-37, 149-50.) Even where 1:4 staffing was present, direct care staff members often worked with only a single individual, leaving many others idle. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 69; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 226-28; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2762-64; Ex. 24, 26, 428.)
15. The training and skills of direct care staff are grossly substandard. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 48, 68; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. II at 1347-49.) Direct care staff and supervisors need additional training in recording and reporting of injuries, and in the supervision of residents sufficient to ensure the residents' safety. (Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 276668.) Many direct care staff do not fulfill their responsibilities for the care of the residents entrusted to them. (Ex. 24, 25.) Direct care staff often leave residents unattended or ignore residents when they require attention, particularly when they are engaging in self-injurious behaviors. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 194-95; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2773-7'4.)
16. Many of the injuries suffered by ADC residents are serious, including numerous major fractures, lacerations, which required stitches, and major bruises and abrasions. Residents have also lost their sight. Examples of such injuries are: Sandra H. and Mary B. lost sight in at least one eye from altercations with other residents. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 92.) Grace M.'s elbow was pulverized. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I
- 6-

at 88.) Ronny S., a blind resident, lost part of a finger when another resident slainmed a door on it. Anthony W. broke his arm in a shower; Dottie B. broke six ribs. There are a number of fractures of unknown origin. Residents (e.g.. Gary B., M.G. H.) were "discovered" with lacerations and large bruises which ADC lists as of unknown origin. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 97;
Ex. 9-10.) • - • • ' . .
17. ADC's supervision is so deficient that one resident, Adrian J., was bitten 22 times by another resident in a single incident. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 97; Bailey, Tr. at 860; Ex. 6-7, 9-10, 20, 23, 127-95.) As of March 1993, Adrian was still being bitten.123
18. In addition to these severe injuries, ADC residents suffered thousands of other injuries during this period. These injuries included cuts, scratches, abrasions, bruises, and bumps. (EX. 6, 186-90, 193-95.)
19. Defendants identify many of the injuries to ADC residents as from "unknown" causes, meaning no staff were present at the time the injury occurred to witness the event. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 80-81; Cox, Tr. at 385-402; Ex. 6-7, 10.)
Examples identified in these proposed findings of fact do not constitute a complete recitation of all incidents supporting a particular finding. The examples are simply illustrations of the deficiencies supported in the record.
- 7-

20. Defendants do not sufficiently investigate and respond to injuries to residents and permit repeated injuries to the same residents. (Reeves-Winfrey, Tr. at 186-92; Cox, Tr. at 373, 391, 393; Davis, Tr. at 1792-93; Ex. 23, 127-90, 193-95, 270.)
21. Staffing ratios for clients such as the majority of those at ADC should be no less than that required to reasonably ensure the safety of the residents. A ratio of 1:4 is a general guideline, but many residents with self-injurious or aggressive behavior may require higher staffing ratios, including some who require 1:1 ratios for the safety of themselves and other residents. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 308, 311-12, 316; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1346-47.)
22. ADC does not appropriately investigate or pursue reported instances of abuse (or severe neglect which could amount to abuse) of residents by staff members. (Reb. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1432-41; Derringer, Tr. Vol. IX at 1861-68, 1871; McCollum, Tr. Vol. IX at 1839-51; Davis, Tr. Vol. IX at 1788-1802; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1354; Ex. 90, 127-90, 193-95.)
23. Conditions at ADC regarding reasonable care and safety are a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards. These conditions continue to be unsafe, subjecting residents to injury or a serious risk of injury.
- 8-

(Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 56-58; Christian rebuttal, Tr- at 2767.)
DEPENDANTS' HABILITATION, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES AND RELATED TRAINING ARE SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT
24. Defendants' habilitation, psychology services, and training for these services are a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 262.)
25. Arlington employs an interim Assistant Superintendent for Programming Services who also serves as Director of Psychology. (Cox, Tr. at 268.) In the psychology department, there are positions for three staff•behavior management specialists, one additional Ph.D. staff psychologist, six master's level staff psychological examiners, and six staff counselling associates. In addition, there are contracts for part-time work for one Ph.D. counselling psychologist and two master's level psychological examiners, and two graduate students also provide assistance. (Cox, Tr. at 271-72.) Three of the positions for psychological examiner are currently unfilled. (Cox, Tr. at 273.)
26. Defendants fail to regulate and review the use of restraints, in any meaningful way, which cause harm to ADC
- 9 -

residents or subjects them to significant risk of harm. (Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2794, 2818-21.)
27. Many residents of ADC exhibit behavior problems and injure themselves or others. Professionally developed and implemented behavioral training programs, referred to as Behavior Development Programs (BDPs) at ADC, are generally accepted by professionals as the means of addressing, ameliorating and eliminating, to the extent possible, maladaptive behaviors. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 120-23, 125, 126; Christian Tr. Vol. II at 257.)
28. Very few of the BDPs at ADC provide replacement behaviors or skill acquisition components as professionally required. Additionally, ADC programs are deficient in properly analyzing the causes of maladaptive behaviors, e.g.. there is no functional analysis. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 186-87, 257-58; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1324; See Ex. 92 (ADC informed of need for functional analysis by staff psychologist.in 1991).)
. 29. As a result of inappropriate staff responses to resident behaviors, such as rewarding inappropriate behavior or failing to reinforce appropriate behavior, residents develop and continue dangerous maladaptive behaviors which, in turn, lead to increased numbers of injuries. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 194-95, 203-10, 327, 335; See Ex. 14, 31.)
- 10 -

30. Defendants' failure to provide and implement adequate traininq proqrams has led to residents enqaqinq in selfinjurious, aggressive or other dangerous behaviors. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 81; Tr. at 625 (staff must be constantly vigilant); See Ex. 21, 14, 31.) Residents have gouged their faces, destroyed their ears, cut and bruised themselves and broken arms and ribs. (Ex. 6, 7, 127-190, 193-95.)
31. Examples of injuries occurring as a result of ADC's failure to provide appropriate programs include: Philip R. banged his head so frequently that his lower jaw was constantly injured, open, or covered with scar tissue. He subsequently died. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 108; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 306, 340.) Resident Harry J. picks at a "hole11 he has developed on his cheek from his maladaptive behavior. Althouqh this resident continues to pick at the hole in his cheek, his program has been discontinued. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 106; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 164.) Leroy P. has had repeated surgeries to remove plastic bags and other objects he has ingested from his intestinal tract. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 108, Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 172-73.) Other residents have vomited foreign objects they have eaten. Carol W. banqs her nose and hand mouths. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 171-72; Mozinqo, Tr. at 500-01; Ex. 24.) Dwight C. bites numerous residents, some on multiple occasions. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 178-80; Ex. 23.) Other
- 11 -

residents exhibit significant scarring from the multiple, repeated injuries each has suffered. (Ex. 6, 7, 12, 13.)
32. Defendants are failing to provide individualized, professionally designed behavior programs to all of the residents of ADC who need or can benefit from them. This is due, in part, to defendant's failure to recognize both the severity ofresidents' behaviors (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 48-49 and their capacity for growth and development. (See Ex. 308.) Presently, only 68 ADC residents have behavior training programs. Many more residents need such programs. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 130; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1324; Ex. 18, 88.)
33. Programs to teach adaptive behaviors, including selfhelp skills, communication, social?skills, and skills to enhance independence, are essential to the physical and mental health and safety of residents. Such programs are not professionally designed and/or implemented at ADC. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 31; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 122-23, 256, 261; .Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 809-10.)
34. Defendants' failure to provide and implement programs which both reduce and replace maladaptive behavior and foster acquisition and maintenance of adaptive behaviors, due to the lack of adequate numbers of properly trained and supervised staff, has led to an increase in serious maladaptive behaviors by
- 12 -

residents that has resulted in injuries to themselves and other residents. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 48; Vol. II at 190-91, 26162.)
35. Defendants' behavior programs focus solely on the reduction of inappropriate behaviors. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 782.) The psychiatrists and psychologists at ADC are not involved in the planning for total programming, including skill acquisition. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. V at 877-78, 937.)
36. Idleness among persons with developmental disabilities may lead to the development of maladaptive behaviors even in residents who do not currently exhibit such behaviors. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 192-94, 262.) Many ADC residents sit idle for prolonged periods of time,with nothing to do and without any stimulating interaction with staff. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 194-96; Szymanski, Tr. Vol. V at 822-24; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2763.)
37. ADC does not provide residents at ADC (including those who are nonverbal and/or nonambulatory) needed, .consistent, positive interaction. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 162; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1348; Ex. 90, 91.)
38. No psychologist at ADC, including the Director of Psychology, has the necessary experience in behavioral psychology
- 13 -

or has been adequately trained in behavioral psychology. (Christian, Tr- Vol.!-II at 257, 301-02.) As the consequence, they are not able to adequately develop and implement training programs for residents with aggressive, self-abusive and other dangerous behaviors. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 278-79, 301-02.)
39. The few programs on the Daniel Boone unit, ADC's "model unit" for behavior training, are deficient in that they fail to adequately address skill acquisition, they are not based upon reliable, objective criteria and accurate data, (Cox, Tr. at 395-97, 402.) and they are not being appropriately and consistently implemented. (Riordan, Tr. at 566-67; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2767-69.)
40. Lack of adequately trained direct care staff has led to direct care staff being unfamiliar with the training programs for those residents for whose care they are responsible. (Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1347; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2760, 2766, 2768.) This results in programs not being followed or properly implemented. Additionally, some direct care staff simply fail to implement training programs. (Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2772-73, 2784-86, 2801-03.)
41. Defendant's failure to monitor and regulate the use of restraints, both physical and chemical, at ADC is a substantial departure from professional judgment, practice, or standards.
- 14 -

(Cox, Tr. at 376-80, 383-84; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1338-39; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2818-20; Ex. 289, 290.)
42. Defendants have no restraint log, making necessary behavior management and human rights review of restraint usage at ADC impossible. (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 51, 53; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2818.) Residents are subjected to physical restraints, i.e.. helmets or mitts, to control their selfdestructive behaviors in lieu of training programs designed to reduce or eliminate such behaviors. In other cases, Defendants are failing to use restraints temporarily with an appropriate behavior program even where residents are exposed to serious, potentially life-threatening danger. (Rol. Palmer, Tr. at 132732; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2821.)
•»
43. The Behavior Management and Human Rights Committees at ADC do not function in a professional manner (Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 56; Christian Vol. II at 233-35, 239, 260-61.) and exercise no professional judgment.
44. Many injuries, the use of restraints, and the intensity of maladaptive behaviors exhibited by residents could be prevented or ameliorated if residents had appropriate training programs and Defendants provided sufficient numbers of adequately trained staff to implement them. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 261-62; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2844-45; See Ex. 14, 31.)
- 15 -

45. Defendants' failure to review and update residents' training programs is due, in part, to insufficient numbers of psychologists and other professional staff at ADC, as well as inadequately trained professional staff, as stated above. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 243.)
46. Notwithstanding Defendants' claims that improvements in training and psychological services have recently been made, habilitation and training programs and psychological services, even on Daniel Boone unit, continue to be a substantial departure from accepted judgment, practice or standards, which subject residents to harm. (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 262; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2766-67.)
MEDICAL CARE AND RELATED HEALTH SERVICES ARE GROSSLY DEFICIENT
47. Defendants' medical care and related health services in those areas listed below are grossly deficient, and are resulting in unnecessary resident illnesses, deformities, suffering and death.
48. Arlington employs four full-time primary care physicians and a medical director, each appropriately licensed. There is a fifth physician position that is currently unfilled. On-site physician coverage is provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week. (McLemore, Tr. at 1700-02.)
- 16 -

49. Within 24 hours of admission, each new resident receives a physical examination by one of the staff physicians, including a comprehensive array of routine tests, as well as tests pertinent to the resident's specific medical conditions. Thereafter, routine physical examinations and standard lab tests are performed on an.annual basis. All residents receive routine immunizations, including immunizations against hepatitis. Residents are provided with routine gynecological and ophthalmological exams and mammograms. (McLemore, Tr. at 1702-05, 1710-11.)
50. On-site resources include a pharmacy, laboratory, x-ray (24 hours a day/7 days a week), EEG, EKG, ultrasound, and mammography. Other specialized diagnostic testing is available at area hospitals. Laboratory test results are obtained overnight or can be obtained on an immediate basis, as needed. (McLemore, Tr. at 1710-11.)
51. Regular, on-site specialty consultation clinics are currently conducted in neurology, psychiatry, ophthalmology, gynecology, and gastroenterology. A broad array of other off-site specialty consultations are also available and regularly utilized. There are no outside medical consultations providing needed services that Arlington is unable to obtain. (McLemore, Tr. at 1712-14.)
- 17 -

52. The system of primary health care at Arlington is a residential model, with each physician assigned a specific living unit/caseload. (McLemore, Tr. at 1706.) Daily rounds to each living unit by each physician are one aspect of the system for identifying potential medical problems and follow-up and. monitoring of previously identified conditions. (McLemore, Tr. at 1706, 1723.) Laboratory reports and reports from specialized consultations are delivered to the nursing clinics located in each living unit area, are available during daily rounds, and are to be reviewed by the physician and placed in the resident's chart. (McLemore, Tr. at 1715-16.)
53. Defendants have recently signed a one year contract with the University of Tennessee to provide some essential medical services to ADC residents,*the terms of the contract are conditional and for no longer than one year. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 624-25.)
54. Notwithstanding Defendants' claims that improvements have recently been made in the provision of medical care, any such improvements have not remedied the grossly inadequate care, which continues to subject residents to avoidable suffering, morbidity and mortality. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 648.)
- 18 -

Feeding Practices and Medical Management of Feeding—Related Disorders
55. Defendants' feeding practices at Arlington are dangerous, life-threatening, result in harm to residents, and continue to place residents at unreasonable risk of harm. These practices are a substantial departure from accepted professional standards or practices. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 403-05, 417; Therriault, Tr. Vol. V at 993; and McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1237-38.)
56. Such practices (e.g., bird feeding; inappropriately positioning residents before, during and after meals; feeding residents too much, too fast, the wrong diet or food of inappropriate texture; and inadequately supervising residents while they are eating) have caused, and continue to cause, increased risk of reflux, gagging, choking, aspiration, aspiration pneumonia, asphyxiation and death among ADC residents. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1237-38; Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 403-17; Therriault, Tr. Vol. V at 1000-01, 1008-16; Hinkle, Tr. at 2075-76, 2084-92; Hyman, video rebuttal Ex. 441; McEwen rebuttal, Tr. at 2912-14; Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 2868-69.)
57. ADC places residents in bed immediately after they have eaten, a practice which increases the risk of reflux, choking and aspiration. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 405; Drews, Tr. at 1245-1246.) This practice, euphemistically termed "bedroom
- 19 -

leisure" by ADC (See Therriault. rebuttal, Tr. at 2884), is medically inappropriate and serves no legitimate medical or programming purpose and is a substantial departure from accepted professional standards. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 403-05.)
5S. Significant measures have been taken within the last year to address the seating/positioning needs of residents as they relate to feeding. (Payne, Tr. at 955-56; Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 679-85; See Ex. 53-57, 327.) A number of facility-wide changes related to staff position while feeding, portion control, pace of feeding, increased individualization of feeding techniques, increased use of appropriate adaptive equipment, and improved positioning of residents through changes in adaptive seating systems, has resulted in some reduction in inappropriate feeding practices. (Drews, Tr. at»1240-43; Hinkle, Tr. at 2033-38.) However, dangerous feeding practices at ADC are still life-threatening and result in harm to residents. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 403-05; Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 2869.)
59. Even though some of ADC residents have feeding programs, there are too few properly trained staff to effectively implement the programs. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1237-38; Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 408-12; Therriault, Tr. Vol. V at 1034-36; McEwen rebuttal, Tr. at 2910-14; Hyman video rebuttal Ex. 441; . Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 2868-78.)
- 20 -

60. With the recent staff increase at ADC, there are now two full-time swallowing therapists, both speech pathologists. (Andreas, Tr. at 1086; Hinkle, Tr. at 2032.) There are also three full-time speech pathologists who function part-time as swallowing therapists and three occupational therapists (two part-time) who function as swallowing therapists a portion of each day and a part-time feeding therapist consultant. (Hinkle, Tr. at 2032-33.) The swallowing therapist's dual role is to provide direct feeding-related services and to act as case managers to ensure that the components of the dysphagia management system are coordinated to meet the multi-disciplinary needs of the residents. (See Andreas, Tr. at 1052-58, 1069-71.) Both direct and consultative services are being provided by William Hinkle, Ph.D. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 431; Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 664, 672; Andreas, Tr. tit 957.)
61. Following an initial facility-wide screening to prioritize at-risk individuals (Hinkle, Tr. at 2013), three basic methods now result in a resident's entry into the feeding/swallowing management system: referrals from staff and the team process; the swallowing therapist's systematic review of all dining plans in all living units; and evaluation at the time of each resident's annual staffing. (Hinkle, Tr. at 2013-15, 2019; Andreas, Tr. at 1052.) Newly developed dining plans exist for many residents and the process is on-going. (Hinkle, Tr. at 2018-19.)
- 21 -

62. However, these newly developed resident "dining plans," which indicate that individual, staff members have been trained to implement individual feeding programs, contain multiple irregularities and staff give inconsistent statements about the training they have actually received. Some staff admitted they had not been trained, and even those that said they had received training did not follow the practices listed in the plans as they fed residents. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 410-13; Therriault, Tr. Vol. V at 1020-22, 1029-36; McEwen rebuttal, Tr. at 1920-12; Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 2870-72; and Hyman, video rebuttal Ex. 441.)
63. Sufficient numbers of adequately trained staff are not available at Arlington to monitor residents at mealtimes (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 464, 469, 489) and*while the residents are in postural drainage. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 492; Hyman, video rebuttal Ex. 441.)
64. Defendants' use of postural drainage at Arlington (i.e.f placing residents in a head down position for long periods of time unattended) is dangerous and subjects residents to substantial risk of harm. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 492-94.)
65. Defendants fail to provide proper medical management of residents with feeding-related disorders and illnesses, including dysphagia, reflux and respiratory illnesses associated with
- 22 -

aspiration and reflux. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 429-30.) Defendants' failure to properly diagnose and treat these disorders has harmed residents and continues to harm residents and place residents at unreasonable risk of harm. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 429-35.)
66. Although fully apprised of these dangerous practices by the United States on a number of different occasions, Defendants failed to take sufficient steps to eliminate them. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 435.) Defendants' failure to act, even upon their own consultants' recommendations, has resulted in residents suffering unnecessary illnesses and even death. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 445-50, 478-80.)
67. At least 28 residents have died from aspiration or reflux related causes within the last six years, and in many of these cases inadequate and improper care and medical treatment directly contributed to the continuing ill health and deaths of these residents. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 450-60, 463-65, 469-71, 476-91.)
- 23 -

Vision, Hearing and Communication
68. Defendants fail to adequately provide for the visual, hearing and communication needs of the residents, (Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 159), preventing or at least significantly limiting residents with these needs from benefitting from any educational, behavior modification, or social affective programs or any other training or programming. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 788-90.)
Acute and Chronic Seizure Management
69. The management of residents with chronic seizures is a substantial departure from professionally accepted clinical practice. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 388-89, 501, 507, 546-47.) Defendants do not properly monitor*and treat ADC residents with seizure disorders. ADC keeps residents on anticonvulsants they no longer need, keeps them on sub-therapeutic or potentially toxic levels of medication for months (and in some cases, a year or more) with no rationale documenting the efficacy of this for the residents involved. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 501-74.)
70. Residents who have not had seizures for over six years are kept on one or more anticonvulsant, exposing them to the potentially harmful side effects of these medications, with no documentation as to why such medication has been continued and without plans to reduce the number of medications. (Hyman, Tr.
- 24 -

Vol. Ill at 503-10.) ADC fails to monitor blood levels to ensure that medication levels are appropriate. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 512-28, 530-38.)
71. ADC does not adequately track seizures and seizure medication to ensure that a record is maintained of each seizure. Proper tracking is necessary to ensure appropriate use of" medication. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 502-03; Therriault, Tr. Vol. Ill at 1641-43; Hyman rebuttal Tr. at 2892, 2896.)
72. Although many residents are maintained on one anticonvulsant medication (monotherapy), some residents are inappropriately maintained on more than one anticonvulsant medication (polypharmacy) for years without requisite plans to reduce the number of medications. •» (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 504, 530, 534-41.) In several cases where monotherapy has been recently attempted and has failed (i.e., in some cases one medication is not sufficient to control the individuals' seizures), ADC physicians have failed to recognize the limitations of monotherapy for these residents and have continued to leave them on one anticonvulsant despite significant increases in these residents' seizures once monotherapy began, resulting in harm to these residents. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 518-20, 541-43, 545-47, 571-72.)
- 25 -

73. Defendants' emergency response and medical treatment of acute seizure events is grossly inadequate. For example, ADC medical staff continue to treat status epilepticus, a condition with a high rate of morbidity and mortality, with intra-muscular (I.M.) medications — a practice soundly rejected by the.medical profession. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 547-48, 550-51, 556, 566-71.) In one case,, a higher-functioning, 15 year-old was treated with only I.M. valium during a three hour seizure. The inappropriate treatment resulted in severe, irreversible brain damage. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 551-66.)
74. ADC physicians have inadequate experience with and lack of basic knowledge of both chronic and acute seizure management, and fail to properly utilize outside consultants, resulting in harm to residents and placing residents at substantial risk of harm. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 534, 542, 573-78.)
Medication Use and Monitoring
75. Defendants' failures to prescribe medications appropriately, to adequately monitor blood levels, and to recognize and monitor harmful side effects is a substantial departure from accepted judgment, practice, or standards and has harmed residents and continues to harm residents and place them at substantial risk of harm. (Hyman, Tr. at 580-87; Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 597-02, 604-13; Hyman, video rebuttal Ex. 441.)
- 26 -

76. Various medications, medical procedures, and their effects are not understood or appreciated by ADC's medical staff. For example, the blood level of one resident was not monitored appropriately and she died of theophylline toxicity. (Hyman, Tr. at vol. Ill at 597-02.) Another resident was given four.enemas in a 12 hour period and subsequently died from the effects of a high sodium level caused by the enema solution. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 582-86.) Another resident was maintained on a toxic level of a psychotropic, stelazine, resulting in serious physical and behavioral side effects, and perhaps contributing to his choking to death because of the drug's known effect to increase appetite and decrease swallowing and gagging reflexes. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 604-13.)
Orthopedic Management
77. Defendants fail to provide timely and accurate diagnoses and treatment for acute orthopedic trauma, as well as for chronic and progressive orthopedic disorders, resulting in residents suffering unnecessary pain, disfigurement and loss of mobility and function. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 619-20, 632-33, 637-47.)
78. Defendants misdiagnose fractures and fail to diagnose them in a timely fashion. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 645, 647.)
- 27 -

Training and Response to Medical Emergencies
79. Staff training for and responses to medical emergencies at ADC are grossly inadequate, have harmed residents and continue to place residents at an unreasonable risk of harm. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 441-44, 464, 469-70, 552-56; Hyman, video rebuttal Ex. 441.)
Peer Review, Including Mortality Review
80. Defendants' investigations of injuries, abuse allegations and deaths are perfunctory, and rarely result in any corrective action. The causes or circumstances of an inordinate number of serious incidents, injuries, and deaths are unknown and unexplained. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill*at 558-66; Vol. IV at 602, 613; Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 97, 99; Rol. Palmer, Vol. VII at 1390-91; Reb. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1433-41.)
Medical Staffing and Use of Consultants
81. There are too few adequately trained and supervised medical personnel at ADC. (Hyman, Tr. at 410-12, 418, 435, 480; Christian, Tr. Vol. I at 48, 72, 127; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 257.)
- 28 -

82. Defendants fail to employ or utilize needed medical consultants, (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 578), and, in those cases where they do seek consultants' recommendations, they do not act upon them quickly, if at all. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 448-49; Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 648-49.)

Documentation

83. Defendants' documentation of medical diagnoses,

treatment, and follow-up for individual residents, as well as

Defendants' statistical reports, are grossly inadequate (Hyman,

Tr. Vol. Ill at 447-49, 453, 481-83, 514-15), and often

inaccurate, and have harmed residents, and continue to harm

residents and place them at unreasonable risk of harm. (Hyman,

Tr. Vol. Ill at 508-09.)

•»'

84. The nurses at Arlington, though, who act as "gate keepers" for the physicians, are generally not doing an adequate job of placing into the resident charts the information needed by the physicians in order to exercise their professional judgment. (Hyman, Tr. at 502.)

Community Placement

85. None of the medical staff at ADC are charged with or are taking the responsibility to evaluate or coordinate resident
- 29 -

discharges into the community in light of their potential medical needs. (McLemore, Tr. at 1898-1905.) Although community placement may be appropriate for residents of ADC and may serve to foster the resident's growth and development, Defendants' placement process or ^dumping" does not reflect the exercise of professional judgment.
DEFENDANTS ARE FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PSYCHIATRIC 8ERVICE3 FOR RESIDENTS
86. Defendants are failing to provide adequate psychiatric services because ADC cannot provide accurate and reliable information upon which a psychiatrist may base treatment decisions, including the use of psychotropic drugs. (Christian, Tr. at 2761.)
87. Since the addition of Dr. Horwitz in October, 1992, and the contract with Dr. Levine in the summer of 1993, Arlington has been providing psychiatric care to its residents through the services of two psychiatrists, who are employed by Arlington as consultants. (Horowitz, Tr. at 1342; Levine, Tr. at 1601.) However, defendants still fail, inter alia, to implement professionally designed training programs, to recognize and conduct proper assessments of residents needing psychological services, to train staff, and to have sufficient numbers of trained staff (both professional and direct care). (Christian,
- 30 -

generally and Tr. Vol. I at 48; Christian, Tr. Vol. II at 262; Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2761, 2766-68.)
88. Integration of psychiatry into interdisciplinary team approaches to the provision of services to persons with mental retardation has been the practice in the field of mental retardation for over twenty years. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 809, 811-12; See Ex. 349.)
89. Persons with mental retardation have the same mental health needs as persons without mental retardation — but more intense due to their deficits and their dependence on others. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 768.) At ADC, psychiatric recommendations for residents are not made as part of a program developed by an interdisciplinary team, which is necessary for such psychiatric care to be appropriate or meaningful. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 809, 811-12.)
90. Severe behavior disorders in individuals.with mental retardation may be treated without medication and should only be treated with medication if there is evidence that the behavior relates to an underlying mental disease. In addition, behavioral training is required even if a person is receiving medication for a severe behavior disorder. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. V at 830.)
- 31 -

91. Defendants use psychotropic medications without adequate justification of the effectiveness or necessity for such drugs. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. V at 891-92.)
92. Psychiatrists prescribe psychotropic and other potentially dangerous medications for ADC residents without the opportunity to conduct, complete examinations and assessments of residents due to severe time limitations. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 784-85; Szymanski, Tr. Vol. V at 830-32, 836-37, 842.)
93. Defendants' fail to obtain information necessary to provide mental health services at ADC, e.g.. psychiatric history, initial diagnostic assessment, and etiological acquisition. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 784, 838, 842.)
> 94. Accurate and reliable data is necessary to determine the efficacy of treatments, both psychiatric and behavioral, for residents. Such data is not kept at ADC. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. VI at 792, 801-02, 806, 810, 812; Vol. V at 861-62; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1326.)
95. Defendants fail to provide sufficient psychiatric consultation time to provide necessary psychiatric and mental health services to residents. (Szymanski, Tr. Vol. IV at 810; Szymanski, Tr. Vol. V at 836.)
- 32 -

96. Defendants are failing to provide mental health services for residents who do not display aggressive or disruptive behavior because they only refer for psychiatric evaluation those residents who exhibit such behaviors. (See Szymanski, Tr. Vol. V at 810, 836, 841.)
NURSING SERVICES, INCLUDING PHYSICAL AND NUTRITIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AT ADC ARE INADEQUATE TO MEET THE HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS
97. Nursing services at ADC, including physical and nutritional management services, are a substantial departure from accepted judgment, practice or standards, and the lack of these services has contributed to the death of ADC residents and continues to expose residents to serious risk of harm. (TherriaUlt, Tr. Vol. V at 1568-69y 1587, 1589-90, 1620; Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 2886-90, 2892-97, 2902-03.)
98. Defendants fail to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained nurses to meet the needs of residents. As a result, nurses consistently fail to identify and respond to the health care needs of residents, commit a range of medication errors, fail to adequately monitor the health care problems of residents, and fail to coordinate health care activities with other institutional professionals. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. V at 1016; Vol. VIII at 1644-47.)
- 33 -

99. ADC nurses do not identify or evaluate residents experiencing acute events such as vomiting, increased respiratory rate or other acute episodes, to determine the etiology of the event or illness. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1591-92, 1596-1606, 1619-20.)
100. ADC nurses do not recognize or react to significant changes in residents' nutritional and medical status. For example, staff often do not respond in a timely manner to significant changes in residents' weight or to resident dehydration. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1576, 1578, 1582-83, 1618-19.)
101. ADC nurses do not routinely perform ongoing monitoring of serious medical conditions, often failing to perform such basic procedures as taking vital signs. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1593-99, 1601, 1695-99; Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 289192.)
102. ADC nurses often fail to respond to crucial information provided by other sources which should alert them to medical problems. As a result, necessary interventions are not undertaken. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1598-99, 1617-19; Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 2893.)
- 34 -

103. ADC nurses often fail to make themselves aware of the results of medical tests such as laboratory tests, x-rays and other information essential to provide adequate nursing and medical care. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1613-17.)
104. ADC nurses fail to administer medications in a manner consistent with basic practices, resulting in an unreasonable number of medication errors. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1620-23, 1628, 1630-31, 1641-42; Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 2886-87.)
105. ADC nurses improperly record medication administration, reporting medications as having been given when in fact they were not, and reporting medication as given before or well after it was supposed to have been given. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1633-40, and rebuttal, Tr. at 2886-87.)
106. ADC nurses are not adequately trained in monitoring drug side-effects. As a result, they often do not.recognize toxic reactions or physical symptoms of side-effects or of an overdose. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at. 1604-05, 1643-44, and rebuttal, Tr. at 2896-97.)
107. ADC nurses do not act to ensure that residents are protected from unnecessary skin breakdowns. As a consequence, residents unnecessarily develop skin disorders that could have
- 35 -

been avoided with appropriate nursing intervention. (Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1648-51; Therriault rebuttal, Tr. at 2889.)
Physical Therapy (PT) Services are Seriously Deficient:
108. Physical therapists with particular experience and expertise with individuals with significant developmental disabilities have been utilized on a consulting basis to provide training to Arlington's physical therapists in a number of core areas. (Payne, Tr. at 948.) Training for both physical therapists and P.T. technicians in the specialized field of adaptive seating has been provided through the wheelchair clinics held at Arlington by contracted seating specialists. (Payne, Tr. at 956-57.) The physical therapists train direct care staff on body mechanics, transfer techniques/ positioning, range of motion, and, with the P.T. technicians, wheelchair positioning. (Payne, Tr. at 959-60, 961-62.)
109. This physical therapy training, however, has been insufficient. Many residents are not properly positioned, provided adequate equipment, including wheelchairs, and provided adequate physical therapy intervention due to lack of a sufficient number of qualified staff. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1128-29.)
- 36 -

110. The physical therapy staff at Arlington consists of four full-time registered physical therapists, six full-time physical therapy technicians, and two physical therapist assistant positions. (Ex. 247.)
111. Under ADC's new system for identification of physical therapy needs of the resident, each new admission is evaluated by a registered physical therapist and, if a physical therapy program is determined to be needed, it is developed by a registered physical therapist and formally reviewed annually. Each resident's program is also monitored by their assigned physical therapist on a monthly basis. Whether or not a resident has a physical therapy program, an interim evaluation will be conducted by a physical therapist upon referral by any of the other disciplines who work with that resident. (Payne, Tr. at 912-16.)
112. However, even in light of this recently instituted program, defendants are not providing physical therapy services to all residents who need them, and the services provided are grossly inadequate. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1128-29.)
113. Many ADC residents have severe neuromotor impairments, cerebral palsy, and other neuro-muscular deficits. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1113.) They require adequate physical therapy services to help them move more easily and efficiently, to help
- 37 -

avoid contractures, deformities, acute curvature of the spine due to scoliosis, and to permit them to learn functional skills to enhance their independence. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1114-17.)
114. An acceptable physical therapy program must enhance the capacity of the individual to function, i.e.. to help him or her to live safely and as independently as possible: Sporadic passive range of motion "therapy11 is not sufficient to achieve these goals. Muscles need to be stretched for prolonged periods throughout the day. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1118-22.)
115. Defendants are not adequately assessing all ADC residents to determine their need for physical therapy services. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1128-29, 1243-44.)
•»
116. PT evaluations, physical management plans, interventions, staffing, staff training, the "school based" physical therapy program and quality assurance are all a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1128-30, 1159-63, 1175-80, 1230-34, 1243-46, 1248-53; McEwen, Tr. Vol. VII at 1268-71.)
117. ADC's failure to provide adequate physical therapy services has precluded residents from developing functional skills, being placed in more "normal" environments, and has
- 38 -

caused residents to suffer increased deformities and contractures. Such deformities have posed direct threats to their health. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1129-30.)
118. Many of the contractures, deformities, and loss of mobility and other functional skills suffered by ADC residents could have been reduced or avoided if ADC had provided adequate PT and occupational therapy (OT) services to ADC residents. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VII at 1283-84.)
119. Defendants' failure to adequately assess residents is due, in part, to a lack of sufficient number of trained PT staff to individually evaluate each resident of ADC to determine his or her need for such services. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1252-61.)
•»
120. ADC's physical therapy staff lack sufficient expertise to properly evaluate residents for their physical therapy needs, including wheelchair and alternative positioning, intervention programs that promote development of motor skills that will enhance functional independence, and programs that will assist residents in achieving IHP and IEP objectives. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1252-61.)
121. ADC's physical therapy is so deficient that passive range of motion and/or passive positioning are the primary interventions provided. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1129-30, 1159,
- 39 -

1182.) Overall the emphasis is on maintenance, rather than acquisition of functional motor skills. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1179-81.) Such a deficient level of PT services subjects the residents to harm. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1129-30.)
122. Defendants do not provide appropriate and necessary adaptive equipment to ADC residents who need such equipment, although the defendants have begun to provide this equipment. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1190-91, 1193-94, 1227-28.)
123. ADC does not properly assess and treat acute orthopedic disorders. ADC does not provide needed orthopedic devices, e.g., braces, splints, and body jackets, subjecting residents to unnecessary risks for further deformities and inappropriate body growth. ADC's fTs do not sufficiently refer residents for consultations or other treatments, or follow-up residents who have pain that interferes with proper positioning and motor skills such as standing and walking. These failures lead to loss of skills and increased deformities. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1187-88, 1219-20; Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 619-23, 632-33,. 637-40.)
124. Some ADC residents are placed in wheelchairs that are not designed for their individual needs, e.g., they have, sling seats and backs and elevating footrests, or lack essential parts,
- 40 -

e.g.. footrests. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1193-97, 1208-11, 1219, 1225-26.)
125. Many ADC residents are often improperly positioned in wheelchairs or other adaptive equipment. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1187-88, 1209-11, 1220-22, 1230, 1235-39.) This improper positioning can cause contractures, deformities and pain, can interfere with eating and digestion, and can even cause asphyxiation. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1116-17, 1235; Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 405.)
126. There are still residents who ADC has identified as needing new wheelchairs who do not have them and others who have not yet been identified by ADC as needing them in spite of obvious deficiencies in their present seating. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VII at 1227-28.)
127. Residents are often improperly positioned because there are too few staff present to monitor residents or the staff on duty lack the training to position residents properly. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1206-10, 1223-27; McEwen, Tr. Vol. VII at 1312-13.)
128. Occupational therapy services at ADC are also inadequate, in part due to inadequately trained occupational therapy staff. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VII at 1277-82.)
- 41 -

129- Due to the lack of adequate physical and occupational therapy services, the health of ADC residents has deteriorated. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1129-30.)
130. Although the new Director of Therapeutic Services has initiated a revised physical therapy evaluation format (Payne, Tr. at 918-27), the revised assessment procedures are still inadequate and residents continue to lack physical management plans. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1169-74, 1230-34, 1243-47.)
131. Notwithstanding Defendants' claims that improvements have been made in physical therapy services, any such improvements have not remedied constitutional deficiencies in FT services. (McEwen, Tr. Vol. VI at 1129-30, 1233-34, 1248-53.)
EDUCATION SERVICES TO SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MEET THE REOUTR'PiH.fciNTS OF T H E
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
132. Of the 56 school age Arlington (ADC) residents, 49 presently receive their education on the ADC campus. The number of school age residents is expected to drop to 48 and the total ADC student body will number 34. (Hansen, Tr. at 2195-97.)
133. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., assures all handicapped
42 -

children of a "free appropriate public education." 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400(c).
134. Arlington's educational program is carried on in five classrooms - two in the "school area" with an additional room for musicr and three in the Baker Building for more physically involved students. (Hansen, Tr. at 2200-02.)
135. Four certified special education teachers are on the Arlington staff. A certified substitute is also currently on the staff, along with 12 teacher assistants, numerous foster grandparents, a principal who oversees the program and an educational consultant. (Hansen, Tr. at 2197-2200.)
136. Teachers receive in-seryice and on-the-job training in numerous areas. (Hansen, Tr. at 2213-15.)
137. Defendants, however, are failing to provide special education and related services sufficient to meet the unique needs of the school-age children at ADC. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VTI at 1513-15; Vol. VIII at 1527-28.) Further, educational services are not being provided in the least restrictive environment. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1523-24.)
138. Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) developed at ADC are inadequate because, inter alia, ADC's assessments of children
- 43 -

are incomplete and inappropriate. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1472-75.)
139. ADC's assessments of children fail to contain an adequate statement of the students' present level of performance or sufficiently describe the abilities and needs of students. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VTI at 1474-75.)
140. ADC does not provide sufficiently comprehensive training objectives in their IEPs to meet students' needs. IEPs do not seek to promote the development of new skills. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1474-87.)
141. The skills identified as goals for many students in IEPs are not functional, i.e.. the,skill to be learned bears little relationship to activities of daily living. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1477-79.)
142. The goals identified in the IEPs are often not related to one another and are often unduly repetitious. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1479-87.)
143. ADC does not take steps to ensure that skills learned in the classroom are maintained or generalized to non-classroom settings. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1502-04.)
- 44 -

144. ADC has not consistently developed goals in IEPs for the requisite one year period and multiple goals are written for the same skill. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1487-89.) Goals written for students are too narrow, too limited in their scope and tend to assume children lack the capacity to grow, learn and develop. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1478-87.)
145. ADC does not have an adequate recordkeeping system in place to appropriately monitor the educational status of students. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1489-92, 1494-501.)
146. Teaching staff at ADC do not provide adequate and appropriate interactions with students. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1504, 1508-10.)
•» 147. Related services, including, but not limited to, physical therapy, behavioral training, and speech and language services provided by ADC are inadequate to allow children to benefit from special education services as required by the IDEA. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1513-16; Vol. VIII at 1523.)
148. Although recent steps have been taken to provide children with educational services within the Shelby County Public School system, school-aged children remain at ADC who could more appropriately benefit from receiving educational services outside ADC and are therefore not being educated in the
- 45 -

least: restrictive environment as required by the IDEA. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1523-26.) In addition, transitional services designed to facilitate students' integration into post school-age settings are inadequate. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1523-26, 1528.)
149. Notwithstanding Defendants' claims that improvements have recently been made in educational services, any such improvements have not remedied deficiencies in ADC's educational program. (Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VIII 1524-26.)
DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT INITIATED REMEDIAL ACTION TO CORRECT IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES
150. The Defendants failed to begin remedial measures, even on life-threatening issues, until after the actual filing of a lawsuit in this case, even though state officials were informed as early as July 1990 that life-threatening conditions existed at ADC. In fact, some efforts undertaken by defendants did not occur until after the United States filed for a preliminary injunction in March of 1993. (See Hyman, Tr. Vol. IV at 650-651.)
151. ADC has demonstrated resistance and indifference to corrective action. Testimony of former employees and parents of residents indicated that many staff do not know residents or their needs, do not speak to them, hug the children, or even sit
- 46 -

on their furniture. There was substantial evidence that employees who entered the institution with the best of intentions were repeatedly rebuked when they tried to implement necessary, basic, and fundamental improvements. Indeed, various employees failed to cooperate with former employees' legitimate requests for cooperation and implementation of programs, even in lifethreatening situations. Parents likewise repeatedly testified that institutional officials failed to cooperate with their reasonable requests for assistance, including requests for services, investigations into alleged abuse, and even basic information about their children. (Nuckolls, Tr. Vol. VI at 1057, 1059-64, 1066-68, 1070-71; Davis, Tr. Vol. IX 1788-1793; Tucker, Tr. Vol. IX 1820-25, 1828-1831; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1354-56, Ex. 89, and generally.)
v
152. There have been unexplained and suspicious irregularities in employee statements to the United States' experts and in records provided by the Defendants, such as claims by staff to have been trained when not so trained, data obviously documented long after the event recorded occurred, documentation showing data taken when in fact it was not, and obviously unauthorized and/or forged signatures on documents. (Hyman, Tr. Vol. Ill at 410-412; Therriault, Tr. Vol. V at 1029-1039; Therriault, Tr. Vol. VIII at 1632-37, 1639-40; Thibadeau, Tr. Vol. VII at 1497-1502; Reb. Palmer Test.).
- 47 -

152. In the past and during a number of recent DOJ tours, ADC put on a "show11 and/or visits were staged for the experts or others touring. (Christian rebuttal, Tr. at 2765-69; Rol. Palmer, Tr. Vol. VII at 1366-67.)
153. Defendants fail to monitor resident property to protect it from theft and many ADC residents have lost unreasonable amounts of personal property. (See Derringer, Tr. Vol. IX at 1873.)
ENTERED this / ( day of February, 1994.
?.
PHIPPS McCALLA ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 48 -

 
 IUS v Tennessee

JON P

p.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action
No. 92-2062-ML/A

REMEDIAL ORDER

^ \ 'S^i\-r\

,9 racr

REMEDIAL ORDER Defendants are hereby Ordered to take the following actions to guarantee the statutory and constitutional rights of residents of Arlington Developmental Center (ADC). Defendants shall remedy the constitutional and statutory deficiencies identified in the Supplemental Findings of February 18, 1994. I. PROTECTION FROM HARM Defendants shall provide a safe and humane environment at ADC and protect residents from abuse, mistreatment and neglect. Defendants shall immediately act to properly supervise residents of ADC and otherwise protect them from harm. To this end, and at a minimum, Defendants shall: A. Immediately provide 1:1 staffing to residents exhibiting the most severe self-injurious or aggressive behaviors, and any other resident who is determined by the Chief Psychologist, the interdisciplinary team or a physician to require such staffing to ensure safety. Staff providing 1:1 coverage shall be specially trained in the appropriate behavior management and teaching techniques applicable to the resident for whom they are providing the 1:1 coverage. B. Provide adequately trained and supervised direct care staff to meet a 1:4 (day), 1:4 (evening) and 1:8 (night) staffto-client ratio. This ratio shall be calculated by counting only staff actually present at ADC. Staff engaged in housekeeping or other chores may not be counted to meet the staffing ratio. Furthermore, staff assigned to 1:1 interaction with a particular

resident may not be included in meeting the staffing ratio for the other residents in the area.
C. Prepare a monthly injury report that describes type of injury, resident(s) involved, location, shifts and staff present or on duty for the purpose of identifying factors leading to such injuries. All reports, including recommendations to reduce the incidence of injury, shall be reviewed by the Abuse and Neglect Prevention Committee and the Behavior Management Committee.
D. Defendants shall ensure ADC residents are protected from abuse, neglect, and preventable injuries; unnecessary restraint and restrictive procedures, and unnecessary medication through, prevention, reporting, investigating and resolution techniques. Prevention includes elements of staff training and supervision. Systematic review of information about abuse, neglect and injuries shall occur in order to eliminate the conditions and practices that contribute to the occurrence of such incidents. The Defendants shall accomplish this in the following ways:
1. The Defendants will hire two full-time investigators who will report directly to the Assistant Commissioner for Mental Retardation Services and who will be assigned to ADC to investigate abuse, mistreatment, and neglect, including injuries for which the investigator has suspicion of abuse, mistreatment, or neglect and all injuries of an unknown cause. The number of investigators may be adjusted with the approval of the Monitor.
2. Qualifications of Investigators will include:
- 2-

a. Professional training and experience in conducting investigations. b. Demonstrated skill in investigation techniques and in interviewing. c. Training on conducting investigations in institutions serving developmentally disabled persons. Such training may be obtained after hiring but before assigned a case to investigate. 3. Responsibilities of Investigators will include: a. Publish prominently his or her name, phone number, and current photograph in all residential, program, and office areas and distribute the written materials to all staff, parents or guardians, and consumers. b. Receive all allegations of abuse, mistreatment, and neglect and perform a preliminary investigation to determine whether an allegation is founded or unfounded. c. Report in writing all allegations of abuse, mistreatment, or neglect and the Investigator's determination that the allegation was founded or unfounded to the Abuse and Neglect Prevention Committee and the Superintendent. d. Investigate fully all allegations of abuse, mistreatment, and neglect determined to have foundation and prepare a detailed, written report of the investigation and its findings, specifying whether or not abuse, mistreatment, or neglect has been confirmed and whether or not the perpetrator has been identified.
- 3-

e. Provide the reports of all investigations to the Chairperson of the Abuse and Neglect Prevention Committee and appear before the committee to present the evidence of the investigation and answer the committee's questions. f. Investigate all suspicious injuries and injuries of unknown cause to determine if possible abuse, mistreatment, or neglect has occurred and if so, treat the injury as an allegation of abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. g. Track repeated incidents of confirmed abuse, mistreatment, or neglect of an individual resident and meet with the resident's Interdisciplinary Program Coordinator (IPC) following any second incident with respect to a resident and each succeeding incident within a one year time period. h. Track the time, location, and staff present for all injuries and all confirmed abuse, mistreatment, or neglect when perpetrator is unknown. The investigator will analyze this information for trends and when trends emerge, report such information to Department of Mental Health and Retardation (DMHMR) and the Superintendent. Defendants will take appropriate action as a result of the information provided. i. Make recommendations to IPCs and the safety officer of any measures designed to reduce abuse, neglect, or injuries, j. Train all staff on reporting allegations of abuse, mistreatment, and neglect and on preserving evidence.
- 4-

k. Maintain confidentiality concerning information relating to all allegations and investigations, except to the extent mandated by the operation of state law. 4. An Abuse and Neglect Prevention Committee will be formed at ADC. 5. The Abuse and Neglect Prevention Committee will be composed of sufficient numbers of staff to ensure the attendance of at least five members at all meetings, three of whom will be ADC staff and at least one of whom will not be employed by ADC or DMHMR. Members of the committee will include the Consumer Advocate, an ADC Trustee, staff with no history of abuse or neglect, and members of the community. The chairperson (or alternate chairpersons if required) of the committee will be elected by the committee from among the ADC staff serving on the committee. Any ADC staff directly involved in a case will not be a member of the committee hearing that case. E. All direct care staff will be trained to appropriately supervise residents in order to reduce abuse, neglect and mistreatment. All direct care staff will be trained to recognize and report abuse, neglect and mistreatment. II. STAFFING Defendants shall ensure that a sufficient number of nurses, physicians, psychologists, registered physical therapists and other staff are employed to fulfill the requirements of this Order. To this end, and at a minimum, Defendants shall:
- 5-

A. Employ a sufficient number of registered and licensed practical nurses to provide adequate nursing services to residents.
B. Defendants must retain a Chief Psychologist who meets the qualifications set forth in this section and who is capable of performing the responsibilities listed herein.
1. Qualifications of Chief Psychologist a. A Ph.D. in psychology specializing in applied behavioral psychology. b. Experience assessing the behavior treatment needs, including functional analysis, of developmentally disabled persons with severe maladaptive behavior; developing, implementing, and evaluating Individual Behavior Treatment Programs (BTPs) for such individuals; and supervising other psychologists in these professional practices.
C. Hire or retain the services of Masters level psychologists sufficient to provide adequate psychology services to all residents.
D. Provide sufficient psychiatrists to provide adequate and appropriate psychiatric services to all residents who need such services.
E. Retain the services of a physiatrist to provide adequate physiatric services to all residents who need such services.
- 6-

F. Retain the services of an orthopedist to provide adequate orthopedic services to all residents who need such services.
G. All staff training required by this Order shall be conducted by individuals with demonstrated expertise in the particular field, documented both as to time, duration, attendance and results, and all training, unless for good cause, shall be task-analyzed and competency-based. Defendants shall record each training session and identify employees trained. All new employees shall be provided appropriate training in a timely manner. III. PSYCHOLOGY AND HABILITATION
Defendants shall provide adequate and appropriate psychology and habilitation services for ADC residents. Defendants shall develop for each resident an individualized training program designed by competent and qualified professionals to: 1) develop or maintain his or her functional skills, including skills in the areas of communication, self-help, safety and daily living; and 2) reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks to personal safety or unreasonable use of bodily restraints. In order to fulfill this requirement, Defendants shall, at a minimum:
A. Have qualified professionals conduct an evaluation and assessment, including functional analysis, of each resident exhibiting maladaptive behavior, including self-injurious, aggressive, and/or pica behaviors, to determine his or her
- 7-

individual need for training to reduce or eliminate those behaviors.
B. Have qualified professionals conduct an evaluation and assessment, including functional analysis, of each resident to determine his or her individual need for training to develop new, adaptive skills, including self-care skills.
C. Develop and implement a training program for each resident. Each training program shall contain, at a minimum:
1. Objectives developed by an appropriately constituted interdisciplinary team (IDT) that are based upon appropriate assessments and evaluations and contain professionally based objectives both to reduce inappropriate behaviors and develop new skills; 2. Specific instructions for those responsible for implementing the training program; such methods shall emphasize positive approaches and positive behavioral interventions which promote functional skill development and socially acceptable behaviors in the resident; 3. A specific training schedule to be followed, with sufficient hours of training to permit the resident to have a reasonable opportunity to reach the identified training objectives; scheduled activities shall take place on weekends as well as weekdays; 4. Data collection procedures sufficient to permit a qualified professional to evaluate the effectiveness of the training program, to monitor the implementation of the
- 8-

training program and enable its modification, as necessary; and, 5. Identity of persons responsible for the implementation of the program. D. Within 3 0 days of the development of the programs referenced above, ensure that staff are trained to implement the training program of each resident under their care, including knowledge of program objectives and responses to maladaptive behaviors. E. Fully implement all training programs. F. Require a qualified professional to supervise implementation of training programs, including having line authority over direct care staff involved in any type of training or programs. G. Implement procedures to assess and evaluate each resident's progress on behavior and training programs, including the collection of reliable data on the target behaviors. H. Train all direct care staff in collecting and maintaining relevant data and provide training periodically thereafter to maintain data collection skills. Ensure that all direct care staff are trained in the skills necessary to perform the tasks required to provide adequate and appropriate psychology and habilitation services. I. Develop procedures to review the progress of each resident at least quarterly in order to ascertain the adequacy and effectiveness of the training programs. Review of residents'
- 9-

progress under a training program that includes a reduction component to reduce aggressive or dangerous behaviors must occur at least monthly or more frequently in the case of severe selfinjury or aggression, in order to ascertain the adequacy and effectiveness of the behavior programs. Programs found upon review to require modification must be modified.
J. Retain expert consultant assistance necessary to comply with paragraphs III.A to III.I in order to carry out the tasks identified above.
K. The Chief Psychologist will have at least the following responsibilities:
1. Oversight of Individual BTPs: (1) ensure compliance with relevant ADC policies and procedures; (2) conduct quarterly peer reviews based on these policies and procedures with the assistance of a non-ADC psychologist whose qualifications are similar to or complement those of the Chief; (3) conduct regular meetings with staff psychologists to review critical cases; (4) chair the Behavior Management Committee which will review and approve programs recommending the use of restraints and other intrusive procedures; (5) review monthly Risk Management Reports for the use of emergency physical and chemical restraints; and (6) review reports of confirmed abuse, mistreatment, and neglect and injury reports to determine the need for additional behavioral interventions for residents who are subjects of these reports.
-10-

2. Training of Staff Psychologists: (a) inservice staff psychologists on the Individual BTP policies and procedures; (b) provide technical assistance and consultation on an individual basis with respect to assessment of individual resident's needs, development of Individual BTPs, and evaluation of the effectiveness of Individual BTPs.
3. Employment of Staff Psychologists: (a) approve the hiring and retention of staff psychologists; and (b) evaluate semiannually the work of each staff psychologist based on the quality and effectiveness of the Individual BTPs developed by the staff psychologist.
4. Review weekly all serious injury and abuse reports for residents who are on Individual BTPs. For each incident, confer with a resident's staff psychologist to determine if modifications of Individual BTPs or additional staff training could reduce serious injuries or abuse of the resident. If further staff training is indicated, notify the Assistant Superintendent for Residential Services.
5. Review staff psychologists' reports of problems with other staff member's implementation of the BTP and data collection and discuss these with the appropriate Program Director. If these problems are not resolved within one month, report them and the lack of their resolution to the Assistant Superintendent for Residential Services.
6. Notify the Superintendent in writing of any problems that limit the effectiveness of Individual BTPs, including
-11-

problems related to cooperation, implementation, and both staff and material resources.
L. The Behavior Management Committee (BMC), including a primary care physician, shall meet to review those aspects of each resident's training program relating to the resident's maladaptive behavior(s) and relevant progress notes for each resident:
1. who exhibits self-injurious behavior or causes injury to self or others through aggressive behavior and whose training program includes bodily restraint or psychotropic medication, or
2. for whom bodily restraint procedures are utilized three or more times within any six-month period, or who receives psychotropic modifying medication.
M. Where a resident suffers a serious or significant selfinflicted injury or inflicts a serious or significant injury on another resident, the psychologist assigned to the resident shall conduct an immediate review of such behavior(s) and report the results of such review to the BMC. In all reviews conducted by the BMC pursuant to this paragraph, the BMC shall ascertain whether (a) there is sufficient behavioral data recorded, (b) such data are reliable, and (c) the continuation of the current training or treatment program is justified, or the program, including medication, should be modified. Where inadequate or unreliable data are found, or the continuation of the training or treatment program is otherwise not justified, the matter shall be referred to the appropriate IDT which shall, within 30 days from
-12-

the referral, modify the existing training program in accordance with the judgment of qualified professionals, including the primary care physician, psychologist and psychiatrist, as appropriate. The BMC shall meet at least every three months during the first year of this Order and at least semi-annually thereafter. The BMC and ADC's Human Rights Committee (HRC) shall be reconstituted in a manner sufficient to meet the requirements of this Order. IV. RESTRAINT
Defendants shall ensure that unnecessary or inappropriate restraints are not used at ADC. To this end, and at a minimum:
A. Every behavior program that utilizes restraint or time out must specify:
1. the behavior that initiates the use of the restraint or time out;
2. behaviors to be taught to the resident to replace the behavior that initiates the use of the restraint or time out or other program to reduce or eliminate the use of the bodily restraint or time out;
3. the restriction, i.e.. restraint or time out authorized, including the restriction's duration;
4. the professional responsible for the program and the direct care workers authorized to implement it; and,
5. the frequency with which behavioral data is to be recorded by direct care workers.
-13-

B. Defendants shall, in order for a restrictive procedure to be included in a behavior treatment program, document in the resident's record that other, less restrictive techniques were systematically employed as part of a professionally designed training program and were ineffective.
C. Defendants shall document each time restraints or time out is used and the length of time for each use. The BMC shall conduct a monthly review of each use of restraint and each use of time out. The Human Rights Committee shall also review restraint usage on a regular basis. Each committee shall make recommendations with respect to the appropriateness of the use and continued use of the restraint, which recommendation shall be promptly implemented. V. PSYCHIATRY AND THE USE OF DRUGS
Defendants shall provide adequate and appropriate psychiatric and mental health services to residents who need such services and ensure that the use of psychotropic drugs is appropriate. Medication shall not be administered as punishment, in lieu of a training program, or for the convenience of staff. To this end, Defendants shall, at a minimum:
A. Appropriately prescribe and administer medications for residents.
-14-

B. Initiate and implement a system which requires that every behavior program that utilizes psychotropic1 medication specifies:
(1) the behavior that initiates the use of the psychotropic medication; and
(2) the behaviors to be taught to the resident to replace the behavior that initiates the use of the medication or other program to reduce or eliminate the use of the medication.
C. Document that, prior to using the psychotropic medication, other, less restrictive techniques have been systematically tried as part of a training program and have been demonstrated to be ineffective. Such documentation in the resident's record must include reliable behavioral data collected on the resident.
D. Administer prescription medication only upon order of a physician and psychotropic medication only upon order of a physician after consultation with a psychiatrist, except in case of an emergency use of psychotropic medication, which must be reviewed within 24 hours of the order being written. The psychiatric consult shall be obtained to determine whether the use of any medication is supported by a diagnosis of mental illness (or other medical reason), that the diagnosis is justified by the resident's history as set forth in his/her written record and current symptoms and that the dosage is
1 As used here, psychotropic medication also includes any medication of other classes that is used specifically for the purpose of altering a resident's behavior.
-15-

appropriate. In making this determination, the consulting psychiatrist shall make a complete assessment of the resident, including observation of the resident, examination of the resident's medical and behavioral record, and consultation with the resident's primary care physician, psychologist and other IDT members, including direct care staff.
E. 1. Establish and implement procedures to review the drug regimen of each resident every 30 days; 2. Have a physician note in the record of each resident receiving psychotropic medication the mental illness diagnosis for which the medication is prescribed and the dosage level; 3. Evaluate each resident receiving psychotropic medication for drug-induced side effects, at professionally determined intervals; 4. Permit to administer medication only those staff qualified under State law to do so; 5. Record in each resident's record and report separately to appropriate professional staff any medication error or adverse drug reaction; 6. Ensure that all residents with seizures are prescribed the fewest number of different medications appropriate for effective seizure management. F. Require a psychiatrist to serve on the IDT of any resident whose individual plan of service includes the use of psychotropic medication or for whom such has been recommended.
-16-

In addition, a psychiatrist or other mental health professional should serve on the IDT of any individual who receives, or is recommended to receive, other mental health services.
G. Train all clinical and direct care staff to recognize signs of mental illness in order to refer residents for psychiatric consultation. VI. MEDICAL CARE
Defendants shall provide ADC residents with adequate and appropriate medical care, including adequate medical specialty services. To that end, and at a minimum, Defendants shall:
A. Retain the services of a Developmental Medicine Physician. The role of this physician need not be limited to responsibilities at ADC, but for a period of two years, at least approximately 75% of this physician's time will be devoted to ADC. This physician will have the following responsibilities:
1. Exercise clinical supervision of the ADC physicians. 2. Participate in the selection, evaluation, and retention of medical specialists and other physicians. 3. Chair the Physician Peer Reviews and serve on the Mortality Review Committee and participate in the Nursing Peer Reviews. In the interim, if the Developmental Medicine Physician is a consultant, he or she will co-chair the Physician Peer Reviews and serve on the Mortality Review Committee with the Medical Director. 4. Provide on-going in-service and individual consultation to the ADC physicians and consultation to medical specialists.
-17-

5. Evaluate, with the Medical Director, semi-annually each primary care physician based on the adequacy and appropriateness of health care provided to ADC residents.
6. Serve as a consultant to the Clinical Nutritional Management Teams and other therapists.
B. Require primary care physicians to be responsible for and oversee the provision of health care for the residents for whom they are responsible. Primary care physicians shall, in a timely manner:
1. Evaluate each resident for whom they are responsible; 2. Determine what specialized medical services these residents need and ensure that residents receive such services; 3. Take appropriate action to respond to recommendations of outside medical specialists and laboratory findings, documenting what action has been taken and the reasons therefor. C. Under the supervision of the Developmental Medicine Physician, primary care physicians will be responsible for and oversee the provision of adequate and appropriate health care to all residents assigned to them. 1. For all residents, the primary care physician will develop a comprehensive problem list and an annual medical plan for each resident and will participate actively in the prevention of health risks to residents, including, but not limited to, the prevention of injury and abuse. 2. For persons with special needs, the primary care physicians will:
-18-

(a) Provide appropriate medical management for residents with feeding disorders, and work cooperatively with the Clinical Nutritional Management Teams and appropriate medical and dysphagia specialists to ensure that residents are fed safely and properly, obtain needed medical and/or surgical interventions, and receive adequate nutrition and hydration. (b) Provide appropriate medical management, including timely and appropriate interventions or referrals, for residents with acute and chronic orthopedic disorders, and work cooperatively with physical and occupational therapists to prevent residents from suffering unnecessary pain, disfigurement, or loss of mobility and function. (c) Provide appropriate medical management for residents with seizure disorders, and work cooperatively with neurology consultants to ensure the residents receive treatment that is therapeutic, safe, and effective.
(d) Provide appropriate medical management for residents who have behavior disorders or who are receiving psychotropic medications; and work cooperatively with staff and consulting psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health counselors to ensure residents receive appropriate and effective treatment services. (e) Provide adequate emergency medical care, working cooperatively with medical and non-medical staff to ensure that the living units they are assigned to are adequately
-19-

staffed with individuals trained in emergency response and that the units are adequately equipped with necessary emergency equipment. (f) Participate in the process of outplacement for any residents for whom they are the attending physician, including assessing the medical strengths and weaknesses of the resident being considered for outplacement, analyzing the medical resources that the resident may require in the community, and assisting in the determination of the appropriateness of the community setting chosen for the resident. (g) Ensure that all mechanical restraints are safe and medically appropriate for the individuals on whom they are used. D. Under the supervision of the Medical Director and the Developmental Medicine Physician, ADC physicians will regularly review all residents for their need for evaluation, consultation, and treatment by medical specialty consultants, including board certified neurologists, orthopedists, gastroenterologists, psychiatrists, ophthalmologists, otorhinolaryngologists, physiatrists, and gynecologists, and record the outcome of this review in the residents1 records. Defendants will ensure that medical specialists provide adequate and appropriate medical care. The requirement that specialists be board certified may be waived by the Monitor on an individual basis and is hereby waived
-20-

for board eligible consultants serving under the contract with the University of Tennessee.
E. Each resident's primary physician will ensure that needed medical specialist consultations are obtained in a timely manner and will follow-up on specialists' recommendations including monitoring blood tests and other necessary lab work and will document the reasons for not following specialists' recommendations when this occurs.
F. ADC medical staff will provide adequate and appropriate medical care for seizure disorders, including appropriate evaluation, management and treatment. Toward this end, Defendants will ensure that the following actions are taken:
1. The consulting neurologist(s) retained by ADC will complete the process of examining and evaluating all residents who receive anticonvulsant medication to assure correctness of diagnosis and efficacy of treatment. Thereafter, the frequency of follow-up will be determined by the medical judgment of the consulting neurologist(s). Residents receiving two or more anticonvulsant medications, or residents who have had five or more seizures in the preceding 12-month period will be examined by a consulting neurologist at least annually.
2. ADC primary care physicians will refer residents for neurology consults when appropriate. The results of the consultant's findings and recommendations will be maintained in the resident's medical record. The primary care physician must review and respond to all recommendations by the neurology
-21-

consultant. If the primary care physician determines that the consultant's recommendation will not be followed, valid clinical justification for that determination must be documented in the resident's medical record.
3. Anticonvulsant medication levels will be used to guide therapy, in conjunction with clinical judgment. Levels will be monitored at professionally appropriate time intervals during initiation or change in therapy. Once a therapeutic dose is established, anticonvulsant medication levels will be routinely monitored at least every six months. Levels will be monitored at other times as clinically indicated. Therapeutic drug monitoring and physician follow-up of anticonvulsant medication blood levels will be monitored by a quality assurance process.
4. If a resident is to be maintained on sub-therapeutic or potentially toxic levels of anticonvulsant medication, that therapy will be in consultation with a neurologist and justification will be documented in the resident's record. A review by the consulting neurologist(s) of residents in these categories will be performed and the frequency of follow-up will be determined by the consulting neurologist.
5. In the process of attempting to achieve monotherapy, if the resident suffers an increase in the number of seizures despite adequate blood levels of the primary anticonvulsant medication, referral to the consulting neurologist(s) will be made.
-22-

6. Residents who have been seizure free for two years or more will be assessed, in consultation with a neurologist, as to the appropriateness of medication withdrawal. The decision as to
I the appropriateness of medication withdrawal, as well as any withdrawal plan, will be documented in the resident's medical record.
7. ADC will immediately cease administering medications by the intra-muscular (IM) route for residents in status epilepticus. Residents in status epilepticus s.hall be immediately transported by ambulance to emergency care at an acute care hospital. Anticonvulsant medications will be administered to residents in status epilepticus via intra-venous (IV) or rectal routes only. Residents who are potentially at risk for status epilepticus or to periodic prolonged series of seizures will be identified, and a plan developed by the primary care physician and neurologist which sets out planned or recommended treatment for that individual if status or a series of seizures occur.
8. Track seizures by accurately recording each seizure. All staff, including nursing and direct care, shall be trained in how to recognize a seizure, describe the type of seizure and length of time it lasts and record that information in the resident's record. Defendants shall implement a quality assurance process to ensure that all seizures are being appropriately documented.
-23-

9. Staff physician performance in seizure management will be reviewed in the Physician Peer Review process and will also be monitored by a quality assurance process implemented by ADC nursing staff. This monitoring process involves a review, at specified intervals, of a percentage of the charts of residents receiving anticonvulsant medications. The criteria monitored include type and number of anticonvulsant medications, level of seizure activity, timeliness of laboratory tests, physician response to abnormal lab results, physician follow-up of neurology consultant recommendations, and need for neurology consultation. Findings of this monitoring shall be reported to the ADC Medical Director for appropriate responsive action.
G. Train all staff physicians, registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), Development Technician Trainers (DTTs) and Developmental Technicians (DTs) who regularly provide direct care services at ADC with training in emergency procedures, including the proper way to administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Thereafter, Defendants shall evaluate, through the use of drills, the competence of all participating staff to perform emergency medical procedures, document such evaluations and provide such additional training as the evaluations indicate is necessary to ensure staff competence in emergency procedures. Further, Defendants shall make medication and equipment commonly used in emergencies readily available to qualified staff in each residential unit.
-24-

H. The Defendants will develop and negotiate agreements with hospitals serving ADC residents to require the timely transfer of records to and from acute care hospitals as follows:
1. When residents are admitted to acute care hospitals or other treatment facilities outside of ADC, adequate and appropriate records are to accompany the residents including, but not limited to the following: referral for emergency care or hospital admission; physician progress notes; active and inactive problem lists; authorization for treatment; and physician's orders of the last 90 days, including current medication orders.
2. When residents are discharged from an acute care hospital for readmission to ADC, at a minimum, the following information will accompany the resident: the diagnosis and treatment recommendations for ADC to follow. ADC physicians or nurses will document telephone orders made by acute care hospital physicians.
3. When residents are discharged from acute care hospitals or other outside treatment facilities, ADC will receive, in a timely manner, hospital records including, but not limited, to the following: diagnosis and course of treatment; physician's progress notes; discharge summary; plan for follow-up; and pertinent laboratory findings, diagnostic evaluation reports, and consultation reports. ADC physicians will obtain by phone and document in the residents' record relevant information about the resident's hospital stay while awaiting receipt of these hospital records.
-25-

4. For residents who were admitted to hospitals or other outside facilities while these agreements are being negotiated, ADC will obtain from these facilities a record of the hospital stay including diagnosis, course of treatment, and discharge summary. ADC will make a concerted effort to obtain hospital records for those residents hospitalized within the past two years.
I. Ensure that ADC physicians appropriately prescribe medications and monitor blood levels and drug side-effects.
J. Ensure that diagnoses and treatment for acute orthopedic trauma, as well as for chronic and progressive orthopedic disorders, are timely.
K. Ensure that the primary care physicians diagnose fractures in a timely fashion.
L. Ensure that peer reviews and mortality reviews are thorough and that ADC staff respond to identified deficiencies. Peer review documents may only be reviewed by the Monitor. VII. PHYSICAL AND NUTRITIONAL MANAGEMENT
Defendants shall ensure that all residents at ADC who are nutritionally at risk due to associated physical handicaps or medical problems are fed and otherwise cared for safely, adequately and appropriately. To this end, and at a minimum, Defendants shall:
A. Cease dangerous feeding practices and any feeding practice that poses an undue risk of harm to any resident.
-26-

B. Cease feeding residents in any unsafe position or faster than they can safely chew and swallow food.
C. Ensure that all residents' bodies are in proper alignment while they are being fed and for appropriate periods of time after they have been fed. Cease the practice of putting residents to bed or flat on their backs immediately after being fed. No resident shall be put to bed after being fed until sufficient time has passed to allow digestion of food.
D. Provide residents with all appropriate adaptive feeding equipment.
E. Require staff to feed residents either seated beside or next to the resident and not while standing, unless the resident's individual feeding plan specifically requires otherwise.
F. Utilizing postural drainage only when performed by a qualified respiratory therapist.
G. ADC will utilize a Nutritional Management Advisory Committee to oversee the implementation of the Feeding Program. This committee will include the administrators of the Swallowing/ Dysphagia program, Therapy Services, Dietary, Medical Services, Nursing, Psychology, and a representative from each Clinical Nutritional Management Team, and where appropriate, external consultants. This committee will develop and oversee implementation of policies and practices designed to meet safely the nutritional management needs of the residents. The committee will assist in and support the delivery of services in accordance
-27-

with general nutritional management principles and residentspecific nutritional management plans.
H. Each resident of ADC will be assessed on an annual basis, with the exception of those residents who have already been identified as having feeding or nutritional problems and who will be assessed and evaluated as soon as the Clinical Nutritional Management Teams have been established. For the general resident population, this assessment will include, at a minimum, a chart review that indicates a history of illness, weight gain or loss, medications, and potential food and drug interactions; review of current eating skills and/or behaviors, assessment for appropriate adaptive equipment, and a review of positioning during mealtimes. This assessment will be conducted under the direction of an assigned swallowing therapist who may be a licensed speech/language pathologist, occupational therapist, physical therapist, or nurse and who has had training in the management of feeding and nutrition problems of persons who are developmentally disabled. For those residents already identified with feeding or nutritional problems, referral to the Clinical Nutritional Management teams will be made for the purpose of providing an adequate comprehensive evaluation or determining that an adequate comprehensive evaluation has been performed.
I. Based on the assessment, an individualized dining plan will be written for each resident. Staff who feed the resident or supervise the resident during mealtimes will be trained on the
-28-

feeding or mealtime techniques or procedures called for in the dining plan. These staff will be monitored during mealtimes to determine that the individualized dining plan is implemented as designed.
J. Defendants will establish one Nutritional Management Clinical Team at ADC for every 25 residents requiring nutritional management. In the future, the number of residents served by a Nutritional Management Clinical Team may be adjusted with the approval of the Monitor. Each team will develop the special expertise needed to provide nutritional management services to residents who have feeding or nutritional problems, who require feeding by other persons, or who have behavior problems that interfere with mealtime. Each team will have direct clinical responsibilities for up to 25 residents who are highest risk for injury, illness, or loss of function related to feeding or nutritional problems.
1. Composition of each Nutritional Management Clinical Team: Each team, as a whole, will include the following: a physical therapist, an occupational therapist, a registered dietician, a nurse, and a physician. At least one team member will be a feeding specialist who has advanced training in the management of feeding and nutrition problems of persons who are developmentally disabled. This specialist may be a speech therapist who will serve in addition to the physical and occupational therapist on the team.
-29-

2. Clinical Team training: the teams will receive initial training from professionals with recognized expertise in evaluation and treatment of developmentally disabled persons with feeding and nutritional problems. Also, Clinical Team members will be engaged in continuing education activities that enhance their expertise in nutritional management.
3. Time commitments of Clinical Team members: members of each Clinical Team will be assigned to the team on a full-time basis except for the physician and dietician members of the Teams who will be assigned to the Team a minimum of 10 hours per week. The Developmental Medicine Physician will serve as a consultant to the Clinical Teams.
K. The therapists on the Clinical Nutritional Management Teams will serve on the Inter-Disciplinary Teams for those residents assigned to their team and will provide needed therapy services to these residents but will not serve residents who are not assigned to their Clinical Team, except in circumstances of occasional individual consultation or treatment.
L. Responsibilities of the Clinical Teams: 1. Continue to screen all residents as necessary to determine their need for nutritional management by observing mealtimes and interviewing staff, including nursing staff; 2. Perform a comprehensive evaluation, or ensure that a comprehensive evaluation has already been performed, of residents identified as possibly having feeding, nutrition, or related
-30-

problems. Refer residents, as appropriate, for specialty consultations, examinations, and evaluations.
3. Review evaluations by the Clinical Team and specialists to determine which residents need nutritional management services by the Team.
(a) For residents who do not require the services of the clinical team, individualized dining plans will be developed and implemented according to K.B.3. (b) Residents needing nutritional management services as part of the case load of a Clinical Nutritional Management Team will be those individuals who are determined to be at risk for injury, illness, or loss of function related to feeding or nutrition. Indicators that place an individual at risk include, but are not limited to, a history of aspiration or aspiration related illness, unexplained weight loss or serious departure from ideal body weight range, history of eating inedible objects, history of rumination, history or recent incidents of gastro-intestinal disorders or difficulty, uncontrolled eating or unsafe eating behaviors, oral-motor dysfunction, residents fed by alternative methods, such as tube feedings, and persons at risk for any of the above conditions. 4. Formulate a treatment strategy, in consultation with a resident's Inter-Disciplinary Team, for each resident with feeding, nutrition or related problems.
-31-

5. Develop, in accordance with the treatment strategy, and implement a nutritional management plan for each resident including: positioning the resident (before, during, and after mealtimes) specific instructions to the person feeding and/or supervising the resident, and information to food service staff regarding consistency of diet or other dietary related information.
6. Train the staff who will feed the resident to competency on each specific feeding technique, procedure, and/or instruction contained in the individual nutritional management plan, including positioning.
7. Monitor the staff during mealtimes to ensure that the nutritional management plan is implemented as designed.
8. At least quarterly, a member of the Clinical Team will review each resident's nutritional management plan and the implementation of the plan, assess the effectiveness of the plan, report on progress to the Inter-Disciplinary Team, and make revisions to the plan, as needed, to improve effectiveness and ensure that the resident is fed safely and properly.
9. Document for each resident the activities of the Clinical Team and its effectiveness, including a record of problems found in the implementation of the nutritional management plans.
10. At such time as the Clinical Team has completed competency-based training of staff for each resident's Nutritional Management Plan and is confident that staff are
-32-

prepared to assume responsibility for feeding each resident, the team may assume an oversight role with specific staff assigned responsibility for day to day implementation of the nutritional management plan.
11. Individuals whose risk status has stabilized through medical, therapeutic, or behavioral interventions can be placed in a follow along status and removed from the regular case load of the Clinical Nutritional Management Team. For residents in follow along status, the Clinical Nutritional Management Team will review their cases monthly for six months and annually thereafter with the assigned feeding specialist to determine maintenance of safe and effective feeding.
M. Clinical Team members will conduct training on general nutritional management principles for all staff having direct contact with residents. Professional staff as well as direct care staff will be involved in this training and in mealtime activities.
N. ADC departments and ADC administration will assist and support the Clinical Teams to ensure the involvement of appropriate staff, particularly professional staff, in mealtime activities in accordance with general nutritional management principles and resident-specific nutritional plans. VIII. NURSING
Defendants must ensure that nurses at ADC are providing adequate nursing care. To this end, and at a minimum, Defendants
-33-

shall ensure that nurses are trained to and do perform the following functions:
A. Properly identify or evaluate residents experiencing acute events such as vomiting, increased respiratory rate or other acute episodes, to determine the etiology of the event or illness.
B. Recognize and react to significant changes in residents1 nutritional and medical status, such as weight and hydration.
C. Routinely perform ongoing monitoring of serious medical conditions, including such basic procedures as taking vital signs.
D. Respond to crucial information provided by other sources to allow appropriate interventions to medical problems to occur;
E. Timely examine the results of medical tests such as laboratory tests, x-rays and other information essential to provide adequate nursing and medical care.
F. Become familiar with the residents for whose care they are responsible and with their medications.
G. Administer medications in a manner consistent with basic nursing practices, in order to limit medication errors.
H. Properly record medication administration. I. Monitor drug side-effects. J. Ensure that residents do not experience unnecessary skin breakdowns. K. Ensure the development of appropriate nursing care plans for residents.
-34-

IX. PROVISION OF CARE TO RESIDENTS WITH HEARING, VISION OR COMMUNICATION NEEDS Defendants shall provide adequate and appropriate hearing,
vision, and communication services to residents. To this end, and at a minimum, Defendants shall:
A. Assess, evaluate, develop, and implement programs, including the use of augmentive devices as needed, for each resident with communication deficits, including deaf or hearing impaired residents, to teach appropriate communication skills, including sign language and the use of communications boards. For hearing impaired residents for whom amplification is effective, amplification devices shall be provided, along with any training necessary to allow the resident to use or become accustomed to wearing such devices. On units housing resident who are being taught sign language, at least one direct care staff person on each shift shall be taught sign language.
B. Assess and evaluate each resident with a vision impairment to determine his or her need for eyeglasses. Where needed, eyeglasses shall be provided along with training designed to ensure the resident can and does wear them. Defendants must provide training and services for individuals who are blind and provide assistive devices, such as canes or other trailing devices. X. PHYSICAL AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY SERVICES
Defendants shall provide adequate and appropriate physical and occupational therapy services to all ADC residents who need such services, including proper positioning, adequate equipment,
-35-

including wheelchairs, and adequate physical therapy interventions. The goal of residents' physical therapy programs at ADC shall be to enhance the capacity of the individual to function, i.e.. to help him or her to live safely and as independently as possible. To this end, and at a minimum, Defendants shall:
A. Adequately assess all ADC residents to determine their need for physical therapy (PT) services.
B. Ensure that PT evaluations, physical management plans, interventions, staffing, staff training, the "school based" physical therapy program and quality assurance of all the above are adequate to address the physical therapy needs of residents.
C. Provide adequate physical therapy services to enable residents to develop functional skills, and to avoid and ameliorate deformities, contractures, and inappropriate body growth. Defendants shall have physical and/or occupational therapists with expertise in the field of developmental disabilities will evaluate all residents who have a physical disability, who require any special handling techniques (e.g., due to behavior problems, health problems, sensory deficits, etc.), or who have a nutritional management plan. The evaluation and treatment recommendations will include, at a minimum: (a) observation and analysis of movement during functional activities in natural environments; (b) obtaining information about and evaluating physical therapy-related concerns of direct care staff and other interdisciplinary team members; (c) evaluating
-36-

appropriateness of current wheelchair and other assistive technology, and possible need for assistive technology; and, (d) determining status of and/or potential for contractures, deformities, and pressure ulcers. Treatment recommendations will include, at a minimum, information regarding the need for the following: (a) direct physical and/or occupational therapy services, including the frequency of those services, by whom these services will be provided (registered therapist, therapy assistant, therapy aide); (b) a 24 hour a day physical management plan and the major elements of the plan> if it is needed; (c) formal and/or informal training goals or instructions for staff interaction; and (d) adaptive devices and/or therapeutic equipment.
D. Provide and utilize appropriate and necessary adaptive equipment for ADC residents who need such equipment.
E. Properly assess and treat acute orthopedic disorders and provide needed orthopedic devices; obtain consultations as needed.
F. Ensure that all residents in wheelchairs have chairs appropriately designed for their individual needs. No sling back or sling seat chairs shall be used, except for temporary transportation.
G. Ensure that PT, education and direct care staff are trained to enable them to properly position residents in their wheelchairs or other adaptive equipment. Defendants shall initiate regular, professionally designed and taught inservice
-37-

training for direct care workers and other staff in positioning, transferring, and implementing physical therapy programs for physically handicapped residents.
H. Ensure that staff actually monitor and correctly position residents throughout the day and implement a quality assurance program to monitor that residents are correctly positioned throughout the day. For individuals who require such positioning, Defendants shall develop a written physical management plan that details, at a minimum, the following:
a. A schedule for therapeutic positions for the resident 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that have been identified as facilitating functional movement, preventing or reducing contractures or deformities, and/or improving general health. The physical management plan will be integrated with other activities in which the resident is engaged. b. Handling, lifting, and transferring techniques, including specification of the number of persons required to lift the resident. c. Therapeutic equipment and/or adaptive devices required by the individual to facilitate functional movement, prevent or reduce contractures or deformities, and/or improve general health. d. Any special precautions required to safely and properly handle, position, and/or transfer the resident. e. The name and position of the staff person responsible for: training other staff in the physical management plan,
-38-

the resident1s functional goals and outcomes, the therapeutic positions, the handling and transfer techniques; obtaining recommended devices and equipment; and for oversight of the implementation and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan. I. Acquire sufficient physical therapy staff, including physical therapists and assistants, and occupational therapy staff to provide adequate physical therapy and occupational therapy services to residents in need of such services. J. Hire a Director of Therapy and Special Services with the following qualifications: a. A degree in physical therapy or occupational therapy with recent experience providing occupational or physical therapy services to persons developmental disabilities, including those with severe neuromotor and musculoskeletal impairments. Experience with school-age children and adults is preferable. b. Knowledge of current literature and contemporary practices related to occupational and physical therapy services for persons with severe developmental disabilities, including: (1) appropriate assessment and intervention, including assistive technology; and (2) service delivery models that promote acquisition, retention, generalization, and maintenance of meaningful functional skills. The Director of Therapy and Special Services will be responsible for, among other duties, supervising all professional
-39-

staff providing therapy services, for training or obtaining training for such staff, for maintaining an adequate continuing-education program, for providing consultation on individual cases, for ensuring physical and occupational therapy staff appropriately participate in interdisciplinary teams, for staff recruitment and retention and overseeing a quality assurance program relating to the efficacy and sufficiency of therapy services provided at ADC.
J. Retain a qualified consultant to assist them in implementing the above requirements. XI. INDIVIDUAL WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
Defendants shall, within the time frames set forth, take the following measures to fully comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 §§ U.S.C. 1400 et seq.. and applicable state law. The requirements of this section of the Order shall apply to all school-age children currently residing at ADC. To this end, and at a minimum, Defendants shall:
A. Retain the services of a consultant(s) with proven expertise in the field of special education services to perform or coordinate performance of the following services for schoolage children at ADC in conjunction with educators affiliated with the Shelby County Public School system:
1. Thoroughly assess and evaluate the educational needs, strengths and deficits of school-age children.
2. Use the assessments and evaluations developed pursuant to Paragraph 1 above to develop a comprehensive statement of each
-40-

student's present level of performance as the basis for development of each child's Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
3. Provide in each student's IEP comprehensive short-term and long-term training objectives sufficient to address his or her unique educational needs.
4. Provide objectives are functional to each student in each IEP.
5. Identify specific education services to be provided each child in each IEP in order to achieve his or her learning objectives.
6. Write training objectives in such a manner that performance can be objectively measured and that education goals cover no more than a 12-month period, beginning with the IEP staffing date.
7. Develop and implement a system to provide for the generalization and maintenance of skills learned in the classroom.
8. Develop and implement adequate recordkeeping procedures to ensure that students' progress in meeting educational objectives is accurately monitored;
9. Adequately train educational staff to implement the IEPs; and
10. Provide related services, including, but not limited to, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, and speech and language services, as necessary to allow children the benefit of special education services; and
-41-

11. Fully implement all IEPs. B. Defendants shall place all school-aged children at ADC in appropriate educational programs consistent with recommendations contained in their IEPs in the Shelby County public school system by September 1996. XII. RECORDKEEPING Defendants shall maintain records and record keeping systems adequate and appropriate to effectuate the terms of this Order. XIII. RESIDENT PROPERTY ADC will ensure residents' rights to own, keep and reasonably use personal possessions and property. XIV. ADMISSION AND PLACEMENTS A. Defendants shall reduce the population of ADC to 200 persons or fewer by September 30, 1997. B. Defendants will ensure that residents are placed in an appropriate and safe manner and that placements in the community are adequate to meet the needs of the individuals there placed. In order to effectuate this requirement, the Defendants will, at a minimum, comply with the following: 1. Defendants are enjoined from admitting any additional residents to ADC except for emergency, short-term court-ordered admissions. 2. All ADC residents who were age 21 or under as of January 21, 1992, shall be placed in an appropriate community residence by no later than September 30, 1997. Defendants will exert their
-42-

best efforts and give priority to community placement of 75% ofthese individuals by September 30, 1996.
3. The nature of an individual's disability will not be a factor in the eligibility of that individual for placement consideration.
4. Defendants shall evaluate and develop an individualized placement plan (IPP) for each ADC resident who will be placed to ensure placement in appropriate, professionally developed, community-based programs which fully meet his or her individualized needs.
5. No ADC resident will be placed in a nursing home or other non-community placement, such as other state or private institutions.
6. Each IPP shall specify in detail the number and kind of programs and facilities needed, including residential, day programs, and specialized medical services, to serve the individual resident in the community. All services shall be integrated into the community to the maximum extent possible. Transition services, including home visits and overnights, as well as any other steps that need to be taken to ensure an orderly and smooth transition for the resident, must also be included in the IPP. Training for community facility staff must include meetings at ADC with staff familiar with the resident to be transferred prior to the actual placement.
For school-age children, the IPP shall also include a statement of the educational program, including related services
-43-

and transportation services, to be provided each child. No child shall be placed in any setting that is not fully capable of providing the educational services required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485. All placements of children in residential settings must also comply with all applicable Tennessee state laws with regard to special educational services to handicapped children.
7. Defendants shall ensure that the community placement for each and every ADC resident meets the individual needs of the resident, as identified in the IPP. Under no circumstances will the speed or type of a placement be governed by anything other than the interests of the resident being placed. In order to accomplish this, the Defendants may use existing community placements only where they have certified that the placement meets the needs of the resident as identified in the IPP. Where there are no existing placements to meet the resident's needs, Defendants shall create or contract for a community placement that meets the needs of the resident as identified in the IPP. Defendants shall similarly certify that the new placement shall meet the needs of the resident as identified in the IPP.
8. The IPP and the placement certification for each resident will be filed with the Monitor 60 days before each placement is to occur. The Monitor shall review each IPP and placement certification to determine the adequacy of the placement. In situations where the Monitor determines the
-44-

placement is not adequate, no placement shall occur until the issue is resolved.
9. Defendants shall afford residents, parents and guardians an opportunity to participate in the placement process.
10. Defendants shall ensure that each resident placed in a community-based program pursuant to this Order has an advocate selected by a process developed by Defendants.
11. Community placements shall be required to provide a safe and humane environment in which individuals are provided daily opportunities to learn, develop and maintain skills. All services, including medical and other health related services (e.g.. physical therapy, occupational therapy, dental, speech and hearing, nutrition), and psychology, must be adequate and appropriate to meet the individual needs of the residents.
12. Defendants shall develop a case management system sufficient to ensure that the needs of each resident placed in a community-based program pursuant to this Order are consistently reviewed and met. Every resident will have a case manager. No case manager shall have a case load in excess of 3 0 developmentally disabled persons. Case managers will be supervised by and report to a designated staff person of DMHMR and will receive a minimum of eighty hours training in the requirements identified in Paragraph P in addition to other jobrelated training.
Case managers will be in regular, frequent contact with the people on their caseload in both their residential and day
-45-

program or work site. Case managers will observe participation in programs and therapeutic interventions and will evaluate the degree to which services in the individualized plan are being delivered. In no event will case managers visit each of their assigned residents less than once every two weeks.
13. Defendants shall survey all community-based programs and facilities operated or supported by state funds in which former ADC residents placed pursuant this Order reside at least annually to determine compliance with requirements referenced in Paragraph P herein. Reviews of the medical, psychological and psychiatric services available to these former ADC residents also must occur on an annual basis by experts chosen by the Monitor in each area being reviewed. Defendants shall ensure that all deficiencies found in community placements are remedied promptly. Defendants shall address continuing deficiencies in community placements by sanctions against the providers.
14. Investigations of all abuse or neglect allegations in community placements or programs in which residents covered by this Order reside must be done by trained investigators who report directly to the Assistant Commissioner of DMHMR.
15. Reports for each residence or program surveyed by Defendants pursuant to this Order shall be forwarded to the Monitor within 30 days of the site visit component of the survey.
16. All community-based programs and facilities covered by this Order shall meet state and local licensure requirements, DMHMR regulations and applicable fire safety codes. Defendants
-46-

must also ensure that all such community-based programs meet the requirements of Defendants1 waiver plan and Defendants' current Quality Assurance Guidelines for Community Mental Retardation Services.
17. All residents being placed from ADC automatically shall be deemed eligible for a waiver for a period of time not less than five years.
18. Defendants shall provide sufficient funding to fulfill the requirements in this agreement.
19. The Monitor is permitted unrestricted access to the community placements of former ADC residents placed pursuant to this Order and documentation regarding such placements for so long as the Court retains jurisdiction in U.S. v. Tennessee. The United States may have access to documentation regarding such placements upon request and access to the community placements of former ADC residents when issues regarding compliance with this Order are raised by the Monitor.
Deficiencies identified by either the monitor or the United States in community placements must be addressed by Defendants immediately in accordance with Paragraph M. XV. APPOINTMENT. DUTIES AND PRIVILEGES OF MONITOR
A. Following approval of this Order by the Court, the Court will appoint a Monitor to evaluate the Defendants' compliance with the provisions of this Order.
« B. The duties of the Monitor will include:
-47-

1. conduct on-site reviews at ADC and community placements of former ADC residents covered by this Order at least semiannually to determine compliance with all provisions of this Order. A reasonable number of expert consultants may be retained to assist the Monitor in these reviews. 2. Produce a Compliance Report after each review which contains the results of the on-site review and a summary of the information contained in reports submitted by ADC, including any follow-up action taken by the Monitor. This report should be submitted to the Court and both parties. 3. Be available by phone, correspondence and, when needed, in person to the residents and staff of ADC, parents and guardians of residents of ADC, parties to this litigation, and to the Court. 4. Review all ADC policies and procedures adopted to implement the objectives of this Order and provide advice to Defendants regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of such policies and procedures. 5. Undertake special assignments, tasks, and investigations as may be requested or ordered by the Court. 6. Prepare and submit to the Court, with a copy to Defendants, annual budgets for all costs associated with the duties and responsibilities of the Monitor and revise these as necessary to accomplish special assignments, tasks, and
investigations if these are required by the Court. The
-48-

Defendants will have fifteen (15) days after receipt to submit any comments to the Court. 7. Submit monthly invoices to the Court for reimbursement, with a copy to Defendants. The Defendants will have fifteen (15) days after receipt to submit any comments to the Court. C. The Monitor will have unlimited access to all residents, staff, consultants, records (including individual resident's records), files (other than files of the ADC attorney), facilities, buildings and premises subject to this action. The Defendants will not refuse any reasonable request by the Monitor for documents or other information and will permit confidential interviews of staff. At the Monitor's request, a single representative of the Defendants will coordinate tours of ADC and community placements and gather documents or other information requested by the Monitor. The Monitor need not give advance notice of any tours of ADC but will give reasonable notice of intent to review documents that must be gathered in order to facilitate a review. These provisions will also apply to any consultant retained by the Monitor. D. Retaliation against any state employee, ADC resident, or family member provided information to the Monitor or the Court or the United States is strictly prohibited and will be a violation of this Order, subjecting Defendants to contempt sanctions by the Court. A notice to this effect must be posted in all locations where employee and public notices are posted.
-49-

E. The Monitor will be copied on all motions to the Court: and correspondence between the parties.
F. The Monitor's notes and files will not be subject to discovery by either party.
G. In instances described in this Order in which the Monitor may give or withhold approval, the Monitor's decision must consider the reasonableness, feasibility and efficacy of the proposed modification in satisfying the terms of this remedialOrder. In all instances in this Remedial Plan in which approval by the Monitor is specified, the Monitor's decision is effective immediately and will remain in effect unless overturned by the Court. If either party disagrees with the position taken by the Monitor, the following recourse will be available:
a. The dissatisfied party will inform the Monitor inwriting of the basis for its disagreement with the Monitor-'s decision within ten working days; the other party will be given an opportunity to comment within ten working days; the Monitor will reconsider the decision to approve or disapprove and make a final decision within five working days of the receipt of the last set of party's comments.
b. If the dissatisfied party disagrees with the Monitor's reconsideration of the approval decision, the party may present the issue to the Court for determination within five working days of the Monitor's final decision.
-50-

XVI. ACCESS BY UNITED STATES The United states and its attorneys, consultants and agents
shall have reasonable access to the facilities, records, residents and employees of ADC. The United States is not required to give Defendants advance notice of its intent to tour ADC. Such access to ADC shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
A. Nothing in the Order shall preclude the United States from conducting additional discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as, but not limited to, depositions or requests for admissions, on matters relating to enforcement or compliance with the Order.
B. Defendants shall bear all costs related to copying or otherwise supplying the United States or the Monitor with documents requested by the United States or the Monitor that relate to the Defendants' compliance with the Order.
C. The United States shall have access to all ADC records and documents, subject to the provisions of VI (L). Defendants shall provide to the United States copies of all documents provided to the Monitor upon request of the United States, subject to the provisions of VI (L).
D. The United States shall have reasonable access to speak with all ADC employees or consultants. Counsel for Defendants may be present during such interviews, if counsel so desires, provided such presence does not restrict or limit the United States' access to the ADC employees or consultants.
-51-

F. If employees or consultants of Defendants, on their own initiative, express a desire to speak privately with representatives of the United States, they shall be permitted to do so without repercussions by Defendants. Furthermore, retaliation against any individual, family member or resident based on communication with the United States is strictly prohibited. A notice to this effect must be posted in all locations where employee and public notices are posted.
G. Defendants reserve the right to seek relief from the Court in the event that the United States' access proves to be unreasonable. XVII. TIME FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The Order requirements herein will be achieved by Defendants in accordance with the Schedule of Implementation, attached as Attachment A to this Order. XVIII. RETENTION REVIEWS
A. In order to effectuate the delivery of care consistent with constitutional requirements, the Superintendent will conduct retention reviews of all ADC employees. In making retention reviews, longevity within the institution or the State of Tennessee will not be a basis for retention.
1. During a period of one year beginning September 1, 1994, the Superintendent of ADC will review for retention each professional staff person at ADC. Professional staff persons include those persons serving in positions such as administrators; physicians; dentists; dental hygienists;
-52-

pharmacists; nurses; physical, occupational, speech, communication and recreation therapists; dieticians; psychologists; audiologists; social workers; educational and vocational instructors; or in positions with equivalent titles.
2. During a period of eighteen (18) months beginning September 1, 1994, the Superintendent of ADC will review for retention all other staff at ADC.
3. Staff who are retained by the ADC Superintendent during the period of review, but whose permanent retention was deemed questionable, will be given one year of conditional.retention while final determination is being made. XVIV. JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT
A. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes under this Order until this action is dismissed.
B. (1) After this Order has been in effect for at least three years, the Defendants may petition this Court for termination of this Order, in whole or in part, on grounds that they have achieved and demonstrated their ability to maintain compliance with its provisions.
(2) Upon filing of such a petition, the United States shall have 60 days within which to tour and respond. Thereafter, the Monitor will conduct a review of the compliance issues raised by the petition and response and report to the Court and the parties on the results of that review. The Court will conduct a hearing as soon as practicable thereafter.
-53-

C. The falsification of records, data, correspondence or other information required for determining the Defendants' compliance with this Order is strictly prohibited and will be a violation of this Order, subjecting Defendants to contempt sanctions by the Court. A notice to this effect will be posted in all locations where employee and public notices are posted.

DONE and ORDERED this Tennessee.

day of

, 1994 a t Memphis,

CERTIFIED .TEUE "COEX ECEERB mU&!WU<U CLERK

Phipps McCalla ted States District Judge

FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: FOR THE UNITED STATES:

CHARLES W. BURSON

DEVAL LT~PATRICK

%r

Attorney General & Reporter Assistant Attorney General

A. K
LINDA A. ROSS Associate Solicitor General JANICE L. TURNER Assistant Attorney General

ARTHUR E. PEABODY}* JTl., Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division

'BOWMAN VERLIN P. HUGHES WILLIAM G. MADDOX
-54-

SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION
The following timeframes shall begin on September 1, 1994, unless otherwise specified. These timeframes may be extended with the approval of the Monitor and concurrence of the Court.

I. Protection From Harm

A. B. C. D.I. D.2. D.3.

1:1 coverage Direct care staff ratios Injury reports Retain investigators Qualifications of investigators Responsibilities of investigators

D.4.,5 Abuse and Neglect

Prevention Committee

E.

Staff Training

II. Staffing

A.

Retain Nurses

B.

Retain Chief Psychologist

C.

Retain Staff Psychologist

D.

Retain Psychiatrists

E.

Retain Physiatrist

F.

Retain Orthopedist

G.

Training

III. Psychology and Habilitation

A. B.,C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Behavior Treatment Programs Training Programs Staff Training Implement Programs Supervision of Implementation Evaluation Procedures Staff Training Review Procedures Consultant

Immediately 3 0 days 60 days 3 months 3 months Begin at 4
months
3 0 days Begin
immediately; Complete in 6
months
3 months 3 months 3 months 3 0 days 30 days 3 0 days 12 months
12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 3 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 3 months

Attachment A

K.

Responsibilities of Chief

Psychologist

L.

Behavior Management Committee

Begin at 5 months
6 months

IV. Restraint

A.

Behavior Programs

B.

Restrictive Procedures

C.

Use of Restraints

3 months 6 0 days 60 days

V. Psychiatry and the Use of Drugs

A.

Medications

B.

Behavior Programs

C.

Use of Psychotropic Medication

D.

Prescription of Medication

E.I.-3., 5.-6.

E.4.

F.

Service on IDTs

G.

Staff Training

30 days 60 days 6 months 3 0 days 6 months Immediately 3 0 days 6 months

VI. Medical Care

A.

Retain Developmental

Medicine Physician

B.I. 2.

B.3.

C.I

Problem List and Annual

medical Plan

C.2.a. ,:

C.2.c

C.2.e. C.2.f. C.2.g D.
E.

Review for Speciality Consults
Ensure Consults Obtained

6 months Annual IHP date 3 months
Annual IHP date Begin immediately;
complete in 9 months Begin immediately; complete in 3 months 3 months 3 months 3 0 days
3 months 3 months

F.I.

6 months

F.2.- 5.

3 months

F.6.,8.,9.

6 months

F.7. Status Epilepticus

Immediately

G.

Training in Emergency Procedures Begin Immediately;

Complete in 3

months

H.

Transfer of Records

6 months

I.

Medications

30 days

J.

Orthopedic Problems

30 days

K.

Fractures

3 0 days

L.

Peer and Mortality Reviews

6 months

VII. Physical and Nutritional Management

A. -E F. G.
H. I. J . ,K
L.
M. N.

Postural Drainage Nutritional Management
Advisory Committee Annual Assessments Dining Plans Assemble and Train Clinical
Nutritional Management Teams Responsibilities of
Clinical Teams Training on General Principles Assist and Support Teams

Begin immediately 3 0 days
3 0 days Annual IHP date Annual IHP date
4 months
9 months 9 months 4 months

VIII. Nursing

A.B.,D., G.-J. C.,E.,F. K. Nursing care plans

6 months 3 months Annual IHP date

IX.

Provision of Care to Residents with Hearing. Vision, or

Communication Needs

A. Communication and Hearing B. Vision

Annual IHP date Annual IHP date

X.

Physical and Occupational Therapy Needs

A.-F.

G. Staff Training

H.

Positioning

H.a.,b.,d.,e., Physical Management

Plans

H.c. Therapeutic Equipment

I. Retain Therapy Staff J. Retain Director K. Retain Consultant

One-third of residents within 6 months; Two-thirds of residents within 12 months; All residents by 18 months
6 months 6 months 60 days after
evaluation Order within
15 days of Plan 6 months 3 months 3 months

XI.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

A.

3 months

B.

24 months

XII. Recordkeepino

6 months

XIII. Resident Property

6 months

XIV.

Admission and Placements
A. B.I. B.2. B.3. B.4. B.5. B.6.-9.

3 6 months Immediately 3 6 months Immediately 3 months Immediately 3 months

B.10. B.ll. B.12. B.13.
B.14. B.15. B.16.
B.17. B.18. B.19.

12 months 3 months 12 months Begin upon
placements, completion of cycle 12 months 3 months 3 months Begin upon placements, completion of cycle 12 months 3 months HCFA contingency 3 months

 
 U.S. v. Tennessee

•

^

W

MH

VH

HV

••

MR-TN-003-009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

c I E1.' r.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al..
Defendants.

No. 92-2062 Ml/A

ORDER ON CONTEMPT PETITION

This matter came on for a hearing on Friday, July 29, 1994, on plaintiff's Motion for a Contempt Order or for an Order to Show Cause, filed June 29, 1994. Following the hearing the Court reserved ruling pending a final determination on the remedy to be imposed in this case. A Remedial Order having been entered by consent of the parties on September 6, 1994, the court now issues this order on the contempt petition.
A preliminary injunction was entered in this case on November 22, 1993, in conjunction with the Court's oral ruling that conditions at Arlington Development Center were inconsistent with the mandate contained in Youngberg v. Romeo. 102 S.Ct. 2452 (1982). See Supplemental Findings of Fact and Addendum, docketed February 18, 1994. In its Order of November 22nd, this Court specifically found that:
'this document e 79 (a) FilC? on.

[In] the medical care area, and in the area of direct care supervision of residents, conditions at Arlington Development Center pose an immediate danger of irreparable harm, including an immediate risk of death to residents of Arlington Development Center. Medical care within the institution, particularly for patients with seizure disorders, is so deviant from any recognized principles of medical care that any patient suffering prolonged seizures (status epilepticus) may be in immediate peril of his/her life. The testimony is virtually uncontradicted that no standard of care recognizes the administration of intramuscular valium for status epilepticus and that the only appropriate treatment for status epilepticus involving use of valium is IV valium. Similarly, the failure of direct care staff to directly supervise individuals with known behavior disorders, including eating disorders, has resulted in deaths which were entirely preventable.
Preliminary Injunction, 1 n.l.
In order to provide immediate relief concerning these
conditions, this Court issued a Preliminary Injunction:
1. Defendants- shall immediately act to properly supervise residents with known severe behavioral disorders, including eating disorders which may result in life threatening conditions. Arlington Development Center shall protect those individuals from harm and shall assign additional staff, specially trained, to supervise the care of those residents with the most severe self injurious or life threatening behavior disorders.
2. Arlington Development Center shall conduct immediate inservice training of all physicians and nursing personnel regarding the proper diagnosis and treatment of seizure disorders and shall staff all facilities on a 24-hour basis with health care providers (either physicians or nurses) who have been so trained.
Id. at 3-4.
. Plaintiff asserts that defendants took few meaningful
actions to comply with the Court's injunction. More
- 2-

specifically, plaintiff contends: (1) that defendants have failed to properly supervise and protect individuals at Arlington Developmental Center who have known severe behavior disorders, and have failed to train medical personnel to properly diagnose and treat seizure disorders; (2) that medical staff continue to allow residents to suffer status epilepticus for an hour and more, prescribing only intramuscular medication and fail to transport residents to the hospital; (3) that defendants continue to interfere with the United States' access to staff and to information about ADC by refusing to produce records and by permitting staff to falsify documents and be untruthful in interviews;, and (4) that defendants refuse to take any actions to remedy the conditions at ADC until this Court issues a final order.
In response to the Contempt motion filed by defendants, the Court issued orders requiring Dr. Cox, the Director of Psychology; Dr. McLemore, a physician and formerly Medical Director; Dr. Mohyuddin, a physician at ADC; and Dr. Herring, a physician at ADC, to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt of Court for violation of the Contempt Order.
The evidence submitted at the contempt hearing, including numerous documents and the credible testimony of Dr. Hyman, overwhelmingly demonstrated that defendants failed to properly
- 3-

treat residents with seizure disorders. Based on the record before the Court, the medical staff allowed residents to suffer status epilepticus for an hour, or more, and treated them with intramuscular medication."1 This response to seizure management is contrary to minimum accepted standards of practice and in direct violation of the Contempt Order previously issued by this Court. Further, the record clearly reflects that defendants have failed to train all physicians and nursed in the proper diagnosis and treatment of seizure disorders and have failed to ensure that all facilities are staffed with such properly trained professionals.
Moreover, the evidence before the Court, including the credible testimony of Dr. Christian, shows that defendants have

m

For example, the record indicates that on February 22, 1994, resident

Leandro P. had three prolonged seizures: one for 20 minutes, one for at

least an hour and 35 minutes, and the third one lasted for at least one

hour. Resident Leandro P. was found by a Developmental Technician ("DT")

in his second seizure, foaming at the mouth with labored breathing and a

temperature of 103.4 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the physician

notes. Dr. HcLemore, the attending physician, did not take any action

until 45 minutes after the seizure was first noticed by the DT. By this

time the resident was in status epilepticus. Dr. McLemore did not examine

the patient, but gave an order for IM Ativan over the phone. The

medication was not given for another 25 minutes following the phone

medication order. No effort was made to administer IV medication or

transfer the resident to the hospital, even though minimum accepted

standard practice would have dictated such a response. (The nursing note

indicates that the visible seizure signs stopped 25 minutes after the IM

medication was given, which was one hour and 35 minutes after the seizure

was noticed.) As soon as the seizure appeared to be over, Dr. McLemore

took the resident to ADC's clinic for an E E C Once there, the resident

began seizing again. Dr. McLemore's note at 4:30 p.m. states that Leandro

P. was in status epilepticus and should be sent to the hospital. He,

however, did not leave for the hospital until 5:30 pm. At this point in

the record, Dr. Herring, another physician, inserted a note indicating

that IV medication had been given at 5:20 p.m.

- 4-

failed to properly supervise and protect resident from harm.'21 Further still, the data collection at the facility is unreliable. The data collection, necessary for accurate diagnosis and treatment, under represents the rate and severity of behaviors, (see Christian, at 9(D), 9(E)), or has been falsified.
Plaintiff has met its burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendants have violated this Court's Preliminary Injunction. Accordingly, this Court finds that defendants' conduct amounts to CONTEMPT OF COURT.
In plaintiff's petition for contempt, plaintiff requests that the Court, inter alia, require defendants to commence immediate training of medical staff on seizure management, retain an outside qualified consultant to train the staff on the needs of residents with severe behavior disorders, appoint Dr. Linda O'Neall as a monitor, reimburse plaintiff for the costs of the contempt petition, and permit the United States to have access to ADC. In the Court's opinion most of these remedies have been

121

For example, resident Leroy P. has pica behavior (eats inedible objects).

He has had so many- surgeries for bowel obstructions due to his pica, that

another obstruction could be life threatening. On March 13, 1994, the

resident had one-to-one staffing assigned to him when he ingested multiple

paper towels and laundry string which resulted in his hospitalization on

March 14, 1994. In the month of February 1994, the Consumer Risk

Management Report indicates that he had nineteen pica incidents. This

information came from staff observing his emesis, and not from them

observing his eating the objects. Had adequately trained staff been

appropriately monitoring Leroy P.,it would not have been possible for him

to ingest this much material unobserved.

- 5 -

sufficiently addressed by the consent Remedial Order entered by the Court on September 6, 1994. This comprehensive order covers such concerns as abuse, psychology and habilitation services, use of restraints, psychiatric and mental health services, medical care and services, physical and nutritional management, nursing care, physical and occupational therapy services, educational services pursuant to the IDEA, record keeping, resident property, admissions and placements, as well as duties and privileges of the Monitor. See Remedial Order, entered Sept. 6, 1994.
Since, at this time, the Remedial Order adequately addresses the concerns raised in the contempt petition, the Court will not impose any sanctions in addition to those outlined by the Court at the Contempt hearing.131 However, plaintiff's request for costs associated with the filing of the petition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order, an itemized list of costs associated with the contempt petition and a proposed order granting the request. Defendant shall have fifteen (15) days to comment on the itemized costs.

P1

Following the hearing the Court instructed defendants to provide copies of

Court Orders to all ADC professional staff, have them read the orders and

sign a form indicating that the Court's instructions will be complied

with. These Orders were to be provided to the professional staff by

August 5, 1994. Further, defendants were Ordered to post a notice to all

ADC employees that copies of said Orders are available to them and that

they are to read them.

- 6 -

SO ORDERED this c*%\ day of March 1995. PHIPPS McCALLA
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 7-

 
 ""

U.S. v.Tennessee

o,

!lilllllHlil

MR-TN-003-010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

•>£«'
A'*:
S5 JUH-33 AMI!: 3

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE n

. >

CL'iF.-. ' ;.LT. CT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et aJU,
Defendants.

' )
)
) ) ) Civil Action No, ) 92-2062-Mla ) ) ) )

EMERGENCY ORDER

After holding a hearing by telephone conference call with

the parties andthe Court Monitor on June 30, 1995, and upon

consideration o£ the Court Monitor's Expert Developmental
t
Medicine Physician's report {Exhibit 1 ) , this Court orders that

Defendants take theemergency measures listed below at the

Arlington Developmental Center. Theprovisions of this Order are

effective June 30, 1995, andinclude action already begun by

Defendants.
1. Within 48 hours, Defendants sha|rl retain a Developmental Medicine Physician to be full-tiitiegat"'Arlington Developmental Center. This physician shall be appr5qwe.d;.-Jby the Court Monitor's Developmental Medicine Physician Cdnaii^M^^z^

2. Theduties of the Developmental Meditfaaqfe Physician shall include, but not be limited to, thefollowing-.

a. With the Developmental R.N., thoroughly evaluate, develop a comprehensive treatment plan, andclinically oversee the care of allcritically ill or critically-at-risk individuals (physically or mentally) identified by theMedical Director;

b. With the Medical Director, oversee the provision of all medical care at the facility, including monitoring of care delivered by on-call physicians, nurse practitioners and consultants and training all physicians in the medical care of developmentally disabled individuals;

This document ente^d^on docket sheet in compliance with Rule 58 and/or 70 (a) FRCP on /~ O ~

0S/3Q/95 16:58 © 2 0 2 514 6273

CRT SPEC LIT

@]003

c. Participate in the Nutritional Management Program for Nutritionally-at-Risk individuals, including assessment o:: individuals, attending Nutritional Management meetings aj3 appropriate and monitoring the effectiveness of treatment: plans;
d. Work closely with the psychiatrist and Chieit of Psychology for individuals with severe behavior/psychiatric disorders who are at significant risk of harm;
•e. With the Medical Director, establish written agreements with hospitals and emergency medical service providers re-jarding acutely ill individuals;
f. With the Medical Director, monitor the care provided in acute care hospitals and assure adequate communication regarding Arlington residents' medical needs and treatment;
g. With the Medical Director, assure that no Do Not ' Resuscitate ("DNR") orders are issued inappropriately, a:*} that DNR orders and treatment decisions are not based upon an individual's degree of retardation.
3. In addition to the Developmental Medicine Physician, and the Medical Director, Defendants shall have on duty within two weeks four primary care physicians. These physicians must be approved by the Court Monitor'is Developmental Medicine Physician Consultant.
4. Defendants shall immediately retain the services of additional physicians for night coverage.
5. Within one week, Defendants shall retain the services of a full-time psychiatrist.
6. Defendants shall retain two Developmental Nurses approved by the Court Monitor's Nurse Consultant. The duties of Developmental Nurses shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. With the Developmental Medicine Physician, thoroughly assess, treat, and monitor individuals identified as critically ill (physically or mentally) , who have been identified by the Medical Director, Remedial Order Facilitator or Assistant Superintendents ;
b. Evaluate and monitor on request by the Developmental Medicine Physician, individuals experiencing acute events and assist the IDT in determining appropriate treatments and precautions;
c. Examine nursing assignments and reassign available nurses, as needed, to achieve desired citizen outcomes, with every nurse on staff except the Nurse Educator and the Infection

Control Nurse, responsible for some direct citi2en care during their assigned shifts,-

d. Attend Nutritional management Team meetings and evaluate selected individuals;

e. Assist individuals to eat with one accompanying nurse,

at three mealtimes per week, in a_total of three different homes

on grounds;

~~

f. Assist the Nurse Educator in developing and implementing training in developmental nursing competencies in addition to medication administration, and spot-monitoring of safe, appropriate medication administration to individuals with developmental disabilities.

7. Defendants shall contract with two Developmental Nurse Consultants within two weeks -

8. Defendants shall hire to the capacity of one hundred thirtysix (136) nurses as called for by the Plan of Correction agreed to on April 12, 1995. To carry out this recruitment effort, the Central office will temporarily assign Pat Womack to Arlington. Nurses, not developmental technicians, must monitor the progress of residents whose conditions are critical.

9. Defendants shall negotiate written agreements with hospitals within sixty days.

10. Defendants shall negotiate written agreements with emergency medical service providers within sixty days.

11. The Commissioner will identify and empower a single individual acceptable to the Court Monitor to be accountable for the accomplishment of each of these emergency motions- These individuals will report in writing on their progress every two (2) days to the Court Monitor who will keep the CQUXt an<£ tH& United States informed of their

12. Until TMfefcAaraes tiave retained a Developmental Medicine 5 W « i e i a n in compliance with the Remedial order and the Court Monitor' 5 Developmental Physician advises the COUrt that these emergency measures have stabilized physician services at Arlington, a state of medical emergency with heightened scrutiny by the Court will continue and additional remedies may be imposed.

The above is HEREBY ORDERED this \3 day of*J**W , 1995.

able Jon Phipps McCalla d States District Judge

 
 U.S. v. Tennessee

MR-TN-003-011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

-J JL_ 2 I l'=i 5: '1-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
V. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

) ),-_
) ) )

No. 92-2062-M1/A

ORDER

This Court entered an Emergency Order, effective June 30, 1995, which directed Defendants to take various actions to improve the medical care being provided residents of the Arlington Developmental Center ("ADC"). The Emergency Order was entered after the Court Monitor and the Monitor's Expert Developmental Medicine Physician, Dr. Renee Wachtel, reported that a state of medical emergency existed at ADC, and a hearing by telephone conference call was-.held with the parties, the Monitor and Dr. Wachtel.
A hearing on the Emergency Order was held on July 10, 1995, wherein the Court heard evidence regarding compliance with the Emergency Order and the current state of medical care at ADC. Dr. Wachtel also testified regarding her concerns with Defendants' efforts at compliance. Based upon the evidence presented, this Court ruled that Defendants had failed to comply
58

with the Emergency Order and that the requirements of the Emergency Order were s t i l l necessary. Accordingly, this Order is hereby entered in the form of a preliminary injunction, incorporating the requirements of the Emergency Order with appropriate modifications and additions. The Emergency Order was made effective June 30, 1995, and the deadlines for Defendants' compliance with those provisions are retained in this Order and t o l l from the effective date of the Emergency Order. A hearing has been set for August 9, 1995, to determine further the status of Defendants' compliance with t h i s Order and the continuing need for a preliminary injunction.
1. Within 48 hours, Defendants shall retain a Developmental Medicine Physician"1 to be full-time at Arlington Developmental

111

The deadline for retention of a full-time Developmental Medicine Physician

was established during the June 30, 1995 telephone hearing and is

contained in the Order docketed July 3, 1995. Also see Remedial Order

(docketed September 2, 1994), Section VI.A.(Developmental Medicine

Physician to be retained by March 2, 1995). A full-time Developmental

Medicine Physician was to be retained by July 5, 1995. At the hearing on

July 10, 1995 i t became clear that the State had been unable to comply

with paragraph 1 by retaining a single individual Developmental Medicine

Physician but sought to substantially comply with paragraph 1. by using a

large group of Developmental Physicians. The medical conditions at ADC

require that these services, to be meaningful and substantially in

compliance, be delivered by at most a small number of Developmental

physicians who can provide complete hands-on clinical care and who are in

close communication with each other in order to provide consistent,

reliable, coordinated physician services. The objective and intent of

paragraph 1 is to provide the medical leadership, supervision and

expertise necessary to improve the quality of medical services to patients

at ADC. Merely f i l l i n g out a schedule with non-practicing physicians who

happen to be certified Developmental Physicians will not constitute

substantial compliance with paragraph 1. The defendants are to make every

effort to obtain a qualified full-time Developmental Medicine Physician as

soon as possible and in accordance with t h i s Order.

- 2-

Center. This physician shall be approved by the Court Monitor's Developmental Medicine Physician Consultant.
2. The duties of the Developmental Medicine Physician shall include, but not be limited to, the'following:
a. With the Developmental R.N., thoroughly evaluate, develop a comprehensive treatment plan, and clinically oversee the care of all critically ill or critically-at-risk individuals (physically or mentally) identified by the Medical Director;
b. With the Medical Director, oversee the provision of all medical care at the facility, including monitoring of care delivered by on-call physicians, nurse practitioners and consultants and training all physicians in the medical care of developmentally disabled individuals;
c. Participate in the Nutritional Management Program for Nutritionally-at-Risk individuals, including assessment of individuals, attending Nutritional Management meetings as appropriate and monitoring the effectiveness of treatment plans;
d. Work closely with the psychiatrist and Chief of Psychology for individuals with severe behavior/psychiatric disorders who are at significant risk of harm;
- 3-

e. With the Medical Director, establish written agreements with hospitals and emergency medical service providers regarding acutely ill individuals;
f. With the Medical Director, monitor the care provided in acute care hospitals and assure adequate communication regarding Arlington residents' medical needs and treatment;
g. With the Medical Director, assure that no Do Not Resuscitate ("DNR") orders are issued inappropriately, and that DNR orders and treatment decisions are not based upon an individual's degree of retardation.
3. In addition to the Developmental Medicine Physician, and the Medical Director, Defendants shall have on duty within two weeks four primary care physicians. These physicians must be approved by the Court Monitor's Developmental Medicine Physician Consultant.
4. Defendants shall immediately retain the services of additional physicians for night coverage.
- 4-

5. Within one week, Defendants shall retain the services of a full-time psychiatrist.121
6. Defendants shall retain two Developmental Nurses approved by the Court Monitor's Nurse Consultant. The duties of Developmental Nurses shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. With the Developmental Medicine Physician, thoroughly assess, t r e a t , and monitor individuals identified as c r i t i c a l l y i l l (physically or mentally), who have been identified by the Developmental Medicine Physician, Medical Director, Remedial Order Facilitator or Assistant Superintendents;
b. Evaluate and monitor on request by the Developmental Medicine Physician, individuals experiencing acute events and a s s i s t the IDT in determining appropriate treatments and precautions;

ra

At the July 10, 1995 hearing, defendants indicated that a full-time

psychiatrist has been retained and will begin work at ADC on Monday,

August 14, 1995. I t should be noted that the one week deadline for

retention of a full-time psychiatrist was established as a reasonable date

as a result of the hearing of June 30, 1995 and, therefore, was included

in the Order docketed July 3, 1995. Also see Remedial Order, Section

II.E.(deadline to retain psychiatarist/October 2, 1994).

- 5-

• c. Examine nursing assignments and reassign available nurses, as needed, to achieve desired citizen outcomes, with every nurse on staff except the Nurse Educator and the Infection Control Nurse, responsible for some direct citizen care during their-assigned shifts;
d. Attend Nutritional Management Team meetings and evaluate selected individuals;
e. Assist individuals to eat with one accompanying nurse, at three mealtimes per week, in a total of three different homes on grounds;
f. Assist the Nurse Educator in developing and implementing training in developmental nursing competencies in addition to medication administration, and spot-monitoring of safe, appropriate medication administration to individuals with developmental disabilities.
7. Defendants shall contract with two Developmental Nurse Consultants within two weeks.
8. Defendants shall hire to the capacity of one hundred thirty-six (136) nurses by August 8, 1995. The Court notes that, pursuant to Defendants' Plan of Correction dated April 20, 1995,
- 6-

Defendants were to have already complied with this directive by July 1, 1995. That has not been done. To carry out this recruitment effort, the Central Office will temporarily assign Pat Womack to Arlington. Nurses, not developmental technicians, must monitor the progress of residents whose conditions are critical.
9. Defendants shall negotiate written agreements with hospitals within sixty days.
10. Defendants shall negotiate written agreements with emergency medical service providers within sixty days.
* 11. The Commissioner will identify and empower a single individual acceptable to the Court Monitor to be accountable for the accomplishment of each of these emergency motions. These individuals will report in writing on their progress every week to the Court Monitor and the United States. These progress reports will be sent to the Monitor and the United States via telefax by 2:00 P.M. Central Standard Time the Friday of each week.
12. Until Defendants have retained a Developmental Medicine Physician in compliance with the Remedial Order and the Court Monitor's Developmental Physician advises the Court that these
- 7-

emergency measures have stabilized physician services at Arlington, a state of medical emergency with heightened scrutiny by the Court will continue and additional remedies may be imposed.
13. Defendants shall provide to the Court, the Monitor and the United States by close of business July 14, 1995, the following documents131:
a. Defendants' Comprehensive Plan for Interim coverage of the Duties of a Full-Time Development Medicine Physician;
b. Defendants' Recruitment Plan for the Immediate Retention of a full-Time Developmental Medicine Physician; and
c. Defendants' Plan of Coverage for Psychiatric Services.
14. The Defendants shall provide to the Monitor and the United States the following information on a monthly basis:

131

Receipt of these three plans does not constitute adoption or approval of

the plans by the Court. Any plan submitted must comply fully with all

orders in effect in this case. See paragraph 16. infra.

- 8-

a. Reports of resident deaths, including death certificates, autopsy reports, hospital admittance and discharge reports, and investigative reports (this requirement is subject to the provisions of Section VII (L) of the Remedial Order);
b. Documents relating to resident care by emergency medical services and local hospitals, including hospital admittance and discharge reports, and any documents provided to or created by ADC which document the diagnoses, care or recommendations provided by emergency medical services and local hospitals; and
c. A list of all Code Blue emergencies, including the name, age and living unit of the resident involved, the cause of the emergency, the treatment provided, and the result of that treatment.
15. The Defendants shall, within 48 hours, report any deaths of ADC residents to the Monitor and the United States by telefax. ADC's Medical Director and Superintendent are responsible for ensuring such notification takes place.
16. Nothing in this Order obviates or negates the requirements of existing orders. All the requirements of this
- 9 -

Order shall be construed as additional requirements to those already contained in existing orders.

WHEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this

day of July, 1995.

PHIPPS McCALLA TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 10 -

 
 U.S. v. Tennessee

MR-TN-003-012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STATE'OF TENNESSEE, Don Sundquist, Governor ofthe State of Tennessee; Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; Max Jackson, Superintendent, Arlington Developmental Center,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 92-2062 Ml/A

CONTEMPT ORDER

On August 9, 1995, the Court held a hearing on the United States Third Motion for Contempt and on the status of defendants' compliance with the Court's orders of June 3 0 and July 10, 1995. After hearing the evidence presented by both parties and the Court Monitor's expert, the Court found defendants in contempt of the Court's orders and issued contempt sanctions in order to compel compliance and remedy the crisis in care at the Arlington Developmental Center ("ADC").
The history of this case amply demonstrates that the defendants have been given every opportunity to take appropriate corrective action and have continually failed to do so. Unlike the consequences of a party's failure to act in many other civil
on dockat ^heei in compliance v/ith Iluis 53 aad/c:

cases, the defendants' inaction in this case directly impacts on the immediate health and safety of individual citizens. The documentary and oral evidence at the hearings on June 30, July 10, and August 9, 1995, and the entire record in this case demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendants violated the Court's orders of June 30 and July 10, 1995.m As set out in this memorandum and i t s attachments, defendants have failed to marshal their resources to achieve compliance with the provisions of the Emergency Order of June 30, 1995 and the Injunction of July 10, 1995.

The Arlington Developmental Center is a state operated, residential mental retardation facility housing approximately 385 developmentally disabled persons located in Arlington, Tennessee. ADC's population consists primarily of individuals currently assessed as severely or profoundly retarded or developmentally disabled, some of whom have associated physical handicaps, medical problems, or behavior problems. In 1991, ADC was the subject of a United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") investigation of possible statutory and constitutional violations regarding i t s resident population. A DOJ findings l e t t e r citing deficiencies was issued to the state of Tennessee in 1991. On

111

The plaintiff also established by clear and convincing evidence that the

defendants violated the Remedial Order of September 2, 1994, and the

Plan of Correction of April 10, 1995. See n. 8 supra. The standard for

c i v i l contempt applied in t h i s case i s set out in Glover v. Johnson. 934

F.2d 703, 707-08 (6th Cir. 1991) (clear and convincing evidence that the

defendant violated the Court's prior order). See NLRB v. Cincinnati

Bronze, Inc., 829 P.2d 585, 590 (6th Cir. 1987).

January 21, 1992, after the state of Tennessee refused to comply with the DOJ findings letter, the United States of America filed suit against the state of Tennessee and Arlington Developmental Center pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et sea. Trial began in this case on August 30, 1993.
On November 22, 1993, the Court issued its oral opinion, finding that conditions at ADC were in violation of the constitutional and federal statutory rights of the citizens living there, and issued a preliminary injunction directing defendants to take "immediate" action to correct several lifethreatening deficiencies. In its opinion, the Court noted there was proof in support of the United States contention that defendants' resistance to taking meaningful, voluntary corrective action was so pronounced as to be deliberate (Opinion at 27), and specifically found in its Supplemental Findings of Fact that:
Defendants failed to begin remedial measures, even on lifethreatening issues, until after the actual filing of a lawsuit in this case, even "though state officials were informed as early as July 1990 that life-threatening conditions existed at ADC. In fact, some efforts undertaken by defendants did not occur until after the United States filed for a preliminary injunction in March of 1993. . . . ADC has demonstrated resistance and indifference to corrective action.
(Findings at 46 f 150 and f 151.)

Despite these findings, the Court gave defendants an opportunity to craft their own remedial plan — rather than have such a plan dictated by the Court. Defendants' remedial plan was to be submitted to the Court by January 21, 1994. (Preliminary Injunction Order, November 22, 1993.) On December 23, 1993, the Court, while noting that "conditions at [ADC] require that the State"of Tennessee proceed promptly with preparation of the remedial plan," nevertheless, granted defendants' request for an extension until February 18, 1994, to submit their plan. (Order on Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time, December 22, 1993 at 1-2.) On February 18, 1994, defendants submitted a remedial plan that was inadequate, and the defendants moved for and were granted permission to submit a Supplemental Remedial Plan by March 21, 1994. See Order of February 24, 1994. Defendants submitted this Supplemental Remedial Plan on March 18, 1994. The United States objected to the inadequacy of the Plan. After reviewing the Plan and hearing testimony from the parties, the Court ruled at the March 21, 1994 hearing that this Supplemental Plan was also inadequate. After negotiation with the United States, and with input from the Court's Expert Facilitator, the parties submitted a joint Remedial Plan, which was accepted and

entered as the Remedial Order121 by the Court on September 2, 1994. Appendix A.

On July 29, 1994, the United States filed i t s f i r s t Motion for a Contempt Order, alleging that defendants had not complied with the Court's Preliminary Injunction issued November 22, 1993. The evidence presented at a hearing held on July 29, 1994, overwhelmingly demonstrated that defendants were in contempt of the Injunction, and the Court so held in i t s order of March 31, 1995. Because the Court ruled that the Remedial Order adequately addressed the concerns raised in the contempt petition, the Court did not issue contempt sanctions, other than ordering ADC professional staff to read the Court's orders and granting costs to the United States. (Contempt Order, March 31, 1995 at 6.)
Pursuant to the Remedial Order, at the end of 1994, the Court Monitor completed her f i r s t semi-annual review of

121

A Joint Motion of the United States and State of Tennessee for Entry of

Remedial Order was filed on August 31, 1994. The Remedial Order i s a

54-page plan, comprised of 19 specific categories with numerous

subdivisions and an integrated timeline for implementation. Prior to

entry, the Court carefully reviewed the proposal in i t s entirety, and

determined that, if implemented as a whole and in accordance with an

integrated timeline, conditions at Arlington Developmental Center could

be brought into compliance with constitutional and statutory

requirements.

The plan in essence calls for the recruitment and/or training of qualified professionals and direct care staff; the development of adequate planning, implementation, self-monitoring, and recordation procedures; implementation of a retention review procedure to allow defendants maximum latitude in improving personnel performance; and the appointment of a monitor to evaluate defendants' compliance. Provisions of the Remedial Order deal with specific problems identified at ADC. I t should be noted that each component of the Remedial Order will be effective only if i t is implemented in light of a l l of the other components. Thus, in order to successfully implement the Order, the defendants must at a l l times keep in mind how each component f i t s within the overall Remedial Order. See Appendix A.

defendants' compliance with the 1993 Preliminary Injunction and the Remedial Order. The Monitor's Report, which previously had been commented on by the parties, was presented at a hearing on April 10, 1995, and adopted by the Court. The Court concluded, in adopting the monitor's report, that defendants had only complied with five of sixty-six provisions that were to have been accomplished at the time of the Monitor's review. Appendix B. The United States filed its second motion for contempt based upon this identified lack of compliance with the Remedial Order and the 1993 Preliminary Injunction. Again, rather than order sanctions at the time of the hearing, the Court accepted and adopted, as an order of the Court, defendants' Plan of Correction that was submitted on April 10, 1995 and subsequently signed by the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation ("DMHMR") and the Superintendent of ADC. Appendix C.
During a compliance review by Court Monitor occurring the week of June 26, 1995, the Monitor informed the Court and.the parties that a medical crisis existed at ADC. Because of the conditions asserted to exist at ADC, the United States and the court monitor requested an immediate hearing by telephone. The Court conducted a hearing by telephone with the Monitor, the Monitor's medical expert, Dr. Renee Wachtel, and the parties. At that hearing, Dr. Wachtel testified that two (2) people at ADC had died within the last four (4) days. (Tr. June 30, 1995 at 28

11. 21-22.) Dr. Wachtel further t e s t i f i e d that eleven (11) ADC residents had died in the l a s t nine (9) months and that, when compared with other similar populations, that number is "excessive, very excessive." (Tr. June 30, 1995 at 28-29.) Dr. Wachtel set out in her preliminary report (Appendix D) and further t e s t i f i e d on June 30, 1995, regarding immediate c r i t i c a l conditions at ADC. See Tr. June 30, 1995 at 7-22 (inadequate comprehensive medical care, transfers of acutely i l l patients, c r i t i c a l physician shortage,131 absence of psychiatric services, e t c . ) . I t was Dr. Wachtel's opinion that absent immediate action, ADC "will continue to have unnecessary deaths." (Tr. June 30, 1995 at 9.) See also Tr. June 30, 1995 at 21 11. 7-10; Tr. June 30, 1995 at 22 11. 12-25; Tr. June 30, 1995 at 26 11. 24; Tr. at 28 11. 2-17.w The s t a t e of Tennessee acknowledged that the facts supporting the emergency conditions existed and substantially agreed and/or acquiesced in the imposition of a

P1

The s t a t e of emergency at ADC arose in part because of the resignation

or termination of primary care physicians at Arlington Developmental

Center. The minimum complement of five (5) primary care physicians

(including the Medical Director) had dwindled to essentially one (1)

primary care provider plus the Medical Director. Contract and/or loan

physicians were providing some support and night coverage, but i t was

clear from information presented by Dr. Wachtel that effective medical

care for t h i s population was collapsing, (Appendix D), leading to a

serious r i s k of severe or substantial harm or death for numerous ADC

residents.

M

The presence of a Developmental Physician at ADC i s essential to

adequate medical care at the f a c i l i t y . Remedial Order § VI A (September

2, 1995) (Appendix A); Tr. June 30, 1995 at 26 (Wachtel); Tr. June 30,

1995 at 36-37; Tr. June 30, 1995 at 42. The Developmental Physician,

whom s t a t e representatives had t e s t i f i e d on April 10, 1995 would be

present in the f a c i l i t y by June 1, 1995, had declined employment with

the s t a t e of Tennessee. No contract documents were ever presented as to

t h a t physician and there i s no documentary evidence that an agreement

was ever actually reached with that physician for her employment.

proposed Emergency Order. (Tr. June 30, 1995 at 15-16, 30.) After consideration of the documents before the Court and Dr. Wachtel's testimony, the Court adopted the proposed Emergency Order, directing the defendants to take various actions to correct the crisis. Appendix E. The Court scheduled a hearing for July 10, 1995 to ensure that defendants had complied with the provisions of the Emergency Order.
At the July 10, 1995 hearing, the Court heard evidence regarding the deficient medical conditions that existed at ADC and the defendants' non-compliance with the Emergency Order. That evidence included testimony by Dr. Akers, the Arlington Developmental Center Medical Director, who testified on July 10, 1995, that he had informed Commissioner Cardwell's office several months in advance of the need to obtain replacement physicians. (Tr. July 10, 1995 at 113.) No action, however, was taken by the central office. Moreover, Commissioner Cardwell admitted that as of July 10, 1995, a recruiting package had not been prepared for a developmental physician, (Tr. July 10, 1995 at 92), despite the fact that all parties have consistently acknowledged that the recruitment of a developmental physician is critical. (Tr. June 30, 1995 at 26, 36-37, 42.) Based upon the evidence presented, the Court ruled that defendants had failed to comply with the Emergency Order and that the requirements of the Emergency Order were still necessary. The Court incorporated the requirements of the Emergency Order into a preliminary injunction. (Order of
8

July 21, 1995 (Appendix E).) Again, rather than order sanctions for defendants' non-compliance, the Court gave defendants another opportunity to come into compliance by August 9, 1995, and a hearing was set for that date. Id. at 2. The Court made it clear at the July 10, 1995 hearing that if defendants did not comply by the August 9 hearing date, coercive and remedial sanctions might be imposed. (Tr. July 10, 1995 at 143-44.)

At the hearing on August 9, 1995, the defendants put on testimony of Marjorie Nelle Cardwell,151 Tennessee's Commissioner

151

Commissioner Cardwell is "the chief executive officer with the state

responsible for complying with the terms of the Court's order . . .•"

(Tr. April 10, 1995 at 104 11. 17-20.) She began employment with the

state of Tennessee in 1969 as assistant superintendent at Green Valley

Developmental Center, was promoted to assistant superintendent in the

early 1970s, and became superintendent at Cloverbottom Developmental

Center in 1977. From 1980 to 1990, she was superintendent at the Green

Valley Developmental Center in East Tennessee. In August 1990, she was

appointed assistant commissioner (i.e. assistant to the Director of

DMHMR) with direct oversight of mental retardation facilities in

Tennessee. (Trial Tr. September 8, 1993 Vol. VII at 1402.) She

remained in that position during the Department of Justice ("DOJ")

investigation of the Arlington Developmental Center. In 1991, she

received and reviewed the DOJ findings letter regarding Arlington. (Tr.

April 10, 1995 at 104-106.)

The trial record shows that in June 1991, Cardwell came to Memphis and met with Dr. Roland Palmer, former Psychology Director ADC. At this meeting, Dr. Palmer reviewed with Cardwell a list of 39 concerns regarding conditions at Arlington. (Trial Tr. September 8, 1993 Vol. VII at 1403 and Trial Exh. 96 (Appendix M).) Prior to his resignation from Arlington Developmental Center, (Trial Exh. 97) (Appendix N ) ) , Dr. Roland Palmer had participated in an in-house ADC investigation and report, which reflected that evidence against Arlington regarding the DOJ findings letter was "overwhelming," (Trial Tr. Vol. VII at 1405 1. 4 ) , and that the state should make the required changes. (Trial Tr. Vol. VII at 1405-1407.) Palmer testified that the report went to Nashville, including to Cardwell and her superior. According to Palmer,

. . . after that report hit Nashville, things got a lot different at Arlington . . . . Nobody much wanted to talk to me much anymore . . . . Finally [I was] told . . . that the state had decided to fight the decision [the DOJ findings letter].
(Trial Tr. Vol. VII at 1406 11. 8-12.) (Cont.)

of DMHMR, Dr. Fred Palmer, a medical consultant in developmental d i s a b i l i t i e s from the University of Tennessee, and Gaye Hansen, the defendants' Remedial Plan Facilitator at ADC.'61 Ms. Victoria Therriault, an Advanced Nurse Practitioner specializing in developmental d i s a b i l i t i e s , t e s t i f i e d for the United States. The United States placed the reports of Ms. Therriault (Appendix K) and Dr. Susan Hyman (Appendix L), a physician specializing in developmental d i s a b i l i t i e s , into evidence. The reports of the United States experts were based upon their tours of the institution and reviews of documents prior to the hearing.171 The Court Monitor's medical expert, Dr. Renee Wachtel, also t e s t i f i e d based upon her review of documents and her discussions with personnel at ADC the day before the hearing.

(Cont. from previous page) Based on the proof at t r i a l and the testimony of Commissioner Cardwell on April 10, 1995, i t appears that, despite her knowledge of conditions at Arlington while she was assistant commissioner (1990-1993), the department did not hire any experts to provide assistance in correcting the deficiencies l i s t e d by Dr. Roland Palmer. See e.g. Tr. April 10, 1995 at 108-109; Trial Tr. September 8, 1993 at 1403-1408.

On January 21, 1993, Cardwell retired from the State of Tennessee. In January 1995, she was appointed Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for the state of Tennessee. (Tr. April 10, 1995 at 105-106.)

[<l

At several points during defendants' presentation, defendants' witnesses

or counsel for defendants stated that the Assistant Commissioner of

DMHMR, Dr. Larry Durbin, or the Superintendent of ADC, Max Jackson, were

the parties either responsible for ensuring that necessary actions were

taken or had the information as to whether actions had been taken in

compliance with the Court orders. Although both men were present at the

hearing and the Court invited their testimony, defendants' did not c a l l

them to t e s t i f y .

171

Dr. Hyman toured ADC on July 22-23, 1995. (Hearing Exhibit 11 and

Hyman's Report of August 7, 1995 (Appendix L).) Ms. Therriault toured

ADC on July 31 and August 1, 1995. (Hearing Exhibit 10, Therriault's

Report of August 8, 1995 (Appendix K).)

10

Based upon the evidence presented, the Court found that the defendants clearly had not complied with five provisions of the June 30, 1995 Emergency Order/July 21, 1995 Preliminary Injunction.181 I t was indisputable that defendants had not complied with the f i r s t and second provisions of the Injunction, as no Developmental Medicine Physician had been retained as of the date of the hearing, and the crucial duties of that Physician under the Injunction were not being fulfilled. See Tr. August 9, 1995 at 99-101 (Hansen) , 157 (Wachtel) .'" See also Remedial Order § VI A., C. & D. (Appendix A); July 21, 1995 Order f l (Appendix F) n. 1. Similarly, there was l i t t l e dispute that defendants had failed to retain the services of a full-time psychiatrist, as required by provision five of the Injunction.

181

The United States Third Motion for Contempt alleged that defendants were

in non-compliance with not only the Emergency Order/Preliminary

Injunction, but the i n i t i a l Remedial Order and the Plan of Correction.

Evidence was presented, including various admissions by defendants'

witnesses, that supported the United States contention. For example,

Ms. Hansen t e s t i f i e d that defendants were not in compliance with the

Remedial Order or the Plan of Correction (Tr. Aug. 9, 1995 at 91, 93-95,

102, 121-123), and Commissioner Cardwell agreed that defendants were not

in compliance with the Court's Remedial Order (Tr. at 50). The findings

of the United States and the Court Monitor's medical experts concur.

See, e . g . . Tr. Aug. 9, 1995 at 157-58 (Wachtel); 132 (Therriault); and

Exhibits 10 and 11 (Reports of Ms. Therriault (Appendix K) and Dr.

Hyman) (Appendix L). See also n. 1 infra. However, t h i s Court's

contempt finding and focus were on the immediate medical c r i s i s

addressed by the June 30, 1995 Emergency Order and the July 21, 1995

Preliminary Injunction. Thus, the Court's contempt ruling and sanctions

are intended to ensure that defendants promptly comply with the

Emergency Order/Preliminary Injunction requirements, which are intended

to stabilize medical services and to put the necessary professionals in

place to comply with the other court orders forthwith.

191

As noted by the Court in the July 21, 1995 Preliminary Injunction, the

Remedial Order of September 2, 1994, required defendants to have hired a

Developmental Medicine Physician by March 2, 1995. The June 30, 1995

Emergency Order required that defendants take immediate action to f i l l

the position by July 5, 1995. When i t became clear at the hearing on

July 10, 1995, that defendants had failed to comply with that deadline,

defendants were given another extension until the August 9, 1995

hearing.

11

See Tr. August 9, 1995 at 144, 157 (Wachtel). See also Remedial Order, § I I . E. (Appendix A); June 30, 1995 Emergency Order 5 5 (Appendix E).

Provision seven of the Injunction required defendants to contract with two Developmental Nurse Consultants by July 14, 1995. Commissioner Cardwell t e s t i f i e d and defendants' counsel confirmed t h a t defendants had only signed memoranda of understanding upon which they planned to base contracts. See Tr. August 9, 1995 at 30 (Cardwell); 147 (Maloy). See also Tr. at 131 (Therriault) and Exhibit 10 (Appendix K) at 10. Defendants did not produce these memoranda at the hearing.

Under provision eight of the Injunction, defendants were to have hired one hundred t h i r t y - s i x (136) nurses by August 8, 1995.m The most nurses that defendants claimed were on duty by the date of the hearing were 132. See Tr. August 9, 1995 at 31 (Cardwell) (Appendix K). See also Tr. at 147 (Wachtel), 131 (Therriault); and Exhibit 10 (Appendix K) at 10.

(101

As noted in the July 21, 1995 Preliminary Injunction, this was already

to have been accomplished under the Plan of Correction by July 1, 1995.

At the hearing on July 10, 1995, Commissioner Cardwell t e s t i f i e d that

defendants had failed to meet the requirement of 136 nurses by July 10,

1995 (just as they had missed their deadline of July 1, 1995) and that,

as of July 14, 1995, the state would have only 111 nurses. (Tr. July

10, 1995 at 70-71.) This was, of course, s t i l l 25 nurses short of the

minimum voluntary staffing level agreed to by the state in the April 10,

1995 Plan of Corrections I I . C. 1 (Appendix C).

Commissioner Cardwell also acknowledged that at the time of the f i r s t compliance review, Arlington Developmental Center had obtained the services of only 90 nurses and that as of June 30, 1995, they had retained the services of approximately 106 nurses. (Tr. July 10, 1995 at 94.)

12

Although defendants also conceded they were not in
compliance with provision six, that provision did not have a
deadline and, therefore, defendants were not held in contempt of
that requirement. See Tr. August 9, 1995 at 23-24 (Cardwell).
As ordered at the hearing, the defendants now have until August
23, 1995 to comply with that provision.[U1
In the instant case, the language of the District Court in
Aspira of New York. Inc. v. Board of Educ. of New York. 423
F.Supp. 647, 654 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), is particularly appropriate:
"" For each of the remaining provisions, the Court found defendants had complied or the deadline for complying had not expired. It should be noted that although the Court concluded that defendants had minimally complied with the letter of several provisions, that is all that could be said for defendants' efforts. For example, in order to demonstrate compliance with provision nine, (requirement pertaining to negotiation of written agreements with hospitals within 60 days of the June 30, 1995 Emergency Order), defendants testified that a memorandum of understanding was signed with the Regional Medical Center. (Tr. August 9, 1995 at 25 (Cardwell).) (A copy of this memorandum was handed to the Court, but was never entered into evidence by defendants.) However, defendants conceded that they had only an oral agreement with the Le Bonheur Hospital and they presented no evidence of agreements with any other hospitals that serve ADC residents. (Tr. August 9, 1995 at 26 (Cardwell); Tr. at 148-149 (Wachtel).) Moreover, defendants' minimal efforts to achieve this "paper compliance" have not solved the underlying problems which were the reasons for the provisions in the first place; namely, cooperation and communication about patient transfers between ADC and these hospitals, and clarification and oversight of Do Not Resuscitate ("DNR") practices for ADC residents sent to these hospitals. See, e.g., Tr. June 30, 1995 at 10-11, 20-23 (Wachtel); Dr. Wachtel's Report Exhibit 1 (Appendix D) at 3, 5; Tr. July 10, 1995 at 14 (O'Neall). Dr. Wachtel testified that as of August 9, 1995, ADC still had not received discharge summaries for seven ADC residents who were transferred from the hospital back to ADC during the month of July. (Tr. August 9, 1995 at 153.) Commissioner Cardwell testified that defendants still had not developed a DNR policy. (Tr. August 9, 1995 at 33-34.) As a consequence, defendants abdicate any responsibility regarding the utilization of DNR orders for ADC residents. Dr. Wachtel testified that the DNR clause in the memorandum of understanding with the Regional Medical Center is not clear and is inadequate. The Court agrees. Similarly, defendants did retain the services of additional physicians for night coverage in compliance with provision four, but defendants were unclear as to whether they had received or were to be given adequate training. (Tr. at 21, 29 (Cardwell), 118 (Hansen).)
13

Upon the facts disclosed in this proceeding, defendants have fallen far short of the requisite diligence. They have neglected to marshal their own resources, assert their high authority, and demand the results needed from subordinate persons and agencies in order to effectuate the course of action required by the consent decree. They have allowed deadlines to pass without advance announcements or volunteered explanations, awaiting complaints by the plaintiffs before even treating with the court concerning delinquencies. They have borne with seeming equanimity long periods of nonperformance, inadequate performance, or outright defiance. . . . They have displayed an evident sense of nonurgency bordering on indifference, contrasting vividly with the spurt of activity on the heels of plaintiffs' motion for a finding of contempt.
Compliance, or non-compliance with any injunction must, of
course, be measured in the context of the case in which the order
arose, including the circumstances and conduct causing .the
creation of the order and the objective or purpose of the order.
The objective of all remedial action in this case, whether that
action is the Remedial Order itself (Appendix A ) , the Plan of
Correction (Appendix C ) , the Emergency Order (Appendix E ) , or the
subsequent Injunction (Appendix F) is the objective stated in the
first paragraph of the stipulated Remedial Order entered
September 2, 1994. That paragraph provides in relevant part as
follows:
Defendants are hereby Ordered to take the following actions to guarantee the statutory and constitutional rights of residents of Arlington Developmental Center (ADC). Defendants shall remedy the constitutional and statutory deficiencies identified in the Supplemental Findings of February 18, 1994.
14

The defendants' failure to progress toward the overall
objective of improving actual patient care and services at ADC
has been the core problem and subject of previous hearings and orders.1121 As previously noted, the central office allowed the
number of primary care physicians to deteriorate to a c r i s i s
level despite warnings by the ADC Medical Director and the
Superintendent. See Tr. July 10, 1995 at 110-113 (Akers)
(informing superiors of physician shortage March 1995);
Superintendent Jackson's February 17, 1995 Memo to Commissioner
Cardwell (regarding "Pending Crisis in Medical Coverage")
(Appendix G); Dr. Wachtel Preliminary Report, June 30, 1995 at 5
1 (Appendix D) (noting "Critical Shortage of Physicians at ADC").
The central office failed to recruit c r i t i c a l medical, nursing,
and other expertise essential to the implementation of the agreed
upon orders in t h i s case. See Tr. July 10, 1995 at 114-115
(Akers); Dr. Wachtel Preliminary Report, June 30, 1995 (Appendix
D); Hyman report August 7, 1995 (Appendix L). As recently as the
beginning of August 1995, the Commissioner acknowledged that she
s t i l l had never seen any state plan or written plan as to how to
go about complying with the Remedial Order. (Tr. August 9, 1995
This core problem i s also evident in the fact that the Commissioner reappointed the previously removed ADC -superintendent to a high managerial position with direct planning authority over ADC. (Tr. April 10, 1995 at 110.) The former superintendent had been implicated in the cover-up of ADC employee misconduct and removed by the previous Commissioner from her position at ADC. See generally Tr. April 10, 1995 at 110-116 and Tr. July 10, 1995 at 95-101. The Commissioner acknowledged in her cross-examination during the April 10, 1995 hearing that she had not reviewed the t r i a l testimony of the former ADC superintendent nor had she read the Court's findings regarding t h i s individual. (Tr. April 10, 1995 at 115 11. 9-12.)
15

at 46 11. 15-19.) While the Commissioner professed good faith in recruiting, she could not even agree with her own University of Tennessee consultant, Dr. Frederick B. Palmer,"31 regarding by whom the Developmental Physician would be employed (University of Tennessee or Arlington Developmental Center). Cf. Tr. August 9, 1995 at 35 (Cardwell) with Tr. August 9, 1995 at 79-80 (Palmer).
The proof is clear and convincing that the efforts of the State of Tennessee to effectuate the stipulated Remedial Order, Plan of Correction, Emergency Order and Injunction have been sporadic and uncoordinated and have not been directed to effectuate the case's central remedial purpose. (Remedial Order, at 1 5 1) (Appendix A).) The state's resistance to needed change is reflected in an April 17, 1995 Memorandum by Dr. Robert Fisher, a consultant to Commissioner Cardwell hired by the state of Tennessee:
There appears to be some concern by our academic partners, the University of Tennessee (Memphis) and Vanderbilt University, that the state may not move as rapidly as necessary to correct the serious deficiencies that have been noted to exist in our Developmental Centers. The University of Tennessee Medical School, assisting the Department through our Arlington Developmental Center, and Vanderbilt University through the secondment of a faculty member to serve as the Medical Director of the Department, are interested from several perspectives.
Not only do our academic colleagues believe that the suggested changes from the court are [sic] necessary to
tl3' Dr. Frederick B. Palmer is Director of the Boling Center for Developmental Disabilities at the University of Tennessee.
16

improve health care for our residents; they also are concerned about maintaining the integrity of their reputations (which also, of course, benefits the state), and the increasing legal liability for assisting a health care system that may choose, for whatever reason, to not fully accept the advice of external medical consultants, the courts, and often the department's own personnel, (emphasis added).
(April 17, 1995 Memorandum (Appendix I).) See also Appendix G & J. It is clear from the record in this case that Dr. Fisher's statement is accurate.
On the entire record in this case, and for the reasons set out in this Memorandum Order, the Court finding the defendants in CONTEMPT of the Court's orders, ordered the following remedial and coercive sanctions effective August 9, 1995:
1. Defendants shall pay $1,000 per day for each numbered provision of the Preliminary Injunction with which they are not in compliance. The Court finds that they are in non-compliance with provisions 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the Preliminary Injunction. The fines commence as of the day of the hearing, August 9, 1995, and continue for each provision until defendants are in compliance. Defendants shall pay bi-weekly sums into a Court escrow fund. The Court will later determine whether this fund will either be utilized to enhance implementation of appropriate
17

remedies at ADC, or be ultimately forfeited to the United States. Provision 6 i s ordered to be accomplished by August 24, 1995.lMI

2. The Commissioner for the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation shall spend every fourth weekend1'31 at ADC until, defendants are in compliance with the Courts' orders. Weekends are defined as the period Friday from 6:00 p.m. u n t i l Monday at 7:00 a.m. The Commissioner i s to be on grounds the entire weekend except if she wishes to attend religious services off grounds, and i s to reside in a resident living unit, not a physician or administrative area. The Court believes that the Commissioner's personal presence at ADC on weekends will motivate ADC staff to provide appropriate care required by the Court's orders — especially during weekends, those times which the record reflects are times of particularly poor staffing and care, — and will allow the Commissioner and ADC staff uninterrupted time to focus on bringing the institution into compliance.

3. Defendants are to communicate with the United States, the Court Monitor, and the Monitor's medical expert regarding defendants' compliance efforts. At any time defendants believe

ll4>

See Tr. of telephone hearing, August 23, 1995 (proper procedure for

seeking extension of deadline for compliance with injunctive provision).

(151

I t should be noted that the Court appointed monitor, after the Emergency

Order of June 30, 1995, remained present at ADC during each day for the

holiday weekend period of Saturday, July 1, 1995, until Wednesday, July

5, 1995. The parties, the monitor, and the Court, based on the record

in t h i s case, consistently have been aware of the particular problems at

ADC posed by weekend medical and direct care staffing. See Tr. June 30,

1995 at 39-41 (historical concern about holiday and weekend coverage).

18

they have achieved compliance with any numbered provision, they may communicate this fact to the United States or to the Monitor and her expert, and seek their concurrence. The Court will consider the recommendations of either party or the Court Monitor and her expert regarding whether to find defendants in compliance with any provision and to subsequently cease the imposition of sanctions for that provision.
The Court will schedule another compliance hearing in approximately forty-five (45) days to review the status of defendants' compliance with the Court orders.
In addition, the Monitor's second compliance report is due on or before September 20, 1995. The parties shall submit their comments to the Monitor by no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 10. 1995. The Court Monitor will present the final report at a compliance hearing scheduled for October 27, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.
ENTERED NUNC PRO TUNC this 9th day of August, 1995.
?.
PHIPPS McCALLA r TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE gned: August &*\ , 1995
19

INDEX OF APPENDICES

Appendix A B C
D
E F G H
I J K L M N

Remedial Order (September 2, 1994)
Monitor's First Compliance Review (April 10, 1995)
Defendant's Plan of Correction (submitted April 10, 1995 as Exh. 6 in the April 10, 1995 hearing)
Preliminary Report - Expert Consultant ADC
prepared by Dr. Renee C. Wachtel (June 30, 1995)
Emergency Order (effective June 30, 1995)
Preliminary Injunction' (entered July 21, 1995) February 17, 1995 Memorandum Max G. Jackson to Marjorie Nelle H. Cardwell
March 13, 1995 Memorandum Marjorie Nelle H. Cardwell to Max Jackson
April 17, 1995 Memorandum Robert Fisher, M.D. to Marjorie Nelle H. Cardwell
June 8, 1995 Memorandum Velda Shore to Robert Fisher, M.D.
Report of Victoria M. Therriault (August 8, 1995)
Report of Susan I). Hyman (August 7, 1995)
Cardwell Meeting with Dr. Roland Palmer (June 1991) (Trial Exh. 96)
June 3, 1991 Letter of Resignation, Roland Palmer, Ph.D., Psychology Director, ADC

 
 . HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cc ^

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

'.C

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

ri,3
Civil Action NO. 92-2062 M1/A

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE,

)

on behalf of its members,

)

)

and

)

)

PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION )

OF ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL )

CENTER,

)

)

Intervenors.

)

U.S. v. Tennessee

•••_"

^™ • •

• • • • • ••

MR-TN-003-013

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY ROBERT R. DITROLIO
r OF TENNESSEE

BY T.

PUTY CLERK

STIPULATION AND ORDER

On December 15, 1995, the United States filed its Fourth Motion for Contempt

based upon Defendants' failure to comply with the Remedial Order and subsequent

Court orders. The United States' Motion was based, in part, on the Monitor's Second

Semi-Annual Compliance Report. The United States filed a supplemental

memorandum in support of its Motion on June 14, 1996, that referenced the Monitor's

most recent Third Semi-Annual Compliance Report. The Court set a hearing on the

United States' Motion for June 21, 1996. In order to avoid the costs associated with

This document entertd on docket sheet in compliance with Hule 55 a*d <* 32 (t>) FRCrP

litigation, the parties Iv.eby agree to the following Stipulate . and Order, if approved and so ordered by this Court.
I. Defendants hereby acknowledge that they were in contempt as to the areas of non-compliance identified in the Second Compliance Report, except Section XIV (Admissions and Placement).
II. In lieu of sanctions for contempt, Defendants agree to the following: A. Development of Three Plans 1. Defendants shall develop three comprehensive plans:
a plan for institutional compliance; a plan for institutional phase-down; and a community placement and development plan. The plans must be approved by the Monitor and the Court. The parties will have the opportunity to comment on the draft plans and, if a party objects to a final plan submitted to the Court, the party may file objections with the Court. Defendants will retain consultants with expertise in drafting compliance plans of this nature to assist Defendants in drafting these plans. The parties may submit to Defendants recommendations of consultants to assist Defendants in developing these plans, and the Defendants shall select the consultants, subject to the approval of the Monitor. A completed draft of the institutional compliance plan shall be submitted to the Monitor and the parties by September 1. 1996: a completed draft of the institutional phase-down shall be submitted to the Monitor and the parties by October 1. 1996: and a completed draft of the community placement and development plan shall be submitted to the Monitor and the parties by November 15. 1996. These dates may be changed if the parties and the Monitor agree. The parties shall submit comments on the plans within 10 days of receiving them. A final version of
each plan shall bereviewed and approved orrejected by the Monitor within 10daysof

the Monitor receiving i, .<* parties' comments. If approved, t..- plan will be sent to the Court for final approval. Any party objecting to the plan shall have 10 days after it is sent to the Court to file any objections.
2. The plans shall address, at a minimum, the requirements of the Remedial Order and the other court orders. In addition, the institutional compliance plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following essential elements: special monitoring for citizens who are behaviorally and medically at risk; survey of citizen needs; necessary staff and staff training; provision of specialized services; quality assurance; use of consultants; and address those elements identified by the Monitor in her April 1, 1996 Response to the Parties' Comments Regarding Defendants' Proposed Milestones (Monitor's April 1, 1996 Response). The institutional phase-down plan shall contain, at a minimum, provisions sufficient to address the issues relevant to the downsizing identified in the Monitor's April 1, 1996 Response. The community placement and development plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following essential elements: all citizens shall be evaluated by competent professionals who are members of the IDT for the appropriateness of community placement, and evaluations by consultants independent of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation shall be conducted for those individuals for whom the IDT does not recommend community placement, and collectively these evaluations will form the basis for each citizen's individualized plans which will be implemented by Defendants in a manner consistent with applicable federal law and federal funding requirements; citizens who are known or suspected of having been abused or repeatedly injured shall receive consideration for community placement on a priority basis; at least one additional employee shall be hired immediately to work full-time

coordinating communiir placement and development; Defei.-ants will retain and utilize additional qualified consultants in the area of community placement; Defendants will implement a well-defined, effective quality assurance and monitoring system to monitor the placements after they have been made to ensure that the placements are meeting the needs of the individuals placed; and address those elements identified in the Monitor's April 1, 1996 Response. These essential elements of each plan and other significant provisions of the plans shall be accomplished by dates certain established in the plans and shall be enforceable by the Court. Upon the Court's approval of the plans, the time frames for implementation in the plans will supplant the deadlines in the previous Court orders (except for the deadlines associated with the 25 critical provisions of the Remedial Order referred to in Section B of this document and with the provisions of the Emergency Order/Preliminary Injunction of July 21, 1995) and will be enforceable. Detailed strategy components within the plans may be changed by Defendants as necessary and appropriate, after opportunity for comment by the parties, if approved by the Monitor.
B. Automatic Sanctions 1. The Monitor, after consultation with the parties, has
identified 30 critical areas of non-compliance (Attachment A) based upon the Third Semi-Annual Review as potential provisions for automatic sanctions. Within five days of the entry of this Stipulation and Order by the Court, Defendants may choose five of these provisions to strike from the list. If, at the time of the Monitor's Fourth SemiAnnual Review, the Monitor finds that Defendants still are not in compliance with any one of these 25 provisions, Defendants shall pay automatic sanctions of $1,000 a day for each provision with which they are found not in compliance until the date upon

which they come into compliance, as determined by the Cou... Automatic sanction fines for these 25 provisions under this Stipulation and Order are limited to an annual total of two million dollars. If this annual cap is reached for these provisions, the parties may seek the Court's approval to have the cap increased upon a showing that the Defendants are in contempt with respect to any of these 25 provisions.
2. In order to ensure that Defendants have notice of continuing deficiencies, the Monitor will file with the parties and the Court her final conclusions with regard to these 25 provisions within 15 days of the last day of her tours. The Monitor's findings regarding these provisions and the imposition of these automatic fines are not contestable. The automatic fines begin upon notification by the Monitor of Defendants' non-compliance with any of these 25 provisions for which they are being fined and continue until Defendants come into compliance with the provisions for which they are being fined. Defendants will have an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with those provisions for which the Monitor found them not in compliance.
III. The parties agree that no motion for contempt shall be filed based upon the Monitor's recent Third Semi-Annual Compliance Report.
IV. Defendants agree to immediately withdraw all current appeals.

DONE and ORDERED this _ K j day of V r * ^ Tennessee.

• 1 9 9 6 a t Memphis,

rable Jon P. McCalla f. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
ESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

FOR THE STATE OF . ^NNESSEE:

FOR THE U., TED STATES:

Kimberly J. Deputy Attori
FOR PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER:
William F. Sherman*

Weinstein /erlin/p/Hughes Robert C. Bowman Senior Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section U.S. Department of Justice
FOR PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE on behalf of its members,
CARL BEARD, SANDRA HOWARD, HERMAN WALTER RUNIONS, HARVEY RICHARD WATSON, KEITH COLLINS, STEVELYN DANIEAL TUCKER,
by their parents and next jnds:
Judith A. Gran / Jack Derryberry / Barbara E. Ransom

*Counsel for the Parent-Guardian Association has been unable to consult with his client's leadership and is unable to take a position without such consultation.

ATTACHMENT A
MONITOR'S LIST OF CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFIED FROM THE REMEDIAL ORDER
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION

1. I.A. 2. I.E.

Provision of One-to-One Coverage
Direct Care Staff Trained to Supervise Residents and to Recognize and Report Abuse

3. HIE. Full Implementation of BDPs

4. III.K Responsibilities of the Chief Psychologist

5. III.L. Behavior Management Committee's Review of Behaviors

6. POC I.A.

Identification of Individuals for Focused Treatment

7. IV.A. 2 Replacement Behaviors

8. VI.B. 1. Primary Care Physician Evaluate

9. VI.C.l. Problem List and Annual Medical Plan

10.VLB.2. Determine Need for Specialized Medical Services

11. VLB.3. Respond to Recommendations of Specialists

12. VT.C.2.(a). Medical Management Feeding Disorders

13. VI.F.3. ATC Levels

14. VI.F.7. Status Epilepticus

15. VILA. Cease Dangerous Feeding Practices

16. VII.B. Cease Feeding Residents in Unsafe Positions or Faster than Safe

17. VTI.D. Provide Adaptive Equipment

18. VII.L.2. Perform a Comprehensive Evaluation

19. VQ.L.5. Nutritional Management Plan for Each Resident

20. VQ.L.6. Train the Staff on Nutritional Management Plans

ATTACHMENT A
MONITOR'S LIST OF CRITICAL AREAS IDENTIFIED FROM THE REMEDIAL ORDER
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
21. POC III.C.4. StaffTraining by Re-Trained Teams

22. POC III.D. Nurses' Training by Re-Trained Teams
23. VIII.A-K. Ensure Nurses are Trained (Training Aspect Only)
24. VIII.G. Administer Medications Consistent with Nursing Practices
25. VIII.K. Develop Appropriate Nursing Care Plans

26. POC II .A.
27. POC II B.
28. X D.
29. X F.
30. X I.

Training Nurses and Direct Care Staff
Individual Case Management Provide and Utilize Adaptive Equipment (Deliver by Agreed Schedule) Appropriately Designed Wheelchairs (Deliver by Agreed Schedule) Acquire Sufficient Therapy Staff

 
 925 F.Supp. 1292 (1995)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, Don Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee; Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation; Max Jackson, Superintendent, Arlington Developmental Center, Defendants. People First of Tennessee, on behalf of its members, Carl Beard, by his next friend Wendy Kurland,
Sandra Howard, by her next friend Elizabeth Henderson, Herman Walter Runions, by his next friend Sarah R. Todd, Harvey Richard Watson, by his next friend Jodie Wheeler,
Clarence Wilson, by his next friend Wilma Williamson, Keith Collins, by his mother and next friend, Joyce Cisco, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker, by her parents and next friends, Carolyn and Steve Tucker, Parent-Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental Center, Intervenors.
No. 92-2062-M1.
United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee.
November 6, 1995.
129345 *1293 *1294 *1295 Verlin Hughes, William Maddox, Robert Bowman, Laurie Weinstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff.
Earle Schwarz, Waring Cox, Memphis, TN, Edward Connette, Lesesne & Connette, Charlotte, NC, Jack Derryberry, Ward, Derryberry & Thompson, Nashville, TN, Judith Gran, Frank Laski, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, William F. Sherman, Law Offices of William F. Sherman, Little Rock, AR, Kimberly Dean, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, TN, Kathleen Maloy, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' COMPLIANCE WITH EMERGENCY PROVISIONS AND ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO FIND PARTIAL COMPLIANCE AND LIFT SANCTIONS
McCALLA, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
This case is before the Court for a determination regarding compliance by the State of Tennessee, Governor Sundquist, Commissioner Cardwell, and Superintendent Jackson with the provisions of the Emergency Order of June 30, 1995 (hereinafter "Emergency Order"), and the Preliminary Injunction of July 10, 1995 (hereinafter "Preliminary Injunction") (also hereinafter "Orders"). The question of compliance arises in the context of a contempt finding by the Court at a hearing on August 9, 1995, regarding five provisions of the Orders. Contempt Order, docketed August 24, 1995. Since that finding, defendants have filed two motions for a determination of partial or complete compliance as to four provisions of the Orders.
Because the context in which the Orders and the contempt finding arose is important for determining whether or not the defendants are now in compliance (i.e. have purged themselves of contempt), and because a discussion of the factual background of the contempt finding and a thorough discussion of the proof presented at a hearing on October 10-11, 1995, may be beneficial to all the parties in framing their future responses and to the defendants in conforming their conduct to achieve compliance, the matters before the Court will be discussed in

some detail. Factors of importance in resolving the issues before the Court include: (1) the degree of participation by the State of Tennessee in formulating the remedial provisions, and (2) the effort (or lack of effort) 1296 demonstrated by the State of Tennessee in *1296 attempting to achieve the specific provisions of the Orders.
Set out below are: (1) how the case and this issue arose, (2) the State of Tennessee's history of noncompliance, (3) the applicable law, (4) the positions of the parties, the evidence presented on October 10, 1995, and the Court's findings regarding the effect of sanctions, and (5) the Court's findings regarding purgation of contempt, compliance/noncompliance with the remedial provisions of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction, and appropriate future remedial sanctions.
I. BACKGROUND 0907 HOW THE CASE AND THIS ISSUE AROSE
The Arlington Developmental Center is a state operated, residential mental retardation facility housing 383[1] developmentally disabled persons located in Arlington, Tennessee. ADC's population consists primarily of individuals currently assessed as severely or profoundly retarded or developmentally disabled, some of whom have associated physical handicaps, and mental or behavioral problems. ADC is an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded ("ICFMR"). The federal government pays sixty-six per cent of the costs of operation of this facility, with the State of Tennessee paying the remaining thirty-four per cent.[2] Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 153-154.
The United States and the State of Tennessee have been in dispute regarding conditions at ADC since 1990. In 1991, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), as part of an investigation of possible statutory and constitutional violations concerning the resident population at ADC, issued a findings letter citing deficiencies to the State of Tennessee. The State of Tennessee refused to correct the deficiencies cited in the DOJ findings letter. On January 21, 1992, the United States filed this action against the State of Tennessee and Arlington Developmental Center, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997-1997j (1988).
The trial of this case took place over a two month period beginning on August 30, 1993. On November 22, 1993, the Court issued an oral opinion and, on February 18, 1994, filed Supplemental Findings of Fact. For the additional procedural and factual history of this case, see Contempt Order, docketed August 24, 1995, at 1-16. In the oral opinion and Supplemental Findings, the Court held that conditions at ADC were in violation of the rights of its residents under the United States Constitution. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982).[3]
1297 *1297 Concurrent with the oral ruling of November 22, 1993, the Court entered a preliminary injunction and established a schedule for submittal of a remedial plan by the State of Tennessee. As a result of that procedure, the United States and the State of Tennessee negotiated a plan to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at ADC. On September 2, 1994, the parties submitted a Stipulated Remedial Order to settle the case. As part of the settlement, the United States and the State of Tennessee agreed to the appointment of a Monitor to assist and oversee the State's compliance with the agreed-upon remedial plan. The Court, with the concurrence of both parties, appointed Linda R. O'Neall, Ph.D., to perform that function.[4]
II. HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE
The Remedial Plan negotiated by the State of Tennessee contains a "schedule of implementation" setting out the timeframes in which each of the remedial actions agreed to by the State was to be completed.[5] A large number of items were to be commenced within the first ninety days of implementation of the plan. Accordingly, the Monitor conducted the First Semi-Annual Compliance Review at ADC from November 28, 1994, through December 2, 1994. Based on this review, the Monitor issued a compliance report to the parties on March 9, 1995. The report then went through a comment and response period and was ultimately the subject of a compliance hearing on April 10, 1995.

At the April 10, 1995, hearing, the Court determined that the State had achieved full compliance with only five of the sixty-five self-imposed deadlines within the first ninety day period. In anticipation of this finding of noncompliance, the State, after negotiation with the United States, proposed a "Plan of Correction" that was submitted to the Court as Exhibit 6 to the hearing of April 10, 1995. The introduction to the Plan of Correction submitted by the State of Tennessee provided as follows:
The Monitor's First Semi-Annual Compliance Review identified a number of areas in which the defendants have failed to achieve full compliance with the provisions of the Remedial Order, in particular, with respect to the areas of protection from harm, seizure management, and feeding/ nutritional management. In order to appropriately prioritize and focus the corrective remedial measures to be taken by the defendants, the following Plan of Correction has been developed.
Plan of Correction, Ex. 6, Hr'g, April 10, 1995.
The Plan of Correction supplements the Stipulated Remedial Order and, like the Remedial Plan, also contains a schedule for completion of specific actions. For example, under the individual case management section relating to seizure management, nurses were to be assigned individual resident case-loads by no later than April 20, 1298 1995. Additionally, *1298 under paragraph II.C. of the Plan of Correction, the State of Tennessee was to have 136 nursing positions "on staff" by July 1, 1995. Plan of Correction, Ex. 6, ¶ II.C., Hr'g, April 10, 1995. In that regard, the State made the following commitment:
Defendants will make ongoing efforts to fill these positions with Arlington nurse employees, rather than contract nurses.
Id. (emphasis supplied). At the April 10, 1995, hearing, Linda Ross, an Assistant Attorney General for the State, asked Gaye A. Hansen, the State Facilitator of the Remedial Order at ADC, the following clarifying question regarding paragraph "II.C.":
Q. Subparagraph C, nurse staffing, would you 0907 what is the status of the 136 nursing positions?
A. Right. Well, although the plan of correction indicates that they will have approval on those positions by April the 14th, 1995, Arlington has, in fact, received approval on those provisions, got that approval at the end of last week, so they can now immediately pursue the hiring of qualified nurses. That would be inclusive of LPNs and RNs in order to fill those slots. In the interim, they will fill them with agency nurses, contract nurses, but it is understood that contract nurses will not be assigned case loads of persons with seizure disorders; that they will use full-time nurses for that purpose.
Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 68 (emphasis supplied).
Additionally, on April 10, 1995, the State represented to the plaintiff and to the Court that:
We do have at this time a verbal agreement with a developmental disability physician with a June 1 start date.
Id. at 29 (Gaye A. Hansen, Facilitator of the Remedial Order at ADC). Ms. Hansen testified that "I ... feel that this plan of correction has a great chance for success." Id. at 81. The new deadline for retention of a developmental medicine physician and the Plan of Correction[6] proposed by the State of Tennessee were accepted by the Court.
However, the record supports the conclusion that, between April 10, 1995, and June 30, 1995, the State abandoned its goal of achieving compliance with its own Stipulated Remedial Order and its own Plan of Correction. The State effectively ceased its efforts to obtain a developmental physician and recruit nurses,[7] the number of primary care physicians (including Medical Director) decreased to two (well below the minimum requirement and the number previously anticipated by the State), and conditions at ADC deteriorated even further. Tr., Hr'g, June 30, 1995, at 7-22; Contempt Order, docketed August 24, 1995, at 6-7.

Several patient deaths and the second compliance inspection by the Monitor and her Developmental Medicine Expert on June 27-30, 1995, led the United States and the Monitor to request an Emergency Order on June 30, 1995. The United States and the Monitor requested that the order require the State to rectify certain fundamental services which it had allowed to deteriorate between April 10, 1995, and June 30, 1995, and require the State to 1299 employ within the near *1299 future certain professional staff, mandated by the Remedial Order and the Plan of Correction. The State acknowledged that the facts constituting an emergency existed, and agreed to the Emergency Order requirements.[8] Tr., Hr'g, June 30, 1995, at 3, 15-16, 30. During the June 30, 1995, telephone hearing, the State of Tennessee declared that it "had no quarrel with the wisdom of what was being suggested," since in "virtually all instances ... [the State has] begun to take steps to put those measures in place." Id. at 15.
A hearing to determine whether the emergency continued to exist and whether the State was in compliance with the Emergency Order resulting from the June 30, 1995, telephone conference was scheduled for July 10, 1995. At that hearing it was established that the State was not in compliance with the Emergency Order. Moreover, in contrast to Ms. Hansen's April 10, 1995, testimony regarding a "great chance of success," Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 81, Commissioner Cardwell offered the following testimony regarding her July 5, 1995, conversation with Governor Sundquist:
Q. And could you inform the Court what the context 0907 what was discussed in that in terms of what is going to be done about Arlington, what the governor's position is and what actions are going to be taken?
A. The governor is very anxious to know whether or not Arlington can be fixed and the governor would like to know what our plans are for the future.
Q. What in response to those two questions did you answer to the governor?
A. I told him I was not sure of the first one, as to whether or not Arlington could be fixed.
Tr., Hr'g, July 10, 1995, at 101 (Commissioner Cardwell) (emphasis supplied).
At the end of the July 10, 1995, hearing, additional time to achieve compliance with the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction provisions was granted, and a compliance hearing was scheduled for August 9, 1995. At 1300 the hearing on August 9, 1995,[9]*1300 clear and convincing proof was presented by the United States that the State of Tennessee still was not in compliance with five of the provisions of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction. The United States insisted, in closing argument, that the State of Tennessee be found in contempt based on its failure to comply with remedial provisions to which it had agreed. The United States left the sanctions to be imposed to the discretion of the Court.
Based on the evidence presented on August 9, 1995, it was uncontrovertible that the State was not in compliance and had failed to perform as it had agreed. Moreover, the State admitted that it did not even have a current plan to implement the various remedial provisions to which it had agreed. Tr., Hr'g, August 9, 1995, at 46 11. 15-19 (Commissioner Cardwell). The Court, therefore, found the State in contempt and ordered minimal coercive and remedial sanctions to assure that the State would accomplish the five emergency provisions which were agreed to on June 30, 1995, but which had not been achieved by the State. Contempt Order, docketed August 24, 1995.
The financial sanction imposed was, to some degree, symbolic[10] (one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day per violation) since the ADC budget is relatively large and sixty-six (66) percent of that budget is federally funded. Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 190 11. 2-4 (Durbin); Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 154 11. 3-5 (Martins); see note 2 supra. To directly address emergency matters, a coercive sanction, therefore, was imposed on the Tennessee Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. Specifically, the Commissioner was required to spend every fourth weekend at ADC until the State was in full compliance with the five emergency remedial provisions to which it had agreed on June 30, 1995, but which, as of August 9, 1995, it had not done.
On August 9, 1995, the Court found the State had failed to comply with the following five paragraphs: paragraph 1 (retention of a developmental physician), paragraph 2 (performance of duties of a developmental physician), paragraph 5 (retention of a full-time psychiatrist), paragraph 7 (entry by Arlington Developmental Center into

contracts with two developmental nurse consultants), and paragraph 8 (hiring of 136 nurses as set out in the April 10, 1995, Plan of Correction).[11]
III. APPLICABLE LAW
A. CIVIL CONTEMPT
Federal courts have inherent powers to assure the administration of justice. See United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). The most prominent among these inherent powers is the contempt sanction, "which a judge must have and exercise in protecting the authority and dignity of the court...." Roadway Express v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2463, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980) (quoting Cooke v. United 1301 States, 267 U.S. 517, 539, 45 *1301 S.Ct. 390, 395-96, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925)). "[T]he power of courts to punish for contempts is a necessary and integral part of the independence of the judiciary, and is absolutely essential to the performance of the duties imposed on them by law." Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 450, 31 S.Ct. 492, 501, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911); see also 18 U.S.C. § 401 (1988) ("A court of the United States shall have the power to punish, by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority ... [as] [d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command").[12] Civil contempt is the power of the court to impose sanctions to coerce compliance with its orders.[13]Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 1429-30, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988); Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1535, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); Gompers, 221 U.S. at 442, 31 S.Ct. at 498. Both imprisonment and fines, when coercive or conditional, are legitimate civil contempt sanctions. See, e.g., Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 370, 86 S.Ct. at 1535 (imprisonment); United States v. Bayshore Assoc., Inc., 934 F.2d 1391, 1400 (6th Cir. 1991) (fines).
B. PURGING CONTEMPT
1. What Is It and What Is Its Purpose?
Once subject to contempt for failure to comply with a court order, the contemnor must be afforded an opportunity to purge itself of the contempt. International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2558, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994); Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 371, 86 S.Ct. at 1536. Compliance with that court order will purge the contempt and free the contemnor from coercive sanctions.[14]See Bayshore Assoc., 934 F.2d 1391, 1400 (6th Cir.1991) ("[O]nce the defendant performs the act required by the court, he must be released"). The determination of compliance, like all decisions relating to contempt, is at the discretion of the court. See Peppers v. Barry, 873 F.2d 967, 968 (6th Cir.1989); National Labor Relat. Bd. v. Aquabrom, Division of Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1174, 1187 (6th Cir.1988) ("The only limitation [on a court's contempt power] is that in a civil proceeding, the sanctions must not be penal in nature, but must be coercive or remedial"). In making its determinations on compliance and the appropriateness of continued contempt sanctions, a court should be guided by the remedial purpose of contempt. See Aquabrom, 855 F.2d 1174, 1187 (6th Cir.1988) ("[The court's power to coerce actions to purge contempt is] the power of a court to grant the relief that is necessary to effect compliance with its decree. The measure of the [c]ourt's power in civil contempt proceedings 1302 is determined by the requirements of full remedial relief") (citing *1302 McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 193, 69 S.Ct. 497, 500-01, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949)).
2. Standard for Judging Compliance
The Sixth Circuit test for judging compliance is whether the contemnors "took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court's order." Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 708 (6th Cir.1991) (quoting Peppers, 873 F.2d at 969). Precisely what "all reasonable steps within [the contemnor's] power" are varies from case to case according to the requirements of the order and the particular circumstances of the case. In every case,

however, a contemnor must have the ability to comply with the order before failure to comply can form the basis of contempt.[15]McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245, 251, 92 S.Ct. 2083, 2087-88, 32 L.Ed.2d 719 (1972); Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 72, 68 S.Ct. 401, 409, 92 L.Ed. 476 (1948). Other than a showing of the impossibility of compliance, nothing short of substantial compliance, as measured under the Peppers test, will suffice to purge contempt for noncompliance with a court order. The Sixth Circuit has explicitly rejected the contention that a good faith effort is sufficient, Peppers, 873 F.2d at 968, TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 722 F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir.1983), and has not adopted the less demanding diligent efforts test favored in other circuits. [16]
Courts have been particularly unsympathetic to purported excuses for less-than-substantial compliance where the contemnor has participated in drafting the order against which compliance is measured. See, e.g., Glover, 934 F.2d at 708-09 (finding state prison officials in contempt for failing to abide by order consisting of negotiated settlement between the parties); see also Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276, 110 S.Ct. 625, 632-33, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990) (upholding finding of contempt against city that had failed to take action required by consent decree). A party participating in drafting an order does so with an understanding of what it reasonably can accomplish. When that party subsequently fails to live up to the particulars of the order, it is more difficult for a court to excuse that failure than if the order had been court imposed.
C. CONTEMPT SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH A COURT ORDER
1. Options Available to the Court
Once a contemnor has been found in noncompliance, such that contempt is not purged, the court has the option of continuing the sanctions already in place or imposing new sanctions determined to be more effective in carrying out the underlying remedial purpose. This choice, like all decisions relating to contempt sanctions, is at the court's discretion. See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1, 15, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1275-76, 1303 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). *1303 The range of sanctions available to courts include fine, imprisonment, receivership, and a broader category of creative, non-traditional sanctions. See 42 U.S.C. § 401 (1988) (authorizing "fine or imprisonment"); Hicks, 485 U.S. at 632, 108 S.Ct. at 1429-30 (fines and imprisonment); Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 370-71, 86 S.Ct. at 1535-36 (imprisonment); Gompers, 221 U.S. at 441, 31 S.Ct. at 498 (fines and imprisonment); Reed v. Rhodes, 642 F.2d 186 (6th Cir.1981) (receivership and appointment of judicial administrator); Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 707-15 (appointment of a special administrator, which was not among the "traditional civil contempt sanctions"). The choice of a sanction also necessitates a decision on how severe that particular sanction should be.
2. Determining Contempt Sanctions 0907 Selection and Severity
There are two guiding principles for the selection of civil contempt sanctions. First, the sanction must be coercive or remedial rather than punitive. National Labor Relat. Bd. v. Aquabrom, Division of Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1174, 1187 (6th Cir.1988). The contemnor is not simply being punished for past behavior, but rather encouraged to shape its behavior to comply with the order based on the undesirability of suffering the sanction. The goal of sanctions, then, is to coerce the contemnor to act in such a way that the remedial purposes of the order are furthered. When using civil contempt in such a way, the court "must then consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by the continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired." United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). Second, particularly when imposing sanctions against state officials, the court should select the least intrusive sanction that the court determines will coerce the contemnor to comply. Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276, 110 S.Ct. 625, 632-33, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990); Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432 (6th Cir.1984). In any given case, there may be many sanctions that will coerce compliance and further the remedial purpose of the order, but a court does not automatically impose the most severe and

intrusive. There are two competing concerns in this determination: intrusiveness and effectiveness. Determining the relative intrusiveness of different possible sanctions in a particular case is a common sense inquiry. See, e.g., Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2573-74, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (noting that a fine is a less intrusive sanction than imprisonment); Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 287 (6th Cir.1988) (suggesting that, while the court's appointment of a judicial administrator in the instant case was too intrusive, using a court monitor to enforce its orders would be permissible); Reed v. Rhodes, 642 F.2d 186 (6th Cir.1981) (approving the appointment of an administrator to oversee compliance with court order but disapproving receivership as too intrusive in the instant case). Determining what sanctions will be effective to coerce compliance involves a court's discretion and judgment based on an understanding of the case and the contemnor, particularly with respect to the nature of prior noncompliance.
Given that contempt sanctions are within a court's discretion and that there is no simple formula for assigning a particular sanction to a given case, a court clearly can consider a contemnor's history of compliance or noncompliance in shaping an appropriate contempt sanction. Compare Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 715 (6th Cir.1991) (noting that a "persistent pattern of obfuscation, hyper-technical objections, delay, and litigation by exhaustion on the part of the defendants to avoid compliance with the letter and spirit of the district court's orders" made the sanction of appointing an administrator justified where it had been found too intrusive three years earlier) with Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 287 (6th Cir.1988). While there is no intent requirement for civil contempt, the issue of the contemnor's willfulness in not complying with court orders may be taken into consideration in determining the extent of the contempt sanction. TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 722 F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir.1983); Rogers v. Webster, 776 F.2d 607, 612 (6th Cir.1985). The contemnor's relative intent clearly 1304 is relevant in *1304 gauging how severe a sanction is necessary in a given case. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) ("[The court] must then consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired"); see also United States v. Work Wear Corp., 602 F.2d 110, 116 (6th Cir.1979) (upholding the district court's denial of a motion to reduce a civil contempt fine 0907 despite the government's recommendation for reduction 0907 where the contemnor had made a "conscious business decision" not to comply, even though the district court had granted an extension to give the contemnor time to come into compliance). When a contemnor's noncompliance has been based in part on conscious decisions to take less than "all reasonable steps within their power to comply," a court clearly would be entitled to take such into consideration in shaping contempt sanctions.
IV. THE OCTOBER 10-11, 1995, HEARING
A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
On October 10-11, 1995, the Court held a hearing on defendants' compliance with the remedial provisions of the June 30, 1995, Emergency Order and July 10, 1995, Preliminary Injunction. See Appendices 4, 5. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, defendants filed two motions for findings of partial compliance. Defendants' Motion for Finding of Partial Compliance, docketed August 18, 1995; Defendants' Second Motion for Finding of Partial Compliance, docketed August 25, 1995. In their initial motion for finding of partial compliance, defendants asserted that they were now in compliance with paragraphs 5 and 8. Specifically, defendants asserted that they had retained a full-time psychiatrist as of August 14, 1995, and were, as of that date, in full compliance with paragraph 5. See Compliance Table, Appendix 7. Regarding compliance with paragraph 8, the defendants, in their first motion, asserted that as of August 11, 1995, 136 nurses were on the ADC payroll and that, therefore, they were in compliance with that provision.
In their second motion for a finding of partial compliance, defendants asserted that they were in compliance with paragraphs 1 and 7 of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction and that compliance was achieved on July 21, 1995. Specifically, defendants asserted that effective July 21, 1995, they had retained the services of Dr. Ricardo Causo, a Developmental Medicine Physician, and that effective August 23, 1995, ADC had executed consulting contracts with two developmental nurses as required under paragraph 7. Defendants concede that they have not complied with paragraph 2 of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction. See Appendices 4,

5 (¶ 2, Duties of Developmental Physician); see Compliance Table, Appendix 7. Defendants asserted that they were in compliance with all other provisions of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction.
At the outset of the October 10-11, 1995, hearing, the United States agreed that the defendants were in compliance with paragraphs 5 (full-time psychiatrist) and 7 (two developmental nurse consultant contracts). The United States took the position that defendants were not in compliance with paragraphs 1 (Developmental Medicine Physician) and 2 (Duties of Developmental Medicine Physician) and that there were questions regarding the date or fact of compliance with paragraph 8 (136 nurses). The United States also urged that the defendants had not purged themselves of contempt and, because of the defendants' history of failing to perform absent imposition of sanctions, the remedial and coercive sanctions imposed in the August 9, 1995, Contempt Order remained necessary in order to compel compliance. Tr., Hr'g, October 11, 1995, at 238-241.
The intervenor class representative, People First, agreed with the United States that the defendants were not in compliance with paragraphs 1, 2, and 8, and that the defendants were in compliance with paragraphs 5 and 7. Regarding paragraph 8, the intervenor People First argued that the plain language of the April 10, 1995, Plan of 1305 Correction, as adopted in the June 30, 1995, Emergency Order and the July 10, 1995, *1305 Preliminary Injunction required that the defendants "hire to the capacity of 136 nurses as called for by the Plan of Correction...." Emergency Order, June 30, 1995, ¶ 6. Intervenor People First argued that the language is unambiguous and does not provide for the use of agency or contract nurses. Intervenor People First urged the Court to establish a nurse turnover goal (to reduce turnover to five percent) and a constant caseload requirement, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Preliminary Injunction. Tr., Hr'g, October 11, 1995, at 242-243.
The intervenor Parent-Guardian Association took no position regarding compliance and urged that any sanction imposed be crafted so as not to adversely affect employee morale at ADC. Tr., Hr'g, October 11, 1995, at 244-246.
B. EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON OCTOBER 10, 1995
The State of Tennessee called seven witnesses[17] and introduced twenty-eight exhibits at the October 10, 1995, hearing. The United States called only one witness, Commissioner Cardwell. A discussion of the testimony and exhibits follows.
1. Grunow
Barbara Grunow, Director of Human Resources Development for the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, testified that she is responsible for "overall assistance to our ten facilities with recruitment for our professional staff persons, and most of all our ... health care professionals." Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 12. Ms. Grunow has "responsibility for identifying issues that are relevant to retention of those individuals [i.e., health care professionals]." Id.
Ms. Grunow became actively involved with recruitment activities at ADC in July 1995. Id. at 23. Since that time, she has been involved in the recruitment of developmental physicians, physical therapists, and nurses. Id. at 12-27. Her specific activities have included the placement of advertisements in six physician's journals for the position of developmental physician (advertisements were to run in September and October 1995), recruiting for a developmental physician at the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine (September 28-30, 1995), and contacting medical school developmental medicine departments. Additionally, during the first week of October 1995, she prepared an analysis of benefits available to developmental physicians through employment with either the State of Tennessee or the University of Tennessee ("UT").[18]Id. at 24-25.
Grunow's duties since July 1995 have included "assistance in receiving or obtaining confirmation on the licensure of [physicians] to practice in Tennessee." Id. at 18. Ms. Grunow testified that, of the three developmental physicians under contract from Columbus Medical Services to provide developmental medicine services at ADC, only two physicians (Dr. Compart and Dr. Rogers) have now completed licensure. The third, Dr. Hayes, is not

licensed in Tennessee and has not provided the information necessary in order to complete the licensure application. Id. at 20.
Ms. Grunow testified that, in connection with the recruitment of two developmental nurses, she placed classified advertisements in five Tennessee newspapers on August 17, 1995.[19]
1306 *1306 2. Womack
Patricia Louise Womack, an administrative services assistant with the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, testified that she was responsible for assisting ADC with the recruitment of nurses (licensed practical nurses ("LPNs"), registered nurses ("RNs"), and developmental disability nurses). Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 29. Since July 5, 1995, Ms. Womack has been stationed at ADC. Ms. Womack has been involved in many of the same activities as Ms. Grunow. Ms. Womack reported that, as of October 9, 1995, ADC had hired one developmental disabilities nurse, Mariah Kurlick. Id. at 32; Ex. 3, Hr'g, October 10, 1995.
Ms. Womack also testified regarding the number of nurses to be employed at ADC pursuant to the Plan of Correction as follows:
Q. Are your familiar with the nursing number requirements established at Arlington Developmental Center?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And what are those nursing number requirements?
A. There is a requirement for 136 nurses to be employed at Arlington, comprised of RNs, LPNs, and staff nurses.
Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 32.
Ms. Womack testified regarding three categories of nurses utilized at ADC: state employees, contract employees, and agency nurses.[20] Until August 11, 1995, the State of Tennessee regarded Med Temps nurses as agency nurses.[21]Id. at 35. On September 15, 1995, ADC unilaterally changed the characterization of Med Temps nurses from agency nurses to "contract nurses."[22]Id. at 35. While Ms. Womack testified that the State was in compliance with the number of nurses required by the Plan of Correction, she acknowledged that it was her 1307 "assumption" that all three categories of nurses (employee, contract, and agency) could be counted for *1307 the purposes of determining compliance. Id. at 50 1. 7. Significantly, Ms. Womack was not present at ADC until well after the State's submission of the Plan of Correction and the entry of the Emergency Order. Id. at 35.
Exhibit 4, an ADC Nursing Status Report generated by the State, was introduced through Ms. Womack. Id. at 37; see Appendix 2 (Summary pages from Exhibit 4 for the period August 11, 1995, to October 4, 1995). Exhibit 4 reflects that 136 nursing positions were allocated for ADC and ninety-two of those positions had been filled as of August 10, 1995. Additionally, seventeen contract nurses and twenty-seven agency nurses were providing services at ADC, bringing the total nursing staff to 136. Ms. Womack confirmed that as of October 10, 1995, the State had not analyzed the turnover among contract and agency nurse positions at ADC. Additionally, Ms. Womack confirmed that ADC had not filled the position of quality assurance nurse. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 52. Ms. Womack also testified that, as of October 10, 1995, there were 102 state employee nurses, thirty-three contract nurses (including Med Temps nurses),[23] and sixteen agency nurses at ADC. Id. at 41.
3. Durbin
Larry Durbin, the Assistant Commissioner for Mental Retardation Services for the State of Tennessee, testified that he has overall operating responsibilities for all the State's mental retardation and developmental disabilities services. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 54. Dr. Durbin is primarily responsible for the State's efforts to retain a

Developmental Medicine Physician. Id. at 54-55. In that regard, Dr. Durbin testified that immediately after entry of the Emergency Order he contacted Columbus Medical Services and "began negotiations to have them involved in a nationwide search for a qualified developmental disability physician." Id. at 55. He also contacted the University of Tennessee and sought to expedite their efforts to hire a recruiting firm in Atlanta, Georgia (Ward Howell). Id. On July 12, 1995, the State of Tennessee and Columbus Medical Services entered into a contract for professional search and consulting services.[24]

Dr. Durbin testified regarding the current status of recruitment efforts for a Developmental Medicine Physician, as well as the current status of the agreement with Columbus Medical Services for interim developmental medicine physician services. Id. at 56-58, 60-61. Originally, the State of Tennessee did not require in its contract with Columbus Medical Services that the Developmental Medicine Physicians supplied by Columbus be licensed to practice in the State of Tennessee. Because unlicensed physicians could not provide actual clinical treatment or practice medicine in the State of Tennessee, it was necessary for the State of Tennessee to seek an amendment of its contract with Columbus Medical Services so that the State could obtain physicians who could provide actual treatment to residents of ADC. See Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 60-61. On October 5, 1995, almost three months after the execution of the original contract, the State and Columbus Medical Services agreed to such an amendment.[25] The amendment reads, in part, as follows:

1308

*1308 A. Services to be provided at Arlington Developmental Center

1. Columbus Medical Services agrees to provide only DD physician consultants who are fully licensed to practice medicine in the State of Tennessee.

Ex. 7, Hr'g, October 10, 1995.

4. Akers

Phillip V. Akers, Medical Director at ADC, testified regarding the developmental medical services provided by Columbus Medical Services. Dr. Akers confirmed that on March 14, 1995, he had conducted an analysis regarding the nursing needs of ADC. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 108. At that time, Dr. Akers concluded that ADC's nursing needs are closer to those of an acute care facility and recommended to Dr. Durbin a full nurse compliment of 136, including nurse administrators. Id. at 108-109; Ex. 23, Hr'g, October 10, 1995. Dr. Akers' recommendation of 136 nurses was conveyed to Dr. Durbin in a March 14, 1995, memorandum. Id.; Appendix 3.
Dr. Akers also testified regarding: (1) the contracting process for emergency services; Id. at 105-106; Ex. 22, Hr'g, October 10, 1995; (2) the hospital agreements negotiated on behalf of ADC; Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 100; Ex. 19, Hr'g, October 10, 1995; and (3) the current prohibition against use of "Do Not Resuscitate" orders at state facilities. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 99-100. Dr. Akers testified that Dr. Kelly Askins, a full-time psychiatrist, had been hired and a training program established for him. Id. at 85-87. Furthermore, Dr. Akers confirmed that ADC now has four primary care physicians other than himself. Dr. Akers also described their orientation and training since July 1995.[26]Id. at 88-91; Ex. 15, Hr'g, October 10, 1995.
Dr. Akers discussed the implementation of a "physician alert" form to assure communication between those physicians providing evening and early morning coverage and each resident's primary care physician. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 81-84; Ex. 13, Hr'g, October 10, 1995. Dr. Akers also described, in general, the increased efforts at education, disease tracking, communications, and recruitment at ADC primarily since the imposition of sanctions on August 9, 1995. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 78-81; see Ex. 12 (Draft, ADC Nursing Guidelines/ Tracking Critical Illness, August 31, 1995), Ex. 14 (Lecture and Discussion Topics for the Period September 11-22, 1995), Ex. 16 (Physician/Staff In Service October 6, 1995), Ex. 17 (Physician/FNP Staff In Service October 9, 1995), Ex. 20 (Patient Transfer Packet/September 1995), Ex. 22 (Request to Hospitals for Discharge Summaries/September 13-29 1995), Hr'g, October 10, 1995.[27]
Dr. Akers discussed the role of Dr. Causo, a special contract developmental pediatrician who has been retained by ADC for ninety days while the State recruited a Developmental Medicine Physician with the necessary training and experience. Because Dr. Causo lacked certain training, Dr. Akers indicated that "I changed the role he was

playing 0907 we had identified at that point a list of persons proposed for transition from Arlington to the community with projected dates where they might be ready to move." Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 70. Dr. Akers, after discussions with the UT consultants (Dr. Kube and Dr. Palmer) determined that Dr. Causo would be most useful in evaluating the group of residents that was scheduled for transition to the community.
1309 *1309 Dr. Akers acknowledged that this role was different from the initial interim developmental medicine role envisioned for Dr. Causo. Id. at 69-72. The role initially contemplated for Dr. Causo, therefore, has been partially assumed by Drs. Palmer and Kube of the University of Tennessee and the two Columbus Medical Services developmental physicians who are licensed to practice in Tennessee.[28]Id. at 64-65, 71-73. Dr. Akers acknowledged, however, that the developmental physicians from Columbus Medical Services had not been able to attend team meetings because of scheduling problems.[29]Id. at 73-74.
Dr. Akers also testified that he met with Commissioner Cardwell on August 12, 1995, during her first remedial visit to ADC. According to Dr. Akers, during that visit, Commissioner Cardwell reviewed the deficiencies previously cited by the Monitor's Developmental Medicine Expert, Dr. Wachtel, in an effort to determine whether the asserted deficiencies in fact existed.[30] Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 128-129. During his visit with Commissioner Cardwell on the weekend of August 12, 1995, Dr. Akers accompanied the Commissioner on a review of ADC, "[going] cottage to cottage and record to record...." Id. at 130. No reports or documents were generated by Dr. Akers as a result of either the August 11-14, 1995, or the September 8-11, 1995, visit of Commissioner Cardwell. Id. at 131.
5. Palmer
Dr. Frederick Palmer, a developmental pediatrician, the Director of the Bolling Center for Developmental Disabilities (University of Tennessee) and a UT professor of pediatrics, testified regarding his efforts to recruit a developmental physician for the position at ADC. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 143. Dr. Palmer described those efforts as beginning in late July 1995. Id. at 143-144. Within the last two years Dr. Palmer has recruited two developmental physicians 0907 Dr. Kube and Dr. Peterson 0907 for the developmental medicine program at UT. Id. at 146. Dr. Palmer assisted in Dr. Causo's orientation, and provides continuing supervision for Dr. Causo at ADC. Id. at 147.
6. Askins
Dr. Kelly Marsh Askins, a board eligible psychiatrist and an employee of ADC as of August 14, 1995, also testified. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 157-158. He confirmed his date of employment and the orientation and training that he has received since arriving at ADC. Dr. Askins will be attending a series of conferences and, perhaps, a mini-fellowship over the next several months.[31]
7. Lester
Norma J. Lester, the Director of Nursing at ADC since September 15, 1995, also testified. Ms. Lester has worked for thirty-two years primarily in institutional nursing. She testified that, as Director of Nursing at ADC, she is "primarily responsible for coordinating resources and training for the nursing staff." Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 1310 175. Ms. *1310 Lester identified the two developmental nurse consultant contracts that have now been entered into by ADC. Id. at 182; Ex. 28, Hr'g, October 10, 1995. Ms. Lester stated that the addition of the developmental nurse consultants has been helpful. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 182-183.
Based on her review of nurse training records, Ms. Lester stated that approximately eight agency nurses have not received seizure training and approximately fourteen State employee nurses have not received seizure training. Id. at 185. Ms. Lester also confirmed that she did not prepare the ADC nursing status reports contained in Exhibit 4. See Appendix 2. Regarding turnover, Ms. Lester testified as follows:

Now, in regards to the turnover, we do tend to see a fair amount of turnover. In fact, it is like today, we can't keep up with it, and I think that's for many reasons ... I have only been there for just three weeks and I have already had to terminate and reassign just in that short period of time, so 0907 and this is an ongoing process with us.
Id. at 189-190. Ms. Lester went on to indicate that "there is always going to be a degree of turnover, but I would like to keep that down to a minimum, perhaps 5%, if that is realistic...." Id. at 190-191.
8. Cardwell
Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, was the last witness to testify at the October 10, 1995, hearing. Commissioner Cardwell testified regarding her activities both on the weekends of August 11, 1995, and September 8, 1995. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 194-203. Commissioner Cardwell observed that on Saturday, August 12, 1995, "the only administrative staff that I saw [at ADC] was Dr. Akers. ..." Id. at 201. On Sunday, August 13, 1995, she met with Dr. Akers, Gaye Hansen, and Dr. Durbin at ADC.
Commissioner Cardwell indicated that on her second stay she "did pretty much the same thing again, just touching base with all units on campus. It is important, always has been important to me, particularly for those second and third shift people to know that there is a supervisor around." Id. at 202. On her second weekend, Commissioner Cardwell did not meet with Dr. Durbin or other administrators "because they were not available." Id. at 206. Regarding administrative staff working on the weekend, Commissioner Cardwell observed:
I did not ask other people to give up their weekends when they had been working steady five days a week already recruiting. I did not think it would add anything by contacting people on Saturdays and Sundays.
Id. at 211.
Regarding whether the State has an overall plan for implementation of the remedy at ADC, Commissioner Cardwell stated that "not all of the timelines have the implementation to it ... those are the parts that are not down in black and white at this point."[32], [33]Id. at 214.
C. FINDINGS REGARDING EFFECT OF SANCTIONS[34]
1. The sanctions imposed in the August 9, 1995, Contempt Order have been effective in compelling actions by the defendants in furtherance of the remedial purpose of not only the Emergency Order and Preliminary 1311 Injunction but also of the September 2, 1994, *1311 Stipulated Remedial Order and the April 10, 1995, Plan of Correction. This is particularly evidenced by the testimony of Dr. Akers and Exhibit 9 (Developmental disability consultations as of October 9, 1995), Exhibit 11 (ADC master at-risk list/current as of October 3, 1995),[35] Exhibit 12 (Draft, ADC Nursing Guideline/Tracking Critical Illness, August 31, 1995), Exhibit 14 (Lecture and Discussion Topics for the Period September 11-22, 1994), Exhibit 16 (Physician/Staff in Service October 6, 1995), Exhibit 17 (Physician/FNP Staff in Service, October 9, 1995), Exhibit 20 (Patient Transfer Packet/ September 1995), and Exhibit 21 (Request for Discharge Summaries, September 13 and 29, 1995).
2. The sanctions imposed have increased recruiting efforts for a developmental physician (testimony of Durbin, Akers, and Grunow) and for developmental nurses (testimony of Grunow and Womack), and have contributed to the retention of a Director of Nursing (testimony of Cardwell), a full-time psychiatrist (Dr. Askins), two developmental nurse consultants, and one developmental nurse (Ex. 28, Hr'g, October 10, 1995). See Compliance Chart, Appendix 7.
3. Sanctions have resulted in the completion of a relatively high percentage of the remedial provisions of the Emergency and Preliminary Injunction when compared with the compliance percentage for the Stipulated

Remedial Order as evidenced by the First Semi-Annual Compliance Review. See Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995 (compliance with only five of sixty-five requirements of Stipulated Remedial Order); See also Compliance Chart, Appendix 7; Tr., Hr'g, October 27, 1995.
V.
A. FINDINGS REGARDING PURGATION OF CONTEMPT AND COMPLIANCE/NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REMEDIAL
There is no dispute that the defendants have now fully complied with two of the five provisions which were the subject of the Contempt Order of August 24, 1995. As of August 14, 1995, Dr. Askins was employed as a full-time psychiatrist at ADC; thus, paragraph 5 of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction has been satisfied. See Compliance Chart, Appendix 7. Similarly, contracts have been executed with two developmental nurse consultants, Karen McGowan and Carolyn Smith. With the execution of the second consulting agreement on August 23, 1995, the defendants complied with paragraph 7 of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 82; Ex. 28, Hr'g, October 10, 1995; see Compliance Chart, Appendix 7.
Conversely, the State of Tennessee concedes that it has not complied with paragraph 2 of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction. Tr., Hr'g, October 11, 1995, at 226 ("[W]e are not asserting compliance with paragraph 2").[36] Thus, the only two paragraphs as to which there is a dispute regarding compliance are paragraphs 1 (retention of a full-time developmental physician) and 8 (hiring of 136 nurses).
As previously stated, "the test for compliance by the defendants is whether the defendants took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the Court's order." Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 708 (6th Cir.1991). When a contemnor has taken part in shaping the order, generally courts have been unsympathetic to reasons asserted for less-than-substantial compliance. See Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276, 110 S.Ct. 625, 632-33, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990); Glover, 934 F.2d at 708-709.
In this case, the requirement for retention of a developmental physician was first incorporated by the State of 1312 Tennessee in the Stipulated Remedial Order of September 2, 1994. See Stipulated Remedial Order, *1312
docketed September 2, 1994, § VIA. Under the remedial plan, the State of Tennessee agreed to retain a developmental physician by March 1, 1995. At the hearing on the First Semi-Annual Compliance Report, on April 10, 1995, the State of Tennessee acknowledged that it has failed to meet its March 1, 1995, deadline, but advised the Court that a developmental medicine physician had been retained and would report by June 1, 1995. A third deadline for retention of a developmental medicine physician was established at the emergency telephone hearing on June 30, 1995.
The State of Tennessee, having agreed to obtain a developmental medicine physician for ADC and having incorporated that provision into the agreed upon remedial plan, should not be allowed to avoid an obligation for which it bargained as part of the settlement of this case. The presence of a developmental medicine physician at ADC is essential to the successful implementation of the remedial plan. Furthermore, from the record, it is clear that the defendants should not be excused from compliance with paragraph 1. Therefore, defendants remain in contempt as to that paragraph.
While the State of Tennessee remains out of compliance regarding the requirement of a developmental medicine physician, that does not resolve the issue of whether the full remedial and coercive sanctions imposed on the State to achieve compliance should remain in effect. That question should be considered in light of the extent of the State's efforts since the imposition of sanctions and the extent of the State's success in achieving compliance as to the remaining provisions of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Whether the State has purged itself of contempt regarding paragraph 8 must also be determined. The dispute as to paragraph 8 relates to a construction of the language of that paragraph, and requires an examination of the history of the formulation of that paragraph and the testimony of witnesses regarding the requirement for 136 nurses at ADC.

Once again, the origin of that paragraph rests in the Stipulated Remedial Order. Unlike paragraph 1, however, the Remedial Order did not require a specific number of nurses but only required that ADC have a sufficient number of nurses to meet the purposes of the Remedial Order. See Stipulated Remedial Order, docketed September 2, 1994, § II.A. The State of Tennessee did, however, propose a requirement of 136 nurses in the Plan of Correction drafted jointly with the United States and submitted as Exhibit 6 at the hearing of April 10, 1995. The applicable language of paragraph "II. C.1" is as follows:
Defendants shall have 136 nursing positions by April 14, 1995. These nurses will be on staff by July 1, 1995. Contract nurses will be utilized to fill vacancies, but will not serve on nutritional management teams or provide the functions set out in paragraph 1 above. Defendants will make ongoing efforts to fill these positions with Arlington nurse employees, rather than contract nurses. It is anticipated that this number of nursing positions will decrease depending on the number and characteristics of the residents.
Plan of Correction, Ex. 6, Hr'g, April 10, 1995, Paragraph II.C.1.
Gaye Hansen, the Facilitator of the Remedial Plan at ADC, clarified the meaning of subparagraph "C" in her testimony on April 10, 1995. Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 68; see supra pp. 1297-1298. It is clear from Ms. Hansen's testimony that the Plan of Correction, as presented to the Court, contemplated the hiring of ADC nurse employees to fill the 136 nursing positions approved by the State of Tennessee. Ms. Hansen made this doubly clear when she testified that, "in the interim," positions would be filled with agency or contract nurses. The clear meaning of Ms. Hansen's testimony was that agency or contract nurses would be employed only until state nurse employees could be hired. This is consistent with the memorandum of Dr. Akers to Dr. Durbin dated March 14, 1995, in which Dr. Akers observed that "optimum coverage [136 state nurse employees] would end the incessant `Agency Nurse' emergency coverage, which is very expensive." Ex. 23, Hr'g, October 10, 1995; Appendix 3. Dr. 1313 Akers' memorandum is also conclusive on the *1313 point that the 136 state nurse employees include nurse administrators.
The State of Tennessee's own summary records clearly show that the 136 positions to which the Plan of Correction referred are Tennessee nurse employee positions. See Appendix 2. There is no credible evidence to suggest that, at any point, agency nurses were considered satisfactory to fill the positions created by the State of Tennessee in response to the Plan of Correction. Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 65; Ex. 23, Hr'g, October 10, 1995; see supra notes 20-23. Moreover, even if contract nurses should be included in the calculation of 136 nurses (which they should not), under no construction of the information contained in Appendix 2, after removal of the Med Temps nurses as agency nurses, see supra note 23 and accompanying text, could the State be in compliance with the requirement for 136 Arlington employee nurses.[37] According to the plain language of paragraph 8 and applicable legal principles, it is clear that the State of Tennessee has failed to comply with paragraph 8 of the Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Order.
The effect of the State's hiring of essentially temporary individuals in larger numbers arguably reduced the adverse impact on ADC's residents of the State's failure to comply with its own remedial provision. This fact, just as the State's efforts to obtain developmental physician services, mitigates somewhat in favor of a modification of the coercive and remedial sanctions imposed in connection with these provisions.
The record also reflects, however, that the State has been less than diligent in achieving prompt compliance with other provisions of the Emergency Order and/or Preliminary Injunction. See Compliance Chart, Appendix 7, ¶¶ 6, 9, 14. Specifically, the State has not been successful in achieving compliance with the requirement for two developmental nurses. The State has hired only one developmental nurse (Ex. 3, Hr'g, October 10, 1995). Moreover, to fill the developmental nurse slot, the State attempted to hire one individual solely for the purpose of having a person in that position even though the State admitted that the proposed person was not qualified for the position. Tr. August 23, 1995, at 21 (candidate did not meet minimum requirements in State's own advertisement for position). Moreover, the State met the August 30, 1995, deadline (paragraph 9) for agreements with hospitals as to only one out of three hospitals and submitted no monthly report for the month of July 1995, as required by paragraph 14 of the Preliminary Injunction.

It is extremely difficult to understand why the State has been unable to marshal its resources and achieve relatively simple ministerial tasks such as the filing of reports and the negotiation of hospital agreements in a timely and effective manner. It is even more troubling that the State entered into an important agreement 0907 the agreement with Columbus Medical Services for interim developmental medicine physicians 0907 without considering basic questions such as the need of those physicians to be licensed in Tennessee (so that they can practice in Tennessee) and the need to have those physicians available for team consultations (just as the remedial plan required that a retained developmental physician be available). See Contempt Order, note 11. No explanation has been offered by the State, other than the explanation contained in Appendix 6, regarding why a competent administrator would overlook such obvious and important steps.
Furthermore, the lack of urgency by State administrators, in light of the demonstrated life threatening risks posed by their inaction, is disturbing. For example, Commissioner Cardwell testified that she did not meet with the administrators on her second weekend at Arlington because they had been "working steady five days a week." Tr. Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 211. At the same time, she acknowledged that the institution still does not have an 1314 overall plan for implementation *1314 of the remedy. Id. at 214. Commissioner Cardwell blamed that lack of an overall plan on a lack of responses from "consultants" but identified no effective efforts made to expedite those responses or to work with administrators on an alternative strategy to complete a plan for implementation and to actually implement the State's own plan of corrective action.
B. WHAT ARE THE BEST AND LEAST INTRUSIVE REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AVAILABLE?
The $1,000.00 a day fines as to the paragraphs as to the which the State is not in compliance are not seriously contested. The State does not argue that those sanctions are inappropriate but only argues that as to two (2) of the paragraphs they are in "partial compliance" and that the sanctions are no longer necessary. As previously noted, however, Courts are particularly unsympathetic to excuses for less than substantial compliance where the contemnor has participated in drafting the order against which compliance is measured. See Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d at 708-09. The fines imposed as to paragraphs 1, 2, and 8 should, therefore, remain in effect until the State of Tennessee achieves compliance.
The more troubling question is whether or not the requirement that Commissioner Cardwell spend every fourth weekend at Arlington Developmental Center until compliance is achieved should remain in effect.[38] It is clear from the testimony of Dr. Akers that he has made substantial efforts since the imposition of sanctions to improve the delivery of patient care at Arlington Developmental Center. It is also clear that the retention of Director of Nursing Lester has been an important step in improving nursing services at Arlington Developmental Center. The retention of at least one developmental nurse and of two developmental nurse consultants and the utilization of developmental physicians from Columbus Medical Services, despite serious missteps in the initial contract negotiation, all represent much needed change at Arlington Developmental Center.
Commissioner Cardwell has testified that she is "the chief executive officer with the State responsible for complying with the [Remedial Order]." Tr. April 10, 1995, at 104. When specifically asked against whom sanctions should be imposed for failure to comply, Commissioner Cardwell has insisted that she is the responsible party. Tr., Hr'g, July 10, 1995, at 83. Based on her insistence, the Court has directed remedial sanctions against her. Contempt Order, docketed August 24, 1995.
It is unclear, however, whether the Commissioner, despite her assertion that she is the chief executive officer for the State of Tennessee for Arlington Developmental Center, is involved in the day-to-day operations at ADC.[39] From her testimony, it appears that she is far more familiar with other institutions run by the State of Tennessee and that, in fact, her visits to Arlington Developmental Center have served as an orientation for her to that facility. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 210. A substantial question exists regarding the identity of the person or persons against whom creative sanctions would be most effective in achieving the remedial purpose of the orders in this case. Neither the United States nor the State of Tennessee (nor People First nor the Parent-Guardian

1315 Association) have briefed all of the creative alternatives[40] which may be available *1315 to the Court in lieu of the relatively simple, though highly effective sanction imposed.
The United States strongly argues that the Court should continue the only sanction which has been effective in achieving efforts towards compliance by the State of Tennessee. Undoubtedly, the requirement that the Commissioner spend every fourth weekend at Arlington Developmental Center initially was a very effective remedial sanction. It is equally clear, however, that since it appears the State may have made a deliberate decision to change its course and not comply with the Remedial Order, Plan of Correction, and Preliminary Injunction, a more comprehensive sanction scheme, tailored to assure compliance in this complex environment would be useful.
The United States shall, therefore, submit within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order a comprehensive legal analysis of the remedies available for use in this case, including a proposed remedial sanction scheme. The State of Tennessee likewise may, but is not required to, submit its own proposed remedial sanctions scheme and the authorities supporting it. Likewise, the intervenor and class representative, People First, and intervenor Parent-Guardian Association may, but are not required to, submit within thirty (30) days such a proposal. Any party may file a response to the initial filings of those parties submitting proposed remedial sanctions within fifteen (15) calendar days of the filing by the United States.
The Court will then consider whether or not it should adopt, as part of the remedies available in the context of contempt as to the Preliminary Injunction (and the Contempt Order of August 24, 1995) any or all of the proposed remedial sanctions. The remedial sanctions proposals may also be considered as possible additions to the Remedial Order. The parties should focus on the problems enunciated in note 10 regarding how to require government administrators to be responsive and the degree to which individual government administrators may be personally sanctioned.
As an interim step, in lieu of the requirement that Commissioner Cardwell spend every fourth weekend at Arlington Developmental Center,[41] four (4) key administrators, Medical Director Akers, Superintendent Jackson, Director of Nursing Lester, and Remedial Order Facilitator Hansen, are required to be available one day a month at Arlington Developmental Center for transcribed group and/or individual question and answer sessions. The Monitor may request the presence of additional persons at these sessions.
The sessions will focus on implementation not only of the Preliminary Injunction but also of the Remedial Order and Plan of Correction. The first question and answer session shall be scheduled within three (3) weeks of the date of entry of this order.[42] If satisfactory with the Monitor, the parties may schedule the session for a weekend date if they conclude that such a schedule would least interfere with operations of the institution.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Since the Court's Order of August 24, 1995, there have been two deaths at ADC. See Appendix 1. There have been no admissions to ADC since the adoption of the remedial plan on September 2, 1994.
[2] The total budget for ADC for 1995 is approximately $39 million of which approximately $26 million is paid by the federal government. Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 190 11. 2-4. ADC is funded under a series of ninety (90) day extensions obtained through the federal Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA"). The State of Tennessee is currently pursuing a proposal with HCFA for inclusion of State services for the mentally retarded under TennCare. The State is actually pursing two (2) waivers 0907 an 1115 waiver (known as a "TennCare" waiver) and a 1915 C waiver (known as a home and community based waiver). Id. at 155-156. The State anticipates that developmentally disabled individuals will be included in the TennCare program as of January 1, 1996. Id. at 174 (the goal of the State is to convert the residential and services component for this population into TennCare).
[3] In Youngberg v. Romeo, the Supreme Court considered the substantive rights of involuntarily committed mentally retarded persons under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 457 U.S. 307, 314, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2457, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). The Supreme Court found that "[w]hen a person is

institutionalized and wholly dependent on the state ... a duty to provide certain services and care does exist...." Id. at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 2459. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the State has:
a duty to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care. These are the essentials of the care that the state must provide. The State also has the unquestioned duty to provide reasonable safety for all residents and personnel within the institution ... [Residents enjoy] constitutionally protected interests in the conditions of reasonable care and safety, reasonable non-restrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by these interests.
Id. at 324, 102 S.Ct. at 2462; see also Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 127, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 1069-70, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) ("Due Process Clause of its own force requires that conditions of confinement satisfy certain minimum standards ... for persons in mental institutions").
[4] Dr. O'Neall had previously served by agreement of the parties as the Expert Facilitator in assisting the parties in negotiation of the remedial plan and in drafting alternatives for a court-imposed plan should the parties not reach agreement. Of course, because the parties reached agreement, no plan was imposed by the Court.
[5] The implementation schedule contains approximately 103 deadlines for more than 150 requirements. The deadlines vary from actions to be taken "immediately" (i.e., beginning as of September 1, 1994) to some actions to be completed 36 months from the plan commencement date. For example, nurse staffing pursuant to paragraph "II.A." was to be completed within three months (i.e., by December 1, 1994). Similarly, a chief psychologist (paragraph "II.B.") and staff psychologists (paragraph "II.C.") were to be retained within three months (i.e., by December 1, 1994). A psychiatrist (paragraph "II.E.") was to be retained within thirty days (i.e., by October 1, 1994). A Developmental Medicine Physician (paragraph "VI.A.") was to be retained within six months (i.e., by March 1, 1995). The effectiveness of certain provisions was dependent on timely completion of other provisions. For example, various committees were to begin to function within specified periods of time and the functioning of those committees was dependent upon the professionals being retained within the timeline set out in the agreed-upon implementation schedule. See, e.g., paragraph III.L. (Behavior Management Committee, beginning at six months; i.e., March 1, 1995).
[6] The record reflects that as of April 10, 1995, the Commissioner had not read the November 22, 1993, findings of the Court. See Tr., Hr'g, April 10, 1995, at 115 ll. 9-12. The State, therefore, included in its Plan of Correction a requirement that the Commissioner of Mental Health/Mental Retardation and certain other senior administrators at ADC and the State central office: "Must certify within thirty (30) days that they have read, in their entirety, the Court's Opinion, Preliminary Injunction, Findings of Fact, Remedial Order, and Monitor's Compliance Report." Plan of Correction, Ex. 6, ¶ V, Hr'g, April 10, 1995.
[7] As of June 30, 1995, only 106 nurses were working at ADC; this number included not just "Arlington nurse employees" as specified by the Plan of Correction but also contract and agency nurses. Compare Tr., Hr'g, July 10, 1995, at 94 (Commissioner Cardwell) with Ex. 4, Hr'g, October 10, 1995 (ADC Nursing Status, August 11, 1995); see also Appendix 2. While the number of nurses employed at ADC as of the date of the April 10, 1995, Plan of Correction was not the subject of proof at that hearing, a memo by Dr. Phillip Akers, ADC Medical Director, shows that on March 14, 1995, ADC employed a total of 98 nurses. Ex. 23, Hr'g, October 10, 1995; Appendix 3. Thus, between March 14, 1995, and June 30, 1995, ADC obtained the services of only an additional eight nurses.
[8] The remedial provisions of the June 30, 1995, Emergency Order (docketed July 3, 1995) had been drafted with the participation of the parties, and were telecopied to the Court for review prior to the telephone conference. Tr., Hr'g, June 30, 1995, at 14 ll. 1-4. The State expressly agreed that the situation required the proposed emergency remedial steps and asserted that the State had "already begun to take steps to put those measures in place." Tr., Hr'g, June 10, 1995, at 15 11 12-14; Tr., Hr'g, June 30, 1995, at 35-36. Other than extending the deadline for obtaining a Developmental Medicine Physician by two days (to July 5, 1995), the Court made no changes in the proposed remedial action or deadlines. See Tr., Hr'g, June 30, 1995, at 39.
[9] A portion of the transcript was sealed after a request by counsel for the State of Tennessee that counsel be allowed to make certain disclosures under seal. The United States agreed with that request and the Court

indicated that subsequent portions of the transcript would be placed under seal subject to a later motion that the materials be unsealed.
The Court has carefully considered its obligations in connection with the material submitted under seal prior to the hearing of August 9, 1995. A judge is obligated to follow the law. Therefore, in this case, it would be inappropriate for the Court to unseal the sealed portions of the August 9, 1995, transcript.
At the same time, the material disclosed to the Court is not "extrajudicial information" but, rather, is information disclosed properly during the course of a proceeding and is information on which the judge may rely, along with all of the other information in the record, in reaching conclusions. The Court has carefully considered whether the disclosures constitute evidence of a offer of compromise which would be excludable as evidence pursuant to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. From the transcript, it does not appear that Rule 408 is applicable. Tr., Hr'g, August 9, 1995, at 9 ll. 16-17 (Maloy). Moreover, even if applicable, the information submitted may be considered for purposes of establishing bias or motive. Fed.R.Evid. 408.
In the Contempt Order of August 24, 1995, it was not necessary to consider the implication of the fact disclosed by the State in the sealed portion of the transcript. TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 722 F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir.1983) (holding that there is no intent requirement for civil contempt). The disclosure of the State, however, is relevant on the issue of purgation of contempt and any assertion of impossibility (or good faith) by the defendant, as well as on the issue of the continued necessity of coercive and remedial sanctions. See United States v. Work Wear Corp., 602 F.2d 110 (6th Cir.1979).
In that context, it should be noted that based on the information submitted under seal by the State of Tennessee on August 9, 1995, it appeared that the State, at least as of that date, no longer intended to implement the agreed upon remedy at ADC. Tr., Hr'g, August 9, 1995, at 9 ll. 16-17, 23 ll. 19-25 (under seal at the request of the State).
[10] Achieving accountability and responsiveness by governmental entities and officials poses special problems for courts in fashioning civil coercive and remedial sanctions for failure of those officials and entities to comply with Court orders. While private individuals and corporations may be highly motivated by the prospect of significant financial losses since the financial fates of individuals and their businesses are closely tied, public officials are, in many respects, essentially independent from the effect of financial losses imposed on the governmental entity by whom they are employed.
Moreover, in dealing with publicly funded entities, fines are often an indiscriminate and potentially counterproductive means of enforcing compliance. Thus the value of fines in forcing a governmental entity to comply with either an agreed upon or imposed court order is often largely symbolic and generally must be narrowly crafted in order to avoid impairing the ability of the governmental entity to perform the tasks required by the order. Moreover, public policy concerns regarding the possible impairment of delivery of important social services dictate that special attention be given to craft remedies that in fact require the public official and governmental entity to perform his or her or its function as opposed to penalizing innocent taxpayers and individuals in need of critical public services.
[11] The full text of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction are set out in Appendices 4 and 5 respectively. Other provisions under the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction have now also become due and are discussed infra pp. ___ - ___. See Appendices 2, 3, 7.
[12] There are two kinds of contempt: civil and criminal. Criminal contempt may be used by a court to punish a contemnor and vindicate the authority of the court. International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2557, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994); Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441, 31 S.Ct. 492, 498, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). Criminal contempt proceedings, however, entitle the contemnor to certain constitutional protections associated with other criminal cases. See Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 1429-30, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988).
Thus, it is important to distinguish between the two types of contempt. Given that either fine or imprisonment may be used as a sanction for either type of contempt, it is the "character and purpose" of the punishment that differentiates civil from criminal contempt. Gompers, 221 U.S. at 441, 31 S.Ct. at 498. When the sanction is

punitive, the contempt proceeding is criminal in nature; when the sanction is coercive or remedial, the contempt proceeding is civil in nature. See Hicks, 485 U.S. at 632, 108 S.Ct. at 1429-30; Gompers, 221 U.S. at 442, 31 S.Ct. at 498 ("[I]mprisonment for civil contempt is ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative action required by the provisions of an order which, either in form or substance, was mandatory in character").
[13] This Court has found the State of Tennessee to be in civil contempt, and there appears to be no contention that this characterization is somehow incorrect.
[14] Whether a contemnor has complied with the court order for which it was held in contempt is a distinct inquiry from a finding of contempt. In a civil contempt proceeding, a finding of contempt must be based on clear and convincing proof that the alleged contemnor violated a prior order of the court. Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 707 (6th Cir.1991); see infra part III.B.2 (discussing the legal standard for judging compliance).
[15] In a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with a court order, the contemnor has a defense if it is factually impossible to comply with the order. United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757, 103 S.Ct. 1548, 1552-53, 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983); Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 75-76, 68 S.Ct. 401, 411-12, 92 L.Ed. 476 (1948). The contemnor, however, has the burden of production with respect to this defense. Id.; but see United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 330, 70 S.Ct. 724, 730, 94 L.Ed. 884 (1950) ("[O]ne charged with contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order makes a complete defense by proving that he is unable to comply") (emphasis supplied); Nabkey v. Hoffius, 827 F.Supp. 450, 453 (W.D.Mich.1993) (holding that the contemnor has the burden of proving inability to comply). Failure to comply with a court order will not be excused for "mere financial hardship." United States v. Work Wear Corp., 602 F.2d 110, 116 (6th Cir.1979). Further, a present inability to comply that results from the contemnor's own actions will not be a defense to contempt. United States v. Lay, 779 F.2d 319, 320 (6th Cir.1985) (holding no defense for "self-induced inability to comply" where "the defendant consciously and willfully placed himself in a financial status in order to avoid responsibility for complying with the court orders"); see also Bryan, 339 U.S. at 330-31, 70 S.Ct. at 730; United States v. Asay, 614 F.2d 655, 660 (9th Cir.1980).
[16] For the diligence efforts test rejected by this Circuit, see, e.g., Newman v. Graddick, 740 F.2d 1513, 1525 (11th Cir.1984) (holding that "a person who attempts with reasonable diligence to comply with a court order should not be held in contempt").
[17] Of the seven witnesses called by the defendants, four had no significant contact with ADC until after July 1, 1995. Grunow and Womack are state employees who became involved with recruiting at ADC after July 5, 1995, Askins began working as a psychiatrist at ADC on August 14, 1995, and Lester began working as Director of Nursing on September 15, 1995. Tr. Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 23 (Grunow), 29 (Womack), 158 (Askins), 173 (Lester). Three witnesses with longer experience with ADC were called by the State: (1) an assistant Commissioner (Durbin), (2) the ADC Medical Director (Akers), and (3) a consultant (Palmer).
[18] The subject of who would employ a developmental physician (either the University of Tennessee or the State of Tennessee) and the applicable benefits package has been the subject of inquiry at hearings on July 10, 1995, and August 9, 1995. See Contempt Order, docketed August 24, 1995, at 8, 16.
[19] It is significant that, while the requirement for two developmental nurses was first included in the June 30, 1995, Emergency Order, and was repeated in the July 10, 1995, Preliminary Injunction, no advertisement was placed for these positions prior to August 9, 1995. A two week deadline was established at the August 9, 1995, hearing. The advertisements were then placed on August 17, 1995, and ran on August 20, 1995. It would appear that prior to August 9, 1995, the defendants did not intend to fill the developmental nurse positions. See Appendix 6.
[20] Specifically, Ms. Womack testified regarding the "different categories of nurses working at Arlington" as follows:
Q. Now, I see on that there are different categories of nurses working at Arlington?
A. Yes.

Q. What are those categories?
A. The categories are State employees, contract employees and agency employees.
Q. Okay. Will you please define for the Court what each one of those categories 0907 who comprises each one of those categories?
A. Yes, ma'am. The category of State employee, of course, is those individuals that we have interviewed and employed as a full-time State employee that's assigned a full-time schedule at Arlington. The category of contract employee is made up to two agreements, that's the guardian health care group. The guardian health care group is a contract that furnishes full-time foreign nurses to Arlington to be placed in full-time regular schedule work. They have been with us since 0907 1993 was the original contract. The other agency is the Med Temps. Med Temps is a placement agency that's a part of Memphis-Shelby County Medical Society. They place full-time transitional employees with us. Those nurses spend 190 days with us on a probationary status and then they can go into a 0907 they apply to get on our State register and then they can go in for a full-time State position which is our goal for those nurses as well. The other category is agency nurses. The agency nurses are made up of three contractual arrangements. They are with nurse Express, Staff Builders and Clinicall. Those three agencies supply nurses that we are familiar with that we have requested by name that contract as a three-week renewable contract, but it is a three-week renewable contract because of funding limitations and funding requirements. Those nurses are placed on a monthly schedule, they work full-time, they show up for work just like the State employee and the contract employee do.
Q. Okay. Now, as far as the Med Temp nurses, on the August 11th report, were they listed as contract or agency employees?
A. They were listed as agency employees on August the 11th.
Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 33-35 (emphasis supplied).
[21] See supra note 20.
[22] The Plan of Correction submitted by the State on April 10, 1995, was created based on the characterization of nurses at that time. Ex. 6, Hr'g, April 10, 1995. Thus, for purposes of complying with the Plan of Correction submitted by the State, Med Temps nurses should be counted as agency nurses.
[23] Appendix 2 shows that on September 8, 1995, 28 "agency" nurses were employed at ADC. On September 15, when the "agency" category was reduced by moving Med Temps nurses to the "contract" category, the remaining number of "agency" nurses was reduced to 16. See Appendix 2. Therefore, the number of Med Temps nurses, as of September 15, 1995, appears to have been 12. Subtracting the Med Temps nurses from the contract nurses for each reported period from September 15 to October 4, 1995, it is clear that, even under the defendants' theory, at no time between August 11, 1995, and October 10, 1995, was the State of Tennessee in compliance with the April 10, 1995, Plan of Correction, the June 30, 1995, Emergency Order, or the July 10, 1995, Preliminary Injunction. See supra note 22; see also Appendices 2, 6 (sealed portion of August 9, 1995, transcript).
[24] See supra pp. 1305-1306 (discussion of licensure of Columbus Medical Services physicians).
[25] The October 5, 1995, amendment also addressed another shortcoming of the original contract. Prior to the amendment, the physicians provided by Columbus Medical Services had not attended scheduled meetings with the other staff on a patient's team. See Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 73-74; see also infra pp. 1308-1309. The pertinent provisions reads as follows:
Columbus Medical Services agrees that all DD physician consultations for persons who live at Arlington Developmental Center will include face-to-face meetings with members of the person's team and the person's primary care physician.
Ex. 7, ¶ A.2., Hr'g, October 10, 1995.

[26] The four primary care physicians, according to Dr. Akers, had "no prior experience whatever in the field of developmental disabilities." Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 88.
[27] While all of these activities are not directly relevant to whether the defendants have purged themselves of contempt as to the five uncompleted provisions of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction, they are relevant to efforts to achieve the overall remedial objective as set out in the Contempt Order. Contempt Order, docketed August 24, 1995, at 14.
[28] Dr. Akers described the contributions of the developmental physicians to improved care at ADC as "enormous." Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 74 l. 13. According to Dr. Akers:
We're getting a holistic look at the medical care of these persons ... so we're evaluating people at a higher level than previously done. The value of the team is that this process is literally teaching the team how to do business. Now [physicians and nurse practitioners are] sitting down with a document written by a master physician, a developmental pediatrician addressing each of these issues. There could be no finer teaching tool for our staff medical providers than these consultations.
Id. at 74-75.
[29] See supra note 25 (discussing the October 5, 1995, amendment to the contract between the State of Tennessee and Columbus Medical Services to remedy the unavailability of the developmental physicians for team meetings).
[30] Dr. Akers also indicated that he and Commissioner Cardwell discussed his request for transfer to Cloverbottom, a Tennessee ICFMR facility located in Middle Tennessee. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 129.
[31] Dr. Askins is scheduled to attend a meeting of the National Association for Dually Diagnosed Persons in Allentown, Pennsylvania, as well as a conference sponsored by Columbus Medical Services in November in New Orleans, Louisiana. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 163. Dr. Askins does not have a background in behavioral psychology. Id. at 164.
[32] Commissioner Cardwell further explained that:
The implementation plan is not all complete because of not having concrete information back from some of the consultants with which the staff had worked.
Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 217.
[33] During her weekend visits, Commissioner Cardwell investigated deficiencies cited by the Monitor and her developmental medicine physician, checked the activity schedules of residents to see if they were being maintained, observed the organizational structure at ADC, checked on operations during the second and third shift, and observed problems in nursing distribution. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 197, 202, 206-07, 208-09. One of the conclusions that Commissioner Cardwell reached as a result of her visits was that, "We had to have a top notch Director of Nursing as soon as possible." Id. at 197.
[34] Exhibit and testimony referred to in this subsection are exhibits and testimony introduced at the October 10, 1995, hearing unless otherwise noted.
[35] This was the first such current at-risk list developed. Tr., Hr'g, October 10, 1995, at 124.
[36] Linda Ross, counsel for the State of Tennessee stated in closing argument as follows:
Paragraph two, which sets out the duties of a developmental physician is linked, of course, to paragraph one, of course, requiring the permanent full-time physician and to paragraph six requiring developmental nurses by October 23rd. Without those persons, paragraph 6 cannot be fully satisfied, and we are not asserting compliance with paragraph two.
Tr., Hr'g, October 11, 1995, at 226.

[37] The apparent reason that ADC has not proceeded to hire 136 state employee nurses as required under the Plan of Correction and as required in the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction is contained in Appendix 6. See Tr., Hr'g, August 9, 1995, at 9 (under seal at the request of the State).
[38] The requirement that Commissioner Cardwell spend every fourth weekend at ADC is currently the subject of a stay by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tennessee v. United States, No. 95-6185 (6th Cir. October 13, 1995). See National Labor Relat. Bd. v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 588 (6th Cir.1987).
[39] It should be noted that the Superintendent at Arlington Developmental Center, Max Jackson, has yet to testify at any proceedings in this case. Mr. Jackson is charged with the day-to-day management of ADC and plays an important role in implementation of key provisions of the remedial plan.
[40] For example, creative alternatives might include a requirement of an administrator's off-hours schedule (to cover weekends, second and third shifts), imposition of an administrator to more closely monitor the day-to-day progress at Arlington Developmental Center, imposition of a direct administrative penalty or bonus system dependent on the percentage of compliance obtained with the overall Remedial Plan or Plan of Correction or Preliminary Injunction. Such types of alternatives should be considered not only in the context of defendants' contempt concerning the preliminary injunction but also at any later proceeding should the defendants be found in contempt concerning implementation of the Remedial Order or Plan of Correction.
[41] The requirement that Commissioner Cardwell spend every fourth weekend is removed.
[42] If the parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the first question and answer session, the Court will set a date and time. The Monitor will preside at each session. See Stipulated Remedial Order § XV B.5. and C. Each party and/or counsel may be present and may make inquiry and request documentation. Document requests and questions may be submitted in advance of the question and answer sessions (for information and documents to be produced at the session) or at the session itself (for information and documents to be produced at the session). A purpose of the sessions will be to facilitate information gathering by the parties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 256 F.Supp.2d 768 (2003)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
State of TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants, and People First of Tennessee, et al., Intervenors, Parent-Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental Center, Intervenors.
No. 92-2062-D/A.
United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.
February 21, 2003.
770 *770 Nicole Porter, Janine Scott, U.S. Department of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Thomas F Urban, II, United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, Washington, DC, Aileen M. Bell, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, for USA, plaintiff.
Earle J. Schwarz, Esq., Glankler Brown, PLLC, Memphis, Edward G. Connette, Esq., Lesesne & Connette, Charlotte, NC, Jack W. Derryberry, Esq., Ward Derryberry & Thompson, Nashville, Judith A. Gran, Esq., Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Frank J. Laski, Esq., Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, Roger Manus, Law Office of Roger Manus, Raleigh, NC, William F. Sherman, Esq., Law Offices of William F. Sherman, Little Rock, AR, Diane C. Spears, Williams & Prochaska, P.C., Memphis, for Carl Beard, by his next friend Wendy Kurland, People First of Tennessee, on behalf of all its members, Sandra Howard, by her next friend Elizabeth Henderson, Herman Walter Runions, by his next friend Sarah R. Todd, Harvey Richard Watson, by his next friend Jodie Wheeler, Clarence Wilson, by his next friend Wilma Williamson, Keith Collins, by his mother and next friend Joyce Cisco, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker, by her parents and next friends Carolyn and Steve Tucker, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, intervenors.
771 *771 Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr., Esq., Baker Donelson Bearman & Caldwell, Jonathan P. Lakey, Esq., Burch Porter & Johnson, Memphis, Dianne Stamey Dycus, Esq., Attorney General and Reporter, Civil Division, Nashville, for Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson, Superintendent of Arlington Developement Center, defendants.
ORDER DENYING THE APPROVAL OF MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DONALD, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the joint motions of the parties, the United States of America, the State of Tennessee, and People First of Tennessee to approve the proposed Mediation Settlement Agreement ("MSA"). The M.S.A. § proposes a global settlement of all claims arising in connection with three appeals that were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the matter of United States v. Tennessee, Nos. 00-6120, 00-6265 and 00-6476. For the reasons set forth below, the proposed M.S.A. § in this class action is rejected as not being in the best interest of the class.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 12, 1991, five Arlington Developmental Center ("ADC") residents and People First of Tennessee brought an action against the State of Tennessee and ADC, People First of Tennessee v. Arlington Developmental Ctr., No. 92-2213 (W.D.Tenn.l992) ("People First case"), alleging that the conditions at ADC violated the constitutional and statutory rights of Arlington residents and those at risk of placement there. Plaintiffs

sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court permitted the Parent-Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental Center (PGA) to intervene in the People First case.
Subsequently, the United States filed an action against the State of Tennessee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997. The United States asserted that the State had failed to provide humane conditions and adequate treatment to ADC residents. United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.l992)("united States case"). After a trial in the United States case, the court entered judgment against the Defendants finding that the conditions at ADC violated the due process rights of the residents. In August of 1994, the United States and the State of Tennessee reached an agreement on the terms of the remedial order to correct the violations. The court entered the remedial order on September 2, 1994. On September 26, 1995, the court adopted the findings from the United States case as findings in the People First case and certified a class that included all past, present, and future residents.[1] Furthermore, the court named the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor in the People First case as Intervenors in the United States case.
The court ordered the State to develop a comprehensive plan for bringing ADC into constitutional and statutory compliance, including a community plan for placing ADC residents into community placement. After a hearing, the 772 court approved the *772 State's proposed community plan on August 21, 1997. On June 28, 1999, the court ordered the creation of workgroups to facilitate implementation of the plan and clarified the definition of the People First class.[2] On January 11, 2000, the court suspended activity of the workgroups for six months. On August 23, 2000, the court temporarily extended the suspension of the workgroups.
The orders clarifying the definition of the "at risk" class and suspending the workgroups were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The parties chose to mediate the appeals. The Sixth Circuit Mediator initially conducted the mediation. Subsequently, the parties participated in private mediation and ultimately reached a proposed resolution. The parties participated in numerous mediation sessions from March of 2001 through October of 2001. On December 10, 2001, the parties entered into a proposed mediation settlement agreement, which was filed with this Court.
The proposed mediation agreement contains six primary terms and conditions and various components for each term and condition. The primary terms of the M.S.A. § provide that
1. settlement is conditioned upon the August 24, 2000 Order that suspended the workgroup activity being vacated, as well as, that portion of the August 12, 1997 Order relating to workgroups (MSA § XII);
2. settlement is conditioned upon the July 17, 2000 Order regarding the scope of the "at risk" class being vacated and the issuance of a new Order that redefines the People First "at risk" class as those persons who were placed in a private intermediate care facility/mental retardation ("ICF/ MR") after admissions to ADC were closed on September 2, 1994, and before the closure of ADC (MSA §§ XII, XIII);
3. the State is required to develop a closure plan for ADC that must be reviewed by the parties and approved by the Court (MSA § II);
4. the State must improve the quality of community-based services consistent with reasoned professional judgment (MSA § VI);
5. the State must increase the array of community residential options to meet the needs of the class members who will transition from ADC to the community (MSA § IV); and
6. the parties and Court Monitor shall meet for the purpose of monitoring the progress of the State with the ADC Closure Plan and the community initiatives plan (MSA § IX).
The parties filed a joint motion requesting that this Court vacate the orders on appeal and that the mediation settlement agreement be entered with this Court. On December 13, 2001, this Court granted the parties' motion. The parties then filed a joint motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a remand. On January 8, 2002, the intermediate appellate court granted the joint motion to remand. United States

v. Tennessee, Nos. 00-6120, 00-6265, and 00-6476 (6th Cir.2002). On February 13, 2002, this Court preliminarily 773 approved the proposed *773 settlement, designated a notice process, and scheduled a fairness hearing on April
30, 2002. The Court ordered the parties to provide notice to all class members by February 28, 2002, that all parties interested in commenting on or objecting to the settlement should submit comments to the Court by April 20, 2002. Likewise, the notice advised all those wishing to participate in the fairness hearing to notify the Court by April 20, 2002.
On April 30, June 27, and June 28, 2002, this Court held a hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement agreement. At the hearing, the Court heard testimony from the Court Monitor, experts, state officials, and interested parties concerning the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the agreement. The Court Monitor, state officials, and some experts testified that the proposed M.S.A. § is in the best interest of the class and that the closure of ADC is a feasible and desirable resolution to the case. The guardians and family members of the class and an expert testified in opposition to the Court's approval of the proposed M.S.A. § because they asserted that the community cannot serve all class members upon the closure of ADC. The Court also accepted written comments from members of the class and/or their parents and guardians, and other parties. The letters received overwhelmingly expressed opposition to the closure of ADC. Parents and guardians acknowledged the benefits of community placement for some members, but testified that for a large population of members with severe, multiple developmental disabilities, placing them in the community would be tantamount to a death sentence.
People First of Tennessee, the State, and the United States recommended that the M.S.A. § be approved. PGA opposed the approval of the MSA. PGA's opposition to the M.S.A. § emanated from the provision in the agreement requiring the ultimate closure of ADC. PGA's and class member guardians' and family members' objections may be classified into three general categories: 1) closure of ADC, 2) community capacity to serve persons who are behaviorally and medically fragile, and 3) community capacity to serve increased transitions from ADC.

II. STANDARD TO ASSESS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that " [a] class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court...." Courts maintain a strong presumption in favor of settlement agreements because such agreements are a preferred means of dispute resolution. In Re Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc., 137 F.Supp.2d 985,1008 (S.D.Ohio 2001). A court must determine whether the proposed settlement is "fair, adequate, and reasonable under the circumstances, as well as consistent with public interests" when examining the agreement. Id. (quoting Bailey v. Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 908 F.2d 38, 42 (6th Cir.1990)). A court must also consider whether the class is better served if the litigation is resolved by the proposed settlement rather than if pursued to a verdict by a jury. Id.

To determine whether the proposed settlement is " fair, adequate, and reasonable," a court must evaluate the following factors:

1. the plaintiff's likelihood of ultimate success on the merits balanced against the relief offered by the proposed settlement agreement;

2. the complexity, expense, and likely duration of litigation;

3. the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery;

774

*774 4. the judgment of experienced trial counsel;

5. the nature of the negotiations;

6. the objections, concerns and comments of the class members and other interested parties; and

7. the public interest.

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205, 212 (S.D.Ohio 1997). "The district court enjoys wide discretion in assessing the weight and applicability of these factors." Granada Inv., Inc. v. DWG Corp., 962 F.2d 1203, 1205-06 (6th Cir.1992). A strong presumption exists in favor of deferring to the judgment of a federal government agency that has negotiated and submitted a proposed settlement in an effort to enforce federal laws. See Michigan v. Thomas Solvent Co., 717 F.Supp. 507, 515 (W.D.Mich.1989). A court cannot "modify the proposed settlement, but must approve or disapprove the proposed settlement as a whole in relation to all of those concerned." In Re Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc., 137 F.Supp.2d at 1008.
III. ANALYSIS

A. Factor One: Plaintiff's Likelihood Of Success On The Merits Balanced Against The Relief Offered By The Proposed Settlement Agreement

The parties agreed to the proposed M.S.A. § during mediation proceedings that were entered into to resolve three appeals related to the district court's Order Regarding Scope of "At Risk" Population and Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion Suspending the Workgroup Activities. A determination of Plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits, therefore, requires this Court to examine these two orders.

On July 17, 2000, the court concluded that "the 'at risk' portion of the class consists of all individuals who reside in the geographic region served by [ADC] and who have demonstrated medical needs sufficient to require institutional care in the absence of home or community based services." See Order Regarding Scope Of "At Risk" Population, United States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn.1992). The definition advanced by the State for the "at risk" class was narrowly defined as "those individuals who have actually been admitted to ADC since the class was certified." Id. In rejecting the State's proposed definition, the court opined that "such an interpretation makes the at risk population a null set because ... no individuals have been admitted to ADC since the class was certified." Id. Furthermore, the more expansive definition adopted by the court "utilizes existing Medicaid eligibility guidelines as objective medical criteria for determining which individuals are 'at risk' of being placed at ADC." Id.

The State appealed the order, and during mediation, the parties adopted another definition of the "at risk" class contingent upon the approval of this Court. The definition provides:

[A]ll persons at risk of being placed at [ADC] shall be construed as including only:

1. Those persons actually placed at Arlington Developmental Center subsequent to entry of the Court's Order Granting Class Certification on September 27, 1995; and

2. Those persons:

(a) placed in private ICF/MR facility in the West Tennessee Region subsequent to closure of admissions to [ADC] on September 2, 1994, and prior to the closure of [ADC]; and

(b) who apply, within one year of initial notice of eligibility, to receive services under any

775

Tennessee Home and Community Based Waiver program for people *775 with mental retardation

and for which they are eligible.

MSA § XIII (A).

A comparison of the district court's definition with the parties' proposed definition of the "at risk" class reveals that the definition contained in the M.S.A. § is more narrow than the court's definition. Fewer persons, therefore, would be classified as "at risk" if the M.S.A. § is approved. This Court concludes that Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits on appeal as to the definition of the "at risk" class. The court previously ruled that "the interpretation of the class definition advocated by Defendants is wholly unsupported by the record in this case

...." See Order Den. Defs.' Mot. To Alter Or Am. J. And Order Den. Mot. For Stay Pending Appeal, United States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn.1992). Accordingly, a balance of Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits as to the "at risk" class appeal against the relief offered by the proposed M.S.A. § establishes that the class would receive a lesser degree of protection from the MSA's definition of the "at risk" class. As such, the appeal of the "at risk" definition issue, on balance, weighs in favor of denying the proposed MSA.
Plaintiff and Interveners appealed the court's suspension of the workgroups. When the workgroups were suspended initially in January of 2001, the court reasoned that the temporary suspension of the workgroups was necessary in order to focus on other areas of work that had to be brought to a timely conclusion. The court concluded that resources, such as time and money, would be better served by temporarily suspending the use of the workgroups. The court, however, did not intend to suspend the workgroups forever. This is evidenced by the court's statement that
the workgroups [are regarded by the court] as exactly what the parties said they were in their consent order as important in the case, and [the court has not] changed [its] view on that. [The court] said [the parties] had to prioritize matters .... [The court's] thought on [suspension] is that [the workgroups] are certainly not going to [be] suspended[ ] forever ....
See Tr. of Status Conference on August 17, 2000, United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.1992). This Court, therefore, concludes that the Plaintiffs' appeal of the suspension of the workgroups order had little likelihood of success on the merits as the court's actions were inherently discretionary. Furthermore, the proposed M.S.A. § would potentially eliminate the necessity of workgroups.
Ruby Kay Moore, an expert who reviewed ADC and the community programs, opined at the fairness hearing that the M.S.A. § has "numbers and schedules and time line sources and conditions that make [it] more likely that it will actually be achieved." Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 383-84, Test, of Ruby Kay Moore, United States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn. 1992). She further stated that the M.S.A. § is a plan "in which everybody has agreed to how [it] will go," and that it is "a collective responsibility to keep it on track and to participate in saying how [the parties] shall [ ] best proceed so that [the parties'] concerns are all met." Id. In sum, the implementation of the terms of the M.S.A. § would be dependent upon the parties' determination, at a future date, of what the best approach is to reach the objectives of the MSA.
The workgroups were intended to facilitate implementation of the community plan. The proposed M.S.A. § appears to contemplate the utilization of controls and mechanisms for the implementation of the terms of the 776 agreement. The proposed M.S.A. § would result in the ultimate and *776 imminent closure of ADC. The closure would require, therefore, a complete transition to community care providers. The closure plan drafted pursuant to the M.S.A. § could include the utilization of workgroups, but does not appear to require workgroups. Balancing Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits as to the workgroups issue with the relief offered by the proposed M.S.A. § establishes that both could result in the use of workgroups. Accordingly, neither factor outweighs the other, and the balance is neutral in effect.
Although the balancing of the workgroups appeal is neutral, the balance of the "at risk" definition appeal favors a denial of the MSA. If the Court approved the proposed MSA, the "at risk" class definition would reduce the number of people who are eligible to receive services from approximately 1,200 to approximately 100 persons. This substantial reduction would result in the denial of services to numerous persons that the district court determined were included in the class. Moreover, the Court finds that such a drastic reduction would expose large numbers of class members to potential harm. Accordingly, the Court concludes that balancing Plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits as to the three appeals against the relief offered by the settlement agreement weighs in favor of denying the proposed MSA.

B. Factors Two And Three: The Complexity, Expense, And Likely Duration Of Litigation; and The Stage Of The Proceedings And The Amount Of Discovery
The Court will examine these factors together given their interrelation. These consolidated actions were filed more than a decade ago. After a trial in the United States case, the district court entered judgment against the Defendants finding that the conditions at ADC violated the due process rights of the residents. In August of 1994, the United States and the State of Tennessee reached an agreement on the terms of the remedial order to correct due process violations. Since that time, a long history of litigation, remediation, contempt motions and findings, monitoring enforcement actions, and negotiation has occurred.
No question exists as to the complexity of the case and the substantial expense that has been generated in an attempt to comply with the remedial order. The complexity of this litigation, and the stage of the proceeding involved therein, are exemplified by the three separate appeals that were pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and by the extensive litigation history in an eleven year-old case. Moreover, the litigation expenses incurred in the case include numerous attorney and expert fees. Accordingly, the Court concludes that these factors weigh in favor of the approval of the proposed MSA.
C. Factors Four and Five: The Judgment Of Experienced Trial Counsel; and The Nature Of The Negotiations
It is undisputed that several experienced trial attorneys and senior representatives of the parties have participated extensively and, therefore, are aware intimately of the complexity and seriousness of the case. Most of the trial counsel involved in this litigation have several years of legal experience in litigation. With the exception of PGA and its counsel, all of the attorneys and parties agree that the proposed M.S.A. § should be approved.
The testimony elicited at the fairness hearing indicates that the negotiations were arms-length. The Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, participated in some of the mediation sessions and had input on the document. See 777 Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at *777 69 and 85, Test, of Dr. Ray, United States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn. 1992). The Court Monitor recommended approval of the MSA. Id. at 69 and 89-90.
In addition to the Court Monitor, all of the parties, including PGA, participated in extensive negotiations and were represented by counsel at all stages of the negotiations. See Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 588-624, Test, of Carolyn Cowans, United States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn.1992). PGA had three or four representatives at the mediation sessions at all times. PGA also had two board meetings separated by a period of a week during which they consulted with counsel prior to authorizing its then-President, Mr. Richard Johnson, to sign the MSA. [3] Id. The mediation session took place over a number of months and included a number of meetings between the parties. See id. at 589-90 and 614-24.
The negotiations were conducted initially under the supervision of the Sixth Circuit mediator and the Sixth Circuit rules concerning mediation and subsequently under the auspices of a private mediator. All parties participated in all the negotiations, and all parties were represented by counsel who were experienced in this matter from its beginning. The Court Monitor also participated in the negotiations. The Court holds, therefore, that the nature of the negotiations were fair, the parties were under no undue influence, and there was no collusion between the parties. Accordingly, these factors weigh in favor of the approval of the proposed MSA.

D. Factor Six: The Objections, Comments, And Concerns Of Class Members And Other Interested Parties
This Court received written comments and testimony from class members, relatives and guardians of class members, and other interested parties. At the fairness hearing, the Court heard oral testimony from approximately sixteen relatives or guardians of class members. Furthermore, the Court received approximately 100 letters in opposition to the proposed MSA. The overriding concern expressed in these letters and testimony relate to the proposed MSA's closure of ADC and the vulnerability and medical fragility of class members. Included in an evaluation of this factor, therefore, are specific concerns expressed in these letters and testimony.
Dr. R.F.A., the single parent of an ADC resident, expressed his concern via letter about the proposed closure of ADC. His daughter who is currently thirty-five-years old has resided at ADC since the early 1970s. Dr. A. stated that "[he] knows how difficult it is to provide for such special needy individuals who are so totally dependent for their daily needs, both nutritional and hygienic." He opined that " [t]o close [ADC] would be a real-time travesty for this community and for these residents in particular. Closing Arlington would be tantamount to throwing out not 778 just the *778 baby with the bathwater, but indeed to throwing out all baby's [sic] with the bathwater." While he is not an expert on these issues, the Court will not disregard his background knowledge.
C. A., the sister and co-guardian of an ADC resident, also wrote a letter to the Court. Her sister, who is severely retarded and confined to a wheelchair, has been a resident at ADC since 1971 or 1972. Ms. A.'s sister was placed in a nursing home for a short period of time. Ms. A. stated that
[t]he nursing home did not know how to deal with a severely retarded person. They just wanted to keep her sedated all of the time. [S]he stayed agitated and depressed all of the time[,] and she became aggressive. She tore her clothes, picked at herself until she had sores all over her arms and she even tore the curtains down off the walls in her room at the nursing home.
In sum, Ms. A. expressed her concern that her sister would not survive very long if forced to leave ADC.
Rick and Suzanne B. are the parents of an ADC resident. Their daughter has lived at ADC for approximately twenty years. Their daughter is fed with a feeding tube and breathes through a tracheal tube. She is unable to speak and is profoundly retarded. Furthermore, she suffers from epilepsy and Wilson's Disease. She requires multiple medications, which must be monitored by laboratory analysis. Accordingly, the B.'s daughter must be attended by a respiratory therapist four times a day and receive around the clock care by nurses and doctors. Mr. and Mrs. B. believe that an ICF/MR facility better serves the medically fragile in the community such as their child.
June D.C. wrote the Court to object to the closing of ADC. Ms. C. is the sister of an ADC resident. Her brother, who has resided at ADC for thirty-two years, is severely retarded. He has severe receptive and expressive language delay. Ms. C.'s brother also engages in self-injurious behavior. Because of his history of low body weight, he must be closely monitored at mealtime and requires the services of a licensed dietician. Ms. C. and her family fear that her brother's health and life will be at risk if placed in the community.
Carolyn C., the mother of an ADC resident, relayed her concerns about the closure of ADC. Some of the medical conditions from which her son suffers include cerebral palsy, severe spastic quadriplegia, seizure disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, dysphagia, and scoliosis. He is profoundly retarded and is unable to perform any daily living skills. He requires twenty-four hour care. Furthermore, Ms. C.'s son faces significant physical and nutritional care challenges. He uses a customized seating system adapted to a wheelchair base for mobility. He also requires custom equipment for alternate positioning purposes. During mealtime he uses adaptive feeding equipment, including a special headrest insert. He is at great risk of aspiration, and in fact has choked before. In such instances, he must receive immediate attention. Ms. C. opined that "the centralized service delivery system... [which ADC] offers [is] the best model of care for [her son]." Moreover, people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities are unique, and the configuration of the care systems must be equally unique. She believes that a serious lack of medical supports in the community system exists. Ms. C. believes, therefore, that

the elimination of ADC in the absence of an equitable placement would place the medically and behaviorally fragile at risk of great harm and possibly death. She also testified that she is concerned that many people in the 779 community receive their medical treatment at ADC because adequate medical care is unavailable in the *779 community. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 582, Test, of Carolyn C., UUnited States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn. 1992). Ms. C. testified that with the closure of ADC, there will not be a sufficient "safety net" for people transitioned into the community who are in crisis situations and need to return. Id. at 586.
Barbara Cn. and Walter Cr., family members of ADC residents, also wrote the Court opposing the closure of ADC. Both residents are severely retarded, non-ambulatory, and mute. One is fed by a feeding tube, and both require around the clock care. Ms. Cn. and Mr. Cr. question the State's ability to provide adequate care to persons with such severe conditions in a community setting.
Joe H. expressed concern that his sister, an ADC resident, would have a difficult time adjusting to a move and that such a move would shorten her life. Mr. H. also is concerned that housing in safe communities is not readily available because potential neighbors attempt to block ADC residents from moving into their communities.
At the fairness hearing, Nadine Mc. objected to the closure of ADC. Her son has resided at ADC for fourteen years. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 477, Test, of Nadine Mc., United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.1992). He is non-ambulatory, blind, and fed via a feeding tube. Id. He suffers from aspiration pneumonia approximately three or four times per year, and he requires oxygen for the least illness. Id. Ms. Mc.'s son has been resuscitated twice. Id. She opined that had her son not received immediate medical aid, he would have died. Id. at 477-78. She questions whether a community setting could adequately address such pervasive emergency needs. Even if such services exist, Ms. Mc. believes that her son's health is so fragile that he would not survive in the community. Id. at 478.
Barbara D., the parent of an ADC resident, also testified at the fairness hearing. Ms. D.'s daughter has resided at ADC since 1974. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 474, Test, of Barbara D., United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.1992). Her daughter is terminally ill. Id. Ms. D. testified that her daughter could not survive in the community even though other class members may be capable of doing so. Id. Ms. D. concluded her testimony by stating that she is so worried about the proposed closing of ADC that she "actually prays to god that [her daughter] will die before this settlement is [approved.]" Id. at 475.
Nora S. is the mother of a class member who has been transitioned into the community. Ms. S. testified that her son goes to ADC almost everyday. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 668, Test, of Nora S., Unites States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn.1992). She further stated that all of his medical and dental care is provided by ADC. Id. Ms. S. expressed her hope that ADC would remain open to care for those that are medically fragile and to provide medical services to those in the community. Id.
At the fairness hearing, Dr. Ray testified that the M.S.A. § proposed closure of ADC with the placement of class members into the community is a viable plan of which she approves. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 70-72, Test, of Dr. Nancy Ray, United States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn.1992). She pointed to other examples where community placement has been successful, and noted that the trend is toward community placement for enhanced care. She also testified that some medically fragile ADC residents have already been transitioned into the community setting. Id. at 82-83. Dr. Ray stated that instances had arisen in which "some individuals medical 780 needs [became] so complex *780 and they [became] so medically fragile that they [were] not [ ] able to be maintained in a small community living home..." Id. at 82. In some of these instances, Dr. Ray testified that the residents were placed in rehabilitation facilities, one of which is a licensed long-term hospital. Id. Dr. Ray stated that the health conditions of two elderly residents placed into the community deteriorated in a predictable way. Id. The community providers, family members, and Community Services Network ("CSN") determined that these residents "would be better cared for in [ ] an actual medical facility." Id. at 83. Dr. Ray also expressed concern that a community living arrangement would not be available by the proposed closure date to accommodate individuals who are ventilator dependent. Id. at 91-92.
Carlene Leaper, the Executive Director for Mid-South ARC and a member of the Abuse and Neglect Prevention Committee ("ANPC"), testified that the number of incidents of abuse and neglect in the community has not reduced during her six year tenure on ANPC. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 423, Test, of Carlene Leaper, United States v.

Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn.1992). Ms. Leaper also indicated that some suspected instances of reported abuse and neglect in the community were not investigated by the State. Id. at 426. Likewise, Victor T., Sr., the parent of a severely retarded ADC resident and an ANPC member, expressed his concern at the fairness hearing about the ability of the community to effectively address the needs of the medically fragile ADC residents. Id. at 457. Mr. T. correctly noted that the medical needs of the population are not static, and will at some time require varying response levels.
Sandra D. testified about her sister's transition into the community. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 469, Test, of Sandra D., United States v. Tennessee, 798 F.Supp. 483 (W.D.Tenn.1992). Ms. D. asserted that she had difficulty finding doctors in the community willing to treat her sister. Id. Ms. D. eventually secured medical providers for her sister with the help of CSN. Id. She stated that she was worried, however, about the ability of other residents to secure proper medical care in the community. Id. Ms. D. testified in effect that she objects to the closure of ADC because the medically and mentally fragile, even if placed into the community, need a facility to provide necessary services. Id. at 469-72. Ms. D. also expressed concern about the number of deaths of class member that occurred in the community. Id. at 472. If ADC is closed and the population is transitioned into the community, she believes this number will rise dramatically.
Rick Campbell, the Deputy Director for the Tennessee Commission on Compliance, testified concerning the possible steps that would be utilized when closing ADC to minimize disruption to the class. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 146-81, United States v. Tennessee, Test, of Rick Campbell, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.1992). Mr. Campbell stated that the State envisioned providing actual residential services to certain medically complex class members. Id. at 158. Further, the State would support unique homes that would be operated for persons who have the greatest medical issues. Id. Mr. Campbell also testified that the State would propose in the closure plan to operate Staterun homes for medically complex residents and small medical units for transitions from hospitals back to the community. Id. at 159. Mr. Campbell admitted that in the community there are no physicians on site and most of the homes do not have nurses on duty around the clock. Id. at 200-01. Given the medical fragility of a large 781 portion of the class, this must be *781 factored into the calculus of approval of the MSA.
Dr. James Conroy, an expert in the evaluation and research in the areas of care and service of delivery systems for persons with developmental disabilities, testified that people are better off in a community setting than in an institutional setting. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 274-75, Test, of Dr. James Conroy, United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn. 1992). Dr. Conroy admitted, however, that a community setting is not appropriate for everyone, and that questions remain about whether the mortality rate of people in the community is greater than in institutions. Id. at 289. Dr. Karen Anderson, the Medical Director for CSN, also opined that medically fragile residents will receive appropriate care and support services if the proposed M.S.A. § is approved. Id. at 316.
Dr. Theodore Kastner, President of the Developmental Disabilities Health Alliance, testified for PGA concerning community care versus institutional care. Dr. Kastner stated that he does not believe that adequate evidence exists to show that community care is consistently better than institutional care. Tr. of Fairness Hr'g at 508, Test, of Dr. Theodore Kastner, United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.1992). Dr. Kastner further opined that there are no states that are completely institution free. Id. at 512. All states have "the ability to place someone in an institution when they need to because they contract with private operators to provide [the] service or they have community [intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded]... ." Id. at 513. Therefore, states may close their public facilities but continue to operate institutions via private providers. Id.
Dr. Kastner noted that as people have moved from institutions to the community, many continue to have needs that require more intensive health care services than can be offered in group homes. Id. at 514. As a result, many persons are placed in nursing homes which are often ill equipped to meet the needs of persons with developmental disabilities. Id. Dr. Kastner opined that many developmentally disabled people do not have access to the home and community-based waiver because it is an optional service. Id. Persons with developmental disabilities, however, have access to nursing homes because it is an entitlement through the Medicaid program. Id. Dr. Kastner stated that nursing homes are not the most appropriate setting for people with developmental disabilities. Id. Moreover, Dr. Kastner asserted that studies indicate that there is a significant increase in the relative risk of mortality in community settings versus in institutions. Id. at 519. Studies also indicate that a

substantial increase in actual deaths exists as opposed to expected deaths among those placed in the community. Id.
These are but a few samples of the comments and very grave concerns expressed by representatives and relatives of ADC class members and other interested parties. The Court believes that such comments help to contextualize the enormity of the issues represented in this lawsuit. The Court finds that these issues are not an abstraction nor can they be reduced to an academic discussion. Rather, in many cases for the families and class members, they believe that the issues are of life and death magnitude. At the very least, all parties agree that the decision will unalterably affect the ultimate quality of life for the class members.
The concerns and objections expressed by the families and guardians of the class members relate almost entirely to the closure provision of the MSA. As evidenced by the preceding statements, the overriding concern of 782 these individuals relates *782 to the ability of the community to serve those class members that are medically and behaviorally fragile.
The Court recognizes that even when a majority of class members oppose a proposed settlement agreement, the Court may still approve the agreement if the Court finds that the settlement agreement is in the best interest of the class. See Heit v. Van Ochten, 126 F.Supp.2d 487, 491 (W.D.Mich.2001). In fact, the Court is mandated to evaluate the agreement based on a "best interest of the class" standard. In the instant case, approximately 100 of approximately 450 class members objected to the approval of the proposed MSA. Cf. Rolland v. Cellucci, 191 F.R.D. 3, 9-11 (D.Mass.2000)(holding that "no real opposition was expressed to the Settlement Agreement [by class members]."). The concerns expressed by the class and other interested parties relate to issues of life and death and the quality of life of class members. Accordingly, the Court gives great deference to the opinions of the persons most capable of determining what is in the best interest of the class members, i.e., the guardians and family of the class members. See Rolland, 191 F.R.D. at 12 (finding that the "Settlement Agreement ... ensures that no class member will be involuntarily transferred from a nursing home to the community.").
As noted previously, numerous people testified for the United States, the State of Tennessee, and People First of Tennessee as to the viability and desirability of closing ADC. This Court agrees that the transition of all class members into community homes is an ideal solution to the problems that exist with ADC, assuming that the community could adequately meet each member's needs. This Court, however, is highly skeptical that the complete closure of ADC, accompanied with a responsible and safe transition to the community of those class members who are the most medically and behaviorally fragile, is possible at this time. Testimony by interested parties indicates that finding physicians willing and capable of treating class members in the community has proven difficult. The Court has not been shown sufficient evidence that this condition is going to ameliorate in the future. The Court recognizes that CSN is making substantial headway in insuring that class members in the community have appropriate medical care available. The testimony and letters received by the Court indicate, however, that many class members that have been transitioned into the community continue to rely on medical services provided by ADC. This testimony is supported by Dr. Kastner's testimony that as people have moved from institutions to the community, many continue to have needs that require more intensive health care services than can be offered in group homes.
The Court also finds troubling, testimony that persons unable to receive adequate medical care in the community may be placed in nursing homes. Nursing homes are not designed or equipped to handle the needs of class members who are medically and behaviorally fragile. Moreover, the proposed M.S.A. § will narrow the "at risk" class. This reduction of persons in the "at risk" class could translate into an even larger placement of the developmentally disabled into nursing homes.
Likewise, the Court finds compelling the testimony concerning mortality rates in the community versus in institutions. Dr. Kastner opined that studies indicate that a substantial increase in actual deaths exists as opposed to expected deaths among those placed in the community. Moreover, Dr. Kastner asserted that studies indicate that there is a significant increase in the relative risk of mortality in the community versus in institutions. Dr. 783 Conroy, who testified in support of community placement *783 of all persons with developmental disabilities, admitted that questions remain about whether the mortality rate of people in the community is greater than in institutions. Retired Chief Justice Fones of the Tennessee Supreme Court expressed his concern about the possible closure of ADC when he stated that

[t]he 242 residents there are the most severely impaired in the mental health system, and removing them from the care they are receiving at Arlington is the equivalent of issuing 242 death certificates. Those human beings cannot survive in any environment providing less professional care than they receive at Arlington.
While this Court is uncertain that the closure of ADC would result in such a tragic situation, the Court cannot take lightly expert testimony that indicates that an increase in mortality rates exists in the community. Nor can the Court cavalierly ignore the observations and the real life stories of the guardians and family members who live with these issues daily. Theirs is not a clinical or hypothetical assessment, but rather a living testament. Accordingly, for the above reasons, this Court concludes that the concerns of the class members and other interested parties weighs heavily against the Court's approval of the proposed MSA.
E. Factor Seven: The Public Interest
The public interest in this case is insuring that class members who are developmentally disabled receive appropriate care in accordance with their Constitutional rights. Whether the proposed M.S.A. § is in the public interest necessarily revolves around the proposed closure of ADC. This Court must determine, therefore, whether the closure of ADC will permit those that are the most medically and behaviorally fragile to receive sufficient care.
"[W]hen a person is institutionalized and wholly dependent on the state ... a duty to provide certain services and care [ ] exists...." Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 317, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). Pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the State has:
a duty to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care. These are the essentials of the care the state must provide. The State also has the unquestioned duty to provide reasonable safety for all residents and personnel within the institution... [Residents maintain] constitutionally protected interests in the conditions of reasonable care and safety, reasonable non-restrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by these interests.
Id. at 324, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (emphasis added); see also Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 127, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) ("Due Process Clause of its own force requires that conditions of confinement satisfy certain minimum standards... for persons in mental institutions").
Youngberg clearly establishes that the Fourteenth Amendment insures that these class members must receive adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care from the State. Moreover, the Constitution requires the State to provide reasonable care and safety for all residents. Issues such as the potential lack of appropriate healthcare providers in the community for class members, the potential lack of suitable housing in safe neighborhoods for class members, and the potential increase in mortality rates of class members in the community must be given substantial consideration.
As evidenced by the Remedial Order and the Emergency Orders entered on July 3, 1995 and July 21, 1995, the 784 Court *784 has endeavored to insure that class members receive adequate medical care by increasing to
appropriate ratios the number of physicians and other medical care providers at ADC. See Remedial Order, United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.1992); Emergency Order, United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W-D.Tenn.1992); Order, United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.1992). Furthermore, the Court has closely monitored the deaths of residents at ADC in an attempt to protect other residents from unnecessary harm or death. Id. This Court is unwilling to risk the progress thus far achieved for the benefit of the class members by approving a plan that will potentially diminish the Constitutional protection of those class members who are the most in need of increased protection0907the medically and behaviorally fragile.
In Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 601-02, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999), the United States Supreme Court held that "nothing in the [Americans with Disabilities Act] or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings.... Nor is there any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it." The Court also recognized "the States' need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with

diverse mental disabilities, and the States' obligation to administer services with an even hand." Id. at 597, 119 S.Ct. 2176. The plurality in Olmstead opined that "[f]or many mentally retarded people, the difference between the capacity to do things for themselves within an institution and total dependence on the institution for all their needs is as much liberty as they will ever know." 527 U.S. at 605, 119 S.Ct. 2176 (quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 327, 102 S.Ct. 2452.). While not requiring states to provide institutional care, Olmstead makes it clear that the Supreme Court recognizes that community placement of the developmentally disabled is not always feasible or wise!
This Court is not satisfied that the State has demonstrated the ability to provide the constitutionally mandated reasonable care and safety in the community to those class members that are the most medically and behaviorally fragile. Accordingly, this Court is unconvinced that the public interest in protecting the Constitutional rights of the class members is served by allowing the proposed closure of ADC without having in place a range of facilities and services for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities. The Court concludes that the public interest is better served if ADC remains open in sufficient form for the medically and behaviorally fragile of the class given the questions surrounding the care received in the community setting and the stakes involved with such placement. The constitutional rights of the class members, therefore, weigh heavily in favor of denying the proposed MSA.
CONCLUSION
The factors that weigh against the approval of the proposed M.S.A. § include 1) Plaintiffs likelihood of success on the merits balanced against the relief offered by the proposed settlement, 2) the objections and concerns of the class members and other interested parties, and, most importantly, 3) the public interest in protecting the Constitutional rights of the class members. Given the gravity of the factors that weigh in favor of the denial of this Court's approval of the proposed MSA, the Court finds that the proposed settlement agreement is not fair, adequate, and reasonable. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the Joint Motion of the parties for 785 approval of the *785 proposed Mediation Settlement Agreement. The parties are encouraged to develop and present a comprehensive and varied plan that adequately provides for the care and treatment of the medically and behaviorally fragile class.
[1] The People First certified class includes persons who: (1) resided at ADC on or after December 12, 1989; (2) are currently residing at ADC; (3) have been transferred from ADC to other settings but remain "Defendants' responsibility;" and (4) are at risk of being placed at ADC. See Order Granting Mot. To Certify Case As A Class Action entered September 26, 1995, People First of Tennessee v. Arlington Developmental Ctr., No. 91-2213 (W.D.Tenn.1991). A dispute arose at a hearing on March 2, 2000, concerning the meaning of persons who "are at risk of being placed at ADC."
[2] This Court clarified the "at risk of being placed at Arlington Developmental Center" portion of the People First class as "all individuals who reside in the geographic region served by Arlington Developmental Center . .. and who have demonstrated medical needs sufficient to require care in the absence of home or community based services." See Mem. Op. And Order entered June 28, 1999, United States v. Tennessee, No. 92-2062 (W.D.Tenn.1992).
[3] As mentioned previously, PGA initially approved the MSA. At the fairness hearing, however, PGA opposed the adoption of the MSA. PGA alleged that its Board of Directors were required to maintain the confidentiality of the mediation proceedings in order to participate. PGA asserted in effect, therefore, that it approved the M.S.A. § under duress because it was unable to disclose the terms of the M.S.A. § to the members of the PGA. When PGA signed the MSA, however, it stipulated that it retained objections and reservations as to certain terms of the agreement. None of these objections and reservations included the proposed closure of ADC. This Court concludes that PGA's president had the authority to agree to the M.S.A. § and that PGA's adoption of the M.S.A. § is binding. In order to assess the fairness of the MSA, the Court permitted PGA to proffer class and expert testimony concerning the MSA. This Court will consider, therefore, this testimony to thoroughly assess the fairness of the proposed MSA.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 798 F.Supp. 483 (1992)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
STATE of Tennessee, et al., Defendants.
No. 92-2062-ML/A.
United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee.
August 7, 1992.
4845 *484 *485 John R. Dunne, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civ. Rights Div., Arthur E. Peabody, Jr., Chief, Benjamin P. Schoen, Deputy Chief, Susan Bowers, William G. Maddox, Robinsue Frohboese, Robert C. Bowman, Special Litigation, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Charles W. Burson, Atty. Gen. and Reporter, Sharon S. Selby, Linda A. Ross, Asst. Attys. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
McCALLA, District Judge.
This cause came on before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment, filed March 4, 1992. By memorandum filed on June 17, 1992, the plaintiff requested an expedited hearing or ruling. Accordingly, the Court held a hearing on the motion on July 24, 1992.
This case involves alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement and federal statutory violations at the Arlington Developmental Center ("Arlington") located in Arlington, Tennessee, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 ("CRIPA"). The defendants assert numerous reasons to support their motion to dismiss, but the essence of their argument is that the acts or omissions complained of do not implicate constitutional rights. For the reasons stated below, this Court disagrees and the motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment is, therefore, denied.
The defendants' motion to dismiss specifically raises the following six issues for determination by this Court: (1) Whether constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities are implicated by the acts or omissions alleged by the plaintiff pursuant to CRIPA; (2) Whether the number of residents who reside at the institution as a result of state action is sufficient to support an action pursuant to CRIPA; (3) Whether the facts as alleged in the complaint are sufficient to support the claim that the defendants are depriving the residents of Arlington, who are under the age of 22 years, a free appropriate public education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. ("IDEA"); (4) Whether the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to support the filing of suit by the Attorney General pursuant to CRIPA; (5) Whether the suit is an impressible attempt to impose standards in excess of the constitutional minima contemplated under CRIPA; and (6) Whether the certification (pre-filing) requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(2) have been complied with. Each one of these contentions will be dealt with in turn.
The defendants first and foremost argument is that the residents of Arlington, with a few exceptions, have been placed at the institution at the requests of their parents or guardians, and thus the state has not used its governmental power to force the residents to come to Arlington (such as when residents are committed by order of the court) or its power to require them to remain there. Since the state has not acted affirmatively in placing the residents at Arlington and given that there are no allegations that the state is "abusing its power" or "employing its power as an instrument of oppression," substantive due process rights are not triggered. Additionally, the defendants aver that the residents of Arlington, placed there by parents or guardians, do not have "constitutional" 486 rights to safe conditions or a certain standard of care, but that those residents are *486 owed a duty of care under state tort law.[1]

The plaintiff on the other hand argues that there is sufficient affirmative state action such that all residents are entitled to basic constitutional rights as enumerated in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982), which include food, shelter, clothing, reasonable safety and minimum levels of training. The plaintiff stresses that the Arlington residents have been confined there by affirmative state action; that they are under the custody and control of the state pursuant to state statute (Tenn.Code Ann. § 33-5-103); that they reside in a state-owned facility where they are totally dependent on the state for their well-being; and that they are subject to significant restraints on liberty that are imposed by the state.

Under the standard of review for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, all factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Dismissal is only appropriate if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle him or her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540, 541 (6th Cir. 1991).

Generally, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer an affirmative right to governmental aid, DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS, 489 U.S. 189, 195, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1003, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989), "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual." Id. See, also, Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 317, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2459, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) ("As a general matter, a State is under no constitutional duty to provide substantive services for those within its border"). However, under certain circumstances the state has a duty to provide services and care to institutionalized individuals.

When a person is institutionalized 0907 and wholly dependent on the State 0907 it is conceded by petitioners that a duty to provide certain services and care does exist....[2]

Youngberg at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 2459.[3] The Supreme Court, in a subsequent decision, explained the reasoning for this principle as follows:

The rationale for this principle[4] is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of

its power so restrains an individual's liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at

487

the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs 0907 e.g., food, clothing, shelter, *487

medical care, and reasonable safety 0907 it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by

the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause.

DeShaney 109 S.Ct. at 1005-1006. It is the state's affirmative action of restraining the individual's freedom to act
on his or her own behalf through institutionalization which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause. Id. at 1006.[5]

Although the vast majority of residents at Arlington were placed there at the request of their parents or guardians, as opposed to a court commitment procedure, it is reasonable to infer from the facts as alleged that there is sufficient state action in the process used to admit residents into the facility to trigger substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.[6]See Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2503, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) ("It is not disputed that a child, in common with adults, has a substantial liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment and that the state's involvement in the commitment decision constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment").[7] Also, under Tennessee law, once an individual is confined to Arlington the mentally retarded person is under the "exclusive care, custody and control of the commissioner and superintendent." Tenn.Code Ann. § 33-5-103. Once the state has accepted the individual into its custody and control, the state has assumed some responsibility for the safety and well-being of the resident. See DeShaney 109 S.Ct. at 1005. Moreover, the alleged harm is caused by state actors who control every aspect of the resident's daily life, including treatment, care and his or her movement in and out of the institution.[8]

Since the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim of violations of substantive rights, dismissal is not appropriate. Further, when reviewing the submitted materials under a motion for summary judgment, the defendants motion must likewise fail.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper
If the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In considering a motion for summary judgment "the evidence as well as the inferences drawn therefrom must be read in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Kochins v. LindenAlimak, Inc., 799 F.2d 1128, 1133 (6th Cir.1986).
In the instant case the defendants have failed to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact. There is insufficient information in the record for this Court to make a determination regarding the extent of any unconstitutional conditions, if any. Summary judgment is, therefore, not proper.
Although the defendants concede that there are approximately 10-12 residents who are in the legal custody of the state, i.e., court committed, and who have constitutionally protected rights, the defendants argue that the number of such residents is insufficient to support an action under CRIPA. This argument is not persuasive. 488 CRIPA does not contain any restrictions *488 which outline a minimum number of residents who must be affected prior to the Attorney General bringing suit. CRIPA simply gives standing for the Attorney General to file suit if he has reasonable cause to believe specific things, e.g., that residents in state institutions are being deprived of their constitutional and federal statutory rights. Since there is no minimum number of residents required under CRIPA, the defendants' argument must fail.
The defendants next contend that the facts alleged in the complaint are insufficient to support the claim that the defendants are depriving the residents of Arlington a free appropriate public education, rights secured by the Individuals with Disabilities Act ("IDEA," 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.). Secondly, the defendants assert that there are no allegations of an essential element of CRIPA, such as the "pattern or practice" requirement, or any authority for the enforcement of IDEA in an action under CRIPA; and thirdly the defendants aver that the plaintiff has failed to allege "exhaustion of administrative remedies" which is an essential requirement of the IDEA.
The plaintiff propounds that all residents at Arlington are mentally retarded, that mental retardation is a disability under IDEA (20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1)(A)), and that IDEA establishes an "enforceable substantive right to a free appropriate public education" for every child with a disability. The plaintiff's argument is well taken. The plaintiff has set out sufficient facts upon which the claim is based and, therefore, the motion to dismiss under this argument is denied. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) ("a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief"). Whether the defendants have already appropriately evaluated the mentally retarded children at Arlington to identify their specific educational needs is a question of material fact precluding summary judgment.
The defendant's argument that the plaintiff has failed to allege an essential element of CRIPA is also unavailing. CRIPA is a standing statute. Pursuant to § 1997a, the Attorney General has certified, among other things, that the defendants are depriving the residents of Arlington of their rights "pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights." As long as the complaint is specific enough, as in the instant case, there is no need for the Attorney General to duplicate the contents of the certificate in the complaint.
Additionally, there is no indication of intent to exclude the IDEA from enforcement under CRIPA. CRIPA gives the Attorney General standing to sue when the institutional conditions deprive the residents of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the United States." 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a) (emphasis added).
There is also no requirement that the Attorney General exhaust administrative mechanisms set forth in IDEA prior to bringing suit in federal court. Only parents, guardians, and surrogate parents are required and entitled to utilize the administrative procedures set out in IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415. The Attorney General is not authorized to do so.

The defendants fourth argument is that the complaint fails to state a claim under § 1997a. More specifically, the defendants assert that the complaint fails to include specific facts which would support the following preconditions set out in § 1997a: (1) egregious or flagrant conditions; (2) any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States; (3) grievous harm; and (4) a causal connection between the egregious or flagrant conditions and the grievous harm and pattern or practice of resistance.
As agreed by all parties, CRIPA does not establish substantive rights, but only gives the Attorney General standing to file suit to enforce constitutional or statutory violations. In light of the fact that the Attorney General has certified that the "preconditions" to filing have been met, as stated in his certificate, there is no need under 489 the facts in this case, to go behind the certificate *489 and require the plaintiff to justify his determinations. Whether the alleged conditions exist is precisely the question that this Court will determine after a hearing on the merits.
The defendants fifth argument is that the suit is an impermissible attempt to impose standards in excess of the constitutional minima contemplated under CRIPA. The defendants argue that since Arlington is certified as an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (ICF/MR) there is a presumption that the conditions at Arlington are constitutional. "It must be presumed that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would not set standards for health care providers, who are receiving reimbursement from the federal government, below constitutional minima." Plaintiff Brief at 33, filed March 4, 1992. This Court is not persuaded.
Certification does not guarantee that constitutional minima exist. See Lelsz v. Kavanagh, 673 F.Supp. 828, 841 (N.D.Tex. 1987) ("Surveyors examine whether policies and programs exist, not whether those policies or programs result in adequate care"). Additionally, facilities with serious deficiencies are allowed to provide a "plan of correction" and maintain their certification. Thus, certification is not equivalent to a legal presumption of constitutional conditions, although it may provide some evidence on that point.
The defendants final argument is that the "preconditions" or "pre-filing" requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(2) have not been complied with. As stated above, the defendants have not presented this Court with sufficient facts to warrant any further inquiry into the "pre-filing" conditions attested to in the certificate. Therefore, the defendants claim must fail with respect to this issue.
Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Suit against the state would be available via the Tennessee Claims Commission established pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-301 et seq.
[2] Although this duty exists, the state has discretion in determining the "nature and scope of its responsibilities." Youngberg at 317, 102 S.Ct. at 2459.
[3] Youngberg involved the substantive rights of involuntarily committed mentally retarded persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The respondent in that case, who had been committed under the laws of Pennsylvania, did not challenge the commitment, but rather asserted that he had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in safety, freedom of movement and training and that the petitioners had infringed on those rights by failing to provide constitutionally required conditions of confinement. Youngberg at 314-315, 102 S.Ct. at 2457-2458. The Court determined that the respondent had constitutionally protected interests in conditions of reasonable care and safety, reasonable nonrestrictive confinement conditions, and such training as may be required by these interests. Id. at 324, 102 S.Ct. at 2462. In dicta the Court stated that the essentials of the care were "adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care." Id.
[4] As stated in Youngberg, the principle is the state's duty to provide certain services and care when a person is institutionalized. See DeShaney, 109 S.Ct. at 1005. In DeShaney the Court harmonized the principle stated in Youngberg with that articulated in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), as well as other opinions, and acknowledged the importance of custody.

When the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being.
DeShaney, 109 S.Ct. at 1005.
[5] Although the Court in DeShaney determined that the analysis under Youngberg and Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) had no applicability in its present case, the analysis is instructive in the case sub judice.
[6] Apparently, the Superintendent of Arlington may deny a request for admission pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 33-6-103.
[7] Although the Parham case was a challenge to Georgia's procedures for voluntary commitment of children under the age of 18 to state mental hospitals, the Court recognized the substantial liberty interests involved when an individual is confined.
[8] Under Tenn.Code Ann. § 33-5-101(6), the Superintendent of Arlington may deny a person's request for discharge from the facility.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 38 PageID 21555

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

WESTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v.

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants

No. 92-CV-2062-JPM-tmp

PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

Intervener

____

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE AND DISMISS 


Before the Court is Defendant State of Tennessee’s (“the State”) Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and Dismiss the Case (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 2737), filed on August 11, 2011. The United States and People First of Tennessee both filed responses in opposition on August 31, 2011. (D.E. 2741; D.E. 2742.) The State filed a reply on September 12, 2011. (D.E. 2764.) On September 27, 2011, the case was transferred to this Court. (D.E. 2752.) The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the State’s Motion on January 3rd and 4th, 2012. (D.E. 2799; D.E. 2801.) Following the hearing, the Court allowed the parties to submit closing briefs, which the parties did on April 30, 2012. (D.E. 2867; D.E. 2868; D.E. 2870.) The Court heard closing

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 38 PageID 21556
arguments on the Motion on June 18, 2012. (D.E. 2890.) For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the State’s Motion. I. BACKGROUND
a. Case History This case arises from the unconstitutional conditions that existed at the Arlington Developmental Center (“Arlington”) in Arlington, Tennessee. In 1992, the United States brought suit against the State pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, alleging that the care and conditions at Arlington violated the substantive due process rights of the center’s residents. At the same time, People First, an advocacy organization for persons with disabilities, and individual residents of Arlington brought a class action suit against the State on behalf of all the residents of Arlington and all those “at risk” of institutionalization at Arlington. The Court held a trial in United States v. Tennessee in 1993. At trial the Court found that the conditions at Arlington did not comply with the substantive due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment as articulated by the Supreme Court in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). (See Supplemental Findings of Fact (D.E. 251) 4.) Following the trial and the parties’ negotiations, the Court entered the Remedial Order (D.E. 338) requiring the State to
2 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 3 of 38 PageID 21557
take certain actions to guarantee the Youngberg rights of Arlington’s residents.
In September 1995, the Court certified the class in the People First action, defining the class as including individuals who had resided, were residing, or were at risk of residing at Arlington. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the certification of this class. People First of Tenn. v. Arlington Developmental Ctr., 145 F.3d 1332 (table), 1998 WL 246146, at *3 (6th Cir. May 7,1998) (per curiam). The Court allowed People First to intervene in United States v. Tennessee and extended its liability finding and the Remedial Order in United States v. Tennessee to the People First class. As a result of these consolidated cases, the Court has for nearly two decades provided judicial supervision over the conditions at Arlington and the State’s services for class members.
The Sixth Circuit has noted, “litigation between the parties has resulted in multiple findings of contempt, additional plans of corrections, settlement agreements, and consent orders.” United States v. Tennessee, 615 U.S. 646, 651 (6th Cir. 2010). The Remedial Order, the Court’s first remedy, contained more than 150 requirements and 103 deadlines. The Remedial Order enjoined the State from admitting any additional residents to Arlington except for emergency, short-term, and court-ordered admissions. The Remedial Order also called for the
3 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 4 of 38 PageID 21558
appointment of a Court Monitor to oversee the State’s implementation of the Court’s mandates. Nancy K. Ray, Ed.D., has served as the Court Monitor since 2000, with the assistance of her staff at NKR & Associates, Inc., located in Delmar, New York.
In 1997, the Court entered the Community Plan (D.E. 753). The Community Plan was the result of a settlement between the parties after the United States filed a fourth motion for contempt regarding the conditions at Arlington. Like the Remedial Order, the Community Plan was a detailed document that set forth hundreds of specific provisions to improve the quality of care at Arlington. The Court noted in its Order that the Community Plan “represents a paradigm shift by the State of Tennessee in the provision of services to the developmentally disabled.” (Order on Community Plan of W. Tenn. (D.E. 753) 3.) Relevant to the present status of this litigation is a provision from the Community Plan prohibiting the placement of class members in non-community homes. This provision applies to all members of the class, both members who were residents of Arlington and those at risk of placement at Arlington. The United States and People First argue that the State is currently violating this provision by placing class members in noncommunity homes. (See United States’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to
4 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 5 of 38 PageID 21559
State’s Updated and Am. Mot. to Vacate and Dismiss (D.E. 2741) 15.)
In 1999, the Court formed the Community Services Network of West Tennessee, a non-profit corporation dedicated to directing health-related services provided with state funds to Arlington class members. (See D.E. 1248.) In creating the Community Services Network, the Court interpreted the definition of “at risk” class members to include all individuals in the geographic area served by Arlington who demonstrate medical needs sufficient to require institutional care. (Order Regarding Scope of “At-Risk” Population (D.E. 1302).) At the time, this class definition was estimated to include 800 to 1200 individuals in West Tennessee.
In 2006, the parties reached another settlement agreement (2006 Settlement Agreement (D.E. 2085-1)), which the Court approved (see All-Party Consent Order Approving 2006 Settlement (D.E. 2174)). The agreement was intended “to resolve and fully settle all claims arising between [the parties] in connection with the appeal pending [before the Sixth Circuit] . . . , regarding the proper interpretation of the ‘at-risk’ portion of the class definition.” (2006 Settlement Agreement 1.) The agreement called for the closure of Arlington and modified the definition of “at-risk” for the purposes of class membership. The “at-risk” portion of class members was defined as persons
5 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 6 of 38 PageID 21560
who reside in the region served by Arlington (i.e., West Tennessee), who meet Medicaid eligibility criteria for an Intermediate Care Facility for the Developmentally Disabled (“ICF/DD”) and demonstrate a need or desire for institutional placement by: (i) residing in a nursing home or mental health facility, (ii) residing in a private ICF/DD, (iii) having been placed in a public ICF/DD in middle or eastern Tennessee, or (iv) having been hospitalized or placed in respite care and not being able to return to pre-hospitalization placement due to a need for more intensive services. (2006 Settlement Agreement 12.)
Pursuant to the 2006 Settlement Agreement, the parties developed a plan to transition from the Community Services Network to a Medicaid-funded integrated health services delivery model that would be part of a new statewide service program for persons with intellectual disabilities. (See Mem. Op. (D.E. 2517).) The plan also required all Arlington residents to be transitioned to other facilities and settings. The transition plans for individual residents were subject to the approval of the Court Monitor. On October 27, 2010, the last residents of Arlington transitioned to new facilities, and the State closed Arlington.
b. Recent Procedural History
6 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 7 of 38 PageID 21561
Even before the closure of Arlington, the State moved to vacate the Court’s injunctive relief and dismiss the case. In September 2008, the State filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), arguing that changes in law indicated that residents of Arlington were no longer entitled to Youngberg Rights, and, therefore, continuing the injunctive relief was inequitable. The Court disagreed and denied the State’s motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court’s decision. United States v. Tennessee, 615 F.3d 646, 657 (2010).
The closure of Arlington in October 2010 again prompted a dispute over the future of this litigation. The State maintains that the closure of Arlington should lead to the termination of the litigation and the vacating of all outstanding orders. The United States and People First argue that despite the closure of Arlington, the State continues to provide inadequate and segregated services in violation of the substantive due process rights of class members and the Court’s remedial orders, and thus the Court’s supervision remains necessary.
On October 22, 2010, People First filed a Motion for an Order to the State to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members (D.E. 2604), alleging that the State has failed to enroll hundreds of individuals who qualify as at-risk class members under the terms of the 2006 Settlement Agreement. On
7 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 8 of 38 PageID 21562
November 3, 2010, the State filed a Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case (D.E. 2605). On November 5, 2010, the United States filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment of the 2006 Settlement Agreement (D.E. 2608), seeking essentially the same relief as People First’s Motion for an Order to the State to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members. The Court issued an Order Setting a Schedule for Disposition of Pending Motions (D.E. 2676) on April 4, 2011, after considering a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge. The Court determined that the State’s Motion to Vacate should be decided before considering the motions of the United States and People First to enroll new class members. (See id. at 2–3.) On June 30, 2011, the Court, with the consent of the parties, entered an Agreed Order Vacating in part Orders Relating to Conditions at Arlington Residential Units (D.E. 2724), vacating the Court’s orders that dealt specifically with conditions at Arlington. Left outstanding by the Agreed Order was whether the litigation would continue. On August 11, 2011, the State filed an Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case (D.E. 2737). After the Amended Motion was briefed by the parties, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 3rd and 4th, 2012.
c. The January 2012 Hearing
8 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 9 of 38 PageID 21563
The Court held an evidentiary hearing1 to afford the State an opportunity to demonstrate that vacating the Court’s orders and dismissing the case is warranted. The State declined to call any witnesses at the hearing, relying instead on the declarations and depositions it filed as exhibits to its Motion. From the State’s perspective, the issue before the Court “is almost entirely legal.” (Jan. 3, 2012 Tr. (D.E. 2810) 14.) As the State argued at the hearing, “the sole violation of federal law that the Court has found in this case arises from the conditions at the Arlington Developmental Center, and with the closure of [Arlington] and the transition of all the residents at [Arlington] to community placements that were approved by the Court Monitor, that violation has been fully and completely remedied.” (Id. at 15.) The State submitted that Arlington’s closure and the transition of its residents to approved placements is determinative of the issue.
The United States and People First maintain that the Court should deny the State’s Motion because (1) there are ongoing constitution violations, (2) the closure of Arlington is not a significant change in fact that renders the Court’s remedial orders inequitable or unworkable, and (3) there is no durable remedy in place. (See id. at 38–39.) In support of their
1 The hearing was video recorded as part of the Judicial Conference’s Cameras Pilot Project, and is available for viewing at http://www.uscourts. gov/multimedia/Cameras.aspx.
9 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 10 of 38 PageID 21564
position, the United States and People First called three witnesses at the hearing: Dr. Ray, the Court Monitor; Fred Hix, Assistant Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities; and James W. Conroy, Ph.D. The testimony is summarized as follows.
1. Dr. Ray Dr. Ray testified that she has been the Court Monitor in this case since 2000. (Jan. 3, 2012 Tr. 59.) Dr. Ray has a doctorate in education from the State University of New York at Albany and has worked in the special education field and with people with developmental disabilities for decades. (Id. at 188– 89.) As the State noted on cross-examination, Dr. Ray is not a psychiatrist, behavioral analyst, clinical therapist, or lawyer. (Id.) In accordance with her role as the Court Monitor in this action, Dr. Ray provided testimony regarding the services the State provides class members pursuant to the Court’s remedial orders and her opinion regarding whether the State’s actions are in compliance with the Court’s orders.
A. Overview of the Class Dr. Ray stated that there are approximately 1030 class members currently enrolled in this action. (Id. at 200.) Approximately 540 of these class members reside in community homes operated by private providers and funded through Medicaid. (Id. at 200–01.) Dr. Ray testified that based on her assessments
10 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 11 of 38 PageID 21565
these community service networks are performing well. (Id. at 211–12.) Approximately 240 class members reside in Independent Care Facilities for people with developmental disabilities, referred to as ICF/DD facilities. (Id. at 212.) There are five major ICF/DD providers serving class members. Three of these five providers meet Dr. Ray’s criteria for a “quality” provider, but the two ICF/DD providers serving the majority of class members do not meet Dr. Ray’s “quality tier” standards. (Id. at 213.) Approximately 125 class members reside in nursing homes (id. at 206), and Dr. Ray identified serious issues with the care class members receive in nursing home settings (see id. at 62). The approximately 100 remaining class members live with their families or reside in other settings, such as mental health facilities or prisons. (Id. at 207.)
B. Class Members in Nursing Homes The Court admitted as Exhibit 1 a report prepared by Dr. Ray entitled Arlington Class Members in Nursing Facilities, An Updated Assessment. (Id. at 61.) Dr. Ray summarized her findings from the report, stating that “[t]he most common issue was that class members in nursing homes were often not receiving specialty medical consultations for diagnoses that if they had been in a community placement, they would have.” (Id. at 62.) Dr. Ray identified several other problems regarding the services class members receive in nursing homes, including: the
11 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 12 of 38 PageID 21566
monitoring of class members’ health statuses; the implementation of physicians’ orders, including administering the correct psychotropic medications to class members; and providing adequate dental care. (Id. at 62–63.)
Dr. Ray testified that her report was the fourth in a series of reports she provided the State regarding the care and services class members receive in nursing homes. (Id. at 63.) Dr. Ray stated that the State has not addressed the issues she raised in her reports. (Id.) According to Dr. Ray, the State could have made efforts to remedy the deficiencies in nursing home services by asking the State health department, which has regulatory oversight of the nursing homes, to investigate the issues raised in her reports. (Id. at 63–64.) The State, however, has not done so. (Id. at 64.) Dr. Ray found the care deficient in the majority of nursing homes that she reviewed. (Id. at 68.)
Dr. Ray testified it is her understanding that federal Medicaid regulations preclude people with intellectual disabilities from being admitted for long-term care in nursing homes. (Id. at 65.) In Tennessee, the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities is responsible for reviewing nursing home admissions to ensure individuals with developmental disabilities reside in appropriate settings. (Id.) Dr. Ray stated that despite the State’s review process, she has
12 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 13 of 38 PageID 21567
identified individuals who are not residing in appropriate settings. (Id. at 66.) Dr. Ray found in her report that sixtytwo percent of the individuals in nursing homes were recommended for alternative community placement. (Id. at 67.) Since 2008, however, only twenty-five class members have transitioned from nursing homes to community placements. (Id. at 68.)
In many cases, the class members in nursing homes do not have legally appointed guardians to choose their placement. (Id. at 69.) Dr. Ray stated, “when the individuals in nursing homes were enrolled in the at-risk class, almost none of them had legally appointed conservators, almost all of them had compromised decision-making ability.” (Id.) Dr. Ray explained that once an individual is enrolled as a class member, the State begins the process of ensuring a legal guardian is appointed. Dr. Ray found, however, that from a sample of thirty-seven class members, seventy-six percent were still awaiting the appointment of a legal conservator. (Id.) Under the Court’s Community Plan, all class members who are in need of a conservator are required to have one appointed. (Id.) The Court’s orders also require class members to be assigned an independent support coordinator to facilitate the transitioning of individuals from institutional placements into community placements. (Id. at 112.) Dr. Ray testified that the State has not complied with this requirement. (Id.)
13 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 14 of 38 PageID 21568
Dr. Ray stated that there are not sufficient community-
based residential waiver providers to accommodate all the class
members who currently reside in nursing homes. (Id. at 70.)
Accordingly to Dr. Ray, “[s]omething different would have to
happen to make the community service system available to
individuals who are class members in nursing homes,” given the
limited number of placements in these facilities currently
available. (Id. at 71.) The lack of opportunities for placement
in community settings leaves many class members without
meaningful choices for their care. (Id. at 72.) Because class
members lack legal conservators and do not have the option of
transitioning to community placements, Dr. Ray asserted that
these class members cannot be deemed to reside in nursing homes
“voluntarily.” (Id.)
The Court received, as Exhibit 2, a second report prepared
by Dr. Ray assessing the care received by Arlington class
members who reside in nursing facilities. Dr. Ray read the
summary of her report:
Gaps in provisions of recommended medical and nursing services were identified for 47 of the 71 individuals, or 66 percent. Gaps most often noted with regard to individuals not receiving specialty medical assessments recommended by their primary care physicians are apparently needed due to the class members’ unstable health care status. Other common gaps were associated with poor health status tracking or response to health status tracking data by nursing personnel. The most frequent issues were noted in tracking
14 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 15 of 38 PageID 21569
and responding to unusual patterns in class members’ weights, bowel movements, sleep and intake, food intake. Many class members were also not regularly being seen by a podiatrist in accordance with physicians’ orders. (Id. at 76.) In addition, Dr. Ray explained that medical treatment for class members is sometimes delayed or compromised because the class members lack legal conservators. (See id. at 162.) In follow-ups assessments, Dr. Ray found that the problems she identified in her report were not addressed. (Id. at 76–77.) Dr. Ray testified that her reports and the reports prepared by the State’s Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities were not being shared with the State’s Health Department, which oversees nursing home facilities. (Id. at 78.) Dr. Ray stated that, in addition, the State does not have a tracking system to insure compliance with the Court’s orders for class members in nursing homes. (Id. at 79.) Dr. Ray testified, based on her assessments and reports on the care received by class members in nursing homes, that in her opinion the State has not complied with the Court’s Remedial Order, Community Plan, and 2006 Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 83.) Moreover, Dr. Ray stated that the State has not made a good faith effort to comply with the Court’s remedial orders. (Id.)
C. Class Members in ICF/DD Facilities
15 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 16 of 38 PageID 21570
Dr. Ray testified regarding the quality of care and services class members receive in ICF/DD facilities. The Court admitted, as Exhibit 10, Dr. Ray’s 2011 annual review of the ICF/DD providers. (Id. at 115.) Dr. Ray stated that the two programs serving the largest number of class members, Open Arms Corporation and RHA West Tennessee, do not met her quality standards. (Id. at 116.) As Dr. Ray explained, the Court’s orders require the State to ensure these programs meet standards of care that are assessed by the Court Monitor’s assessment tool. (Id. at 214.) Dr. Ray stated that the State uses its own quality assurance monitoring tool, but she feels the scores based on the State’s assessments are “inflated.” (Id. at 114.) In Dr. Ray’s opinion, “the government’s role in effectively encouraging these ICF/DD programs to assure quality services and support, however, remains ineffective.” (Id. at 220.)
For Open Arms and RHA West Tennessee programs, Dr. Ray found serious problems with staff competence, medication administration, medical services, therapy services and individual record keeping. One area of particular concern was the reliance of RHA West Tennessee on the Winfrey Center to provide day services. (Id. at 117.) Dr. Ray testified that the program has not been able to adequately supervise individuals at the day center, protect them from harm, or provide active treatment in accordance with federal and state ICF/DD
16 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 17 of 38 PageID 21571
requirements. (Id.) Dr. Ray has found high levels of abuse and neglect in the RHA West Tennessee program. (Id. at 118.) On cross-examination, Dr. Ray noted that there has been limited improvement over the last few years in the services provided by Open Arms and RHA West Tennessee. (Id. at 218.)
D. Violence in Community Homes Dr. Ray testified that another area of concern is the incidents of violence that occur at community homes, both community-based residential homes and ICF/DD homes. Dr. Ray described the findings of her report, A Review of Selected Class Members Frequently Involved in Violent and Dangerous Incidents, admitted as Exhibit 3. The report is one of a series Dr. Ray has provided to the State and the Court detailing incidents of violence involving class members residing in community placements. Dr. Ray compiled the data in her reports from two of the State’s Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities data systems. (Id. at 304.) Dr. Ray testified that the State does not maintain a fully electronic reporting system that allows providers to electronically submit incident reports, causing delays in data collection and reporting. (Id. at 322.) Dr. Ray explained that she found a variety of violent incidents occurring at community homes, including physical assaults, verbal assaults, threats of violence, property destruction, and self harm. (Id. at 84–85.) Dr. Ray testified
17 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 18 of 38 PageID 21572
that she has made recommendations to the State to implement various approaches to reduce the number of occurrences of violent incidents in community homes. (Id. at 85.) Dr. Ray has recommended improving support and training for community home staff, paying more attention to the self-determination rights of class members, and studying different behavior support models. (Id. at 85–87.) The State has only responded to one of the Court Monitor’s reports concerning these violent and dangerous incidents and has not responded to any of her recommendations. (Id. at 87–88.) Dr. Ray stated that, in her opinion, the State’s failure to establish a comprehensive plan to mitigate the violence occurring in community homes violates professional standards of care. (Id. at 92–93.)
E. New Class Member Enrollment The United States questioned Dr. Ray regarding the State’s enrollment of new class members following the 2006 Settlement Agreement. As discussed above, the State was required by the 2006 Settlement Agreement to enroll new class members who met the “at-risk” definition agreed to in the settlement. For enrollment in the class, the State required an individual to undergo a preadmission enrollment evaluation (“PAE”), a requirement of the Medicaid eligibility criteria for placement in an intermediate care facility. Dr. Ray testified that the PAE is in place as “a payment tool” and that the evaluation must be
18 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 19 of 38 PageID 21573
completed in order to bill for services. (Id. at 97.) The State insisted that a PAE be completed before an individual was enrolled as a class member. (Id. at 98.) A state agency, TennCare, is responsible for administering the PAE. (Id.) Dr. Ray testified that there were significant delays – in some cases more than a year – in the enrollment of class members as individuals waited to receive a PAE. (Id.)
Many individuals did not complete their PAEs prior to the closure of Arlington, and, consequently, the State refused to enroll these individuals as class members. (Id. at 98–99.) Dr. Ray testified that of the 170 individuals denied admission into the class due to the closure of Arlington, 123 had previously been referred for a PAE after a favorable eligibility review by the Joint State and Court Monitor’s Committee: twenty-six of these individuals were referred for a PAE in 2010; sixty were referred for a PAE in 2009; sixteen were referred for a PAE in 2008; and for thirty-seven individuals, no specific referral date was available, but the referral occurred in either 2008 or 2009. (Id. at 100.) Dr. Ray also testified that many of the individuals denied class membership because of the delays in PAE processing reside in mental health facilities operated by the State. (Id. at 101.) Dr. Ray stated that, in her opinion, the delays in PAE processing for individuals approved for class
19 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 20 of 38 PageID 21574
members was evidence of bad faith on the part of the State in complying with the 2006 Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 100.)
F. Arlington Woods Homes As part of the 2006 Settlement Agreement, the State agreed to open new ICF/DD community homes interspersed in residential neighborhoods. (Id. at 105.) The Court admitted, as Exhibit 9, an aerial photograph of Arlington and the Arlington Woods Homes, an ICF/DD facility opened by the State following the 2006 Settlement Agreement. Dr. Ray testified that the Arlington Woods Homes are not interspersed in a residential neighborhood and the homes are not integrated into the surrounding community. (Id. at 106–07.) Dr. Ray approved the placement of the Arlington Woods Homes, but testified that she was not given the opportunity to approve the placement before construction of the homes began. (Id. at 230.) Dr. Ray stated that she “felt snookered by the State . . . in terms of the location of the homes and that they hadn’t been forthcoming in telling me about that until the homes were already underway.” (Id. at 230–31.) Dr. Ray ultimately approved the location of the homes, but did not feel “the State made a good faith effort in disclosing where these homes were going to be.” (Id. at 231.) Based on the location of the Arlington Woods Homes, Dr. Ray stated that she did not believe the State made a reasonable effort to comply with the 2006
20 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 21 of 38 PageID 21575
Settlement Agreement’s requirement that ICF/DD homes be interspersed in residential neighborhoods. (Id. at 107.)
G. Ending the Court’s Supervision Dr. Ray testified that there are priorities she could identify to help bring this case to a completion. (Id. at 143.) Dr. Ray stated that she believes “the parties would need to make some compromises in terms of identifying a relatively small set of exit criteria that need to be achieved” so that the Court’s supervision could end. (Id.) Dr. Ray stated that she was willing to participate in a mediation with the parties to establish an appropriate “exit criteria.” (Id. at 144.) Dr. Ray testified that she believes that “assuming good faith efforts,” the State could resolve the outstanding issues regarding compliance “within a year or two.” (Id. at 150.) 2. Fred Hix The United States called Fred Hix as its second witness. (Jan. 4, 2012 Tr. (D.E. 2811) 379.) Mr. Hix explained that he is the “business manager for the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities holding the working title of Assistant Commissioner for Administration.” (Id.) Mr. Hix testified as to the financial costs of implementing the governing orders in this case. The State’s position is that the orders in this case require the State to spend substantially more money providing services to Arlington class members than
21 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 22 of 38 PageID 21576
for identically situated non-class members with intellectual disabilities in the statewide waivers. (See Decl. of James M. Henry (D.E. 2737-2) 4.) Mr. Hix admitted, however, that his analysis of the costs associated with class members versus nonclass members did not compare individuals with similar disabilities. (See Jan. 4, 2012 Tr. 383–84.) For instance, while sixty-five percent of individuals in the state-wide waiver program are entitled to receive residential services based on their disabilities, one hundred percent of Arlington class members are entitled to residential services. (Id.) Mr. Hix’s study comparing the cost of waivers for Arlington class members with the cost of the state-wide waivers did not account for these differences in need levels that exist between the two groups. (See id. at 389–90, 395.)
3. James W. Conroy People First called James W. Conroy, Ph.D., as its witness. Dr. Conroy stated that he has a doctorate in medical sociology with a specialization in health economics from Temple University. (Id. at 410.) Dr. Conroy stated that he has testified as an expert on behalf of states seeking to end the supervision of federal district courts in litigations regarding state services for individuals with disabilities. (Id.) In those cases, Dr. Conroy collected data and prepared reports concerning improvements to the class members’ quality of life. (See id. at
22 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 23 of 38 PageID 21577
419–21.) The Court received Dr. Conroy as an expert witness in the field of medical sociology, specifically in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities and cost outcome evaluation. (Id. at 422–23.)
Dr. Conroy disagreed with the State’s analysis that it spends more on Arlington class members than on similarly situated non-class members. (Id. at 425.) Dr. Conroy stated that the Arlington class members do not have similar characteristics as the average waiver recipient. (Id.) According to Dr. Conroy, “what we have here is pure apples and oranges, that the folks coming out of Arlington do cost more, and I think they should cost more, and what’s dictated, what’s prescribed in their ISPs is the ultimate determinative cost.” (Id. at 441.) To do a valid comparison, Dr. Conroy stated the State would need to conduct a “twin study” comparing Arlington class members and non-class members with similar levels of need based on similar disabilities. (Id. at 441–42.)
Dr. Conroy noted the improvements the State has made in providing services for persons with disabilities. Dr. Conroy stated, “Tennessee has come so far in 30 years, so far forward in supporting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, it’s most commendable and exciting really.” (Id. at 445.) Dr. Conroy stated that in his experience, courts have played a significant role in ensuring adequate services for
23 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 24 of 38 PageID 21578
people with disabilities. (Id. at 458.) Dr. Conroy acknowledged, “there comes a day when the human service system can’t be run by courts,” however, “in order to be sure about the folks we have worked so hard for two decades to get a better life for, we want to make sure there are some guaranties [sic] and protections.” (Id. at 458–59.)
d. Post Hearing Activity At the January hearing, the Court granted the State leave to submit evidence in support of its Motion. (See Jan 4, 2012 Tr. 396.) The Court also indicated it was willing to reconvene to allow the State to present fact witnesses or expert testimony. (Id. at 397.) The State submitted three affidavits: (1) a declaration of Fred Hix concerning whether the State has ever employed Dr. Ray on matters besides the Arlington case; (2) a declaration of C.J. McMorran, the West Tennessee Regional Director for the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, rebutting several contentions made by Dr. Ray during her testimony; and (3) a declaration of Scott J. Modell, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, regarding the State’s effort to create an electronic incident report system. (D.E. 2819.) The United States filed a Motion to Strike these affidavits (D.E. 2861), but the Court denied the motion. The State declined the Court’s invitation to present any witnesses or expert testimony.
24 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 25 of 38 PageID 21579
The State filed a Motion to Strike Court Monitor’s Testimony and Reports (D.E. 2817.), which the Court denied. West Parent Guardian Association file a motion for leave to file documents (D.E. 2862), and the Court denied this motion as well. The Court permitted the parties to submit closing briefs on the State’s Motion, and on June 18, 2012, the Court heard the parties’ final arguments.2 (D.E. 2890.) II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The parties disagree as to the proper standard the Court should apply in evaluating the State’s Motion to Vacate and Dismiss. The State asserts that “the question before the Court is governed by first principles that the Supreme Court has announced” in Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004), and Horne v. Flores, 129 S. Ct. 2579 (2009). (June 18, 2012 Tr. (D.E. 2895) 8.) Frew and Horne caution that in institutional reform litigation, such as the case at bar, “courts [should] ensure that ‘responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials’ when the circumstances warrant.” Horne, 129 S. Ct. at 2595 (quoting Frew, 540 U.S. at 442). The United States and People First, while acknowledging the applicability of Frew and Horne to the Court’s analysis, maintain that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
2 The parties final arguments were recorded as part of the Judicial Conference’s Cameras Pilot Project, and is available for viewing at http://www.uscourts.gov/multimedia/Cameras.aspx.
25 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 26 of 38 PageID 21580
governs the State’s motion. The United States and People First point out that the State seeks relief from the Court’s remedial orders and a Rule 60 motion is the proper vehicle under the Federal Rules to seek such relief.
The Court agrees with the United States and People First that the State’s Motion should be evaluated under Rule 60(b). Indeed, the Supreme Court’s analysis in Frew and Horne proceeded under Rule 60(b). See Frew, 540 U.S. at 441; Horne, 129 S.Ct. at 2593. While the Supreme Court’s directives in Frew and Horne are certainly relevant in the Court’s consideration of the State’s Motion, those directives must be viewed in the Rule 60(b) context. Accordingly, because the State’s Motion seeks relief from the Court’s remedial orders, the Court will evaluate the Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Rule 60(b) states that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding when “the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). The Supreme Court has explained that the rule “provides a means by which a party can ask a court to modify or vacate a judgment or order if ‘a significant change either in factual conditions or in law’ renders continued enforcement ‘detrimental to the public interest.’” Horne, 129 S. Ct. at 2593 (quoting Rufo v.
26 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 27 of 38 PageID 21581
Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384 (1992)). “The party seeking relief bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant relief.” Id. This burden is heightened when the change in conditions was anticipated by the party challenging the decree:
If it is clear that a party anticipated changing conditions . . . but nevertheless agreed to the decree, that party would have to satisfy a heavy burden to convince a court that it agreed to the decree in good faith, made a reasonable effort to comply with the decree, and should be relieved of the undertaking under Rule 60(b). Rufo, 502 U.S. at 385. “[O]nce a party carries this burden,” however, “a court abuses its discretion ‘when it refuses to modify an injunction or consent decree in light of such changes.’” Horne, 129 S.Ct. at 2593 (quoting Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 215 (1997)). The Supreme Court set forth further guidance in Horne for courts to follow in applying Rule 60(b)(5) to “institutional reform litigation.” The Court noted, “injunctions issued in such cases often remain in force for many years, and the passage of time frequently brings about changed circumstances — changes in the nature of the underlying problem . . . — that warrant reexamination of the original judgment.” Id. In addition, “institutional reform injunctions often raise sensitive federalism concerns,” and these concerns “are heightened when, as in these cases, a federal court decree has the effect of
27 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 28 of 38 PageID 21582

dictating state or local budget priorities.” Id. at 2593–94. In

sum, the Court instructed:

It goes without saying that federal courts must

vigilantly enforce federal law and must not

hesitate in awarding necessary relief. But in

recognition of the features of institutional

reform decrees, we have held that courts must

take a “flexible approach” to Rule 60(b)(5)

motions addressing such decrees. Rufo, 502 U.S.

at 381. A flexible approach allows courts to

ensure that “responsibility for discharging the

State’s obligations is returned promptly to the

State and its officials” when the circumstances

warrant. Frew, [540 U.S.] at 442. In applying

this flexible approach, courts must remain

attentive to the fact that “federal-court decrees

exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at

eliminating a condition that does not violate

[federal law] or does not flow from such a

violation.” Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267,

282 (1977). “If [a federal consent decree is] not

limited

to

reasonable

and

necessary

implementations of federal law,” it may

“improperly deprive future officials of their

designated legislative and executive powers.”

Frew, [540 U.S.] at 441.

Id. at 2594–95.

For the reasons noted above, the Court in Horne concluded,

“a critical question in this Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry is whether

the objective of the District Court’s . . . order . . . has

been achieved. If a durable remedy has been implemented,

continued enforcement of the order is not only unnecessary, but

improper.” Id. at 2595.

III. ANALYSIS

28 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 29 of 38 PageID 21583
The Court finds that the State has not met its burden in showing that relief from the Court’s remedial orders and dismissal of the case is warranted under Rule 60(b). The State has not demonstrated that the Court’s judgment and orders have “been satisfied . . . or that applying [them] prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). The Court is not persuaded that the objective of the Court’s remedial orders has been achieved and a durable remedy is in place. See Horne, 129 S. Ct. at 2595. Moreover, because the closure of Arlington was anticipated by the parties when executing the 2006 Settlement Agreement, the State has a “heavy burden” to demonstrate it agreed to the settlement in good faith, made a reasonable effort to comply with the terms of the settlement, and should be relieved of the undertaking under Rule 60(b). See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 385. The State has not satisfied this burden.
The State’s submission rests almost entirely on the fact that Arlington has closed and its residents have transferred to placements approved by the Court Monitor pursuant to the 2006 Settlement Agreement. Indeed, the State did not attempt to demonstrate that it is in full or even substantial compliance with the Court’s remedial orders as contemplated by provision XVIV, “Jurisdiction and Enforcement,” of the Remedial Order. (See Remedial Order (D.E. 338) 54.) Based on the State’s
29 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 30 of 38 PageID 21584
showing, the Court cannot find that its orders have been satisfied under Rule 60(b)(5).
The State has also failed to show that applying the Court’s orders prospectively is no longer equitable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). The State submitted affidavits stating that the orders in this case require it to spend substantially more money providing services to Arlington class members than for identically situated non-class members with intellectual disabilities in the statewide waiver program. The testimony of Fred Hix, however, established that the State’s study did not compare class members and non-class members with similar disabilities and ISP requirements. As Dr. Conroy testified, the State conducted an “apples to oranges” comparison in its cost study. The Court is therefore not persuaded by the State’s showing that the remedial orders in this case create disparities in funding and care between class members and non-class members such that applying the orders prospectively is no longer equitable.
The crux of the State’s argument is that the closure of Arlington and transition of the center’s residents to new placements achieves the objectives of the Court’s remedial orders and represents a durable remedy against future constitutional violations, satisfying the standards set forth in Horne. The Court agrees that Arlington’s closure represents a
30 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 31 of 38 PageID 21585
significant milestone in this litigation, but is not convinced that the objective of its remedial orders, namely to protect the constitutional rights of class members, has been fully achieved and a durable remedy is in place. As the United States and People First point out, this litigation is the combination of two civil actions. Although the case arose from the unconstitutional violations found to have existed at Arlington, the Court included in the plaintiff class both residents of Arlington and those “at risk” of placement in Arlington. The remedial orders of this Court, including the orders agreed to by the State, have sought to ensure the constitutional rights of all class members, not just the rights of the residents of Arlington. The Court stated in its Order on Community Plan for West Tennessee (D.E. 753) that “it is beyond dispute that the protections of the Remedial Order extend to all members of the class.” (Id. at 5.) The State now seeks to vacate the protections afforded “at-risk” class members, not because the constitutional rights of these class members have been vindicated, but because Arlington has closed. The closure of Arlington, however, does not end the State’s obligation to class members in this action. Nevertheless, the State failed to present evidence regarding the steps it has taken to protect the rights of class members and ensure that those rights will be protected in the future.
31 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 32 of 38 PageID 21586
Dr. Ray provided testimony that raises serious concerns about the care and services class members receive. The State may disagree about the conclusions Dr. Ray reached in her testimony and reports, but it did not provide fact or expert witness testimony to rebut Dr. Ray’s contentions. As the Remedial Order contemplates, it is the Court Monitor’s role to “conduct a review of the [State’s] compliance” and report these findings to the Court. (Remedial Order 53 (setting forth the procedure for the State to petition the Court for termination of the Remedial Order).) If the State disagreed with Dr. Ray’s assessments of its compliance with the Court’s remedial orders, it could have presented testimony from its own fact witnesses and experts to support a finding of compliance. The State chose not to make such a showing despite the Court providing ample opportunity to do so.
One particular area of concern raised by Dr. Ray’s testimony is the care class members in nursing homes receive. The State maintains that this evidence is not relevant to the Court’s analysis because it is not responsible “for this state of affairs.” (See Defs.’ Closing Br. (D.E. 2867) 6.) The State ignores the mandate of this Court that it provide community placements for class members for whom such a placement is appropriate. The State is also required to ensure class members have legal conservators and independent support coordinators.
32 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 33 of 38 PageID 21587
The State cannot credibly claim that class members are residing in nursing facilities “voluntarily” when class members do not have legal conservators and independent support coordinators. That class members receive appropriate placements based on their individualized needs has long been a goal of this litigation (see, e.g., Remedial Order 42–47); the State has not demonstrated that this goal has been achieved. Moreover, the Court cannot find that a durable remedy is in place to ensure the appropriate placement of class members when class members lack legal conservators and independent support coordinators.
Dr. Ray’s testimony also raised concerns about the frequency of dangerous and violent incidents occurring in community homes. Again, the State disagrees with the findings presented by Dr. Ray in her testimony and reports. The State, however, did not present any evidence to rebut Dr. Ray’s findings and did not demonstrate that it has ensured class members in community placements are and will be reasonably free from harm. The lack of a streamlined and electronic incident reporting system is another concern. While the State appears to be taking steps to establish such a system (see Decl. of Scott J. Modell (D.E. 2819-3) at 2–3), the Court cannot conclude that the State has a durable remedy in place to ensure class member safety without an adequate reporting system in place.
33 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 34 of 38 PageID 21588
The closure of Arlington and the transition of its residents to approved placements were contemplated by the parties at the time they executed the 2006 Settlement Agreement.3 The State has fulfilled its obligation to close Arlington and transition the center’s residents to appropriate settings, but now seeks relief from the remainder of its obligations under the 2006 Settlement Agreement. Under the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Rufo, the State must meet a heavy burden to show that it agreed to the settlement in good faith, made a reasonable effort to comply with the settlement, and should be relieved of the undertaking under Rule 60(b). 502 U.S. at 385. The State has not met this burden.
The State did not put forth any evidence regarding its reasonable efforts to comply with the terms of the 2006 Settlement Agreement. On the other hand, Dr. Ray’s testimony raised questions about the State’s good faith attempts to meet the requirements of the settlement. For instance, Dr. Ray testified that although she ultimately approved the location of the Arlington Woods Homes, she did so only after construction had begun. Dr. Ray’s testimony and the aerial photograph admitted into evidence raises doubts as to whether the homes are
3 “Whereas, the State has made the policy decision to close the Arlington Developmental Center and to provide services to persons currently residing in [Arlington] in a more integrated setting . . . .” (2006 Settlement Agreement 1.)
34 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 35 of 38 PageID 21589
truly interspersed in a residential neighborhood as required by the 2006 Settlement Agreement.
Dr. Ray also testified that many potential class members have not been enrolled in the class because of delays in the State’s administration of PAEs. The Court need not decide for the purposes of ruling on the State’s Motion whether a PAE is required under the 2006 Settlement Agreement for class membership. Under Rufo, the State has the burden to demonstrate it made a reasonable effort to comply with the settlement agreement. The Court cannot find that the State made a reasonable effort to enroll new class members as required by the parties’ agreement when many potential class members were denied admission solely because a State agency failed to timely administer an examination the State insisted individuals undergo prior to class enrollment. The State offered no reasonable explanation as to why potential class members waited years to receive their PAEs.
Provision VI of the 2006 Settlement Agreement requires that “the community-based services currently provided be improved and be consistent with reasoned professional judgment and that the new community-based services made necessary by the closure of [Arlington] be effective, constitutional, and in compliance with statutory standards.” (2006 Settlement Agreement 6.) The provision lists nine subparts setting forth specific
35 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 36 of 38 PageID 21590
requirements for the State to improve services for class members in community placements. Again, the State put forth no evidence that it has made a reasonable effort to comply with these requirements. The testimony of Dr. Ray, however, raises serious doubts about the State’s compliance with these requirements.
The parties entered into the 2006 Settlement Agreement to resolve several contentious issues in this case, including the issue of defining the “at risk” class member criteria. The United States and People First entered into this agreement in good faith. The State, however, now seeks release from the terms of the agreement short of full compliance. The State has not carried its “heavy burden” under Rufo to demonstrate that such relief is warranted. The 2006 Settlement Agreement made clear that the closure of Arlington and transition of its residents to community placements would not end the State’s responsibilities in this action. Indeed, the State agreed in the 2006 Settlement Agreement to take many additional steps to ensure the adequacy of the care class members receive, and the State has failed to articulate a compelling reason why it should not be held to the terms of its agreement.
The Court is mindful of the concerns raised by institutional reform litigations outlined by the Supreme Court in Horne. See 129 S. Ct. 2593–95. As the Supreme Court noted, courts must take a “flexible approach” in recognition of these
36 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 37 of 38 PageID 21591
concerns. See id. at 2594. The Court has already vacated its orders relating to the conditions at Arlington in response to the center’s closure. (See D.E. 2724.) The Court Monitor, the United States, and People First all indicated that they believe the State can achieve compliance with the remaining orders of the Court within a period of one to two years. In addition, the United States and People First have indicated their willingness to engage in mediation with the State to develop an “exit criteria” to bring this case to a close. Indeed, the 2006 Settlement Agreement required the parties, in conjunction with the Court Monitor, “to enter into good faith discussions to develop objective and measurable exit criteria for the dismissal of this action.” (2006 Settlement Agreement 13.) It appears that these discussions never occurred. The Court believes that taking a “flexible approach” to the outstanding issues in this litigation warrants mediation between the parties to develop “objective and measureable exit criteria” that will allow the State to demonstrate that the objective of the Court’s orders has been achieved and a durable remedy is in place. IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the State’s Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and Dismiss the Case is DENIED. The parties are ordered within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Order to complete mediation with the Magistrate Judge to
37 


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2901 Filed 09/04/12 Page 38 of 38 PageID 21592
develop “objective and measurable exit criteria for the dismissal of this action.” The first mediation session with the Magistrate Judge shall occur within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order and at other times as designated by the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 2012. _s/ Jon P. McCalla_______ CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
38 


 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 37 PageID 21723

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

)




)


Plaintiff, and

)




)


PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al. )

No. 2:92-2062-JPM

)


Plaintiffs–Intervenors

)




)




v.

)




)




STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

) 


)


Defendants, and

) 


)


PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATIONS ) 


OF ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL ) 


CENTER,

) 


)


Defendant–Intervenors. )




)


EXIT PLAN 


The United States of America, People First of Tennessee, and the State of Tennessee (the “State”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby agree upon the objective and measurable exit criteria set forth in Sections II through VII of this Exit Plan for the vacatur of all outstanding injunctive relief and the dismissal of the lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the caption United States of America v. State of Tennessee, et al., No. 92-2062.

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 37 PageID 21724
Section I – General Terms A. Agreed Order. Upon the execution of this Exit Plan, the parties will promptly file a joint motion asking the Court to enter an Agreed Order (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A). All of the obligations that the State has agreed to undertake in Sections II through VII of this Exit Plan are contingent upon the entry of the Agreed Order. If the Court does not enter the Agreed Order attached as Exhibit A, without modification, on or before February 1, 2013, the State shall have no obligations whatever under this Exit Plan. B. The State’s Pending Appeal. Within 10 days after the Court enters the Agreed Order referenced in Section I.A., the State shall ask the Sixth Circuit Chief Mediator to administratively hold in abeyance the appeal currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under the caption United States of America v. State of Tennessee, et al., No. 12-6177 (the “Appeal”), pending the implementation of this Exit Plan. If, and only if, all outstanding injunctive relief is vacated and the lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the State shall seek a voluntary dismissal of the Appeal. C. Time Period for Implementing Sections II through VII. Except as otherwise specifically provided in Sections II through VII of this Exit Plan, the State agrees to implement the obligations set forth in Sections II through VII of this Exit Plan no later than December 31, 2013, provided however, any failure to complete an obligation required to be completed by a date prior to December 31, 2013 shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to satisfy a material provision of this Exit Plan so long as the obligation is satisfied on or before December 31, 2013. The time period for completing the obligations set forth in Sections II through VII of this Exit Plan may be extended pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Agreed Order referenced in Section I.A.
- 2 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 3 of 37 PageID 21725
D. Authority. Undersigned counsel warrant and represent that have the authority from their respective clients, the United States of America, People First of Tennessee, and the State of Tennessee, to agree to the terms of this Exit Plan.
E. Attorneys’ Fees. 1. The State agrees that People First of Tennessee is a prevailing party for
purposes of any attorneys’ fee petition filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 seeking fees and expenses for work done after September 4, 2012 in connection with the mediation before Magistrate Judge Vescovo and the negotiation and implementation of this Exit Plan.
2. In regard to all remaining attorneys’ fees incurred and/or claimed by People First of Tennessee that are not subject to Section I.E.1. above, including those attorneys’ fees relating to the motions that are the subject of the Appeal, those attorneys’ fees that are the subject of the appeal pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under the caption United States of America v. State of Tennessee, et al., Nos. 12-6258 and 12-6341, and any additional attorneys’ fees sought for activities undertaken since November 15, 2009, and for which fees have not already been paid (collectively the “Remaining Claimed Fees”), the State and People First agree to enter into non-binding mediation on or before February 25, 2013 relative thereto. If the State and People First fail to reach resolution of the Remaining Claimed Fees, in whole and/or in part, through mediation, People First will then be permitted to seek attorneys’ fees through available legal remedies, and the State shall be permitted to assert any and all available defenses in response thereto.
Section II – Intake Process for Potential New At-Risk Class Members A. Eligibility for class membership
- 3 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 4 of 37 PageID 21726
1. As part of Settlement Negotiations and Mediation discussions, the parties have agreed on a list of 182 persons who will be reconsidered for membership in the at risk portion of the Arlington Class (the “List”). The individuals on the List are set forth in the attached Exhibit B. The persons on the List shall hereinafter be referred to as “Potential Class Members.” The process by which the Potential Class Members will be considered for Class Membership is set forth in the provisions of the Intake Process for the At-Risk Arlington Class (the “Process”).
2. As part of the Process, and in order to be eligible for Class Membership, each of the Potential Class Members will be reviewed by the State to determine whether all of the following are true for that individual:
a. Does not have a denied PAE for Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (“ICF/IID”) (i.e., ICF/MR) level of care on or after September 11, 2007, with the sole exception that PAE denials prior to January 1, 2013, will not cause the exclusion of the following three individuals for reconsideration under the Process: Virginia C.; Dorothy R.; and, Mary S.;
b. Is not enrolled, and/or does not become enrolled during the Process, in a Section 1915(c) waiver for persons with Intellectual Disabilities;
c. Has a qualifying institutional stay, as described in the 2006 Settlement Agreement;
d. Resided in West Tennessee on October 27, 2010; e. Is a resident of Tennessee; f. Is not deceased; g. Is not incarcerated; and
- 4 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 5 of 37 PageID 21727
h. Meets Medicaid medical (i.e., level of care) and financial eligibility criteria for ICF/IID services.
3. If at any time in the Process, the State determines that a Potential Class Member does not satisfy the requirements set forth in the preceding subparagraph (Section II.A.2.), the State will provide to the Parties via email transmission the name of the Potential Class Member(s), along with the Section II.A.2 criteria the Potential Class Member(s) fails to meet pursuant to the provisions set forth below (see Section II.A.4.a through II.A.4.g).
4. At the outset of and/or throughout the Process, the following steps shall be taken by the State relative to Sections II.A.2 and II.A.3:
a. The TennCare PreAdmission Evaluation System (“TPAES”) and the paper workcard history which pre-dates the implementation of the electronic workflow system are the system of record regarding PreAdmission Evaluation (“PAE”) (i.e., level of care or medical) eligibility determinations. TennCare has reviewed some of and will continue to review these records for each Potential Class Member to determine whether a PAE has been previously denied for ICF/IID level of care. If it is determined that any Potential Class Member(s) has a previously denied ICF/IID PAE, the State will provide to the Parties via e-mail transmission the name of the Potential Class Member, or list of Potential Class Members, for whom there is a previous denial, including the date of such denial. The first business day following the transmission date of the notification e-mail shall be referred to as the “Prior Denied PAE Notice Date.” The Parties will have 30 calendar days from the Prior Denied PAE Notice Date to submit to the State proof that the Potential Class Member did not have a prior denied ICF/IID PAE. If, within 30 calendar days from the Prior Denied PAE Notice Date, the Parties fail to provide the State with proof that the Potential Class Member did not have a prior denied ICF/IID PAE, the Potential Class
- 5 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 6 of 37 PageID 21728
Member(s) shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process. If the Parties provide proof within the 30 day period, the State shall consider it in good faith and issue a determination relative to the same within fourteen (14) days. If the State’s determination continues to be that the Potential Class Member has a prior denied ICF/IID PAE, it will notify the Parties via e-mail transmission of such determination, and the Parties shall have seven (7) days to contest that determination pursuant to Section II.A.4.i below. If the Parties do not contest the determination within seven (7) days, the Potential Class Member(s) shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process.
b. The State and the Parties have already removed for consideration individuals who were determined to be in a Section 1915(c) waiver for persons with Intellectual Disabilities and those persons were purposely excluded from the List. If the State determines that any other Potential Class Members are enrolled, or become enrolled during the Process, in a Section 1915(c) waiver for persons with Intellectual Disabilities, the State will provide to the Parties via e-mail transmission the name(s) of the Potential Class Member(s), including the specific waiver in which the person is enrolled and the services currently authorized as shown within the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disability (“DIDD”) Community Services Tracking system. The first business day following the transmission date of the notification e-mail shall be referred to as the “Enrolled In Services Notice Date.” The Parties will have 30 calendar days from the Enrolled In Services Notice Date to submit to the State proof that the Potential Class Member is not enrolled in waiver services. If, within 30 calendar days from the Enrolled In Services Notice Date, the Parties fail to provide the State with proof that the
- 6 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 7 of 37 PageID 21729
Potential Class Member is not enrolled in services, the Potential Class Member(s) shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process. If the Parties provide proof within the 30 day period, the State shall consider it in good faith and issue a determination relative to the same within fourteen (14) days. If the State’s determination continues to be that the Potential Class Member is enrolled in waiver services, it will notify the Parties via e-mail transmission of such determination, and the Parties shall have seven (7) days to contest that determination pursuant to Section II.A.4.i below. If the Parties do not contest the determination within seven (7) days, the Potential Class Member(s) shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process.
c. DIDD will review all documentation obtained by the at-risk team prior to closure of the Arlington Developmental Center, or compiled and added during the Process, (the “At-risk Records”) in order to confirm that each Potential Class Member had a qualifying institutional stay, as described in the 2006 Settlement Agreement. The State will provide to the Parties via email transmission a list of all Potential Class Members for whom there is no confirmation of a qualifying institutional stay. The first business day following the transmission date of the notification email shall be referred to as the “No Qualifying Institutional Stay Notice Date.” The Parties will have 30 calendar days from the No Qualifying Institutional Stay Notice Date to submit to the State proof of a qualifying institutional stay for any Potential Class Member. If, within 30 calendar days from the No Qualifying Institutional Stay Notice Date, the Parties fail to provide the State with proof of a qualifying institutional stay, such Potential Class Members shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process. If the Parties provide proof
- 7 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 8 of 37 PageID 21730
within the 30 day period, the State shall consider it in good faith and issue a determination relative to the same within fourteen (14) days. If the State’s determination continues to be that the Potential Class Member does not have a qualifying institutional stay, it will notify the Parties via e-mail transmission of such determination, and the Parties shall have seven (7) days to contest that determination pursuant to Section II.A.4.i below. If the Parties do not contest the determination within seven (7) days, the Potential Class Member(s) shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process.
d. DIDD will review the At-risk Records in order to confirm that each Potential Class Member resided in West Tennessee on October 27, 2010. The State will provide to the Parties via email transmission a list of all Potential Class Members who did not reside in West Tennessee on October 27, 2010. The first business day following the transmission date of the notification email shall be referred to as the “Non-Resident of West Tennessee Notice Date.” The Parties will have 30 calendar days from the Non-Resident of West Tennessee Notice Date to submit to the State proof of residency in West Tennessee on October 27, 2010 for any Potential Class Member on the list. If, within 30 calendar days from the Non-Resident of West Tennessee Notice Date, the Parties fail to provide the State with proof of residency in West Tennessee on October 27, 2010, such Potential Class Member(s) will be removed from the Potential List and shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class. If the Parties provide proof within the 30 day period, the State shall consider it in good faith and issue a determination relative to the same within fourteen (14) days. If the State’s determination continues to be that the Potential Class Member was not a resident of West Tennessee on October 27, 2010, it will notify the Parties via e-mail transmission of such determination, and the
- 8 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 9 of 37 PageID 21731
Parties shall have seven (7) days to contest that determination pursuant to Section II.A.4.i below. If the Parties do not contest the determination within seven (7) days, the Potential Class Member(s) shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process.
e. Potential Class Members currently enrolled in TennCare or receiving Food Stamps or Families First assistance will be presumed to be current Tennessee residents. TennCare will review the MMIS and DHS Accent System to confirm enrollment in these programs. Potential Class Members not enrolled in these programs will be asked, pursuant to Section II.F.1.b.(i)(A) below, to provide proof of current Tennessee residency as part of the Process. The proof presented in this regard on behalf of the Potential Class Member must be sufficient, as determined by the State, to establish the Potential Class Member’s current Tennessee residency. This may include, but is not limited to, any of the following in the Potential Class Member’s name or in the name of a family member or other person with whom the Potential Class Member resides, along with a signed attestation from that person that the Potential Class Member lives at the specified address: a lease or rental agreement or payment receipt, a mortgage loan or payment receipt, property tax statement or utility receipt. If at any time during the Process, however, the State finds evidence that the Potential Class Member is not a Tennessee resident, the State will provide to the Parties via email transmission the name(s) of any such Potential Class Members. The e-mail identifying the Potential Class Member(s) will also include the nature of the proof of current residency in another State (e.g., receiving Medicaid in another State). The first business day following the transmission date of the notification email shall be referred to as the “Non-Current Resident of Tennessee Notice Date.” The Parties will have 30 calendar days from the Non-Current Resident of Tennessee Notice Date
- 9 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 10 of 37 PageID 21732
to submit to the State proof of current residency in Tennessee for any Potential Class Member on the list. If, within 30 calendar days from the Non-Current Resident of Tennessee Notice Date, the Parties fail to provide the State with proof of current residency in Tennessee, such Potential Class Members shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process. If the Parties provide proof within the 30 day period, the State shall consider it in good faith and issue a determination relative to the same within fourteen (14) days. If the State’s determination continues to be that the Potential Class Member is a resident of another State, it will notify the Parties via e-mail transmission of such determination, and the Parties shall have seven (7) days to contest that determination pursuant to Section II.A.4.i below. If the Parties do not contest the determination within seven (7) days, the Potential Class Member(s) shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process.
f. The State will review all available information to identify Potential Class Members who are deceased. The State will provide to the Parties the name(s) of all Potential Class Members who are found to be deceased through review of that information or otherwise, including the date of death. Such Potential Class Members shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process.
g. The State has limited information available to confirm when a person is incarcerated. If, at any point during the Process, information is received confirming that a Potential Class Member is incarcerated, the State will use reasonable efforts to notify the Parties via e-mail transmission within five (5) business days thereof, including the facility in which the
- 10 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 11 of 37 PageID 21733
person is incarcerated (“Incarceration Notice”). Unless the Parties notify the State within thirty (30) days following the date of the Incarceration Notice that the Potential Class Member is no longer incarcerated, such Potential Class Member will be removed from the List and shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process. In the event that class counsel or any other Party provides information, within the required 30 day period, demonstrating that the Potential Class Member is no longer incarcerated, the Potential Class Member may continue in the Process but in no event will the Potential Class Member receive or be entitled to any tolling or extension of any deadline in the Process as a result of his/her incarceration and/or the Incarceration Notice.
h. The process for determining whether a person meets Medicaid medical (i.e., level of care) eligibility for ICF/IID services shall proceed in accordance with federal and state law and regulation. The process for determining whether a person would meet Medicaid financial eligibility shall be conducted in conjunction with the Department of Human Services, using the same eligibility criteria and requirements that will be applied should the person be enrolled into the at-risk Arlington class and apply to receive waiver services.
i. In the event that the Parties disagree with the State’s determination that a Potential Class Member is ineligible for Class Membership by operation of the provisions of Sections II.A.4.a through II.A.4.e, the sole and exclusive avenue to contest the State’s determination shall be by appeal to Magistrate Judge Vescovo under a standing Order of Reference. In the event that such a dispute arises, the Parties agree that it will be submitted to Judge Vescovo in accordance with expedited procedures she establishes. The Magistrate Judge’s ruling regarding this dispute will be final and the parties hereby waive their rights to file an Objection with the District Court.
- 11 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 12 of 37 PageID 21734
B. Assignment of an Intake Case Manager 1. DIDD will assign to each Potential Class Member on the List, an Intake Case
Manager. 2. The Intake Case Manager will be the primary contact for the Potential Class
Member (and his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) during the at-risk intake process. While the Intake Case Manager will assist Potential Class Members (and their conservators or healthcare contacts, as applicable) as described above, it is the responsibility of the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact) to submit the information needed by the State to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class, and neither the State nor the Intake Case Manager shall be responsible for any failure by the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if applicable) to timely submit such information. C. At-risk records review
1. The assigned Intake Case Manager will review the At-risk Records of each assigned Potential Class Member to identify additional information needed by the State to determine eligibility for membership in the at-risk Arlington class.
2. The assigned Intake Case Manager will document and track information needed by each assigned Potential Class Member, and a checklist of needed information will be included with the notice mailed to each Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable) as described in detail in Section II.F below. D. Introductory Notice
1. DIDD will issue to each Potential Class Member and his or her conservator or
- 12 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 13 of 37 PageID 21735
healthcare contact, if known and applicable, an “Introductory Notice” in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C.
2. The address to which the Introductory Notice is sent shall be as follows: a. For Potential Class Members who are enrolled in TennCare, the current
address in the MMIS to which all TennCare mailings are sent as prescribed under State law; b. For Potential Class Members who are not enrolled in TennCare, their last
known address in the At-risk Records or, if different, to the address supplied by the Court Monitor pursuant to Section II.E.1 below. E. Phone contacts with Potential Class Members
1. The Court Monitor shall, within 14 calendar days of the execution of the Exit Plan, provide the State with a list of all available contact information for Potential Class Members (and their Conservators or healthcare contacts, if applicable).
2. Unless a call is received from the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if applicable) in response to the Introductory Notice, the assigned Intake Case Manager will attempt to call each Potential Class Member (and/or his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable) using each and every contact number that is provided by the Court Monitor, or contained in the Potential Class Member’s At-risk Records or in the TennCare Medicaid Management Information System (“MMIS”) until:
a. The person being sought is reached; b. The number is determined to be a non-working or incorrect contact number for the person being sought; or
- 13 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 14 of 37 PageID 21736
c. At least three attempted contacts have been made to any number not confirmed to be non-working or incorrect for the person being sought.
3. If a call is received from the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if applicable) in response to the Introductory Notice, or if the assigned Case Manager is able to reach the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable):
a. Using a script in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, the assigned Intake Case Manager will:
(i) Advise that the Potential Class Member will be given another opportunity to provide the information necessary to be evaluated for membership in the Arlington class;
(ii) Describe the benefits of being a member of the Arlington class, including the right to enroll in a waiver program and to receive Home and Community Based Services (“HCBS”);
(iii) Identify the person-specific information still needed by the State to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class, which may include, as applicable:
 Proof of current Tennessee residency;  Required documentation or evidence needed by TennCare
to determine whether the person would meet Medicaid medical (or level of care) eligibility for ICF/IID services; and
- 14 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 15 of 37 PageID 21737
 Required documentation or proof needed by DHS to determine whether the person would meet Medicaid financial eligibility criteria;
(iv) Advise that the Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable) will be receiving a letter, described and defined below as the NOA, that identifies the specific information the Potential Class Member must provide to the State and the timelines within which such information must be received by the State;
(v) Advise that the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) must submit to DIDD all information required by the State to determine eligibility for membership in the at-risk Arlington class, i.e., 90 calendar days from the date the NOA is mailed, but may request, prior to expiration of the 90 calendar day period, a one-time 30-day extension if needed to gather the information (see Section II.G below).
b. The Potential Class Member’s (and/or his or her conservator’s or other healthcare contact’s) current mailing address(es) and phone numbers will be verified and updated in the At-Risk Record.
4. If the assigned Intake Case Manager is not able to reach the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable), the State will provide to the Parties via email transmission the identity of each Potential Class Member the State was not able to reach, along with all available contact information for the Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable). The first business day following the transmission date of the notification email shall be referred to as the “Unable to Reach Notice Date.” The Parties will have 30 calendar days
- 15 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 16 of 37 PageID 21738
from the Unable to Reach Notice Date to attempt to contact the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable) and to provide the State with a more current mailing address. If, within 30 calendar days from the Unable to Reach Notice Date, the Parties fail to provide the State with a more current mailing address, a Notice of Opportunity to Apply to Become a Member of the At-Risk Arlington Class (“NOA”) mailed in accordance with Section II.F below shall satisfy the State’s obligation regarding notice of opportunity to apply for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class. F. Notice of opportunity to apply to become a member of the at-risk Arlington class
1. DIDD will issue the NOA, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, to each Potential Class Member and his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable.
2. The address to which the NOA is sent shall be as follows: a. The address confirmed in the phone contact by the State; b. For Potential Class Member the State was Unable to Reach who are
enrolled in TennCare, the current address in the MMIS to which all TennCare mailings are sent as prescribed under State law;
c. For Potential Class Members the State was Unable to Reach and who are not enrolled in TennCare, their last known address in the At-risk Records or, if provided, to the address provided by the Parties.
3. The NOA will include: a. A checklist of person-specific information still needed by the State to
determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class, which may include, as applicable:
- 16 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 17 of 37 PageID 21739
(i) Proof of current Tennessee residency; (ii) Required documentation or evidence needed by TennCare to determine whether the person would meet Medicaid medical (or level of care) eligibility for ICF/IID services, including a list of the types of evidence the State will consider as part of determining whether the Potential Class Member has proven MR prior to age 18; and (iii) Required documentation or proof needed by DHS to make a preliminary determination regarding whether the person would meet Medicaid financial eligibility criteria. b. For Potential Class Members who need a psychological evaluation, a list of qualified providers the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) may contact to obtain the psychological evaluation in a timely manner, including: (i) TennCare MCO participating providers for Potential Class Members currently enrolled in TennCare; and, (ii) DIDD participating providers for Potential Class Members not currently enrolled in TennCare. c. For Potential Class Members enrolled in TennCare, the psychological evaluation will be billed to and reimbursed by the MCO if obtained from a participating provider. For Potential Class Members not enrolled in TennCare, the psychological evaluation will be billed to and reimbursed by DIDD if obtained from a DIDD provider. d. For Potential Class Members who need a current history/physical, the Potential Class Member (or his or her healthcare contact, if known and applicable) will be advised to contact his or her primary care physician (“PCP”) to obtain a copy of a history and
- 17 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 18 of 37 PageID 21740
physical performed within the last year, or if one has not been performed within the last year, to schedule an appointment for a history and physical. For persons who may not have a PCP, a list of Federally Qualified Health Centers will be provided. Potential Class Members on TennCare will be advised to contact their MCO if they need assistance in identifying their PCP or arranging an appointment. For Potential Class Members enrolled in TennCare who have not had a physical in the last year, the service will be covered by TennCare. For Potential Class Members not enrolled in TennCare, the Potential Class Member, his or her conservator, or the Potential Class Member’s insurance, as applicable will be responsible for payment of the history/physical.
e. The deadline by which the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) must submit to DIDD all information required by the State to determine eligibility for membership in the at-risk Arlington class, i.e., 90 calendar days from the date the NOA is mailed, and how to request, prior to expiration of the 90 calendar day period, a one-time 30-day extension if needed to gather the information (see Section II.G below).
f. A form, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, that will permit the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) to indicate he or she does not want to apply for membership in the Arlington at-risk class.
4. A copy of each NOA in electronic format will be provided to the Parties by the State. G. Timeline for submission of information needed to determine eligibility for
enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class 1. The Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) will have an initial period of 90 calendar days from the date of the NOA
- 18 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 19 of 37 PageID 21741
to submit to DIDD copies of all information required to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class.
2. The Case Manager will be required to contact the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) at least once every forty-five day period during the period of time beginning with the transmission of the NOA and ending when (a) all required information required under this Process has been provided, or (b) the time period for providing the information has expired, or (c) the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) has signed a form indicating that he/she does not want to be apply for membership in the Arlington class. If, and only in the event that there has been no other verbal communication between the Case Manager and the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) during the 45 day period, the Case Manager will initiate phone contact with the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) by placing a call, and if there is no answer leaving a message (if possible) requesting a return call, to offer to answer any questions the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) has regarding the Process.
3. The Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) may, prior to the expiration of the initial 90 calendar day period, request a one-time extension of 30 calendar days to gather the information. Such request must be submitted in writing to the address specified in the NOA and received by the State prior to expiration of the initial 90 calendar day period. If a request for a 30-day extension is received by the State within the initial 90 calendar day period, such extension will be granted. The 30 calendar days will be added to the initial 90 calendar day period for a total of 120 calendar days
- 19 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 20 of 37 PageID 21742
from the NOA to submit information needed to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class.
4. The State will provide to the Parties via email transmission the identity of each Potential Class Member requesting a 30-day extension, and the new 120-day deadline (inclusive of the initial 90 calendar day period and the one-time 30 calendar day extension). The Parties may assist Potential Class Member (or their conservators or other healthcare contacts, if known and applicable) in submitting the information needed to determine eligibility for membership in the at-risk Arlington class.
5. Except as provided in Section II.H below, if within 90 calendar days from the mail date of the NOA, or within 120 calendar days from the mail date of the NOA when a onetime 30-day extension has been granted, a Potential Class Member fails to submit to the State the information needed to determine eligibility for the at-risk Arlington class, such Potential Class Member shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process. H. Setting a new clock when a more current mailing address is provided to the State
If, within 30 calendar days from the Unable to Reach Notice Date, the Parties submit to the State a more current mailing address for the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable):
1. The current mailing address will be updated in the at-risk record. 2. A new notice will be mailed, setting a new 90-day clock by which the Potential Class Member must submit to DIDD all information required by the State to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class. I. Failure to respond to the notice of opportunity to apply to become a member of the at-risk Arlington class
- 20 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 21 of 37 PageID 21743
1. If, at the conclusion of the 90 day period, a Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) has not submitted any information or requested an extension to submit information, all attempts to contact by the State will end.
2. The State will provide to the Parties via email transmission the identity of each Potential Class Member who failed to respond to the NOA within 90 days but for whom an extension was not requested. The first business day following the transmission date of the notification email shall be referred to as the “Failed to Respond Notice Date.”
3. The Parties will have 30 calendar days from the Failed to Respond Notice Date to contact Potential Class Members (or their conservators or other healthcare contacts, if known and applicable) and assist them in submitting the information needed to apply for membership in the at risk Arlington class.
4. Except as provided in Section II.J below, if, within 30 calendar days from the Failed to Respond Notice Date, the State does not receive all of the information needed to determine eligibility for enrollment into the at-risk Arlington class, such Potential Class Member will be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process. J. Opportunity to correct deficiencies in information submitted to DIDD
1. If information is received by the State from a Potential Class Member within the allotted time—either when (a) a one-time 30 calendar day extension is requested; or (b) when the Potential Class Member has failed to respond and 30 additional calendar days have been provided for the Parties to assist the Potential Class Member in submitting information, DIDD will review the information to determine whether it is sufficient to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class.
- 21 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 22 of 37 PageID 21744
2. If DIDD believes that the information is insufficient, a second notice (a “Notice of Deficiency”) will be issued to the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable), identifying the deficiencies and the specific information that is still needed to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class.
3. The Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) will have at least 30 calendar days (pursuant to subparagraphs a. and b below) from the date the Notice of Deficiency is mailed to submit the remaining information to DIDD.
a. If such deficient information is received prior to expiration of the initial 90 calendar day period, the 30 calendar days to correct deficiencies shall be added to the initial 90 calendar day period, such that every Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if know and applicable) will have at least 120 calendar days from the NOA to provide all of the information needed to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class.
b. If such deficient information is received after expiration of the initial 90 calendar day period, but prior to expiration of the one-time 30 calendar day extension or during the 30 day period following the Failed to Respond Notice Date during which the Parties may assist Potential Class Members in submitting information, the 30 calendar days will be provided from the date of notice of deficiency.
4. A copy of the Notice of Deficiency shall be provided to the Parties via email transmission. The Parties may assist the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or
- 22 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 23 of 37 PageID 21745
healthcare contact, if known and applicable) in gathering the information that is still needed to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class.
5. If, within 30 calendar days (applied pursuant to Section II.J.3 above) the State does not receive the remaining information needed to determine eligibility for enrollment into the at-risk Arlington class, such Potential Class Member shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process. K. Scheduling the PAE assessment
1. If DIDD determines that the information submitted by a Potential Class Member is sufficient to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class, the team will contact the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) to arrange an appointment to conduct an assessment and complete a PAE (PreAdmission Evaluation or level of care) application.
2. The Intake Case Manager will contact the Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable) to schedule an appointment to complete a PAE assessment. The Intake Case Manager will advise the Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known) that such appointment must be scheduled and completed within no more than 30 calendar days from the date of the contact (unless extended by the State if at-risk intake team staff are not able to accommodate during the 30 day period), absent exceptional circumstances (e.g., the Potential Class Member’s hospitalization). Any extension of the 30-day appointment time, including the reasons for such extension, must be documented in writing by DIDD. If the Intake Case Manager is unable to reach the Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if
- 23 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 24 of 37 PageID 21746
known) to schedule the PAE appointment, the appointment will be scheduled by the State and notice of the appointment date will be communicated by mail to the Potential Class Member at the most current address in the At-Risk record with a copy being provided to class counsel. If the Potential Class Member fails to appear for the PAE appointment, and does not contact the Intake Case Manager to arrange an alternative appointment to occur within 30 days from the date the initial appointment was mailed to the Potential Class Member such Potential Class Member shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class and no further efforts shall be undertaken by the State under this Process L. Submitting the PAE to TennCare
Upon completion of the PAE assessment, all of the information will be forwarded to TennCare for review, and a determination will be made within 8 working days of receipt. M. Notice of TennCare’s ICF/IID level of care eligibility determination
1. The Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable) will be notified in writing of TennCare’s decision regarding ICF/IID level of care eligibility.
2. A copy of the notice will be provided to the Parties by the State. 3. If the PAE is denied, the notice will include an explanation of the Potential Class Member’s due process rights. These rights include the right to request a review of the decision in Tennessee Chancery Court and any appeal therefrom authorized by Tennessee law. No other appeal or review of TennCare’s determination will be provided. 4. Notwithstanding a waiting list for enrollment into the State’s Section 1915(c) waivers for persons with intellectual disabilities, if a PAE appeal submitted as part of this at-risk process and in accordance with the process and timeframes described herein is decided in favor
- 24 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 25 of 37 PageID 21747
of a Potential Class Member (either before or after the dismissal of this case), the Potential Class Member would be entitled to enroll in the appropriate Section 1915(c) waiver if requested within 30 days of the final order approving the PAE. N. Notice of DHS’s preliminary determination of Medicaid eligibility
1. The Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or other healthcare contact, if known and applicable) will be notified in writing of DHS’s preliminary decision regarding whether a Potential Class Member would meet Medicaid financial eligibility. This is a preliminary (and not final) eligibility determination since, pursuant to 42 CFR 435.217, unless the Potential Class Member would qualify in another Medicaid category, s/he cannot actually qualify for and be enrolled into Medicaid in the Institutional eligibility category until such time that s/he will be enrolled in a Section 1915(c) waiver and begin receiving HCBS.
2. As this is a preliminary decision made to accommodate determination of eligibility for enrollment into the at-risk Arlington class and not a final administrative action, there is no right to fair hearing if a person is found to not meet Medicaid financial eligibility requirements.
3. However, in the event a Potential Class Member is found to not meet Medicaid financial eligibility requirements, a notice will be provided to the Potential Class Member (and his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) including the specific reasons s/he would not qualify, with opportunity to request an informal administrative review by DHS regarding any valid factual dispute.
4. A copy of any such notice that a Potential Class Member would not meet 
 Medicaid financial eligibility requirements shall be provided to the Parties by the State. 
 O. Declination to apply to become a member of the Arlington class
- 25 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 26 of 37 PageID 21748
Upon receipt of a signed form indicating that a Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) does not want to be apply for membership in the Arlington class:
1. The Potential Class Member will be removed from the List and all attempts by the State to contact and/or facilitate application for enrollment into the Arlington class will end;
2. A copy of the signed form will be provided to the Parties; 3. The Parties may follow-up to confirm that the person’s rights are understood, and that the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) does not want to apply for membership in the Arlington class; 4. If, within 30 calendar days of receipt of a signed form from the State, the Parties provide signed documentation to the State from the Potential Class Member (or his or her conservator or healthcare contact, if known and applicable) that he or she has changed their mind and wishes to continue applying to become a member of the Arlington class, the initial 90-day clock will resume from the point where it was stopped, allowing any remaining time during which the Potential Class Member must submit to DIDD all information required by the State to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class (including all applicable extensions). A Potential Class Member is only entitled to stop the running of the period of time for submission of the information required by the State to determine eligibility for enrollment in the at-risk Arlington class pursuant to this provision one time.
- 26 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 27 of 37 PageID 21749
P. Future opportunity to apply for waivers but not to become a member of the 
 Arlington class 
 Potential Class Members who have been removed from the List may apply for waiver
services at any time. However, once a Potential Class Member is removed from the List, he shall be finally and forever ineligible for membership in the at-risk Arlington class. Any subsequent waiver application will be considered in accordance with applicable TennCare and DIDD policies and procedures for waiver enrollment, including those pertaining to management of waiting lists. Provided, further, however, that those persons who were eliminated from the List because of their enrollment in waiver services will be allowed to receive additional waiver services as their needs may dictate (e.g. moving from the Self Determination Waiver to the Main or ADC waiver) without being placed on a waiting list for such services and pursuant to established processes.
Section III – Class Members in Nursing Facilities A. DIDD will complete a needs assessment for each current class member living in a nursing home. Based on the results of the needs assessment, DIDD will determine, through a three-person committee of qualified professionals appointed by DIDD and exercising their professional judgment, whether it is appropriate for the class member to be served in the community if he or she (or his or her authorized health care decision maker) so chooses. DIDD will use reasonable and ordinary efforts to report its determination to Plaintiffs’ counsel within five business days of such determination. Notwithstanding a determination by DIDD that it is not appropriate for the class member to be served in the community, if Plaintiff’s counsel receives a statement from the affected class member, or his/her healthcare decision maker, that the affected person desires to move from the nursing facility, the Plaintiff shall provide the State with a written statement within 30 days of the State’s notice of determination to the Plaintiffs. If,
- 27 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 28 of 37 PageID 21750
and only if, the State receives a written statement within this 30-day period from a class member, or on behalf of the class member from his or her authorized health care decision maker or Plaintiff’s counsel, advising the State that the affected class member desires to move from the nursing facility, the State shall assign the affected class member an Independent Support Coordinator (“ISC”) pursuant to the provisions of Section III.B. below.
B. The State will provide an ISC to any current class member living in a nursing home who DIDD has determined, in its professional judgment, may be appropriately served in the community if he or she (or his or her authorized health care decision maker) so chooses. For a period of up to but no longer than 60 days, the ISC will assist the class member (and his or her authorized health care decision maker) in making an educated choice as to whether he or she wishes to remain in the nursing home or transition to a community placement. If the class member (or his or her authorized health care decision maker) decides he or she does not wish to transition to a community placement and the ISC informs the State in writing, the ISC services will cease. If the class member (or his or her authorized health care decision maker) or the ISC informs the State in writing prior to the expiration of the 60-day decision period that he or she has decided to transition to a community placement, the ISC will continue working with the class member to assist the class member in transitioning to the community. The State shall direct ISCs to attend available plan of care meetings that occur during each ISC’s work with class members in nursing facilities, provided the ISCs are aware of the date and time such meetings are scheduled, are available to attend the meetings when they are scheduled, and are not requested to desist from attending such scheduled meetings. The State shall not request that an assigned ISC desist from attending such scheduled meetings. The State shall report at monthly meetings with the Magistrate Judge the status of class member transitions.
- 28 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 29 of 37 PageID 21751
C. The State will provide a conservator or other authorized power of attorney or health care surrogate to any current class member living in a nursing home whom DIDD has determined, in its professional judgment, may be appropriately served in the community if he or she (or his or her authorized health care decision maker) so chooses if, and only if: (1) it is determined that the class member is not competent; (2) the class member does not have a conservator, or a health care decision maker with a power of attorney or health care surrogate authorization (provided that, except for direct family members, such person is not employed by the nursing facility); and (3) does not have a family member or other person willing to serve in this role.
D. The parties understand and agree that: (1) any class member (or his or her authorized health care decision maker) who has chosen to transition to the community pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section III.B. above may, at any time, change his or her mind and decide to remain in the nursing home; and (2) the State cannot guarantee that any such transition will be completed before December 31, 2013 (or by any other deadline).
E. With respect to any persons who: (1) become class members in 2013, and (2) are living in a nursing home, the State will follow the procedures set forth in Sections III.A. through III.D. above, provided that, the parties understand and agree that the State cannot guarantee that any of the procedures set forth in Sections III.A. through III.D. will be completed by December 31, 2013, and thus is not required to complete said procedures by December 31, 2013, for persons who became class members in 2013.
F. The State shall arrange for the provision of specialized services to class members residing in nursing facilities that receive Medicaid funds through TennCare consistent with the requirements contained in 42 CFR 483.120 (incorporating the requirements of 42 CFR
- 29 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 30 of 37 PageID 21752
483.440(a)(1)). This requirement shall be satisfied in full if the State’s contracts with its nursing facility providers require that they comply with federal Medicaid regulations applicable to nursing facilities.
G. The failure to complete any transition of any class member who has elected to move from a nursing facility prior to December 31, 2013, or any other deadline shall not constitute a failure to comply with a material provision of this Exit Plan that would justify the continuation of this case. The State will continue with the transition of any class member that has elected community placement from a nursing facility notwithstanding the dismissal of this case, but will not prohibit class members from exercising their freedom of choice should they change their election of placement.
Section IV – Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities By no later than July 1, 2013, the Bureau of TennCare, the Department of Health, and
DIDD will enter into a written agreement (the “Interdepartmental Agreement”) providing that DIDD will serve as a subcontractor to the Department of Health to undertake certain survey, certification, and enforcement functions of the State Survey Agency specified in 42 C.F.R. § 488.11, currently performed by the Department of Health, for the State’s privately-operated ICF/IIDs, to meet the conditions of participation specified in federal law and regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 483 et seq. The Parties understand that the Interdepartmental Agreement will provide for an adequate transition period, as determined necessary by the State, to assure compliance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) requirements. In addition, by no later than September 1, 2013, DIDD will develop a system for publicly rating the quality of the State’s privately-operated ICF/IIDs and a plan for implementing that system. The State intends, by December 31, 2013, to pilot the proposed rating system, using available and existing data at
- 30 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 31 of 37 PageID 21753
that time, provided however, the Parties agree that failure to conduct the pilot prior to December 31, 2013 shall not constitute a failure to complete a material provision of this Exit Plan.
Section V – Waiver Renewal and Amendment A. The State has requested that CMS approve: (1) an amendment to the Statewide Home and Community-Based Services Waiver for the Intellectually and Developmentally Disabled that would permit the State to cover Intensive Behavioral Residential Services (the “IBRS amendment”); and (2) a renewal of the Self Determination Waiver that would permit the State to cover Semi-Independent Living Services for enrollees in the Self Determination Waiver (the “SDW renewal”). Upon approval by CMS, and only in the event such approval is obtained on or before October 1, 2013, the State shall begin implementation of both the Intensive Behavioral Residential Services model of care and the Semi-Independent Living Services model of care. If CMS does not approve the IBRS amendment on or before October 1, 2013, the failure to comply with Section V.B. below shall not constitute a failure to comply with a material provision of this Exit Plan that would justify the continuation of this case. If CMS does not approve the SDW renewal on or before October 1, 2013, the failure to comply with Section V.C. below shall not constitute a failure to comply with a material provision of this Exit Plan that would justify the continuation of this case. B. If CMS approves the State’s IBRS amendment on or before October 1, 2013, the State’s implementation requirement shall be satisfied upon the State: (1) developing and publishing the criteria for selection for participation in the Intensive Behavioral Residential Services model of care; (2) appointing members to an admissions committee that shall make eligibility determinations for the Intensive Behavioral Residential Services model of care; and (3) executing or amending contracts with qualified service providers for the initial participants in
- 31 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 32 of 37 PageID 21754
the Intensive Behavioral Residential Services model of care based on the need and demand for the Intensive Behavioral Residential Services model of care.
C. If CMS approves the State’s SDW renewal or a waiver amendment for the addition of the Semi-Independent Living Services model of care to the Self-Determination Waiver on or before October 1, 2013, the State’s implementation requirement shall be satisfied upon the State: (1) developing and publishing the criteria for selection for participation in the Semi-Independent Living Services model of care; and (2) executing or amending contracts with qualified service providers for the initial participants in the Semi-Independent Living Services model of care based on the need and demand for the Semi-Independent Living Services model of care.
D. The State will continue with the implementation of the Intensive Behavioral Residential Services model of care if it is approved by CMS after October 1, 2013, notwithstanding the dismissal of this case. The State will continue with the implementation of the Semi-Independent Living Services model of care if it is approved by CMS after October 1, 2013, notwithstanding the dismissal of this case.
Section VI – Class Member Employment During the pendency of the case, DIDD will continue to develop meaningful and real opportunities for class members to obtain competitive employment, supported work, and/or volunteer jobs in the communities by taking the following steps and/or continuing the following actions: A. The State will continue to implement the Subcontract Agreement between Economic Systems Inc. (“ESI”) and the State of Tennessee, Agreement Number 12-TN-0503-P1 (the “Grant Contract”), which is a subcontract to the State of Tennessee under ESI’s prime
- 32 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 33 of 37 PageID 21755
contract with the Department of Labor relative to ESI’s prime contract with the Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment.
B. DIDD will retain expert consultants, through the Grant Contract, to provide technical assistance to DIDD about, among other things, the structure for discovering if a person receiving services from DIDD is interested in working (e.g., the Discovery Process) and, if so, the jobs they are interested in pursuing.
C. By no later than October 1, 2013, DIDD will require all state case managers and/or independent support coordinators who write individual support plans (“ISPs”) to begin including in each class member’s ISP, upon the next annual review or amendment thereto, a statement regarding the class member’s desire to work.
D. By no later than October 1, 2013, DIDD will ensure that its Quality Assurance process includes a check to ensure that the class member ISPs reviewed through QA include a statement regarding whether a class member has expressed a desire to work and, if yes, whether the supports necessary to facilitate the employment, if any, are identified.
E. DIDD will modify its “Day Services Protocol” and “Day Services Protocol Checklist” to be titled the “Employment and Day Services Protocol” and “Employment and Day Services Protocol Checklist” respectively. DIDD will add a statement to the Employment and Day Services Protocol indicating that, where appropriate, employment is preferred over Day Services. Consistent with, and subject to, the medical necessity requirements of that protocol, the State shall provide class members supported employment services as justified in class members’ ISP.
F. DIDD will continue to offer job coach training programs through DIDD approved web-based training.
- 33 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 34 of 37 PageID 21756
G. DIDD will continue to provide the parties with, and begin providing to Magistrate Judge Vescovo, quarterly employment reports (in the same format as the State has provided since 2007), with the next report scheduled to be provided on or about February 4, 2013, with information regarding the months of October, November and December, 2012.
Section VII – Arlington Developmental Center Grounds A. DIDD has submitted a funding request in its FY 2014 budget (for funding use beginning July 1, 2013) for the demolition of all residential cottages on the grounds of Arlington Developmental Center (“ADC”) except those attached to the Baker Building, which shall not be used for residential purposes. Upon approval of such funding request, DIDD, with the assistance of the Real Estate Asset Management division of the Department of General Services (“STREAM”), will develop a plan for the demolition of these cottages, including information regarding the work to be performed, for submission to the State Building Commission for approval to proceed with the plan for demolition. B. DIDD, with the assistance of STREAM, shall develop a plan for the proposed sale of the ADC property (excluding the Baker Administrative Building and Resource Center, the land immediately adjacent thereto that is necessary for setback, and land necessary to provide access to that portion of the property for public right of way; land set aside for the West Tennessee Community Homes; land that is the subject of any lease between the State of Tennessee and the City of Arlington; land that is subject to any existing easements; and any other land necessary for the foregoing) (the “Property”) or portions thereof. By December 31, 2013, STREAM shall determine whether the Property may be categorized as surplus, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 12-2-112. If the Property is confirmed as surplus, DIDD will work with STREAM to obtain the approval of the State Building Commission for the sale of the
- 34 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 35 of 37 PageID 21757
Property. DIDD will endeavor in good faith to obtain such approval and to obtain appraisal(s) of the Property by December 31, 2013, but its failure to obtain said approval and/or said appraisals by that date shall not be considered a material breach of this agreement. In addition, notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require DIDD to sell the Property during 2013 or at any other date prior to: (1) DIDD’s determination that any sale price for the Property maximizes the return on the sale of the Property to DIDD; and (2) the approval of the sale of the Property by the State Building Commission, the Attorney General, and the Governor, in accordance with all applicable laws, policies and procedures, including, without limitation, the State Building Commission Policy and Procedures.
- 35 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 36 of 37 PageID 21758

AGREED TO:
On Behalf of the United States of America:
EDWARD L. STANTON, III United States Attorney Western District of Tennessee
HARRIET HALMON Assistant United States Attorney 167 North Main Street 800 Federal Building Memphis, TN 38103 (901) 544-4231

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
EVE HILL Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
ALISON N. BARKOFF Special Counsel for Olmstead Enforcement Civil Rights Division
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section
SHELLEY R. JACKSON Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
/s/ R. Jonas Geissler R. JONAS GEISSLER MICHELLE JONES Senior Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 353-8866

- 36 -


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2941 Filed 01/17/13 Page 37 of 37 PageID
 21759


On Behalf of People First of Tennessee:
/s/ Earle J. Schwarz
 Earle J. Schwarz 
 The Offices of Earle J. Schwarz 
 For the Practice of Law and Mediation 
 2157 Madison Avenue, Suite 201 
 Memphis, TN 38104 

Jack Derryberry
 Ward, Derryberry & Thompson 
 404 James Robertson Parkway, Suite 1720 
 Nashville, TN 37219 

Judith Gran 
 Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia 
 125 S. 9th Street, Suite 700 
 Philadelphia, PA 19107 
 Attorneys for People First of Tennessee

On Behalf of Defendants:
ROBERT E. COOPER, JR. Attorney General and Reporter
/s/ Dianne Stamey Dycus DIANNE STAMEY DYCUS (9654) Deputy Attorney General General Civil Division P.O. Box 20207 
 Nashville, TN 37202 
 (615) 741-6420 

/s/ Jonathan P. Lakey
 JONATHAN P. LAKEY (16788) 
 PIETRANGELO COOK, PLC 
 6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 190 
 Memphis, TN 38119 
 (901) 685-2662 

/s/ Michael W. Kirk
 MICHAEL W. KIRK
 COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
 Washington, D.C. 20036 
 (202) 220-9600 
 Attorneys for Defendants

- 37 -


 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID 21760

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
 WESTERN DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)


)


Plaintiff, and

)


)


PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al., )


)


Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

)


)


v.

)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants, and

)

)

PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATIONS

)

OF ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL

)

CENTER,

)

)


Defendant-Intervenors.

) 


Civil Action: No. 92-2062 M/P

AGREED ORDER 


Pursuant to the Court’s Order filed September 4, 2012 (ECF No. 2901), Plaintiff, the United States; Plaintiffs-Intervenors, People First of Tennessee, et al.; and Defendants, the State of Tennessee, et al. (“State”) 1 have agreed upon “‘objective and measurable exit criteria for the dismissal of this action,’” (ECF No. 2901 at 38 (quoting 2006 Settlement Agreement at 13)), in mediation conducted with Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo.

1 Intervenor West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association did not participate in the mediation process and takes no position on the other Parties’ proposed resolution of this case.

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 11 PageID 21761
These criteria are set forth in the Exit Plan. (ECF No. 2941.) Based on the resolution of the mediation and the presentation of these Parties,
IT IS, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: Exit Plan (ECF No. 2941)
1. The State has agreed to undertake the obligations set forth in the Exit Plan in exchange for the dismissal of the case and the vacatur of all outstanding injunctive relief as provided in Paragraphs 2, 7, 8, 12, and/or 14 below. The objective of the Exit Plan is to resolve the above-captioned action by completing all material provisions of the Exit Plan by December 31, 2013.
2. If the State completes all material provisions of the Exit Plan by December 31, 2013, or earlier, the Court shall vacate all outstanding injunctive relief and dismiss this case with prejudice. Compliance Conferences
3. During the performance of the Exit Plan, Plaintiffs shall have reasonable access to requested information and documents regarding compliance with the Exit Plan without the necessity of formal discovery.
4. Beginning in February 2013, Counsel for the Parties will meet monthly, unless the Parties agree to meet telephonically or to forego a monthly meeting, with Magistrate
2


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 3 of 11 PageID 21762
Judge Vescovo to conduct Compliance Conferences. The Parties will seek to resolve any issues of compliance with the Exit Plan, if any, during these conferences.
5. This Order shall serve as a standing Order of Reference permitting Magistrate Judge Vescovo to address issues of compliance with the Exit Plan as provided herein. During implementation of the Exit Plan, except by operation of Paragraph 15(a) below and any motions for attorneys’ fees, no Party shall seek a finding of contempt or file a motion seeking any other relief from the Court, except that, any Party may seek relief if the Party believes in good faith that there exists an imminent risk of serious harm to a class member that is not being addressed appropriately.
6. During implementation of the Exit Plan, at the request of a Party or on the Court’s own motion, Magistrate Judge Vescovo may issue Reports and Recommendations to the District Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 72 finding that the State has completed any or all material provisions of the Exit Plan. Pursuant to Rule 72, if any Party objects to the Report and Recommendation, that Party must file an objection to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days of issuance of the Report and Recommendation. If no such objection is filed, the findings in the Report and Recommendation shall be final and binding on all Parties, and no Party may raise any
3


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 4 of 11 PageID 21763
further issues with respect to the material provision(s) with which the Report and Recommendation found the State to be in material compliance. Pursuant to Rule 72, the District Court shall review de novo any filed objection. The Party which filed the objection shall have the burden of proof on all factual issues implicated by the objection, and the Federal Rules of Evidence shall govern any hearing conducted on the objection. Compliance
7. If (i) the Parties agree that the State has completed all material provisions of the Exit Plan, or (ii) Magistrate Judge Vescovo has issued Report(s) and Recommendation(s) finding that the State has complied with all material provisions of the Exit Plan, and no Party has timely objected, the Parties shall submit to the Court a proposed Order vacating all outstanding injunctive relief and dismissing the case with prejudice, which the Court shall enter.
8. If Magistrate Judge Vescovo has issued Report(s) and Recommendation(s) finding that the State has complied with all material provisions of the Exit Plan, and any timely objection has been overruled by the District Court, the State shall submit to the Court a proposed Order vacating all outstanding injunctive relief and dismissing the case with prejudice, which the Court shall enter.
4


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 5 of 11 PageID 21764
9. If the State determines that it has not completed or will not complete one or more material provisions of the Exit Plan by December 31, 2013, the State shall be entitled to extension(s) of the term of the Exit Plan of no more than six months for any single extension, not to exceed one year without the consent of the Parties, to permit the State to complete the remaining material provisions of the Exit Plan.
10. If the Parties agree that the State has not completed all remaining material provisions of the Exit Plan by December 31, 2013, the Parties may, but are not required to, agree to a proposed Order of conditional dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).
11. If the Parties disagree on whether the State has completed all remaining material provisions of the Exit Plan by the end of the term of the Exit Plan, and that disagreement cannot be resolved by mediation with Magistrate Judge Vescovo, the State shall present to Magistrate Judge Vescovo its basis for its position that the State has completed all remaining material provisions of the Exit Plan. Magistrate Judge Vescovo may consider this information along with the record of information discussed throughout monthly Compliance Conferences. Magistrate Judge Vescovo will then issue a Report and Recommendation, subject to Rule 72, with findings as to whether the State has completed the remaining material provisions.
5


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 6 of 11 PageID 21765
12. Except as provided in Paragraph 13, if any Party objects to the Report and Recommendation issued pursuant to Paragraph 11, that Party must file an objection to the Report and Recommendation with 14 days of issuance of the Report and Recommendation. If no such objection is filed, the findings in the Report and Recommendation shall be final and binding on all Parties, no Party may raise any further issues with respect to the material provision(s) with which the Report and Recommendation found the State to be in material compliance, and the Parties shall submit to the Court a consent motion and a proposed Order vacating all outstanding injunctive relief and dismissing the case with prejudice, which the Court shall enter. Pursuant to Rule 72, the District Court shall review any filed objection de novo. The Party which filed the objection shall have the burden of proof on all factual issues implicated by the objection, and the Federal Rules of Evidence shall govern any hearing conducted on the objection.
13. If Magistrate Judge Vescovo issues a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Paragraph 11 finding that the State has not completed one or more material provisions of the Exit Plan, the State shall be entitled, at its option and in lieu of an objection to the Report and Recommendation, to extension(s) of the term of the Exit Plan of no more than six months for any single extension, not to exceed one year without the consent of
6


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 7 of 11 PageID 21766
the Parties, to permit the State to complete the material provision(s) of the Exit Plan that Magistrate Judge Vescovo has found not to be completed. If the State elects to extend the Exit Plan pursuant to this Paragraph, the procedures set forth in Paragraphs 7-11 shall govern after the State informs the Parties that it believes that it has completed the material provision(s) of the Exit Plan that Magistrate Judge Vescovo had previously found not to be completed.
14. If a Party has objected to a Report and Recommendation issued pursuant to Paragraph 11, and this Court, after its review, finds that the State has completed the material provision(s) of the Exit Plan identified in the objection, then this Court shall vacate all outstanding injunctive relief and dismiss the case with prejudice.
15. If a Party has objected to a Report and Recommendation issued pursuant to Paragraph 11, and this Court, after its review, finds that the State has not completed one or more material provisions of the Exit Plan, then the Court may:
a. make findings regarding the State’s compliance or noncompliance with the material provisions of the Exit Plan identified in the objection and enter an Order granting an extensions of the term of the Exit Plan of no more than six months for any single extension, and directing the State to
7


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 8 of 11 PageID 21767
complete the material provision(s) of the Exit Plan the Court has found that the State has not completed; and/or
b. enter an Order of conditional dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).
16. If the State informs the Court and the Parties that it cannot perform its obligations under the Exit Plan, the Court may vacate this Order. Monitoring
17. In lieu of the duties and responsibilities for monitoring set forth in the Remedial Order and subsequent orders of the Court, hereinafter the Court Monitor’s duties and responsibilities for monitoring are only those specifically set forth herein, which are as follows:
a. Conducting, with the assistance of reasonable and necessary consultants, annual on-site reviews of the RHA ICFsIID, Mid-South Area Residential Services, and Behavior Services of Tennessee, and issuing Community Status Reviews for those providers based on the on-site review;
b. In regard to any communication the Court Monitor receives from a class member, class member’s family, provider, advocate, or any other person regarding the litigation or services provided by DIDD, aside from communications relative to her community status reviews, the Court Monitor’s sole responsibility shall be to direct the person to call DIDD (the
8


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 9 of 11 PageID 21768
State shall provide the specific position and number of the person to be contacted), and to report the call to Plaintiff’s counsel in those instances she believes it is appropriate to do so;
c. Be available to speak to counsel for the parties and/or the Court;
d. Undertake reviews, issue other reports, and/or engage in other activities only in the event she is directed to do so by a specific Order of this Court entered subsequent to the entry of the instant Order;
e. Transition activities associated with the winding down of active monitoring;
f. Attending any District Court hearings; g. The Court Monitor’s annual budget for providing the services set forth and described herein shall in no event exceed $55,000 plus fees associated with any District Court hearings and travel expenses in connection with the provider reviews and any Court hearings absent further, specific order of this Court. The Court Monitor shall not submit to the State, and the State shall not be required to pay, any invoice to the extent it seeks payment in excess of the annual budget. 18. In light of the recent resignation of the current Court Monitor, effective January 15, 2012, the Parties have agreed to make their best efforts to present the Court, by the
9


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 10 of 11 PageID 21769
date of the first Compliance Conference, with an agreed upon nominee for the Court’s consideration to serve as the new Court Monitor. Notwithstanding the budgetary limitation imposed by paragraph 17(g), upon appointment of a new Court Monitor, the new Court Monitor may submit to the Court for its approval a one-time budget not to exceed $15,000 for reasonable and necessary expenses required to permit an effective transition of monitoring duties and information from the prior Court Monitor. Other Issues
19. No costs ordered paid by the Defendants in previous Orders shall be refunded to the Defendants by operation of this Order, or an Order of final dismissal.
20. No sanctions ordered paid by the Defendants in previous Orders shall be refunded to the Defendants by operation of this Order, or an Order of final dismissal.
21. No fine monies held by the Court or due to be repaid to the Court shall be refunded to the Defendants by operation of this Order, or an Order of final dismissal. Nothing in this Order modifies the Court’s orders of June 6, 2011 (ECF No. 2711; ECF No. 2712); and in accordance with ECF No. 2711, any funds repaid to the Court by WTFS Association, Inc., shall be disbursed to the Housing Foundation.
10


Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2942 Filed 01/17/13 Page 11 of 11 PageID 21770
22. Notice of the hearing to approve this Order was published on January 11, 2013, in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, and on or before that date on the DIDD website. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2013.
/s/ Jon P. McCalla CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
11


 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 3019 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 22031

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, and

)

)

PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants, and

)

)

PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATIONS

)

OF ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL

)

CENTER,

)

)

Defendants-Intervenors.

)

No. 92-CV-2062-JPM-tmp ____

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO VACATE ALL OUTSTANDING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo (ECF No. 3009), filed November 8, 2013, recommending that the Court find Defendants have complied with all material provisions of the Exit Plan (ECF No. 2941).
Additionally, on November 8, 2013, the Court, per notice to the Parties (ECF No. 2989), held a hearing to receive the Final Report of the Court Monitors (ECF No. 3014), the final statements of the Parties, and Notices of Points of Concern from

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 3019 Filed 12/04/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 22032
the Parties (ECF Nos. 3005-07). The Report and Recommendation recommends the Court find Defendants have completed the following provisions of the Exit Plan:
• Section II.K.2; • Section II.L; • Section II.M.1; • Section II.M.2; • Section II.M.3; • Section VI.A; • Section VI.F; • Section VI.G; and • Section VII.B. (ECF No. 3009 at 1-2.) In addition, based upon the Court’s previous findings of State compliance with all other material provisions of the Exit Plan (see Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 2957, adopted by the Court, ECF No. 2963; Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 2959, adopted by the Court, ECF No. 2967; Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 2970, adopted by the Court, ECF No. 2975; Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 2974, adopted by the Court, ECF No. 2980; Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 2978, adopted by the Court, ECF No. 2981; Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 2983, adopted by the Court, ECF
2

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 3019 Filed 12/04/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 22033
No. 2986; Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 2988, adopted by the Court, ECF No. 3010; Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 2996, adopted by the Court, ECF No. 3011; Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 3004, adopted by the Court, ECF No. 3012), the Report and Recommendation recommends the Court find Defendants have complied with all material provisions of the Exit Plan. (ECF No. 3009 at 2.)
No objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3009) have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired.
On de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, supplemented by the statements of the Parties, and recognizing the Points of Concern received from the Parties and acknowledged by the State of Tennessee, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3009). The Court finds Defendants have completed the provisions in Section II.K.2, II.L, II.M.1, II.M.2, II.M.3, VI.A, VI.F, VI.G, and VII.B of the Exit Plan. The Court further finds Defendants have substantially complied with all material provisions of the Exit Plan.
Following Judgment entered on August 3, 1995, for the United States of America (ECF No. 414), the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the Remedial Order of September 2, 1994
3

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 3019 Filed 12/04/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 22034
(ECF No. 338), and the subsequent orders of the Court, including the Exit Plan of January 17, 2013 (ECF No. 2941). Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Agreed Order approving the Exit Plan (ECF No. 2942), all outstanding injunctive relief heretofore entered in this case is hereby VACATED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as set out in the Supplemental Judgment (ECF No. 3020) which is entered simultaneously with this Order and is incorporated herein as if set out verbatim.
The Court shall continue to have jurisdiction solely to resolve any claims or disputes regarding attorney fees related to this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of December, 2013.
/s/ Jon P. McCalla JON P. McCALLA U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 3020 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 22035

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, and

)

)

PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants, and

)

)

PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATIONS

)

OF ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL

)

CENTER,

)

)

Defendants-Intervenors.

)

No. 92-CV-2062-JPM-tmp ____

SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT AND
VACATUR OF OUTSTANDING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT BY COURT. This action having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1), filed on January 21, 1992, Judgment for the United States et al. having been entered on August 3, 1995 (ECF No. 414), the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Remedial Order of September 2, 1994, which set out a timetable and series of negotiated actions “Defendants are [] Ordered to take . . . to guarantee the statutory and constitutional rights1 of residents of Arlington Development Center (ADC)” (ECF No. 338 at PageID 2610), remedial action having been taken and the parties having complied with the Exit Plan as set forth on January 17, 2013 (ECF No. 2941), and the Court having held a final hearing on November 8, 2013, in accordance with the Notice of Hearing (ECF No. 2989) requiring

1 Defendants were ordered to “remedy the constitutional and statutory deficiencies identified in the Supplemental Findings of February 18, 1994.” (ECF No. 338 at PageID 2610).

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 3020 Filed 12/04/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 22036
each party to file a Notice of Points of Concern setting out any issues the party has with current compliance, the Notices of Points of Concern having been received (ECF Nos. 3005-07), along with the Final Report and Recommendation of the Court Monitors (see video hearing, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/ Multimedia/Cameras/WesternDistrictofTennessee.aspx), IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all outstanding injunctive relief heretofore entered in this case is hereby VACATED and the case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court retains jurisdiction to resolve any claims or disputes regarding attorney fees related to this case. APPROVED: /s/ Jon P. McCalla JON P. McCALLA U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE December 4, 2013 Date
2

 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2085 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID 10328

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff, and

)

)

PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants, and

)

)

WEST TENNESSEE PARENT-

)

GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION

)

)

Defendant-Intervenors.

)

)

Civil Action No. 92-2062 D/P

______________________________________________________________________________

JOINT MOTION COMBINED WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT TO SET AN INFORMAL STATUS CONFERENCE TO PLAN FOR THE HEARING; TO SET AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THIS MOTION; AND TO APPROVE AGREEMENT
RESOLVING VARIOUS PENDING MATTERS ______________________________________________________________________________

Come now intervenors/plaintiffs People First of Tennessee, Inc. ("People First"), plaintiff

the United States ("United States"), and defendants the State of Tennessee, et al. ("State"), by

and through undersigned counsel and respectfully move for an order: (1) setting an informal

status conference to establish the procedures for briefing, noticing, and hearing this motion;

(2) setting an evidentiary hearing on this motion; and (3) approving the Agreement attached

hereto as Exhibit "A." In support of the motion, these parties state as follows:

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2085 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID 10329
DISCUSSION The parties to this litigation, including intervenor West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association (“PGA”), have been engaged in extensive and protracted negotiations in an effort to reach an agreed resolution of a number of pending matters. People First, the United States, and the State have reached an agreement that is intended to resolve these pending matters (“Agreement”). The Agreement has been approved by the State, the United States, and People First, on behalf of the Class. While the PGA actively participated in the negotiations leading up to the completion of the Agreement and, indeed, helped shape the Agreement, it was unwilling to become a signatory to the Agreement. People First, the United States, and the State believe that the Agreement is in the best interests of their respective clients and the members of the Class and request the Court to approve the Agreement notwithstanding PGA's decision not to sign it. If approved, the Agreement would resolve the following: 1. Stipulation of Settlement and Order of Provisional Approval of Mediated Settlement Agreement, filed February 13, 2002 [Dkt. #1566]; 2. Order Denying the Approval of Mediation Settlement Agreement, entered February 21, 2003 [Dkt. #1698]; 3. Motion by People First for an Order Requiring Defendants to Show Cause, filed September 30, 2003 [Dkt. #1774]; 4. Order Granting People First's Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Show Cause, entered April 5, 2004 [Dkt. #1871]; 5. Motion to Set Aside/Suspend without Prejudice Order Requiring Defendant to Appear and Show Cause, filed December 15, 2004 [Dkt. #1942];
2

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2085 Filed 05/16/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID 10330

6. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, for Order Disapproving Settlement

Agreement and for Injunctive Relief by PGA, filed December 28, 2004 [Dkt. #1951];

7. Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals (to reconsider the Mediation

Settlement Agreement), entered August 18, 2005 [Dkt. #2038]; and

8. #1302].1

Order Regarding Scope of the Class Definition, entered July 17, 2000 [Dkt.

The State has made the policy decision to close Arlington Developmental Center

(“ADC”). The parties to the Agreement support the State’s decision and agree that the State has

the authority to make this policy decision. The Court's approval of the attached Agreement will

ensure an orderly and careful closure of the ADC, the safe transition of Class Members presently

living at ADC to community residences, and the accelerated development of a comprehensive

network of services and supports for Class Members as they enter and live in the community.

The parties to the Agreement believe that the Agreement is historic in scope and heralds a new

day for the delivery of an array of progressive services to each member of the Class in the least

restrictive environment appropriate to each Class Member's needs. The Court's Monitor supports

the Agreement and will testify in favor of its approval.

RELIEF REQUESTED

People First, the United States, and the State request the following relief:

1. Entry of an order setting an informal status conference to discuss a schedule for

the hearing and to set deadlines for briefing and other pre-hearing activities;

2. Entry of an order setting an evidentiary hearing to approve the Agreement;

1 The issues concerning the scope of the at-risk Class are presently on appeal. United States v. State of Tennessee, et al., No. 00-6120, argued July 2005 (the “at-risk Appeal”). If the Agreement is approved and a new interpretation of the at-risk class adopted as set forth therein, the at-risk Appeal will be dismissed. See Agreement Sec. X. A.

3

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2085 Filed 05/16/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID 10331
3. Entry of an order approving the Agreement2 following an evidentiary hearing
concerning its particulars; and
4. All other, further, and general relief to which the parties may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jack W. Derryberry Earle J. Schwarz/#7192 1700 One Commerce Square Memphis, Tennessee 38103 (901) 525-1322
Jack W. Derryberry, Jr./#3870 Ward, Derryberry & Thompson Suite 1720, Parkway Towers 404 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 (615) 244-0554
Judith A. Gran Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia 125 S. 9th Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Edward G. Connette Essex Richards, PA 1701 South Blvd. Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Attorneys for People First of Tennessee
2 Consistent with Section X. B. of the Agreement, in conjunction with the approval of the Agreement, the Court also is requested to vacate the Order of July 17, 2000 regarding the scope of the “at risk” class [Dkt. #1302] and issue a substitute Order that the class definition in People First v. Arlington Developmental Center, No. 2:92cv2213, that reads “all persons at risk of being placed at Arlington Developmental Center,” shall be construed as set forth in paragraph XI of the Agreement; and, vacate the Order Requiring Defendants to Appear and Show Cause, which was entered on April 5, 2004 [Dkt. #1871].
4

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2085 Filed 05/16/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID 10332
UNITED STATES
/s/ R. Jonas Geissler R. Jonas Geissler Linda L. Keyser Amie Murphy Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-6255
Attorneys for the United States of America
STATE OF TENNESSEE
/s/ Jonathan P. Lakey______ Dianne Stamey Dycus/#9654 Deputy Attorney General General Civil Division 425 Fifth Avenue North 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Bldg. Nashville, Tennessee 37243 (615) 741-6420
Leo Bearman, Jr./#8363 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 (901) 526-2000
Jonathan P. Lakey/#16788 Pietrangelo & Cook, PLC 6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 190 Memphis, Tennessee 38119 (901) 685-2662
Attorneys for the State of Tennessee, et al.
5

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2085 Filed 05/16/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID 10333

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on behalf of the Joint Movants, the foregoing Joint Motion Combined with Memorandum in Support to Set an Informal Status Conference to Plan for the Hearing; to Set an Evidentiary Hearing on This Motion; and to Approve Agreement Resolving Various Pending Matters was served via electronic case filing and first class mail, postage prepaid, on the 16th day of May, 2006 to the following individuals:

Nancy K. Ray, Ed.D. 318 Delaware Ave. Delmar, NY 12054

William F. Sherman, Esq. Pyramid Place, Suite 504 21 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201
__/s/ Jonathan P. Lakey___ JONATHAN P. LAKEY

6

 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2174 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 6 PageID 11108

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action

) No. 92-2062 D/P

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants, and

)

)

PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE,

)

)

Intervenors,

)

)

PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION OF

)

ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, )

)

Intervenors.

)

)

)

ALL-PARTY CONSENT ORDER TO MOTION TO APPROVE 2006 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Before the Court is the joint motion (“Joint Motion”) of

Plaintiff the United States of America (“United States”),

Intervenors/Plaintiffs People First of Tennessee, Inc. (“People

First”), and Defendants the State of Tennessee, et al. (“State”)

(collectively these Parties are referred to as the “Joint

Movants”) to approve a settlement agreement executed by the Joint

Movants on or before May 5, 2006 (the “2006 Settlement

Agreement”). [See Joint Motion, Docket Entry No. 2085].

Intervenor Parent Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental

Center (“PGA”) previously opposed approval of the 2006 Settlement

Agreement. After discussions among counsel for the Parties, and

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2174 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 6 PageID 11109
in consideration of certain assurances from the State as set forth and ordered below, PGA now approves of the 2006 Settlement Agreement as evidenced by the signature of its counsel below.
Accordingly, upon this Court's review of the 2006 Settlement Agreement and accompanying memorandum of law it is ORDERED that: 1. The 2006 Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable
compromise and is approved by the Court. 2. The twelve (12) ICF/MR homes that the State has agreed to
develop and operate in accordance with Section V.B. of the 2006 Settlement Agreement shall be located no more than four (4.0) miles (instead of five (5) miles) from the Resource Center established pursuant to Section V.C. of that agreement. 3. In the performance of the 2006 Settlement Agreement, Section V.C., the State shall establish and operate a Resource Center in the Arlington area as set forth in the Closure Plan. The Resource Center shall contain at least the following services, provided that both of the following conditions are met: (1) ADC class members utilize these services sufficiently (in the State's judgment) to warrant their continuation; and, (2) the services are not otherwise readily available to ADC class members residing in the community: a. assistive technology assessment, customization, design,
and fitting;

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2174 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 6 PageID 11110
b. space for the operation of medical speciality clinics determined by the State to be necessary;
c. speech language pathology services; d. dental services; e. behavioral analysis services; f. physical nutritional management team services; and g. enteral nutrition team services. 4. The State shall make the services of the Resource Center described in above paragraph numbered three of this Order available to class members within six (6) months of the closure of Arlington Developmental Center. These services shall continue to be provided at the Resource Center until the State determines that either: (1) ADC class members are not utilizing these services sufficiently to warrant their continuation; or, (2) the services are otherwise readily available to ADC class members in the community, at which time the service(s) may be discontinued by the State. 5. The State shall contract with one or more providers of residential physical rehabilitation services to provide rehabilitation services for class members who, in the reasoned professional judgment of such class members' physicians, are in need of such rehabilitation services and those services can be best delivered at a residential physical rehabilitation facility; provided, however, that such class members' stay at a residential rehabilitation

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2174 Filed 02/15/07 Page 4 of 6 PageID 11111
facility be limited in time to no greater than three (3) months unless permitted a longer period of time by Order of this Court. 6. The State shall include in its contract with such residential rehabilitation facilities described in above paragraph numbered five of this Order, requirements that: a. such facilities agree to train staff and abide by the
State's system for reporting and investigating incidents of alleged abuse, neglect, or exploitation; b. direct care staff at such facilities who are assigned to care for class members be trained on the general care of individuals with developmental disabilities; and c. the State supervise the care provided to class members who are present in such facilities by visiting such class members within twenty-four (24) hours of such class members' entry into the facility and visiting the class members no less often than once per week thereafter, until discharge from such facility.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15th DAY OF February 2007.
s/Bernice B. Donald JUDGE BERNICE B. DONALD

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2174 Filed 02/15/07 Page 5 of 6 PageID 11112

DAVID F. KUSTOFF United States Attorney Western District of Tennessee
HARRIET HALMON Assistant United States Attorney 167 North Main Street 800 Federal Building Memphis, TN 38103 (901) 544-4231

WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
SHANETTA Y. CUTLAR Section Chief
JUDY C. PRESTON Deputy Chief

__________________________ JONAS GEISSLER LINDA KEYSER AMIE MURPHY Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-6255

___________________________ DIANNE STAMEY DYCUS (9654) Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Fl. 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0499 (615) 741-6420 Counsel for Defendants

__________________________ JACK W. DERRYBERRY, ESQ. Ward, Derryberry and Thompson Suite 1720, Parkway Towers 404 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37219 (615) 244-0554 Counsel for People First of Tennessee

Case 2:92-cv-02062-JPM-tmp Document 2174 Filed 02/15/07 Page 6 of 6 PageID 11113
____________________________ William F. Sherman, Esq. Pyramid Place, Suite 504 21 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Counsel for Parent-Guardian Association

 
 .,

·., C,-se 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 1 of 17

\w-

wJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FIi.ED : : ~ . C .

FOR THE WESTFR.'I DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

pu I I 5

WESTER.'! DIVISION

97 f,lcG 21 11 ,:

UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

V.

)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ct al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE,

)

PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION OF )

ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CE"ITER,)

)

lntervenors.

)

No. 92-2062 Ml/A

ORDER ON COMMUNITY PLAN FOR WEST TENNESSEE

This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to approve the Community Plan for

West Tennessee, filed March 20, 1997. For the reasons set forth below, the Community Plan is

APPROVED by the Court with certain modifications and ORDERED as an enforceable Order of

this Court.

I. Background

The Community Plan arises out of a settlement between the parties of the United States'

fourth motion for contempt regarding conditions at Arlington Developmental Center {"ADC").

In its motion for contempt, the L'nited States, relying in part on the Monitor's Second and Third

Semi-Annual Compliance Reports, argued that the defendants had failed to comply with the

;r 7, This document ens>ed doc~t sheet in compliance with Rule. 5_8 anO[ot

79 (o) FRCP on

- /-

.... Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 2 of 17
Remedial Order and other Court orders.
In lieu of sanctions, defendants acknowledged that they were in contempt as to the areas
of non-compliance identified in the Second Semi-Annual Compliance Report, with the exception
of Section XIV (Admissions and Placement), and agreed to the entry of a Stipulation and Order,
dated June 24, 1996. As part of the Stipulation and Order, defendants agreed, inter alia, to
develop three plans, including a plan for community placement and development of community
services. In general, the Stipulation and Order requires that each of the three plans address the
requirements of the Remedial Order and the other Orders of the Court. In particular, the
Stipulation and Order specifically requires that the Community Plan contain, at a minimum,
several ''essential elements," including:
[Alli citizens shall be evaluated by competent professionals who are members of the IDT for the appropriateness of community placement, and evaluations by consultants independent of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation shall be conducted for those individuals for whom the IDT docs not recommend community placement, and collectively these evaluations will form the basis of each citizen's individualized plans which will be implemented by defendants in a manner consistent with applicable federal law and federal funding requirements; citizens who arc kno\VIl or suspected of having been abused or repeatedly injured shall receive consideration for community placement on a priority basis; at least one additional employee shall be hired immediately to work full-time coordinating community placement and development; Defendants will retain and utilize additional qualified consultants in the area of community placement; Defendants will implement a well-defined, effective quality assurance and monitoring system to monitor the placements after they have been made to ensure that the placements are meeting the needs of the individuals placed; and address those clements identified in the Monitor's April 1, 1996 Response.
United States v. State of Tennessee, Civ. ~o. 92-2062, slip op at 2-3 (W.D. Tenn. June 24, 1996)
(McCalla, J.). With respect to these essential clements, the Stipulation and Order unequivocally
states:
These essential elements of each plan and other significant portions of the plans shall be

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753
._.

-Filed 08/21/97 Page 3 of 17

accomplished by dates certain established in the plans and shall be enforceable by the Court.
1996 Stipulation at~ II.B.2 (emphasis added).

On March 20, 1997, defendants filed the Community Plan for West Tennessee with the Court. A hearing on the Plan was held on May 9, 1997, and May 13, 1997, at which the Court heard extensive testimony regarding the development of and various aspects of the Community Plan. At the close of the hearing, the Court invited the parties to submit written arguments in lieu of closing arguments. Although the parties have raised a number of issues in their submittals, the two main issues before the Court are whether the Court should approve the Community Plan, and, if so, whether the Court should make the Community Plan an enforceable Order of this Court.
II. Should the Court Approve the Community Plan? There is little doubt that the Community Plan is an extensive and detailed document. In total, the Community Plan contains eight chapters and approximately 549 specific provisions of services and support to current and former ADC residents. At the hearing on this matter, the Court heard extensive testimony regarding the extensiveness and quality of the Community Plan. Not surprisingly, however, given the broad sweep of the Community Plan and the fact that this represents a paradigm shift by the State of Tennessee in the provision of services to the developmentally disabled, there were a number of problems and deficiencies identified by the parties and their witnesses at the hearing.

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 4 of 17

'-

..;

A. Of particular concern to both the United States and People First is the relative scope of
the class of former and current ADC residents covered by the Plan. As submitted, the benefits of the Community Plan arc limited to those class members still residing at ADC. In its closing argument and proposed order, the United States seeks to extend the benefits and protection of the Community Plan back to March 12, 1991, the date on which it sent the noncompliance letter to the State of Tennessee. In its closing argument, People First seeks to extend the benefits and protections of the Community Plan to the entire class certified in People First v. Arlington Developmental Center, Civ. No. 92-2213, slip op. (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 26, 1995) (McCalla, J.). On June 24, 1997, defendants filed a rebuttal to the United States' and People First's closing arguments and a motion to strike People First's Second Community Review, which was filed in open court at the hearing held on May 13, 1997. In short, the basis of defendants' motion is that People First has applied an analysis of compliance with the Remedial Order to a portion of the class not covered by the Remedial Order. According to defendants, the protections of the Remedial Order extend only to those who were still residents at ADC on the date the Remedial Order was entered -- i.e., September 2, 1994. In particular, defendants assert that no class has been certified in this case, that the remedy of the Remedial Order does not extend to all class members, including those subject to the review, that applying the Community Plan to all class members would extend the Remedial Order beyond the agreement of the parties, and that there has been no adjudication of the constitutional violations of class members not covered by the Remedial Order.

..... Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 5 of 17 ..,;
Defendants' argument that the Remedial Order does not apply to the class is entirely unpersuasive. As all of the parties in this case well know, the litigation over the conditions at ADC have involved two parallel and interrelated cases: United States v. State of Tennessee, Civ. No. 92-2062 (W.D. Tenn.) (McCalla, J.) lhercinafter "DOJ case"], and People First v, Arlington Developmental Center, Civ. No. 92-2213 (W.D. Tenn.) (McCalla, J.) ["People First case"]. On September 26, 1995, this Court certified a class in the People First case consisting of "all persons who after December 12, 1989, have resided or arc residing at the Arlington Developmental Center, all persons who have been transferred to other facilities but who remain the defendants' responsibility, and all persons at risk of being placed in the Center." By Order dated September 27, 1995, the Court granted People First's Motion to Enter Findings from the DOJ case in the People First case and entered the Remedial Order as a final order in the People First case. Thus, it is beyond dispute that the protections of the Remedial Order extend to all members of the class.
Moreover, in that same Order, the Court granted People First and the Parent-Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental Center ("PGA") intervenor status in the DOJ case, finding that the interests of the class were not adequately represented in the DOJ case and would be adversely affected if they were not accorded intervenor status. Hy Order dated March 21, 1996, the Court then found that the DOJ case was the proper forum for both People First and the PGA to pursue any further relief such as motions for contempt or motions for further relief. The practical effect of these Orders is that the class, as defined in the People First case, is a viable class in the DOJ case and is entitled to the full protections of the Remedial Order.

..., Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 6 of 17 1w
Furthermore, as noted above, the Community Plan arises out of a settlement between the United States, People First, and the defendants regarding the United States' fourth motion for contempt regarding conditions at ADC. In its motion for contempt, the United States, relying in part on the Monitor's Second and Third Semi-Annual Compliance Reports, argued that the defendants had failed to comply with the Remedial Order and other Court Orders. In lieu of sanctions, defendants acknowledged that they were in contempt and agreed to the entry of a Stipulation and Order, dated June 24, 1996. As part of the Stipulation and Order, defendants agreed, inter alia, to develop three plans, including a plan for community placement and development of community services. Thus, the Community Plan, as developed and agreed to by the defendants, is designed to bring defendants into compliance with the Remedial Order, which, as noted above, applies to all class members.
In sum, it is far too late in the day for defendants to make this argument. 1 Accordingly, the Court adopts the position of People First and MODIFIES the Community Plan so that its benefits and protections extend to all members of the class in People First v. Arlington Developmental Center.2 Accordingly, defendants must extend the services, benefits, and
1 This conclusion should come as no surprise to the defendants. On the contrary, as late as May 13, 1997, the defendants themselves were acknowledging that the benefits of the Remedial Order and the Community Plan extended to all members ofthe class. For example, Lynn Rucker, the primary author of the Community Plan, testified that the Community Plan appl!ed to all class members. Likewise, Rick Campbell, the director of the Commission on Compliance, testified that the benefits of the Remedial Order and Community Plan extended to those class members discharged before the entry ofthe Remedial Order.
2 Even assuming that the Remedial Order did not extend to the entire class, the Court, consistent with the position of the United States, finds that the benefits of the Remedial Order and, consequently, the Community Plan extend to those individuals who were residing or have resided at the Arlington Developmental Center since March 12, 1991, the date on which the United States sent the noncompliance letter to the State of Tennessee. This conclusion rests not only on the evidence before the Court hut on this Court's previous findings of unconstitutional conditions at ADC. In its Findings of Fact, dated February 17, 1994, the Court found that "the evidence shows that

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 7 of 17 ,.,./
protections of the Plan to all former residents of ADC who are also members of the class
certified in People First v. Arlington Developmental Ccntcr.3
conditions at Arlington Developmental Center in 1990, 1991, and 1992 ... and continuing through the present, do not comply with minimal requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment." A number of residents who were subjected to these unconstitutional conditions at ADC, however, were discharged from ADC just prior to the trial in this case. Indeed, the trial testimony of the former Supcrintendant of ADC and accompanying exhibits made clear that the placement of those individuals occurred as a result of the United States' investigation and lawsuit. Tr. at
206-214 (testimony of Mona Winfrey, Sept. 13, 1993); Tr Exh. 271 & 272.
In reviewing these placements, the Court found that defendants had not exercised professional judgment in discharging these individuals: "None of the medical staff at ADC are charged with or are taking the responsibility to evaluate or coordinate resident discharges into the community in light of their potential medical needs. Although community placement may be appropriate for residents of ADC and may serve to foster the resident's growth and development, Defendants' placement process or 'dumping' does not reflect the exercise of professional judgment." Findings at 29-30 (emphasis added). In essence, defendants haphazardly discharged residents of ADC in an attempt to thwart the United States' investigation.
Not surprisingly, the parties are now reporting that this "dumping" has led to inadequate conditions in the community settings. At the hearing held on May 13, 1997, People First's expert, Ruby Moore, directly related this "dumping" to the inadequate conditions existing where several children now reside:
Some people were moved in the middle of the night hurriedly ... in their haste some things happened that made placements even less adequate and appropriate, such as people coming out and having someone else's wheelchair or people didn't have their adaptive equipment.
Tr. at 306 (Testimony of Ruby Moore. May !3, 1997). People First's recent review of its class members' community placements identified several additional deficiencies. For example, People First found the following deficiencies for children placed before the entry of the Remedial Order: unsafe feeding practices; inadequate seizure management; inadequate medication follow-up; use of inappropriate medications or medications contraindicated; inadequate medical follow-up; scoliosis not addressed even though the record indicated that it was worsening; recommended treatment withheld because there was no insurance coverage; TennCare refused to pay for needed leg braces for one individual; skin breakdown not being prevented or properly cared for; staff not keeping adequate data to provide appropriate care; functional assessments not being completed by any staff who are members of the IDT, and consequently appropriate services and programming arc not being identified. In short, the parties are reporting that many of the same conditions now exist in the community that gave rise to this lawsuit m the first place.
Contrary to defendants' assertions, this Court did not lose its authority to remedy the effects of the constitutional harms suffered by the residents of ADC merely because the State discharged those residents from ADC prior to the entry of the Remedial Order. See Thomas S. v. Flaherty, 902 F.2d 250 (4th Cir. 1990); Armstead v. Coler, 914 F.2d 1464 (I Ith Cir. 1990); Williams v. Wasserman, 937 F. Supp. 524,526 (D. Md. 1996) (holding that "this court's jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims cannot be tenninated simply by operation of their relea-'>e form various institutions in which they are or have been housed during the pendency of this lawsuit"). Indeed, defendants cannot avoid the jurisdiction of this Court merely by moving individuals from one unconstitutional environment to another prior to the entry of judgment in the case. Accordingly, the Court finds, alternatively, that the Community Plan covers those who have resided at ADC since March 12, 1991.
3 In addition, both the United States and People First have requested that the State be found in contempt on the basis of the Monitor's recent review and People First's review, as well as some testimony at the hearing. Although, as noted above, see supra note 2, the Court is troubled by the testimony given at the hearing with respect

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 8 of 17

'

W'

,.-i

B.
An additional concern raised by both the United States and People First was the lack of
an independent monitoring system in the Community Plan. In a related matter, the Parent
Guardian Association questions those "provisions of Chapter VII concerning movement of ADC
residents into community placement on average of eight (8) people each month." PGA Closing
at 1. According to the Parent Guardian Association, the movement of eight ADC residents to the
community per month is arbitrary and will result in the deterioration of services at ADC itself.
Once again, given the history of this case and the particular circumstances from which this
Community Plan arose, the Court has similar concerns. Accordingly, in order to assure that the
provisions of the Community Plan arc being implemented and in order to assure that each
member of the class will receive adequate care and support, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Monitor must approve the transition plan for each ADC resident prior to the resident's placement.
2. The Monitor, or her dcsigncc, must visit every residential site before placement unless the Monitor is already familiar with the home and its current residents and has no reason to believe the new person could not be adequately and appropriately served in this residential situation. When deemed necessary by the Monitor in her discretion, she or her dcsigncc may visit the sites of nonresidential service providers.
3. The Monitor, or her designee, must visit every person's placement within six weeks of the placement in order to review the first Independent Support Plan developed by the new provider and to ensure that any conditions stated in the Monitor's approval of the person's transition plan have been met.
4. The Monitor and her staff must review every placement quarterly thereafter, and also upon receipt of complaints or inquiries about the suitability of any placement

to the conditions in the Community, the Court declines to accept the invitation of the United States and People First. In particular, the Court notes that the hearing in this matter was not intended to find the defendants in contempt and, therefore, defendants were not given an opportunity to respond to these assertions. Moreover, by extending the protections of the Community Plan to all class members, the Court notes that the Community Plan is designed to remedy these shortcomings. See infra part 3.C.

- Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753

Filed 08/21/97 Page 9 of 17 ,_/

or related program. At least one of these reviews must be conducted by the Monitor and her team of expert consultants. If, upon review by the Monitor or her staff, the Monitor has reason to be concerned about any individual, the Monitor may conduct an additional review with her expert consultants.

5. The Monitor, or her designee, shall conduct an expedited review of all current placements for former ADC residents who are also members of the class as defined in People First v. Arlington Developmental Center, Civ. No. 92-2213, slip op. (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 26, 1995) (McCalla, J.).

6.

During reviews of compliance with the Remedial Order, the Monitor shall include

both the Strategy elements of the Community Plan and the "Implementation

Indicators" as possible criteria for compliance, which is illustrated in Appendix B

of defendants' Plan.

C. In addition to an independent monitoring system, the United States and People First also seek unlimited access to all community facilities in order to monitor the defendants' compliance with the Community Plan. Although the Court agrees that both the United States and People First are entitled to have access to community facilities under the Remedial Order, the Court is concerned that unrestricted access will interfere with both the ability of the State of Tennessee to provide adequate services to the members of the class and the ability of the Court Monitor to adequately and effectively conduct the reviews that she is required to undertake. Accordingly, in order to avoid these potential problems, the Court hereby requires that both People First and the United States seek and obtain the approval of the Court Monitor prior to conducting any on-site review of any community facility.

D. In its closing argument, People First requests that certain specific parts of the Community Plan be extended to cover members of the entire class. In particular, People First requests that

..... ..- Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 10 of 17
the Plan be modified to include all members of the class within the Individual Needs Analysis section of the Plan, rather than just those class members still at ADC. Moreover, People First seeks to have the Plan modified to include the provision of independent support coordination for all class members. Finally, similar to the United States, People First argues that the Plan should be modified to include a Plan of Correction to describe how non-compliance with the Remedial Order as identified by the Monitor and People First in their respective reviews will be modified.
After reviewing these requests, the Court notes that, in reality, People First is merely requesting that certain provisions of the Plan be extended to all members of the class. Because the Court has already ordered that all of the protections and benefits of the entire Plan, including the specific provisions identified by People First, be extended to the entire class, the Court declines People First's invitation to highlight specific parts of the Plan at the exclusion of others.
E. In sum, after reviewing all of the testimony and other submittals in this matter, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Community Plan with the modifications set forth above.

.,,, Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 11 of 17 '
Ill. Should the Court Order the Community Plan? Having determined that the Community Plan should be approved, with the modifications set forth above, the Court must next decide whether to make the Community Plan an enforceable order of the Court. Both the United States and People First unequivocally request that the Plan be ordered by the Court. According to the United States, the "language of the Stipulation [and Order] more than adequately conveys the position of the United States that 'significant provisions' of the Plan would be ordered. In fact, the Stipulation's essential quid pro quo is just this: the United States and People First agreed to extend the deadlines that defendants had not met in exchange for a plan that would contain more specific, enforceable provisions for community placement and development than those contained in prior Court Orders." USA Closing Argument at 3. Likewise, People First argues that "the Defendants have agreed to the Stipulation in lieu of contempt sanctions, have agreed that parts of the plan will be enforceable, have identified in the plan itself those elements of the plan which, at a minimum, would be enforceable, and now seeks to have the Court not only not order any of the plan to be enforceable, but to have the Court also modify the Remedial Order and Stipulation." People First Closing at 5. Similarly, the Parent Guardian Association, although maintaining its continued opposition to many of the steps taken by the Court and the parties, requests that the Plan be enforceable as an order of this Court.
Although defendants have not responded directly to the parties' arguments, defendants nonetheless argue that the Court should not adopt this Plan as an enforceable order of this Court. Instead, defendants argue that the Court should merely "approve the Plan as a working document

..., .., Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 12 of 17 .
and allow the State of Tennessee to make appropriate changes in the specific aspects of the Plan (including strategy implementation indicators, persons responsible, and target dates) upon consultation with and approval by the Monitor." Def. 's Closing Argument at 4.
A Defendants first argue that, because the Plan represents a "paradigm shift" in policy and action by the State of Tennessee, flexibility is crucial to the success of the Plan. According to the State, if the Court chooses to order the Plan, "then modifications can only be made through the process of Court hearings, a process which involves considerable time and significant expenditures of money in costs and legals fees which could better be served by use in the implementation of the Plan itself." Id. at 6.
The Court recognizes that, despite the extensiveness of the Plan as submitted, it is not a perfect plan. A number of changes will have to be made in order to improve the quality of services and support provided to the members of the class either in or soon to be transitioned to the community. In this respect, the Court acknowledges the defendants' concerns about the flexibility needed to successfully implement this Plan and successfully transition the State of Tennessee from an institution orientated provider to a community provider. The Court, however, disagrees with the defendants' contentions that if this plan is ordered by the Court, then this flexibility will be lost. Contrary to defendants' assertions, each and every change in the plan will not require an in-court hearing on the proposed changes. Instead, as the parties' experience with changes to the remedial order have shown, such changes must be made through negotiations among the parties and Monitor, must ultimately be approved by the Monitor, and then submitted

- Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753

Filed 08/21/97 Page 13 of 17

to the Court for final approval. Such changes to the remedial order have occurred on at least three occasions, each time without holding an in-court hearing.

Moreover, the Court notes that defendants themselves request that the any and all changes be approved by the Monitor. At that point, the vast majority of the work required to change the Plan will have been completed, and all that is left is for the parties to submit the change(s) to the Court for ultimate approval. Of course, the Court has ultimate approval over any proposed change and retains the right to hold a hearing on any such proposed change at its discretion.

B.
Defendants next argue that this Court should follow the procedure utilized by the Court and the parties with regard to the Institutional Plan, another plan required by the Stipulation and Order of 1996. According to defendants, "[b]y Agreed Order of the Parties, the Court ordered the Institutional Plan as a working document, changed by approval of the monitor, and further, submitted deadlines for implementation to be adopted and enforced in lieu of the original deadlines in the Remedial Order (Stipulation and Order Regarding the Compliance Plan, February 3, 1997). This same proposal is here being submitted by Defendants regarding the Community Plan." Id. at 7.

The problem with this argument is that the defendants are not seeking the same result as in the Institutional Compliance Plan. In that case, by defendants' own admission, "the Court ordered the Institutional Plan as a working document ..." Id. at 7. In this case, defendants are asking the Court not to order the Community Plan, but rather, to merely approve it.

- Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753

Filed 08/21/97 Page 14 of 17
,,J

C Defendants also argue that if this Court chooses to "order the plan" then the State of Tennessee will face an exponential increase in the susceptibility of sanctions for any perceived "violation" of the Plan which would in tum constitute a violation of this Court's order. According to the State,

With so many implementation factors in the Plan and such a significant amount of time and effort involved in the Plan's implementation, and since the proof from all parties indicates that the Plan is a paradigm shift in State policy of a very ambitious and significant nature, it is ... unfair immediately to subject the State of Tennessee to a multiplied risk of exposure over and above that which it already has and for which it is presently being punished with fines.

Contrary to defendants' assertions, however, defendants will not automatically be held in contempt and sanctioned for any perceived "violation" of the Plan which would in tum constitute a violation of this Court's Order. The Sixth Circuit test for judging compliance with a court order is whether the contemnor "took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court's order." Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703,708 (6th Cir. 1991).4 Precisely what "all reasonable steps within [the contemnor's] power" are varies from case to case according to the requirements of the order and the particular circumstances of the case. In every case, however, a contemnor must have the ability to comply with the order before failure to comply can form the basis of contempt. McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245, 251 ( 1972); Maggio v. Zeitz, 33 U.S. 56, 72 (1948). Other than a showing of the impossibility of compliance, however, nothing short of substantial compliance, as measured by the test set forth in Peppers v. Barry. 873

4 For a more thorough discussion ofa court's inherent power to hold parties in contempt and of the appropriateness of contempt sanctions, see United States v. State of Tennessee, 925 F. Supp. 1292, 1300-04 (W D. Tenn. 1995).

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 15 of 17

-

.-,i

F.2d 967 (6th Cir. 1989), will suffice to purge contempt for noncompliance with a court order. The Sixth Circuit has explicitly rejected the contention that a good faith effort is sufficient, id. at 968: TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 722 F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir. 1983), and has not adopted the less demanding diligent efforts test favored in other circuits, !Uk, Newman v. Graddick, 740 F.2d 1513, 1525 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding that "a person who attempts with reasonable diligence to comply with a court order should not be held in contempt").

At the same time, the Court recognizes that courts have been particularly unsympathetic to purported excuses for less-than-substantial compliance where the contcmnor has participated in drafting the order against which compliance is measured. E.g., Glover, 934 F.2d at 708-09 (finding state prison officials in contempt for failing to abide by order consisting of negotiated settlement between the parties); see also Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265,276 (1990) (upholding a finding of contempt against city that had failed to take action required by the consent decree). In such cases, a party participating in the drafting of an order docs so with an understanding of what it reasonably can accomplish. Accordingly, when the party subsequently fails to live up to the particulars of the order, it is more difficult for a court to excuse that failure than if the order had been imposed by the court in its entirety.

D. Finally, the State argues that, in the event that compliance becomes a problem, the Court can always order the Plan in the future upon motion of any of the parties. In response to this argument, the United States argues that in light of the Stipulation and Order, in which the defendants agreed to the ordering of the Community Plan, the defendants past record of non-

..., Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753 Filed 08/21/97 Page 16 of 17 ,.J
compliance substantiates the need for making the plan enforceable by the Court. The Court agrees.
E. In sum, the Court has before it an unequivocal Stipulation, entered in response to a motion for contempt, signed by mutual agreement of the parties, including the defendants, in which the defendants admitted they were in contempt of previous orders regarding conditions at ADC. In light of the specific genesis of this proceeding and the overall history of this case, the Court finds that the Community Plan should be enforceable as an Order of this Court. Accordingly, the Community Plan for West Tennessee is hereby ORDERED as an enforceable order of this Court.
IV.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Community Plan is hereby adopted by the Court; 2. The entire Community Plan is enforceable as a Court Order; 3. The Community Plan shall apply to all members of the class certified in People
First v. Arlington Developmental Center, Civ. No. 92-2213, slip op. (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 26, 1995) (McCalla, J.); and 4. The Community Plan, as adopted and ordered by this Court, supplements, but does not rescind, the Remedial Order and other orders in this case, except with regard to the timeframes for compliance. In this respect, the defendants must remedy identified deficiencies in a timely manner. In order to assure that the provisions of the Community Plan arc being implemented in a manner to achieve compliance with the Remedial Order and in order to assure that each member of the class will receive adequate care and support, it is hereby ORDERED that:

- Ca~e 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 753

...,, Filed 08/21/97 Page 17 of 17

1. The Monitor must approve the transition plan for each ADC resident prior to the resident's placement.
2. The Monitor, or her designee, must visit every residential site before placement unless the Monitor is already familiar with the home and its current residents and has no reason to believe the new person could not be adequately and appropriately served in this residential situation. When deemed necessary by the Monitor in her discretion, she or her designee may visit the sites of nonresidential service providers.
3. The Monitor, or her designee, must visit every person's placement within six weeks of the placement in order to review the first Independent Support Plan developed by the new provider and to ensure that any conditions stated in the Monitor's approval of the person's transition plan have been met.
4. The Monitor and her staff must review every placement quarterly thereafter, and also upon receipt of complaints or inquiries about the suitability of any placement or related program. At least one of these reviews must be conducted by the Monitor and her team of expert consultants. If, upon review by the Monitor or her staff, the Monitor has reason to be concerned about any individual, the Monitor may conduct an additional review with her expert consultants.
5. The Monitor, or her designee, shall conduct an expedited review of all current placements for former ADC residents who arc also members of the class as defined in People First v. Arlington Developmental Center, Civ. No. 92-2213, slip op. (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 26, 1995) (McCalla, J.).
6. During reviews of compliance with the Remedial Order, the Monitor shall include both the Strategy clements of the Community Plan and the "Implementation Indicators" as possible criteria for compliance, which is illustrated in Appendix B of defendants' Plan.
7. The United States and People First arc also to be provided free access to community facilities, as necessary, for monitoring the adequacy and appropriateness of placements. All reviews of any community facilities by either the United States or People First, however, must first be approved by the Monitor.

.2.J IT IS SO ORDERED this day of August 1997

s/Jon Phipps McCalla

!TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 2209 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

)

)

Defendants, and

)

)

PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et aL, )

)

and

)

)

PARENT-GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION )

OF ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL )

CENTER,

)

)

Intervenors.

)

)

Civil Action No.: 92-2062 DIP

CONSENT ORDER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF 2006 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff the United States of America ("United States''), Intervenors/Plaintiffs People First of Tennessee, Inc. ("People First"), and Defendants the State of Tennessee. et al. (''State") executed a settlement agreement (the "2006 Settlement Agreement"). Thereafter, on or about February 15, 2007, Intervenor Parent Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental Center ("PGA") joined the United States, People First and the State in the submission of a proposed consent order approving the 2006 Settlement
Agreement. rDkt No. 20851. The 2006 Settlement Agreement was filed therewith. [Dkt. No.
2085]. Following a hearing on February 15, 2007, the Court approved the 2006 Settlement Agreement. The Court has entered the All-Party Consent Onler To Motion To Approve

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 2209 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 5
Settlement Agreement (''Order Approving Settlement"). rDkt. No. 21741. Among other things.
the Order Approving Settlement orders that the 2006 Settlement Agreement is a fair and
reasonable compromise, and is approved.
One of the issues resolved by the 2006 Settlement Agreement related to filing of a motion to show cause by People First and the resulting Order Requiring Defendants To Appear and Show Cause (the "Show Cause Order'') entered by this Court on April 5, 2004. [See 2006
Settlement Agreement, Sections I and X.B.]. Another issue resolved by the 2006 Settlement
Agreement is the appropriate interpretation of that portion of the class definition in this case that reads ''all persons at risk of being placed at Arlington Developmental Center" (commonly
referred to as the "at-risk" portion of the class). [See 2006 Settlement Agreement, Sections I, X, and XI].
Section XI reads as follows (quoted in italics): XI. AT-RISK PORTION OF THE CLASS The Parties to this Agreement agree that the class definition in People First v. Arlington Developmental Center, No. 2:92-cv-2213 (W.D. Tenn.), that reads "all persons at risk of being placed at Arlington Developmental Center," shall he construed as limited to the.fhllmving persons:
All persons •,vho reside in the geographic region served by ADC, i.e., West Tennessee, and who: (1) meet Medicaid eligibility criteria for !CF/MR level of care; and
(2) demonstrate a current need or desire for institutional placement hy satisfying one r~f"thefollowing criteria:
a. persons residing in a nursing home, or in a public or private mental health facility on or ajter September 1, 2005;
h. persons residing in a private /CF/MR on or after September 1, 2005:
c. persons currently residing in the West Tennessee Region who are placed by the State in a public !CF/MR in Middle or East Tennessee on or ajter September 1, 2005; or
2

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 2209 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 3 of 5
d. persons who are hospitalized on or cifter September 1, 2005, and who at the time r~{their discharge from the hospital, or from a respite, transition, or rehabilitation.fClcility fthey transitioned to it from the lwspita/f()Jlowing discharge, can no longer be supported appropriately at their pre-hospitalization place r~{residence due to their needfor more intensive healthcare services and/or greater assistance/accommodations in meeting their daily personal care, training, treatment or mobility needs.
Furthermore, no additional persons can or •,viii be added to the class pursuant to the "at risk" provision r~{the class definition once the State
closes ADC, as evidenced hy the transition r~{all ADC residents out r~l
current residential units at ADC.
The "at-risk" portion of the class previously had been interpreted by this Court in an
order issued on July 17, 2000 (the "July 17 Order"). [Dkt. 1302]. The State appealed the July
17 Order and that appeal was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit as of date on which the Order Approving Settlement was entered by this Court. Under its
terms, once the 2006 Settlement Agreement was approved by this Court, People First and the
State were required to file a joint motion with the Sixth Circuit dismissing the ''at-risk" appeal.
Accordingly, on or about March 28. 2007, the parties filed a Joint Motion of Parties United
States, People First of Tennessee, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, and State of
Tennessee To Dismiss Appeal with the Sixth Circuit. On or about April 5, 2007, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals granted the joint motion of the parties and dismissed the ''at-risk"
appeal.
The 2006 Settlement Agreement also provides that upon dismissal of the "at-risk" appeal,
this Court will enter an Order vacating the July 17 Order regarding the scope of the "at-risk"
portion of the class and issue a substitute Order construing the "at-risk" portion of the class as set
forth in Section XI of the settlement agreement. rSee 2006 Settlement Agreement, Section X,
para. B. l.]. The Settlement Agreement also provides that upon approval of the 2006 Settlement
Agreement, the Court will enter an Order vacating the Show Cause Order.
The Court, having approved the 2006 Settlement Agreement and finding that it is a fair 3

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 2209 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 4 of 5

and reasonable compromise, hereby FINDS that an order consistent with Section X.B. of the

agreement should be entered.

The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:

t.

That the July I 7, 2000 Order regarding the "at risk" class should be and is hereby

vacated in all respects;

2. That the "at-risk'' portion of the class definition in this cause shall be construed as

limited to the following persons:

All persons who reside in the geographic region served by ADC. i.e .. West Tennessee, and who:

( 1) meet Medicaid eligibility criteria for ICF/MR level of care; and

(2) demonstrate a current need or desire for institutional placement by satisfying one of the following criteria:

a.

persons residing in a nursing home. or in a public or private mental

health facility on or after September 1, 2005;

b.

persons residing in a private ICF/MR on or after September 1,

2005:

c.

persons currently residing in the West Tennessee Region who are

placed by the State in a public ICF/MR in Middle or East

Tennessee on or after September I. 2005; or

d.

persons who are hospitalized on or after September 1, 2005, and

who at the time of their discharge from the hospital. or from a

respite, transition, or rehabilitation facility if they transitioned to it

from the hospital following discharge, can no longer be suppotted

appropriately at their pre-hospitalization place of residence due to

their need for more intensive healthcare services and/or greater

assistance/accommodations in meeting their daily personal care.

training, treatment or mobility needs.

Furthermore, no additional persons can or will be added to the class pursuant to the "at risk'' provision of the class definition once the State closes ADC, as evidenced by the transition of all ADC residents out of current residential units at ADC.

3. That the Show Cause Order, entered by this Court on April 5. 2004, is hereby

4

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 2209 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 5 of 5 vacated in all respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11'" day of September, 2007. s/Bernice B. Donald BERNICE B. DONALD U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
5

 
 Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 1032 Filed 03/04/99 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UKITED STA'T'~S DTS':'RTC'T' COURT FOR THE WESTER):! DIST?ICT OF 'T'F.NNF,SSEE
WP.STERN DIVISION
---------------
UNIT~D STA'T'F.S OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

No. 92-2062 Ml/A

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,

Defer.dants.

PEOPLE FIRST O? TENNESSEE and PARE.KT-GUARDIAN ASSOCTATION OF ARLIKGTON DEVF.T.OPMENTAL CENTER

Intervenors.

OR:JER GRANTDJG DEFENDANTS' MO'::'=CN TO MODIFY REMEDIA:=... ORDER

Or. August 24, 1998, DefE':r.dants moved the Cm.irt to modi±y
paragraph XIV.8.1/ of the Remedial O~dcr in this matter. ~o
party has opposed th~s motion. For good cause, the Court GRAKTS
the ~otion and ORDERS that ~he Re~edia] o~der be modi~ied so that
paragraph x:V.B.12 now reads:
Defendants shalJ develop a support coordination system suff~cient to ensure that :::he ~ccds of each resicient placed in the ccrrn.unity bcscd program pu:::::suant to this Order are consistently reviewed a~d met. Eve:::::y resi.dent i::i t:le ccrr.rr.unity and :::ransitioning to the comrr,unity will have an Independent Sc.pport Coordir.ator (ISC). No ISC shall have a case load in excess of thirty developmentally disab:ed persons. ISCs will receive a minimum o~ eighLy ho11rs :::raini~g i~ the reqairements identi~ied in Paragraph Pin addition to ether job-related traini::ig. ISCs will be in regular, frequent contact with the people on their caseload in bolh their residential and day progran or work site. ISCs will observe pa:::::ticipalic~ in progra~s and thc:::::apec.tic interventions and will eva~uate the degree to which services ir the individualized plan are being delivered. Tn no eve~t will ISCs visit each of Lheir

'/t .th ,,, .

Case 2:92-cv-02062-BBD-tmp Document 1032 Filed 03/04/99 Page 2 of 2 assigned residen~s less t~an once every two weeks for the first six oonths following t,ansitio~ a~d o~ce every month thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERE~· th.:..s -2, day of March 1999.
P. McCALLA UN ':'EC STATES DISTRICT .:UOGE
-2-

 
 Memorandum

ucuT
U.S. v. Tennessee

AEP: BPS: SGB: eh DJ 168-72-30

MR-TN-003-001

Subject

Justification for Proceeding on a Fast Track in the S. 10 Investigation of the Arlington Developmental Center

Date
JUN 18B90

To

John R. Dunne

From Arthur E. Peabody,

Assistant Attorney General

Chief

"5

Civil Rights Division

Special Litigation Section

Attached is our recommendation for initiating an investigation into the conditions of confinement at Arlington Developmental Center (Arlington), Arlington, Tennessee, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. §1997 et seq. Arlington is a residential facility for the mentally retarded operated by the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. As set forth in this memorandum and the attached recommendation, we have received information that some State officials are involved in an attempt to cover up conditions at Arlington and that there may be destruction or modification of records and/or retaliation against employees once the Governor receives notice of our proposed investigation.

We were informed by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee, W. Hickman Ewing, Jr., that Tennessee State Representative David Shirley had requested his assistance concerning possible mistreatment and abuse of residents at Arlington. Representative Shirley related that he had received a number of complaints from employees and parents of residents alleging such mistreatment and abuse. He initially responded to those complaints by requesting a meeting with the Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Eric Taylor. In July 1989, Representative Shirley and a number of employees met with Mr. Taylor to discuss conditions at Arlington that, the employees alleged, included physical abuse of residents by developmental technicians (DTs), health violations, and retaliation against those who reported such conditions. Representative Shirley related that Mr. Taylor was displeased that the employees had complained to the legislature and did not provide any assurances that he would follow up on the issues brought to his attention. Because further meetings with Mr. Taylor did not appear fruitful, Representative Shirley arranged for a meeting with Governor Ned McWherter. On September 26, 1989, the Representative, a number of employees, and one parent met with the Governor concerning the allegations.

- 2-
Representative Shirley reported that Governor McWherter stated that he would not get involved and made other comments suggesting efforts to inappropriately keep the matter quiet and outside public purview. United States Attorney Ewing has counseled us to proceed quickly in a manner which would preclude destruction of records and any actions by institutional officials to "gag" the employees or frustrate the investigation.
Because of these allegations, we have modified the notice letter to the Governor and State officials to include a reference to the CRIPA provision prohibiting retaliation, 42 U.S.C. §1997d, and have requested the Governor's cooperation in preserving facility records. Additionally, we would like to place this case on a fast track for investigation and to tour the facility as soon as is statutorily permissible, i.e.. arrange for a tour immediately following the expiration of the seven day notice requirement. 42 U.S.C. §1997b(a)(2). In order to proceed in this manner, we suggest delaying the issuance of the letter until we have arranged for all experts to be available for the estimated five day tour within that timeframe. This procedure will permit us to organize tours and other investigatory activities to commence as soon as statutory requirements permit.
It is possible that we will meet with some resistance from the State concerning this approach and that there will be an attempt to deny us access to the facility within such a short timeframe. Therefore, before sending the notice letter, we intend to prepare pleadings requesting the district court to direct the State to grant us immediate access to the facility in order that we may fulfill our statutory obligations and conduct our investigation. We would like your approval to file the access suit if access is denied. We have filed two such actions in the past, with favorable results. See, e.g.. United States v. County of Los Angeles. 635 F.Supp. 588 (C.D.Cal. 1986).
The alleged facts regarding Arlington are among the most flagrant and egregious we have received in recent years. As such, the steps outlined here are merited.
Please advise.
Attachments
Approved:
Disapproved
Comments:

 
 Memosundum
V

..c _
U.S. v. Tennessee

AEP;BPS:SGB:eh DJ 168-72-30

• • • • • • ii • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
MR-TN-003-002

Subject

Arlington Developmental Center Proposed S. 10 Investigation

Dale
JUN 1 8 1990

John R. Dunne Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

Arthur E. Peabody, Jr. Afl Chief Special Litigation Section

Pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. §1997 et seq.. we recommend the initiation of an investigation into the conditions of confinement at Arlington Developmental Center (Arlington). Arlington is a residential facility for the mentally retarded operated by the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The facility, located in Arlington, Tennessee, was established in 1965. It serves mentally retarded adults and children and has a capacity of 490 beds. As of April 27, 1990, there were 470 residents.

The information that we have obtained contains allegations which indicate that residents of Arlington are being subjected to conditions that violate their constitutional rights. The alleged unconstitutional conditions include: abuse and neglect of residents; undue use of restraints and isolation; absence of training programs; unsafe and unsanitary conditions; and undue risk of harm from physical violence and fire hazards. These deficiencies appear to subject residents at Arlington to unreasonable risks to their personal safety and violate their constitutional rights. See Youncrberq v. Romeo. 457 U.S. 307 (1982) .

Sources

We were contacted in this matter by theUnited States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee, W. Hickman Ewing, Jr., who asked us to look into conditions at Arlington because of numerous reported incidents of mistreatment and abuse. Mr. Ewing informed us that Tennessee State Representative David Shirley had requested his assistance after having received a number of complaints from parents of residents at Arlington and from past and present employees.

Representative Shirley stated that employees are fearful that retaliatory actions will be taken against them. Based upon that fear, the United States Attorney initially requested that

T

- 2-
we delay interviewing anyone until a proposed Tennessee whistleblower statute was enacted. Soon after the statute was passed, Mr. Ewing contacted our office to request that we meet with Representative Shirley and several of the Arlington employees and parents. Interviews were held on April 17, 1990 in Memphis, Tennessee. 1/ We also reviewed the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) file that focused, in part, upon physical and sexual abuse of residents at Arlington. 2/
Based upon the information we received from our sources, we recommend an investigation focused on (1) neglect and abuse of residents, (2) misuse of restraints and seclusion, (3) inadequate staff training, (4) health and safety deficiencies, and (5) fire code violations.
Information Relating to a Failure to Protect Residents from Harm
Every person interviewed reported that a number of the DTs, the direct care staff at Arlington, routinely physically abuse residents. All employees interviewed stated that injuries are often reported as having been inflicted by other residents,
1/ The following persons were interviewed: Representative Shirley; Mary Simpson, a DT; Victoria Moore, a parent; Laverne Franklin, a former DT who was fired by the previous Director; Rose Morrell, a DT supervisor; Frances McMahan, a registered nurse; Rose Flynn, the Head of Security; Mrs. (first name unknown) Flynn, a DT trainer; and a parent who requested confidentiality whose child has been a resident of Arlington for more than 20 years and who has been quite active with its Parents' Association, who is identified throughout the memorandum as "Parent."
2/ The FBI file, 144-72-1569 (FBI Report) was closed by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division on November 27, 1989, based upon a decision that the case had "no prosecutive merit." The FBI's investigation was predicated upon a complaint by Karen Conner, a DT at Arlington, of ongoing physical and sexual abuse of residents by DTs. A decision to initiate an investigation under CRIPA is based upon a different standard than a decision to initiate a criminal prosecution. We note that a number of the allegations that were brought to our attention by the United States Attorney, Representative Shirley, and the witnesses we interviewed are confirmed by FBI interviews with a different set of witnesses. FBI Report, interviews with Karen Conner, a DT; Nita Greene, sister of a resident; Peggy Perkins, parent; Rebecca Searight, parent.

- 3-
rather than by the employees who actually inflicted them. 2J Additionally, the employee whose complaint initiated the FBI investigation stated that physical assaults are "covered up" by nurses and doctors who are "afraid" of the administration. 4/ All employees whom we interviewed believe that, if they were to report staff abuse of residents, they would be fired. At least one employee was apparently fired for reporting abuse. 5/ A parent reported that her child had been "tortured" after she reported abuse and that to protect her son she paid the abuser and apologized for having accused him. 6/ This parent and some
3/ Injuries inflicted by residents upon one another may indicate that the level of care and supervision in a facility is inadequate: If the injury reports demonstrate that a large number of injuries are the result of residents attacking other residents, that may well signify that Arlington is failing to protect its residents from harm as well as failing to provide training programs. Such a failure to provide reasonable safety in and of itself could constitute a constitutional violation, even in the absence of widespread staff abuse of residents.
4/ FBI Report, memorandum of July 20, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Conner, supra.
Ms. Franklin's complaint of a retaliatory discharge is presently being litigated. However, it is interesting to note that an internal investigation which approved Ms. Franklin's termination found that:
While we readily acknowledge that abuse can and does occur at Arlington, we are satisfied that this is kept to a minimum. . . .
Ms. Franklin has made unsubstantiated allegations about abuse of residents in Mark Twain II. While her concern for residents may be genuine, her actions have repudiated this concern.
Fact Finding: Arlington Developmental Center. May 28-29. 1985.
§y Telephone conversation of April 17, 1990, with the parent who requested confidentiality. She stated that when she had been assured confidentiality in the past it had not been honored and her son was later brutalized. She reported that since her meeting with the Governor she is being watched when she visits her son and is often escorted to her car. Staff confirmed that when parents report abuse, the abuse gets worse. Morrell, McMahan, supra. Additionally, the FBI Report included an interview of March 8, 1989, with Ms. Perkins in which she stated that she did not pursue suspected physical abuse of her daughter for fear that retribution would be taken against her child.

- 4-
employees stated that they had heard that other parents had paid DTs not to abuse their children. 7/
The following are reported examples of abuse related during the interviews:
A male resident was found dead on the floor of his unit. A number of employees recounted that a DT sprayed him in the face with an aerosol spray in order to control him. They believe that an autopsy was not conducted. §J
In March 1989, a male resident had his jaw broken in two places by a DT. The supervisor who is charged with writing up injury reports requested Arlington's dentist to state that he had broken the resident's jaw while extracting his wisdom teeth. The dentist refused to write such a report. 9/
On a number of occasions, DTs placed a female resident into a locked room with high-functioning male residents (residents of the Mark Twain Unit) as a disciplinary measure. Those residents were directed to beat the female resident. They did. 10/ Employees reported that a number of residents have been sent into the Mark Twain unit for "disciplinary reasons," i.e.. beatings. 11/ One parent told Representative Shirley that she feared that her son, who is profoundly mentally retarded, would be sent there if she complained. 12/
At least two female residents have lost eyes because of physical abuse by DTs. In one of the injury reports, the resident who is identified as having caused the injury to the other resident's eye is non-violent, passive, and apparently not physically or mentally capable of having committed such an assault. 13/
7/ Franklin, Parent, supra.
fJ/ Simpson, Morrell, McMahan, supra.
10/ McMahan, Morrell, supra.
11/ McMahan, Morrell, Simpson, supra.
12/ Shirley, supra.
13/ Simpson, Morrell, supra.
'T

- 5-
A parent recounted that her 11 year old son has received innumerable bruises and burns at Arlington. When she questioned a DT about one such bruise, she was told it was a "birthmark." Another injury, which she believed was a burn, was explained as having occurred when her son fell over the table and hit the wall. Her son has been found unconscious twice in the two years he has been at Arlington. 14/ Recently, he was beaten with a paddle by a DT. The DT was reported as abusing the child after a social worker overheard a supervisor and the DT discussing how another resident was to be blamed for the assault. The social worker apparently would not allow the fraudulent report to be written and the DT was, therefore, fired. However, neither the mother nor the Sheriff's office was immediately notified, as policy required, of the abuse. 15/
Sexual abuse is present as well. Our sources informed us that DTs have sexually assaulted both male and female residents. 16/ When assaults have-been confirmed, the DTs have been transferred to other units rather than being fired. 17/ There were reports of one female resident having been assaulted by two employees who inserted a broom or cane into her rectum. 18/ Additionally, there was a recent report of a sexual assault of a resident by another resident. Both men had been left unattended during their bathtimes. 19/
Additionally, there are two deaths not tied to physical abuse which merit concern. In January 1990, a male resident choked to death. Apparently, sunctioning equipment was either not available or was old, obsolete, and useless. 20/ Another male resident was found, during a visit home, to be running a high fever. When his parents brought him to the hospital it was
14/ Ms. Moore stated that she asked that her son be given a brain scan after each incident. She was informed that there was no need, such tests were only done once a year.
15/ Moore, McMahan, Rose Flynn, supra.
16/ Id.
17/ Morrell, McMahan, supra.
18/ Simpson, Morrell, Franklin, supra.
19/ Rose Flynn, supra.
20/ Simpson, Rose Flynn, supra.

- 6-
found that he had untreated gangrene or peritonitis of the intestines. He died shortly after admission. 21/
Another type of abuse involved depriving residents of food. One employee related that residents are punished by either withholding a meal or seconds. 22/ The residents' meals are thrown into the garbage in front of them. Another employee confirmed that residents who have been sent to the infirmary often seem to be malnourished. 23/ The above examples of abuse and neglect illustrate that Arlington is failing to protect residents from harm and failing to provide staff with training adequate to enable them to appropriately attend to the mentally retarded residents entrusted to their care.
Information Relating to Misuse of Seclusion and Restraints
While Arlington apparently has appropriate policies concerning the use of seclusion and restraints, i.e.. seclusion and restraint are to be used only with a physician's approval and for limited periods of time, we were informed that these policies are not followed. Employees recount stories of residents being locked in closets, tied to wheelchairs with sheets and left in vacant rooms, and placed in garbage cans. 24/
A particularly egregious example of the misuse of seclusion and restraints concerns a seven year old mentally retarded autistic child who, a number of employees stated, has been left, often unsupervised, in a locked room for as long as 24 hours at a time. This room is often bare and at one time was unheated. It sometimes contains a mattress and a few toys. Some employees related that the boy has injured himself (knocked out his front
21/ Parent, supra. A third death was discussed in the FBI Report, supra. interview with Ms. Perkins, an Arlington parent and a nurse. On one of her visits to her daughter, Ms. Perkins observed the medical treatment of an infant with bronchiopulmonary displasia. She noted that the infant was receiving oxygen that was not being routed through a mixer. Ms. Perkins stated that without a mixer, there was no way of controlling the oxygen percentage being furnished to the child. She also observed that the infant was not hooked to an oximeter, which measures the percentage of oxygen actually saturating a patient's bloodstream. The infant died a few months later. A nurse told Ms. Perkins that the baby had died as a result of disconnecting herself from the oxygen supply.
22/ Franklin, supra.
23/ Mrs. Flynn, supra.
24/ Franklin, Flynn, McMahan, supra.

- 7-
teeth) by hitting his face and head against the bare floor or the sink. The child wears a helmet at all times, and sometimes his hands have been swathed in bandages in order that he not injure himself. He has, at times, chewed and mangled his shoulder to the extent that it "looks like hamburger meat." The employees related that he is sent to the room because he is difficult to look after and demands a lot of attention. He screams when placed in the room and quiets down when he is permitted out. 25/ One nurse who became particularly interested in his case and complained to her superiors concerning his treatment has been forbidden to see him except when she is providing him with "nursing services." 26/
Information Relating to Health and Safety Deficiencies
Employees and parents reported a number of apparent health violations, i.e.. shortages of toothbrushes, razors, soap, disinfectant. Apparently, prior to State audits such items appear; however, they are not replenished and are often simply put away until the next audit. 27/ A DT reported shaving as many as 18 men for one week with the same razor. 28/ Often the same toothbrush and bathwater are used for a number, if not all, residents in the unit. 29/ A number of residents have been identified as Hepatitis carriers, which increases the health risks to the population when personal items are shared.
There appears to be a general lack of supervision which creates a safety risk for some of the residents. 30/ Our sources report that residents are often uncared for and left unattended,
25/ McMahan, Morrell, Flynn, Parent, supra. Ms. McMahan also provided us with informal notes that she has taken, often contemporaneously, confirming the events related.
26/ Disciplinary Action, dated 2/6/90, of Frances McMahan.
27/ Parent, Franklin, Simpson, McMahan's notes, supra.
28/ Simpson, supra.
29/ Morrell, McMahan's notes, supra.
30/ Our sources reported that, on certain shifts, there are staff shortages of both nurses and DTs. Additionally, a number of the staff are reputed to drink or take drugs while on duty and have allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct. Parent, Simpson, McMahan, Franklin, Rose Flynn, supra.

- 8 -
sometimes naked, while the DTs watch TV. 31/ One employee reported seeing a resident, who was left unattended at the canteen for more than 20 minutes, eating from a garbage can. She also reported seeing residents wandering about outside during the winter, without shoes and wearing only pajamas. 32/
Information Relating to Fire Hazards
The Head of Security voiced a concern that certain residents, particularly those in the Baker Building, would not be able to evacuate their units in the event of a fire. The infirmary which houses the most physically restricted patients is located on the top floor of the Baker Building, which does not have a fire escape. When a fire occurs, these patients are directed to go to the roof. The sprinkler system has not been tested and the Head of Security (who is also the Safety and Environmental Inspector) is not certain whether that system or the alarms are functional. She has reported these and other safety concerns to her superiors, but it does not appear any follow-up actions have been taken. 33/
Conclusion
Based upon the information received to date, State officials may be subjecting residents at Arlington to conditions that deprive them of their constitutional rights, pursuant to a pattern and practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of their rights. In our opinion, the information we have obtained with respect to conditions at Arlington warrants an investigation, pursuant to CRIPA, into the areas specified above. Funds are available to conduct this investigation.
Accordingly, we have attached for your signature the appropriate letters notifying State and Federal officials of our intent to investigate the Arlington Developmental Center.
Attachments
31/ Parent, Moore, McMahan's notes, supra. FBI Report, supra. March 17, 1989 interview with Ms.Greene in which she complained that DTS are "grossly inattentive."
32/ Rose Flynn, supra.
33/ Rose Flynn, supra.

Approved: Disapproved: Comments:

- 9 -

 
 U.S. Departit/'.'.A of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Wcshinf-ion. DC. 20530

JUL I I 1990

REGISTERED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

U.S. v. Tennessee

Honorable Ned McWherter

IIII I I 11III III II II IIII II II IIII II

Governor of Tennessee

|||| | | ||||| | | II II |||| II II II I I

Governor's Office

MR-TN-003-003

State Capitol

Nashville, Tennessee 37219

Re: Investigation of the Arlington Developmental

Center, Arlingtonr Tennessee

Dear Governor McWherter:

I am writing to inform you of our intention to investigate certain allegations concerning the Arlington Developmental Center (hereinafter "Arlington") in Arlington, Tennessee. This investigation is pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. §1997 et sea.

The purpose of this investigation will be to determine whether there exist any violations of Federal statutory and constitutional rights of persons residing at this facility. Our information suggests that residents at Arlington are being subjected to abuse and neglect, undue risk of harm from physical violence and fire hazards, misuse of restraints and isolation, absence of training programs, and unsafe and unsanitary conditions. The initiation of this investigation in no way indicates a prejudgment on our part that Federal rights have been violated. If any violations are found, we look forward to conferring with you and your staff concerning corrective actions that may be appropriate.

In light of allegations we have received concerning possible retaliation against cooperating State employees and potential destruction of records, we would appreciate your assistance in ensuring the cooperation of employees of Arlington in this investigation. Toward that end, please take appropriate steps to assure Arlington employees that retaliation against persons who report allegedly unlawful conditions is prohibited by CRIPA. See 42 U.S.C. §1997d. Your actions to ensure the safe preservation of records and other documents at Arlington would be appreciated as well.

- 2-
We would like to initiate this investigation as soon as possible. Therefore, we will, within the next few days, contact appropriate persons at the Attorney General's office to arrange a meeting between our attorneys and representatives of your office. We anticipate that the meeting will take place one week after you receive this letter and will be immediately followed by a tour of Arlington. Attorneys from the Special Litigation Section, consultants, and an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation will be touring the facility for approximately five days.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
. . John R. Dunne Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: Honorable Charles Burson Attorney General State of Tennessee
W. Hickman Ewing, Jr., Esquire United States Attorney
Mr. Eric Taylor Director Department of Mental Health
and Mental Retardation
Ms. Mona Reeves^Winfrey Superintendent Arlington Developmental Center

 
 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs

Office of tbe AtxittiM Attorney Gcaen!

Wathington. D.C. 20330

REGISTERED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Governor's Office State Capitol Nashville, Tennessee 37219

•ll!ll

MAR I 2 i99i U.S. v. Tennessee

Re: findings of Investigation. Arlington Developmental Center

Dear Governor McWherter:

By letter dated July 11, 1990, we notified you that, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997 £t S33.', the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice was commencing an investigation into conditions at Arlington Developmental Center (Arlington), a facility for mentally retarded persons located in Arlington, Tennessee. As specified by the statute, we are now writing to inform you of the conditions at Arlington that we have found are depriving residents there of their constitutional and Fede.ral statutory rights, the facts supporting our conclusions, and the minimum measures we believe may remedy those conditions.

Our investigation consisted, first, of several comprehensive tours of Arlington with independent experts, most recently on December 14 and 15, 1990. We observed conditions in all the residential units yf Arlington at various times of the day, interviewed administrators, staff and residents, and examined a variety of records. Further, we gathered and analyzed documentation relating to the operation of Arlington, including, but not limited to: a variety of policies and procedures; information relating to staffing; minutes from various committees; incident and injury reports; mortality reviews; abuse investigations; list of residents on medications; and residents' records. Throughout the investigation, we received complete cooperation from the administrators and staff at Arlington. We look forward to continued cooperation.

•2 -
Based upon our extensive investigation, we have concluded that conditions at Arlington deprive its mentally retarded residents of their constitutional rights to adequate medical care, reasonable safety, and such training as an appropriate professional would consider reasonable to ensure their safety and freedom from undue bodily restraints, Younaberq v. Romeof 457 U.S. 307, 324 (1982). These conditions, which seriously threaten residents' health and safety, include:

1. Neglect and abuse of residents.

2. Failure to provide adequate medical care, specifically:

(a) Failure to adequately diagnose and treat residents.

(b) Failure to provide essential physical therapy services.

(c) Failure to provide sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff to render and implement professional judgments regarding necessary medical treatment.

3. Failure to provide required training to residents, specifically:

(a) Failure to provide professionally designed individualized training and behavioral programs.

(b) Failure to provide sufficient numbers of

.

appropriately trained staff to implement

professional judgments regarding

training of residents.

4. Failure to provide a free appropriate public education for school-age residents as required by the Education of the Handicapped Act.

5. Failure to provide a safe environment.

Set forth below are our findings and recommendations.

1. Arlington Residents Are Subjected to Neglect ^nd Abuse.

The failure to provide care or training that a qualified professional would consider appropriate can be deemed "neglect. At Arlington, however, lack of care sometimes rises to active neglect, neglect that harms residents, many of whom spend their

r

- 3-

lives at the facility. One consultant who recently toured the facility voiced the concern that:

Arlington has failed to implement even the most basic changes of the twentieth century. They are providing only the proverbial three hots and a cot. In doing so, they are creating a new generation of multihandicapped individuals, when in some cases, there is no need for these handicaps to exist, other than neglect.

During the investigation, we observed young children, some

as young as two, whose limbs were severely contracted. Our

experts believed that these contractures were avoidable. Many

residents were left unattended in cribs, with no efforts being

made to move their limbs, position them, or to provide any real

physical therapy services. The failure to actively move,

reposition, and exercise such residents results in potentially

crippling and irreversible physical deterioration. We observed

one five year old boy, unattended in his crib, hitting the side

of his head with his fist due to a lack of stimulation. No one

was paying attention to the boy other than an overworked direct

care worker holding his arm when and if she observed the

behavior. The penis of another resident, a paraplegic with an

in-dwelling Foley catheter, was eroded throughout its entire

length due to inadequate care and monitoring. In many units,

there was a pervasive smell of urine. Residents in diapers were

wet; often their clothes were soaked through with urine. Besides

the direct care staff shortages that permitted these conditions,

there was an apparent tolerance of such conditions as well. Our

experts concluded that this lack of care constitutes active

neglect.

<-

In three abuse investigations that we reviewed, outside physicians who were consulted by residents' families concluded that the residents had been abused. These were the only abuse investigations in which outside physicians had examined the injured Arlington residents. In these three cases, Arlington discounted the outside physicians' findings. As such, the investigations undertaken by Arlington and/or the Department of Human Services (DHS) reveal a lack of commitment to uncovering such abuse or neglect, and, therefore, imply tolerance for such actions. A number of staff reported that it would serve no purpose to report abuse to the administration of Arlington; nothing would be done. This belief is confirmed by one case that we reviewed. In that case, direct care staff who belatedly reported that another direct care worker had abused a resident were disciplined more harshly for the late reports than was the staff member who abused the resident and her supervisor who witnessed and had not reported the incident. Certainly, the message sent to those staff members was not to report such incidents. The obvious result of this apparent tolerance of abuse and lack of vigor when investigating such cases is harm to

Arlington residents. Because reporting of abuse is discounted by Arlington, staff are not trained in detection of abuse and independent opinions are not sought to ascertain whether suspicious injuries are the result of abuse.

We have concluded that abuse is occurring at Arlington, our

conclusion that Arlington residents are being abused is not

limited to physical abuse. Our investigation revealed that staff

at Arlington have verbally abused residents. These actions have

apparently also been tolerated or discounted by the

administration.

j

2. Arlington Residents Do Not Receive Adequate Medical Care

a. Failure to adequately diagnose and treat residents.

Our consultant found that Arlington lacks long range planning for managing residents with chronic medical conditions. Routine procedures for testing residents' blood levels and monitoring the course of chronic diseases were not implemented. For example, routine testing of vomitus for blood was not accomplished for a resident who, on numerous occasions, had symptoms of gastric bleeding. Our consultant found that the failure to order such tests substantially departed from accepted medical practice. There were inadequate efforts to diagnose residents' problems, a process essential to appropriate treatment and evaluation of the efficacy of treatment. As a result, residents' physical conditions have deteriorated. In fact, five Arlington residents have died since October 10, 1990. The medical care provided to these residents, three of whom were less than 23 years old, was inadequate. Additionally, Arlington does not have a system to detect the onset of ^insidious illnesses. Because changes in residents' physical conditions are notroutinely identified or monitored, their conditions may deteriorate and become quite serious before medical treatment is initiated. We have concluded that the care and treatment of residents with chronic conditions substantially departs from accepted medical practice.

Our consultants found that Arlington has no procedure for monitoring the effectiveness of medications prescribed. As a result, residents are not treated for side effects or may continue to receive medications that are not effective and do not resolve their medical conditions. Generally, our consultants found that documentation of medical evaluations and treatment is inadequate, especially for residents with more serious and chronic diseases. Due to a failure to document ongoing health care problems, Arlington does not provide adequate preventative health care. There are also unacceptable delays in placing hospital communications, i.e., discharge summaries and emergency room reports, in residents' charts. Because current and complete medical information is not maintained in the chart, professional

-s-
and direct care staff lack important information on which to base their judgments and services. This deficiency subjects residents of Arlington to unnecessary risk of harm from inappropriate treatment decisions.
Our consultants found that Arlington does not attempt to diagnose residents' underlying psychiatric disorders and fails to monitor positive and negative effects when psychotropic medications are prescribed. Some residents receiving psychotropics do not benefit from them, while others who might benefit do not receive them. Our consultants also found that Arlington automatically reduced or eliminated such medications with inadequate justification. In light of the above, our consultants concluded that psychotropic medications are not being prescribed or monitored consistent with professional standards. Because such medications can have serious deleterious side effects, prescription of the wrong medication and failure to properly monitor them subjects residents to undue risk of harm. Additionally, there is a significant danger that psychotropic medications may be used as chemical restraints.
Our consultants found that residents are not referred to or seen by consulting physicians as frequently as their conditions require. Specifically, residents with neurological and orthopedic problems and conditions are not identified, managed, evaluated, or treated consistent with the judgment of qualified professionals. Our consultants observed residents having seizures whose seizure activity was not noticed by Arlington's direct care and nursing staff. Such failure to identify and record seizure activity clearly results in harm to these residents. Dramatic evidence of the failure to manage such conditions was the death in December of a resident who had been having numerous seizures and is believed to have died as a result of a seizure. Our expert concluded that the medical care provided this resident was clearly inadequate. The predictable result of these deficiencies in medical care is unnecessary risk of harm to Arlington residents.
b. failure to provide essential physical therapy services.
After an exhaustive review of the physical therapy services offered at Arlington, our consultant concluded that Arlington is failing to adequately provide such services and that such failure constituted a serious deficiency in residents' medical care. In a population of approximately 250 physically handicapped residents, none receive hands on therapy from a physical therapist. Moreover, our expert found that residents' physical therapy programs are not individualized and do not address their specific needs. The failure to provide necessary physical therapy services results in contractures, physical degeneration, inappropriate body growth, and deformity that, in turn, subjects residents to eating, digestion, and general medical problems

•:•:* I
(e.g.f respiratory difficulties due to scoliosis). The failure to provide appropriate evaluations, goals, and services often results in physical deterioration. Our consultant found that Arlington's improper positioning of residents has actually increased their deformities. She found that .such harm vas attributable to both inadequate and inappropriate physical therapy programs and inadequate numbers of adequately trained staff.
Our consultant physical therapist concluded that the use of adaptive equipment at Arlington often does not reflect the exercise of judgment by a qualified professional. Inappropriate use of such equipment jeopardizes the health and safety of residents. Ill-fitting adaptive equipment, including wheelchairs, does not provide adequate support, thereby increasing the risk of accidental injury and physical deterioration. Numerous residents who once sat in wheelchairs are now confined to carts. This is dramatic evidence of such physical deterioration. Our consultant found that the deformities of these cart-bound residents were a result of improper positioning and inadequate physical therapy services. Additionally, the carts themselves are dangerous. Incident reports reviewed during the investigation reflect that a number of residents have been injured when they fell out of unstable carts. Moreover, our nurse consultant observed that Arlington is not providing adequate assistive devices to enable residents to walk and move. The natural result of the failure to provide such devices is resident injury and physical deterioration.
Arlington is failing to provide physical therapy services and staff to render appropriate and necessary care to address the physical therapy needs of the residents of vArlington and to implement physical therapy services programs consistent with qualified professional judgment, gee Younaberq v. Romeo. supra. at 324.
(c) Failure to provide sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff to render and implement professional judgments regarding necessary medical treatment.
Our investigation revealed that the nursing department is critically short staffed. There are not enough adequately trained nurses at Arlington, a deficiency that places residents at an unreasonable risk of harm. For example, our consultant observed nurses inappropriately dispensing medications to physically handicapped residents, e.g.. by means of a tongue blade placed down residents' throats. Our consultant found that this method of medicating physically involved residents may result in harm. Nurses are not promptly hired to replace those that leave. Because of these shortages, nurses often "'float* to
areas to which they are not typically assigned and where they are

- 7-
responsible for caring for residents with whom they are not familiar. It is not unusual for one nurse, assigned to a unit as a floater, to administer medications to 128 residents twice in one 8 hour shift. The potential for medication errors in Buch circumstances is obvious. While Arlington officially reported only two medication errors over a time frame, our consultants' review of residents' records as well as information obtained from other sources suggests that these figures seriously .underrepresent the breadth of that problem at Arlington.
At the time of our latest tour, December 1990, there were only three physicians, including the Medical Director, to provide medical care to almost 500 developmentally disabled Arlington residents. Many of these residents have serious physical disabilities and complex medical needs. In our expert's view, three primary care physicians are not sufficient to examine 500 residents, review their charts, adjust their medications, and keep abreast of their medical condition, i.e., to render decisions with respect to care that are consistent with professional judgments. The shortage results in a failure to adequately manage, evaluate, and treat chronic medical conditions.
While Arlington has contracted with a number of specialists to examine and treat its residents, our experts consider that the hours contracted for are not sufficient to provide a level of care consistent with professional standards. For example, Arlington has a contract providing for neurology consultation three times per year. This is not adequate to properly evaluate, treat, and follow the more than 260 residents with seizure disorders. Similarly, of those residents', records that we reviewed, a majority of residents with physical disabilities had not received an orthopedic consultation within the past two years. Our investigation also revealed that necessary orthopedic surgery is not recommended or undertaken because appropriate therapy and follow-up is not available. In our consultants' opinion, given the serious physical impairments of many of Arlington's residents, this level of consultation and care is seriously inadequate.
As discussed above, there is a critical shortage of physical therapists. There are approximately 250 residents in need of physical therapy services; Arlington contracts with two part-time physical therapists who work a combined total of 28-30 hours per week. Our consultants concluded that 30 hours per week is totally inadequate to provide necessary physical therapy services to all Arlington residents who need them. Additionally, the direct care staff receives no training in physical management and positioning of these physically handicapped residents. Our consultants found that the failure to move, reposition, exercise, and provide hands on physical therapy to such residents leads to physical deterioration and other harm.

jy^ris
-8-
Staff at Arlington does not adequately identify or care for residents with impaired eating ability. Staff fail to properly position residents during meals, utilize appropriate feeding techniques, and effectively monitor residents. Because of thi6, Arlington residents face serious risks of aspiration, a leading cause of death among institutionalized developmentally disabled populations. Our experts personally observed residents coughing and choking on food and mucus during meals. Aspiration pneumonia accounted for at least three of the seven pneumonia-related hospital admissions of Arlington residents in the period from July 1, 1990, to December 15, 1990. One of the five recent deaths of Arlington residents was caused by aspiration pneumonia.
After two of our tours, our consultants requested that we immediately convey to Arlington staff their concern that these conditions were life-threatening to residents. We did so. However, despite the serious risks of aspiration, Arlington fails to ensure that residents are fed safely.
3. Arlington Residents Do Not Receive Adequate Training.
a. Failure to Provide Training Required bv Youngbero.
Following a careful review, our consultant psychologist concluded that the lack of training programs for Arlington residents results in injury and the unreasonable risk of injury (to self and others). Instances of self-abuse were not uncommon; observed attempts to intervene appropriately were rare. Many residents were observed to have unexplained cuts, bruises and scrapes. Our expert concluded that the current practice of behavior modification at Arlington fails to reduce aggressive and other maladaptive and inappropriate behaviors. Moreover, Arlington does not provide adequate psychological services- to children to prevent them from developing self-abusive behaviors. Clearly, many of the injuries we observed may have been preventable had programs been implemented and if more trained staff were available.
As a result of Arlington's continuing failure to design and implement adequate training programs, residents suffer otherwise preventable physical injuries, either self-inflicted or from other residents. Approximately 40% of the injuries in a representative sampling of Arlington residents were reported as either self-inflicted or caused by other residents. Reducing aggressive and other maladaptive and inappropriate behaviors through appropriate behavior modification and training would significantly reduce such injuries.
Our consultants found that, although the great majority of Arlington's residents are diagnosed as severely or profoundly mentally retarded, many are misdiagnosed. Arlington does not have adequate diagnostic criteria to determine degrees of

- 9-
ability. As a result of inaccurate diagnoses, the meager training provided these residents is inappropriate.
Our investigation also revealed that there -are many severely physically .handicapped residents vho are misdiagnosed as severely or profoundly mentally handicapped because of their physical limitations. As a result of such misdiagnoses, residents do not receive programming that qualified professionals would consider necessary. For example, many such residents are not provided the means to communicate through communication boards or other assistive communication devices even though they are capable of learning such skills that would enable them to communicate their needs, including their needs for specific care or treatment. The failure to provide residents with means to express their needs results in harm and possible injury.
Our experts found that most of the training plans and behavioral programs do not address the individual needs of the residents and often contained inappropriate or incompatible goals. Our expert found identical plans and programs for residents who appeared to be functioning at different levels; additionally, the programs were unchanged from one year to the next. The lack of individualized programs and the failure to revise and update such programs represent a substantial departure from accepted professional practice.
Arlington residents do not have access to adequate and necessary programs, i.e.. work-related, age appropriate fine and gross motor activities, to maintain their current level of functioning. Our consultant found that the dearth of such programs harms residents in two ways. First, because they are not provided with appropriate stimulation," residents may resort to self-abusive or other maladaptive behaviors. Second, in the absence of such programs, deterioration of physical and mental functioning is likely. As a result of this deficiency, residents of Arlington are at a substantial risk of harm.
We additionally found that behavioral records are not maintained and progress data is not collected in a consistent fashion and is not reliable. Inaccurate or incomplete behavioral data collection and recordkeeping present an active danger to residents by depriving professional and other staff of information necessary to make professional, appropriate, and safe decisions regarding training.
b. Inadequate numbers of and insufficiently trained staff to permit the training required by Younaberg.
Our experts concluded that the three full time and two part time (3.5 FTE) psychologists at Arlington — the persons who are responsible for the design, implementation, supervision, and evaluation of training programs to ensure resident safety and

-10-
freedom from undue restraint ~ are clearly inadequate to render professional judgments with respect to the care and training of Arlington residents. Each of these psychologists has a caseload of approximately 140 residents. -Our consultant found that a caseload of this size is clearly too large to provide adequate treatment for Arlington residents who require psychological services. Moreover, there are no doctoral level psychologists on staff to supervise other staff functioning as psychologists. An inadequate number of trained psychologists has resulted in a failure to develop consistent and necessary treatment and training programs, to implement and monitor them, and to collect and record accurate and pertinent progress data. As a result, residents are at substantial risk of harm.
The safety of Arlington's residents is endangered by inadequate numbers of insufficiently trained direct care staff. Our investigation found that a majority of day and evening shifts, shifts that are scheduled to have a 1:4 staff to resident ratio, in reality function with a ratio of 8 or more residents for each direct care" staff. As a consequence of direct care staff shortages, we observed a widespread failure to appropriately manage maladaptive behavior. In one unit, our consultant observed four residents engaging in self-injurious behavior. No staff members intervened. In another unit, a woman repeatedly banged her face against her arm brace. Once again, no staff intervened.
The direct care staff does not possess the technical competence to adequately supervise and train residents of Arlington. In addition, they were generally unfamiliar with residents' behavior programs. Training given to the staff is insufficient in depth and scope to enable them to adequately and effectively provide essential care to residents. As a result of inadequate numbers of inadequately trained direct care staff, residents fail to receive adequate daily supervision and training. This failure contributes to an alarmingly high frequency of injuries, 20% of which are of unknown cause. As a consequence of the foregoing, residents of Arlington are exposed to serious risks to their health and safety.
4. Arlington School-Aged Residents Are Not Provided A Free Appropriate Public Education As Required By The Education Of The Handicapped Act.
One hundred and sixteen school-aged children reside at Arlington. We have concluded that they are not being provided a free appropriate public education required under the Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 e£ seg. (EHA). Specifically, none of these children attend school off the grounds, although a public elementary school is located a very short distance from the facility. Arlington has two educational programs for the children who live at the facility, one group is

-11-

sent to a building on the grounds where they attend classes; the other, consisting of more medically fragile children, attends classes in the residences. The classroom building has been closed for asbestos removal «ince August 1990 and had not reopened at the time of our latest tour in December 1990. Therefore, all children have attended classes in their residences thus far in this school year. Under the EHA, handicapped children are required to be provided a free appropriate public education with non-handicapped children whenever possible. This requirement is clearly being violated. Moreover, our review of residents' Individual Education Programs confirms that the number of hours residents attend classes as well as the length of the school year does not Beet the EHA's standards.

5. Arlington Residents Are Not Provided A Safe Environment.

Our consultant found a number of serious fire safety hazards at Arlington. He identified a major fire safety hazard in the Baker Building, the building that houses both the Infirmary and Arlington's most physically involved residents. All fire exits lead to a confined passageway that does not have appropriate protections to permit the residents, many of whom are confined to wheelchairs or carts, the time to exit safely in case of a fire. Our investigation revealed that the majority of Arlington's residential units do not meet the level of safety required by professional standards due to structural deficiencies (for example, inadequate partitions), doors that are not fire resistent, failure to provide necessary smoke detectors or sprinklers, or inappropriate storage of combustible materials. As a consequence, residents of Arlington are exposed to serious risks to their health and safety.

Minimally Necessary Remedies

v

Based upon the circumstances discussed above, we have concluded that Arlington residents are being subjected to egregious or flagrant conditions that deprive them of their constitutional rights pursuant to a pattern and practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of those rights. In order to eliminate the conditions that cause these deprivations, at a minimum, Arlington must implement the following remedies:

1) The State must not abuse or neglect Arlington residents and must establish a system to assure that allegations of abuse and neglect are investigated thoroughly and that appropriate action, commensurate with the nature of the offense, is taken against anyone who inflicts, condones, or fails to report abuse or neglect.

-.12-
2) The State must provide adequate medical care to Arlington residents, including identification, treatment, and management of their acute and chronic medical conditions.
3) The State must provide professionally designed feeding programs for the residents at Arlington who need them, and assure that such programs are appropriately implemented by trained staff in order to protect residents from risks of harm, particularly from aspiration pneumonia.
4) The State must identify all residents who need physical therapy and must provide professionally designed physical therapy programs appropriately implemented by trained staff. The State must ensure that adaptive equipment provided to physically handicapped residents is individualized and appropriate and that a qualified professional oversees its design, use, and repair.
5) The State must provide professionally designed training programs to the residents at Arlington who need them and for whom training will reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks to their personal safety and/or the need to use undue bodily and chemical restraints, and must ensure that such programs are implemented by trained staff. Immediate attention must be given to residents with' self-injurious, physically abusive and other destructive behaviors by identifying them and providing necessary training on a priority basis.
6) The State must hire, deploy, and provide ongoing . training to a sufficient number of competent and qualified direct care and professional staff to provide residents at Arlington with adequate medical treatment, physical therapy, physical management and positioning, and training programs. Particular attention should be given to ensuring that professional staff receive continuing medical education so that they are equipped to provide adequate long-term care for medical problems commonly found in residents living in facilities for the mentally retarded.
7) The State must hire or contract for the services of sufficient physicians to provide residents with adequate medical and psychiatric services.
8) The State must assure that school-aged children receive a free appropriate public education, including mainstreaming for those children who are capable of attending school off grounds. Children who attend

&;

-13-
school at Arlington must be provided a professionally designed individualized education program suited to their needs, and one that provides each student with an appropriate length of school day and school year.

9) The State must remove fire hazards and make appropriate renovations to protect the safety of Arlington residents.

10) The State must assure that Arlington develops and

implements recordkeeping systems to monitor the use and

effectiveness of behavior and other programs and

training, and the use of medications, and ensure

periodic re-evaluations of such use.

—

To rectify the deficiencies at Arlington and to ensure that constitutionally adequate conditions are maintained thereafter, we propose to negotiate an agreement with the State of Tennessee, to be entered as an order of a federal court, which 6hall provide, at a minimum, that the above referenced remedies will be implemented at Arlington.

Information about Federal financial assistance which may be available to assist with the remedial process can be obtained through the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Regional Office (Director, Intergovernmental and Congressional Affairs), and through appropriate officials of the United States Department of Education.

Our attorneys will be contacting legal counsel for the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation shortly to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in greater detail. In the meantime, should you or your staff have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call Arthur E. Peabody, Jr., Chief, Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-6255. To date, we have been able to conduct this investigation in the spirit of cooperation intended by the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, and look forward to continuing to work in the same manner with State officials toward an amicable resolution of this matter.

Sincerely,

John R. Dunne As^&i&tant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

-14-
cc: Honorable Charles Burson Attorney General State of Tennessee
W. Bickman Eving Jr.,. Esq. United States Attorney
Mr. Evelyn C. Robert Jr. Director Department of Mental Health and
Mental Retardation
Ms. Mona Reeves-Winfrey Superintendent Arlington Developmental Center
Beverly Dennis III, 'Esq. Deputy General Counsel United States Department of Health
and Human Services
Gail R. Wilensky, Ph.D. Administrator Health Care Financing
Administration
Susan Craig, Esq. Assistant General Counsel United States Department of
Education

 
 Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 1 of 232
CAMERAS,CX
U.S. District Court Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:92−cv−02062−JPM−tmp

USA v. Tennessee, State of, et al Assigned to: Judge Jon Phipps McCalla Referred to: Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham Demand: $0 Case in other court: 00−06120
00−06265 00−06476 03−06389 03−06628 04−05429 USCA, 12−06177 USCA, 12−06258 USCA, 12−06341 93−05948 95−06185 95−06685 98−05108 Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights Miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall TERMINATED: 12/21/2000
Miscellaneous John I. Houseal, Jr.
Miscellaneous Nancy K. Ray TERMINATED: 04/18/2013

Date Filed: 01/21/1992 Date Terminated: 08/03/1995 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Linda R. O'Neall 3120 Flastacowo Camp Road Tallahassee, FL 32308 850−574−1986 PRO SE
Thomas R. Prewitt , Jr. FEDEX EXPRESS − LITIGATION 3620 Hacks Cross Road Bldg. B 3rd Fl. Memphis, TN 38125 901−525−8776 Fax: 901−525−8790 Email: tprewitt@hard−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John I. Houseal, Jr. GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC 6000 Poplar Ave. Suite 400 Memphis, TN 38119 901−525−1322 Email: jhouseal@glankler.com PRO SE
represented by Nancy K. Ray NKR & Associates, Inc 318 Delaware Ave., Ste. 2 Delmar, NY 12054 518−478−0982 Email: nkr@nkrassociates.org

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 2 of 232

PRO SE

Miscellaneous Financial Unit

Miscellaneous Bruton

Miscellaneous Vickey Colemen

Miscellaneous Gaye G. Hansen

represented by Gaye G. Hansen Email: gayehansen60@gmail.com PRO SE

Plaintiff USA

represented by Aileen M. Bell U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Special Litigation Section Washington, DC 20530 202−616−9958 TERMINATED: 10/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amie S Murphy UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Special Litigation Section Washington, DC 20530 202−616−3468 Email: Amie.Murphy@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/17/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amin Aminfar UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−307−0652 Fax: 202−514−4883 Email: amin.aminfar@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Picciotti−Bayer UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−514−6441 Fax: 514−0212 TERMINATED: 03/27/2001

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 3 of 232
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darcey Kathleen Donehey US DEPT OF JUSTICE Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3676 TERMINATED: 08/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David R. Rocah U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−616−2325 TERMINATED: 10/29/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janine Scott U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Special Litigation Section 601 D−Street, N.W. Room 5128 Washington, DC 20004 202−514−6408 TERMINATED: 06/19/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joe A. Dycus U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Federal Building 167 N. Main St. Ste. 800 Memphis, TN 38103 901−544−4231 Fax: 901−544−4230 Email: harriett.halmon@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie J. Weinstein U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Special Litigation Section 601 D−Street, N.W. Room 5128 Washington, DC 20004 202−514−6408 Fax: 514−0212 TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda L Keyser UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 5904 Special Litigation Section

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 4 of 232
Washington, DC 20530 202−514−0695 Email: Linda.Keyser@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Porter U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Special Litigation Section Washington, DC 20530 202−616−9958 TERMINATED: 08/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. Jonas Geissler U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Special Litigation Section Washington, DC 20530 202−353−8866 Email: jonas.geissler@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C. Bowman U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 66400 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−514−6260 TERMINATED: 07/06/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A. Koch UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division−Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, PHB Washington, DC 20530 202−305−2302 Fax: 202−514−6903 Email: Robert.Koch@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley Ramell Jackson U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. GST 7002 Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3373 Fax: 202−514−4883 Email: shelley.jackson@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Bowers

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 5 of 232
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Div. 320 First St., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 TERMINATED: 11/03/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terrell L. Harris U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Federal Building 167 N. Main St. Ste. 800 Memphis, TN 38103 901−544−4231 Email: joe.murphy@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas F Urban , II UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section P.O. Box 66400 Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−514−6441 TERMINATED: 06/03/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Schneider U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Special Litigation Section Washington, DC 20530 202−616−9958 Email: todd.j.schneider@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Verlin Hughes Deerinwater U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 66400 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−514−6260 TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William G. Maddox U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 66400 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−514−6260 TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey M. Sanders

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 6 of 232
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division − Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−32 202−305−3229 Fax: 202−514−4883 Email: corey.sanders@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Donnelly UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−6255 Fax: 202−514−4883 Email: matthew.donnelly@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Anne Jones U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Special Litigation Section − PHB 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3642 Email: michelle.jones2@usdoj.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Tennessee, State of

represented by Charles J Cooper COOPER & KIRK PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202−220−9600 Fax: 202−220−9601 Email: ccooper@cooperkirk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dianne Stamey Dycus ATTORNEY GENERAL AND REPORTER Civil Division 426 Fifth Avenue North 2nd Floor Nashville, TN 37243 615−741−6420 Fax: 615−532−5683 Email: dianne.dycus@ag.tn.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Earl Dimond OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202−0207 615−741−3491

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 7 of 232
Email: doug.dimond@ag.tn.gov TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan P. Lakey WALK COOK & LAKEY, PLC 431 South Main Street Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38103 901−685−2662 Fax: 901−685−6122 Email: jlakey@walkcook.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leo Maurice Bearman , Jr. BAKER DONELSON 165 Madison Avenue Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 901−526−2000 Fax: 901−577−0717 Email: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com TERMINATED: 02/06/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Beth Franklin OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202−0207 615−741−3491 TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W. Kirk COOPER & KIRK, PLLC. 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202−220−9600 Fax: 202−220−9601 Email: mkirk@cooperkirk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole J Moss COOPER & KIRK 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202−220−9600 Fax: 202−220−9601 Email: nmoss@cooperkirk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela A. Hayden−Wood OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL− Civ Litigation Civil Litigation and State Services P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202−0207 615−741−7908

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 8 of 232

Fax: 615−532−5683 Email: pamela.hayden−wood@state.tn.us TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Lehn COOPER & KIRK PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202−220−9600 Fax: 202−220−9601 Email: dlehn@cooperkirk.com (Inactive) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek L Shaffer COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202 220−9600 Fax: 202 220−9601 Email: dshaffer@cooperkirk.com TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesse Panuccio COOPER & KIRK PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave N.W. Washington, DC 20036 202−220−9600 Fax: 202−220−9601 Email: jpanuccio@cooperkirk.com TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martha A. Campbell JOHNSON LAW FIRM 2802 North Highland Avenue Suite A Jackson, TN 38305 615−532−2558 Fax: 615−532−2541 Email: martha.campbell@ag.tn.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ned McWherter TERMINATED: 03/31/1995

represented by Judy A. Oxford LAW OFFICE OF JUDY OXFORD 1224 Columbia Ave. Franklin, TN 37064 615−791−8511 Fax: 615−791−1346 TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda A. Ross OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL John Sevier Building 500 Charlotte Avenue Ste. G−13 Nashville, TN 37243−0499

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 9 of 232

615−741−1771 Fax: 615−532−1120 Email: Linda.Ross@ag.tn.gov TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon S. Selby OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243−0485 615−741−8000 TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek L Shaffer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Lakey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W. Kirk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Evelyn C. Robertson, Jr. TERMINATED: 03/31/1995

represented by Judy A. Oxford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda A. Ross (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon S. Selby (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek L Shaffer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Lakey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W. Kirk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 10 of 232

Mona Reeves−Winfrey TERMINATED: 03/31/1995

Judy A. Oxford (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda A. Ross (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon S. Selby (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/31/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek L Shaffer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Lakey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W. Kirk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Don Sundquist Governor of the State of Tennessee

represented by Dianne Stamey Dycus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas Earl Dimond (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela A. Hayden−Wood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Lehn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek L Shaffer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesse Panuccio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 11 of 232

Jonathan P. Lakey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martha A. Campbell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W. Kirk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell

represented by Dianne Stamey Dycus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas Earl Dimond (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela A. Hayden−Wood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Lehn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek L Shaffer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesse Panuccio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Lakey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martha A. Campbell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W. Kirk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Max Jackson Superintendent of Arlington Developement Center

represented by Dianne Stamey Dycus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas Earl Dimond

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 12 of 232

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela A. Hayden−Wood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Lehn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Derek L Shaffer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jesse Panuccio (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Lakey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martha A. Campbell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W. Kirk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
Carl Beard by his next friend Wendy Kurland

represented by Earle J. Schwarz The Offices of Earle J. Schwarz 2157 Madison Ave Suite 201 Memphis, TN 38104 901−216−4790 Fax: 901−328−5656 Email: eschwarz@earle−schwarz.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward G. Connette Essex Richards, P.A. 1701 South Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203 704−377−4300 Fax: 704−372−1357 Email: econnette@essexrichards.com TERMINATED: 03/17/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank J. Laski PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 13 of 232

125 S. 9th Street Ste. 700 Philadelphia, PA 19107 215−627−7100 TERMINATED: 07/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack W. Derryberry , Jr. WARD DERRYBERRY & THOMPSON 404 James Robertson Parkway Suite 1720 Nashville, TN 37219 615−244−0554 Fax: 615−244−1229 Email: derryberryjack@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. Gran REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN, LLP 19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033 856−354−0021 Fax: 856−473−5640 Email: judith@rcglawoffices.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
People First of Tennessee on behalf of all its members

represented by Earle J. Schwarz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward G. Connette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank J. Laski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack W. Derryberry , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. Gran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Roger Manus LAW OFFICE OF ROGER MANUS 401 Oberlin Rd. Ste. 230 Raleigh, NC 27605 919−833−4600 Fax: 833−4726

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 14 of 232

TERMINATED: 07/19/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcella G. Derryberry LAW OFFICES OF MARCELLA G. DERRYBERRY 1139 Battery Lane Nashville, TN 37220 615−460−9726 Fax: 615−385−9536 Email: mgfletcher@bellsouth.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
Sandra Howard by her next friend Elizabeth Henderson

represented by Earle J. Schwarz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward G. Connette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank J. Laski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack W. Derryberry , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. Gran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
Herman Walter Runions by his next friend Sarah R. Todd

represented by Earle J. Schwarz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward G. Connette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank J. Laski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack W. Derryberry , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 15 of 232

Intervenor Harvey Richard Watson by his next friend Jodie Wheeler
Intervenor Clarence Wilson by his next friend Wilma Williamson
Intervenor

Judith A. Gran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Earle J. Schwarz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward G. Connette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Laski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack W. Derryberry , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judith A. Gran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Earle J. Schwarz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward G. Connette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frank J. Laski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack W. Derryberry , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judith A. Gran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 16 of 232

Keith Collins by his mother and next friend Joyce Cisco

represented by Earle J. Schwarz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward G. Connette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank J. Laski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack W. Derryberry , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. Gran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
Stevelyn Danieal Tucker by her parents and next friends Carolyn and Steve Tucker

represented by Earle J. Schwarz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward G. Connette (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank J. Laski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack W. Derryberry , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. Gran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association

represented by Diane C. Spears WILLIAMS & PROCHASKA, P.C. 50 N. Front St. Ste. 1065 Memphis, TN 38103 901−577−1000 Fax: 521−0206 TERMINATED: 01/13/2005

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 17 of 232

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimbrough Brown Mullins MULLINS GARDNER, PLC 668 Colonial Road Suite 1 Memphis, TN 38117 901−527−2000 Fax: 901−527−2100 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William F. Sherman LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM F. SHERMAN 809 North Palm Little Rock, AR 72205 501−663−7004 Fax: 501−680−3754 Email: wfsherman@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
Memphis Publishing Company TERMINATED: 12/14/1995

represented by S. Russell Headrick LATHROP & GAGE LLP 2345 Grand Blvd. Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108 816−292−2000 Fax: 816−292−2001 Email: rheadrick@lathropgage.com TERMINATED: 12/13/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee, Inc. a Tennessee not−for−profit trade assocation TERMINATED: 09/29/2000

represented by William M. Barrick WEED HUBBARD BERRY & DOUGHTY, PLLC SunTrust Bank Building 201 Fourth Ave., North Ste. 1420 Nashville, TN 37219 615−251−5444 TERMINATED: 09/29/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William B. Hubbard Hubbard & Smith 40 Rutledge St. Nashville, TN 37210 615−251−5446 Email: whubbard@hubbardsmith.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
Sunrise Community of Tennessee, Inc.'s TERMINATED: 09/10/2004

represented by Buffey Elizabeth Klein HUSCH & EPPENBERGER One Memphis Place

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 18 of 232
200 Jefferson Ave. Ste. 1450 Memphis, TN 38103 901−842−7837 Fax: 901−523−7472 Email: buffey.klein@husch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Russell Headrick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/10/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven W. Likens LITTLER MENDELSON, PLC 3725 Champion Hills Drive Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 901−795−6695 Email: slikens@littler.com TERMINATED: 09/10/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/21/1992 02/04/1992 02/04/1992 02/04/1992 02/12/1992
03/04/1992
03/04/1992
03/04/1992 03/04/1992 03/12/1992
03/12/1992
04/09/1992

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) ; (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 01/27/1992)
2 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr. on 1/30/92 (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 02/12/1992)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey on 1/29/92 (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 02/12/1992)
4 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Ned McWherter on 1/29/92 (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 02/12/1992)
5 STIPULATION by plaintiff USA, defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey enlarging time for defts. to respond (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/04/1992)
6 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey to dismiss , for summary judgment (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/04/1992)
7 MEMORANDUM by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey in support of motion to dismiss [6−1], of motion for summary judgment [6−2] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/04/1992)
8 EXHIBIT to motion to dismiss (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/04/1992)
9 COLLECTIVE EXHIBIT to motion to dismiss (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/04/1992)
10 STIPULATION by plaintiff USA, defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey re [6−1] extending (WMW) (csf) (Entered: 03/18/1992)
10 STIPULATION by plaintiff USA, defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey re [6−2] extending (WMW) (Entered: 03/18/1992)
11 SETTING LETTER ; Status conference 4/24/92, @ 3:00pm (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 04/14/1992)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 19 of 232

04/14/1992 04/20/1992 04/20/1992 05/04/1992
05/15/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992
06/01/1992 06/11/1992 06/17/1992 06/17/1992 06/17/1992 06/18/1992 06/22/1992 07/02/1992 07/20/1992

12 ORDER by Chief Judge Odell M. Horton resetting status conference set for 4/24/92. The court will reschedule. [entered & filed 04/14/92] (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 04/14/1992)
13 OPPOSITION by plaintiff USA to [6−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1992)
14 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of opposition (PLACED IN SEPARATE FOLDER) [13−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1992)
15 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 05/04/1992)
16 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to [6−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 05/15/1992)
17 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey for protective order (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/02/1992)
18 MEMORANDUM by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey in support of motion for protective order [17−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/02/1992)
19 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/02/1992)
20 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/02/1992)
21 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Reeves−Winfrey (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/02/1992)
22 REPLY by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey re [16−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/03/1992)
23 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Reeves−Winfrey in support of motion for protective order [17−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/17/1992)
26 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion for protective order [17−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/24/1992)
27 MOTION by plaintiff USA to set expedite hearing....on defts' motion to dismiss..... (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/24/1992)
28 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion to set expedite hearing....on defts' motion to dismiss..... [27−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/24/1992)
24 ORDER by Chief Judge Odell M. Horton Case reassigned to Judge Jon P. McCalla. Notice of transfer to all concerned. [entered on docket 6/18/92] (cc: all counsel) (WMW) Modified on 06/18/1992 (csf). (Entered: 06/18/1992)
25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to [6−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/23/1992)
29 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER [26−1] by dfts (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/09/1992)
30 ORDER SETTING ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Jon P. McCalla setting hearing on dft's motion to dismiss or in the alternative, for sumjgm [6−1] 9:00 am 7/24/92 (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 20 of 232

07/24/1992 07/27/1992
08/03/1992
08/04/1992 08/07/1992
08/11/1992 08/11/1992 08/12/1992 08/12/1992 08/13/1992 08/26/1992 08/31/1992 08/31/1992 09/17/1992 09/29/1992 10/05/1992

07/20/1992)
31 MINUTES: Oral argument on dft's motion to dimiss; Parties to proceed with discovery; govt's request to inspect property− granted (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1992)
32 ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS by Judge Jon P. McCalla for denying dfts' application for stay of discovery and for pla to redraft its interrogatories and submit w/in 14 days, no later than 8/7/92; pla, U.S. to proceed with 2 expedited depos; parties to submit to the Court a consent protective order by 7/31/92; pla, U.S. to be permitted to inspect the premises through 9/30/92; documents produced by dft, State of TN to be restricted to use in the proceedings and no patients to be identified in any document filed publicly with the Court Note: Dfts' application for stay of discovery not filed in Clerk's office. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) Modified on 09/04/1992 (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1992)
33 STIPULATION and ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY by Judge Jon P. McCalla : for all parties to abide by stipulation to protect the confidentiality of the residents of Arlington Developmental Center during and before this litigation (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/03/1992)
34 TRANSCRIPT of Oral Argument ofn dfts' motion to dism filed 7/24/92 (Clerk's Copy) (Former Emp)(Placed in Separate Folder) (csf). (Entered: 08/10/1992)
35 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying dfts' motion to dismiss [6−1], denying dfts' motion for summary judgment [6−2] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/10/1992)
36 MOTION by plaintiff USA for Modification and Clarification of Court's Order Dated July 24, 1992 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/12/1992)
37 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for Modification and Clarification of Court's Order Dated July 24, 1992 [36−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/12/1992)
38 RESPONSE by defendants to pla's Motion for Modification and Clarification of Court's Order dated July 24, 1992 [36−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/18/1992)
39 PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by defendants (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/18/1992)
40 MINUTES: Status conf. held 8/13/92: Both parties submitted Proposed Scheduling Order. Discussion on documents due to be provided to gov't by 8/17/92. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/19/1992)
41 TRANSCRIPT filed, a hearing heard on 8/12/92 (Former Emp) (Placed in Separate Folder) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1992)
42 MOTION by defendants to amend Order Certifying For Interlocutory Appeal This Court's Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for summary judgment (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/04/1992)
43 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to amend Order [42−1], of motion for summary judgment [42−2] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/04/1992)
44 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion to amend Order [42−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/05/1992)
45 SUPPLEMENTAL Memorandum In Support of United States' Proposed Discovery Plan by plaintiff USA (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/05/1992)
46 SCHEDULING ORDER 16(b) ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER SETTING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL ORDER AMENDING ORDER ON DISCOVERY Judge Jon P. McCalla...discovery ddl 6/1/93; pretrial motions and motions in limine ddl 7/16/93; pretrial conf. ddl 7/30/93; status conf. ddl 4/2/93; trial ddl 8/30/93; document production 12/31/92; document requests 10/29/92; requests for admissions 2/12/93; interrogatory submittal 11/13/92; pla's expert disclosure 2/12/93; depositions of fact witnesses 1/29/93; depositions of expert

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 21 of 232

10/06/1992 10/08/1992 10/08/1992 10/26/1992 10/27/1992 10/30/1992 11/03/1992 11/03/1992 11/16/1992 11/17/1992 11/24/1992 11/27/1992 12/01/1992
12/04/1992 12/10/1992 12/11/1992
12/22/1992 12/28/1992

witnesses 5/21/93; all discovery disputes in this case are hereby referred to the magistrate judge. (cc: all counsel) FOR THE RECORD: after a quality control review of docket entries, the scheduling order file stamped 10/5/92 and entered on the system 10/5/92 was deleted and re−entered 1/29/96 using the original file stamped date of 10/5/92. (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 01/29/1996)
47 RESPONSE To Supplemental Memorandum In Support Of United States' Proposed Discovery Plan by defendants to [45−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/22/1992)
48 SETTING LETTER ; Pretrial order ddl 7/16/93 Pretrial conference 7/30/93 @ 9:00 a.m. ; Jury trial 8/30/93 @ 9:30 a.m. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/22/1992)
49 SETTING LETTER ;Follow−up Scheduling/ Status conference 4/2/93 @ 9:00 a.m. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/22/1992)
50 ANSWER by defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey to [1−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/04/1992)
51 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey by Stephen Barton (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/04/1992)
52 SETTING LETTER ; Pretrial order ddl 7/16/93 Pretrial conference set for 7/30/93 at 9:00 a.m. ; Trial set for 8/30/93 at 9:30 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/04/1992)
53 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Susan Bowers for USA and substituting attorney Laurie Weinstein (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/05/1992)
53 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff USA by Verlin P. Hughes, William G. Maddox, and Robert C. Bowman (Former Emp) (Entered: 11/05/1992)
54 MOTION by plaintiff USA to strike Affirmative Defenses (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/23/1992)
55 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend time for inspections by one wk (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/01/1992)
56 STIPULATION by plaintiff, defendant to extend/enlarge time for dfts to respond until 12/5/92 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/01/1992)
57 UNOPPOSED MOTION by defendants to extend to 12/4/92 for production of documents (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/01/1992)
58 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend to 12/4/92 for production of documents and any privileged objections to Second Supplemental Request [57−1] also extending remaining responsive documents to pla's Second Supplemental Request to be provided by 12/18/92 (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/01/1992)
59 RESPONSE by defendants to motion to strike Affirmative Defenses [54−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/04/1992)
60 MOTION by plaintiff USA for leave to file one interrogatory out of time (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/11/1992)
61 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla for discovery: dfts shall make all discovery documents, and responses made available to the intervenor and plas in Case No. 92−2213 w/in 5 days of having made documents available to Dept of Justice in accordance w/ discovery order in this case. Intervenor and plas in Case No. 92−2213 will be allowed to attend depos taken in this case. Scheduling Order for Case No. 92−2213 attached. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) Modified on 12/11/1992 (csf). (Entered: 12/11/1992)
62 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion to strike Affirmative Defenses [54−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/22/1992)
63 ORDER CONFIRMING REQUIREMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY by Judge Jon P. McCalla for any entity and/or individuals present for

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 22 of 232

01/11/1993 01/11/1993 01/12/1993 01/13/1993 01/19/1993 01/29/1993 02/16/1993 02/26/1993 03/12/1993 03/15/1993 03/15/1993 03/16/1993 03/23/1993
03/24/1993 03/29/1993 03/29/1993

discovery on behalf of pla and intervenor in Case no. 92−2213 shall execute afdts and protective orders required by pty in Case No. 92−2062 in order to participate in discovery; In all other respects, govt's application for relief in connection w/orders previously entered, allowing presence and receipt of discovery materials by pla and intervenor in Case No. 92−2213, is denied (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/28/1992)
64 MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend time to take non−expert depositions and to serve requests for admissions until 3−26−93 & 4−23−93 respectively (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/21/1993)
65 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to extend time to take non−expert depositions and to serve requests for admissions until 3−26−93 & 4−23−93 respectively [64−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/21/1993)
66 MOTION by plaintiff USA to expedite ruling on its motion for extension of time to take non−expert depositions and to serve requests for admission (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/21/1993)
67 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendants State of Tennessee, Ned McWherter, Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., Mona Reeves−Winfrey to Pltfs. motion for extension of time [64−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/21/1993)
68 ORDER ON PLTFS. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [64−1]; The 10−5−92 scheduling order is Amended as to paragraphs 3,5 & 7 (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/21/1993)
69 RETURN OF SERVICE of Subpoena for Marilyn Herring (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/02/1993)
70 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time for inspections by one wk [55−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/16/1993)
71 ORDER by Mag Judge James H. Allen granting motion for leave to file one interrogatory out of time [60−1]: Pla to serve interrogatory w/in 15 days of docketing of this order (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/26/1993)
72 NOTICE by plaintiff USA counsel Laurie J. Weinstein of change of address (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 03/16/1993)
73 MOTION by plaintiff USA for preliminary injunction to enjoin dangerous and life−threatening feeding practices (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 03/17/1993)
74 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin dangerous and life−threatening feeding practices [73−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 03/17/1993)
75 SETTING LETTER setting hearing on motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin dangerous and life−threatening feeding practices [73−1] 12:30 3/31/93 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 03/18/1993)
76 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey to continue hearing on pla's motion for preliminary injunction (Former Emp) Modified on 03/29/1993 (csf). (Entered: 03/24/1993)
77 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion to continue hearing on pla's motion for preliminary injunction [76−1] (Former Emp) Modified on 03/29/1993 (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1993)
78 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion to continue hearing on pla's motion for preliminary injunction [76−1] extending the record for preliminary injunction until 4/12/93 (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1993)
79 RESPONSE In OPPOSITION by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey to motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin dangerous and life−threatening feeding practices [73−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 03/30/1993)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 23 of 232

03/29/1993
03/31/1993
03/31/1993
03/31/1993 03/31/1993 04/02/1993
04/07/1993 04/07/1993 04/08/1993 04/12/1993 04/14/1993 04/15/1993 05/07/1993
05/17/1993 06/14/1993 06/14/1993
06/18/1993 06/25/1993 06/30/1993
07/01/1993
07/07/1993 07/08/1993

80 EXHIBITS in Support of Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Former Emp)(Placed in Separate Folder) (csf). (Entered: 03/30/1993)
81 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin dangerous and life−threatening feeding practices [73−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1993)
82 MINUTES: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction held; Pla called as witnesses: Susan L. Hyman, M.D.. Victoria Therriault, Irene R. McEwen; Defense witnesses: Dr. William Hinkle; State to submit final submittals by 4/12/93; All proof concluded at 3:20 p.m.; Court took under advisement; Sealed documents in Safe. Remaining exhibits in separate folder−placed w/file. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1993)
83 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list by plaintiff, defendants (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/05/1993)
84 EXHIBITS (Former Emp)(Placed in Separate Folder) (csf). (Entered: 04/05/1993)
85 MINUTES: Case on track for trial; Court ruled that the U.S. will be allowed to take a June tour of the Arlington facility; Status conference held 4/2/93 ; Trial set for 8/30/93. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1993)
86 TRANSCRIPT filed 4/7/93 of preliminary injunction hearing. (Placed in Separate Folder) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1993)
87 NOTICE by defendants of change of address for counsel (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1993)
88 DECLARATION of Susan Bowers (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1993)
89 AFFIDAVIT of Philip R. Ziring, M.D. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1993)
90 LETTER from plaintiff USA counsel w/attachment (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1993)
91 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to [89−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1993)
92 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin dangerous and life−threatening feeding practices [73−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/07/1993)
93 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list dated March 31, 1993 listing exhibits 1−14. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/17/1993)
94 MOTION by plaintiff USA to compel production of documents (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/14/1993)
95 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion to compel production of documents [94−1]; with attachments placed in seperate folder (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/14/1993)
96 RESPONSE by defendant (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/21/1993)
97 STIPULATION by plaintiff, defendant extending time for response to motion to compel until July 7, 1993 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/28/1993)
98 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [97−2] the defendant has until July 7, 1993 to respond to the Motion to compel production of documents (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/01/1993)
99 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff USA from Dist. Court decision order denying motion for a preliminary injunction [92−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/06/1993)
100 NOTIFICATION form sent to 6th Circuit [99−1] w/copies of docket item #92, 99 and docket sheet. cc: all counsel. (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/07/1993)
101 NOTICE by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey of filing the affidavits of

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 24 of 232

07/08/1993 07/08/1993 07/08/1993 07/12/1993 07/12/1993 07/13/1993 07/13/1993 07/13/1993
07/14/1993
07/15/1993 07/15/1993 07/15/1993 07/15/1993 07/16/1993 07/16/1993 07/16/1993
07/21/1993 07/22/1993

Lillian Bailey, R. N. and Thomas E. McLemore, Jr., M. D. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/08/1993)
102 AFFIDAVIT of Lillian Bailey, R. N. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/08/1993)
103 AFFIDAVIT of Thomas E. McLemore, Jr., M. D. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/08/1993)
104 RESPONSE by defendant to motion to compel production of documents [94−1] ( placed in separate folder) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/08/1993)
105 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff and defendants to extend for one week filing of the joint pre−trial order and one week extension of the date for the exchange of exhibits (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1993)
106 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff and defendants in support of motion to extend for one week filing of the joint pre−trial order and one week extension of the date for the exchange of exhibits [105−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1993)
107 MOTION by plaintiff USA for preliminary injunction to Enjoin Continuing Dangerous Feeding Practices (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1993)
108 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for preliminary injunction to Enjoin Continuing Dangerous Feeding Practices [107−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1993)
109 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend for one week filing of the joint pre−trial order and one week extension of the date for the exchange of exhibits [105−1] ; Pretrial order ddl 7/23/93 and parties shall exchange exhibits on 8/6/93 (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1993)
110 ERRATA by plaintiff USA to Memorandum in Support of its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Continuing Feeding Practices, filed on 7/13/93. Page 2 of memorandum inadvertently left out − page attached to this errata. [108−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/15/1993)
111 MOTION by defendants in limine concerning responses of Arlington Developmental Center staff to DoJ allegations in Findings Letter. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/16/1993)
112 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion in limine concerning responses of Arlington Developmental Center staff to DoJ allegations in Findings Letter. [111−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/16/1993)
113 DEFENDANTS' MOTION to Reopen Discovery To Allow Supplemental Depositions of Experts (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/16/1993)
114 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to Reopen Discovery To Allow Supplemental Depositions of Experts [113−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/16/1993)
115 MOTION by defendant to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action , or in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/19/1993)
116 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action [115−1], of motion for judgment on the pleadings [115−2] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/19/1993)
117 MOTION by plaintiff USA in limine to exclude evidence of alleged improvements in conditions at Arlington developmental center obtained by defendants after the close of discovery; with memorandum in support attached (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/19/1993)
118 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion to Reopen Discovery To Allow Supplemental Depositions of Experts [113−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/21/1993)
119 RESPONSE by defendant to motion for preliminary injunction to Enjoin Continuing Dangerous Feeding Practices [107−1] (Placed in separate folder) (Former Emp) (csf).

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 25 of 232

07/22/1993
07/22/1993 07/23/1993 07/23/1993 07/23/1993 07/23/1993 07/26/1993 07/26/1993 07/26/1993 07/26/1993 07/26/1993 07/28/1993
07/29/1993 07/29/1993 07/29/1993 07/29/1993 07/29/1993 07/30/1993 07/30/1993

(Entered: 07/22/1993)
120 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey to amend the memorandum in support of the motion for failur to state a cause of action or, in the alternative, for judgement on pleadings (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/22/1993)
NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 93−5948 (Former Emp) (Entered: 08/06/1993)
121 REPLY/ RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to response to motion to compel production of documents [94−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/23/1993)
122 MOTION by defendant to extend time to complete defendants' pretrial order (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/23/1993)
123 PROPOSED Pre−trial Order Received from defendants (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/23/1993)
124 PRE−TRIAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/23/1993)
125 ORDER (handwritten on motion to reopen...) by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion to Reopen Discovery To Allow Supplemental Depositions of Experts [113−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/26/1993)
126 SEAL DOCUMENT PLACED IN VAULT (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/26/1993)
127 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion in limine concerning responses of Arlington Developmental Center staff to DoJ allegations in Findings Letter. [111−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/26/1993)
128 ERRATA by plaintiff USA to Pretrial Memorandum filed July 23, 1993 [124−1]− inadvertently ommited Table of Contents, attached to this errata (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/26/1993)
129 TRANSCRIPT Order Form 3/31/93 re [99−1]...order form indicates that transcript in already on file in Clerk's office (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/26/1993)
130 MOTION by plaintiff USA TO COMPEL defendants' medical consultant, DR. PHILLIP SIRING TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS regarding his evaluations and opinions of the medical care at other institutions for whom he was a consultant (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/28/1993)
131 ERRATA by plaintiff USA to the opposition to defendant's motion in limine (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/29/1993)
132 MOTION by plaintiff USA in limine to clarify issues for trial (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/29/1993)
133 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action or in the alternative, for judgement on pleadings [115−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/29/1993)
134 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey for leave to file under seal the affidavit of Sharon S. Selby (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/30/1993)
135 RESPONSE by defendant to motion in limine to exclude evidence of alleged improvements in conditions at Arlington developmental center after July 16, 1993 [117−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/30/1993)
136 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for leave to file under seal the affidavit of Sharon S. Selby [134−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/02/1993)
137 MINUTES: ; Pretrial conference held 7/30/93 Motion of defense counsel to continue trial set 8−30−93− Court DENIED. Parties to submit a joint proposed pretrial order by 8−6−93. Court to enter an order on its ruling on pending motions. Filed in open court,

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 26 of 232

08/06/1993 08/09/1993 08/09/1993 08/12/1993 08/20/1993 08/23/1993 08/24/1993 08/30/1993 08/31/1993 09/01/1993 09/02/1993 09/03/1993 09/07/1993 09/08/1993 09/08/1993 09/09/1993
09/10/1993
09/13/1993

Order sealing affidavit of Sharon Selby (Former Emp) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
138 JOINT PROPOSED Pre−trial Order Received from plaintiff, defendant (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/06/1993)
139 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla setting trial time ...pla. will have 8 days to present its case, defts. will have 11 days,... (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/09/1993)
140 JOINT PRE−TRIAL ORDER approved by Judge Jon P. McCalla : (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/10/1993)
141 TRANSCRIPT filed from pretrial conference held July 30, 1993 before Judge McCalla ( placed in seperate folder) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/13/1993)
142 TRIAL MEMORANDUM by defendants (Former Emp) (Entered: 08/23/1993)
143 MOTION by plaintiff USA to compel production of death record of Cara H. (Former Emp) (csf). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/24/2009: # 1 Defendants' Trial Memorandum) (csf). (Entered: 08/23/1993)
144 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla amending order setting trial− fourth week of trial set for week of October 18, 1993 (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/24/1993)
145 MINUTES: ; Trial began 8/30/93 at 1:35 p.m. Opening statements made. Govt called witnesses. Court adjourned at 5:15 p.m. to resume 8−31−93 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/03/1993)
146 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:00 a.m Testimony of Wayne Christian resumed and completed. Trial resumes tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/03/1993)
147 MINUTES: Non−jury trial began at 9:05 a.m. Witnesses sworn: Susan L. Hyman. Trial to resume September 2, 1993 at 9:30 a.m. Christopher Lee Brown admitted to the Bar. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/03/1993)
148 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:25 a.m. Testimony of Susan L. Hyman resumed, Ludwik Szymanski (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/07/1993)
149 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:00 a.m. Testimony of Ludwik Stymanski resumed, Victoria M. Therriault. Court adjourned at 5:05 p.m. to resume 9−7−93 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/08/1993)
150 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:30 a.m. Witnesses sworn: Sam Nuckolls, Dr. Irene McKeown. Court adjurned at 4:30 p.m. to resume 9−8−93 at 9:00 a.m. Exhibits 74−78 placed under seal. Given to Suzan. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/08/1993)
151 RETURN OF SERVICE executed on 9/3/93 on Sam Nuckolls (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/08/1993)
152 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:15 a.m. Testimony of Irene McKeown resumed. Court asdjourned at 5:45 p.m. to resume Thursday, 9−9−93 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/10/1993)
153 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:05 a.m. Testimony of Susan Thibadeau resumed. Victoria M. Therriault, Cheryl Wilson, Peggy Jolin Moore. Court adjourned at 5:00 p.m. to resume 9−10−93 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/13/1993)
154 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:15 a.m. Witnesses sworn: Mr. Jimmy Davis, Carolyn Sue Tucker, Cheryl McCallum, Peggy Derringer. Depo. counter−designations by State of Tennessee by 9−17−93. The United States rested at 12:00 noon. State called witnesses: Mona Reeves−Winfrey. Court adj at 5:05 p.m. to resume, Monday, 9−13−93 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/13/1993)
155 RETURN OF SERVICE executed on 9/10/93 as to Carolyn Tucker (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/13/1993)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 27 of 232

09/13/1993 09/13/1993 09/14/1993 09/14/1993
09/15/1993 09/16/1993
09/17/1993 09/17/1993 09/17/1993 09/21/1993 09/24/1993 09/24/1993 09/24/1993 10/13/1993 10/13/1993 10/13/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993

157 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff USA from Dist. Court decision denying second motion for a preliminary injunction [51−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/14/1993)
158 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:20 a.m. Testimony of Mona− Reeves Winfrey resumed. Dr. Beverly Cox. Court adjourned at 5:00 p.m. to resume Tuesday, September 14, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/16/1993)
156 RETURN OF SERVICE executed on 8/30/93 as to Cheryl Wilson, subject will pick up at USMS office on 9−9−93 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/14/1993)
159 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:00 a.m. Testimony of Dr. Beverly Cox resumed. Dennis Mozingo, Dr. Mary Riordan, Jon S. Bailey. Court adjourned at 5:00 p.m. to resume September 15, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. with testimony of Jon Bailey. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/16/1993)
160 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:25 a.m. with testimony of Jon Bailey. Court adjourned at 5:00 p.m. to resume on 9−16−93 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/17/1993)
161 MINUTES: Preliminary matters taken up. Non−jury trial resumed at 9:25 a.m. with testimony of Jon S. Bailey, Barbara Payne, Carla Lynn Andreas. Court adjourned at 5:00 p.m. to resume on 9−17−93 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/20/1993)
161 NOTIFICATION form sent to 6th Circuit [157−1] w/copies of docket items 137, 157, and docket sheet. cc: all counsel (Former Emp) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
REMARK Docket clerk spoke with law clerk regarding the ruling on pltf's second request for preliminary injunction and was advised that the ruling was an oral denial during the pretrial conference held July 30, 1993 (Former Emp) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
162 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 10:30 a.m. Sworn: Judith Elizabeth Drews. Court adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to resume trial Monday, October 18, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/20/1993)
163 NOTIFICATION form sent to 6th Circuit [157−1] w/copy of docket item 157 and docket sheet. cc: all counsel. (Former Emp) (Entered: 09/21/1993)
164 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted − attempted on Peggy Perkins (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/27/1993)
165 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted − attempted on Otis Sumlin (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/27/1993)
166 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted − attempted on Peggy Davis (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/27/1993)
167 ORDER REGARDING FINDINGS AND ORAL ARGUMENT (parties to submit no more than 25 pages of proposed findings by 5:00 p.m. on 10−22−93) by Judge Jon P. McCalla (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
168 TRANSCRIPT Order Form stating 7/30/93 hearing transcript is already on file in clerk's office. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/13/1993)
MAIL Returned Notification form/preliminary packet addressed to William G. Maddox, Esq. (Former Emp) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
169 DEPOSITION of Robert Rife, Jr. taken on the following date(s): January 13, 1993 (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
170 DEPOSITION of Edna Robinson taken on the following date(s): February 3, 1993 with exhibit attached (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
171 DEPOSITION of Cheryl Seyerle taken on the following date(s): January 27, 1993 (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
172 DEPOSITION of Lena Sparks taken on the following date(s): January 8, 1992 − with exhibit attached (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 28 of 232

10/14/1993
10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993

173 DEPOSITION of June Stewart taken on the following date(s): February 11, 1993−with exhibit attached (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
174 DEPOSITION of Patricia Thorton taken on the following date(s): December 17, 1992 (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
175 DEPOSITION of Curtis Wall taken on the following date(s): December 29, 1993 (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
176 DEPOSITION of Lillian Bailey taken on the following date(s): February 5, 1993− three volumes (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
177 DEPOSITION of Stephanie Boone taken on the following date(s): December 30, 1992 (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
178 DEPOSITION of Albert Brown taken on the following date(s): February 8, 1993 (placed in box #1) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
179 DEPOSITION of Della Gay taken on the following date(s): 12/17/92 (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
180 DEPOSITION of Ellana Gooch taken on the following date(s): 1/15/93 with exhibits (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
181 DEPOSITION of William Burroughs taken on the following date(s): 1/6/92 with exhibits (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
182 DEPOSITION of Seth Canion, DDS taken on the following date(s): 2/4/93 (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
183 DEPOSITION of Mary Coburn taken on the following date(s): 1/9/92 (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
184 DEPOSITION of Barbara Connolly taken on the following date(s): 1/29/93 (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
185 DEPOSITION of Sandra Cotten taken on the following date(s): 2/12/93 (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
186 DEPOSITION of Beverly Cox, Ph.D taken on the following date(s): 1/29/93 two volumes (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
187 DEPOSITION of Betty Crawford taken on the following date(s): 1/7/92 with exhibits attached (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
188 DEPOSITION of Emerson Crenshaw taken on the following date(s): 2/8/93 (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
189 DEPOSITION of Patricia Farsee taken on the following date(s): 12/29/92 (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
190 DEPOSITION of Nancy Faust taken on the following date(s): 2/12/93 (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
191 DEPOSITION of Elaine Galloway taken on the following date(s): 1/7/92 with exhibits (placed in box #2) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
192 DEPOSITION of Nancy Grey taken on the following date(s): 1/21/93 with exhibits ( placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
193 DEPOSITION of William Herring taken on the following date(s): 1/9/92 (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
194 DEPOSITION of William Hinkle, Ph.D (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
195 DEPOSITION of Bonnie Horn taken on the following date(s): 1/14/93 (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 29 of 232

10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/18/1993 10/19/1993 10/20/1993 10/21/1993 10/22/1993 10/23/1993 10/25/1993 10/26/1993 10/29/1993 10/29/1993 10/29/1993 11/05/1993 11/05/1993

196 DEPOSITION of Ruth Mulvany taken on the following date(s): 1/29/93 (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
197 DEPOSITION of Thomas E. McLemore, M.D. taken on the following date(s): 2/4/93 four volumes with exhibits (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
198 DEPOSITION of Hazel Nordan taken on the following date(s): 1/7/93 with exhibits (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
199 DEPOSITION of Mamerto Pacris taken on the following date(s): 2/12/93 (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
200 DEPOSITION of Claudia Person taken on the following date(s): 1/27/93 with exhibits (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
201 DEPOSITION of Hak He Pyun, M. D. taken on the following date(s): 2/2/93 (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
202 DEPOSITION of Stephen N. Rice, M.D. taken on the following date(s): 1/22/93 (placed in box #3) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
203 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 10:00 a.m. Witnesses sworn: Alexander Earle Harivity, III. Court adjourned at 2:50 p.m. to resume Tuesday, October 19, 1993 at 9:30 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1993)
204 MINUTES: ; Jury trial held 10/19/93; Non−jury trial resumed at 9:40 a.m. witness sworn: Michael I. Levine, M.D. Court adjourned at 5:15 p.m. to resume 10−20−93 a 9:30 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/22/1993)
205 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 10:05 a.m. Testimony of Michael I. Levine, M.D. resumed, Thomas E. McLemore, Jr. Court adjourned at 6:00 p.m. to resume 10−21−93 at 9:30 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/26/1993)
206 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:30 a.m. Testimony of Thomas E. McLemore, Jr. resumed. Court adjourned at 5:40 p.m. to resume 10−22−93 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/26/1993)
207 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:50 a.m. Witnesses sworn. Court adjourned at 5:40 p.m. to resume Saturday, October 23, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/26/1993)
208 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 9:00 a.m. Glenn A. Vergason resumed. Court adjourned at 12:15 p.m. to resume October 25, 1993 at 1:45 p.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/26/1993)
209 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 2:00 p.m. Witnesses sworn: Phillip R. Ziring. Court adjourned at 7:00 p.m. to resume 10−26−93 at 9:30 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/29/1993)
213 MINUTES: Non−jury trial resumed at 10:10 a.m. Defense proof concluded. United States called rebuttal witnesses. Court adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Oral argument set for 11−9−93 at 9:30 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/04/1993)
210 NOTICE OF FILING OF proposed findings of fact by plaintiff USA (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/29/1993)
211 PROPOSED FINDINGS of facts by plaintiff USA (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/29/1993)
212 PROPOSED FINDINGS of facts and conclusions of law by defendant State of Tennessee (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 10/29/1993)
214 POST TRIAL BRIEF FILED by defendant (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/05/1993)
215 POST TRIAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/05/1993)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 30 of 232

11/09/1993 11/09/1993 11/09/1993 11/09/1993 11/10/1993 11/12/1993 11/15/1993 11/16/1993 11/22/1993
11/22/1993
12/07/1993 12/08/1993 12/08/1993 12/16/1993 12/22/1993 12/22/1993 12/22/1993
12/23/1993

216 MOTION by defendant for a view by the court of Arlinton Developemental Center (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/09/1993)
217 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for a view by the court of Arlinton Developemental Center [216−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/09/1993)
218 MINUTES: Oral argument− Court took matter under advisement. Oral ruling in the case to be set at a later date. Filed in open court− Proposed order of the United States (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/10/1993)
219 PROPOSED Pre−trial Order Received from plaintiff USA (filed in open court 11−9−93) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/10/1993)
220 ORDER (handwritten on motion) by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion for a view by the court of Arlinton Developemental Center [216−1] for reasons stated in open court (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/10/1993)
221 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff USA re pre−trial order order [219−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/12/1993)
222 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff USA re statement/ proposed findings of facts [211−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/16/1993)
223 SETTING LETTER ; In−court hearing /oral opinion to be rendered on 11/22/93 at 11:00 a.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1993)
224 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ORDER SETTING DATES FOR SUBMISSION OF PLAN AND FINALIZING PERMANENT INJUNCTON by Judge Jon P. McCalla ; In−court hearing held 11/22/93 − State of TN to file comments on the proposed injunctive relief order by 12−7−93 at 5:00 p.m. A Plan to be submitted to the Court by 1−21−94 at 5:00 p.m. regarding measures to remedy the constitutional violations (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1993)
225 MINUTES: Court's oral ruling. Court to enter a preliminary injunction order. Court to file add'l findings of fact in accordance with the oral ruling. The Commissioner is required to submit a plan to remedy violations of constitutional rights no later than 1−21−94 by 5:00 p.m. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/26/1993)
227 RESPONSE by defendant State of Tennessee to the order of the United States [224−2] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/13/1993)
226 ORDER Entered: 12/6/93 from 6th Circuit dismissing the appeal [157−1], dismissing the appeal [99−1] upon motion of appellant. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/09/1993)
228 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee to clarify and to ascertain status of case (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/13/1993)
229 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, defendant Ned McWherter, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey for extension of time (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/17/1993)
230 REPLY by plaintiff USA re DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES. [227−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)
236 MOTION by plaintiff USA for order directing dfts to disclose measures taken to comply with preliminary injunction issued November 22, 1993. (Former Emp) (csf). (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)
237 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for order directing dfts to disclose measures taken to comply with preliminary injunction issued November 22, 1993. [236−1] (An unsigned copy of this memorandum was received this date.) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)
231 ORDER ON DFTS' MOTION FOR EXTENION OF TIME by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for extension of time [229−1].....it is ordered that the date by which the State of TN must submit its preliminary remedial plan to the U.S. is extended from Dec. 30, 1993, to Jan. 18, 1994. The date by which the parties shall submit a final remedial plan to the Court is extended from Jan. 21, 1994, to Fri., Feb. 18, 1994. (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 31 of 232

12/23/1993
12/23/1993
12/23/1993
12/23/1993
12/23/1993
12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/31/1993 01/06/1994 01/07/1994 02/09/1994
02/18/1994 02/18/1994
02/18/1994 02/18/1994 02/23/1994

232 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla dfts' request to be allowed extension of time to submit reply to U.S. reply to dfts' response to proposed order of U.S. reply....time extended to Dec. 30, 1993 (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)
233 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [224−2].....this Court hereby grants the motion of the U.S. and orders that, within 15 days of the issuance of this order, (Friday, Jan. 7, 1994) dfts submit to this Court and the U.S. a description of each and every action they have taken to comply with the preliminary injunction issued on Nov. 22, 1993; the date each action was initiated and the person(s) who was assigned to ensure that each action was implemented. (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)
234 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ORDEDR OF THE UNITED STATES by defendant State of Tennessee re response [227−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)
235 REQUEST by defendant to be allowed to submit reply to U.S.'s Reply to Dft's Response to Proposed Order of the U.S. (by 12/30/93) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)
238 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for order directing dfts to disclose measures taken to comply with preliminary injunction issued November 22, 1993. [236−1] (Signed copy of memorandum) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1993)
239 NOTICE OF FILING OF documents by defendant (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/04/1994)
240 AFFIDAVIT of Nina Staples (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/04/1994)
241 AFFIDAVIT of Crystal Davis (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/04/1994)
242 AFFIDAVIT of Crystal Davis (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/04/1994)
243 AFFIDAVIT of Safranski Durr (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/04/1994)
244 AFFIDAVIT of Thomas E. McLemore, Jr., M.D. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/04/1994)
245 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT of Rick Williams (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/04/1994)
246 REPLY by defendant re United States' reply to defts' response to proposed order of the United States [230−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/04/1994)
247 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list (Former Emp) (Entered: 01/12/1994)
248 REPLY by plaintiff USA re defendants' supplmental response to proposed order of the United States [234−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1994)
249 NOTICE/ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by defendant (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1994)
250 MOTION by plaintiff USA for order appointing Dr. Linda R. O'Neal as a monitor to assist the defendants in the court ordered plan (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/09/1994)
251 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law by Judge Jon P. McCalla (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/18/1994)
252 ADDENDUM by Judge McCalla to the comments made by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on November 22, 1193. Clerical corrections have been made. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/18/1994)
253 REQUEST by defendant for additional time to respond to United States' nomination of monitor (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/18/1994)
254 REMEDIAL PLAN by defendant State of Tennessee (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/18/1994)
255 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee for leave to file supplemental remedial plan (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/23/1994)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 32 of 232

02/23/1994 02/23/1994 02/24/1994 03/01/1994 03/02/1994 03/09/1994 03/10/1994 03/14/1994 03/18/1994 03/18/1994 03/21/1994 03/21/1994
03/21/1994 03/22/1994
04/04/1994
04/04/1994 04/05/1994 05/25/1994 05/25/1994 05/25/1994

256 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL by defendant State of Tennessee (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/23/1994)
257 ORDER ( handwritten on motion) by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting request to extend time to respond to motion of US to nominate a monitor− time extended to March 2, 1994 [253−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/24/1994)
258 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for leave to file supplemental remedial plan [255−1] plan to be filed by March 21, 1994 (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 02/24/1994)
259 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff USA to defendants' plan [255−1], to proposal to submit a supplemental plan [254−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/02/1994)
260 RESPONSE by defendant to motion for order appointing Dr. Linda R. O'Neal as a monitor to assist the defendants in the court ordered plan [250−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/02/1994)
261 SETTING LETTER ; In−court hearing for monitor set for 3/18/94 at 2:00 p.m. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/10/1994)
262 SETTING LETTER ; In−court hearing for monitor reset to 3/21/94 at 9:30 a.m. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/11/1994)
263 SETTING LETTER ; In−court hearing on monitor set for 3/18/94 at 2:00 p.m. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/14/1994)
264 NOTICE/ Proposal regarding the remedial process by defendant (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/18/1994)
265 MOTION by defendant for leave to have limited modification of order regarding confindentiality (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/18/1994)
266 NOTICE/ REMEDIAL PLAN OF STATE OF TENNESSEE by defendant placed in seperate folder (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/21/1994)
267 MINUTES: ; In−court hearing held 3/21/94− Judge McCalla presiding. Sworn: Linda O'Neal, sociologist, exh 1; resume of Ms. O'Neal. Court to enter interim order. Court directed deft to submit an amended proposed order re: video review (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/21/1994)
268 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/21/1994)
269 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for leave to have limited modification of order regarding confindentiality [265−1]...the Attorney General is allowed to review sealed videotape with appropriate State authorities provided confidentiality of residents of Arlington can be accomplished (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/23/1994)
270 MINUTES: Telephone conference held 4−4−94. Court directed parties that, pursuant to proper notice by Ms. Weinstein, counsultants may proceed with visit to Arlington today, as long as counsel is present. Also, the visit set for tomorrow ( Tuesday ) to Arlington may proceed in the prescence of attorneys. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/05/1994)
271 TRANSCRIPT filed ! from hearing held March 21, 1994 before Judge McCalla (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/05/1994)
272 ORDER ON COURT EXPERT FACILITATOR by Judge Jon P. McCalla Dr. O'Neall does not work for either party, but is the court's expert. (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/05/1994)
273 MOTION by defendants for protective order (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/25/1994)
274 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion for protective order [273−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/25/1994)
275 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/25/1994)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 33 of 232

06/08/1994 06/08/1994 06/13/1994 06/14/1994 06/15/1994
06/15/1994 06/15/1994 06/16/1994
06/17/1994
06/23/1994 06/29/1994 06/29/1994 07/01/1994 07/06/1994 07/08/1994
07/08/1994 07/08/1994
07/11/1994
07/11/1994 07/12/1994
07/13/1994

276 MOTION by plaintiff USA for an extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion for a protective order...6/14/94 (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/08/1994)
277 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL... by plaintiff USA (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/08/1994)
278 SETTING LETTER ; Status conference set for 7/8/94 at 9:00 a.m. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 06/14/1994)
279 RESPONSE in opposition by plaintiff USA to motion for protective order [273−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 06/14/1994)
280 ORDER FOR SUBMITTALS ON PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN by Judge Jon P. McCalla; written comments regarding proposed plan to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on July 8, 1994 in−court hearing set 9:00 7/29/94 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 06/15/1994)
281 NOTICE/ REMEDIAL PLAN by defendant (placed in seperate folder) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 06/15/1994)
282 EXHIBITS/ ATTACHMENTS (placed in seperate folder) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 06/15/1994)
283 REPLY by defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Ned McWherter, defendant State of Tennessee to response to motion for protective order [273−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 06/16/1994)
284 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for an extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion for a protective order...6/14/94 [276−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 06/17/1994)
285 SETTING LETTER ; Status conference set for 7/22/94 at 2:00 a.m. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/01/1994)
286 MOTION by plaintiff USA for contempt order , and for order to show cause placed in seperate folder (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/01/1994)
287 MOTION by plaintiff USA to expedite ruling on motion for a contempt order or for show cause order (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/01/1994)
288 RESPONSE/ OPPOSITION by defendant to motion to expedite ruling on motion for a contempt order or for show cause order [287−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/01/1994)
MAIL Returned [280−1], [280−2] addressed to plaintiff USA's counsel Verlin P. Hughes (WBE) (Entered: 07/07/1994)
289 NOTICE/ SUBMITTAL OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE ON THE REMEDIAL PLAN PREPARED BY THE EXPERT FACILITATOR by defendant (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/08/1994)
290 DECLARATION of Larry L. Durbin, Ed.D (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/08/1994)
291 RESPONSE/ COMMENTS by plaintiff USA to THE REMEDIAL PLAN FOR ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER [289−1] (placed in seperate folder) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1994)
REMARK spoke to Robert Bowman on this date regarding returned mail. He provided new address and will forward change of address notification. (WBE) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
299 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing set for 7/29/94 at 9:00 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/14/1994)
292 MOTION by plaintiff USA for order requiring defendants to remedy the violations identified by Court's opinion of November 22, 1993 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1994)
293 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE AND HEARING by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting portion of motion response requesting extention of time to repsond to comtempt petition until July 22, 1994; motion to expedite ruling on motion for a contempt order

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 34 of 232

07/13/1994 07/13/1994 07/13/1994 07/13/1994 07/13/1994 07/22/1994
07/22/1994
07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/22/1994 07/27/1994 07/28/1994

or for show cause order denied in part..defendants allow more than 10 days to respond−granted in part...pltf allowed to reply to response to be done by July 27, 1994 [287−1], setting hearing on motion for contempt order [286−1] 9:00 7/29/94, setting hearing on motion for order to show cause [286−2] 9:00 7/29/94 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) Modified on 07/13/1994 (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1994)
294 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Dr. Cox to appear on July 29, 1994 9:00 a.m. by Judge Jon P. McCalla (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1994)
295 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Dr. McLemore to appear on July 29, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. by Judge Jon P. McCalla (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1994)
296 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Dr. Mohyuddin to appear on July 29, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. by Judge Jon P. McCalla (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1994)
297 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Dr. Herring to appear on July 29, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. by Judge Jon P. McCalla (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1994)
298 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion for protective order [273−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/13/1994)
300 ORDER APPROVING BUDGET FOR EXPERT FACILITATOR by Judge Jon P. McCalla...the court has reviewed this budget and hereby approves it. (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 07/22/1994)
301 MINUTES: Judge McCalla presiding; Status conference held 7/22/94; Mr. Burson explicated the basis for the State's Apparent resistance to consent to a detailed remedial plan/order of the court (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/25/1994)
302 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendants to United States' motion for a contempt order [286−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
303 NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
304 DECLARATION by Dawn E. Vinson, M.S. w/attachment (EHG) Modified on 07/25/1994 (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
305 DECLARATION by Katherine Tucker w/attachment (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
306 DECLARATION by Lois Washington w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
307 DECLARATION by Avila Steele (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
308 DECLARATION by Anne−Marie Speight (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
309 DECLARATION by Gaye Hansen (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
310 DECLARATION by Jon S. Bailey, Ph.D. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
311 DECLARATION by Larry Peete (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
312 DECLARATION by Nancy Grey, R.N. w/attachment (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
313 DECLARATION by Lillian Bailey, R.N. w/attachment (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
314 NOTICE OF FILING/ SEALED DOCUMENTS by defendants (placed in vault) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1994)
315 RESPONSE by defendant to United States' comments on the remedial plan (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1994)
316 MOTION by defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Ned McWherter, defendant State of Tennessee for leave to present alternative order (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1994)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 35 of 232

07/28/1994 07/28/1994 07/28/1994 07/28/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994
07/29/1994 08/01/1994 08/05/1994 08/11/1994 08/11/1994 08/11/1994 08/11/1994 08/12/1994 08/23/1994
08/30/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994

317 MOTION by defendant to strike commments by Sue Gant, Ph.D submitted by United States (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1994)
318 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to defendant's response to the remedial pland [315−1] and to defendant's proposed order submitted July 22, 1994 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1994)
319 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to motion for contempt order [286−1] sealed exhibit placed in vault (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1994)
MAIL Returned [299−1] addressed to plaintiff USA (WBE) (Entered: 07/28/1994)
320 MINUTES: ; In−court hearing held 7/29/94− Judge McCalla presiding. Dr. O'Neal presented draft of proposed remedial plan for court's consideration. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/02/1994)
321 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list − exhibits placed in seperate folder (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/02/1994)
322 MINUTES: Show cause hearing− Judge McCalla presiding re: pltf's petition for contempt. Defense proof presented. Govt's proof presented. Court directed that the State provide copies of Court's orders to all ADC's professional staff and that staff must read same and sign a form that Court's instructions will be complied with; orders to be provided by 8−5−94. Petition taken under advisement− order to enter. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/02/1994)
323 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list− ( exhibits placed in seperate folder) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/02/1994)
MAIL Returned [298−1], [297−1], [296−1], [295−1], [294−1], [293−1] addressed to Robert C. Bowman, Esq. (EHG) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
324 MINUTES: Telephone status conference held 8−5−94− Judge McCalla presiding. Parties request a one week extension to arrive at an agreed order on the remedial plan−GRANTED. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/08/1994)
325 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT by Judge Jon P. McCalla− transcript of contempt hearing to be prepared by Saprina Smith at government expense (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/11/1994)
326 TRANSCRIPT filed; copy; excerpt of proceedings before the Honorable Jon McCalla held 7−29−94 (WBE) (Entered: 08/11/1994)
327 NOTICE/ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE JULY 29, 1994 ORAL ORDER OF THE COURT by defendant (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/12/1994)
328 DECLARATION of Gaye Hansen (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/12/1994)
329 LETTER from Judge McCalla to Ms. Weinstein & Ms. Ross setting deadline of 8/19/94 at 4:00 p.m. to submit briefs on issues. (JL) (csf). (Entered: 08/16/1994)
330 MINUTES: Settlement conference held on 8/23/94− Judge McCalla presiding. Proposed remedial order by stipulation. Court will reserve entry of order on contempt issue. Defts motion re: remedial plan to be submitted along with proposed remedial order as stipulated to (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/25/1994)
331 ORDER ON EXPERT FACILITATOR BUDGET FOR JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER by Judge Jon P. McCalla (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1994)
332 MOTION by blank PGA (Parent Gauardian Association) to intervene (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1994)
333 MEMORANDUM in support of motion to intervene [332−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1994)
334 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, plaintiff USA for orders to be entered (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1994)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 36 of 232

08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/06/1994 09/29/1994
09/29/1994 10/03/1994
11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994

335 PROPOSED Stipulated Order submitted by defendant State of Tennessee, plaintiff USA (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1994)
336 PROPOSED Remedial Order submitted by defendant State of Tennessee, plaintiff USA (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1994)
337 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion to intervene [332−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1994)
338 REMEDIAL ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla adopting document proposed [336−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 09/06/1994)
339 STIPULATED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla adopting document proposed [335−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 09/06/1994)
340 MOTION by PGA to expedite ruling on motion to intervene (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 09/06/1994)
341 ORDER APPROVING BUDGET FOR EXPERT FACILITATOR by Judge Jon P. McCalla...it is hereby ordered that dfts are instructed to immediately pay into the Registry of the Court seventy−six thousand nine hundred sixty−seven dollars and sixty one cents ($76,967.61). The Clerk of court is directed to deposit the funds into an interest bearing account and to reimburse the Expert Facilitator for her expenses and/or fees, up to and including the total sum of monies deposited by dfts. Any monies not spent by the Expert Facilitator shall be credited to the dfts and shall be returned to the dfts upon order of the court. (cc: all counsel) (c: Financial Deputy) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/29/1994)
342 NOTICE (SEALED DOCUMENT) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 09/29/1994)
343 ORDER APPOINTING MONITOR by Judge Jon P. McCalla− Linda R. O'Neall is appointed as monitor until further order of the Court (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/03/1994)
344 TRANSCRIPT filed − original − trial held 8/30/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
345 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) 8/31/93 trial, volume II (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
346 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) 9/1/93 trial, volume III (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
347 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) 9/2/93 trial, volume IV (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
348 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) 9/3/93 trial, volume V (SSH) Modified on 11/21/1994 (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
349 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Testimony of Dr. Ludwik Szymanski on 9/2 and 9/3/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
350 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) 9/7/93 trial, volume VI (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
351 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial 9/8/93, volume VII (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
352 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Testimony of Roland Palmer and Rebecca Palmer on 9/8/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
353 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial 9/9/93, volume VIII (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
354 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial 9/10/93, volume IX (SSH) Modified on 11/21/1994 (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
355 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial 9/10/93, volume IX (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
356 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Testimony of Dr. Susan Thibadeau on 9/9 and 9/10/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 37 of 232

11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/17/1994 12/28/1994
03/08/1995
03/13/1995 03/20/1995
03/24/1995

357 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial on 9/10/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
358 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Testimony of Carolyn Sue Tucker on 9/10/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
359 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial on 9/13/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
360 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial held 9/13/93 (SSH) Modified on 11/21/1994 (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
361 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial held 9/14/93 (SSH) Modified on 11/21/1994 (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
362 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial held 9/14/93 (SSH) Modified on 11/21/1994 (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
363 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial held 9/15/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
364 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial on 9/15/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
365 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial held 9/16/93 (SSH) Modified on 11/21/1994 (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
366 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial held 9/16/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
367 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial held 9/17/93 (SSH) Modified on 11/21/1994 (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
368 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial held 9/17/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
369 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial held 10/18/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
370 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial held 10/17/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
371 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial held 10/20/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
372 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial held 10/21/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
373 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Trial held 10/22/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
374 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial 10/23/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
375 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial held 10/25/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
376 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) trial held 10/26/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
377 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Closing arugments heard on 11/9/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
378 TRANSCRIPT filed (original) Opinion of the Court 11/22/93 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1994)
379 ORDER APPROVING BUDGET FOR EXPERT FACILITATOR by Judge Jon P. McCalla Dfts are to pay into the Registry of the Court $392,902.00. The Clerk of Court is to deposit the funds into an interest bearing account and to reimburse the expert facilitator for expenses and/or fees...(cc: all counsel) (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 12/29/1994)
380 ORDER ESTABLISHING COMMENT PERIOD by Judge Jon P. McCalla parties to make comments re: first semi−annual review by 5:00 p.m. on March 23, 1995(cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/09/1995)
381 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing on monitor's review set for 4/10/95 at 9:30 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/14/1995)
382 ORDER CONCERNING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT HEARING ON APRIL 10, 1995 ORDER PRELIMINARILY ENJOINING CERTAIN EMPLOYEE ACTIVITIES... by Judge Jon P. McCalla (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/20/1995)
383 LETTER from Stephen Barton requesting that his name be removed from label list...system updated (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/24/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 38 of 232

03/28/1995 03/29/1995 03/29/1995 03/31/1995
03/31/1995
04/05/1995 04/05/1995 04/07/1995 04/07/1995 04/10/1995 04/10/1995 04/10/1995 04/10/1995 04/11/1995 04/26/1995 05/08/1995
05/09/1995 06/13/1995 06/30/1995

384 MINUTES: ; Telephone conference held 3−28−95 Judge McCalla presiding. Hearing remains set on 4/10/95 at 9:30 a.m. to address the monitor's report and waiver issue. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1995)
385 MOTION by plaintiff USA for contempt order (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1995)
386 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for contempt order [385−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1995)
387 AGREED ORDER OF SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES by Judge Jon P. McCalla dismissing party Ned McWherter, party Evelyn C. Robertson, party Mona Reeves−Winfrey and substituting Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nell Cardwell and Max Johnson respectively (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/03/1995)
388 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for contempt order [286−1]; sanctions not imposed; pltf's request for cost associated with filing of petition GRANTED; itemized list of costs to be filed within 30 days (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/14/2009: # 1 Order on Contempt Petition) (csf). (Entered: 04/03/1995)
389 RESPONSE by defendant to motion for expedited response to plaintiff's second motion for contempt order [385−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/05/1995)
390 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response in opposition to motion for expedited response to second motion for a contempt order [385−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/05/1995)
391 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for contempt order [385−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/07/1995)
392 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla setting hearing on motion for contempt order [385−1] 2:00 5/5/95 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/07/1995)
393 MINUTES: 5/5/95 hearing vacated/ vacating [392−1] order, Motion for contempt as to State of TN taken under advisement; denying motion for contempt order as to individual defendants [385−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/11/1995)
394 RESPONSE ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S MARCH 20, 1995 ORDER PRELIIMINARY ENJOINING CERTAIN EMPLOYEE ACTIVITIES.. by defendants to [382−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/11/1995)
395 ADDENDUM TO THE REMEDIAL ORDER by defendants, plaintiff (order of 9/2/94) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/11/1995)
396 NOTICE OF FILING OF: MONITOR'S FIRST SEMI−ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT... by Linda R. O'Neall (placed in separate folder) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/11/1995)
397 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list received on 4/11/95 and placed in vault with other exhibits by Suzan Thane. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 04/11/1995)
398 TRANSCRIPT filed from hearing held April 10, 1995 before Judge McCalla (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 04/27/1995)
399 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [388−1]...in accordance with the Order on Contempt Petition, and having reviewed the itemized list of costs filed by the USA, this court hereby orders that dfts shall by July 1, 1995, pay to the USA the sum of eighteen thousand forty−seven dollars and eighty−seven cents ($18,047.87). (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 05/08/1995)
400 PLAN OF CORRECTION by defendant (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 05/09/1995)
401 NOTICE by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall of change of address− system updated (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 06/15/1995)
403 MINUTES: Telephone conference held 6/30/95− Judge McCalla presiding from Judicial conference in N. Carolina. State of Tn will have required developmental medicine physician in place by 7/3/95 , Follow−up status conference set 8:45 7/10/95 Preliminary report− expert consultant attached as exhibit 1 (WBE) Modified on 07/06/1995 (csf). (Entered: 07/06/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 39 of 232

07/03/1995 07/10/1995
07/11/1995 07/12/1995 07/14/1995
07/19/1995 07/21/1995
07/24/1995 07/24/1995 07/27/1995 07/29/1995 08/03/1995 08/08/1995 08/09/1995

402 EMERGENCY ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla− provisions of order effective June 30, 1995 resulting from hearing by telephone conference (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/03/1995)
404 MINUTES: follow−up status conference held 7/10/95 at 10:30, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Parties present: Dr. O'Neal, Dr. Wachtel, Dr. Durbin, Supt. Jackson, Comm. Cardwell and Ms. Hansen. Govt moved the Court to supplement the report dated 6/30/95, State of TN objected. Govt is allowed to take up to 6 depositions. Recruitment Plan due Friday, 7/14/95, by State of TN. The requisite report to the Court's Monitor is modified from every 2 days to every Friday by 2:00 p.m. Follow−up conference set 9:00 8/8/95 (1 hour limit). State of TN to have 136 Nurses in place or be subject to the govt's motion for sanctions. The issue of lifting emergency status to be addressed at follow−up hearing. Govt renewed motion to supplement the 6/30/95 report. Proposed order submitted incorporating additional provisions. Emergency Order to be preliminary injunctions immediately, govt to provide the Court with the proposed preliminary injunction. Pla Atty: Weinstein and Bowman Dft Atty: Ross C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1995)
405 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list from the follow−up conference held 7/10/95 before Judge Jon P. McCalla. Exhibits attached. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1995)
406 SETTING LETTER : follow−up status conference set for 8/8/95 at 9:00 (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/14/1995)
407 Defendant's Comprehensive Plan of Interim Coverage of the Duties of a Full−time Developmental Medicine Physician; Dft's Recruitment Plan for Immediate Retention of a Full−time Developmental Physician; and Dft's Plan of Interim Coverage for Psychiatric Services filed by Arlington Dev Ctr (documents placed in separate folder) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/17/1995)
408 THIRD MOTION by plaintiff USA for contempt order w/memorandum in support attached (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/19/1995)
409 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [402−1].. this order is entered in the form of a preliminary injunction, incorporating the requirements of the Emergency Order w/appropriate modifications and additions. The Emergency Order was made eff. 6/30/95, and the deadlines for Dfts' compliance w/those provisions are retained in this order and toll from the eff. date of the Emergency Order. .. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 07/21/1995)
410 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla setting hearing on third motion for contempt order [408−1]; motion to be heard at 9:00 a.m. on 8/9/95 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/24/1995)
411 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Linda A. Ross for Max Jackson, attorney Linda A. Ross for Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, attorney Linda A. Ross for Don Sundquist and substituting attorney Kathleen A. Maloy (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1995)
412 TRANSCRIPT filed from hearing held July 10, 1995 before Judge McCalla (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 07/27/1995)
413 SETTING LETTER : status conference set for 8/9/95 at 9:00 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/01/1995)
414 JUDGMENT: by Judge Jon P. McCalla dismissing case...it is so ordered and adjudged in accordance with the Remedial Order of the court entered on Sept 2, 1994, Judgment is hereby entered for the pla. Status conf set for 8/9/95 to remain set per Chambers instructions (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (Entered: 08/03/1995)
415 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in OPPOSITION to Third Motion for Contempt Order [408−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/08/1995)
416 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list from hearing held 8/9/95 (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/10/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 40 of 232

08/09/1995
08/10/1995 08/14/1995 08/18/1995 08/18/1995 08/18/1995 08/23/1995 08/23/1995
08/24/1995 08/25/1995 08/25/1995 08/25/1995

417 MINUTES: follow−up status conference held 8/9/95, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Linda Ross introduced two attorneys to the Court to be admitted to the Western District of TN, Court denied. Request was made for in−chambers conference to be placed under seal. Report to be sumbitted to the Court by 9/8/95 (8:45 − 9:35). Proposed agreement due by 9/29/95. Second compliance report to commence by 9/20/95. Hearing as to adoption of compliance report set 10/27/95 at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Ross moved to admit Kathleen Maloy of the State Attorney General's Office as counsel for dft. The Court granted pro hac vice motion for the limited purpose of this hearing. Courts Ruling: Mr. Bowman to submit an order on comtempt five working days after receiving transcript. State is in violations of no. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8. Dft's granted 2 weeks to hire nurses (no. 6). Dfts to pay $1,000 each week for each violation. Dr. Wachtel to certify each violation. The Commissioner must spend one week−end each month at the Arlington Center, service to begin 8/11/95 at 6:00 p.m. Hearing as to status will be held in 45 days, Court to set date. This hearing is in addition to the 10/27/95 hearing. Exhibits from this hearing are in the custody of the Exhibit Clerk. Pla Atty: Bowman and Weinstein Dft Atty: Ross and Maloy C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/10/1995)
418 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to dft's opposition to third motion for contempt and sumbission of USA's Experts' reports [408−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/10/1995)
419 TRANSCRIPT of hearing dated 8/9/95 before Judge Jon P. McCalla C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/14/1995)
420 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson for finding of partial compliance with July 21, 1995 preliminary injunction and for partial relief from contempt sanctions (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/18/1995)
421 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion for finding of partial compliance with July 21, 1995 preliminary injunction and for partial relief from contempt sanctions [420−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/18/1995)
422 DECLARATION by defendant Max Jackson re [420−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/18/1995)
423 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for finding of partial compliance with July 21, 1995 preliminary injunction and for partial relief from contempt sanctions [420−1] w/attachment (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/23/1995)
424 MINUTES: telephone conference held 8/23/95, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Arlin Lamb, Director of Personnel, Dr. Larry Durban and Dr. O'Neill also present, telephonically. State of TN requests relief as to the two week deadline imposed in OB training/hiring of two developmental nurses (deadline today). State's exhibit #1: Declaration of Arlin Lamb submitted. Arlin Lamb sworn and questioned by govt regarding declaration. Dr. Durban sworn and questioned by govt. Court granted request by the State giving the State an extension of 60 days, 10/23/95 by 5:00 p.m. Proposed order to be submitted to the Court. Declaration of Arlin Lamb attached to minutes. Pla Atty: Bowman Dft Atty: Ross, Thompson and Cannon C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/24/1995)
425 CONTEMPT ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...On the entire record of this case, ..for the reasons set out in this Memorandum Order, the Court finding the defts in CONTEMPT of the courts, ordered the following remedial and coercive sanctions eff. 8/9/95: ...1. Dfts to pay $1,000.00 per day for each numbered provision of the Prel Inj.... (cc: all counsel) w/attached Index of Appendices. (placed in separate folder) (EHG) Modified on 08/24/1995 (csf). (csf). (Entered: 08/24/1995)
426 TRANSCRIPT of telephone conference held on 6/30/95 before Judge Jon P. McCalla (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/25/1995)
427 TRANSCRIPT of telephone conference held on 8/23/95 before Judge Jon P. McCalla (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/25/1995)
428 SETTING LETTER : Hearing will be held in this case regarding the status relating to the Court's Emergency Order and regarding Compliance Report. The hearing on the EMERGENCY ORDER is set for 10/27/95 at 9:00. The hearing on COMPLIANCE

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 41 of 232

08/25/1995
08/28/1995
08/28/1995 08/30/1995 08/31/1995 08/31/1995 08/31/1995 08/31/1995
09/05/1995 09/05/1995 09/05/1995 09/08/1995
09/11/1995 09/12/1995 09/14/1995 09/15/1995

REPORT is set for 10/10/95 at 9:30. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/25/1995)
429 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson for finding of partial compliance with July 21, 1995, Preliminary Injunction and for partial relief from contempt sanctions w/attachments (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/25/1995)
430 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla GRANTING the dft's request for additional time within which to comply with the requirement that they retain two developmental nurses. The dfts will be allowed an additional 60 days, unitl 10/23/95, within which to retain to developmental nurses approved by the Court Monitor's Nurse Consultant. This order is effective as of 8/23/95 at 4:00 p.m. CDT. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/29/1995)
431 PAYMENT by defendant Tennessee, State of in the amount of $70,000.00 for the penalty assessed by Judge McCalla. Receipt No. 023615. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/30/1995)
432 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson from Dist. Court decision on 8/24/95 (Order of Contempt) (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 08/31/1995)
434 RECEIVED re [432−1] appeal fee in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 23672) from State Atty General's Office (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 09/01/1995)
435 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson re motion for a stay pending appeal and for expedited ruling (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/01/1995)
436 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson for stay pending appeal and for expedited ruling (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/01/1995)
437 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion for stay pending appeal and for expedited ruling [436−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/01/1995)
433 NOTIFICATION form sent to 6th Circuit [432−1] w/copies of docket items 425 (notice of appeal), 431 (contempt order) and docket sheet. cc: all counsel − contempt order only, no appendicies sent to attys) (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 09/05/1995)
438 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for stay pending appeal and for expedited ruling [436−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/05/1995)
439 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for finding of partial compliance with July 21, 1995, Preliminary Injunction and for partial relief from contempt sanctions [429−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/06/1995)
441 MINUTES: Follow−up conference held 9/8/95; Dr. O'Neall present. Defense requests stay of sanctions imposed relative to commissioner's requirement to stay at Arlington and request for expedited relief. Govt. opposed both requests. Court denied requests and will allow the US proper amount of time to make a substantive response to the motions. (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 09/13/1995)
440 ORDER Entered: 9/8/95 from 6th Circuit denying appeal [432−1] without prejudice to dfts' right to renew motion, if necessary, following a ruling by the distric court on the stay motion (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 09/12/1995)
NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 95−6185; A. Crockett case mgr. (SSH) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
442 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for stay pending appeal and for expedited ruling [436−1] w/attachments (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/15/1995)
443 TRANSCRIPT of telephone conference held September 8, 1995, before Judge Jon P. McCalla C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/15/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 42 of 232

09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995
09/21/1995
09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/25/1995 09/26/1995
09/26/1995
09/26/1995 09/26/1995

444 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson, defendant Don Sundquist for admission of attorney Kathleen Maloy and Lorraine Lester−Thompson (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/21/1995)
445 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson re scheduled weekend of stay of the Commissioner of Dept. of Mental Health and Mental Retardation at Arlington Developmental Center. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/21/1995)
446 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson for an order determining that the presence of the Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental Health and Mental Retardation at Arlington Developmental Center on the weekend of October 13−16, 1995, instead of the weekend of October 6−9, 1995, would constitute compliance with the Contmep Order entered August 24, 1995. w/declaration of Marjorie Nelle H. Cardwell attached (TMN) Modified on 09/21/1995 (csf). (Entered: 09/21/1995)
447 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion for an order determining that the presence of the Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental Health and Mental Retardation at Arlington Developmental Center on the weekend of October 13−16, 1995, instead of the weekend of October 6−9, 1995, would constitute compliance with the Contmep Order entered August 24, 1995. [446−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/21/1995)
448 AFFIDAVIT of Kathleen A. Malloy, J.D., Ph.D. re [444−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/21/1995)
449 AFFIDAVIT of Lorraine Lester−Thompson, Esq. re [444−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/21/1995)
MAIL Returned: Appeal notification packet [433−1] addressed to Robert C. Bowman, Esq. @ Dept. of Justice (SSH) (Entered: 09/25/1995)
450 TRANSCRIPT Order Form stating transcript is already on file in clerk's office (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 09/25/1995)
451 MOTION by defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to allow attorneys Lorraine Lester−Thompson, Kathleen A. Maloy and Kimberly J. Dean to be added as counsel for dfts (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/25/1995)
452 ORDER ESTABLISHING COMMENT PERIOD by Judge Jon P. McCalla. Copies of the second Semi−Annual review of compliance of Arlington Developmental Center re compliance with the Court's Remedial Order of September 1994, are being supplied to each party for immediate review and comment. Comments of the parties must be received in writing by the monitor by no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 1995. The monitor will have until October 23, 1995, to complete the final report on Monitor's second Semi−Annual Compliance Review. A hearing on the Monitor's second Semi−Annual Compliance Review is set for 9:00 a.m. on October 27, 1995. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/26/1995)
453 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for an order determining that the presence of the Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental Health and Mental Retardation at Arlington Developmental Center on the weekend of October 13−16, 1995, instead of the weekend of October 6−9, 1995, would constitute compliance with the Contmep Order entered August 24, 1995. [446−1] (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/26/1995)
454 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for admission of attorney Kathleen Maloy and Lorraine Lester−Thompson [444−1] (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/26/1995)
455 MINUTES: telephone conference held 9/26/95 regarding the motion by dft to add attorney Lorraine Lester−Thompson, Dyane Dycus, Kimberly Dean and Kathleen Maloy. Govt posed no opposition to motion. Motion granted by the Court. Pla Atty: Bowman and Weinstein Dft Atty: Burson, Ross, Maloy, Thompson, Dycus and Dean C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/28/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 43 of 232

09/29/1995 10/02/1995 10/03/1995 10/04/1995
10/10/1995 10/11/1995
10/16/1995 10/16/1995 10/17/1995

456 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to allow attorneys Lorraine Lester−Thompson, Kathleen A. Maloy, Kimberly J. Dean, Dianne Dycus and Kimberly J. Dean to be added as counsel for dfts [451−1] (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 09/29/1995)
457 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Defendant having failed to meet the four−point test as articulated by the Supreme Court for a stay pending appeal in this case, the motion of the State of Tennessee for a stay pending appeal is hereby DENIED. [436−1] w/attached Appendix I & II (cc: all counsel) (EHG) Modified on 10/02/1995 (csf). (Entered: 10/02/1995)
458 ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO DISPURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla. Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 5/8/95, the dfts were directed to pay the US the sum of $18,047.87 by 7/1/95. It appears that dfts paid the money into the Registry of the Court, instead of making a direct payment to the pla. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to sent the $18,047.87, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to the plaintiff. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/03/1995)
459 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla In order to facilitate efficient presentation at the October 10, 1995 hearing, dfts shall submit in advance of that hearing a complete and accurate sworn roster of all nurses providing services at Arlington Dev Ctr with full names....in connection with submittals concerning the October 27, 1995 compliance hearing, if any party has objections to any portion of the Monitor's Second Semi−Annual Compliance Report or any of its attachments, the party with objections shall include each objection int heir formal comments which are to be submitted in accordance with the Court's order docketed 9/26/95. Order Establishing Comment Period docketed 9/26/95. Additionally, if any party plans to use patient records and/or cases other than those patient records or cases reflected in the Monitor's Second Semi−Annual Report, said party shall provide a copy of those documents and a list of those patients/residents to all other counsel and to the Court Monitor by no later than 5:00 p.m. on Mon., 10/16/95 with a copy of said materials to also be filed with the Clerk of Court by 5:00 p.m. on Tues., 10/17/95. (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/16/2009: # 1 Order) (csf). (Entered: 10/04/1995)
460 MINUTES: hearing on Emergency Order held 9:30 a.m. 10/10/95, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Witnesses sworn: Barbara Grunou; Patricia Womack; Larry Durbin; Phillip V. Ackers; Dr. Palmer; Dr. Askins; Norma Lester; and Marjorie Cardwell. (Cardwell called by govt) Matter continued to 10:00 a.m. on 10/11/95 to allow for argument. Court adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Pla Atty: Bowman, Weinstein and Schwarz Dft Atty: Ross; Maloy; Thompson; Dycus; Dean; Nora Cannon; Sherman; and Derryberry C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/11/1995)
461 MINUTES: hearing on Emergency Order continued on 10/11/95, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Argument presented by Linda Ross on behalf of the State of Tenn. on matter of compliance with Remedial Order. Argument made by Laurie Weinstein on behalf of USA. Argument by Mr. Derryberry on behalf of People First. Argument by Mr. Sherman on behalf of Parent Guardian Assoc. Court to take matter under advisement. Pla Atty: Bowman; Weinstein; Derryberr; and Sherman Dft Atty: Ross; Thompson; Dycus; Maloy; and Cannon C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/11/1995)
462 SEALED DOCUMENT (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/16/1995)
463 ORDER Entered: 10/13/95 from 6th Circuit ...it is therefore ordered that defendants' renewed motion for a stay pending appeal is granted. (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 10/17/1995)
464 MINUTES: telephone conference held 10/17/95, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Dr. O'Neal present. Concern expressed by Dr. O'Neal and Govt regarding documents submitted by State of TN lacking attachments referenced and lack of cross references. Concerns echoed by remaining parties. State responded that the those specific portions that the State will rely on will be exchanged on 11/23/95. Partial documents due by fax to the parties by 10/20/95. Twelve−month medical records and historic social records to be sent Federal Express by by 5:00 p.m. 10/20/95. Pla Atty: Weinstein; Bowman; Hughes; Derryberry; and Sherman Dft Atty: Dean and Ross C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/18/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 44 of 232

10/18/1995 10/19/1995 10/19/1995
10/23/1995 10/24/1995 10/24/1995 10/24/1995 10/24/1995 10/24/1995 10/24/1995 10/24/1995 10/27/1995
10/27/1995 10/31/1995 11/02/1995

465 LETTER from Assistant Attorney General Kathleen A. Maloy, attorney for defendant State of Tennessee re status of negotiation process. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/18/1995)
466 AMENDED CERTIFICATE of Service in the Dfts' Notice of Filing Pursuant to the Order entered 10/4/95 by defendant Tennessee, State of (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/19/1995)
467 ORDER ADOPTING SCHEDULE by Judge Jon P. McCalla. Pursuant to a telephone scheduling conference held 10/17/95, the following schedule for disclosure and/or production and/or exchange prior to the 10/27/95 hearing is adopted in this case. State of TN must Federal Express to the US, People First, PGA, and the Monitor the contents of the "Two Notebooks" containing the most recent 12 months of patient records by 5:00 p.m. 10/19/95. State of TN must send by Facsimile transmission to the US, People First, PGA, and the Monitor the specific portions of the patient recores (with specific page designations) within the last 18 months which relate to specific objections the State has to the Monitor's report by 11:30 a.m. 10/20/95. Monitor must submit her final report, except analysis related to the medical records by 5:00 p.m. 10/23/95. State of TN exhibit submittal for the 10/27/95 hearing due by 5:00 p.m. 10/23/95. US, People First, and PGA exhibit submittal for 10/27/95 hearing due by 5:00 p.m. 10/24/95. Hearing on Monitor's Second Semi−Annual Compliance Review set for 10/27/95 at 9:00 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/20/1995)
468 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list from 10/10/95 hearing before Judge Jon P. McCalla (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/23/1995)
470 TRANSCRIPT filed in−chambers conf. 8/9/95 (1 vol.) PLACED IN SEPARATE FOLDER (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1995)
471 TRANSCRIPT filed in−court hearing 10/10/95 (1 vol.) PLACED IN SEPARTE FOLDER (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1995)
472 TRANSCRIPT filed in−court hearing 10/11/95 (1 vol.) PLACED IN SEPARATE FOLDER) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1995)
473 NOTICE (SEALED DOCUMENT) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1995)
474 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to extend time within which to retain an additional developmental nurse (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/25/1995)
475 MEMORANDUM (Factual Submission) by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion to extend time within which retain an additional developmental nurse [474−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/25/1995)
469 TRANSCRIPT of In−Chambers hearing held August 9, 1995, before Judge Jon P. McCalla (previously filed under seal) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1995)
476 MINUTES: follow−up status conference (compliance hearing) held 10/27/95, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Dr. O'Neall presented a report regarding the Compliance Order. Witnesses sworn: Dr. Linda O'Neall and Dr. Renee Wachtel (Monitor's Witnesses). State presented proof; witnesses sworn: Dr. O'Neall (recalled). People First presented proof. The Court will enter an order regarding the Monitor's Report. All exhibits checked by the Record's Clerk. Pla Atty: Bowman; Weinstein; and Hughes Dft Atty: Ross; Thompson; Dean; Derryberry; Durbin C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/30/1995)
477 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list from the follow−up conference (compliance hearing) held 10/27/95. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/30/1995)
478 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time within which to retain an additional developmental nurse [474−1]. The deadline is hereby reset to 12/22/95. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 10/31/1995)
479 TRANSCRIPT of hearing held October 27, 1995, before Judge Jon P. McCalla − C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/02/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 45 of 232

11/06/1995
11/06/1995 11/09/1995 11/09/1995 11/15/1995 11/15/1995 11/15/1995 11/16/1995 11/16/1995

480 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH EMERGENCY PROVISIONS AND ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO FIND PARTIAL COMPLIANCE AND LIFT SANCTIONS [420−1] [429−1] by Judge Jon P. McCalla finding that the dft's have fully complied with two of the five provisions which were the subject of the Contempt Order of August 24, 1995 (paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction have been complied with). The State of Tennessee concedes that it has not complied with paragraph 2 of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction, thus only paragraphs 1 (retention of a full−time developmental physician) and 8 (hiring of 136 nurses) are in dispute regarding compliance. For the reasons set forth in order, the dfts remain in contempt as to paragraphs 1 and 8 of the Emergency Order and Preliminary Injunction. The fines as to paragraphs 1,2 and 8 should, therefore, remain in effect until the State of Tennessee achieves compliance. The US is to submit within 30 days of the entry of this order a comprehensive legal analysis of the remedies available for use in this case, including a proposed remedial sanction scheme. The State of Tennessee likewise may, but is not required to, submit its own proposed remedial sanctions scheme and authorities supporting it. Likewise, the intervenor and class representative, People First, and intervenor, Parent−Guardian Association may, but are not required to, submit within 30 days such a proposal. Any party may file a response to the initial filings of those parties submitting proposed remedial sanctions within 15 days of filing by the US. As an interim step, in lieu of the requirement that Commissioner Cardwell spend every fourth weekend at Arlington Developmental Center, four (4) key administators, Medical Director Akers, Superintendent Jackson, Director of Nursing Lester, and Remedial Order Facilitator Hansen, are required to be available one day a month at Arlington Developmental Center for transcribed group and/or individual question and answer sessions. The Monitor may request the presence of additional persons at these sessions. The sessions will focus on implementation not only of the Preliminary Injunctions but also of the Remedial Order and Plan of Correction. The first question and answer session shall be scheduled within three (3) weeks of the date of entry of this order. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) Modified on 11/07/1995 (csf). (Entered: 11/06/1995)
481 APPENDIX 6 (previously filed under seal) from November 6, 1995 Order − Appendix 6 is attached to the November 22, 1995 Order, docket entry #494 (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1995)
482 MOTION by intervenor Memphis Publishing to intervene and for access to sealed transcript (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 11/13/1995)
483 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Memphis Publishing in support of motion to intervene and for access to sealed transcript [482−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 11/13/1995)
484 LETTER by Judge Jon P. McCalla to counsel of record regarding motion to intervene filed by Memphis Publishing Company. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/15/1995)
485 LETTER from Linda A. Ross, Associate Solicitor General, attorney for defendant State of Tennessee in response to the letter dated 11/14/95 from Judge Jon P. McCalla re motion to intervene. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/16/1995)
486 LETTER from Laurie J. Weinstein, attorney for plaintiff USA in response to the letter dated 11/14/95 from Judge Jon P. McCalla re motion to intervene. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/16/1995)
487 LETTER by Judge Jon P. McCalla to Laurie J. Weinstein and Linda A. Ross re letter dated 11/14/95. Copies of letter fowarded to the intervenors and counsel for Memphis Publishing Company. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/16/1995)
488 MINUTES: hearing re Memphis Publishing's motion to intervene and for access to sealed transcripts held by telephone on 11/16/95, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Parties faxed response to motion, except govt. Parties requested additional time to respond to motions, motion granted. Positions/responses due by 11/22/95. State of TN and USA requested transcript be sent to them via Overnight Mail. Court also addressed parties re possible conflict and possible recusal associated with Mr. Headrick's firm of Armstrong Allen. Pla Atty: Bowman; Gran and Sherman Dft Atty: Ross and Headrick C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/20/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 46 of 232

11/20/1995 11/20/1995 11/20/1995 11/21/1995
11/22/1995 11/22/1995
11/22/1995 11/22/1995 11/22/1995 11/24/1995 11/27/1995 11/27/1995 11/27/1995 11/27/1995 12/05/1995

489 MOTION by Intervenor Class Representatives to unseal portion of the transcript of the August 9, 1995, hearing (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1995)
490 MEMORANDUM by Intervenor Class Representatives in support of motion to unseal portion of the transcript of the August 9, 1995, hearing [489−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1995)
491 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, et al. for reimbursment of $149,000,00 in fines (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/21/1995)
492 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSIONS by Judge Jon P. McCalla. Because of the shutdown of the federal government from 11/14/95 throught 11/19/95, the USA moves for an extension of time of the deadline for filing its brief on remedies until 12/15/95, and an extension until 12/7/95 for the question and answer session to take place at Arlington Developmental Center. The USA's motion for both extensions is GRANTED. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1995)
493 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla referring to Mag Judge James H. Allen the motion to intervene and for access to sealed transcript [482−1]. Any requests for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order shall be made within 10 days of the order. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1995)
494 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla withdrawing order of referrence to the magistrate judge [493−1]; granting motion to unseal portion of the transcript of the August 9, 1995, hearing [489−1]; and granting motion to intervene and for access to sealed transcript [482−1]. Appendix 6 of the Order of November 6, 1995, and the sealed portions of the August 9, 1995, transcript in this case are hereby UNSEALED and shall be part of the public record in this case. A copy of Appendix 6 to the November 6, 1995 order is attached hereto. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1995)
495 LETTER from Linda Ross, Associate Solicitor General, counsel for defendant State of Tennessee re discussion held 11/16/95 re the request by the Commercial Appeal to unseal Appendix 6 to the 11/6/95 Order and the transcript from the 8/8/95 conference. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/24/1995)
496 MOTION by plaintiff USA for extension until 12/15/95 to file its brief on remedies, and an extension until 12/7/95 for the question and answer sessions to take place at the Arlington Developmental Center (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/24/1995)
497 RESPONSE by defendant State of Tennessee to motion for access to sealed transcript [482−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/24/1995)
498 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to pla's motion for extension [496−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/27/1995)
499 NOTICE OF FILING (1) document request by Parent Gardian Assoc. for the first Question and Answer session; (2) document request by People First for the first Question and Answer session, by defendant State of Tennessee w/said documents attached (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/28/1995)
499 Documents requested by Parent Guardian Assoc. and People First for the first Question and Answer session filed by defendant State of Tennessee (TMN) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/23/2009: # 1 Requested Documents) (csf). (Entered: 11/28/1995)
500 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of for clarification of the parameters of the question and answer sessions and document production authorized in the Court's order of November 6, 1995 (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/28/1995)
501 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion for clarification of the parameters of the question and answer sessions and document production authorized in the Court's order of November 6, 1995 [500−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 11/28/1995)
502 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for reimbursment of $149,000,00 in fines [491−1]. The Clerk is ordered to reimburse to the State of Tennessee $149,000.00. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/05/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 47 of 232

12/05/1995 12/06/1995 12/12/1995 12/13/1995 12/14/1995 12/14/1995
12/15/1995 12/15/1995 12/15/1995 12/19/1995 12/20/1995 12/20/1995 12/20/1995 12/22/1995 12/22/1995

503 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson from Dist. Court decision [480−1] (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/05/1995)
504 NOTIFICATION form sent to 6th Circuit [503−1] w/copies of docket items #480, 503 and docket sheet. cc: all counsel (SSH) Modified on 12/06/1995 (csf). (Entered: 12/06/1995)
505 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for preliminary injunction, enjoining dfts from continuing to assign an employee of the Arlington Dev Ctr who has been convicted of child abuse to direct contact with ADC residents. (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/12/1995)
506 SETTING LETTER : setting hearing on motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining dfts from continuing to assign an employee of the Arlington Dev Ctr who has been convicted of child abuse to direct contact with ADC residents [505−1] 2:00 12/22/95 (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/14/1995)
507 LETTER from intervenor Memphis Publishing requesting that they be removed from the clerk's list of counsel in this case. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/14/1995)
508 RESPONSE/SUGGESTION OF LACK OF CASE CONTROVERSY by defendant Tennessee, State regarding motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining dfts from continuing to assign an employee of the Arlington Dev Ctr who has been convicted of child abuse to direct contact with ADC residents [505−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/14/1995)
509 MOTION (Fourth) by plaintiff USA for order finding the State of Tennessee in contempt of this Court's Remedial Order and the Plan of Correction (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
510 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for order finding the State of Tennessee in contempt of this Court's Remedial Order and the Plan of Correction [509−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
511 MEMORANDUM SETTING FORTH ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE REMEDIES AND A PROPOSED REMEDIAL SANCTION SCHEME by plaintiff USA to [480−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/15/1995)
512 RESPONSE by intervenor People lst of TN to the Court's question concerning appropriate sanctions for civil contempt [480−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/19/1995)
513 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla directing Intervenor People First of TN to file any additional materials in support of its position that issues remain for resolution in connection with the motion for preliminary injunction and resetting the hearing on said motion to 12/29/95 at 2:00 p.m. (cc: counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/20/1995)
514 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson for cancellation of the hearing scheduled for 12/22/95 on the motion for preliminary injunction (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/20/1995)
515 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion for cancellation of the hearing scheduled for 12/22/95 on the motion for preliminary injunction [514−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/20/1995)
516 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to extend time in which to respond to pla's fourth motion for contempt and the pla's and Intervenor People First of TN's proposed remedial sanctions (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/22/1995)
517 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion to extend time in which to respond to pla's fourth motion for contempt and the pla's and Intervenor People First of TN's proposed remedial sanctions [516−1] w/exhibit attached (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/22/1995)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 48 of 232

12/26/1995
12/26/1995 12/26/1995 12/27/1995
12/27/1995 12/27/1995 12/27/1995 12/27/1995 12/29/1995 12/29/1995
12/29/1995 01/02/1996
01/03/1996 01/04/1996 01/05/1996
01/05/1996 01/05/1996

518 MOTION by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson for an extension of time for the convening of the second question and answer session of 4 days up to and including 1/10/96 (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 12/26/1995)
NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 95−6685; A. Crockett case mgr. (SSH) (Entered: 12/27/1995)
519 NOTICE OF RETENTION OF AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL NURSE by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/27/1995)
520 SUPPLEMENTAL ALLEGATIONS by intervenor People lst of TN re motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining dfts from continuing to assign an employee of the Arlington Dev Ctr who has been convicted of child abuse to direct contact with ADC residents [505−1] w/exhibits attached (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/27/1995)
521 SECOND MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to extend time in which to retain an additional developmental nurse (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/28/1995)
522 TRANSCRIPT of hearing held 12/7/95 before Linda R. O'Neal, Ph.D., Court Monitor (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/28/1995)
523 NOTICE OF FILING Transcript of Question and Answer Session conducted at Arlington Developmental Center on 12/7/95 by intervenor People lst of TN (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/28/1995)
524 TRANSCRIPT of hearing held 12/7/95 before Linda R. O'Neal Ph.D., Court Monitor (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/28/1995)
525 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla: the second Question and Answer session may be held 1/10/96. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/29/1995)
526 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time in which to respond to pla's fourth motion for contempt and the pla's and Intervenor People First of TN's proposed remedial sanctions [516−1]. Request for extension granted until 1/16/96. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 12/29/1995)
527 RECEIVED re appeal [503−1] fee in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 25131) from State attoreny general's office (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 01/02/1996)
528 MINUTES: motion hearing held 1/2/96 re discharge of employee from Arlington Developmental Center, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Marjorie Caldwell and Max Jackson sworn. Exhibits 1 and 2 filed with the court. Exhibit 3 and 4 to be sumbitted by the State of TN by 1/5/96. Motion to extend time in which to respond to pla's fourth motion for contempt and the pla's and Intervenor People First of TN's proposed remedial sanctions [516−1] GRANTED. Pla Atty: Weinstein, Gran and Earle Schwarz Dft Atty: Sherman, O'Neall, Ross and Dean C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/03/1996)
529 TRANSCRIPT of hearig held December 29, 1995 before Judge Jon P. McCalla (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/03/1996)
531 TRANSCRIPT Order Form 10/10−11/95 & 8/9/95 re [503−1] re transcript [469−1], re transcript [472−1], re transcript [471−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/05/1996)
530 NOTICE OF FILING Tennessee Department of Personnel Rules, Chap. 1120−11 (said document attached to Notice) by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (TMN) (csf). (csf). (Entered: 01/05/1996)
532 SETTING LETTER : status conference set for 1/11/96 at 10:30, crtm #4 (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 01/08/1996)
533 ORDER by Mag Judge James H. Allen motion to intervene and for access to sealed transcript call ddl set on 10:00 2/2/96 before Mag. Judge Allen (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 01/08/1996)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 49 of 232

01/08/1996 01/08/1996
01/08/1996 01/11/1996 01/11/1996
01/12/1996 01/16/1996 01/22/1996 01/22/1996 01/22/1996 01/25/1996

534 LETTER from Kimberly J. Dean, attorney for defendant State of Tennessee, requesting that only the following attorneys be listed as counsel for the State of Tennessee: Kimberly J. Dean, Lorraine Lester−Thompson and Kathleen Maloy. ICMS updated to reflect correct listing of counsel of record for the State of Tennessee. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/09/1996)
535 MOTION by plaintiff USA, defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson, intervenor People lst of TN, intervenor Parent−Guardian to extend time of seven (7) days up to including Jan. 23, 1996 within which responses are due to the pla's fourth motion for comptempt and the pla's and intervenor's, People First of Tenn proposed remedial sanctions schemes. (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 01/09/1996)
536 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to extend time of seven (7) days up to including Jan. 23, 1996 within which responses are due to the pla's fourth motion for comptempt and the pla's and intervenor's, People First of Tenn proposed remedial sanctions schemes. [535−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 01/09/1996)
537 BRIEF ON THE SCOPE OF RETENTION REVIEW UNDER THE REMEDIAL ORDER by defendant Tennessee, State of (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1996)
538 MINUTES: status conference/motion hearing held 1/11/96, Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Attorney General Burson informed the court that F&A will be the authority to head the new team to administer ADC. The court directed the parties as to motions to be addressed, including motions for extension of time as to review; waiver and community placement issued expressed as critical by the court. Pla Atty: Weinstein; Gran; Schwarz; and Sherman Dft Atty: Ross; Dean; and Burson C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1996)
539 MEMORANDUM and SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining dfts from continuing to assign an employee of the Arlington Dev Ctr who has been convicted of child abuse to direct contact ADC residents. [505−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/16/1996)
540 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla cancelling hearing scheduled for 10:00 on 2/2/96 re motion of Memphis Publishing Co. to intervene and for access to sealed transcript. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/16/1996)
541 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor People lst of TN to extend time within which responses are due to the pla's fourth motion for contempt and the pla's and intervenor's proposed remedial sanctions schemes (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/23/1996)
542 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion to extend time within which responses are due to the pla's fourth motion for contempt and the pla's and intervenor's proposed remedial sanctions schemes [541−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/23/1996)
543 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time within which responses are due to the pla's fourth motion for contempt and the pla's and intervenor's proposed remedial sanctions schemes [541−1]. The State of Tennessee is allowed an additional 14 days (2/6/96) to respond to the filings of the USA and People First of Tennessee. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 01/23/1996)
544 SECOND ORDER REGARDING BUDGET PURSUANT TO REMEDIAL ORDER PARAGRAPH XV by Judge Jon P. McCalla. Regarding the period October 1, 1994, through August 31, 1995, the dfts are instructed to pay into the registry of the court the supplemental budget amount of $87,328.53. The State of Tennessee shall pay into the court an additional $14,862.49 in connection with tasks performed by the monitor (including consultants at her direction) for the period October 1, 1994, to August 31, 1995. Additionally, it appears that the monitor has submitted statements to the dfts for September and October, 1995, and those bills remain due and payable. The dfts are instructed to pay into the registry of the court an additional $101,729.55 for the invoiced September and October, 1995, services of the monitor. All funds received by the clerk of court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the monitor for her expenses and fees up to and including the total sum of monies deposited by the dfts. Any monies not spent by the monitor shall be credited to the dfts. Exhbits attached. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 50 of 232

02/06/1996 02/06/1996 02/06/1996
02/06/1996 02/16/1996
02/16/1996 02/16/1996 02/16/1996 02/22/1996
02/27/1996 02/28/1996 03/06/1996 03/07/1996 03/08/1996

01/25/1996)
545 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to USA's memorandum proposing remedial scheme [511−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/06/1996)
546 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to proposed remedial sanction scheme of People First of Tennessee [512−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/06/1996)
547 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to pla's petition for contempt [509−1] and to pla's and intervenor People First's proposed remedial sanctions [511−1] [512−1] w/attachment (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/07/1996)
548 NOTICE OF FILING documents to Response to pla's petition for contempt, and pla's and intervenor People First's proposed remedial sanctions w/documents attached. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/07/1996)
549 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson for leave to remove dft Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Commissioner of the TN Dept. of Menal Health and Retardation and substitute Bob Corker, Commissioner of the TN Dept. of Finance & Administration (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/20/1996)
550 SUPPLEMENT by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson re response [547−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/20/1996)
551 EXHIBITS in support of dft's response to pla's petition for contempt (Notice of Filing attached) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/20/1996)
552 EXHIBITS to dfts' response to pla's petition for contempt (placed in separate folder) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/20/1996)
553 ORDER SETTING HEARING AND ORDERING COMENT by Judge Jon P. McCalla. A hearing is set regarding the proposed milestones submitted by the State of Tennessee on 3/22/96 at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall submit their comments on the State's proposed milestones in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on 3/11/96. Comments shall be submitted to the Court and also to the Court appointed monitor. The monitor will then have unitl 3/20/96 to submit her own comments to the Court, and to address to the Court, in writing, her response to comments made by the various parties in this matter. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 02/22/1996)
554 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of to continue hearing on proposed remedial sanction procedure...request for cont. until Mar. 29, 1996 or beyond. (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 02/28/1996)
555 OBJECTIONS TO DFTS' MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES by plaintiff USA to [549−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 02/29/1996)
556 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to continue hearing on proposed remedial sanction procedure [554−1]. Hearing RESET to 4/5/96 at 9:30 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/06/1996)
557 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to dft's request to postpone the hearing on dft's proposed milestones set for 3/22/96. (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/07/1996)
558 ORDER GRANTING DEFENSE MOTION TO RESET HEARING AND ESTABLISHING REVISED SCHEDULE FOR COMMENTS AND BRIEFS by Judge Jon P. McCalla. The hearing on proposed milestones and proposed scheme for automatic sanctions is reset to 4/5/96 at 9:30 a.m. The time within which parties may submit comments is extended to 3/18/96 and the time within which the Court monitor shall submit her comments is extended to 4/1/96. Each party shall submit a brief in lieu of opening statements in connection with the 4/5/96 hearing, said brief to be sumitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on 3/29/96. Additionally, all parties shall submit any declarations/affidavits in support of their respective positions by no later than 5:00 p.m. on 3/29/96. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/08/1996)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 51 of 232

03/15/1996 03/18/1996 03/18/1996 03/29/1996 03/29/1996 03/29/1996 03/29/1996 03/29/1996
03/29/1996 03/29/1996 04/01/1996 04/02/1996 04/10/1996
04/26/1996 04/29/1996 04/30/1996
05/07/1996 05/09/1996

559 COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO DFTS' PROPOSED SANCTIONABLE MILESTONES by intervenor Parent−Guardian (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/15/1996)
560 RESPONSE to Dfts' proposed Milestone Scheme by plaintiff USA [547−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/20/1996)
561 COMMENTS by intervenor People lst of TN on the "Activities" and Milestones for compliance (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/20/1996)
562 BRIEF in support of Automatic Sanction Procedure by defendant Max Jackson, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Sundquist (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1996)
563 BRIEF by intervenor Parent−Guardian on its position on thed State's proposed milestones (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1996)
564 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for further relief (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1996)
565 EXHIBITS to Intervenor People First of Tennessee's motion for futher relief (placed in a separate folder) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 03/29/1996)
566 NOTICE OF FILING Declarations of Don Wilson and Charlotte Doyle by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson w/declarations attached (TMN) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/30/2009: # 1 Notice of Filing) (csf). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/30/2009: # 2 Notice of Filing) (csf). (csf). (Entered: 04/01/1996)
566 DECLARATIONS OF Don Wilson and Charlotte Doyle filed by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 04/01/1996)
567 BRIEF FILED by plaintiff USA in support of its amended remedial sanction scheme [509−1] and motion to hold dfts in contempt [511−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 04/01/1996)
568 NOTICE OF FILING and MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for leave to file deposition transcript out of time w/deposition transcript attached (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 04/01/1996)
569 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for leave to file deposition transcript of Toni Richardson out of time [568−1] (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1996)
570 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to extend time up to and including 4/29/96 for all parties to respond to the Motion for Further Relief of Intervenors, People First of Tennessee (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 04/10/1996)
571 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to intervenors People First's motion for further relief [564−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 04/26/1996)
572 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE (w/attachments) by intervenor Parent−Guardian to motion for further relief [564−1] of intervenor People First of Tennessee, et al (Former Emp) Modified on 04/29/1996 (csf). (Entered: 04/29/1996)
573 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time up to and including 4/29/96 for all parties to respond to the Motion for Further Relief of Intervenors, People First of Tennessee [570−1] (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 04/30/1996)
574 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla approving budget for the period of 9/1/95 to 8/31/96 (cc: all counsel). (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/08/1996)
575 MOTION by defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson for finding of compliance with 7/21/95 preliminary injunction and for relief from contempt sanctions (TMN) Modified on 05/28/1996 (csf). (Entered: 05/10/1996)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 52 of 232

05/09/1996 05/09/1996 05/14/1996 05/22/1996 05/24/1996 05/24/1996
05/29/1996 05/29/1996 05/30/1996 05/31/1996 06/14/1996 06/18/1996 06/20/1996
06/25/1996

576 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion for finding of compliance with 7/21/95 preliminary injunction and for relief from contempt sanctions [575−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/10/1996)
577 DECLARATION by plaintiff USA, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson re [575−1] (document placed in separate folder) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/10/1996)
578 RESPONSE by monitor Linda R. O'Neall to the parties' comments regarding dfts' proposed sanctionable milestones and recommendations to the court (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/15/1996)
579 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla setting telephonic scheduling conference for 10:00 a.m. 5/24/96. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) Modified on 05/22/1996 (csf). (Entered: 05/22/1996)
580 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for finding of compliance with 7/21/95 preliminary injunction and for relief from contempt sanctions [575−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/28/1996)
583 MINUTES: telephonic conference held 5/24/96; Judge Jon P. McCalla presiding. Submittals discussed; all responses to submittal should be filed by 5:00 p.m. 5/29/96; Ferguson and Campbell sworn and examined by the Court. Hearing on the contempt motion set for 9:00 6/21/96. Pla Atty: Weinstein Dft Atty: Ross, Dean, Thompson, Campbell and O'Neal C/R: Brenda Parker (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/30/1996)
581 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to the letter report and recommendations of the Court Monitor, submitted to the Court by letter dated 5/24/96 (no letter received in Clerk's Office) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/29/1996)
582 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to the Monitor's Proposal of Thirty Sanctionable Items (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/30/1996)
584 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to Court Monitor's Fax of 5/24/96 (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 05/30/1996)
585 RESPONSE by intervenor People lst of TN to motion for finding of compliance with 7/21/95 preliminary injunction and for relief from contempt sanctions [575−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/03/1996)
586 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of fourth motion for order finding the State of Tennessee in contempt of this Court's Remedial Order and the Plan of Correction [509−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/14/1996)
587 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla setting the deadline for filing the Monitor's response to the parties' comments for 7/22/96 by 5:00 p.m. A hearing on the report is set for 10:00 on 7/25/96. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/18/1996)
588 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla referring to Mag Judge James H. Allen the fourth motion for order finding the State of Tennessee in contempt of this Court's Remedial Order and Plan of Correction [509−1]. Any exceptions to the Magistrate Judge's report shall be made within 10 days of the report. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/20/1996)
589 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla on the USA's fourth motion for an order finding the State of Tennessee in contempt of this Court's Remedial Order and the Plan of Correction [509−1]. The dfts acknowledge they were in contempt as to the areas of non−compliance identified in the Second Compliance Report, except Section XIV (Admissions and Placement). In lieu of sanctions for contempt, the dfts agree to the developement of a plan for institutional compliance; a plan for phase−down; and a communmity placement and developement plan. If, at the time of the Monitor's Fourth Semi−Annual Review, the Monitor finds that dfts are still not in compliance with any one of the 25 provisions, dft shall pay automatice sanctions of $1,000 a day for each provision with which they are found not in compliance until the date upon which they come into compliance... No motion for contempt shall be filed based upon the Monitor's recent Third Semi−Annual

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 53 of 232

06/26/1996 06/26/1996 06/26/1996 06/26/1996 06/26/1996
07/01/1996
07/02/1996 07/03/1996
07/05/1996 07/10/1996 07/10/1996 07/10/1996 07/11/1996 07/11/1996
07/11/1996
07/11/1996

Compliance Report. Dfts agree to immediately withdraw all current appeals. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/26/1996)
590 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson for leave to modify remedial order (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/27/1996)
591 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion for leave to modify remedial order [590−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/27/1996)
592 NOTICE OF FILING the Declaration of Dennis Beard by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/27/1996)
593 DECLARATION of Dennis Beard re [590−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/27/1996)
594 AGREED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to modify remedial order [590−1]. Investigators assigned to Arlington Developmental Center to investigate abuse, mistreatment and neglect will report to the Investigations Coordinator rather than directly to the Assistant Commissioner for the Mental Retardation Services as provided in Section I(D)(1). (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 06/27/1996)
595 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to extend time to comment on the draft Third Semi−Annual Compliance Review Report to 7/2/96 (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/01/1996)
596 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time to comment on the draft Third Semi−Annual Compliance Review Report to 7/2/96 [595−1] (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/02/1996)
597 NOTICE OF FILING List of Critical Areas Identified from the Remedial Order and Plan of Correction (list attached) by plaintiff USA, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/05/1996)
598 ORDER Entered 7/3/96 from 6th Circuit dismissing the appeal [503−1] per stipulation of the parties to voluntarily dismiss the appeal (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/08/1996)
599 CERTIFICATE OF FACE−TO−FACE CONFERENCE by intervenor People lst of TN re motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/11/1996)
600 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/11/1996)
602 EXHIBITS to People First of Tennessee's motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of costs (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/11/1996)
601 MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses [600−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/11/1996)
603 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion for leave to remove dft Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Commissioner of the TN Dept. of Menal Health and Retardation, and substitute Bob Corker, Commissioner of the TN Dept. of Finance & Administration [549−1]. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1996)
604 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla dismissing the fourth motion for order finding the State of Tennessee in contempt of this Court's Remedial Order and the Plan of Correction [509−1] based on the Stipulation and Order entered 6/24/96. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1996)
605 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying as moot the motion for clarification of the parameters of the question and answer sessions and document production authorized in the Court's order of November 6, 1995 [500−1]; the motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining dfts from continuing to assign an employee of the Arlington Dev

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 54 of 232

07/24/1996 07/24/1996 07/26/1996 07/30/1996
08/08/1996
09/06/1996 10/01/1996 10/07/1996 10/09/1996 10/09/1996 10/16/1996
10/17/1996 10/17/1996 10/17/1996

Ctr who has been convicted of child abuse to direct contact with ADC residents [505−1]; and the motion to extend time in which to retain an additional developmental nurse [521−1]. (cc: all counsel) (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/12/1996)
606 MOTION by defendants for an extension of time up to and including 9/6/96 to respond to the application for attys fees and costs filed by intervenor People First, et. al. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/24/1996)
607 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting dfts' motion for an extension of time up to and including 9/6/96 to respond to the application for attys fees and costs filed by intervenor People First, et. al. [606−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/25/1996)
608 REPLY by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to pla's and intervenor's response to motion for finding of compliance with 7/21/95 preliminary injunction and for relief from contempt sanctions [575−1] (TMN) (csf). (Entered: 07/29/1996)
609 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla; dft State of Tennessee is hereby ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoices attached to this order as Appendices 1, 2, and 3 into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expenses and fees up to and including the total sum of money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any monies not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/31/1996)
610 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla; pursuant to this Court's order entered 7/31/96, it appears the dfts have paid $99,869.63 into the Registry of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to send the $99,869.63 to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 08/09/1996)
611 MOTION by defendant to extend time to respond to application for attorneys fees and costs (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 09/06/1996)
612 NOTICE OF STATUS defendant to submit completed draft of institutional phasedown by 11/1/96 and completed draft of community placement and development plan by 1/2/97 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/01/1996)
613 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating Lorraine Lester−Thompson and substituting attorney Pamela A. Hayden−Wood for the State of Tennessee (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/07/1996)
614 MOTION by defendant to amend/ modify the Remedial Order (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/09/1996)
615 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to amend/ modify the Remedial Order [614−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/09/1996)
616 ORDER (with appendices 1, 2 and 3 attached) by Judge Jon P. McCalla; State of TN ORDERED to pay $180,490.85 into registry of the Court to cover invoices for expenses incurred by the Monitor for February 1996, March 1996 and April 1996 CH Financial Deputy (cc: all counsel) (WBE) Modified on 10/17/1996 (csf). (Entered: 10/17/1996)
617 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re motion to find compliance with preliminary injunction [575−1]; Court does not have sufficient information to rule. Dr. Williams and Dr. Hayes to submit updated declarations re: compliance by October 23, 1996. (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/17/1996)
618 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla directing the Clerk to send the funds deposited by defendants to Dr. Linda O'Neall CH Financial Deputy (cc: all counsel) (WBE) Modified on 10/17/1996 (Entered: 10/17/1996)
619 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to modify the Remedial Order [614−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/17/1996)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 55 of 232

10/17/1996
10/18/1996 10/23/1996 10/23/1996 10/23/1996 10/29/1996 10/29/1996 11/06/1996
11/06/1996 11/15/1996 11/15/1996
11/19/1996
11/19/1996
11/21/1996 11/21/1996 11/21/1996 11/21/1996 11/21/1996 12/03/1996 12/05/1996 12/09/1996

620 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla in−court hearing regarding the proposed compliance plan set 9:30 11/15/96 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/17/1996)
621 MOTION by defendant to extend time to respond to application for attorneys fees and costs (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/21/1996)
622 NOTICE OF FILING of declarations of Hayes and Williams by defendant Tennessee, State of (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1996)
623 DECLARATION of ADA Dorothy Hayes, M.D. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1996)
624 DECLARATION of John E. Williams, M.D. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1996)
625 DECLARATION of Leonard J. Bronsink (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/29/1996)
626 MOTION by defendant for order excusing two witnesses from 11/15/96 hearing (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 10/29/1996)
627 AGREED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting defendants' motion to extend time to respond to application for attorneys fees and costs [621−1] ..up to and including 12/3/96..(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/06/1996)
628 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for order excusing two witnesses from 11/15/96 hearing [626−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 11/07/1996)
629 NOTICE OF FILING OF COMPLIANCE PLAN by defendant with plan attached (placed in separate folder) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 11/15/1996)
631 MINUTES: ; In−court hearing held 11/15/96− Judge McCalla presiding. Weinstein/ Bowman for pltf; Dycus, Dean, Derryberry & Sherman for deft. Dr. O'Neall sworn and presentation of report made. Govt requested opportunity to respond to State's plan− GRANTED. (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 11/20/1996)
630 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [629−1]; The Court does not have sufficient information to approve or disapprove the proposed compliance plan. Accordingly, the Court requests the Court Monitor submit comments on proposed compliance plan by 12/20/96. (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 11/19/1996)
632 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for finding of compliance with 7/21/95 preliminary injunction and for relief from contempt sanctions [575−1] GRANTING relief from sanctions as to paragraphs one (1) and eight (1) due to full compliance− sanction ABATED retroactively to dates of compliance and moneys collected to be returned; DENYING relief from sanctions as to paragraph two (2) due to failure to comply− sanction to continue and relief DENIED as to reporting requirements. Medical emergency still exhists. CH Financial Administrator (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/5/2009: # 1 Order by Judge Jon P. McCalla) (csf). (Entered: 11/20/1996)
633 MOTION by defendant to amend/ modify the remedial order (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1996)
634 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to amend/ modify the remedial order [633−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1996)
635 DECLARATION of William Douglas Burroughs (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1996)
636 DECLARATION of Doyle E. Jones (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1996)
637 DECLARATION of Debra Harville (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 11/22/1996)
638 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of to extend time to respond to People First's motion for attorney's fees (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/04/1996)
639 TRANSCRIPT filed from hearing held 11/15/96 before Judge McCalla (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/05/1996)
640 TRANSCRIPT filed by Saprena Smith of excerpt of proceedings before Judge McCalla on 7/29/94 (placed in separate folder) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/10/1996)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 56 of 232

12/10/1996 12/11/1996
12/11/1996 12/11/1996 12/11/1996 12/12/1996 12/12/1996 12/12/1996
12/13/1996 12/16/1996 12/20/1996 12/20/1996 12/20/1996
12/20/1996
12/23/1996 12/27/1996
01/02/1997

641 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses (WBE) (Entered: 12/11/1996)
642 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla directing defendant State of Tennesse to pay $233,622.40 into the registry of the Court to pay invoices submitted by the Monitor for expenses incurred in May 1996, June 1996, July 1996 and August 1996 CH Financial Administrator (placed in separate folder) (cc: all counsel) (WBE) Modified on 12/11/1996 (csf). (Entered: 12/11/1996)
643 MONITOR'S COMPLIANCE REPORT REGARDING SANCTIONABLE PROVISIONS by Linda R. O'Neall (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/11/1996)
644 MONITOR'S FIRST COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT by Linda R. O'Neall ( filed in open court) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/11/1996)
645 APPENDICES filed by Linda R. O'Neall re Monitor's First Community Compliance Report [644−1] (WBE) (csf) (Entered: 12/11/1996)
646 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to plaintiff/ intervenor People First's motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses [641−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/12/1996)
647 AGREED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to modify the remedial order [633−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/13/1996)
648 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting People First's motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses [641−1]; plaintiffs/intervenors People First awarded attys' fees in amount of $630,000 and expenses in amount of $92,570.69 to be paid by State of Tennessee (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/13/1996)
649 LETTER from defendant Tennessee, State of regarding Dr. Williams' military obligations (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/13/1996)
650 NOTICE OF STATUS by defendant Tennessee, plaintiff USA and monitor; completed drafts of the Management Plan and compliance plan to be submitted by 2/28/97 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/17/1996)
651 (fax copy) LETTER from miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall re: proposed sched for court's decision regarding Community Compliance Rpt. (CHJM) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/20/1996)
652 LETTER from miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall re: requesting extension of time to complete analysis of dft's proposed compliance plan for Arlington....time requested until Jan. 7, 1997. (CHJM) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/20/1996)
653 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting letter [652−1]....L. O'Neall's request for extension of time to file anaylsis of dft's proposed compliance plan....deadline extended to Jan. 7, '97. (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/20/1996)
654 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting letter [651−1]....the court hereby adopts Monitor's proposed dates in following schedule: dft's comments due Jan. 10, '97; People First's site visits to be completed by Jan. 31, '97; Comments by People First, the USA, and the Parent Guardian Assn of Arlington Dev Ctr due by Jan. 31, '97; Monitor's comments due by Feb. 21, '97; Hearing will be held on the Comm Comp Rpt on Fri., Mar. 21, '97, @ 9:00a (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/20/1996)
655 BRIEF FILED by defendants (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/23/1996)
656 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating previous counsel and substituting attorney Pamela A. Hayden−Wood, lead counsel; Dianne Dycus, senior counsel; Doug Dimond, assistant atty general for defendants (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 12/27/1996)
657 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tennessee, State of by Assistant Attorney General Douglas Earl Dimond (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 01/02/1997)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 57 of 232

01/07/1997 01/08/1997 01/10/1997 01/10/1997 01/14/1997 01/28/1997 01/28/1997 01/29/1997 01/29/1997
02/03/1997
02/04/1997 02/04/1997 02/05/1997 02/07/1997

658 MONITOR'S REVIEW OF DEFENDANTS' ADC COMPLIANCE PLAN by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall (placed in separate folder) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 01/08/1997)
659 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla directing that the Clerk of Court send the funds deposited into the Registry of the court to Dr. Linda O'Neall CH Financial Administrator (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 01/08/1997)
660 MOTION by defendant for order to identify counsel of record (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 01/13/1997)
661 COMMENTS IN RESPONSE to Monitor's First Community Review by defendants [654−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 01/13/1997)
662 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla setting status conference for 10:30 a.m. on 1/29/97. Parties to be prepared to discuss 1) proposed compliance plan; 2) list of sanctionable items; and 3) Court Monitor's budget (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 01/14/1997)
663 RESPONSE To The Monitor's Comments On The Compliance Plan by defendants to [658−1]; Dfts maintain that the ADC Compliance Plan is substantively comprehensive and inclusive of all the Court's Orders. w/attachments (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 01/28/1997)
664 MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend time to file a response to Community Review; requesting up to and including 2/14/97 to respond; w/attachments (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 01/28/1997)
665 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to pla's motion to extend time to file a response to Community Review; requesting up to and including 2/14/97 to respond; [664−1]; requesting that the Order be extended to Parent−Guardian Assoc. to file its comments on or before 2/14/97; (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 01/29/1997)
666 MINUTES: ; Status conference held 1/29/97− Judge McCalla presiding. Weinstein, et al for pltfs; Hayden−Wood et al for defts. Govt spoke to compliance plan and enforcement despite ongoing revisions− proposed order on compliance plan to be submitted to the Court. Court monitor to submit expedited report on compliance and a "general" report as to all requirements of remedial order , status conference set 9:00 2/28/97 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 01/30/1997)
667 STIPULATION and ORDER REGARDING ADC COMPLIANCE PLAN w/Compliance Table attached by Judge Jon P. McCalla : re [666−1]...the ADC Institutional Compliance Plan is approved as a working document by the Court with the changes listed within this order...dfts, with assistance and advise of the Monitor, agree to conduct by Mar. 15, '97, an analysis of those residents condisered most at−risk to evaluate areas in which further assessment and appropriate action should be taken...after the analysis is complete, the Monitor and the parties, including experts, if requested and available, will meet and confer regarding the findings of the analysis...the parties agree that the specifics of the ADC Plan of Compliance, including action steps, may be changed by dfts upon consultation with and approval by the Monitor...dft will submit a list by name of those persons holding positions described as the responsible person in the Compliance Plan...proposed deadlines are attached to this order. (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (Entered: 02/03/1997)
668 SETTING LETTER : status conference set for 2/28/97 at 9:00 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/04/1997)
669 FOLLOW−UP REVIEW OF THE MONITOR'S FIRST COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT− January 1997 by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/05/1997)
670 TRANSCRIPT filed of hearing held 1/29/97 before Judge McCalla (placed in separate folder) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/05/1997)
671 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla resetting hearing on community compliance report to 9:00 a.m. on 2/28/97 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/07/1997)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 58 of 232

02/07/1997 02/13/1997 02/14/1997 02/14/1997 02/14/1997 02/14/1997 02/14/1997 02/14/1997 02/18/1997 02/21/1997 02/24/1997 02/24/1997 02/24/1997
02/24/1997
02/27/1997 02/27/1997 02/28/1997

672 JOINT MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, intervenor People lst of TN for extension of time (..to 4/8/97, in which attys for plaintiffs may file for fees and the dfts may respond.).. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/07/1997)
673 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to Monitor's First Community Compliance Report [669−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/14/1997)
674 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla directing that $194,777.65 be deposited into an interest−bearing account and used to reimburse the Monitor for expenses CH Financial Admininstrator (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (Entered: 02/14/1997)
675 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla directing the Clerk of Court to send $194,777.65 to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/14/1997)
676 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting joint motion for extension of time until 4/8/97 for plaintiff's attys to file request for fees and for dfts to respond [672−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/14/1997)
677 ORDER (handwritten on motion) by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting PGA'S motion to extend time to file a response to Community Review until 2/14/97 [664−1] (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/14/1997)
678 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla directing that US respond to Community Review on or before 2/14/97 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/14/1997)
679 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to Monitor's first Community Review and People First's Follow−up review [669−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/14/1997)
680 RESPONSE by defendants to People First's Follow−up Review of the Monitor's First Community Compliance Report [669−1] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/19/1997)
681 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ; resetting in−court hearing on Community Compliance Plan and report to 9:00 a.m on 3/28/97 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/21/1997)
682 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for temporary restraining order , and for preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from transferring Arlington resident to large state institution in Texas (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/24/1997)
683 MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for temporary restraining order [682−1] and for preliminary injunction [682−2] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/24/1997)
684 MINUTES: Phone conference held 2/24/97 on People First's motion for TRO− Judge McCalla presiding. Schwartz/ Weinstein/ Boman/ Sherman for People First; Hurley, Royal, Dycus, Hayden− Wood, and Dr. O'Neall for State and ADC. Court set hearing on motion for temporary restraining order [682−1] and preliminary injunction for 8:30 2/28/97 (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/24/1997)
685 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion of People First for temporary restraining order [682−1] enjoining defendants from discharging or transferring B.P. from ADC until further notice. Hearing on motion for preliminary injunction [682−2] set for 8:30 a.m. on 2/28/97 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/24/1997)
686 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendant to motion of intervenor People First for preliminary injunction [682−2] (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/28/1997)
687 NOTICE OF FILING by intervenor People lst of TN of transition profile for B.P. and individual support plan for B.P. (attached document placed in vault) (WBE) (csf). (Entered: 02/28/1997)
688 MINUTES: ; Preliminary injunction hearing held 2/28/97− Judge McCalla presiding. Grant/ Swartz/ O'Neall & Hansom present for pltf; Sherman/ Hurley/ Franklin/ Campbell/ & Hayden −Wood for deft. Thomas deputy. Weinstein and Royal present via telephone. Opening statements made. Consent TRO entered through 5:00 p.m. on 3/17/97. Hearing continued to 3/17/97 at 9:30 a.m. (WBE) Modified on 03/03/1997 (csf). (Entered: 03/03/1997)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 59 of 232

03/03/1997 03/05/1997
03/06/1997
03/06/1997 03/06/1997 03/07/1997 03/07/1997 03/11/1997 03/11/1997 03/12/1997 03/12/1997 03/14/1997 03/14/1997 03/18/1997
03/18/1997 03/19/1997 03/20/1997 03/20/1997 03/20/1997

689 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing set for 3/17/97 at 9:30 (WBE) Modified on 03/03/1997 (csf). (Entered: 03/03/1997)
690 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion of intervenor People First for preliminary injunction [682−2]; consent preliminary injunction entered ENJOINING defendants from discharging or transferring B.P. from ADC (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (Entered: 03/05/1997)
691 ORDER Setting Schedule by Judge Jon P. McCalla On 2/11/97, the Monitor released her 4th Semiannual compliance report; Dft's comments due 3/12/97; comments by People First, U.S., and Parent Guardian Assoc. of Arlington Developmental Ctr. due by 3/26/97; Monitor's comments due 4/7/97; Hearing on Monitors 4th Semiannual Compliance Report set 9:00 5/9/97 (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 03/06/1997)
692 MONITOR'S FOURTH SEMI−ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT (attachment to report placed under seal per court order dated 3/7/97) (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/07/1997)
694 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tennessee, State of by Mary Beth Franklin (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/07/1997)
693 ORDER PLACING DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL....the clerk is hereby ordered to file Chapter 1 of the Monitor's Fourth Semi−Annual Compliance Report under seal by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [692−1] (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (Entered: 03/07/1997)
695 NOTICE OF STATUS by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/10/1997)
696 MOTION by plaintiff USA for an extension of time in which to comment to monitor on community placement plan (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/12/1997)
697 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for an extension of time in which to comment to monitor on community placement plan [696−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/12/1997)
698 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/12/1997)
699 TRANSCRIPT filed (re: hearing on 2/28/97, before Judge McCalla) [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/12/1997)
700 JOINT MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, intervenor People lst of TN, and the Guardians of B.P., Robert Royal, Nancy Watt to continue and extend preliminary injunction (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/14/1997)
701 NOTICE of change of address by Atty Linda R. O'Neall − new address: O'Neall, Butler & Asso., Ltd., 2425 Millcreek Ct., Suite 2, Tallahassee, FL 32308, pho no. 904−385−3055 (c: Atty Maintenance) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/17/1997)
702 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for an extension of time in which to comment to monitor on community placement plan [696−1]....it is hereby ordered that the United States' comments, as well as those of any other party, shall be provided to the Monitor on or before March 21, '97. (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/19/1997)
703 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to continue and extend preliminary injunction [700−1] ; preliminary hearing to be reset (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/19/1997)
704 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for order to identify counsel of record [660−1] (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 03/20/1997)
705 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Tennessee, State of by Leo Maurice Bearman Jr. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/21/1997)
706 MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of to reset hearing on Community Compliance Report and Plan (scheduled 3/28/97) (EHG) Modified on 03/21/1997 (csf). (Entered: 03/21/1997)
707 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION.. by defendant Tennessee, State of re: motion to reset hearing on Community Compliance Report and Plan (EHG) (csf). (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 60 of 232

03/20/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997
03/28/1997 04/02/1997 04/04/1997 04/08/1997 04/14/1997 04/17/1997 04/17/1997 04/24/1997 04/28/1997
05/09/1997 05/09/1997 05/13/1997

03/21/1997)
708 NOTICE OF FILING: Community Plan for West Tennessee.. by defendant Tennessee, State of [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/21/1997)
709 ORDER RESETTING HEARING... by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to reset hearing on Community Compliance Report and Plan (scheduled 3/28/97) [706−1] in−court hearing set 9:00 5/9/97 (cc: all counsel) (EHG) Modified on 03/21/1997 (csf). (Entered: 03/21/1997)
710 MINUTES: telephone conf; Judge McCalla presiding; Wienstein; Shennon & Dueberry for pla; Hayden & Bearman for dft; court granted St of TN motion to continue 3/28/97 hearing; hearing reset for 5/9/97, @ 9:00a; USA granted until 3/28/97 to submit comments on Community Plan (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 03/25/1997)
711 NOTICE OF FILING: Comments on the Proposed Community Plan for West Tennessee by plaintiffs, intervenors, class representatives, People First, et al. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/28/1997)
712 NOTICE OF FILING: Comments on Court Monitor's Proposed Annual Budget by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/03/1997)
713 NOTICE OF FILING: REPORT [submitted as a follow−up review..] by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/04/1997)
714 JOINT MOTION by defendants, plaintiffs, to extend time for filing and responding to attorney's fee request (to 6/20/97) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/09/1997)
715 AGREED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting joint motion to extend time for filing and responding to attorney's fee request (to 6/20/97) [714−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1997)
716 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION by defendants to Cease Sanctions on Monitor's Findings of Compliance (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/18/1997)
717 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendants re: motion and memorandum in support of motion to cease sanctions on Monitor's findings of compliance (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/18/1997)
MAIL Returned [715−1] addressed to Judith A. Gran, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia c: case mngr (WMW) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
718 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla...on April 8, 1997, the Monitor submitted invoices for expenses incurred in Nov., '96, Dec., '96 and Jan., '97, totalling $228,407.01. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendices 1−3. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections for dfts., dft State of TN is hereby ordered to pay the amounts set out in these invoices into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing acct and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expenses and fees up to and including the total sum of money deposited by dft State of TN. Any monies not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (c: Financial Dep.) (WMW) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/22/2009: # 1 Order by Judge Jon P. McCalla. Order and Appendices Placed in Separate Folder) (csf). (Entered: 04/28/1997)
719 NOTICE: DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/13/1997)
720 MINUTES: before Judge McCalla. Compliance Hearing held. ...Matter continued to Tuesday, 5/13/97 @ 9:30 a.m. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/13/1997)
721 MINUTES: Compliance Hearing cont'd. before Judge McCalla. ...Exh 3. ...Oppositoin to line of questioning expressed by Mr. Bearman. Responses by Derryberry & Weinstein − Objection overruled. ...Exh 6 admitted. Court directed parties to submit in lieu of closing arguments, a 10−pg. brief outlining their respective positions in view of monitor's position that proposes acceptance of proposed plan (exh 2). Due by 5:00 p.m., 5/20/97. PLA Atty: Hughes, Weinstein/Gran, Derryberry/Sherman. DFT Atty: Bearman/Hayden−Wood/Franklin. C/R: B. Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 61 of 232

05/14/1997 05/20/1997 05/20/1997 05/21/1997 05/21/1997 05/21/1997 05/22/1997 05/28/1997
06/05/1997
06/05/1997
06/05/1997 06/18/1997 06/18/1997 06/18/1997 06/24/1997
06/24/1997 06/24/1997 06/27/1997

05/15/1997)
722 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/15/1997)
723 CLOSING STATEMENT FOLLOWING HEARING ON MAY 9,1997 (EXTENDED TO MAY 13, 1997).. by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/21/1997)
724 NOTICE OF FILING: FINAL ARGUMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/21/1997)
725 LETTER from Linda R. O'Neall to the court (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/22/1997)
726 NOTICE: Report submitted by Linda R. O'Neall (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/22/1997)
727 NOTICE OF FILING: Closing Argument to May 9 and 13, 1997 Hearing Regarding Defendants' Community Placement Plan w/attachment A by plaintiff USA (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/22/1997)
728 BRIEF ON THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY PLAN FOR WEST TENNESSEE BY plaintiffs−intervenors−class representatives, People First, et al. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/27/1997)
729 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS... by Judge Jon P. McCalla for disbursement/.. the Cler of Court is directed to send the $228,407.01, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel & Financial Deputy) (EHG) Modified on 05/29/1997 (csf). (Entered: 05/29/1997)
730 ORDER SETTING CONFERENCE... by Judge Jon P. McCalla status conference set 9:30 6/27/97 Accordingly, the preliminary injunction entered on 3/18/97, is hereby extended through 6:00 p.m. on 6/27/97. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/06/1997)
731 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [725−1] ...the Monitor's request is GRANTED. The Monitor and her consultants shall delay the ADC review and, instead, direct their efforts toward a review of the services and situations of persons who were moved to the community, both before and after the entry of the Remedial Order. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/06/1997)
732 RESPONSE by defendants TO PEOPLE FIRST'S SECOND COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/06/1997)
733 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/24/97 of Telephonic Status Conference Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/18/1997)
734 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/9/97 of Compliance Hearing Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (csf). (Entered: 06/18/1997)
735 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/13/97 of Compliance Hearing (cont'd) Volume II Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/18/1997)
736 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to strike People First Second Community Review (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/24/1997)
737 Rule 11 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendants re: motion to strike People First's Second Community Review (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/24/1997)
738 OBJECTIONS/REBUTTAL TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS OF UNITED STATES AND PEOPLE FIRST by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/24/1997)
739 MINUTES: ; Status conference held 6/27/97 ; Mr. Hurley addressed objection raised by People 1st to patient's move from ADC to Texas as set forth in the draft of the transition plan. Mr. Hurley & Mr. Gran request additional information/time & extend

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 62 of 232

07/11/1997
07/21/1997 07/21/1997 07/21/1997 07/21/1997 07/22/1997 07/23/1997 07/24/1997 07/25/1997 08/15/1997 08/15/1997 08/18/1997
08/20/1997

injunction to 8/15/97. Govt has no opposition, neither does the State & Dr. O'Neall − granted. Govt requested until 7/21/97 to respond to dft's objection to community plan. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Pla Atty: Weinstein/Gran/Schwartz/ ; Dft Atty: Bearman/Hayden/Wood/Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 06/27/1997)
740 BRIEF OF INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE THE SECOND COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT FILED by intervenor Carl Beard, intervenor People lst of TN, intervenor Sandra Howard, intervenor Herman Walter Runions, intervenor Harvey Richard Watson, intervenor Clarence Wilson, intervenor Keith Collins, intervenor Stevelyn Danieal Tucker, intervenor Parent−Guardian, intervenor Memphis Publishing regarding [736−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 07/14/1997)
741 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to motion to strike People First Second Community Review [736−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/21/1997)
742 MOTION by plaintiff USA for an extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion and memorandum in support of defendants' motion to strike People First Second Community Review (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/21/1997)
743 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for an extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion and memorandum in support of defendants' motion to strike People First Second Community Review [742−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/21/1997)
744 Rule 11 Certificate of Consultation.. by plaintiff USA re: motion for extension of time in which to respond to dfts' motion and memorandum in support of dfts' motion to strike People First Second Community Review (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/21/1997)
745 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for an extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion and memorandum in support of defendants' motion to strike People First Second Community Review [742−1] ...response shall be filed no later than 7/22/97. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/22/1997)
746 MOTION by plaintiff USA for extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion and memorandum in support of defendants' motion to strike People First Second Community Review (..until 7/25/97) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/23/1997)
747 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion and memorandum in support of defendants' motion to strike People First Second Community Review (..until 7/25/97) [746−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/24/1997)
748 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to dft's rebuttal to closing arguments and to dft's motion to strike People First Second Community Review [738−1], and [736−1]; The oversigth requested by the USA of the Monitor consists solely of activities that the Monitor is currently empowered to perform; (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1997)
749 JOINT MEMORANDUM AND MOTION by defendants, plaintiff, defendant, intervenors for leave/ to lift preliminary injunction (EHG) Modified on 08/18/1997 (csf). (Entered: 08/18/1997)
750 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION... by defendant Tennessee, State of re: joint memorandum and motion to lift preliminary injunction (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/18/1997)
751 ORDER LIFTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION... by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for leave/ to lift preliminary injunction [749−1] ..the preliminary injunction is hereby LIFTED, permitting B.P. to move to a community setting in the state of Texas, however, B.P. may be readmitted to Arlington Developmental Center if serious concerns develop in B.P.'s community placement which the parties agree cannot be corrected.(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/18/1997)
752 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...If the State of Tennessee takes the position that overpayment has occurred, it must submit a motion for refund of the overpayment accompanied by a memorandum and other supporting documents. ...All parties and the Court Monitor may then respond to the State's motion as anticipated under Local

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 63 of 232

08/21/1997
09/10/1997
09/24/1997 09/24/1997 10/09/1997 10/17/1997 10/17/1997 10/21/1997 10/22/1997 10/23/1997
10/24/1997 10/24/1997

Rule 7.2(a)(2). (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/21/1997)
753 ORDER ON COMMUNITY PLAN FOR WEST TENNESSEE... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Community Plan is hereby adopted by the Court; 2. The entire Community Plan is enforceable as a Court Order; 3. The Community Plan shall apply to all members of the class certifed in People First v. Arlington Developmental Center,.. 4. The Community Plan, as adopted and ordered by this Court, supplements, but does not rescind, the Remedial Order and other orders in this case, except w/regard to the timeframes for compliance. In this respect, the dfts must remedy identified deficiencies in a timely manner. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/21/1997)
754 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...These invoices are attached hereto as Appendices 1, 2, & 3. ...dft State of TN is hereby ORDERED to pay the amounts set out in these invoices into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dft. (cc: all counsel & Financial Deputy) (EHG) Modified on 09/11/1997 (csf). (Entered: 09/11/1997)
755 Memorandum and MOTION by defendants for refund; for teh Court to issue an order allowing dfts to cease paying certain sanctions required..., and refunding all sums in excess of two million dollars in sanctions paid to dfts...; w/attachments (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 09/25/1997)
756 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by defendants (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 09/25/1997)
757 MOTION by plaintiff USA for an extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion and memorandum for a refund w/attached memorandum in support and Rule 11 Certificate of Consultation. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/14/1997)
758 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson from Dist. Court decision [753−1] −Order On Community Plan For West Tennessee, entered 8/21/97. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/21/1997)
759 RECEIVED re [758−1] appeal fee in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 034654) from State of Tennessee. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/21/1997)
760 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting US's motion for an extension of time in which to respond to defendants' motion and memorandum for a refund [757−1] ...parties have until the 10th day following the issuance of the draft of the Monitor's Fifth Semi−Annual Review to file a response to the Dfts' Memorandum an Order. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/22/1997)
761 RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESOND TO DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM AND MOTION FOR REFUND.. by defendants to [757−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/23/1997)
762 MINUTES: Telephone Conference held re: Correspondence received by the court as to Investigations @ ADC and corresponding confidentiality required. Defense's response due by 5:00 p.m. 10/27/97, to be signed by Mr. Bearman; copy required to be faxed as well. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Pla Atty: Weinstein/Gran/Sherman/Dr. O'Neall ; Dft Atty: Hayden/Wood/Dycus/Franklin/Bearman/Campbell C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1997)
763 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...The court hereby ORDERS that collection of monetary sanctions, pursuant to this Court's 6/25/96 Stipulation and Order, that are in excess of the two million dollar annual cap be STAYED pending resolution by the court of defendants' motion. [755−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1997)
764 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...A telephone conf was held in this matter on 10/23/97. Pursuant to discussion during the conf, dfts are ORDERED to file their response to the Monitor's 10/14/97 letter to the court by 5:00 p.m. on 10/27/97. re [762−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/24/1997)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 64 of 232

10/27/1997 10/29/1997 10/31/1997 11/03/1997 11/03/1997 11/04/1997 11/10/1997 11/12/1997
11/13/1997
11/14/1997
11/25/1997 12/10/1997

765 RESPONSE TO COURT MONITOR'S OCTOBER 14, 1997 LETTER by defendants w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/28/1997)
766 MINUTES: Ex−Parte hrg held 10/27/97. Request that Mr. Bearman be allowed to Fed−Ex State's Response, rather than fax copies of same to all parties − is granted.; At conclusion of hrg, Mr. Bearman stated he would fax copies of his response as originally agreed to by the parties. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Dft Atty: L. Bearman C/R: B. Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/31/1997)
767 REPLY by intervenor People lst of TN, et al. TO THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT MONITOR'S OCTOBER 14, 1997 LETTER re [765−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/04/1997)
768 REPLY TO THE DEFENDANTS' RESONSE TO THE COURT MONITOR'S OCTOBER 14, 1997 LETTER by intervenor Parent−Guardian re [765−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/04/1997)
769 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO COURT MONITOR'S OCTORBER 14, 1997 LETTER by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson re response [765−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/04/1997)
770 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO COURT MONITOR'S OCTOBER 14, 1997 LETTER by plaintiff USA w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/06/1997)
771 RESPONSE TO PARTIES' RESPONSES TO DEFENANTS' RESPONSE TO COURT MONITOR'S OCTOBER 14, 1997 LETTER by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/12/1997)
772 ORDER SETTING HEARING AND ESTABLISHING COMMENT PERIOD.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla in−court hearing re: the Monitor's Second Community Compliance Report is set for 2:00 1/23/98 ; ..parties submit their comments on the Monitor's report in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on 12/10/97. The Monitor will have until 1/10/98 to respond to the comments.. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/12/1997)
773 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla...after a review of the materials submitted in response to the Monitor's Oct 14, '97 letter, the court orders...reports of investigations in this matter must be kept confidential from all staff below the level of the superintendent; investigators must have unlimited access to records needed for their investigations and must be permitted to copy portions of those records confidentially; dft is further ordered to work with the Monitor to evaluate the areas of concern raised by the parties;...in addition, the Monitor shall draft a notice for posting at Arlington Dev Ctr regarding the importance of confidentiality in the investigation process, as discussed in the court's Mar., '95 Order...any objections by parties to this order must be filed within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. (cc: all counsel) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 11/14/1997)
774 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla...on Oct. 7, '97, the Monitor submitted invoices for expenses incurred in May−July, 1997...these invoices are attached hereto as Appendices 1,2,3&4. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tennessee is hereby ordered to pay the amounts set out in these invoices into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expenses and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (c: Financial Deputy) (Appendices 1−4 placed in separate folder) (WMW) Modified on 11/17/1997 (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1997)
775 NOTICE OF FILING: COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S SECOND COMMUNITY REVIEW by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/26/1997)
776 RESPONSE/COMMENTS ON THE MONITOR'S SECOND COMMUNITY REVIEW.. by plaintiff USA (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 12/12/1997)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 65 of 232

12/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/15/1997 01/14/1998 01/20/1998 01/21/1998
01/21/1998 01/23/1998
01/23/1998
01/26/1998 01/27/1998 01/28/1998 01/29/1998

777 RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S SECOND COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT.. by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 12/12/1997)
778 RESPONSE TO THE MONITOR'S SECOND COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT.. by intervenors People lst of TN, et al. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 12/12/1997)
779 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 11/14/97,.. ...the Clerk of the Court is directed to send the $354,722.60 to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall.(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/9/2009: # 1 Order by Jon P. McCalla) (csf). (Entered: 12/16/1997)
781 NOTIFICATION form as to Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson sent to 6th Circuit [758−1] with copies of docket items nos. 753, 758 and docket sheet (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 01/14/1998)
782 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..The Court hereby orders the parties in this matter to submit written lists of the witnesses they plan to call at the hearing on the Second Community Compliance Report to be held on 1/23/98. The parties are ordered to submit these witness lists via telecopy to the court by 2:00 p.m. on Wed., 1/21/98. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/21/1998)
783 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amounts set out in these invoices into the registry of the court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by defendant State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the defendants. ..Appendices 1, 2, & 3 attached to order for distribution. [Appendices placed in separate folder for filing] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) Modified on 01/22/1998 (csf). (Entered: 01/21/1998)
784 NOTICE OF FILING: NOTICE OF WITNESSES by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/22/1998)
785 ORDER ESTABLISHING COMMENT PERIOD.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...The Monitor submitted her proposed budget for the 1998 calendar year to the court on 1/9/98. If the parties have comments on this budget, they are Ordered to submit them in writing to the court by 5:00 p.m. on 2/12/98. The Monitor will then have until 2/27/98 to respond to any comments made by the various parties in this matter. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/26/1998)
786 MINUTES: ; In−court hearing on Monitor's 2nd Community Compliance Report.. held 1/23/98 Court addressed remarks by the monitor & the parties' responses. Mr. bearman introduced new co−counsel for State of TN, Mr. Lakey, w/Burch, Porter. Dr. O'Neall's presentation including witnesses/exhibits − see exh/witness list. Hrg/proof by State of TN to be resumed on Thursday, 1/29/98 @ 10:00 a.m. Mr. Sherman's request to call an additional witness be submitted by noon 1/26/98; any responses due by noon, 1/27/98. Court adjourned. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Pla Atty: Bowman/Derryberry ; Monitor: L. O'Neall ; Dft Atty: Bearman/Hayden−Wood/Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/28/1998)
787 NOTICE REGARDING WITNESSES IT INTENDS TO CALL AT THE JANUARY 23, 1998 HEARING ON THE MONITOR'S SECOND COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE... by plaintiff USA (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/29/1998)
788 NOTICE by intervenors People lst of TN, et al, CONCERNING WITNESSES TO BE CALLED AT THE HEARING ON THE SECOND COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT ON JANUARY 23, 1998 (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/29/1998)
789 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..On 1/26/98, the court received a facsimile from William F. Sherman, counsel for the Parent−Guardian Asso., requesting leave to call Carl and Carla Fletcher as witnesses during the hrg on 1/29/98. ..Mr. Sherman's request is GRANTED and Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher will be permitted to testify. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/29/1998)
790 MINUTES: ..Monitor's 2nd Community Compliance report − cont from 1/23/98. Mr. Sherman's witness called out−of−turn. Dr. O'Neall completed her report. State's offer of proof − see Exh & Witness List. Mr. Derryberry to submit Exh 8 at his earliest convenience (to be obtained from the State). Court adjourned. Presiding Judge:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 66 of 232

01/30/1998
02/03/1998
02/03/1998 02/04/1998 02/09/1998
02/11/1998 02/12/1998 02/12/1998 02/20/1998 02/20/1998
02/24/1998 02/24/1998 02/24/1998 02/24/1998

McCalla ; Pla Atty: Bowman/Derryberry/Sherman ; Dft Atty: Bearman/Lakey/Hayden−Wood C/R: B. Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/30/1998)
791 ORDER ADOPTING MONITOR'S SECOND COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..A hrg was held in this matter regarding the Monitor's Second Community Compliance Report on 1/23/98 and 1/29/98. Because there appears to be no opposition from the parties, the Monitor's Second Community Compliance Report is hereby ADOPTED. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/30/1998)
792 ORDER ESTABLISHING COMMENT/OBJECTION PERIOD... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...The Monitor submitted the Monitor's Third Community Compliance Report to the Court on 12/9/97. If the parties have comments on, or objections to, this report, they are ordered to submit them in writing to the court by 5:00 p.m. on 2/27/98. The Monitor will then have until 3/20/98 to respond... If no objections are received by 2/27/98, the report will be adopted by the Court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/12/2009: # 1 Order Establishing Comment/Objection Period by Judge Jon P. McCalla) (csf). (Entered: 02/03/1998)
NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 98−5108; M. Patterson case manager (SSH) (Entered: 02/12/1998)
796 TRANSCRIPT Order Form re [758−1] stating transcript is already on file in the clerk's office (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 02/13/1998)
793 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Pursuant to this court's order entered 1/21/98, the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor for 9/97, 10/97, and 11/97... the Clerk of the Court is directed to send the $260,883.52 to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall. (cc: all counsel & Financial Dpty) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/10/1998)
794 NOTICE OF FILING: Comments to Monitor's Proposed 1998 Budget by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/12/1998)
795 ORDER SETTING CONFERENCE... by Judge Jon P. McCalla status/ conference set 2:00 3/6/98 , to discuss options for use of the approx. $4,000,000.00 in fines collected from dft pursuant to the Court's orders in this matter. ... (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/12/1998)
797 NOTICE OF FILING: COMMENTS OF INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES ON THE COURT MONITOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET.. by intervenor (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/13/1998)
798 ORDER RESETTING CONFERENCE by Judge Jon P. McCalla status conference reset 11:30 3/6/98; the parties must now appear in person, rather than by telephone. (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 02/23/1998)
799 ORDER SETTING HEARING AND ESTABLISHING COMMENT PERIOD by Judge Jon P. McCalla: in−court hearing regarding the Monitor's Fifth Semi−Annual Complaince Report set 9:30 4/3/98; parties shall sumbit, to both the Monitor and the Court, their comments on the Monitor's report in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. 3/16/98; the Monitor will then have until 3/30/98 to respond to the comments... (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (csf). (Entered: 02/23/1998)
800 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian to schedule hearing on the adequacy of funding and rate structures in community programs (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
801 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion to schedule hearing on the adequacy of funding and rate structures in community programs [800−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
802 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian to amend/modify remedial order to allow readmission of former ADC residents (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
803 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion to amend/modify remedial order to allow readmission of former ADC residents [802−1] w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 67 of 232

02/24/1998 02/26/1998 02/26/1998 02/26/1998 02/26/1998 02/27/1998
02/27/1998
02/27/1998 03/02/1998 03/02/1998 03/03/1998 03/03/1998 03/03/1998
03/09/1998 03/09/1998

804 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION... by intervenor Parent−Guardian re: motion to modify remedial order to allow readmission of former ADC residents and motion to schedule a hearing on the adequacy of State Funding for community residences and programs (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
805 RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S THIRD COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT... by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
806 JOINT MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor Parent−Guardian, intervenor People lst of TN for leave/to allow limited use of reports of abuse and neglect investigations (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
807 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor People lst of TN, intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of joint motion for leave/to allow limited use of reports of abuse and neglect investigations [806−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
808 NOTICE OF FILING: DECLARATION by defendant Max Jackson w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
809 ORDER GRANTING MONITOR'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..This matter is before the Court on the Monitor's request, via letter dated 2/26/98, for an extension of time to file her response to the parties' comments on the proposed budget. extending/..the Monitor's request is GRANTED and she shall file her response on or before 3/3/98. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
810 ORDER RESETTING CONFERENCE.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..conf set for 11:30 on 3/6/98 in this matter is hereby RESET to 10:00 3/20/98 . In addition to discussing options for use of the approx $4,000,00.00 in fines collected from dft, the parties and the Court will also address the comments submitted by the Parent−Guardian Asso and People First on the Monitor's proposed budget. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 02/27/1998)
811 DEFENDANTS' COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S THIRD COMMUNITY REVIEW...w/attachments by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
812 RESPONSE/COMMENTS ON THE MONITOR'S THIRD COMMUNITY REVIEW by plaintiff USA (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
813 RESPONSE/COMMENTS ON THE MONITOR'S THIRD COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT... by intervenor People lst of TN (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
814 NOTICE OF FILING OF LATE FILED EXHIBITS 8. TO HEARING OF JANUARY 23 AND 29,1 998 by intervenors (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
815 LATE FILED EXHIBIT 8. TO HEARING OF JANUARY 23 AND 29, 1998 CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS AND COMCARE, INC., FOR GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
816 AGREED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the court's order of 11/14/97 is modified in the following respects: 1) Arlington Developmental Center employees who are members of the Abuse and Neglect Prevention Committee may have access to the reports of closed abuse and neglect investigations for the performance of their committee work, and 2) Dfts may use the reports of two closed abuse and neglect investigations in the grievance and Civil Service proceedings resulting from disciplinary action taken based on these reports. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/03/1998)
817 RESPONSE by defendants to Parent−Guardian intervenors' motion to amend/modify remedial order to allow readmission of former ADC residents [802−1], and to motion to schedule hearing on the adequacy of funding and rate structures in community programs [800−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/10/1998)
818 AMENDED MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDER TO ALLOW READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENTS.. by intervenor Parent−Guardian to [802−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/10/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 68 of 232

03/12/1998 03/13/1998 03/16/1998 03/16/1998 03/18/1998 03/18/1998
03/18/1998 03/18/1998 03/18/1998 03/18/1998 03/20/1998 03/20/1998
03/20/1998 03/23/1998

819 MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend/for an extension of time in which to respond to parent/guardian association's motion and amended motion to allow readmission to Arlington Developmental Center (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/13/1998)
820 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion to schedule hearing on the adequacy of funding and rate structures in community programs [800−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/13/1998)
821 RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S FIFTH SEMI−ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT.. by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/18/1998)
822 RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S 5TH COMPLIANCE REPORT by defendants (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/18/1998)
823 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend/for an extension of time in which to respond to parent/guardian association's motion and amended motion to allow readmission to Arlington Developmental Center [819−1] ..response shall be filed no later than 3/20/98. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/18/1998)
824 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Monitor incurred expenses of $110,357.14 in December of 1997. This invoice is attached hereto as Appendix 1. ..dft State of Tennessee is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reinburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the defendants. (cc: all counsel & Financial Deputy) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/18/1998)
825 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for leave/ to fund and allow for the implementation of a self determination pilot project for class members pursuant to the court's prior orders w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/20/1998)
826 MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for leave/ to fund and allow for the implementation of a self determination pilot project for class members pursuant to the court's prior orders [825−1] w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/20/1998)
827 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION...by intervenor People lst of TN re: motion to fund and allow for the implementation of a self determination project for class members pursuant to the court's prior orders (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/20/1998)
828 MEMORANDUM by defendants Tennessee, State of, et al. in opposition to grant process and distribution of sanction monies by court monitor (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/20/1998)
829 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion to amend/modify remedial order to allow readmission of former ADC residents [802−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/23/1998)
830 MINUTES: ; Status conference held 3/20/98 ; Positoin by the govt re: budget − no objections; PGA stated no objections; People 1st stated that budget was perceived to be too large relatively − no submittal nor objections to prop. budget by court monitor (for 1998) by the State of TN; Court adoped the monitor's 1998 prop. budget. People 1st − Ms. Gran's proffer. Witness resumed his testimony (Thomas Nerney) (recess 3:55 p.m. − 4:05 p.m.) Parties have one month to submit proposal and time table (4/20/98 by 5:00 p.m.) Order will be entered by the court in this matter. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Pla Atty: Weinstein/Bowman; Gran, Derryberry; Sherman ; Dft Atty: Bearman/Lakey/Thompson/ Dr. O'Neall: Court Monitor C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/23/1998)
831 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list (for hrg held 3/20/98) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/23/1998)
832 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...On 3/20/98, a conf was held.. For the reasons set forth during the conf, the Monitor's proposed 1998 budget is hereby ADOPTED. ..the parties are Ordered to submit any input as to the grant application procedure for use of the funds collected as sanctions by 5:00 p.m. on 4/20/98. ...Dft is further Ordered to provide the parties w/copy of the State's standard procurement package for services by 4/3/98. ..the United States shall have until 4/20/98 to file its response to People

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 69 of 232

03/23/1998 03/23/1998 03/24/1998 03/24/1998 03/25/1998
03/25/1998
03/25/1998
03/30/1998 03/31/1998

First's motion for a pilot project. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/23/1998)
833 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/23/98 of the Monitor's Second Community Compliance Report Volume 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/24/1998)
834 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/29/98 of Monitor's Report − (resumed) Volume II Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/24/1998)
835 ORDER ADOPTING MONITOR'S THIRD COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...The Monitor submitted the Monitor's Third Community Compliance Report to the Court on 12/9/97. On 2/3/98, the court entered an order requesting any comments regarding, or objections to, the report to be submitted by 2/27/98. It appearing that there are not objections from the parties, the Monitor's Third Community Compliance Report is hereby ADOPTED. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/24/1998)
836 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PEOPLE FIRST'S SECOND COMMUNITY REVIEW... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Accordingly, as the issues raised in defendants' motion have been addressed in the court's order adopting the Community Plan, defendants' motion is DENIED AS MOOT. finding the motion to strike People First Second Community Review [736−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/24/1998)
837 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION'S MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDER TO ALLOW READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENTS... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...The Court, therefore, GRANTS the motion to allow C.F. to be readmitted to ADC temporarily while a suitable placement for her is developed. Defendants are ORDERED to find a suitable placement for C.F. w/in 60 days of the entry of this order (If additional time is necessary to find a suitable placement, dfts may seek leave of the court for an extension of this deadline). [802−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/25/1998)
838 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CEASE SANCTIONS ON MONITOR'S FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE... by Judge Jon P. McCalla [716−1]... dfts' motion is GRANTED and the following sanctions shall cease as of the dates specified below: 1. Critical Area 7: VI.C.1 of the Remedial Order: Problem List and Annual Medical Plan.. the automatic sanction as to this area is hereby LIFTED as of 12/30/96.; 2. Critical Area 10: VI.F.3 of the Remedial Order: Anticonvulsant Levels Used to Guide Therapy... LIFTED as of 12/5/96.; 3. Critical Area 19: VIII.A−K of the Remedial Order: Ensure Nurses are Trained (Training Aspects Only)... LIFTED as of 3/12/98.; 4. Critical Area 21: II.A of the Plan of Correction: Training Nurses and Direct Care Staff...LIFTED as of 12/9/96.; 5. Critical Area 22: II.B of the Plan of Correction: Individual Case Management.. LIFTED as of 3/12/98. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/25/1998)
839 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..It appearing that there are no objections by the parties, the Monitor's Fifth Semi−Annual Compliance Report is hereby ADOPTED. The Monitor has requested an extension of time within which to respond tot he parties comments. Accordingly, the Monitor shall file her response by 4/6/98. Because the court will not receive the Monitor's response until 4/6/98, the hearing set for 4/3/98 is CANCELLED. ; In−court hearing set for 4/3/98 CANCELLED . Upon receipt of the Monitor's response, the Court will determine whether a hearing on this report is necessary. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/26/1998)
840 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR PGA'S AMENDED MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDER... by intervenors class representatives to [802−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/31/1998)
841 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for extension of time [..to answer the motion of intervenor, People First, et al., to Fund and Allow for the Implementation of a Self−Determination Pilot Project for Class Members Pursuant to the Court's Prior Orders.. to 4/20/98] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/31/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 70 of 232

03/31/1998 03/31/1998 03/31/1998 03/31/1998 04/01/1998 04/01/1998 04/01/1998
04/01/1998 04/01/1998 04/02/1998
04/03/1998 04/08/1998 04/08/1998

842 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for extension of time [..to answer the motion of intervenor, People First, et al., to Fund and Allow for the Implementation of a Self−Determination Pilot Project for Class Members Pursuant to the Court's Prior Orders.. to 4/20/98] [841−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/31/1998)
843 ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME... by Judge Jon P. McCalla [841−1] ...PGA shall file its response to People First's motion for a pilot project by 4/20/98, and shall notify the court as to whether PGA wishes to cross examine Mr. Thomas Nerney by 4/20/98. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 03/31/1998)
844 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES...by intervenor People lst of TN (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1998)
845 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENORS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.. by defendant Tennessee, State of to [844−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1998)
846 RENEWED SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.. by intervenor People lst of TN (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1998)
848 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of for an extension of time to file response to People First's motion for implementation of a self determination pilot project (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1998)
849 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion for an extension of time to file response to People First's motion for implementation of a self determination pilot project [848−1] ..up to an including 4/20/98. (EHG) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/16/2009: # 1 Defendants' Memorandum In Support Of Their Motion For An Extension Of Time To File Response To People First's Motion For Implementation Of a Self Determination Pilot Project) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1998)
850 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION... by defendant Tennessee, State of re: motion for extension of time to file response to People first's motion for implementation of a self determination pilot project. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1998)
851 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 3/20/98 of PROCEEDINGS (Friday Morning & Afternoon) Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1998)
847 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENORS' SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES... by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [844−1] ...ORDERED that the plas/intervenors People First, et al., are awarded attorneys fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $185,500.00 to be paid by the State of Tennessee. ...this award shall be in satisfaction of all hours expended and costs incurred in connection w/People First's enforcement work during the period from 7/1/96 thru 8/30/97. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/02/1998)
852 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for an extension of time to file response to People First's motion for implementation of a self determination pilot project [848−1]; Dfts, State of TN, et al shall have until 4/20/98 to file response to People First's motion for a pilot project; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (csf). (Entered: 04/06/1998)
853 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN to reconsider and/or to modify order of March 25, 1998 granting in part and denying in part PGA's motion to modify remedial order w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/09/1998)
854 MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion to reconsider and/or to modify order of March 25, 1998 granting in part and denying in part PGA's motion to modify remedial order [853−1] (EHG) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/19/2009: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Intervenor Class Represtatives' Motion

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 71 of 232

04/08/1998 04/10/1998 04/10/1998 04/10/1998 04/10/1998
04/14/1998
04/20/1998
04/20/1998 04/20/1998 04/20/1998 04/20/1998 04/20/1998 04/21/1998 04/21/1998
04/21/1998 04/22/1998 04/27/1998

to Reconsider and/or to Modify Order of March 25, 1998 Granting in Part and Denying in Part PGA's Motion to Modify Remedial Order) (csf). (Entered: 04/09/1998)
855 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION.... by intervenor People lst of TN re: motion to reconsider and/or to modify order of March 25, 1998 granting in part and denying in part PGS's motion to modify remedial order (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/09/1998)
856 MOTION by defendants for refund (of sanction monies) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/13/1998)
857 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion for refund (of sanction monies) [856−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/13/1998)
858 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION... by defendants re: motion for refund of sanction monies (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/13/1998)
859 RESPONSE TO PEOPLER'S FIRST MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND/OR TO MODIFY ORDER OF MARCH 25, 1998 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PGA'S MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDER by defendants to [853−1] w/attachments (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/13/1998)
860 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to motion to reconsider and/or to modify order of March 25, 1998 granting in part and denying in part PGA's motion to modify remedial order [853−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/15/1998)
861 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to motion of People First of TN to fund and allow for the implementation of a self determination pilot project for class members pursuant to the court's prior orders [825−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1998)
862 NOTICE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR GRANT APPLICATION PROCEDURE.. by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1998)
863 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by intervenor People lst of TN for extension of time to respond to the court's order of March 23, 1998 (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1998)
864 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION.. by intervenor People lst of TN re: motion for an extension of time to respond to the court's order of March 23, 1998. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1998)
865 RESPONSE/OPPOSITION by defendants to People First's motion to fund and allow for the implementation of a self determination pilot project for class members pursuant to the court's prior orders [825−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1998)
866 RESPONSE/COMMENTS REGARDING GRANT APPLICATION PROCEDURE... by defendants to [832−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1998)
867 MOTION by plaintiff USA for an extension of time in which to respond to court's order of March 23, 1998 (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1998)
868 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for an extension of time in which to respond to court's order of March 23, 1998 [867−1] ..response shall be filed no later than 4/21/98. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/19/2009: # 1 Order by Judge McCalla) (csf). (Entered: 04/21/1998)
869 RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 23, 1998 by plaintiff USA (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/22/1998)
870 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting intervenor People first of TN's motion for extension of time to respond to the court's order of March 23, 1998 [863−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/22/1998)
871 RESPONSE/INVERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' GRANT PROCEDURE COMMENTS by intervenors (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/29/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 72 of 232

04/28/1998 04/30/1998 04/30/1998
05/01/1998
05/12/1998 05/15/1998 05/15/1998 05/15/1998 05/18/1998 05/21/1998
05/21/1998

872 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Pursuant to this court's order entered 3/18/98, the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor for 12/1997,... Accordingly, the clerk of the court is directed to send the $110,357.14, to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall. (cc: all counsel & Fin. Deputy) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 04/29/1998)
873 RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 23, 1998... by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to [869−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/01/1998)
874 ORDER SETTING HEARING AND ESTABLISHING COMMENT PERIOD... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..The Monitor submitted the Monitor's Third Community Compliance Report to the Court on 4/17/98. in−court hearing regarding the Monitor's Third Community Compliance Report is SET 10:00 7/17/98 . The parties shall submit their comments on the Monitor's report in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on 6/1/98. The monitor will then have until 7/1/98 to respond to the comments made by the various parties in this matter. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 05/01/1998)
875 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla. On 4/8/98, the Monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in Jan 1998. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred expenses of $151,665.47 in January of 1998. This invoice is attached hereto as Appendix 1. Dft State of Tennessee is ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. All funds received by the Clerk are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (CH Financial Deputy) (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/01/1998)
876 SETTING LETTER: hearing on Monitor's Fourth Annual Compliance Report set for 7/17/98 at 10:00 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/14/1998)
877 MOTION by defendants for order modifying the court's order of 3/24/98, so as to allow C.F. to remain at Arlington Developmental Center until 6/30/98 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/18/1998)
878 MEMORANDUM (w/Exhibits A−C attached) by defendants in support of motion for order modifying the court's order of 3/24/98, so as to allow C.F. to remain at Arlington Developmental Center until 6/30/98 [877−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/18/1998)
879 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by counsel for defendants regarding motion to modify order of 3/24/98 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/18/1998)
880 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for order modifying the court's order of 3/24/98, so as to allow C.F. to remain at Arlington Developmental Center until 6/30/98 [877−1] (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/18/1998)
881 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla. The clerk is directed to send the $151,665.47, previously placed in the Registry of the Court by the defendants (to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor for January 1998) to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (CH Financial Deputy) (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) Modified on 05/22/1998 (csf). (Entered: 05/22/1998)
882 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla. The Monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in February and March, 1998. According to the invoice, the Monitor incurred expenses of $82,861.91 in February and $88,243.69 in March of 1998. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1 and 2. Dft State of Tennessee is ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. All funds received by the clerk are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spend by the Monitor shall be credited to the defendants. (CH Financial Deputy) (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/22/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 73 of 232

05/27/1998 05/27/1998 05/27/1998 05/29/1998 06/01/1998 06/08/1998
06/10/1998 06/10/1998 06/10/1998
06/15/1998 06/19/1998
06/29/1998 06/29/1998

883 MOTION by defendant State of Tennessee, et al., to cease sanctions on monitor's findings of compliance and refund monies paid after compliance date, and lift the state of medical emergency (Former Emp) Modified on 05/28/1998 (csf). (Entered: 05/28/1998)
884 MEMORANDUM (w/Exhibit A attached) by defendants State of Tennessee, et al., in support of motion to cease sanctions on monitor's findings of compliance and refund monies paid after compliance date, and lift the state of medical emergency [883−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/28/1998)
885 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by counsel for defendant State of Tennessee, et al., regarding motion to cease sanctions on monitor's findings of compliance and refund monies paid after compliance date, and to lift the state of medical emergency (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 05/28/1998)
886 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental Center for extension of time to and including 6/15/98 to submit comments on the Monitor's Fourth Community Compliance Report (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/01/1998)
887 COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S FOURTH COMMUNITY REVIEW (w/attachments) by defendant Tennessee, State of (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/02/1998)
888 ORDER (w/attachments) by Judge Jon P. McCalla. On 5/21/98, the monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in April 1998. The monitor incurred expenses of $95,238.50 in April 1998. The invoices are attached as Appendix 1. Dft State of Tennessee is ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the clerk are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to an incluidng the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/08/1998)
889 NOTICE/COMMENTS of intervenors People lst of TN on the Monitor's Fourth Community Compliance Report (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/10/1998)
890 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME by Judge Jon P. McCalla. The motion of Parent−Guardian Association for extension of time to and including 6/15/98 to submit comments on the Monitor's Fourth Community Compliance [886−1] is granted. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/10/1998)
891 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR REFUND by Judge Jon P. McCalla. Defendants' motion for refund [856−1] is granted. The clerk is ordered to refund to defendants $1,462,000.00, said amount representing sanction monies paid by defendants on each of the five sanctionable provisions found in compliance in this court's 3/25/98 Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Cease Sanctions On Monitor's Findings of Compliance, during the time following the compliance date for each of these provisions. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/11/1998)
892 NOTICE/COMMENTS OF PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION TO MONITOR'S FOURTH COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REVIEW (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/15/1998)
893 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [882−1]...it appears that the dfts have paid said amounts into the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the total sum of $171,105.60, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308 (cc: all counsel) (c: Financial Deputy) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 06/19/1998)
894 MOTION by defendants for order modifying the Court's Order of 5/18/98, so as to allow C.F. to remain at Arlington Developmental Center until 7/30/98 (Former Emp) Modified on 06/30/1998 (csf). (Entered: 06/30/1998)
895 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion for order modifying the Court's Order of 5/18/98, so as to allow C.F. to remain at Arlington Developmental Center until 7/30/98 [894−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/30/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 74 of 232

06/29/1998 07/06/1998
07/06/1998 07/07/1998
07/09/1998
07/14/1998 07/14/1998 07/15/1998 07/15/1998 07/16/1998 07/16/1998 07/17/1998

896 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendants regarding motion to modify order of 5/18/98 (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 06/30/1998)
897 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla. On 6/22/98, the Monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in May 1998. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred expenses of $100,486.76 in April 1998. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. Dft State of Tennessee is ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to an including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/06/1998)
REMARK: ltr received from atty Robert C. Bowman, counsel for USA; stating that he will no longer be one of the counsel of record for the USA (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
898 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting dfts' motion for order modifying the Court's Order of 5/18/98 [880−1], so as to allow C.F. to remain at Arlington Developmental Center until 7/24/98 [894−1]. The dfts' motion requested an extension of the deadline until 7/30/98. The court finds that 7/24/98 is a more appropriate deadline as this is the second extension requested by dfts. Dfts are ordered to submit weekly progress reports to the court, on 7/15/98 and 7/22/98, detailing the progress of C.F.'s community placement process. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/07/1998)
899 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla. Pursuant to this court's order [888−1] entered 6/8/98, the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $95,238.50 for April 1998. The dfts have paid said amount into the Registry of the Court. The clerk is directed to send the sum of $95,238.50 to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/09/1998)
900 MOTION (w/Affidavit of Roger Manus in support of motion for admission pro hac vice and Certificate of Good Standing attached as Exhibit A) by intervenor People First of Tennessee, Inc. for attorney Roger Manus to appear pro hac vice (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/15/1998)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID: in the amount of $10.00, receipt #039859, by atty Roger Manus (Former Emp) (Entered: 07/15/1998)
901 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for attorney Roger Manus to appear pro hac vice [900−1] as co−counsel for Intervenor People First of Tennessee, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/15/1998)
902 NOTICE/PROGRESS REPORT: C.F. (w/progress report attached) filed by defendants (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/16/1998)
903 JOINT MOTION by the parties for order allowing W.B.'s admission to skilled nursing facility (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/17/1998)
904 MEMORANDUM (w/Declarations of John E. Williams, M.D. and Michael S. Bronze, M.D. attached) by the parties in support of joint motion for order allowing W.B.'s admission to skilled nursing facility [903−1] (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 07/17/1998)
905 MINUTES: ; In−court hearing held 7/17/98 re: Comm. Compliance Report ; Mr. Manus introduced as co−counsel for People 1st. Motion in re: W.B. Granted. Order entered − filed in open court. Court directed that expert witnesses' testimony be video−taped for educational/instructional pruposes only. Testimony/cross of witnesses: see exhibit/witness list. No objections from the parties − court adopts the monitor's report as its findings of fact. Follow−up hrg set Thurs, 7/23/98 @ 1:30 p.m. DOAR & Video Equipment required for all compliance proceedings. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Pla Atty: Weinstein, Derryberry, Manus, ; Dft Atty: Bearman, Lakey, Hayden−Wood C/R: B. Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/20/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 75 of 232

07/17/1998 07/22/1998 07/22/1998 07/23/1998 07/23/1998 07/24/1998 08/05/1998 08/05/1998 08/13/1998
08/14/1998
08/14/1998
08/19/1998

906 AGREED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for order allowing W.B.'s admission to skilled nursing facility [903−1].. that W.B. may be admitted to a skilled nursing facility specializing in the care of individuals who are ventilator dependent. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/23/2009: # 1 Agreed Order by Judge Jon P. McCalla) (csf). (Entered: 07/20/1998)
907 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/17/98 of Comm. Compliance Report, before Judge McCalla, Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/22/1998)
908 NOTICE OF FILING: STATUS REPORT: C.F. by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/27/1998)
909 MINUTES: Hearing on Comm. Compliance (cont'd) 7/23/98; Dr. O'Neal remarks re: Report. See exh/witness list. Matter cont'd. in−court hearing continued to Thursday 3:30 8/13/98 . Court adjourned. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Pla Atty: Weinstein/Derryberry & Sherman ; Dft Atty: Bearman/Hayden−Wood/Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/27/1998)
911 Designation of Record on Appeal as to intervenor Parent−Guardian re [758−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/28/1998)
910 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing/Hearing on the Fourth Community Compliance Report is continued to Thursday 8/13/98 at 3:30 (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 07/27/1998)
912 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/17/98 of Comm. Compliance Report Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/06/1998)
913 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/23/98 of Comm. Compliance Report Volume II Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/06/1998)
916 MINUTES: ; In−court hearing/Continuation 4th Community Compliance Report held 8/13/98 Mr. Campbell resumed his testimony. Mr. Sherman resumed his cross−examination. Mr. Derryberry resumed his cross, following Ms. Weinstein's additional inquiry. Closing remarks by Mr. Derryberry, Mr. Sherman, along with Mr. Bearman's argument in opposition to Mr. Derryberry's suggestion of contempt & the motion for an Order to Show Cause as to contempt issue. Court takes matter under advisement. Exhs A & B admitted. See Exh/Witness List. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Pla Atty: Weinstein/Derryberry/Manus & Sherman ; Dft Atty: Bearman/Lakey/Franklin C/R: Brenda Parker [received 8/14/98] (EHG) Modified on 08/14/1998 (csf). (Entered: 08/14/1998)
914 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 7/6/98, the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $100,486.76 for 5/98. It appears that the dfts have paid said amount into the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $100,486.76, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel & Fin. Deputy) (EHG) Modified on 08/14/1998 (csf). (Entered: 08/14/1998)
915 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..On 7/17/98, the Monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in 6/98. ..the Monitor incurred expenses of $121,714.22 in 6/98. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to an including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. [Appendix 1 placed in separate folder] (cc: all counsel & Fin. Deputy) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/14/1998)
917 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $121,714.22 for 6/98. ..the dfts have paide said amount into the Registry of the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 76 of 232

08/24/1998 08/24/1998 08/24/1998 08/27/1998
09/03/1998 09/08/1998 09/09/1998
09/22/1998 09/22/1998 09/22/1998

Court.. the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $212,714.22, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel & fin. deputy) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/19/1998)
918 MOTION by defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson, defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist for order modifying XIV.B.12 of the Remedial Order by substituting Independent Support Coordination for the case managment system (YDS) (csf). (Entered: 08/25/1998)
919 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion for order modifying XIV.B.12 of the Remedial Order by substituting Independent Support Coordination for the case managment system [918−1] (YDS) (csf). (Entered: 08/25/1998)
920 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson as to Motion for Order to Modify XIV.B.12 of the Remedial Order by substituting Independent Support Coordination for the case management system (YDS) (csf). (Entered: 08/25/1998)
921 ORDER SETTING HEARING AND ESTABLISHING COMMENT PERIOD by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..A hrg regarding the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report is hereby set.. in−court hearing set 8:30 11/20/98 . The parties shall submit their comments on the Monitor's report in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. on 9/30/98. The Monitor will then have until 10/30/98 to respond to the comments by the various parties in this matter. ..on the oral motion by People First, during the hrg on 8/13/98, requesting that dft be ordered to show cause why is should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the provisions of the Community Plan, as documented in the reports of the Court Monitor. For good cause shown, People First's motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, dft is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE at the hrg on Fri, 11/20/98 as to why it should not be held in contempt. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 08/28/1998)
922 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing on fifth Compliance Report and on the issue of Contempt set for 11/20/98 at 8:30, before Judge McCalla (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/04/1998)
923 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/13/98 of (continuation) 4th Community Compliance Report, Volume III Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/09/1998)
924 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..on 8/24/98, the Monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in 7/98. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred expenses of $132,434.24 in 7/98. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. ..dft State of TN is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/09/1998)
925 MOTION by defendants for confirmation of their right to proceed with discovery , for leave/ to accompany the Monitor and her experts during reviews , and for an extension of time to file their response to the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/24/1998)
926 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion for confirmation of their right to proceed with discovery [925−1], of motion for leave/ to accompany the Monitor and her experts during reviews [925−2], of motion for an extension of time to file their response to the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report [925−3] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/24/1998)
927 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendants re: motion & memorandum in support for confirmation of their right to proceed with discovery, to accompany the Monitor and her experts during reviews, and for extension of time to file their

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 77 of 232

09/28/1998 09/29/1998
09/29/1998 09/30/1998 09/30/1998 10/01/1998 10/01/1998
10/02/1998
10/06/1998 10/06/1998 10/07/1998 10/08/1998

response to the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/24/1998)
929 SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION... by defendants re certificate as to motion for discovery [927−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/30/1998)
928 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SCHEDULE HEARING AND MOTION TO IMPLEMENT A SELF−DETERMINATION PILOT PROJECT... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...The Court finds these matters not appropriate for consideration until after the receipt of comments, and the holding of a hearing, on the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report. The Court, therefore, DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE these two motions. ..denying motion for leave/ to fund and allow for the implementation of a self determination pilot project for class members pursuant to the court's prior orders [825−1], denying motion to schedule hearing on the adequacy of funding and rate structures in community programs [800−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/29/1998)
930 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for extension of time for PGA to submit comments on the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report ..to 10/15/98. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 09/30/1998)
931 NOTICE OF FILING: Intervenor Class Representatives' Comments on the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report by intervenors representatives (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/02/1998)
932 NOTICE OF FILING: Defendants' Response to Monitor's Fifth Community Compliant Report w/attachments by defendants [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/02/1998)
933 NOTICE OF FILING: United States' Comments on the Monitor's Fifth Community Review.. by plaintiff USA (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/02/1998)
934 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for extension of time for PGA to submit comments on the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report. [930−1], granting Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file their response to the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report [925−3] ...the Court GRANTS an extension and ORDERS that comments to the Monitor's Fifth Compliance Report be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 10/9/98. [Defts also requested that the court grant them discovery and the opportunity to accompany the Monitor on her site visits in their motion requesting an extension of time. The Court does not rule on these issues at this time.] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/02/1998)
935 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 9/9/98, the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $132,434.24 for July, 1998. It appeals that the dfts have paid said amount.. ..the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $132,434.24, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel & Financial Deputy) (EHG) Modified on 10/05/1998 (csf). (Entered: 10/05/1998)
936 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA as to hearing dates of 1/23/98 & 1/29/98 (YDS) (csf). (Entered: 10/07/1998)
937 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA as to trial dates of 7/17/98 & 7/23/98 (YDS) (csf). (Entered: 10/07/1998)
938 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion for confirmation of their right to proceed with discovery [925−1], to motion for leave/ to accompany the Monitor and her experts during reviews [925−2] and for an extension of time to file their response to the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/08/1998)
939 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor People lst of TN by Roger Manus (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/09/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 78 of 232

10/09/1998 10/15/1998 10/16/1998
10/23/1998
10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/29/1998 10/29/1998 10/29/1998 10/30/1998
11/12/1998 11/12/1998 11/12/1998 11/12/1998

940 NOTICE OF FILING: Comments of Parent−Guardian Association to Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Review.. by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/09/1998)
941 MEMORANDUM by intervenor class representatives in opposition to defendants' (motion for discovery, etc.) motion for confirmation of their right to proceed with discovery [925−1], to motion for leave/ to accompany the Monitor and her experts during reviews [925−2] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/16/1998)
942 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..On 8/24/98, the Monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in 8/98. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred expenses of $193,562.10 in 8/98. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. ..dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to an including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the defendants. (cc: all counsel & financial deputy) [Appendix 1, placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/16/1998)
943 MINUTES: telephone conf held 10/23/98. Mr. Campbell also participated by phone. Mr. Bearman's request to be excused due to health reasons from the addressed hrg. State's motion for continuance re: discovery − denied − along w/request to have the monitor accompanied. Court adopted USA's opposition & Intervenor's memo as its findings. Mr. Bearman advised he will be in attendance at the hearing. Presiding Judge: McCalla ; Pla Atty: Weinstein/Gran/Sherman/Derryberry ; Dft Atty: Bearman/Kakey/Dycus/O'Neall C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/23/1998)
944 MOTION (in Letter form, dated 10/9/98, from atty Leo Bearman, Jr.) by defendant Tennessee, State of to continue (hearing set for 11/20/98, until a date after the first of the year). (EHG) Modified on 10/26/1998 (csf). (Entered: 10/26/1998)
945 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION (in letter form, dated 10/22/98) by plaintiff USA (atty. Laurie J. Weinstein) to motion to continue (hearing set for 11/20/98, until a date after the first of the year). [944−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/26/1998)
946 MOTION by defendants for order to cease paying sanctions and refund sanctions exceeding annual cap (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/30/1998)
947 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for order to cease paying sanctions and refund sanctions exceeding annual cap [946−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/30/1998)
948 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION.. by defendants re: motion to cease paying sanctions and refund santions exceeding annual cap (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/30/1998)
949 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Court GRANTS the court appointed monitor, Dr. Linda R. O'Neall, an extension of 5 days in which to submit her response to the parties' comments on the Fifth Community Compliance Report. Dr. O'Neall shall submit her reort on Wed., 11/4/98. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 10/30/1998)
950 MOTION by intervenor class representatives to increase annual cap on fines pursuant to stipulation and order (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1998)
951 MEMORANDUM by intervenor class representatives in support of motion to increase annual cap on fines pursuant to stipulation and order [950−1] (EHG) Modified on 11/17/1998 (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1998)
952 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor class representatives re: motion to increase annual cap on fines pursuant to stipulation and order (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1998)
953 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by intervenor class representatives to defendants' motion for order to cease paying sanctions and refund sanctions exceeding annual cap [946−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 79 of 232

11/13/1998 11/13/1998 11/13/1998 11/13/1998
11/17/1998
11/17/1998
11/18/1998 11/18/1998 11/19/1998 11/20/1998 11/23/1998

954 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for protective order ..imposing limitations and restrictions on depositoins of state employees Beth Robey, Barbara Brent, Tom Sullivan, Rick Campbell, and Max Jackson, which have been scheduled through the state defendants,.. (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1998)
955 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for protective order [954−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1998)
956 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian re: motion for protective order (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1998)
961 MINUTES: (Minutes file−stamped 11/17/98) granting motion for protective order [954−1] granting motion to continue (hearing set for 11/20/98, until a date after the first of the year). [944−1] Court grants Mr. Sherman's Motion for Protected Order as to 11/16/98 & 11/17/98 deposition dates. type of hearing held: Telephone Conf. Presiding Judge: McCalla DFT Atty: Bearman/Dycus/O'Neal/Sherman PLA Atty: Weinstein/Gran/Derryberry/Manu C/R: Dan Snider (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/19/1998)
957 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..On 10/22/98, the Monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in 9/98. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred expenses of $157,562.37 in 9/98. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel & Fin. Deputy) (Appendix 1 placed in separate folder) (EHG) Modified on 11/17/1998 (csf). (Entered: 11/17/1998)
958 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Pursuant to this court's order entered 10/16/98, the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $193,562.10 for 8/98. It appears that the defendants have paid said amount into the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $193,562.10, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall,... (cc: all counsel & financial deputy) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/18/1998)
959 ORDER SETTING HEARING.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla .. Pursuant to discussion with the Monitor and the parties, the court SETS a hearing on the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report for 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, 11/19/98. The hearing will continue at 10:00 p.m. on Friday, 11/20/98. in−court hearing set 2:00 11/19/98, continuing at 10:00 p.m. 11/20/98. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/18/1998)
960 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by intervenor People lst of TN re Roger Manus moved to new location. (cc: Atty. Maint. Clerk) (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/19/1998)
962 MINUTES: type of hearing held: Contempt/Compliance; minutes file−stamped 11/20/98; Court heard testimony from witnesses called by the monitor, Dr. O'Neal. Presiding Judge: McCalla DFT Atty: Bearman/Lakey/Hayden−Wood PLA Atty: Weinstein Bowman Derryberry Sherman C/R: Parker (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/23/1998)
963 MINUTES: type of hearing held: Contempt/Compliance Hearing Court heard testimony from witnesses call by the monitor, Dr. O'Neal. Presiding Judge: McCalla DFT Atty: Bearman/Lakey/Hayden−Wood PLA Atty: Weinstein/Bowman/Derryberry/Sherman C/R: Parker (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/23/1998)
964 MINUTES: type of hearing held: Contempt/Compliance Court heard testimony for witnesses introduced by Dr. O'Neall. Court set for 12/24/98 as deadline for filing brief in regards to contempt. Court heard testimony from witness called by people 1st. Presiding Judge: McCalla DFT Atty: Bearman,Lakey,Hayden−Wood PLA Atty: Weinstein,Gran,Bowman,Sherman C/R: Parker (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 11/24/1998)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 80 of 232

11/24/1998 12/01/1998 12/02/1998
12/08/1998 12/09/1998
12/09/1998
12/16/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/22/1998 12/28/1998

965 MINUTES: (filed 11/25/98) ; In−court Contempt/Compliance hearing held 11/24/98 ; Court heard testimony from witnesses called by the State of Tennessee. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Weinstein/Gran/Manus/Sherman DFT Atty: Bearman/Lakey/Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 11/27/1998)
966 MINUTES: (filed 12/3/98) Compliance/Contempt Hearing 12/1/98; Court heard testimony from witnesses called by the State of Tennessee. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Weinstein, Connett, Sherman DFT Atty: Bearman, Lakey, Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 12/04/1998)
967 MINUTES: (filed 12/3/98) Complicant/Contempt hrg held 12/2/98; Court directed State to have waiver application in 3 weeks. Court directed State to produce certain documents. Court heard testimony from witnesses introduced by the State of Tennessee. Briefs are due by 1/20/99. status/TELEPHONE conference set for Friday, 1/29/99 ; Waiver amendment due by 1/26/99. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Sherman, Weinstein, Derryberry, Connett DFT Atty: Bearman, Dycus, Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 12/04/1998)
968 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for order to cease paying sanctions and refund sanctions exceeding annual cap [946−1], to motion to increase annual cap on fines pursuant to stipulation and order [950−1] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 12/08/1998)
969 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Pursuant to this court's order entered 11/17/98, the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $157,562.37 for 9/98. It appears that the defendants have paid said amount into the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $157,562.37, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel & Financial Deputy) (EHG) Modified on 12/09/1998 (csf). (Entered: 12/09/1998)
970 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..On 9/23/98 dft State of TN filed a motion to gain discovery against, and to accompany while on site visits, the Monitor and her team. As these requests are flatly contrary to section XV of the Remedial Order and for the reasons stated at the 10/23/98 phone conference in this matter, the Court DENIES this motion. [925−1], [925−2] [In this same motion, dft requested an extension in which to file its response to the Monitor's Fifth Community Compliance Report. As dft timely filed its comments, this portion of the motion is DENIED as MOOT]. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 12/09/1998)
971 SETTING LETTER : Telephone Conference set for 1/25/99 at 8:15. The Conference is to be set up by the plaintiffs. (Former Emp) (csf). (Entered: 12/17/1998)
972 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to cease sanctions on monitor's findings of compliance and refund monies paid after compliance date (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/29/1998)
973 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to cease sanctions on monitor's findings of compliance and refund monies paid after compliance date [972−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/29/1998)
974 OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' MOTION TO INCREASE ANNUAL CAP OF FINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to [950−1] (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/29/1998)
975 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULATION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/29/1998)
976 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla...on Dec. 7, '98, the Monitor submitted an invoice for expenses incurred in Oct., '98. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred expenses of $145,545.08 in Oct. '98. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1...dft State of TN is hereby ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 81 of 232

01/11/1999 01/11/1999 01/11/1999 01/11/1999 01/11/1999 01/11/1999 01/11/1999 01/15/1999
01/15/1999 01/19/1999 01/20/1999 01/20/1999 01/20/1999 01/21/1999 01/21/1999

deposited into an interest bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (c: financial deputy) (WMW) (csf). (Entered: 12/29/1998)
977 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/19/98 of Contempt/Compliance Hrg Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1999)
978 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/20/98 of Contempt/Compliance Hrg Volumes II Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) Modified on 02/03/1999 (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1999)
979 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/23/98 of Contempt/Compliance Hrg. Volumes III Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1999)
980 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/24/98 of Contempt/Compliance Hrg. Volumes IV Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1999)
981 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/1/98 of Contempt/Compliance Hrg Volumes V Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1999)
982 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/2/98 of Contempt/Compliance Hrg Volumes VI Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/12/1999)
983 NOTICE/NOTIFICATION OF NAME CHANGE OF COUNSEL... by plaintiff USA (filed by attorney Verlin Hughes Deerinwater [former name: Verlin P. Hughes]) cc: atty maintenance clk (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/13/1999)
984 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 12/29/98, the defendants were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $145,545.08 for 10/98. ...Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $145,545.08 previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall,.. (cc: all counsel & Financial Deputy) (EHG) Modified on 01/15/1999 (csf). (Entered: 01/15/1999)
985 NOTICE OF FILING: Monitor's Sixth Community Compliance Report by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/15/1999)
986 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for extension of time to submit brief ..on the Monitor's 5th Community review and the Motion for Contempt (EHG) (csf). (Entered: 01/21/1999)
987 POST−HEARING MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN, et al., CONCERNING CIVIL CONTEMPT (EHG) (Entered: 01/21/1999)
988 DEFENDANTS' BRIEF REGARDING SHOW CAUSE HARING HELD ON NOVEMBER 19−24 AND DECEMBER 1−2, 1998 by defendants (EHG) (Entered: 01/21/1999)
989 APPENDIX TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF REGARDING SHOW CAUSE HEARING HELD ON NOVEMBER 19−24 AND DECEMBER 1−2, 1998 re [988−1] (document placed in separate folder) (EHG) (Entered: 01/21/1999)
990 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Parent−Guardian Asso is allowed additional time to and including 2/1/99 to file the PGA Brief. [986−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/21/1999)
991 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the United States and People First shall have until 1/21/99 to file their post−hearing briefs previously due 1/20/99. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/21/1999)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 82 of 232

01/21/1999 992 UNITED STATES POST−HEARING BRIEF ON CONTEMPT by plaintiff USA ..w/attachments [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 01/21/1999)

01/22/1999 993 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION.. by intervenor Parent−Guardian re: motion for extension of time to file brief (EHG) (Entered: 01/25/1999)

01/25/1999

994 MINUTES: (filed 1/25/99) ; Status/TELEPHONE conference held 1/25/99 ; The Court heard from all parties concerning the new waiver. The Court addressed concern that the waiver had not been completed. The Court ordered the State of Tennessee to submit by Thursday, 1/29/99 an agreement on the rate schedule and other provisions. A FOLLOW−UP TELEPHONE CONFERENCE for Friday, 1/29/99 @ 4:30 p.m. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Weinstein, Derryberry, Manus DFT Atty: Bearman, Lakey, Dycus, O'Neall C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 01/26/1999)

01/28/1999

995 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING by Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson...As directed by the Court in the telephone conference held 01/25/99, Defendants hereby give notice of filing of the proposed Request for Initial Home and community Based Waiver Under Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act...Defendants have reviewed this proposed waiver application and respectfully submit that this waiver, in conjunction with other funding sources available, is adequate and appropriate to meet the requirements of the Remedial Order and Community Plan...Defendants also note that any waiver application must be approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). (w/Attached Waiver Placed In Separate Folder) (Former Emp) (Entered: 02/02/1999)

01/29/1999

996 MEMORANDUM BRIEF OF PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian...Recommendations (1) Exemption from TNCARE, (2) Commitment to Arlington Developmental Center, (3) Use ADC as a Resource Center, (4) Standards for the community system should be inclusive, (5) Motion for Contempt. (w/Exhibits Attached) (Former Emp) (Entered: 02/02/1999)

01/29/1999

997 MINUTES: (filed 1/29/99) ; Status/Follow−up conference held 1/29/99 ; The court addressed the waiver application. The court directed the State of TN to submit to the plaintiffs, budget analysis used to complete the waiver application, by 2/5/99. The court directed the plas to submit to the State of TN any questions about the waiver application by 2/3/99. A hrg will be held on the waiver application Tues., 2/9/99 @ 9:00 a.m. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Weinstein, Derryberry, Manus, Sherman, O'Neall DFT Atty: Bearman, Lakey, Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 02/03/1999)

02/02/1999

998 ORDER SETTING HEARING... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..As Tennessee's failure to maximize its resources could not be explained by counsel, the presence of these policymakers is necessary to determine the adequacy of the state's efforts to comply with the Court's orders in this matter. ..the Court SETS a hearing in this matter for 2/9/99 @ 9:00 a.m. for which is is requested that these executive officials appeal. The parties may present witnesses at this hearing to develop testimony of the ability of TennCare to meet the class members' needs. in−court hearing set 9:00 2/9/99 (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 02/03/1999)

02/03/1999 999 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to reconsider (..order entered on 1/29/99..) (EHG) (Entered: 02/05/1999)

02/03/1999 1000 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion to reconsider (..order entered on 1/29/99..) [999−1] (EHG) (Entered: 02/05/1999)

02/03/1999 1001 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION.. by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson re: motion to reconsider (EHG) (Entered: 02/05/1999)

02/03/1999 1002 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/25/99 of Telephone Conf Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 02/05/1999)

02/03/1999 1003 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/29/99 of 1/29/99 Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 83 of 232

02/05/1999)

02/05/1999

1004

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..In the Court's 2/2/99 order in this matter, the Court stated that the presence at the 2/9/99 hearing of several officials of the State of Tennessee would be helpful in order to determine if Defendants are marshaling their resources to purge themselves of contempt. The Court does not, however, require their attendance. ..Defendants' 2/3/99 motion to reconsider [999−1] is DENIED as moot. ..the Court RESETS the hearing in this matter for 2/9/99 @ 9:30 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 02/05/1999)

02/05/1999

1005

(RESPONSE) DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE FOR COURT TO ACCEPT AND ADMIT ADMISSIONS OUT OF TIME... by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (re: 1/28/99, Intervenor People First of TN filed, over defendants' objection, a motion for the court to accept and admit admissions out of time. ..Defendants oppose People First's motion.) (EHG) (Entered: 02/09/1999)

02/09/1999 1006 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for leave/for court to accept and admit admissions out of time w/attached certificate of consultation, memorandum of law in support of motion for court to accept and admit admissions out of time, and w/attachments (EHG) (Entered: 02/09/1999)

02/09/1999

1007

MINUTES: (filed 2/10/99) ; In−court hearing on Waiver From State of Tennessee held 2/9/99 , The court heard testimony from witnesses about the waiver. The court directed Dycus and Lakey to attend an ethics class w/in the next 3 months. in−court hearing continued until Wednesday 2/10/99 @ 10:30 a.m. via telephone conference. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: O'Neall, Weinstein, Derryberry DFT Atty: Dycus, Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 02/10/1999)

02/10/1999

1008

MINUTES: (filed 2/10/99) ; In−court hearing/Continuation of Hearing on Waiver 2/10/99 ; The Court heard testimony from Brenda Wilson. The Court set deadlines relevant to the disclosure of certain material. The court orally granted Dr. O'Neall's request to seal exhibits 2, 3 and 4 from the hearing. A Scheduling Conf is set for Thursday, 2/25/99 @ 8:30 a.m. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Weinstein, Derryberry, Sherman DFT Atty: Lakey, Dycus, O'Neall C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 02/11/1999)

02/12/1999 1009 NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBIT by defendants re: As directed by the court in the hearing on 2/9/99, dfts are filing late filed Exhibit No. 8, which is attached hereto (EHG) (Entered: 02/16/1999)

02/18/1999

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALLOW USE OF REPORTS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS CONSISTENT WITH MONITOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS by defendant(s) Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (Former Emp) (Entered: 02/23/1999)

02/18/1999

1010

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALLOW USE OF REPORTS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS CONSISTENT WITH MONITOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS by defendant(s) Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson for allowing use of reports of abuse and neglect investigations consistent with monitor's recommendations (Former Emp) (Entered: 02/23/1999)

02/18/1999

1011

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALLOW USE OF REPORTS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS CONSISTENT WITH MONITOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS by defendant(s) Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson in support of motion for allowing use of reports abuse and neglect investigations consistent with monitor's recommendations [1010−1] (w/Attachment) (Former Emp) (Entered: 02/23/1999)

02/18/1999 1012 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendant(s) Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson re Motion to Allow Use of Reports of Abuse and Neglect Investigations Consistent with Monitor's Recommendations. (Former Emp) (Entered: 02/23/1999)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 84 of 232

02/19/1999

1013

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENT REQUESTED AT HEARING HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, AND WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1999 by defendant(s) Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (w/Attachments) (Placed In Separate Folder) (Former Emp) (Entered: 02/23/1999)

02/24/1999 1014 SETTING LETTER ; scheduling conference set for 8:30 2/25/99 (EHG) (Entered: 02/24/1999)

02/24/1999 1015 MOTION by defendants to reconsider directive to Dianne Dycus and Jonathan Lakey to attend an ethics class (EHG) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

02/24/1999 1016 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to reconsider directive to Dianne Dycus and Jonathan Lakey to attend an ethics class [1015−1] w/attachment A (EHG) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

02/24/1999 1017 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendants re: motion to reconsider directive to Dianne Dycus and Jonathan Lakey to attend an ethics class (EHG) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

02/25/1999

1018

MINUTES: (filed 2/25/99) ; scheduling conference satisfied 8:30 2/25/99 ; The court several matters with the parties: the deadline for getting financial information from the State of TN, setting up a meeting with HCFA and Mary Duckett, continuing the process for developing the waiver, direct state fund procedure and a project for Dr. O'Neall. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Weinstein, O'Neall DFT Atty: Dycus, Bearman, Lakey, Derryberry, Sherman C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

02/26/1999

ORIGINAL record on appeal as to Tennessee, State of transmitted to 6th Circuit consisting of 5 vol(s) pleadings (includes 1 vol. pleadings from 92−2213); 2 vol(s) transcripts; copies of docket sheet and transmission form. (cc: copies to all counsel) [758−1] (SSH) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

02/26/1999 1019 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/9/99 of Proceedings Volumes I Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

02/26/1999 1020 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/9/99 of Proceedings Volumes II Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

02/26/1999 1021 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 2/10/99 of Proceedings Volumes III Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 02/26/1999)

03/01/1999

1022

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for allowing use of reports of abuse and neglect investigations consistent with monitor's recommendations [1010−1] ... the Court's Order of November 14, 1997 is modified in the following respects: dfts may use the reports of closed abuse and neglect invertigations in the grievance and Civil Service proceedings resulting from disciplinary action taken based on these reports; abuse and neglect investigations shall be conducted consistent with the recommendations in the Monitor's Sixth Semi−Annual Compliance Report pages 24 through 29. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/02/1999)

03/03/1999

1024

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for leave/for court to accept and admit admissions out of time [1006−1] ...It is hereby Ordered: that dfs' responses to People First's Requests for Admissions re: Motion on Contempt shall be admitted as evidence and accepted as an attachment to People First's Post−Hearing Memorandum Concerning Contempt. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

03/03/1999

1025

ORDER AFTER CONFERENCE by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...During the Conference, the State of TN agreed to provide the following information by 3:00p on 3/5/99: most recent annual state census figures for all private and state Intermediate Care Facilities for the mentally retarded and ICF expenditures; most recent annual Arlington Development Center census figures and ICF expenditures for class members and most recent annual numbers of ADC class members served through the HCB waiver and HCB expenditures; information related to Dianne Dycus, Esq.'s 2/9/99 cross−examination of Dr. Wachtell; the State of TN also agreed to provide the parties,

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 85 of 232

Dr. O'Neall, and the Court with copies of the State's draft procedures for access to the direct State dollars available to class members by 3/12/99...Laurie Weinstein, Esq., counsel for the USA, agreed to provide the parties and Dr. O'Neall w/copies of a letter she expects to receive from the Health Care Finance Administration by 3/3/99..The Court Orders Ms. Weinstein to provide the Court information about the scheduling of this meeting by 3/19/99. The Parties and Dr. O'Neall agreed that Dr. O'Neall will retain the services of Dr. Wachtel and an independent contractor..Finally, Dr. O'Neall agreed to arrange a meeting w/the parties to provide oral comments to the State of TN on its current waiver proposal. After that meeting, the State shall have ten days in which to respond to the parties' comments, either through incorporating them in another draft of the waiver or by providing specific reasons for rejecting the comments. After receipt of this last State submission, the parties and the monitor shall have ten days to file their final written comments on the State's waiver application. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

03/03/1999

1026

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REFUND MONIES PAID IN EXCESS OF ANNUAL CAP AND DENYING INTERVENER PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION TO INCREASE ANNUAL CAP OF FINES by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for order to cease paying sanctions and refund sanctions exceeding annual cap [946−1], denying motion to increase annual cap on fines pursuant to stipulation and order [950−1] ...the Court Grants dfts' motion and Denies People First's motion...dft have made significant efforts to improve services for class members and have come inot compliance with the Court's Orders in several respects since June 1996...As People First has not shown any change in circumstances warranting modification of the Court's earlier Order, its motion is Denied...The Court orders dfts to provide an accounting of the total amount paid in fines in 1998 w/i fourteen days of entry of this Order. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

03/03/1999

1027

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CEASE SANCTIONS ON MONITOR'S FINDINGS OF COMPLICANCE by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to cease sanctions on monitor's findings of compliance and refund monies paid after compliance date, and lift the state of medical emergency [883−1] ...As the dft have brought themselves into compliance with the following provisions of this Court's order, their motion is Granted and the following sanctions shall cease as of the dates specified: Remedial Order Paragraph VI.B.1−Primary Care Physician: ...the sanctions as to this area are lifted as of 2/1/97. The Clerk shall refund to dfts all sanctions paid for violation of this provision after the compliance date and any interest earned on sanctions monies paid in to Court after the compliance date; Emergency Order Paragraph 2−Duties of Developmental Medicine Physician: ...the sanctions as to this area is hereby lifted as of 6/30/97. The Clerk shall refund to the dfts all sanctions paid for violation of this provision after the compliance date and any interest earned on sanction monies paid in to Court after the compliance date; Emergency Order of 7/3/95 and Order of 7/21/95 Paragraph 12: ...the conditions that lead to the determination that a medical emergency existed at ADC have been resolved, the state of medical emergency at ADC is hereby lifted as of 6/30/97; Order of 7/21/95 Paragraph 11: ...the requirements of paragraph 11 of the Court's 7/21/95 order are hereby lifted. Additionally, the Court Orders dfts to file an accounting of fines paid after the dates of compliance set forth in this order w/i 14 days of its entry. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

03/03/1999

1028

ORDER DENYING PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion to reconsider and/or to modify order of March 25, 1998 granting in part and denying in part PGA's motion to modify remedial order [853−1] ...that order permitted dfts to temporarily readmit C.F. in Arlington Development Center pending development of a suitable placement. The placement has now been developed and C.F. no longer resides at Arlington Developmental Center. Accordingly, the Court Denies this motion as moot. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

03/03/1999

1029

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of TN is hereby ordered to pay the amount of set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 86 of 232

monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

03/04/1999 1023 SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSMISSION to 6th Circuit re [758−1] consisting of 3 vols. pleadings (docket #s 385, 386, 388, 400, 402, 408, 409, 425, 480 and 510), copies of docket sheet and transmission form. (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

03/04/1999 1030 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list as to plas and dfts of trial date on 2/10/99 before Judge McCalla (YDS) (Entered: 03/05/1999)

03/04/1999

1031

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CEASE SANCTIONS ON MONITOR'S FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to cease sanctions on monitor's findings of compliance and refund monies paid after compliance date [972−1] ...their motion is Granted and the following sanctions shall cease as of the dates specified: Remedial Order Paragraph VI.L.6.−Train the Staff on Nutritional Management Plans: ...the sanctions as to this area is hereby lifted as of 7/3/98. The Clerk shall refund to dfts all sanctions paid for violation of this provision after the compliance date and any interest earned on sanction monies paid in to Court after the compliance date; Plan of Correction Paragraph III.C.4−Staff Training by Re−Trained Teams: ...the sanction as to this area is hereby lifted as of 7/3/98. The Clerk shall refund to dfts all sanctions paid for this provision after the compliance date and any interest earned on the sanction monies paid into Court after the date of compliance w/this provision; additionally, the Court orders dfts to file any accounting of fines paid after the dates of compliance set forth is this order w/i 14 days of its entry. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/05/1999)

03/04/1999

1032

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY REMEDIAL ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for order modifying XIV.B.12 of the Remedial Order by substituting Independent Support Coordination for the case managment system [918−1] ...the Court Grants the motion and orders that the Remedial Order be modified so that paragraph XIV.B.12 now reads: Dfts shall develop a support coordination system sufficient to ensure that the needs of each resident placed in the community based program pursuant to this ORder are consistently reviewed and met. Every resident in the community and transitioning to the community will have an Independent Support Corrdinator (ISC). No ISC shall have a case load in excess of thirty developmentally disabled persons. ISCs will receive a minimum of eighty hours training in the requirements identified in Paragraph P in addition to other job−related training. ISCs will be in regular, frequent contact w/the people on their caseload in both their residential and day program or work site. ISCs will observe participation in programs and therapeutic interventions and will evaluate the degree to which services in the individualized plan are being delivered. In no event will ISCs visit each of their assigned residents less than once every two weeks for the first six months following transition and once every month thereafter. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/05/1999)

03/05/1999 1033 NOTICE OF FILING Certain Documents by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson w/exhibits attached (YDS) (Entered: 03/08/1999)

03/08/1999 1034 NOTICE OF FILING Certain Documents by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson w/attachments ; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 03/08/1999)

03/11/1999

1035

SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSMISSION to 6th Circuit re [758−1] consisting of 5 vols. pleadings (docket entries #225, 252, 281, 282, 286, 330, 334, 414, 505, 512, 546, 558, 560, 561, 562, 567, 594, 604, 661, 679, 680, 720, 721, 722, 724, 727, 728, 738); copies of docket sheet and transmission form. (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (Entered: 03/11/1999)

03/12/1999 1036 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF FILING of procedures for accessing state dollars that they intend to institute by dft Tennessee, State of, dft Don Sundquist, dft Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson (w/Exhibita A and B Attached) (Former Emp) (Entered: 03/12/1999)

03/17/1999 1037 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson w/Declaration of Chris L. Gingles attached (YDS) (Entered: 03/18/1999)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 87 of 232

03/17/1999 1038 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson w/Declaration of Chris L. Gingles attached (YDS) (Entered: 03/18/1999)

03/17/1999 1039 NOTICE OF FILING OF by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson w/Declaration of Chris L. Gingles attached (YDS) (Entered: 03/18/1999)

03/24/1999

1040

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...It appears that the dfts have paid said amount into the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $193,943.45, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) [CH−Financial Administrator] (YDS) (Entered: 03/25/1999)

03/26/1999

1041

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of TN is hereby ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) [CH−Financial Administrator] (YDS) (Entered: 03/26/1999)

04/01/1999

1042

ORDER ESTABLISHING COMMENT PERIOD by Judge Jon P. McCalla : The Monitor has now submitted her Sixth and Seventh Community Compliance Reports. The Parties shall submit their comments to these reports no later then 5:00p on 4/30/99. The Monitor shall than have until 5:00p on 5/28/99 to respond to these comments. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/01/1999)

04/01/1999 1043 NOTICE OF FILING OF Monitors Seventh Community Compliance Report ; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 04/01/1999)

04/09/1999 1044 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for order directing readmission of former ADC resident w/attachment (YDS) (Entered: 04/09/1999)

04/09/1999 1045 MEMORANDUM/Brief by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for order directing readmission of former ADC resident [1044−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/09/1999)

04/12/1999 1048 RESPONSE by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker to motion for order directing readmission of former ADC resident [1044−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/13/1999)

04/12/1999 1049 CERTIFICATE by intervenor Parent−Guardian of Consultation (YDS) (Entered: 04/13/1999)

04/13/1999 1046 AMENDMENT by intervenor Parent−Guardian to Motion for Order Directing Readmission of Former ADC Resident [1044−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/13/1999)

04/13/1999 1047 AMENDED CERTIFICATE by intervenor Parent−Guardian of Consultation as to Motion for Order Directing Readmission of Former ADC Resident (YDS) (Entered: 04/13/1999)

04/14/1999 1050 ORDER SETTING CONFERENCE by Judge Jon P. McCalla telephone conference set 11:30 4/15/99 ...The Court will set up the conference, the representative of any party who will not be in his or her office at the time of the conference should so notify the Court by 4/15/99 @ 9:00a. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/14/1999)

04/14/1999 1051 NOTICE OF FILING OF Medical Report of Dr. A. Maria Newsome Hester by intervenor Parent−Guardian w/attachments (YDS) (Entered: 04/14/1999)

04/14/1999 1052 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to motion for order directing readmission of former ADC resident [1044−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/14/1999)

04/15/1999 1053 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $211,386.38, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 88 of 232

O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) [CH−Financial Administrator] (YDS) (Entered: 04/15/1999)

04/15/1999

1054

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) [CH−Financial Administrator] (YDS) (Entered: 04/15/1999)

04/15/1999 1055 MOTION by defendants Tennessee, State of, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to extend the time in which to submit comments regarding Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report until 5/28/99 (YDS) (Entered: 04/15/1999)

04/15/1999 1056 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion to extend the time in which to submit comments regarding Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report until 5/28/99 [1055−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/15/1999)

04/15/1999

1057

MINUTES: granting motion for order directing readmission of former ADC resident [1044−1] ; Status conference held 4/15/99 The Court addressed with the parties PGA Motion for Readmission of a Former ADC Resident. The Court granted the motion. The Court addressed other maters involving a better monitoring system; Type of hearing held: Telephone Conference Presiding Judge: Jon Phipps McCalla PLA Atty: Weinstein, Derryberry, Sherman, Dr. O'Neall DFT Atty: Dycus, Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (Former Emp) (Entered: 04/16/1999)

04/16/1999 1058 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson to extend time in which to submit comments regarding Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report until 5/28/99 (YDS) (Entered: 04/19/1999)

04/16/1999 1059 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson in support of motion to extend time in which to submit comments regarding Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report until 5/28/99 [1058−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/19/1999)

04/16/1999 1060 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson as to Motion for Extension [1058−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/19/1999)

04/19/1999

1061

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time in which to submit comments regarding Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report until 5/28/99 [1058−1], granting motion to extend the time in which to submit comments regarding Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report until 5/28/99 [1055−1] : ...the Court grants dfts until 5/28/99 to file their comments to the Seventh Community Compliance Report. Additionally, the Court Grants the Monitor until 6/25/99 to file any responses to the comments submitted on the Seventh Community Compliance Report. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/19/1999)

04/21/1999 1062 ENTRY OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenor Parent−Guardian by Diane C. Spears (YDS) (Entered: 04/22/1999)

04/22/1999 1063 NOTICE OF FILING OF Draft Statement Regarding the Provisions of the Nursing Services for ADC Class Members Living in the Community by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 04/22/1999)

04/23/1999

Text not available. (Entered: 04/23/1999)

04/23/1999

1064

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...The Court Grants the motion of Parent−Guardian Association for T.T.'s temporary readmittance to Arlington Developmental Center (ADC). In anticipation of T.T.'s eventual recovery, the Court Orders dfts to commence development of a plan to transition T.T. from ADC to a community placement. Additionally, dfts must provide the parties and the Monitor w/monthly reports on the development of this plan and their negotiations w/a provider that will be able to satisfy the requirements of the plan. The Court orders dfts to

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 89 of 232

provide the Monitor and the parties w/reports on T.T.'s medical condition at least every 48 hours.... (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/23/1999)

04/26/1999 1065 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian to extend time to submit comments on the Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report to and including 5/28/99 (YDS) (Entered: 04/27/1999)

04/26/1999 1066 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion to extend time to submit comments on the Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report to and including 5/28/99 [1065−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/27/1999)

04/26/1999 1067 CERTIFICATE by intervenor Parent−Guardian of Consultation as to Motion for Extension [1065−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/27/1999)

04/28/1999

1068

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time to submit comments on the Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report to and including 5/28/99 [1065−1] :...It is hereby Ordered that PGA be and it is hereby allowed additional time to and including 5/28/99 to file the PGA comments to the Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Report. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/29/1999)

04/30/1999 1069 NOTICE OF FILING OF Comments to the Court Monitor's Sixth and Seventh Community Compliance Reports by intervenor People lst of TN (YDS) (Entered: 05/03/1999)

04/30/1999 1070 MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend time in which to comment on the Monitor's Sixth and Seventh Community Reviews (YDS) (Entered: 05/03/1999)

04/30/1999 1071 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion to extend time in which to comment on the Monitor's Sixth and Seventh Community Reviews [1070−1] (YDS) (Entered: 05/03/1999)

04/30/1999 1072 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff USA of Consultation as to Motion for Extension of Time [1070−1] (YDS) (Entered: 05/03/1999)

04/30/1999 1073 NOTICE OF FILING OF Comments to Monitor's Sixth Community Compliance Review by intervenor Parent−Guardian (YDS) (Entered: 05/03/1999)

04/30/1999 1074 NOTICE OF FILING OF Comments in Response to Monitor's Sixth Community Review by defendant Tennessee, State of (YDS) (Entered: 05/03/1999)

05/03/1999 1075 NOTICE OF FILING OF Monitor's Seventh Semi−Annual Compliance Report ; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 05/03/1999)

05/06/1999

1076

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $128,340.41, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 05/07/1999)

05/07/1999 1077 NOTICE OF FILING OF Comments on the Monitor's Sixth Community Review by plaintiff USA w/attachments (YDS) (Entered: 05/07/1999)

05/07/1999

1078

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time in which to comment on the Monitor's Sixth and Seventh Community Reviews [1070−1] : ...it is hereby ordered the US shall file its comments on the Monitor's Sixth Community Review by 5/7/99 and shall file its comments on the Monitor's Seventh Community Review by 5/28/99. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 05/07/1999)

05/17/1999

1079

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 05/17/1999)

05/17/1999 1080 ORDER Entered: 5/14/99 from 6th Circuit affirming the decision of the District Court [758−1] (SSH) (Entered: 05/18/1999)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 90 of 232

05/26/1999 1081 NOTICE OF FILING OF Comments on the Monitor's Seventh Community Review by plaintiff USA (YDS) (Entered: 05/26/1999)

05/28/1999 1082 NOTICE OF FILING OF Parent−Guardian Association to Monitor's Seventh Community Compliance Review by intervenor Parent−Guardian w/exhibits attached (YDS) (Entered: 05/28/1999)

05/28/1999 1083 NOTICE OF FILING OF Comments in Response to Monitor's Seventh Community Review by defendant Tennessee, State of w/attachment (YDS) (Entered: 06/01/1999)

06/04/1999

1084

ORDER SETTING HEARING by Judge Jon P. McCalla Hearing set 9:30 8/9/99 in order to address the Monitor's Sixth and Seventh Community Reviews : ...each party and the Monitor must notify the Court and the other participants in the hearing of the names and positions of witnesses that will be called at the hearing by 7/16/99...if the Monitor or a party wishes to supplement its document or witness list in response to the list of another actor, it must do so before 7/26/99. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/04/1999)

06/07/1999

1085

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $112,179.98, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. [CH−Financial Administrator] (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/07/1999)

06/23/1999

1086

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/23/1999)

06/23/1999

1087

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Monitor incurred expenses of $127,431.27 in March 1999...dft State of TN is hereby Ordered pay the amount set out in the invoice inot the Registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shal be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/23/1999)

06/28/1999

1088

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Dfts must comply w/the Court's Orders and achieve successful results by providing adequate and appropriate services to class members. Good faith is no excuse for dfts' failure to comply w/this Court's Orders. For the reasons stated, the Court finds dfts in contempt of the above−cited provisions of past Orders in this matter. The Court sets a hearing at 9:30 on 8/9/99 to determine a remedy for these violations Some parties have already suggested remedies for dfts' failures. If any party, including dfts, wishes to file a brief discussing possible sanctions to be imposed upon dfts, it may do so by 7/16/99. Parties may likewise file responses to these submissions by 7/26/99. As the hearing on this matter will proceed shortly after the ddl for submission of briefs, requests for extension will be disfavored. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/28/1999)

07/09/1999 1100 ORDER Mandate Issued: 7/6/99 from 6th Circuit pursuant to the court's disposition that was entered 5/14/99. (SSH) (Entered: 07/20/1999)

07/12/1999 1089 RESPONSE by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall to Comments of the Parties to the Monitor's Sixth and Seventh Community Compliance Report ; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 07/12/1999)

07/14/1999

1090

ORDER OF RECONSIDERATION by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to reconsider directive to Dianne Dycus and Jonathan Lakey to attend an ethics class [1015−1] : ...the Court hereby Withdraws its 2/9/99 Order requiring dfts' counsel Dianne Dycus and Jonathan Lakey to attend an ethics seminar. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/15/1999)

07/15/1999 1091 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in Response to Court's Orders of 6/3/99 and 6/25/99 w/attachments (YDS) (Entered: 07/15/1999)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 91 of 232

07/16/1999 1092 NOTICE OF FILING OF Witness List by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 07/19/1999)

07/16/1999 1093 BRIEF FILED REGARDING SANCTIONS by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson ; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 07/19/1999)

07/16/1999 1094 BRIEF FILED On Possible Sanctions to be Imposed Upon Defendants by intervenors People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker (YDS) (Entered: 07/19/1999)

07/16/1999 1095 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for viewing of community based programs for citizens with developmental disabilities (YDS) (Entered: 07/19/1999)

07/16/1999 1096 MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for viewing of community based programs for citizens with developmental disabilities [1095−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/19/1999)

07/16/1999 1097 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by intervenor People lst of TN as to Motion for Viewing [1095−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/19/1999)

07/16/1999 1099 ORIGINAL RECORD on appeal returned from 6th Circuit (SSH) (Entered: 07/20/1999)

07/19/1999 1098 NOTICE of Witnesses and Documents by intervenor People lst of TN (YDS) (Entered: 07/19/1999)

07/21/1999

1101

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $127,431.27, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/21/1999)

07/26/1999 1102 OBJECTIONS by intervenor Parent−Guardian to Notice of Witnesses and Documents [1098−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/26/1999)

07/26/1999 1103 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to Brief on Possible Sanctions [1094−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/26/1999)

07/26/1999 1104 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to motion for viewing of community based programs for citizens with developmental disabilities [1095−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/26/1999)

07/26/1999 1105 NOTICE OF FILING OF Supplemental Witness List for Contempt Remedies Hearing and Response to Proposed Remedies by plaintiff USA (YDS) (Entered: 07/26/1999)

07/26/1999 1106 NOTICE OF FILING OF Supplemental Witness List by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 07/26/1999)

07/26/1999

1107

RESPONSE INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE'S BRIEF ON POSSIBLE SANCTIONS TO BE IMPOSED ON DEFENDANTS, MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDERS OF JUNE 3 AND 25, 1999, AND THE MONITOR'S RESPONSE TO THE PARTIES COMMENTS ON THE MONITOR'S SIXTH AND SEVENTH COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 07/26/1999)

07/26/1999 1108 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE of Witnesses and Documents by intervenor People lst of TN (YDS) (Entered: 07/26/1999)

08/05/1999 1109 NOTICE OF FILING by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 08/05/1999)

08/06/1999 1110 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff USA to reset/postpone 8/9/99 Hearing for one day (YDS) (Entered: 08/06/1999)

08/06/1999 1111 NOTICE OF FILING OF Proposed Request for Initial Home and Community Based Waiver Under Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act by defendants Tennessee,

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 92 of 232

State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson w/attachments ; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 08/06/1999)

08/06/1999 1112 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by plaintiff USA (YDS) (Entered: 08/06/1999)

08/10/1999

1113

MINUTES: Status Conference Minutes on 8/10/99; Mr. Bearman informed the Court that a settlement has been tentatively reached between the parties. The parties informed the Court that a written agreement order would be ready about 4:00p. The Court reset the hearing to 4:00p Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: DerryBerry, Sherman DFT Atty: Bearman C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 08/11/1999)

08/10/1999

1114

MINUTES: Remedy Hearing on 8/10/99; The Court addressed in detail the proposed agreed order between the parties. The Court reserved signing the order for 24 hours. The Court adopted the Monitor's 6th and 7th Report Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Weinstein, Gran, Derryberry, Sherman DFT Atty: Dycus, Bearman, Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 08/11/1999)

08/11/1999 1115 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list for trial date of 8/10/99 before Judge McCalla (YDS) (Entered: 08/11/1999)

08/11/1999

1116

AGREED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla: ...the Court Orders the following: The Home and Community Based Waiver − The new proposed Home and Community Based Waiver filed with the Court on 8/6/99, shall be filed with the Health Care Financing Administration w/i 5 days of the dfts' receipt of the parties' final comments and in no event later than 8/23/99...The 1115 Waiver − Dft shall complete and circulate to the parties a draft of the proposed Developmental Disabilities Demonstration Waiver no later then 3 months from the entry of this order or 12/1/99, whichever is later. Dfts shall complete other tasks related to the 1115 Waiver in accordance w/the time line and schedule as Schedule A attached to the Order..Failure to meet any of the ddls identified in Schedule A shall result in fines of $1,000.00 per day, per each area, until such time as compliance is achieved..Access to Non−TennCare funded services − ...the dft shall provide, through payment of state dollars, the appropriate services not otherwise covered by the current 1115 or 1915c waivers...dft shall w/i 30 days of the date of this Order notify by first class mail all class members, residential and day service providers, family members/guardians, advocates, primary care physicians and independent support coordinators of the availability of those services and how to access them...Failure to meet either of the ddls shall result in daily fines of $10,000.00 per day until such time as compliance is achieved..Workgroups − ...dft shall identify to the parties and the Monitor a responsible contact person w/i 7 days for each person identified....Self Determination − dfts shall contact w/an expert w/i 90 days to develop a self determination demonstration pilot project for nine persons, at least six of whom either are currently at Arlington or have lived at Arlington in the past...Advocacy − dfts shall ensure that all advocates are retained w/i 60 days of the date of this Order w/emphasis on appropriate advocacy skills...Community Development − dfts will hire someone to assume responsibility for community development...Development of Community Resources −Within 90 days following the completion of the John Hopkins study and using, in part, the data obtained from this study, dfts will in consultation w/the Monitor and Dr. Wachtel determine what community resources, such as developmental disability physicians or dentist w/developmental disability expertise, among others, are needed...Deadlines − DDls indentified in this Order may be changed by the Monitor upon written request of the dfts, which must include explicit justification for the change. The parties have 15 days from service of the written request to comment. Fines − Any fines accumlated under this Order shall be held in escrow for future use by the class members upon motion of the parties and approval by the Court. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/12/1999)

08/13/1999 1117 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to reset/postpone 8/9/99 Hearing for one day [1110−1], denying motion for viewing of community based programs for citizens with developmental disabilities [1095−1] hearing on remedy for dfts' contempt reset 8/10/99 (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/13/1999)

08/13/1999 1118 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...According to the invoice, the Monitor incurred expenses of $112,697.12 in May 1999...dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 93 of 232

be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/13/1999)

08/24/1999

1119

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Monitor incurred expenses of $134,605.52 in June 1999...dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/26/1999)

08/27/1999 1120 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION/APPLICATION by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses (YDS) (Entered: 08/30/1999)

08/27/1999 1121 RESPONSE by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses [1120−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/30/1999)

08/30/1999 1122 NOTICE OF FILING OF MONITOR'S EIGHT COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 08/31/1999)

09/02/1999

1123

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $112,697.12 for May 1999. It appears that the dfts have paid said amount int the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $112,697.21, previously placed in the Registry of the Court Monitor, Linda O'Neall. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 09/02/1999)

09/03/1999

1124

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $119,923.25, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, Fl, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 09/07/1999)

09/09/1999 1125 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $134,605.52, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, Fl, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 09/09/1999)

09/16/1999

1126

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Monitor incurred expenses of $140,733.77 in July 1999...dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 09/17/1999)

10/12/1999

1127

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS'/INTERVENORS' THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses [1120−1] : ...It is hereby Ordered that the plas/intervenors People First, et al. are awarded attorneys fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $178,487.00 to be paid by the State of TN. Based upon the statements made in People First's Application and the State's response, this award shall be in satisfaction of all hours expended and costs incurred in connection w/People First's enforcement work during the period from 9/1/97 through 9/30/98. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 10/13/1999)

10/19/1999 1128 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/10/99 of Proceedings before Judge McCalla; Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 10/19/1999)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 94 of 232

10/25/1999

1129

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $140,733.77, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 10/25/1999)

11/02/1999

1130

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Monitor incurred expenses of $126,517.43 in August 1999...dft State of TN is hereby ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 11/03/1999)

11/04/1999

1131

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Court Orders that a follow−up conf be held in this matter to ensure full and timely compliance with the August 12 Agreed Order. status/follow−up conference set 11:00 11/10/99 . The following topics will be discussed at the conference:... To facilitate discussion on these matters, the court requests the presence of all individuals who will participate or who have participated in the drafting of the 1115 waiver. [*If it appears to dft that attendance of all people involved in drafting the 1115 waiver will be overly burdensom, dft should initiate a telephone conf among all parties and the Court to discuss whether fewer people may attend the conference.] Dfts should be in a position to demonstrate, at the conf, that they have marshaled their resources in such a manner as to complete a professionally acceptable (i.e. capable of being approved and meeting the requirements of the class members) waiver by the agreed upon deadline. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/04/1999)

11/08/1999 1132 NOTICE OF FILING OF Monitor's Eight Semi−Annual Compliance Report by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 11/08/1999)

11/09/1999

1133

MINUTES: Telephone Conference; Dr. Linda O'Neall also present; court addressed anticipated participation at upcoming hearing set on 11/10/99; State of TN advised that Deloite & Touche was retained by the State to prepare the 1115 Waiver − draft to be submitted by 12/1/99, completed waiver to be filed by 2/1/00; Court ordered the State to fax by 9:30a on 11/9/99, the resumes of Deloite & Touche's representative, and all contract documents re: Deloite & Touche to all parties in this action. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: L. Weinstein/A. Piaciotti−Bayer/W. Sherman/J. Derryberry & J. Gran DFT Atty: D. Dycus/L. Bearman & J. Lakey C/R: Kathy May (YDS) (Entered: 11/09/1999)

11/09/1999

1134

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...Upon reviewing the materials submitted by dft, the Court Orders that the following people be present and prepared to participate in the 11/10/99, follow−up conference: Bruce Morgan, Howard "Chipp" Blagg, Aaron Reynolds, Gregg Scott, Dustin Knight, Jonathan Hess, John Tighe, Ron Lee, and Karen Oldham. Counsel and witnesses should also be available to continue the conference on 11/11/99, should the conference not conclude on 11/10. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 11/09/1999)

11/10/1999 1135 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff USA by Andrea Picciotti−Bayer (YDS) (Entered: 11/10/1999)

11/10/1999

1136

MINUTES: Status conference held 11/10/99; present on behalf of the parties: Andrea Picciotti−Bayer−USA; Judith Gran, Jack Derryberry−People First; William Sherman−PGA; Diane Dycus, Leo Bearman and John Lakey−State of TN; Dr. Linda O'Neall−Court Monitor; also present: Dr. Karon Oldham, Bruce Morgan, Dustin Knight, Gregory Scott, Matthew Walker, Jonathan Hess, Howard Blagg, Ronald Lee, John Tighe, Dica Johnson; the parties reported to the Court on the status of the contract between the State of TN and Deloitte Touche regarding the 1115 waiver; Dr. Karon Oldham was called to testify/sworn; another conference set 11/18/99 @ 10:00a; Mr. Tighe and Mr. Lee will participate by telephone. Presiding Judge: McCalla C/R: Dan Snider/Frenetta Hurd (YDS) (Entered: 11/12/1999)

11/10/1999 1137 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list for hearing date of 11/10/99 before Judge McCalla (YDS) (Entered: 11/12/1999)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 95 of 232

11/12/1999

1138

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla follow−up conference set 10:00 11/18/99; the parties should be prepared to discuss all the topics listed in the 11/3/99, Order of the Court. In addition, the parties should be prepared to more specifically discuss the steps that have been taken to organize the IPA...The parties should also be prepared to more specifically discuss the formation of the NAB... (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 11/15/1999)

11/18/1999

1139

MINUTES: Follow−Up Conference Minutes; dft to report status of 1115 waiver timeline and specific waiver topics; Counsel: US − A. Picciotti−Bayer/L. Weinstein; Court − Dr. L O'Neall; State of TN − J. Lakey/R. Campbell/D. Dycus/K. Oldham/Leo Bearman; PGA − D. Spears, R. Johnson; People First − J. Gran/J. Derryberry; Dr. O'Neall reported that Deloitte & Touche has agreed to enter into a contract w/the Court Monitor to write the 1115 waiver a well as develop recruitment packages, organizational chart and management structure. The Monitor has received recommendations from Dr. Wattell, Ms. Gran and PGA for the National Advisory Board; follow−up conference set 10:00 12/3/99; parties directed to be prepared to report on the following: status of charter, mission statement, by−laws, legal constitution of the NAB, compensation package, board sign/tiers, slot description of board members, annual meeting schedule, accouting organization, location and staff; parties will be prepared to clarify the organizational process of the IPA; conference adjourned to working lunch, to report back to the Court at 2:00 − at 2:00p parties reported on discussions taken place during lunch. Presiding Judge: McCalla C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 11/19/1999)

11/23/1999 1140 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...The Court reemphasized that, in order to comply w/the 8/11 Agreed Order, the 1115 Waiver must be submitted to the Health Care Financing Administration no later than 2/1/00 follow−up conference set 10:00 12/3/99; (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 11/23/1999)

11/24/1999 1141 MONITOR'S NINTH COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT by Linda R. O'Neall (WBE) (Entered: 11/24/1999)

11/30/1999 1142 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of to extend ddls for drafting Developmental Disabilities Demonstration Waiver and associated ddls (YDS) (Entered: 11/30/1999)

11/30/1999 1143 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion to extend ddls for drafting Developmental Disabilities Demonstration Waiver and associated ddls [1142−1] (YDS) (Entered: 11/30/1999)

11/30/1999 1144 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by defendant Tennessee, State of as to Motion for Extension [1142−1] (YDS) (Entered: 11/30/1999)

12/02/1999

1145

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...To clarify the Court's 11/23 order, the State of TN, in conjunction w/the Court Monitor and consulting firm Deloitte & Touche are primarily responsible for drafting and producing a draft mission statement for the NAB and a draft charter and bylaws for the NAB. However, the expertise of all plas' in this case should be utilized, and all Plas should be afforded an opportunity to have input into the drafting process...Additionally, Dft State of TN, the Court Monitor and Deloitte & Touche are primarily responsible for producing legal documents, working papers, organizational flowcharts, and other material related to the formation of the IPA..(cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/02/1999)

12/02/1999 1146 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion to extend ddls for drafting Developmental Disabilities Demonstration Waiver and associated ddls [1142−1] (YDS) (Entered: 12/03/1999)

12/03/1999

1150

MINUTES: Follow−Up Conference held 12/3/99 re Status of 1115 Waiver; Present: USA − A. Picciotti−Bayer, L. Weinstein Court Monitor − Dr. L. O'Neall; State of TN − J. Lakey, R. Campbell, D. Dycus, Leo Bearman; PGA − D. Spears; People First: J. Gran, E. Schwarz; Also present: B. Sherman, Dr. K. Oldham, Greg Scott, Bruce Morgan, Matt Walker; Dr. Oldham was sworn and reported to the Court; Greg Scott (Deloeite Touche) discussed preliminary scenarios for forming the national board; Mr. Campbell was sworn and reported to the Court; the parties were in agreement that the PGA's participation in this process may be partially funded from fines; the parties are to meet w/HCFA in Baltimore on 12/12/99; another conference set for 1/7/00 @ 9:00a, any parties who wish to submit items for the 1/7/00 agenda, must provide those items to the Court Monitor no later than 1/3/00; Agenda and supporting materials will

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 96 of 232

be available to all parties by 1/5/00.; Presiding Judge: McCalla C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) Modified on 12/08/1999 (Entered: 12/07/1999)

12/07/1999 1147 SETTING LETTER : Follow−Up Status Conference set for 1/7/00 at 9:00, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 12/07/1999)

12/07/1999 1148 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $126,517.43, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/07/1999)

12/07/1999

1149

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Monitor incurred expenses of $237,379.40 in September 1999...dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/07/1999)

12/10/1999

MAIL Returned [1145−1] addressed to Sharon Selby, counsel for dfts Mona Reeves−Winfrey, Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., Ned McWherter; (Ch−CM) (BAG) (Entered: 12/10/1999)

12/13/1999 1151 MOTION by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson for Finding of Compliance and to Cease Sanctions and Refund Monies Paid After Compliance Date (YDS) (Entered: 12/13/1999)

12/13/1999 1152 MEMORANDUM by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson in support of motion for Finding of Compliance and to Cease Sanctions and Refund Monies Paid After Compliance Date [1151−1] (YDS) (Entered: 12/13/1999)

12/13/1999 1153 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson as to Motion for Findings of Compliance..[1151−1] (YDS) (Entered: 12/13/1999)

12/17/1999

1154

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...Dft may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 12/27/99 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of these invoices to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 1/4/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payments immediately thereafter. In the event that dfts have not payed the attached invoices in full by 1/4/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. If no further instruction is received from the Court, then on 1/5/00 @ 11:00a, the Clerk of Court will pay the sum of $118,681.19 to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall by wire transfer...Said sums shall be paid from the accumulated fines paid by dfts in this case. In the event that the Court must advance the funds from the accumulated fines..the money wil be replenished by the dfts...(cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/17/1999)

12/21/1999 1155 NOTICE OF FILING OF "Monitor' Eighth Semi−Annual Compliance Report" (document placed in separate folder) (BAG) (Entered: 12/23/1999)

12/27/1999 1156 NOTICE OF FILING OF Invoice for December 7, 1999 Expenses of William F. Sherman by intervenor Parent−Guardian (YDS) (Entered: 12/27/1999)

12/28/1999

1157

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Monitor incurred expenses of $158,411.28 in October 1999...Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of TN, is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/28/1999)

12/28/1999 1158 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $237,379.40, previously placed in the Registry of the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/28/1999)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 97 of 232

12/29/1999 1159 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...Whereas the Court hereby directs the Clerk of Court to reimburse William F. Sherman for his expenses in the amount of $1,121.00 (payable from the find funds). (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/29/1999)

12/29/1999

1160

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla follow−up conference set 9:30 1/7/00. In addition to the topics described in previous Orders, the parties should be prepared to discuss the status of the workgroups established by the 8/11/99 Agreed Order. To facilitate discussion of the workgroups, Tony Records and Toni Richardson should be present at the follow−up conference. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/29/1999)

01/03/2000

MAIL Returned [1154−1] addressed to Sharon Shelby; return to sender − not w/this office (YDS) (Entered: 01/03/2000)

01/03/2000

MAIL Returned [1154−1] addressed to Judy Oxford; return to sender − not at this office (YDS) (Entered: 01/03/2000)

01/06/2000 1161 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/3/99 of Proceedings before Judge McCalla Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 01/06/2000)

01/06/2000 1162 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 11/18/99 of Proceedings before Judge McCalla Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 01/06/2000)

01/06/2000

MAIL Returned [1157−1] addressed to Judy Oxford; return to sender, not at this address; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 01/07/2000)

01/06/2000

MAIL Returned [1157−1] addressed to Sharon Selby; return to sender, not at this address; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 01/07/2000)

01/07/2000

1165

MINUTES: Status Report/Conference Minutes; Present: Court Monitor: Dr. Linda O'Neall, Tom Prewitt, Dr. Wachtel, Dr. Brown; Deloitte Touche: Greg Scott, Chip Blagg; USA: A. Picciotti−Bayer, L. Weinstein; State of TN: D. Dycus, R. Campbell, J. Lakey, L. Bearman, Dr. K. Oldham, R. Lee, T. Richardson; People First: J. Gran, E. Schwarz; PGA: B. Sherman; Clip Blagg and Greg Scott (Deloitte Toche) and TOm Prewitt presented a report and answered questions regarding development of the NAB, progress of delivery, coverage to be provided, benefits, eligibility, dealing w/HCFA; Diane Dycus will have until 1/14/00 to detemine whether MHMR has legal authority to contract w/the proposed NAB; the following additional ddls were established: 1/12/00 − Deloitte will have a "reduced" version of the benefits section which will eventually go to HCFA; 1/14/00 − State of TN will provide Deloitte w/initial criteria for eligibility definition; 1/14/00 − Deloitte will have ready a more detail−oriented version of the report given on 1/7/00; 1/19/00 − the parties will participate in a telephone conference; 1/19/00 − Deloitte will have ready the final version of the benefits section which will be submitted to HCFA; 1/21/00 − computer data compilations regarding eligibility statistics for W. District of TN will be due form Ms. Segal; 1/26/00 − all parties will respond to eligibility criteria; 1/28/00 − Mr. Prewitt will be prepared to present the legal structure model for the new organization; 1/28/00 − the parties will notify the Court of any eligibility issues; 1/28/00 − Deloitte will be prepared to present an initial draft of the waiver to be submitted to HCFA, either 1115 or 1915(b) & (c); 1/31/00 − HCFA opinion is anticipated to the questions presently pending before them; Toni Richardson was sworn and testified on quality assurance issues; Tony Records was sworn and testified; the Court suspended the work groups for six weeks; the work groups will be addressed again at that time; next status conference set 9:30 1/28/00 Presiding Judge: McCalla C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 01/11/2000)

01/07/2000 1166 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list for hearing date (Status Conference) of 1/7/00 before Judge McCalla (YDS) (Entered: 01/11/2000)

01/10/2000

1163

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...Deloitte & Touche has submitted invoices covering the period from 11/28/99 through 12/11/99, totaling $128,243.77...Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 1/19/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of these invoices to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 1/21/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediatley thereafter. In the event the dfts have not paid the attached invoices in full by 1/21/00

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 98 of 232

@ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines. If no further instructions is received from the Court, then on 1/24/00, the Clerk of Court will pay the sum of $128,243.77 to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall...If by check, the Clerk shall deliver the check to the Court Monitor by overnite courier....the money advanced will be replenished by the dfts... (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 01/10/2000)

01/11/2000 1164 SETTING LETTER : Status Conference set for 1/28/00 at 9:30, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 01/11/2000)

01/11/2000

1167

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...The Court set the following ddls for completion of tasks by the parties: Dft State of TN will take a position as to whether the TN Dept of Mental Health and Mental Retardation may legally contact the NAB to provide medical service...no later than 1/14/00; Deloitte & Touche will prepare and distribute to the parties a detailed description of the tasks and functions to be performed by the NAB..no later than 1/14/00; Deloitte & Touche will prepare and distribute to the parties a complete draft of the "Benefits" section of the waiver no later then 1/19/00, the Parties will have until 1/26/99 to object to or comment upon the completed draft; the State will distribute to the parties a detailed description of proposed criteria for eligibility under the waiver no later than 1/14/00 @ 3:00p. The parties shall evalute the state's draft and distribute objections or responses no later then 1/21/00 @ 3:00p...the Court authorized the Court Monitor to contact w/a data specialist,,this data compilation should be completed and distributed to the parties no later than 1/21/00...the Court Orders a suspension of all workgroup activity for a period of six weeks beginning upon the entry of this Order. The parties agreed to hold a telephone conference, w/o participation by the Court, on 1/19/00..The Court will hold a follow−up conference on 1/28/00 @ 9:30a...(cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 01/12/2000)

01/12/2000

MAIL Returned [1159−1] addressed to Sharon Selby; return to sender, not at this address (YDS) (Entered: 01/13/2000)

01/14/2000

MAIL Returned [1159−1] addressed to Judy Oxford; return to sender, not in this office (YDS) (Entered: 01/14/2000)

01/18/2000

MAIL Returned [1158−1] addressed to Judy Oxford; return to sender, not at this office (YDS) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

01/18/2000

MAIL Returned [1158−1] addressed to Sharon Selby; return to sender, not at this office (YDS) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

01/18/2000

1168

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $158,411.28 for October 1999...the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $158,411.28, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

01/20/2000 1169 JOINT APPLICATION for Award of Attorneys' Fess and Expenses by defendant Tennessee, State of, intervenor People lst of TN...in connection w/enforcement related work during the period from 10/1/98 − 6/30/99 as well as certain appellate work..; (YDS) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

01/20/2000

1170

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO REFRAIN FROM PAYMENT by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...The Court has been informed by the Court Monitor that payment has been made in full by the State of TN. Thus, the Court Orders the Clerk of Court to refrain from making payment to the Court Monitor as directed by the 1/10/00 Order, re [1163−1]. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 01/21/2000)

01/24/2000 1171 MOTION by Community Rehab TN to intervene as a plaintiff in the action (YDS) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

01/24/2000 1172 MEMORANDUM by intervenor plaintiff Community Rehab TN in support of motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the action [1171−1] w/exhibits attached (YDS) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

01/24/2000 1173 MOTION by intervenor plaintiff Community Rehab TN to participate in the proceedings pending decision on Motion to Intervene [1171−1] (YDS) (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 99 of 232

01/24/2000)

01/24/2000 1174 NOTICE OF FILING OF Consent to All Prior Proceedings by intervenor plaintiff Community Rehab TN (YDS) (Entered: 01/24/2000)

01/25/2000

1175

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion to participate in the proceedings pending decision on Motion Intervene [1171−1] [1173−1] : ...CMRA's Motion does not state adequate grounds from which the Court can conclude that CMRA's participation in the litigation is necessary pending resolution of the Motion to Intervene. CMRA does not allege that any of CMRA's rights will be impaired during the time necessary for the Court to rule on the Motion to Intervene. Thus, good cause has not been shown. CMRA's Motion to Participate Pending a Decision on Motion to Intervene is Denied. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 01/25/2000)

01/28/2000

1179

MINUTES: Status Conference Minutes; Deliotte & Toche made a presentation on various issues related to the drafting of the 1915 combination waiver; Deliotte also distributed a preliminary draft of the proposed waiver; the Court established ddls for the completion of various tasks related to completion of the waiver and the formation of an incorporated service provider network. An order will be entered reflecting these dates; another status conference set 9:30 3/2/00 Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: USA: by Phone − A. Picciotti−Bayer & J.Derryberry/J.Gran. W.Sherman DFT Atty: D.Dycus/L.Bearman/J.Lakey/Deliotte & Touche − Tom Prewitt C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 02/03/2000)

02/01/2000 1176 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/7/00 of Proceedings before Judge McCalla; Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 02/02/2000)

02/01/2000

1177

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...the Court established the following ddls for completion of tasks: State of TN will compile and provide to the parties data relating to special education students in all West TN public Schools by 2/4/00 @ 3:00p; Deloitte & Touche will distribute to the parties projected data as to the number of individuals who will be eligible for benefits under the proposed waiver 2/11/00 @ 3:00p; State of TN will distribute to the Court and the parties a written report on the status of the 1915(c) class waiver pending before HCFA by 2/21/00 @ 3:00p, State of TN indicated that HCFA may approve the pending 1915(c) class waiver w/i 20 days; Deloitte & Touche will submit to the parties and the Court further proposed amendments to the 1915(c) waived by 2/21/00, also final draft of the 1915(b) waiver at that time; parties will submit names and resumes of the nomiees for positions on the Board of Directors and for position of Executive Director of CCNWT by 2/15/00, Court will complete selection of the Board of Directors of CCNWT by 3/15/00; outline of the proposed Service Agreement w/the State of TN by 2/4/00 @ 3:00p, parties will submit to the Court an initial completed draft of the proposed Services Agreement by 2/14/00 @ 3:00p, Deloitte & Touche will submit final completed draft and completed schedules by 3/2/00 @ 9:30; Deloitte & Touche will distribute to the parties and the Court the proposed charters and bylaws for CCNWT by 2/4/00; Court will hold follow−up conference on 3/2/00 @ 9:30. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/02/2000)

02/01/2000

1178

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $181,286.79 in 11/99; dft State of TN is hereby ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/02/2000)

02/03/2000 1180 SETTING LETTER : Status Conference set for 3/2/00 at 9:30, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 02/03/2000)

02/03/2000

1181

AMENDED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Court established the following ddls for completion of tasks: dft State of TN will compile and provide to the parties data relating to special education students in all West TN public schools by 2/4/00 @ 3:00p; Deliotte & Touche will distribute to the parties projected data as to the number of individuals who will be eligible for benefits under the proposed waiver by 2/11/00 @ 3:00; Dft State of TN will distribute to the Court and the parties a written report on the status of the 1915(c) class waiver pending before HCFA by 2/21/00 @ 3:00p;

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 100 of 232

Deloitte & Touche will submit to the parties and the Court further proposed amendments to the 1915(c) waiver by 2/21/00 @ 3:00p; the parties will submit the names and resumes of nominees for positions on the Board of Directors and for the position of Executive Director of CSNWT by 2/15/00; Deliotte & Touche w/Tom Prewitt will distribute to the parties for comment an outline of the proposed Service Agreement w/the State of TN by 2/4/00 @ 3:00, Deliotte & Touche will submit to the Court and the parties for comment an initial completed draft of the proposed Service Agreement by 2/14/00 @ 3:00p, Deliotte & Touche wil sbmit final completed draft w/schedules by 3/9/00 @ 9:30a; Deliotte & Touche w/Tom Prewitt will distribute to the parties and the Court the proposed charter and bylaws for CSNWT by 2/4/00; the Court will hold a follow−up conference on 3/2/00 @ 9:30a. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/04/2000)

02/03/2000

1182

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deliotte & Touche submitted invoices covering the period from 12/12/99 through 12/25/99, totaling $152,235.83. Dfts may comment or object to these invoices by 2/11/00 @ 5:00. The state shall pay the full amount of these invoices to the registry by 2/18/00 @ 2:00p and the Clerk of Court should notify the Court of such payment. The Clerk of Court is Ordered to pay the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall the sum of $152,235.82 from accumulated fine fund and should be made by check and via orvernight courier as soon as possible. In the event dft State of TN has not paid by 2/18/00, an additional 1% of the principal advanced shall be paid by dft for each 24 hour period until such time as the fine fund is full reimbursed. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/04/2000)

02/03/2000

1183

AGREED ORDER ON JOINT APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO PEOPLE FIRST by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [1169−1] : It is hereby Ordered that the plas/Intervener, People First, et al are awarded attorneys fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $263,129.90 to be paid by the State of TN. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/04/2000)

02/04/2000 1184 RESPONSE by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the action [1171−1] (YDS) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

02/04/2000 1185 NOTICE OF FILING OF Proposed Charter and By−Laws of Community Services Network of West Tennessee, Inc. by Court Monitor, Linda R. O'Neall w/attachments (YDS) (Entered: 02/07/2000)

02/07/2000

MAIL Returned [1160−2] addressed to Judy Oxford; return to sender, not at this address (YDS) (Entered: 02/08/2000)

02/07/2000

MAIL Returned [1160−2] addressed to Sharon Selby; return to sender, not at this address (YDS) (Entered: 02/08/2000)

02/09/2000

1186

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted two invoices covering period from 12/26/99 through 1/8/00, totaling $157,762.93 and $62,443.62; dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 2/16/00 @ 5:00p; the state shall pay the full amount of these invoices to the Court Monitor by 2/17/00 @ 2:00p, the Court Monitor should notify the Court of payment; in the event the dfts have not payed the invoices by 2/17/00 @ 2:00p the Court will advance the funds for payment from the accumlated fines; if no further instruction is received from the Court on 2/18/00, the Clerk of Court will pay the sum of $220,206.55 to the Court Monitor...If paid by check, the, the Clerk shall deliver the check by overnight courier...the money advanced will be replenished by the dfts, and an additional 1 percent of the principal advance shall be paid for each 24 hour period until such time as the fine fund is fully reimbursed. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/09/2000)

02/10/2000 1187 MOTION by plaintiff USA for an extension of time in which to file its response to the motion to intervene of Community Rehabilitation Agencies of TN (YDS) (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/10/2000 1188 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for an extension of time in which to file its response to the motion to intervene of Community Rehabilitation Agencies of TN [1187−1] (YDS) (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/10/2000 1189 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the action [1171−1] (YDS) (Entered: 02/11/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 101 of 232

02/10/2000 1190 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for an extension of time in which to file its response to the motion to intervene of Community Rehabilitation Agencies of TN [1187−1]; the US shall file its response by 2/10/00. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/11/2000)

02/14/2000 1191 NOTICE OF FILING OF of the Initial Completed Draft of the Proposed Service Agreement Between the State of TN and Community Services Network of West TN, Inc. w/exhibit attached (YDS) (Entered: 02/14/2000)

02/17/2000 1192 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for consideration of correspondance from PGA President and other supplementation for the record (YDS) (Entered: 02/17/2000)

02/17/2000 1193 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for consideration of correspondance from PGA President and other supplementation for the record [1192−1] (YDS) (Entered: 02/17/2000)

02/17/2000 1194 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by intervenor Parent−Guardian as to Motion for Consideration [1192−1] (YDS) (Entered: 02/17/2000)

02/17/2000 1195 MOTION by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker to extend time to respond to motion to intervene of Community Rehab until 2/11/00 (YDS) (Entered: 02/17/2000)

02/18/2000 1196 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time to respond to motion to intervene of Community Rehab [1195−1] : People First of TN shall file its response to the motion by 2/18/00. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/18/2000)

02/18/2000 1197 NOTICE OF FILING OF Written Report on the Status of the 1915(c) Class Waiver by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

02/22/2000

1198

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche as submitted two invoices covering period from 1/9−22/00 totalling $165,880.20 and $37,100.37; dft may object to these invoices on or before 3/1/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of these invoices, $202,980.57, to the Court Monitor by 3/2/00 @ 2:00p, the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment. In the event the dfts have not payed the attached invoices by 3/2/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case; (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/23/2000)

02/24/2000 1199 NOTICE OF FILING OF Information Regarding Eligibilty Criteria for Waiver by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 02/24/2000)

02/25/2000

1200

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for consideration of correspondance from PGA President and supplementation for the record [1192−1] : It is hereby Ordered that the letter from Richard Johnson dated 2/6/00, attached to the Motion, will be considered by the Court, along w/articles from The Washington Post concerning the deinstitutionalization of Forest Haven Center; and the Court will consider and address at the appropriate time other issues of concern to PGA, including those indentified involving the future of Arlington Development Center. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 02/25/2000)

02/28/2000 1201 REPLY/REPONSE by intervenor plaintiff Community Rehab TN to response in opposition to motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the [1171−1] (YDS) (Entered: 02/29/2000)

02/28/2000 1202 NOTICE OF FILING OF Supplemental Authority In Support of Opposition to Motion to Intervene of Community Rehab by plaintiff USA (YDS) (Entered: 02/29/2000)

02/29/2000 1203 MOTION by plaintiff USA for order requiring attendance of specific dfts and/or their representatives at the hearing on 3/2/00 (YDS) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

02/29/2000 1204 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for order requiring attendance of specific dfts and/or their representatives at the hearing on 3/2/00 [1203−1] (YDS) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 102 of 232

02/29/2000 1205 MOTION by plaintiff USA for reconsideration of order granting request of Intervenor, Parent Guardian to suppplement the record and opposition to supplementation of the record w/newspaper articles from The Washington Post (YDS) Modified on 03/01/2000 (Entered: 03/01/2000)

03/01/2000 1206 RESPONSE by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson in opposition to motion for order requiring attendance of dfts and/or their representatives at the hearing on 3/2/00 [1203−1] (YDS) (Entered: 03/01/2000)

03/01/2000 1207 MOTION by plaintiff USA to withdraw attorney of record, Laurie J. Weinstein (YDS) (Entered: 03/02/2000)

03/01/2000

1208

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $181,286.79 for November 1999. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $181,286.79, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/02/2000)

03/01/2000

1209

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Monitor has incurred fees and expenses of $274,266.73 in December 1999..the dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dft. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/02/2000)

03/01/2000

1210

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for order requiring attendance of specific dfts and/or their representatives at the hearing on 3/2/00 [1203−1] : the motion is Granted. The Court Orders those individuals who were responsible for determining the State of TN's position as outlined in the Notice of Filing to attend the 3/2/00 Status Conference. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/02/2000)

03/01/2000 1211 MOTION by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson for reconsideration of order compelling attendance of "Ultimate Decision Makers" at 3/2/00 Status Conference (YDS) (Entered: 03/02/2000)

03/02/2000

1212

MINUTES: ; Follow−up Status conference held 3/2/00, Report Re: Class−Based Waiver Issue. Court heard argument re dft's Notice of filing information regarding eligibility criteria for waiver. Parties to submit briefs setting forth their positions by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 3/24/00; any factual data relied upon in the briefs to be exchanged by 3/14/00. Dehoite & Touche outlined development of 1915(b)&(c) eligibility. Exhs. 1 & 2 admitted (see exh/wit list). Court's Monitor's report due by 3/17/00. State to submit lists of updated info re Negligence/Costs Reports. Follow−up status conference/report set for Fridat 4/7/00 @ 8:30 a.m. Committee to be constituted by 3/8/00. Mr. Campbell sworn/testified re Waiver issue. State to submit W. Tenn's Waiting Lists, County of origina, Policy by 3/10/00. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: L. Weinstein, A. Piclotti−Bayer, J. Gran, J. Derryberry, W. Sherman DFT Atty: D. Dycus, L. Bearman, J. Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 03/03/2000)

03/06/2000 1213 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 1/28/00 of Hearing before Judge McCalla Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 03/06/2000)

03/07/2000

1214

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Pursuant to the discussion at the Conference, the Court established the following ddls: the parties shall submit brief on the scope of the existing class definition on or before 3/24/00 @ 5:00p; with respect to CSNWT, the parties should nominate individuals for such Board positions on or before 3/6/00 @ 5:00p; the Selection Committee will make final recommendations to the Court on the NSNWT Board of Directors on or before 3/13/00; the Court established a Steering Committee, the Parent−Guardian Association will also nominate an individual for a position by 3/7/00, Steering Committee should be fully constituted by 3/8/00..; Deloitte will provide a summary of findings and recommendations, as well as an in−court demonstration of operating systems, to the Court at the follow−up Conference on 4/7/00; the Court will hold a follow−up conference on 4/7/00 @ 8:30a.

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 103 of 232

(cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/07/2000)

03/08/2000 1215 SETTING LETTER : Status Conference set for 4/7/00 at 8:30, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 03/09/2000)

03/08/2000

1216

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla Deloitte & Touche will submit a final completed draft of the proposed Services Agreement, along w/attached completed schedules by 3/9/00 @ 9:30a; the parties will be unable to agree upon the terms of the Services Agreement, follow−up conference ddl 3/9/00 @ 2:00p (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/09/2000)

03/09/2000

1217

MINUTES: Status Conference held 3/9/00; also present: Judith Gran, Wm Sherman − by Phone, Leo Bearman, Dr. Linda O'Neall, Tom Prewitt, Mr. Lakey, Earl Schwarz, Mr. Scott, and Dr. Brown; the parties reported an impasse regarding definition of class to be included under the waiver; the State of TN will have until Friday, 3/17/00, to decide whether the state is willing to go forward w/pursuing the waiver Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: A. Picciotti−Bayer by Phone Atty: Dianne Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 03/10/2000)

03/10/2000

1218

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla; Deloitte & Touche has submitted two invoices covering the period from 1/23 through 2/5/00 totalling $50,328.00 and $178,054.22; dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 3/17/00 @ 5:00p, the state shall pay the full amount of the invoices, $228,382.22, to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 3/21/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment; in the event the dfts have not paid the attached invoices by 3/21/00 @ 2:00, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/10/2000)

03/10/2000

1219

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla; Dft State of TN has until 3/17/00 @ 5:00p to notify the Court and the parties whether they will accept a Service Agreement providing medical services to the entire class, including the "at−risk" population. If the State of TN does not change its position by that time, the Court intends to abandon the CSNWT project, with all costs incurred to date, to be paid by the State of TN. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/10/2000)

03/10/2000

1220

NOTICE OF FILING OF Information Regarding Waiting Lists for Persons Seeking Services in West Tennessee and the Geographical Origin of Residents of Arlington Development Center (Persons who lived at Arlington Development Center on, or Were Admitted After December 12, 1989) by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 03/13/2000)

03/15/2000 1221 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 3/2/00 of Hearing before Judge McCalla Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 03/15/2000)

03/15/2000 1222 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 3/9/00 of Hearing before Judge McCalla Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 03/15/2000)

03/17/2000

1223

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted two invoices covering the period from February 6−19, 2000 totaling $165,968.95 and $39,643.24; dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 3/31/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of these invoices, $205,612.19, to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 4/4/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediatley thereafter. In the event that dfts have not payed the attached invoices in full by 4/4/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) Modified on 03/17/2000 (Entered: 03/17/2000)

03/17/2000 1224 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to Order [1219−1] (YDS) Modified on 03/20/2000 (Entered: 03/17/2000)

03/20/2000

1225

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $274,266.73 for December 1999. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $274,266.73, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/20/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 104 of 232

03/20/2000 1226 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Court Orders all parties to this litigation to continue taking appropriate steps toward the formation of the CSNWT and approval of the proposed 1915(b)−(c) waiver. Status Conference by telephone set 2:00 3/23/00 (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/20/2000)

03/20/2000

1227

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Mr. Prewitt's firm has submitted an invoice services to the Court Monitor for legal services performed through 2/17/00 totaling $48,218.84. Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 3/24/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of the invoice to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 3/27/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediatley thereafter. In the event that dfts have not payed the attached invoices by 3/27/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/20/2000)

03/23/2000 1228 BRIEF on Class Certification Issue by intervenor Parent−Guardian (YDS) (Entered: 03/23/2000)

03/23/2000

1229

MINUTES: Status Conference by Phone held 3/23/00; also participating: J. Derryberry, J. Gran (People First), B. Sherman (PGA), Dr. Linda O'Neall, Tom Prewitt, C. Scott, B. Morgan, C. Beagg, S. Brown (Deloitte Touche); the following dates were established: 3/31/00 − finalize contract terms, 4/14/00 − obtain state signatures to contract, 4/17/00 − agenda material to go out to Board Members, 4/27 or 4/28/00 − first Board meeting; 3/24/00 − screening committee will provide list of prospective board members, 3/28/00 − ddl for objections and comments on Dr. Kurt as interim medical director, 1st week of may − steering committee will make recommendations on information access systems; the 4/7/00 status conference is reset to 4/28/00 @ 9:30a Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: A. Picciotti−Bayer DFT Atty: D.Dycus/L.Bearman/R.Campbell C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) Modified on 03/24/2000 (Entered: 03/24/2000)

03/24/2000 1230 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of for reconsideration of Court's Order dated 3/20/00 (YDS) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

03/24/2000 1231 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion for reconsideration of Court's Order dated 3/20/00 [1230−1] (YDS) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

03/24/2000 1232 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by defendant Tennessee, State of as to Motion for Reconsideration [1230−1] (YDS) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

03/24/2000 1233 BRIEF Regarding Class Definition by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

03/24/2000 1234 APPENDIX by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson re Brief Regarding Class Definition [1233−1]; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

03/27/2000 1235 MEMORANDUM Regarding the Definition of the People First Class by plaintiff USA (YDS) (Entered: 03/28/2000)

03/27/2000

1236

MOTION by intervenor Carl Beard, intervenor People lst of TN, intervenor Sandra Howard, intervenor Herman Walter Runions, intervenor Harvey Richard Watson, intervenor Clarence Wilson, intervenor Keith Collins, intervenor Stevelyn Danieal Tucker to extend time to file their memorandum of law on the Court's question concerning the scope of the certified class (YDS) (Entered: 03/28/2000)

03/27/2000

1238

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion for reconsideration of Court's Order dated 3/20/00 [1230−1]; Dfts' Motion is Granted and dfts shall have until 4/3/00 to comment upon the request for attorney fees. If no objection is filed, the State of TN shall pay the amount of the invoice w/i 14 days following the comment period. If objections are filed, the State of TN shall pay the amount ordered by the Court w/i 14 days following the Court's ruling. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/28/2000)

03/28/2000

1237

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla; Mr. Joffee's firm has submitted an invoice to the Court Monitor for legal services performed through 2/29/00 totaling $16,006.22. The state shall pay the full amount of the invoice to the Court Monitor on 4/1/00 by 2:00p, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment. In the event the dfts have not payed the invoices by 4/10/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 105 of 232

funds for payment. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 03/28/2000)

03/28/2000 1239 MOTION by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker to extend time to file their memorandum of law on the Court's question concerning the scope of the certified class (YDS) (Entered: 03/29/2000)

03/29/2000 1240 NOTICE OF FILING OF Comments Related to the Proposed Appointment of Dr. Michael Kurtz as Medical Director of Community Services Network of West TN, Inc. by plaintiff USA (YDS) (Entered: 03/29/2000)

03/30/2000 1243 SETTING LETTER : Status Conference set for 4/28/00 at 9:30, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

03/31/2000

1241

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time to file their memorandum of law on the Court's concerning the scope of the certified class [1239−1], granting motion to extend time to file their memorandum of law on the Court's question concerning the scope of the certified class [1236−1] ; People First of TN shall file its Memorandum of Law by 3/27/00. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

03/31/2000 1242 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker On the Court's Question Concerning the Scope of the Certified Class w/attachments (YDS) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

03/31/2000

1244

NOTICE OF FILING OF Comments In Opposition to Appointment of Dr. Mike Kurtz as Medical Director for Community Network of West Tennessee by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker (YDS) (Entered: 04/03/2000)

04/03/2000

1245

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla; On 3/13/00, the Monitor submitted an invoice for fees and expenses for "supplemental projects"; ...dft State of TN ORDERED to pay amount set out in invoice into registry of the Court; All funds received by Clerk directed to be deposited into interest−bearing acct and shall be used to reimburse Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including total sum of money deposited by dft State of TN; Any money not spent by Monitor shall be credited to dfts; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 04/04/2000)

04/04/2000

1246

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...The invoice is attached to this Order as Exhibit One. Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before Friday, 4/14/00 @ 5:00 p.m. The state shall pay the full amount of these invoices, $185,701.80 to the Court Monitor by 2:00 p.m. on Friday 4/21/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 04/04/2000)

04/04/2000

1247

ORDER Appointing Board Of Directors by Judge Jon P. McCalla; Upon recommendation of the selection committee, the Court appoints the following individual to serve as directors of the CSNWT...: Dr. Steve Parker, Dr. Robert Pary, Dr. Judith Favell, Dr. David Coulter, Dr. Ray Lyons, Ms. Amy Goldman, Ms. Debra Beckman, Ms. Sandra Lowrey, Dr. Todd Risley, Mr. Cam Weltone and Dr. Ruth Beckwith; ... the Court appoints Adrian Starks as class representative to CSNWT Board of Directors; These individuals will be subject to reappointment at end of their initial terms as specified by bylaws; The Court Monitor should set a date for initial meeting of the Board of Directors after consulting with each of the Board members regarding their schedules; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 04/05/2000)

04/05/2000

1248

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Court established the following dates for completion of tasks: 1. The CSNWT Board of Directors nominating committee will submit recommendations for Board positions to the Court on 3/24/00.; 2. The parties shall finalize all terms of the Grant Contract (previously referred to as the "Services Agreement"), including the budget and payment terms, on or before Friday 3/31/00 @ 5:00 p.m.; 3. The State of Tennessee shall legally execute the Grant Contract no later than Friday 4/14/00.; 4. An initial meeting of the Board of Directors shall be tentatively scheduled to take place in Memphis on April 27 & 28, 2000. ..; 5. Deloitte & Touche will continue to conduct initial research into an information access system

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 106 of 232

until 4/3/00. ..; 6. The parties, with the assistance of the Court if necessary, will resolve all outstanding issues related to the 1915(b)−(c) waiver (including the issue of eligibility) no later than Friday 4/28/00. Deloitte & Touche will finalize the documents to be submitted to HCFA no later than Wednesday, 5/10/00. The State of Tennessee will identify to the Court and the parties, no later than Thursday 3/30/00 @ 5:00 p.m., an individual to serve as the "state champion" for advocacy of the proposed waiver before HCFA. ..; 8. ..If any party objects to the hiring of Dr. Kurtz, that party's objection should be communicated to the Court Monitor on or before Tuesday 3/28/00.. ..In light of the amendments to ddls discussed above, a follow−up conf will not be held on 4/7/00 as previously scheduled. The Court will RESET the follow−up conf for a time to be determined. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 04/05/2000)

04/07/2000 1249 NOTICE OF FILING OF Correspondance to the Court Monitor and Parties Regarding the Status of the 1915(C) Home and Community Based Medicaid Demonstration Waiver to the Health Care Financing Administration by defendant Tennessee, State of (YDS) (Entered: 04/07/2000)

04/13/2000

1250

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Mr. Prewitt's firm has submitted and invoice services to the Court Monitor for legal services performed through 3/29/00 totaling $6,922.89; dft may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 4/28/00 @ 5:00p. The State shall pay the full amount of the invoice to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 5/2/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. In the event that dfts have not payed the inovices by 5/2/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/14/2000)

04/17/2000

1251

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Court instructs Deloitte & Touche to present the Steering Committee's findings in writing to the Board of Directors. Further, Deloitte is instructed to conduct a live demonstration of potential information access systems for the Board of Directors. The Court instructed the parties to resolve all outstanding issues related to the 1915(b)−(c) waiver, including the eligibility, no later than 4/28/00. The parties should continue to work out difference on remaining issues prior to that date. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

04/17/2000

1252

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Mr. Joffee's firm has submitted an invoice to the Court Monitor for legal services performed through 4/11/00 totaling $578.67. Dfts may comment upon or object to the invoice on or before 5/1/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of the invoice to the Court Monitor by 5/4/00 @ 2:00p, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court. In the event that dfts have not payed the invoices in fule by 5/4/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

04/17/2000

1253

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 5/19/00 totaling $123,722.78. Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 5/1/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of these invoices $185,701.80, to the Court Monitor by 5/4/00 @ 2:00p, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court. In the event that dfts have not payed the invoices by 5/4/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

04/17/2000

1254

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Court Orders the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $100,000 to the Court Monitor to be used for expenditures related to the initial CSNWT Board meeting. Said funds shall be transferred by check payable to O'Neall, Butler & Associates, Ltd. The parties should prepare to discuss, at the next status conference, whether the State of TN should be required to reimburse the funds advanced by this Order. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/17/2000)

04/26/2000 1255 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for approval of an expenditure from the fine funds to create a demonstration project for Family Governed Community Services (YDS) (Entered: 04/26/2000)

04/26/2000 1256 MEMORANDUM BRIEF by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for approval of an expenditure from the fine funds create a demonstration project for Family Governed Services [1255−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/26/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 107 of 232

04/26/2000 1257 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by intervenor Parent−Guardian as to Motion for Approval of an Expenditure [1255−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/26/2000)

04/27/2000

1258

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald : the dfts were instructed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $165,859.18 for "supplemental projects". The Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $165,859.18, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall @ 2425 Millcreek Court. Said sum shall be delivered via overnight courier. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/27/2000)

04/27/2000 1259 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald : the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $79,194.37 in 1/00; dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court; any money not spent by the Court Monitor shall be credited to the dft. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 04/28/2000)

05/03/2000 1260 SETTING LETTER : Status Conference set for 6/2/00 at 2:00, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 05/04/2000)

05/03/2000

1261

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald : the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $117,440.92 in February 2000; dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into and interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 05/04/2000)

05/03/2000

1262

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald : Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from March 20 to April 1, 2000 totaling $120,077.43. Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 5/19/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of $120,077.43, to the Court Monitor by 5/23/00 @ 2:00p, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. In the event that dfts have not payed the invoice in full by 5/23/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 05/04/2000)

05/08/2000 1263 MOTION by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to continue suspension of workgroup activities (YDS) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

05/08/2000 1264 MEMORANDUM by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson in support of motion to continue suspension of workgroup activities [1263−1] (YDS) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

05/08/2000 1267 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson as to motion to continue suspension of workgroups [1263−1] (YDS) (Entered: 05/10/2000)

05/09/2000 1265 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion to continue suspension of workgroup activities [1263−1] (YDS) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

05/09/2000 1266 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of memorandum in opposition [1265−1] (YDS) (Entered: 05/09/2000)

05/15/2000 1268 NOTICE OF FILING OF MONITOR'S SPECIAL REPORT ON INDEPENDANT SUPPORT COORDINATION PREPARED BY WILSON RESOURCES, INC. by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 05/15/2000)

05/15/2000 1269 NOTICE OF FILING OF REPORT OF THE MONITOR'S ELEVENTH COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REVIEW by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 05/15/2000)

05/18/2000 1270 MOTION by plaintiff USA to clarify this Court's March 20, 1995 Order (...does not preclude the Court Monitor from responding to inquiries by the parties about instances of potential abuse or neglect of the class members) (YDS) (Entered: 05/18/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 108 of 232

05/18/2000 1271 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion to clarify this Court's March 20, 1995 Order (...does not preclude the Court Monitor from responding to inquiries by the parties about instances of potential abuse or neglect of the class members) [1270−1] (YDS) (Entered: 05/18/2000)

05/26/2000 1272 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla status conference set 2:00 6/2/00, all parties may participate by telephone (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

06/01/2000

1273

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 4/2−15/00 totaling $134,875.78. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exhibit One. Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before Mon., 6/5/00 @ 5:00 p.m. Objections may be delivered to the court via facsimile. The state shall pay the full amount of these invoices, $134,875.78, to the Court Monitor by 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday 6/6/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. ..(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 06/01/2000)

06/01/2000

1274

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $229,363.66 in March 2000; dft State of TN is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the Registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/02/2000)

06/02/2000 1275 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $79,194.37, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall at 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite 2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/02/2000)

06/02/2000

1276

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Mr. Prewitt's firm has submitted 2 invoices to the Court Monitor for legal services performed through 4/28/00 totalling $3,417.94 and $10,213.15; dfts may comment on or object to these invoices on or before 6/9/00 @ 5:00p. The State shall pay the amount of the invoices to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 6/12/00 and the Court Monitor should notify the Court. In the event the dfts have not payed the invoices in full by 6/12/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from accumulated fines in this case. If necessary, the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to transfer the funds needed for payment to the Court Monitor. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/02/2000)

06/02/2000

1277

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Mr. Joffee's firm has submitted an invoice to the Court Monitor for legal services performed through 4/14/00 totalling $1,357.60; dfts may comment upon or object to the invoice on or before 6/9/00 @ 5:00p. The State shall pay the full amount of the invoice to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 6/12/00 and the Court Monitor will notify the Court of such payment. In the event the dfts have not payed the invoice by 6/12/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. If necessary, the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to transfer the funds needed for payment to the Court Monitor. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/02/2000)

06/02/2000

1278

MOTION by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker to extend time to file memorandum of law in opposition to dfts' motion to suspend workgroup activity until 5/31/00, when it was filed with the Court by fax (YDS) (Entered: 06/05/2000)

06/02/2000 1279 MEMORANDUM by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker in opposition to motion to continue suspension of workgroup activities [1263−1] w/attachment (YDS) (Entered: 06/05/2000)

06/02/2000

1281

MINUTES: Follow−up Conference held on 6/2/00; also participating: Dr. Linda O'Neall, Prewitt and Gumbert, Scott and Wheeler, J. Lakey, R. Campbell, B. Simmons, J. Derryberry, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Sherman, J. Gran and K. Lowe; Mr. Prewitt reported to the Court on the actions and progress of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee; Mr. Scott reported on the activities of Deloitte; none of the parties objected to the proposal that the Court release fine monies for the purpose of

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 109 of 232

start up of TN Family Solutions; the parties are to provide to the Court information relating to the bonding and auditing provisions of TN Family Solutions by 6/9/00; another status conference set 10:00 6/12/00 Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: A. Picciotti−Bayer DFT Atty: Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 06/06/2000)

06/05/2000 1280 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to extend time to file memorandum of law in opposition to dfts' to suspend workgroup activity until 5/31/00, when it was filed with the Court by fax [1278−1] (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/05/2000)

06/06/2000 1282 SETTING LETTER : Status Conference set for 6/12/00 at 10:00, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 06/06/2000)

06/06/2000

1283

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 4/16−29/00 totaling $119,350.98; dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 6/21/00 @ 5:00p, the state shall pay the full amount of this invoice, to the Court Monitor by 6/23/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court; in the event the dfts have not payed the attached invoices by 6/23/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in the case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/07/2000)

06/07/2000

1284

ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE by Judge Jon P. McCalla : to facilitate a ruling onthe pending Motion, the Court requests that PGA submit such documentation by 6/9/00. Also pending before the Court are the parties' various Motions w/respect to the scope of the class definition. follow−up hearing set 10:00 6/12/00 (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/07/2000)

06/09/2000 1285 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [1270−1] hearing on the issue of the scope of the class set 10:00 6/12/00, following the hearing, the parties should also be prepared to discuss the above−referenced Motion (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/12/2000)

06/09/2000

1286

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 5/4/00, the dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $117,440.92 for February 2000; the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $117,440.92, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall @ 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/12/2000)

06/09/2000 1287 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/2/00 of Telephone Conference before Judge McCalla; Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 06/12/2000)

06/12/2000

1288

MINUTES: Status conference held 6/12/00; the original document entitled − US' Notice of Filing and Presentation Materials regarding the definition of the "at risk" class filed in open court; additional participants: J. Gran, W. Sherman, Mr. Prewitt, and Mr. Lowe; pla's motion for clarification of this Court's 3/30/95 Order − Court w/prepare an Order; a status conference to be set by the Court towards the end of the week. Counsel/parties will be notified via telephone Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Andrea Picciotti−Bayer DFT Atty: Dianne Dycus/Leo Bearman/Jonathan Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 06/13/2000)

06/12/2000 1289 NOTICE OF FILING OF Presentation Materials Related to the Definition of the "At Risk" Class by plaintiff USA (YDS) (Entered: 06/13/2000)

06/16/2000 1290 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla Telephone Conference set 4:30 6/16/00, Intervenor Parent Guardian will be responsible for initiating the telephone conference re [1255−1] (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/16/2000)

06/16/2000

1291

MINUTES: Telephone Conference held on 6/16/00 re Proposal by TN Family Solutions to use Fine Monies for Start−up Costs; also participating: J. Gran, Dr. O'Neill, M.Strauss, D. Johnson, Ms Lowe; the Court will defer making a decision on this matter until the initial proposal can be revised and until the Court obtains corporate materials as to the West TN Corporation: additional materials will be provided by 6/28/00; a follow−up conference will be held in this matter @ 3:30 6/30/00 Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: A. Bayer DFT Atty: D.Dycus/L.Bearman/Campbell C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 06/19/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 110 of 232

06/20/2000 1292 SETTING LETTER : status conference set for 6/30/00 at 3:30, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 06/20/2000)

06/28/2000

1293

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re: Motion of Intervenor Parent−Guardian Association for Approval of an Expenditure form the Fine Fund to Create a Demonstration Project PGA may submit additional documentation relevant to the motion on or before 6/28/00; follow−up hearing (in person) set 3:30 6/30/00 (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 06/28/2000)

06/30/2000

1294

MINUTES: Status conference held 6/30/00; also present − Dr. O'Neall, M. Strauss, D. Johnson, J. Houseal, L. Bearman, T. Prewitt, C. Humphreys, W. Sherman, E. Schwarz, R. Campbell; Dr. Strauss gave a presentation on the structure and plans of West TN Family Solutions; all of the parties approved increasing the fine monies contribution to an amount adequate to hire and executive director Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: A. Picciotti−Bayer (by Phone) DFT Atty: D. Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (YDS) (Entered: 07/03/2000)

07/05/2000

1295

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from April 30 to May 13, 2000 totaling $108,618.89. If dfts anticipate that they will object to this invoice, then they should notify the Court staff by telephone or telefax as soon possible. The State of TN shall pay the full amount of $108,618.89 to the Court Monitor by 7/12/00 @ 2:00p on 7/12/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. In the event the dft have not payed the invoices by 7/12/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/06/2000)

07/05/2000

1296

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $229,363.66 for March 2000. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $229,363.66, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall @ 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/06/2000)

07/06/2000

1297

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period form May 14 − June 3, 2000 totaling $179,058.43. Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 7/14/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of this invoice, $179,058.43, to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 7/17/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court. In the event that dfts have not payed the amount in full by 7/17/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/06/2000)

07/07/2000 1298 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for attorney fees w/attachments (YDS) (Entered: 07/07/2000)

07/07/2000 1299 MEMORANDUM BRIEF by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for attorney fees [1298−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/07/2000)

07/07/2000 1300 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by intervenor Parent−Guardian as to Motion for Attorney Fees [1298−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/07/2000)

07/07/2000 1301 NOTICE OF FILING OF Monitor's Ninth Semi−Annual ADC Compliance Report by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 07/07/2000)

07/17/2000

1302

ORDER REGARDING SCOPE OF "AT RISK" POPULATION by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Court HOLDS that the "at risk" portion of the class consists of all individuals who reside in the geographic region served by Arlington Development Center and who have demonstrated medical needs sufficient to require institutional care in the absence of home or community based services; this needs=based definition requires a procedure (such as, for example, a review panel) for determining whether particular individuals are included in the at risk population at any given time. Hearing set 2:30 8/11/00, to discuss the formulation of such a procedure. All parties should be prepared to propose and/or discuss such a procedure at the hearing (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/17/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 111 of 232

07/17/2000 1303 RESPONSE by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker to motion for attorney fees (YDS) (Entered: 07/17/2000)

07/17/2000

1304

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $264,308.54 in April 2000; dft State of TN is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/18/2000)

07/20/2000 1305 INVOICE FOR OUT−OF−POCKET EXPENSES by intervenor Parent−Guardian through counsel of record, William F. Sherman (YDS) (Entered: 07/20/2000)

07/21/2000 1306 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to motion for attorney fees [1298−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/21/2000)

07/24/2000 1307 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion for attorney fees [1298−1] (YDS) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

07/24/2000 1308 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff USA to continue/postpone hearing on 8/11/00 (YDS) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

07/26/2000

1309

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Dr. Kurtz has submitted an invoice to the Court Monitor for expenses and services performed through 4/21/00 totaling $7,230.00. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exhibit One. Dfts may comment upon or object to the invoice on or before 8/9/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of the invoice to the Court Monitor by 8/11/00 @ 2:00p, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. In the event that dfts have not payed the attached invoices in full by 8/11/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/26/2000)

07/28/2000 1310 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting motion to continue/postpone hearing on 8/11/00 [1308−1] (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 07/28/2000)

07/31/2000 1311 MOTION by defendants Tennessee, State of, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson, Don Sunquist to alter or amend order of 7/17/00, styled "Order Regarding Scope of "At Population" (YDS) Modified on 08/04/2000 (Entered: 08/01/2000)

07/31/2000 1312 MEMORANDUM of Law by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion to alter or amend order of 7/17/00, styled "Order Regarding Scope of "At Risk" Population" [1311−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/01/2000)

08/02/2000 1313 ORDER RESETTING CONFERENCE by Judge Jon P. McCalla Hearing on members of the "at−risk" class population set 2:00p 8/17/00 (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

08/03/2000 1314 RESPONSE by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Max Jackson, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell to [1309−1] (YDS) Modified on 08/04/2000 (Entered: 08/03/2000)

08/03/2000

1315

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 6/4−17/00 totaling $143,387.58. Dfts may comment on or object to these invoices on or before 8/9/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of this invoice, $143,387.58, to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 8/10/00, and the Court Monitor shall notify the Court of such payment. In the event that dfts have not payed the attached invoice in full by 8/10/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

08/03/2000

1316

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 6/18 to 7/1/00 totaling $174,915.89. Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 8/11/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of the invoice, $174,915.89, to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 8/14/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment. In the event that dfts have not payed the attached invoices by 8/14/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 112 of 232

necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

08/03/2000

1317

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the law firm Armstrong, Allen, Prewitt, Gentry, Johnson & Holmes has submitted an invoice to the Court Monitor for services performed through 5/31/00 totaling $12,784.44. Dfts may comment upon or object to the invoice on or before 8/10/00 @ 5:00p. The state shall pay the full amount of the invoice to the Court Monitor by 8/11/00 @ 2:00p, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court. In the event that dfts have not payed the attached invoices in full by 8/11/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

08/03/2000

1318

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the law firm of Glankler Brown, PLLC has submitted an invoice to the Court Monitor for services performed through 6/30/000 totaling $4,814.24. Dfts may comment upon or object to the invoice on or before 8/10/00 @ 5:00. The state shall pay the full amount of the invoice to the Court Monitor by 2:00p on 8/11/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court. In the event that dfts have not payed the attached invoices in full by 8/11/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

08/04/2000

1319

ORDER DIRECTING PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION by Judge Jon P. McCalla : State should provide the information requested by the Court Monitor, including but not limited to a list of following individuals: persons receiving any Home and Community−Based Waver services; persons in Intermediate Care Facilities (exclusive of Arlington Decelopmental Center); mentally retarded persons in nursing homes; person in group homes or foster homes; persons in mental health facilities who have a primimary diagnosis of mental retardation; persons on waiting lists. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/04/2000)

08/04/2000 1320 MOTION by defendants Tennessee, State of, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson, Don Sundquist to stay pending appeal of Order regarding scope of the class definition, entered 7/17/00 (YDS) (Entered: 08/04/2000)

08/04/2000 1321 MEMORANDUM by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson in support of motion to stay pending appeal of Order regarding scope of the class definition, entered 7/17/00 [1320−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/04/2000)

08/04/2000 1322 DECLARATION of Robert Rickenbach Campbell by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 08/04/2000)

08/04/2000 1323 CERTIFICATE of Consultation by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson as to Motion for Stay [1320−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/04/2000)

08/04/2000 1324 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant Tennessee, State of, defendant Don Sundquist, defendant Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, defendant Max Jackson from Dist. Court decision [1302−2] (EHG) (Entered: 08/07/2000)

08/04/2000 1325 RECEIVED re [1324−1] appeal fee in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 58255) from State Attorney General. (EHG) (Entered: 08/07/2000)

08/07/2000 1326 RESPONSE/UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER THIS COURT'S JULY 17, 2000 ORDER REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE "AT RISK" CLASS.. by plaintiff USA [1311−1] (EHG) (Entered: 08/07/2000)

08/08/2000 1327 NOTIFICATION form as to Tennessee, State of sent to 6th Circuit [1324−1] with copies of docket items nos. 1302, 1324 and docket sheet (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

08/08/2000 1328 RESPONSE by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to [1318−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

08/08/2000 1329 RESPONSE by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to [1316−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 113 of 232

08/08/2000 1330 RESPONSE by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to [1315−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

08/08/2000 1331 RESPONSE by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to [1317−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

08/11/2000

1332

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the dft's were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $264,308.54 for April 2000. It appears that the dfts have paid said amount of $264,308.54, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall @ 2425 Millcreek Court, Suite #2, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/11/2000)

08/15/2000

1333

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : for purposes of administrative clarity, the following Motions are DENIED as moot: finding the motion to extend ddls for drafting Developmental Disabilities Demonstration Waiver and associated ddls [1142−1] moot, finding the motion for reconsideration of order granting request of Intervenor, Parent Guardian to suppplement the record and opposition to supplementation of the record w/newspaper articles from The Washington Post [1205−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/16/2000)

08/17/2000 1334 DEPOSITION of ROBERT RICKENBACH CAMPBELL taken on the following date(s): 8/16/00 at 2:00 p.m. (WBE) (Entered: 08/17/2000)

08/17/2000

1335

MINUTES: ; In−court hearing/Status Conf held 8/17/00 . Also participating: Dr. Linda O'Neill, Tom Prewitt, John Houseal, J. Lakey, R. Campbell, Dr. Wachtel, C. Scott, J. Derrberry, J. Gran, B. Sherman; also by telephone Pat Ware; D. Campbell. The parties will have 21 days within which to submit a consent order to the court regarding payments to PGA. Mr. Houseal and PGA will submit materials w/in 8 weeks relating to construction proposals/costs. The parties will submit a letter to the monitor by 8/24/00 regarding refund of fine monies to the state. Argument on motion to intervene is set for Friday, 9/1/00 @ 3:00 p.m. The court will enter an order denying defendant's motion for stay pending appeal of order regarding scope of class definition. Order of court will be amended to reflect that the Glankler bill will be paid out of fine money as opposed to state treasury. Prewitt and Deloitte bills are for services on behalf of the court monitor and not CSN and should be paid. W/in 7 days, the State will submit a proposed time line for appeal of at rish status. W/in 60 days, the State will submit a proposed outreach program. The court monitor reviewed and clarified production of documents by the State of TN. The court will enter an order pursuant to today's proceedings. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Andres Picciotti−Bayer DFT Atty: Diane Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 08/18/2000)

08/18/2000 1336 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list [hrg date of 8/17/00] (EHG) (Entered: 08/18/2000)

08/18/2000 1337 TRANSCRIPT Order Form re [1324−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/21/2000)

08/18/2000

1338

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $174,395.58 in May 2000. dft, State of TN, is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expenses and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft, State of TN. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/21/2000)

08/21/2000 1339 SETTING LETTER : Hearing on Motion to Intervene set for 9/1/00 at 3:00p, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 08/21/2000)

08/22/2000 1340 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/17/00 of Status Conference before Judge McCalla; Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 08/22/2000)

08/23/2000

1341

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 7/2−15/00, which totals $156,253.33. Dft may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before 8/29/00 @ 5:00p. The State shall pay the full amount of the invoice, $156,253.33, to the Court Monitor by 2:00 on 9/5/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. In the event that dfts have not paid the attached invoice in full by 8/29/00 @ 2:00p, the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 114 of 232

Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/23/2000)

08/23/2000

1342

ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE, ORDER SETTING A HEARING, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION SUSPENDING THE WORKGROUP ACTIVITIES, ORDER FOR COMPENSATION OF THIRD PARTIES, ORDER ADOPTING REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR THE AT−RISK CLASS MEMBERS, AND ORDER FOR PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION by Judge Jon P. McCalla Hearing on Motion to Intervene by Community Rehab set 3:00 9/1/00 ; the parties will confer to determine whether all parties agree that a portion of Mr. Sherman's attorneys fees should be paid out of the Fine Fund. If all parties consent, they should submit a consent order by 9/7/00. The Court GRANTS in part dft's Motion for Continued Suspension of Workgroup Activity. Workgroup activity shall be suspended pending further order of this Court. The Court will revisit this issue in approximately three months; granting in part motion to continue suspension of activities [1263−1]; Parent−Guardian will by 10/12/00, file a consent order for disbursement of $500,000.00 for Family Solutions. In addition, the PGA will submit to the Court a staged projection of draws by 10/12/00. Pending is dft's Motion for Finding of Compliance and to Cease Sanctions and Refunds Monies Paid After Compliance Date. The parties may file supplemental briefs on this motion by 8/24/00. The State of TN will submit a plan for the appellate process for the at−risk review procedures by 8/24/00. The State of TN will submit a proposal for outreach citizens of Western TN by 10/17/00. The State of TN will produce to the Court Monitor by 8/24/00, the lists not already produced pursuant to the Order Directing Production of Information date 8/8/00. The State of TN will produce for the US the investigation report on abuse and neglect of class members, as requested. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/24/2000)

08/23/2000

1343

ORDER DENING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL by Judge Jon P. McCalla denying motion to stay pending appeal of Order regarding scope of the class definition, entered 7/17/00 [1320−1], denying motion to alter or amend order of 7/17/00, styled "Order Regarding Scope of "At Population" [1311−1]; the Court FINDS that the Order Regarding Scope of the "At Risk" Population, entered 7/17/00, does not involve a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and the Court FINDS that an immediate appeal from the order would not materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation. Accordingly, dft's Motion is DENIED. Balancing the factors to be considered, the Court FINDS that a stay of the July 17 Order is not warranted in this case. The Motion for Stay is DENIED. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/24/2000)

08/24/2000 1344 NOTICE OF FILING OF Time Lines for Review and Appeal of Pre−Admission Evaluation (PAE) by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 08/24/2000)

08/24/2000 1345 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion for Finding of Compliance and to Cease Sanctions and Refund Monies Paid After Compliance Date [1151−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/24/2000)

08/24/2000

1346

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : This order is to amend the Court's order of 8/23/00, re [1341−1]; on page two of the order, the first sentence should read, "In the event that dfts have not paid the attached invoice in full by 9/5/00 @ 2:00p, the Court will advance the necessary funds for payment from the accumulated fines in this case." All other provisions of the order remain unchanged. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/25/2000)

08/28/2000 1347 LETTER from 6th Circuit stating that the appeal has been docketed as case #00−6120, however, a 4(a)(4) motion remains pending in the lower court. Case will be held in abeyance until the order disposing of the motion is filed and jurisdiction has transferred to the court of appeals. (SSH) (Entered: 08/28/2000)

08/29/2000

1348

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $83,911.05 in June 2000; dft State of TN is ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into and interest−bearing account; any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 115 of 232

08/29/2000)

08/29/2000

1349

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker to motion for Finding of Compliance and to Cease Sanctions and Refund Monies Paid After Compliance Date [1151−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/29/2000)

08/29/2000 1350 AMENDED INVOICE FOR OUT−OF−POCKET EXPENSES by intervenor Parent−Guardian as to attorney, William F. Sherman (YDS) (Entered: 08/29/2000)

08/31/2000 1351 REPLY by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson to response and in support of motion for Finding of Compliance and to Cease Sanctions and Refund Monies Paid After Compliance Date [1151−1] (YDS) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

09/01/2000 1352 NOTICE OF FILING OF Preadmission Evaluation for ICF/MR Care Form by defendants Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson (YDS) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

09/01/2000 1353 AFFIDAVIT of Cathey Lowe (YDS) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

09/01/2000

NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 00−6120; J. Brock case manager (SSH) (Entered: 09/06/2000)

09/05/2000 1354 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to motion for Finding of Compliance and to Cease Sanctions and Refund Monies Paid After Compliance Date [1151−1] (YDS) (Entered: 09/05/2000)

09/11/2000 1355 SETTING LETTER : Hearing on Motion to Intervene set for 9/25/00 at 2:00p, Courtroom 4 (YDS) (Entered: 09/11/2000)

09/12/2000 1356 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/23/97 of Telephonic Status Conference before Judge McCalla; Court Reporter: Brenda Parker (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) (YDS) (Entered: 09/12/2000)

09/12/2000 1357 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by intervenor plaintiff Community Rehab TN to [1184−1], to [1189−1] (YDS) (Entered: 09/12/2000)

09/12/2000 1358 AFFIDAVIT of Cathy Cate re [1357−1] (YDS) (Entered: 09/12/2000)

09/15/2000 1359 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $174,395.58, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Curt, Ste #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308.(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 09/18/2000)

09/15/2000

1360

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Court FINDS that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC for services rendered by John J. Houseal, Jr., to West Tennessee Family Solutions, Inc., through 7/31/00. ..the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $12,178.85, pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be transferred by check payable to O'Neall, Butler and Associates, Ltd. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 09/18/2000)

09/15/2000

1361

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from Jul 30 − Aug 12, 2000, which totals $181,877.97. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exhibit One. Dfts may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before Fri., 9/22/00 @ 5:00 p.m. The State shall pay the full amount of this invoice, $181,877.97, to the Court Monitor by 2:00 p.m. on Fri., 9/29/00, and the court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. ..(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 09/18/2000)

09/15/2000 1362 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $586.32, pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be transferred by check payable to Law Offices of William f. Sherman. [w/attachments] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 09/18/2000)

09/20/2000 1363 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF INTERVENORS PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, ET AL.. from Dist. Court decision [1342−2] (EHG) (Entered: 09/20/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 116 of 232

09/20/2000 1364 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/12/00 of Hearing Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 09/20/2000)

09/20/2000

1366

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $207,431.20 in July 2000. Dft State of TN is Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 09/21/2000)

09/21/2000 1365 NOTIFICATION form as to People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker sent to 6th Circuit [1363−1] with copies of docket items nos. 1342, 1363 and docket sheet (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (Entered: 09/21/2000)

09/22/2000 1367 UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff USA by attorney David R. Rocah (EHG) (Entered: 09/22/2000)

09/22/2000 1368 MOTION by plaintiff USA for continuance/postponement of the August 11, 2000 hearing ..The US requests to participate over the telephone in the 9/25/00 hearing. (EHG) (Entered: 09/22/2000)

09/22/2000 1369 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ..having reviewed the US' unopposed Motion to Participate over the telephone in the 92/5/00 hearing, IT IS HEREBY GRANTED. [1368−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 09/22/2000)

09/25/2000 1370 MOTION by plaintiff USA for leave to participate over the telephone in the 9/25/00 hearing (EHG) (Entered: 09/25/2000)

09/25/2000

1371

MINUTES: ; In−court hearing on Motion to Intervene by CMRA held 9/25/00 . Wm. Hubbard on behaf of CMRA. Motion taken under advisement/order to enter. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: A. Picciotti−Bayer (by phone), D. Rochah (by phone); J. Gran, Wm. Sherman, E. Schwarz DFT Atty: Diane Dycus, Leo Bearman, Jonathan Lakey C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) (Entered: 09/26/2000)

09/25/2000 1372 ORDER Entered: 9/23/00 from 6th Circuit re [1324−1] granting the dft's motion for a stay pending appeal. (SSH) (Entered: 09/26/2000)

09/28/2000

1373

ORDER SETTING A HEARING.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla in−court hearing set 2:30 10/20/00 At the hearing, the following presentations will be made: 1. West Tennessee Family Solutions ("WTFS") will present a strategic plan for the development of WTFS with corresponding draw−downs on the monies allocated by the Court. ..WTFS will submit the plan to the court and the parties by 5:00 p.m. on 10/13/00. 2. The court also orders the executive staff of Community Services Network ("CSN") to make a presentation on the status of CSN and a strategic plan for making CSN fully operational. ..The Court Orders CSN to submit an outline of its presentation by 5:00 p.m. on 10/13/00. 3. Dr. Ray Foster of Human Systems and Outcomes, Inc. will present the Monitoring Support System (the "MSS"), which is an automated system for producing clinical community compliance reports. ..The Court Monitor will submit the Twelfth Community Compliance Report, which was produced by Dr. Foster using the automated MSS, by 5:00 p.m. on 10/13/00. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

09/29/2000 1374 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla DENYING motion of Community Rehabilitation Agencies of TN., Inc. to intervene as a plaintiff in the action [1171−1]because CMRA fails to meet the standards for interventions as of right and permissive intervention (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

09/29/2000

1375

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting defendants' motion for Finding of Compliance and to Cease Sanctions and Refund Monies Paid After Compliance Date [1151−1]; the Court ORDERS defendant to submit an itemized accounting of sums to be refunded based on this order by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, October 20, 2000 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

09/29/2000 1376 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla for disbursement of $201,216.18 for services provided by Deloitte & Touche for the period of August 13−August 28, 2000; dfts

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 117 of 232

may comment/object to this invoice on or before 10/4/00 at 5:00 p.m.; payment to be made in full by 2:00 p.m. on 10/10/00 (cc: all counsel) (WBE) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

10/02/2000 1377 TRANSCRIPT Order Form 1/7/00 re [1363−1] (transcript is already on file in the district court clerk's office; re: status conf of 1/7/00) (EHG) (Entered: 10/03/2000)

10/02/2000

NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 00−6265; J. Brock case manager (SSH) (Entered: 10/03/2000)

10/04/2000 1378 SETTING LETTER : status conference set for 10/20/00 at 2:30 (EHG) (Entered: 10/04/2000)

10/10/2000

1379

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from Aug 27 to Sept 9, 2000, which totals $183,393.93. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exh One. Dfts may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before 10/17/00. The State shall pay the full amount of this invoice, $183,393.93, to the Court Monitor by 10/27/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the court of such payment immediately thereafter. ...(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/10/2000)

10/10/2000

1380

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from July 16−29, 2000, which totals $198,934.78. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exh One. Dfts may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before Wed., 10/11/00 @ 5:00 p.m. The State shall pay the full amount of this invoice, $198,934.78, to the Court Monitor by 2:00 p.m. on Mon, 10/16/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the court of such payment immediately thereafter. ...(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/10/2000)

10/10/2000

1381

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...the Court FINDS that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC for services rendered by John J. Houseal, Jr., to West Tennessee Family Solutions, Inc. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $10,946.27 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to O'Neall, Butler and Associates, Ltd., no later than 2:00 p.m. on Fri, 10/20/00. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/10/2000)

10/10/2000 1382 NOTICE OF FILING: COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT: Quality of Life Review (prepared for the Court Monitor by Leslie L. Wilson of Wilson Resources, Inc.), September 2000 (for comment) by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 10/11/2000)

10/11/2000

1383

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...the Court ORDERS defendant State of Tennessee to produce the entire record of each of the individuals that have died between the dates listed above to the Court Monitor by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 10/13/00. In addition, the Court also ORDERS defendant State of Tennessee to conduct abuse and neglect investigations and an expedited mortality review of each of these deaths and provide that information to the Court Monitor by 2:30 p.m. on Wed., 10/25/00. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/11/2000)

10/12/2000 1384 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $207,431.20, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/13/2000)

10/12/2000 1385 CONSENT ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS TO WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. by Judge Jon P. McCalla : ...that $500,000.00 from the fine funds shall be disbursed to West Tennessee Family Solutions, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/13/2000)

10/13/2000 1386 NOTICE OF FILING: COMMUNITY COMPLIANT REPORT: Twelfth Clinical Review (Prepared for the Court Monitor by Dr. Ray Foster of Human Systems and Outcomes, Inc.) October, 2000 [for comment] by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

10/13/2000 1387 NOTICE OF FILING: COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT: Twelfth Clinical Review, Appendix, Part 1 of 2 (Prepared for the Court Monitor by Dr. Ray Foster of Human Sysems and Outcomes, Inc.) October, 2000 [for comment] by miscellaneous

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 118 of 232

Linda R. O'Neall [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

10/13/2000 1388 NOTICE OF FILING: COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT: Twelfth Clinical Review, Appendix, Part 2 of 2 (Prepared for the Court Monitor by Dr. Ray Foster of Human Systems and Outcomes, Inc.) October 2000 [for comment] by miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall [document placed in separate folder (EHG) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

10/17/2000 1390 NOTICE OF FILING OF ITEMIZED ACCOUNTING by defendants ..re attached itemized accounting sums to be refunded to the State (EHG) (Entered: 10/18/2000)

10/18/2000

1389

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 9/10/00 to 9/23/00, which totals $131,680.47. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exh One. Dfts may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before 10/24/00. The State shall pay the full amount of this invoice, $131,680.47, to the Court Monitor by 11/3/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/18/2000)

10/19/2000

1391

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Due to time constraints on the court, the court will postpone the presentation from Community Services Network to a later date that has not been determined. West Tennessee Family Solutions will be the only group making a presentation to the Court and the parties at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, 10/20/00. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/19/2000)

10/19/2000

1392

AMENDED ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla re [1391−1] ..Dr. Ray Foster of Human Systems and Outcomes, Inc. will present the Monitoring Support System (the "MSS"),.. The Court and the parties will be allowed to ask questions of Dr. Foster regarding the use by the Court and the parties of the data in the MSS database. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/19/2000)

10/19/2000 1393 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff USA by Aileen M. Bell (EHG) (Entered: 10/20/2000)

10/20/2000

1394

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 8/29/00, the dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $83,911.05 for 6/00. ..the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $83,911.05, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/20/2000)

10/20/2000 1395 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff USA from Dist. Court decision [1342−2] re Order Granting in Part Defendants' Motion Suspending the Workgroup Activities (EHG) (Entered: 10/23/2000)

10/20/2000

1397

MINUTES: ; Status conference held 10/20/00 for presentation of monitor's community review and monitor's support system . Also present: Dr. L. O'Neill, J. Gran, J. Derryberry, J. Houseal, C. Humphries, D. Dycus, R. Campbell, L. Bearman, J. Lakey, T. Prewitt, B. Sherman, Dr. Cowan, Dr. Foster, Dr. Wachtel. Dr. Foster made a presentation of the monitoring suport system. Mr. Houseal reported on the status of the construction contracts. Dr. M. STrause gave a presentation of the WTFS 5 year plan and demonstration projection. Dr. Jim Sherman gave a presentation of Community Residential Program. Atty John Houseal should be added to the clerk's distribution list. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: Aileen Bell, Andrea Picciotti−Bayer (by phone), David Rocca (by phone) DFT Atty: Diane Dycus C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) Modified on 10/24/2000 (Entered: 10/23/2000)

10/23/2000

REMARK : document #1395 handed appeals clerk (EHG) (Entered: 10/23/2000)

10/23/2000 1396 NOTIFICATION form as to USA sent to 6th Circuit [1395−1] with copies of docket items nos. 1342, 1395 and docket sheet (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (Entered: 10/23/2000)

10/26/2000 1398 RECEIVED re [1363−1] appeal fee in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 60142) from Public Interest Law Center of PA. (EHG) (Entered: 10/26/2000)

10/30/2000 1399 ORDER FOLLOWING A HEARING by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..The parties have until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, 11/20/00, to comment on the Court Monitor's report. re [1388−1], re [1387−1], re [1386−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 119 of 232

10/30/2000

1400

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Mr. Prewitt's firm has submitted an invoice to the Court Monitor for legal services performed from 6/1/00 to 6/30/00, totaling $20,996.00 in professional services and $776.06 in reimbursable costs, totaling $21,772.06. The invoices are attached to this Order as Exh One. Dfts may comment upon or object to these invoices on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 11/3/00. The State shall pay the full amount of the invoices to the Court Monitor by 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, 11/9/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. ..(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

10/30/2000 1401 NOTICE OF APPEAL by intervenor plaintiff Community Rehab TN from Dist. Court decision [1374−1] re Order Denying Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee, Inc.'s Motion to Intervene (EHG) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

10/30/2000 1402 RECEIVED re [1401−1] appeal fee in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 60193) from Weed Hubbard Berry & Doughty, PLLC (EHG) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

10/30/2000

REMARK : document #1401 handed appeals clerk (EHG) (Entered: 10/30/2000)

11/01/2000 1403 NOTIFICATION form as to Community Rehab TN sent to 6th Circuit [1401−1] with copies of docket items nos. 1374, 1401 and docket sheet (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (Entered: 11/01/2000)

11/08/2000 1404 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 10/8/00 to 10/21/00 which totals $95,356.00. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exhibit One. Dfts may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before Fri, 11/17/00. ..(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/08/2000)

11/08/2000 1405 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 9/24/00 to 10/7/00, which totals $120,703.33. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exhibit One. Dfts may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before Fri, 11/17/00. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/08/2000)

11/08/2000

1406

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : On 10/4/00, the Monitor submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in August, 2000. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $169,035.59 in August, 2000. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. ...defendant State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. ...(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/08/2000)

11/08/2000 1407 NOTICE: HEIGHTENED ACUITY LEVELS AND NURSE STAFFING ISSUES AT ADC by Linda R. O'Neall [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 11/09/2000)

11/15/2000

1408

ORDER SETTING COMMENT AND/OR MOTION SCHEDULE by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..The US, People First of TN, and the Parent Guardian Assoc. should submit their comments and/or motions arising out of the 11/8/00 report w/in 14 days of the entry of this order. The State of TN should submit its comments, including any objections to the report, w/in 14 days of this order. The State of TN shall have 14 days from the filing of any motions w/in which to respond to said motions. Any party wishing an evidentiary hearing should so indicate on the style of its materials submitted within the established time table. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/16/2000)

11/17/2000 1409 RESPONSE/COMMENTS OF PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION TO MONITOR'S TWELFTH COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REVIEW.. by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (Entered: 11/17/2000)

11/17/2000

NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 00−6476; J. Brock case manager (SSH) (Entered: 11/17/2000)

11/20/2000 1410 TRANSCRIPT Order Form 8/10/99, 1/7/00, 8/17/00 (EHG) (Entered: 11/20/2000)

11/20/2000 1411 RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT: TWELFTH CLINICAL REVIEW by defendants (EHG) (Entered: 11/21/2000)

11/20/2000 1412 RESPONSE/COMMENTS ON THE MONITOR'S COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT: TWELFTH CLINICAL REVIEW by plaintiff USA (EHG) (Entered: 11/21/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 120 of 232

11/27/2000 1413 NOTICE OF FILING: COMMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS−INTERVENORS PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, ET AL., ON THE COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT: TWELFTH CLINICAL REVIEW.. by intervenor People lst of TN (EHG) (Entered: 11/29/2000)

11/28/2000 1414 NOTICE OF FILING: COMMENTS OF PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION TO HEIGHTENED ACUITY LEVELS AND NURSE STAFFING ISSUES AT ADC.. by intervenor Parent−Guardian (EHG) (Entered: 11/29/2000)

11/30/2000 1415 JOINT MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor People lst of TN for an extension of time to respond to the Monitor's Report entitled "Heightened Acuity Levels and Nurst Staffing Issues at ADC" (EHG) (Entered: 12/04/2000)

11/30/2000 1416 JOINT APPLICATION/MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of, intervenor People lst of TN for award of attorneys fees and expenses to plaintiffs/intervener, People First of Tennessee (EHG) (Entered: 12/04/2000)

12/01/2000 1417 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla granting joint motion for an extension of time to respond to the Monitor's Report entitled "Heightened Acuity Levels and Nurst Staffing Issues at ADC" [1415−1] ..The parties are directed to file their comments and/or motions by 12/4/00. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/04/2000)

12/04/2000 1418 JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor Parent−Guardian, intervenor People lst of TN to enter the proposed agreed order regarding Heightened Acuity Levels and Nurse Staffing Issues at Arlington Developemental Center (EHG) (Entered: 12/04/2000)

12/04/2000

1419

JOINT MEMORANDUM OF THE PARTIES IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED AGREED ORDER CONCERNING HEIGHTENED ACUITY LEVELS AND NURSE STAFFING ISSUES AT ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor Parent−Guardian, intervenor People lst of TN in support of [1418−1] (EHG) Modified on 12/04/2000 (Entered: 12/04/2000)

12/05/2000

1420

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Monitor submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 9/00. ..These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tenn is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/06/2000)

12/06/2000

1421

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Deloitte & Touche has submitted an invoice covering the period from 10/22/00 to 11/4/00, which totals $40,275.00. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exhibit One. Dfts may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before Tuesday, 12/12/00. The State shall pay the full amount of this invoice, $40,275.00 to the Court Monitor by Friday, 12/22/00, and the Court Monitor should notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/07/2000)

12/08/2000

1422

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $6,610.74 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to O'Neall, Butler and Asso, Ltd., no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, 12/11/00. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/08/2000)

12/08/2000 1423 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $169,035.59, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/08/2000)

12/12/2000

1424

ORDER CONCERNING HEIGHTENED ACUITY LEVELS AND NURST STAFFING AT ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER... by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...4. The consultant shall be selected and retained w/in 30 days of the entry of this Order. The consultant shall submit to the Court and the Parties a report outlining his or her findings and recommendations w/in 30 days of being retained. The Parties will have 15 days from the date of the Report to file comments. ...(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/12/2000)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 121 of 232

12/12/2000 1425 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/20/00 of Status Conf Volumes 1 Court Reporter: Brenda Parker [document placed in separate folder] (EHG) (Entered: 12/14/2000)

12/13/2000

1426

CONSENT ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : The parties have been notified that Dr. Linda O'Neall has expressed her intention to retire from the position of Court Monitor and has recommended that the Court appoint Dr. Nancy Ray as her successor. Therefore, the parties hereby consent to Dr. Nancy Ray being appointed Court Monitor with all the authority and privileges of that office pursuant to the Remedial Order. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/14/2000)

12/13/2000

1427

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Jon P. McCalla: ..the Court Orders the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $10,783.75 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to O'Neall, Butler and Associates, Ltd., no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, 12/22/00. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/14/2000)

12/19/2000

1428

ORDER SETTING A CONFERENCE CALL.. by Judge Jon P. McCalla : The Court has received the recommendation of the current Court Monitor Dr. O'Neall that the Court grant the incoming court Monitor Dr. Ray $150,000.00... The Court hereby sets a conference call to discuss this recommendation with the parties at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, 12/21/00. Dr. O'Neall will make the necessary arrangements for the conf call. All parties are ORDERED to participate through at least one representative. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/20/2000)

12/21/2000

1429

ORDER APPOINTING DR. NANCY RAY TO THE POSITION OF COURT MONITOR: by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..It is, therefore, ORDERED that Dr. Nancy Ray is hereby APPOINTED to the position of Court Monitor in the present action as that term is defined in the Remedial Order. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/21/2000)

12/21/2000

1430

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENT... by Judge Jon P. McCalla : At a telephone hearing on 12/21/00, at which all parties were represented, the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, advised the Court and the parties of the need for an order directing the emergency readmission to Arlington Developmental Center, for a limited period of time, of a former resident, Francis Andrew Burton. ..After examination of Dr. Wachtel by all counsel, the Court ruled that Mr. Burton should be immediately readmitted under the emergency readmission provisions of the Consent Remedial Order. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) Modified on 12/22/2000 (Entered: 12/21/2000)

12/21/2000

1431

MINUTES: ; Status conference held 12/21/00 . Telephone conf. Also participating: Judth Gran, Jack Derryberry (People First); Bill Sherman (Parent Guardian Assn); Dr. Linda O'Neill. All parties agreed that fine monies may be used for the purpose of setting up Dr. Ray's offices and getting it operational. Dr. Wachtel was sworn and testified as tot he medical condition of Andy Burton and the need for his emergency temporary re−admission to ADC, which the court will allow. An Emergency order will be entered. Presiding Judge: McCalla PLA Atty: David Rocca DFT Atty: Leo Bearman C/R: Brenda Parker (EHG) Modified on 12/22/2000 (Entered: 12/22/2000)

12/22/2000

1432

ORDER GRANTING DR. NANCY RAY $150,000.00 FOR START−UP COSTS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : it is ORDERED that Dr. Ray will be allowed to draw against the $150,000.00 that has been granted, presumably in two draws of $75,000.00, but as she requires the funds. Dr. Ray will present the requested draws to the Court and the Court will ordder the Clerk to pay the funds to the Court Monitor. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 12/28/2000)

12/22/2000 1433 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list [hearing held 3/2/00 before Judge McCalla] (YDS) Modified on 01/11/2001 (Entered: 12/29/2000)

01/02/2001

MAIL Returned [1428−2] addressed to attorney Sharon Selby for defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Ned McWherter [note: atty no longer in this case] (EHG) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

01/03/2001 1434 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla: The Court has been notified by the Clerk's Office that pursuant to the Consent Order entered 10/12/00, the Clerk of Court removed $500,000.00 from the accumulated fines in this case to be paid to West TN Family Solutions. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to redeposit the $500,000.00 into

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 122 of 232

the accumulated fines. The $500,000.00 will be disbursed to West TN Family Solutions in smaler amounts upon receipt of draws submitted to the Court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

01/03/2001

1435

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..The Court Monitor has submitted the first invoice requesting payment of $62,500.00 on behalf of WTFS. The invoice is attached as Exh 1. The Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the full amount of this invoice, $62,500.00 to the Court Monitor by Tuesday, 1/16/01, and the Court Monitor shall notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

01/03/2001

1436

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...The Court Monitor has submitted an invoice requesting payment of $65,842.42 on behalf of WTFS. The invoice is attached as Exhibit 1. The Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the full amount of this invoice, $65,842.42 to the Court Monitor by Tuesday, 1/16/01, and the Court Monitor shall notify the court of such payment immediately thereafter. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

01/03/2001

1437

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla ...Deloitte & Touche has submitted the final invoice, which totals $11,535.00. The invoice is attached to this Order as Exhibit 1. Dfts may comment upon or object to this invoice on or before Monday, 1/8/01. The State shall pay the full amount of this invoice, $11,535.00, to the Court Monitor by Tuesday, 1/16/01, and the Court Monitor shall notify the Court of such payment immediately thereafter. ...(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

01/05/2001

1438

ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : The Court has received from the Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy Ray, the first draw for $75,000.00 to be paid out of the accumulated fines in this case pursuant to the Order entered 12/22/00. The draw is attached to this Order as Exhibit 1. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to sent a check to the Court Monitor for the full amount of $75,000.00 by Friday, 1/12/01. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/08/2001)

01/09/2001

1439

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Jon P. McCalla ..the court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $16,688.63 from the accumulated funds pursuan tto the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to O'Neall, Butler and Associates, Ltd., no later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, 1/26/01. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/09/2001)

01/09/2001

1440

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Jon P. McCalla : Pursuant to this Court's order entered 12/6/00, the dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $122,614.51 for Sept. 2000. ..the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $122,614.51 previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2426 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/09/2001)

01/10/2001

1441

ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : On 12/12/00, the Monitor submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in Oct 2000. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $252,435.22 in Oct 2000. These invoices are attached as Appendix 1. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/10/2001)

01/10/2001 1442 ORDER by Judge Jon P. McCalla : It is hereby Ordered that this case be transferred to Judge Bernice B. Donald. Case reassigned to Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/10/2001)

01/10/2001

1443

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald & by Judge Jon P. McCalla: ...Judge Donald and Judge McCalla have agreed that in the interest of judicial efficiency, Judge McCalla's law clerk, Joshua C. Stokes, will be on special assignment to Judge Donald for the purposes of this case for the remainder of his judicial clerkship. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) Modified on 01/10/2001 (Entered: 01/10/2001)

01/16/2001

MAIL Returned [1428−2] addressed to attorney Judy Oxford for defendant Mona Reeves−Winfrey, defendant Evelyn C. Robertson Jr., defendant Ned McWherter [dfts/atty no longer in case] (EHG) (Entered: 01/17/2001)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 123 of 232

01/19/2001

1444

ORDER TO PAY FEES by Judge Bernice B. Donald ..The Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion and awards the sum of $257,500.00 to People First of Tennessee for reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in connection with enforcement−related work during the period starting 7/1/99 and ending on 6/30/00. Dft State of Tennessee shall pay the full amount to People First of Tennessee by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, 2/5/01. [1416−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/19/2001)

01/19/2001

1445

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald : Pursuant to this court's order entered 1/10/01, the dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by the Court Monitor in the sum of $252,435.22 for 10/00. ..the clerk of court is directed to send the sum of $252,435.22, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to the Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308.(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/19/2001)

01/19/2001 1446 MOTION by defendant to reduce frequency of M.R. Reports (EHG) (Entered: 01/22/2001)

01/19/2001 1447 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendants re: motion to reduce frequency of M.R. Reports (EHG) (Entered: 01/22/2001)

01/30/2001

1448

ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS by Judge Bernice B. Donald striking motion to withdraw attorney of record, Laurie J. Weinstein [1207−1], striking motion for reconsideration of order compelling attendance of "Ultimate Decision Makers" at 3/2/00 Status Conference [1211−1], striking motion for approval of an expenditure from the fine funds to create a demonstration project for Family Governed Community Services [1255−1], striking motion to clarify this Court's March 20, 1995 Order (...does not preclude the Court Monitor from responding to inquiries by the parties about instances of potential abuse or neglect of the class members) [1270−1], striking motion for leave to participate over the telephone in the 9/25/00 hearing [1370−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 01/31/2001)

02/09/2001

1449

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald ...According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $120,353.82 in November, 2000. These invoices are attached as Appendix 1. ..defendant State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

02/14/2001 1450 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing on Motion To Reduce Frequency of M.R. Reports set for 3/23/01 at 1:00 (EHG) (Entered: 02/14/2001)

02/14/2001 1451 NOTICE OF FILING ARLINGTON D.C. NURSE STAFFING AND COMPETENCIES REVIEW by defendants (EHG) (Entered: 02/15/2001)

03/02/2001 1452 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS.. by Judge Bernice B. Donald ..the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $120,353.82, previously placed in the registry of the court to Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 2425 Millcreek Court, Ste. #2, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/05/2001)

03/19/2001 1453 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to reduce frequency of M.R. Reports [1446−1] ..Dfts may reduce the frequency of reports regarding class member M.R. to once a week.(cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/19/2001)

03/19/2001

1454

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald ...The Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy Ray, has forwarded a memo from SCN stating that the total expenses incurred as a result of the board meeting were $74,156.97, leaving $25,843.03 unused. The Court ORDERS CSN to remit the remaining balance to the Clerk of Court. The clerk of Court shall deposit this money into the accumulated fines in this case. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/19/2001)

03/19/2001

1455

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald ...the Court DENIES the Parent−Guardian Asso's Motion except to the extent that payment has already been ordered for reimbursement of the costs for the June 16, 2000, conference call as set forth in the Court's Order entered on 9/15/00. [1298−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/19/2001)

03/19/2001 1456 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald ...the court orders the dfts to implement fully... no later than 5/1/01, all of the provision sof the Division of Mental Retardation Services' revised Developmental Center and Community Incident Management and

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 124 of 232

ABust Investigation policies for all class members. ..Finally, the Court scheduled a hearing in this matter on 3/23/01,.. the court hereby converts the hearing into a status conf with the parties and resets the conf for 1:30 on Wed., 5/2/01. ; status conference set 1:30 5/2/01 (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/19/2001)

03/20/2001

1457

ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald (nunc pro tunc to 2/23/01) : The court has received from the Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy Ray, the second draw for $75,000.00 to be paid out of the accumulated fines in this case pursuant to the Order entered 12/22/00. The draw is attached to this Order as Exhibit One. The clerk of court is Ordered to send a check to the Court Monitor for the full amount of $75,000.00 by Friday, 2/23/01. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

03/20/2001

1458

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald : On 2/21/01, the Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 12/00 and 1/01. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $40,118.20 in 12/00 and 1/01. These invoices are attached at Appendix 1. ...defendant State of Tennessee is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

03/20/2001

1459

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald: On 3/9/01, the Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incured in 2/01. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $47,314.88 in 2/01. These invoices are attached herebo as Appendix 1. ...defendant State of Tennessee is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

03/20/2001

1460

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald : On 2/23/01, the Monitor submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 12/00. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $290,375.55 in 12/00. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. ...defendant State of Tennessee is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

03/21/2001

1461

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald ...the Court FINDS that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC, for services rendered by John J. Houseal, Jr., to West TN Family Solutions, Inc. Accordingly, the Court Orders the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $11,687.40 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to Dr. Nancy Ray, no later than 2:00 pm. on Fri., 3/30/01. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

03/26/2001 1462 MOTION by defendant for finding of compliance and to cease sanction and refund monies paid after compliance date (EHG) (Entered: 03/27/2001)

03/26/2001 1463 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion for finding of compliance and to cease sanction and refund monies paid after compliance date [1462−1] (EHG) (Entered: 03/27/2001)

03/26/2001 1464 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendants re: motion for finding of compliance and to cease sanction and refund monies paid after compliance date (EHG) (Entered: 03/27/2001)

03/26/2001 1465 MOTION by plaintiff USA for leave to withdraw as counsel (by Andrea Picciotti−Bayer) (EHG) (Entered: 03/27/2001)

03/27/2001 1466 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for leave to withdraw as counsel (by Andrea Picciotti−Bayer) [1465−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

03/28/2001

1467

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING HEIGHTENED ACUITY LEVELS AT ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1424−1] ..The parties now having agreed that this Order, regarding the development of Clinical Practice Pathways... should be amended and replaced, the Court accordingly ORDERS:... (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

04/11/2001 1468 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald : Pursuant to this court's order entered 3/21/01,.. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $290,375.55, previously placed in the Registry of the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 125 of 232

Court to Dr. Linda O'Neall, at 3120 Flastacowo Camp Road, Tallahassee, FL 32308. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 04/12/2001)

04/13/2001 1469 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for finding of compliance and to cease sanction and refund monies paid after compliance date [1462−1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

04/16/2001

1470

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO REFUND FINE MONIES by Judge Bernice B. Donald it is ordered that the Clerk of Court shall refund $1,655,456.66 from the accumulated fines in this case to dft State of Tennessee... (Copy handed to financial administrator) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

04/25/2001

1471

ORDER for payment of costs... The COurt hereby Orders the Clerk of Court to pay the full amount of this invoice, in the amount of $119,061.62, to West Tennessee Family Solutions by Monday April 23, 2001.... (Copy handed to financial administrator) by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/25/2001)

04/25/2001 1472 ORDER Directing Clerk To Disburse Funds by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1461−1]; The Clerk is directed to send the sum of $40,118.20, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, NKR & Assoc., Inc., 636 Delaware Ave, Ste. 2, Delmar, New York, 12054; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 04/26/2001)

04/25/2001 1473 ORDER Directing Clerk To Issue Funds by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1461−1]; The Clerk is directed to send the sum of $47,314.88 placed in Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, at NKR & Assoc., Inc., 636 Delaware Ave., Ste. 2, Delmar, New York, 12054; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 04/26/2001)

05/02/2001

1475

MINUTES:Type of hearing held: Status Conference Presiding Presentation were made by Community Services Network, West Tenn. Family Solutions, People First, Community Living Opportunities; Dr. Ray to report to court on availability of doctor for mentioned child; Questions & comments to be filed w/n 10 days Judge: B. Donald PLA Atty: D. Rocca & A. Bell DFT Atty: L. Bearman, D. Dycus, J. Lakey also present Rick Campbell William Sherman (parent guardian) Earl Schwarz, Judy Grand, Jack Derryberry & Woody Kinnett (all for people first); John Houseal & Cecil Humphreys for (West TN Family Solutions) Dr. Ray & Natalle Roosseav(court monitors) C/R: Lynn Interp. pres. : n/a (PWM) (Entered: 05/07/2001)

05/03/2001

1474

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COST The Court orders the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $15,508.82 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 11, 2001 (copy given to Fin. Off.) (all counsel copied) (PWM) Modified on 05/04/2001 (Entered: 05/04/2001)

05/04/2001

1476

ORDER to pay fees and expenses incurred in March 2001 in the amount of $69,928.47. All funds received by the clerk of court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the motion for her expense and fees up to an including the total sum of the money deposited by dft.. by Judge Bernice B. Donald attachments filed under sepearate cover (cc: all counsel) (copy given to fin. off. for issuance of check) (PWM) Modified on 05/07/2001 (Entered: 05/07/2001)

05/04/2001

1477

ORDER TO PAY MONITOR FEES: $104,640.61 FOR FEES AND expenses incurred in January & February 2001 to be paid to O' Neall, Butler & Assoc. Ltd. by Judge Bernice B. Donald (documents to large for fax back placed under seperate cover) (copy given to fin off for issuance of check)(cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/07/2001)

05/11/2001 1478 DEFENDANT'S COMMENTS REGARDING WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SOLUTIONS' REQUEST FOR USE OF FINE MONEY by defendant Tennessee, State of to [1475−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

05/14/2001 1479 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of for reconsideration OR ORDER DATED MAY 7, 2001 (PWM) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

05/14/2001 1480 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion for reconsideration OF ORDER DATED MAY 7, 2001 [1479−1] (PWM) (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 126 of 232

05/14/2001)

05/14/2001 1481 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendant Tennessee, State of (PWM) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

05/14/2001 1482 RESPONSE by intervenor People lst of TN REGARDING USE OF "FINE MONEY" TO SUPPORT WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SERVICES (PWM) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

05/14/2001 1483 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SOLUTIONS' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FINE MONIES [1475−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

05/22/2001

1484

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for reconsideration OF ORDER DATED MAY 7, 2001 As pointed out in dft's moiton the court entered the Order directing the State of Tennessee to pay the former Monitor's fees before the full fifteen−day comment period had run. The full comment period having elapsed on May 15, 2001, the Court Orders dft State of Tenn to either submit objections to the monitor's invoice or pay the full $104,640.61 into the registry of the Court by 5:00 p.m. on Monday May 28, 2001. [1479−1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/23/2001)

05/23/2001 1487 SEALED document by defendant Tennessee, State of (documents placed in vault) (PWM) Modified on 05/25/2001 (Entered: 05/25/2001)

05/25/2001 1485 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Accordingly, the clerk of court is directed to send the sum of $69,928.47 placed in the registry of the court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, at NKR & Asso. Inc., 636 Delaware Ave., Suite 2 Delmar, NY 12054 by Judge Bernice B. Donald for (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/25/2001)

05/25/2001 1486 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COST. The court hereby orders the clerk of court to pay the full amount requested, $20,000.00 to West Tennessee Family Solutions by Tuesday May 29, 2001. by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/25/2001)

05/29/2001 1488 NOTICE by defendant Tennessee, State of OF OBJECTION (PWM) (Entered: 05/31/2001)

06/12/2001 1489 RESPONSE to Dft's notice of objection to former monitor's fees and expenses. by plaintiff USA (PWM) (Entered: 06/14/2001)

06/14/2001

1490

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald By this Order, the court directs the monitor to work w/ the parties, community provider agencies, and the monitoring panel in US v. Tenn. Docket # 3:96−1056, toward the establishment of an appropriate statewide quality assurance system that complies w/ the specific provisions of the Remedial Order, the community plan, and other orders in this case. By August 6, 2001, the Monitor is required to report to the Court on the status of the community quality assurance system an the date targeted for its full development and implementation. At such time that the statewide community quality assurance system is fully developed, the Dfts shall ensure that a complete copy of the plan is submitted to the Monitor, the other parties, and the Court. W/N 30 days of receipt of the developed plan, the parties are requested to submit comments on the plan and teir recommendations to the Monitor and the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 06/15/2001)

06/18/2001

1491

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald The Court finds that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of pyaing Glankler Brown, PLLC, for services rendered by John J. Houseal, Jr., To West Tenn. Family Solutions, Inc. Accordingly, the Court Orders the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $47, 563.52 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC, no later than 5:00 p.m. June 29, 2001. (cc: all counsel) (copy given to Fin. Off. for distrubution of funds) (PWM) Modified on 06/18/2001 (Entered: 06/18/2001)

06/18/2001

1492

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald The Court monitor has submitted a letter requesting payment of $52,101.93 to WTFS. The court herby orders the Clerk of Court to pay the full amount requested to West Tenn Family Solutions by June 25, 2001. (cc: all counsel) (copy given to Fin. Off. for distrubution of funds) (PWM) Modified on 06/18/2001 (Entered: 06/18/2001)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 127 of 232

06/19/2001 1493 NOTICE OF FILING OF COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT: Thirteenth Clinical Review by Court Monitor Linda R. O'Neall; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 06/20/2001)

06/19/2001 1494 NOTICE OF FILING OF COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE REPORT: Thirteenth Clinical Review, Vol 2 by Court Monitor Linda R. O'Neall; DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER (YDS) (Entered: 06/20/2001)

07/02/2001

1495

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) On May 8, 2001, the Monitor Dr. Nancy Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in April 2001. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of 88,844.80 in April 2001. Whereas the Court has not recieved any comments or objections from dft, dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to an including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dft. (filed w/ copies of invoices for April 2001) copy given to Finance Officer for issuance of check. (PWM) (Entered: 07/02/2001)

07/02/2001

1496

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald On June 7, 2001, the Monitor Dr. Nancy K. Ray submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in May 2001. According to this invoice the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $91,340.29 in May 2001. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dft, dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the monitor for her expense and fees up to an including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dft.(filed w/ copies of invoices for May 2001) copy given to Finance Officer for issuance of check. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/02/2001)

07/02/2001

1497

ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FINE MONIES by Judge Bernice B. Donald representatives of West Tennessee Family Solutions who requested the Court who requested the Court to disburse fine monies in the amounts of $500,000.00 to be used as collateral for leveraging mortgage funds to purchase homes for class members, $108,000.00 to pay the first year's salary for WTFS' executive director; and $30,000.00 to be used to pay a consultant to begin statewide implementation of a mortgage leveraging plan. The parties and the Court monitor have all commented on WTFS' request. Pursuant to the comments of the parties, the Court GRANTS the requests for $500,000.00 and $108,000.00 subject to the terms discussed infra, but DENIES WTFS' request for the $30,000.00. WTFS requestes 500,000.00 to be used as funds to leverage mortgages on homes that would be converted into homes suitable for class members to live in after leaving Arlington Developmental Center. In granting the request, the Court makes it clear that $500,000.00 grant is to be usedsolely for the securing of mortgages for homes that will house class members. The funds shall not under any circumstances, be used to cover operational costs, salaries, or any other expenses incurred by WTFS. The funds shall be placed into a separate, interest−bearing accounts and shall be returned to the Clerk of Court five years from theentry of this Order, along w/ the accumulated interest. In addtion, the funds gratned to WTFS shall be used to secure mortgages on homes for the benefit of class members of this litigation only and shall not be used to benefit any other individuals to who WTFS provides services. WTFS shall quarterly file w/ the Court the bank statement showing the balance of the account containing this $500,000.00, the interest that has accrued, and any transcations depositing or withdrawing funds from the account. Any transactions in or out of the account shall provide good cause for the Court to order full and prompt repayment of the full $500,000.00 w/ accumulated interest prior to the expiration of the 5 year period....... With regard to the grant for $108,000.00 for the first year salary of the executive director, the grant shall apply only to the first year salary of a full−time executive diretor and shall not be used for any other purposes whatsoever. Failure to abide by these terms shall provide good cause to require full and prompt repayment of the full $108,000.00. The monitor recommended to the Court that the Court not provide the grant of $30,000.00 to WTFS to pay for a consultant to begin statewide implementation of the mortgage leveraging program on the gournds that only People First supported the grant while the other parties deferred comment on the grant. The recommendation of the monitor

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 128 of 232

carries great weight w/ the Court, and therefore, the Court DENIES this request. WTFS may reapply for this grant at a later date. Finally the parties shall consult w/ the Monitor to develop a permanent, workable set of criteria for future disbursements of fine monies. The Court monitor shall report to the COurt sixty days from the date of entry of this order on the status of the discussions w/ the parties on the development of these criteria. In conslusion, the Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of COurt to disburse funds out of the accumulated fines in this case to WTFS in the amount of $500,000.00 and $108,000.00 no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2001. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/03/2001)

07/12/2001

1498

AMENDED ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FINE MONIES by Judge Bernice B. Donald The monitor recommended to the court that the court not provide the grant of $30,000 to WTFS to pay for a consultant to begin statewide implementation of the mortgage leveraging program on the grounds that only People First supported the grant while the other parties deferred comment on the grant. The recommendation of the Monitor carries great weight w/ the court and therefore, the court denies this request. WTFS may reapply for this grant at a later date. The parites shall consult with the moniotr to develop a permanent, workable set of criteria for future disbursements of fine monies. The court monitor shall report to the court 60 days from the date of entry of this order on the status of the discussions w/ the parties on the development of these criteria. In conclusion, the Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to disburse funds out of the accumulated fines in this case to WTFS in the amounts of $500,000.00 and 108,000.00 no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday July 6, 2001. (cc: all counsel) (copy given to fin. off for issuance of check) (PWM) (Entered: 07/13/2001)

07/18/2001 1499 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement pay the fees and expenses incurred by Dr. N. Ray in the sum of $88,844.80 for April 2001 previously placed in the Registry of the Court. (copy given to fin off) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) Modified on 07/19/2001 (Entered: 07/19/2001)

07/18/2001 1500 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement fees and expenses incurred by Dr. N. Ray in the sume of $92, 340,29 for May 2001.(copy given to fin. off.) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/19/2001)

07/20/2001

1501

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement The Court finds that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC, for services rendered by John Houseal, the Court order the clerk to pay the sum of $24,470.12 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Funds shall be pad by check to Glakler Brown n/l/t July 27, 2001 5:00p.m. copy given to fin off. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) Modified on 07/20/2001 (Entered: 07/20/2001)

07/26/2001 1502 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for ORDER DIRECTING TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENT (PWM) (Entered: 07/27/2001)

07/26/2001 1503 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for ORDER DIRECTING TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENT [1502−1] (PWM) (Entered: 07/27/2001)

07/26/2001 1504 DECLARATION of Jo Davis and Peggy Davis re [1503−1] (PWM) (Entered: 07/27/2001)

07/26/2001 1505 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 07/27/2001)

07/27/2001

1506

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald Invoice for fees and expenses incurred in June 2001. According to this invoice, the monitor incurred fees and expenses of 74, 011.34 in June. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to an including the total sum of the money deposited by the dft. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/30/2001)

07/27/2001 1507 ORDER OVERRULING DFTS' OBJECTION by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1488−1] Under the Remedial Order entered on 9/6/94, Dfts are responsible for reimbursing the monitor for all fees and expenses incurred while performing her official duties. Dr. O'Neall retired from the position effective 1/01/01. The current

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 129 of 232

counsel for pla appeared in this action on 9/22 and 10/19/00, respectively. As such, counsel for pla and the Court monitor were new to this long complicated case at the same time. Both consulted w/ the outgoing Monitor on the history of the litigation and the current state of the proceedings. Contrary to the assertion of the Dfts that this briefing was unrelated to the transition duties of the Monitor, Dr. O'Neall was merely fulfilling one of her last duites in aiding the transition between Monitors at an advanced stage in this litigation, not only providing a history of the case but escorting cousel for pla around the gournds of the ADC... The fees appear to be reasonable given the complexity of the history of the case and the amount of time spent in the briefing and in preparation for the briefing. As such, the court overrules Dfts' objection and ORDERES dfts to pay the full 104,640.61 into the registry of the CLerk of COurt by 8/6/01. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/30/2001)

08/09/2001 1508 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald : The Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the full amount requested, $39,323.25, to West TN Family Solution by 8/9/01. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/09/2001)

08/09/2001 1509 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald : Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $104,640.61 (for fees and expenses incurred in January and February 2001) at 3120 Flastacowo Camp Road, Tallahassee, FL, 32308. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/09/2001)

08/09/2001

1510

RESPONSE by intervenors Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker in opposition to motion for ORDER DIRECTING TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENT [1502−1] (YDS) (Entered: 08/10/2001)

08/10/2001 1511 RESPONSE by defendants in OPPOSITION to PGA's motion for ORDER DIRECTING TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENT [1502−1]; w/attachment (BAG) (Entered: 08/10/2001)

08/10/2001 1512 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald : Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $74,011.34 placed in the Registry of the Court to NKR & Associates, Inc., at 636 Delaware Ave., Ste. 2, Delmar, NY, 12054. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 08/10/2001)

08/10/2001 1513 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for ORDER DIRECTING TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENT [1502−1] (PWM) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

08/13/2001 1514 JUDGMENT AND SLIP OPINION from USCA (entered 8/8/01) affirming the decision of the District Court [1401−1] (SSH) (Entered: 08/14/2001)

09/04/2001

1515

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for ORDER DIRECTING TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY READMISSION OF FORMER ADC RESIDENT [1502−1] The court finds that the Monitor's assessment of Wilma B's condition and needs is supported by the evidence. Pending further review of the larger issue of short−term admissions of class members to rehabilitation facilities, the Court ORDERS the admission of Wilma B. to West Tennessee Skilled Nursing Center for a period of time no to exceed thirty days. Any objections to this order must be filed w/n 15 days. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/05/2001)

09/06/2001

1516

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald 8/7/01 the monitor Dr. Nancy Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 7/2001. According to this invoice, the monitor incurred fees and expenses of $66,672.13 in 7/01. These invoices are attached as Appendix 1. The dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court..... Any money not spent by them Monitor shall be credited to dft. (***Please Note*** No appendix was attached. Order was held in an attempt to get invoices) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/13/2001)

09/12/2001

1517

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Pursuant to the Order following a Status Conference issued by this court from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown for services rendered by John Houseal, Jr., to WTFS, Inc. Accordingly the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $39,521.15 from the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 130 of 232

accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoices. Funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown PLLC no later than 9/13/01 @ 5:00. (copy given to Fin. Off. to advise) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/14/2001)

09/13/2001

1518

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald The Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy Ray (the monitor) has requested that hte Court allow I.F., a class member and former resident of Arlington Developmental Center, to secure short−term admission to a rehabilitation facility, pending further review by the parties and the Court. The Court hereby ORDERS the short−term admission of I.F. in accordancew/ the request of the Monitor..... Pending furhter review of these systemic issues, the Court ORDERS the amdission of I.F. to a short−term rehabilitation facility for a period of time not to exceed 30 days. Any objections to this order must be filed w/n 15 days. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/14/2001)

09/18/2001

1519

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement On 9/4/01 the Monitor Dr. Nancy K. Ray submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 8/01. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $69, 338.15 in 8/01. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts' dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account & shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tenn. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dft. (copy given to Fin. Off.) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) Modified on 09/20/2001 (Entered: 09/20/2001)

09/20/2001

1520

AMENDED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Pursuant to the Order following Status Conf. issued by the Court on 8/23/00. The Court finds that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC, for services rendered by John J. Houseal, Jr., to West TN Family Solutions, Inc. Accordingly the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $15,107.03 (this court order amends the 9/12/01 order for payment of $39,521.15 to Glankler Brown,PLLC.) from the accumulated funds pursuant to the invoice attached to the 9/12/01 order of this Court. Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 9/21/01 by 5:00. (cc: all counsel) (copy given to Fin. Off. to advise) (PWM) Modified on 09/21/2001 (Entered: 09/21/2001)

09/24/2001

1521

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald The Court monitor Dr N. Ray requests that hte court permit Wilma B., a class member, to extend her short−term rehabilitation placement in a skilled nursing facility for an additional sixty days. The Cour hereby ORDERS that Wilma B. extend her stay in accordance w/ the request of the Monitor..... The Court finds that the Monitor's assessment of Wilma B's condition and needs is supproted by the evidence. The Court ORDERS the State to extend Wilma B's placement with the West Tenn Skilled Nursing Center for an additional sixty days. Any objections to this order must be filed w/n 15 days. The Court also finds that the Monitor's assessment of Earline S. condition and needs is supported by the evidence. The Court ORDERS Earline S's heretofore unauthorized short−term placement at a skilled nursing facility and extends this placement for an additional 30 days. Any objections to this order must be filed w/n 15 days. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

09/27/2001

1522

ORDER DIRECTIN CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 9/6/01, the dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by Dr. Nancy Ray in the sum of $66,672.13 for 7/2001. It appears that the dfts have paid said amount into Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is derected to send the sum of $66,672.13, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy Ray (copy given to Fin. Off.)(cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/28/2001)

10/01/2001 1523 NOTICE OF FILING OF COMMENTS REGARDING GUARDIANSHIP OF CLASS MEMBERS RESIDING AT ARLINGTON AND THE STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY TRANSITION TEAM by defendant (PWM) (Entered: 10/02/2001)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 131 of 232

10/04/2001

1524

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement expenses incurred by Dr. Nancy K. Ray in the sum of $69,338.15 for 8/01. It appear that the dfts have paid said amount into the Registry of the Court as so Ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $69,338.15, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray (cc: all counsel) (Copy given to Fin. Off) (PWM) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

10/04/2001

1525

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald ......The Court's decision to deny payment is not permanent, however, Once the Court Monitor informs the Court that CLO & Mike Strouse have adequately fulfilled their contractual obligations, the Court will revisit the payment issue. The Court expects that the Court Monitor will be able to make such a determination after the independent CPA completes his review of the consultation fees sought by CLO & Mike Strouse. In the interim, the Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the full amount requested for WTFS operational costs, $26,068.37 to West Tenn Family Solutions by 10/5/01. (Copy given to Fin. Off.) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

10/12/2001 1526 ORDER Mandate Issued: 10/10/01 from 6th Circuit pursuant to the court's disposition that was filed in USDC on 8/13/01. (SSH) (Entered: 10/15/2001)

10/18/2001 1527 MOTION by plaintiff USA to withdraw attorney David R. Rocah (PWM) (Entered: 10/18/2001)

10/22/2001

1528

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement on 10/5/01 Dr. Nancy Ray submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 9/01. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $75,517.01 in 9/01. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the monitor for here expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tenn. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (copy given to fin. Off.) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/22/2001)

10/26/2001 1529 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff USA by Nicole Porter (PWM) (Entered: 10/26/2001)

10/29/2001 1530 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to withdraw attorney David R. Rocah [1527−1] attorney David R. Rocah for USA (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

10/30/2001

1531

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COST by Judge Bernice B. Donald Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $43,817.30 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC, no later han 5:00 p.m. on 11/2/01. (copy given to Fin Off)(cc: all counsel) (PWM) Modified on 10/31/2001 (Entered: 10/31/2001)

10/30/2001

1532

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 10/22/01, dfts were directed to pay the fees and expenses incurred by Dr. Nancy K. Ray in the sum of $75,517.01 for September 2001. It appears that dft have paid said amount into the Registry of thre Court as so ordered. Accrodingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to sent the sum of $75,517.01, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, NKR & Associates Inc., (copy given to Fin. Off.) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

10/30/2001

1533

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald The Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, requests that the Court permit Idella F., a class member, to extend her short−term rehabilitation placement in a skilled nursing facility through 12/15/01. The Court hereby ORDERS that Idella F. extend her stay in accordance w/ the request of the Monitor. Any objections to this order must be filed w/n 15 days. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

10/30/2001

1534

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald The Court has received one of the scheduled draws of the $500,000.00 that the parties agreed should be paid out of the accumulated fines in this case to WTFS. The Court monitor has submitted a letter requesting payment of $79,801.55 to WTFS. The necessary invoices for these operational costs are attached. The Court hereby ORDERS that the Clerk of

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 132 of 232

Court to pay $79,801.55 to WTFS by 11/2/01. (copy given to Fin. Off.) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

11/13/2001

1535

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COST by Judge Bernice B. Donald Pursuant to the Order following a Status Conf. issued by this Court on 8/23/00, the Court finds that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC, for services rendered by John J. Houseal, Jr., to WTFS, Inc. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to disburse the sum of $18,777.89 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 11/20/01 5:00 (copy given Fin. Off.) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 11/14/2001)

11/28/2001

1536

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/11/01, the Monitor Nancy Ray submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 10/2001. According to this invoice, the moitor incurred fees and expenses of $86,254.17 in 10/2001. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 11/29/2001)

12/03/2001

1537

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald The Court finds that the Monitor's assessment of Wilma B.'s condition and needs is supported by the evidence. The Court ORDERS the State to extend Wilma B.'s placment w/ the WT Skilled Nursing Center for an additonal 6 months w/conditions.... By 4/30/02, the State will prepare a report on Wilma B.'s status. This report will detail Wilma B's health status, including her well−being at her current place of residence, any adverse events, and any progress made in the search for an appropriate community home. This report will be submitted to the parties and the Monitor for comment. Any objections to this order must be filed w/n 15 days. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

12/06/2001

1538

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement It appears that dfts have paid said amount into the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $86,254.17, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy Ray, NKR & Assoc.(copy given to fin off) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 12/07/2001)

12/11/2001 1539 JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES to vacate the district court orders currently on appeal and enter the attached mediation agreement (PWM) (Entered: 12/11/2001)

12/12/2001 1540 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for leave to change name of intervenor party to West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association (PWM) (Entered: 12/13/2001)

12/12/2001 1541 NOTICE OF FILING OF DOCUMENT by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 12/13/2001)

12/14/2001

1542

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to vacate the district court orders currently on appeal and enter the attached mediation agreement [1539−1] Considering the parties' desire to settle and the entire record, the Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that should the case be remanded to it by the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, this Court is inclined to grant the relief requested. IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED BY THE COURT that if this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court is disposed to grant the parties' 60 (b) motion. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 12/14/2001)

12/18/2001

1543

ORDER APPROVING NAME CHANGE by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for leave to change name of intervenor party [1540−1] Now on this day there comes on for consideration of the Parent Guardian Assc of Arlington Developmental Center to change its name in this case to West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, and good cause being shown, the name change is approved. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 12/18/2001)

01/07/2002

MAIL Returned addressed to Aileen Bell @ US Dept of Justice (copy given to case manager to advise) [1682−1] (PWM) (Entered: 01/08/2003)

01/10/2002 1546 ORDER Entered: 1/8/02 from 6th Circuit remanding the matter back to District Court [Appeal [1395−1], [Appeal [1363−1], [Appeal [1324−1] in accordance with the agreement reached between the parties in settlement discussions conducted pursuant to 6th Cir. Rule 33, the parties jointly move to remand the cause to the USDC

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 133 of 232

WDTNWD for determination of the parties' joint motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) FRCP. Upon consideration of the motion and further considering Judge Bernice B. Donald's Order of 12/13/01, it is ordered that the motion be and hereby is granted. (SSH) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

01/10/2002 1547 ORDER Mandate Issued: 1/8/02 from 6th Circuit pursuant to the court's disposition that was filed in USDC on 1/10/02. (SSH) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

01/11/2002 1544 MOTION for fair hearing p/Tennessee Network of Community Organizations (TNCO) formerly CMRA (PWM) (Entered: 01/11/2002)

01/11/2002 1545 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing set for 2/8/02 at 1:00 to appear in courtroom 2 11th flr. (PWM) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

01/14/2002

1548

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement On 11/11/01 Dr. nancy Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 11/01. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $73,090.06 in 11/01. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1.... Dft State of Tenn is hereby ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

01/17/2002

1549

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COST by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Pursuant to the Order following a Status Conferece issued by this Court on 8/23/00... Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $15,817.92 from the accumulated funds purusant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 1/24/02 5:00 (cc: all counsel) (copy given to fin off) (PWM) Modified on 01/18/2002 (Entered: 01/18/2002)

01/24/2002 1550 SETTING LETTER : in court (Fair)hearing set for 3/6/02 at 9:00 to appear in courtroom 3 9th flr. (PWM) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

01/28/2002

1551

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald : Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $73,090.06, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, NKR & Associates, Inc., 636 Delaware Ave., Ste. 2, Delmar New York, New York, 12054. (cc: all counsel) (YDS) (Entered: 01/28/2002)

01/28/2002 1552 RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR FAIR HEARING by defendant Tennessee, State of to [1544−1] (PWM) (Entered: 01/30/2002)

01/28/2002 1689 JOINT APPLICATION for an Award of Attorneys' Fees & Expenses to plas/intervener, People First of Tenn. by plaintiff USA, intervenor People lst of TN (PWM) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

01/29/2002

1553

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement ...Accordingly the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $8,868.53 from the accumulated funds purusant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown, PLCC no later thatn 2/1/02 b/4 5:00. (cc: all counsel) (copy given to Fin. Off) (PWM) (Entered: 01/30/2002)

01/30/2002 1554 ORDER Expenses incurred in Decmeber 2001. According to this invocie the Monitor incurred fees 7 expenses of $65,038.25 in 12/01.... Dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 01/31/2002)

02/04/2002 1555 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of for order to reduce frequency of M. R. Reports (PWM) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

02/04/2002 1556 MOTION by defendant for order to reduce frequency of T. T. Reports (PWM) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

02/05/2002 1557 SETTING LETTER ; in court hearing reset for 2/13/02 at 9:00 from 2/8/02 @ 1:00 to appear in courtroom 3 9th flr. (PWM) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

02/05/2002

1558

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald ... The Court Monitor has submitted a letter requesting payment of $72,646.00 to WTFS. The letter is attached as Exhibit 1. The Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the full amount requested $72,646.00, to WTFS by 2/8/02. This payment may only be used to make FICA and staff salary payments. It also represents the final installment of the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 134 of 232

$500,000 in fine moines allocated by the Court to WTFS for start−up costs. The Court also approves the transfer of $30,000.00 from the WTFS account designated for the WTFS executive director's salary to an account created to cover the costs of a part−time WTFS financial manager. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

02/05/2002

1559

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement On 12/189/01, Vickey Coleman, a member of the Court Monitor's staff, used NTS to purchase an airline ticket costing $246.75. Ms. Coleman also used NTS to purchase a second ticket, this time for $394.75, on 12/19. Upon completion of these transactions, a total of $641.50 had been charged by the Monitor to the Clerk of Court. The Court hereby orders the Clerk of Court to transfer $641.50 from the funds previously placed in the Registry of the Court for the Monitor to its own account. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/05/2002)

02/06/2002 1560 JOINT APPLICATION by intervenor People lst of TN, defendant Tennessee, State of for an award of attorney's fees and expenses to pla/intr, people first of TN (PWM) (Entered: 02/07/2002)

02/06/2002

1561

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for order to reduce frequency of T. T. Reports [1556−1] Based upon dft's motion to reduce frequency of T. T. Reports, & for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that dft may reduce the frequency of reports regarding class member T.T. to once a month.(cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/07/2002)

02/08/2002

1562

AGREED ORDER ON JOINT APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO PEOPLE FIRST by Judge Bernice B. Donald IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the PLA/INT People First, et al. are awarded attorneys fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $218,000.00 to be pd by the State of Tenn. Based upon the statements made in the Joint Application, this award shall be in satisfaction of all hours expended and costs incurred in connection w/ People First's enforcement work during the period from 7/1/00 through 7/31/01. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/08/2002)

02/11/2002

MAIL Returned [1554−1] addressed to miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall (copy given to case manager to advise) (PWM) (Entered: 02/11/2002)

02/11/2002 1563 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff USA by Janine Scott (PWM) (Entered: 02/11/2002)

02/13/2002

1564

MINUTES: ; In−court hearing held 2/13/02 in−court hearing (fairness hearing) set 9:00 4/30/02 Type of hearing held: Follow up Hearing Also present were Dr. Ray and her associates: N. Rousseau, L. Finley & V. Coleman. Mr. Derryberry addressed the court re: the mediation agreement. Mr. Lakey & Mr. Bearman addressed the court re: provider agencies. Dr. Ray and Mr Campbell addressed rate reimbursement system. Mr. Campbell is to provide court w/ report 60−90 days before deadline. Report must embody state's position. Mr. Schwarz addressed the stipulation of proposed settlement and proposed changes to class definitions. Parties have agreed to language of proposed settlement. Fairness Hearing set. Presiding Judge: Donald PLA Atty: N. Porter, Bell, J. Scott, E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry, J. Gran, W. Sherman DFT Atty: J. Lakey, L. Bearman, D. Dycus, R. Campbell, J. Houseal C/R: Brenda Parker (PWM) (Entered: 02/13/2002)

02/13/2002 1565 SETTING LETTER : in court (fairness) hearing set for 4/30/02 at 9:00 to appear in courtroom 3 9th flr. (PWM) (Entered: 02/13/2002)

02/13/2002

1566

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF PROVISIONAL APPROVAL OF MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Judge Bernice B. Donald The parties have tentatively agreed to a proposed settlement based on the Stipulation & the Mediation Settlement Agreement submitted to the Court. It appears to the Court that the Mediation Settleement Agreement was the result of extensive negotiations between the parties after discovery & other exchanges of information and discussions. Based on the stipulations, the terms of the Mediation Settlement Agreement, and a thorough review of the record & the controlling legal authority, the Court finds that the proposed Mediation Settlement Aggreement appears reasonsable & consistent w/ relevant law. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/14/2002)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 135 of 232

02/14/2002

1567

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer $641.50 from the $65,038.25 placed in the Registry of the Court by the Dft. The Clerk of Court is further directed to send the remaining balance, $64,396.75 to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, NKR & Assco. The Court will reimburse the monitor for the $641.50 in NTS airfare charges when it addresses the Monitor's 1/02 invoice. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/15/2002)

02/19/2002 1568 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for order to reduce frequency of M. R. Reports [1555−1] Dft may reduce the frequency of reports regarding class member M.R. to once a month. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/19/2002)

02/20/2002

1569

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement The Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $11,136.34 from the accumulated funds purusant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown PLLC no later than 2/26/02 b/4 5:00. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/20/2002)

02/28/2002 1570 NOTICE OF FILING OF MEAUSRES TO ADDRESS ABUSE AND NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS, AND INFORMATION REGARDING NEW RATE STRUCTURE by defendant Tennessee, State of (filed w/ exhibit A) (PWM) Modified on 03/01/2002 (Entered: 03/01/2002)

03/01/2002 1571 ORDERFOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement of funds. The Court Monitor has submitted a letter requesting payment of $35,301.50 to West Tenn Family Solutions by 3/7/02. (copy given Fin. Off.) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/04/2002)

03/01/2002

1572

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald On 2/14/02 the Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 1/02. Accordingly to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $74,918.65 in 1/02. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/04/2002)

03/05/2002

1573

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1571−2] In 2/2002 the Court Monitor submitted a letter requesting payment of $35,301.50 to WTFS. After ordering the Clerk of Court ot pay $35,301.50 to WTFS, the Court determined that the calculations of the Monitor were in error the Monitor overstated the amount due by $.64. The Court Monitor should have submitted a letter requesting payment of $35,300.86 to WTFS. Accordingly, The Court strikes the 3/4/02 ORDER for Payment of costs. In its place, the Court ORDERES the Clerk of Court to pay $35,300.86 to WTFS by 3/7/02. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/05/2002)

03/06/2002 1574 LETTER from Victory S. Thayer re: Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit (written notification of intent to be present at Fairness Hearing) (PWM) (Entered: 03/08/2002)

03/12/2002

1575

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald On 3/7/02 Dr. Ray submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred by Linda O'Neall in the amount of $1,131.52 during her tenure as monitor. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/13/2002)

03/15/2002 1576 NOTICE OF FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL FILING REGARDING MEASURES TO ADDRESS ABUSE AND NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS, & INFORMATION REGARDING NEW RATE STRUCTURE by defendant Tennessee, State of (PWM) (Entered: 03/15/2002)

03/20/2002

1577

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement dfts were directed to pay the expenses incurred by the former Court Monitor, Dr. Linda O'Neall, in the sum of $1,131.52. It appears that as of 3/19/02 dfts had pd said amount into the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer $1,131,52 to Dr. Linda O'Neall (cc: all counsel) (copy given to fin off) (PWM) (Entered: 03/21/2002)

03/20/2002 1578 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer $965.50 from the $74,918.65 placed in the Registry of the Court by the dfts to its own account. The

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 136 of 232

Clerk of Court is further directed to send the remaining balance, $73,953.15, to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, NKR & Assoc. (copy given to fin off) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/21/2002)

03/26/2002 1579 LETTER from Walter G. Crone re: opposing closing of Arlington Developmental Center (PWM) (Entered: 03/27/2002)

03/27/2002 1580 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald expenses incurred for 2/02 in the amount of $80,873.29; Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

03/27/2002 1581 SEALED document letter from Bill Sherman (document placed in vault) (PWM) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

03/29/2002 1582 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for order to allow certain evidence to be offered at fairness hearing (PWM) (Entered: 03/29/2002)

03/29/2002 1583 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 03/29/2002)

04/03/2002 1584 NOTICE OF FILING OF DOCUMENTS by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 04/04/2002)

04/05/2002 1585 LETTER re reguards to closing Arlington from Frances Paschall (PWM) (Entered: 04/05/2002)

04/05/2002 1586 DECLARATION OF MEMBERS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT PREVENTION COMMITTEE AT ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENT CENTER (PWM) (Entered: 04/08/2002)

04/08/2002 1587 LETTER from Carolyn Foster in re: Fairness hearing on 4/30/02 (intent to appear at hearing) (PWM) (Entered: 04/08/2002)

04/09/2002 1588 MOTION by plaintiff USA, defendant Tennessee, State of, intervenor People lst of TN for order to be allowed to participate w/ the court in any pre−hearing view of Arlington Developmental Center or community providers (PWM) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

04/09/2002 1589 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA, defendant Tennessee, State of, intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for order to be allowed to participate w/ the court in any pre−hearing view of Arlington Developmental Center or community providers [1588−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

04/09/2002 1590 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor People lst of TN (PWM) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

04/09/2002 1591 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian to continue Fairness Hearing set for 4/30/02 (filed w/exhibits 1−4) (PWM) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

04/09/2002 1592 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

04/10/2002 1593 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald Feb 2002 expenses incurred. The Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $80,873.29 previously placed in the Registry of the Court payable to Dr. Nancy K. Ray for disbursement (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/11/2002)

04/11/2002 1594 LETTER from John David Karney re: closure of ADC (PWM) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/11/2002 1595 LETTER from Barbara Wolverton re: Closure of ADC (PWM) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/11/2002

MAIL Returned [1580−1] addressed to miscellaneous Linda R. O'Neall (copy given to case manager to advise) (PWM) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/12/2002 1596 NOTICE OF FILING OF DCOUMENTS (letters opposing closing of ADC) by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

04/12/2002 1597 DECLARATION of GORDON BRIGMAN (Director of Greater Memphis Special Olympics) re: Proposed Settlement of Class Action (PWM) (Entered: 04/15/2002)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 137 of 232
04/15/2002 1598 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for order for pre−hearing conference & Response Memorandum in Opposition to motions by William Sherman for continuance and to present evidence (filed w/ exhibit A) (PWM) Modified on 04/16/2002 (Entered: 04/16/2002)
04/15/2002 1599 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendant Tennessee, State of to motion for order to allow certain evidence to be offered at fairness hearing [1582−1] (filed w/ exhibit A) (PWM) Modified on 04/16/2002 (Entered: 04/16/2002)
04/15/2002 1600 MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend time to respond to the Parent Guardian Assocaitions' Motion to admit certain evidence (PWM) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
04/16/2002 1601 NOTICE OF FILING OF Documents (third) by intervenor Parent−Guardian (letters re: closing of Arlington) (PWM) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
04/16/2002 1602 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for order to allow certain evidence to be offered at fairness hearing & motion for continuance [1582−1] (filed w/ exhibit A) (PWM) Modified on 04/17/2002 (Entered: 04/17/2002)
04/17/2002 1603 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to motion to continue Fairness Hearing set for 4/30/02 [1591−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
04/17/2002 1604 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to motion for order for pre−hearing conference [1598−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
04/18/2002 1605 NOTICE OF FILING OF of STATEMENT OF JEFFRIE J. BRUTON (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/18/2002 1606 NOTICE OF FILING OF DOCUMENTS (FORTH) by intervenor Parent−Guardian (filed w/ attachments 1−14) and letters from family members &/or guardian (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/18/2002 1607 NOTICE OF FILING OF STATEMENT OF VICTORY S. THAYER (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/18/2002 1608 LETTER from June Dolan Clayton re: ADC Closing (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/18/2002 1609 LETTER from Betty M. Miller RE: Closing ADC (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/18/2002 1610 LETTER from Robert H. Love Re: Closure ADC( requesting leave to testify at Fairness hearing) (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/19/2002 1611 SECOND DECLARATION OF BARBARA DOWELL Re: closing of ADC (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/19/2002 1612 OBJECTIONS TO SETTLMENT AGREEMENT FROM DIANE C. SPEARS by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/19/2002 1613 NOTICE OF FILING OF DOCUMENTS (FIFTH) by interested parties Re: Closure of ADC (PWM) Modified on 04/26/2002 (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/19/2002 1614 SECOND STATEMENT OF CAROLYN COWANS (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/19/2002 1615 DECLARATION OF BARBAR DOWELL RE: Closure of ADC (PWM) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
04/19/2002 1616 NOTICE OF FILING OF Documents by William F. Sherman, attorney for intervenor West TN Parent−Guardian Assoc.; (letters from family members and/or guardians of Arlington Developmental Center residents..., in response to Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit); w/attachments (BAG) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
04/19/2002 1618 REQUEST by non−party Connie Chuzie to be heard at hearing presently set for April 30 on behalf of Judith Clark, resident of Arlington Development, w/letter attached (YDS) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
04/22/2002 1617 NOTICE: TNCO Comments On Mediation Agreement by TN Network of Community Organizations (summary of commets to be delievered and explained through testimony on mediation agreement at fairness hearing on 4/30/02; (BAG) (Entered: 04/22/2002)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 138 of 232

04/22/2002 1619 OBJECTIONS by various non−parties (friends, neighbors and associates of individuals who reside in the Arlington Develop Ctr) to the Settlement Agreement and Closing of Arlington Development Center (YDS) (Entered: 04/23/2002)

04/22/2002 1620 NOTICE of Participation by intervenor plaintiff Community Rehab TN at hearing presently set on 4/30/02 (YDS) (Entered: 04/23/2002)

04/23/2002 1621 MEMORANDUM REPLY BRIEF w/attachments by intervenor Parent−Guardian to [1599−1], to [1598−1] (YDS) (Entered: 04/23/2002)

04/23/2002 1622 LETTER from Delores W. Voigt Re: Closing ADC (PWM) (Entered: 04/24/2002)

04/25/2002 1623 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by plaintiff USA, defendant Don Sundquist (PWM) (Entered: 04/26/2002)

04/26/2002

REMARK by atty William Sherman re: Notice of Filings (#5) advised that letters were from interested parties, not family members or guardians as states on the first page. (PWM) (Entered: 04/26/2002)

04/29/2002 1624 LETTER from WM. H. D. Fones, Sr. RE: Closure of ADC (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

04/30/2002

1625

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald expenses incurred in March 2002. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees & expenses of $90,669.72 in March 2002. Whereas the Court has not received any comment or objections from dfts' they are ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/30/2002)

04/30/2002 1626 DEPOSITION of Sharon Williams taken on the following date(s): 04/12/02 (document placed under seperate folder) (PWM) (Entered: 05/01/2002)

04/30/2002

1628

MINUTES: finding the motion for order for pre−hearing conference [1598−1] moot., finding the motion to continue Fairness Hearing set for 4/30/02 [1591−1] moot., finding the motion for order to be allowed to participate w/ the court in any pre−hearing view of Arlington Developmental Center or community providers [1588−1] moot., finding the motion for order to allow certain evidence to be offered at fairness hearing [1582−1] moot. ; In−court hearing held 4/30/02 in−court hearing ddl set 1:30 6/27/02 Type of hearing held: Fairness Hearing − RE Settlement agreement; Motion to extend time to respond granted; Motion by part Gaurdian Assoc., Court bifurcated the testimony of Dr. Ray Presiding Judge: B. Donald PLA Atty: N. Porter, E. Bell, E. Schwarz, j. Derryberry, W. Sherman, D. Spears DFT Atty: L. Bearman, J. Lakey, D. Dycus C/R: Lynn Dudley (PWM) (Entered: 05/02/2002)

05/01/2002 1627 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to extend time to respond to the Parent Guardian Assocaitions' Motion to admit certain evidence [1600−1] IT IS HEREBY GRANTED. The US is directed to file its response to the PGA Motion to Admit Certain Evidence by 4/16/02. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/01/2002)

05/01/2002 1629 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list (PWM) (Entered: 05/02/2002)

05/02/2002 1630 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing (Fairness Hearing) reset for 6/28/02 at 9:30 from 6/27/02 @ 1:30 (PWM) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

05/21/2002 1631 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of for order to disburse of fine money to WTFS for payment of emergent operating expenses and house mortgages (PWM) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

05/21/2002 1632 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion for order to disburse of fine money to WTFS for payment of emergent operating expenses and house mortgages [1631−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

05/21/2002 1633 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendant Tennessee, State of (PWM) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

05/24/2002 1634 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald .. On 4/22/02, the Monitor Dr. Nancy K. Ray submitted an invoice for expenses incurred as a result of airfare purchases made through National Travel. The Monitor notes that Court subtacted $965.50 from the Monitor's 1/02 reimbursement in order to reimburse the Clerk of Court for these

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 139 of 232

airfare purchases. The Monitor now requests that the Court reimburse the Monitor for the $965.50 deducted from the 1/02 reimbursement. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/24/2002)

05/24/2002

1635

ORDER DIRECTED CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald Dfts were directed to pay $90,669.72 for fees & expenses incurred during the month of 3/02 by the Court Monitor. It appears that the dfts have pd said amount into the Registry of the Court as so ordered. Accordingly, The Clerk of Court is directed to send the sum of $90,669.72 to Dr. Nancy K. Ray. disbursement $90,669.72 (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/24/2002)

05/28/2002

1636

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Courts to pay the sum of $17,854.67 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 6/3/02 by 5:00. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

06/03/2002

1637

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Accordingly the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $10,766.83 from the accumulated funds pusuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 6/8/02 b/4 5:00p.m. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

06/04/2002 1638 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for order to disburse of fine money to WTFS for payment of emergent operating expenses and house mortgages [1631−1] (PWM) (Entered: 06/05/2002)

06/04/2002 1639 SETTING LETTER : in court hearing (on ADC'S Financial Status) set for 6/18/02 at 9:00 to appera in courtroom 3 9th flr. (PWM) (Entered: 06/05/2002)

06/14/2002

1640

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald On 5/30/01, Dr. Nancy K. Ray submitted an invoice for fees & expenses incurred in 4/2002. According $97,323.79 in April 2002. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. .... Dft State of Tenn i hereby ORDERED topay the amount set out in this inoivce into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 06/17/2002)

06/18/2002 1641 MOTION/REQUEST by plaintiff USA for leave to withdraw as counsel (by atty Janine Scott) (EHG) (Entered: 06/18/2002)

06/18/2002

1642

MINUTES: Type of hearing held: In Chambers (CONFIDENTIAL IN CHAMBERS MEETING − Confidential meeting minutes filed under seal) (document placed in vault) Presiding Judge: B. Donald PLA Atty: Nicole Porter DFT Atty: Lee, Campbell, Lakey, Bearman, Houseal, Schwartz, Porter, Ray, Sherman, Johnson C/R: Lynn Dudley (PWM) (Entered: 06/19/2002)

06/19/2002

1643

ORDER TO DISBURSE FINE MONEY TO WTFS FOR PAYMENT OF MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS AND EMERGENT OPERATING EXPENSES by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for order to disburse of fine money to WTFS for payment of emergent operating expenses and house mortgages .... The Court hereby ORDERES the Clerk of Court to disburse funds out of teh accumulated fines in this caes to WTFS in the amount of $60,000.00 & $80,000.00. [1631−1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 06/19/2002)

06/19/2002 1644 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement The Clerk is directed to send the sum of $965.50 (for airfare expenses incurred by the Court Monitor Nancy Ray), previously placed in the Registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (copy given to Fin. Off) (PWM) (Entered: 06/19/2002)

06/19/2002 1645 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for leave to withdraw as counsel (by atty Janine Scott) attorney Janine Scott for USA (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 06/20/2002)

06/24/2002

1646

ORDER On 6/7/02 Dr. Ray submitted an invoice for fees & expenses incurred in May 2002. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees & expenses of $75,462.97 in May 2002. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, State of Tenn is hereby ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice in to the registry of the Court. by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 06/25/2002)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 140 of 232

06/26/2002 1647 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff USA by Thomas F Urban II (PWM) (Entered: 06/27/2002)

06/27/2002

1648

MINUTES: Type of hearing held: Continuation of Fairness Court heard from Ruby Moore, Carleen Leeper, Victory Thayer, Sr., Sandra Davis, Barbara Dowell, Nadine McIntyre, Ms. Moore was tendered as an expert witness Presiding Judge: B. Donald PLA Atty: A. Bell, N. Pofer, E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry DFT Atty: L. Bearman, J.Lakey,D. Dycus, W. Sherman C/R: Lynn Dudley (PWM) (Entered: 06/28/2002)

06/28/2002 1650 MINUTES: Type of hearing held: Fairness Hearing − Continued from 6/27/02 Parties are to submit closing arguments by the end of September. Presiding Judge: B. Donald PLA Atty: A. Bell & N. Porter DFT Atty: L. Bearman, J. Lakey, D. Dycus B. Sherman C/R: Lynn Dudley (PWM) (Entered: 07/03/2002)

07/02/2002 1649 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald Pursuant ot this Court's Order entered 6/17/02, Dfts were directed to pay $97,323,78 for expenses incurred by the Court Monitor during the month of May. (copy given to Fin Off) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/02/2002)

07/08/2002 1651 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN to withdraw atty Roger Manus (PWM) (Entered: 07/09/2002)

07/09/2002

1652

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Dfts were directed to pay $75,462.97 per the Court's Order entered 6/25/02 to the Court Monitor Nancy K. Ray. The Clerk is directed to send the sum of $75,462.97, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy Ray. (copy given to fin off) (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/10/2002)

07/19/2002

1653

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to withdraw atty Roger Manus [1651−1] attorney Roger Manus for People lst of TN, attorney Roger Manus for People lst of TN − Upon review of the motion, and for good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 07/19/2002)

07/19/2002 1654 NOTICE OF FILING OF REPORTS AND INFORMATION REGARDING WTFS by defendant (filed w/ exhibits A−G) (PWM) (Entered: 07/19/2002)

07/30/2002

REMARK Certified Copy of Order # 1645 withdrawing counsel Janie Scott mailed to Janie Scott (PWM) (Entered: 07/30/2002)

08/02/2002

1655

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald Dr. Nancy K. Ray submitted an invoice for fees and expeneses for June 2002. According to the monitor, these fees and expenses totaled $75,075.42 in June 2002. Dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. All funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expenses and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by State of Tenn. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to the dfts. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 08/02/2002)

08/14/2002 1656 ORDERDIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Purusant to Court Order entered 8/2/02. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to send the sum of $75,075.42, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to Dr. Nancy K. Ray (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 08/14/2002)

08/14/2002 1657 SEALED document (Supplemental Information Regarding WTFS) by defendant Don Sundquist (filed w/ exhibit A) (document filed under seal) (document placed in vault) (PWM) Modified on 08/15/2002 (Entered: 08/15/2002)

08/30/2002

1658

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement Pursuant to the Order Following the Status Conference issued on 8/23/00, the Court finds that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC,. Accordingly the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay $15,789,14 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be pd by check to Dr. N. Ray no later than 2:00 8/30/02. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 08/30/2002)

08/30/2002 1659 ORDER on 8/12/02 the Monitor, Dr. Ray submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in 7/02. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 141 of 232

$69,369.03 in 7/2002. by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/03/2002)

09/11/2002

1660

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald Directing Clerk to disburse Funds 8/30/02 expenses incurred by the Court Monitor Nancy Ray. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to send the sum $69,369.03, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to Dr Nancy Ray. (cc: all counsel) (copy given to Fin. Off) (PWM) Modified on 09/12/2002 (Entered: 09/12/2002)

09/23/2002

1661

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement ..The Court finds that a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC, for services rendered by J. Houseal, Jr., to WTFS, Inc. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $7,147.50 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be pd by ck to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later that 9/27/02 by 2:00. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/23/2002)

09/23/2002

1662

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald 9/3/02 the Monitor Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees & expenses incurred in 8/2002. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees & expenses of $69,084.13 in 8/2002. Whereas the Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 09/23/2002)

09/26/2002

1663

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald Pursuant to the Order following a Status Conference issued by this court on 8/23/00, the Court finds that a disbursementof funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC, for services rendered by John J. Houseal, Jr., to WTFS, Inc. Accordingly the Court ORDERES the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $15,789.14 Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 9/27/02 @ 2:00 (cc: all counsel) (copy given to fin off) (PWM) (Entered: 09/26/2002)

09/26/2002 1664 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list from Fairness Hearing continued from 6/27/02 & 6/28/02 (PWM) (Entered: 09/27/2002)

09/27/2002 1665 NOTICE OF FILING OF CLOSING ARGUMENT OF PARENT GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 09/27/2002)

09/30/2002 1666 NOTICE OF FILING OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS by plaintiff USA (PWM) (Entered: 09/30/2002)

09/30/2002 1667 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement [1666−1] (PWM) (Entered: 09/30/2002)

10/01/2002

1668

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald Directing Clerk to disburse Funds Court's Order entered 9/23/02, for expenses incurred by the Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to sent the sum of $69,084.13, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray. (cc: all counsel) (copy handed Fin Off) (PWM) (Entered: 10/02/2002)

10/03/2002

1669

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald ..the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $14,672.52 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, 10/4/02. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/04/2002)

10/07/2002 1670 NOTICE OF FILING OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 10/08/2002)

10/08/2002 1671 NOTICE OF FILING OF JOINT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by People lst of TN, Tennessee, State of (filed w/ exhibit 1) (PWM) (Entered: 10/09/2002)

10/23/2002 1672 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald the Court FINDS That a disbursement of funds from the accumulated fines from this case is appropriate for the purpose of paying Glankler Brown, PLLC, for services rendered by John J. Houseal, Jr., to WTFS. Accordingly the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 142 of 232

sum of $34,973.59 from the accumulated funds purusant to the attached invoice(not attached). Said funds shall be pd by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later thant 10/18/02 by 2:00. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 10/24/2002)

10/24/2002 1673 MOTION by plaintiff USA, defendant Tennessee, State of, intervenor People lst of TN for order to reduce frequency of monthly reports & memorandum in support thereof (PWM) (Entered: 10/25/2002)

10/24/2002 1674 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendant Tennessee, State of, plaintiff USA, intervenor People lst of TN (PWM) (Entered: 10/25/2002)

10/29/2002

1675

CONSENT ORDER TO REDUCE FREQUENCY OF MONTHLY REPORTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald : ..The Court hereby ORDERS that the 8/12/99, Agreed Order is hereby modified in regard to the required frequency of the reports required pursuant to paragraphs 4d and 7 therein, and that dfts shall now issue and distribute said reports on a quarterly basis until further order of this Court. [1673−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/30/2002)

10/30/2002

1676

AMENDED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1672−1] ..the court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $34,973.59 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, 11/1/02. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 10/31/2002)

10/30/2002

REMARK : NO invoice attached to document #1676 (EHG) (Entered: 10/31/2002)

11/22/2002

1677

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald ..According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $82,978.69 in October 2002. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. ..dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/22/2002)

11/26/2002 1678 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald ..the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $71,836.02 in Sept 2002. These invoices are attached hereto as Appendix 1. ..defendant State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 11/26/2002)

11/29/2002 1679 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for leave to file written response to Monitor's reports and for hearing w/attachments (EHG) (Entered: 12/02/2002)

11/29/2002 1680 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for leave to file written response to Monitor's reports and for hearing [1679−1] (EHG) (Entered: 12/02/2002)

11/29/2002 1681 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian re motion for leave to file written response to Monitor's reports and for hearing (EHG) (Entered: 12/02/2002)

12/09/2002

MAIL Returned [1677−1] addressed to attorney Aileen Bell, for the plaintiff USA (EHG) (Entered: 12/09/2002)

12/10/2002 1686 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRITTTEN RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S REPORTS AND FOR HEARING by intervenor People lst of TN (EHG) (Entered: 12/11/2002)

12/11/2002

1682

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald ..the court Orders the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $16,538.28 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 2:00 p.m. on Fri., 12/13/02. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/11/2002)

12/11/2002

1683

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald ..The clerk of court is therefore directed to send the sum of $71,836.02, previously placed in the REgistry of the Court, to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, NKR & Associates, Inc., 318 Delaward Ave., Delmar, NY 12054. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/11/2002)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 143 of 232

12/11/2002

1684

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald ..The clerk of court is therefore directed to send the sum of $82,978.69 previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, NKR & Associates, Inc., 318 Delaware Ave., Delmar, NY 12054. (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/11/2002)

12/11/2002 1685 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting PGA's motion for leave to file written response to Monitor's reports and for hearing [1679−1] (cc: all counsel) (EHG) (Entered: 12/11/2002)

12/16/2002 1687 RESPONSE TO THE PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATIONS' MOTION TO FILE WRITTEN RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S REPORTS by plaintiff USA to [1679−1] (EHG) (Entered: 12/17/2002)

12/19/2002

MAIL Returned [1678−1], [1677−1] addressed to attorney Thomas Urban for plaintiff USA (EHG) (Entered: 12/20/2002)

12/23/2002

MAIL Returned addressed to Thams Urban US Dept of Justice (copy given to case manager to advise) [1683−1] (PWM) (Entered: 12/24/2002)

12/27/2002

MAIL Returned [1685−1] addressed to Thomas Urban, counsel for plaintiff USA (ch−CM) (BAG) (Entered: 12/27/2002)

01/06/2003 1688 ORDER − On 12/18/02, Dr. Ray submitted an invoice for fees & expenses incurred fees & expenses of $68,963.69 in 11/02. ...Dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 01/07/2003)

01/06/2003

MAIL Returned addressed to Thomas Urban @ US Dept of Justice (copy given to case manager to advise) [1675−1] (PWM) (Entered: 01/08/2003)

01/07/2003

MAIL Returned addressed to Ailieen Bell @ US Dept of Justice (copy given to case manager to advise) [1685−1] (PWM) (Entered: 01/08/2003)

01/21/2003

MAIL Returned addressed to Thomas Urban US Dept. of Justice (copy given to case manager to advise) [1684−1] (PWM) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

01/30/2003 1690 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement On 1/3/03 Dr. Nancy K. Ray submitted an invoice for fees & expenses incurreed in Dec, 2002. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees & expenses of $66, 653.85 in December 2002. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

01/30/2003

MAIL Returned [1688−1] addressed to Thomas Urban (copy given to case manager to advise) (PWM) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

02/03/2003 1691 RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S 2002 CSRs (filed w/ exhibits 1−4) (document placed under separate cover) by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 02/05/2003)

02/05/2003 1692 AGREED ORDER ON JOINT APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO PEOPLE FIRST by Judge Bernice B. Donald The parties also agree that $176,045.00 represents an appropriate award of fees & expenses. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/07/2003)

02/05/2003 1693 STATEMENT of SHARON WILLIAMS facts in support of [1691−1] (PWM) (Entered: 02/07/2003)

02/05/2003 1694 STATEMENT OF VICTORY S. THAYER (PWM) (Entered: 02/07/2003)

02/05/2003 1695 STATEMENT of CAROLYN COWANTS in support of [1691−1] (PWM) (Entered: 02/07/2003)

02/05/2003 1696 NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS EXHIBITS IN APPENDIX TO PARTENT GUARDIAN ASSOCIATINS'S RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S 2002 CSRs by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 02/07/2003)

02/10/2003

MAIL Returned addressed to Thomas Urban US Dept of Justice (copy given to case manager to advise) [1690−2] (PWM) (Entered: 02/11/2003)

02/10/2003

MAIL Returned addressed to attorney Aileen Bell U. S. Dept. of Justice (copy given to case manager to advise) [1690−2] (PWM) (Entered: 02/11/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 144 of 232

02/12/2003 1697 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1690−2] The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to send the sum of $66,653.85, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/13/2003)

02/18/2003

MAIL Returned addressed to Aileen Bell @ US Dept of Justice (copy given to case manager to advise) [1692−1] (PWM) (Entered: 02/18/2003)

02/19/2003

MAIL Returned Thomas Urban US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC (copy given to case manager to advise) [1692−1] (PWM) (Entered: 02/19/2003)

02/21/2003

1698

ORDER DENYING THE APPROVAL OF MEDIATION SETTLEEMENT AGREEMENT by Judge Bernice B. Donald The factors that weigh against the approval of the proposed MSA include 1) Pla's likelihood of success on the merits balanced against the relief offered by the proposed settleemnt, 2) the objections & concerns of the class members & other interested parties, & most importantly, 3) the public interest in protecting the Constitutional rights of the class members. Given the gravity of the factors that weigh in favor of the denial of this Court's approval of the proposed MSA, the Court finds that the proposed settlement is not fair, adequate, & reasonable. Accordingly, the Court DENIES w/o prejudice the Joint Motion of the parties for approval of the proposed Mediation Settlement Agreement. The parties are encouraged to develop & present a comprehensive & varied plan that adequately provides for the care & treatment of the medically & behaviorally fragile class. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 02/24/2003)

03/03/2003 1699 NOTICE by miscellaneous Nancy K. Ray of change of address (PWM) (Entered: 03/03/2003)

03/06/2003

MAIL Returned addressed to Thomas Urban US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC (copy given to case manager to advise) [1697−1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/07/2003)

03/10/2003 1700 MOTION by plaintiff USA to alter , or amend judgment or in the alternative for new trial (PWM) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/10/2003 1701 MOTION by plaintiff USA to exceed page limitation of 25 pages & Memorandum (PWM) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/10/2003 1702 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for leave to file Written Response to Monitor's ADC Reports (PWM) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/10/2003 1703 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for leave to file Written Response to Monitor's ADC Reports [1702−1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/10/2003 1704 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/10/2003 1705 MOTION by plaintiff USA for attorney Todd Schneider to appear pro hac vice for US Dept of Justice (PWM) (Entered: 03/11/2003)

03/11/2003 1706 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to exceed page limitation of 25 pages [1701−1] Having reviewed the US Motion to submit Memorandum in Excess of 20 pages IT IS HEREBY GRANTED. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/12/2003)

03/12/2003 1707 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for attorney Todd Schneider to appear pro hac vice for US Dept of Justice [1705−1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/13/2003)

03/12/2003

1708

ORDER On 2/7/03 the Monitor submitted an invoice for fees & expenses incurred in 1/03. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees & expenses of $86,701.18 in 1/03.... Dft State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice in to the registry of the Court. by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/13/2003)

03/12/2003 1709 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald for disbursement the Court ORDERED the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $4,190.83 from the accumulated funds purusant to the attached invoice. Said funds shall be paid by check to Glankler Brown, PLLC no later than 2:00 3/14/03. (cc: all counsel) (PWM)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 145 of 232

(Entered: 03/13/2003)

03/12/2003

1710

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for fees & expenses On 3/7/03 the Monitor submitted an invoice for fees & expenses incurred in 2/03. According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees & expenses of $81,753.66 in 2/03...State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 03/14/2003)

03/13/2003 1711 AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 03/14/2003)

03/14/2003

REMARK copies of orders 1707 − 1710 mailed to Todd Schneider @ correct address of 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. (PWM) (Entered: 03/14/2003)

03/19/2003 1712 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to motion to alter or amend judgmnet [1700−1], or in the alternative for new trial [1700−2] (PWM) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

03/19/2003 1713 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support ofi Judmgent & Response to US" Motion to alter or amend judgment, or in the alternative, for a new trial [0−0] (PWM) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

03/21/2003

MAIL Returned addressed to US Dept of Justice Thomas Urban (moved not forwardable) (copy given to case manager to advise) [1698−1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

03/21/2003 1714 RESPONSE by defendant Tennessee, State of to motion to alter [1700−1], or amend judmgnet or in the alternative for new trial [1700−2] (document filed e/ exhibit A) (PWM) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

03/24/2003

MAIL Returned Addressed to Thomas Urban @ US Dept of Justice Civil Rights Div. (Moved not forwardable) (copy given to case manager to advise) [1706−1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/27/2003)

03/26/2003 1715 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for order disburse a portion of find monies (PWM) (Entered: 03/28/2003)

03/26/2003 1716 MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for order disburse a portion of find monies [1715−1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/28/2003)

03/26/2003 1717 RESPONSE by intervenor People lst of TN to motion to alter or amend judgment [1700−1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/28/2003)

03/27/2003

MAIL Returned [1710−1], [1710−2] addressed to USA atty Thomas Urban Dept of Justice (copy given to case manager) (PWM) (Entered: 03/31/2003)

03/27/2003 1718 REPLY to PGA'S Response to USA' Motin to Alter or Amend Judgment, or in the Alternative, for New Trial by pla USA re [1717−1] (PWM) (Entered: 03/31/2003)

04/01/2003 1719 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald Directing Clerk for disbursement of Funds Clerk of Court is therefore directed to sent the sum of $81,753.66, previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy Ray. pursuant to order entered 3/12/03. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/03/2003)

04/02/2003 1720 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to motion for order disburse a portion of find monies [1715−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/03/2003)

04/04/2003 1721 RESPONSE by Tennessee, State of to motion for order disburse a portion of find monies [1715−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/07/2003)

04/07/2003 1722 MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for order disburse a portion of find monies [1715−1] (filed w/ exhibits A−C) (PWM) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

04/07/2003

MAIL Returned [1708−1] addressed to plaintiff's atty Thomas Urban @ US Dept of Justice (copy given to case manager) (PWM) (Entered: 04/08/2003)

04/10/2003 1723 MOTION by Parent−Guardian for order for Temporary Restraining Order, For Preliminary Injuntive Relief, & for Show Cause Order (PWM) Modified on 10/14/2003 (Entered: 04/11/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 146 of 232

04/10/2003 1724 MEMORANDUM BRIEF by Parent−Guardian in support of motion for order for Temporary Restraining Order, For Preliminary Injuntive Relief, & for Show Cause Order [1723−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/11/2003)

04/10/2003 1725 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 04/11/2003)

04/10/2003 1726 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald The Clerk is directed to sent the sum of $86,701.18 (per 3/12/03 order) previously placed in the Registry of the Court to Dr. Ray. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/11/2003)

04/11/2003 1727 NOTICE OF FILING OF Documents in Support of PGA Motion for Temporary restraining Order, Injunctive Relief & Show Cause Order by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 04/14/2003)

04/15/2003 1728 RESPONSE by pla USA to motion for order disburse a portion of find monies [1715−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/15/2003)

04/17/2003

1729

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOC OF ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CTR'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER (filed w/ exhibits A−C) by dft Tennessee, State of to [1723−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/17/2003)

04/22/2003 1730 ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald the Court ORDERES the Clerk of Court to pay the sum of $9,896.50 from the accumulated funds pursuant to the attached invoice. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 04/22/2003)

04/23/2003

MAIL Returned [1719−1], [1719−2] addressed to plaintiff USA's atty Thomas Urban. Envelope marked − moved, not forwardable. (SSH) Modified on 04/24/2003 (Entered: 04/24/2003)

04/24/2003

MAIL Returned [1719−2] addressed to plaintiff USA atty Todd Schneider US Dept of Justice (copy handed to case manager) (PWM) (Entered: 04/25/2003)

04/25/2003 1731 REPLY to Dfts' Response in Opposition to PGA Motion for Restraining Order, for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, & for Order Show Cause Order. by intervenor Parent−Guardian re [1729−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/28/2003)

04/28/2003 1732 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for order for Temporary Restraining Order, For Preliminary Injuntive Relief, & for Show Cause Order [1723−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/28/2003 1733 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of its response to the Partent−Guardian Assoc motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief [1732−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/28/2003 1734 RESPONSE by intervenor People lst of TN in opposition to motion for order for Temporary Restraining Order, For Preliminary Injuntive Relief, & for Show Cause Order [1723−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/28/2003 1735 MOTION by Class Representatives intervenor People lst of TN fori a mandatory preliminary injunction (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/28/2003 1736 MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN in support of motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction [1735−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/28/2003 1737 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor People lst of TN (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/29/2003 1738 RESPONSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian to motion fori a mandatory preliminary injunction [1735−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/29/2003 1739 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian to Modify Remedial order (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/29/2003 1740 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion to Modify Remedial order [1739−1], of motion response of Intervenor for a Mandatory Preliminary Injunction [1738−1] (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 147 of 232

04/29/2003 1741 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/29/2003

MAIL Returned [1726−1] addressed to pla USA's atty Todd Schneider US Dept of Justice (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/29/2003

MAIL Returned [1726−1] addressed to pla USA's atty Thomas Urban @ US Dept of Justice (PWM) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

04/30/2003 1742 PGA MEMORANDUM REPLY TO INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE Response in Opposition to PGA Motion for Temporary REstraining Order, for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, & for Show Cause Order. by intervenor Parent−Guardian re [1732−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/01/2003)

04/30/2003

1743

ORDER GRANTIGN THE MOTION OF THE WEST TENN PARENT GUARDIAN ASSOC FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRITTEN RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S ADC REPORTS by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for leave to file Written Response to Monitor's ADC Reports [1702−1] (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/01/2003)

05/02/2003 1744 SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PGA'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTTRAINING ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, & FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER by Tennessee, State of re [1723−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/05/2003)

05/07/2003 1745 REPLY by intervenor, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE TO RESPONSES OF US, Parent Gujardian Association & State of Tenn to Motion of Intervenor to Disburse a Portion of Fine Monies for Development of Microboatrds (filed w/ exhibits 1−6) re [1728−1], re [1721−1], re [1720−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/08/2003)

05/12/2003 1746 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction [1735−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/12/2003)

05/12/2003 1747 RESPONSE To Intervenor People First of Tenn's Motion for a Mandatory Preliminary Injunction by dft Tennessee, State of to [1735−1] (filed w/ exhibits 1 & 2 ) (PWM) Modified on 05/13/2003 (Entered: 05/13/2003)

05/13/2003 1748 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE by Mag Judge James H. Allen The case is reassign to Mag Judge T. Pham for all pending & future references. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/13/2003)

05/14/2003 1749 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald On 5/12/03 the Monitor submitted an invoice for fees & expenses incurred in April 2003 for $111,507.81..... State of Tenn is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. (cc: all counsel) (PWM) (Entered: 05/15/2003)

05/15/2003

MAIL Returned [1730−1] addressed to pla USA's atty Thomas Urban US Dept of Justice (PWM) (Entered: 05/15/2003)

05/15/2003

MAIL Returned [1743−1] addressed to pla's USA atty Todd Schneider US Dept of Justice (PWM) (Entered: 05/15/2003)

05/15/2003

MAIL Returned [1743−1] addressed to pla USA 's atty Thomas Urban US Dept of Justice (PWM) (Entered: 05/15/2003)

05/15/2003 1750 RESPONSE by dft Tennessee, State of to motion to Modify Remedial order [1739−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/16/2003)

05/16/2003 1751 RESPONSE by pla USA to motion to Modify Remedial order [1739−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/19/2003)

05/16/2003

MAIL Returned [1730−1] addressed to pla USA's atty Todd Schneider (chcm) (PWM) (Entered: 05/21/2003)

05/19/2003 1754 Intervenors reply to dfts RESPONSE In Opposition to Intervenor People First Motion for a Mandatory Preliminary Injunction by intervenor People lst of TN [1735−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/21/2003)

05/20/2003 1752 RESPONSE by intervenor People lst of TN to the motion of Parent−Guardian Assoc. to Modify Remedial order [1739−1] (PWM) (Entered: 05/21/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 148 of 232

05/20/2003 1753 MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PLA'S INTERENORS PEOPLE FIRST OF TENN et al., to the Motion of the Parent−Guardian Assoc. to modify the remedial order by intervenor People lst of TN (PWM) (Entered: 05/21/2003)

05/27/2003

1755

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; On 4/3/03 the Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in March; ... the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $88,961.22 in March 2003; ... dft State of TN ORDERED to pay amount set out in this invoice into registry of Court; All funds received by Clerk directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing acct and shall be used to reimburse Monitor for expense & fees up to and including total sum of money deposited by dft State of TN; Any money not spent by Monitor shall be credited to dfts; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 05/29/2003)

05/28/2003 1756 MOTION by Thomas Urban, counsel for plaintiff USA for leave to withdraw as counsel (BAG) (Entered: 05/30/2003)

05/28/2003

MAIL Returned [1748−1] addressed to Todd Schneider, counsel for plaintiff USA (ch−CM) (BAG) (Entered: 05/30/2003)

05/30/2003 1757 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian for extension of time to reply to parties' responses to PGA motion to modify remedial order (BAG) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

05/30/2003 1758 CERTIFICATE Of Consultation by intervenor Parent−Guardian re [1757−1] (BAG) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

06/03/2003 1759 ORDER Granting Request For Leave To Withdraw As Counsel by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for leave to withdraw as counsel [1756−1] withdrawing attorney Thomas F Urban II for USA (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

06/03/2003 1760 ORDER Directing Clerk To Disburse Funds by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1749−1]; The Clerk directed to send the sum of $111,507.81 previously placed in Registry of the Court to Dr. Nancy K. Ray, NKR & Associates, Inc., 318 Delaware Ave. Delmar, New York 12054; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

06/09/2003

MAIL Returned; Order transferring case, no. 92cv2062 (CCP) (Entered: 06/17/2003)

06/09/2003

MAIL Returned [1749−1] (CCP) (Entered: 06/17/2003)

06/12/2003 1761 MEMORANDUM REPLY by intervenor Parent−Guardian to response of People First Of Tennessee to motion to modify remedial order re [1752−1] (BAG) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/12/2003 1762 MEMORANDUM REPLY by intervenor Parent−Guardian to responses of USA and State of TN to motion modify remedial order re [1751−1] (BAG) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/12/2003 1763 AMENDED Certificate Of Consultation by intervenor Parent−Guardian to [1762−1], [1761−1] (BAG) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

06/16/2003 1764 NOTICE OF FILING OF by defendant Tennessee, State of (CCP) (Entered: 06/17/2003)

06/20/2003 1765 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; A invoice for fees and expenses incurred in March 2003; Any money not spent by monitor shall be credited to the defendants (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

06/23/2003 1766 ORDER Directing Clerk To Disburse Funds by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 06/26/2003)

06/30/2003 1767 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1766−1] DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 07/02/2003)

06/30/2003

MAIL Returned [1760−1] addressed to Todd Schneider United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Divisio, Special Litigation Section (CCP) (Entered: 07/09/2003)

06/30/2003

MAIL Returned [1759−1], [1759−2]; addressed to Thomas Urban United States Department of Justice (CCP) (Entered: 07/09/2003)

07/14/2003 1768 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in May 2003 (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 07/14/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 149 of 232

07/14/2003

MAIL Returned [1765−1] addressed to defendant Tennessee, State of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (CCP) (Entered: 07/15/2003)

07/14/2003

MAIL Returned [1766−1] addressed to defendant Tennessee, State of United States Department of Justice Todd Schneider (CCP) (Entered: 07/15/2003)

07/17/2003

MAIL Returned [1749−1] addressed to defendant Tennessee, State of; Todd Schneider United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Divisio (CCP) (Entered: 07/18/2003)

07/23/2003

MAIL Returned [1767−1]; as to Todd Schneider United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Divisio; (CCP) (Entered: 07/24/2003)

07/24/2003 1769 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald; pursuant to this Court's order dfts were directed to pay $86,422.62 for expenses incurred by the Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 07/25/2003)

07/25/2003

MAIL Returned [1755−1] addressed to Todd Schneider United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Divisio Special Litigation Section (CCP) (Entered: 07/25/2003)

07/31/2003

1770

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; on July 12, 2003 the Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in June 2003; the monitor incurred fees and expenses of $67,231.57 in June 2003; Court has not received any comments or objections from defendants, dft State of Tennessee is Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 08/01/2003)

08/05/2003

MAIL Returned [176−1] addressed to Todd Schneider United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Divisio Special Litigation Section (CCP) (Entered: 08/07/2003)

08/15/2003 1771 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald directing clerk to disburse funds ; dfts were directed to pay $67,231.57 for expenses incurred by the Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 08/15/2003)

08/18/2003

MAIL Returned [1770−1] addressed to Todd Schneider United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Divisio (CCP) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

08/19/2003

MAIL Returned [1769−1] addressed to Todd Schneider United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Divisio (CCP) (Entered: 08/20/2003)

09/24/2003

1772

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; On 8/15/03, the Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in July 2003; According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $73,276.55 in July 2003; Court has not received any comments or objections from defendants; State of Tennessee is ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court; (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

09/29/2003 1773 MOTION for leave to withdraw as counsel by plaintiff USA (CCP) (Entered: 10/01/2003)

09/30/2003 1774 MOTION by intervenor People lst of TN for order requiring defendants to show cause and memorandum in support (CCP) Modified on 10/14/2003 (Entered: 10/01/2003)

09/30/2003 1775 ORDER STAYING RULING ON THE MOTION OF PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE TO DISBURSE A PORTION OF FINE MONIES by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for order requiring defendants to show cause and memorandum in support [1774−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 10/01/2003)

10/02/2003 1776 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion for order for Temporary Restraining Order, For Preliminary Injuntive Relief, & for Show Cause Order [1723−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 10/02/2003)

10/06/2003 1777 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald denying as moot motion for extension of time to reply to parties' responses to PGA motion to modify remedial order [1757−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

10/06/2003 1778 ORDER Granting Leave To Withdraw as counsel by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion withdraw as counsel [1773−1] attorney Aileen M. Bell for (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 150 of 232

10/06/2003

1779

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald; dft has paid said amount into the Registry of the Court as so ordered re [1772−1]; Clerk of Court is therefore directed to send the sum of $73,276.55, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to NKR & Associates, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

10/06/2003 1780 ORDER DENTYING THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR NEW TRIAL by Judge Bernice B. Donald denying motion to alter [1700−1], denying motion for new trial [1700−2] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

10/07/2003

REMARK; a copy of order Granting leave to withdraw as counsel as to Aileen M. Bell was mailed to Aileen M. Bell on 10/7/03; document #1778 (CCP) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

10/08/2003 1781 MOTION by intervenor Parent−Guardian to extension of time to file tis response to the motion for order requiring defendants to show cause and memorandum in support; (CCP) (Entered: 10/09/2003)

10/08/2003 1782 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian; through counsel certify that in consulting with legal counsel for the parties, there is no objection to the motion for extension (CCP) (Entered: 10/09/2003)

10/14/2003 1783 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of to extend time in which to file their response to People First's motion for order requiring defendants to show cause and supporting memorandum (JAE) (Entered: 10/15/2003)

10/14/2003 1784 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendant Tennessee, State of (JAE) (Entered: 10/15/2003)

10/15/2003 1785 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff USA to extend time to file response to Intervenor People First of Tennessee's Motino for Order Requiring Defendants To Show Cause (JAE) (Entered: 10/15/2003)

10/16/2003

1786

ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion For An Extension To Respond by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to extend time in which to file their response to People First's motion for order requiring defendants to show cause [1783−1]; ...dfts, the State of TN, et al shall have until and including 11/14/03 to file their response to People First's Motion; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 10/16/2003)

10/16/2003

1787

ORDER Granting The United States' Motion For Extension Of Time To Respond To Motion For Order Requiring Defendants To Show Cause by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to extend time to file response to Intervenor People First of Tennessee's Motino for Order Requiring Defendants To Show Cause [1785−1]; The USA has until 11/14/03 to file a response to said motion; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 10/16/2003)

10/16/2003

1788

ORDER Granting West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association's Motion For Extension Of Time To Respond To Motion For Order Requiring Defendants To SHow Cause by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to extension of time to file response to the motion for order requiring defendants to show cause [1781−1]; ... PGA has until 11/14/03 to respond to said motion; (cc: all counsel) (BAG) (Entered: 10/16/2003)

10/17/2003 1789 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald State of Tennessee to pay $73,471.02 into registry of the Court for Monitor, Nancy K. Ray for August services invoice attached (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 10/17/2003)

10/17/2003 1790 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to extension of time to file tis response to the motion for order requiring defendants to show cause and memorandum in support; [1781−1] (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 10/17/2003)

10/20/2003 1791 NOTICE OF APPEAL by intervenor People lst of TN from order denying the approval of mediation settlement agreement from Dist. Court decision [1791−1] (CCP) (Entered: 10/21/2003)

10/21/2003 1792 Parent Guardian Association motion for attorney fees and costs (document placed in separate folder) (CCP) Modified on 10/21/2003 (Entered: 10/21/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 151 of 232

10/21/2003 1793 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of motion for attorney fees and costs [1792−1] (CCP) (Entered: 10/21/2003)

10/21/2003 1794 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by intervenor Parent−Guardian (CCP) (Entered: 10/21/2003)

10/21/2003 1795 NOTIFICATION form as to Carl Beard, People lst of TN, Sandra Howard, Herman Walter Runions, Harvey Richard Watson, Clarence Wilson, Keith Collins, Stevelyn Danieal Tucker sent to 6th Circuit [1791−1] with copies of docket items nos. 1698, 1780, 1791 and docket sheet (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (Entered: 10/21/2003)

10/28/2003

1796

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND GRANTING motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction [1735−1]; Court grants an injunction requiring Defendants to provide J.T. services under the ADC waiver as a member of the "at risk" class (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 10/29/2003)

11/03/2003 1797 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel); Defendant State of Tennessee was directed to pay $73,471.02 for expenses incurred in August 2003 by the court monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray (CCP) (Entered: 11/04/2003)

11/04/2003 1798 THE UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO THE PARENT−GUARDIAN ASSOCIATIONS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS by plaintiff USA to [1792−1] (CCP) (Entered: 11/05/2003)

11/04/2003

1799

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court; all funds recieved by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expense and fees up to and including the total sum of the the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee; (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 11/05/2003)

11/04/2003 1800 ORDER DISBURSING PORTION OF FINE MONEY TO WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SOLUTION by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Court hereby directs the Clerk of the Court to disburse funds out of the accumulated fines in this case to WTFS in the amount of $250,000.00 (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 11/05/2003)

11/06/2003

1801

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald denying motion to Modify Remedial order [1739−1]; ..Court fines that there has been no change in law, which would warrant the modification of the Remedial Order , likewise, Court cannot conclude there has been a change in factual conditions so significant to warrant the modification of the Remedial Order (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 11/07/2003)

11/06/2003 1802 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for attorney fees in the amount of $8,854.20 to be paid to the Firm of Glanker Brown, PLLC no later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday November 7, 2003 (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 11/07/2003)

11/06/2003 1803 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for attorney fees in the amount of $844.53 to be paid to the firm Glanker Brown, PLLC no later htan 2:00 p.m. Friday, November 7, 2003 (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 11/07/2003)

11/06/2003 1804 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for attorney fees to be paid to Glanker Brown in the amount of $10,404.78 no later than 2:00 p.m., November 7, 2003 (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 11/07/2003)

11/06/2003 1805 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald for attorney fees to be paid to the firm Glanker Brown, PLLC in the amount of $14,721.43 no later than 2:00 p.m., November 7, 2003 (cc: all counsel) (JAE) (Entered: 11/07/2003)

11/07/2003 1806 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by defendant State of Tennessee, to motion for attorney fees and costs [1792−1] (JAE) (Entered: 11/07/2003)

11/07/2003

NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 03−6389; A. Crockett case manager (SSH) (Entered: 11/12/2003)

11/13/2003 1807 DEFENDANTS' MOTION to alter or amend order granting mandatory preliminary injunction (CCP) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 152 of 232

11/13/2003 1808 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion to alter or amend order granting mandatory preliminary injunction [1807−1] (CCP) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

11/13/2003 1809 RESPONSE OF WEST TENNESSEE PARENT GAURDIAN ASSOCIATION TO MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by intervenor Parent−Guardian (CCP) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

11/13/2003 1810 MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PGA RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE by intervenor Parent−Guardian in support of response [1809−1] (CCP) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

11/14/2003 1811 THE UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE by plaintiff USA to [1774−1] (CCP) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

11/14/2003 1812 RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION FOR A SHOW CAUSE ORDER by defendant Tennessee, State of to [1774−1] (w/attached exhibits 1−8) (document placed in separte folder) (CCP) (Entered: 11/17/2003)

11/28/2003 1813 RESPONSE TO STATE OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER GRANTING MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by plaintiff USA to [1807−1] (CCP) (Entered: 12/01/2003)

12/01/2003 1814 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND ORDER GRANTING MANDATORY PRELIMINART INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM by intervenor People lst of TN to [1807−1] (CCP) (Entered: 12/02/2003)

12/05/2003 1815 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff USA from Dist. Court decision [1815−1]; from the Order Denying the Motion of the United States to Alter or Amend Judgment, or in the Alternative For New Trial, entered on the 10/7/03 (CCP) (Entered: 12/05/2003)

12/05/2003 1819 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff USA from Dist. Court decision [1819−1] (This appeal is a duplicate of docket #1815 and is termed per 6th Circuit COA) (CCP) Modified on 01/07/2004 (Entered: 12/17/2003)

12/09/2003

1816

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Pursuant to this Court's Order entered 11/5/03, dft State of Tennessee was directed to pay $77,879.45 for expenses incurred in September 2003 by the Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray; Clerk of Court is therefore directed to sum of $77,879.45, previously placed in the Registry of the Court; (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 12/10/2003)

12/12/2003 1817 NOTIFICATION form as to USA sent to 6th Circuit [1815−1] with copies of docket items nos. 1698, 1780, 1815 and docket sheet. Abbreviated docket sent to counsel. (cc: all counsel) (SSH) Modified on 12/12/2003 (Entered: 12/12/2003)

12/16/2003 1818 INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S DRAFT REPORT ON THE COMPLIANCE WITH MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE REMEDIAL ORDER by intervenors (CCP) (Entered: 12/17/2003)

12/19/2003 1820 SUNRISE COMMUNITY OF TENNESSEE, INC.'S MOTION to intervene (CCP) (Entered: 12/22/2003)

12/19/2003 1821 MEMORANDUM by intervenor Sunrise Community in support of motion to intervene [1820−1] (CCP) (Entered: 12/22/2003)

12/22/2003

NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 03−6628; A. Crockett case manager (SSH) (Entered: 12/23/2003)

12/29/2003 1822 NOTIFICATION form as to USA sent to 6th Circuit [1819−1] with copies of docket items nos. 1698, 1780, 1819 and docket sheet (cc: all counsel) (NOTE: counsel sent abbreviated docket sheeet.) (SSH) (Entered: 12/29/2003)

12/30/2003 1823 AGREED ORDER REGARDING ABUSE AND NEGLECT PREVENTION COMMITTEE AT ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 12/31/2003)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 153 of 232

12/30/2003

1824

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald re: 12/5/03, monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in November 2003; According to this invoice, the Monitor incrred fees and expenses of $82,072.35 in November 2003; Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court; (w/attachment) (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 12/31/2003)

12/30/2003

1825

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; On December 24, 2003, the Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ry, submitted four invoices for fees and expenses incurred by Glankler Brown, PLLC; Court has not received any comments or objections from dfts, dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court; all funds received by the Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited in to an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reimburse Glankler Brown, PLLC for its expenses and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by dft State of Tennessee (w/attachment) (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 12/31/2003)

12/31/2003 1826 AGREED ORDER REGARDING GUIDELINES FOR THE DISBURSEMENT OF COURT FINE MONIES by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 12/31/2003)

01/05/2004 1827 NOTICE OF FILING OF RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S DRAFT REPORT OF THE STATE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE REMEDIAL ORDER by defendants (w/attached exhibit)(document placed in separate folder) (CCP) (Entered: 01/06/2004)

01/06/2004 1828 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of to reconsider court's order dated December 31, 2003 (CCP) (Entered: 01/06/2004)

01/06/2004 1829 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion to reconsider court's order dated December 31, 2003 [1828−1] (CCP) (Entered: 01/06/2004)

01/06/2004 1830 THE UNITED STATES' UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff USA for an extension of time to file its response to Sunrise Community Of Tennessee's ("Sunrise") motion to Intervene in this action (CCP) (Entered: 01/06/2004)

01/06/2004 1831 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY SUNRISE COMMUNITY OF TENNESSEE, INC. by defendant Tennessee, State of to [1820−1] (CCP) (Entered: 01/06/2004)

01/13/2004 1832 TRANSCRIPT Order Form 4/30, 6/27−28 of 2002 re: Fairness Hearing (CCP) (Entered: 01/13/2004)

01/13/2004

1833

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; on 11/11/03, the monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenases incurred in October 2003; According to this invoice, the monitor incurred fees and expenses of $79, 437. 14 in October 2003; dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 01/14/2004)

01/14/2004 1834 INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO SUNRISE COMMUNITY OF TENNESSEE, INC.'S MOTION TO INTERVENE by intervenor People lst of TN to [1820−1] (CCP) (Entered: 01/14/2004)

01/16/2004 1835 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Defendant State of Tennessee is hereby Ordered to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court; According to this invoice, Glankler Brown, PLLC incurred fees and expenses of $9, 883.20 through 10/31/03 (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 01/16/2004)

01/16/2004 1836 THE UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO SUNRISE COMMUNITY OF TENNESSEE, INC.'S MOTION TO INTERVENE by plaintiff USA to [1820−1] (CCP) (Entered: 01/16/2004)

01/20/2004 1837 UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO STATE OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT'S ORDER DATED DECEMBER 31, 2003 by plaintiff USA to [1828−1] (CCP) (Entered: 01/21/2004)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 154 of 232

01/22/2004 1838 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of for reconsider court's order dated January 16, 2004 (CCP) (Entered: 01/23/2004)

01/22/2004 1839 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion for reconsider court's order dated January 16, 2004 [1838−1] (CCP) (Entered: 01/23/2004)

01/27/2004 1840 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Clerk of Court is directed to sum of $79,437.14, previously placed in the Registry of the court, to NKR & Associates, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 01/28/2004)

01/29/2004

1842

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Defendant State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice in to the registry of the Court; According to the invoice, Glankler Brown, PLLC incurred fees and expenses of $9, 883. 20 for services rendered in October 2003 (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/02/2004)

01/30/2004 1841 REPLY TO RESPONSE OF PEOPLE FIRST IN OPPOSITION TO SUNRISE COMMUNITY OF TENNESSEE, INC.'S MOTION TO INTERVENE by intervenor Sunrise Community (CCP) (Entered: 02/02/2004)

01/30/2004

1843

AGREED ORDER REGARDING TEMPORARY ADMISSION OF HERMAN R. TO A LONG−TERM REHABILITATION FACILITY by Judge Bernice B. Donald; ORDERS that class member Herman R. may be temporarily admitted to the Specialty Select Unit at St. Francis Hospital until sufficiently stable to return to his community home (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/02/2004)

02/03/2004 1844 AGREED ORDER AMENDING ORDER ENTERED ON october 29, 2003, GRANTING INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Bernice B. Donald re [1796−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/04/2004)

02/04/2004 1845 UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO STATE OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT'S ORDER DATED JANUARY 16, 2004 by plaintiff USA to [1838−1] (CCP) (Entered: 02/05/2004)

02/05/2004 1846 MOTION by defendant Tennessee, State of for reconsider court's order dated February 2, 2004 (CCP) (Entered: 02/06/2004)

02/05/2004 1847 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tennessee, State of in support of motion for reconsider court's order dated February 2, 2004 [1846−1] (CCP) (Entered: 02/06/2004)

02/17/2004 1848 ORDER APPROVING TEMPORARY ADMISSION OF HERMAN R. TO SKILLED NURSING FACILITY by Judge Bernice B. Donald; admitted to St. Peter for a period of time no greater than ninety (90) days from the date of Mr. R.'s transfer to St. Peter; (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

02/17/2004 1849 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting USA motion for an extension of time [1830−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

02/17/2004 1850 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting State of Tennessee motion for reconsider court's order dated February 2, 2004 [1846−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

02/17/2004 1851 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting State Of Tennessee motion for reconsider court's order entered December 30, 2003, and January 16, 2004; amending the court's orders entered december 30, 2003, and January 16, 2004; and directing the clerk of the court to disburse fine monies (CCP) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

02/17/2004 1852 ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT DEFENDANT STATE OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND COURT'S ORDER GRANTING MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Bernice B. Donald [1807−1] moot. (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

02/17/2004 1853 REPLY TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO SUNRISE COMMUNITY OF TENNESSEE, INC.'S MOTION TO INTERVENE by intervenor Sunrise Community re [1845−1] (CCP) (Entered: 02/18/2004)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 155 of 232

02/18/2004 1854 THE UNITED STATES' Motion for leave to file written response to show cause motion ; moves for leave to file a written response to Intervenor People First of Tennessee's (CCP) (Entered: 02/19/2004)

02/20/2004 1855 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting United States' motion for leave to file written response to show cause motion (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/23/2004)

02/23/2004 1856 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; State of Tennesse is to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court; According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $76,825.58 in November 2003 (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 02/24/2004)

03/03/2004 1857 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting motion to reconsider court's order dated December 31, 2003 [1828−1]; the court finds that payment of these fees and expenses should be made through a disbursement of fine monies (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 03/03/2004)

03/09/2004 1858 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/28/02 of FAIRNESS HEARING PROCEEDINGS Court Reporter: Lynn Dudley (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) y (CCP) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/09/2004 1859 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 6/27/02 of FAIRNESS HEARING PROCEEDINGS Court Reporter: Lynn Dudley (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) y (CCP) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/09/2004 1860 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/30/02 of PROCEEDINGS Court Reporter: Lynn Dudley (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) y (CCP) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/09/2004 1861 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 4/30/02 of FAIRNESS HEARING Court Reporter: Lynn Dudley (DOCUMENT PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER) y (CCP) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/09/2004 1862 UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION by plaintiff USA for attorney R. Jonas Geissler to appear pro hac vice (CCP) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/09/2004 1863 CERTIFICATE OF R. JONAS GEISSlER by plaintiff USA (CCP) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/09/2004 1864 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald denying Parent Guardian Association's motion for attorney fees and costs [1792−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/10/2004 1865 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting USA motion for attorney R. Jonas Geissler to appear pro hac vice [1862−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/17/2004 1866 NOTICE REGARDING HERMAN R.'S TRANSFER TO A LICENSED SKILLED FACILITY by defendant Tennessee, State of (CCP) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/17/2004 1867 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Clerk of Cout is directed to disburse the sum of $76.825.58, previously placed in the Registry of the court, To NKR & Associates, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/17/2004 1868 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Clerk of Court is directed to disburse the sum of $82,072.35, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to NKR & Associates, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

03/19/2004

1869

ORDER Entered: 3/16/04 from 6th Circuit: defendants−appellants, the State of Tennessee and officers thereof, move to reconsider the order of 2/5/04, that denied the joint motion to reinstate this appeal. Upon consideration, the motion to reinstate case no. 00−6120 and the stay previously entered in that case is granted. Upon the completion of briefing, cases nos. 00−6120 and 03−6628/6389 shall be consolidated for submission only (SSH) (Entered: 03/19/2004)

03/30/2004 1870 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SUNRISE COMMUNITY OF TENNESSEE, INC.'S by intervenor Sunrise Community re motion to intervene [1820−1] (CCP) (Entered: 04/01/2004)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 156 of 232

04/05/2004 1871 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting People First of Tennessee motion for order requiring defendants to show cause and memorandum in support [1774−1](Findings, Reference and Footnotes 2 placed in separate folder) (cc: all counsel)(CCP) Modified on 04/22/2004 (Entered: 04/05/2004)

04/05/2004

1872

AGREED ORDER APPROVING TEMPORARY ADMISSION OF HERMAN R. TO LICENSED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY by Judge Bernice B. Donald; The State shall provide monthly reports to the Court Monitor and the parties regarding the status of Mr. R., including his medical conditions and the status of the development of his community placement and his transition to the community (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 04/05/2004)

04/07/2004 1873 NOTICE OF APPEAL by intervenor Parent−Guardian from Dist. Court decision [1864−1] (CCP) (Entered: 04/07/2004)

04/08/2004 1874 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $79,074.35 in February 2004; Dft State of Tennessee is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court (cc: all counsel) (CCP) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 04/08/2004)

04/08/2004 1875 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; According to this invoice, the Monitor incurred fees and expenses of $82,304.26 in January 2004; Dft State of Tennesse is hereby ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 04/08/2004)

04/08/2004 1876 NOTIFICATION form as to Parent−Guardian sent to 6th Circuit [1873−1] with copies of docket items nos. 1864, 1873 and docket sheet (cc: all counsel) (SSH) (Entered: 04/08/2004)

04/23/2004 1877 TRANSCRIPT Order Form; Judith Gran counsel for plaintiffs−appellants (CCP) (Entered: 04/26/2004)

04/26/2004 1878 RECEIVED appeal fee in amount of $ 255.00 ( Receipt # M87802) from William F. Sherman, Atty. At Law as to N/A West Tennessee Parent Guardian Associ (CCP) (Entered: 04/27/2004)

04/26/2004 1879 TRANSCRIPT Order Form; William F. Sherman counsel for Intervenor PGA (CCP) (Entered: 04/27/2004)

04/30/2004 1880 TRANSCRIPT Order Form 2/13/02; Judge Donald C/R Brenda Parker (CCP) (Entered: 04/30/2004)

05/03/2004

NOTIFICATION by 6th Circuit Court Number 04−5429; A. Crockett case manager (SSH) (Entered: 05/03/2004)

05/03/2004 1881 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Clerk of Court is therefore directed to disburse the sum of $161,378.61, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to NKR & Associates, Inc.; (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 05/04/2004)

05/03/2004

1882

ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald; the monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray, submitted an invoice for fees and expenses incurred in March 2004; the Monitor incurred fees and expenses in the amount of $127,999.32 in March 2004; dft is ORDERED to pay the amount set out int his invoice into the registry of the Court (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 05/04/2004)

05/03/2004 1883 REQUEST by plaintiff USA for leave to withraw as counsel; as to Nicole Porter (CCP) (Entered: 05/04/2004)

05/03/2004 1884 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF FILING OF NEW RATE STRUCTURE AND HOUSING SUBSIDY POLICES (CCP) (Entered: 05/04/2004)

05/04/2004 1885 AGREED ORDER REGARDING USE OF FINE MONIES BY WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SOLUTIONS by Judge Bernice B. Donald (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 05/04/2004)

05/04/2004 1886 ORDER by Judge Bernice B. Donald granting Nicole Porter request for leave to withdraw as counsel [1883−1] (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 05/04/2004)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 157 of 232
05/19/2004 1887 MOTION by defendant for protective order to limit discovery tour to 8 hrs a day, limit to 4 hrs w/out a 1 hr meal break ; limited to regular business days M−F (JAE) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
05/19/2004 1888 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for protective order [1887−1] (JAE) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
05/19/2004 1889 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION by defendants re: motion for protective order (JAE) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
05/24/2004 1890 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS by Judge Bernice B. Donald; Clerk of Court is therefore directed to disburse the sum of $127,999.32, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to NKR & Associates, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (CCP) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
06/07/2004 1891 CROSS MOTION to Compel Discovery by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
06/07/2004 1892 MEMORANDUM OF FACTS AND LAW IN OPPOSITION by USA re STATE OF TENNESSEE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1887 AND IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES' CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, 1891 (jae, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
06/07/2004 1893 AFFIDAVIT/CERTIFICATION OF TODD J. SCHNEIDER. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
06/08/2004 1894 RESPONSE in Opposition re 1891 United States' Cross MOTION to Compel filed by Tennessee, State of. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
06/08/2004 1895 AFFIDAVIT /DECLARATION OF JONATHAN P. LAKEY. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
06/08/2004 1896 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF DIANNE STAMEY DYCUS. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
06/08/2004 1897 ORDER referring 1891 Motion to Compel To Magistrate Judge for Determination.Motion referred to Judge Pham. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
06/10/2004 1898 SETTING LETTER: Expedited Hearing on the Defendants' motion for protective order and United States' Cross motion to compel discovery set for 6/17/2004 01:30 PM before Tu M. Pham. (ccp, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
06/16/2004 1899 JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY by Tennessee, State of, USA. (ccp, ) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
06/21/2004 1900 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing for proceedings held on 2/13/02 before Judge Donald.. (ccp, ) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
06/23/2004 1901 ORDER withdrawing 1887 Motion for Protective Order, withdrawing 1891 Motion to Compel, granting 1899 Motion to Withdraw . Signed by Judge Tu M. Pham. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
06/25/2004 1902 SEALED TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 2/13/02. (DOCUMENT PLACED UNDER SEAL) (ccp, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
06/29/2004 1903 ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION of Funds in the amount of $81,985.76 to Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray for fees and expenses incurred in April 2004. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
06/29/2004 1904 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION by Tennessee, State of ; State of Tennessee will take the dposition of Sheela L. Stuart on 7/6/04 at 9:00am (ccp, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
06/29/2004 1905 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION by Tennessee, State of ; State Of Tennessee will take deposition of Alan Edward Harchik on 7/8/04 at 9:00am (ccp, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
06/29/2004 1906 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NOTICE IN REGARD TO THE UPCOMING SHOW CAUSE HEARING by Tennessee, State of. (ccp, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 158 of 232

06/29/2004 1907 MEMORANDUM in Support OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, NOTICE IN REGARD TO THE UPCOMING SHOW CAUSE HEARING re 1906 MOTION . (ccp, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)

06/29/2004 1908 Certificate of CONSULTATION by Tennessee, State of. (ccp, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)

07/07/2004 1909 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk of court is directed to disburse sum of $81,985.76 to NKR & Associates, Inc., 318 Delaware Avenue, Delmar, New York, 12054. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 07/08/2004)

07/09/2004 1910 ORDER SCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCETelephonic Pretrial Conference set for 7/16/2004 02:00 PM before Bernice B. Donald.. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 07/12/2004)

07/14/2004 1911 ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION of Funds. Defendant State of Tennessee is ORDERED to pay $103,926.97 into the registry of the Court to be used to reimburse the Monitor for her expenses and fees up to and including total sum of money deposited by Defendant. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 07/14/2004)

07/16/2004

1912

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Status Conference held on 7/16/2004. parties are in mediation proceedings/negotiations and feel an extended time for the proceeding may broung resolution to matter. Parties will submit agreed order outlining scope of discovery, evidence & pretrial issues that will be discussed at contempt hrg. Contempt Hearing set for 11/15/2004 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald. (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.) (jae, ) (Entered: 07/22/2004)

07/27/2004

1913

ORDER RESETTING HEARING ON SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND ESTABLISHING DISCOVERY DEADLINES. Show Cause Hearing REset for 11/15/2004 09:00 AM before Bernice B. Donald. Court orders counsel for parties to consult and present to court on or before 8/5/04, an agreed Pretrial Order that establishes discovery deadlines related to Show Cause Hearing. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)

07/28/2004 1914 ORDER : Defendant State of Tennessee is Ordered to pay $84,691.93 into registry of the Court. Funds shall be used to reimburse the Monitor for expenses & fess up to and including total sum of money deposited. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)

08/04/2004 1915 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk of Court is directed to disburse the sum of $103,926.97, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to NKR & Associates, Inc.. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 08/05/2004)

08/05/2004 1916 PRETRIAL ORDER FOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING: Court established deadlines for Show Cause Hearing. Pretrial Conference set for 11/30/2004 01:00 PM before Bernice B. Donald. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 08/05/2004)

08/23/2004 1917 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail [1915, 1916] sent to R. Geissler (cc: cm) (jae, ) (Entered: 08/24/2004)

08/23/2004 1918 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail [1915, 1916] sent to Todd Schneider (cc: cm) (jae, ) (Entered: 08/24/2004)

08/23/2004 1919 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail [1915, 1916] sent to Nicole Porter (cc: cm) (jae, ) (Entered: 08/24/2004)

08/23/2004 1920 DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association re 1873 Notice of Appeal (ssh, ) (Entered: 08/24/2004)

08/23/2004 1922 ORDER of USCA (entered 8/18/04) Upon consideration of the appellant's motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal herein...It is ordered that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed as to 1873 Notice of Appeal filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association (ssh, ) (Entered: 08/24/2004)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 159 of 232

08/24/2004 1921 ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION of Funds. Clerk is directed to disburse the sum of $84,691.93 to NKR & Associates, Inc. for payment of expenses incurred in June 2004 by Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 08/24/2004)

09/09/2004 1923 UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ORDER 1916 CONTINUING SHOW CAUSE HEARING (jae, ) (Entered: 09/10/2004)

09/10/2004 1924 ORDER denying Sunrise Community Of Tennessee, Inc's 1820 Motion to Intervene Motion to interevene is untimely..therefore denied. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

09/10/2004 1925 ORDER : Defendants, State of Tennessee is ORDERED to pay $64,906.44 into the registry of the court for fees and expenses incurred by Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

09/20/2004

1926

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FINE MONIES RELATIVE TO PAYMENT OF CERTAIN LEGAL COSTS OF ST. JOHNS COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. Clerk is ordered to disburse $34,366.00 to St. Johns Community Services, Inc. for legal expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 09/20/2004)

09/28/2004 1927 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk is ordered to disburse sum of $64,906.44 to NKR & Associates. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

10/07/2004 1928 ORDER : Defendant State of Tennessee is Ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 10/08/2004)

10/18/2004 1929 MOTION Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Motion For Show Cause Order and Motion For Permananent Injunction by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (jae, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)

10/18/2004 1930 MEMORANDUM BRIEF in Support re 1929 MOTION Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Permanent Injunction MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (jae, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)

10/18/2004 1931 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 1929 MOTION Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, For Show Cause Order and for Permananent Injunction by William F. Sherman on behalf of West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association (jae, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)

10/22/2004 1932 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk is directed to pay $80,329.52 for expenses of August 2004 by Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy Ray to NKR & Associates, Inc.. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 10/22/2004)

10/25/2004

1933

ORDER CONTINUING SHOW CAUSE HEARING. Hearing will be rescheduled at a future date. In lieu of show cause hearing, Status Conference to establish new discovery ddls and set date for show cause hearing, if needed set for 12/2/2004 09:00 AM before Bernice B. Donald. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 10/25/2004)

10/25/2004 1934 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE WEST TENNESSEE PARENT GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER, AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTOIN.. re 1929 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (ehg, ) (Entered: 10/27/2004)

10/25/2004 1935 RESPONSE to Motion re 1929 MOTION Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Permanent Injunction MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 10/28/2004)

11/02/2004 1936 NOTICE OF FILING OF NEW RATE STRUCTURE by Defendant Tennessee, State of (jae, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)

11/19/2004 1937 ORDER: Dft State of TN is ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the registry of the court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 11/19/2004)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 160 of 232

11/22/2004 1938 JOINT MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses to Plaintiffs/Intervener, People First of Tennessee by USA, Tennessee, State of. (jae, ) (Entered: 11/22/2004)

12/02/2004

1939

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Status Conference held on 12/2/2004. Parties People First, United States and State of Tennessee have reached a settlement agreement. Parties request court to continue the contempt hearing w/out prejudice to sllow St of TN to preform under this agreement. Parties will present to the Court w/in 7−10 days a final settlement agreemeant with a motion to postpone the contempt issues. Parties will dismiss appeals if agreement is accepted by the Court. (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley. Attys−Schneider, Geissler, Frazier, Dycus, Lakey, Bearman, Schwarz, Derryberry, Sherman, Ray.) (jae, ) (Entered: 12/03/2004)

12/14/2004 1940 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk is to disburse sum of $91,902.82 to NKR & Associates, Inc.. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/15/2004)

12/14/2004 1941 AGREED ORDER granting 1938 Joint Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses to People First. Attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $264,019.04 to be paid to People First. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/15/2004)

12/15/2004 1942 MOTION to Set Aside/SUSPEND WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1871 Order Requiring Defendant To Appear and Show Cause by People First of Tennessee, USA, Tennessee, State of. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)

12/15/2004 1943 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1942 MOTION to Set Aside/Suspend Without Prejudice 1871 Order Requiring Defendants To Appear and Show Cause filed by People First of Tennessee, USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)

12/15/2004 1944 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1942 Joint MOTION to Set Aside/Suspend Without Prejudice 1871 Order Requiring Defendants To Appear And Show Cause filed by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)

12/15/2004 1945 ORDER granting 1942 Motion to Set Aside/Suspend Order Requiring Defendants To Appear and Show Cause . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)

12/16/2004 1946 ERRATA by People First of Tennessee TO re 1942 JOINT MOTION to Set Aside/Suspend Without Prejudice 1871 Order Requiring Defendant To Appear and Show Cause. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)

12/17/2004 1947 ORDER : Defendant State of Tennessee is ORDERED to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the registry of the court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/17/2004)

12/21/2004 1948 USA's Response to State of Tennessee's re 1936 Notice of Filing For Proposed Rate Structure. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)

12/27/2004 1949 ORDER For State of Tennessee to pay amount set out in the invoice for fees and expenses for November, 2004 to Registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/28/2004)

12/28/2004 1950 Intervenor Class Representive, Parent Guardian Association re 1936 Response To State of Tennessee's Notice Of Filing Of Proposed Rate Structure. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)

12/28/2004 1951 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, For Order Disapproving The Settlement Agreement and for Injunctive Relief by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (document placed in separate folder) (jae, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)

12/29/2004 1952 SETTING LETTER:Motion Hearing (temporary restraining order) set for 1/10/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)

12/30/2004 1953 Defendant State of Tennessee's Reply to the United States' Response 1948 to State of Tennessee's Notice of Filing Regarding New Rate Structure 1936 . (jae, ) (Entered: 01/03/2005)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 161 of 232

01/04/2005 1954 RESPONSE to Motion re 1951 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, For Order Disapproving The Settlement Agreement and For Injunctive Relief filed by Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/05/2005)

01/05/2005 1955 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Response to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, for Order Disapproving the Settlement Agreement, and for Injunctive Relief (PGA motion) by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/05/2005)

01/05/2005 1956 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 1955 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by R. Jonas Geissler on behalf of USA (jae, ) (Entered: 01/05/2005)

01/05/2005 1957 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE to Motion re 1951 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, For Order Disapproving The Settlement Agreement and For Injunctive Relief filed by People First of Tennessee, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/06/2005)

01/05/2005 1958 NOTICE OF FILING DECLARATION OF DR. NANCY K. RAY IN OPPOSITION TO 1951 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by People First of Tennessee. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/06/2005)

01/05/2005 1959 STATEMENT OF DR. NANCY K. RAY (jae, ) (Entered: 01/06/2005)

01/06/2005 1960 ORDER granting 1955 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/06/2005)

01/07/2005 1961 MOTION in Limine To Bar Admission of Certain Evidence Regarding Parent Guardian Association's Motion For Temporary Restraining Order by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/10/2005)

01/07/2005 1962 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1961 MOTION in Limine To Bar Admission of Certain Evidence Regarding Parent Guardian Associaion's Motion For Temporary Restraining Order filed by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/10/2005)

01/07/2005 1963 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 1961 MOTION in Limine by Todd Schneider on behalf of USA (jae, ) (Entered: 01/10/2005)

01/10/2005 1964 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Kimbrough Brown Mullins (Bar# 10917) for Diane Spears by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/10/2005)

01/10/2005

1965

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Motion Hearing held on 1/10/2005 re 1951 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Order Disapproving the Settlement Agreement and for Injunctive Relief by PGA and 1964 MOTION to Substitute Attorney filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. Motion for temporary restraining order taken under advisement/Order to enter. PGA Proof: Carolyn Cowans, Victory Thayee, Deborah Essery, Jane Ricketts, June Clayton, Norma Smith, Dr. Nancy Ray. Motion to substitute attorney by PGA − granted. Oral motion by State of TN to dismiss motion for temporary restraining order taken under advisement−−court will issue written ruling, Court will then follow−up w/present hrg by following suggestions of parties w/a conference w/the attorneys concerning the settlement and a more public forum to discuss the agreement w/the class members and those involved. (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.) (jae, ) (Entered: 01/11/2005)

01/12/2005 1966 ORDER. For good cause show as stated on the record granting in part and denying in part 1961 Motion in Limine To Bar Admission of Certain Evidence Regarding Parent Guardian Association's Motion For Temporary Restraining Order . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

01/13/2005 1967 ORDER APPROVING SUBSTITUTION OF LOCAL ATTORNEY re 1964 filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. Kimbrough Brown Mullins substituting as attorney for Diane Spears. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)

01/18/2005

1968

ORDER DENYING THE ORE TENUS MOTION (oral) OF DEFENDANT TO DISMISS THE MOTION OFPARENT GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. PGA provided prima facie evidence that a preliminary injunction is appropriate..accordingly Court denies defendant's ore tenus motion to dismiss motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, )

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 162 of 232

(Entered: 01/18/2005)

01/19/2005 1969 Exhibit and Witness List for Motion Hearing on Temporary Restraining Order before Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/10/05. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/19/2005)

01/21/2005 1970 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk is directed to Pay NKR & Associates, Inc. the sum of $83,975.86 for expenses incurred in October, 2004. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/21/2005)

01/21/2005 1971 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk is directed to issued check to NKR & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $64,864.00 for expenses incurred in November, 2004. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 01/21/2005)

02/23/2005 1972 MOTION for Leave to Appear Special Admission of Darcey Kathleen Donehey by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 02/24/2005)

02/28/2005 1973 ORDER granting 1972 Motion For Special Admittance to represent the United States in this case. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)

03/08/2005

1975

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Informal Conference held on 3/8/2005. Discussion on establishing an agreed plan. Parties proposed future meeting. Follow−up conference to be set. Report to be submitted by the parties w/in 90 days of meeting between Dr. Ray and Deputy corner. Norris settlement agreement possible subject to sanction by the court. (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley..) (jae, ) (Entered: 03/14/2005)

03/11/2005 1974 SETTING LETTER:Motion (for temporary restraining order) Hearing set for 4/26/2005 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 03/14/2005)

03/14/2005 1976 ORDER: Dft State of TN is ordered to pay $74,212.85 into the registry of the court for payment of fees and expenses for invoice filed for December, 2004 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 03/14/2005)

03/17/2005 1977 ORDER : State of Tennessee is ORDERED to pay $76,305.67 into the registry of the Court for fees and expenses for January, 2005 incurred by Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 03/18/2005)

03/24/2005 1978 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk of court is therefore directed to disburse the sum of $74,212.85 to NKR & Associates, Inc. for expenses in curred in December, 2004 by the Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 03/25/2005)

03/31/2005 1979 Mail 1977 Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to William Sherman (jae, ) (Entered: 03/31/2005)

04/04/2005 1980 Mail 1978] Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to William Sherman (cc: cm) (jae, ) (Entered: 04/05/2005)

04/06/2005 1981 JOINT MOTION and Supporting Memorandum to Continue Hearing on Motion For Temporary Restraining Order by Intervenor People First of Tennessee, Plaintiff USA, and Defendant Tennessee, State of. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)

04/06/2005 1982 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 1981 MOTION to Continue by Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr, Dianne Stamey Dycus, Jonathan P. Lakey on behalf of People First of Tennessee, USA, Tennessee, State of (jae, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)

04/08/2005 1983 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE to Joint Motion re 1981 MOTION and Supporting Memorandum to Continue Hearing filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/11/2005)

04/11/2005 1984 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk is directed to disburse the sum of $76,305.67 to NKR & Associates for expenses incurred in January, 2005. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/11/2005)

04/11/2005 1985 ORDER GRANTING 1981 JOINT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., PLAINTIFF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND INTERVENOR PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 163 of 232
Motion Hearing set for 7/25/2005 thru 7/29/05 at 09:00 AM before Bernice B. Donald. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
04/13/2005 1986 NOTICE of Change of Address and Firm Change of counsel Jonathan P. Lakey (for State of Tennessee) (jae, ) (Entered: 04/13/2005)
04/14/2005 1987 MOTION for Order Granting Application For Disbursement of Fine Monies Relative To West Tennessee Family Solutions by Intervenors People First of Tennessee. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
04/14/2005 1988 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1987 MOTION For Order Granting Application for Disbursement of Fine Monies Relative To West Tennessee Family Solutions filed by People First of Tennessee. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
04/14/2005 1989 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 1987 MOTION for Disbursement of Fine Monies by Edward G. Connette, Jack W. Derryberry, Judith A. Gran, Earle J. Schwarz on behalf of People First of Tennessee (jae, ) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
04/15/2005 1990 NOTICE OF FILING ATTACHMENT by People First of Tennessee re 1988 Memorandum in Support of Motion For Order Granting Application For Disbursement of Fine Mones Relative To West Tennessee Family Solutions. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
04/20/2005 1991 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE re 1987 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds To West Tennessee Family Solutions filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
04/22/2005 1992 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 1987 People First of Tennessee's MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Relative To West Tennessee Family Solutions by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/25/2005)
04/22/2005 1993 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1992 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 1987 People First of Tennessee's MOTION for Disbursement of Funds Relative To West Tennessee Family Solutions filed by USA. (jae, ) (Entered: 04/25/2005)
04/22/2005 1994 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 1992 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 1987 MOTION for Disbursement of Funds by Darcey Kathleen Donehey, R. Jonas Geissler, Todd Schneider on behalf of USA (jae, ) (Entered: 04/25/2005)
05/13/2005 1995 JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FINE MONIES TO WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. by People First of Tennessee, USA, Tennessee, State of. (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
05/13/2005 1996 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FINE MONIES TO WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC re 1995 MOTION filed by People First of Tennessee, USA, Tennessee, State of. (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
05/13/2005 1997 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 1995 MOTION by Darcey Kathleen Donehey on behalf of USA (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
05/24/2005 1998 NOTICE WIHTDRAWING MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FINE MONIES RELATIVE TO WEST TENNESSEE FAMILY SOLUTIONS (ldc, ) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
05/31/2005 1999 ORDER − Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. The Monitor incurred fees and expenses in the amount of $83,135.40 in March 2005. Dft State of TN is ORDERED to pay amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court.(ldc, ) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
05/31/2005 2000 ORDER − Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. The Monitor incurred fees and expenses in the amount of $67,423.18 in February 2005. Dft State of TN is ORDERED to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court.(ldc, ) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
06/21/2005 2001 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Clerk is directed to pay Court Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray a total of $150,558.58 for expenses incurred in

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 164 of 232

February and March, 2005. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)

06/21/2005

2002

JOINT MOTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM of defendants State of Tennessee, et al., Plaintiff the United States of America, Intervenor People First of Tennessee, and Intervenor Parent Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental Center for continuance of hearing on the motion for temporary restraining order by People First of Tennessee, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, USA, Tennessee, State of. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)

06/22/2005 2003 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 2002 MOTION by Paul G. Summers on behalf of Tennessee, State of (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)

06/22/2005 2004 ORDER granting 2002 Motion : The Hearing on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, which was set for 7/25/2005, is hereby continued. The Hearing on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order will be reset for a date certain some date after 10/21/2005. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)

06/23/2005 2005 MOTION to allow temporary placement of Jeffery C in a skilled nursing facility and supporting MEMORANDUM by Tennessee, State of. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/23/2005 2006 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 2005 MOTION by Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr on behalf of Tennessee, State of (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/24/2005 2007 MOTION for Mandatory Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction of behalf of class member Sondra H. by People First of Tennessee. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/24/2005 2008 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2007 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by People First of Tennessee. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/24/2005 2009 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 2007 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Earle J. Schwarz on behalf of People First of Tennessee (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/24/2005 2010 JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FINE MONIES TO SHELBY RESIDENTIAL AND VOCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. by People First of Tennessee, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, USA, Tennessee, State of. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/24/2005 2011 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2010 MOTION filed by People First of Tennessee, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, USA, Tennessee, State of. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/24/2005 2013 DECLARATION of Nancy K. Ray in Suppport of the Joint Motion for Order Granting Application for Disbursement of Fine Monies to West Tennessee Family Solutions, Inc. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/24/2005 2014 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 2010 MOTION by Darcey Kathleen Donehey on behalf of USA (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/24/2005 2016 DECLARATION OF NANCY K. RAY REGARDING CLASS MEMBER SONDRA H. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/27/2005 2012 DECLARATION of Ms. Jeffrie Bruton in support of the Joint Motion for Order Granting Application for Disbursement of fine monies to Shelby Residential and Vocational Services, INC. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/27/2005 2015 DECLARATION OF VICKEY COLEMAN REGARDING CLASS MEMBER SONDRA H. (ldc, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/27/2005 2018 ORDER of USCA as to 1791 Notice of Appeal filed by People First of Tennessee, (ldc, ) (Entered: 07/07/2005)

07/06/2005 2017 Memorandum in response to re 2005 Defendant's MOTION to allow temporary placement of Jeffrey C. in a skilled nursing facility filed by Tennessee, State of. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/07/2005)

07/08/2005 2019 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Respond by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, USA, Tennessee, State of. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/11/2005)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 165 of 232
07/08/2005 2020 CERTIFICATE of Consultation re 2019 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Respond by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, USA, Tennessee, State of (jml, ) (Entered: 07/11/2005)
07/11/2005 2021 Joint MOTION for order granting application for disbursement of fine monies to Boling Center for Developmental Disabilites by People First of Tennessee, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, USA, Tennessee, State of. (jml, ) Modified on 7/12/2005 (jml, ). (Entered: 07/12/2005)
07/11/2005 2023 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2021 Joint MOTION for order granting application for disbursement of fine monies to boling center for developmental disabilites filed by People First of Tennessee, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, USA, Tennessee, State of. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
07/11/2005 2024 Declaration of Ruth J. Roberts in Support of the re 2021 Joint MOTION for order granting application for disbursement of fine monies to boling center for developmental disabilites (jml, ) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
07/11/2005 2025 ORDER granting 2019 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 2007 People First's MOTION for Mandatory Preliminary and Permanent Injunction On Behald of Class Member Sondra H. Responses due by 7/26/2005. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jae, ) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
07/12/2005 2022 CERTIFICATE of Consultation re 2021 Joint MOTION for order granting application for disbursement of fine monies to boling center for developmental disabilites. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
07/14/2005 2026 ORDER granting 2005 Motion to allow temporary placement of Jeffrey C. in a skilled nursing facility . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
07/14/2005 2027 ORDER denying as moot 1987 Motion for Disbursement of of fime monies. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
07/14/2005 2028 ORDER denying as moot 1992 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
07/21/2005 2030 ORDER to pay the amount set out in this invoice(98,870.02) into the registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
07/22/2005 2029 ORDER to pay the amount set out in this invoice(83,482.88) unto the registry of the Court.. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) Modified on 7/22/2005 (jml, ). (Entered: 07/22/2005)
07/26/2005 2031 Memorandum response of West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association to re 2007 People First's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction of behalf of Class Member Sondra H (Document placed in separate folder)(jml, ) Modified on 7/27/2005 (jml, ). (Entered: 07/27/2005)
07/26/2005 2032 Defendants' Unopposed MOTION to Amend order granting Motion to Allow Temporary Placement of Jeffrey C in a skilled nursing facility and supporting memorandum by Tennessee, State of. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
07/26/2005 2033 Defendants' RESPONSE to re 2007 People First MOTION for Mandatory Preliminary and Permanent Injunction on behalf of Class Member Sondra H. filed by Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
07/26/2005 2034 Defendants' MOTION to Alter or Amend imposition of automatic fines in order granting motion to allow temporary placement of Jeffrey C. in a skilled nursing facility by Tennessee, State of. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
07/26/2005 2035 MEMORANDUM in Support of Defendants' re 2034 MOTION to Alter or Amend imposition of automatic fines in order granting Motion to allow temporary placement of Jeffrey C. in a skilled nursing faciity, filed by Tennessee, State of. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
08/11/2005 2036 Letter received from Pietrangelo Cook PLC addressed to Judge Donald referencing two separate motions, in which one was unoposed and needed the Court's immediate attention, while the other was opposed. (jml, ) (Entered: 08/15/2005)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 166 of 232

08/15/2005 2037 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2034 MOTION to Alter or Amend Imposition of Automatic Fines In Order Granting Motion To Allow Temporary Placement of Jeffrey C. In A Skilled Nursing Facility filed by Tennessee, State of. (jae, ) (Entered: 08/16/2005)

08/17/2005 2038 MANDATE of USCA pursusnt to court's disposition filed 6/23/05 as to 1815 Notice of Appeal filed by USA, (jae, ) (Entered: 08/18/2005)

08/18/2005 2039 Defendant State of Tennessee's REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 2034 MOTION to Alter or Amend Imposition of Automatic Fines in Order Granting Motion To Allow Temporary Placement of Jeffrey C. In A Skilled Nursing Facility. (jae, ) (Entered: 08/19/2005)

08/19/2005 2041 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Funds in the amount of $182,352.90 to be disbursed to NKR & Asso. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 08/25/2005)

08/22/2005 2040 MOTION by People First of Tennessee for Leave to File Reply to Response on behalf of Class Member Sondra H.. (jml, ) (Entered: 08/23/2005)

08/24/2005

2042

ORDER to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the court. All funds received by Clerk of Court are directed to be deposited into an interest−bearing account and shall be used to reinburse the Monitor for her expenses and fees up to and including the total sum of the money deposited by Defendant State of Tennessee. Any money not spent by the Monitor shall be credited to Defendants. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (Document placed in separate folder) (Entered: 08/30/2005)

09/06/2005 2045 ORDER to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

09/07/2005 2043 Joint Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses to Plantiffs/Intervener People First of Tennessee (jml, ) (Entered: 09/08/2005)

09/08/2005 2044 MOTION to allow Temporary Placement of Angela H. Arlington Developmental Center and Supporting Memorandum by Tennessee, State of. (jml, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

09/08/2005 2046 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

09/08/2005 2047 MOTION To Allow Temporary Placement of Angela H. In Arlington Developmental Center and Supporting Memorandum by Tennessee, State of. (jae, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

09/08/2005 2048 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 2047 MOTION To Allow Temporary Placement of Angela H. In Arlington Developmental Center and Supporting Memorandum by Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr, Dianne Stamey Dycus, Jonathan P. Lakey on behalf of Tennessee, State of (jae, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

09/09/2005 2049 ORDER granting 2044 Motion Temporary Admission of Angela H. to ADC . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

09/26/2005 2050 ORDER Directing Clerk to DISBURSE Funds to NKR & Associates, Inc. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)

10/26/2005 2051 ORDER:Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray has submitted invoce for fees and expenses incurred in August, 2005 in the amount of $101,903.85. State of TN is ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the registry of the court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (document placed in separate folder)(jae, ) (Entered: 10/26/2005)

11/02/2005 2052 ORDER granting 2043 Joint Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses to Plantiffs/Intervener People First of Tennessee. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 11/03/2005)

11/08/2005

2053

ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds re 2051 ORDER:Monitor, Dr. Nancy K. Ray has submitted invoce for fees and expenses incurred in August, 2005 in the amount of $101,903.85. State of TN is ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice into the registry of the court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 167 of 232

11/16/2005 2054 ORDER : Dft State of TN is ordered to pay the amount set out in the invoice to the registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (document placed in separate folder) (jae, ) (Entered: 11/17/2005)

11/18/2005 2055 ORDER granting 2040 MOTION by People First of Tennessee for Leave to File Reply to Response by State of Tennessee and parent guardian association to Motion seeking Preliminary Injunctive Relief on behalf of Class Member Sondra H.. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)

12/07/2005 2056 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. The Clerk is therefore directed to disburse the sum of $78,817.01, previously placed in the Registry of the Court, to NKR & Associates, Inc.. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)

12/09/2005 2057 ORDER to pay the amount set out in this invoice into the registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald.(Document place in separate folder) (jml, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)

12/29/2005 2058 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald. (jml, ) (Entered: 12/30/2005)

01/04/2006 2059 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum REPLY BY PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 01/04/2006)

01/12/2006 2060 Amended Order directing State of Tennessee to pay October Monitor's expenses of $83,713.92 into the registry . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/12/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

01/12/2006 2061 Amended ORDER directing Clerk of Court to disburse October Monitor's fees of $83,713.92. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/12/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

02/08/2006 2062 First MOTION To Extend Temporary Admission of Angela H. In Arlington Developmental Center proposedordersubmitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motioin# 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006 2063 ORDER granting 2062 Motion . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/8/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/16/2006 2064 ORDER Directing Defendant State of Tennessee to pay amount set in invoice into the Registry of the Court. . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/16/2006. (cas) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

02/23/2006

2065

MOTION To Allow Temporary Placement Of Johnny A. In An Acute Care Hospital And, Then, A Rehabilitation Facility a proposed Order is being e−mailed to the court by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Defendant's to Allow Temporary Placement of Johnny A. in an Acute Care Hospital and, then, a Rehabilitation Facility# 2 Certificate of Consultation Regarding Motion to Allow Temporary Placement of Johnny A. in Acute Care Hospital and, then, a Rehabilitation Facility)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/23/2006)

02/27/2006 2066 ORDER granting 2065 Motion temporary transfer of Johnny A. to an acute care hospital and, then, a rehabilitation facility . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/27/2006)

03/14/2006 2067 ORDER Directing Defendant State of Tennessee to pay amount set in invoice into the registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/9/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/14/2006 2068 ORDER Directing Defendant State of Tennessee to pay amount set in invoice into the registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/14/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/16/2006 2069 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Linda L. Keyser (Proposed Order Submitted) Fee Waived (vlg) (Entered: 03/16/2006)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 168 of 232

03/20/2006 2070 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse November Monitor's fees of $75,727.77. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/20/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/20/2006)

03/20/2006 2071 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse January Monitor's fees of $87,746.50. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/20/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/20/2006)

03/20/2006 2072 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse December Monitor's fees of $68,204.21. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/20/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/20/2006)

03/27/2006 2073 ORDER finding as moot motion 2047 see 2049 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/27/2006 2074 ORDER granting 2010 Motion . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/27/2006 2075 ORDER granting 2021 Motion . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/27/2006 2076 ORDER granting 2032 Motion to Amend/Correct . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/27/2006 2077 ORDER denying 2034 Motion to Amend/Correct . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/27/2006 2078 ORDER denying 2007 Motion for Preliminary Injunction . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/27/2006 2079 ORDER granting 2059 Motion for Leave to File . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/27/2006 2080 ORDER granting 2069 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/30/2006 2081 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Amie Murphy by USA. (Proposed Order Submitted) Fee Waived (vlg) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

03/30/2006 2082 ORDER granting 2081 Motion for Leave for Amie S. Murphy to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/30/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

03/31/2006 2083 ORDER Directing Defendant State of Tennessee to pay Monitor's fees into the Registry of the Court. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/31/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

05/03/2006 2084 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Monitor's Expenses for February 2006 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/3/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/03/2006)

05/16/2006

2085

Joint MOTION To Set An Informal Status Conference To Plan For The Hearing; To Set An Evidentiary Hearing On This Motion; And To Approve Agreement Resolving Various Pending Matters a proposed Order will be submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A−−2006 Settlement Agreement# 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/16/2006)

05/22/2006

2086

ORDER granting 2085 Motion To Set An Informal Status Conference To Plan For The Hearing; To Set An Evidentiary Hearing On This Motion; And To Approve Agreement Resolving Various Pending Matters. Status Conference set for 5/30/2006 at 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/22/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/22/2006)

05/22/2006

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/30/2006 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald. (tlh, ) (Entered: 05/22/2006)

05/23/2006 2087 SETTING LETTER: Status Conference RESET for 6/7/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald. (tlh, ) (Entered: 05/23/2006)

05/25/2006

2088

Joint MOTION Joint Motion for Order Transferring Fine Money Collateral to WTFS Housing, Inc. and Re−Issuing Fine Money, or, in the Alternative, Extending Deadline for West tennessee Family Solutions, Inc. to Repay Fine Money Collateral − proposed order submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation # 2 Memorandum Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion# 3 Affidavit Declaration of

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 169 of 232

Paul Landers)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 05/25/2006)

05/25/2006 2089 ORDER granting 2088 Motion . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/25/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/25/2006)

05/26/2006 2090 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to part of Joint Motion not ruled upon by the Court by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 05/26/2006)

05/30/2006 2092 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to William Sherman regarding docket entry #2086 (cas) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

05/31/2006 2091 ORDER granting 2090 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Responses due by 6/21/2006. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/31/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/31/2006)

06/01/2006

2093

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2090 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to part of Joint Motion not ruled upon by the Court filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, has been filed. For future reference, please note if proposed order was submitted to the Judge's email on a motion, it will need to be reflected in the description of the docket entry.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)

06/07/2006

2094

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Status Conference held on 6/7/2006; Parties addressed Court about scheduling; Parties have submitted a proposed scheduling order − to be entered; Request a 10−day hearing; Evidentiary Hearing set for the week of 12/11/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald − Hearing will resume the week of 1/8/2007; Pre−Hearing Conference set for 11/30/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald; Atty Sherman addressed the Court as to questions to be addressed at hearing. (Plf Atty: ?, ?, ; Intv Atty: W. Sherman; Dft Atty: J. Lakey, L. Bearman, E. Schwarz, D. Dycus)(Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.)(2:34−3:02) (tlh, ) (Entered: 06/08/2006)

06/20/2006

2095

RESPONSE to Motion re 2085 Joint MOTION To Set An Informal Status Conference To Plan For The Hearing; To Set An Evidentiary Hearing On This Motion; And To Approve Agreement Resolving Various Pending Matters a proposed Order will be submitted filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

06/20/2006

2096

RESPONSE to Motion re 2085 Joint MOTION To Set An Informal Status Conference To Plan For The Hearing; To Set An Evidentiary Hearing On This Motion; And To Approve Agreement Resolving Various Pending Matters a proposed Order will be submitted filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 06/20/2006)

06/22/2006

2097

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2096 Response to Motion, filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association,, 2095 Response to Motion, filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, has been filed. For future reference, please note the correction of document #2095 should have been resubmitted under notice, then notice of corrections. Also, all attached documents must be labeled. Ex. exhibits(brief decription), memorandum, certificate of consultation, etc...). Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

06/27/2006

2098

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2085 Joint MOTION To Set An Informal Status Conference To Plan For The Hearing; To Set An Evidentiary Hearing On This Motion; And To Approve Agreement Resolving Various Pending Matters a proposed Order will be submitted if requested filed by Tennessee, State of. (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 06/27/2006)

07/07/2006 2099 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 07/07/2006)

07/18/2006 2100 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay Monitor's expenses for the month of April into the registry.. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/18/2006. (Donald,

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 170 of 232

Bernice) (Entered: 07/18/2006)

07/21/2006 2101 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay Monitor's expenses for the month of May into the registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/21/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/21/2006)

07/26/2006 2102 MOTION to Amend/Correct Submitted Scheduling Order with Combined Memorandum of Law in Suport of Motion by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 07/26/2006)

07/26/2006 2103 ATTACHMENT Certificate of Consultation to 2102 MOTION to Amend/Correct Submitted Scheduling Order with Combined Memorandum of Law in Suport of Motion by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 07/26/2006)

07/27/2006 2104 RESPONSE in Support re 2102 MOTION to Amend/Correct Submitted Scheduling Order with Combined Memorandum of Law in Suport of Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 07/27/2006)

08/02/2006 2105 Joint MOTION for Disbursement of Funds to Boling Center for Developmental Disabilities by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum # 2 Affidavit # 3 Certificate of Consultation # 4 Affidavit)(Murphy, Amie) (Entered: 08/02/2006)

08/09/2006 2106 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney s Prior Attorneys for United States by USA. (Keyser, Linda) (Entered: 08/09/2006)

08/09/2006 2107 ORDER granting 2106 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Todd Schneider; Darcey Kathleen Donehey and Nicole Porter terminated. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/9/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/09/2006)

08/11/2006

2108

NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Objection to Parent Guardian Association's Interrogatories (Second Series) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1A Defendants' Response to PGA's Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1B Signed Verification to Defendants' Response to PGA's Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2A PGA Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions to State Defendants (Second Series)# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2B PGA Corrected Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions to State Defendants (Second Series))(Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 08/11/2006)

08/15/2006 2109 ORDER granting 2105 Motion for Disbursement of Funds . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/15/2006. (ab, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/15/2006 2110 First MOTION Order to Direct Court Monitor to Provide Information Proposed Order submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/15/2006 2111 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Proposed Order Submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/15/2006 2112 MOTION Approval of Enlarged Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Proposed Order Submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 08/15/2006)

08/16/2006 2113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association re 2110 First MOTION Order to Direct Court Monitor to Provide Information Proposed Order submitted Amended Certificate of Consultation (Sherman, William) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

08/16/2006 2114 Notice of Correction to 2110 First MOTION Order to Direct Court Monitor to Provide Information Proposed Order submitted Second Amended Certificate of Consultation. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

08/16/2006 2115 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay Monitor's expenses for the month of March into the registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/16/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

08/16/2006 2116 Amended ORDER re 2100 Directing State of Tennessee to pay Monitor's expenses for the month of April into the registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 171 of 232

08/16/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

08/16/2006 2117 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay Monitor's expenses for the month of June into the registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/16/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

08/16/2006 2118 Notice of Correction to 2111 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Proposed Order Submitted Amended Certificate of Consultation. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

08/17/2006 2119 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay Monitor's expenses for the month of July into the registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/17/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/17/2006)

08/18/2006

2120

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2110 First MOTION Order to Direct Court Monitor to Provide Information Proposed Order submitted filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, has been filed. For future reference, please note that all attached documents are to be labeled with a brief description.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 08/18/2006)

08/18/2006 2121 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2112 MOTION Approval of Enlarged Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Proposed Order Submitted filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 08/18/2006)

08/21/2006 2122 AMENDED DOCUMENT by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. Amendment to 2114 Notice of Correction Amended Certificate of Consultation. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 08/21/2006)

08/24/2006 2123 ORDER re 2100 Directing Clerk to Disburse Monitor's Expenses for April 2006. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/24/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/24/2006)

08/24/2006 2124 ORDER re 2101 Directing Clerk to Disburse Monitor's Expenses for May 2006. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/24/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/24/2006)

08/25/2006 2125 ORDER re 2115 Directing Clerk to Disburse Monitor's Expenses for March 2006. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/25/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/25/2006)

08/25/2006 2126 ORDER re 2119 Directing Clerk to Disburse Monitor's Expenses for July 2006. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/25/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/25/2006)

08/30/2006 2127 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2110 First MOTION Order to Direct Court Monitor to Provide Information Proposed Order submitted filed by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 08/30/2006)

08/31/2006 2128 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2112 MOTION Approval of Enlarged Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Proposed Order Submitted filed by Tennessee, State of. (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 08/31/2006)

09/01/2006 2129 RESPONSE to Motion re 2111 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Proposed Order Submitted Response In Partial Opposition To PGA's Motion For Extension Of Time For Written Discovery filed by Tennessee, State of. (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/01/2006)

09/08/2006 2130 ORDER Denying 2110 Motion for Order Directing the Court Monitor to Provide Information. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 09/08/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

10/02/2006 2131 Joint MOTION for Disbursement of Funds to West Tennessee Family Solutions, Inc. for Reimbursement of Loan, combined with memorandum, proposed order submitted by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

10/03/2006 2132 ORDER re 2117 Directing Clerk to Disburse Monitor's Expenses for June 2006. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/03/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 172 of 232

10/03/2006)

10/04/2006

2133

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2131 Joint MOTION for Disbursement of Funds to West Tennessee Family Solutions, Inc. for Reimbursement of Loan, combined with memorandum, proposed order submitted filed by USA, has been filed. For future reference, please note that the certificate of consultation should have been submitted as an attached document(document run in with the motion/memorandum). For questions please call 901−495−1505. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 10/04/2006)

10/11/2006 2134 Joint MOTION For a Status Conference (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 10/11/2006)

10/17/2006 2135 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay the Monitor's expenses for the month of August 2006 into the registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/17/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/17/2006 2136 ORDER granting 2131 Motion for Disbursement of Funds to West Tennessee Family Solutions, Inc. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/17/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/27/2006 2137 ORDER granting 2134 Motion For a Status Conference. Status Conference set for 10/30/2006 at 09:30 AM. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/27/2006. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/27/2006)

10/27/2006

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/30/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald. (tlh, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)

10/30/2006

2139

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Status Conference held on 10/30/2006; Parties will conduct last deposition today; Parties addressed Court as to number of days of Evidentiary Hearing− believe it will be greater than 10 days− Believes there to be possibly 100 witnesses; Atty Sherman states he will call possibly 25 witnesses; Parties seek clarity of the issues; Court instructs Atty Sherman to draft document that sets forth, with specificity, objections to proposed settlement agreement, that also ties into each witness/proof areas− to be submitted by 11/20/2006; Atty Bearman instructed to prepare joint pretirial order w/legal issues based on Atty Sherman's document; Motion deadlines stayed until after Pre−Hearing Conference set for 11/30/2006 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald; The 12/11/2006 Hearing date (week) is CANCELED; The Evidentiary Hearing will begin 1/8/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald.(Plf Attys: J. Geissler, L. Keyser(via phone); Dft Attys: L. Bearman, D. Dycus, J. Lakey; Intv Attys: E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry; J. Gran (via phone); W. Sherman) (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.)(9:34−10:30) (tlh, ) (Entered: 11/01/2006)

10/31/2006 2138 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor's expenses for September 2006 into the registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/30/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/31/2006)

11/15/2006 2140 ORDER re 2135 Directing Clerk to Disburse Monitor's Expenses for August 2006. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/14/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

11/15/2006 2141 ORDER granting 2099 Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses to People First. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/15/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

11/20/2006 2142 NOTICE by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association re 2086 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, 2139 Status Conference,,,, PGA Objections Regarding Proposed Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Table of Contents and List of Objections)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 11/20/2006)

11/20/2006 2143 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay Monitor's Expenses for October 2006 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/20/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/20/2006)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 173 of 232

11/28/2006 2144 NOTICE by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association (Sherman, William) (Entered: 11/28/2006)

11/29/2006

2145

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2144 Notice (Other) filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, has been filed. For future reference, please note that the correct cateory should have been submitted under 'notice' then to ' notice of change of address'.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 11/29/2006)

11/29/2006 2146 ORDER re 2138 Directing Clerk to Disburse Monitor's Expenses for September 2006. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/29/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/29/2006)

11/30/2006

2147

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Pre−Hearing Conference held on 11/30/2006; Parties believe they are making progress; Court instructed parties to continue work on pre−hearing order; Pre−Hearing Conference set for 12/7/2006 03:00 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald.(Plf Attys: J. Geissler, L. Keyser; Dft Attys: L. Bearman, D. Dycus, J. Lakey; Intv Attys: E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry; J. Gran (via phone); W. Sherman)(Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.)(9:14−9:30) (tlh, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

12/06/2006 2148 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of filing of Joint Movants' Objections To West Tennesse Parent Guardian Association's Submissions of Proposed Issues for Trial (Submitted at Pre−Trial Conference) (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/06/2006)

12/07/2006 2149 Joint MOTION Allow Temporary Placement of Deborah C. in the Greene Valley Developmental Center Proposed Order Submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amie S. Murphy# 2 Declaration of Mary C.# 3 Certificate of Consultation # 4 Certificate of Service)(Murphy, Amie) (Entered: 12/07/2006)

12/07/2006 2150 ORDER re 2143 Directing Clerk to Disburse October 2006 expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/07/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/07/2006)

12/07/2006

2151

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Pre−Hearing Conference held on 12/7/2006; Parties addressed Court as to issues of the January hearing; Court heard from all sides; Court will enter an order as soon as possible− within next week; General stay on motions continued until order is entered; The Evidentiary Hearing is set for 1/8/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald.(Plf Attys: J. Geissler; Dft Attys: L. Bearman, D. Dycus, J. Lakey; Intv Attys: E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry; W. Sherman) (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.)(3:10−3:25/3:31−4:14/4:29−5:15) (tlh, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

12/18/2006 2152 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay Monitor's Expenses for November 2006 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/18/06. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/28/2006

2153

MOTION for Leave to File Combined with Memorandum of Law in Support for Leave to File Motion in Limine and Memorandum in Excess of 20 Pages (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation for Motion for Leave# 2 Appendix Proposed Order for Motion for Leave# 3 Appendix Motion in Limine# 4 Appendix Motion in Limine Certificate of Service# 5 Appendix Motion in Limine Certificate of Consultation# 6 Appendix Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine# 7 Appendix Motion in Limine Declaration and Exhibits# 8 Appendix Proposed Order for Motion in Limine)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/28/2006)

01/02/2007 2154 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 01/02/2007)

01/03/2007

2155

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2153 MOTION for Leave to File Combined with Memorandum of Law in Support for Leave to File Motion in Limine and Memorandum in Excess of 20 Pages (proposed order submitted) filed by USA, has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Please note that all orders are to be submitted directly to the Judge's email for approval−−ONLY(the court does nto need a copy). If the order was submitted only to the clerks office, please submit to the Judge as soon as possible. I did leave a message on your voice mail for you to call the office if you have any questions at 901−495−1505 or 901−495−1200.. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency.(jml, ) (Entered: 01/03/2007)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 174 of 232

01/03/2007 2156 ORDER granting 2154 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 01/03/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/03/2007)

01/03/2007 2157 ORDER granting 2153 Motion for Leave to File Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 01/03/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/03/2007)

01/04/2007

2158

First MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence of PGA in Opposition to Motion to Approve 2006 Settlement Agreement (order previously submitted by email) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service# 2 Certificate of Consultation # 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine# 4 Exhibit Declaration in Support of Motion in Limine)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/04/2007 2159 RESPONSE to Motion re 2158 First MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence of PGA in Opposition to Motion to Approve 2006 Settlement Agreement (order previously submitted by email) filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/04/2007 2160 RESPONSE to Motion re 2158 First MOTION in Limine to Bar Evidence of PGA in Opposition to Motion to Approve 2006 Settlement Agreement (order previously submitted by email) Amendment to PGA Response filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/05/2007

2161

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2160 Response to Motion, filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, has been filed. For future reference, please note that the attorney signature should be reflected on all document, including the certificate of service page... Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/08/2007

2162

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Evidentiary Hearing held on 1/8/2007; Parties announced matter is resolved− PGA Board voted to accept settlement agreement; A Hearing to Approve Settlement is set for 2/15/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Bernice B. Donald. (Plf Attys: J. Geissler; Dft Attys: L. Bearman, D. Dycus, J. Lakey; Intv Attys: E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry; W. Sherman) (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.)(9:10−9:26) (tlh, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)

01/11/2007 2163 NOTICE by USA of Filing of Proposed All−Party Consent Order Resolving Motion for Approval of 2006 Settlement Agreement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Proposed All Party Consent Order to Approve 2006 Settlement Agreement)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 01/11/2007)

01/18/2007 2164 ORDER granting 2149 Motion to Allow Temporary Placement of Deborah C. in the Greene Valley Developmental Center. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 01/18/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

01/19/2007 2165 ORDER re 2152 Directing Clerk to Disburse November 2006 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 01/19/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

01/19/2007 2166 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for December 2006 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 01/19/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

01/23/2007

2167

ORDER finding as moot 2102 Motion to Amend/Correct; Order finding as moot 2111 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; and Order denying 2112 Motion for Approval of Enlarged Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 01/23/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/23/2007)

02/14/2007 2168 ORDER re 2166 Directing Clerk to Disburse December 2006 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 02/14/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/14/2007)

02/14/2007 2169 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for January 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 02/14/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/14/2007)

02/15/2007 2171 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Hearing to Approve Settlement held on 2/15/2007; Parties have reached a settlement; Settlement agreement subject to Court's approval; Atty Derryberry addressed the Court; Witness Sworn: Stephen H. Norris; Court heard from Dr. Ray; Court approves

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 175 of 232

settlement/closure plan; Court will retain continuing jurisdiction on all future actions indefinitely; Parties submitted proposed orders to be entered. (Plf Attys: J. Geissler; Dft Attys: L. Bearman, D. Dycus, J. Lakey; Intv Attys: E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry; W. Sherman) (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.)(2:33−3:36) (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

02/15/2007 2174 ALL−PARTY CONSENT ORDER TO MOTION TO APPROVE 2006 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/15/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/27/2007)

02/16/2007 2170 ORDER finding as moot 1951 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 2158 First Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 02/16/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

02/26/2007 2172 MOTION for leave to place class member Linda E. in a skilled nursing facility proposed order submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/26/2007)

02/26/2007 2173 ORDER granting 2172 Motion for Admission of Linda E. to Skilled Nursing Facility. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 02/26/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/26/2007)

03/02/2007 2175 ORDER re 2169 Directing Clerk to Disburse January 2007 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 03/02/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/02/2007)

03/16/2007

2176

MOTION for Attorney Fees proposed order submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of William F. Sherman# 2 Exhibit Ex. A to Affidavit − PGA Timesheets# 3 Exhibit Ex.B to Affidavit − Dr. Kastner's Timesheet# 4 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

03/16/2007

2177

MEMORANDUM in Support re 2176 MOTION for Attorney Fees proposed order submitted filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Declaration of Carolyn Cowans# 2 Exhibit 2− Decision Memo. of Clover Bottom Court# 3 Exhibit 3−Clover Bottom Court Order# 4 Exhibit 4−Clover Bottom Agreed Order)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

03/16/2007 2178 ATTACHMENT Corrected Exhibit 3 to 2177 Memorandum in Support of Motion, by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 03/16/2007)

03/20/2007

2179

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2178 Attachment filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association,, 2177 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, has been filed. For future reference, please note that the memorandum should have been submitted as an attached document to the motion, receiving only docket entry number.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 03/20/2007)

03/27/2007 2180 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2176 MOTION for Attorney Fees proposed order submitted filed by Tennessee, State of. (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 03/27/2007)

03/30/2007 2181 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply proposed order submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 03/30/2007)

04/09/2007 2182 ORDER of USCA as to 1324 Notice of Appeal filed by Tennessee, State of,, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell,, Don Sundquist,, Max Jackson. Upon consideration of the joint motion of the parties to dismiss this appeal, It is ORDERED that the motion be, and it hereby is, GRANTED. (agj, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)

05/01/2007 2183 MOTION To Allow Temporary Respite Placement of S.W. proposed order submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 05/01/2007)

05/03/2007 2184 MOTION for Order Authorizing Filing and Submission of West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association's Motion for Attorney's Fee and Costs re 2176 MOTION for Attorney Fees proposed order submitted proposed order submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum # 2 Exhibit

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 176 of 232

# 3 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 05/03/2007)

05/10/2007

2185

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2184 MOTION for Order Authorizing Filing and Submission of West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association's Motion for Attorney's Fee and Costs re 2176 MOTION for Attorney Fees proposed order submitted proposed order submitted filed by Tennessee, State of. (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

05/11/2007 2186 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2180 Response in Opposition to Motion proposed order submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 05/11/2007)

05/21/2007 2187 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney of Linda Keyser Combined with Memorandum of Law in Support (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

06/14/2007 2188 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees and expenses (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 06/14/2007)

06/18/2007 2189 AGREED ORDER Granting 2188 Joint Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses to People First. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 06/18/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007 2190 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for February 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 06/18/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/19/2007 2191 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for March 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 06/19/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

06/26/2007 2192 ORDER re 2190 Directing Clerk to Disburse February 2007 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 06/26/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

06/26/2007 2193 ORDER re 2191 Directing Clerk to Disburse March 2007 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 06/26/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

07/23/2007 2194 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for April 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 07/23/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

07/23/2007 2195 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for May 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 07/23/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

07/27/2007

2196

Joint MOTION for Disbursement of Funds from Fine Monies to Community Services Network (with Certificate of Consultation and Certificate of Service) − proposed order submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for Order Granting Application for Disbursement of Fine Monies to Community Services Network# 2 Affidavit of Susan Hatfield in Support of Joint Motion for Order Granting Application for Disbursement of Fine Monies to Community Services Network)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 07/27/2007)

07/31/2007 2197 ORDER Granting 2196 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 07/31/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/31/2007)

08/15/2007 2198 ORDER re 2194 Directing Clerk to Disburse April 2007 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/15/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/15/2007)

08/15/2007 2199 ORDER re 2195 Directing Clerk to Disburse May 2007 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/15/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/15/2007)

08/24/2007 2200 MOTION To Allow Class Member Deborah C. To Remain At Greene Valley Developmental Center proposed Order submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 177 of 232

08/28/2007 2201 ORDER granting 2200 Motion Allow Deborah C. To Remain at Greene Valley Developmental Center Pending Development of State Run ICF/MR Homes Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/28/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

08/30/2007 2202 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee of Joint Motion for an informal status conference concerning the at risk class (proposed order submitted) (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

08/30/2007 2203 SCHEDULING ORDER:Status Conference set for 9/11/2007 10:00 AM before Judge Bernice B. Donald in the 11th floor conference room of the federal building.Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/30/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

08/30/2007

Set/Reset Hearings: Informal Status Conference set for 9/11/2007 10:00 AM in Large Conference Room, 11th floor − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. (tlh, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

08/31/2007 2204 ORDER granting 2184 Motion Authorization to File and Submit Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/31/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/31/2007)

08/31/2007 2205 ORDER granting 2187 Motion to Withdraw as Linda L. Keyser as Attorney for Plaintiff, United States of America. . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/31/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/31/2007)

08/31/2007

2206

ORDER granting 2181 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 2181 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply proposed order submitted, 2186 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2180 Response in Opposition to Motion proposed order submitted, granting 2186 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 2181 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply proposed order submitted, 2186 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2180 Response in Opposition to Motion proposed order submitted . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/31/2007. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/31/2007)

09/07/2007

2207

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2202 Notice (Other) filed by People First of Tennessee, has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Please note that the document should be refiled as a motion. The document was submitted as a notice. Thank you and if you have questions please call me at 901−495−1505. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jml, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)

09/07/2007 2208 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply proposed order submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 09/07/2007)

09/11/2007 2209 CONSENT ORDER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF 2006 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/11/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/11/2007)

09/11/2007

2210

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald : Status Conference held on 9/11/2007; Attys advise Court as to status of settlement; Parties have submitted proposed order to Court with new definition of at risk class− Court will grant/enter order; Parties request to meet with Court again in one year; Atty Sherman to file response to Atty Fee motion. (Plf Attys: J. Geissler; Dft Attys: L. Bearman, D. Dycus, J. Lakey, V. Coleman; Intv Attys: E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry; W. Sherman; Misc: Dr. N. Ray, Comm. S. Norris) (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.)(10:05−11:25) (tlh, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)

09/26/2007 2211 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply proposed order submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 09/26/2007)

10/03/2007 2212 ORDER granting 2211 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 2211 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/03/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/03/2007)

10/26/2007 2213 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2176 MOTION for Attorney Fees proposed order submitted filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 178 of 232
(Entered: 10/26/2007)
11/06/2007 2214 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for June 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/30/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
11/06/2007 2215 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for June 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/30/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
11/06/2007 2216 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for July 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/30/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
11/06/2007 2217 AMENDED ORDER re 2215 . Order Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for July 2007 into the Registry. Please Disregard Order 2215. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/30/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
11/06/2007 2218 AMENDED ORDER re 2216 . Order Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for August 2007 into the Registry. Please Disregard Order 2216. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/30/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
11/06/2007 2219 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for September 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/30/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
11/09/2007 2220 Amended ORDER re 2218 . Order correcting the dollar amount listed in D.E. 2218. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/09/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
11/09/2007 2221 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to PGA Motion For Attorney's Fees and Costs; proposed Order Submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A−−proposed Surreply# 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
11/19/2007 2222 ORDER re 2217 Directing Clerk to Disburse July 2007 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/19/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
11/19/2007 2223 ORDER re 2214 Directing Clerk to Disburse June 2007 Expenses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/19/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
11/19/2007 2224 ORDER re 2219 Directing Clerk to Disburse September 2007 Expenses.Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/19/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
11/27/2007 2225 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for October 2007 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/27/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
11/28/2007 2226 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees and expenses (13th Supplemental) (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
11/28/2007 2227 ORDER granting 2226 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/28/07.(Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
12/03/2007 2228 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS for expenses incurred in August 2007 re 2218 Order. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/3/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
12/06/2007 2229 AMENDED ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR AUGUST 2007 re 2228 . PLEASE DISREGARD ORDER # 2228. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/6/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
12/11/2007 2230 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR COSTS INCURRED IN OCTOBER 2007 re 2225 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/11/07. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/11/2007)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 179 of 232

01/15/2008 2231 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR COSTS INCURRED IN NOVEMBER 2007. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/15/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

02/05/2008 2232 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR COSTS INCURRED IN DECEMBER 2007. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/5/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/05/2008)

02/06/2008 2233 MOTION For a Status Conference (Proposed Order Submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 02/06/2008)

02/13/2008 2234 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee of Filing Motion for Contempt and Specific Performance (proposed order submitted) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Memorandum In Suport of Contempt and Specific Performance)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 02/13/2008)

02/14/2008 2235 Order Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for November 2007 into the Registry. This order is AMENDING the title of entry # 2231 . Please disregard Order# 2231. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/14/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/14/2008)

02/14/2008 2236 Order Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for December 2007 into the Registry. This order is AMENDING the title of entry # 2232 . Please disregard Order# 2232. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/14/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/14/2008)

02/27/2008 2237 MOTION for Leave to File Written Response Regarding Motion for Contempt and Specific Performance, proposed order submitted by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 02/27/2008)

02/28/2008 2238 NOTICE by USA re 2234 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) MEMORANDUM OF LAW SUPPORTING INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

03/03/2008 2239 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR NOVEMBER 2007. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/3/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

03/03/2008 2240 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR DECEMBER 2007. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/3/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

03/03/2008 2241 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of re 2234 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Response and Answer to Motion for Contempt and Specific Performance (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

03/04/2008

2242

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2234 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by People First of Tennessee has been filed. For future reference, please note that this document should have been submitted as under the motion category(notice category selected). Thank you.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

03/10/2008 2243 NOTICE by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association of Additional Authority in Support of PGA Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Sherman, William) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

03/10/2008 2244 ORDER granting 2183 Motion Allowing Temporary Respite Placement. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/7/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

03/11/2008

2245

AGREED ORDER PERMITTING THE COURT MONITOR, THE STATE OF TENESSEE, AND COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES ACCESS TO AT−RISK CLASS MEMBERS AND POTENTIAL AT−RISK CLASS MEMBERS AND THE RECORDS OF AT−RISK CLASS MEMBERS AND POTENTIAL AT−RISK CLASS MEMBERS. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/11/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/11/2008)

03/14/2008 2246 ORDER denying 2176 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/14/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/14/2008)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 180 of 232

03/20/2008 2247 AMENDED ORDER re 2246 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. This order amends Docket # 2246.Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/20/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/20/2008)

04/02/2008 2248 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 04/02/2008)

04/07/2008 2249 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice proposed order submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Charles J. Cooper, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 2250 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice proposed order submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Michael W. Kirk, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/07/2008 2251 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice proposed order submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Nicole Jo Moss, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/09/2008

2252

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2251 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice proposed order submitted filed by Tennessee, State of, 2249 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice proposed order submitted filed by Tennessee, State of, 2250 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice proposed order submitted filed by Tennessee, State of has been filed. For future reference, please note that motion pro hac vices are to be submitted via email, you will need to review the ecf policies and procedures for future filings of pro hac vices. Thanks and if you have questions please call 901−495−1505.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml, ) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/10/2008 2253 Filing fee: $ 300, receipt number M112693 Fee recieved for Motion Pro Hac Vice. (jml, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)

04/22/2008 2254 ORDER granting 2249 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/22/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

04/22/2008 2255 ORDER granting 2250 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/22/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

04/22/2008 2256 ORDER granting 2251 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/22/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

04/30/2008 2257 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for January 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/30/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/30/2008)

04/30/2008 2258 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for February 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/30/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/30/2008)

05/14/2008 2259 AGREED ORDER ON JOINT APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES TO PEOPLE FIRST. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/14/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/14/2008 2260 AMENDED ORDER re 2258 Order Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for February 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/14/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/14/2008 2261 AMENDED ORDER re 2257 Order Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for January 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/14/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/14/2008 2262 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS for disbursement expenses incurred by Dr. Nancy K. Ray in the sum of $85,891.83 for January, 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/14/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/14/2008 2263 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS for disbursement expenses incurred by Dr. Nancy K. Ray in the sum of $85,220.32 for February, 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/14/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 181 of 232

06/03/2008 2264 ORDER granting 2237 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/3/08.(Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/03/2008)

06/03/2008 2265 ORDER granting 2248 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/3/08.(Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/03/2008)

06/03/2008 2266 ORDER granting 2221 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/3/08.(Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/03/2008)

06/23/2008 2267 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for March 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/23/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

06/23/2008 2268 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for April 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/23/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

07/09/2008 2269 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS for March, 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/9/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 2270 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS for April, 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/9/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/17/2008

2271

Joint MOTION for Disbursement of Funds to Community Services Network for Nursing Conference − proposed order submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for Disbursement of Fine Monies for CSN Conference, # 2 Affidavit of Susan Hatfield in Support of Joint Motion, # 3 Certificate of Consultation, # 4 Appendix Certificate of Service)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

07/25/2008

2272

MOTION for Protective Order Quashing the United States' First Requests for Admissions in Connection with People First's 2008 Motion for contempt and Specific Performance, proposed order submitted, by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Certificate of Consultation)(Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 07/25/2008)

08/07/2008

2273

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2272 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing the United States' First Requests for Admissions in Connection with People First's 2008 Motion for contempt and Specific Performance, proposed order submitted, proposed order submitted filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of N'Zinga Adelona in Connection with United States' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

08/13/2008

2274

ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for Jume 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/13/08. (Donald, Bernice) Modified on 8/25/2008 (jml) as to text only−−−−document title was previously reflected as 'order directing clerk to disburse funds'. Document title has been updated as appropriate. Modified on 8/25/2008 (jml). (Entered: 08/13/2008)

08/13/2008

2275

ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for MAY 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/13/08. (Donald, Bernice) Modified on 8/25/2008 (jml) as to text only−−−−title was previously reflected as 'order directing clerk to disburse funds'. Document title has been updated as appropriate and image updated. (jml). (Entered: 08/13/2008)

08/18/2008 2276 First MOTION for Leave to File Reply In Support of Motion For Protective Order (proposed Order to be submitted to Court) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Reply Memorandum, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

08/25/2008 2277 MOTION for Leave to File Unopposed Motion and Combined Memorandum to File Opposition to Defendants Sur−reply (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Sur−reply)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008 2278 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/25/08. (Donald, Bernice). (Entered: 08/25/2008)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 182 of 232

08/25/2008 2279 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/25/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

09/03/2008

2280

MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Vacate, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Stephen H. Norris, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits to Norris Declaration)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/03/2008)

09/16/2008 2281 ORDER granting 2233 Motion Granting Motion to Set Status Conference. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/15/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

09/16/2008

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/3/2008 01:45 PM before Judge Bernice B. Donald per #2281. (jml) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

09/24/2008

2282

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case Multiparty Motion − proposed order submitted by People First of Tennessee, West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association, USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Multiparty Motion for Extension of Time)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 09/24/2008)

09/26/2008 2283 RESPONSE to Motion re 2282 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case Multiparty Motion − proposed order submitted proposed Order submitted filed by all defendants. (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/26/2008)

10/01/2008 2284 ORDER granting 2282 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/1/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

10/03/2008

2285

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Status Conference held on 10/3/2008. Parties discussed schedule re: Motion for Contempt. Motion for Contempt to be amended by 11/10/2008. Discovery deadline: 3/31/2008. Evidentiary Hearing re: Motion for Contempt set for 5/11/2009 at 9:00 AM. Hearing is anticipated to last 4 days. The Court will rule on the Motion to Dismiss without holding a hearing. Attorney Earle Schwarz to submit a proposed order re: schedule. (Appearing for Plaintiffs: William Sherman, Earle Schwarz, Amie Murphy, Jonas Geissler, Jack Derryberry) (Apppearing for Defendants: Leo Bearman, Jonathan Lakey, Dianne Dacus, Michael Kirk) (Court Reporter: Lynn Dudley) (jpw) (Entered: 10/03/2008)

10/03/2008

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 3/31/2008. Evidentiary Hearing set for 5/11/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Bernice B. Donald per #2285. (jml) (Entered: 10/07/2008)

10/06/2008 2286 ORDER granting 2276 Motion for Leave to File; granting 2277 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/6/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/06/2008)

10/06/2008

2287

ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 2272 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing the United States' First Requests for Admissions in Connection with People First's 2008 Motion for contempt and Specific Performance, proposed order submitted, filed by Tennessee, State of. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/6/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/06/2008)

10/06/2008

Unassigned 7 added. Order to refernce reassigned and emailed to newly assigned referral Judge Vescovo per #2287. (jml) (Entered: 10/07/2008)

10/09/2008 2288 ORDER re 2245 Order of 3/11/2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/9/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/09/2008)

10/15/2008 2289 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for July 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/15/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

10/29/2008 2290 ORDER granting 2271 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/29/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

11/10/2008 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 183 of 232

C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Memorandum In Support of Motion for Contempt & Specific Performance)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

11/13/2008 2292 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for August 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/13/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/13/2008)

11/13/2008 2293 SCHEDULING ORDER setting dates/deadlines reflected by Minute Entry at D.E. #2285 and setting December 2, 2008 as deadline for response(s) to Motion to Vacate and Dismiss 2280 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/13/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/13/2008)

11/13/2008

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case. Responses due by 12/2/2008 per #2293. (jml) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

11/14/2008

2294

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance filed by People First of Tennessee has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Please note that the certificate of service page on the motion and memorandum both reflect the year November 2007. You will need to go under the notice category then in the drop down box select 'notice of correction' and resubmit the corrected certificate of service page only. Thanks and if you have questions please call 901−495−1505.. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jml) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

11/18/2008 2295 Notice of Correction to 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 11/18/2008)

11/21/2008 2296 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay the Monitor's Expenses for September 2008 into the Registry. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/21/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/21/2008)

11/26/2008 2297 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/26/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

11/26/2008 2298 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/26/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

11/28/2008 2299 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Three−Party Motion for Extension)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 11/28/2008)

12/01/2008 2300 ORDER granting 2299 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/1/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/01/2008)

12/01/2008 2301 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 12/01/2008)

12/01/2008

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance. Responses due by 12/12/2008 per #2300. (jml) (Entered: 12/02/2008)

12/02/2008 2302 MOTION for Leave to Appear Special (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support on Motion for Special Appearance)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/02/2008)

12/02/2008 2303 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Unopposed Motion Combined with Memorandum in Support for Leave To Submit Memorandums in Excess of 20 Pages (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/02/2008)

12/02/2008 2304 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Court Monitor's Case Examples of Transition Delays)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/02/2008)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 184 of 232

12/02/2008 2305 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 2304 Response in Opposition to Motion Certificate of Service by R. Jonas Geissler on behalf of USA (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/02/2008)

12/02/2008 2306 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case filed by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/02/2008)

12/03/2008 2307 ORDER granting 2303 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/3/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/03/2008)

12/05/2008 2308 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/5/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/05/2008)

12/08/2008

2309

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2302 MOTION for Leave to Appear Special (proposed order submitted) filed by USA, 2305 Certificate of Counsel filed by USA, 2304 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by USA has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Please note as to #2302, this document should have been submitted through the pro hac vice email link that can be located under the ecf policies and proccedures(pg. 9). All documents as it related to pro hac vices, would have been submitted directly in that email address. Also the certificate of Good Standing is not reflected and needs to be submitted under the notice category then in the drop down box you would select 'notice of correction' and submit the certificate of good standing only.(at this point do not resubmit the enitre motion and other documents attached again−−just ceritifcate). As to #2304 and 2305, the certificate fo counsel should have been submitted as an attached document to the Response/Memorandum #2304, just as the exhibit was submitted. You would have received only one docket entry number. Thanks and if you have questions please call 901−495−1505.. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jml) (Entered: 12/08/2008)

12/08/2008

2310

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2306 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by People First of Tennessee has been filed. For future reference, please note that the exhibits should have been submitted as attached documents(exhibits run in with nmain document). Thanks and if you have questions please call 901−495−1505.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml) (Entered: 12/08/2008)

12/08/2008 2311 AMENDED ORDER Correcting Address as to NKR & Associates, Inc. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/8/2008. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/08/2008)

12/11/2008 2312 ORDER Directing State of TN to make payment monitor expenses into the registry for October 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/11/2008. (Donald, Bernice) Modified on 12/12/2008 (jml)as to text only. (Entered: 12/11/2008)

12/12/2008 2313 RESPONSE in Support re 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance filed by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/12/2008)

12/12/2008 2314 ORDER granting 2302 Motion for Leave to Appear. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/12/08. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/12/2008)

12/12/2008 2315 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance filed by all defendants. (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 12/12/2008)

12/15/2008 2316 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case filed by Tennessee, State of. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 12/15/2008)

12/15/2008

MOTIONS REFERRED 2272 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing the United States' First Requests for Admissions in Connection with People First's 2008 Motion for contempt and Specific Performance, proposed order submitted, (cbs) (Entered: 12/16/2008)

12/17/2008

2317

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2315 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Ned McWherter, Max Jackson, Don Sundquist, Mona Reeves−Winfrey, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Evelyn C. Robertson, Jr., Tennessee, State of has been filed. For future reference, please note that the title reflected on the document should be the same as the category

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 185 of 232

selected(document should reflect 'response in opposition). Thanks.. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (jml) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

12/29/2008 2318 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case filed by USA. (Murphy, Amie) (Entered: 12/29/2008)

01/06/2009 2319 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

01/13/2009 2320 ORDER granting 2319 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/13/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/13/2009 2321 ORDER Directing State of TN to pay monitor expenses into the registry for November 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/13/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

01/15/2009 2322 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2280 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and Dismiss the Case (responding to State's Supplemental Brief) filed by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

02/04/2009 2323 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant on 2/4/09. (ars) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

02/05/2009 2324 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney as One of the Counsel for the State of Tennessee and All Other Defendants − proposed order submitted − by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Bearman, Leo) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

02/06/2009 2325 ORDER granting 2324 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr terminated. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/6/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

02/10/2009 2326 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/10/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/10/2009)

02/11/2009 2327 Notice of Setting. A Motion Hearing has been set for 2/26/2009 10:30 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (cas) (Entered: 02/11/2009)

02/18/2009

MOTIONS REFERRED 2272 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing the United States' First Requests for Admissions in Connection with People First's 2008 Motion for contempt and Specific Performance, proposed order submitted,, referred to Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (ejs) (Entered: 02/18/2009)

02/18/2009 2328 ORDER denying 2280 Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and to Dismiss the Case. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/18/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/18/2009)

02/26/2009

2329

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. Motion Hearing held on 2/26/2009 re 2272 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing the United States' First Requests for Admissions in Connection with People First's 2008 Motion for contempt and Specific Performance, proposed order submitted, filed by State of Tennessee. The matter is taken under advisement. (Plaintiffs Counsel: J. Geissler. Defense Counsel: D. Dycus, J. Lakey and M. Kirk for State of TN. Intervenor Counsel: E. Schwarz for People First.(Tape #FTR) (cas) (Entered: 02/26/2009)

02/27/2009 2330 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/27/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/27/2009)

03/06/2009 2331 ORDER Denying 2272 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 3/6/09. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

03/13/2009 2332 Emergency MOTION for Declaratory Judgment (Proposed Order Submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Emergency Motion, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Gaye Hansen, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Tom Prewitt)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 03/14/2009)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 186 of 232

03/16/2009 2333 SETTING LETTER: Motion Hearing Re: 2332 set for 3/30/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. (tpe) (tpe). (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/16/2009 2334 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Harold Sloves by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/16/2009 2335 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Cynthia Zeller−Gonzalez by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/16/2009 2336 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Paul Landers by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/16/2009 2337 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Pat Edmiston by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/17/2009 2338 MOTION to Compel Proposed Order Submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit No. 1 to Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit No. 2 to Memorandum, # 4 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/17/2009)

03/17/2009 2339 MOTION for Hearing re 2332 Emergency MOTION for Declaratory Judgment (Proposed Order Submitted) Proposed Order Submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/17/2009)

03/17/2009 2340 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Contempt Hearing or in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing (Proposed Order Submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/17/2009)

03/17/2009 2341 MOTION for Derek L. Shaffer to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for Tennessee, State of. (Proposed Order Submitted) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Affidavit/Certificate Local Rules, # 3 Rec. # M117595)(csf) (Entered: 03/17/2009)

03/17/2009 2342 ORDER granting 2341 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/17/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/17/2009)

03/18/2009 2343 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 2338 MOTION to Compel filed by State of Tennessee. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/18/2009.(Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/18/2009)

03/18/2009 2344 ORDER granting 2339 Motion for Hearing. Hearing re: 2332 now set for Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 2:00 pm. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/18/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/18/2009)

03/18/2009

Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing Re: 2332 re−set for 4/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald, per DE# 2334 . (tpe) (Entered: 03/18/2009)

03/19/2009 2345 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Tom Prewitt by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/19/2009)

03/19/2009 2346 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Gaye Hanson by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/19/2009)

03/19/2009 2347 NOTICE to Take Deposition of David Denergi by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/19/2009)

03/20/2009

2348

MOTION for Leave to Appear Special as Counsel for the United States , Certificate of Consultation Attached, Proposed Order Submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Amin Aminfar in Support of Motion for Special Admission)(Geissler, R.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2009: # 2 Certificate of good standing) (jae). (Entered: 03/20/2009)

03/20/2009 2349 RESPONSE in Support re 2332 Emergency MOTION for Declaratory Judgment (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 03/20/2009)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 187 of 232

03/23/2009 2350 Notice of Correction to 2340 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Contempt Hearing or in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing (Proposed Order Submitted) Exhibit A. (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/23/2009)

03/23/2009 2351 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Alex Heart by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/23/2009)

03/23/2009 2352 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Harold Sloves (Amended) by Tennessee, State of.(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/23/2009)

03/24/2009

2353

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2348 MOTION for Leave to Appear Special as Counsel for the United States , Certificate of Consultation Attached, Proposed Order Submitted filed by USA has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Please note that motion pro hac vices are submitted directly through the phv email link located on the website under 'policies and procedures'..... You will need an ecf registration form on file. You can obtain the form for registration under 'forms and applications' on website. You will need to send document through the phv email link. Thanks and if you have questions please call 901−495−1505... The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jml) (Entered: 03/24/2009)

03/24/2009

2354

MOTION to Extend Deadline (Proposed Order Submitted) by Tennessee, State of, Ned McWherter, Evelyn C. Robertson, Jr, Mona Reeves−Winfrey, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3/23/09 Letter from D. Dycus to J. Geissler, et al., # 2 Memorandum MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO FURTHER POSTPONE HEARING SET FOR APRIL 2, 2009, # 3 Certificate of Consultation)(Shaffer, Derek) (Entered: 03/24/2009)

03/26/2009 2355 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2354 MOTION to Extend Deadline (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 03/26/2009)

03/26/2009

2356

MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion (proposed order submitted) by Tennessee, State of, Ned McWherter, Evelyn C. Robertson, Jr, Mona Reeves−Winfrey, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Reply in Support of Motion to Further Postpone April 2, 2009 Hearing, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Shaffer, Derek) (Entered: 03/26/2009)

03/26/2009 2357 ORDER granting 2354 Motion to Extend Deadline. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/26/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/26/2009)

03/26/2009 2358 ORDER granting 2356 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/26/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/26/2009)

03/30/2009 2359 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2340 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Contempt Hearing or in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

03/30/2009 2360 MOTION Entry of Scheduling Order re 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance Cert of Consultation Attached, proposed order submitted by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

03/30/2009 2361 MOTION to Shorten Time in which Deponents May Review and Execute Transcripts and Errata Sheets re 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance , cert of consultation included, proposed order submitted by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 03/30/2009)

03/31/2009

2362

MOTION to Compel Responses to the United States' Discovery Requests, cert of consultation attached, proposed order submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of U.S. Motion to Compel, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 03/31/2009)

04/01/2009 2363 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 2362 MOTION to Compel Responses to the United States' Discovery Requests filed by USA. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/1/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 188 of 232

04/01/2009

2364

ORDER Rescheduling Hearing re 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance filed by People First of Tennessee and Setting Hearing re 2332 Emergency MOTION for Declaratory Judgment filed by People First of Tennessee to begin 7/6/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/1/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/01/2009)

04/02/2009

2365

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2332 Emergency MOTION for Declaratory Judgment (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A −− Grant Contract Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit B −− Prewitt Deposition Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit C −− Community Plan Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit D −− January 7, 2000 Hearing Excerpts)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 04/02/2009)

04/08/2009

2366

MOTION for Leave to Terminate the State's Contract with the Community Services Network of West Tennessee (proposed order submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion, # 2 Exhibit A to Memorandum in Support of Motion (Grant Contract), # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Stephen Norris, # 4 Exhibit A to Declaration of Stephen Norris (Goetz Memorandum), # 5 Exhibit B to Declaration of Stephen Norris (CSN FY2010 Budget), # 6 Affidavit Declaration of Patti Killingsworth, # 7 Exhibit A to Declaration of Patti Killingsworth (Grant Contract), # 8 Exhibit B to Declaration of Patti Killingsworth (Comparison of CSN, TennCare, and Waiver Benefits), # 9 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2009)

04/08/2009 2367 MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order (proposed order submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2009)

04/09/2009 2368 Joint MOTION Motion for Admission of S.H. to Mur−Ci Homes (proposed order submitted) (joint motion by all parties) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Motion and Memorandum Approving Admission of S.H. to Mur−Ci Homes)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

04/10/2009 2369 ORDER granting 2368 Motion. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/10/09. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/10/2009)

04/13/2009

2370

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2340 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Contempt Hearing or in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing (Proposed Order Submitted) (proposed order submitted) filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Contempt Hearing, or, in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing, # 2 Exhibit A to Memorandum −− October 3, 2008 Status Conference Transcript Excerpt, # 3 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 04/13/2009)

04/14/2009

2371

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2370 Reply to Response to Motion,, filed by Tennessee, State of has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Please go to the ECF Policy and Procedure manual, section 10.1 concerning electronic signatures. These documents do not contain the elctronic signature of the filer, Michael Kirk. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jae) (Entered: 04/14/2009)

04/14/2009

2372

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2340 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Contempt Hearing or in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine to Limit the Scope of the Contempt Hearing, or, in the Alternative, to Continue the Hearing, # 2 Exhibit A to Memorandum −− October 3, 2008 Status Conference Transcript Excerpt, # 3 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 04/14/2009)

04/15/2009

2373

COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2372 Reply to Response to Motion,, filed by Tennessee, State of has been filed. For future reference, please note that this document should have been submitted as a motion, as your document reflects. This document will not be reflected on the Judge's pending list. Thanks.. (jml) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

04/15/2009 2374 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2328 Order on Motion to Vacate by Tennessee, State of. Filing fee $ 455. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief and to Dismiss the Case)(Kirk, Michael)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 189 of 232

(Entered: 04/15/2009)

04/15/2009 2375 RESPONSE to Motion re 2360 MOTION Entry of Scheduling Order re 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance Cert of Consultation Attached, proposed order submitted filed by Tennessee, State of. (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

04/15/2009

2376

RESPONSE to Motion re 2361 MOTION to Shorten Time in which Deponents May Review and Execute Transcripts and Errata Sheets re 2291 Amended MOTION For a Finding of Contempt and an Order of Specific Performance , cert of consultation included, proposed order submitted filed by Tennessee, State of. (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

04/15/2009 2377 ORDER Directing State of TN to pay monitor expenses into the registry for December 2008. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/15/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

04/17/2009 2378 SETTING LETTER: Telephone Status Conference set for 4/28/2009 02:45 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. (tpe) (Entered: 04/17/2009)

04/17/2009 2379 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2362 MOTION to Compel Responses to the United States' Discovery Requests, cert of consultation attached, proposed order submitted filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Monitor's February 1, 2008 Letter)(Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 04/17/2009)

04/20/2009 2380 Notice of Seting. A Motions Hearing has been set for 4/29/2009 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (cas) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

04/20/2009 2381 MOTION for David Lehn Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson. (proposed order submitted) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of understanding, # 2 Certificate of good standing, # 3 Rec #M 118048)(jae) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

04/20/2009 2382 Regarding Docket Entry # 2380 . The document image has been replaced to correct the parties listed on the Notice. The entry NEF has been regenerated to all counsel. (cas) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

04/21/2009 2383 ORDER granting 2381 Motion for Leave for Attorney David Lehn to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/21/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/21/2009)

04/22/2009 2384 MOTION to Extend Deadline proposed order submitted by USA. (Murphy, Amie) (Entered: 04/22/2009)

04/23/2009 2385 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2367 MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order (proposed order submitted) filed by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

04/23/2009 2386 ORDER granting 2340 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/23/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

04/23/2009 2387 ORDER granting 2384 Motion to Extend Deadline. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/23/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

04/24/2009 2388 RESPONSE to Motion re 2367 MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order (proposed order submitted) filed by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 04/24/2009)

04/24/2009 2389 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455.00 receipt number M118109 re 2374 Notice of Appeal, filed by Tennessee, State of (agj) (Entered: 04/24/2009)

04/28/2009 2390 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2338 MOTION to Compel Proposed Order Submitted Supplemental Memorandum filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

04/28/2009 2391 ORDER Withdrawing Order of Reference re 2338 MOTION to Compel filed by Tennessee, State of. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/28/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 190 of 232

04/28/2009

2392

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/28/2009. Court heard from parties regarding proposed Scheduling Order, Order of Reference [DE] 2343 referring [DE] 2338, and Court's Order [DE] 2386 re Motion in limine [DE] 2340. Court Granted Joint Motion to Withdraw Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham re [DE] 2338. Amended Order to be Entered by Court re [DE] 2386. Court set Motion Hearing for July 6, 2009 at 9:00AM allowing 30−60 day subsequent period for response from parties. Attorneys Present: Jonas Geissler, Dianne Dycus, Jonathan Lakey, Michael Kirk, and Earle Schwarz; Attorneys Participating via Telephone: Derek Shaffer, Jack Derryberry, Judy Gran, and Bill Sherman. (Court Reporter Lynn Dudley.) (ljf) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

04/29/2009

2393

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. Motion Hearing held on 4/29/2009. Hearing is continued until after Judge Donald enters Order on Motion to Compel filed by the State of Tennessee (DE#2338). (Plaintiffs Counsel: J. Geissler. Defendants Counsel: J. Lakey & D. Dycus.) (Tape #FTR) (cas) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

04/30/2009 2394 ORDER Amending 2386 Order Granting Defendants' Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/30/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/30/2009)

05/04/2009 2395 ORDER granting 2348 Motion for Leave for Amin Aminfar to Appear pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/4/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/04/2009)

05/04/2009 2396 Supplemental MOTION to Compel Discovery From People First; proposed Order Submitted to the Court by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/04/2009)

05/07/2009 2397 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2366 MOTION for Leave to Terminate the State's Contract with the Community Services Network of West Tennessee (proposed order submitted) filed by USA. (Murphy, Amie) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

05/08/2009 2398 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2366 MOTION for Leave to Terminate the State's Contract with the Community Services Network of West Tennessee (proposed order submitted) filed by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/11/2009 2399 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/11/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

05/14/2009 2400 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Combined with Memorandume in Support in Connection with Emergency Motion for Declaratory Relief by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 2 Exhibits to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 05/14/2009)

05/18/2009 2401 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2396 Supplemental MOTION to Compel Discovery From People First; proposed Order Submitted to the Court filed by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit statement of monitor attached to response)(Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 05/18/2009)

05/26/2009

2402

MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Compel Discovery From People First of Tennessee (proposed order submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Reply of Defendants State of Tennessee, et. al., in Support of Their Supplemental Motion to Compel Discovery from People First of Tennessee, # 2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS, # 3 Exhibit 1: 9/27/08 Email, # 4 Exhibit 2: 11/13/08 Email, # 5 Exhibit 3: 11/26/08 Email, # 6 Exhibit 4: 12/5/08 Email, # 7 Exhibit 5: 2/19/09 Email, # 8 Exhibit 6: 5/29/07 Email, # 9 Exhibit 7: 1/3/08 Email, # 10 Exhibit 8: 2/20/08 Email, # 11 Exhibit 9: 12/3/07 Email, # 12 Exhibit 10: 12/18/07 Email, # 13 Exhibit 11: 2/26/08 Email, # 14 Exhibit 12: 1/12/09 Email, # 15 Exhibit 13: 1/21/09 Email, # 16 Exhibit 14: 2/25/09 Email, # 17 Exhibit 15: 8/19/08 Email, # 18 Exhibit 16: 10/26/08 Email, # 19 Exhibit 17: 11/19/08 Email, # 20 Exhibit 18: 1/15/09 Email, # 21 Certificate of Consultation in Conjunction with Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Their Supplemental Motion to Compel Discovery From People First of Tennessee)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 191 of 232

05/26/2009 2403 ORDER granting 2402 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/26/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

05/29/2009

2404

MOTION for Summary Judgment Combined with Its Memorandum in Support Thereof and In Opposition to People First's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit A − Deposition of Thomas Prewitt, Jr., # 4 Exhibit B − Nale Email, # 5 Exhibit C − Deposition of Gaye Hansen, # 6 Exhibit D − Transcript of January 7, 2000 Proceeding, # 7 Exhibit E − Deposition of David Denegri, # 8 Exhibit F − CSN Benefit Plan, ICF/MR Class Members, # 9 Exhibit G − 2006 CSN Meeting with Court Monitor, # 10 Exhibit H − Denegri Email, # 11 Exhibit I − Defendants' Notice of Filing Information)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009

2405

RESPONSE to Motion re 2400 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Combined with Memorandume in Support in Connection with Emergency Motion for Declaratory Relief Response to People First's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit A − Transcript, Proceedings of January 7, 2000, # 3 Exhibit B − Denegri Email)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

06/05/2009

2406

MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony and Reports From the Monitor or Her Staff by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Defendants' Motion in Limine To Exclude Testimony and Reports From the Monitor Or Her Staff, # 2 Exhibit A: Order of January 19, 2006 in No. 95−1227, # 3 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 06/05/2009)

06/10/2009 2407 ORDER granting 2396 Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Compel and striking as moot 2338 Defendants' Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/10/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/10/2009)

06/11/2009 2408 MOTION for Corey M. Sanders Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for USA. (proposed order submitted − request for fee to be waived) (Attachments: # 1 Attorney's certificate and certificate of good standing)(jae) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009 2409 MOTION for Matthew Donnelly Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for USA. (proposed order submitted − request fee to be waived) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of attorney and certificate of good standing)(jae) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/12/2009 2410 ORDER granting 2408 Motion for Leave for Corey M. Sanders to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/12/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

06/12/2009 2411 ORDER granting 2409 Motion for Leave for Matthew Donnelly to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/12/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

06/12/2009

2412

SCHEDULING ORDER FOR HEARING TO COMMENCE JULY 6, 2009: Pretrial Conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on 6/29/2009; Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/2/2009; Pretrial Memoranda due by 7/2/2009. Clerk's Notice of Setting with "Pretrial Procedures" will follow. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/12/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

06/13/2009

2413

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix statement of uncontested material facts, # 2 Exhibit comparison and analysis of rules and protocols, # 3 Exhibit Report of Dr. matson, # 4 Exhibit Report of Dr. Nelson, # 5 Exhibit Deposition of plans reviewer Taylor, # 6 Exhibit deposition of plans reviewer nurse Jamias, # 7 Exhibit Deposition of plans reviewer Rogers, # 8 Exhibit Deposition of plans reviewer Rogers, # 9 Exhibit Protocol questions and answers, # 10 Exhibit Protocols revisions 01−21−2009, # 11 Exhibit Protocols summary of revisions 07−30−2008, # 12 Exhibit Protocol for behavior services, # 13 Exhibit Protocol behavioral respite services, # 14 Exhibit Protocol day services, # 15 Exhibit Protocol environmental modifications, # 16 Exhibit Protocol family model residential support, # 17 Exhibit Protocol hospital attendant, # 18 Exhibit Protocol individual transportation services, # 19 Exhibit Protocol medical residential, # 20 Exhibit Protocol nursing services, # 21 Exhibit Protocol nutrition services, # 22 Exhibit Protocol occupational therapy, # 23 Exhibit Protocol orientation and mobility training, # 24 Exhibit Protocol personal emergency response, # 25 Exhibit Protocol personal assistance, # 26 Exhibit Protocol residential habilitation, # 27 Exhibit

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 192 of 232

Protocol respite, # 28 Exhibit Protocol specialized medical equipment, # 29 Exhibit Protocol speech, language and hearing, # 30 Exhibit Protocol supported living, # 31 Exhibit Protocol transitional case management, # 32 Exhibit Protocol vehicle modifications, # 33 Exhibit Protocol checklist behavior services, # 34 Exhibit Protocol checklist behavioral respite, # 35 Exhibit Protocol checklist day services, # 36 Exhibit Protocol checklist environmental modifications, # 37 Exhibit Protocol checklist family model residential support, # 38 Exhibit Protocol checklist individual transportation, # 39 Exhibit Protocol checklist medical residential, # 40 Exhibit Protocol checklist nursing services, # 41 Exhibit Protocol checklist nutrition services, # 42 Exhibit Protocol checklist occupational therapy, # 43 Exhibit Protocol checklist orientation and mobility, # 44 Exhibit Protocol checklist personal emergency response, # 45 Exhibit Protocol checklist personal assistance, # 46 Exhibit Protocol checklist residential habilitation, # 47 Exhibit Protocol checklist respite, # 48 Exhibit Protocol checklist specialized medical equipment, # 49 Exhibit Protocol checklist speech, language and hearing, # 50 Exhibit Protocol checklist supported living, # 51 Exhibit Protocol checklist transitional case management, # 52 Exhibit Protocol checklist vehicular modifications, # 53 Exhibit Protocol flow chart one person companion model supported living, # 54 Exhibit Protoco flowchart initial concurrent review assignment, # 55 Exhibit Protocol flowchart establishing concurrent review dates, # 56 Exhibit Protocol flowchart review process using medical necessity protocols, # 57 Exhibit Protocol flowchart transitioning waiver services children to TennCare MCC plans review unit role)(Derryberry, Jack) Modified on 6/22/2009 (jml). (Entered: 06/13/2009)

06/14/2009

2414

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2404 MOTION for Summary Judgment Combined with Its Memorandum in Support Thereof and In Opposition to People First's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts)(Schwarz, Earle) Modified on 6/17/2009 (jml)sealed per #2418. Modified on 6/22/2009 (jml).Unsealed per #2421. (Entered: 06/14/2009)

06/15/2009 2415 SETTING LETTER: Evidentiary Hearing set for 7/6/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Bernice B. Donald. Pretrial Conference set for 6/29/2009 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/2/2009. (tpe) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/15/2009 2416 MOTION to Seal proposed order submitted by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation certificate of consultation)(Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/15/2009 2417 ORDER striking as moot 2360 ; striking as moot 2361 ; and striking as moot 2367 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/15/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/16/2009 2418 ORDER granting 2416 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/16/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/17/2009 2419 Joint MOTION and Memorandum in Support of Entry of an Order Approving Admission of Susan E. to MUR−CI Homes Proposed Order Submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

06/17/2009 2420 ORDER granting 2419 Motion for Admission of Susan E. to Mur−Ci Homes. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/17/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

06/19/2009 2421 AMENDED ORDER Granting 2416 MOTION to Seal filed by People First of Tennessee. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/19/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 2422 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2406 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony and Reports From the Monitor or Her Staff filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Transcript))(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009 2424 MOTION for Jesse Panuccio Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for Tennessee, State of, Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson.(proposed order submitted) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of understanding, # 2 Certificate of good standing, # 3 Rec # M118964)(jae) (Additional attachment(s) added on

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 193 of 232

6/22/2009: # 4 Certificate of Service) (jae). (Entered: 06/22/2009)

06/21/2009 2423 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2406 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony and Reports From the Monitor or Her Staff filed by People First of Tennessee. (Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 06/21/2009)

06/22/2009

2425

NOTICE OF SETTING : A Telephonic Status Conference re: AUSA's Motion to Compel (Docket Entry # 2362) has been set for Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 11:15 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. Judge Pham requires that prior to the hearing, all parties must meet and confer in good faith regarding all issues raised in the motions. Plaintiffs Counsel shall set up and initiate the conference call prior to dialing Judge Phams courtroom. However, the Court will notify you when you are to call into the courtroom. (smm) (Entered: 06/22/2009)

06/23/2009 2426 ORDER granting 2424 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/23/09. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

06/25/2009

2427

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/25/2009. The parties reported that the remaining discovery disputes are limited to document request #14 and #15, and perhaps #13 and interrogatories 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. A hearing on the discovery disputes has been set for Monday, June 29, 2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (Corey Sanders present on behalf of the Plaintiff)(John Lakey present on behalf of the Defendant) (Tape #FTR / CD Recording.) (smm) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/25/2009 2428 NOTICE OF SETTING: A Hearing on the Remaining Discovery Disputes: (re: Document Request #14 and #15, and perhaps #13 and interrogatories 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 ) has been set for Monday, June 29, 2009, at 10:00 AM (CST) in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (smm) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

06/26/2009

2429

MOTION to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity (proposed order submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Of Defendants In Support of Motion to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

06/26/2009

2430

MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Experts (proposed order submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Defendants' Motion in Limine To Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Deposition of Johnny Matson, # 4 Exhibit 2 − Deposition of Laura Nelson, # 5 Exhibit 3 − Expert Report by Johnny Matson, # 6 Exhibit 4 − Expert Report by Laura Nelson, # 7 Exhibit 5 − Deposition of Wendy Long, # 8 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) Modified on 6/30/2009 (jml).Exhibits from outline view #4−7 sealed from further viewing per #2434). (Entered: 06/26/2009)

06/26/2009

2431

MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony From Witnesses First Disclosed In Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatory Responses (proposed order submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony From Witnesses First Disclosed In Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatory Responses, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1 − United States' Objections and Responses to Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit 2 − 5−5−09 Lakey to Geissler Letter, # 5 Exhibit 3 − 6−15−09 Lakey to Geissler Letter, # 6 Exhibit 4 − United States' Objections and Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories, # 7 Exhibit 5 − Vance v. United States, # 8 Exhibit 6 − Borg v. Chase Manhattan Bank, # 9 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) Modified on 6/30/2009 (jml).Exhibits from outline view #4 sealed from further viewing per #2434. (Entered: 06/26/2009)

06/28/2009 2432 MOTION to Compel Production from the State of Tennessee (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Certificate of Consultation)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 06/28/2009)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 194 of 232

06/29/2009

2433

MOTION to Seal Document Unopposed Motion to Seal Exhibits to Defendants' Motions in Limine by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) Modified on 6/29/2009 (jml).(Jessica legal asst. to atty Kirk called to inform court that the 'proposed order was submitted' to Judge's email for approval). (Entered: 06/29/2009)

06/29/2009 2434 ORDER granting 2433 Motion to Seal Documents. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/29/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

06/29/2009 2435 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 2432 MOTION to Compel Production from the State of Tennessee. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/29/09.(Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

06/29/2009

2436

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: A hearing on Remaining Discovery Disputes (Re: document request #13, #14 and #15, and interrogatories 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9) was held on 6/29/2009. After hearing arguments from counsel, the Court has taken the matter Under Advisement and will enter a written order upon its ruling. (Corey Sanders present on behalf of the Defendant)(John Lakey present on behalf of the Plaintiff) (Tape #FTR.) (smm) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

06/29/2009 2437 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2362 Plaintiff United States' Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 6/29/09.(Wherry, Tracy) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

06/29/2009

2438

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Final Pretrial Conference re Evidentiary Hearing held on 6/29/2009. Hearing estimated to last 10 days. Written schedule to enter by the Court. Present: J. Geissler, E. Schwarz, C. Sanders, M. Donnelly, J. Derryberry, J. Lakey, D. Dacus, M. Kirk, D. Shaffer. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 9/9/2009(ljf). (Entered: 06/29/2009)

06/30/2009 2439 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2406 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/30/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

06/30/2009 2440 ORDER Directing State of TN to pay monitor expenses into the registry for January 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/30/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

06/30/2009 2441 ORDER Directing State of TN to pay monitor expenses into the registry for February 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/30/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

06/30/2009 2442 ORDER − Schedule for Hearing on Amended Motion for Contempt, Emergency Motion for Declaratory Relief, and Motion for Leave to Terminate CSN Contract. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/30/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

07/01/2009 2443 Supplemental MOTION to Compel (supplementing Dkt. No. 2432) by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C−1, # 2 Exhibit D)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

07/02/2009 2444 NOTICE of Appearance by Marcella G. Derryberry on behalf of People First of Tennessee (Derryberry, Marcella) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 2445 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2430 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Experts (proposed order submitted) filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Aminfar, Amin) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 2446 Notice of Correction to 2445 Response in Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(Aminfar, Amin) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 2447 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 2429 MOTION to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity filed by Tennessee, State of. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/2/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009 2448 ORDER denying 2430 Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Experts. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/2/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 195 of 232

07/02/2009 2449 ORDER GRANTING 2400 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by People First of Tennessee and DENYING 2404 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Tennessee, State of. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/2/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/02/2009

2450

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2413 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Response to People First's Statement of Undisputed Material Fact, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit A − 3−20−08 Killingsworth to Adkins−McCoy Email, # 4 Exhibit B − 7−29−08 Gordon to Justis Letter, # 5 Exhibit C − 7−31−08 Justis to Gordon Letter, # 6 Exhibit D − Pet. For Declaratory Orders, # 7 Exhibit E − Report of Theresa A. M. Wood, # 8 Exhibit F − Report of Vernon K. Smith, # 9 Exhibit G − Deposition Transcript of Patti Killingsworth)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 07/02/2009)

07/04/2009

2451

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2431 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony From Witnesses First Disclosed In Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatory Responses (proposed order submitted) filed by USA. (Attachments: # *SEALED by Order at entry # 2454 (1) Exhibit A)(Murphy, Amie) Modified on 7/6/2009 (jae). (Entered: 07/04/2009)

07/04/2009 2452 MOTION to Seal Document 2451 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit A by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Murphy, Amie) (Entered: 07/04/2009)

07/06/2009 2453 PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/6/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

07/06/2009 2454 ORDER granting 2452 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/6/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

07/06/2009

2455

RESPONSE to Motion re 2432 MOTION to Compel Production from the State of Tennessee (proposed order submitted) filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A −− Declaration of Dave Goetz, # 3 Exhibit B −− Declaration of Suzie Baird, # 4 Exhibit C −− Email from Derryberry to Dycus (May 1, 2009), # 5 Exhibit D −− Email from Dycus to Derryberry (May 12, 2009), # 6 Exhibit E −− Email from Dycus to Derryberry (May 18, 2009), # 7 Exhibit F −− Email from Dycus to Derryberry (June 2, 2009), # 8 Exhibit G −− Email from Schwarz to Kirk (June 28, 2009), # 9 Exhibit H −− Excerpt from Deposition of Dr. David Moroney, # 10 Exhibit I −− Excerpt from Deposition of Jamie Patterson, # 11 Exhibit J −− Excerpt from Deposition of Dr. Gerald Zelinger, # 12 Errata K −− Excerpt from Deposition of David Reed, # 13 Exhibit L −− Excerpt from Deposition of Patti Killingsworth)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

07/06/2009

2456

ORDER SETTING FORTH ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED IN CONNECTION WITH PLANITIFFS−INTERVENORS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, PLAINTIFFS−INTERVENORS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TERMINATE CONTRACT WITH CSN. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/6/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/06/2009)

07/06/2009

2457

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing on Motions 2291 2332 2366 held on 7/6/2009; Sworn for testimony: Namcy K. Ray. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 7/7/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: J. Geissler, A. Aminfar, A. Murphy, C. Sanders, M. Donnelly, W. Sherman, D. Shaffer, M. Kirk, D. Dycus, J. Lakey, J. Panuccio, J. Derryberry, M. Derryberry, J. Gran, E. Schwarz. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 7/9/2009 to correct clerical error(tpe). (Entered: 07/07/2009)

07/07/2009

2458

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion: A Motion Hearing: re: Intervenor Class Representatives People First of Tennessee's Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery (re: Docket Entry # 2432 filed on June 28, 2009) has been set for Wednesday, July 8, 2009, at 12:30 PM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. Furthermore, a Status Conference will be held to discuss the status of and to set a hearing date on Motion of Defendants, State of Tennessee, et al, to Compel Further Production from People First of Tennessee and/or the Monitors Office, and to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity by the Monitors Office.

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 196 of 232

(smm) (Entered: 07/07/2009)

07/07/2009

2459

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 7/7/2009; Nancy K. Ray, sworn for continued testimony. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 7/8/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: J. Geissler, A. Aminfar, A. Murphy, C. Sanders, M. Donnelly, W. Sherman, M. Kirk, D. Dycus, J. Lakey, J. Panuccio, J. Derryberry, M. Derryberry, J. Gran, E. Schwarz. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 7/9/2009 to correct clerical error(tpe). (Entered: 07/08/2009)

07/08/2009 2460 ORDER granting Intervenor People First's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 2400 and denying Defendants State of Tennessee et al.'s motion for summary judgment 2404 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/8/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

07/08/2009

2461

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 7/8/2009; Sworn for testimony: Nancy K. Ray, Jeffrie Bruton. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 7/9/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: J. Geissler, A. Aminfar, A. Murphy, C. Sanders, M. Donnelly, J. Derryberry, M. Derryberry, J. Gran, E. Schwarz, W. Sherman, M. Kirk, D. Dycus, J. Lakey, P. Panuccio. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 7/9/2009 to correct clerical error(tpe). (Entered: 07/09/2009)

07/08/2009

2462

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: Motion Hearing held on 7/8/2009. Intervenor Class Representatives People First of Tennessee's Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery (re: Docket Entry # 2432 filed on June 28, 2009). Sealed Exhibit #1 marked and admitted to the Court. Exhibit #2 marked and admitted to the Court for In Camera Review Only. Upon completion of the hearing, the Court has taken the motion under advisement and will enter a written order upon its ruling. Status Conference held on 07/08/2009 on Supplemental MOTION to Compel (supplementing Dkt. No. 2432) filed by People First of Tennessee on July 1, 2009 (re: Docket Entry # 2443). The Court has instructed counsel for the State of Tennessee to draft a proposed order instructing the Monitor to produce copies, for the purposes of In Camera Review only, of certain communications between the Monitor and People First. Counsel for the State of Tennesse is also instructed to confer with counsel of opposing parties as to the specifics of the proposed order and to submit the proposed order to the Court by noon on Friday, July 10, 2009. (Counsel present on behalf of the State of Tennessee: Derek Shaffer and Jessie Panuccio)(Counsel present on behalf of People First: Judy Gran and Earle Schwartz)(Counsel present on behalf of USA: Matthew Donnelly) (Tape #FTR.) (smm) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

07/08/2009 2463 Exhibit List as to State of Tennessee, et al.(smm) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

07/09/2009

2464

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 7/9/2009; sworn for testimony: Donna DeStefano, Johnny Matson, Nancy K. Ray. Plaintiffs made Oral Motion to Withdraw States Motion to Suspend Court Monitor. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 7/10/2009 08:30 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: J. Geissler, A. Aminfar, A. Murphy, C. Sanders, M. Donnelly, J. Derryberry, M. Derryberry, J. Gran, E. Schwarz, W. Sherman, M. Kirk, D. Dycus, J. Lakey, J. Panuccio. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/10/2009

2465

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 7/10/2009; Sworn for Testimony: Betty henderson, Laura K. Nelson, Harold Sloves. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 7/13/2009 08:45 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Parties agreed to an informal exchange of information/discovery including limited participation by the Court Monitor. The week of 8/24/2009 is reserved for evidentiary hearing on Motion 2366 if necessary. Present: J. Geissler, A. Aminfar, A. Murphy, C. Sanders, M. Donnelly, J. Derryberry, M. Derryberry, J. Gran, E. Schwarz, W. Sherman, M. Kirk, D. Dycus, J. Lakey, J. Panuccio (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/10/2009 2466 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2429 MOTION to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity (proposed order submitted) filed by Tennessee, State of.

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 197 of 232

(Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 −− November 27, 2007 Email, # 3 Exhibit 2 −− December 9, 2007 Email, # 4 Exhibit 3 −− January 3, 2008 Email, # 5 Exhibit 4 −− February 1, 2008 Email, # 6 Exhibit 5 −− February 15, 2008 Email, # 7 Exhibit 6 −− March 16, 2009 Email, # 8 Exhibit 7 −− March 23, 2009 Email)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/13/2009

2467

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Discussion reEvidentiary Hearing held on 7/13/2009; Hearing will be suspended indefinitely pending settlement negotiations, with the exception of witness testimony to be heard on 7/14/2009. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 7/14/2009 01:45 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) The Court will arrange further hearing time as needed. Present: J. Geissler, A. Aminfar, A. Murphy, C. Sanders, M. Donnelly, J. Derryberry, M. Derryberry, J. Gran, E. Schwarz, W. Sherman, M. Kirk, D. Dycus, J. Lakey, J. Panuccio. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/13/2009 2468 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2429 MOTION to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity (proposed order submitted) filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/13/2009 2469 ORDER 2429 on Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Production From People First and/or the Monitor's Office. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 7/13/09. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/13/2009

2470

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2429 MOTION to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity (proposed order submitted) filed by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Nos. 1 − 18)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/14/2009 2471 ORDER Denying Intervenor People First of Tennessee's Ore Tenus Motion to Withdraw Order of Reference. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/14/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/14/2009

2472

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 7/14/2009; sworn for testimony: Raymond Roberts, Patricia Lee Kramer, Jenny Ricketts. Parties to continue negotiations. ( Status Report set for 7/17/2009 12:00 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: J. Geissler, A. Aminfar, A. Murphy, M. Kirk, D. Dycus, J. Lakey, J. Panuccio, J. Derryberry, M. Derryberry, E. Schwarz, J. Gran. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/15/2009 2473 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit 2 to Response In Opposition (Dkt. No. 2468), proposed order submitted, by USA. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/15/2009

2474

ORDER granting 2473 United States' Unopposed Motion to Seal Exhibit 2 to United States' Response in Partial Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Production from People First of Tennessee and/or the Monitor's Office, and to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity by the Monitor's Office. For good cause and no opposition thereto, United States' Motion to Seal Exhibit 2 is hereby GRANTED and Exhibit 2 is hereby sealed. (TEXT ORDER ONLY − NO IMAGE ATTACHED). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 7/15/09. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

07/17/2009

2475

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Status Conference held on 7/17/2009; Discussions re Resolution will continue. (Evidentiary Hearing set for the week of 8/24/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald should further hearing be necessary.) Present: J. Geissler, A. Aminfar, J. Gran, J. Derryberry, M. Derryberry, E. Schwarz, M. Kirk, J. Lakey, D. Dycus, J. Panuccio. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/17/2009)

07/20/2009 2477 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity By The Monitor's Office by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity By The Monitor's Office, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 198 of 232

07/20/2009)

07/21/2009 2478 ORDER Granting the State of Tennessee's Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity By The Monitor's Office [re: Dkt. Entry # 2477]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 07/21/2009. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 07/21/2009)

07/21/2009 2479 ORDER Directing State of TN to pay monitor expenses into the registry for March 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/21/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/21/2009)

07/30/2009 2480 Release of Exhibits. Exhibit #2 released to Jonathan P. Lakey.(smm) (Entered: 07/30/2009)

08/07/2009 2481 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/7/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/07/2009)

08/07/2009 2482 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/7/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/07/2009)

08/13/2009 2483 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Amie S. Murphy (proposed order submitted ) by USA. (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 08/13/2009)

08/17/2009 2484 ORDER granting 2483 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Amie S. Murphy terminated. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/17/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

08/18/2009 2485 ORDER Establishing Hearing Schedule. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/18/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/18/2009)

08/21/2009

2486

MEMORANDUM in Support re 2429 MOTION to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity (proposed order submitted) filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A −− Order, United States v. City of Detroit, # 3 Exhibit B −− LA Times Article, # 4 Exhibit C −− United States v. City of Detroit Consent Judgment, # 5 Exhibit D −− 7/31/09 Letter from M. Kirk to J. Geissler, # 6 Exhibit E −− 8/6/09 Letter from J. Geissler to M. Kirk, # 7 Exhibit F −− 8/7/09 Letter from M. Kirk to J. Geissler, # 8 Exhibit G −− 1/22/08 Draft Letter from E. Schwarz to D. Dycus and J. Lakey, # 9 Exhibit H −− 2/27/08 Email from N. Ray to E. Schwarz, # 10 Exhibit I −− 4/17/08 Email from N. Ray to E. Schwarz, # 11 Exhibit J −− 4/23/08 Email from N. Ray to People First and United States, # 12 Exhibit K −− 3/4/09 Email from J. Derryberry to N. Ray, # 13 Exhibit L −− 5/5/09 Email from C. Dowd to People First and United States, # 14 Exhibit M −− 5/18/09 Email from C. Dowd to People First and United States, # 15 Exhibit N −− 7/21/09 Letter from N. Ray to Judge Pham and the Parties, # 16 Exhibit O −− 6/16/09 Email from N. Ray to J. Derryberry, # 17 Exhibit P −− 7/29/08 Email from N. Ray to J. Derryberry, # 18 Exhibit Q −− 12/20/07 Email from J. Derryberry to N. Ray, # 19 Exhibit R −− 3/4/08 Email from N. Ray to J. Geissler, # 20 Exhibit S −− 12/3/07 Email from N. Ray to J. Derryberry and J. Geissler)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

08/21/2009

2487

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION − (TEXT ONLY − NO IMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY). A Hearing on the State of Tennessee's Motion to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity by the Monitor's Office [DE 2429] has been set for Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (smm) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

08/21/2009 2488 AMENDED ORDER ESTABLISHING HEARING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/21/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

08/21/2009 2489 Minutes mis−entered and removed; Not part of this case. (tpe) Modified on 8/24/2009 (tpe). (Entered: 08/24/2009)

08/24/2009

2490

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: Status Conference held on 8/24/2009 re Hearing on Motion 2429 set for Wednesday, August 26, 2009 before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. The Court heard from parties. Plaintiff requested more time to respond to motion. The Court granted Plaintiff's request allowing until September 2, 2009 to file a response. The Court set a telephonic status conference for Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM and Reset the

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 199 of 232

Motion Hearing from Wednesday, August 26, 2009, to Friday, September 4, 2009, at 9:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham, Courtroom 6, Memphis. For Plaintiff People First: Attorneys Earle Schwarz and Jack Derryberry, Jr.; For U.S.: Attorney Matthew Donnelly; For Defendant State of Tennessee: Attorneys Derek Shaffer, Michael Kirk, Dianne Dycus, and Jonathan Lakey. (Court Reporter FTR.) (ljf) Modified on 8/24/2009 to edit motion number (jae). (Entered: 08/24/2009)

08/24/2009

2491

NOTICE RESETTING Hearing on Motion 2429 MOTION to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity: Motion Hearing is reset for Friday, 9/4/2009 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (ljf) (Entered: 08/24/2009)

08/24/2009 2492 SETTING LETTER: A Telephonic Status Conference is set for Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (ljf) (Entered: 08/24/2009)

08/24/2009

2493

NMinute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/24/2009; sworn for testimony: Stephen H. Norris, Patty Killingsworth, Sonya Nelson. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 8/25/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: J. Geissler, M. Donnelly, C. Sanders, R. Koch, M. Kirk, J. Lakey, D. Dycus, D. Shaeffer, E. Schwartz, J. Derryberry, W. Sherman (by telephone). (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) (Entered: 08/24/2009)

08/25/2009

2494

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/25/2009; sworn for testimony: Jamie Patterson, Vernon K. Smith, Wendy Long. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 8/26/2009 08:45 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.)Present: J. Geissler, M. Donnelly, C. Sanders, E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry, J. Lakey, D. Dycus, M. Kirk, D. Shaffer. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 9/9/2009 (ljf). (Entered: 08/26/2009)

08/26/2009

2495

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/26/2009; sworn for testimony: Wendy Long, Gaye Hansen, David Denegri, Nancy K. Ray. ( Evidentiary Hearing continued to 8/27/2009 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: R. Koch, J. Geissler, M. Donnelly, C. Sanders, E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry, J. Lakey, D. Dycus, M. Kirk, D. Shaffer. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 9/9/2009 (ljf). (Entered: 08/26/2009)

08/27/2009

2496

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Evidentiary Hearing held on 8/27/2009. Sworn for testimony: Nancy K. Ray, Kathy Gayle Davis, Mary Lynn Moore. Closing Arguments. Taken under submission. Parties to submit written briefs within one week following receipt of transcripts. Order and Memorandum to enter. Present: R. Koch, J. Geissler, M. Donnelly, C. Sanders, E. Schwarz, J. Lakey, D. Dycus, M. Kirk, D. Shaffer, W. Sherman (by telephone). (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 9/9/2009 (ljf). (Entered: 08/27/2009)

08/31/2009 2497 ORDER directing Clerk to Disburse Funds (March 2009 expenses). Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/31/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

09/02/2009 2498 MOTION to Compel by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation, # 2 Exhibit Defendant's response to interrogatories and requests for production)(Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 09/02/2009)

09/03/2009

2499

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/3/2009. The Court granted in part and denied in part People First of Tennessee's Motion to Compel (re: DE # 2498). The Court ordered the State of Tennessee to certify compliance with discovery as stated at the conclusion of this hearing. Plaintiff has seven business days from the date the certificate of compliance has been filed to file their response. The Telephonic Status Conference currently set for Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham has been CANCELLED. The Court will reschedule this matter and notify counsel of the date. Motions terminated: 2498 MOTION to Compel filed by People First of Tennessee. Present: J. Geissler, C. Sanders, E. Schwarz, J. Lakey, D. Dycus, M. Kirk, D. Shaffer, W. Sherman, S. Likens, J. Derryberry (by telephone). (Tape #FTR.) (smm) Modified on 9/9/2009

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 200 of 232

(smm). (Entered: 09/03/2009)

09/04/2009 2500 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Certification of Compliance with Discovery (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2009)

09/16/2009 2501 Proposed Findings of Fact by Tennessee, State of. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/16/2009 2502 Proposed Findings of Fact by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/16/2009

2503

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2477 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity By The Monitor's Office filed by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5)(Derryberry, Marcella) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/17/2009

2504

MOTION for Leave to File and Supporting Memorandum of Defendants State of Tennessee, et al. to Reply to Intervenor Class Representatives Response in Opposition to the States Supplemental Memorandum by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1 − Reply of Defendants State of Tennessee, et al. to Intervenor Class Representatives' Response in Opposition to Second Supplemental Memorandum, # 2 Certificate of Consultation Attachment 2 − Certificate of Consultation in Conjunction with Defendants' Motion for Leave to Reply)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/18/2009

2505

ORDER Granting 2504 Motion and Supporting Memorandum of Defendants State of Tennessee, et al., to Reply to Intervenor Class Representatives' Response in Opposition to Second Supplemental Memorandum. For good cause shown the motion is GRANTED. Defendants State of Tennessee, et al., shall file a reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 9/18/09. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

09/18/2009 2506 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2477 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity By The Monitor's Office filed by Tennessee, State of. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2009)

09/22/2009 2507 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 09/22/2009)

09/23/2009 2508 ORDER granting 2507 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/23/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/23/2009)

09/30/2009 2509 ORDER Returning Excess Payment Made by the State of Tennessee. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/30/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 2510 ORDER striking without prejudice 2291 Amended Motion for Contempt and Specific Performance. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/30/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009 2511 ORDER granting 2366 Defendants' Motion for Leave to Terminate the State's Contract with CSN. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/30/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

10/07/2009 2512 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for April 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/7/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009 2513 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for May 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/7/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009 2514 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for June 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/7/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/19/2009

2515

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION(S) − (TEXT ONLY − NO IMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY): A Hearing on Defendants Motion to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee and/or The Monitors Office and to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity by the Monitors Office (re: DE 2429) has been set for Friday, October 30, 2009 at 9:30 AM (CST) in Courtroom 6 − Memphis

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 201 of 232

before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. Counsel who wish to be heard in this matter must appear on the assigned date and time. (smm) (Entered: 10/19/2009)

10/21/2009 2516 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of of Objection to Court Monitor's Bills for July, August, and September, 2009 (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 10/21/2009)

10/27/2009 2517 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION per D.E. 2511 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/27/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

10/29/2009 2518 NOTICE by USA re 2516 Notice (Other) of Response in Opposition to Objection of Defendants to Court Monitors Bills for July, August, and September, 2009 (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

10/30/2009

2519

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham: A Hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee and/or The Monitors Office and to Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity by the Monitors Office (re: DE 2429) was held on 10/30/2009. Exhibit #1 marked and admitted to the court. The Court has taken the motion under advisement and will enter a written order upon it's ruling. Counsel present : E. Schwartz, J. Gran, Wm. Sherman, M. Kirk, J. Lakey, M. Donnley, D. Shaffer and D. Dycus. (Tape #ftr.) (smm) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 2520 Exhibit List for Motion Hearing on 10/30/2009. (smm) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

11/03/2009 2521 ORDER striking as moot 2431 Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony from Witnesses Disclosed in Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatory Responses. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/3/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

11/03/2009

2522

MOTION for Leave to File Reply Supporting Objection of Defendants State of Tennessee, et al., to Court Monitor's Bills for July, August, and September, 2009 (proposed order submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Supporting Objection of Defendants State of Tennessee, et al., to Court Monitor's Bills for July, August, and September, 2009., # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

11/06/2009 2523 ORDER granting 2522 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/6/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

11/06/2009 2524 ORDER re 2513 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for May 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/6/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

11/06/2009 2525 ORDER re 2514 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for June 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/6/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

11/06/2009 2526 First MOTION Permission To Transition Class Member Kathleen S. To Mur−Ci Homes proposed Order To Be Submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Dr. Nina Staples, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

11/06/2009 2527 ORDER granting 2526 Motion to Allow Class Member Kathleen S. to be Admitted to Mur−Ci Homes. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/6/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

11/07/2009 2528 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee re 2516 Notice (Other) In Opposition to the State's Objections to Payment of the Monitor's Bills (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 11/07/2009)

11/19/2009 2529 ORDER striking without prejudice 2413 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/19/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/19/2009 2530 ORDER striking as moot 2332 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/19/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

11/25/2009 2531 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Proposed Dates for Status Conference (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 11/25/2009)

12/04/2009 2532 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Objection to Court Monitor's Bill for October 2009 (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 12/04/2009)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 202 of 232

12/04/2009 2533 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/04/2009)

12/14/2009 2534 ORDER re 2512 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for April 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/14/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009 2535 ORDER granting 2533 Joint Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/14/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/15/2009 2536 ORDER Setting Status Conference. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/15/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/15/2009

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/14/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Bernice B. Donald per #2536. (jml) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

12/17/2009 2537 AGREED ORDER for Disbursement of Fine Monies to the American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/17/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

12/18/2009 2538 ORDER Overruling Objections of Defendants State of Tennessee et al. to Court Monitor's Invoices for July, August, September, and October 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/18/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

12/18/2009 2539 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for July 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/18/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

12/18/2009 2540 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for August 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/18/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

12/18/2009 2541 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for September 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/18/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

12/18/2009 2542 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for October 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/18/2009. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

12/21/2009 2543 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Proposed Joint Agenda for Status Conference (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2009)

12/31/2009 2544 DISBURSEMENT MADE pursuant to 2537 Order. (snw) (Entered: 12/31/2009)

01/08/2010 2545 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Filing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−8−10 Letter from D. Shaffer to Hon. T.M. Pham)(Shaffer, Derek) (Entered: 01/08/2010)

01/14/2010

2546

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Status Conference held on 1/14/2010. Overview of transition process presented. Pending settlement will require more time. Sworn for testimony: Drs. Long and Patterson. Report to be submitted wihing two weeks following receipt of transcript. (Status Conference set for 3/25/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: E. Schwarx, M. Donelley, D. Shaffer, M. Kirk, J. Lakey, D. Dycus. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 1/27/2010 to correct date of hearing. (tpe). (Entered: 01/19/2010)

01/14/2010 2548 Exhibit List re: 1/14/10 Status Conference. (tpe) (Entered: 01/20/2010)

01/19/2010 2547 Consent MOTION to Expedite /Reschedule Status Conference (Proposed Order Submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

01/21/2010 2549 ORDER re 2539 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for July 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/21/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

01/21/2010 2550 ORDER re 2540 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for August 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/21/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

01/21/2010 2551 ORDER re 2541 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for September 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/21/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered:

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 203 of 232

01/21/2010)

01/21/2010 2552 ORDER re 2542 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for October 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/21/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

01/22/2010 2553 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for November 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/22/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/22/2010)

02/02/2010 2554 NOTICE re 2545 Notice (Other) − In response to the notice filed at D.E. 2545, the parties will receive the Report & Recommendation by Tuesday, February 9, 2010. (TEXT ORDER ONLY − NO IMAGE ATTACHED). (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/02/2010

2555

ORDER, ( Status Conference advanced to 3/18/2010 04:00 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.), Motions terminated: 2547 Consent MOTION to Expedite /Reschedule Status Conference filed by Tennessee, State of. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/2/10. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/10/2010 2556 ORDER re 2553 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for November 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/10/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/10/2010)

02/12/2010 2557 STATUS REPORT on CSN Transition by Tennessee, State of. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 02/12/2010)

02/16/2010

2558

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2429 MOTION to Compel Further Production From People First of Tennessee And/Or The Monitor's Office, And To Suspend and Discontinue Further Activity (proposed order submitted) filed by State of Tennessee, ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT MUST BE FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE REPORT. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). FAILURE TO FILE THEM WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER APPEAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 02/16/10. (Pham, Tu) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

02/17/2010 2559 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for December 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/17/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/17/2010)

02/25/2010 2560 OBJECTION to 2558 Report and Recommendations by Tennessee, State of. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 02/25/2010)

03/02/2010 2561 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 03/03/2010)

03/04/2010 2562 ORDER re 2559 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for December 2009. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/4/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/04/2010)

03/04/2010 2563 NOTICE by USA re 2560 Objection to Report and Recommendations − Response in Opposition to Objection (Donnelly, Matthew) (Entered: 03/04/2010)

03/05/2010 2564 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for January 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/5/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

03/16/2010 2565 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney proposed order submitted by People First of Tennessee. (Connette, Edward) (Entered: 03/16/2010)

03/16/2010 2566 RE−SETTING (As To Time Only): Status Conference ADVANCED to 3/18/2010 **01:30 PM** in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. (tpe) (Entered: 03/16/2010)

03/17/2010 2567 ORDER granting 2565 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Edward G. Connette terminated. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/17/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 204 of 232

03/19/2010

2568

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Status Conference held on 3/19/2010. Status Reports offered with discussion. Sworn: Gaye Hanson. State's next status report to be provided to USA by 5/1/10. ( Status Conference set for 5/26/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald.) Present: E. Schwarz, M. Donnelly, J. Geissler, J. Lakey, D. Dacus, M. Kirk, D. Shaffer. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) (Entered: 03/19/2010)

03/19/2010 2569 ORDER re 2564 Directing Clerk to Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for January 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/19/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/19/2010)

03/22/2010 2570 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

03/22/2010 2571 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

03/23/2010 2572 ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge re 2558 and Denying 2429 Motion of Defendants State of Tennessee et al. to Suspend and Discontinue Activity by the Monitor's Office. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/23/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/23/2010)

04/14/2010 2573 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 04/15/2010)

04/26/2010 2574 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for February 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/26/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

04/26/2010 2575 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE (vjm) (Entered: 04/27/2010)

05/03/2010 2576 STATUS REPORT by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Court Status Report, # 2 Exhibit B −− Court Status Report)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 05/03/2010)

05/05/2010 2577 MOTION Enforcement of Remedial Order or Impose Fines for the Unlawful Institutionalization of L.G. (proposed order submitted ) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation, # 2 Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 3 Affidavit in Support of Motion)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 05/05/2010)

05/11/2010 2578 ORDER re 2574 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for February 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/11/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/11/2010)

05/14/2010 2579 MOTION to Extend Deadline proposed Order Submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

05/18/2010 2580 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2579 MOTION to Extend Deadline proposed Order Submitted filed by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

05/19/2010 2581 ORDER granting 2579 Motion to Extend Deadline. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/19/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/19/2010)

05/26/2010

2582

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Status Conference held on 5/26/2010. Reports offered by Attys Lakey and Geisler. ( Written Status Report due by 9/1/2010.) Present: J. Geisler, E. Schwarz, J. Serryberry, B. Sherman, J. Finch, D. Dycus, D. Shaffer, M. Kirk, J. Lakey. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

05/28/2010 2583 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 06/02/2010)

06/07/2010 2584 Directing State of Tennessee to pay Monitor's expenses into the registry for March 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/7/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/07/2010)

06/15/2010 2585 MOTION to Withdraw 2577 MOTION Enforcement of Remedial Order or Impose Fines for the Unlawful Institutionalization of L.G. (proposed order submitted ) MOTION Enforcement of Remedial Order or Impose Fines for the Unlawful

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 205 of 232
Institutionalization of L.G. (proposed order submitted ) proposed order submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
06/15/2010 2586 ORDER granting 2585 Motion to Withdraw 2577 MOTION for Enforcement of Remedial Order or Impose Fines for the Unlawful Institutionalization of L.G. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/15/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
06/22/2010 2587 ORDER re 2584 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for March 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/22/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
07/08/2010 2588 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for April 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/8/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
07/08/2010 2589 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for May 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/8/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
07/08/2010 2590 NOTICE /CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT #70093410000143611266 (vjm) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
07/20/2010 2591 AGREED ORDER ALLOWING DEBORAH C. TO REMAIN AT GREENE VALLY DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL STATE RUN ICF/MR HOME. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/20/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
07/23/2010 2592 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
07/23/2010 2593 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
07/29/2010 2594 ORDER re 2588 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for April 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/29/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
07/29/2010 2595 ORDER re 2589 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for May 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/29/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
08/04/2010 2596 USCA JUDGMENT as to 2374 Notice of Appeal, filed by Tennessee, State of (vjm) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
08/12/2010 2597 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for June 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/12/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
08/31/2010 2598 ORDER re 2597 Directing Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for June 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/31/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
09/01/2010 2599 STATUS REPORT On Implementation Of TennCare Select Community Program by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
09/20/2010 2600 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for July 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/20/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
09/30/2010 2602 MANDATE of USCA as to 2374 Notice of Appeal, filed by Tennessee, State of (vjm) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
10/01/2010 2601 ORDER re 2600 directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for July 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/1/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
10/12/2010 2603 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for August 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 10/12/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
10/22/2010 2604 MOTION For an Order to the State to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members (Proposed Order Submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: #

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 206 of 232

1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Memorandum In Support of Motion to Order the State to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members, etc.)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 10/22/2010)

11/03/2010 2605 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief, MOTION to Dismiss the Case by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation Certificate of Consultation, # 2 Memorandum Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of James R. Finch)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 11/03/2010)

11/03/2010 2606 ORDER re 2603 directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for August 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/3/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/03/2010)

11/05/2010

2607

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendants' Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Response to Intervenor Class Representatives's Motion for an Order to the State of Tennessee Defendants to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members and to Appeal Denial of Class Membership by Defendant State of Tennessee and Memorandum in Support thereof; Proposed Order Submitted by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/05/2010)

11/05/2010 2608 MOTION to Enforce Judgment of 2006 Settlement Agreement (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation, # 2 Memorandum In Support, # 3 Affidavit)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 11/05/2010)

11/05/2010 2609 ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE 2605 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE ALL OUTSTANDING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DISMISS THE CASE. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/5/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/05/2010)

11/05/2010 2610 ORDER granting 2607 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 2604 . Responses due by 11/24/2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/5/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/05/2010)

11/10/2010 2611 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the registry for September 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 11/10/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 11/10/2010)

11/15/2010 2612 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

11/18/2010 2615 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

11/18/2010 2616 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

11/19/2010

2613

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2604 MOTION For an Order to the State to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members (Proposed Order Submitted) MOTION For an Order to the State to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Diana S. Davis, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Janet M. Neihoff)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

11/19/2010 2614 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2608 MOTION to Enforce Judgment of 2006 Settlement Agreement (proposed order submitted) filed by All Defendants. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

11/23/2010 2617 NOTICE by USA re 2608 MOTION to Enforce Judgment of 2006 Settlement Agreement (proposed order submitted) Notice of Filing of Court Monitor's Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Court Monitor's Report)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 11/23/2010)

11/29/2010 2618 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

11/30/2010 2619 Joint MOTION Entry of an Order Approving Admission of Bobbi S. to Ave Maria Nursing Home by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Nancy K. Ray, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 11/30/2010)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 207 of 232
12/01/2010 2620 STATUS REPORT On Implementation of TennCare Select Community Program by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
12/03/2010 2621 SUA SPONTE ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO RESPOND. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/3/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
12/03/2010 2622 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2613 Response in Opposition to Motion, Reply Memorandum with Exhibits filed by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, revised statistics on new class members, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, e−mail transmitting revised statistics)(Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
12/07/2010 2623 ORDER re 2611 directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for September 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/7/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
12/09/2010 2624 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of re 2619 Joint MOTION Entry of an Order Approving Admission of Bobbi S. to Ave Maria Nursing Home of Withdrawal Without Prejudice (Dycus, Dianne) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
12/09/2010 2625 ORDER ALLOWING WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF JOINT MOTION D.E. 2619 FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER APPROVING ADMISSION OF BOBBI S. TO AVE MARIA NURSING HOME. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/9/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
12/13/2010 2626 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
12/14/2010 2627 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
12/15/2010 2628 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
12/20/2010 2629 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for October 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 12/20/2010. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
12/20/2010 2630 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
12/20/2010 2631 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
12/23/2010 2632 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
12/27/2010 2634 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
12/28/2010 2633 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
12/29/2010 2635 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (Proposed Order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/29/2010)
01/03/2011 2636 ORDER granting 2635 Joint Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/3/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
01/03/2011 2637 MOTION for Leave to Appear Specially on behalf of the United States Cetificate of Consultation attached (proposed order submitted ) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certification of Michelle Jones)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
01/03/2011 2638 ORDER granting 2637 Motion for Special Admission. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/3/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
01/05/2011 2639 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 208 of 232

01/12/2011 2640 SETTING LETTER: Status Conference set for 2/2/2011 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. (tpe) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

01/14/2011 2641 ORDER re 2629 Order directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for October 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/14/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/14/2011)

01/18/2011 2643 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 01/24/2011)

01/18/2011 2644 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 01/24/2011)

01/21/2011 2642 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for November 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 1/21/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/24/2011 2646 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 01/27/2011)

01/24/2011 2647 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 01/27/2011)

01/26/2011 2645 Notice of Correction to 2637 MOTION for Leave to Appear Specially on behalf of the United States Cetificate of Consultation attached (proposed order submitted ) Certificate of Good Standing. (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 01/26/2011)

01/26/2011 2648 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

01/26/2011 2649 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

01/28/2011 2650 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 02/01/2011)

01/28/2011 2651 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 02/01/2011)

02/02/2011 2652 ORDER OF REFERENCE. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/2/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/02/2011)

02/02/2011

2653

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Charmiane Claxton: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/2/2011. Discussion re pending motions included discovery deadlines for 2604 , 2604 and briefing schedule for 2605 . Report and Recommendation to be submitted with dates to be set by separate order. Present by telephone: J. Geissler, M. Jones, E. Schwarz, J. Gran, W. Sherman, D. Dycus, m. Kirk, D. Shaffer, J. Lakey. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

02/03/2011 2654 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 02/04/2011)

02/04/2011

2655

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2608 MOTION to Enforce Judgment of 2006 Settlement Agreement (proposed order submitted) filed by USA, 2604 MOTION For an Order to the State to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members (Proposed Order Submitted) MOTION For an Order to the State to Proceed with Enrollment of At Risk Class Members (Proposed Order Submitted) filed by People First of Tennessee Objections to R&R due by 2/18/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton on 2/4/2011. (Claxton, Charmiane) (Entered: 02/04/2011)

02/09/2011 2656 ORDER re 2642 directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for November 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/9/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/15/2011 2657 OBJECTION to Report and Recommendations on Scheduling Related to Pending Motions by All Defendants. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/15/2011 2658 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 209 of 232

02/15/2011 2659 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/15/2011 2660 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/17/2011 2661 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for December 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 2/17/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

02/18/2011 2662 NOTICE by USA re 2657 Objection to Report and Recommendations U.S.'s Response to Objections (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/18/2011 2665 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. Document #2656 (vjm) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/22/2011 2666 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. Doc #2656 (vjm) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/22/2011 2669 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. Doc # 2653 (vjm) (Entered: 03/03/2011)

02/23/2011

2663

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2657 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Ned McWherter, Max Jackson, Don Sundquist, Mona Reeves−Winfrey, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Evelyn C. Robertson, Jr., Tennessee, State of has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Please note that the ecf filing attorney name should be reflected on all signature pages. Filing attorneys name needs to be reflected on the certificate of service page. You will need to go under the notice other category then in the drop down area select 'notice of correction' and submit the updated certificate of service page. Thanks and if you have questions please call me at 901−495−1505.. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jml) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/23/2011 2664 Notice of Correction to 2657 Objection to Report and Recommendations. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 02/23/2011)

02/28/2011 2667 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. #2652 (vjm) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/01/2011 2668 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Filing Of Defendants' Status Report On Implementation of TennCare Select Community Program (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/08/2011 2670 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/08/2011 2671 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/08/2011 2672 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

03/14/2011 2673 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Judith Gran. (vjm) (Entered: 03/15/2011)

03/18/2011 2674 ORDER re 2661 directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for December 2010. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 3/18/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 03/18/2011)

03/29/2011 2675 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (jld) (Entered: 03/30/2011)

04/08/2011 2676 ORDER on 2655 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and Setting Schedule for Disposition of Pending Motions. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/8/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/08/2011)

04/12/2011 2677 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for January 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/12/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/12/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 210 of 232

04/13/2011 2678 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2676 Order on Report and Recommendations proposed order submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation, # 2 Memorandum)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/13/2011)

04/14/2011 2679 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 04/18/2011)

04/19/2011 2680 ORDER granting 2678 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Responses now due 5/9/2011. Replies now due 5/20/2011. Oral argument to be reset for May 25, 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/19/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

04/21/2011 2683 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

04/21/2011 2685 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

04/22/2011 2681 **RE−SETTING *(Text Only)*: Oral Arguments re−set for **5/25/2011 08:30 AM** (from 5/11/11) in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. (tpe) (Entered: 04/22/2011)

04/22/2011

2682

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 2676 Order on Report and Recommendations Motion for extension of time to Reply to 2605, First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2609 Order on Motion to Vacate, Order on Motion to Dismiss Proposed Order Submitted by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Derryberry, Marcella) (Entered: 04/22/2011)

04/25/2011

2684

ORDER ORDER GRANTING 2682 MOTION OF INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al., FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE. (Responses due by 5/9/2011. Replies due by 5/20/2011.) Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 4/25/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

05/02/2011 2687 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

05/04/2011 2686 ORDER re 2677 directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for January 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/3/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/04/2011)

05/05/2011 2688 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for February 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/5/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/05/2011)

05/05/2011 2689 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 05/06/2011)

05/09/2011 2690 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages proposed order submitted by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 2691 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2605 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief MOTION to Dismiss the Case filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Mitchell Lawrence)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 2692 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2605 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief MOTION to Dismiss the Case (proposed Order submitted) filed by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Court Orders that could be vacated))(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011 2693 Sealed Document. (Schwarz, Earle) Modified on 5/10/2011 (jml).Document is exhibits 2 docket entry #2692 per atty Schwarz. (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/10/2011 2694 Notice of Correction to 2692 Response in Opposition to Motion, (Correcting garbled text in the original filing). (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

05/12/2011 2695 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 211 of 232

05/12/2011 2696 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

05/13/2011 2697 ORDER granting 2690 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 5/13/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

05/19/2011 2698 MOTION for Leave to File by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

05/19/2011 2699 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2605 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief MOTION to Dismiss the Case filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

05/20/2011 2700 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages proposed order submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/20/2011 2701 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2699 Response in Opposition to Motion, 2692 Response in Opposition to Motion, 2691 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/23/2011

2702

DEFICIENCY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document 2692 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by People First of Tennessee, 2694 Notice of Correction has been filed. However, the following deficiency has been found: Please note as to 2692, that document title and category selected should be the same if available(Document reflects response to motion however response in opposition was selected−−−−there is an option for response to motion under the Replies and Responses category). Also the filing ecf attorney must be submitted on all signature pages reflected(s/attorney named typed out should have been reflected with atty Schwarz name since he is the filing attorney). Attorney Schwarz will need to go under the notice category then in the drop down areaa select notice of correction and submit the updated signature page only. Thanks. The filer has one business day to correct the deficiency. (jml) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/24/2011 2703 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee re 2692 Response in Opposition to Motion, of filing corrected signature page (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 05/24/2011)

05/25/2011

2704

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Bernice B. Donald: Hearing on Motion 2605 held on 5/25/2011. Arguments presented. Parties to submit proposed Order on the agreed matters within 10 days. Issue regarding request to conduct discovery is taken under submission. Present: J. Geissler, M. Jones, S. Jackson, J. Gran, E. Schwarz, J. Derryberry, W. Sherman, M. Kirk, D. Shaffer, D. Dycus, J. Lakey. (Court Reporter L. Dudley.) (tpe) Modified on 6/6/2011 to correct motion DE number. (tpe). (Entered: 05/26/2011)

06/01/2011 2705 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Filing Status Report On Implementation Of TennCare Select Community Program (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/01/2011)

06/02/2011 2706 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 06/02/2011)

06/02/2011 2707 ORDER granting 2698 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/2/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/02/2011)

06/02/2011 2708 ORDER granting 2700 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/2/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/02/2011)

06/03/2011 2709 ORDER re 2688 directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for February 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/3/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/03/2011)

06/03/2011 2710 ORDER GRANTING LIMITED DISCOVERY re 2605 . Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/3/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/03/2011)

06/03/2011 2713 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 06/06/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 212 of 232
06/06/2011 2711 CONSENT ORDER AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FINE MONEY FUNDS TO HOUSING FOUNDATION. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/6/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
06/06/2011 2712 CONSENT ORDER AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FINE MONEY TO THE STATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPPORTS INTENSITY SCALE ASSESSMENT TOOL. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/6/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
06/06/2011 2714 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal,Jr.. (vjm) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
06/09/2011 2715 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
06/10/2011 2716 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Document #2708 Mail sent to John Houseal,Jr.. (vjm) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
06/10/2011 2717 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Document:2707 Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (vjm) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
06/16/2011 2718 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
06/16/2011 2719 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
06/20/2011 2720 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
06/20/2011 2721 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
06/28/2011 2722 ORDER directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for March 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/28/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
06/28/2011 2723 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for April 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/28/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
06/30/2011 2724 AGREED ORDER VACATING IN PART ORDERS RELATING TO CONDITIONS AT ARLINGTON RESIDENTIAL UNITS on 2605 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/30/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
06/30/2011 2725 Motion 2605 is terminated and resolved in the Agreed Order. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 6/30/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
07/11/2011 2726 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
07/13/2011 2727 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
07/13/2011 2728 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
07/13/2011 2729 ORDER re 2722 Order directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for March 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/13/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
07/13/2011 2730 ORDER re 2723 directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for April 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/13/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
07/13/2011 2732 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
07/13/2011 2733 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Frank Laski. (vjm) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 213 of 232

07/19/2011 2731 MOTION Entry of an Order Approving Admission of Bobbi S. to a Skilled Nursing Home by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Certificate of Consultation)(Sherman, William) (Entered: 07/19/2011)

07/25/2011 2734 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for May 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 7/25/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 07/25/2011)

08/01/2011 2735 RESPONSE to Motion re 2731 MOTION Entry of an Order Approving Admission of Bobbi S. to a Skilled Nursing Home filed by Tennessee, State of. (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

08/10/2011 2736 ORDER re 2734 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds Received for May 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/10/2011. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/11/2011

2737

Amended MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Exhibit A − Declaration of James M. Henry, # 3 Exhibit B − Declaration of Debra K. Payne, # 4 Exhibit C − Declaration of Fred W. Hix, # 5 Exhibit D − Deposition Transcript of James M. Henry, # 6 Exhibit E − Deposition Transcript of Debra Payne)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 08/11/2011)

08/16/2011 2738 SETTING LETTER: Motion Hearing re: 2737 set for 10/7/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 − Memphis before Judge Bernice B. Donald. (tpe) (Entered: 08/16/2011)

08/29/2011 2739 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to pay monitor expenses into the Registry for June 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 8/29/11. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/29/2011)

08/31/2011 2740 ORDER granting 2731 Motion. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 08/31/11.(Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011 2741 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2737 Amended MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case filed by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011 2742 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2737 Amended MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case filed by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

09/12/2011

2743

MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions or Deem Admitted (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation, # 2 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibit A to Memorandum − RFAs, # 4 Exhibit B to Memorandum − Objections to RFAs)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 09/12/2011)

09/12/2011 2744 ORDER re 2739 Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds for June 2011. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/12/11. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/12/2011)

09/12/2011 2745 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages proposed order submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/12/2011)

09/12/2011 2746 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2741 Response in Opposition to Motion, 2742 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by All Defendants. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/12/2011)

09/23/2011 2747 ORDER Granting 2745 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/23/11. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/23/2011)

09/23/2011

2748

MOTION in Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of An Untimely Disclosed Witness Or, In The Alternative, Motion To Compel Production of Expert Report and Deposition; proposed Order to be submitted contemporaneously herewith by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support Of Defendants' Motion In Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of An Untimely Disclosed Expert Witness Or, In The Alternative, Motion To Compel Production Of Expert Report And Deposition Of Expert Witness In The Western District Of Tennessee, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/23/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 214 of 232

09/26/2011 2749 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2743 MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Admissions or Deem Admitted (proposed order submitted) proposed order denying motion submitted filed by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/26/2011)

09/27/2011 2750 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Bernice B. Donald on 9/27/11. (Donald, Bernice) (Entered: 09/27/2011)

09/27/2011 2752 Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla added. Judge Bernice B. Donald no longer assigned to case per #2750. (jml) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/29/2011 2751 NOTICE Vacating 10/7/11 Hearing before Judge Bernice B. Donald. (tpe) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/29/2011 2753 SETTING LETTER: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/27/2011 09:30 AM before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/30/2011 2754 MOTION To Transfer Certain Fine Money Collateral To The Housing Foundation Of West Tennessee, Inc., And Extend Use Of Certain Other Fine Money Collateral To WTFS Housing, Inc. (proposed Order Submitted) by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/30/2011)

10/06/2011 2755 ORDER granting 2754 Motion. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/6/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/06/2011)

10/07/2011

2756

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2748 MOTION in Limine To Exclude The Testimony Of An Untimely Disclosed Witness Or, In The Alternative, Motion To Compel Production of Expert Report and Deposition; proposed Order to be submitted contemporaneously herewith (Proposed Order Submitted by People First)) filed by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 10/07/2011)

10/17/2011 2757 First MOTION To Appear In Person for Upcoming Status Conference (Unopposed Motion) (proposed Order To Be Submitted) by Tennessee, State of. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

10/21/2011 2758 ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/20/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/21/2011 2759 ORDER denying 2757 Motion. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/20/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/26/2011 2760 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Earle J. Schwarz, # 2 Exhibit Declarations of Houseal & Belz, # 3 Memorandum In Support)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/27/2011

2761

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/27/2011. Evidentiary hearing re: 2737 Defendant State of Tennessee's Updated and Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and Dismiss Case set for 1/3/2012 at 9:00 AM. Hearing is anticpated to last 3 days. 2760 People First's Nineteenth Supplemental Application for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses to be heard at the tail end of this the evidentiary hearing. State of Tennessee to respond to 2760 Motion by 12/15/2011. Order to be entered. [USA :Shelley R. Jackson, R. Jonas Geissler, Michelle Anne Jones], [Defs. St. of TN, Sundquist, Cardwell, Jackson: Dianne Stamey Dycus, Jonathan P. Lakey, Michael W. Kirk, Derek L. Shaffer], [Intervenors Beard, et al.: Earle J. Schwarz, Jack W. Derryberry, Jr., Judith A. Gran, Marcella G. Derryberry], [Intervenor −− W. TN Parent Gauardian Assoc.: William F. Sherman] [Court Monitor: Nancy K. Ray] (Court Reporter: Brenda Parker) (jpw) (Entered: 10/27/2011)

10/27/2011

2762

SETTING LETTER: Hearing re: 2737 Defendant State of Tennessee's Updated and Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and Dismiss Case and 2760 People First's Nineteenth Supplemental Application for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses set for 1/3/2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. This hearing is anticipated to last 3 days. (jpw) (Entered: 10/27/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 215 of 232
10/28/2011 2764 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/27/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
10/28/2011 2765 TO ALL PARTIES....(RE:#2763) Please disregard entry #2763 per chambers. Document was filed erroenously in this case and has been sealed from futher viewing. Thanks and if you have questions please call me at 901−495−1200. (jml) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
11/01/2011 2766 ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/31/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
11/01/2011 2767 ORDER denying 2748 Motion in Limine and Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel Expert Report and Deposition of Expert Witness. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/31/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
11/01/2011 2768 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee re 2767 Order on Motion in Limine providing the date for Dr. Conroy's report and his availabilty for deposition (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
11/02/2011 2769 MOTION for Leave to Appear Specially on behalf of the United States. Certificate of Consultation attached (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of Shelley R. Jackson)(Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
11/02/2011 2770 Notice of Correction to 2769 MOTION for Leave to Appear Specially on behalf of the United States. Certificate of Consultation attached (proposed order submitted) . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of Shelley R. Jackson)(Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
11/07/2011 2771 ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/7/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
11/09/2011 2772 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal, Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
11/11/2011 2773 ORDER granting 2769 Motion for Leave to Appear. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11−10−2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
11/14/2011 2774 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR AUGUST 2011. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/14/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
11/16/2011 2775 Notice of Correction to 2769 MOTION for Leave to Appear Specially on behalf of the United States. Certificate of Consultation attached (proposed order submitted) Certificate of Good Standing. (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
11/21/2011 2777 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal. (jld) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
11/22/2011 2776 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay Monitor Expense into the Registry for September. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/22/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
12/01/2011 2778 Joint MOTION to Extend Use of Fine Money Funds (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
12/05/2011 2779 ORDER granting 2778 Motion to Extend Use of Certain Fine Money. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/5/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/07/2011 2780 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR SEPTEMBER 2011. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/6/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
12/09/2011 2781 NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN CAMERAS PILOT PROJECT. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/8/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
12/14/2011 2782 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of re 2781 Order Notice of Filing Regarding Participation in Camaras Pilot Project (Entered: 12/14/2011)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 216 of 232

12/15/2011 2783 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages proposed order submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/15/2011

2784

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2760 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) filed by All Defendants. (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)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 12/15/2011)

12/16/2011 2785 NOTICE by USA re 2781 Order Notice of Filing Regarding Participation in Cameras Pilot Project (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 2786 ORDER granting 2783 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages ***Text−Only Order − No Associated Image***. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/16/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/16/2011 2787 NOTICE of Appearance by Martha A. Campbell on behalf of Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson, Don Sundquist, Tennessee, State of (Campbell, Martha) (Entered: 12/16/2011)

12/18/2011 2788 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee re 2781 Order Consenting to Participation in the Cameras Pilot Project (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/18/2011)

12/21/2011 2789 ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SUBMIT EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/21/2011. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/28/2011 2790 Witness List by Tennessee, State of. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011 2791 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011 2792 Witness List by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011 2793 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee re 2760 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) Supplemental Declaration of Earle Schwarz (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011 2794 Exhibit List And Witness List In Connection with the Hearing Set to Begin on January 3, 2012 by People First of Tennessee.. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/28/2011 2795 Exhibit List (Supplemental) in connection with the Hearing Set to Begin on January 3, 2012 by People First of Tennessee.. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

12/29/2011 2796 Exhibit List Correcting Prior Submission by USA.. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 12/29/2011)

12/31/2011 2797 ATTACHMENT Declaration of Jack Derryberry in support of Motion for Attorney Fees to 2760 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee.. (Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 12/31/2011)

01/03/2012 2798 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee re 2760 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) Second Supplemental Declaration of Earle Schwarz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 01/03/2012)

01/03/2012

2799

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Evidentiary Hearing (DAY 1) re: 2737 Defendant's Updated and Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss Case held on 1/3/2012. Opening Statements given by counsel. No proof offered by the Defendant State of Tennessee − relying on declarations filed. Sworn witness/proof by the USA: Nancy K. Ray, Court Monitor: Exhs. 1−16. Hearing to continue tomorrow, 1/4/2012 at 9:00 AM. (for USA: Jona Geissler, Michelle Anne Jones, Shelly R. Jackson) (*for Intervenor People First of Tennessee: Earle J. Schwarz, Jack W. Derryberry, Judith A. Gran) *(for Intervenor West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association: William Sherman) (for Defense: Michael W. Kirk, Dianne Stamey Dycus, Jonathan P. Lakey, Derek L. Shaffer, Martha Campbell) (Court Reporter: Brenda Parker) (jpw) *Modified on 1/4/2012 (jpw). (Entered: 01/04/2012)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 217 of 232

01/03/2012 2800 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal, Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

01/04/2012

2801

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Evidentiary Hearing (DAY 2) re: 2737 Defendant's Updated and Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss Case held on 1/4/2012. Continued with sworn witness/proof by the USA: Nancy K. Ray resumed testimony: Exhs. 17−22; Fred Hix; Exhs 23−29. USA rests. Sworn witness/proof for People First of Tennessee: Dr. James W. Conry, Ph.D.: Exhs. 30−37. End of proof. Parties to hear 2760 Motion People Firsts' Supplemental Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses tomorrow, 1/5/2012 at 9:00 AM. (for USA: Jona Geissler, Michelle Anne Jones, Shelly R. Jackson) (for Intervenor People First of Tennessee: Earle J. Schwarz, Jack W. Derryberry, Judith A. Gran) (for Defense: Michael W. Kirk, Dianne Stamey Dycus, Jonathan P. Lakey, Derek L. Shaffer, Martha Campbell) (Court Reporter: Brenda Parker) (jpw) (Entered: 01/05/2012)

01/05/2012

2802

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Hearing re: 2760 Motion People Firsts' Supplemental Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses held on 1/5/2012. Oral arguments given by counsel for Intervenor People First of Tennessee and the Defendant State of Tennessee. Exh. 1 marked. Matter taken under advisement. Order to be entered. (for People First of Tennessee: Earle Schwarz, Jack Derryberry) (for State of Tennessee: Michael Kirk, Derek Shaffer, Jonathan Lakey, Dianne Stamey Dycus, Martha Campbell) (Court Reporter: Brenda Parker) (jpw) (Entered: 01/05/2012)

01/05/2012 2803 Exhibit and Witness List for Evidentiary Hearing re: 2737 Defendant's Updated and Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss Case held on 1/3/2012 through 1/4/2012. (jpw) (Entered: 01/05/2012)

01/05/2012 2804 Exhibit List for Hearing re: Motion People Firsts' Supplemental Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses held on 1/5/2012. (jpw) (Entered: 01/05/2012)

01/09/2012 2805 ORDER Directing State of Tennessee to Pay Monitor Expense into the Registry for October. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/6/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/09/2012)

01/11/2012

2806

NOTICE by USA Notice of Filing Exhibits # 23−28 from 1/3/12 Motion Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 24 (redacted Payne Deposition) from 1/3/12 Motion Hearing, # 2 Exhibit 26 (redacted Finch Deposition) from 1/3/12 Motion Hearing, # 3 Exhibit 28 (redacted Henry Deposition) from 1/3/12 Motion Hearing)(Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/17/2012 2807 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 01/18/2012)

01/17/2012 2808 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 01/18/2012)

01/19/2012 2809 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 01/19/2012)

01/20/2012 2810 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 01−03−2012 before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Court Reporter Brenda Parker, Telephone number 901−526−8769.

Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in this matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript, and twenty−one (21) calendar days to file a Request for Redaction. Redaction is the responsibility of the attorneys and pro se litigants who attended the hearing to which the transcription applies. Each party is responsible for reviewing and requesting redaction of testimony of witnesses that were called for the party and for that party's own statements.

Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due 2/10/2012. Redaction Request due 2/10/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/19/2012. (Parker,

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 218 of 232
Brenda) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
01/20/2012 2811 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1−04−2012 before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Court Reporter Brenda Parker, Telephone number 901−526−8769.
Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in this matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript, and twenty−one (21) calendar days to file a Request for Redaction. Redaction is the responsibility of the attorneys and pro se litigants who attended the hearing to which the transcription applies. Each party is responsible for reviewing and requesting redaction of testimony of witnesses that were called for the party and for that party's own statements.
Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due 2/10/2012. Redaction Request due 2/10/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/19/2012. (Parker, Brenda) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
01/20/2012 2812 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 01−05−2012 before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Court Reporter Brenda Parker, Telephone number 901−526−8769.
Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in this matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript, and twenty−one (21) calendar days to file a Request for Redaction. Redaction is the responsibility of the attorneys and pro se litigants who attended the hearing to which the transcription applies. Each party is responsible for reviewing and requesting redaction of testimony of witnesses that were called for the party and for that party's own statements.
Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due 2/10/2012. Redaction Request due 2/10/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/19/2012. (Parker, Brenda) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
02/07/2012 2813 ORDER DIRECTING STATE TO PAY MONITOR EXPENSES FOR NOVEMBER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/6/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
02/07/2012 2814 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO DISBURSE FUNDS FOR OCTOBER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/6/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
02/13/2012 2815 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal, Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
02/21/2012 2816 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages proposed order submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
02/21/2012 2817 MOTION to Strike the Court Monitor's Testimony and Reports; proposed order submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
02/21/2012 2818 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2817 MOTION to Strike the Court Monitor's Testimony and Reports; proposed order submitted filed by All Defendants. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
02/21/2012 2819 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of OF FILING (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Fred Hix, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of CJ McMorran, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Scott Modell)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
02/21/2012 2820 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of re 2806 Notice (Other), Defendants' Objections To Deposition Designations Of United States, And Defendants Counter−Designations (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/21/2012)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 219 of 232

02/22/2012 2821 ORDER granting 2816 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/22/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/22/2012)

02/23/2012 2822 NOTICE by USA of Filing of Redacted Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit Number 2, # 2 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit Number 3, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit Number 4, # 4 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit Number 7, # 5 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit Number 16)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 02/23/2012)

02/28/2012 2826 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012 2823 ORDER Directing State to Pay Monitor Expenses for December. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/1/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012 2824 ORDER Directing Clerk to Disburse Funds for November. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/1/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/02/2012 2825 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2817 MOTION to Strike the Court Monitor's Testimony and Reports; proposed order submitted Unopposed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 03/02/2012)

03/05/2012 2827 SETTING LETTER: Status Conference / Telephonic Hearing re: 2825 Plaintiff's Joint Motion for Extension of Time set for 3/12/2012 09:00 AM before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 03/05/2012)

03/12/2012

2828

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Status Conference / Telephonic Hearing re: 2825 Plaintiff's Joint Motion for Extension of Time held on 3/12/2012. Motion heard and granted. Deadlines re: briefing schedule set. Order to be entered. Hearing / Closing Arguments re: Motion 2737 Defendants' Updated and Amended Motion to VacAte All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case set for Tuesday, 5/8/2012 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom #1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Order to be entered. (for USA: Jonas Geissler, Shelley R. Jackson, Michelle Anne Jones) (for State of Tennessee: Michael W. Kirk, Dianne Stamey Dycus, Jonathan P. Lakey) (for People First: Earle J. Schwarz, Jack W. Derryberry, Jr., Judith A. Gran) (for West Tennessee Parent Guardian Assoc.: William F. Sherman) (Court Reporter Brenda Parker.) (jpw) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/12/2012 2829 SETTING LETTER: Hearing / Closing Arguments re: 2737 Defendants' Updated andAmended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss set for 5/8/2012 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/13/2012 2830 ORDER Following March 12, 2012 Status Conference. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/13/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

03/15/2012 2831 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal, Jr... (jld) (Entered: 03/16/2012)

03/19/2012 2832 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 03/20/2012)

03/26/2012 2833 MOTION to Compel Proposed Order Submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

03/26/2012 2834 MOTION to Seal Document Proposed Order Submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

03/27/2012 2835 ORDER To Disbruse Funds to Court Monitor for December 2011. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/27/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/27/2012)

03/28/2012 2836 ORDER granting 2834 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/27/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/28/2012)

04/03/2012 2840 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to #2836. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr. (jml) (Entered: 04/06/2012)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 220 of 232

04/05/2012 2837 ORDER Directing State to Pay Monitor Expenses for January 2012. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/4/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
04/05/2012 2838 Consent MOTION for Leave to File 25−Page Opposition to Dkt. No. 2817 (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
04/05/2012 2839 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2817 MOTION to Strike the Court Monitor's Testimony and Reports; proposed order submitted filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Resume of Nancy K. Ray, # 2 Exhibit B − State's Interrogatory Responses)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
04/06/2012 2841 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages proposed order submitted by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order)(Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
04/06/2012 2842 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2817 MOTION to Strike the Court Monitor's Testimony and Reports; proposed order submitted filed by People First of Tennessee. (Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 04/06/2012)
04/09/2012 2843 TRANSCRIPT RELEASE NOTICE:

By Administrative Order 2008−35 the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee implemented a policy regarding remote access to electronic transcripts. Pursuant to that policy, as well as Civil Rule 5.2 and Criminal Rule 49.1, each party's attorney is required to review a transcript for information that should be redacted pursuant to the Judicial Conference's privacy policy which requires that Social Security numbers be redacted to show only the last four digits; birth dates should contain only the year of birth; individuals known to be minors should be referred to with initials; and financial account numbers should be redacted to the last four digits. Additionally, in criminal case files, home addresses should reveal only the city and state of residence.

Our records indicate that the 90−day restriction on public access to an electronic transcript(s) in this matter will lapse within 10 days. If a redaction request is required but has not been filed, please do so immediately. Please feel free to contact our office for further guidance on this issue. Documents 2810 , 2811 and 2812 : Release Date 04/19/2012. (smm) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2844 ORDER granting 2838 Motion for Leave to File. For good cause shown and based on the consent of the parties, the Motion is GRANTED. ***Text Only Order.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/9/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2845 ORDER granting 2841 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. For good cause shown and based on the agreement of the parties, the Motion is GRANTED. ***Text Only Order.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/9/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2846 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Three Days (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

04/09/2012 2848 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 04/10/2012)

04/10/2012 2847 RESPONSE to Motion re 2846 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Three Days (proposed order submitted) filed by Tennessee, State of. (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/10/2012)

04/11/2012 2849 ORDER granting 2846 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/11/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/12/2012

2850

RESPONSE in Opposition re 2833 MOTION to Compel Proposed Order Submitted (proposed order submitted with cross motion under next docket entry) filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit State's Response to Request for Production, # 2 Affidavit of Mary Bohan, Esq., # 3 Affidavit of Andrew Penn, Esq.)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 221 of 232

04/12/2012 2851 Cross MOTION for Protective Order (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/12/2012)

04/13/2012 2852 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2851 Cross MOTION for Protective Order (proposed order submitted) (proposed Order Denying Cross Motion submitted) filed by Tennessee, State of. (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/13/2012)

04/16/2012 2853 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal, Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

04/17/2012 2855 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012 2854 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2833 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 2851 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/18/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/20/2012 2856 NOTICE by USA re 2854 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Protective Order (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

04/24/2012 2857 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and to File Under Seal; proposed order submitted by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/24/2012

2858

SEALED REPLY to Response to Motion re 2842 Response in Opposition to Motion, 2839 Response in Opposition to Motion, to Strike the Court Monitor's Testimony and Reports filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/24/2012 2859 ORDER granting 2857 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. For good cause shown and based on the consent of the parties, the Motion is GRANTED. ***Text Order Only***. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/24/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/27/2012 2860 NOTICE by USA re 2737 Amended MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case of filing of redacted Deposition Transcript of CJ McMorran (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 2861 MOTION to Strike Declarations with Combined Memorandum in Support (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 2862 MOTION for Leave to File Documents by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 2863 Certificate of of Consultation by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 2864 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2605 MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief MOTION to Dismiss the Case Final Brief in Response to State's Motion to Vacate and Dismiss filed by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 2865 Certificate of Consultation by West Tennessee Parent Guardian Association. (Sherman, William) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/30/2012 2866 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (proposed order submitted) by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012 2867 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2737 Amended MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case (Closing Brief) filed by All Defendants. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012 2868 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2737 Amended MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case Post Hearing Brief filed by USA. (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012 2869 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages proposed order submitted by People First of Tennessee. (Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 222 of 232

04/30/2012 2870 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2737 Amended MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case filed by People First of Tennessee. (Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

04/30/2012 2872 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 05/01/2012)

05/01/2012 2871 ORDER granting 2866 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/30/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/01/2012)

05/01/2012 2874 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Houseal Jr.. (jld) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

05/02/2012 2873 ORDER granting 2869 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/2/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

05/07/2012 2875 SETTING LETTER: Hearing re: 2727 Defendants' Updated and Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss the Case reset for 6/18/2012 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 05/07/2012)

05/11/2012 2876 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2861 MOTION to Strike Declarations with Combined Memorandum in Support (proposed order submitted) filed by All Defendants. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

05/11/2012 2877 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2862 MOTION for Leave to File Documents filed by All Defendants. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

05/17/2012 2878 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/16/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

05/17/2012 2879 ORDER to Pay Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/16/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/17/2012)

06/12/2012 2880 MOTION Order to Admit Class Member to Nursing Facility combined with certificate fo consultation, Proposed Oredr Submitted by People First of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 06/12/2012)

06/13/2012

2881

SETTING LETTER: Telephonic Hearing re: MOTION OF INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al., FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF CLASS MEMBER RUBY B. IN A NURSING FACIITY set for 6/13/2012 at 4:00 PM before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/13/2012 2882 ORDER granting 2880 Motion. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/13/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/13/2012

2883

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Telephonic Hearing re: 2880 MOTION OF INTERVENOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVES PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, et al., FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF CLASS MEMBER RUBY B. IN A NURSING FACIITY held on 6/13/2012. Motion heard. Order entered on 6/13/2012. (for USA: Jonas Geissler) (Court Monitor: Nancy Ray) (for State of Tennessee: Dianne Dacus, Jonathan Lakey, Michael Kirk) (for Intervenor People First: Earle Schwarz, Jack Derryberry, Judith Gran) (for Intervenor West Tennessee Parent Guardian Assoc.: William Sherman) (Court Reporter Brenda Parker.) (jpw) (Entered: 06/14/2012)

06/15/2012 2884 ORDER to Pay Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/14/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/15/2012 2885 Notice of Eligibility for Participation in Cameras Pilot Project. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/15/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/15/2012 2886 NOTICE by USA re 2885 Order Consenting to Participation in the Cameras Pilot Project (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/15/2012 2887 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee re 2885 Order Consenting to Video Recordation (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 223 of 232

06/18/2012 2888 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of re 2885 Order Consent to Video Recording and Publishing (Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

06/18/2012 2889 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of Filing Declaration of C.J. McMorran Regarding Class Member Ruby B. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of C.J. McMorran, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of C.J. McMorran, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of C.J. McMorran)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

06/18/2012

2890

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Hearing / Closing Arguments re: 2737 Defendants' Updated and Amended Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Orders and to Dismiss held on 6/*18/2012. Closing arguments heard. 2817 Motion to Strike Court Monitor's Testimony heard and taken under advisement. Order to be entered. (USA: Michelle Ann Jones, Jonas Geissler) (State of TN: Michael Kirk, Dianne Dacus, Jonathan Lakey) (Intervenor: People First: Earle Schwarz, Judith Gran, Jack Derryberry, Marcella Derryberry) (Intervenor West TN Parent Guardian's Assoc.: William Sherman) (Court Reporter Brenda Parker.) (jpw) *Modified on 7/3/2012 to correct date hearing was held (jpw). (Entered: 06/19/2012)

06/26/2012 2891 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/25/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

06/29/2012 2892 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings, telephonic motion hearing, held on 06−13−2012 before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Court Reporter Brenda Parker, Telephone number 901−526−8769.

Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in this matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript, and twenty−one (21) calendar days to file a Request for Redaction. Redaction is the responsibility of the attorneys and pro se litigants who attended the hearing to which the transcription applies. Each party is responsible for reviewing and requesting redaction of testimony of witnesses that were called for the party and for that party's own statements.

Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due 7/20/2012. Redaction Request due 7/20/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/27/2012. (Parker, Brenda) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
07/17/2012 2893 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 7/17/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
07/23/2012 2894 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 7/20/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
07/31/2012 2895 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 06−18−2012 before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Court Reporter Brenda Parker, Telephone number 901−526−8769.

Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in this matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript, and twenty−one (21) calendar days to file a Request for Redaction. Redaction is the responsibility of the attorneys and pro se litigants who attended the hearing to which the transcription applies. Each party is responsible for reviewing and requesting redaction of testimony of witnesses that were called for the party and for that party's own statements.

Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due 8/21/2012. Redaction Request due 8/21/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/29/2012. (Parker, Brenda) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
08/07/2012 2896 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 8/7/2012. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 224 of 232

08/22/2012 2897 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 8/21/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

09/03/2012 2898 ORDER denying 2817 Defendants' Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/3/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/03/2012)

09/03/2012 2899 ORDER denying 2862 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/3/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/03/2012)

09/03/2012 2900 ORDER denying 2861 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/3/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/03/2012)

09/04/2012 2901 ORDER denying 2737 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/4/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/04/2012)

09/07/2012

2902

SETTING LETTER: The parties are hereby notified that a Telephonic Conference Call to discuss status of the case and dates for mediation has been set for Thursday, 9/13/2012, at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. The parties shall dial the conference line at 877−336−1829 and enter Access Code 8263358 at least five (5) minutes prior to the start of the conference. (TEXT ORDER ONLY − NO IMAGE ATTACHED). (bdg) (Entered: 09/07/2012)

09/07/2012 2903 Letter from Parties Requesting Referral of Mediation. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/07/2012)

09/07/2012 2904 ORDER REFERRING MEDIATION. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/7/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/07/2012)

09/10/2012

2905

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING − (TEXT ONLY − NO IMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY): The parties are hereby notified that the Telephonic Status Conference to discuss the status of the case and dates for mediation currrently set for Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham has been cancelled. (smm) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

09/10/2012 2906 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/10/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

09/10/2012 2907 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2760 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/10/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

09/12/2012 2908 ORDER denying 2604 Motion ; denying 2608 Motion to Enforce Judgment, with Permission to Renew. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/12/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/12/2012)

09/17/2012 2909 TRANSCRIPT RELEASE NOTICE:

By Administrative Order 2008−35 the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee implemented a policy regarding remote access to electronic transcripts. Pursuant to that policy, as well as Civil Rule 5.2 and Criminal Rule 49.1, each party's attorney is required to review a transcript for information that should be redacted pursuant to the Judicial Conference's privacy policy which requires that Social Security numbers be redacted to show only the last four digits; birth dates should contain only the year of birth; individuals known to be minors should be referred to with initials; and financial account numbers should be redacted to the last four digits. Additionally, in criminal case files, home addresses should reveal only the city and state of residence.

Our records indicate that the 90−day restriction on public access to an electronic transcript(s) in this matter will lapse within 10 days. If a redaction request is required but has not been filed, please do so immediately. Please feel free to contact our office for further guidance on this issue. Document 2892 : Release Date: 09/27/2012. (smm) (Entered: 09/17/2012)

09/17/2012

2910

SETTING LETTER: Settlement Conference set for 9/24/2012 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5 − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. In camera statements are due in chambers by Noon on Thursday, September 20, 2012, and may be emailed to ECF_Judge_Vescovo@tnwd.uscourts.gov or faxed to 901−495−1387. Please see Judge Vescovo's Settlement Conference instructions at

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 225 of 232
www.tnwd.uscourts.gov under Judge's Websites & Profiles. (crk) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
09/17/2012 2911 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2901 Order on Motion to Vacate, 2898 Order on Motion to Strike by Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Don Sundquist, Tennessee, State of. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0651−1558322. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
09/24/2012 2912 SETTING LETTER: Continuation of Scheduling Conference set for 10/29/2012 09:00 AM and 10/30/2012 09:00 AM at the office of Jonathan Lakey, 6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 190, Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
09/27/2012 2913 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/27/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
10/02/2012 2914 USCA Case Number 12−6177 for 2911 Notice of Appeal filed by Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Tennessee, State of per Jill Colyer case mgr.. (jml) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
10/09/2012 2915 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 2907 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Don Sundquist, Tennessee, State of. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0651−1571232. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
10/15/2012 2916 ORDER To Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/15/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
10/17/2012 2917 SETTING LETTER [TEXT ONLY]: Continuation of Scheduling Conference set for 10/29/2012 09:00 AM and 10/30/2012 09:00 AM in Room 341 Federal Building − Memphis [LOCATION CHANGED from the offices of Jonathan Lakey] before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
10/17/2012 2918 USCA Case Number 12−6258 for 2915 Notice of Appeal filed by Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Tennessee, State of per Jill Colyer case mgr.. (jml) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
10/19/2012 2919 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL as to 2907 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees by People First of Tennessee. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0651−1578013. Appeal Record due by 11/5/2012. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
10/22/2012 2920 TRANSCRIPT RELEASE NOTICE:
By Administrative Order 2008−35 the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee implemented a policy regarding remote access to electronic transcripts. Pursuant to that policy, as well as Civil Rule 5.2 and Criminal Rule 49.1, each party's attorney is required to review a transcript for information that should be redacted pursuant to the Judicial Conference's privacy policy which requires that Social Security numbers be redacted to show only the last four digits; birth dates should contain only the year of birth; individuals known to be minors should be referred to with initials; and financial account numbers should be redacted to the last four digits. Additionally, in criminal case files, home addresses should reveal only the city and state of residence.
Our records indicate that the 90−day restriction on public access to an electronic transcript(s) in this matter will lapse within 10 days. If a redaction request is required but has not been filed, please do so immediately. Please feel free to contact our office for further guidance on this issue. Document 2895 : Release Date: 10/29/2012. (smm) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
10/22/2012 2921 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/22/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
11/01/2012 2922 USCA Case Number 12−6341 for 2919 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by People First of Tennessee per Jill Colyer case mgr.. (jml) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
11/02/2012 2923 SETTING LETTER: The next session of the Settlement Conference is set on 11/15/2012 09:00 AM Room 341 Federal Building − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 226 of 232

11/15/2012 2924 AMENDED ORDER amending Docket Entry 2921, filed October 22, 2012. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/22/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

11/15/2012 2925 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/15/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

11/16/2012 2926 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/16/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

11/20/2012 2927 SETTING LETTER: The next session of the Settlement Conference is set on 11/15/2012 09:00 AM Room 341 Federal Building − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

11/20/2012 2928 SETTING LETTER: CORRECTION: The next session of the Settlement Conference is set on 11/28/2012 09:00 AM Room 341 Federal Building − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo.(crk) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

11/30/2012

2929

SETTING LETTER: The next session of the settlement conference will begin on 12/11/2012 9:00 AM and continue on 12/12/2012 at 9:00 AM, 12/19/2012 at 1:00 PM, 12/20/2012 at 9:00 AM and 12/21/2012 at 9:00 AM in Room 341 Federal Building − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

12/05/2012 2930 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/5/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/05/2012)

12/10/2012 2931 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/10/12. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/10/2012)

12/27/2012 2932 SETTING LETTER: Telephone Conference for attorneys only set for 12/28/2012 01:30 PM with Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. The call−in number is 877−336−1828. The access code is 1623522, and the security code is 2062. (crk) (Entered: 12/27/2012)

12/28/2012 2933 SETTING LETTER: Telephone Conference for attorneys only set for 12/31/2012 11:00 AM with Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. The call−in number is 877−336−1828. The access code is 1623522, and the security code is 2062. (crk) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

01/02/2013 2934 SETTING LETTER: Telephone Conference for attorneys only set for 1/3/2013 10:00 AM with Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. The call−in number is 877−336−1828. The access code is 1623522, and the security code is 2062. (crk) (Entered: 01/02/2013)

01/07/2013 2935 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/7/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

01/08/2013 2936 SETTING LETTER: Hearing re: Exit Plan set for 1/15/2013 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

01/09/2013 2937 Joint MOTION Approval of Exit Plan and Entry of Agreed Order proposed Order Submitted; by Plaintiff United States of American, Plaintiffs−Intervenors People First Of Tennesse, and by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exit Plan and Exhibits, # 2 Certificate of Consultation)(Lakey, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/09/2013)

01/11/2013 2938 Letter from William F. Sherman, on behalf of Parent−Guardian Association (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/11/2013)

01/14/2013 2939 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee Notice of filing comment letter (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Comment letter from J.R. re: M.R.)(Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/15/2013

2940

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Hearing re: 2937 Joint Motion for Approval of Exit Plan held on 1/15/2013. The Court heard from counsel from the United States, People First and the State of Tennessee. Sworn witness: Jane Ricketts. *The Court heard from Dr. Nancy Ray via telephone. Exit Plan approved. Order to be entered. (for USA: Jonas Geissler) (People First: Earle

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 227 of 232

Schwarz, Jack Derryberry, Judith Gran) (for State of TN: Michael Kirk, Robert Cooper, Dianne Dycus, Jonathan Lakey) (Court Reporter: Brenda Parker) (jpw) *Modified on 1/15/2013 (jpw). (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/17/2013 2941 NOTICE, EXIT PLAN (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/17/2013)

01/17/2013 2942 AGREED ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/17/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/17/2013)

01/22/2013

Motions terminated: 2937 Joint MOTION Approval of Exit Plan and Entry of Agreed Order proposed Order Submitted; by Plaintiff United States of American, Plaintiffs−Intervenors People First Of Tennesse, and filed by Ned McWherter, Max Jackson, Don Sundquist, Mona Reeves−Winfrey, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Evelyn C. Robertson, Jr., Tennessee, State of.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/22/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/22/2013 2943 SETTING LETTER: Compliance Conference set for 2/20/2013 09:00 AM in Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/23/2013 2944 Joint MOTION to Clarify Agreed Order re 2942 Order by Plaintiff United States of America and by All Defendants. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 01/23/2013)

01/23/2013 2945 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/23/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/23/2013)

01/23/2013 2946 ORDER granting 2944 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/23/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/23/2013)

01/25/2013 2947 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/25/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/25/2013 2948 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 1/25/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 01/25/2013)

01/28/2013 2949 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 01−15−2013 before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Court Reporter Brenda Parker, Telephone number 901−526−8769. Tape Number: N/A.

Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in this matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript, and twenty−one (21) calendar days to file a Request for Redaction. Redaction is the responsibility of the attorneys and pro se litigants who attended the hearing to which the transcription applies. Each party is responsible for reviewing and requesting redaction of testimony of witnesses that were called for the party and for that party's own statements.

Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due 2/19/2013. Redaction Request due 2/19/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/29/2013. (Parker, Brenda) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
02/11/2013 2950 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/11/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
02/11/2013 2951 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/11/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
02/20/2013 2952 AMENDED ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/20/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
02/22/2013 2953 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
02/25/2013 2954 ORDER granting 2953 Joint Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/25/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/25/2013)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 228 of 232
02/25/2013 2955 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 2/25/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
03/08/2013 2956 SETTING LETTER: Compliance Conference set for 3/15/2013 09:30 AM in Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
03/12/2013 2957 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS −− Objections to R&R due by 3/26/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 3/12/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
03/18/2013 2958 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/18/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
03/22/2013 2959 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Objections to R&R due by 4/5/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 3/22/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
03/22/2013 2960 SETTING LETTER: Compliance Conference set for 4/16/2013 09:30 AM in Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
04/01/2013 2961 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees (Proposed Order Submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
04/01/2013 2962 ORDER granting 2961 Joint Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/1/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
04/01/2013 2963 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2957 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/1/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
04/08/2013 2964 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/8/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
04/15/2013 2966 ORDER Appointing Court Monitors and Approving Budget. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/15/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
04/15/2013 2967 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2959 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 4/15/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
04/16/2013 2968 SETTING LETTER: Compliance Conference set for 5/20/2013 09:00 AM in Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, TN before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
04/22/2013 2969 TRANSCRIPT RELEASE NOTICE:
By Administrative Order 2008−35 the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee implemented a policy regarding remote access to electronic transcripts. Pursuant to that policy, as well as Civil Rule 5.2 and Criminal Rule 49.1, each party's attorney is required to review a transcript for information that should be redacted pursuant to the Judicial Conference's privacy policy which requires that Social Security numbers be redacted to show only the last four digits; birth dates should contain only the year of birth; individuals known to be minors should be referred to with initials; and financial account numbers should be redacted to the last four digits. Additionally, in criminal case files, home addresses should reveal only the city and state of residence.
Our records indicate that the 90−day restriction on public access to an electronic transcript(s) in this matter will lapse within 10 days. If a redaction request is required but has not been filed, please do so immediately. Please feel free to contact our office for further guidance on this issue. Document 2949 : Release Date: 04/29/2013. (smm) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
05/31/2013 2970 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS −− Objections to R&R due by 6/14/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 5/31/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 229 of 232
05/31/2013 2971 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 5/31/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
06/12/2013 2972 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/12/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
06/14/2013 2973 SETTING LETTER: Compliance Conference set for 6/18/2013 09:30 AM in Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
06/17/2013 2974 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS − Objections to R&R due by 7/1/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 6/17/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
06/17/2013 2975 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2970 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/17/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
06/17/2013 2976 ORDER to Pay Court Monitor Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 6/17/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
06/26/2013 2977 SETTING LETTER: Compliance Conference set for 7/17/2013 09:30 AM in Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
07/01/2013 2978 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Objections to R&R due by 7/15/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 7/1/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
07/03/2013 2979 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 7/3/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
07/08/2013 2980 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2974 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 7/8/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
07/16/2013 2981 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2978 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 7/16/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
07/25/2013 2982 ORDER to Pay Court Monitors' Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 7/25/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
08/09/2013 2983 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Objections to R&R due by 8/23/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 8/8/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
08/20/2013 2984 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 8/20/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
08/22/2013 2985 ORDER to Pay Court Monitors' Fees and Expenses. Signed by Chief Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 8/22/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/22/2013)
08/26/2013 2986 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2983 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 8/26/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
09/05/2013 2987 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/5/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
09/06/2013 2988 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS − Objections to R&R due by 9/20/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 9/6/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
09/20/2013 2989 ORDER Setting Hearing. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/20/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
09/23/2013 2990 SETTING LETTER: Hearing re: Court Monitors' Final Report set for 10/18/2013 02:30 PM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 230 of 232

09/23/2013 2991 Notice of Eligibility for Participation in Cameras Pilot Project. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/23/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

09/25/2013 2992 ORDER To Pay Court Monitors' and Consultant's Fees and Expenses. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 9/25/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 09/25/2013)

09/26/2013 2993 SETTING LETTER: Compliance Conference reset from 10/16/2013 to 10/8/2013 09:30 AM in Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. (crk) (Entered: 09/26/2013)

09/30/2013 2994 NOTICE by USA OF CONSENT TO VIDEO RECORDING AND PUBLISHING AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

10/02/2013 2995 SETTING LETTER: Hearing re: Court Monitors' Final Reports reset for 11/8/2013 02:30 PM in Courtroom 1 − Memphis before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. (jpw) (Entered: 10/02/2013)

10/07/2013 2996 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Objections to R&R due by 10/21/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 10/7/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/09/2013

2997

SETTING LETTER: November Compliance Conference reset from 11/18/2013 to 11/7/2013 01:30 PM Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo. The December Compliance Conference is reset from 12/16/2013 to 12/5/2013 9:30 AM Room 341 Federal Building, 167 North Main Street − Memphis before Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo.(crk) (Entered: 10/09/2013)

10/11/2013 2998 ORDER to Disburse Funds. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/11/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

10/11/2013 2999 Joint MOTION to Extend Deadline for Filing Notice of Points of Concern (Memorandum Included) by People First of Tennessee, Tennessee, State of, USA. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

10/14/2013 3000 NOTICE by State of Tennessee of Filing Consenting to Participation in Cameras Pilot Project (Kirk, Michael) Modified on 10/15/2013 to correct filer as only by State of Tennessee per filer's request(jae). (Entered: 10/14/2013)

10/15/2013 3001 ORDER granting 2999 Motion to Extend Deadline. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/15/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/21/2013 3002 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (proposed Order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

10/22/2013 3003 ORDER to Pay Court Monitors' Invoices. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/23/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

10/25/2013 3004 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS − Objections to R&R due by 11/8/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 10/25/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 10/25/2013)

10/25/2013 3005 NOTICE by Tennessee, State of re 2989 Order (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 10/25/2013)

10/25/2013 3006 NOTICE by USA re 2989 Order Notice of Points of Concern (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 10/25/2013)

10/25/2013 3007 NOTICE by People First of Tennessee of filing Points of Concern (Derryberry, Jack) (Entered: 10/25/2013)

11/04/2013 3008 ORDER granting 3002 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/4/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/08/2013 3009 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS − Objections to R&R due by 11/22/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo on 11/8/2013. (Vescovo, Diane) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013 3010 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2988 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/8/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 231 of 232

11/08/2013 3011 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2996 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/8/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013 3012 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 3004 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/8/13. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013

3014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla: Hearing re: Court Monitors' Final Reports held on 11/8/2013. Report given by Court Monitors Gaye Henson and Nicole Arsenault. (for USA: Jonas Geisler) (for People First: Earle Schwarz, Jack Derryberry, Judith Gran) (for State of TN: Michael Kirk, Jonathan Lakey) (Court Reporter: Brenda Parker) (jpw) (Entered: 11/12/2013)

11/12/2013 3013 SETTING LETTER: The Compliance Conference set for 12/5/2013 09:30 AM has been canceled. (crk) (Entered: 11/12/2013)

11/20/2013 3015 Sealed Document Noitce of Filing of Polypharmacy Review Reports. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Geissler, R.) (Entered: 11/20/2013)

11/22/2013 3016 ORDER to Pay Court Monitors' Invoices. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 11/22/2013. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 11/22/2013)

11/26/2013

3017

Joint MOTION to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief, Joint MOTION to Dismiss This Case with Prejudice by Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Max Jackson, Ned McWherter, People First of Tennessee, Mona Reeves−Winfrey, Evelyn C. Robertson, Jr, Don Sundquist, Tennessee, State of, USA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Consultation)(Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 11/26/2013)

12/03/2013 3018 ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/3/2013. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/04/2013 3019 ORDER granting 3017 Joint Motion to Vacate All Outstanding Injunctive Relief; granting 3017 Joint Motion to Dismiss the Case with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/04/2013. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/04/2013)

12/04/2013 3020 SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT AND VACATUR OF OUTSTANDING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/04/2013. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/04/2013)

12/10/2013 3021 ORDER to disburse funds. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/10/2013. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/10/2013)

12/10/2013 3022 ORDER of USCA as to 2915 Notice of Appeal filed by Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Tennessee, State of, 2919 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by People First of Tennessee. It is ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED pursuant to 42(b), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (jld) (Entered: 12/10/2013)

12/11/2013 3023 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/11/2013)

12/12/2013 3024 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Applications for Attorneys Fees and Expenses (proposed order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/13/2013 3025 ORDER granting 3023 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/12/2013. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/13/2013)

12/13/2013 3026 ORDER granting 3024 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/13/2013. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/13/2013)

12/27/2013 3027 ORDER. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/27/2013. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 12/27/2013)

01/08/2014 3028 NOTICE of retrieval of exhibits. (jae) (Entered: 01/08/2014)

02/05/2014 3029 ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 02/05/2014. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 02/05/2014)

Case: 2:92-cv-2062 As of: 03/17/2018 03:11 PM CDT 232 of 232

02/10/2014 3030 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings, held on 11−08−2013 before Judge Jon Phipps McCalla. Court Reporter Brenda Parker, Telephone number 901−526−8769. Tape Number: N/A.

Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in this matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript, and twenty−one (21) calendar days to file a Request for Redaction. Redaction is the responsibility of the attorneys and pro se litigants who attended the hearing to which the transcription applies. Each party is responsible for reviewing and requesting redaction of testimony of witnesses that were called for the party and for that party's own statements.

Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due 3/3/2014. Redaction Request due 3/3/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/12/2014. (Parker, Brenda) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
03/05/2014 3031 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses (proposed Order submitted) by People First of Tennessee. (Schwarz, Earle) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
03/07/2014 3032 ORDER granting 3031 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 03/07/2014. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
05/05/2014 3033 TRANSCRIPT RELEASE NOTICE:

By Administrative Order 2008−35 the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee implemented a policy regarding remote access to electronic transcripts. Pursuant to that policy, as well as Civil Rule 5.2 and Criminal Rule 49.1, each party's attorney is required to review a transcript for information that should be redacted pursuant to the Judicial Conference's privacy policy which requires that Social Security numbers be redacted to show only the last four digits; birth dates should contain only the year of birth; individuals known to be minors should be referred to with initials; and financial account numbers should be redacted to the last four digits. Additionally, in criminal case files, home addresses should reveal only the city and state of residence.

Our records indicate that the 90−day restriction on public access to an electronic transcript(s) in this matter will lapse within 10 days. If a redaction request is required but has not been filed, please do so immediately. Please feel free to contact our office for further guidance on this issue. Document 3030 : Release Date: 05/12/2014. (smm) (Entered: 05/05/2014)

08/04/2014 3034 MOTION to Withdraw Of Counsel (Unopposed) (proposed order submitted) by Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Don Sundquist, Tennessee, State of. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 3035 ORDER granting 3034 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 08/04/2014. (McCalla, Jon) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

02/10/2015

3036

Appeal OPINION: IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ORDERED that the district courts September 10, 2012order with respect to People Firsts 19th application for an award of fees is REVERSED, and the caseREMANDED with instructions to deny that application. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PeopleFirsts cross−appeal (No. 12−6341) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.(jae) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

03/26/2015 3037 MANDATE of USCA as to 2915 Notice of Appeal filed by Don Sundquist, Marjorie Nelle Cardwell, Tennessee, State of (jae) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

04/06/2015 3038 MANDATE of USCA as to 2919 Notice of Cross Appeal filed by People First of Tennessee (jae) (Entered: 04/06/2015)

 
 260 F.3d 587 (2001)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee, Inc., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant,
People First of Tennessee, Intervenor-Appellee, v.
State of TENNESSEE, Defendant-Appellee. People First of Tennessee, on behalf of its members; Bonnie Chaffee, by her next friend, Crystal Goodman; Dowell Harris, by his next friend, Rocky Akin; Effie Estelle Pippin, by
her next friend, Frances Hamblen; Sandra Jo Proctor, by her next friend, Evelyn McCormack; Cynthia Dawn Sommerville, by her parents and natural guardians, Jeff and Kathy Sommerville; Kevin Troupe, by his next friend, Charles Hall; Juanita Wright, by her
next friend, William A. Goodman, Jr., Mary Ann Avery, by her next friend, Jason Elam; Audriniece Hollister, by her next friend, Ethyl Ervie; Kenneth Lee; Eddie Jones; Larry
Wayne Vaughn; Charles Wilhoite; Carolyn Britt; Rebecca Workman; Jenny Belle Greenwood; David Balthrop; Terry Beaty; United States of America, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. Clover Bottom Developmental Center; Don Sundquist, in his official capacity as Governor
of the State of Tennessee; Julie Bratcher, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Clover Bottom Developmental Center; Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental
Retardation; Tennessee Department of Health; Rusty Seibert, in his official capacity as Assistant Commissioner of TennCare; Comcare, Inc.; Fredia S. Wadley, M.D., in her
official capacity as Commissioner of Health; Greene Valley Developmental Center; Nat T. Winston Developmental Center; O. Stephen Roth, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Clover Bottom Developmental Center; Robert Erb, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Greene Valley Developmental Center; Pete Davidson; Ben Dishman; Thomas Sullivan; John Ferguson, in his official capacity as Commissioner
of Finance and Administration, Defendants-Appellees, Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee (CMRA), Proposed Intervenor-
Appellant.
Nos. 00-5342, 00-6514
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued: April 27, 2001. Decided and Filed: August 8, 2001. Rehearing Denied October 1, 2001.
58990 *589 *590 ARGUED: William M. Barrick, WEED, HUBBARD, BERRY & DOUGHTY, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.
Judith A. Gran, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dianne Stamey Dycus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, Kevin K. Russell, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: William M. Barrick, William B. Hubbard, WEED, HUBBARD, BERRY & DOUGHTY, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Judith A. Gran, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dianne Stamey Dycus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, Kevin K. Russell, Mark L. Gross, Lisa Wilson Edwards, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Washington, D.C., Jack W. Derryberry, Jr., WARD, DERRYBERRY & THOMPSON, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees.
Before: NELSON and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; FEIKENS, District Judge.[*]
Rehearing En Banc Denied October 1, 2001
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
OPINION
FEIKENS, District Judge.
The above captioned cases have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee (CMRA) appeals the decisions of the two district courts that denied its petitions to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Because CMRA's petitions are untimely and it has not advanced any substantial right to intervene, its appeals are denied.
591 *591 I. BACKGROUND
CMRA is an association of nonprofit agencies that provide services to retarded persons and those with mental disabilities in community placements. These services include case management, residential medical support, supported living, transportation, day services, and other services. CMRA represents the interests of the community-based service provider industry in legislative, executive, and judicial matters. CMRA has 75 members, including most of the community agencies in the State of Tennessee. The vast majority of these community agencies is nonprofit, formed in local communities, and receives funding from the State and federal government.
CMRA appeals the decisions of Judge Robert L. Echols in People First of Tennessee v. Clover Bottom Developmental Center and Judge Jon P. McCalla in United States v. State of Tennessee, that denied its motions to intervene in the present litigation.[1] The two cases have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. The underlying lawsuits were brought by the United States and private plaintiffs against the State of Tennessee regarding the operation of its mental health system. In each case, CMRA alleged in its petition that the State of Tennessee had violated the constitutional and statutory rights of individuals who are mentally retarded and developmentally disabled. It attempted to intervene as of right and permissively in both cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b). CMRA only appeals the decisions that denied them the ability to intervene as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).
We will rely on the ample factual background provided in previous opinions in these two cases to describe the events leading up to CMRA's attempt to intervene. See United States v. State of Tennessee, 181 F.3d 105 (Table), 1999 WL 357785 (6th Cir.1999); People First of Tenn. v. Arlington Developmental Ctr., 145 F.3d 1332 (Table), 1998 WL 246146 (6th Cir.1998); United States v. State of Tennessee, 925 F.Supp. 1292 (W.D.Tenn. 1995); People First of Tenn. v. Arlington Developmental Ctr., 878 F.Supp. 97 (W.D.Tenn.1992).
II. ANALYSIS
CMRA contends that it was improperly denied the right to intervene in the two cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), an outsider may intervene as of right:
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action ... when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the

applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
The criteria that must be satisfied before intervention as of right will be granted are: (1) timeliness of the application to intervene, (2) the applicant's substantial legal interest in the case, (3) impairment of the applicant's 592 ability to protect that interest in the absence of intervention, and (4) inadequate representation of that interest *592 by parties already before the court. See Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 (6th Cir.1997).
A district court's denial of intervention as of right is reviewed de novo, except for the timeliness element, which is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394, 398 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.2d 336, 340 (6th Cir.1990)).
A.Timeliness
CMRA contends that now is the appropriate time to intervene and that it filed its motions timely because it learned shortly prior to bringing its motions that its interests were not being represented by the existing parties. We have identified several factors to be established in determining whether a request for intervention is timely:
(1) the point to which the suit has progressed; (2) the purpose for which intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding the application during which the proposed intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case; (4) the prejudice to the original parties due to the proposed intervenor's failure, after he or she knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case, to apply promptly for intervention; and (5) the existence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor of intervention.
Grubbs v. Norris, 870 F.2d 343, 345 (6th Cir.1989). "The determination of whether a motion to intervene is timely should be evaluated in the context of all relevant circumstances." Jansen, 904 F.2d at 340. We will find an abuse of discretion only when left with the "definite and firm conviction that the court ... committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors" or where it "improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard." Huey v. Stine, 230 F.3d 226, 228 (6th Cir.2000) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
1. Stage of the Proceeding
CMRA contends that the district judges abused their discretion when they denied the motions to intervene. CMRA argues it did not become aware of its independent interest to intervene until the implementation of the settlement agreements required its members to provide community-based services to individuals without a guarantee of sufficient payment by the State of Tennessee. CMRA cites to Grubbs and Linton v. Commissioner, 973 F.2d 1311 (6th Cir.1992), for the proposition that intervenors can timely appeal during the remedial stages of a consent decree. See Grubbs supra; Linton, supra.
We have recently stated that the time of intervention is not the determining factor but rather that "all circumstances" must be examined to determine the substantive progress that has occurred in the litigation. See Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467, 475 (6th Cir.2000) ("The propriety of intervention in any given case, however, must be measured under `all circumstances' of that particular case.") (citing NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 2603, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973)). If the litigation has "made extensive progress in the district court before the appellants moved to intervene" then this factor weighs against intervention. Id.
In these cases, there was very little for either district judge to do when CMRA filed its petitions for intervention. In People First, Judge Echols had conditionally approved the initial settlement; the parties had prepared the 593 Community Development Plan required by him. He had approved this plan, and the motion for *593 final approval of the settlement was already pending before him. In United States v. Tennessee, Judge McCalla had approved several remedial orders to bring the mental health system into compliance with the Civil Rights of Institutionalized

Persons Act (42 U.S.C. § 1997) and had approved the Community Plan. All substantive issues had been resolved by both judges at the time of CMRA's filing for intervention and all that was required was final approval by the judges. This factor weighs strongly against allowing intervention by CMRA. See Stupak-Thrall, 226 F.3d at 475.

2. Purpose of the Intervention

CMRA states that it simply requests the opportunity to be an active party in future remedial proceedings. CMRA would like the opportunity to participate in the implementation of the settlement agreements, to advocate and protect the regulatory and economic interests of community providers and to assure that sufficient other resources are provided in the community in a timely manner so that individuals receive timely and appropriate services. CMRA contends that throughout the remedial phase the courts and the parties will address matters which will directly implicate the scope, quality, timing and funding of services to be performed by CMRA members.
In People First, Judge Echols found that this argument did not state an adequate "purpose for the intervention." He stated, "Because it is the State's responsibility to assure that `resources are provided in the community' and `individuals receive timely and appropriate services,' intervention by CMRA would not accomplish these aims. Finally, should CMRA hope, through intervention, to obtain higher rates and fewer obligations for community providers, this forum is not the appropriate forum to seek such relief."
In United States v. State of Tennessee, Judge McCalla held that "These stated purposes do not rise to the level requiring intervention." He held that, "The State of Tennessee is responsible for ensuring that these interests are protected and CMRA agencies are already participating in the implementation of the Remedial Order by providing services to the class members."
The interests asserted by CMRA for seeking intervention are not compelling. This factor also weighs against a finding of timely intervention.

3. The length of time preceding the application during which the Applicant knew or should have known of its interest in the case.

CMRA admits it knew of the litigation in both cases at all stages and it also knew that its members had an interest in the outcome of the litigation. It contends that it believed that the existing parties to the two cases adequately represented its interest initially, and thus, it was not required to intervene in the lawsuits. It now claims that it only recently became apparent that these parties were not adequately representing its interest.

In People First, Judge Echols found that CMRA knew of the litigation at all stages and did not attempt to intervene when it knew that the interests of the community providers were affected by the litigation and proposed settlement agreement. He stated:

It is undisputed that CMRA has been aware of the lawsuits, the time-consuming negotiations

between the parties and interest groups, the disputed issues concerning the types, quality,

594

location, and accessibility of the proposed community *594 health care services, along with the

critical role of the community health care providers in providing these services to the State of

Tennessee for the benefit of the Plaintiffs. Investigations, reports, judicial settlement conferences,

and hearings have been conducted.

He held that this factor weighed against allowing intervention.

In United States v. State of Tennessee, Judge McCalla also found that this factor weighed against allowing CMRA to intervene. He stated:

CMRA's interest developed, at the latest date, when the Community Plan was entered, which was in 1997. The fiscal crisis of the State and other referenced broken promises of the State do not

change the fact that CMRA's interests, even broadly construed, were apparent, at the latest date, when the Community Plan went into effect.
He held that CMRA waited too long before intervening.
We agree with the decisions of the district courts. An entity that is aware that its interests may be impaired by the outcome of the litigation is obligated to seek intervention as soon as it is reasonably apparent that it is entitled to intervene. See NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. at 367, 93 S.Ct. at 2604; Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. v. Tracy, 6 F.3d 389, 396 (6th Cir.1993); Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep't, 679 F.2d 579, 584 & n. 3 (6th Cir.1982) (applicants "should have attempted to intervene when they first became aware of the action, rather than adopting a `wait-and-see' approach"). Given that the settlement agreements specifically address training and the delivery of services in the community, "it would not have required unusual prescience on the part of the intervenors to recognize that their interests were implicated" when the decree was first proposed. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co., 6 F.3d at 396. This factor weighs against timely intervention by CMRA.
4. Prejudice to the Parties
CMRA claims that there is no prejudice to the parties because CMRA does not dispute any issues in the present settlement agreements. The district judges concluded that allowing intervention at this late stage of the proceeding would add a complicated issue to the litigation. They held that the issues raised by CMRA went beyond the scope of the suit's initial focus on the constitutional issue and statutory rights of developmentally disabled residents of state facilities and would require considerable time and expense unnecessary in light of CMRA's access to other fora for resolution of its concern. While CMRA has agreed not to dispute the terms of the settlement agreements, it has not made the same promise as to the remedial plans, the drafting of which involved the participation of more than 2100 stakeholders over many months. There is a risk, to the extent CMRA seeks to intervene to discuss reimbursement rates, payment methodologies, or any other items on its list of grievances, that prejudice against the other parties will occur; such attempts may force the parties into collateral litigation over economic issues in cases that have already settled the merits of plaintiffs' claims. See Bradley v. Milliken, 828 F.2d 1186, 1194 (6th Cir.1987). This factor also weighs against CMRA's intervention.
5. Unusual Circumstances
In People First, CMRA admits that there are no unusual circumstances supporting intervention. In United States v. Tennessee CMRA contends there are unusual circumstances because of the pending appeals and active 595 proceedings concerning compliance with the district court's orders. However, nothing in these *595 proceedings has any effect on CMRA directly. The State of Tennessee, not the CMRA, is ultimately responsible for the funding of its mental health system to comply with the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and the courts' orders.
CMRA has not shown that any of the factors that determine timeliness of intervention weigh in favor of allowing it to intervene this late in either lawsuit. Therefore, we are left with a "definite and firm conviction that the courts ... did not commit a clear error of judgment." Huey, 230 F.3d at 228.
B. Whether CMRA has a substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the pending litigation, which may be impaired.
CMRA claims that it has a substantial interest in this litigation because of its economic interest in how community service programs are funded and because of the lock-in procedure established in the settlement agreements that affect how community-based services are provided. We have held, that:
[I]n this circuit we subscribe to a "rather expansive notion of the interest sufficient to invoke intervention of right." Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 (6th Cir.1997). For example, an intervenor need not have the same standing necessary to initiate a lawsuit. See id.; Purnell v. City of Akron, 925 F.2d 941, 948 (6th Cir.1991). We have also "cited with approval

decisions of other courts `rejecting the notion that Rule 24(a)(2) requires a specific legal or equitable interest.'" Miller, 103 F.3d at 1245 (quoting Purnell, 925 F.2d at 948). "The inquiry into the substantiality of the claimed interest is necessarily fact specific." Id.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394, 398 (6th Cir.1999). We review the decisions of the district courts de novo to determine whether they properly held that CMRA did not establish a substantial interest in the litigation. See Stupak-Thrall, 226 F.3d at 471.
First, CMRA points to its economic interest in assuring adequate funding for implementation of the settlement agreements and its contractual rights in agreements with the State to provide community-based services. The parties to these lawsuits have entered into consent decrees aimed at guaranteeing that Tennessee provide at least the minimum level of care to developmentally disabled individuals required by federal law. CMRA does not challenge the terms of these agreements or contend that they fall below what federal law requires. CMRA is only concerned with the level of funding provided by the State to community-based service providers. CMRA's claimed interest does not concern the constitutional and statutory violations alleged in the litigation, but rather how much its members get paid for providing services. CMRA has an interest in the economic component of the settlement but the consent decrees obligate the State, not CMRA, to fund community services adequately. By the terms of the settlement agreements, it is the responsibility of the State of Tennessee to provide adequate and appropriate community services to members of the plaintiff class. Implementation of the settlement agreement does not alter CMRA's economic interests with the State to provide support and services to the class members nor its ability to negotiate the terms of these contracts. Further, as found by both district court judges, CMRA can protect its economic interests in contract negotiations with the State by lobbying the legislative and executive 596 branches for favorable funding *596 arrangements, and in state courts by suing to enforce its contractual rights.
Second, CMRA claims to have a sufficient interest in the litigation because of the lock-in provision in the Provider Agreement. The Provider Agreement provision at issue states:
Once a Contractor is serving a person on the supported living medical, supported living enhanced or supported living behavioral rates, the Contractor must continue to provide services and may not discharge or deny services to that person without permission of the State pursuant to TCA 33-1-202(c).
Provider Agreement ¶ E.17. CMRA relies on this court's decision in Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment, 30 F.3d 55 (6th Cir.1994), where we held that intervention was appropriate because individual nursing homes had a substantial interest in a suit involving a State plan to remedy violations of the Medicaid Act. In Linton, contracts between the State and nursing homes contained a lock-in provision that prohibited providers from opting out of the State's Medicaid system until the last patient voluntarily left the nursing home. Id. at 1315-16. This provision effectively precluded the nursing homes from terminating their membership in Medicaid. Id. at 1317. We reversed the district court in Linton and held that the effect of the lock-in violated the contractual and statutory rights of nursing homes and gave the nursing homes a substantial interest in the litigation to justify intervention. Id. at 1315-16, 1319.
In People First and the United States v. State of Tennessee, the district judges held that the lock-in provision in their cases did not have the same effect as in Linton and did not justify a substantial interest in this case to allow intervention. First, the agreements in these cases allow the service provider to petition the State to terminate or modify services to the mentally retarded or those with mental disabilities, and thereby do not create a permanent obligation as is the case in Linton. Second, the lock-in provision in the cases before us does not establish an indefinite obligation on service providers to contract with the State as in Linton. Third, the community-based service providers voluntarily entered into contracts with the State and remain free to renegotiate all aspects of its contracts with the State of Tennessee.
CMRA's economic interest and its interest in the lock-in provision do not reach the level of requisite substantial interest required to intervene.

III. CONCLUSION
CMRA has not satisfied the requirements to intervene as of right because it was not timely in bringing its motions and did not establish an adequate substantial interest in either lawsuit. Because it has not established these necessary elements, we do not analyze the claims of impairment of the applicant's ability to protect its interest in the absence of intervention, and whether CMRA's interest is inadequately represented by the parties already before the court. See Michigan State AFL-CIO, 103 F.3d at 1245.
The judgments of the district courts are AFFIRMED.
[*] The Honorable John Feikens, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
[1] In People First, Judge Echols held that CMRA did not timely file its motion to intervene and, even if it had, the organization has no substantial interest in the litigation. In United States v. Tennessee, Judge McCalla held that CMRA lacked a substantial interest in the litigation, and in the alternative, held that the organization had not timely filed its motion to intervene. For purposes of this appeal this distinction makes little difference.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 U.S. v. Tennessee, 143 Fed.Appx. 656 (2005) 2005 Fed.App. 0542N

143 Fed.Appx. 656 This case was not selected for publication in the
Federal Reporter. Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter See
Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or
after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Sixth Circuit Rule 28. (Find CTA6 Rule 28)
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, People First of Tennessee, Intervenor-Appellant,
West Tennessee Parent-Guardian Association, Intervenor-Appellees, v.
STATE of Tennessee; Phil Bredesen, Governor of the State of Tennessee; Virginia Trotter Betts,
Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; Leon Owens,
Superintendent, Arlington Developmental Center, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 03-6389, 03-6628. | June 23, 2005.

*656 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

Attorneys and Law Firms

Mark L. Gross, Karen L. Stevens, Gordon Dwyer Todd, Gordon Dwyer Todd, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jack W. Derryberry, Ward, Derryberry & Thompson, Nashville, TN, Judith A. Gran, Philadelphia, PA, Earle J. Schwarz, Glankler, Brown, Memphis, TN, for IntervenorAppellants.

William F. Sherman, Little Rock, AR, Kimbrough Brown Mullins, The Law Office of Kimbrough Mullins, Memphis, TN, for Intervenor-Appellee.

*657 Dianne Stamey Dycus, Asst. Atty. General, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for DefendantsAppellees. Before MARTIN and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and MCKINLEY, District Judge.*

*

The Honorable Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., United States

District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky,

sitting by designation.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.

These cases have a long and tortured history. In addition to two different district judges, we are the seventh different Sixth Circuit panel to review the case. Three

cases were consolidated for purposes of oral argument. We now render our decision on two of those appeals. In Nos. 03-6389 and 03-6628, the United States appeals the district court’s rejection of the parties’ settlement agreement. We conclude that the district court improperly relied on testimony not in the record and not subject to cross-examination in rejecting the parties’ settlement agreement and we therefore VACATE its decision and REMAND for further proceedings. We further instruct the district court to reconsider this settlement agreement, in addition to the parties’ new settlement agreement at the previously scheduled July 25-29, 2005, fairness hearing.1

1

In the third appeal, No. 00-6120, the State of Tennessee

appeals the district court’s July 17, 2000, order

regarding the scope of the certified class of plaintiffs.

Although the appeals were argued together, it is not

necessary that they be decided simultaneously.

I. The parties to these appeals are the United States, the State of Tennessee, People First of Tennessee, a statewide advocacy organization for people with disabilities, and the West Tennessee Parent-Guardian Association of Arlington Developmental Center, a state-operated facility for persons with mental retardation. The United States initiated this case against the State of Tennessee on January 21, 1992, by filing a complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997, et seq. The complaint challenged the conditions at Arlington Developmental Center and sought injunctive relief, requiring the State “to take such action as will provide constitutional conditions of care to persons who reside at Arlington.” After a trial, the district court found that the conditions at Arlington violated the federal constitutional and statutory rights of its residents and ordered the submission of a remedial plan. The district court later approved a negotiated Remedial Order, on September 2, 1994, as a full and appropriate remedy for the constitutional violations.

The Remedial Order mandated corrective action in order “to guarantee the statutory and constitutional rights of residents of Arlington Developmental Center.” The Remedial Order also committed the State to reducing Arlington’s population to no more than two hundred residents by placing qualified individuals into community residences and programs. The Remedial Order agreement between the United States and Tennessee also provided for a court-appointed Monitor to evaluate the State’s compliance.

Prior to the United States-initiated suit, on December 12, 1991, People First filed its own suit challenging the conditions at Arlington. By the time of the Remedial Order in 1994, the People First case was not yet resolved. In light of the Remedial Order, the plaintiffs in People

1

U.S. v. Tennessee, 143 Fed.Appx. 656 (2005) 2005 Fed.App. 0542N
First filed a renewed motion for class certification on June 12, 1995. On September 26, 1995, the district court certified a class to include
*658 all persons who on or after December 12, 1989, have resided, or are residing at the Arlington Developmental Center; all persons who have been transferred from Arlington Developmental Center to other settings such as intermediate care facilities or skilled nursing facilities but remain defendants’ [State of Tennessee] responsibility; and all persons at risk of being placed at Arlington Developmental Center.
The district court then adopted the findings of fact in the United States case into the People First case, and granted People First intervenor status in the United States action, in effect consolidating the cases.
In the consolidated actions, the Parent-Guardian Association appealed various issues to this Court. The panel concluded that there was “no abuse of discretion in this or any other aspect of the district court’s treatment of the class certification issue,” but noted, however, that “the state itself questioned certain aspects of the class definition,” i.e., the “at risk” language, but because the State did not appeal, “these matters [were] not properly before the court.” People First of Tennessee v. Arlington Developmental Center, 145 F.3d 1332, 1998 WL 246146 (6th Cir.1998) (unpublished).
In the meantime, the United States filed numerous motions for contempt regarding conditions at Arlington based on Tennessee’s failure to comply with the Remedial Order. A settlement was reached between the United States and Tennessee, which led to the creation of the Community Plan for West Tennessee. On August 21, 1997, the Community Plan was approved and adopted by the district court, and then entered as an Order. The district court ordered that the Plan “shall apply to all members of the class certified” in the People First case, and that the Plan “supplements, but does not rescind, the Remedial Order.”
The State appealed to this Court. According to the new panel,
Tennessee now claims that the district court wrongly determined that the consent order in United States v. Tennessee applies to the People First class, that

modifications to the consent order were an abuse of discretion, and that judicial enforcement of the consent order inordinately infringes upon state sovereignty. While this panel does not adopt every aspect of the district court’s opinion, it will affirm the judgment.
United States v. Tennessee, 181 F.3d 105, 1999 WL 357785 (6th Cir.1999) (unpublished).
Subsequently, People First of Tennessee moved for an order of contempt against the State for failing to provide services to class members consistent with the Remedial Order and the Community Plan. On June 29, 1999, the district court issued an order finding the State in contempt and set a hearing to determine the remedy. Prior to the hearing, the parties negotiated an Agreed Order that was approved by the court on August 12, 1999.
When the State later refused to provide services to those the other parties believed were among the “at risk” class, the district court directed the parties to “submit briefs on the scope of the existing class definition (including the history and definition of individuals at risk of being admitted to ADC) and its possible application as an eligibility criterion under the waiver.” A hearing was held on June 13 and 17, 2000, and the district court then issued an order on July 17, 2000, clarifying the scope of the “at risk” class. The district could held
that the ‘at risk’ portion of the class consists of all individuals who reside in the geographic region served by Arlington Developmental Center [ ] and who *659 have demonstrated medical needs sufficient to require institutional care in the absence of home or community based services.... [T]his definition utilizes existing Medicaid eligibility guidelines as objective medical criteria for determining which individuals are ‘at risk’ of being placed at ADC.
This order is the subject of appeal in No. 00-6120.
The State filed a notice of appeal and on September 22, 2000, another different panel of this Court entered a stay pending appeal noting that “the state raises serious questions regarding the standing of those included in the ‘at risk’ group to obtain relief.” See Order of September 22, 2000, No. 00-6120.
2

U.S. v. Tennessee, 143 Fed.Appx. 656 (2005) 2005 Fed.App. 0542N

The parties then engaged in additional settlement negotiations and submitted a joint motion to the district court on December 11, 2001, requesting that the (new) district court (judge) vacate the July 17, 2000 order regarding the “at risk” class and approve the settlement agreement. The district court entered an order on December 14, 2001 to the effect that it was inclined to grant the parties motion should the matter be remanded by this Court. On January 8, 2002, a motions panel, composed of a different set of judges of this Court, entered an order remanding the matter to the district court for consideration of the parties’ joint motion for approval of the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement resolved the “at risk” class issue-the parties agreed on a new definition, not as broad as the district court’s definition, but one that encompassed individuals not within the first two clauses of the class definition. The United States, the State of Tennessee, People First of Tennessee, and the Parent-Guardian Association all signed the settlement agreement and a stipulation to the court asking approval of the agreement. The district court then held a fairness hearing.
Just prior to the fairness hearing, the Parent-Guardian Association decided it no longer agreed to the settlement agreement and asked the court to reject the agreement. The district court ruled that the Parent-Guardian Association was bound by its stipulation, but the court would permit the Association to proffer its evidence to provide a more complete record. The United States, Tennessee, and People First objected to the introduction of any adverse evidence, and further stated that if the evidence was later admitted, the parties were entitled to cross-examine the Association’s witnesses. The district court stated that it was capable of differentiating between what evidence was in the record and what was not, and recognized the parties continuing objection. Thus, the Association’s witnesses testified and were not crossexamined. The district court then rejected the settlement agreement, finding it “as not being in the best interest of the class.” United States v. Tennessee, 256 F.Supp.2d 768, 771 (W.D.Tenn.2003). In its order, the district court specifically relied on the testimony of Parent-Guardian Association witnesses who were part of the proffer, and whose testimony was not in the record, and consequently, were not cross-examined. The United States’ motion to alter or amend the order was denied on October 7, 2003, and a notice of appeal in Nos. 03-6389 and 03-6628 was filed by the United States and intervenor People First of Tennessee.2

2

People First’s argument on appeal is that the district

court abused its discretion in rejecting the settlement

agreement. Because of our conclusion in the United

States’ appeal, we need not reach this issue.

Following entry of the final order rejecting the settlement agreement, a motion was filed in this Court seeking to reinstate the State’s appeal from the July 17, 2000, *660 order regarding the “at risk” class-an issue that had been tentatively resolved by the now-rejected settlement agreement. Another new panel of this Court denied the motion to reinstate the appeal on February 5, 2004. One month later, upon a motion to reconsider, this Court without explanation entered an order reinstating the appeal. The appeal in No. 00-6120 is also before this panel, but we have not yet decided that appeal.
On April 5, 2004, the district court, pursuant to its continuing jurisdiction over the Remedial Order and Community Plan, issued an Order Requiring the Defendants to Appear and Show Cause relative to contempt proceedings for violations of the Remedial Order. The parties yet again began settlement negotiations and eight months later, on December 1, 2004, the United States, the State of Tennessee, and People First of Tennessee signed a new Agreement Resolving Show Cause Motion, that, according to these three parties, “would, if entered, fully resolve the issues in [Nos. 036389 and 03-6628].” On December 28, 2004, the ParentGuardian Association filed a motion asking the district court to reject the New Settlement Agreement and requesting a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the State from implementing any terms of the New Agreement. This motion is currently pending before the district court. A new fairness hearing was held on January 10, 2005, on April 11, 2005, and is scheduled to continue from July 25, 2005 through July 29, 2005.
II. In Nos. 03-6389 and 03-6628, we conclude that the district court improperly relied upon testimony that was proffered, but excluded and not subject to crossexamination, in rejecting the parties’ settlement agreement. We therefore vacate the district court’s order rejecting the settlement agreement and remand for further consideration and instruct the district court to consider both settlement agreements at its upcoming fairness hearing.
At the fairness hearing in 2003, after finding that ParentGuardian Association was bound by its signing of the settlement agreement, the district court permitted the Association to proffer testimony for purposes of developing the record for appeal. Assuring the United States that the testimony was not in the record and was only being heard for purposes of a proffer, the district court ruled that cross-examination was unnecessary despite the continuing objections of the United States. The crux of the United States’ appeal is that in rejecting the parties’ settlement agreement, the district court relied on and specifically cited to evidence that was part of the proffer, unchallenged by cross-examination, and not in
3

U.S. v. Tennessee, 143 Fed.Appx. 656 (2005) 2005 Fed.App. 0542N
the record. Essentially, the United States asserts that it was entitled to cross-examine the Parent-Guardian Association’s witnesses if the district court intended to rely upon them in rendering its decision.
We agree with the United States that it is reversible error for the district court to prohibit cross-examination of witnesses it then relies upon for its decisions. See Francis v. Clark Equip. Co., 993 F.2d 545, 550 (6th Cir.1993) (“refusal to permit cross-examination of a witness concerning matters testified to on direct examination constitutes prejudicial error”); see also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) ( “In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.”).
Here, the district court conclusively stated that it was permitting only a proffer of evidence to develop the record for appeal, but that the evidence would not be admitted into the record. The district court *661 recognized the United States’, Tennessee’s, and People First’s continuing objections to the evidence and their objection to any consideration of the evidence by the district court in the absence of cross-examination. The district court then relied on proffered evidence in denying approval of the settlement agreement, specifically relying upon Dr. Kastner, an expert witness presented by the Parent-Guardian Association.
Parent-Guardian Association asserts that Dr. Kastner’s testimony was merely cumulative of the testimony of numerous parents, guardians, family members, and other interested parties, whose testimony was properly admitted and considered by the district court. Thus, they claim, any error was harmless. The United States points out that Dr. Kastner was the only expert to testify against the settlement agreement, and that Dr. Kastner’s testimony formed the basis for the district court’s concerns.
The testimony elicited by the Parent-Guardian Association against the settlement agreement essentially concerned the Association’s opposition to the closing of Arlington Developmental Center and the eventual community placement of its residents.3 Many family members testified that they preferred that Arlington remain open. Dr. Kastner testified that he does not believe adequate evidence exists to show that community care is better than institutional care, and that community care is often insufficient. Dr. Kastner also testified that this fact often leads to placement of the mentally retarded in nursing homes, which is not an ideal environment. Dr. Kastner also testified that there is a significantly increased risk of death in community placement versus institutional settings.

3

We note only in passing that the major objections to the

settlement agreement by the Parent-Guardian

Association and the district court appear to be over the

closing of Arlington Developmental Center. While we

express no opinion about the wisdom or lack thereof of

closing Arlington, it is our understanding that the State

of Tennessee has the power to close Arlington

regardless of a provision to that effect in the settlement

agreement.

The district court’s opinion stated that it “finds troubling, testimony that persons unable to receive adequate medical care in the community may be placed in nursing homes.” Furthermore,
the Court finds compelling the testimony concerning mortality rates in the community versus in institutions. Dr. Kastner opined that studies indicate that a substantial increase in actual deaths exists as opposed to expected deaths among those placed in the community. Moreover, Dr. Kastner asserted that studies indicate that there is a significant increase in the relative risk of mortality in the community versus in institutions ... The Court cannot take lightly expert testimony that indicates that an increase in mortality rates exists in the community.
It is evident to us that the district court relied upon Dr. Kastner’s testimony as a basis for its rejection of the settlement agreement. While the district court also stated that it cannot “cavalierly ignore the observations and the real life stories of the guardians and family members who live with these issues daily,” thereby also relying on the personal stories of families affected by Arlington Developmental Center, we cannot ignore the fact that Dr. Kastner was the only expert to testify against the settlement agreement. In fact, Dr. Kastner’s testimony regarding a lack of adequate community care, inadequacy of nursing home facilities, and increased mortality rates in community care facilities went well beyond the personal stories of those affected, and was not merely cumulative. *662 The district court’s reliance on this testimony, without the benefit of cross-examination, was error.
III. We therefore VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND for further consideration at the July 25-29th hearing.
Parallel Citations 2005 WL 1506480 (C.A.6 (Tenn.)), 2005 Fed.App. 0542N
4

 
 People First v. Clover Bottom Developmental Ctr.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit October 1, 2001, Filed 00-5342/00-6514

Reporter: 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 29309 PEOPLE FIRST OF TENNESSEE, ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CLOVER BOTTOM DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Prior History: United States v. Tennessee, 260 F.3d 587, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17666 (6th Cir. Tenn., 2001)

The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and no judge of this court having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original panel.

Judges: [*1] BEFORE: NELSON and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and FEIKENS, * District Judge.
Opinion

The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

ORDER

* Hon. John Feikens, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.