Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 1 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT,
Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott, by and through his attorneys, Fox & Robertson, PC, and The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities, hereby brings this Complaint against the City & County of Denver (the “City”).
INTRODUCTION 1. Twenty-one years after the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was passed and almost 40 years after the Rehabilitation Act, the City fails to provide sign language interpreters and other accommodations to deaf and hard of hearing inmates and detainees, depriving them of effective communication. 2. Among the primary purposes of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act is ensuring that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing receive interpreter services and other auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication.

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 1 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
3. The City has systematically, knowingly, and intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff Scott and other deaf and hard of hearing individuals who have been detained or imprisoned at its city and county jails and detention centers.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action arises under the laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as all of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Colorado.
PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott is currently and at all times relevant to this suit has been a resident of the State of Colorado. Plaintiff Scott is substantially limited in several major life activities, including hearing. 7. Defendant the City & County of Denver (“the City”) is a home rule municipality under Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution. As such, it is a public entity as that term is used in title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. The City is a recipient of federal financial assistance as that term is used in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Plaintiff Scott is Deaf, and does not understand speech. His primary mode of communication is American Sign Language. 9. Like many individuals who are deaf since childhood, Plaintiff Scott does not read or write with fluency. American Sign Language, not English, is his native language.
-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 1 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
10. In order to communicate effectively with strangers and/or in situations that call for more than very routine language, Plaintiff Scott requires the services of a qualified sign language interpreter. Specifically, he requires a sign language interpreter in situations of a legal or medical nature.
11. Plaintiff Scott was incarcerated at the City’s Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility (“PADF”) on at least one occasion between January 11, 2010 and the present.
12. Plaintiff Scott was incarcerated at the City’s Downtown Detention Center (“DDC”) on several occasions between January 11, 2010 and the present.
13. Plaintiff Scott was incarcerated at the Denver County Jail (“DCJ”) on several occasions between January 11, 2010 and the present.
14. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, the City has been aware that Plaintiff Scott is Deaf.
15. Despite the fact that the City was aware that Plaintiff Scott was Deaf and could not communicate effectively without a sign language interpreter, he was repeatedly denied access to an interpreter during his detentions in City facilities during 2010 and 2011.
16. The City was on notice that Plaintiff Scott needed an interpreter, both because the need was obvious and because, on a number of occasions in 2010 and 2011, Plaintiff Scott requested one.
17. Despite the fact that the City was aware that Plaintiff Scott was Deaf and could not use a telephone, his requests to use a TTY or video phone were often rejected or delayed for hours or days. He was not permitted access to telephonic communications equal to that of hearing inmates.
-3-

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 1 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
18. The City was on notice that Plaintiff Scott needed a TTY or video phone, both because the need was obvious and because, on a number of occasions, Plaintiff Scott requested these accommodations.
19. The City failed to provide written materials to Plaintiff Scott in a format and language that he could understand.
20. The City denied Plaintiff Scott Access to other services, programs, and activities generally available to inmates in its detention facilities either on the basis of his disability or because they were unwilling to provide accommodations and/or auxiliary aids and services.
21. The actions described above discriminated against Plaintiff Scott on the basis of his disability.
22. Plaintiff Scott was harmed by the City’s discrimination and failure to make its services, programs, and activities available to him on nondiscriminatory terms.
23. Plaintiff Scott was harmed by his inability to participate in the services, programs, and activities of the City’s detention facilities to the same extent as hearing inmates.
24. Plaintiff Scott is currently on probation for a burglary conviction in 2007. His periods of incarceration in 2010 and 2011 were based on violations of probation, some of which were de minimis and/or due to failures on the part of other entities to provide auxiliary aids and services and effective communication. For these reasons, it is likely that Plaintiff Scott will in the future be detained by the City and will continue to experience harm and discrimination unless the City is ordered to comply with the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
25. The City has been a defendant in the case of Ulibarri v. City and County of Denver, No. 07- cv-1814-ODM-MJW (D. Colo.), since August, 2007. Plaintiffs in that case
-4-

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 1 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
alleged and substantiated claims of three deaf plaintiffs who were denied sign language interpreters and other accommodations at the City’s detention facilities in 2005 and 2007. The City has thus been on notice since at least that time of the deficiencies in its policies and practices for the provision of interpreters and other accommodations to deaf and hard of hearing detainees.
26. For this and other reasons, the City has acted with deliberate indifference to the strong likelihood that pursuit of its questioned policies and practices, and its discrimination and failure to provide accommodations and auxiliary aids and services to Plaintiff Scott would likely result in a violation of his federally protected rights.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) 27. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in the remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 28. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal financial assistance such as the City. 29 U.S.C. § 794. 29. The City and its Sheriff Department receive and benefit from federal financial assistance as that term is used in 29 U.S.C. § 794. 30. Plaintiff Scott is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 31. The City has discriminated against Plaintiff Scott on the basis of disability in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794 and its implementing regulations as more fully described above. Such discrimination includes but is not limited to failure to provide auxiliary aids and services.
-5-

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 1 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
32. Plaintiff Scott was qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities, and benefits provided to prisoners at the City’s detention facilities within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
33. The City denied Plaintiff Scott access to programs, benefits, and services provided to other inmates at City detention facilities solely on the basis of his disability, thereby violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
34. Despite the clear provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, its knowledge of the deficiencies of its policies and practices, its knowledge of Plaintiff Scott’s deafness and need for accommodation, the City persisted in imposing conditions and practices that discriminate against Plaintiff Scott and other persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.
35. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and violations alleged above, Plaintiff Scott has suffered damages, including but not limited to pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, and impairment of quality of life.
36. Plaintiff Scott has been injured and aggrieved by and will continue to be injured and aggrieved by the City’s discrimination.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 37. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in the remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 38. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities such as the City. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 39. The City is a public entity as that term is used in title II of the ADA.
-6-

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 1 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
40. Plaintiff Scott is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. 41. The City has discriminated against Plaintiff Scott on the basis of disability in violation of title II of the ADA and its implementing regulations as more fully described above. Such discrimination includes but is not limited to failure to provide auxiliary aids and services. 42. Plaintiff Scott was qualified to participate in the services, programs, activities, and benefits provided to prisoners at the City’s detention facilities within the meaning of title II of the ADA. 43. The City denied Plaintiff Scott access to programs, benefits, and services provided to other inmates at the City’s detention facilities solely on the basis of his disability, thereby violating title II of the ADA. 44. Despite the clear provisions of the title II of the ADA, its knowledge of the deficiencies of its policies and practices, its knowledge of Plaintiff Scott’s deafness and need for accommodation, the City persisted in imposing conditions and practices that discriminate against Plaintiff Scott and other persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and violations alleged above, Plaintiff Scott has suffered damages, including but not limited to pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, and impairment of quality of life. 46. Plaintiff Scott has been injured and aggrieved by and will continue to be injured and aggrieved by the City’s discrimination. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request: 1. That this Court assume jurisdiction;
-7-

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 1 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
2. That this Court declare the actions of Defendant described in this Complaint to be in violation of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act;
3. That this Court enter an injunction ordering Defendant to cease discrimination on the basis of disability against deaf detainees including but not limited to Plaintiff;
4. That this Court award Plaintiff compensatory damages; 5. That this Court award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 6. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper and equitable.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Amy F. Robertson Amy F. Robertson Fox & Robertson, P.C. 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80203 Voice: 303.595.9700 Fax: 303.595.9705 Email: arob@foxrob.com Carrie Ann Lucas The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities P.O. Box 756 Windsor, CO 80550 Voice: 720.363.1131 Fax: 970.818.9295 Email: clucas@disabledparentrights.org Plaintiff’s Address: 4511 E. 46th Ave Denver, CO 80216
-8-

 
 Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 131 Filed 05/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT,
Plaintiff, v. THE CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER,
Defendant.
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 68
Pursuant to the offer of judgment served April 26, 2013 and the acceptance thereof filed May 9, 2013, with proof of service, and in accordance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, it is
ORDERED that judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott and against Defendant the City and County of Denver in the amount of $15,000. That amount is exclusive of any accrued reasonable costs and attorney fees, with such reasonable costs and attorney fees to be determined by the court. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that post-judgment interest shall accrue at the rate of 0.12% from the date of entry of judgment.
DATED at Denver, Colorado this 22nd of May, 2013.
JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK By: s/ Edward P. Butler
Edward Butler, Deputy Clerk

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT,
Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
______________________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Mr. Scott’s Motion for Attorney
Fees (# 140), Denver’s response (# 147), and Mr. Scott’s reply (# 150). Mr. Scott (who is deaf) commenced this action in January 2012, asserting claims that
Denver violated the Rehabilitation Act and Americans With Disabilities Act when if failed to provide him with a sign language interpreter at times when he was incarcerated at the Denver County Jail. The action proceeded through a somewhat contested discovery phase, with both sides filing numerous discovery motions, but neither party filed any dispositive motions.
At the conclusion of discovery in or about May 2013, Mr. Scott accepted Denver’s Offer of Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, agreeing to accept the entry of judgment against Denver in the amount of $15,000, plus reasonable attorney fees, but with no award of equitable relief. Mr. Scott now moves (# 140) for an award of $ 427,372.50 in attorney fees and $ 21,996.49 in untaxed costs.
1

Because Denver stipulated to the entry of judgment including an award of reasonable attorney fees, the sole question for this Court is what fee award is reasonable. Normally, the Court calculates this sum using the familiar “lodestar” analysis, multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours expended, and adjusting that figure upward or downward to account for any extraordinary circumstances. See generally Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 801-02 (2002) (“the ‘lodestar’ figure has, as its name suggests, become the guiding light of our fee-shifting jurisprudence”).1
However, before beginning the lodestar analysis, the Court pauses to briefly address the apparent incongruity between a claim settled pre-trial for $15,000 and attorney fee charges of $427,000. From a purely legal perspective, there is no requirement that the amount of fees awarded to a prevailing party be proportional to the amount of the recovery. See e.g. City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574 (1986). As the court explained in Anderson v. AB Painting and Sandblasting, Inc., 578 F.3d 542, 545 (7th Cir. 2009), “[b]ecause Congress wants even small violations of certain laws to be checked through private litigation and because litigation is expensive, it is no surprise that the cost to pursue a contested claim will often exceed the amount in controversy.” At the same time, such cases also recognize that “the amount of

1

Denver makes an abbreviated argument that the Court should deny fees to Mr. Scott

outright, on the grounds that he achieved only a “technical” or “nominal” victory. See Farrar v.

Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992). To ascertain whether fees should be denied to a plaintiff

under a “technical victory” theory, the Court considers three factors: (i) the degree of success –

that is “the difference between the judgment recovered and the recovery sought”; (ii) the

significance of the legal issue on which the plaintiff claims to have prevailed; and (iii) whether

the plaintiff’s claim accomplished some public goal. Zinna v. Congrove, 680 F.3d 1236, 124041 (10th Cir. 2012); Lippoldt v. Cole 468 F.3d 1204, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006). Although the first

(and most important) factor tips against Mr. Scott here – his $15,000 settlement reflecting a

small fraction of the damages he once sought – the remaining two factors tip slightly in Mr.

Scott’s favor. Ultimately, although the question is a fairly close one, the Court cannot say that

Mr. Scott’s settlement reflects only a “technical” victory like that of Farrar.

2

damages a plaintiff recovers is certainly relevant to the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded.” Riverside, 477 U.S. at 574. Anderson suggests that “the district court's fee order should evidence increased reflection before awarding attorney fees that are large multiples of the damages recovered or multiples of the damages claimed,” as “attorney fees that are several times the amount of the actual damages . . . raises a red flag.” 578 F.3d at 545-46. In Anderson, the claim was for approximately $ 50,000 in fees to obtain a $6,500 award. If that differential raises a “red flag”, then the fee request in this case of $427,000 to recover $15,000 raises a ”stadium-sized banner”. With this in mind, the Court’s review is particularly careful.
Turning to the lodestar calculation, the Court begins with the hourly rates charged by Mr. Scott’s counsel. Mr. Scott was primarily represented by two attorneys, Ms. Robertson, who had more than 20 years of experience, charging an hourly rate of $ 440, and Ms. Lucas, an attorney with approximately 8 years of experience, charging an hourly rate of $290. Denver contends that these rates are excessive, and that a reasonable rate in the Denver legal market would be $ 375 for Ms. Robertson and $ 200 for Ms. Lucas. Both parties have submitted affidavits in support of their contentions.
In a recent decision in a commercial dispute, this Court recognized that “the prevailing rates in Denver for experienced litigators approach $400 per hour in recent years,” with $ 450 per hour representing the maximum hourly rate that could be considered reasonable for lead trial counsel. Xtreme Coil Drilling Corp. v. Encana Oil & Gas Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2013 WL 3810861 (D.Colo. Jul. 23, 2013). The Court also refers to the results of a 2010 survey of attorneys by the Colorado Bar Association, found at www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/22049.2

2

That survey is expressly referenced in the affidavit of Darold Kilmer, submitted by Mr.

Scott in support of his request for fees.

3

Although that survey does not address partner billing rates, it concludes that billing rates for associates3 with Ms. Lucas’ experience in the Denver metro area ranged from $150 per hour to $260 per hour, with a median of $210. Adjusting the 2010 figures for inflation (if any) suggests that the rates charged by Ms. Robertson and Ms. Lucas sit at the very outer edge of what might be considered “reasonable” in the Denver market.
The Court then turns to the question of the number of hours expended by Mr. Scott’s counsel. Both parties have devoted dozens of pages of argument and affidavits to attacking and defending individual time entries. These submissions are instructive, but not for the reasons intended by the attorneys who submitted them. The particularity and amount of argument devoted to each pinpoint of disagreement reflects how contentious this litigation was and how counsel on both sides were unable to evaluate and prioritize the significance of the parties’ disputes.
Rather than following counsels’ lead from tree to tree, the Court begins with the forest. Although the undersigned was never called upon to adjudicate any of the disputes between the parties in this matter, it takes at face value Mr. Scott’s contention that the primary dispute between the parties was the extent to which Mr. Scott had functional communicative abilities without the assistance of a sign language interpreter -- or, in Mr. Scott’s words, whether he “was able to hear better than he let on.” The record reflects that discovery in this matter was also contentious. Both parties filed motions seeking to compel the other side to produce withheld documentary evidence, and both sides’ motions to this effect were granted in part and denied in part by the Magistrate Judge. Mr. Scott designated one expert witness and Denver two, each of

3

Although Ms. Lucas is not employed by Ms. Robertson, her years of experience relative

to Ms. Robertson’s warrant viewing Mr. Scott’s representation as akin to the partner-associate

model, with Ms. Lucas performing the types of tasks that might be delegated to a senior litigation

associate at a law firm.

4

whom examined Mr. Scott and were later deposed about their conclusions. In addition, it appears the parties took 14 additional depositions of lay witnesses, although the record does not provide meaningful information of who was deposed and on what subjects. The record indicates various additional discovery disputes regarding a variety of matters. All tolled, Mr. Scott’s counsel devoted 1,057 hours to this matter, with paralegal support of an additional 330 hours.
The Court finds the hours claimed by Mr. Scott’s counsel are to be excessive in several respects. Mr. Scott’s counsel spent an excessive amount of time hours for in preparation for depositions, included time spent on duplicate services that could and should have been performed by a single attorney, included attorney time for matters that could and should have been delegated to paralegal staff, and included hours devoted to research and exploration of issues not clearly related to Mr. Scott’s claims.4 For example, Ms. Robertson billed over 29 hours in October 2012 for preparation for the deposition of a single witness, Lorrie Kosinski, Director of Denver’s Office of Sign Language Services. (In addition and by way of contrast, Ms. Lucas’ own time entries list approximately 1-2 hours of her own time reviewing “outline[s]” or doing other preparatory-type tasks for this deposition.) The deposition of Ms. Kosinski itself took only 7 hours.5 Such extensive time is particularly puzzling given that Ms. Robertson had

4

The significance of seemingly excessive, redundant, and unnecessary attorney time is

magnified in a case such as this, where Ms. Robertson and Ms. Lucas claim the maximum

possible hourly rate. Such rates suggest the consummate skill of each counsel, and thus, the

Court expects Ms. Robertson and Ms. Lucas to perform each task at the maximum possible level

of efficiency.

5

Litigators are often taught certain rules of thumb for budgeting a case for fiscal (i.e.

advising the client of the potential cost of the litigation) or time management (i.e. to assist the

attorney in allocating the appropriate time to a case) purposes. Depending on who is doing the

teaching, the rule of thumb for deposition preparation might suggest the allocation of as little as

one hour of preparation time per hour of deposition time, and as much as three hours of

preparation for each hour of deposition. See e.g. Caruso v. Zenon, 2006 WL 5106110 (D.Colo.

May 11, 2006) (slip op.). Even adopting the most generous 3:1 ratio, Ms. Robertson’s

5

already deposed Ms. Kosinski in a “companion case” to this action, in which Ms. Robertson and Ms. Lucas represented other deaf Denver County Jail inmates bringing the claims against Denver for failing to provide sign language interpreters.
Another example is found in Ms. Lucas’ charge of approximately 85 hours in February and March 2013 in preparation for the deposition of Brenda Schick, one of Denver’s designated experts. Ms. Schick was deposed for only 6 hours.6 Among the many hours claimed by Ms. Lucas for such preparation are nearly 5 hours reading publications by Ms. Schick “on quality of life and manually coded English and ASL linguistics,” and 4 hours reading a publication by Ms. Schick on “theory of mind and acquisition of language.” The record before this Court offers no particular explanation as to why it was necessary for Ms. Lucas to review these publications in such detail (or indeed, given the seemingly abstract subject matter, at all).
As to the unnecessary duplication of services, the Court notes that both Ms. Robertson and Ms. Lucas both billed for time for in their discussions, and discussions with paralegals (for which the paralegal also billed). The record is replete with charges by Ms. Lucas billing time for conferences, telephone calls, or correspondence with Ms. Robertson. Taking the month of

preparation time for Ms. Kosinski’s deposition – at a rate of something more than 4:1 -- is

excessive.

6

Apparently included in this 6 hours were numerous questions by Ms. Lucas to Ms. Schick

about Ms. Schick having been arrested for DUI and marijuana possession. Denver’s counsel

objected to these questions and ultimately had to file a motion for a protective order preventing

Ms. Lucas from inquiring into these irrelevant and prejudicial matters. The Magistrate Judge

granted Denver’s motion.

Mr. Scott argues that his counsel have excluded “all time associated” with their pursuit of

these irrelevant issues. It is not clear if this is entirely accurate. Among the billing entries that

Mr. Scott seeks compensation for is a March 4, 2013 entry for 5.2 hours by Ms. Lucas, reading

“research Schick background on internet search engines (2.5).” It is not clear from the context

whether this search involved Ms. Schick’s professional background or her personal one. Even

assuming that such research was into Ms. Schick’s professional reputation, it would appear that

this time is excessive and duplicative, given the extensive preparation time taken by Ms. Lucas

for Ms. Schick’s deposition.

6

January 2013 as an exemplar, Ms. Lucas has 13 separate billing entries for communication with or reviewing of communications involving Ms. Robertson. In situations where an experienced counsel such as Ms. Robertson avails herself of the assistance of a less-experienced attorney to perform certain tasks, it is redundant for both counsel to bill for conferences in which the senior attorney is instructing the junior attorney, or where the junior attorney is reporting back to the senior attorney on the progress of a project (especially when both counsel are claiming the maximum possible rate for their time). Certainly, it may be appropriate for both counsel to bill time for occasional strategy planning sessions, where both are bringing value to the discussion, but mere transmission of information between the attorneys or attorneys and paralegal does not translate double value to the client or case. See Clawson v. Mountain Coal Co., 2007 WL 4225578 (D.Colo. Nov. 28, 2007) (slip op.) (“Meetings that are conducted simply to assign a task, or to ensure that a task is progressing as requested, do little to advance the substance of the litigation and should not give rise to a fee award”). Nevertheless, the record here suggests that Mr. Scott’s fee claim includes both sides of these routine discussions between attorneys, or between an attorney and a paralegal.
The record also reflects that both counsel attended the same depositions, even though only one had prepared for and took the depositions. Jane Andrews, Mr. Scott’s designated expert, was deposed on March 29, 2013. Ms. Robertson, who took that deposition, billed 7.8 hours for that day. Ms. Lucas billed 9.3 hours for traveling to and attending that deposition, but there is no apparent justification for Ms. Lucas to have attended that deposition at all.7 Mr. Scott

7

Another example is Ms. Schick’s deposition on March 12, 2013: Ms. Lucas took the

deposition, billing 6.0 hours for the deposition itself. Ms. Robertson billed 3.0 hours for

“participat[ing] in the deposition,” and an additional 1.7 hours for travel to and from that

deposition, even though there is no indication as to the nature or necessity of Ms. Robertson’s

“participation.”

7

argues that Denver itself brought two attorneys to the depositions, but this proves nothing: the fact that Denver may have also acted unreasonably in staffing the case does not suffice to cure unreasonable time expenditures by Mr. Scott’s own counsel.
As to the unnecessary expenditure of attorney time on clerical and other tasks, Denver accurately points out several occasions in which Ms. Lucas billed for tasks that seemingly should have been performed by clerical staff. For example, on February 25, 2013, Ms. Lucas billed 5.7 hours for an entry reading “review and respond to multiple emails re video (.8), research file extension and system used to record video, telephone call to company who owns the CCTV system (1.8), telephone call with Amy Robertson re same (.3), attempt to open file with various programs and download file readers (2.8).” The Court assumes this entry concerns Ms. Lucas’ attempts to view or copy a video pertinent to the case, but it is unclear why this task was not delegated to a competent non-attorney staff member. Certainly, these tasks did not call upon Ms. Lucas’ legal knowledge or expertise. Similarly, in October 2012, Ms. Lucas billed several hours relating to preparation of a “video outreach letter to potential witnesses,” including recording the video, posting it to You Tube, and burning 90 DVDs. It is entirely unclear why attorney time would be required for such a task.
Finally, the Court notes numerous instances of time spent by Mr. Scott’s counsel on tasks whose significance to the action – and especially to the issues upon which Mr. Scott was ultimately successful – are unclear. Given that Mr. Scott failed to secure any injunctive relief that would run to others, it is unclear how the use of a “video outreach letter to potential witnesses” – presumably other deaf people who were once inmates in Denver – would be
Similarly, both counsel attended Ms. Kosinski’s October 31, 2012 deposition, with Ms. Robertson billing 7 hours for actually taking the deposition, and Ms. Lucas billing 7.3 hours for traveling to and simply observing the deposition.
8

relevant to the facts of Mr. Scott’s own ability to hear and communicate or to his claim for individual damages. Mr. Scott also seeks fees for some 19 hours his counsel spent conferring with the U.S. Department of Justice on an investigation relating to Mr. Scott’s claims. Although the Court recognizes that intervention by federal authorities on his behalf may have conferred a strategic benefit on Mr. Scott in his negotiations with Denver, the Court cannot deem those hours to be reasonably expended in prosecution of Mr. Scott’s claims that may be charged as fees to Denver. Tactical decisions made by a party to bring outside pressure to bear on one’s opponent – be it a complaint to regulatory authorities or merely organizing a public protest or boycott -might make for good litigation strategy, but it is not compensable time.
Finally, the Court turns to a handful of other matters. It notes Denver’s objection to (primarily) Ms. Lucas billing her full hourly rate for travel time. The record reflects that both of Mr. Scott’s counsel billed numerous hours for travel time to and from meetings with Mr. Scott,8 and to and from depositions and court hearings. The record indicates that nearly all of this travel was by car, suggesting that counsel was otherwise unproductive during this travel time. In Achondo v. Anderson, Crenshaw & Assocs., LLC, 616 F.3d 1098, 1105-06 (10th Cir. 2010), the 10th Circuit explained that although attorney travel time may be compensable in a fee award, “a trial court has discretion to apply a reduced hourly rate if the time is otherwise unproductive.” Here, given the extremely high rates charged by Mr. Scott’s counsel and the extensive number of

8

The Court notes that Mr. Scott was housed in a state prison facility in Canon City,

Colorado during some portions of this litigation. The Court has some doubt that the number of

visits made by Mr. Scott’s counsel to that facility – Ms. Lucas’ affidavit alone recites 6 separate

trips to Canon City to assist Mr. Scott, as well as 4 trips to visit Mr. Scott when he was housed in

a facility in Denver -- were all reasonable and necessary, and that the purposes of those visits

could not have been accomplished more reasonably with written correspondence,

videoconferences, or other alternatives to lengthy and time-consuming car travel (especially from

Ms. Lucas’ offices in Windsor, Colorado). Although attorneys may desire to have frequent

contact with a client during litigation, that desire must be somewhat subordinated to economic

and practical realities when the client becomes incarcerated.

9

hours spent on travel, the Court believes it appropriate to reduce the rates claimed by Mr. Scott’s counsel for such travel.
The Court further notes that, although discovery was fairly contentious in this case, it is not clear that it can be said that either party prevailed in most of the discovery disputes. It is sufficient to note that both sides saw roughly equivalent successes and failures on their discovery motions, suggesting that both sides share some responsibility for the contentiousness of the discovery. Mr. Scott cites to authority for the proposition that a party may not object to the excessiveness of its opponent’s demand for attorney fees if that party’s own vigorous litigation tactics caused the excessive fees. Citing Robinson v. City of Edmond, 160 F.3d 1275, 1284 (10th Cir. 1998) (“part of an attorney's calculus of the amount of time reasonably necessary for a case is the vigor which the opponents bring to the dispute”). But that observation cuts both ways: just as Mr. Scott may be entitled to claim additional hours due to excessive vigor on Denver’s part, he should not be able to claim additional hours where his own zealousness unreasonably broadened or intensified the litigation. At bottom, it is clear to the Court that both parties appear to have devoted far more time and expense into this matter than most attorneys would consider reasonable for a simple case with the potential for relatively minimal damages.9
Ultimately, the Court finds merit in many of the objections that Denver has lodged to the fees claimed by Mr. Scott. In addition to the various matters discussed above, the Court finds that an adjustment should be made for the fairly limited degree of success Mr. Scott had in the remedial phase of this action. Mr. Scott initially sought both compensatory damages and

9

As is often the case where the same counsel are simultaneously involved in multiple

cases addressing similar issues, there is often the tendency for parties to overpursue one case in

the hopes that it will create leverage with the party’s position in the companion case. The Court

suspects that the companion litigation is a significant factor in the apparent overzealousness with

which both sides litigated Mr. Scott’s case.

10

equitable relief (for himself and others). As late as January 2013, he was demanding $ 60,000 in damages, the ability to participate in the drafting of new city policies, and $240,000 in attorney fees.10 Acceptance of Denver’s Offer of Judgment four months later gave him $15,000 and no equitable relief. Although Mr. Scott technically “prevailed” in the sense that Denver agreed to settle the case for a fairly small sum, the Court is compelled to observe that Mr. Scott ultimately obtained fairly little in return for his enormous expenditure of attorney fees.
Although it is difficult to quantify the appropriate reduction in fees that takes into account both overbilling and the limited results, a holistic review of the billing records and the record suggest that a reduction in the fee requested by Mr. Scott’s counsel by 66% is appropriate. Such reduction addresses both quantitative and qualitative concerns. As discussed earlier, Mr. Scott’s billing records reflect numerous instances of billing for excessive time and duplicative services. Using only the deposition preparation hours as an example, Ms. Robertson’s hours are approximately double what might be considered reasonable for the tasks discussed, and Ms. Lucas’ hours are several times higher than what would be appropriate. The frequency with which both Ms. Robertson and Ms. Lucas billed for what appear to be routine office discussions warrants a further reduction of several percent, as do those billing entries which appear to have no material relevance to the case. The Court is particularly influenced by Mr. Scott’s failure to ultimately secure any broad injunctive relief: a case in which a plaintiff attempts to secure equitable relief for others, as well as himself, is far more demanding on counsel than a simple case in which the plaintiff seeks only token monetary relief. Had counsel’s time been limited to
10 This figure itself is unreasonably high for that point in the litigation, and the Court has little doubt that Mr. Scott’s counsel’s demand for such large fees contributed to the failure of this case to settle earlier. Mr. Scott concedes that Denver ultimately offered to settle the action for $75,000 (inclusive of fees), well over Mr. Scott’s demand for compensatory damages, suggesting that Mr. Scott’s attorney fees largely drove the litigation from that point onward.
11

tasks that necessarily and reasonably led to him securing $15,000 payout, the Court is convinced that the relevant fee request would be far lower.
A reduction of 66% results in a fee of slightly more than $141,000 which is consonant with the a fee award made in Grievson v. Rochester Psychiatric Center, 746 F.Supp.2d 454 (W.D.N.Y. 2010), a case Mr. Scott cites for its similarity to this one. In Grievson, the deaf plaintiff contended that she was denied sign language interpretation services during a 21-day stay in a psychiatric institution. Like Mr. Scott, she brought claims under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA, and like Mr. Scott, she settled the case shortly after the close of discovery for $ 14,000 and an award of a reasonable attorney fee, but without any of the injunctive relief she initially demanded. The plaintiff in Grievson sought $ 105,191 in attorney fees, but the court awarded only $ 75,885 in attorney fees. Noting the similarity of the facts and procedural posture, but accounting for the passage of time possible differing costs in Western New York and Denver (largely reflected in the hourly rates of $ 195- $ 250 sought by counsel in Grievson), it would appear that an award here of approximately $141,000 – nearly double the sum awarded in Grievson, is reasonable.
Having thus concluded that the lodestar calculation in this action requires a wholesale reduction of 66% of the fees claimed by Mr. Scott to eliminate hours unreasonably billed by his counsel, the Court finds that the appropriate lodestar figure is $141,032. In addition to his request for fees, Mr. Scott seeks to recover $ 21,996.49 in litigation costs beyond those taxed by the Clerk. Denver’s response to Mr. Scott’s motion does not address the costs request in any detail. Indeed, Denver’s argument on this point appears to consist of the simple request “that the Court determine the reasonableness of this additional cost request in light of the limited success Plaintiff obtained in this case.” Denver does not cite to any authority for the proposition that a
12

cost request should be evaluated by a “degree of success” metric, nor does it offer any particular

explanation of what costs could be considered to have been affected by Mr. Scott’s limited

success. In the absence of any meaningful challenge by Denver to Mr. Scott’s cost request, the

Court grants the full amount of excess costs Mr. Scott seeks.

Accordingly, Mr. Scott’s Motion for Attorney Fees (# 140) is GRANTED IN PART,

insofar as the Court awards Mr. Scott $ 141,032.00 in attorney fees and $ 21,996.49 in costs.

The Judgment (# 131) in this case is DEEMED AMENDED to reflect these amounts.

Dated this 24th day of January, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger Chief United States District Judge

13

 
 Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 130 Filed 05/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT;
Plaintiff, v. CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER,
Defendant.

ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER OF JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a), Plaintiff hereby serves written notice that he accepts the

attached Offer of Judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Amy F. Robertson Amy F. Robertson Fox & Robertson, P.C. 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303.595.9700 (voice) 303.595.9705 (fax) arob@foxrob.com

Carrie Ann Lucas The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities P.O. Box 756 Windsor, CO 80550 720.363.1131 (voice) 970.460.9197 (fax) clucas@disabledparentrights.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: May 9, 2013

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 130 Filed 05/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 9, 2013, I served the foregoing Acceptance of Offer of Judgment via the CM/ECF system and by email on: Wendy Shea Wendy.Shea@denvergov.org Joseph M. Rivera joseph.rivera@denvergov.org Carol Liang Carol.Liang@denvergov.org dlefiling.litigation@ci.denver.co.us
By: /s/ Amy F. Robertson Amy F. Robertson
-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 130 Filed 05/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB MAJOR JON MICHAEL SCOTT,
Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
OFFER OF JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________________
Defendant, the City and County of Denver, by its undersigned attorney, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, hereby offers to allow judgment to be taken by Plaintiff, Major Jon Michael Scott, upon the following specified terms:
1. The amount of the judgment shall be $15,000; 2. Said amount is exclusive of any accrued reasonable costs and attorney fees, with such reasonable costs and attorney fees to be determined by the court; 3. Said offer includes any and all liability of the City and County of Denver in regards to the transactions or occurrences referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint; and 4. Said offer shall remain open for acceptance for fourteen (14) days and shall thereafter be withdrawn pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. Dated this 26th day of April, 2013.

Case 1:12-cv-00053-MSK-BNB Document 130 Filed 05/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Wendy Shea Wendy J. Shea Assistant City Attorney Office of the Denver City Attorney Litigation Section 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. 1108 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (720) 913-3100 Facsimile: (720) 913-3190 Email: wendy.shea@denvergov.org Attorney for City and County of Denver
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 26th day of April, 2013, the foregoing OFFER OF JUDGMENT was served electronically and by placing a true and accurate copy of the same into the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the following:
Amy Farr Robertson, Esq. Fox & Robertson, P.C. 104 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 arob@foxrob.com
Carrie Ann Lucas, Esq. The Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities P.O. Box 756 Windsor, CO 80550 clucas@disabledparentrights.org
s/ Veronica Blea Office of the Denver City Attorney
2

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 1 of 13
ALLMTN,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12−cv−00053−MSK−BNB

Scott v. City and County of Denver, The Assigned to: Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger Referred to: Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Cause: 28:794 Rehabilitation Act
Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott

Date Filed: 01/10/2012 Date Terminated: 05/22/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Amy Farr Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: arobertson@creeclaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie Ann Lucas Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities P.O. Box 756 Windsor, CO 80550 720−363−1131 Fax: 970−818−9295 Email: clucas@disabledparentrights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City and County of Denver, The

represented by Joseph Michael Rivera Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister &Renaud, LLP 1530 16th Street Second Floor Denver, CO 80202 303−493−6678 Email: jrivera@mdkrlaw.com TERMINATED: 11/08/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Carol Liang Lambdin &Chaney, LLP 4949 South Syracuse Street Suite 600 Denver, CO 80237 303−799−8889 Fax: 303−799−3700 Email: cliang@lclaw.net TERMINATED: 09/03/2013
Wendy J. Shea Denver City and County Attorney's Office 201 West Colfax Avenue

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 2 of 13
Denver, CO 80202−5332 720−913−3112 Fax: 720−913−3182 Email: wendy.shea@denvergov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/10/2012 01/12/2012 01/25/2012
01/31/2012 02/02/2012
02/14/2012 02/14/2012 02/16/2012 02/16/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against City and County of Denver, The ( Filing fee $ 350, Receipt Number 44594) Summons Issued, filed by Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt)(johar, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
2 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Carrie Ann Lucas on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
3 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this matter is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to:(1)Convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), enter a Scheduling Order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, and enter such orders as appropriate to enforce the Scheduling Order, and resolve discovery matters. At the scheduling conference, the Magistrate Judge shall advise the parties of Judge Kriegers practice standards found at www.cod.uscourts.gov;(2)Upon agreement of the parties, provide an Early Neutral Evaluation in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. The Magistrate Judge shall also advise the parties that after such evaluation, if they mutually desire to settle the case, upon a showing that they need assistance and have been unable to obtain it privately, they may file a motion requesting a settlement conference;(3)Hear and finally determine referred non−dispositive matters subject to the exceptions found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);(4)Hear and make recommendations on referred dispositive matters as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/25/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
4 ORDER : Scheduling Conference set for 4/9/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/31/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
5 ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS: Any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60 days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will be destroyed. by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/2/12. (mskcd) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
6 MINUTE ORDER : Scheduling Conference reset for 4/17/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/14/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
7 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 1 Complaint by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Rivera, Joseph) Modified on 2/15/2012 to edit text to clarify title of document (lygsl, ). Modified on 2/16/2012 to change event into a motion (wjc, ). (Entered: 02/14/2012)
8 MEMORANDUM regarding 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 02/16/2012. Text Only Entry (wjc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
9 MINUTE ORDER granting 7 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. City and County of Denver, The answer due 3/2/2012, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 02/16/2012.(wjc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 3 of 13

03/02/2012 03/13/2012 04/10/2012 04/17/2012
04/17/2012 04/17/2012 06/26/2012 06/26/2012 06/28/2012 06/28/2012 06/29/2012 07/27/2012 07/27/2012 07/30/2012
07/30/2012
07/31/2012 08/01/2012
08/02/2012

10 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by City and County of Denver, The.(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jon Michael Scott. City and County of Denver, The served on 1/30/2012, answer due 3/2/2012. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
12 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
13 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Scheduling Conference held on 4/17/2012. Discovery due by 11/9/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 12/14/2012. (FTR: G.Mattei) (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/17/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
15 TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER − CIVIL by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/17/2012. (msksec, ) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
16 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) Modified on 6/27/2012. Counsel informed to re−file Stipulation and Protective Order attached to Motion. (wjcsl, ). (Entered: 06/26/2012)
17 MEMORANDUM regarding 16 Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/26/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
18 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document − Stipulated Protective Order)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
19 MEMORANDUM regarding 18 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order filed by Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/28/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
20 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/29/12. (dbrow, ) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
21 MOTION to Compel by Plaintiff Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
22 MEMORANDUM regarding 21 MOTION to Compel filed by Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 7/27/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 07/27/2012)
23 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion: 21 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel set for 8/28/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Response due on or before 8/17/12. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/30/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
24 AMENDED MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion: 21 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel reset to 8/28/2012 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Response due on or before 8/17/12. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 7/30/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
25 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 14 Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
26 MEMORANDUM regarding 25 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 14 Scheduling Order filed by Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 8/1/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
27 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 MOTION to Compel by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 08/02/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 4 of 13

08/02/2012 08/02/2012 08/02/2012 08/24/2012 08/28/2012
08/29/2012 09/04/2012 10/04/2012 10/05/2012 10/05/2012
10/12/2012 10/12/2012 10/19/2012 10/19/2012

28 ORDER: 25 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is GRANTED IN PART. Discovery due by 1/14/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 1/14/2013. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/2/12.(bnbcd, ) Modified on 8/4/2012 to edit due date text (wjcsl, ). (Entered: 08/02/2012)
29 MEMORANDUM regarding 27 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 MOTION to Compel filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 8/2/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
30 MINUTE ORDER: 27 Defendant's Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/2/12.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
31 RESPONSE to 21 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Rivera, Joseph) Modified on 8/27/2012 to remove duplicate text (wjcsl, ). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
32 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Motion Hearing held on 8/28/2012. As specified on the record, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 21 is GRANTED. FTR: Courtroom 401A. (bnbcd, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/29/2012: # 1 Exhibit) (bnbcd, ). (Entered: 08/28/2012)
33 ORDER re: 21 Motion to Compel filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/29/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
34 MINUTE ORDER: error on ORDER 28 , discovery cut−off is January 14, 2013. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/4/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
35 MOTION for Discovery to Compel Independent Audiological Examination by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
36 MEMORANDUM regarding 35 MOTION for Discovery to Compel Independent Audiological Examination filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/5/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
37 MINUTE ORDER : 35 Motion to Compel Independent Audiological Examination Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 set for hearing on 10/29/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Plaintiff shall respond to the motion on or before 10/24/12. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/5/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
38 STATEMENT re 35 MOTION for Discovery to Compel Independent Audiological Examination Plaintiff's Statement of Non−Opposition by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
39 MINUTE ORDER: 35 Motion to Compel Independent Audiological Examination Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 is GRANTED. Motion Hearing currently set for 10/29/12 is VACATED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/12/12.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
40 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 28 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 14 Scheduling Order by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
41 MEMORANDUM regarding 40 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 28 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify, 14 Scheduling Order filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/19/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 10/19/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 5 of 13

10/19/2012 10/19/2012 11/06/2012 11/09/2012
11/09/2012 11/19/2012 11/20/2012
11/21/2012 11/26/2012
11/26/2012
11/27/2012 11/27/2012 11/29/2012 11/29/2012

42 MINUTE ORDER: 40 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is GRANTED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/19/12.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
43 AMENDED MINUTE ORDER re: 42 Minute Order: 40 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is GRANTED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/19/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
44 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 43 Minute Order Regarding Scheduling Order by Defendant City and County of Denver, The, Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
45 MEMORANDUM regarding 44 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 43 Minute Order Regarding Scheduling Order filed by Major Jon Michael Scott, City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/9/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
46 MINUTE ORDER granting 44 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/9/12.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
47 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 14 Scheduling Order Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Permit Additional Depositions by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
48 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing: 47 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Permit Additional Depositions set for 11/30/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Defendant shall respond on or before 11/28/12, no reply without leave of the Court. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/20/2012. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
49 MOTION to Compel Independent Examination of Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
50 MEMORANDUM regarding 47 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 14 Scheduling Order Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Permit Additional Depositions filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/26/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
51 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on 49 MOTION to Compel Independent Examination of Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35. Motion Hearing set for 11/30/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Plaintiff shall respond to the Motion on or before 11/29/2012 by 12:00 noon. No reply will be accepted without leave of court. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/26/2012. (klyon, ) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
52 MEMORANDUM regarding 49 MOTION to Compel Independent Examination of Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/27/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 47 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 14 Scheduling Order Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Permit Additional Depositions by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
54 MINUTE ORDER granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and parties have to and including November 29, 2012, at 12:00 noon, to file responses to the pending motions, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/29/12. Text Only Entry(bnbsec, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
55 RESPONSE to 49 MOTION to Compel Independent Examination of Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 filed by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 6 of 13

11/29/2012 11/30/2012
11/30/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012
12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/12/2012

56 RESPONSE to 47 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 14 Scheduling Order Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Permit Additional Depositions filed by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
57 COURTROOM/MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Motion Hearing held on 11/30/2012. 47 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Permit Additional Depositions is GRANTED IN PART. 49 Motion to Compel Independent Examination of Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P. 35 is GRANTED with conditions. FTR: BNB Courtroom A401. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
58 ORDER granting in part 47 MOTION for Depositions and granting 49 Rule 35 Motion. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/30/2012. (klyon, ) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
59 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
61 MEMORANDUM regarding 59 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 12/10/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
62 MEMORANDUM regarding 60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 12/10/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
63 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Carol Liang on behalf of City and County of Denver, The (Liang, Carol) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
64 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 59 Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff and 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted or, in the Alternative toCompel Responses. Parties shall respond to their respective Motions on or before 1/4/2013. No reply will be accepted without leave of court. Motion Hearing set for 1/28/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/10/2012. (klyon, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
65 Joint MOTION to Reset Deadline for Rebuttal Experts by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
66 MEMORANDUM regarding 65 Joint MOTION to Reset Deadline for Rebuttal Experts filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 12/10/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
67 MINUTE ORDER granting 65 Joint Motion to Reset Deadline for Rebuttal Experts. Parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before 12/28/2012. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/10/2012. (klyon, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
68 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER: the Department of Corrections shall transport the plaintiff, MajorJon Michael Scott (DOC # 158887), to the Denver Police Department Headquarters, 1331 Cherokee Street, Denver, Colorado, 2nd floor holding cell, on December 14, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., for the purpose of allowing the Rule 35 examination to occur. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/12/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 7 of 13

12/14/2012 12/17/2012 12/17/2012 12/18/2012 12/18/2012 12/18/2012
12/18/2012 12/18/2012 12/18/2012 12/19/2012
12/19/2012

69 Unopposed MOTION for Order to Transport Plaintiff to a Rule 35 Examination by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
70 MEMORANDUM regarding 69 Unopposed MOTION for Order to Transport Plaintiff to a Rule 35 Examination filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 12/17/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
71 ORDER denying 69 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for an Order to Transport Plaintiff by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/17/12.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
72 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 58 Order Plaintiff's Motion Re: the Thirty−two Additional Witnesses Disclosed by Defendant on December 14, 2012 by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
73 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 72 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 58 Order Plaintiff's Motion Re: the Thirty−two Additional Witnesses Disclosed by Defendant on December 14, 2012 by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
74 DECLARATION of Amy F. Robertson regarding MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 58 Order Plaintiff's Motion Re: the Thirty−two Additional Witnesses Disclosed by Defendant on December 14, 2012 72 , Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 72 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 58 Order Plaintiff's Motion Re: the Thirty−two Additional Witnesses Disclosed by Defendant on December 14, 2012 73 by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
75 MEMORANDUM regarding 73 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference re 72 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 58 Order Plaintiff's Motion Re: the Thirty−two Additional Witnesses Disclosed by Defendant on December 14, 2012 filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 12/18/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
76 MEMORANDUM regarding 72 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 58 Order Plaintiff's Motion Re: the Thirty−two Additional Witnesses Disclosed by Defendant on December 14, 2012 filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 12/18/12. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
77 MINUTE ORDER granting 73 Motion for Hearing/Conference. Motion Hearing is set for 12/19/2012 10:00 AM on Plaintiff's Motion re: The Thirty−Two Additional Witnesses Disclosed by Defendant on December 14, 2012 72 , in Courtroom A 401, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/18/12. Text Only Entry (bnbsec, ) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
78 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Motion Hearing held on 12/19/2012. Defense is required to identify every witness, limited to a reasonable number, it may or will call at trial on issue of effective communication on or before January 18, 2013. If the number is above five (5), those depositions will be at the city's expense. Defendant is to disclose the persons it may use to support its defenses on or before January 11, 2013. Defendant is to provide an answer to interrogatory number twelve (12), on or before January 11, 2013. Discovery cut−off is extended to March 1, 2013. FTR: BNB Courtroom A401. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
79 ORDER re: 72 Plaintiffs Motion Re: the Thirty−Two Additional Witnesses Disclosed By Defendant on December 14, 2012. On or before 1/18/13, the defendant shall identify all witnesses it will or may call to testify at trial on the issue of the plaintiff's effective communication skills. If more than five witnesses are identified, the depositions of witnesses beyond the initial five shall be at the defendant's expense. Discovery is extended to 3/1/13. Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, as indicated, and supplemental response to Interrogatory 12, due by 1/11/13. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/19/12. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 12/19/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 8 of 13

12/19/2012 12/28/2012 01/02/2013 01/02/2013 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/07/2013 01/08/2013
01/08/2013 01/09/2013

80 MINUTE ORDER granting 72 Plaintiff's Motion Re: the Thirty−Two Additional Witnesses Disclosed By Defendant on December 14, 2012, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/19/12. No document attached,Text Only Entry.(bnbcd, pursuant to chambers. ) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
81 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order by Defendant City and County of Denver, The, Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Liang, Carol) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
82 MEMORANDUM regarding 81 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order filed by Major Jon Michael Scott, City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/2/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
83 OBJECTION/Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court re 79 Order,, Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Depositions by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
84 RESPONSE to 59 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff filed by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Declaration of Carrie Lucas)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
85 MINUTE ORDER granting 81 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 3/1/2013, Dispositive Motions due by 3/15/2013, rebuttal expert disclosures due by 1/28/2013. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/4/13.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
86 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
87 RESPONSE to 60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses filed by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
88 MEMORANDUM regarding 86 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/8/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
89 MINUTE ORDER granting 86 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/8/13. Text Only Entry (bnbsec, ) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
90 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 12−19−12 before Magistrate Judge Boland. Pages: 1−27.

NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.

01/09/2013

Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/12/2013. (Avery Woods Reporting, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
91 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief re: 87 Response to Motion, 60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 9 of 13

01/09/2013
01/09/2013 01/09/2013 01/10/2013 01/11/2013
01/11/2013 01/16/2013 01/23/2013 01/23/2013 01/23/2013 01/23/2013 01/23/2013

Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document − Plaintiff's Reply Brief)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
92 MEMORANDUM regarding 91 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief re: 87 Response to Motion, 60 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted Or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/9/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
93 MINUTE ORDER granting 91 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses Motion for Leave. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/9/12. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Brief)(mjgsl, ) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
94 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 60 MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL RESPONSES filed by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (mjgsl, ) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
95 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 57 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify,, Order on Motion to Compel,, Motion Hearing, 58 Order Forthwith Amend the Court Orders Regarding Plaintiff's Rule 35 Examination by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
96 MEMORANDUM regarding 95 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 57 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify,, Order on Motion to Compel,, Motion Hearing, 58 Order Forthwith Amend the Court Orders Regarding Plaintiff's Rule 35 Examination filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/11/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
97 AMENDED ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Rule 35 Examination. 95 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Forthwith Amend the Court's Orders (ECF Nos. 57 and 58 ) Regarding Plaintiff's Rule 35 Examination is GRANTED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/11/13.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
98 RESPONSE to 83 OBJECTION/Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court re 79 Order,, Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Depositions by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
99 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(B) by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
100 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to for Forthwith Ruling on 99 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(B) by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
101 MEMORANDUM regarding 99 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(B) filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/23/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
102 MEMORANDUM regarding 100 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to for Forthwith Ruling on 99 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(B) filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/23/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
103 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion: 100 Unopposed Motion for Leave to for Forthwith Ruling on 99 Motion for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(B) set for 1/28/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 401 before

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 10 of 13

01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/28/2013
01/28/2013 01/28/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013 01/29/2013 02/04/2013 02/21/2013

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Response due by 1/25/13 at 12:00 noon, no reply without leave of the Court. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/23/13. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
104 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 99 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(B) by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
105 MINUTE ORDER granting 104 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Depose Plaintiff 99 by 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2013, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/25/13. Text Only Entry (bnbsec, ) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
106 RESPONSE to 99 MOTION for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(B) filed by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carrie Ann Lucas, # 2 Declaration of Dr. Jean F. Andrews)(Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
107 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Motion Hearing held on 1/28/2013. 59 Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's First set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted or, in the Alternative, to Compel Responses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 99 Motion for Leave to Depose Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(1)(2)(B) is GRANTED. Discovery cut−off extended to 4/1/2013, solely for the deposition of the plaintiff. Dispositive Motions extended to 5/6/2013. FTR: BNB Courtroom A401. (bnbcd, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/29/2013: # 1 Exhibit Letter dated January 22, 2013, # 2 Exhibit filing in case 07−cv−1814) (bnbcd, ). (Entered: 01/28/2013)
108 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's December 14, 2012 Discovery to Defendant by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
109 ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Compel 59 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 60 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion to Depose Plaintiff 99 is GRANTED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/28/13. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
110 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Requests for Admission by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
111 MEMORANDUM regarding 108 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's December 14, 2012 Discovery to Defendant filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/29/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
112 MEMORANDUM regarding 110 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Requests for Admission filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/29/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
113 MINUTE ORDER granting 108 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's December 14, 2012 Discovery to Defendant. Defendant shall respond by 1/30/13. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/29/13.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
114 MINUTE ORDER granting 110 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Requests for Admission. Plaintiff shall respond by 1/30/13. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/29/13.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
115 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Wendy J. Shea on behalf of All Defendants (Shea, Wendy) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
116 Joint MOTION to Reset Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 11 of 13

02/22/2013 02/22/2013 03/14/2013

117 MEMORANDUM regarding 116 Joint MOTION to Reset Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/22/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
118 ORDER granting 116 Joint Motion to Reset Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines. Deadline to Complete Depositions: 4/24/2013. Dispositive Motions Deadline: 5/24/2013. No further extentions. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/22/13.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
119 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on January 28, 2013 before Magistrate Judge Boland. Pages: 1−77.

NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.

03/18/2013 03/19/2013 03/20/2013
03/21/2013
04/11/2013 04/11/2013 04/12/2013 04/16/2013 04/23/2013

Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2013. (Avery Woods Reporting, ) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
120 MOTION for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3) by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
121 MEMORANDUM regarding 120 MOTION for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3) filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 3/19/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
122 MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion: 120 Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3) set for 4/9/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Plaintiff shall respond to the motion by 4/3/13, no reply without leave of the court. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/20/13. (bnbcd, ) Modified on 3/20/2013 to correct text(bnbcd, ). (Entered: 03/20/2013)
123 MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to the request fo the parties, Hearing on 120 Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3) is reset to 4/23/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 401 before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Plaintiff shall respond to the motion by 4/16/13, no reply without leave of the court. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/21/13. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
124 Joint MOTION to Continue to Engage in Mediation by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
125 MEMORANDUM regarding 124 Joint MOTION to Continue to Engage in Mediation filed by Major Jon Michael Scott. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 4/11/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
126 ORDER denying 124 Joint Motion for Continuance to Engage in Mediation. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/12/13.(bnbcd, ) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
127 RESPONSE to 120 MOTION for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3) filed by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Declaration of Carrie Lucas)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
128 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Motion Hearing held on 4/23/2013. 120 Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. FTR: Courtroom A401. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 04/23/2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 12 of 13

04/23/2013 05/09/2013 05/22/2013 05/28/2013 05/28/2013
06/05/2013
06/11/2013 06/12/2013 06/19/2013 06/24/2013 06/26/2013
07/08/2013
07/28/2013 07/29/2013
08/07/2013 08/30/2013 09/03/2013

129 ORDER: 120 Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED, and the discovery shall not be had. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/23/13. (bnbcd, ) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
130 NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
131 JUDGMENT by Clerk in favor of Major Jon Michael Scott against City and County of Denver, The re: 130 Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by Clerk, on 5/22/2013. (klyon, ) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
132 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
133 ORDER granting 132 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Extension granted up to and including June 26, 2013. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 5/28/13. Text Only Entry(msksec, ) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
134 Proposed Bill of Costs by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carrie Lucas, # 2 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 3 Exhibits 1 − 7 to Robertson Declaration, # 4 Exhibits 8 − 10 to Robertson Declaration, # 5 Exhibits 11 − 16 to Robertson Declaration)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/05/2013)
135 STATEMENT Concerning Attempt to Resolve Costs by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
136 Proposed Bill of Costs − Amended Bill of Costs by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Bill of Costs, # 2 Invoice of Dr. Brenda Schick)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
137 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 9,442.63 against Defendant. (klyon, ) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
138 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
139 ORDER granting 138 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Extension granted up to and including July 8, 2013. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/26/13. Text Only Entry(msksec, ) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
140 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson and Exhibits 1−12, # 2 Exhibits 13 − 35 to the Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 3 Declaration of Carrie Lucas, # 4 Declaration of Darold W. Killmer)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
141 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 07/28/2013)
142 ORDER granting 141 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Attorney Fees. Extension granted up to and including September 6, 2013. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 7/29/13. Text Only Entry(msksec, ) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
143 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Amy Farr Robertson (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
144 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Liang, Carol) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
145 MEMORANDUM regarding 144 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/3/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 09/03/2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-53 As of: 09/20/2015 11:45 AM MDT 13 of 13

09/03/2013 09/06/2013 09/12/2013 09/12/2013 10/04/2013
11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/08/2013 01/27/2014

146 MINUTE ORDER granting 144 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Carol Liang terminated by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/3/13.(bnbcd, ) Modified on 9/3/2013 to correct title of order(bnbcd, ). (Entered: 09/03/2013)
147 RESPONSE to 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit Part A, # 3 Exhibit Part B, # 4 Exhibit Part C, # 5 Exhibit Part D, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
148 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
149 ORDER granting 148 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Attorney Fees. Extension granted up to and including October 4, 2013. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/12/13. Text Only Entry(msksec, ) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
150 REPLY to Response to 140 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiff Major Jon Michael Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Exhibit Robertson Decl. Exs 1 &2, # 3 Exhibit Robertson Decl. Ex. 3 pt 1, # 4 Exhibit Robertson Decl. Ex. 3 p 2, # 5 Exhibit Robertson Decl. Exs. 4−10, # 6 Affidavit Declaration of Carrie Ann Lucas, # 7 Affidavit Declaration of Caitlin Anderson, # 8 Affidavit Declaration of Jennifer Elstran)(Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
151 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendant City and County of Denver, The. (Rivera, Joseph) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
152 MEMORANDUM regarding 151 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by City and County of Denver, The. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/7/13. Text Only Entry (msksec, ) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
153 MINUTE ORDER granting 151 Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal as Counsel. Attorney Joseph Michael Rivera terminated. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/8/13.(mnfsl, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
154 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES: Mr. Scott's Motion for Attorney Fees 140 is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as the Court awards Mr. Scott $141,032.00 in attorney fees and $21,996.49 in costs. The Judgment (#131) in this case is DEEMED AMENDED to reflect these amounts. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 1/24/14.(msksec, ) (Entered: 01/27/2014)