US v Garland, Texas Complaint

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs.

Civil Action No. ________

CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS, Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges:

1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.

3. Defendant City of Garland is a corporate, governmental body created pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas.

4. Defendant is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

5. Defendant City of Garland maintains Police and Fire Departments.

6. Defendant City of Garland is responsible for the hiring of all sworn positions in its Police and Fire Departments.

7. Blacks have represented about 13.5% of the applicants for entry-level police officer positions with Defendant from 1988 to 1995, yet they represent only about 3% of the sworn officer workforce. During the same period, the Hispanic applicant rate was about 7.8%, while Hispanics comprise only about 4% of the sworn workforce in the Police Department.

8. Blacks have represented an estimated 11.8% of the applicants for entry-level fire fighter positions with Defendant from 1990 to 1995, yet they represent only about 2.2% of the sworn workforce. During the same period, the Hispanic applicant rate was an estimated 5%, while Hispanics comprise only about 1.3% of the sworn workforce in the Fire Department.

9. Defendant has pursued and continues to pursue policies and practices that have discriminated against Blacks and Hispanics and that have deprived or tended to deprive Blacks and Hispanics of employment opportunities on the basis of race and/or national origin.

10. Defendant has implemented these policies and practices in its Police and Fire Departments, among other ways, as follows:

a. by failing or refusing to recruit and/or hire Blacks and Hispanics for entry-level police officer and fire fighter positions on the same basis as whites;

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/garlandcm.htm

8/14/2007

US v Garland, Texas Complaint

Page 2 of 3

b. by using hiring procedures for entry-level police officer and fire fighter positions that disproportionately exclude Blacks and Hispanics from employment, although these procedures have not been shown to be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity;
c. by providing Black and Hispanic employees with terms, conditions or privileges of employment less favorable than those provided to white employees; and
d. by failing or refusing to take appropriate action to eliminate the discriminatory policies and practices and to correct the present effects of those policies and practices.
11. The United States, through the Department of Justice, has investigated the employment practices of Defendant, has notified Defendant of the results of the investigation and the policies and practices described in paragraph 10 above, and has unsuccessfully attempted to eliminate those policies and practices through negotiation and settlement.
12. The policies and practices of Defendant, described in paragraph 10 above, constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by Blacks and Hispanics of their right to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on race or national origin. The pattern or practice is of such a nature that it is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
13. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as or similar to those alleged in this Complaint.
Wherefore, plaintiff United States prays for an order enjoining the Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from discriminating on the basis of race or national origin with respect to employment practices in its Police and Fire Departments and specifically from:
a. discriminating against Blacks and Hispanics in recruitment and/or hiring;
b. using hiring procedures that disproportionately exclude Blacks and Hispanics from employment, although these procedures have not been shown to be job-related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity;
c. providing Black and Hispanic employees with terms, conditions or privileges of employment less favorable than those provided white employees;
d. failing or refusing to provide make-whole relief, including back pay with interest, offers of employment and retroactive seniority, to individuals who have suffered loss or will suffer loss as a result of the discriminatory employment policies and practices in the Police and Fire Departments alleged in this Complaint; and
e. failing to take other appropriate measures to overcome the present effects of past discriminatory policies and practices in the Police and Fire Departments.
Plaintiff United States prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.
JANET RENO

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/garlandcm.htm

8/14/2007

US v Garland, Texas Complaint
Attorney General
By: ____________________________ BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney General CA Bar No. 108452 ___________________________ RICHARD UGELOW DC Bar No. 95224 MICHAEL T. KIRKPATRICK TX Bar No. 11531002 ANDREW H. TARSY MA Bar No. 633214 Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section P. O. Box 65968 Washington, D. C. 20035-5968 (202) 616-9615 (202) 514-1105 (fax)
PAUL E. COGGINS, JR. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas
KATHERINE MCGOVERN Assistant United States Attorney 1100 Commerce Street, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75242-1699 (214) 767-0951

Page 3 of 3

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/garlandcm.htm

8/14/2007

 
 Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524
OR\G\NAL

Filed 03/31/2004 PaUg.Se. D1ISoTf R5I2CT COURT
.NORTHERNDISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO T

MAR 3 I .

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE S

DALLAS DIVISION

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

§

By ____~__- -____- Deputy

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§ Civil Action No. 3:98-CV-0307-L

§

CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS,

§

§

Defendant.

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff' or "the United States") filed this action

against Defendant City of Garland, Texas ("Defendant" or "the City") on February 6, 1998. This

case involves a disparate impact claim under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"),

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., in which the United States challenges the City's employment practices

in hiring entry-level police officers and firefighters. The court conducted a two-week bench trial

from August 13, 2001 to August 24, 2001, on Plaintiff s claims. Plaintifffiled its Proposed Findings

ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw on November 15,2001, and Defendant filed its Proposed Findings

of Fact and Conclusions of Law on November 20,2001.1 The court now rules in favor of the City

IPlaintifffiled its Objections to Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on December 13, 2001, and Defendant filed its Objections to Plaintiffs Proposed Fmdings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on December 14, 2001. Plaintiff subsequently sent the court a letter dated March 22, 2004, to which it attached a copy of the "Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," issued in a case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case number Ol-020-KAJ, styled United States v. The State of Delaware, The Delaware Department of Public Safety, and The Delaware Division ofState Police. Defendant responded in a letter received on March 26, 2004. The court hereby orders the clerk ofthe court to file Plaintiff s letter and attachment, dated March 22, 2004, and Defendant's letter, received March 26, 2004. The court reviewed the Delaware court's opinion and notes that the Delaware court concluded what this court also concludes, namely, that the ALERT examination is a valid and reliable test and that a cutoff score of up to 70% is reasonable.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 2 of 52
on Plaintiffs claims. Based on a preponderance of the evidence and the applicable law, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions oflaw as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).2 I. Findings of Facf
A. Background The City is a Home-Rule municipality under the Council-Manager form ofgovernment. The City Council is comprised of eight members who are elected by qualified voters within their respective districts, and the Mayor who is elected at large. Council members are elected to two-year terms and are limited to two consecutive terms. The City, which was founded in 1891, is the ninth largest city in Texas and one of the 100 largest cities in the United States. It covers 57 square miles in northeast Dallas County including 243 acres of forests and 1,689 acres of parks. At the time of trial, the City had a population of 203,688 and consisted of more than 4,500 businesses. The employment practices at issue in this case all relate to the use ofthree different cognitive skills tests used by the City to hire entry-level police officers and firefighters: the ALERT entry-level
2The court apologizes for the delay in issuing its findings of fact and conclusions of law. As the parties are aware, this litigation has been both protracted and difficult, requiring review of voluminous, highly technical documents and testimony.
3The facts contained herein are either undisputed or the court has made the finding based on the credibility or believability of each witness. In doing so, the court considered all the circumstances under which the witness testified which include: the relationship of the witness to Plaintiff or Defendant; the interest, ifany, the witness has in the outcome ofthe case; the witness's appearance, demeanor, and manner of testifying while on the witness stand; the witness's apparent candor and fairness, or the lack thereof; the reasonableness or unreasonableness ofthe witness's testimony; the opportunity of the witness to observe or acquire knowledge concerning the facts to which he or she testified; the extent to which the witness was contradicted or supported by other credible evidence; and whether such contradiction related to an important factor in the case or some minor or unimportant detail. When necessary, the court comments on the credibility of a witness or the weight to be given a witness's testimony. Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 3 of 52
police officer examination;4 the International Personnel Management Association ("IPMA") B-4 entry-level firefighter examination (used in April 1992); and the ALARM entry-level firefighter examination (used since 1994).5 From 1992 through 1999, Neil R. Barnett, the City's Civil Service Director, decided which entrance examinations were administered to the police officer and firefighter applicants. The ALERT,6 the IPMA B-4,7 and the ALARM8 examinations are paper-and-pencil multiple choice tests designed to measure certain cognitive skills. None ofthese examinations was

4Since 1992, the City used the following ALERT examinations to select entry-level police officers:

Test Develo~er

Test Series

Date

WOLLACK

ALERT02/BB

July 18, 1992

WOLLACK

ALERT A-3

May 21, 1993

WOLLACK

ALERT A-4

July 8, 1994

WOLLACK

ALERT A-5

October 6, 1995

WOLLACK

ALERT A-6

August 16, 1996

WOLLACK

ALERT A-I

October 3, 1997

WOLLACK

ALERT A-2

February 20, 1998

WOLLACK

ALERT A-4

May 10, 1999

WOLLACK

ALERT A-3

May 14, 1999

WOLLACK

ALERT A-5

June 26, 1999

WOLLACK

ALERT A-4

May 19,2000

WOLLACK

ALERT A-7

July 7, 2000

5Smce 1992, the City used the following examinations to select entry-level firefighters:

Test Develo~er

Test Series

Date

IPMA

B-4

April 11, 1992

WOLLACK

ALARM 01

March 4, 1994

WOLLACK

ALARM 02

August 18, 1995

WOLLACK

ALARM 03

September 6, 1996

WOLLACK

ALARM 04

August 21, 1997

WOLLACK

ALARM 01

August 14 and 18, 1998

WOLLACK

ALARM 02

August 17 and 20, 1999

WOLLACK

ALARM 03

June 16,2000

6 The ALERT examination is a 160-item test with seven alternate forms.

7The IPMA B-4 examination is a 85-item test.

8The ALARM examination is a 1OO-item test with four alternate forms.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 4 of 52
intended to assess noncognitive traits; instead, these traits are assessed in the post-test components
of the selection process.
The City uses what is sometimes referred to as a "multiple hurdle" model, in which
applicants are weeded out at several different stages in the selection process. The first hurdle is a
preliminary screening for basic prerequisites (age, citizenship, education, and so forth). 9 The second
hurdle is one ofthe cognitive skills tests listed above; applicants scoring below 70% on the test are
rej ected. 10
9From 1992 to 1995, to meet the minimum qualifications for the posItIon of police officer, an applicant had to:
(1) be 21 years of age on the test date, or at least 18 years of age and have 60 hours of college credit or 2 years of military experience;
(2) have a high school diploma or aGED; (3) provide a social security number or driver's license number; (4) be a United States citizen; (5) return a completed application prior to the filing deadline; (6) sign the application; (7) provide a Form DD214 if the applicant is a veteran and wants to have veteran
preference points added to his examination score. The minimum qualifications changed slightly from 1996 to 1998. Specifically, a police officer applicant had to be 18 years of age or older and have 60 hours of college credit or an Associates Degree; 30 hours of college credit and 2 years of active duty military service; or 30 hours ofcollege credit and 2 years experience as a commissioned peace officer (full or part-time). All other minimum qualifications stayed the same. Moreover, beginning in 1997, police officer applicants could not be over the age of 35, or 44 If other reqUIrements were met, as of the date of the examination.
Similarly, from 1992 through the date of trial, an applicant for the position offirefighter had to: (1) be 18 years old on the date of the test; (2) have a high school diploma or aGED; (3) provide a social security number or driver's license number; (4) be a Umted States citizen; (5) return a completed application prior to the filing deadline; (6) sign the application; (7) provide a Form DD214 if the applicant is a veteran and wants to have veteran
preference points added to his examination score. Beginning in 1997, firefighter applicants could not be over the age of 35 as of the date of the examination.
IOIf an applicant scored 70% or higher and provided a Form DD214, five veteran preference points (expressed as a percentage) were added to the applicant's score.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 4

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 5 of 52
The third hurdle, used only for applicants for firefighter positions, is described as a costsavings measure. In the third hurdle, the Garland Fire Department ("Fire Department") processes approximately 30 to 50 test-takers based on their scores on the cognitive skills test. Additional applicants are processed on an as-needed basis. Only a small number of openings are typically available in the Fire Department, so only a limited number ofapplicants from any given test date will eventually be hired. Subsequent stages in the screening process are costly, and the City limits the number of applicants to be processed through these stages. II
Those applicants who pass the second and (if applicable) third hurdles undergo a physical agility test, given on a pass-fail basis. Applicants who pass the physical agility test are subjected to further screening on a pass-fail basis, including an oral interview board, comprehensive background investigation, psychological screening (police only), medical assessment, polygraph examination, and interview. The applicants proceed through this process in descending rank order based on their cognitive skills test scores, including veteran preference points, if any.
The final hurdle is the hiring selection itself. 12 Applicants who pass all components of the screening process are hired in descending rank order13 based their cognitive skills test scores,
liThe Fire Department typically has more applicants who pass the second hurdle than available openings. For example, between 1992 and 1998, nearly 1,800 applicants passed the second hurdle, but only 81 were ultImately hIred.
12There is no allegation ofpost-test adverse impact. In other words, there is no allegation that among those applicants who passed the cognitive skills test, there was a statistically significant difference in the hiring rates of black, Hispanic (collectively "minority"), or white applicants in either department.
13Between 1987 and 1990, there were nine firefighter applicants who were hired out of rank order. Their scores on the cognitive skills test were between 63.5% and 87%, and they ranked between 88 and 420 on the eligibility lists.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 5

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 6 of 52
including veteran preference points, if any. 14 Thus, if the City has more openings than remaining
applicants, all applicants are hired. 15 lfthe City has more applicants than openings, some applicants who scored better than the 70% cutoff score will be rejected. 16
Those hired also undergo extensive state-mandated training at the respective training academiesl7 and must pass state certification examinations l8 before beginning field training. For
example, a police officer recruit must pass the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards
and Education ("TCLEOSE") basic peace officer certification test in order to enter the field training
phase. Similarly, a firefighter recruit must pass the TCFP basic structural firefighter certification test
prior to beginning work as a probationary firefighter. Although more individuals may "wash out"
or be eliminated at these later points, the court need not consider these processes, as the United
States challenges no practices that occur after the final selection, described above, takes place.
14Veteran preference points did not adversely affect minority applicants; instead, the points statistically worked to their advantage.
15The number of openings is fixed by budgetary appropriation based on need. Specifically, the City combines estimated vacancies due to retirements and other attrition with the historic dropout and failure rates at the police or fire academy and probationary training to arrive at the number of entry-level police officers and firefighters, respectively, it can hire in a given year.
16Since 1992, the Fire Department has never exhausted an eligibility list, as it has had enough candIdates to fill the number ofpositions available. The Garland Police Department ("Police Department"), on the other hand, has exhausted all of its eligibility lists, except for those in 1993 and 1994, thus hiring all applicants who successfully completed all of the hurdles.
17Police officer recruits attend the Garland Police Academy. Police academy grades are used to determine semonty among police officers hired on the same day. Firefighter recruits, who are not already certified by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection ("TCFP"), attend the Dallas Fire Academy. As firefigher recruits are required to become Emergency Medical Technicians ("EMTs"), they, as well as current firefIghters who are promoted to the rank of driver and are not certified paramedics, must also attend paramedic school. Prior to February 2001, Garland firefighters who went to paramedIc school attended the paramedic training program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
18Scores on the state certification examinations are used to ensure that a recruit has achieved certification.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 6

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 7 of 52
During November 1993, the City began consulting with Dr. Stephen Wollack19 in anticipation of and in preparation for this litigation on issues relating to the validation of and adverse impact, if any, resulting from the ALERT and ALARM examinations. The parties stipulated to a database to be used for this litigation which included information regarding individuals who were affected by the challenged employment practices used by the City during the relevant time period.
B. Expert Witnesses 1. Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses a. Bernard Siskin
Dr. Bernard Siskin ("Dr. Siskin") testified regarding his analysis ofthe employment practices challenged by the United States. Dr. Siskin holds a doctorate in statistics for the University of Pennsylvania and is a former chair of the Department of Statistics of Temple University. Since 1984, Dr. Siskin has been a statistical and economic consultant. He has testified as an expert witness over a hundred times.
b. Frank Landy Dr. Frank Landy ("Dr. Landy") testified regarding the broad range of cognitive and noncognitive attributes that are necessary to perform the jobs of a police officer and firefighter. Dr. Landy holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from Villanova University and master's degree and doctorate in industrial psychology from Bowling Green State University. He has been an industrial organizational psychologist for approximately 30 years and has many years ofexperience with entrylevel and promotional examinations for police officers and firefighters.
19Wollack & Associates developed the QB entry-level police examination and has made it available to the public continuously since 1987. Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 7

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 8 of 52
c. David Paul Jones Dr. David Paul Jones ("Dr. Jones") testified regarding the development and validation ofthe Protective Services Profile ("PSP"), an entry-level police officer selection device. Dr. Jones was the project director for Aon Consulting, the firm that developed and validated the PSP. Dr. Jones holds a doctorate in industrial organizational psychology from Bowling Green State University. He has over 25 years of experience in designing and validating employee selection systems for public and private employers, including employers of law enforcement personnel.
d. Leaetta Hough Dr. Leaetta Hough ("Dr. Hough") testified regarding the broad range of cognitive and noncognitive attributes that are necessary to perform the jobs of a police officer and firefighter. Dr. Hough holds a doctorate in industrial organizational psychology. Within her field, Dr. Hough specializes in the area of personality. Dr. Hough has experience in designing and validating employment selection procedures, includingjob analyses and test development for entry-level police officers and firefighters.
e. Christopher Hornick Dr. Christopher Hornick ("Dr. Hornick") testified regarding development and validation of the CWH Selections Solutions Firefighter Examination ("CWH examination"), a selection device for entry-level firefighters. Dr. Hornick is the president ofCWH Management Solutions, the firm that developed and validated the CWH examination. Dr. Hornick holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of Utah, a master's degree in psychology from Texas Christian University, and a doctorate also from Texas Christian University. He has more than twenty years of experience analyzing the work of entry-level firefighters.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 8

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 9 of 52

2.

Defendant's Expert Witnesses

a. Judith Stoikov

Dr. Judith Stoikov ("Dr. Stoikov") is a statistician and labor economist. Dr. Stoikov holds

a bachelor's degree in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University and a doctorate in

economics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. During the past 20 years,

Dr. Stoikov has been recognized by federal and state courts as an expert in labor economics and

statistical analysis.

h. F. Mark Schemmer

Dr. F. Mark Schernrner ("Dr. Schemmer") testified regarding the development and validation

ofthe IPMA B-4 examination. Dr. Schemmer holds a bachelor's degree in psychology with a minor

in mathematics, a master's degree in cognitive psychology, and a doctorate in quantitative

psychology, all from the University of Maryland. He has over 20 years of experience in personnel

test development and validation.

c. David Morris

Dr. David Morris ("Dr. Morris") testified regarding the necessity of cognitive skills for the

job of a police officer and his firm's role in the revision ofthe IPMA B-4 examination. Dr. Morris

is employed with the Morris & McDaniel, a firm specializing in industrial organizational practice,

and has been so employed since 1976. Dr. Morris holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from

Milsaps College, a master's degree in psychology from Mississippi State University, and a doctorate

in psychology from the University of Southern Mississippi. He has extensive experience in

personnel test development and validation.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 9

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 10 of 52

d. Kathleen K. Lundquist

Dr. Kathleen K. Lundquist ("Dr. Lundquist") testified regarding the validation of the

employment selection devices at issue in this case. Dr. Lundquist holds a bachelor's degree in

psychology and a master's degree and a doctorate in psychology specializing in psychometrics. Dr.

Lundquist is president of Applied Psychology Techniques. She has approximately 20 years of

experience in employment test development and validation.

e. Stephen Wollack

Dr. Stephen Wollack ("Dr. Wollack") testified regarding the development and validation of

the employment selection devices at issue in this case. Dr. Wollack holds a bachelor and master's

degree from Temple University and a doctorate in industrial organizational psychology from

Bowling Green State University. Dr. Wollack is vice president ofWollack & Associates, which

publishes police and firefighter examinations. He has extensive experience in employment test

development and validation.

f.

Gerald V. Barrett

Gerald V. Barrett ("Dr. Barrett") testified regarding the validation of one of the alternative

selection devices proposed by the United States. Dr. Barrett holds a bachelor's degree in psychology

from Whittenberg University, a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in industrial

organizational psychology from Case Western Reserve University, and a doctorate ofjurisprudence

from Akron School of Law. He has extensive experience in the development and validation of

employment selection devices

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 10

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 11 of 52
3. Standard for Admitting Expert Testimony Fed. R. Evid. P. 702 and 703, as interpreted in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509
u.s. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) govern the
admissibility of testimony of expert witnesses. Rule 702 provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form ofan opinion or otherwise, if(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. P. 702. Accordingly, before allowing expert testimony to be heard, a district court must be assured that the proffered witness is qualified to testify by virtue of his "knowledge, skill, experience, training or education." A district court should refuse to allow an expert witness to testify if it finds that the witness is not qualified to testify in a particular field or on a given subject. Wilson v. Woods, 163 F.3d 935 (5th Cir. 1999). The issue is whether a particular expert has "sufficient specialized knowledge to assist the jurors in deciding the particular issues .. " Tanner v. Westbrook, 174 F.3d 542,548 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Kumho, 526 U.S. at 156).
In evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony, the key factors are reliability and relevance. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 (under Rule 702, expert testimony must be "not only relevant, but reliable"). The relevancy requirement ensures that the expert testimony will actually "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Id. Fed. R. Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as that which has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." The reliability requirement ensures that the expert testimony is "supported
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 11

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 12 of 52
by appropriate validation" and "establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability." !d. at 590. This determination requires the court to assess "whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and ... whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." !d. at 593. To assist courts in this determination, the Supreme Court has suggested that trial courts examine a nonexclusive list of factors including whether a theory or technique has or can be tested, published, subjected to peer review, has or can be subjected to standards controlling its operation, the known or potential rate of error, and whether the theory or technique is generally accepted. Id. at 593-94. The Court has also instructed trial courts to "be mindful of other applicable rules," such as Rules 703, 706, and 403, when determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Id. at 595.
Kumho stressed that the Daubert factors may be relevant to the reliability ofexperience-based testimony. The overarching goal ofDaubert's gate-keeping requirement, however, is to ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony and to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level ofintellectual rigor that characterizes the practice ofan expert in the relevant field. Kumho, 526 U. S. at 152. The party offering the expert testimony has the burden of establishing that it is admissible under Rule 702 and the Daubert-Kuhmo standard. See Kumho, 526 U.S. at 147; see also Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448,459-460 (5th Cir. 2002).
This case involves a substantial amount of highly technical documents and testimony, and with eleven experts is really a battle between the heavyweights on each side. The court determines that all of the experts presented by both parties have the requisite educational background and experience and sufficient knowledge as to the matters to which they rendered an opinion. The court
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 12

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 13 of 52
further determines that the testing performed or the methodology employed was sufficiently reliable and relevant to pass muster under Fed. R. Evid. P. 702. The issue, therefore, is which expert's testimony is most persuasive or convincing.
C. Other Witnesses 1. Plaintiff's Witnesses a. Jose Hernandez Jr.
Jose Hernandez, Jr. ("Officer Hernandez") testified that he took the ALERT examination administered by the City in 1995. He scored 68% which was too low to be hired by the City. Officer Hernandez then took a civil service examination for a police officer position with the City ofPlano, which he passed. He was subsequently hired and is now a Plano police officer.
b. Steven Oliphant Steven Oliphant ("Officer Oliphant") testified that he took the ALERT examination administered by the City in 1997. He scored 60.63% which was too low to be hired by the City. Officer Oliphant then took a civil service examination for a police officer position with the City of Dallas, which he passed. He was subsequently hired and is now a Dallas police officer.
c. Cornelius Gibson Cornelius Gibson ("Officer Gibson") testified that he took the ALERT examination administered by the City in 1995. He scored 60% which was too low to be hired by the City. At the time he took the examination, Officer Gibson was a certified peace officer in Texas and had completed police academy training at Cedar Valley Police Academy in Lancaster, Texas. Officer Gibson is currently a deputy with the Dallas Marshal's Office.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 13

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 14 of 52
d. Enrique Jemmott Enrique Jemmott ("Lieutenant Jemmott") testified that he took the ALERT examination administered by the City in 1996. He scored 69.4% which was too low to be hired by the City. At the time he took the examination, Lieutenant Jemmott had worked as a police officer for nine years in San Diego, California. Lieutenant Jemmott is currently a lieutenant with the Richland College Police Department.
2. Defendant's Witnesses a. Neil Reichenberg
Neil Reichenberg ("Mr. Reichenberg") testified regarding the IPMA B-4 examination. Mr. Reichenberg is the executive director of the IPMA.
b. Neil Barnett Neil Barnett ("Mr. Barnett") testified regarding the employment selection devices used by the City. Mr. Barnett was the personnel director and civil service director for the City during the time at issue in this case.
c. Daniel Grammar Daniel Grammar ("Chief Grammar") testified regarding his expenence as a Garland firefighter and as a supervisor of firefighters. He also testified regarding the cognitive demands of a Garland firefighter. Chief Grammar is chief of the Garland Fire Department.
d. Christopher Balanciere Christopher Balanciere ("Firefighter Balanciere") testified regarding his experience as a Garland firefighter and the cognitive demands of a Garland firefighter. Firefighter Balanciere is a firefighter/EMT with the Garland Fire Department.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 14

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 15 of 52

e. David Holcombe

David Holcombe ("Deputy ChiefHolcombe") testified regarding his experience as a Garland

firefighter and as a supervisor of firefighters. He also testified regarding the cognitive demands of

a Garland firefighter. Deputy Chief Holcombe is a deputy chiefwith the Garland Fire Department.

f.

William Crews

William Crews ("Firefighter Crews") testified regarding his expenence as a Garland

firefighter and the cognitive demands of a Garland firefighter, including the cognitive demands of

being a paramedic. Firefighter Crews is a firefighter/EMT with the Garland Fire Department.

g. Jeffrey Tokar

Jeffrey Tokar ("Captain Tokar") testified regarding his experience as a Garland firefighter

and as a supervisor. He also testified as to the costs associated with the Fire Department's selection

process. Captain Tokar is a captain with the Garland Fire Department.

h. Larry Wilson

Larry Wilson ("Chief Wilson") testified regarding testified regarding his experience as a

police officer and as a supervisor of police officers. He also testified regarding the cognitive

demands of the job of a Garland police officer. Chief Wilson is the chief of the Garland Police

Department.

i.

Brandon Hernandez

Brandon Hernandez ("Officer Hernandez") testified regarding his experience as a Garland

police officer and the cognitive demands on Garland police officers. Officer Hernandez is a Garland

police officer.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 15

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 16 of 52

j. Lanny Orman

Lanny Orman ("Officer Orman") testified regarding his experience with the Garland Police

Academy and the Police Department's selection process. Officer Orman is a Garland police officer.

k. Alexis Crockett

Alexis Crockett ("Officer Crockett") testified regarding his experience as a Garland police

officer and specifically the field training officer program. Officer Crockett is a field training officer

with the Garland Police Department.

I.

Jack James

Jack James ("Captain James") testified regarding his experience with the Fire Department's

selection process. Captain James is a captain with the Garland Fire Department and has been

employed with the Fire Department since 1975.

m. William David Thurman

William David Thurman ("Officer Thurman") testified regarding his role in the Police

Department's selection process. Specifically, Officer Thurman has been a background investigator

for the Garland Police Department since 1995.

n. Terry Wayne Moore

Terry Wayne Moore ("Captain Moore") testified regarding the selection and hiring process

used by the Missouri State Highway Patrol, including the use of the ALERT examination and an

alternate compensatory examination purportedly recommended by the Department of Justice.

Captain Moore is a captain with the Missouri State Highway Patrol. He has been employed with the

Missouri State Highway Patrol since approximately 1977.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 16

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 17 of 52
II. Conclusions of Law20 A. Disparate Impact A disparate impact claim anses when an employer's otherwise neutral policy has a
"significantly disproportionate impact" on a protected class. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405,425 (1975). Disparate impact claims do not require proof of intent to discriminate. Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291,299 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 812 (2000). Instead, they focus on facially neutral employment practices that create such statistical disparities disadvantaging members of a protected group that they are "functionally equivalent to intentional discrimination." Id. (quoting Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 987 (1988)). Disparate impact claims may be brought by individual plaintiffs or as a class action. Munoz, 200 F.3d at 299. In either case, however, the evidence must focus on the degree of statistical disparity between protected and non-protected workers, and the burden is on the plaintiff to conduct a systemic analysis ofthose employment practices and present evidence in order to establish his or her case.
The framework for proof of disparate impact claims involves a three-step process, with shifting burdens of proof:
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that the facially neutral employment practice had a significantly discriminatory impact. If that showing is made, the employer must then demonstrate that "any given requirement [has] a manifest relationship to the employment in question," in order to avoid a finding of discrimination. Even in such a case, however, the plaintiff may prevail, if he shows that the employer was using the practice as a mere pretext for discrimination.
20Any finding of fact which may also constitute a conclusion of law shall be deemed a conclusion of law, and any conclusion of law which may also constitute a finding of fact shall be deemed a finding of fact.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 17

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 18 of 52
Connecticut v. Teal, 457 US. 440, 446-47 (1982) (citations omitted). A showing that another employment practice would serve the employer's legitimate interests without a similar undesirable racial effect is evidence of pretext. Albemarle, 422 US. at 425.
1. Prima Facie Case "A typical target ofdisparate impact analysis is an aptitude test used to screen applicants for promotion or hire." Bunch v. Bullard, 795 F.2d 384,392 (5th Cir. 1986). A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case ofdisparate impact by showing "that the tests in question select applicants for hire ... in a racial pattern significantly different from that of the pool of applicants." Albemarle, 422 US. at 425. Disparate impact claims necessarily rely heavily on statistical evidence. Munoz, 200 F.3d at 300. Statistical discrepancies in pass rates must be significant to establish a prima facie case. Frazier v. Garrison Indep. Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 1514, 1524 (5th Cir. 1993); Hill v. Mississippi State Employment Serv., 918 F.2d 1233, 1238 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 US. 864 (1991).21 "A plaintiff may use statistical as well as non-statistical evidence in establishing a prima facie case of
Us. disparate impact." Page v. Industries, Inc., 726 F.2d 1038,1053 (5th Cir. 1984). "While often
helpful, standard deviation techniques are not the sole measure of the impact of a facially neutral requirement. We cannot permit an employer to escape liability for discriminatory tactics merely because his work force is not vast enough to provide meaningful data for a sophisticated statistical evaluation." Bunch, 795 F.2d at 395. Thus, a prima facie case does not require a sample size large enough for normal tests of statistical significance.
21 See also 29 C.F.R. § 1607 A(D) ("A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact ...."). This is, of course, not the exclusive measure of whether a difference is significant.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 18

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 19 of 52
In this case, in order to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, the United States must (1) identify the challenged employment practice or policy; (2) demonstrate a disparate impact on a group that falls within the protective ambit of Title VII; and (3) demonstrate a causal relationship between the identified practice and the disparate impact. Gonzales v. City of New Braunfels, 176 F.3d 834, 839 n.26 (5th Cir.1999).
2. Job Relatedness and Business Necessity Ifthe United States meets its initial burden at the first step of the disparate impact analysis, the court then considers "the employer's justification for the use of these practices." Frazier, 980 F.2d at 1525-26. In other words, the burden shifts to the City to prove that the employment practice is valid by showing that it is "job related" and "consistent with business necessity." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). An employer can establish business necessity by showing that the selection criteria bear "a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Griggs, 401 U.S. at 432. The employer must also establish that its legitimate employment needs are significantly served by the challenged employment practice; however, it need not show that those needs require the employment practice. New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 587 n.31 (1979). There are three methods of validating an employment practice: criterion-related validation, content validation, and construct validation. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 247 n.13 (1976); 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5(B). Criterion-related validation determines validity by "identifying criteria that indicate successful job performance and then correlating test scores and the criteria so identified." Washington, 426 U.S. at 247 n.13. In other words, criterion-related validation relies on a statistical correlation between good performance on the job, based on established criteria, and good
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 19

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 20 of 52
performance on the test, for example, whether the LSAT predicts good law school grades.22 See generally 29 C.F.R. §§ 1607.5, 1607.14. Construct validity determines validity by structuring examinations "to measure the degree to which job applicants have identifiable characteristics that have been determined to be important in successful job performance." Washington, 426 U.S. at 247 n.13. In a construct validation, the test measures some abstract ability/quality, which is considered important to doing the job well; an IQ test is a common example. See generally 29 C.F.R. §§ 1607.5, 1607.14. Content validity determines validity with "tests whose content closely approximates tasks to be performed on thejob by the applicant." Washington, 426 U.S. at 247 n.13. In other words, in a content validation, the test is essentially equivalent to some representative portion of the job, for example, a typing test for a secretary. See generally 29 C.F.R. §§ 1607.5, 1607.14.
3. Alternatives If the City shows that the examinations and their uses are job-related and consistent with business necessity, the United States can still prevail by demonstrating "the availability ofalternative practices to achieve the same business ends, with less racial impact." Frazier, 980 F.2d at 1525-26 (emphasis added); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(ii); see also Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 425. That necessarily involves a comparison of the current practice to the proposed alternative practice, both as to job relatedness and business necessity and as to adverse impact on minority applicants. Although the alternative practice need not measure the same characteristic as the challenged practice, it must be directed to the same business purpose, which need not encompass all aspects of effective
22Criterion-related validity is shown empirically by a correlation coefficient, expressed as a decimal value ranging from -1.0, a perfect inverse relationship, to 1.0, a perfect positive relationship. Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 20

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 21 of 52
job performance.23 The alternatives must achieve the same business purpose, although they need not
be the same type of tests as those challenged. Alternative employment practices, if the disparate
impact analysis reaches the third step, are defined independently?4
B. Application
The United States challenges the use of the cognitive skills tests to eliminate from
consideration for hire those applicants who score below certain cutoffs. Specifically, the United
States identifies the following employment practices as unlawful: (1) initial screening using IPMA
B-4, that is, using a cutoff score of 70%; (2) operational cut based on IPMA B-4 scores; (3) initial
screening using ALERT, that is, using a cutoffscore of70%; (4) rank order hiring based on ALERT
scores; (5) initial screening using ALARM, that is, using a cutoff score of70%; (6) operational cut
based on ALARM scores; and (7) rank order hiring based on ALARM scores?S
1. Initial Screening Using a Cutoff Score of 70%
23In Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 u.s. 321 (1977), the Court rejected heIght and weight requirements
for pnson guards because the defendants failed to show any evidence correlating those requirements to the asserted business purpose - ensuring sufficient strength for adequate job performance. !d. at 331. The Court stated that measuring strength directly would be an acceptable alternative, id. at 332, although effective job performance obviously requires more than strength. There was no mention of replacing the height and weight requirements WIth tests that would address other requisites for effective performance. The Court infers that the proffered justification for the challenged practice, if demonstrated by a preponderance of the eVIdence, determmes what must be shown as to any proposed alternative practices. That does not necessarily mean that an alternative practice cannot achieve additional business purposes. It does suggest, however, that any such additional benefits offered by the proposed alternative should not be counted for the "job relatednesslbusiness necessity" component of the comparison of the current practice to the alternative, at least to the extent that such purposes were already achieved by the current process through components which the United States does not challenge.
24For example, even ifthe initial screening and operational cut were eventually found to comply with TItle VII, the United States could propose a different method of selection for hiring from the eligibility list.
2SThe United States had also challenged rank order hiring based on IPMA B-4 scores. It, however, subsequently conceded that rank order hiring based on IPMA B-4 scores had no practical effect. The court, therefore, granted the City's Rule 52(c) motion with respect to this challenged practice. TR Vol. 2B at 5556:17-19.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 21

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 22 of 52

Three of the seven challenged practices deal with the initial screening of applicants using a

cutoff score of70% on the cognitive skills tests: practice number 1, initial screening using IPMA

B-4, that is, using a cutoff score of70%; practice number 3, initial screening using ALERT, that is,

using a cutoff score of70%; and practice number 5, initial screening using ALARM, that is, using

a cutoff score of 70%.

a. IPMAB-4

i.

Prima Facie Case

The court detelTIlines that the United States has established a prima facie case with respect

to the use of a 70% score on the IPMA B-4 as an initial screen?6 It is undisputed that the that the

use of the IPMA B-4 with a 70% cutoff score resulted in statistically significant differences in

passing rates among white, black and Hispanic test-takers. Specifically, the pass rates for minority

test-takers on this test are statistically significantly lower than the pass rate for whites.

ii. Job Relatedness and Business Necessity

The burden then shifts to the City to establish that this practice is job-related and consistent

with business necessity. See Frazier, 980 F.3d at 1525-26. To carry this burden, the City presented

evidence regarding the development and validation of the IPMA B-4 and testimony from expert

witnesses, Drs. Schemmer, Morris and Lundquist. Dr. Schemmer was one of the industrial

organizational psychologists who developed the B-4 examination for IMPA. Dr. Schemmer testified

that the developmental fOlTIl of the B-4 examination contained 110 items and that the final version

of the B-4 contained 85 items. He explained that the final version had fewer items than the

26In its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City admits that the United States has established its prima facie burden with respect to this challenged practice. Def. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 27.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 22

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 23 of 52
developmental form because the number of items was reduced based on the data collected during the criterion-related validation phase.
Dr. Schemmer co-authored a report documenting the processes used for developing and validating the B-4 examination.27 The development and validation ofthe B-4 examination included (1) a review ofjob analysis materials; (2) evaluation ofthe previous versions ofthe B-4 examination to identify items for replacement or revision; (3) development of a pool of items from which the replacements or revisions would be made; and (4) analysis of the examination for evidence of criterion-related validity. In short, Dr. Schemmer testified as to the validity ofthe B-4 examination and opined that the B-4 examination was "a valid and useful tool for the selection of entry-level firefighters." TR 3B 40-41 :23-2.
Dr. Morris, an industrial organizational psychologist with Morris & McDaniel, testified that IPMAhired his firm in 1988 to revise some ofits examinations, including the B-4 examination. Dr. Morris testified that based on the amount ofmoney his firm was paid ($9,000) only minor revisions to the examination would have been made.28 These revisions, Dr. Morris opined, would not have necessitated an additional validity study.
The United States does not directly dispute Dr. Schemmer's testimony regarding validity or job relatedness; instead, it contends that this testimony is not relevant because there is no evidence
27Dr. Schemmer's report is entitled, "Development and Validation of the B-3 and B-4 Entry-level FirefIghter Examinations" ("Schemmer's Report"). At trIal, Schemmer's Report (trial exhibit 692) was conditionally admitted into evidence. The court determines that sufficient evidence was subsequently presented to establish the relevance of the document, and therefore the exhibit is admitted into evidence.
28Dr. Schemmer testified that Morris & McDaniel would have had to substantially change at least half of the items on the examination and those items would have had to be dysfunctional in that they had no relationship to the job for the criterion-related validity evidence documented in his report to decrease to a questionable or unacceptable level. TR Vol. 3B at 44:19-24.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 23

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 24 of 52
that the version ofthe B-4 examination that was administered by the City in 1992, namely, the 1989 version, was the same as the version that was the subject ofDr. Schemmer's validity study, namely, the 1986 version. Moreover, the United States contends that Dr. Morris's testimony that the changes his firm was hired to make to the 1986 version were not substantial is insufficient given that he has no recollection of the work his firm actually did.
The City, however, presented testimony by Neil Reichenberg, the Executive Director of the IPMA, disputing the existence of two versions (a 1986 version and a 1989 version) of the B-4 examination. Mr. Reichenberg has been employed with IPMA since 1980, first as its Director of Government Affairs and then as its Executive Director. Mr. Reichenberg testified that IPMA copyrights all of its examinations for security purposes and that the 1989 version of the B-4 examination is the only IPMA examination copyrighted with the "B-4" designation. Mr. Reichenberg's testimony supports the City's contention that there was only one version of the B-4 examination. Mr. Reichenberg further testified that IPMA re-designates examinations after substantial changes are made, which supports Dr. Morris's testimony that his firm did not substantially change the B-4 examination that had been the subject of Dr. Schemmer's study.
Finally, Dr. Lundquist testified that she performed two studies relating to the validity of the B-4 examination. In 1999, the first study focused primarily on content validity. To establish a link between the tasks required ofan entry-level firefighter and the knowledge, skills, abilities and other (or personal) characteristics ("KSAOs,,)29 required by the job, Dr. Lundquist relied in part on Dr.
29Dr. Landy explained that "knowledge" is the body of infonnation relevant to the job which is acquired through training or study; "skill" is an act honed by practice; "ability" is an enduring characteristic, including mental abilities; and "other (or personal) characteristics" is personality or attitudinal variables such as dependability, initiative and honesty.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 24

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 25 of 52
Wollack's job analysis.30 She then established a link between the KSAOs and the test questions using a panel of industrial organizational psychologists. This link was further confirmed by the SMEs, as their answers generally supported the judgment of the panel. Dr. Lundquist also considered Dr. Schemmer's Report. Based on all ofthis information, Dr. Lundquist concluded that the B-4 examination was a valid selection device?l
The second study was conducted as a follow-up study to determine whether there were any significant changes to the firefighter job between 1986 (which was covered by Dr. Schemmer's Report) and 1992 and between 1992 and 1999 (which was covered by Dr. Wollack'sjob analysis). In this study, Dr. Lundquist used 21 SMEs, all of whom were currently working for the Fire Department and had been since 1992. The information gathered in the study revealed that the important tasks for a firefighter in the Fire Department had remained consistent over time.
Dr. Lundquist also analyzed the appropriateness of the 70% cutoff score using the Angoff Method.32 The AngoffMethod requires SMEs to estimate the probability that a minimally qualified individual would answer each individual test question correctly. The estimates are used to determine an overall passing score. The Angoff results revealed that if all estimates of the SMEs were used, the passing score was 68.84%. If all the estimates of the SMEs, excluding one outlier were used, the passing score was 71.5%. If the estimates of only the minority SMEs were used, the passing
30A job analysis is a method industrial organizational psychologists use to determine the tasks or duties ofajob and the KSAOs related to successful performance of the job. Dr. Wollack'sjob analysis was verified by the information provided by approximately twenty incumbents from the Fire Department, who served as subject matter experts ("SMEs").
3lSpecifically, Dr. Lundquist testified that "it's my professional opinion that there was evidence of content, criterion, and construct related validity for the IPMAB-4." TR Vol. 4B at 12:5-9.
32Dr. Lundquist cited to professional literature that supports the use of the Angoff Method and followed the procedures for its implementation recommended in the literature.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 25

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 26 of 52
score was 70.98%. Based on this data, Dr. Lundquist concluded that a passing score of 70% was reasonable.
The United States contends that the B-4 examination is not job-related and consistent with business necessity because the weights ofthe skill categories do not appropriately correspond with the importance of those skills for the performance in the job; it does not measure the attributes that are important for the performance of a firefighter; and it does not address any of the noncognitive aspects ofjob performance. There is no dispute that noncognitive skills are important and necessary for a firefighter and that the B-4 examination does not measure these skills. The evidence, however, establishes that the post-test components ofthe selection process do measure these skills. Thus, the court is not persuaded by this argument.
The United States further contends that Dr. Lundquist's use of the Angoff Method was flawed because of the disagreement and/or confusion among the SMEs about the link between the test items and the skills measured by those test items; and the use of two questions which were not appropriate for inclusion in an entry-level examination. In short, the United States contends that a 70% cutoff score was too high and thus results in a disparate impact. Dr. Lundquist, however, testified that the confusion among individuals lacking testing expertise is in inherent in this type of study, and therefore she also used a panel of industrial organizational psychologists. She further testified that even giving all test-takers credit for the two questions that should not have been included in the examination the cutoff score would be 68.85%.
Based on the testimony and evidence presented on this issue, the court determines that the City has carried it burden of establishing that the B-4 examination was job-related and consistent with business necessity. The United States must therefore establish that there are available
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 26

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 27 of 52

alternative practices that achieve the same business ends, with less racial impact. See Frazier, 980

F.3d at 1525-26.

iii. Alternatives

The only alternative practice identified by the United States is the ALARM examination. The

City currently uses the ALARM examination. Indeed, Mr. Barnett, the City Civil Service Director,

testified that the primary reason he replaced the B-4 examination with that of the ALARM

examination was to reduce adverse impact. Even if the court agrees that the ALARM examination

is a valid alternative to the B-4 examination, the United States also challenges the use of the

ALARM examination in this litigation. The court finds it disingenuous to point to the ALARM

examination as a valid alternative on one hand and portray it as unlawful on the other hand.

Therefore, the court determines that the United States has failed to carry its burden of establishing

the existence of a valid alternative.

b. ALERT and ALARM

i.

Prima Facie Case

The court determines that the United States has established a prima facie case with respect to the use of a 70% score on the ALERT and ALARM examinations as an initial screen.33

Specifically, the City concedes that the pass rates for black test-takers on these examinations are

statistically significantly lower than the pass rate for whites. While the City contends that the United

States's showing ofa significant disparate impact against Hispanic test-takers was questionable, it

concedes that ultimately it is of no consequence.

33Indeed, in its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City admits that the United States has established its prima facie burden with respect to this challenged practice. Def. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 36.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 27

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 28 of 52
ii. Job Relatedness and Business Necessity
The burden then shifts to the City to establish that the practice of using these examinations
is job-related and consistent with business necessity. See Frazier, 980 F.3d at 1525-26. To carry
this burden, the City presented evidence from Dr. Wollack regarding the validation of the ALERT and ALARM examinations.34 Dr. Wollack testified that he performed a validation study on each
examination and concluded that both the ALERT and ALARM examinations measure abilities
essential to the performance of the duties of police officers and firefighters, respectively; that the
scores on the examinations are highly predictive ofacademy and state certification test performance;
and that the 70% cutoffscore on the examinations is reasonable. In short, Dr. Wollack testified that the ALERT and ALARM examinations are content valid. 35
Specifically, Dr. Wollack testified that the SMEs for the ALERT examination identified
reading, writing and interpersonal skills as essential skills for police officers, and the SMEs for the
34The ALERT examination was originally based on four multi-jurisdictional studies, including a study in Texas, Michigan, and California and an eight-state study. ALERT has also been the subject of 19 other validation studies involving 81 police departments, involving entry-level police officer positions. SimIlarly, since 1987, the ALARM examination has been the subject of 10 validation studies involving the entry-level firefighter position, including five content validity studies involving 67 fire departments.
35Dr. Wollack also presented evidence of criterion-related validity, which is not necessary to justify use of a content valid examination but rather serves as corroborative evidence of validity. Specifically, Dr. Wollack testified that his studies revealed a high correlation between scores on the ALERT and ALARM examinations and performance at the respective academies and state certification examinations: r = .77
(ALERT score and police academy performance); r = .71 (ALERT score and TCLEOSE examination); r =
.76 (ALARM score and fire academy performance); r = .73 (ALARM score and TCFP examination). Indeed, Dr. Siskin, an expert witness presented by the United States, testified that the state certification examination scores were SIgnificantly correlated with the scores on the ALERT and ALARM examinations. The United States, however, contends that this correlation evidence is insufficient to support criterion-related validity because there is no evidence that a correlation exists between the ALERT and ALARM scores and any measure ofon-the-job performance. The court notes that Dr. Wollack testified that the relationship between test scores and job performance is assumed to be linear. He further testified that he chose performance at the academies and on the state certification examinations because both represent an individual's ability to comprehend and apply the job knowledge of an entry-level police officer or firefighter.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 28

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 29 of 52
ALARM examination identified reading skills as an essential skill for firefighters. 36 Dr. Wollack testified that these findings were consistent with the findings of other studies.3? Additionally, Dr.
Wollack's findings were corroborated by the testimony ofthe witnesses from the City'S Police and Fire Departments.38
The court determines that the ALERT and ALARM examinations are job-related, even
though they do not measure all of the cognitive skills or any of the noncognitive skills that are
necessary for the performance of the duties of a police officer or firefighter, respectively. There is
no dispute that police officers and firefighters must possess certain noncognitive skills to
successfully perform their jobs. The evidence, however, establishes that the City's overall selection
process measures the necessary cognitive and noncognitive skills of a police officer and firefighter,
albeit not in the cognitive skills test portion of the selection process.
36Dr. Landy agreed that reading comprehension and writing ability are critical skills for a police officer, and comprehension, table interpretation and mechanical comprehension are necessary skills for a firefighter and thus measuring these cognitive skills during the selection process is appropriate.
3?Dr. Jones, an expert witness called by the United States, agreed that better mformation regarding the Job relatedness of an examination is yielded when data regarding the examination's effectiveness is gathered from various studies in various settings.
38The City presented four witnesses from the Police Department to testify regarding the cognitive demands of pohce officer training and the job itself: Officer Orman, who testIfied regarding the cognitive demands at the police academy; Officer Crockett, who testified regarding the cognitive demands of field training; Officer Hernandez, who testified regarding the cognitive demands of the daily performance of police officer duties; and Chief Wilson, who testified regarding the need for cognitive skills given the mcreased complexity ofthe duties ofa police officer. Similarly, the City also presented four witnesses from the Fire Department to testify regarding the cognitive demands of firefighter training, including EMT and paramedic training, and the job itself: Battalion Chief Holcombe and Firefighter Balanciere, both of whom testified regarding the cognitive demands at the fire academy and during training; Firefighter Crews, who testified regarding the cognitive demands ofparamedic training; and Chief Grammar, who testified regarding the cognitive demands that entry-level firefighters routinely perform in the exercise of their daily duties.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 29

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 30 of 52
The United States challenges the City's practice ofsetting the cutoffscore at 70%.39 The City initially used a cutoff score of 70% on the ALERT and ALARM examinations because it believed it was required to do so by state law.40 After this lawsuit was initiated, Dr. Wollack performed a two-step study to determine whether the 70% cutoffscore on the ALERT and ALARM examinations was reasonable. First, incumbent supervisors in the Police Department estimated the percentage of entry-level police officers they had supervised whose reading and writing skills were sufficiently deficient as to impair their job performance.41 Similarly, incumbent supervisors in the Fire Department estimated the percentage of entry-level firefighters they had supervised whose math, mechanical and table interpretation skills were sufficiently deficient as to impair their job performance.42 Second, the ALERT and ALARM examinations were administered to 100 incumbent police officers and firefighters, respectively, to obtain normative score distributions. Dr. Wollack then combined this data with equivalent data previously gathered in larger jurisdictions where the same two-step process had been conducted. He explained that he combined the data because the sample size in Garland was too small to be reliable.
39Indeed, "the United States has not argued that 'the City's use of an initial cognitive screen is not a business necessity.' ... To the contrary, the United States has repeatedly stated that use of a cognitive test as a screening device in the selection of police officers may be appropriate If the cutoff score used corresponds to the level of the measured skills needed for the job." PI. Obj. at 22 (emphasis omitted).
40A state statute provides for an "entrance examination," which "must be based on the person's knowledge ofand qualifications for fire fighting and work in the fire department or for police work and work in the police department and must inquire into the applicant's general education and mental ability." Tex. Local Gov't Code Ann. § 143.02S(b). Applicants must score above 70% (as adjusted for veteran status) on the entrance examination to pass. Id. § 143.02S(i).
41The estimate was 2%. 42The estimate was 4%. Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 30

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 31 of 52
The combined police supervisor sample yielded an 11 % estimate of substandard performers which was applied to the larger normative score distribution, necessitating a cutoffscore that would eliminate the bottom 11 % of test-takers, namely, a cutoff score of 77%.43 The same process was conducted with the fire data. The combined fire supervisor sample yielded a 10.5% estimate of substandard performers which was applied to the larger normative score distribution necessitating a cutoff score that would eliminate the bottom 10.5% oftest-takers, namely, a cutoff score of69%.44 Based on his studies, Dr. Wollack concluded that a 70% cutoff score on both the ALERT and ALARM examinations is appropriate.
The United States contends that a cutoffscore of70% is too high, given that 27 police officer applicants and 16 firefighter applicants who scored below a 70% obtained employment elsewhere. 45 This alone, however, is simply insufficient to establish that 70% was an unreasonable cutoff score, as there could have been a number ofreasons why these individuals were able to obtain employment elsewhere. By way of a nonexclusive list, these individuals might have been able to obtain employment elsewhere because of (1) the difficulty of the examination as compared to the City's; (2) a change in his or her study habits; (3) the testing environment on the day of the examination; and (4) other factors not related to the examination.
43Dr. Wollack testified that had he used the Garland police data only, it would have yielded a cutoff score of70%.
44Dr. Wollack testified that his study used ALARM form 02, the most difficult ofthe alternate forms, and thus the recommended cutoff score would likely be slightly above 70%.
45The United States referred to these applicants as "false negatives." Of these false negatives, four of the police officer applicants testified at trial: Officer Hernandez, Officer Oliphant, Officer Gibson, and Officer Jemmott.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 31

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 32 of 52
The United States also presented Dr. Landy who criticized Dr. Wollack for combining the Garland data with the data from the larger scale studies. The court notes, however, that had the data not been combined, the cutoff score would have been based on the scores of two police officers and four firefighters. Such a small sample could skew the results. Dr. Landy also criticized Dr. Wollack's methodology claiming that the question posed to the incumbents was susceptible to misinterpretation. There is no evidence, however, that any misinterpretation actually occurred. Dr. Landy acknowledged, however, that while he was in the public safety practice of his firm, the most common method of establishing a cutoff score was to administer the examination to a group of incumbents and then set the cutoff score at one standard deviation below the incumbent's mean score. Had this been done in this case, the cutoff score for ALERT would have been 76%, and the cutoff score for ALARM would have been 71 %.
The United States also presented Dr. Siskin who concluded that, based on his study, ALERT scores have no value in predicting whether an applicant will successfully complete the police training academy, police field training or the first year on the job as a police officer.46 Dr. Siskin also concluded, based on a regression analysis, that while there may be a correlation between ALERT scores and academy final grades, as Dr. Wollack testified, ALERT scores do not predict whether an applicant will pass or fail the police academy. Dr. Siskin testified that an applicant with an ALERT score of 60% is predicted to pass the academy, thus calling into question the necessity of a cutoff score of70%. Dr. Siskin also analyzed the likelihood ofpassing the state certification examinations based on ALERT and ALARM scores. Dr. Siskin testified that his analysis revealed that applicants
46Dr. Siskin conceded, however, that his analysis confirmed Dr. WoUack's findings that ALERT and ALARM scores are significantly correlated with scores on the state certification examinations.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 32

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 33 of 52
who scored at least 60% on the ALERT or ALARM examination and who later had the opportunity to take the state certification examination passed the state certification examination at a rate that was not significantly different than the pass rate of the applicants who were hired by the City.
In response, Dr. Wollack noted that Dr. Siskin's sample size did not include any person who either failed the ALERT examination or the training academy. Dr. Wollack testified that "ifALERT predicts a performance measure, and if the performance is job related, then ALERT predicts job performance." TR Vol. 5A at 60:13-15. The same would hold true for ALARM. Dr. Wollack testified that he performed an analysis similar to that conducted by Dr. Siskin but used more complete data gathered from another jurisdiction and concluded that there is "a very high statistical correlation between ALERT scores and passing the training academy." TR Vol. 5A at 61:7-8.
Moreover, two expert witnesses called by the United States, Drs. Landy and Jones, acknowledged that there is no single acceptable method for establishing a cutoff score on an employment examination. Dr. Jones testified that all methods of establishing a cutoff score are based on arbitrary decisions and therefore the cutoff score need only be practical and sensible and based on good business judgment given the available data.
Based on the testimony and evidence presented on this issue, the court determines that the City has carried it burden ofestablishing that the ALERT and ALARM examinations are job-related and consistent with business necessity. The United States must therefore establish that there are available alternative practices that achieve the same business ends, with less racial impact. See Frazier, 980 F.2d at 1525-26.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 33

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 34 of 52
iii. Alternatives As an alternative to the ALERT examination, the United States proposes the Protective Services Profile ("PSP"), marketed by Aon Corporation. As an alternative to the ALARM examination, the United States proposes the Selection Solutions Firefighter Examination, published by CWH Management, Inc. ("CWH examination").
(1) PSP The PSP is a written, multiple choice examination consisting offour components: a cognitive component called the "Following Policies and Procedures" ("FPP,,);47 a noncognitive biodata component called the "Work and School Experience Form" ("WSE");48 and two personality tests called the "Survey of Life Experiences-Adjustment" ("SOLE-Adjustment,,)49 and "Survey of Life Experiences-Dependability" ("SOLE-Dependability").5o The PSP is broader in content coverage than ALERT, as it measures both cognitive and noncognitive skills.51 The total score ofthe PSP is calculated in a compensatory manner, by equally weighing the four components ofthe examination
47The FPP is a multIple-choice cognitive ability test that measures reading comprehension, reasoning, and the ability to make decisions based upon information provided in reading passages.
48The WSE is intended to measure on-the-job performance by scoring the applicant's ability to differentiate between the top performing and bottom performing police officers.
49The SOLE-Adjustment is a 64-item personality scale focused on identifying individuals who are even-tempered, think clearly, maintain their composure under stress and are emotionally stable.
50The SOLE-Dependability is an 82-item personality scale focused on identifying individuals who are reliable, well-organized, honest and trustworthy.
51The Aon PSP was developed based on the findings gathered in several studies, including studies in Nassau County, New York; Louisiana; Parma, Ohio; and Arkansas. The PSP used in Louisiana and Parma was not the same as the PSP used in Arkansas, and the PSP detailed in Dr. Jones's expert report is not the same as the PSP used in Louisiana, Parma or Arkansas. Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 34

------- -------

----------------~-----

----

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 35 of 52
such that a higher score on one component can compensate for a lower score on another component. 52
Dr. Jones, who was the project director for the development and validation ofthe PSP as an entry-level police officer selection device, testified that the PSP would be at least equally valid as the ALERT examination; however, he had not seen the ALERT examination at the time he made this conclusion. Further, although critical of the use of ALERT as an initial screen, Dr. Jones recommends that the cognitive component ofthe PSP be used as a screening device with a separate cutoff score, thus precluding the applicants who fail the initial cognitive screen from providing information regarding their noncognitive attributes.53 Dr. Jones acknowledged, however, that in at least one ofhis studies, the use ofthe cognitive portion ofthe PSP as an initial screen resulted in an adverse impact against black test-takers.
Dr. Jones also testified that the correlation between the cognitive component ofthe PSP and overalljob performance is statistically significant, but that combining noncognitive components with the cognitive component increases the validity of the PSp.54 He further stated that the correlation between all the components of the PSP to job performance cannot be directly compared to the correlation between ALERT and job performance because there is no study comparing the criterionrelated validity of ALERT to job performance. Dr. Jones further testified that, with respect to
52The test is compensatory only to the extent that the applicant passes the cognitive skills component. In other words, applicants who pass the cognitive skills component are ranked based on the total score of all the components of the PSP.
53Aon acknowledged that "[a] strong 'business necessity' argument can be made that the cognitive test should be used to screen out the small number ofapplicants at very low cognitive ability levels who have little realistic prospect of either completing training, or emerging from training as a well qualified officer." PI. Ex. 355 at JEF 448.
54The correlation between all the components of the PSP and job performance is .62.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 35

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 36 of 52
criterion-related validity, the PSP' s cognitive component "produced validity coefficients not as great as but close to the validity coefficients produced for the ALERT in predicting academy performance." TR Vol. 7B at 25:7-10.
Dr. Jones compared the validity of the PSP used in Louisiana to the validity of a cognitiveonly examination. Based on these findings, he concluded that the PSP demonstrated a substantially higher level of validity to job performance than a cognitive-only examination. Although the PSP used in this study is different than the PSP which the United States proposes to use in Garland, Dr. Jones testified that he would expect only a modest change to the validity ofthe PSP. Dr. Jones also examined the adverse impact of the PSP as compared to ALERT. Dr. Jones opined that even with a cutoff score on the cognitive component, the PSP would allow more blacks and Hispanics to continue through the selection process. Dr. Jones's comparison, however, was based on Dr. Siskin's "effective cutoff score" analysis of ALERT, see infra., not upon the 70% cutoff score used by the City as an initial screen. The court is thus not persuaded by Dr. Jones's testimony.
Further, the evidence establishes that there is some overlap between the noncognitive skills evaluated in the PSP and the post-test components of the City's selection process. Therefore, comparing the PSP, a "comprehensive/compensatory" examination, to the initial screening would be at least partially redundant with other components of the current overall selection process. For all the reasons herein, the court determines that the United States failed to demonstrate that the PSP is a legally appropriate alternative, that is, that it would equally serve the City's legitimate business needs but with less adverse impact resulting from its use of ALARM.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 36

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 37 of 52
(2) CWH Examination Next, the United States proposes the CWH examination as an alternative to ALARM. The United States presented Dr. Hornick. Dr. Hornick testified regarding the development and validation ofthe CWH examination. Specifically, Dr. Hornick performed a criterion-related validation study; he did not perform a content or construct validation study.55 The CWH examination is a multiple-choice examination, which includes 156 questions of which 136 questions are scored. The 136 questions are distributed among four components: cognitive skills, interpersonal skills, self-awareness skills, and practical skills.56 The relative influence of each of the four components on the overall composite score is affected by the amount of unique variance contributed by each component, as well as the common variance shared by the various components ("rational weighting approach"). The CWH examination is typically used as the first step in the selection process; it does not replace the need for a physical agility test, oral interview, or background investigation. The criterion-related validation study ofthe CWH examination involved 17 fire departments and 769 incumbent firefighters. Garland was not one ofthe fire departments; in fact, none ofthe fire departments studied was located in Texas. The criterion used was job performance, as evaluated by each incumbent firefighter's supervisors, peers and self.57 In short, Dr. Hornick testified that the criterion-related validity of the CWH examination is .27 (uncorrected).
55Dr. Barrett opined that the CWH exammation was not content or construct valid. 56Noncognitive items are used to examine an applicant's self-awareness and interpersonal skills; Dr. Hornick conceded that some of the noncognitive items can be faked. Dr. Barrett opined that some of the noncognitive items do not relate to performance of the entry-level firefighter job. 57Dr. Barrett testified that self-ratings and peer ratings are unreliable measures ofjob performance.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 37

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 38 of 52
The court, however, finds Dr. Hornick's criterion-related validation study suspect because he eliminated data from nearly 40% of the study participants,58 and excluded other individuals as "statistical outliers." Further, the evidence established that CWH's financial condition affected the quality ofthe validation study. For example, Dr. Hornick admitted that his job analysis suffered due to the financial condition ofCWH in that he was unable to "devote face-to-face time meeting with the raters and reviews to have them go through the process." TR Vol. 9A at 68:4-23.
Dr. Hornick also testified regarding the adverse impact ofthe CWH examination. He found that the standardized mean score difference for black test-takers as compared to white test-takers on the CWH examination (.43 standard deviations) is below the black/white standardized mean score difference on the ALARM (1.30 standard deviations).59 He testified that the same is true for Hispanic and white test-takers on the CWH examination (.14 standard deviations) as compared to the ALARM (.73 standard deviations). Moreover, Dr. Hornick testified that as measured by the 80% rule, the CWH examination has no adverse impact against Hispanics at any cutoff score and less adverse impact against blacks than the use of the ALARM. Dr. Hornick conceded, however, that at the time of his expert report, he had never seen the ALARM examination.
Dr. Hornick did not analyze the pass rates for whites and minorities on the cognitive component ofthe CWH because he does not recommend that a cutoffscore be used on the cognitive component. Dr. Hornick does not recommend that the City use only the cognitive component ofthe
58Dr. Hornick explained that he did not have complete data from all three rating sources (supervisor, peer and self) for approximately 300 incumbents, and therefore he did not use these incumbents in the validity study. Dr. Hornick maintained that the removal of incumbents with incomplete data did not affect the validity calculation.
59Dr. Siskin testified that if a test has a lower mean score difference, it has less adverse impact.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 38

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 39 of 52
CWH examination, but rather that the City adopt the entire examination. The court notes, however, that ALARM is a purely cognitive examination. Moreover, Dr. Hornick strongly recommends that a validation study be conducted ifGarland were to use the CWH examination, TR Vol. 9A at 34:6-8, a test he developed and for which he stands to receive substantial income if Garland were to use the CWH examination and contract with CWH to conduct the necessary validation study, TR Vol. 9A at 34:6-8.
The court further determines that Dr. Hornick's conclusion "there are no other selection devices for the job of firefighter that [he thinks] are good or would recommend" is disingenuous, self-serving, and exaggerated. TR Vol. 9A at 72-73 :24-1 (emphasis added). The court is not persuaded by Dr. Hornick's testimony.
Finally, the evidence establishes that there is some overlap between the noncognitive skills evaluated in the CWH examination and the post-test components of the City's selection process. Therefore, comparing the CWH examination, a "comprehensive/compensatory" examination, to the initial screening use of ALARM would be at least partially redundant with other components ofthe current overall selection process. For all the reasons stated herein, the court, therefore, concludes that the United States failed to demonstrate that the CWH examination would equally serve the City's legitimate business needs with less adverse impact resulting from its use of ALARM.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 39

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 40 of 52
2. Operational Cut Based on Cognitive Skills Tests Scores60 Two of the seven challenged practices deal with the rank order processing of applicants: practice number 2, operational cut based on IPMA B-4 scores; and practice number 6, operational cut based on ALARM scores.
a. IPMAB-4 The United States contends that the City's use of an "operational cutoff score" on the IPMA B-4 examination adversely impacted black and Hispanic test-takers. As support, the United States presented the testimony of Dr. Siskin. Dr. Siskin testified that he performed a mean difference analyses, that is, he analyzed the differences in mean B-4 examination scores obtained by blacks and Hispanics as compared to whites. Dr. Siskin explained that under the common assumption that scores are normally distributed, the score distribution curve for minority applicants is "shifted to the left" as compared to the score distribution for white applicants when the mean scores are significantly lower for minority applicants than for white applicants. He testified that when the score distribution of minority applicants is shifted to the left, there will be a disparate impact against minority applicants at any cutoff score, and that the farther the curve is shifted to the left the greater the impact. Dr. Siskin tested whether the minority score distribution curves for the B-4 examination were shifted to the left to a statistically significant degree. He concluded that the differences were statistically significant and were not attributable to chance. Specifically, the difference in mean
60The United States refers to the lowest score of an applicant who was invited to proceed to the physical agility test as an "operational cutoff score." The City contends that it does not have "operatIOnal cutoff scores," and refers to the employment practice at issue as "rank order processing" based on the cognitive skills examination scores. The court determines that the label used - "operational cutoff score" or "rank order processing" - is a difference with no distinction and will use the labels interchangeably. Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 40

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 41 of 52
scores between black applicants and white applicants was equivalent to 11.74 units of standard deviation, and the difference in mean scores between Hispanic applicants and white applicants was equivalent to 5.25 units of standard deviation.
The court, however, finds Dr. Siskin's analysis suspect for two reasons. First, data regarding the number oftest-takers who advanced to the physical agility test was not addressed in the parties' stipulated database. Dr. Siskin instead relied on City documents that appeared to him to be partial eligibility lists of test-passers. These lists were marked with handwritten notes and shorthand references from which he concluded what occurred to the applicants during the testing process. Dr. Siskin could not identify the author of the documents or whether they were compiled contemporaneously with the administration ofthe selection process by a person with knowledge of those processes, and no witness or other evidence verified the accuracy ofthe documents. The City, however, presented evidence that these documents contained material inaccuracies.
Second, Dr. Siskin did not use the population to whom the "operational cutoffscore" would have applied. He instead based his mean score analysis on all test-takers, whether they passed or failed the B-4 examination. 61 Dr. Siskin explained his use ofthe test-taker population by stating that given the "shift to the left," disparate impact will occur at any given cutoff score. Dr. Stoikov, however, compared the number of minority and white test-passers with the number of minority and white test-passers who passed the "operational cutoff score," that is, those who were invited for further processing. She found a shortfall of.1 blacks, which she concluded was not significant, and no significant impact against Hispanics.
61 Dr. Stoikov described Dr. Siskin's study as a "proxy study" because it was not applied to the exact population affected by the challenged practice.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 41

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 42 of 52
Dr. Siskin also perfonned an "effective cutoffscore,,62 analysis. Dr. Siskin's "effective cutoff score" analysis purports to calculate the shortfalls63 in minorities who scored at or above the "effective cutoffscore" from among all test-passers to measure the magnitude ofthe disparity caused by the rank-order processing. The United States contends that because the "effective cutoff score" equaled the "operational cutoffscore"on the B-4 examination,64 Dr. Siskin's "effective cutoffscore" analysis is useful in analyzing the "operational cutoffscore." In short, Dr. Siskin concluded that the "operational cutoffscore" had a disparate impact on minorities. Specifically, he testified that ofthe 41 blacks, 24 Hispanics, and 346 whites who took the B-4 examination in 1992, no minorities and 27 whites scored at or above the "operational cutoff score." Thus, the operational pass ratio for minorities was 0% and for whites was 7.8%. As with the mean difference analysis, however, Dr. Siskin did not use the population to whom the "operational cutoff score" would have applied, that is, applicants who passed the cognitive skills test.
The court finds Dr. Siskin's testimony unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court detennines that the United States has failed to establish a prima facie showing the City's practice of "rank order
62The United States refers to the total score (including veteran preference points, if any) of the lowest-scoring applicant hired from the eligibility list as the "effective cutoff score." The City contends that it never had a practice of using an "effective cutoff score" and that the term was created by Dr. Siskin. The City contends that the score that the United States refers to as the "effective cutoff score" merely eVIdences that there were no eligible applicants (because they failed post-test components of the selection process) with scores below the score of the lowest-scoring applicant that was hired.
63Dr. Siskin described a shortfall as the additional number of minority applicants who would have scored at or above the "effective cutoff score" if minority and white applicants were equally distributed among the ranks of test-passers.
64The United States contends that in 1992, the effective and operational cutoff scores on the B-4 examination were the same, namely, 89.41, because the lowest-scoring applicant who was allowed to take the physical agility test was also the lowest-scoring applicant hired from the eligibility list. Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 42

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 43 of 52
processing" based on the applicant's score on the B-4 examination resulted in an adverse impact
against any groUp.65
h. ALARM
The United States contends that the City's use of an "operational cutoff score" on the
ALARM examination adversely impacted black and Hispanic test-takers in the years 1994 through
1998.66 As support, the United States presented the testimony of Dr. Siskin.
As with his analysis of the "operational cutoff score" on the B-4 examination, Dr. Siskin
compared the percentage of minority test-takers who scored at or above the "operational cutoff
score" on the ALARM to the percentage of similarly situated white test-takers. Also as with his
65Even ifthe United States has established a prima facie showing, which it has not, the City presented sufficient evidence to establish a business necessity and job relatedness for its practice of "rank order processing." Specifically, the City presented Chief Grammar and Captain Tokar who testified that it is impractIcal to send every applicant who passes the cognitive skills examination to the physical agility test, due to economic, personnel and time constraints. Captain Tokar testified that the Fire Department spends approximately $17,000 to process a group of30 to 50 applicants through the post-test selection process. The United States presented no evidence to dispute the necessity of "rank order processing" as a cost-savings measure. The United States contends that the City presented no evidence that the "operational cutoff score" of 89.41 % is job-related and consistent with business necessity. The City responds, however, that it does not have a practice of using "operational cutoff scores." The evidence established that applicants who pass the cognitive skills test but rank below the top 30 to 50 scorers are not eliminated from the hiring process; instead, they remain eligible for hire until the eligibility list expires. The City also points to Dr. Schemmer's testimony that the B-4 examination is a typical cognitive skills or abilities test which "provide[s] amongst the most sufficient and effective mechanisms for the rapid identification and [at an] early point in the selection process of those individuals relatively more likely to succeed in training and, in tum, exhibit successful job performance" (TR Vol. 3A at 187:20-25) as support for the job relatedness of "rank order processing." The court notes that the United States did not identIfy or present any evidence of an alternative to the City's use of "rank order processing," that is, another method of selecting from among the apphcants who passed the B-4 examination. To the extent that the United States contends that the CWH examination is a lawful alternative to the B-4 examination, the court disagrees. The court incorporates by reference as if fully stated herein its findmgs and conclusions regarding the CWH examination. See supra.
66The United States contends that the "effective cutoff scores" and "operational cutoff scores" on the ALARM examinations are as follows: in 1994, both scores were the same at 90%; in 1995, an effective cutoff score of95% and an operational cutoff score of91 %; in 1996, an effective cutoff score of 94% and an operational cutoff score of91 %; in 1997, an effective cutoff score of92% and an operational cutoff score of 89%; and in 1998, both scores were the same at 91 %.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 43

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 44 of 52
analysis of the "operational cutoff score" on the B-4 examination, Dr. Siskin did not test the statistical significance of the disparity in minority and white pass rates and instead calculated the 80% rule ratio of black/white and Hispanic/white pass rates at the "operational cutoff score." Dr. Siskin calculated that over the entire period of 1994 through 1998, the black/white operational pass ratio was 13.9% and that the Hispanic/white ratio as 44.4%. Dr. Siskin compared these ratios to the black/white and Hispanic/white pass ratios at the 70% cutoff score, 50.1 % and 76.2%, respectively, and concluded that use of the "operational cutoff score" had a disparate impact against minority applicants over and above the disparate impact resulting from the 70% cutoff score. The court, however, finds Dr. Siskin's testimony unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed with regard to the "operational cutoff score" analysis of the B-4 examination, namely, Dr. Siskin's use of unauthenticated eligibility lists67 and use of the wrong population, that is, all test-takers.
Dr. Siskin also performed an analysis ofthe impact ofthe "operational cutoffscores" on testpassers. Dr. Siskin testified that for the period from 1994 through 1998, there is a statistically significant disparity (equivalent to 4.30 units of standard deviation) among test-passers between black/white operational pass rates. Similarly, Dr. Siskin testified that for the period from 1994 through 1998, there is a statistically significant disparity (equivalent to 2.37 units of standard deviation) among test-passers between Hispanic/white operational pass rates. Additionally, Dr. Siskin testified that during the same time period, the 80% rule was not met for minority test-passers (23.93% for blacks and 55.72% for Hispanics).
Dr. Stoikov pointed out that Dr. Siskin's analysis is not based on the data from the stipulated database. Dr. Stoikov reran Dr. Siskin's analysis using data from the stipulated database. She found
67Dr. Siskin also relied on Requests for Admissions that were later withdrawn by stipulation.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 44

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 45 of 52
that a disparity equivalent to 3.42 units of standard deviation existed between black/white operational pass rates, and a disparity equivalent to 1.97 standard deviations existed between Hispanic/white operational pass rates. 68 With respect to the disparity between Hispanics and whites, she testified that the difference is on the borderline of statistical significance and much lower than that reported by Dr. Siskin. Moreover, Dr. Stoikov testified that she too was not using the correct population, that is, the operational passers who were invited to take the physical agility test, not just those who actually took it, because the data documenting the correct population is unavailable.
Dr. Stoikov further testified that, given that rank-order processing occurred on a yearly basis, a year-by-year analysis will have more "relation to reality" than an aggregation. Dr. Stoikov reran the operational pass analysis on a yearly basis. She found a shortfall ofblack operational passers that fall into the intermediate or questionable are of statistical significance in 1997 and 1998, and no significant shortfall in black operational passers in any other year. She further found no year in which there was any significant shortfall ofHispanic operational passers, and in fact, she found that in 1997, Hispanics were overrepresented among operational passers.
The court finds Dr. Stoikov's testimony more persuasive than that of Dr. Siskin. Accordingly, the court determines that the United States has failed to establish a prima facie showing the City's practice of "rank order processing" based on the applicant's score on the ALARM examination resulted in an adverse impact against any groUp.69
68In terms of number of people, the disparity is equivalent to less than one-tenth of one Hispanic operational passer.
69Even ifthe United States has established a prima facie showing, which it has not, the City presented sufficient evidence to establish a business necessity and job relatedness for its practice of "rank order processing." Specifically, the City's evidence regarding the cost-savings associated with "rank order processing" and its contention that it does not have a practice ofusing "operational cutoff scores"as detailed Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 45

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 46 of 52
3. Rank Order Hiring Based on Cognitive Skills Tests Scores The United States contends that the City's practice of hiring individuals from the final eligibility list in descending rank-order based on their ALERT or ALARM scores results in a disparate impact against blacks and Hispanics.70 In support, the United States presented Dr. Siskin. Dr. Siskin testified that he performed several analyses and concluded that there is a statistically significant relationship between the applicant's ranks on those examinations and their race or national origin. In other words, when applicants are ranked based on their scores on the cognitive tests, there is a difference between the ranks ofwhites and minorities that is real and not attributable to chance. In his analyses, Dr. Siskin used the "effective cutoff scores" of the ALERT and ALARM examinations. He acknowledged that there could be no adverse impact from rank-order hiring in the years that the City exhausted the eligibility lists. The parties stipulated that there is no year during the relevant time period that the Fire Department exhausted its eligibility lists. The evidence, however, established that the Police Department exhausted its eligibility list in 1992, 1995, and 1997. Therefore, the court determines that there can be no disparate impact from rank-order hiring based on ALERT scores in 1992, 1995, and 1997.
in the section addressing "rank order processing" and the B-4 examination, see supra., are also applicable here. The City also relied on the testimony of Dr. Wollack regarding the correlation between the ALARM scores and academy performance and scores on the state certification examination as support for the proposition that "rank order processing" helps avoid the costs of processing and training replacement recruits. The court notes that the United States did not identify or present any evidence of an alternative to the CIty'S use of"rank order processing," that is, another method of selecting from among the applicants who passed the ALARM examination. To the extent that the United States contends that the CWH examination is a lawful alternative to the ALARM examination, the court disagrees. The court incorporates by reference as if fully stated herein its findings and conclusions regarding the CWH examination. See supra.
70Two of the seven challenged practices deal with rank order hiring: practice number 4, rank order hiring based on ALERT scores; and practice number 7, rank order hiring based on ALARM scores.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 46

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 47 of 52
With respect to the Police Department eligibility lists in 1996 and 1998, Dr. Siskin opined that the lists were not exhausted, even though there were no candidates who scored below the "effective cutoff score" left on the list, that is, there were no eligible applicants who were not hired. Dr. Siskin explained that based on the deposition testimony of Chief Wilson, he concluded that the Citywould not have hired additional applicants had there been additional applicants on the eligibility list. At trial, however, ChiefWilson testified that the Police Department would have hired additional applicants in 1996 and 1998 had there been any on the eligibility list. The court therefore finds that Dr. Siskin's conclusion that the City would not have hired additional applicants had there been any was incorrect. The court further finds that the Police Department eligibility lists for 1996 and 1998 were exhausted. Accordingly, the court determines that there can be no disparate impact from rankorder hiring based on ALERT scores in 1996 and 1998.
The court next considers whether rank-order hiring resulted in a disparate impact in the Police Department in 1993 and 1994 and in the Fire Department from 1993 through 1998. Dr. Siskin concluded, using the rank sum test,71 that there is evidence that minorities who pass the cognitive examination are "more likely to be at [a] lower rank proportionately than whites" on the eligibility list. TR Vol. 2B at 17:6-16. Dr. Siskin performed the rank sum test on the eligibility list of all test-passers. In other words, he used the eligibility lists created immediately following the administration of the cognitive skills test, as opposed to the eligibility lists created after the successful completion of the selection process ("final eligibility list").72
71The rank sum test is used to analyze whether there is a statistically significant relationship between race or national origin and rank-order.
72The City refers to the list from which the applicants were ultimately hired as the "final eligibility list."
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 47

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 48 of 52
The City contends that Dr. Siskin used the wrong population because rank-order hiring is only applied to applicants who not only pass the cognitive skills test but also the post-test components. In other words, the City contends that the correct population was the applicants who were on the "final eligibility list." Dr. Siskin explained that the eligibility lists he used are appropriate because (1) the "final eligibility list" is a much smaller sample than the eligibility list he used which could result in an erroneous conclusion; and (2) the relative ranks of the applicants do not change after they pass the cognitive skills examination, as the remaining components of the selection process are pass-fail. Dr. Stoikov conceded that an analysis of the test-passers is not "far off' from that of those applicants who were ultimately hired, assuming the post-test components of the selection process do not advantage or disadvantage minorities. She further explained, and Dr. Siskin conceded, that the actual rank ofthe applicants can change, as the lists narrows and the spread lessens. Dr. Stoikov also reiterated her criticisms ofDr. Siskin's analysis, namely, that it was based on data not included in the stipulated database, and it improperly aggregated ranks across years.
Dr. Siskin also performed a mean difference analysis and concluded that the minority score distribution curves were shifted to the left to a statistically significant degree and the differences in scores were not attributable to chance. In other words, differences in mean scores for all test-takers indicate that minorities will be clustered at the bottom, or ranked proportionately lower than whites, among the test-passers.
The City again argued, and Dr. Stoikov agreed, that Dr. Siskin used the wrong population. Dr. Stoikov testified that Dr. Siskin's analysis was improper because he considered all test-takers. Dr. Siskin, however, explained that given the "shift to the left" ofthe score distributions for minority applicants, disparate impact will occur at any cutoff score, including the "effective cutoff score."
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 48

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 49 of 52
Dr. Siskin further testified that it is important to analyze the entire sample of test-takers because analyzing only the test-passers can result in erroneous conclusions and would not isolate the impact caused by the challenged practices from the unchallenged practices. Dr. Siskin conceded, however, that he never attempted to separate his analysis of rank-order hiring from his analysis of all testtakers. Since he failed to even attempt to do so, his opinion is of minimal value.
Lastly, Dr. Siskin calculated shortfalls in minorities who scored at or above the "effective cutoff score" from among all test-passers to measure the magnitude of the disparity caused by the rank-order hiring. Dr. Siskin explained that in order for there to be a shortfall ofminority effectivepassers, they would be clustered in the lower ranks ofthe test-passers; thus, he measured the effect of minorities being clustered at the bottom of the group of test-passers.
Dr. Siskin concluded that there is an actual disparity caused by the City's rank-order hiring based on the ALERT and ALARM scores. Specifically, he concluded that in the Police Department, for the aggregated period from 1992 through 1995, there was a shortfall of two black and four Hispanic expected effective passers among the test-passers.73 Similarly, Dr. Siskin concluded that for the aggregated period from 1994 through 1998, there were shortfalls of 11 black and 8 Hispanic expected effective passers among the test-passers.
The court finds, however, that Dr. Siskin's "effective cutoff score" analysis conflates rankorder hiring with the disqualifying effects of the post-test components. Specifically, Dr. Siskin testified that he considered an applicant who successfully completed the hiring process, including
73Dr. Siskin also found that from 1996 through 1998, there was a shortfall of 1 black (in 1996), but he would not have been placed on the final eligibility list because he failed some ofthe post-test components, and no shortfall ofHispanics. Dr. Siskin's findings further support the court's determination that the Police Department's rank-order hiring did not result in a disparate impact from 1996 through 1998. See supra.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 49

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 50 of 52
passing the cognitive skills examination, but was not ultimately hired as effectively failing the cognitive skills examination. Similarly, he explained that he considered an applicant who passed the cognitive skills examination but failed a post-test component ofthe hiring process as effectively failing the cognitive skills examination. Dr. Siskin admitted that for purposes of this analysis the actual reason the applicant was not hired is of no moment.
Dr. Stoikov analyzed the practical significance or the magnitude of the effect of rank-order hiring. She found that the percentage of minority and white test-passers who were hired are not significantly different, and thus concluded that ranking could not have adversely affected the chances ofbeing hired. Dr. Stoikov also analyzed the hiring consequences ofthe City's use of ALERT and ALARM. She concluded that in the Police Department, there was no significant shortfall in expected Hispanic hires, and one additional black hire would have eliminated the significant shortfall in expected black hires. She further concluded that in the Fire Department from 1992 through 1998, there was no significant shortfall in expected Hispanic hires, and a significant shortfall of 1.2 black hires.
Finally, Dr. Stoikov compared test-passers to effective passers in the Fire Department using Dr. Siskin's data and effective cutoff scores. Dr. Stoikov testified that while minority test-passers were hired at a lower rate than white test-passers, the difference is not statistically significant. She found that there was no shortfall in black effective passers large enough to reach the gray area of statistical significance, except in 1998, and that there was no shortfall in Hispanic effective passers in either a yearly analysis or in the aggregate. The court finds Dr. Stoikov's testimony persuasive.
For the reasons herein stated, the court finds Dr. Siskin's analyses is less persuasive than those ofDr. Stoikov. Accordingly, the court determines that the United States has failed to establish
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 50

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 51 of 52
a prima facie showing the City's practice of "rank order hiring" based on the applicant's score on
the ALERT or ALARM examination resulted in an adverse impact against any groUp.74
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the court concludes that the United States failed to prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following employment practices used by the City
violated Title VII: (1) initial screening using IPMA B-4, that is, using cutoff score of 70%; (2)
operational cut based on IPMA B-4 scores; (3) initial screening using ALERT, that is, using a cutoff
score of70%; (4) rank order hiring based on ALERT scores; (5) initial screening using ALARM, that
is, using a cutoff score of 70%; (6) operational cut based on ALARM scores; and (7) rank order
hiring based on ALARM scores. Accordingly, the City is entitled to judgment in its favor, and all
claims brought by the United States are dismissed with prejudice. The court will render judgment
in favor of Defendant City of Garland by separate document as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
74Even ifthe Umted States has established a prima facie showing, which it has not, the City presented sufficient evidence to establish a business necessity andjob relatedness for its practice of"rank order hIring." Specifically, Dr. Wollack testified that rank-order hiring based on ALERT and ALARM scores is psychometrically appropriate because there was an adequate job analysis, the examinations were reliable, and there was a useful spread of scores. Dr. Wollack further testified that rank-order hiring is appropriate because the relationshIp between test scores and job performance is assumed to be linear. The court incorporates by reference its discussion ofDr. Wollack' s testimony regarding the validity ofthe ALERT and ALARM examinations. See supra. As an alternative for rank-order hIring based on the ALERT and ALARM scores, the Umted States proposes rank-order hiring based on the scores ofthe PSP (for polIce) and CWH examination (for fire). In other words, the United States proposes that the City use the PSP and CWH examinations as initial screens and after successful completion ofthe unchallenged post-test components of the hiring process, the City could rank-order hire based on the scores of these examinations. The court, however, has already found that the use ofALERT and ALARM with a cutoff score of70% is lawful. Thus, to be an alternative to the City's current practice ofrank-order hiring, the City would have to hire applicants in rank-order based on their scores on PSP or CWH examinations which was administered after these applicants successfully passed the initial screen, namely, the ALERT or ALARM, and the post-test components. The United States does not identify this as an alternative. To the extent that the United States contends that the PSP or CWH examination are lawful alternatives, the court disagrees. The court incorporates by reference as if fully stated herein its findings and conclusions regarding the PSP and CWH examinations. See supra.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 51

Case 3:98-cv-00307 Document 524 Filed 03/31/2004 Page 52 of 52 It is so ordered this 31 st day of March, 2004.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 52

 
 ADR, CLOSED, KAPLAN, MREF
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Dallas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:98-cv-00307

USA v. Garland City of Assigned to: Judge Sam A Lindsay Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 02/06/1998 Date Terminated: 03/31/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff USA

represented by Benjamin J Blustein US Department of Justice Civil Rights Div/Employment Litigation Sec 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202/514-4073 Email: benjamin.blustein@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael T Kirkpatrick US Department of Justice Civil Rights Div/Emp Lit Section PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202/514-4073 Fax: 202/514-1005 FAX LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew H Tarsy US Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202/616-9615

Bill Lann Lee

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund Inc 315 West Ninth Street Suite 208 Los Angeles, CA 90015
Charlotte A Burrows US Attorney's Office Civil Rights Div/Emp Lit Section PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202/353-1929
John M Gadzichowski US Attorney's Office Civil Rights Div/Emp Lit Section PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202/353-1929
Katherine Savers McGovern US Attorney's Office 1100 Commerce St 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75242 214/659-8650 Fax: 214/767-2916 FAX Email: katherine.mcgovern@usdoj.gov
Meredith L Burrell US Attorney's Office Civil Rights Div/Emp Lit Section PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202/353-1929
Richard Ugelow US Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202/616-9615
Sharon A Seeley

V. Defendant City of Garland

US Attorney's Office Civil Rights Div/Emp Lit Section PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202/353-1929
Sharyn A Tejani US Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202/616-9615 TERMINATED: 07/16/2001
represented by Anthony N Luti Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234 Fax: 213/891-8763 FAX LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine S Bridge Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234 Fax: 213/891-8763 FAX LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles M Hinton, Jr Garland City of 200 N Fifth St Suite 416 Garland, TX 75040 972/205-2385 Fax: 972/205-2389 FAX Email: chinton@ci.garland.tx.us

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Blair G Connelly Latham & Watkins 885 Third Ave Suite 1000 New York, NY 10022 212/906-1200
James R Jordan 160th District Court - Dallas County 600 Commerce St Room 610 Dallas, TX 75202 214/653-7273 Email: jjordan@shannongracey.com TERMINATED: 11/14/2000
Kelly J Sosnow Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Von Eschen Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234
M Michelle Alvarez Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234
Robert J Malionek Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007

213/485-1234 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J Schulze Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234
Ronald E Jones, II Garland City Attorney's Office 200 N Fifth St 4th Floor PO Box 469002 Garland, TX 75202-9002 972/205-2380 Fax: 972/205-2389 FAX
Steven J Olson Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamar Feder Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wayne S Flick Latham & Watkins 633 W Fifth St Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 213/485-1234 Fax: 213/891-8872 FAX Email: Wayne.S.Flick@LW.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F Glazer Garland City Attorney's Office

V. Movant Perry Vecchio Movant Hogan Assessment Systems Inc
Movant

200 N Fifth St 4th Floor PO Box 469002 Garland, TX 75202-9002 972/205-2380 Fax: 972/205-2389 FAX Email: wglazer@ci.garland.tx.us
represented by Ray Velarde Law Office of Ray Velarde 1216 Montana Ave El Paso, TX 79902 915/532-6003 Fax: 915/542-2341 FAX LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer M Monrose Ford & Harrison 101 E Kennedy Blvd Suite 900 Tampa, FL 33602-5133 813/261-7800 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edmund J McKenna Ford & Harrison 101 E Kennedy Blvd Suite 900 Tampa, FL 33602-5133 813/261-7800
Michael J Craddock Craddock Davis & Krause LLP 3100 Monticello Ave Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75205-3442 214/750-3559 Fax: 214/750-3551 FAX Email: mcraddock@cdklawfirm.com

SHL USA Inc
Provider Hesha Abrams

represented by Gayla C Crain Epstein Becker Green Wickcliff & Hall 500 N Akard St Suite 2700 Dallas, TX 75201 214/397-4300 Fax: 214/397-0702 FAX Email: gcrain@ebglaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Hesha Abrams Abrams Mediation & Negotiation Inc 7616 Burns Run Suite 180 Dallas, TX 75248 972/702-9066 Fax: 972/702-0656 FAX Email: hesha@abramsmediation.com PRO SE

Date Filed 02/06/1998 02/06/1998 02/06/1998 02/26/1998
03/16/1998
04/20/1998 04/20/1998

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; govt no fee (5) (mlh) (Entered: 02/06/1998)

2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Garland City of (issued 1) (mlh) (Entered: 02/06/1998)

PRELIMINARY ASSIGNMENT TO Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan (mlh) (Entered: 02/06/1998)

3 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Garland City of 2/23/98 Answer due on 3/16/98 for Garland City of served by personal service by US Marshal (1) (ccv) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

4 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Garland City of (Attorney Charles M Hinton Jr, William Frank Glazer, Ronald Eugene Jones II), (6) (mlh) (Entered: 03/17/1998)

5 Designation of lead counsel for plaintiff USA by Michael T Kirkpatrick (2) (mlh) (Entered: 04/21/1998)

6 Designation of lead counsel for defendant Garland City of by Charles M Hinton Jr (2) (mlh) (Entered: 04/21/1998)

04/28/1998
05/29/1998 05/29/1998 06/02/1998 06/02/1998 06/04/1998 06/05/1998 06/05/1998 06/05/1998 06/05/1998
06/10/1998 06/10/1998 06/10/1998

7 ORDER REQUIRING ATTORNEY CONFERENCE & PROPOSAL FOR CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING & DISCOVERY ORDER set proposed scheduling and discovery order deadline for 5/29/98 ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 4.29.98 Page(s) 2 (mlh) (Entered: 04/29/1998)
8 JOINT STATUS REPORT by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (11) (mlh) (Entered: 05/29/1998)
8 JOINT PROPOSAL FOR CONTENTS of scheduling and discovery order by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (11) (mlh) (Entered: 05/29/1998)
9 MOTION by plaintiff USA for protective order pursuant to Rule 26(C) (2) (mlh) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
10 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [9-1] motion for protective order pursuant to Rule 26(C) (15+) (mlh) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
11 ORDER OF REFERENCE: [9-1] motion for protective order pursuant to Rule 26(C) referred to Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ( Signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 6.5.98 Page(s): 1 (mlh) (Entered: 06/05/1998)
12 MOTION by defendant Garland City of for Lisa Von Eschen to appear pro hac vice (2) (mlh) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
13 MOTION by defendant Garland City of for Wayne S Flick to appear pro hac vice (2) (mlh) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
14 MOTION by defendant Garland City of for M Michelle Alvarez to appear pro hac vice (2) (mlh) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
15 ORDER Motion hearing set for 11:00 6/19/98 for [9-1] motion for protective order pursuant to Rule 26(C) , Response to motion reset to 6/15/98 for [9-1] motion for protective order pursuant to Rule 26(C) ( signed by Mag Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 6.8.98 Page(s) 1 (mlh) (Entered: 06/08/1998)
16 ORDER granting [12-1] motion for Lisa Von Eschen to appear pro hac vice ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 6.11.98 Page(s) 1 (mlh) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
17 ORDER granting [14-1] motion for M Michelle Alvarez to appear pro hac vice ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 6.11.98 Page(s) 1 (mlh) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
18 ORDER granting [13-1] motion for Wayne S Flick to appear pro hac vice ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 6.11.98 Page(s) 1 (mlh) (Entered: 06/11/1998)

06/11/1998 06/18/1998 06/19/1998 07/09/1998 07/09/1998 07/14/1998
07/14/1998
07/14/1998 07/14/1998

19 NOTICE of withdrawal of motion for protective order pursuant to Rule 26(C) by plaintiff USA (3) (mlh) (Entered: 06/12/1998)
20 NOTICE of attorney appearance and substitution of counsel for plaintiff USA by Sharyn Tejani (2) (mlh) (Entered: 06/19/1998)
21 ORDER withdrawing [9-1] motion for protective order pursuant to Rule 26(C); the hearing set for 6/19/98 at 11:00 is canceled. ( signed by Mag Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 6.24.98 Page(s) 2 (sak) (Entered: 06/24/1998)
22 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff USA for protective order and an order on City of Garland's section 143.089 objections (4) (mlh) (Entered: 07/10/1998)
23 ORDER explaining to the parties what the Court has done to address some of the concerns raised ing the Joint Report and Proposal for Contents of Scheduling & Discovery Order ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 7.10.98 Page(s) 3 (mlh) (Entered: 07/10/1998)
24 STANDING ORDER OF REFERENCE...Pursuant to 28 USC section 636(b), the above referenced case is hereby referred to the Honorable Jeff Kaplan for pretrial management. This will include determination of discovery disputes, scheduling of discovery and any limits to be placed on discovery. ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 7.15.98 Page(s) 1 (mlh) (Entered: 07/15/1998)
25 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Bench trial set for 9:00 2/7/00 ; Pretrial conference for 9:00 1/21/00 ; Joining of Parties on 4/1/99 ; Amending of Pleadings on 4/1/99 ; Discovery cutoff 7/19/99 ; Deadline for filing of dispositive motions 8/19/99 ; Proposed pretrial order due 1/14/00 ; ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 7.15.98 Page(s): 2 (mlh) (Entered: 07/15/1998)
26 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER granting [22-1] motion for protective order and an order on City of Garland's section 143.089 objections; See order for specifics. ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 7.15.98 Page(s) 5 (mlh) (Entered: 07/15/1998)
27 ORDER ON CITY OF GARLAND'S SECTION 143.089 OBJECTIONS...Ordered that upon entry of this order, defendant City of Garland shall make those documents sought by the USA in its Rule 30(b)(5) Request for Production of Documents and its First Request to Produce Documents which the City has claimed are protected from disclosure by section 143.089 and with respect to which the City has not asserted any other privilege or protection from discovery available to the USA for inspection and copying; See order for specifics. ( signed by jas) Copies to counsel: 7.15.98 Page(s) 3 (mlh) (Entered:

07/15/1998 07/28/1998 07/28/1998 08/17/1998 08/17/1998 08/17/1998 08/25/1998
08/28/1998 09/04/1998 09/04/1998 09/04/1998 09/04/1998 09/04/1998 09/04/1998

07/15/1998)
28 STANDING ORDER ON ALL NON DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS...See order for specifics. ( signed by Mag Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 7.16.98 Page(s) 3 (mlh) (Entered: 07/16/1998)
29 MOTION by plaintiff USA to amend [25-1] Scheduling order (3) (mlh) (Entered: 07/29/1998)
30 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [29-1] motion to amend [25-1] Scheduling order (5) (mlh) (Entered: 07/29/1998)
31 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of opposing [29-1] motion to amend [25-1] Scheduling order (11) (mcl) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
32 AFFIDAVIT of Wayne S. Flick in support of defendant Garland City of Re: [31-1] motion response (15+) (mcl) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
33 STATEMENT by defendant Garland City of in lieu of joint status report RE: Plaintiff USA's motion to modify scheduling order (4) (mlh) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
34 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE to Judge Sam A. Lindsay effective 9/1/98, pursuant to Special Order 3-163; case shall henceforth carry the suffix letter 'L'. ( signed by jb) Copies to counsel: 8.27.98 Page(s): 3 (sak) (Entered: 08/27/1998)
35 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to [29-1] motion to amend [25-1] Scheduling order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/31/1998)
36 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to compel discovery responses and for sanctions (8) (lag) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
37 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions (15+) UNDER SEPARATE COVER (lag) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
38 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Andrea Fisher by defendant Garland City of Re: [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions (15+) (lag) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
39 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Ken Davis by defendant Garland City of Re: [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions (4) (lag) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
40 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Lana Burke by defendant Garland City of Re: [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions (4) (lag) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
41 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Merrill Balanciere by defendant Garland City of Re: [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for

09/04/1998 09/08/1998
09/11/1998 09/11/1998 09/11/1998 09/11/1998 09/11/1998
09/11/1998
09/11/1998

sanctions (4) (lag) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
42 Joint STATUS REPORT re: Dft's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for sanctions by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (15+) (lag) (Entered: 09/08/1998)
43 ORDER Motion hearing set for 10:00 10/2/98 for [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions , and Response to motion reset to 9/24/98 for [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions , and Reply to Response to Motion reset to 9/30/98 for [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 9/9/98 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 09/09/1998)
44 MOTION by plaintiff USA for order requiring notice to City of Garland employees (5) (jrb) (Entered: 09/14/1998)
45 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [44-1] motion for order requiring notice to City of Garland employees (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/14/1998)
46 MOTION by plaintiff USA for protective order (3) (jrb) (Entered: 09/14/1998)
47 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [46-1] motion for protective order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/14/1998)
48 MOTION by defendant Garland City of for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants (5) (jrb) (Entered: 09/14/1998)
49 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [48-1] motion for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/14/1998)
50 Joint STATUS REPORT by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of re: Dft City of Garland's Mtn for an order restricting communcation by counsel for the US with certain current city employees; and for an order approving a notice to all police and fire dept employees regarding communcations with counsel for the US; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccesful applicants; and the US' Mtn for order requiring notice to City of Garland Employees and for protective order. (8) (jrb) (Entered:

09/11/1998
09/14/1998
09/16/1998 09/24/1998 09/24/1998 09/24/1998

09/14/1998)
51 Joint STATUS REPORT by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of re: dft City of Garland's mtn for an order restricting communication by counsel for the US with certain current city employees; and for an order approving a notice to all police and fire dept employees regarding communcations with counsel for the US and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants' and the US Mtn for order requiring notice to City of Garland Employees and for protective order. (8) (jrb) (Entered: 09/14/1998)
52 ORDER Motion hearing set for 10:00 10/2/98 for [48-1] motion for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants , and Response to motion reset to 9/24/98 for [48-1] motion for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants , and Reply to Response to Motion reset to 9/30/98 for [48-1] motion for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 9/15/98 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
53 Amendment to Memorandum in support of Mtn for order requiring notice to City of Garland Employees/ SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT to [45-1] support memorandum by plaintiff USA (5) (jrb) (Entered: 09/16/1998)
54 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 09/25/1998)
55 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [44-1] motion for order requiring notice to City of Garland employees (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/25/1998)
56 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to [48-1] motion for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/25/1998)

09/24/1998 09/30/1998 09/30/1998 09/30/1998 09/30/1998
10/02/1998 10/02/1998
10/05/1998 10/09/1998
10/09/1998

57 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [46-1] motion for protective order (5 (jrb) (Entered: 09/25/1998)
58 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to [44-1] motion for order requiring notice to City of Garland employees (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1998)
59 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to [46-1] motion for protective order (4) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1998)
60 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of to response to [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions (15+) (jrb) Modified on 10/01/1998 (Entered: 10/01/1998)
61 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of to response to [48-1] motion for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1998)
62 Minute order: Mtns hrg Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic (4) (jrb) (Entered: 10/02/1998)
Motion hearing re: [48-1] motion for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants Motion hearing held, [461] motion for protective order, [44-1] motion for order requiring notice to City of Garland employees, [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions Motion hearing held, [29-1] motion to amend [25-1] Scheduling order (jrb) (Entered: 10/02/1998)
63 ORDER set case management/scheduling conference for 9:00 10/15/98 ( signed by Mag. Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 10.06.98 Page(s) 1 (alh) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
64 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [48-1] motion for an order restricting communciation by counsel for the US with certain current city employeees; and for protective order regarding dissemination by the US of personal information relating to current and former police officers and firefighters and unsuccessful applicants ( signed by ...see order for specifics. JK) Copies to counsel: 10/13/98 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
65 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [44-1] motion for order requiring notice to City of Garland employees ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/13/98 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 10/13/1998)

10/09/1998 10/09/1998 10/14/1998
10/15/1998
10/15/1998 10/15/1998 10/23/1998
10/26/1998 10/26/1998 10/28/1998 10/28/1998 10/28/1998 11/02/1998

66 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [36-1] motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/13/98 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
67 ORDER granting [46-1] motion for protective order ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/13/98 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
68 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Betty Tate Date(s): 10/2/98 Volume(s): 1 Type of proceeding: mtn to compel, mtn restricting communications, mtn for protective order and mtn for order requiring notice to the City of Garland. (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 10/15/1998)
69 ORDER...re: interview notes...unredacted copies of these document provisions shall be produced to dft by 10/22/98. The other provisions redacted by plaintiff contain legal opinions, mental impressions and conclusions, and need not be produced. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/15/98 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 10/15/1998)
70 Stipulated Protective ORDER re: HRIS Database...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/15/98 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 10/15/1998)
71 First Interim Scheduling ORDER set scheduling conference for 9:00 5/3/99 ...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/16/98 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 10/16/1998)
72 ORDER...before this case was transferred to this court,the Honorable Solis issued a standing order of reference which referred the case to Hon Kaplan for pretrial management. Mag Kaplan will continue to handle this case as set forth in Judge Solis's order of 7/14/98...see order for specifics. ( signed by SAL) Copies to counsel: 10/26/98 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
73 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Perry Vecchio. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
74 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Jesus Antonio Torres. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
75 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Perry Vecchio. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
76 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Lupita Torres. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
77 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Lupita Torres. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
78 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Jesus Antonio Torres. (1) (jrb) Modified on 11/04/1998 (Entered:

11/09/1998 11/10/1998 11/10/1998
11/19/1998 11/20/1998 11/20/1998 11/30/1998
12/01/1998 12/02/1998

11/03/1998)
79 Application/MOTION by defendant Garland City of for order to show cause re: contempt in connection with dft's subpoena duces tecum to third-party Perry Becchi of the League of United Latin-American Citizens (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 11/10/1998)
80 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Show Cause Hearing set for 9:00 11/20/98 ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 11/12/98 Page(s): 2 (jrb) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
80 ORDER Response to motion reset to 11/18/98 for [79-1] motion for order to show cause re: contempt in connection with dft's subpoena duces tecum to third-party Perry Becchi of the League of United LatinAmerican Citizens ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 11/12/98 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
81 US Dept of Justice US Marshals Service Process Receipt and RETURN OF SERVICE executed...Perry Vecchio..date of service 11/16/98. (jrb) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
82 Minute order: Show Cause Order Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic (2) (jrb) (Entered: 11/23/1998)
Motion hearing re: [79-1] motion for order to show cause re: contempt in connection with dft's subpoena duces tecum to third-party Perry Becchi of the League of United Latin-American Citizens (jrb) (Entered: 11/23/1998)
83 ORDER...An order signed by all counsel for all parties and the attorneys for Perry Vecchio and the League of United Latin American Citizens shall be hand delivered to the chambers of Magistrate Kaplan by 12:00 noon 12/2/98. ( signed by Mag Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 12.1.98 Page(s) 2 (mlh) (Entered: 12/01/1998)
84 NOTICE of attorney appearance for movant Perry Vecchio by Ray Velarde (1) (mlh) (Entered: 12/02/1998)
85 Order Re: Show Cause ORDER granting [79-1] motion for order to show cause re: contempt in connection with dft's subpoena duces tecum to third-party Perry Becchi of the League of United Latin-American Citizens...Mr Vecchio shall on or before 12/4/98 produce to the City of Garland, at the office of the City Atty, any and all documents within his possession, custody or control which are responsive to the subpoena duces tecum served on him by the City on 10/22/98. Any and all LULAC membership lists or rosters shall be exempt from this order. No monetary sanctions are ordered at this time. Failure to comply with this Order, however, may result in the imposition of sanctions. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 12/3/98 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 12/03/1998)

01/25/1999 01/25/1999 02/03/1999
02/24/1999 02/26/1999 02/26/1999 02/26/1999
03/03/1999
03/03/1999 03/03/1999 03/05/1999
03/05/1999

86 Appliation/MOTION of non-resident atty/ by defendant Garland City of for Kelly J Sosnow to appear pro hac vice (3) (jrb) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
87 Application/MOTION of non-resident atty/ by defendant Garland City of for Robert J Malionek to appear pro hac vice (3) (jrb) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
88 ORDER granting [87-1] motion for Robert J Malionek to appear pro hac vice, granting [86-1] motion for Kelly J Sosnow to appear pro hac vice ( signed by SAL) Copies to counsel: 2/3/99 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 02/03/1999)
89 Agreed ORDER for protective order ...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 2/25/99 Page(s) 11 (jrb) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
90 MOTION by plaintiff USA for order allowing communication with certain non-management employees of dft City of Garland (3) (jrb) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
91 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [90-1] motion for order allowing communication with certain non-management employees of dft City of Garland (10) (jrb) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
92 ORDER Motion hearing set for 10:30 3/5/99 for [90-1] motion for order allowing communication with certain non-management employees of dft City of Garland ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 3/1/99 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
93 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [90-1] motion for order allowing communication with certain nonmanagement employees of dft City of Garland (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
94 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Lieutenant Mark Dillon Re: [93-1] opposition response (5) (jrb) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
95 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Captain Jeffrey L Tokar Re: [93-1] opposition response (5) (jrb) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
96 Minute order: Plaintiff's mtn for an order allowing communication with certain non-management employees of City of Garland. Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic (2) (jrb) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
Motion hearing re: [90-1] motion for order allowing communication with certain non-management employees of dft City of Garland Motion hearing held (jrb) (Entered: 03/08/1999)

03/10/1999
03/12/1999 03/12/1999 03/12/1999 03/16/1999 03/16/1999 03/16/1999 03/16/1999 03/17/1999 03/22/1999 03/22/1999
03/31/1999 03/31/1999 03/31/1999
04/02/1999

97 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [90-1] motion for order allowing communication with certain non-management employees of dft City of Garland...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 3/11/99 Page(s) 4 (jrb) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
98 NOTICE of in camera submission by defendant Garland City of (2) (jrb) (Entered: 03/12/1999)
99 AFFIDAVIT Re: Lieutenant Mark Dillon. (5) (jrb) (Entered: 03/12/1999)
100 AFFIDAVIT Re: Fire Marshall Kent Duke. (4) (jrb) (Entered: 03/12/1999)
101 MOTION by defendant Garland City of for Steven J Olson to appear pro hac vice (3) (jas) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: [93-1] opposition response by defendant Garland City of (3) (jas) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: [95-1] affidavit by defendant Garland City of (1) (jas) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: [94-1] affidavit by defendant Garland City of (3) (jas) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
105 ORDER granting [101-1] motion for Steven J Olson to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge Lindsay) Copies to counsel: 3/17/99 Page(s) 1 (jas) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
106 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [91-1] support memorandum (6) (jas) (Entered: 03/23/1999)
107 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of and response [100-1] affidavit, [99-1] affidavit, [95-1] affidavit, [94-1] affidavit, [90-1] motion for order allowing communication with certain nonmanagement employees of dft City of (8) (cxj) (Entered: 03/23/1999)
108 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff USA , (Answer due 4/12/99 for Garland City of ) amending [1-1] complaint (4) (jrb) (Entered: 04/01/1999)
109 Agreed ORDER granting leave to file an amended pleading. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 4/1/99 Page(s) (jrb) (Entered: 04/01/1999)
110 ORDER granting [90-1] motion for order allowing communication with certain non-management employees of dft City of Garland...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 4/1/99 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 04/01/1999)
111 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Betty Tate Date(s): 3/5/99

04/19/1999 04/19/1999 05/07/1999
05/21/1999 05/21/1999 05/21/1999 05/21/1999 05/26/1999 06/04/1999 06/04/1999 06/04/1999 06/04/1999 06/11/1999

Volume(s): 1 Type of proceeding: mtn for order allowing communication with certain non-management employees. (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
112 Designation/Disclosure of Expert Testimony by plaintiff USA (15+) (alh) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
113 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (alh) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
114 Second Interim Scheduling ORDER reset scheduling order deadlines: Discovery deadline on 3/30/00 Proposed pretrial order due 5/30/00 ...see order for other specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 5/10/99 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
115 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Southwestern Alied Health Sciences School. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 05/24/1999)
116 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Garland Psychological Ctr. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 05/24/1999)
117 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case to Behavioral Measures and Forensic Services. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 05/24/1999)
118 RETURN OF SERVICE executed re: subpoena in a civil case El Centro College. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 05/24/1999)
119 ANSWER by defendant Garland City of to amended complaint (7) (jrb) (Entered: 05/27/1999)
120 Unopposed MOTION by plaintiff USA to amend [114-2] order/for modification of the second interim scheduling order (3) (jrb) (Entered: 06/07/1999)
121 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [120-1] motion to amend [114-2] order/for modification of the second interim scheduling order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 06/07/1999)
122 ORDER...the Court will not approve the proposed briefing schedule on dft's mtn for protective order...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/7/99 Page(s) (jrb) (Entered: 06/07/1999)
123 ORDER denying [120-1] motion to amend [114-2] order/for modification of the second interim scheduling order ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/7/99 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 06/07/1999)
124 ***withdrawn per order of 6/24/99***MOTION by defendant Garland City of for protective order re 3rd-pty subpoenae served by pla US on

06/11/1999
06/11/1999 06/11/1999
06/21/1999 06/24/1999 08/06/1999 08/09/1999 08/20/1999 08/25/1999 08/27/1999

Behavorial Measures & Forensic Sciences, LLC & Garland Psychological Center, PC (3) (lag) Modified on 06/25/1999 (Entered: 06/14/1999)
125 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES by defendant Garland City of in support of [124-1] motion for protective order re 3rd-pty subpoenae served by pla US on Behavorial Measures & Forensic Sciences, LLC & Garland Psychological Center, PC (15+) (lag) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
126 JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER by defendant Garland City of (3) (lag) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
127 ORDER Motion hearing set for 10:00 6/25/99 for [124-1] motion for protective order re 3rd-pty subpoenae served by pla US on Behavorial Measures & Forensic Sciences, LLC & Garland Psychological Center, PC in the courtroom of Mag Judge Jeff Kaplan, 1100 Commerce St, 16th Floor, Dallas, TX <SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS> (signed by Magistrate Judge Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 06.14.99 Page(s) 2 (lag) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
128 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to [124-1] motion for protective order re 3rd-pty subpoenae served by pla US on Behavorial Measures & Forensic Sciences, LLC & Garland Psychological Center, PC (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 06/22/1999)
129 Agreed ORDER withdrawing [124-1] motion for protective order re 3rd-pty subpoenae served by pla US on Behavorial Measures & Forensic Sciences, LLC & Garland Psychological Center, PC ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/25/99 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 06/25/1999)
130 Proof/RETURN OF SERVICE executed 8/5/99 as to Liz Moore for Dallas Fire Dept Training Academy re: subponea in a civil case (1) (lag) (Entered: 08/06/1999)
131 Unopposed MOTION by defendant Garland City of for order re: Confidentiality (4) (jrb) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
132 Agreed ORDER granting [131-1] motion for order re: Confidentiality...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 8/23/99 Page(s) 4 (jrb) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
133 Application/MOTION by defendant Garland City of for Catherine S Bridge to appear pro hac vice (2) (jrb) (Entered: 08/26/1999)
134 ORDER...re: Catherine S Bridge's appl for leave to appear pro hace vice...directed to submit an agreed order in proper form by 9/3/99 or the mtn will be denied. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 8/27/99 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 08/27/1999)

08/30/1999 08/30/1999 08/30/1999 08/31/1999
09/02/1999 09/08/1999 09/08/1999 09/17/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999

135 Joint STATUS REPORT re: Dft City of Garland's Mtn to compel discovery responses by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (6) (jrb) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
136 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to compel discovery responses (3) (jrb) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
137 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [136-1] motion to compel discovery responses (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
138 ORDER Motion hearing set for 1:30 9/10/99 for [136-1] motion to compel discovery responses , and Response to motion reset to 9/8/99 for [136-1] motion to compel discovery responses ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 9/1/99 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 09/01/1999)
139 ORDER approving phv application, Catherine S Bridge on behalf of Dft City of Garland TX ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 9/3/99 Page(s) (jrb) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
140 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to [136-1] motion to compel discovery responses (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
141 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [140-1] motion response (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
142 ORDER denying [136-1] motion to compel discovery responses...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 9/20/99 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
143 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...Dr Irwin S Kirsch. (5) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1999)
144 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...Dr Stephen Wollack. (5) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1999)
145 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...Dr Judith Stoikov. (5) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1999)
146 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...Dr F Mark Schemmer. (5) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1999)
147 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...Dr Paul Richard Jeanneret. (5) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1999)
148 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...Dr Paul W Thayer. (5) (jrb) (Entered: 10/01/1999)
149 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...Dr Kathleen K Lundquist. (5) (jrb) (Entered:

10/08/1999 10/08/1999 10/08/1999 10/12/1999 10/12/1999 10/12/1999 10/12/1999 10/22/1999
10/26/1999 10/26/1999 10/26/1999 10/26/1999 10/26/1999

10/01/1999)
150 MOTION by plaintiff USA to amend [114-2] order/for modification of the second interim scheduling order (3) (jrb) (Entered: 10/12/1999)
151 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [150-1] motion to amend [114-2] order/for modification of the second interim scheduling order (15) (jrb) (Entered: 10/12/1999)
152 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [150-1] motion to amend [114-2] order/for modification of the second interim scheduling order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 10/12/1999)
153 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of to [150-1] motion to amend [114-2] order/for modification of the second interim scheduling order (10) (jrb) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
154 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...Dr David Morris. (4) (jrb) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
155 Proof of disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...TCLEOSE. (6) (jrb) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
156 Proof of Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of...TCFP. (7) (jrb) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
157 Third Interim Scheduling ORDER granting [150-1] motion to amend [114-2] order/for modification of the second interim scheduling order reset scheduling order deadlines: Discovery deadline on 9/29/00 Proposed pretrial order due 10/27/00 ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/25/99 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 10/25/1999)
158 MOTION by plaintiff USA to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and 16(f) (2) (jrb) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
159 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [158-1] motion to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and 16(f)(15+) (jrb) Modified on 10/27/1999 (Entered: 10/27/1999)
160 Joint STATUS REPORT by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of re: Plaintiff US' mtn to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to Rules 37(c)(1) and 16(f) (3) (jrb) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
161 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [158-1] motion to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and 16(f) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
162 Agreed (Proposed) ORDER Response to motion reset to 11/5/99 for [158-1] motion to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and 16(f) , and Motion hearing set for 8:00 11/12/99 for [158-1] motion

11/05/1999 11/05/1999 11/05/1999 11/05/1999 11/05/1999
11/10/1999 11/12/1999 11/12/1999 11/19/1999 12/16/1999
12/27/1999 01/06/2000

to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and 16(f) ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/27/99 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
163 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [1581] motion to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and 16(f) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
164 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of C Octavia Robinson Re: [163-1] opposition memorandum (4) (jrb) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
165 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Robert J Proctor Re: [163-1] opposition memorandum (4) (jrb) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
166 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [163-1] opposition memorandum (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
167 Final SCHEDULING ORDER setting Bench trial set for 2/5/01 ; Deadline for filing of dispositive motions 9/1/00 ; Discovery cutoff 9/29/00 ; Pretrial materials due on 1/16/01 Proposed pretrial order due 1/16/01 ; Pretrial conference for 2:00 2/2/01 ; ( signed by SAL) Copies to counsel: 11/8/99 Page(s): 7 (jrb) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
168 NOTICE of attorney appearance for plaintiff USA by Benjamin J Blustein (2) (jrb) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
169 Minute order: plaintiff's mtn to exclude expert witnesses Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic (1) (jrb) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
Motion hearing re: [158-1] motion to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and 16(f) Motion hearing held (jrb) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
170 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [158-1] motion to exclude expert witnesses pursuant to FRCP 37(c)(1) and 16(f) ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 11/22/99 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 11/22/1999)
171 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER...RE Dr P Richard Jeanneret and Jeanneret & Assoc Inc...See order for specifics ( signed by Mag Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 12.17.99 Page(s) 7 (mlh) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
172 JOINT MOTION to amend [167-1] Scheduling order by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (3) (jrb) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
173 Agreed Order amending final scheduling order/ORDER granting [1721] joint motion to amend [167-1] Scheduling order...see order for specifics. ( signed by SAL) Copies to counsel: 1/7/00 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 01/07/2000)

01/14/2000
01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000
01/20/2000
01/31/2000 02/03/2000 02/03/2000 02/03/2000 02/04/2000

174 JOINT MOTION to amend [167-1] Scheduling order and to modify the order of 11/19/99 because of the recent discovery of key documents by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (5) (jrb) Modified on 01/20/2000 (Entered: 01/14/2000)
175 Joint STATUS REPORT re: plaintiff US' mtn to compel discovery responses by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (5) (jrb) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
176 MOTION by plaintiff USA to compel discovery responses (3) (jrb) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
177 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses (14) (jrb) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
Motion(s) referred: [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses referred to Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan (jrb) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
178 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
180 Agreed ORDER granting [174-1] joint motion to amend [167-1] Scheduling order and ot modify the order of 11/19/99 because of the recent discovery of key documents reset scheduling order deadlines: Deadline for filing of dispositive motions by 11/1/00 Discovery deadline on 10/15/00 ( signed by SAL) Copies to counsel: 1/20/00 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
179 ORDER Motion hearing set for 9:00 2/11/00 for [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses , and Response to motion reset to 2/3/00 for [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses , and Reply to Response to Motion reset to 2/8/00 for [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 1/20/00 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
181 Joint REPORT on the status of settlement negotiations by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (3) (djd) (Entered: 02/01/2000)
182 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [1761] motion to compel discovery responses (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
183 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [182-1] opposition memorandum (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
184 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: [183-1] support appendix, [182-1] opposition memorandum by defendant Garland City of (1) (jrb) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
185 ORDER unfiling appl and or for admission pro hav vice filed by

02/08/2000 02/11/2000 02/11/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000 03/23/2000
03/24/2000 03/24/2000
03/27/2000 04/12/2000 04/12/2000 04/12/2000

defendant Garland City of due to the following deficiency: not in proper form Copies to counsel: 2/7/00 (signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay ) Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
186 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses (8) (jrb) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
187 Minute order: Plaintiff's mtn to compel discovery Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic (1) (jrb) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
Motion hearing re: [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses Motion hearing held (jrb) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
188 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Betty Tate Date(s): 2/11/00 Volume(s): 1 Type of proceeding: Mtn to compel discovery (USC)(22) (jrb) (Entered: 02/23/2000)
189 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [176-1] motion to compel discovery responses...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 2/23/00 Page(s) 4 (jrb) (Entered: 02/23/2000)
190 ***unfiled per order of 3/23/00***NOTICE/RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of to [189-1] order re: status of stipulations of fact & request for discovery re: affirmative defenses (15+) (alh) Modified on 03/27/2000 (Entered: 03/24/2000)
191 NOTICE pursuant to Orderof 2/22/00 by plaintiff USA (6) (jrb) (Entered: 03/27/2000)
192 ORDER...unfiling dft City of Garland's ntoice pursuant to order dated 2/23/00 re: status of stipulations of fact and request for discovery re: affirmative defenses dated 3/23/00. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 3/27/00 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 03/27/2000)
193 Application and ORDER for Tamar Feder to appear pro hac vice ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 3/27/00 Page(s) 4 (jrb) (Entered: 03/27/2000)
194 MOTION by plaintiff USA to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) (3) (jrb) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
195 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) (12) (jrb) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
196 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 04/13/2000)

04/12/2000 04/13/2000 04/13/2000
04/20/2000 04/20/2000 04/26/2000 04/26/2000 04/28/2000 04/28/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/31/2000 06/13/2000

197 Joint STATUS REPORT re: by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of re: mtn to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist). (4) (jrb) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
Motion(s) referred: [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) referred to Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan (jrb) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
198 ORDER Motion hearing set for 10:00 4/28/00 for [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) , and Response to motion reset to 4/20/00 for [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) , and Reply to Response to Motion reset to 4/26/00 for [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 4/13/00 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
199 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [1941] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
200 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Kathleen K Lundquist PhD Re: [199-1] opposition memorandum (6) (jrb) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
201 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) (12) (jrb) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
202 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [201-1] response reply (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
203 Minute order: Mtn hrg on plaintiff's mtn to compel Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic (1) (jrb) (Entered: 04/28/2000)
Motion hearing re: [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist) Motion hearing held (jrb) (Entered: 04/28/2000)
204 ORDER granting [194-1] motion to compel discovery responses (deposition of Kathleen K Lundquist)...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 5/3/00 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 05/03/2000)
205 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Janet E Wright Date(s): April 28, 2000 Volume(s): 1 Type of proceeding: Janet E Wright (USC)(15+) (jrb) (Entered: 05/04/2000)
206 Disclosure of Expert Testimony by plaintiff USA (3) (jrb) (Entered: 06/01/2000)
207 Agreed Protective ORDER re: Dr Chris W Hornick and CWH Research

06/13/2000
06/13/2000 06/13/2000 06/13/2000 06/13/2000 06/14/2000
06/16/2000 06/16/2000 06/22/2000 06/22/2000 06/28/2000 06/30/2000

Inc...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/13/00 Page(s) 7 (jrb) (Entered: 06/13/2000)
208 Joint STATUS REPORT re: Plaintiff US's mtn for protective order re: notice of deposition of Plaintiff US Pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (4) (jrb) (Entered: 06/14/2000)
209 Second Set of Stipulated Facts by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (3) (jrb) (Entered: 06/14/2000)
210 MOTION by plaintiff USA for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) (3) (jrb) (Entered: 06/14/2000)
211 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [210-1] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 06/14/2000)
212 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [210-1] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 06/14/2000)
213 ORDER Motion hearing set for 8:30 6/30/00 for [210-1] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) , and Response to motion reset to 6/22/00 for [210-1] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) , and Reply to Response to Motion reset to 6/28/00 for [210-1] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/15/00 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 06/15/2000)
214 First Set of Stipulated Facts/STIPULATION by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (8) (jrb) (Entered: 06/16/2000)
215 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 06/16/2000)
216 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [2101] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 06/23/2000)
217 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [216-1] opposition memorandum (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 06/23/2000)
218 REPLY by plaintiff USA to response to [210-1] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) (12) (jrb) (Entered: 06/29/2000)
219 Minute order: Plaintiff's mtn for protective order Held before

06/30/2000 06/30/2000 06/30/2000 06/30/2000 06/30/2000 07/06/2000
07/14/2000 07/14/2000 07/14/2000
07/18/2000 07/21/2000 07/21/2000

Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic (1) (jrb) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
Motion hearing re: [210-1] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) Motion hearing held (jrb) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
220 Agreed Protective ORDER re: examination of Dr Chris W Hornick and CWH Research Inc...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/30/00 Page(s) 8 (jrb) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
221 Agreed Protective ORDER re: examinations of Dr David P Jones and AON Consulting Inc...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/30/00 Page(s) 8 (jrb) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
222 Agreed Protective ORDER re: Dr Frank J Landy and SHL Landy Jacobs Inc...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/30/00 Page(s) 7 (jrb) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
223 Application and ORDER for Robert J Schulze to appear pro hac vice ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 6/30/00 Page(s) 4 (jrb) (Entered: 06/30/2000)
224 ORDER granting [210-1] motion for protective order re: notice of deposition of plaintiff US pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6)...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 7/7/00 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 07/07/2000)
225 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
226 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
227 ORDER setting hrg...plaintiff and dft jointly request a hrg for the purpose of ruling on any objs raised by third parties to the production of proprietary materials during discovery in this case...set for 7/28/00 at 10:00 am. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 7/14/00 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
228 Application and ORDER for Jennifer M Monrose to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Hogan Assessment Systems Inc ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 7/19/00 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 07/19/2000)
229 Designation of lead counsel for movant Hogan Assessment Sys by Jennifer M Monrose. (2) (jrb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
230 MOTION with memorandum in support by movant Hogan Assessment Sys for protective order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)

07/21/2000 07/24/2000 07/25/2000 07/25/2000 07/25/2000 07/25/2000 07/25/2000
07/26/2000 07/27/2000 07/27/2000 07/27/2000 07/27/2000 07/27/2000 07/28/2000 07/28/2000

231 APPENDIX by movant Hogan Assessment Sys in support of [230-1] motion for protective order (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
232 ORDER Motion hearing set for 10:00 7/28/00 for [230-1] motion for protective order ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 7/25/00 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
233 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to compel further discovery responses (4) (jrb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
234 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [233-1] motion to compel further discovery responses (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
235 Joint STATUS REPORT re: mtn to compel discovery responses by defendant Garland City of (7) (jrb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
236 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [233-1] motion to compel further discovery responses (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
237 ORDER Dft's Motion to Complel set for a hearing before USMJ Kaplan at 1100 Commerce, 16th Floor, Dallas, TX Motion hearing set for 10:00 7/28/00 for [233-1] motion to compel further discovery responses ( signed by USMJ Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 7/26/00 Page(s) 2 (lch) (Entered: 07/26/2000)
238 SUPPLEMENT to [231-1] support appendix by movant Hogan Assessment Sys (15+) (djd) (Entered: 07/26/2000)
239 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [2301] motion for protective order (15+) (USC) (mlh) (Entered: 07/28/2000)
240 AFFIDAVIT of Robert J Schulze Re: [239-1] opposition memorandum (4) (mlh) (Entered: 07/28/2000)
241 JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR HEARING OF 7/28/00 by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of (15+) (mlh) (Entered: 07/28/2000)
242 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of in support of [241-1] remark (15+) (USC) (mlh) (Entered: 07/28/2000)
243 AFFIDAVIT of Gerald V Barrett (8) (mlh) (Entered: 07/28/2000)
244 Minute order: Motion hearing RE non party motion for protective order & dft's motion to compel Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: elec (mlh) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
Motion hearing re: [233-1] motion to compel further discovery responses Motion hearing held, [230-1] motion for protective order

07/28/2000 07/31/2000
08/11/2000 08/14/2000 08/14/2000 08/14/2000 08/15/2000
08/15/2000 08/21/2000 08/23/2000 08/30/2000 09/15/2000

Motion hearing held (mlh) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
245 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER granting [230-1] motion for protective order; See order for specifics ( signed by Mag Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 7.31.00 Page(s) 7 (mlh) (Entered: 07/31/2000)
246 ***vacated and set aside per order of 9/22/00***ORDER referring case to ADR; Hesha Abrams ADR provider; Type of ADR: Mediation Requested by: Court; Mediation must be completed by 11/30/00. (Signed by Magistrate Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 8/1/00 Page(s): 3 (jas) Modified on 09/25/2000 (Entered: 08/01/2000)
247 STATUS REPORT re: documents withheld by the US which related to examinations at issue in this action by defendant Garland City of (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/11/2000)
248 ORDER granting [233-1] motion to compel further discovery responses...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 8/15/00 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 08/15/2000)
249 Agreed Protective ORDER...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 8/15/00 Page(s) 7 (jrb) (Entered: 08/15/2000)
250 Application and ORDER for Edmund J McKenna to appear pro hac vice ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 8/15/00 Page(s) 4 (jrb) Modified on 08/15/2000 (Entered: 08/15/2000)
251 Portion of Parties' Joint STATUS REPORT regarding documents subject to third-party objection and US' objections basead on protective orders and statutory prohibitions by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/16/2000)
252 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [251-1] report (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 08/16/2000)
253 ORDER granting [230-1] motion for protective order...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 8/21/00 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
254 Agreed Protective ORDER re: Natl Computer Systems Inc...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 8/24/00 Page(s) 8 (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2000)
255 Agreed ORDER for protective order re: National Computer Systems Inc See Order for specifics. (signed by Magistrate Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 8/31/00 Page(s) 8 (jas) (Entered: 08/31/2000)
256 Disclosure of Expert Testimony/Designation of Experts by defendant Garland City of (4) (jrb) (Entered: 09/15/2000)

09/22/2000
09/22/2000
09/25/2000 09/27/2000 10/04/2000 10/04/2000 10/04/2000 10/04/2000 10/04/2000 10/04/2000 10/05/2000 10/06/2000

257 ORDER...the Court sua sponte determines that the stay should be lifted...the Court also granted Dft City of Garland a one week extension of time to deliver its expert reports and other materials previously due on 9/15/00. The new deadline is 9/22/00. In the interest of fairness, all other deadlines contained in the current scheduling order are hereby extended for one week. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 9/25/00 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 09/25/2000)
258 ***VACATED PER ORDER FILED 11/14/00***Revised Order of Referral for mediation/ORDER vacating [246-1] order...ordered to mediation on 11/16 and 17, 2000...mediator is Hesha Abrams...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 9/25/00 Page(s) 3 (jrb) Modified on 11/15/2000 (Entered: 09/25/2000)
259 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: sur-rebuttal statistical report of Judith Stoikov... by plaintiff USA (3) (jrb) (Entered: 09/27/2000)
260 Amended CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: sur-rebuttal statistical report of Judith Stoikov Phd. (2) (jrb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
261 Joint STATUS REPORT by plaintiff and defendant re: Plaintiff US' Mtn to strike expert witness designations of John Berner Phd and Gerald V Barrett Phd. (9) (jrb) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
262 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [258-1] order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
263 MOTION by plaintiff USA to strike [256-1] designation/to strike expert witness designations of John Berner PhD and Gerald V Barrett PhD (3) (jrb) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
264 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [263-1] motion to strike [256-1] designation/to strike expert witness designations of John Berner PhD and Gerald V Barrett PhD (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
265 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [263-1] motion to strike [256-1] designation/to strike expert witness designations of John Berner PhD and Gerald V Barrett PhD (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
266 Agreed Protective ORDER re: Stanard and Associates Inc...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/5/00 Page(s) 9 (jrb) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
267 MOTION by movant SHL USA Inc for protective order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 10/06/2000)
268 ORDER Motion hearing set for 12:00 10/10/00 for [267-1] motion for protective order ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/6/00 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 10/06/2000)

10/06/2000 10/10/2000
10/10/2000
10/10/2000 10/13/2000
10/18/2000 10/18/2000 10/23/2000 10/25/2000
10/27/2000 10/27/2000 10/27/2000 11/01/2000

270 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE by movant SHL USA Inc Re: [267-1] motion for protective order (2) (jas) (Entered: 10/10/2000)
269 ORDER the motion to strike will be carried by the Court for appropriate disposition pending the outcome of mediation. (signed by Magistrate Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 10/10/00 Page(s) 1 (jas) (Entered: 10/10/2000)
271 Minute order: SHL USA's Inc's mtn to quash and for protective order in connection with the deposition of its corporate representative Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic (1) (jrb) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
Motion hearing re: [267-1] motion for protective order Motion hearing held (jrb) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
272 Order re: SHL USA's mtn to quash dft City of Garland's deposition subpoena/ ORDER granting in part, denying in part [267-1] motion for protective order...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/16/00 Page(s) 5 (jrb) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
273 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [262-1] opposition response (4) (jrb) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
274 Agreed Protective ORDER re: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/19/00 Page(s) 8 (jrb) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
275 Disclosure of Expert Testimony by plaintiff USA (3) (jrb) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
276 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER...dft's City of Garland's objections to 9/22/00 Revised Order of Referral for Mediation are hereby overruled. All relief requested by dft City of Garland is denied. Mediation shall take place in this case as ordered by the magistrate judge. ( signed by SAL) Copies to counsel: 10/26/00 Page(s): 8 (jrb) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
277 Agreed Protective ORDER re: Reid Psychological Systems...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/27/00 Page(s) 7 (jrb) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
278 Agreed Protective ORDER re: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing Inc...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/27/00 Page(s) 8 (jrb) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
279 Agreed Protective ORDER..see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 10/27/00 Page(s) 9 (jrb) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
280 Joint STATUS REPORT by defendant Garland City of re: mtn to

11/01/2000 11/01/2000 11/02/2000
11/03/2000 11/07/2000 11/07/2000 11/08/2000 11/08/2000 11/14/2000 11/14/2000
11/16/2000

compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 5657). (9) (jrb) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
281 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 56-57) (5) (jrb) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
282 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [281-1] motion to compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 56-57)(15+) (jrb) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
283 ORDER...dft City of Garland has filed a mtn to compel plaintiff to answer its Seventh set of interrogatories...the Court will carry the mtn for appropriate disposition pending the outcome of mediation...no further mtns shall be filed in this case until mediation is completed. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 11/3/00 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
284 Amended CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: [283-1] order, [282-1] support memorandum, [281-1] motion to compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 56-57) by defendant Garland City of (3) (jrb) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
285 Modified ORDER Re: SHL USA's mtn to quash dft City of Garland's deposition subpoena...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 11/8/00 Page(s) 5 (jrb) Modified on 11/08/2000 (Entered: 11/08/2000)
286 Protective ORDER re: SHL USA, Inc (Suffolf County)...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 11/8/00 Page(s) 8 (jrb) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
287 MOTION by plaintiff USA for leave to file dispositive mtns (3) (jrb) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
288 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [287-1] motion for leave to file dispositive mtns (7) (jrb) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
289 NOTICE of non-participation of counsel by defendant Garland City of...James R Jordan no longer counsel for City of Garland. (2) (jrb) (Entered: 11/14/2000)
290 ORDER re: Mediation Scheduled for 11/16/00 & 11/17/00: vacating revised [258-1] order of referral for mediation dated 9/22/00; The Court will hold a telephone conference with the attorneys during the week of 11/27/00 to set aside another date for the mediation. ( signed by Jeff Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 11/15/00 Page(s) 1 (djd) (Entered: 11/15/2000)
291 ORDER denying [287-1] motion for leave to file dispositive mtns...see

11/30/2000 12/01/2000 12/05/2000 12/28/2000 01/12/2001 01/12/2001 01/16/2001
01/16/2001 01/16/2001

order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 11/17/00 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
292 Second Revised ORDER referring case to ADR; ADR provider; Type of ADR: mediation Requested by: court...Hesha Abrams is the mediator...mediation is to occur on 1/9 and 1/10/2001...see order for other specifics. ( Signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 12/1/00 Page(s): 3 (jrb) (Entered: 12/01/2000)
293 Agreed Protective ORDER re: Gerald V Barrett and Barrett and Associates...see order for specifics. ( signed by JK) Copies to counsel: 12/4/00 Page(s) 7 (jrb) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
294 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Janet E Wright Date(s): 10/10/00 Volume(s): 1 Type of proceeding: mtn to quash and for protective order (USC)(15+) (jrb) (Entered: 12/06/2000)
295 Agreed Protective ORDER re: The Psychological Corporation...see order for specifics. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 12/29/00 Page(s) 9 (jrb) (Entered: 12/29/2000)
296 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA to [281-1] motion to compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 56-57) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
297 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [296-1] motion response (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
298 ORDER Setting Hearing a hrg on all pretrial mtns will be held/Motion hearing set for 2:00 1/22/01 for [281-1] motion to compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 56-57), set for 2:00 1/22/01 for [263-1] motion to strike [256-1] designation/to strike expert witness designations of John Berner PhD and Gerald V Barrett PhD , Response to motion set to 12:00 1/19/01 for [281-1] motion to compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 56-57), set to 12:00 1/19/01 for [263-1] motion to strike [256-1] designation/to strike expert witness designations of John Berner PhD and Gerald V Barrett PhD ...any mtn not filed by 5:00 pm on 1/16/01 will not be considered at the hrg...see order for other specifics. ( signed by Mag Kaplan) Copies to counsel: 1/17/01 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
299 MOTION by plaintiff USA to quash deposition subpoena served on Raymond Lohier Esq and for a protective order (4) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
300 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [299-1] motion to quash deposition subpoena served on Raymond Lohier Esq and for a protective order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)

01/16/2001 01/16/2001 01/16/2001 01/16/2001 01/16/2001 01/16/2001
01/16/2001 01/16/2001 01/16/2001 01/16/2001 01/16/2001 01/17/2001

301 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [299-1] motion to quash deposition subpoena served on Raymond Lohier Esq and for a protective order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
302 MOTION by plaintiff USA re: City's failure to comply with the order of Feb 22 2000 and seasonably supplement its response to US' interrogatory No 10 (2) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
303 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [302-1] motion City's failure to comply with the order of Feb 22 2000 and seasonably supplement its response to US' interrogatory No 10 (10) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
304 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [302-1] motion City's failure to comply with the order of Feb 22 2000 and seasonably supplement its response to US' interrogatory No 10 (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
305 Joint STATUS REPORT by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of re: plaintiff US' mtn re: City's failure to comply with the order of Feb 22 2000 and seasonably supplement its response to US' interrogatory no 10. (7) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
306 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to compel production of documents pursuant to request for production no 33 or, in the alternative, to preclude evidence regarding employment tests that are the subject of documents withheld by plaintiff US (10) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
307 MOTION by defendant Garland City of for trial continuance (3) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
308 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [307-1] motion for trial continuance (6) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
309 Joint STATUS REPORT by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of re: dft City of Garland's mtn for trial continuance. (6) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
310 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [263-1] motion to strike [256-1] designation/to strike expert witness designations of John Berner PhD and Gerald V Barrett PhD (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
311 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [310-1] opposition response (10) (jrb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
312 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to [307-1] motion for trial continuance (6) (jrb) (Entered: 01/18/2001)

01/18/2001 01/19/2001 01/19/2001 01/19/2001 01/19/2001 01/19/2001 01/19/2001 01/22/2001
01/22/2001 01/22/2001

313 ORDER granting [307-1] motion for trial continuance reset scheduling order deadlines: Bench trial reset for 9:00 3/12/01 ; Status conference by 4:00 1/22/01 Pretrial materials due 2/12/01 Pretrial conference by 9:00 3/9/01 ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 1/18/01 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 01/18/2001)
314 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to [306-1] motion to compel production of documents pursuant to request for production no 33 or, in the alternative, to preclude evidence regarding employment tests that are the subject of documents withheld by plaintiff US (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
315 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [314-1] opposition memorandum (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
316 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [3021] motion City's failure to comply with the order of Feb 22 2000 and seasonably supplement its response to US' interrogatory No 10 (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
317 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [316-1] opposition memorandum (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
318 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [299-1] motion to quash deposition subpoena served on Raymond Lohier Esq and for a protective order (11) (jrb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
319 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [318-1] opposition response (14) (jrb) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
Motion hearing re: [263-1] motion to strike [256-1] designation/to strike expert witness designations of John Berner PhD and Gerald V Barrett PhD Motion hearing held, [281-1] motion to compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 56-57) Motion hearing held, [299-1] motion to quash deposition subpoena served on Raymond Lohier Esq and for a protective order, [302-1] motion City's failure to comply with the order of Feb 22 2000 and seasonably supplement its response to US' interrogatory No 10, [306-1] motion to compel production of documents pursuant to request for production no 33 or, in the alternative, to preclude evidence regarding employment tests that are the subject of documents withheld by plaintiff US (jas) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
320 Minute order: Hearing on Pretrial Motions Held before Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan Court Reporter: electronic; Order to follow (1) (jas) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
321 ORDER denying [302-1] motion City's failure to comply with the order of Feb 22 2000 and seasonably supplement its response to US'

01/22/2001 01/22/2001
01/22/2001 01/23/2001 01/23/2001 01/24/2001
01/26/2001 01/26/2001

interrogatory No 10; Pla may depose the eight rebuttal fact witnesses identified by dft in its supplemental interrogatory answers by 2/9/01. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ) Copies to counsel: 1/23/01 Page(s) 2 (jas) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
322 ORDER granting [281-1] motion to compel responses to the City's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (Nos 56-57); Pla shall serve full and complete answers to these interrogatories by 5:00 1/29/01 ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ) Copies to counsel: 1/23/01 Page(s) 3 (jas) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
323 ORDER denying [299-1] motion to quash deposition subpoena served on Raymond Lohier Esq and for a protective order, Dft will be allowed to depose Lohier...this deposition shall be conducted over the telephone and shall be completed by 2/9/01, See Order for specifics. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ) Copies to counsel: 1/23/01 Page(s) 2 (jas) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
324 ORDER denying [263-1] motion to strike [256-1] designation/to strike expert witness designations of John Berner PhD and Gerald V Barrett PhD ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ) Copies to counsel: 1/23/01 Page(s) 2 (jas) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
325 Minute order: Status conference re bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Debbie Roberts (1) (jrb) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
Status conference held (jrb) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
326 ORDER...as discussed in the status conference on 1/22/01, the court makes the following modifications to its prior scheduling orders...the parties are not required to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with pretrial materials...responses to such challenges, if any, must be filed no later than 2/20/01...see order for specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 1/25/01 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
327 Application and ORDER for Anthony N Luti to appear pro hac vice ...on behalf of City of Garland TX. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ) Copies to counsel: 1/26/01 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
328 Interim ORDER granting in part, denying in part [306-1] motion to compel production of documents pursuant to request for production no 33 or, in the alternative, to preclude evidence regarding employment tests that are the subject of documents withheld by plaintiff US...and set status report due for 2/16/01 ...see order for specifics. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ) Copies to counsel: 1/29/01 Page(s) 5

01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/05/2001
02/07/2001
02/08/2001 02/08/2001

(jrb) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
329 MOTION by plaintiff USA in limine regarding evidence relating to alleged "misconduct" (3) (jrb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
330 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [329-1] motion in limine regarding evidence relating to alleged "misconduct" (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
331 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [330-1] support memorandum (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
332 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [323-1] order (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
333 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [332-1] opposition response (15+) (jrb) Modified on 01/30/2001 (Entered: 01/30/2001)
334 Agreed Protective ORDER...see order for specifics. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan ) Copies to counsel: 1/30/01 Page(s) 6 (jrb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
335 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [334-1] order/US' objections to the Magistrate Judge's "Interim Order" entered 1/29/01. (15) (jrb) (Entered: 02/01/2001)
336 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [335-1] opposition response (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/01/2001)
337 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [332-1] opposition response (11) (jas) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
338 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [337-1] opposition response (7) (jas) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
339 Reply Brief in Support of US' objections to the January 22 2001 Order of Magistrate Judge Kaplan regarding the deposition of Dept of Justice Atty Raymond Lohier/ MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [332-1] opposition response (6) (jrb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
340 ORDER denying [329-1] motion in limine regarding evidence relating to alleged "misconduct"...plaintiff's objections are overruled, the Magistrate Judge's order is affirmed...see order for other specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 2/7/01 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
341 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Janet E Wright Date(s): January 22, 2001 Volume(s): 1 Type of proceeding: Volume I of 1 volume transcript...mtns hrg. (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
342 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [335-1]

02/08/2001 02/09/2001
02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001
02/12/2001
02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001

opposition response (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
343 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [342-1] opposition response (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
344 Declarations of Frank J Landy PhD, Leaetta M Hough PhD and David P Jones, PhD filed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of Magistrate Judge Kaplan's January 26, 2001 Interim Order/ RESPONSE to [328-2] order (10) (jrb) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
345 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
346 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
347 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
348 Witness list by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
349 MOTION by plaintiff USA to exclude expert testimony and evidence under the standards established in Daubert and Kumho Tire (4) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
350 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [349-1] motion to exclude expert testimony and evidence under the standards established in Daubert and Kumho Tire (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
351 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [350-1] support memorandum (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
352 Exhibit list by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
352 Designations of Deposition Testimony by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
353 Request/MOTION by defendant Garland City of for judicial notice (10) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
354 APPENDIX I by defendant Garland City of in support of [353-1] motion for judicial notice (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
355 APPENDIX II by defendant Garland City of in support of [353-1] motion for judicial notice (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
356 APPENDIX III by defendant Garland City of in support of [353-1] motion for judicial notic (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
357 APPENDIX IV by defendant Garland City of in support of [353-1] motion for judicial notice (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/12/2001 02/13/2001 02/13/2001
02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001
02/16/2001

358 APPENDIX V by defendant Garland City of in support of [353-1] motion for judicial notice (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
359 APPENDIX VI by defendant Garland City of in support of [353-1] motion for judicial notice (15+)(USC) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
360 Witness list by defendant Garland City of (11) (jrb) Modified on 02/14/2001 (Entered: 02/13/2001)
361 NOTICE of withdrawal of designations of expert witnesses by defendant Garland City of (2) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
362 Exhibit list by defendant Garland City of (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
363 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to exclude the testimony of Dr Leaetta Marie Hough-Dunnette pursuant to Federal Rule of evidence 702 (3) (jrb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
364 Designation of Deposition Testimony by defendant Garland City of (4) (jrb) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
365 ORDER...the Interim Order entered 1/29/01 is modified by adding the following paragraph at the end: 6. If the United States has a good faith belief...any of the US' experts from testifying at trial...with the exception of this modification, plaintiff's objections are overruled. The Interim Order is reversed in part to the extent of the above modification and affirmed in part otherwise...see order for specifics. (Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 2/14/01 Page(s) 3 (jrb) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
366 Supplemental Witness list by plaintiff USA (5) (jrb) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
366 Supplemental Designation of Depositions by plaintiff USA (5) (jrb) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
367 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to exclude the testimony of Drs David P Jones and Frank J Landy or for continuance of trial and for sanctions (9) (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
368 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [367-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Drs David P Jones and Frank J Landy or for continuance of trial and for sanctions (3) (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
369 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [367-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Drs David P Jones and Frank J Landy or for continuance of trial and for sanctions (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

02/16/2001
02/16/2001
02/16/2001
02/16/2001
02/16/2001 02/20/2001 02/20/2001 02/20/2001 02/20/2001 02/20/2001 02/20/2001 02/20/2001

370 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Robert J Malionek in support Re: [367-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Drs David P Jones and Frank J Landy or for continuance of trial and for sanctions (5) (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
371 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Stephen Wollock in support Re: [367-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Drs David P Jones and Frank J Landy or for continuance of trial and for sanctions (6) (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
372 Declaration/AFFIDAVIT of Gerald V Barrett in support Re: [367-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Drs David P Jones and Frank J Landy or for continuance of trial and for sanctions (5) (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
373 Joint STATUS REPORT by plaintiff USA, defendant Garland City of regarding dft City of Garland's mtn to compel production of documents pursuant to request for production number 33 or in the alternative, to preclude evidence regarding employment tests that are the subject of documents withheld by plaintiff US (pursuant to interim order dated 1/29/01) (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
374 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of parties' February 16 2001 joint status report regarding documents subject to protective orders and statutory prohibitions. (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
375 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
376 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in partial opposition to [353-1] motion for judicial notice (11) (jrb) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
377 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to [367-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Drs David P Jones and Frank J Landy or for continuance of trial and for sanctions (12) (jrb) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
378 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [377-1] opposition memorandum (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
379 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [363-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Dr Leaetta Marie Hough-Dunnette pursuant to Federal Rule of evidence 702 (12) (jrb) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
380 Amended Exhibit list by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
381 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [349-1] motion to exclude expert testimony and evidence under the standards established in Daubert and Kumho Tire (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/21/2001)

02/20/2001 02/26/2001 02/26/2001 02/26/2001 02/26/2001
02/26/2001
02/26/2001 02/26/2001 02/26/2001
02/26/2001 03/12/2001
03/13/2001 03/13/2001

382 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [381-1] opposition response (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
383 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [366-1] designation, [366-1] witness list, [380-1] exhibits list (15+) (USC) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
384 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [364-1] designation (15) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
385 COUNTER Designations of Depositions by defendant Garland City of (9) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
386 MOTION by defendant Garland City of in limine to exclude evidence contradicting the USA's interrogatory responses as to the validity of the challenged alert and alarm examinations (3) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
387 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [386-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence contradicting the USA's interrogatory responses as to the validity of the challenged alert and alarm examinations (15+) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
388 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [360-1] witness list (15) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
389 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [362-1] exhibits list (15+) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
390 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [386-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence contradicting the USA's interrogatory responses as to the validity of the challenged alert and alarm examinations (15+) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
391 AMENDED Exhibit list by defendant Garland City of (15+) (mlh) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
392 ORDER...The Court sua sponte continues the trial.. reset pretrial conference for 9:00 7/20/01 , reset bench trial for 9:00 8/13/01 ; denying [386-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence contradicting the USA's interrogatory responses as to the validity of the alert and alarm examinations...NO FURTHER MOTIONS ARE TO BE FILED WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT (SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS)( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 03/13/01 Page(s) 3 (vdf) (Entered: 03/13/2001)
393 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [389-1] opposition response re: exhibit lists (17) (jas) (Entered: 03/14/2001)
394 Designation of Depositions by defendant Garland City of (3) (jas)

03/28/2001 03/28/2001
04/19/2001
06/28/2001 06/28/2001 06/28/2001 07/06/2001 07/06/2001 07/10/2001 07/10/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/12/2001 07/13/2001

(Entered: 03/14/2001)
395 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [393-1] opposition response/Response to dft City of Garland's objections to Plaintiff US' pretrial disclosures. (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
396 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [394-1] designation/Plaintiff US' objections to dft City of Garland's designatin of deposition testimony of Raymond J Lohier. (4) (jrb) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
397 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [367-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Drs David P Jones and Frank J Landy or for continuance of trial and for sanctions...discovery is reopened until 6/29/01 for the limited purposes of deposing the US' experts...see order for specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 4/20/01 Page(s) 7 (jrb) (Entered: 04/20/2001)
398 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to supplement pretrial disclosures (7) (jrb) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
399 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [398-1] motion to supplement pretrial disclosures (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
400 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [398-1] motion to supplement pretrial disclosures (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
401 TRIAL BRIEF by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
402 NOTICE of filing of supplemental expert report (Gerald V Barrett Phd) by defendant Garland City of (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
403 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
404 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
405 REPLY by defendant Garland City of to response to [353-1] motion for judicial notice (15) (jrb) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
406 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [405-1] response reply (14)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
407 REPLY Memorandum by defendant Garland City of to [398-1] motion to supplement pretrial disclosures (5) (jrb) Modified on 07/13/2001 (Entered: 07/13/2001)
408 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to plaintiff US; objection to the designation of deposition testimony of Robert T

07/13/2001 07/13/2001 07/13/2001 07/16/2001 07/16/2001 07/16/2001
07/17/2001
07/19/2001
07/20/2001 07/20/2001 07/20/2001 07/20/2001

Hogan. (10) (jrb) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
409 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [408-1] opposition response (14)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
410 MOTION by plaintiff USA to strike Supplemental Expert Report of Gerald V Barrett (2) (jrb) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
411 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [410-1] motion to strike Supplemental Expert Report of Gerald V Barrett (7) (jrb) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
412 Supplement to Pretrial Submissions/Designation of Depositions by plaintiff USA (9) (jrb) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
413 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [410-1] motion to strike Supplemental Expert Report of Gerald V Barrett (4) (jrb) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
414 NOTICE of attorney appearance for plaintiff USA by Charlotte A Burrows, Meredith L Burrell and notice of substitution of counsel (requesting that Sharyn Tejani be removed as counsel for USA) (3) (mlh) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
415 ORDER granting in part and denying in part without prejudice [349-1] motion to exclude expert testimony and evidence under the standards established in Daubert and Kumho Tire; granting in part and denying in part without prejudice [353-1] motion for judicial notice; denying without prejudice [363-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Dr Leaetta Marie Hough-Dunnette pursuant to Federal Rule of evidence 702 (SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS) ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 07/18/01 Page(s) 23 (vdf) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
416 ORDER denying [410-1] motion to strike Supplemental Expert Report of Gerald V Barrett, granting [398-1] motion to supplement pretrial disclosures ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 7/20/01 Page(s) 6 (jyg) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
417 Modification of ORDER for protective order filed on 6/30/00...see order for details. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 7/20/01 Page(s) 2 (jyg) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
418 Minute order: pretrial conference Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Debbie Roberts (1) (jrb) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
Pre-trial conference held (jrb) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
419 ORDER...dft is directed to file any such mtn for reconsideration, with courtesy copy to chambers, by no later than 7/26/01. Plaintiff may file a

07/24/2001
07/26/2001 07/26/2001 07/26/2001 07/27/2001 07/30/2001 07/30/2001 07/30/2001 07/30/2001
07/30/2001 08/01/2001
08/01/2001

response, with courtesy copy to chambers by no later than 8/1/01. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 7/23/01 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
420 Memorandum of Points and Authorities re: Availability of Affirmative Defenses of Laches Unclean Hands and Estoppel/ RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of to [415-1] order (7) (jrb) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
421 MOTION by defendant Garland City of for reconsideration of [415-1] order/for portion of order re: Literacy-related evidence (2) (jrb) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
422 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [421-1] motion for reconsideration of [415-1] order/for portion of order re: Literacyrelated evidence (15+)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
423 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [421-1] motion for reconsideration of [415-1] order/for portion of order re: Literacy-related evidence (12) (jrb) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
424 Statement by plaintiff USA to correct the record. (2) (jrb) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
425 MOTION by plaintiff USA to exclude the testimony of Dr Gerald V Barrett pursuant to the modification of Protective Orders filed 7/19/01 (3) (jrb) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
426 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [421-1] motion for reconsideration of [415-1] order/for portion of order re: Literacy-related evidence (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
427 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [426-1] opposition response (14)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
428 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [425-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Dr Gerald V Barrett pursuant to the modification of Protective Orders filed 7/19/01 (11) (jrb) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
429 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (sak) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
430 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [425-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Dr Gerald V Barrett pursuant to the modification of Protective Orders filed 7/19/01 (5) (jrb) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
431 Application and ORDER for Blair G Connelly to appear pro hac vice ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 8/2/01 Page(s) 3

08/02/2001 08/03/2001
08/03/2001
08/03/2001 08/08/2001 08/08/2001 08/08/2001 08/09/2001 08/09/2001 08/09/2001

(jrb) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
432 REPLY by defendant Garland City of to response to [421-1] motion for reconsideration of [415-1] order/for portion of order re: Literacy-related evidence (12) (jrb) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
433 ORDER denying [425-1] motion to exclude the testimony of Dr Gerald V Barrett pursuant to the modification of Protective Orders filed 7/19/01, denying [421-1] motion for reconsideration of [415-1] order/for portion of order re: Literacy-related evidence...see order for specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 8/3/01 Page(s) 5 (jrb) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
434 ORDER...The Court STRIKES the City's affirmative defenses of laces, estoppel, and unclean hands pursuant to FRCP 12(f) as insufficient, as to the liability phase of the trial. The Court reserves the issues of whether one or more of these doctrines might be available, if the trial proceeds to the remedy stage, for the limited purpose of limiting one or more forms of relief. (SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS) ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 08/03/01 Page(s) 12 (vdf) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
435 ORDER...Based on presentations at the pretrial conference, held 07/20/01, the court now enters this order to document its understanding of the scope of the practices at issue. (SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS) ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 08/03/01 Page(s) 11 (vdf) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
436 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to preclude the US from challenging the newly-identified "Operational cutoff" as an unlawful employment practice (6) (jrb) (Entered: 08/09/2001)
437 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [436-1] motion to preclude the US from challenging the newly-identified "Operational cutoff" as an unlawful employment practice (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/09/2001)
438 APPENDIX by defendant Garland City of in support of [436-1] motion to preclude the US from challenging the newly-identified "Operational cutoff" as an unlawful employment practice (15+)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 08/09/2001)
439 Second Amended Exhibit list by defendant Garland City of (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
440 Amended Witness list by defendant Garland City of (9) (jrb) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
441 Counter-Designation of Depositions of Dr P Richard Jeanneret by

08/10/2001 08/10/2001 08/10/2001 08/10/2001 08/10/2001 08/10/2001
08/10/2001 08/10/2001
08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/14/2001 08/14/2001 08/14/2001

defendant Garland City of (4) (jrb) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
445 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [439-1] exhibits list (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
446 Revised Designations of Deposition Testimony by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
447 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [440-1] witness list (9) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
448 Revised Witness list by plaintiff USA (13) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
449 Revised Exhibit list by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
450 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [436-1] motion to preclude the US from challenging the newly-identified "Operational cutoff" as an unlawful employment practice (6) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
451 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA in support of [450-1] opposition response (15+)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
483 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Deborah Roberts Date(s): 8/16/01 Volume(s): 4-A Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
442 Third Amended Exhibit list by defendant Garland City of (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
443 Supplemental Objections by defendant Garland City of to Plaintiff US' Revised Pretrial Disclosures. (3) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
444 Second Amended Witness list by defendant Garland City of (9) (jrb) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
452 Amended Joint PRETRIAL ORDER filed...see order for specifics. ( signed by Judge Lindsay) Page(s): 55 (jrb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
1st day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
454 Minute order: bench trial held Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Pamela Wilson (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
453 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF JUDITH STOIKOV, Ph.D by defendant Garland City of Texas. (6) (lmr) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
2nd day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
455 Minute order: 2nd day of bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Debbie Roberts/Pamela Wilson (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/15/2001)

08/14/2001 08/14/2001
08/15/2001
08/15/2001 08/16/2001
08/16/2001 08/17/2001 08/17/2001
08/20/2001
08/20/2001 08/20/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001
08/22/2001 08/22/2001
08/23/2001 08/23/2001

456 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
457 ORDER...the court directs the Clerk to file under seal an unredacted copy of pages 20 and 21 of the amended joint pretrial order...see order for specifics. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 8/16/01 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
458 Minute order: 3rd day of bench trial held Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Pam Wilson/Debbie Roberts (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
3rd day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
459 Minute order: 4th day of bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Pam Wilson/Debbie Roberts (jrb) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
4th day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
5th day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
461 Minute order: 5th day of bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Debbie Roberts/Pamela Wilson. (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
460 MOTION by defendant Garland City of to preclude evidence of noncognitive alternative employment practices (12) (jrb) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
6th day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
462 Minute order:6th day of bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Janet Wright (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
7th day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
463 Minute order: 7th day of bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Janet Wright/David Langford (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
8th day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
464 Minute order: 8th day of bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Janet Wright/David Langford (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
465 Offer of Proof regarding excluded fact witness testimony by plaintiff USA (11) (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
466 Submission of deposition testimony pursuant to FRCP 32(b)(2) by

08/23/2001 08/23/2001 08/24/2001
08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/30/2001
08/30/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 09/07/2001

plaintiff USA (7) (jrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
9th day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
469 Minute order: 9th day of bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Janet Wright/David Langford (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
467 ORDER...the court enters this order to document what it stated to the parties at the conclusion of trial on 8/24/01...see order for specific deadlines. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 8/27/01 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
10th day of Bench trial held (jrb) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
468 Minute order: 10th day of bench trial Held before Judge Sam A. Lindsay Court Reporter: Janet Wright (1) (jrb) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
470 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to plaintiff US' submission of deposition testimony pursuant to FRCP 32(a)(2) and counter-submission of deposition testimony. (12) (jrb) Modified on 08/31/2001 (Entered: 08/31/2001)
471 Submission of Excerpted Portions of Exhibits 919,934,935 and 936 pursuant to Fed R Evid 803(8)(A) and Fed R Evid 902(5) by defendant Garland City of (7) (jrb) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
472 Amended CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: [470-1] opposition response by defendant Garland City of (2) (jrb) (Entered: 09/04/2001)
473 MOTION by defendant Garland City of for judgment on partial findings (3) (jrb) (Entered: 09/04/2001)
474 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in support of [473-1] motion for judgment on partial findings (15+) (jrb) Modified on 09/04/2001 (Entered: 09/04/2001)
475 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law re: mtn for judgment on partial findings by defendant Garland City of (12) (jrb) (Entered: 09/04/2001)
476 Errata to defendant Garland City of Submission of Excerpted portions of exhibits 919, 934, 935 and 936 pursuant to Fed R Evid 803(8)(A) and Fed R Evid 902(5) (3) (jrb) (Entered: 09/04/2001)
477 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to and counter-designations of excerpts of trial exhibits 919 and 934-936. (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/04/2001)
478 NOTICE of filing of deposition transcript by defendant Garland City of (3) (jrb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)

09/07/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/20/2001
09/20/2001 10/24/2001
10/25/2001 11/01/2001

479 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Manhattan Reporting Corp Date(s): 8/30/01 Volume(s): 1 Type of proceeding: telephone deposition of Dr Kathleen K Lundquist. (8)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) Modified on 09/10/2001 (Entered: 09/10/2001)
480 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Deborah Roberts Date(s): 7/20/01 Volume(s): 1 Type of proceeding: Pretrial conference (15+)(USC)(Not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
481 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Deborah Roberts Date(s): 8/14/01 Volume(s): 2-A Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
482 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Deborah Roberts Date(s): 8/15/01 Volume(s): 3-B Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
484 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Deborah Roberts Date(s): 8/17/01 Volume(s): 5-A Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
485 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Debbie Roberts Date(s): 8/20/01 Volume(s): 6-A Type of proceeding: bench trial (15)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
486 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to [470-1] opposition response/Plaintiff US' Memorandum in opposition to dft City of Garland's objections to plaintiff's submission of deposition testimony pursuant to FRCP (15+)(attachments not imaged) 32(a)(2). (jrb) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
487 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in opposition to [473-1] motion for judgment on partial findings (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
488 Agreed ORDER amending the order of 8/24/01...the deadline for filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is extended to 11/16/01, the deadline for filing objs to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is extended to 12/14/01. The deadline for filing post-trial briefs is extended to 1/14/02. ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 10/25/01 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 10/25/2001)
489 REPLY Memorandum of points and authorities by defendant Garland City of to response to [473-1] motion for judgment on partial findings (15) (jrb) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
490 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Pamela J Wilson Date(s): August 13, 2001 Volume(s): 1A Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) Modified on 11/02/2001 (Entered:

11/01/2001
11/01/2001
11/01/2001
11/01/2001
11/06/2001 11/06/2001 11/07/2001 11/15/2001 11/16/2001 11/20/2001 12/13/2001 12/14/2001 01/10/2002 01/10/2002

11/02/2001)
491 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Pamela J Wilson Date(s): August 14 2001 Volume(s): 2B Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) Modified on 11/02/2001 (Entered: 11/02/2001)
492 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Pamela J Wilson Date(s): August 15 2001 Volume(s): 3A Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) Modified on 11/02/2001 (Entered: 11/02/2001)
493 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Pamela J Wilson Date(s): August 16 2001 Volume(s): 4B Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) Modified on 11/02/2001 (Entered: 11/02/2001)
494 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: Pamela J Wilson Date(s): August 17 2001 Volume(s): 5B Type of proceeding: bench trial (15+)(USC)(not imaged) (jrb) Modified on 11/02/2001 (Entered: 11/02/2001)
495 MOTION by plaintiff USA to strike [489-1] response reply (3) (cxj) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
496 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of [495-1] motion to strike [489-1] response reply (3) (cxj) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
497 MEMORANDUM by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [4951] motion to strike [489-1] response reply (4) (jrb) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
498 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
499 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
500 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. by defendant Garland City of (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
501 RESPONSE by plaintiff USA in opposition to [500-1] miscellaneous (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
502 RESPONSE by defendant Garland City of in opposition to [498-1] miscellaneous (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
505 TRANSCRIPT filed by Janet Wright, court reporter for date of 8/20/01 Trial (Vol. 6B) (jmr) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
506 TRANSCRIPT filed by Janet Wright, court reporter for date of 8/21/01

01/10/2002 01/10/2002 01/10/2002 01/14/2002 01/14/2002 02/19/2002
02/19/2002
07/17/2002
08/21/2002 08/21/2002 08/22/2002 07/03/2003 07/03/2003 07/03/2003

Trial (Vol. 7A) (jmr) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
507 TRANSCRIPT filed by Janet Wright, court reporter for date of 8/22/01 Trial (Vol. 8A) (jmr) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
508 TRANSCRIPT filed by Janet Wright, court reporter for date of 8/23/01 Trial (Vol 9A) (jmr) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
509 TRANSCRIPT filed by Janet Wright, court reporter for date of 8/24/01 Trial (Vol 10) (jmr) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
503 Post TRIAL BRIEF by defendant Garland City of (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
504 Post-TRIAL BRIEF by plaintiff USA (15+) (jrb) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
510 ORDER denying as moot [460-1] motion to preclude evidence of noncognitive alternative employment practices ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 2/20/02 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
511 ORDER denying [436-1] motion to preclude the US from challenging the newly-identified "Operational cutoff" as an unlawful employment practice ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 2/20/02 Page(s) 1 (jrb) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
512 ORDER denying [473-1] motion for judgment on partial findings, denying [495-1] motion to strike [489-1] response reply ( Signed by Judge Sam A. Lindsay ) Copies to counsel: 7/18/02 Page(s) 2 (jrb) (Entered: 07/18/2002)
513 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: David Langford Date(s): Bench Trial 8-21-01 Volume(s): 7-B (usc) (svc) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
514 TRANSCRIPT filed Court Reporter: David Langford Date(s): 8-22-01 Volume(s): 8-B Type of proceeding: Bench Trial (usc) (svc) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
515 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in sealed area (svc) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
516 MOTION for leave to take limited discovery pending the Court's decision on liability by USA (jrb, ) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
517 Memorandum in Support re 516 MOTION for leave to take limited discovery pending the Court's decision on liability filed by USA. (jrb, ) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
518 Appendix in Support re 517 Response in Support of Motion filed by USA. (jrb, ) (Entered: 07/07/2003)

07/22/2003 07/23/2003 07/28/2003 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
03/31/2004
03/31/2004
04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/12/2004 04/12/2004

519 RESPONSE in Opposition re 516 MOTION for leave to take limited discovery pending the Court's decision on liability filed by City of Garland. (jrb, ) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
520 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Garland re 519 Response in Opposition (jrb, ) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
521 ORDER denying 516 Motion for leave to take limited discovery pending the Court's decision on liability filed 7/7/03. (Signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/25/03) (jrb, ) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
522 Letter regarding findings and conclusions in support of Garland 's defense filed by City of Garland (jyg, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
523 Letter with attached Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law issued by US District Judge Ken A Jordan in the District of Delaware submitted by USA. (attachment not imaged)(jyg, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
524 Memorandum Opinion and Order...The City is entitled to jgm in its favor, and all claims brought by the US are dismissed with prejudice. The Court will render jgm in favor of Dft City of Garland by separate document. See order for details. (Signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay on March 31, 2004) (jyg, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
525 JUDGMENT in favor of Dft against Pla. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Pla take nothing from Dft City of Garland, TX. All relief requested by Pla is denied. All relief not expressly granted herein is denied; and all allowable and reasonable costs are taxed against Pla. (Signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay on March 31, 2004) (jyg, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
526 ORDER. The clerk of the court is hereby directed to file plaintiff's reply letter, dated 3/31/04 and received 4/1/04. (Signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/5/04) (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
527 Reply filed by USA. (see #526) (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
528 Trial Exhibits of Defendant and Government. (consists of 18 binders) (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
529 Notice of Receipt of Sealed Trial Exhibits (svc, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
530 Notice of Receipt of Sealed Trial Exhibits(svc, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
531 MOTION Regarding Briefing and Bifurcation re: Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees by City of Garland (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
532 Memorandum in Support re [531] MOTION filed by City of Garland. (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)

04/13/2004
04/14/2004 04/14/2004 04/15/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/28/2004 04/29/2004
05/13/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004 05/20/2004 05/20/2004

533 ORDER granting [531] Motion Regarding Briefing and Bifurcation re: Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees filed 4/12/04. The parties shall submit a brief on this issue no later than 5/13/04. See order for other specifics. (Signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/13/04) (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
534 BILL OF COSTS by City of Garland. (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
535 Declaration of Wayne S Flick in support of Defendant City of Garland's Bill of Costs.(jrb, ) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
Costs Taxed in amount of $ $303,569.65 against Plaintiff (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
536 MOTION for Court Review of the Bill of Costs Taxed by the Clerk by USA (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
537 Memorandum in Support re 534 Bill of Costs filed by USA. (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
538 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Judge Kaplan: 536 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by USA (Signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/27/04) (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
539 ORDER re: dft's bill of costs. Dft shall provide plaintiff with detailed and itemized records for copying charges and court reporter fees incurred in this case by 5/7/04. See order for other specifics. (Signed by Judge Jeff Kaplan on 4/29/04) (jrb, ) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
540 Plaintiff's Brief Regarding Attorney's Fees by USA (klm, ) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
541 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support re [531] MOTION for an Award of Partial Attorneys' Fees filed by City of Garland. (klm, ) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
542 Appendix re 541 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for an Award of Partial Attorneys' Fees filed by City of Garland. (not imaged) (USC) (klm, ) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
543 MOTION to Extend Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff United States' Responsive Brief Regarding Attorneys' Fees by City of Garland (jrb, ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
544 Agreed Order re: Defendant's Bill of Costs. The US shall pay to the City, as prevailing party, $229,500 for the City's photocopying costs and court reporter fees incurred in defending this action. The US shall pay the Agreed Costs, by check made payable to the City of Garland, Texas, no later than 90 days after the termination of this lawsuit by non-appealable final judgment in favor of the City, or exhaustion of all

05/21/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 06/28/2004
11/10/2004

appeals. The US' payment of the Agreed Costs shall have no effect upon the City's pending Mtn for Partial Award of Attorneys Fees. (Signed by Judge Jeff Kaplan on 5/20/04) (jrb, ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
545 RESPONSE in Opposition re 543 MOTION to Extend Time filed by USA. (jrb, ) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
546 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant City of Garland's Mtn for an Award of Partial Attorneys' Fees filed by USA. (jrb, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
547 Responsive Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Mtn for an Award of Partial Attorneys' Fees filed by City of Garland (jrb, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
548 Appendix in Support re 546 Response in Opposition filed by USA. (exhibits not imaged)(jrb, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
549 ORDER denying 543 Motion to Extend Time. (Signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 5/28/04) (jrb, ) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. 539 Order,, 533 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief549 Order on Motion to Extend Time received back from Michael T Kirkpatrick as moved, not forwardable. (jrb, ) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
550 ORDER. The court concludes that this litigation was not "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless." For these reasons, the court determines that the Government is not liable to Defendant for atttorney's fees in this case. (Signed by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/10/04) (jrb, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)